To: Wharf Rat who wrote (828759 ) 1/9/2015 11:53:18 AM From: Brumar89 Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574888 "We cannot NOT afford it" is a sales pitch thrown out by dishonest salesmen to saps. "It's not that expensive. We can afford it. In fact, we cannot NOT afford it." "All these projects are a little touch and go. You'll have these critics say 'why spend all this money?' On the other hand I like trains, I like clean air... And I like to enjoy the comfort of trains. I like to get up and walk around and shake hands. You can't do that in your little car as you look in your rear view mirror." Said Governor Jerry Brown at the ground-breaking ceremony for California's $68 billion high-speed rail system. Yeah, how can you not not afford that? Isn't it wonderful that after all these years, they're actually starting the darned thing? And isn't if comforting to know that if it ever actually comes into existence, it will comfort Jerry Brown... if he's still among us and able to walk around and shake hands? The 142-mile rail line will choo-choo crowds from L.A. north of Fresno to San Francisco south of Fresno . So Jerry has a decent chance at getting to shake hands in and around Fresno. ADDED: Ultimately, the plan is for a 520-mile line that is supposed to get people from downtown L.A. to downtown San Francisco. We're told there's "hope" of getting that done by 2029 and also that "The authority needs to speed up the eminent domain process, since only 100 of the 500 land parcels needed for the rails and stations have been purchased." Which ones? Have they got all that downtown L.A. and San Francisco land yet? My prediction is that these endpoints — without which no one would want this project — will never be reached by the line that's getting started now in Fresno. The only question is when people will freak out sufficiently to abandon the desperate throwing of good money after bad. I feel sorry for California, and I say that as someone who voted for Scott Walker in 2010 on the single issue of rejecting the lure of federal money to build a high-speed train . It's not that I don't care about the environment. I do! I have a much better solution for California than its huge-carbon-footprint construction project. Stop traveling between San Francisco and L.A. Pick one! You know you prefer San Francisco or L.A. Just pick one and satisfy yourself with all the wonderful attractions and indulgences of San Francisco OR L.A. What are the arguments against that option? Please lay them out, because I would like to see them in writing so I can form an opinion of what kind of an environmentalist you really are. Posted by Ann Althouse at 8:59 AM http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2015/01/its-not-that-expensive-we-can-afford-it.html cassandra lite said... To get from L.A. to S.F. will require ordinary transport out of L.A. proper (well over an hour) to get to the alleged bullet train, which will let you off somewhere that requires at least another hour of ordinary transport before arriving in S.F. It does nothing to lessen the time hassle of getting to/from airports. Then there's the fact that this won't be built until motorized unicorns come into existence. This is going to make the Big Dig in Beantown look like the 13-month Empire St. Bldg. construction. Unions will be delighted. .................... Amichel said... Older politicians are always trying to bring us back to the golden age, the wonderful time when people wore suits and fedoras on their train trips from New York to Vermont, just like Bing Crosby in White Christmas. If we just build the infrastructure, surely that wonderful time will come back. Who cares that there is no demand for it, that it will be vastly more expensive, and less flexible than the current modes of travel between Northern and Southern California. People will learn to love it, and we can just subsidize it's failure to attract enough ridership perpetually. The important thing is that nice rich people with no time or money constraints will get to enjoy their fancy train ride. ............... St. George said... For the price of this train, I recently read that the state of California could purchase 82,000 environmentally-efficient buses . It's a canard to think that trains are more green than modern buses. Plus, they are locked into one position, unlike highway vehicles. When fixed rail systems compete against buses for government mass transit dollars, rail often wins because deep pockets are on the side of rail--the Fortune 500 manufacturers, the construction companies, and unions. Bus makers, operators, and their employees are far more diversified and have fewer dollars with which to influence public opinion and politicians. ................... Brando said... What a depressing mess--and how typically Californian! This should set back the pro-rail movement quite a while. I'm all for improved mass transit--preferably privately run, but anything that gets people off the roads and efficiently moved around is a plus. I'd love to be able to get to work by subway, or go out on the town without having to worry about driving back. But this project--taking you from one city where you'd need a car to several other cities where you'd need a car, taking only slightly less time than driving the whole way would--is a perfect example of poorly thought out rail. Which exemplifies everything wrong with public projects. An improved system connecting DC to Boston with only a few stops in between would make more sense--many cities you can get around without a car, and the short train hops would be far more convenient than getting out to airports, and more weather-proof. But California's problem is it's already sprawled out, and connecting one giant parking lot to another isn't going to attract ridership. .............. St. George said... To add to what Amichel says above, Amtrak is a total money loser outside the NY-Boston corridor and Chicago. Massive government boondoggle that continues to live due to inertia, unions, and nostalgia. ................. Anonymous said... Let's assume for purposes of amusement that the project actually costs $68 billion. There were 38.3 million people in California as of the end of 2013 (the most recent figure that I can find). That's $1,775 per resident that taxpayers will pay for this, even if it comes in on budget (and I'd guess that it will cost about twice that much). ................... Brando said... "It's a canard to think that trains are more green than modern buses. Plus, they are locked into one position, unlike highway vehicles." One idea that I'd get on board with is taking the money being wasted on rail projects and investing instead in adding bus-only dedicated lanes on major thoroughfares and highways, building enclosed bus stops with real-time electronic maps showing where on the route the buses are, and putting simplified routes geared to meet existing and projected demand. Mass transit can work, but it has to offer an improvement over driving. ................. MayBee said... I can't believe they are still pretending this is going to happen.CA already has great cheap mass transit between LA and SF, and it's called Southwest Airlines. ................ tim in vermont said... The one time I rode the TGV from London to Paris , I felt like a super villain, because I had a whole train car to myself. But I am sure the demand for travel between LA and SF is much higher than between London and Paris. ................We cannot Not afford to payoff Brown's billionaire contributors .... ........................ Cheryl said... "It's not that expensive..." Words rarely uttered by someone spending his own money. ............... traditionalguy said... This is a religious faith test. If you can imagine the current serious global cooling and record freezing temperature is "The hottest year on record," then you can get excited over a romantic train running 80 mph through the fields and forests using 1880s train technology powered by 1480s windmills technology. ..................... furious_a said... The Delta Smelt was the beginning. They realized they needed to save it by taking all the water from the central valley. Now all those farms, which were once thriving, are all dead and dying. Want to build a train through thriving farmland? First you have to kill off all the farms. Conspiracy? See "Owens Valley Water Wars". Also, watch "Chinatown" again. ..................