their hole is shallower but still a hole, and they've pretty much destroyed the advantages of their once-magnificent, free/low-cost education system that was the foundation of their success from the 50s to the 2000s.http://www.economist.com/news/leader...inous-promises
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...close-gap.html
http://www.contracostatimes.com/edit...s-must-address
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/28/537...gislature.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb...ornia-20130224
I hope this meets the RG threshold for media cites.
A discussion of California is particularly germane considering the trumpeting of their budget successes over the last few months.
The US is a currency issuer of a non-convertible fiat currency, has a floating exchange rate, and incurs no debts in any currency except US dollars. So, the US Government can issue whatever financial resources it needs to carry out its obligations without raising any solvency issues. The only problems involved in carrying out these obligations are problems of political will, not problems of financial incapacity, which is why, from an economic point of view, they are faux problems.
Except we are talking about a sub-unit of the US that doesn't issue it's own currency.
States and cities operate under more constraints.
That said, the US government should be throwing some serious $$ at the states, so that we can collectively leverage our economic union's strengths to build the infrastructure that just about every expert on the subject is saying we desperately need.
Yes, I know that re the states/cites. I thought it was obvious were I was going, but thanks anyhoo.
100 million....yikes...who was it?
Feinstein's husband.
California can go back to Mexico.
RG, the high speed rail is an absolute waste of money. No way around it. The people were duped when the first voted for it and Brown knew it and hurried along the first phase before the gov money was withdrawn.
LA to San Francisco is a pipe dream, it will never get that far along before the project is shut down. You'll basically have a high speed train zipping around in hole central Cali.
TSA it is sad that a state like Cali with its resources is broke. If they quit wasting money they would be rolling like Texas.
Give me a reasonable cost/benefit analysis, and I might agree with you.
Air travel as a whole is projected to bump into some serious capacity constraints, and I can give you some background articles on that if you wish.
Here is a start:
http://www.faa.gov/airports/resource.../NAS_needs.pdf
How is this any different than spending an equivalent amount of money on airports? roads?
You didn't actually read the OP did you?
(shakes head)
It isn't broke, that is the point, goober.
I smell forwarded email bull .Right-wing bloggers have had a glorious time bashing California Senator Dianne Feinstein for months over the blatant crony capitalism of having the front-runner for the state’s first big high-speed rail contract be principally controlled by her husband, financier Richard Blum.
The only problem: Feinstein’s office says Blum has no financial ties to the company in question, Sylmar-based Tutor Perini Corp.
U-T San Diego cited an unnamed aide in the senator’s office as asserting that neither Blum nor companies he controls maintain any financial investment in or affiliation with Tutor Perini.
While there are literally hundreds of stories online castigating Feinstein for Blum’s alleged control of Perini—the word “alleged” is never in them—there are admittedly few mentions, like this Forbes story in March 2007 or this story, that Blum had sold his stake. Blum first became involved with what is now Tutor Perini in 1998 when he joined with Ronald Tutor to help recapitalize the troubled company. He reportedly sold his stock at a substantial profit in 2005.
You can prove this right? It should be relatively straightforward to do so.
TSA not a conservative
People here in CA actually use airports and roads.
Unsh ingly, since it is a publicly traded company, I just straight up confirmed it is bull that the contract "was awarded to Feinsteins husband".U-T San Diego cited an unnamed aide in the senator’s office as asserting that neither Blum nor companies he controls maintain any financial investment in or affiliation with Tutor Perini.
While there are literally hundreds of stories online castigating Feinstein for Blum’s alleged control of Perini—the word “alleged” is never in them—there are admittedly few mentions, like this Forbes story in March 2007 or this story, that Blum had sold his stake. Blum first became involved with what is now Tutor Perini in 1998 when he joined with Ronald Tutor to help recapitalize the troubled company. He reportedly sold his stock at a substantial profit in 2005.
http://investor.perini.com/phoenix.z..._selectgroup=5
On December 20, 2005, they sold 85% of their shares in the company. (the form 4 is dated the 21st) This dropped Blum Capital Partners below the threshold for further reporting (10% ownership).
While I cannot confirm the remaining 15% were disposed of in this manner, I can say it is a good possibility that they were disposed of, liklely in my opinion.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-14-2013 at 01:16 PM.
What data do you have on high-speed rail usage?
I'm not on any email list. Just what I've read/heard living here. Never really looked into it so you could be right. That isn't really the issue here though, the issue is a project that's projected budget has risen every single year, for a service that isn't worth it, especially considering it's slim chance of ever reaching completion.
http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...ys-high-stakes
California high-speed rail faces delays as high-stakes trial begins Friday
By Mike Rosenberg
[email protected]
mercurynews.com
Posted: 05/31/2013 07:16:21 AM PDT
May 31, 2013 2:16 PM GMTUpdated: 05/31/2013 07:16:26 AM PDT
SACRAMENTO -- High-speed rail officials acknowledged Thursday that they almost certainly won't break ground on the $69 billion project as planned in July after hitting some last-minute bumps in the road. And even more delays are possible as a court battle begins that could wipe out voters' approval of the bullet train.
