blue streak 1 Please tell us what state you live in. Does it receiuve more federal funds than it pays in federal taxes? California pays way more fedeeral taxes than it receives in federal funds. California paying so much to the Federal Government is primarily because it has so many more Federal Income taxpayers living in it. It's one of those types of political statistics that people love to quote but it really isn't meaningful. It's in the same political statisics catagory that certain Red southern and midwestern state have a higher gun crime rate then Blue states so those states are "bad". But stastically its normally the Blue urban areas in those Red states that drive up the state's gun crime rate.
Please tell us what state you live in. Does it receiuve more federal funds than it pays in federal taxes? California pays way more fedeeral taxes than it receives in federal funds.
Yes. I have lived in Southern California since 1980 and the smog regulations have visibly worked. There is much less smog now than their used to be, even with a larger population. Smog alerts used to be common -- for example, kids couldn't have PE. I have raised three boys here, so I was aware. Smog alerts are rare now, I can't think of when the last one was. So again, like those government regulations or not, they were needed and have worked.
John Bishop, Riverside, CA
blue streak 1 Please tell us what state you live in. Does it receiuve more federal funds than it pays in federal taxes? California pays way more fedeeral taxes than it receives in federal funds.
So first, this is off topic. Second, I don't think it will ever happen in my life in the soclal media realm but perhaps the question should be asked is why does what happen in California upset you if you do not live there?
Just on the TRAINS related forum subject I can think of the Tier pollution standards the rest of the country has to meet because of California which I might add the TRAINS editorial staff let fly in one of their published articles. In defense of the TRAINS staff they do not realize why the pollution requirements in California are stricter because they probably never researched it. It has to do with the geohraphy and meterology of Southern California in particular with the bowl of a basin LA lies in and the smog that hangs over the city is very problematic. Also the mountain ranges immediately to the East play a role as well. Most people jump to the conclusion California is being extreme to prove itself more green than others. BTW, this is also the big push for HSR as well to present a less polluting alternative.
Texans just renewed their home insurance and a whopping increase. Guess which state the insurance agent pointed to when asked why? Bank of America a large employer in Texas under a hiring freeze in 4th quarter last year. Guess what bank failure (SVB) they pointed to in order to blame the approx $1.5 to 2 billion charge to reimburse the FDIC. So before you get upset about it...........seek to understand first. Along with inflation people are feeling the pinch outside of California
The line to Rancho Cucamonga connects with MetroLink, the dashed line to Palmdale connects with CAHSR.
CMStPnP rdamon I thought BLW was going to run down Cajon along I-15 to Rancho Cucamonga Maybe it is just a joint station but they keep doing this dashed line business as in the map in the link below..... https://la.urbanize.city/post/brightline-west-and-california-high-speed-rail-awarded-61-billion-federal-funding
rdamon I thought BLW was going to run down Cajon along I-15 to Rancho Cucamonga
Maybe it is just a joint station but they keep doing this dashed line business as in the map in the link below.....
https://la.urbanize.city/post/brightline-west-and-california-high-speed-rail-awarded-61-billion-federal-funding
Strong political lobby in Palmdale. Guess people who live there are looking for ways to go somewhere else! Having lived near there, I do not blame them.
rdamonI thought BLW was going to run down Cajon along I-15 to Rancho Cucamonga
CMStPnP rdamon Brightline West is picking up the pieces from DesertExpress/XpressWest that started in 2005. I am sure BLW will be running trains for several years before CA HSR True but they are also kind of depending on CA HSR to do the future mountain tunneling and then sharing the tracks after that is complete. At least I thought I read or saw that somewhere.
rdamon Brightline West is picking up the pieces from DesertExpress/XpressWest that started in 2005. I am sure BLW will be running trains for several years before CA HSR
True but they are also kind of depending on CA HSR to do the future mountain tunneling and then sharing the tracks after that is complete. At least I thought I read or saw that somewhere.
I thought BLW was going to run down Cajon along I-15 to Rancho Cucamonga
rdamonBrightline West is picking up the pieces from DesertExpress/XpressWest that started in 2005. I am sure BLW will be running trains for several years before CA HSR
Brightline West is picking up the pieces from DesertExpress/XpressWest that started in 2005. I am sure BLW will be running trains for several years before CA HSR
The bureaucracy in Sacramento was already pushing for CA high speed rail for them to build, oversee and maintain way back in the 1990s when I lived there.
30 years later not a train has been run anywhere and there won't be for many more years.
Brightline West stands in stark contrast.
