'How California's Bullet Train Went Off the Rails' (nytimes.com) 289
In 2008 California's voters approved the first bonds for a $33 billion San Francisco-to-Los Angeles bullet train.
14 years later, the New York Times is now calling the project "a case study in how ambitious public works projects can become perilously encumbered by political compromise, unrealistic cost estimates, flawed engineering and a determination to persist on projects that have become... too big to fail...." Political compromises, the records show, produced difficult and costly routes through the state's farm belt. They routed the train across a geologically complex mountain pass in the Bay Area. And they dictated that construction would begin in the center of the state, in the agricultural heartland, not at either of the urban ends where tens of millions of potential riders live. The pros and cons of these routing choices have been debated for years. Only now, though, is it becoming apparent how costly the political choices have been. Collectively, they turned a project that might have been built more quickly and cheaply into a behemoth so expensive that, without a major new source of funding, there is little chance it can ever reach its original goal of connecting California's two biggest metropolitan areas in two hours and 40 minutes....
Fourteen years later, construction is now underway on part of a 171-mile "starter" line connecting a few cities in the middle of California, which has been promised for 2030. But few expect it to make that goal. Meanwhile, costs have continued to escalate. When the California High-Speed Rail Authority issued its new 2022 draft business plan in February, it estimated an ultimate cost as high as $105 billion. Less than three months later, the "final plan" raised the estimate to $113 billion. The rail authority said it has accelerated the pace of construction on the starter system, but at the current spending rate of $1.8 million a day, according to projections widely used by engineers and project managers, the train could not be completed in this century....
As of now, there is no identified source of funding for the $100 billion it will take to extend the rail project from the Central Valley to its original goals, Los Angeles and San Francisco, in part because lawmakers, no longer convinced of the bullet train's viability, have pushed to divert additional funding to regional rail projects....
The Times's review, though, revealed that political deals created serious obstacles in the project from the beginning. Speaking candidly on the subject for the first time, some of the high-speed rail authority's past leaders say the project may never work.
14 years later, the New York Times is now calling the project "a case study in how ambitious public works projects can become perilously encumbered by political compromise, unrealistic cost estimates, flawed engineering and a determination to persist on projects that have become... too big to fail...." Political compromises, the records show, produced difficult and costly routes through the state's farm belt. They routed the train across a geologically complex mountain pass in the Bay Area. And they dictated that construction would begin in the center of the state, in the agricultural heartland, not at either of the urban ends where tens of millions of potential riders live. The pros and cons of these routing choices have been debated for years. Only now, though, is it becoming apparent how costly the political choices have been. Collectively, they turned a project that might have been built more quickly and cheaply into a behemoth so expensive that, without a major new source of funding, there is little chance it can ever reach its original goal of connecting California's two biggest metropolitan areas in two hours and 40 minutes....
Fourteen years later, construction is now underway on part of a 171-mile "starter" line connecting a few cities in the middle of California, which has been promised for 2030. But few expect it to make that goal. Meanwhile, costs have continued to escalate. When the California High-Speed Rail Authority issued its new 2022 draft business plan in February, it estimated an ultimate cost as high as $105 billion. Less than three months later, the "final plan" raised the estimate to $113 billion. The rail authority said it has accelerated the pace of construction on the starter system, but at the current spending rate of $1.8 million a day, according to projections widely used by engineers and project managers, the train could not be completed in this century....
As of now, there is no identified source of funding for the $100 billion it will take to extend the rail project from the Central Valley to its original goals, Los Angeles and San Francisco, in part because lawmakers, no longer convinced of the bullet train's viability, have pushed to divert additional funding to regional rail projects....
The Times's review, though, revealed that political deals created serious obstacles in the project from the beginning. Speaking candidly on the subject for the first time, some of the high-speed rail authority's past leaders say the project may never work.
Too expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
I had voted no for this prop as the numbers simply didn't add up even at 33B (and I knew it will go way over budget). They will need to charge higher ticket cost than airfare to breakeven even at $33B. Most people will prefer air if it is cheaper. It was all driven by lobbyists and didn't stand up to any reasonable calculations.
Re: (Score:2)
You can already fly from SF to LA in 90 minutes.
Having spent a lot of time on both airplanes and trains, I'd much rather take the 2:40 train ride than a 90 minute plane ride. Train rides are comfortable.
(... and the hour and a half time they want you in the airport beforehand deletes the time advantage in any case.)
Re: (Score:2)
And they dictated that construction would begin in the center of the state, in the agricultural heartland, not at either of the urban ends where tens of millions of potential riders live.
