So what's $.25 a gallon more for gas anyway

[FecalFace]

If all the money from a gas actually goes to transportation infrastructure then that's fine. But when California is using tax money to build the high speed rail line to nowhere that gets a little dodgey.

Is a high speed rail line not a part of the transportation infrastructure?

Not to mention automobile traffic relief and just plain providing transportation options to people rather than forcing everybody to drive. Same with the bike lanes.

If you don't like where the train lines are going, lobby to change the plans, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Surfdog]

If all the money from a gas actually goes to transportation infrastructure then that's fine. But when California is using tax money to build the high speed rail line to nowhere that gets a little dodgey.

Ya, if it 100% goes towards improving interstate hiway infrastructure, bridges and such, I guess it could be somewhat worthy. And not squandered like Calif gas taxes on all sorts of diversions. Those taxes are dumped in a black hole, or to make up pension deficiencies.

Funny in that So Cal, and LA in particular re-designated many of the once state funded freeways to federal funded freeways back in the 80's, to grab more federal funding of them down the road.

You know you're a long time Angelean if you remember when the I-110 was the 11, I-710 was the 7,

 

[Surfdog]

If all the money from a gas actually goes to transportation infrastructure then that's fine. But when California is using tax money to build the high speed rail line to nowhere that gets a little dodgey.

Is a high speed rail line not a part of the transportation infrastructure?

Not to mention automobile traffic relief and just plain providing transportation options rather than forcing everybody to drive. Same with the bike lanes.

If you don't like where the train line plans are, lobby to change the plans, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Should've spent the original funds in LA and SF metro first. HUGE mistake. Now, funding will dry up and it will end up the train to no-where and back. Buy you'll get there hella fast.

 

[Kento]

If all the money from a gas actually goes to transportation infrastructure then that's fine. But when California is using tax money to build the high speed rail line to nowhere that gets a little dodgey.

Ya, if it 100% goes towards improving interstate hiway infrastructure, bridges and such, I guess it could be somewhat worthy. And not squandered like Calif gas taxes on all sorts of diversions. Those taxes are dumped in a black hole, or to make up pension deficiencies.

Funny in that So Cal, and LA in particular re-designated many of the once state funded freeways to federal funded freeways back in the 80's, to grab more federal funding of them down the road.

You know you're a long time Angelean if you remember when the I-110 was the 11, I-710 was the 7,

And some of that tax (granted, $.001/gal) is diverted to the oil companies cleaning up groundwater contamination from their own leaking tanks.

 

[FecalFace]

If all the money from a gas actually goes to transportation infrastructure then that's fine. But when California is using tax money to build the high speed rail line to nowhere that gets a little dodgey.

Is a high speed rail line not a part of the transportation infrastructure?

Not to mention automobile traffic relief and just plain providing transportation options rather than forcing everybody to drive. Same with the bike lanes.

If you don't like where the train line plans are, lobby to change the plans, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Should've spent the original funds in LA and SF metro first. HUGE mistake. Now, funding will dry up and it will end up the train to no-where and back. Buy you'll get there hella fast.

Disagree.
You start with the backbone train line and then build local transportation hubs around it as needed.

Not the other way around.

A proven method, by all Western nations.

 

[GDaddy]

If all the money from a gas actually goes to transportation infrastructure then that's fine. But when California is using tax money to build the high speed rail line to nowhere that gets a little dodgey.

Is a high speed rail line not a part of the transportation infrastructure?

Not to mention automobile traffic relief and just plain providing transportation options to people rather than forcing everybody to drive. Same with the bike lanes.

If you don't like where the train lines are going, lobby to change the plans, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

It's not financially feasible in this region regardless of where they put it. The only rail line in the nation that pulls it's own weight is the Acela Line, and that's only because of the natural volume of traffic between NYC and DC at either end. We don't have that kind of traffic between LA and anywhere else in CA.

If we're going to do mass transit the natural starting point is local, not between cities.

 

[FecalFace]

If all the money from a gas actually goes to transportation infrastructure then that's fine. But when California is using tax money to build the high speed rail line to nowhere that gets a little dodgey.

Is a high speed rail line not a part of the transportation infrastructure?

Not to mention automobile traffic relief and just plain providing transportation options to people rather than forcing everybody to drive. Same with the bike lanes.

If you don't like where the train lines are going, lobby to change the plans, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

It's not financially feasible in this region regardless of where they put it. The only rail line in the nation that pulls it's own weight is the Acela Line, and that's only because of the natural volume of traffic between NYC and DC at either end. We don't have that kind of traffic between LA and anywhere else in CA.

You are short sighted.

Long term, it's about building local transportation hubs - around the high speed rail backbone.

Nobody is suggesting that this line will be just for traveling from LA to SF and nowhere in between.

As the population of CA is growing at a high rate, NOW is the time to think about this.

