the only reason why it wouldn't be is if Washington decides to just let our country's infrastructure just rot.

Oh, yeh, I forgot. One of the political parties in Washington thinks that's a damn good idea.

What you describe is all too common and the reason I am very selective as to which charities I choose to support. The United Way won't get a penny of my money either. The charity that gets the bulk of my chartible dollars is similar to yours, I have given quite a bit to the Atlanta Food Bank, about 90% of what they raise goes to actual food, a few percent for overhead, and no money for Bibles, Korans or any other religious dogma.

I truly wish you were exaggerating, there a many national charities that keep in excess of 90% of the funds they raise. Like you, I won't give them a fucking penny.

that you can call to check on the validity of an organization and ask about their percentage of admin costs.

CA is getting 4 billion dollars to build a high speed rail from Corcoran to Bordon, about 60 miles.  It is the first leg of what is hoped to be a train from San Diego to Sacrament, although when the rest will be built and at what cost is anyone's guess.

If the federal government decides to cut back expenses, CA will probably never get the money for the rest, and if we want to complete it, we can pay for it ourselves, even though we are about 20 billion short every year.

It is being built there because that area has high unemployment, but no one will actually be laying rails or anything until the final design and route is determined, in about two years.

When it is done, no train will run on the line until the rest of the line is complete.

But CA cannot ask for the same amount of money to fix bridges. It is only for a high speed train

This is typical of the problem with relying on DC as the primary source of money.  We give DC 40 billion dollars of tax money from CA and get it back with restrictions.

Okay. NOW LET'S STOP WILLIE AND THE OTHERS FROM GETTING WHAT I AM SAYING WRONG: I am not saying there is no role for the feds. I am not saying the feds should not do anything in this area. I am not saying that Ike's nationwide highway system was wrong. I am not saying that we should pay no federal taxes.

I am saying that a lot of decisions should be local, and that it does no one any good to piss away 4 billion on something that won't be finished.

Phil, you are aware that the vast majority of all US debt came under GOP administrations, right?

We can curb spending plenty, but it would be pretty dumb to cut infrastructure spending in the middle of a project that would bring an incredible number of economic benefits to the beleaguered state of California.

I'm not sure where you're getting this 43 billion figure from. The Big Dig, the most expensive highway construction project in US history, only cost 22 billion, and 7 billion of that was interest on loans.

But I did find this happy little website (link below), which informs us that the initial funding for this project is actually 4.3 billion.  

The system is estimated to save 12.7 million barrels of oil a year. If we assume the price of a barrel of oil doesn't plummet (something not too likely I think, since we're getting closer to peak oil), then the savings on petroleum purchases alone would pay for the initial investment on this system in 5 years.

That's not counting all the benefits of less congestion, lower health related issues from air pollution, fewer traffic accidents, etc. It would help facilitate business by making travel in the state more efficient, and is estimated to create a half a million permanent jobs.

What a fucking waste of money, eh Phil?

You can pretty much count on the locals spending their money on something they want - like a shiny new high speed rail, or maybe spending $100,000 chasing poor Roman Polanski - rather than something they need - like providing medical care in California prisons.

      The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral argument on that order to release 40,000 prisoners. Justice Sotomayour lectured your atty quite harshly:

"When are you goind to avoid needless deaths? When are you going to get around people in sitting in their feces for days in a dazed state? When are you going to get to the point where you are going to deliver care that is adequate?"

     I'd say that is one vote you are not going to get. The next time you feel like lamenting the dress code in Iran you might want to consider whether the "locals" have any better record on prisoner human rights than those crazies in Iran.

One way or another, the feds are going to start curbing spending.  Forgetting the GOP, the Dems are talking about "unsustainable" deficits.  Again, this isn't the GOP.  The far liberal Dems in CA are talking about severe budget cuts, that sound like the GOP, and that is in one of the most liberal states.

The Dem Gov-elect, Willie Brown, and Villagrosa - A FORMER LABOR LEADER - say there is no more money.  Only the most isolated politicians think we can keep spending.  (When I heard Brown's speech anouncing he was running, he sounded like a Tea Party candidate. NO TAXES without approval, cuts, unusustainable deficit.  