Yeah but imagine how fast you'll be able to travel from Burnt Scrotum, CA (pop. 122 including the dog) to Skidmark, CA (pop.76) once they get that crucial middle section done!
Re:Too expensive (Score:5, Interesting)
You can already fly from SF to LA in 90 minutes.
Yeah, don't forget the other 90 spent in security theater
And traveling by train has all the same security theater, in addition to taking twice as long to get where you're going.
I recently took a Metro from the SF Valley to LA Union Station, then onto Seattle. If by "security theater" you're referring to the 5-minute transfer from the Metro to Amtrak, then I think you're off by about 85 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
You could get TSA Precheck. Yes, it costs something, but most people don't seem to realize that what you pay for it gets it for you for five years. And what you get for your trouble is you don't need to take your belt off, or your boots, and you don't need to take your laptop out of your bag, and it's basically like how flying was in the 90s. If you go large and get Global Entry, it's actually head-spinning how much airport security stuff you can dispense with.
Re: (Score:3)
What you get for your money is that you get to dodge the security theater that was put there to convince you to pay extra to avoid it.
What's funny / scary (Score:3)
I've seen some pundits seriously float the idea of Washington and Oregon joining in and extending this all up the west coast. Sure, on paper it sounds like a great idea... but it's completely ignoring the reality of what's already been seen with the existing project. Can you imagine tossing two additional states, with their varied constituencies, into the mix? We'd probably end up with 4k miles of track planned, hitting every city with more than 5000 people in every part of each state - and a cost that's higher than the entirety of all three states' budgets.
Re: (Score:2)
What has been being studied is a high speed rail line from Portland to Vancouver. Haven't heard of any suggestions to hook up with California.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouve... [dailyhive.com]
Re:What's funny / scary (Score:4, Funny)
âoeSNCF was very angry. They told the state they were leaving for North Africa, which was less politically dysfunctional. They went to Morocco and helped them build a rail system.â Moroccoâ(TM)s bullet train started service in 2018.
When SNCF, which alongside JNR are the world's most experienced operators of high-speed rail, decide to bail on the US because Africa is more functional for doing transport projects, you know you've got a problem.
It's honestly amazing and not surprising at all (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand how estimations of these large projects is always so horribly wrong. We're not talking 25% over budget. We're at 300% over budget.
It's not like high speed rails haven't been built before. And it's not like it's a custom unique sky scraper. It's just "fancy rail". The estimates are just absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
Because there is no penalty for underestimating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's honestly amazing and not surprising at al (Score:2)
The contractors would file for bankruptcy
Re: It's honestly amazing and not surprising at al (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's not honest engineering, it's graft.
Submit a realistic estimate and you'll either lose to a lower bidder or be shouted down as a naysayer by the politicals and replaced with someone who will toe the line.
Submit a low ball number and you'll be hailed as a visionary, collect your cut, and move on to administer another public works boondoggle before the failings become apparent. If you did it right, you might even be able to plausibly deny culpability by pawning it off on the next guy feeding at the trough.
Good start but there's a technical detail here (Score:5, Insightful)
The trick is that the initial estimate you offer is based on EVERYTHING going perfectly and so with minimal contingencies. However when reality kicks in and things don't work out perfectly etc etc the price rapidly escalates.
Real estimates will be rejected by politicians, so if a project is to happen, you've got to offer this unrealistic estimate to get the green light... then reality kicks in; as long as the price increases are slow enough, the frog (the politicians) won't really notice, and stick with 'their' project.
One of Margaret Thatcher's greatest achievements was to transfer the risk of the Channel Tunnel onto the private sector - for whom it did not go well; the costs were massively underestimated...
Re: (Score:3)
The trick is to lie.
Tsk tsk, professionals don't lie... (Score:2)
They merely construct a totally unrealistic scenario and suggest that it will actually happen... Also known as political campaigning...
Re: (Score:2)
Vote for me, and I will build you a bridge to Hawaii. If you want ti see the plans, it's a hyperloop.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's not honest engineering, it's graft.
Submit a realistic estimate and you'll either lose to a lower bidder or be shouted down as a naysayer by the politicals and replaced with someone who will toe the line.
Submit a low ball number and you'll be hailed as a visionary, collect your cut, and move on to administer another public works boondoggle before the failings become apparent. If you did it right, you might even be able to plausibly deny culpability by pawning it off on the next guy feeding at the trough.
I wonder about another system.
Find an outside company (or several), one that can't actually do the contract, and have them put together a bid. Not only a bid for the job itself, but also an estimate of the various change orders and cost overruns (you want X but we think you'll change to Y).