Its timeline is Mercurial in comparison, provided it is not weighted down by any new additional regulatory impediments over what currently exist between now and their service start date in 2028.
aegrotatioThe Japanese Shinkansen was always horribly over-budget and massively delayed, yet we now think of that system as the gold standard in high-speed rail.
When it comes to 'selling' massive projects, their costs are ALWAYS understated so as to get 'buy in' from whatever the financing elements of the project that exist. If the TRUE expected costs were publicized the money woule RUN away from the project. Once money gets commited to a project, then it will continue to be committed to bring the project to a conclusion - if the project isn't concluded everything alread spent will be lost money.
Until projects actually start moving dirt - there is no real understanding of the geographical characteristics that the project will encounter and will have to overcome to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The Japanese Shinkansen was always horribly over-budget and massively delayed, yet we now think of that system as the gold standard in high-speed rail.
Ca HSR was a Pie in the Sky project designed to garner votes from LA and SF. Any other sensible project wouldn't have gotten those votes.
Personally, I think Ca's biggest problem is that there are a lot of sensible rail projects some more expensive than others, but many of them are hard to get around local NIMBY oposition.
Even LOSSAN improvements face challenges and that's the second busiest passenger line in the country.
I think at the end of the day, the improvements in the central valley will provide value. perhaps not a quick return on investment...but then, that's why you have the government foot the bill vs. private industry. I HOPE that even some modest success and some modest success with the brightline LV service will spur more investment both public and private.
I think some High or at least Higher speed Sac-Oakland-SanJose service and the proposal for a new Lark service are compelling. To say nothing of the various ACE expansions.
CSSHEGEWISCHOf course it doesn't hurt that Texas gets a bucketload of revenue from oil royalties.
Ha-ha, you mean like the $19 Billion fund and growing for UT and Texas A&M? Probably why their tuition rates are so low. A lot of it is also tight fiscal management at state and local levels though.
Look how they built Trinity Railway Express (TRE) from the ground up. You have to admit that was done very cheaply and it is run pretty cheaply as well. I thought it would be a fiasco but TRE surprised even me.
CSSHEGEWISCH Of course it doesn't hurt that Texas gets a bucketload of revenue from oil royalties.
Of course it doesn't hurt that Texas gets a bucketload of revenue from oil royalties.
California could get more revenues from oil if the state would permit more development of petroleum reserves. To be fair, the geology of oil reservoirs in CA are not as easy to develop as in Texas, so there wouldn't be any equivalent to the Permian Basin.
CMStPnP Erik_Mag The state budget deficit is partially self-inflicted due to the significant fraction of tax revenues coming from capital gains and exercising of stock options, neither of which are anywhere near steady and reliable. Yeah, thats driven more by emotion than common sense. I like the Texas approach which relies entirely on sales tax / property tax because it is broad based across the population. Get rid of the state income tax entirely and all it's ridiculous hoops and special clauses and exemptions. Also gets rid of the bloated state revenue collection department. We do just fine with using the sales tax to fund transit and rail systems in Texas. At this point, I am all for the Feds picking up part of the California HSR system with the caveat that the next time the state attempts a project this size they adhere to the original project boundries instead of letting it run away like this. I believe one of the original boundries was this was to originally be a joint public/private system. The private part was quickly jettisoned and it was the part that would have prevented the runaway project that we have now.
Erik_Mag The state budget deficit is partially self-inflicted due to the significant fraction of tax revenues coming from capital gains and exercising of stock options, neither of which are anywhere near steady and reliable.
Yeah, thats driven more by emotion than common sense. I like the Texas approach which relies entirely on sales tax / property tax because it is broad based across the population. Get rid of the state income tax entirely and all it's ridiculous hoops and special clauses and exemptions. Also gets rid of the bloated state revenue collection department.
We do just fine with using the sales tax to fund transit and rail systems in Texas.
At this point, I am all for the Feds picking up part of the California HSR system with the caveat that the next time the state attempts a project this size they adhere to the original project boundries instead of letting it run away like this. I believe one of the original boundries was this was to originally be a joint public/private system. The private part was quickly jettisoned and it was the part that would have prevented the runaway project that we have now.
Flintlock76An additional caveat should be strict Federal oversight of the Federal loan so the money's spent exactly where it's supposed to be spent, and nowhere else, or the deal's off. Given that "Fiscally Responsible" isn't California's state motto it's the only way I'd send more money to this project, if any is sent at all.
