The State of California is in debt up to its eyeballs. Public services are being drastically cut (and in some cases removed all together), schools are being forced shut early, the state can't pay its bills (its credit rating is not much above "junk bond" level) and its creditors have balked at lending any more money.

Yet the California legislature approved financing for the multi-billion dollar high-speed rail line that is supposed to connect San Francisco with Los Angeles.

Voting 21-16, mostly along party lines, the California Senate approved the sale of $4.5 billion in state bonds, including $2.6 billion to build the initial 130-mile stretch in the Central Valley. This allows California to collect another $3.2 billion from the Obama administration, federal dollars that could have been rescinded if the lawmakers failed to act.

Citing California's ongoing budget woes - and the project is not in this year's budget - Republicans were quick to blast the decision.

"It's unfortunate that the majority would rather spend billions of dollars that we don't have for a train to nowhere than keep schools open and harmless from budget cuts."

Democrats, Gov. Jerry Brown, and labor groups (of course) loudly praised the decision. Claiming the project is needed to create jobs in a region with higher-than-average unemployment, Brown said:

"The Legislature took bold action today that gets Californians back to work and puts California out in front once again."

Republicans remained skeptical.

"It will require endless subsidies and will blast a massive hole in the budget," said Senator Ted Gaines.

In 2008, California voters did approve the sale of $10 billion in bonds to finance the project - but the final cost of the project is $68 billion - if it doesn't overrun estimates (remember Massachusetts' "Big Dig"?) And recent polls show that public approval for Brown's move to "temporarily" raise state sales and income taxes would slip dramatically if lawmakers approved the funding for high-speed rail.

Joe Simitian, one of the few California Democrats who is against the project, is worried about the future.

""Is there additional commitment of federal funds? There is not. Is there additional commitment of private funding? There is not. Is there a dedicated funding source that we can look to in the coming years? There is not"

www.google.com . . .

www.foxnews.com . . .

www.orovillemr.com . . .

www.mercurynews.com . . .

Comment: Tellingly, the four Democrats who voted against the project are the same four Democrats who sit on the High-Speed Rail oversight committee.

told ya. Now, where MichaelIE?

I posted elsewhere on a train-related thread about how I just bought a pair of airline tickets for me and my wife to fly from San Diego to northern California.

$78 each way for each of us to fly over 500 miles each way. Flight time about 1.5 hours each way.

How is the train ever going to compete with that?

I don't think I ever got an answer on the other thread from the pro-train EU Army types.

We should start a pool on the overrun predictions. They say it will cost 68 billion. I bet it will be more like 95 billion.

JacquesOff wrote:

We should start a pool on the overrun predictions. They say it will cost 68 billion. I bet it will be more like 95 billion.

No siree. General principle is take original 'estimate' and multiple by 3.

If it is controlled by unions and is going to be a dog pile of corruption and mismanagement take original estimate and multiply by factor 5.

If it is Kaltard idiots and Sacramento pols take original estimate and toss out the window as it will be unqauntifiable.

Johnny_Ola wrote:

$78 each way for each of us to fly over 500 miles each way. Flight time about 1.5 hours each way.

How is the train ever going to compete with that?

I bought last month a 1st class iDTGV Marseille > Paris ticket, a distance of 783 km (489 miles) for my son for €25 ($31). My own fare was €50 ($62). Three hours, from city center to city center, watching the scenery goes by at 290 kph (182 mph) in a great seat with plenty of space for your laptop etc.

How are the airline ever going to compete with that?

1. This project will never be completed.

2. It will cost over $150 billion to never be completed.

3. Somehow, someway the republicans will be blamed for the cost overruns and it never being completed.

4. Kalifornia is what the entire USA will look like if 0bama gets a second term.

WilyB wrote:

Johnny_Ola wrote:

$78 each way for each of us to fly over 500 miles each way. Flight time about 1.5 hours each way.

How is the train ever going to compete with that?

I bought last month a 1st class iDTGV Marseille > Paris ticket, a distance of 783 km (489 miles) for my son for €25 ($31). My own fare was €50 ($62). Three hours, from city center to city center, watching the scenery goes by at 290 kph (182 mph) in a great seat with plenty of space for your laptop etc.

How are the airline ever going to compete with that?

Let's get back to reality wily... have you seen the vast majority of the area that this train will run thru? The central valley area / desert is not scenic. It will be quicker to fly that ride the train. They were better off pushing the link between LA and Las Vegas. You would have better odds for a steady funding base. Same deal here though, you can from from BUR to LAS for dirt cheap on South West.

It will cost more than $30 USD to pay for the nut on this boon-doggle. Factor in the bond repayment and overhead, unless the citizens of Kommifornia want to subsidize john and jane citizens tickets.

We are so fucked in this state. God help us because the politicians won't.

This is the worst idea ever. Who is going to use this?

I've lived in California for almost 35 years. We have cars. We have airports. We have Metrolink trains that lose money. We have Amtrak trains that lose money.