They get a bit of cash for this but their real payment comes as the project goes along how well they managed to track the real budget. Do this a few times and firms could even start specializing, a sort of bid-audit consu
Re: (Score:3)
Make them borrow the money to build it, in exchange for a concession like a proportion of the ticket price. If they do it on time and on budget it will be highly profitable over the long term. The lenders will examine their proposal and track record in detail, and the builder will be strongly motivated to make sure things go right.
easy explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
First, like many government projects, it's using unionized labor. No, I'm not slamming unions here; they have their place in a market economy in the PRIVATE SECTOR as an offset to the profit motives of the owners and investors in a business. In government-related activity however, unions contribute piles of money, and very-importantly, "volunteers" to the elections of the politicians who will eventually sit across the negotiating table from them. This means that, when union-backed candidates win elections, the supposed opposing sides in a negotiation are actually both on the same side - a corrupt situation. The United States originally did not allow unions in government for precisely this reason. When government projects use union labor, there's actually a huge political incentive for the politicians to look the other way as projects drag-on because it means high-paying union jobs (held by their supporters) are increased/extended.
Second, as with all other government projects, it's using "other peoples' money". If this were a commercial project, the company having it built would be watching the expenses and schedule slips like hungry hawks... because it would be costing owner/shareholder money. The board (representing the investors) would be putting tons of pressure on the CEO and staff to cut costs, accelerate the schedule, etc. When something's being bought by government, the people doing the supposed oversight have no skin in the game.... it's somebody else's money, and that "somebody else" can always be made to cough-up more cash, with a tax increase and some audits...
Re:easy explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't the unions, the problem is/problems are the laws that make money-based lobbying possible. It encourages corruption of both politicians and lobbyists.
Expense (Score:2)
they turned a project that might have been built more quickly and cheaply
[Citation needed]
It was never going to be quick or cheap. Literally no one expected that.
citation offered (Score:3)
Here's a non-partisan source. [ballotpedia.org]
At the time we voted on this, we the taxpayers of California were promised an 800 mile train line linking Los Angeles to San Francisco, that would provide passengers with a 2 hours and 40 minutes travel time, that would cost $40 Billion dollars and be in service in 2030. It would have a pair of tracks to permit both north- and south-bound trains to operate simultaneously (this has been subsequently dropped to save costs), and those tracks would then be extended south the San D
Re: (Score:3)
oh, I know what was promised. I also knew at the time that it wasn't going to happen. Everyone who investigated it at any depth knew.
This bubbles up every year or two (Score:5, Informative)
This bubbles up every year or two.
Of course the price keeps going up, up, up and it's never going to stop, be completed, or be profitable.
But they keep throwing money at it
I love that the first comment from 2009 is "It will never happen".
2009:
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
2011:
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
2015:
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
2017:
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
2018:
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
2019:
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
2021:
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Progress is being made.
hyperloop... (Score:2)
well, considering Musk confessed having invented hyperloop to disrupt the project, and politicians being known for wanting p0rK in their district... no wonder the US can't build any proper transportation infrastructure, unless it's for making sure they can wage wars...
Never bet against the laws of physics. (Score:5, Informative)
A very large part of the problem with the bullet train was always geography. You can't do high speed rail and wind the tracks through the twisty path taken by Highway 5 through the Grapevine; the turn radius would necessitate the train slowing down to perhaps 80 mph or slower. As I recall the plans have the high speed rail system passing through Palmdale and down Highway 15--passing through the Tehachapis, which have similar problems.
Essentially the entire path from Bakersfield through to Burbank is a lot of hand-wavy assumptions, similar with the path from Madera to Gilroy, which need to pass through the coastal range, the mountains separating the San Joaquin Valley to the Pacific Coast.
And notice where they're actually building: along the easy part, in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley--where land is flat and lines can be built straight. (At 190mph, the turn radius for a high speed train has to be at least 2.5 miles, which is a serious limitation on routing.)
For the same reason Switzerland doesn't have a high speed rail system.
But somehow the state's leaders assured the voters it was all solved; a few tunnels, a little clever planning, some hand-waving--and you'll have a high speed rail system so fast you can take it from Los Angeles all the way to San Francisco in two hours and twenty minutes, including stops along the way in Bakersfield, Fresno, Madera and Gilroy.
Because there are oh, so many people who would want to travel to Bakersfield, Fresno, Madera and Gilroy.
Meanwhile, a plain ticket from Los Angeles to San Francisco is under a hundred bucks--without massive government subsidizes and without a high speed rail line bisecting the farms of central California, along what one local politician called "that shitty little string of towns along Highway 99."