Current traffic congestion problems in Southern CA are exactly the result of the lack of planning and foresight when it comes to public transportation. It will only get worse as land becomes more sparse.

As for "not being financially feasible" that is correct, public transportation isn't.
That's exactly why it needs to be funded by public and not corporations.

Corpos created the traffic problem and their solution was MOAR toll roads.

 

[Surfdog]

Really.

How many people on a daily basis travel between LA and SF?

Or LA or SF and Sacmo?

Other than fed, state and local gov elites?

 

[FecalFace]

Really.

How many people on a daily basis travel between LA and SF?

Or LA or SF and Sacmo?

Other than fed, state and local gov elites?

You don't read, do you?

 

[obslop]

it's like the cities that thought of putting in bike lanes everywhere 20 years ago. they were rare and smart. most everyone else was stupid.

 

[Surfdog]

If all the money from a gas actually goes to transportation infrastructure then that's fine. But when California is using tax money to build the high speed rail line to nowhere that gets a little dodgey.

Is a high speed rail line not a part of the transportation infrastructure?

Not to mention automobile traffic relief and just plain providing transportation options to people rather than forcing everybody to drive. Same with the bike lanes.

If you don't like where the train lines are going, lobby to change the plans, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

It's not financially feasible in this region regardless of where they put it. The only rail line in the nation that pulls it's own weight is the Acela Line, and that's only because of the natural volume of traffic between NYC and DC at either end. We don't have that kind of traffic between LA and anywhere else in CA.

You are short sighted.

Long term, it's about building local transportation hubs - around the high speed rail backbone.

Nobody is suggesting that this line will be just for traveling from LA to SF and nowhere in between.

As the population of CA is growing at a high rate, NOW is the time to think about this.

Current traffic congestion problems in Southern CA are exactly the result of the lack of planning and foresight when it comes to public transportation. It will only get worse as land becomes more sparse.

As for "not being financially feasible" that is correct, public transportation isn't.
That's exactly why it needs to be funded by public and not corporations.

Corpos created the traffic problem and their solution was MOAR toll roads.

The only thing I see the bullet train creating, is more suburbanization of the Central Valley.

The Central Valley would become the new Moreno Valley or Palmdale of both LA and SF, if it ever becomes "successful". If a train breaks down, or track needs repair, and shuts it down, you're screwed.

 

[FecalFace]

it's like the cities that thought of putting in bike lanes everywhere 20 years ago. they were rare and smart. most everyone else was stupid.

Correct!

 

[Surfdog]

Really.

How many people on a daily basis travel between LA and SF?

Or LA or SF and Sacmo?

Other than fed, state and local gov elites?

You don't read, do you?

My post came in the same time you posted yours, so I didn't see it first.

 

[FecalFace]

The Central Valley would become the new Moreno Valley or Palmdale of both LA and SF, if it ever becomes "successful". If a train breaks down, or track needs repair, and shuts it down, you're screwed.

I can't even.

 

[Surfdog]

it's like the cities that thought of putting in bike lanes everywhere 20 years ago. they were rare and smart. most everyone else was stupid.

Correct!

And they're still near empty during commuting hours.

 

[the janitor]

I mean, it makes sense.

user-pays is a good approach.

something something net neutrality

How in the fvck is that the same?

I was going to geek out along these lines: "But by 2009, half of all internet traffic originated in less than 150 large content and content-distribution companies, and today, half of the internet's traffic comes from just 30 outfits, including Google, Facebook, and Netflix."

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net-neutrality-missing/

but I think you're right, bad analogy on my part

 

[GDaddy]

In terms of priorities, some are more proximate than others. We already have existing urban/suburban population centers. If we can't get mass transit to work there then of what use is a regional route? Let's say they do build a new town adjacent to the HSR line - what then? You still need local mass transit at *both ends* of the traveler's trip, otherwise those travelers aren't saving either costs or time by using the rail line.

 

[GDaddy]

it's like the cities that thought of putting in bike lanes everywhere 20 years ago. they were rare and smart. most everyone else was stupid.

Those lanes do nothing to reduce transportation congestion and almost nothing in reducing carbon footprint. They're primarily used for recreation. Which is fine - for recreation purposes. But it's not a transportation solution.

 

[obslop]

it's like the cities that thought of putting in bike lanes everywhere 20 years ago. they were rare and smart. most everyone else was stupid.

Correct!

And they're still near empty during commuting hours.

well that's because Americans are on the whole fat and lazy.

but . . . if we build this train that will all change.

 

[FecalFace]

UK and specifically London, introduced first electric trains in 1890.

This is what it looks like today. unless you are living in a remote rural area, you are always within 10 minute walk from public transportation.

We are still running diesel trains and are in denial of the fact that traffic is a problem.

Funny part is that LA was going in that direction but was killed by auto industry and developer greed.

This need to happen NOW, in order to have a useful public transportation options in 50 years.