Even in CA a candidate has to run with that  type of platform.  

The estimated price to finish it is in the 43 billion for the leg from San Diego to Sacrament, which may be the most under-utilized of the branches.   That 43 billion is if it doesn't go over.  With many government projects going ten times over budget - look at Bart and the subway in L.A., this could cost 400 billion.

On top of that, the fed only pays for part of it, so if the fed pays for 3/4 then the state will have to come up with 100 billion.  We are selling state buildings no because we don't have any money.

If it is ever finished, the traffic from San Diego to Sacrament is not very heavy.  The route was chosen not because of numbers it will service, but because of unemployment in the region around Corcoran.

In an era when everyone is looking at where to cut, the next extension, which may be to something like Freson, will cost 15 billion by the time the first one is ready.  At that time they won't spend that much money on a train that was never designed to break even.

Does that answer your question?

phil, quick question. Does the LA light rail system make a profit?

enriching themselves in the names various causes. These are lazy scum bags. We have too many causes, charities that doesn't pay 1¢ in tax. They all collect money, keep 92¢ for themselves in the name of salaries and admin cost and spend 8¢ on the cause (may be exaggerating here). I say put these scum bags out of business by not giving.

I stopped giving to United Way and all large organized charities. Only charity I give now is Feed the Hungry run by volunteers and where I volunteer. I am sick of being played by these lazy asses.

1. How the hell is that rail system gonna create a half a million "permanent" jobs?
2. How is saving the car commuters 12.7 million barrels of oil going to repay the initial investment on the system. If they save that much money in gas purchases, wouldn't it stay in their pockets, not the rail system pockets.
3. A bypass was built for the I-5/I-405 junction in Orange County, (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor), and it is a beautiful bit of highway. However, it is a toll road, and the last time I traveled on it, there were few cars to speak of. The I-5/I-405 junction is still a mess. Why would you think anyone would take the train. Do you understand the SoCal car culture at all? The train ride could be free, and people there would still drive en masse, with a sole occupant in each vehicle.


-- Modified on 12/4/2010 9:20:07 PM

Taxing charities won't cut the cost of the train to no where.  

Government agencies are just as inefficient. We just had a report from that silly commission set up in CA to do stem cell research.  The head of the state commission was paying himself twice what the governor got, AND HE HAD A PART TIME JOB.

His commission was made up of university professors who then granted money to their own departments.

LAUSD spends most of its money on administartion.

There are some charities that are shams, but most do really good work at a less cost than the State.

It has always amazed me that CA and NV didn't team up and build a high speed train from LA to LV. Miles of desert to cross and the passagener traffic would at least be high enough to justfy the cost. Maybe CA is afraid NV would get to much money from CA.

The Interstate highway system.

The transcontinental railroad.

The Panama Canal.

Almost every single airport in the US.

The Locks, Dams, and Canals that allow boats and barges to reach over half of the US states.

All paid for with federal tax money!

This is no different.  We need projects like this to upgrade our transportation system if we want to be a world leader!

The fact that good things in the past have been done with public money does not mean that everything done with public money is good. Some can be a complete waste.

The famous Bridge to Nowhere is Exhibit A.

Yes, the Panama Canal was built with public money, but that doesn't mean Project X (the Bordon Corcoran Train) is a good deal.

It can still be a total hundred billion dollar waste.
We need good projects to upgrade our transportation system. Bridges are decaying. Rather than piss away billions on something that will probably never be finished, maybe it would be better to spend it on something needed NOW.  Next time a bridge collapses and someone says "We cound have used a hundred million," don't look at me.

12.7 million bbls times 5 years @ $80 bbl still only comes to a little over 5 billion dollars. A considerable amount of money, but nowhere near paying for the project as Willy claims, and that of course is taking Willy's numbers at face value, a mistake I doubt anyone here would be guilty of.

I am sure Willy will claim he simply made an honest mistake, an excuse that will certainly fall on deaf ears considering his past "accidental mistakes"

L.A. doesn't have a "light rail." other than an historic 2 block Angeles Flight that goes up one hill in downtown.