It's become a political issue, sure. But underneath it all, it was never really about party politics. It was about California thinking we could have a prestige project akin to the high speed rail system in France, despite the practical problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, a plain ticket from Los Angeles to San Francisco is under a hundred bucks--without massive government subsidizes and without a high speed rail line bisecting the farms of central California, along what one local politician called "that shitty little string of towns along Highway 99."
It won't be as population increases. Building the rail is cheaper than adding airport capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
An airport requires two miles of concrete 150 feet wide. If necessary, you could build another airport or expand capacity at a nearby airport. So if LAX is at capacity, there's always John Wayne, Burbank and Long Beach.
A train requires several hundred miles of track, including digging several multi-mile long tunnels, including one (from Palmdale to Burbank) longer than the English Chunnel.
The rail system, according to the New York Times, may wind up costing more than $100 billion to build, and that's assumi
Re: Never bet against the laws of physics. (Score:2)
there are about 35 flights per day from San Francisco to Los Angeles. I don't see how a $100 Billion train line can be justified for that number of passengers
You're overlooking induced travel... the people who wouldn't go if it required flying or driving, but will make literal casual day trips once it becomes painless and easy (though not necessarily cheap).
This has already been seen with Brightline in Florida... people who have high-paying jobs in downtown Miami paying super premiums for houses and condos near Fort Lauderdale's station who would never have decided to live in Fort Lauderdale and work in downtown Miami if it meant spending an hour and a half to d
Re: (Score:2)
Japan does have a high speed rail system -- and a lot of tunnels to minimize winding around the landscape.
Re:Never bet against the laws of physics. (Score:5, Informative)
And most of their system is built at grade--at ground level, or close enough.
Notice the planning map for the route from Bakersfield to Palmdale. [ca.gov] All those blue segments? Bridges. All the purple ones? Tunnels. This is about a 90 mile run, from Bakersfield to Palmdale alone--passing through the Tehachapis [wikipedia.org], with peaks around 8,000 feet.
The run from Tokyo to Nagoya, on the other hand, hugs the eastern coast of Japan, avoiding going up and down and around a lot of corners--all of which are physically impossible at high speeds.
Or consider the proposed runs from Palmdale to Burbank. [ca.gov]
Notice between the three proposed drawings, almost the whole route is purple? Yeah, they're contemplating building a tunnel longer than the English Chunnel--around 38 miles total for route E2A. This would make it one of the longest tunnels for transportation ever built in the world--and under nearly a mile deep under mountains that are part of some of the most active earthquake prone sites in the world.
As a note, the Swiss built a similarly long rail tunnel under the Alps, the Gotthard Tunnel, which took 12 years to build--and the Alps are not prone to the same number or magnitude of earthquakes as is the Southern California area, which has been counting the years until the "big one," when the San Andreas fault finally snaps.
And that's just two segments.
The problem in California, geographically speaking, is that San Francisco and Los Angeles are cut off from the rest of the state with some fairly tall mountains; taller than most of those through Europe, excepting the Alps--and notice Switzerland does not have a high speed rail system. Taller than most of the mountains dotting along the eastern side of Japan.
And that makes construction non-trivial, and thus, expensive.
And notice where California is building: places like from Merced to Fresno, [ca.gov] where nearly the entire line can be built at grade.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there are oh, so many people who would want to travel to Bakersfield, Fresno, Madera and Gilroy.
There aren't any. But, to secure assistance with getting land for the train to pass they had to somehow bribe, I mean incentivize, the local county. Putting a station in those cities does that, but it also makes the train take an unneeded route and an unneeded stop. Get enough of these and we end up with the mess that is there.
Failure was guaranteed (Score:2)
An airline ticket to LA from SFO is about $100 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The original pitch of HSR was that it would bring economic prosperity to the. Central Valley by allowing people to commute to SF/LA easily. It failed. Politicians screwed it up. Profiteering construction companies screwed it up. Landowners screwed it up. NIMBYs screwed it up. It was ultimately a hopeless endeavor.
Almost everybody can do it (Score:2)
Europe has high-speed rail all over and is constructing more, Japan has them, China has, even Russia has them. The US apparently cannot do it. To be fair, Australia has failed at it as well.
The astonishing thing is that he track costs are apparently several times higher for this route than for example for the TGV (at 2...5M per km, i.e. max about 2.5B for SF-LA). Well, mix enough politics into engineering and everything goes to hell...
Re: (Score:2)
Even Uzbekistan has a HSR line lol. I've been on it.
It seems like mistakes were made and it will be more expensive per mile than elsewhere, but it's doable. C'mon!