I go from the LA area to the bay area probably 3 times a year. I usually drive. When I'm there I want my vehicle. If I wanted to fly I could for $150 RT per person. I guess a train would be cool if I need to go within walking distance or a cab ride of the train station. If not I'd want to rent a car for $75 - $100 a day. Fuck that, I'll drive like I always do. You do 80+ through the central valley... it takes a little over 6 hours.

What about the people that don't have money for a plane ticket or don't have a car? Who doesn't have a car? immigrants FOB or just over the border? They're not traveling... they don't even leave their neighborhood EVER. They're not going to San Fransicko for the weekend.

I used to commute to work on the Metrolink. I stopped because it took so long. You drive to the station (15 minutes), get there early so you don't miss the train (10 minutes) + take the train ride (40 minutes if it's not delayed, which it is at least 15% of the time, up to several hours) + walk to my office (20 minutes). At best it's an hour and 25 minutes. Or I could drive and do it in a little over an hour. I crack up every morning... there's an electronic sign on the freeway that let's you know that to downtown LA from Buena Park on the freeway it's 45 minutes - to downtown from the Buena Park Metrolink station it's also 45 minutes... but that's once you get on the train. So you could drive the 5 minutes off the freeway to the station, park up to a half mile away (there's is almost no parking at that station so people park on the street and half to do it from a long way away) just so you can ride a train? LMAO. Then what on the other side? Take the light rail? Walk? Pfft.

Worst idea ever. It's not something that's needed. It's an ego stroke for the politicians in Sacramento. It's a jerkoff.

RockoftheMarne wrote:

We are so fucked in this state. God help us because the politicians won't.

You're not kidding.

I'm thinking of moving my business out of Orange County to the IE. Originally I was going to buy a building (9K - 12K sq ft) but when I look around at all the empty buildings I'd be crazy to buy. what will happen when I outgrow that building? I won't be able to lease it. If there's a huge amount of empty buildings now, how much worse will it be in 10 years? It's a wonder I'm not considering moving to AZ.

The State of California is in debt up to its eyeballs. Public services are being drastically cut (and in some cases removed all together), schools are being forced shut early, the state can't pay its bills (its credit rating is not much above "junk bond" level) and its creditors have balked at lending any more money.

Yet the California legislature approved financing for the multi-billion dollar high-speed rail line that is supposed to connect San Francisco with Los Angeles.

The Democrats in California (and everywhere else, for that matter) live in some kind of fantasy world.

I have some experience with rail transport. From what I know there is not one passenger railway in the world that is not subsidized. Except for the toursit RR from Cusco to Macchu Picchu and that is becasue they 1) charge outrageous fares ($50 or more for 130+- kilometers) and 2) there is no road.
Everwhere else, esp. Europe there are large subsidies without which the costs would be much higher.

At least the CA airlines are unsubsidized.

We knew this was coming. California is probably beyond repair, at least for the next 50 years now. I may have to give more serious consideration to my AZ move plan. Ground passenger transportation in California is bullshit. If you don't have a car in CA you simply should not be here.

It never ceases to amaze me how many rat holes these California politicians can find to throw money down that they don't have.

Today Stockton, tomorrow the entire state.

Goodbye, California. It was nice while it lasted.

. . . . .

.

... so this high-speed rail is going into the California Central Valley, where several years ago Obama's EPA cut off water to a once lush and productive area, where farmers have lost everything just to save a fucking minnow (snail darter)?

But not to worry. ... This extravagant multi-billion dollar boondoggle to a now-arid central valley wasteland will be paid for from income taxes of millions of "undocumented" beaners. ... Should be lots of paying riders between L.A. and barren sand. ... Good idea.



.

Last stop is Vegas.

Nice!

Because California is doing so well, it wants to stimulate adjacent economies.

And if you wear a government approved watch...it will always be on time.

The money should be used to beef up border security...

& the drug cartels and gangs need stopping long before any rail needs building, or it will be just another way to do drug runs.

lookanlearn wrote:

The money should be used to beef up border security...

& the drug cartels and gangs need stopping long before any rail needs building, or it will be just another way to do drug runs.

So your contention is that we need to beef up the boarder or the cartels and gangs will use the LA to San Francisco train to smuggle drugs across the border?

Moonbeam and the Spendocrat party are fucking idiots, very much like the french.

Fuck france

JacquesOff wrote:

lookanlearn wrote:

The money should be used to beef up border security...

& the drug cartels and gangs need stopping long before any rail needs building, or it will be just another way to do drug runs.

So your contention is that we need to beef up the boarder or the cartels and gangs will use the LA to San Francisco train to smuggle drugs across the border?

You are so illiterate, I don`t know where to begin...

Are you like twelve or something?

JacquesOff wrote:

lookanlearn wrote:

The money should be used to beef up border security...

& the drug cartels and gangs need stopping long before any rail needs building, or it will be just another way to do drug runs.

So your contention is that we need to beef up the boarder or the cartels and gangs will use the LA to San Francisco train to smuggle drugs across the border?

So the trains are really for high speed weed?

Well . . . maybe it's not such a bad idea . . .