On Friday morning, opponents from the Bay Area and Central Valley, led by the former chairman of the project, will begin arguing in Sacramento Superior Court that the train has run so far off-track that a judge should take the extraordinary step of hitting the brakes on construction plans. They want to invalidate the $10 billion bond measure voters approved in November 2008 because the project has since doubled in cost while ridership estimates have dwindled and ticket price projections have shot up.
What's more, Gov. Jerry Brown and other Democratic heavyweights are hurriedly lobbying an obscure federal agency to approve high-speed rail construction -- an unexpected obstacle that also threatens to slow the bullet train. And the state must soon finish navigating a delicate process to award the first lucrative construction bid and buy out several unhappy property owners along the route.
"We certainly know that there are challenges that we're facing, but we've been able to make significant progress," said Annie Parker, a spokeswoman for the California High-Speed Rail Authority, noting that the agency has in recent months
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
swatted away other lawsuits and identified a preferred contractor to build the first segment near Madera.
The project is already a year behind schedule. But Parker said they hope bulldozers will reach the Central Valley by late summer.
Further delays, however, could jeopardize $3 billion in funding from the federal government, which has required that the first leg of construction be finished by September 2017. More delays could also push back the start of initial Merced-to-San Fernando Valley service targeted for the end of this decade.
Opponents say they don't see construction starting anytime soon.
"It's a fiction to say, 'Oh, maybe late summer.' They don't know," said former state Sen. Quentin Kopp of San Francisco, the rail authority's former longtime chairman who has turned against the project and is the star witness in the upcoming trial. "They're going to have a heck of a time with all these legal obstacles."
The most pressing matter right now is the trial beginning Friday that questions the legality of the voter-approved bond measure, Proposition 1A.
The rail authority argues that it is carrying out the will of the voters, starting with $1 billion to lay the groundwork upon which the first
Artist's conception of high-speed train in the Transbay Terminal (NC3D)tracks will be laid.
But there are several provisions within the voter-approved bond act that opponents argue have not been met, such as securing enough money and environmental clearances before starting to build a project that currently has a $55 billion shortfall. Also in dispute are provisions of the bond act guaranteeing the train will run without a taxpayer subsidy and that it can speed between San Francisco and Los Angeles in 2 hours and 40 minutes.
"We want to make sure that we as Californians don't end up with something we didn't ask for," said Kings County rail opponent Aaron Fukuda, one of two people joining the county in the suit.
Opponents fear the state won't be able to find the rest of the money needed to build the full rail line, leaving the first $6 billion, 130-mile stretch of track approved last year by Brown and the Legislature as an abandoned eyesore.
The rail authority declined to comment on the case, but it has managed for five years to repeatedly sidestep other lawsuits that have focused on the negative environmental impacts of the bullet train.
Still, the Bay Area attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the latest case note that this is the first time anyone has gone to court to challenge the 2008 bond measure.
"This is not the terminator, (but) if we win on Friday, it will certainly stall this project for a while," said Oakland-based attorney Stuart Flashman, lead attorney for the plaintiffs.
"I think our case is ... potentially a real blockbuster in terms of testing the validity of this project," said Redwood City-based co-counsel Mike Brady.
A ruling on the latest legal showdown is not expected until next week at the earliest. But even if the state wins, it faces more obstacles.
First among them is a bureaucratic review recently filed with the federal Surface Transportation Board, made up of three presidential appointees used to dealing with small freight projects.
The board must approve all new railroad projects in the country before construction can begin and can take months or even years to make rulings. But despite the bullet train's long-planned groundbreaking, California only filed for approval in March after being prompted by opponents led by House railroad committee Chairman Jeff Denham, R-Modesto.
While 13 Republican House members have lobbied against federal approval, Brown and U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein have quietly asked for an exemption from the federal agency's lengthy review process. And a ruling is expected within the next two weeks.
Parker, the rail authority's spokeswoman, said officials aren't sweating out the federal review. "I wouldn't say there is a high anxiety level," she said.
The rail authority next week is expected to begin negotiations with Sylmar-based Tutor Perini on the first $985 million construction contract, which is expected to take several weeks. And the authority must buy up 345 parcels along the bullet train path before building -- and property owners that refuse will force the state into an eminent domain legal process that typically takes months.
"The status of this project," Fukuda said, "is that it's fighting to keep itself moving forward."
I'd kill for a high speed rail line from SA to Dallas with stops in Austin Waco, etc. That is the absolute worst drive. SWA wouldn't allow the compe ion but I sure would use it.
Here is the best I could find. Pretty damn detailed.
Full cost of high speed rail: an engineering approach
http://nexus.umn.edu/papers/HighSpeedRail.pdf
In summary, high-speed rail is the costliest of the three modes we examined,
largely because of its high capital costs relative to the number of anticipated
riders. It has the highest costs to the service provider, presumably the
state of California, because other modes spread their costs among private sector
owners and operators of vehicles and parts of the infrastructure system.