Re: (Score:2)
I am wondering whether there is active sabotage involved. I mean, the US basically ignores how badly its infrastructure sucks compared to the first world, but if there was a domestic, well-working high-speed train line over a longer distance, that could change perceptions. Some businesses may not like that at all.
On the other hand, never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
the US basically ignores how badly its infrastructure sucks compared to the first world,
Don't believe the hype. It's not that bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't believe the hype. It's not that bad.
Where is it not that bad? Everywhere I've been in the US, it's been terrible. I've only been to about ten states, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the comparison is with other countries. People imagine Europe is some kind of infrastructure paradise, or that Japan has trains going everywhere, but neither of these are true.
If you want to point at problems, of course you can do so anywhere. True, California has rolling blackouts. But at least we didn't outsource our energy storage to Russia who left it completely empty, which happened to Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
But at least we didn't outsource our energy storage to Russia who left it completely empty, which happened to Germany.
Well, and in actual reality: https://www.bundesnetzagentur.... [bundesnetzagentur.de]
Also, that is not infrastructure. That is supply flow.
Re: (Score:2)
The infrastructure that is lacking was to not build alternative natural gas terminals to give them the ability to switch away from Russia. Now Germany is rushing to upgrade their infrastructure: https://www.enr.com/articles/5... [enr.com]
Re: Almost everybody can do it (Score:2)
TGV is a bad example. To a large extent, TGV follows highway corridors, and both were often designed together (if not literally built concurrently). The major reason TGV generally stays below 200mph is because at higher speeds, people would have to strap in, and drinks & laptops would be at risk of sliding from tray tables.
There are other factors, but passenger comfort is the big one. Above a certain speed, the tracks have to be almost zero grade, or it'll feel like you're on a roller coaster. You can b
Evil government, not (Score:2)
Government isn't intrinsically evil, it's intrinsically victimized by everyone shouting "what about me" or "not in my backyard". That is greatly multiplied when voters reward dishonest or 'doing something' politicians.
Government infrastructure (Score:2)
Compare and contrast the UK's HS2 (Score:2)
Similarly prices initially at $40bn, it is now somewhat north of $120bn. Someone somewhere is having a laugh.
Cheap labour (Score:2)
So many people misunderstand the routing (Score:4, Interesting)
It NEEDS to go through the Central Valley. It is not an empty unoccupied pastoral land, it has some of the largest population centers in the state. One of the major advantages of a train is that it can stop at intermediate stations in a way that planes can't (without wasting fuel and large amounts of time). By hitting Bakersfield, Fresno, and other population centers, it dramatically increases the utility of the line.
A train is not a plane. It is not a point-to-point connection. The majority of the ridership will not be going from LA to San Francisco, they will be going from Fresno to San Jose, or Bakersfield to LA, or Merced to San Francisco. All the route pairings that you can do with a single line.
One half of incredible cost of the line is because of hierarchial levels of costs from consultants hiring consultants instead of having a solid in-house design and build team that countries like Spain have (Spain being the same size and population density as California, making it a good equivalent).
The other half is the ridiculous system of lawsuits that hold up the project, forcing them to spend as much on lawyers as they do on construction. The lawsuits are not in good faith and merely ploys by people with political opposition to the project, or people who think they can get more money by using lawsuits as a cudgel.
The Train to Nowhere (Score:2)
From Merced to Bakersfield. No one wants to routinely travel between those two towns.
Add to that, Governor Newsom re-directed the SECOND voter approved bond initiative to fix California roads to the failing project. He declared a "state of emergency" with climate change and diverted the voter-approved money to the Train to Nowhere.
It's a corrupt project that will never materialize in to high speed rail between L.A. and the Bay Area.
Re: (Score:3)
Trains are needed more than roads; the fact that everybody is corrupting and/or fighting it is the real problem. Somebody has to fix the system... somehow....someday.
You think that road money won't be stolen too? I don't think they could build another bay area bridge today either. Anything large is impossible almost anywhere in the USA without a massive effort by some good politicians to get some support by the moderately corrupt politicians and squeak it by the evil politicians (like Mitch, who's only t
Average speed an unimpressive 142MPH (Score:3)
The average speed of the California bullet train works out at 142MPH for the complete journey from LA to SF (380 miles, 2 hours 40 minutes). In comparison, the Tokyo-Nagoya maglev train is projected to take 40 minutes, averaging 267MPH. Cost of construction per mile are similar - the Japanese project is estimated at approximately $350M/mile, slightly more expensive than the California project at $300M/mile.
Approximately 90% of the Japanese project consists of tunnels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Democrats are big spenders but incompetent.
The Democrats are the Party That Used To Build Stuff. Run this HSR story past that ancient relative you may have who risked his life to help build Hoover Dam.
Re:Democrats (Score:5, Informative)
it was built was as a job creation program
Yes, that is what a government should do in the face of crippling unemployment at 25% or more. And it was spectacularly successful, as were the other job-creation programs in the New Deal.
necessitated by the govt's continued strangling of the economy.
Citation needed.
In fact, the Great Depression was neither caused nor extended [wikipedia.org] by the FDR administration.
The usual explanations include numerous factors, especially high consumer debt, ill-regulated markets that permitted overoptimistic loans by banks and investors, and the lack of high-growth new industries. These all interacted to create a downward economic spiral of reduced spending, falling confidence and lowered production.
Funny how you can paint FDR as a "wannabe fascist" when he led us through a global war to defeat fascism in two different hemispheres. Enthusiastically elected an unprecedented four times (472 vs. 59, 523 vs. 8, 449 vs. 82, and 432 vs. 99 Electoral College). Some Presidents are kicked out after one term, and spend the rest of their lives whining about it.
Re: Democrats (Score:2, Informative)
Crippling unemployment was caused by government actions.
Read The Creature from Jekyll Island for more understanding.
Re: Democrats (Score:4, Informative)
They sure know how to run a state. This state taxes the shit out of you, which apologists argue funds the public facilities and infrastructure that you use. The problem is, the infrastructure here is dog shit. I paid way less taxes in Phoenix, and unlike here, things actually worked. California politicians say "Your power went out? Fuck you, pay me."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you look at the numbers, California isn't bad for the average person. Turns out you'll pay more in taxes in the republican utopia that is Texas. https://www.houstonchronicle.c... [houstonchronicle.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a few notches above average it seems. I'm waaay exceeding the SALT cap in fact. I did the numbers already because I've been looking at where I'm wanting to go next, and Texas is absolutely a hell of a lot cheaper. In Texas I wouldn't even touch the SALT cap. Plus my housing costs would be a lot less. Hell, beach front property in Texas costs less than a cracker box house out here.
Though I don't know why you guys keep bringing up Texas every time I mention California's problems, Texas has nothing to do w
Re: Democrats (Score:5, Informative)
Oh look, someone who doesn't understand statistics. You don't pay more except as a PERCENTAGE of the state budget.
Oh, look, someone who didn't read the article they're criticizing.
Texans in the bottom 20 percent of income earners — those earning less than $20,900 — pay 13 percent of their income in state and local taxes, while those in the top 1 percent of income earners — those earning $617,900 or more — pay only 3.1 percent.
In California, the bottom 20 percent of income earners — those earning less than $23,200 — pay 10.5 percent in state and local taxes, while the top 20 percent — those earning $714,400 or more — pay 12.4 percent.
Re: (Score:2)
20 percent of income earners in California make more than $714,000 per year? Who are these people? I chose the wrong profession. (Except I like programming, so I'm cool even if I don't make much).
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, one number happens to be listed incorrectly in the article, leading some lazy skeptics to question the more important percentage numbers, which are correct. The numbers should be
Texans in the bottom 20 percent of income earners — those earning less than $20,900 — pay 13 percent of their income in state and local taxes, while those in the top 1 percent of income earners — those earning $617,900 or more — pay only 3.1 percent.
In California, the bottom 20 percent of income earners — those earning less than $23,200 — pay 10.5 percent in state and local taxes, while the top 1 percent — those earning $714,400 or more — pay 12.4 percent.
The in-your-face conclusion is still correct. Poor people in California pay less in taxes than poor people in Texas, and rich Texans pay less in taxes than rich Californians.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeaaahhh...I really doubt that's factual dude. The top 20% of income earners in CA aren't making $714,400. The top 10% isn't even that high, it sits at about $300k. Top 20% is closer to $165k. But what should really raise a red flag that somebody is trying to pull your strings is the fact that they compare California's top 20% to Texas's top 1%. I don't see a good reason to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
errata in the article, if you check the source it cites ( https://itep.org/whopays-map/ [itep.org] ) the $714,400 figure actually refers to the top 1%.
Re: Democrats (Score:4, Interesting)
They sure know how to run a state.
This was approved by California voters in 2008... when, by the way, the state had a Republican governor.
Re: Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean Arnold? Need I remind you that during his tenure, democrats ran the state at all other levels? While I don't know (or care) what role he had in this, it's pretty naive of you to say "oh...well that was started when a republican was sitting on top of a sea of democrats, so blame republicans".
Re: Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
The OP is blaming an elected official for something by their own admission was passed/approved directly by the voters.
