califuckingfornia

[glassgowkiss]

No wonder the rest of the world hates you:

Bullte in their heads!

this makes sense only in califuckingfornia. Fast train is polluting and unsafe. Driving in bumper to bumper traffic on a 7 lane freeway at 70 mph is safer and less polluting. GET A FRIGGIN CLUE!

[jjd]

Because what we need down here is to spend EVEN MORE MONEY, this time on a neat little train that few people will ride and will do nothing to alleviate the traffic problems we have.

This state is FUCKING BROKE. Yeah, that's a great idea, build a train.

[ivan]

shelbyville has a mono-rail!

[AlpineK]

What was that old saying? Oh yeah

 

Takes money to make money.

 

Yeah big highways work for awhile, but eventually ya gotta bight the bullet and add other transportation options. Thankfully I'm not a CA resident. Kemper Freeman and Tim Eyman are enough of a problem.

 

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/kemper-freemans-road-rage/Content?oid=10480022

 

Didn't the former property owners of Bellevue Square have their property confiscated and find themselves in an internment camp.

 

Hmmm.

[jjd]

There's a big difference between light rail and the high speed rail project in California. The high speed rail is supposed to link northern and southern California. That travel is not the source of traffic congestion, it's commuter traffic in the metro areas. The projections from the California High Speed Rail Authority are a joke - the system will end up losing a helluva lot of money, not make it.

[ivan]

sure wish there was a bullet-train connecting seatle-portland to yosemite

[AlpineK]

Like I said, I'm thankful to not live in California. A trip to Yosemite every now and then is OK, but 24-7 would suck

[rob]

california would be OK if all the californians went someplace else

[prole]

Love it down here. LA is an honest to God paradise. I cant imagine living anywhere else.

[Choada_Boy]

"I blame......society."

[glassgowkiss]

There's a big difference between light rail and the high speed rail project in California. The high speed rail is supposed to link northern and southern California. That travel is not the source of traffic congestion, it's commuter traffic in the metro areas. The projections from the California High Speed Rail Authority are a joke - the system will end up losing a helluva lot of money, not make it.

And this represents the pinnacle of stupid thinking. Now for one: why does it have to make directly money? Do fire departments, police also have to be profitable? And talking about losing money: how about our fucking military! now that is 680 billion dollars of waste. And how do you account in "losing money" category for asthma treatment, lung cancer, long term care for injured motorists, paying for response teams attending accidents several times a day? Who do you think pays for all of it dipstick?

[ZimZam]

"I blame......society."

 

[video:youtube]

[jjd]

And this represents the pinnacle of stupid thinking. Now for one: why does it have to make directly money? Do fire departments, police also have to be profitable? And talking about losing money: how about our fucking military! now that is 680 billion dollars of waste. And how do you account in "losing money" category for asthma treatment, lung cancer, long term care for injured motorists, paying for response teams attending accidents several times a day? Who do you think pays for all of it dipstick?

 

It needs to make money (or at least break even) because:

 

a) the law that the people of California voted on to approve the project stipulated that it WOULD NOT REQUIRE A SUBSIDY

 

and

 

b) California is BROKE.

 

Police and fire services do not (outside of a hypothetical anarcho-libertarian society) generate revenues directly, trains do. And I don't think trains and emergency services belong in the same category of government services anyway.

 

The military is funded by the federal government, we are talking about high speed rail that will be subsidized by CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS ONLY. And I'm quite certain that the cost of this thing is way higher than asthma treatments and all the other shit you listed. Not to mention the fact that only some of those things you listed are paid for by tax dollars.

 

And again, the rail project is to link parts of the state a few hundred miles apart. It has nothing to do with local commutes where the vast majority of accidents take place. I think you should work on some basic critical thinking and reading comprehension skills before calling someone a dipstick.

[jjd]

california would be OK if all the californians went someplace else

 

I agree. Maybe we should all move to Washington.