Thats a good point and here is a true story. The $800 million they offered Wisconsin for HSR a while back. As soon as it hit the press we had Alderpersons in the City of Milwaukee expressing locally to the press how they could redirect the money once they got it to fix streets and highways......until they were told the conditions of the money were such that could not be done.
So by extrapolation, California might have that same issue in part.
A lot of the HSR and Amtrak sphere of financing is unfortunately political. I don't have a clue myself how to move it more away from that area and just have a National Policy of some sort perhaps. Something needs to be done though to keep the politicians at bay........otherwise you end up with lots of wasted money or big project fiascos.
CMStPnPAt this point, I am all for the Feds picking up part of the California HSR system with the caveat that the next time the state attempts a project this size they adhere to the original project boundries instead of letting it run away like this.
An additional caveat should be strict Federal oversight of the Federal loan so the money's spent exactly where it's supposed to be spent, and nowhere else, or the deal's off. Given that "Fiscally Responsible" isn't California's state motto it's the only way I'd send more money to this project, if any is sent at all.
Erik_MagThe state budget deficit is partially self-inflicted due to the significant fraction of tax revenues coming from capital gains and exercising of stock options, neither of which are anywhere near steady and reliable.
Based on recent events, my opinion of the Cal HSR project has gone from "wondering if this is a good idea" to "the money would have been much better spent on other rail projects such as LOSSAN".
The estimate cost for the tunnel solution for the Del Mar bluffs problem is 3 to 4 billion $. Fixing the San Clemente problem is going to be even more expensive. The state budget deficit is partially self-inflicted due to the significant fraction of tax revenues coming from capital gains and exercising of stock options, neither of which are anywhere near steady and reliable.
blue streak 1Please tell us what state you live in. Does it receiuve more federal funds than it pays in federal taxes? California pays way more fedeeral taxes than it receives in federal funds.
I live in one of the 11 states that sends more to the U.S. government than it gets back.
Per capita, my state is less than California's per capita amount, but then our pay scales here are far less than California's, also.
York1 John
I asked my doctor if I gave up delicious food and all alcohol, would I live longer? He said, "No, but it will seem longer."
York1I imagine the LA Times now has bigger worries than the state finishing the HSR project.
Beat me to it! I was going to say the same thing!
I imagine the LA Times now has bigger worries than the state finishing the HSR project.
7j43k CMStPnP "You don’t spend $11 billion on a project, as California already has, then abandon it..." The term "cutting your losses" could come to mind. Perhaps not to government agencies, though. Ed
CMStPnP "You don’t spend $11 billion on a project, as California already has, then abandon it..."
"You don’t spend $11 billion on a project, as California already has, then abandon it..."
The term "cutting your losses" could come to mind. Perhaps not to government agencies, though.
Ed
And in a recent article from N.P.R. is another ;take; oin the California Project's story: See linked @
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/08/1218260520/california-budget-deficit-analysis
by Associated Press Dec. 8,2023
Not to mention other stories that tellk the tales of Businesses leaving California along with a loit of its popukatioin (?)
Ed. Said it best, "...The term "cutting your losses" could come to mind. Perhaps not to government agencies, though..."
I could care less what CAL does with it's money but I don't care at all for CAL continuing to receive Federal funds for what has has now turned into their version of Boston's "Big Dig" nightmare.
54light15 ...there are those that think widening the freeways is worth spending money on.
...there are those that think widening the freeways is worth spending money on.
Yeah, that's ridiculous. Once everyone's riding bicycles and taking HSR and transit, the freeways will be practically empty.
No need to expand freeways when everyone stops using them!
The article has a snarky tone to it. "Train set," "Poky chug-chug" and wonder of wonders, there are those that think widening the freeways is worth spending money on.
My opinion is that the project scope was grossly underestimated by the promoters, had it been a prospectus as opposed to a ballot initiative, the promoters would probably would have been investigated by the SEC. The project is technically feasible, but not with the time and budget constraints imposed by the initiative.
The other issue was a conflict between providing the fastest service between L.A. and S.F. (i.e. following I-5) and providing service to the major cities in the Central Valley (i.e. following US-99). The other aspect of providing service to Bakersfield et. al. is that construction will be much more expensive and slower than through the relatively unpopulated I-5 corridor due to land acquisition costs and dealing with utilities.
Keep in mind that the required radius for horizontal and vertical curves goes up with the square of the speed, so a 220MPH track alignment needs twice the radius of a 155MPH track alignment. A line that would have made use of the Acela's 160MPH top speed wpuld have been quicker and less expensive than the 220MPH line.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.