Re: Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
They sure know how to run a state.
This was approved by California voters in 2008... when, by the way, the state had a Republican governor.
Are you really trying to blame a Republican Governor for something passed by the voters?
Please, explain to me how the CA Governor can veto/override a bill passed by the voters? I thought the whole idea of CA's referendum votes was to by-pass elected officials and force government to do the will of the people, as determined by popular vote?
Re: Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
Blessed are the naked emperors who plant shrubs and insist that the power of positive thinking will turn them into giant redwoods.
Re: Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
Essentially the entire path from Bakersfield through to Burbank is a lot of hand-wavy assumptions, similar with the path from Madera to Gilroy, which need to pass through the coastal range, the mountains separating the San Joaquin Valley to the Pacific Coast.
And notice where they're actually building: along the easy part, in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley--where land is flat and lines can be built straight. (At 190mph, the turn radius for a high speed train has to be at least 2.5 miles, which is a serious limitation on routing.)
For the same reason Switzerland doesn't have a high speed rail system.
But somehow the state's leaders assured the voters it was all solved; a few tunnels, a little clever planning, some hand-waving--and you'll have a high speed rail system so fast you can take it from Los Angeles all the way to San Francisco in two hours and twenty minutes, including stops along the way in Bakersfield, Fresno, Madera and Gilroy.
Because there are oh, so many people who would want to travel to Bakersfield, Fresno, Madera and Gilroy.
Meanwhile, a plain ticket from Los Angeles to San Francisco is under a hundred bucks--without massive government subsidizes and without a high speed rail line bisecting the farms of central California, along what one local politician called "that shitty little string of towns along Highway 99."
It's become a political issue, sure. But underneath it all, it was never really about party politics. It was about California thinking we could have a prestige project akin to the high speed rail system in France, despite the practical problems.
Re: Democrats (Score:3)
$100b for a 700 mile rail is $150m/mile. For reference, the TGV which tunnels under the channel between France and England is $22m/mi ($10m/km).
Re: Democrats (Score:2)
And yet despite your snippy post California is not building the way you say they can. Why would that be?
Re: Democrats (Score:5, Informative)
These kinds of trains are often cored in tunnels
Yes, but that dramatically raises the cost.
go visit Japan.
1. Japan's trains are hecka expensive. Japan pays for them with the world's highest national debt. California can't do that, and the Feds won't.
2. Japan has WAY higher population density thru the southern Honshu corridor from Tokyo to Osaka and beyond.
3. Many Japanese families own no car, and there is integrated public transportation at both the departure and destination. Few Californians will take the train to LA because they won't have a car when they get there.
This is a result of politics, and the grift-happy administrations
There is no evidence that California HSR has more than the usual amount of corruption. Most public projects cost three times the initial budget, and this project is in line with that.
The politics are to push a fundamentally flawed design forward until the "sunk-cost" fallacy can be used to keep it going. That is why construction starts in the Central Valley: You build the least useful part first because it would otherwise be most likely canceled. In a few years, politicians will say, "We already built the stupid parts, so we might as well keep going and build the good parts."
Re: Democrats (Score:3)
That all assumes that California politicians are competent. I assure you, that is far from true:
https://www.latimes.com/califo... [latimes.com]
Re: Democrats (Score:3)
For the same reason Switzerland doesn't have a high speed rail system.
The mountain problem is easy to solve. High speed rail in France, Spain and Italy all tunnel through mountains. Building a tunnel there involves much smaller work crews than in the US, so it's much cheaper. All three countries are in earthquake zones as well, as is Japan. Switzerland doesn't have high speed rail because it's small and doesn't take long to get anywhere by a conventional train.
Re: (Score:3)
Please explain how long the proposed CA bullet train will stop at all those cities between SF and LA and maintain "bullet train-like" speeds between SF and LA?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if it works like the Japanese Shinkansen, the train is only in the station for a minute or two. People gather their shit and get ready to get off while the train is approaching the station, and once the doors open people getting off the train do so. Then people wanting to get on do so, having lined up on the platform at the car they are seated in. Then the train leaves, slowly but constantly accelerating, giving people a chance to stow their shit and sit down safely.
And being that the trains run on
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that you think it would be significant in a century technologically is the fucking hilarious part here.
Re: (Score:2)
This just looks like standard American failure really.
There was a time when you guys could build railways across the whole continent, but those days seem to be over. It's sad really.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, when nobody owned any of the property in between point A and B except the native americans and towns grew up AROUND the tracks except for a few key stops. Certainly turned out well for those guys didn't it?