Conclusion
It is doubtful that without considerable subsidy high-speed rail could be
constructed, much less profitable in California. These subsidies are anticipated
to be higher than those required in other countries. The conditions in
Europe and Japan during the early stages of high-speed rail are significantly
different than most parts of the United States. Land uses are denser
and cities are closer together. Furthermore, constraints on federal spending
in the 1990’s hinder the development of new infrastructure. A last key distinction
is that the regulated transportation sectors in Japan and Europe prevented
compe ion from air travel to the same degree as in the United
States when the HSR lines were planned and deployed. Had air travel been
deregulated and privatized at the time, the decision to proceed with highspeed
rail, particularly in Europe, may have been different. As an illustration
of this, Southwest Airlines is a major opponent of high-speed rail in
Texas (Krumm 1994). As with all rail modes, there is a significant amount
of inflexibility associated with the system design. The high-speed networks
are limited, and the rails require very specific vehicles. Compared with the
greater flexibility afforded the untracked air travel system or the ubiquitous
highway system, high-speed rail faces serious difficulties.
However, should such a system be built, it can be expected to increase
the commuter sheds of both the San Francisco Bay area and Los Angeles
to include Central Valley cities. A one hour commute, while on the long
end of acceptable, would now be much farther away through the use of local
high-speed trains. On the other hand, total travel between the two metropoles
would likely increase very little, since the time and cost savings of
even non-stop high-speed rail against the existing frequent air service from
the three Bay area and five Los Angeles airports are minimal.
It is germane, but the problem Fox "news" noted is not unique to California.http://www.economist.com/news/leader...inous-promises
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...close-gap.html
http://www.contracostatimes.com/edit...s-must-address
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/28/537...gislature.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb...ornia-20130224
I hope this meets the RG threshold for media cites.
A discussion of California is particularly germane considering the trumpeting of their budget successes over the last few months.
Given that Cali got shockingly realistic and solved their budget foibles temporarily gives me hope that other things can be fixed, as the pension funds need to be.
The guy who did it though was a Democrat, and that is, to me, very important.
I dont' see Republicans in general as giving their leaders enough leeway to actually do things like this. Considering raising taxes is heresy, and anyone who even hints at it gets burned at the stake, figuratively.
I think centrists of conscience have left the GOP and will continue to do so.
But that could simply be my own version of confirmation bias.
hmmm. 1997 = prior to the TSA pat downs, and well before the 2003 air travel capacity study.
Useful as a starting metric, but I think enough has happened in the intervening to change somoe of their starting assumptions.
Given the overall congestion on both airports and California freeways, it becomes tenuous to suggest that this will not require any more subsidies than any other mode of travel.This research employed demand forecasts for the California Corridor (Leavitt
et al. 1993; Vaca et al. 1994). Because the cost estimates are integrally
related to demand, some discussion of demand is warranted. The method
for forecasting which provides the results reported here was based on growing
existing air and highway ridership to the year 2010, and then apportioning
the trips between the three modes, including the new mode of highspeed
rail, air and highway, based on a logit mode choice model.
The logit model structure selected was a multinomial choice model with
three choices representing the three modes. The factors considered were (1)
access, egress and terminal time for air and high-speed rail, (2) travel time
by each mode, (3) the cost or fare of each mode, and (4) the service headway
of air and rail. The coefficients for each factor were the same across
modes, while the data varied by mode and origin-destination market. Detailed
results are shown in an end note1.
The model was estimated on air and highway modes on the Caltrans
state model 1987 networks and automobile vehicle trip tables, and the 1992
CalSpeed Air Passenger Survey. Air trips were grown at 3% per year,
which is consistent with other studies (Vaca 1994) to obtain 2010 forecasts,
auto trips were forecasted by the Caltrans Statewide model.
People just don't like this, beacuse it is big and up front.
Just like in health care, we want the full costs buried in annual budget and piecemeal bond issues, IMO.
Pick one, pick the other. You still need to spend the money, and the people opposing this have already shown a streak of intellectual dishonesty.
I'm sure that having a Dem accomplish this is very important to you. Go Go Team Red!
I agree, centrists have completely vacated the GOP which is, I hope, an important step in the eventual collapse of the party. Let the social retrogrades form their own party, or failing that, let them have the corpse of the GOP and let's see what the fiscal concervatives/centrists can put together.
Last edited by TeyshaBlue; 06-14-2013 at 02:08 PM.
As have those that are in favor of it.
People don't like it because it has changed drastically since they voted for it. That was the most detailed report I could find for you. Have you found anything saying the high speed rail will be beneficial to CA?
This not only is incredibly naive but moreso its flat out stupid.
Infrastructure is no more luxury than a commuter car so you can get to work. That is what roads primarily do. Even for vacation drivers it means tourism dollars for the destination. It is the embodiment of the transfer of goods and services.
So you think you should save up for a car before you get one to drive to work and rather take a cab?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote