High speed rail for california? One group thinks so! (San Diego: rent, living)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

what is there to realize? 10 years on the San Francisco BART does not work for you?
middle class transport will not be allowed ----it will be crashed by ghetto users and ghetto behavior asap. ameicans will not leave their cars for security reasons, anymore than the chosen few in france will leave their cars.

are you trying to say middle class people don't use public transport?> B/c that is not true at all, even in Southern CA. BART attracts many middle class and high income earners. Plenty of people who make over $100 to 200k use BART on a daily basis. The majority of riders on Metrolink and the Coaster in SD are middle to upper middle class patrons. Even on MUNI in SF many of the riders are middle class. That assertion that only poor people use transit seems to be really prevalent in the minds of many Southern Californians and its kind of sad.

[sav858]

Also some people don't really seem to understand what this whole HSR project is about and seem to have a lot of misconceptions about it. So before some people start going off about it they should at least learn and educate yourself on it.

California High-Speed Rail

[Huckleberry3911948]

Originally Posted by sav858

are you trying to say middle class people don't use public transport?> B/c that is not true at all, even in Southern CA. BART attracts many middle class and high income earners. Plenty of people who make over $100 to 200k use BART on a daily basis. The majority of riders on Metrolink and the Coaster in SD are middle to upper middle class patrons. Even on MUNI in SF many of the riders are middle class. That assertion that only poor people use transit seems to be really prevalent in the minds of many Southern Californians and its kind of sad.

dear friend
yes it is kind of sad. have you ever been mugged on the BART?
just asking. until it happens not riding public transport
seems sort of silly.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

dear friend
yes it is kind of sad. have you ever been mugged on the BART?
just asking. until it happens not riding public transport
seems sort of silly.

NO, I've never had an issue on BART, Muni, The SD Trolley, the Coaster, and all the rail lines in LA including the Blue Line and Green Line, which go through some of the worst urban areas in CA. I'm about as concerned as getting mugged on public transport as I am being carjacked or randomly shot on a freeway, it happens but rarely to most people.

[krudmonk]

It seems like a large majority of the doubters are treating this as some sort of luxury toy. Transportation is a constant in human existence. Money will always be spent on it. Right now, we are analyzing how to spend it wisely. The much-traveled Bay-LA corridor is in need of this as it serves literally millions of people. These dollars will otherwise go to the increased upkeep up freeways serving the same purpose, albeit much more slowly.

Also, with regard to safety, this is highly preferable to 80MPH sleep-deprived truckers in tule fog.

[missionhome]

Also, compare the quality and comfort of a train to flying:
You can have a high speed trains' comfortable chairs and a table to put your stuff on (this is Eurostar):


Or you can sit in the limited legroom on an airplane with people essentially sitting on your lap (this is a United 757):


You can depart from a place like Los Angeles Union Station and relax in comfortable leather chairs in a pretty Spanish building before departure:


Or again you can go sit on other people in the crowd at LAX airport in uncomfortable chairs and wait one hour to get through security.


Or you can drive through hundreds of miles of farms and fight trucks on a overcrowded two lane road like Interstate 5:



You tell me which one looks nicer

[EscapeCalifornia]

What makes you think there would be no security on a train, no crowds waiting to board, no $20/day parking at the train station, and huge seats on the train? More seats = lower operating cost per seat. Why wouldn't they just cram as many people on as possible the way the airlines do? Unless of course it a government subsidized thing where no one cares what it costs to operate because the taxpayer makes up the difference. In that case, don't complain about the 1% train tax they'll eventually tack onto the state sales tax.

[jkbatca]

In better times, the train proposition might have been nice, but not now! First of all, from all the travels I've done between LA and SanFran, I didn't see enough people to warrant such a large project. This is doomed to be another taxpayer subsidized transportation mode, just like all other trains. Second of all...

We're BROKE! B.R.O.K.E. Broke. Can't afford it. Not enough money to go around. Drowning in debt.

California is billions in debt, the country is 11 trillion in debt. I swear California's motto should be "I'm broke? I still have checks!"

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by jkbatca

This is doomed to be another taxpayer subsidized transportation mode, just like all other trains.

[Trains], just another "doomed ... taxpayer subsidized transportation mode" -- just like roads, airports and harbors. Taxpayers subsidize car-and-driver, trucking, airlines and shipping companies. So what's new? Rail freight is possibly the only transportation mode that's truly free-market as the rails, land they sit on and rolling stock are all private. (Sure can't say that for trucking, though I'm a huge proponent of privatizing roads vis-a-vis trucks.)

But actually, the LOSSAN passenger rail corridor (San Luis Obispo - L.A. - San Diego) sustains itself with passenger fares. The corridor moves something like 5 or 6 million people a year.

Probably THE most expensive and inefficient transportation model is car-driver and tax-subsidized roads. And, no, fuel taxes and registration fees alone to not pay for the roads. Roads are hugely subsidized by the general fund and property taxes.

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by cre8

[Trains], just another "doomed ... taxpayer subsidized transportation mode" -- just like roads, airports and harbors. Taxpayers subsidize car-and-driver, trucking, airlines and shipping companies. So what's new?

For as much as the road funds are raided by the Assembly and how little is left over, you get to move a LOT more people with roads than railroads. Shipping? A HUGE amount of our economy depends upon it, so we're getting a LOT more out of it than sinking a ton of money into a mode of transportation with such a narrow purpose (LA to SanFran). ESPECIALLY when we cannot afford it now, anyways! Who's going to benefit from a high speed rail from LA to SanFran? I'm certainly not.

Originally Posted by cre8

But actually, the LOSSAN passenger rail corridor (San Luis Obispo - L.A. - San Diego) sustains itself with passenger fares. The corridor moves something like 5 or 6 million people a year.

Uh, LOSSAN is nothing more than a conglomerate of various rail districts SANDAG :: PROJECTS :: San Diego's Regional Planning Agency, all of them get lots and lots of gov't money, so I'd have to see exact numbers to believe it's "self sustaining". Direct substantitive links please. Metrolink? Amtrak? Self sustaining? Are you kidding? Also, not all is as rosy as it seems in LOSSAN land Rail Passenger Association of California & Nevada :: THE BALKANIZATION OF LOSSAN: A Commentary

Originally Posted by cre8

Probably THE most expensive and inefficient transportation model is car-driver and tax-subsidized roads. And, no, fuel taxes and registration fees alone to not pay for the roads. Roads are hugely subsidized by the general fund and property taxes.

I'm not going to argue that roads are efficient in terms of fuel used. They aren't. But this proposition is not going to buy us much, it's a blank check, and my original assertion that we cannot afford it still is valid... We're still broke. We still cannot afford this.