California High-Speed Rail Approved

texas_ex2000

texas_ex2000

2,500+ Posts
CNN Link...watch the video also
Would you buy their bonds? No way would these things be revenue bonds, they'll be general obligation (e.g. tax backed) bonds.

Don't get me wrong, I think HSR is pretty awesome, and the US is sorely lacking compared to the rest of the world. But, if I'm living in California (thank God I'm not) and dealing with the budget crisis facing the state, the last thing I would think to myself is: Gee, I think we should put another $68 BILLION on the ole credit card to buy a HSR that WON'T:

1) make my SF to LA commute any faster (the SF stop is actually 45 mins away in Fresno, and flying even with all the security and traffic would still take the same time)

or

2) make my SF to LA commute cheaper (plan ahead and you get shuttle flights for less that $150 all in)

How does this work in their heads? Another thing too is the environmental impact. It would be one thing to do all of this on existing lines, but they'll have to tear up millions of acres of agricultural use land.

Who the hell pays for this?
 
Generally, when making plans for infrastructure intended to last 100+ years, it's wise to think longer term, aka not today, but what demographics will be like in 10, 20, 40, 60 years.

Population growth, lack of space for highways and airports, all point to rail as a solution.

Your brief, above analysis doesn't exactly do that. HSR isn't just cool, it isn't just what most modern countries use, it's a wise, longer term solution for an inevitable problem that ain't getting any cheaper. Texas will figure that out someday in the future when IH 35 is nothing but a perpetual parking lot and there are no more lanes left to expand.
 
McBrett, seriously, would you buy California's bonds? You think my analysis is short-sighted? How about this for an analysis...$68 billion dollars is the principal. After accumulated interest on that principal, the total debt service will be well over $100 billion. Again, since when did California's economic problems go away that they could contemplate such an idea? What institutional changes in the way California runs their house have been made to suggest they'll be smarter about their finances in the future when that $100 billion is due? And the freakin' thing still stops in Fresno - 45 mins away from SF.

Unfortunately your analysis doesn't capture the reality of the situation we live in. It's beautiful to dream in McBrettland where everything is clean, fast, and free...but the world doesn't work that way. When it comes to taking care of finances, California and "modern countries," like those in the EU, would do well to take a cue from Texas. California is the idiot from high-school who maxed out his credit card to buy a sweet ride. It won't get him an education or a career and he doesn't have a plan for how he'll pay for it (except maybe to ask the parents to bail him out). Texas is the guy who hates his old dirty pickup, but makes due while working his *** off on a part-time job while going to school. Every month he puts a little bit away in the piggy bank meant for a hybrid Caddy, but that's down the road when he finishes school and has a career.

The federal government is chipping in billions for California's HSR also. If we're making investments into projects that have big impacts 100 years in the future, then let's invest that money into NASA. The first human that walks on Mars better be an American. At least the Space Program/NASA has given us real returns on technology, science, and a sense of national accomplishment that our kids can look and live up to.

California will likely default on these HSR bonds...the Federal government (meaning taxpayers outside of California) will bail them out and it'll become the train to nowhere, much like the other pet investments the President likes to casually throw money at.
 
Look no further than Austin on how failure to prepare infrastructure backfires. You have a narrow Interstate with 4 of the nations largest 15 cities a couple hours apart. A path from Mexico and massive population growth. You have gridlock in Austin at any time, any day for any reason. It's not a safe bet to get on the highway even at 3 p.m Saturday or any other time. You may not get anywhere fast.

It sounds perhaps dream worthy but it would be awesome to have a reliable fast train to get to Dallas instead of the **** drive it now is. I am sure some of you don't mind that drive but boy do I ever hate it. It's boring and often times downright dangerous.

Too bad we don't have an alternative other than the Big Blue Bus or Greyhound (where my Mom once caught body lice).

Like the old commercial used to go (was it Meineke?), pay me now or pay him later.
 
Fresno to San Francisco is about 200mi. It is not a 45min. drive, more like 3.5 hrs. And I would think the rail would go to Sacramento since that is how lawmakers usually do things when spending other people's money. And the growth rate in California through 2050 is suppose to slow to 1% annually, so comparing it to Texas is a mistake.
 
1) This is not a question of should you buy CA bonds in 2012. You guys are changing the subject- if the question is/was, did CA do a good job of balancing a budget the answer is no. But that fact we agree on doesn't change the math you guys are ignoring.

Here's some simple math: HSR works, and is a matter of when, not if. It's not getting any cheaper, and it's needed yesterday.

So while you can change the subject to state budget balancing- I will agree with you, but what some people who smirk at CA don't get is that quite often a dollar invested brings back many more in return. Just like your analogy of the guy who maxes out his CC because he buys a cool car- the opposite is the smug guy who sits at home eating Ramen noodles in his mother's basement- but has the smug feeling that his checkbook is balanced. What you don't get is that NOT building reliable transportation is a TAX on business through the costs of time, gasoline, labor and resources. That saved money gets put back into the economy.

And you're also right that HSR doesn't work everywhere, but CA is one of those places where it would work.
 
Mcbrett means well he just wont ever let reality get in the way of his utopian outlook.

No one is oopsed to HSR. I actually think Texas is a great example of where it can work. A circuit linking Dallas, Houston and Austin/San Ant makes a lot of sense. Especially if it could be piggy-backed by a system connecting Little Rock, KC, Tulsa and OKC to dallas.

However, the point is that Mcbrett and others just dont ever like to examine the details. And if anyone criticizes the details, they wail that we are against the whole idea. No one from SF Bay area will likely drive to Fresno (its about 200 miles each way) so the initial numbers of users will be incredibly low. They also have only approved funding for a small portion of the program and the Feds are pumping in billions also. Why should Cali get that money? why not Texas? Its insane.
 
DFWAg,

I don't agree with McBrett on this. Outside of the Northeast, I don't see HSR as a viable possibility. However, if the government threw a ton of money at HSR, all that would mean is that it was treating HSR like it treats other forms of transportation.

Automobile and air travel survive only by the support of hundreds of billions of dollars in government largess. Shut down all the government-funded roads, bridges, airports, and runways, and see how long the auto and airline industries last.
 
Take the Federal fund out of all of it. Let the market dictate, the price of products will skyrocket, then as business adjusts, costs will come back into line.

I take Southwest Airlines as my example.

I take BNSF as another, how about WalMart Distribution.

If the local governments want Southwest or BNSF or Walmart in their area's then foot the bill for the infrastructure.

When the money goes from me to the Fed, back to the state to the contractor paving the road, a ton of money is lost.

Just send it from me to the state, eliminate the FED.

Give me power to local government and less to the FED.
 
texas ex-

Here's the math-

If you are in debt, or even if you are not in debt at all- and someone presents an opportunity for you to invest money in a project that reduces your expenses and increases your revenues- you do it all day long regardless of your current debt situation. This is really not controversial at all. If anything, this is a faster way to pay down your debt, by fostering economic growth. You just need to be able to see the connection we have between the balance sheet of the govt. and the well being of both commerce and private citizens via infrastructure.

Lastly- great, you did travel. For someone who traveled during their career- you sure mention California as if that alone is the point. If I'm wrong, I'm saying that's the impression you're giving me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top