[shaoleung]

Seattle's really takes the cake with grumpy assholes though. It's probably cuz of the rain. I went to LA last week and it's like Sesame Street down there compared with Seattle.

 

... but on the other hand... any opposition to public transport is myopic and ignorant.

[j_b]

If turning out a direct profit were a pre-requisite, not only would there be no public mass transit but we wouldn't have a highway system. Even airlines have to be periodically bailed out by taxpayers.

[rob]

If turning out a direct profit were a pre-requisite ... we wouldn't have a highway system.

 

[sobo]

...any opposition to public transport is myopic and ignorant.

Do you really believe a blanket statement like that? OK, let's get a fleet of dirigibles to run around the Seattle Metro Area to alleviate rush hour gridlock, to be paid for by taxpayers. That's not a myopic solution to the public transport problem, now is it?

 

I'm with jjd. This north/south bullet train is a huge waste of money that hardly anyone will use, it won't reduce metro area traffic congestion one iota, and it will cost billion$.

[rob]

OK, let's get a fleet of dirigibles to run around the Seattle Metro Area to alleviate rush hour gridlock, to be paid for by taxpayers.

 

That sounds pretty cool. I'm in.

[jjd]

I'm not sure I agree that we would have no public mass transit, actually. I think it depends on the location. I definitely disagree that we wouldn't have a highway system - there are too many examples of private toll roads for that argument to stick.

 

But whether the highway system was a good idea or not really isn't relevant to whether a high speed train is going to be a good idea. The rail project doesn't even come close to providing a net economic benefit.

 

Airlines should not be bailed out.

[shaoleung]

OK, let's get a fleet of dirigibles to run around the Seattle Metro Area to alleviate rush hour gridlock, to be paid for by taxpayers.

 

That sounds pretty cool. I'm in.

 

Me too! I don't even know what dirigibles are, but if they alleviate gridlock, DO IT!

[rob]

I definitely disagree that we wouldn't have a highway system - there are too many examples of private toll roads for that argument to stick.

 

So you're saying that the highway system in America breaks even because some roads have tolls?

 

[j_b]

Connecting the 2 largest cities in California with high speed rail is a great idea. It'll be even better when a line extends all the way to Vancouver BC. Plenty of people will use it, the same way plenty of people use high speed rail in other countries. Rail is fast, and cheaper than both air and road travel especially when external costs are taken into account. Considering the fossil fuel and environmental crises, the high-speed rail option is a no-brainer.

[glassgowkiss]

If you make an investment into public transit system it has to be big enough, efficient enough to be areal alternative to driving. Vast majority of cities in Europe you can move around faster and cheaper by using transit. Take Seattle- light rail from U-district to short of the airport? what genius thought about it? If I am flying from Sea-Tac and I have to drive from Bellingham to U-district, might as well drive to the airport. And where the fuck are you supposed to park in U-district? I spent entire 10 days in Chicago working a few years back and never had to rent a car. Both airports are serviced by train, and you can get from one point in town to another faster then on a crowded highway. The problem is that people don't think long term anymore and are preoccupied with quarterly profits only. I would like to see the statistics of all the accidents that happened and the total cost of emergency responses paid by a tax payers. I bet the sum would be astronomical.

[j_b]

I'm not sure I agree that we would have no public mass transit, actually. I think it depends on the location. I definitely disagree that we wouldn't have a highway system - there are too many examples of private toll roads for that argument to stick.

 

But whether the highway system was a good idea or not really isn't relevant to whether a high speed train is going to be a good idea. The rail project doesn't even come close to providing a net economic benefit.

 

Airlines should not be bailed out.

 

Most toll roads are either built with public dollars and/or are financed with federal lines of credit. Maintenance and services are usually paid by taxpayers.

 

Not only will that rail line provide an economic benefit but it'll be cheaper when taking into account all costs of transportation.

 

If airlines weren't bailed out, there would be no airlines.