THe subway we have is not light rail and does not make a profit.  (My understanding of "light rail" is the track laid on top of the street with trams, rather than underground.

The only subway systems that have a chance to a profit are in dense areas.  For example, in NY, you have 100,000 people who live or work within 4 blocks on any one subway line.  Each line is fed by multi-story building.  In L.A. that number is drastically reduced.   The subway neares to me is surounded by Mom's and Pop's stores, one-family houses, and some one or two-story houses.

Don't get me wrong, as many do.  I like mass transport, and I use the L.A. system myself, on occassion.

It is just that the Bordon/Corcoran line is a sad joke.

WHo created debt in the past is not relevant to the question of whether this project is a waste.

But to answer your question, the 43 billion was one estimate from the L.A. Times. In reality, it is anyone's guess, but that is pretty modest.  The current proposal is 4 billion for a 50 stretch that is about 1/0 of the project.  Also, the current proposal does not include stations, trains, or other stuff.  It will not include any eminent domain, if htat is needed once you get to urban areas.  

The "Big Dig" is much smaller in scope.  It is a subsay in one city.  This is one line that starts in one downtown, goes hundreds of miles, over at least one mountain chain, and the branches off into three downtown areas (Sacto, Oakland, and S.F.)

The population per mile of the Big Dig is thousand time that of Bordon/Corcoran, so in Boston you run a train that is full, in CA you will run a train that is half empty, if you are lucky.

(I take the subway downtown, because it runs frequently.  I don't take the train to San Diego, because the times are not conveninet. )

It will only save that oil if people take the train.  If people do not, then they will still use gas.  If the times are not convenient, if people want a car when they get to Sacto, and 100 other reasons will keep people off the train.  Look at the train from LA to San Diego, a vastly traveled route.  It goes down 80% empty.  
Also, I love government numbers. They are always so close to actual expense.  NOT, NOT, NOT.



-- Modified on 12/5/2010 7:24:47 AM

Yes, the merits of the BOrdon/Corcoran line are really determined by the D.A.'s decision to try to try Polanski.  Polanski used too much gas and a train was needed in his case. Because of the delay in trial caused by his skipping the country, it had to be a high speed line.  If sentenced he may end up in Corcoran, which has a lot of sex offenders, so the train will be good for all his visitors from Bordon.

And, yes, the level of medical care in CA prisons proves we need the train.  There is a prison in Corcoran, and if patients get sick and need to go to Sacto in 25 years, that line will serve it very well.

I don't believe you are implying that CA prisons are worse than Iran?  That is insane.  As bad as prisons are in CA, they are heaven compared to Iran.

The 12.7 million comes directly from the CA transit authority. This stat comes from their home page. I linked to that website in my earlier post.

I also assumed $88 oil, based on what the current price is.

5 billion is what I estimated. Unless I've forgotten some remedial math, that would be more than the 4.3 billion the transit authority website state would cost to build this system, another stat that I linked to in my OP.

Now I have seen a few news websites talk about a 43 billion dollar cost, but I have no idea where they got that stat, and I couldn't find it anywhere on the transit authority website.

Now Phil talked about how bad cost overruns are with the gov't, and while that is significant, I doubt these news organizations did their own analysis of the cost. I'm sure they got that estimate from the gov't. However, I have yet to find such a source.

Not the finished cost, this from your own linked article.

That is the quote from the link I provided. Now I dunno about you, but I interpret this to be the main construction costs.

Another aspect to this: California is about the same size geographically as Japan. Both Japan and California have population densities in the range of about 500-1000 per square mile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_states_population_density_map.PNG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_population_density.svg

Japan has had an operating high speed rail system since the mid 1960's. For some reason, they don't think it's a waste of money, like our friend Phil does.  

And while the Shinkansen hasn't been trouble free financially, according to wikipedia, it has "saved 400 million hours", created an "economic impact of ¥ 500 billion per year", and delivered 6 billion passengers all without a single fatality.

I dunno about you, but that sounds like one hell of a worthy investment.

-- Modified on 12/5/2010 9:38:40 PM