Re:Who could have predicted that. (Score:4, Insightful)
America seems to have decided that building stuff for any sort of public good is just too hard so you've stopped doing it.
Those problems you point out don't stop anybody else from building new rail lines, ask the Japanese.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...
Japan, population density 338 people per square km.
USA, population density 36 people per square km.
Yeah, some things are easier to do when you're crowded...
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, the article is discussing California, which is roughly the same physical size as Japan.
Japan does have about 3x the total population, then again, the rail project was running between the two areas of CA with the highest population densities in the state.
Japan's Shinkansen lines also run for roughly 1,800 miles in Japan, whereas we were simply trying to go a measly 340 miles or so.
Finally, I'd argue that the population density metric doesn't really help your case in this regard, as it would tend t
Re: (Score:2)
...Yeah, when nobody owned any of the property in between point A and B except the native americans...
and you're arguing a denser population makes it easier. It can't be both.
America used to do hard stuff. Now you just invent new ways to fail.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, the article is discussing California, which is roughly the same size as Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gavin does NOT get off that easily on this. He's one of the most politically-connected jerks in the state (nephew of US House Speaker, and San Fran Rep Nancy Pelosi) and at the time of the "high speed rail" debate he was mayor of San Francisco (one of the proposed endpoints to the train line). The thing first went through the state legislature (which is why the arguments pre-date the 2008 ballot initiative), before being put directly to the voters (as Prop 1A). At the time, Gavin was a big supporter, as you can see here [mercurynews.com]. The Mercury News is no right-wing thing.
Two related items to consider:
1. This thing was dishonest from the start. Consider what the voters were promised [ca.gov], and that critics were roundly denounced for claiming it would never be completed anywhere near on-time or on-budget, and never be as capable as promised. The usual, and usually wrong, endorsed it (like the LA Times [latimes.com]) and sources Slashdotters tend to like, like Wired [wired.com] were all supportive. Sometimes, the unpopular, who reject the political consensus and have an eye on history are actually the ones who should be listened to.
2. Newsom has a very poor track record for succeeding at getting things done (other than winning elections). At the same time the voters of CA were being conned into supporting the rail project, Newsom was Mayor of San Francisco (a Totally Democrat-run city ... so, no, you cannot blame his failures on the GOP) and he was touting his plan to end homelessness within 10 years [twitter.com]. Look fast, the vid is on Twitter, and the dirtbags there censor truthful stuff that disagrees with the politics of their "woke" employees...
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the photo of him on his Wikipedia page I'm assuming he has a bunch of dead teenagers buried in his back yard.
You guys should get a better system so you wouldn't have to put up with this sort of rubbish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, yes. The USA used to do big projects because there was collective interest in getting them done. Things like the Hoover Dam or the transcontinental railway. Or WW2 projects to produce aircraft and ships at rates not seen since.
But looking at this project is seems the current focus is how much can be liberated from the public budget into select private hands. Whether there is any benefit for the rest of us is irrelevant. But that is very much the focus of these troubled times.
Re: (Score:3)
(1) eats up $1T annually... imagine what could be done with that if it was used in other programs...
Re: (Score:2)
(1) needs to exist as long as other countries want to conquer the world. We are almost to the point that we don't need a serious military, and we get closer every year.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the tens of billions we're spending on prolonging an unwinnable war in the Ukraine
What is unwinnable? Ukraine is rolling over the Russian army.
has us on the brink of nuclear annihilation,
If Russia is going to use nuclear weapons, appeasement won't stop them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
China did build that fancy system, and guess what? It's been operating on the red since. [youtube.com] It makes no financial sense, it can't even cover its operating costs, much less ever pay back its massive construction costs.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh really?
30 minutes to get to the airport. You need to be at the airport at least an hour before the flight (I like to live dangerously, you might want more), the fight takes another 1.5 hours, then another 15 minutes for taxiing, and generously 15 minutes to get out of the terminal if you have no luggage. 30 minutes to get downtown.
I love planes and enjoy flying even Ryanair but at these distances it's a no brainer.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh really?
30 minutes to get to the airport. You need to be at the airport at least an hour before the flight (I like to live dangerously, you might want more), the fight takes another 1.5 hours, then another 15 minutes for taxiing, and generously 15 minutes to get out of the terminal if you have no luggage. 30 minutes to get downtown.
That last problem is a big one. You can't realistically build an airport in a major city's downtown area, because planes need a large area with low building height limits on either side. So unless you want it to waste a long time getting from the airport to downtown, you're going to want an underground or elevated high-speed rail line underground to the downtown area. And because that goes through the city, that's the stretch of track that's likely to cost you the most per mile to build (assuming no moun