Notes on the Decline of a Great Nation

[Borachio]

Yes. To be more radical: I think an independent California would be feasible. Though not likely.

 

[Farm Boy]

Spoiler :

Yes but the bay area and LA are two regions which commonly commute between each other. If building this rail line means businessmen, students, and families (travelling for Disneyland, say) can get from one end of the state to the other (because honestly, who goes up to Redding?) both cheaply and affordably, and without having to go through the rigamarole of the airport, is that really such a waste of money (especially when it doesn't actually eat into our budget that much at all?

Let me tell you as somebody who has had to travel from Northern California to LA. It sucks. If you're taking a car it really sucks. Gas is expensive, it's 6 hours and traffic stops entirely the instant you enter the San Fernando valley. If you get a flat out in the central valley ain't nobody gonna help you. If you don't have a car, it still sucks. There are no trains, let me repeat that no trains which go from San Jose/San Francisco to LA directly. Your only alternatives are to take the Grayhound, which is cheap, but also takes 10 hours at minimum, requires you to wait for the buses literally in the epicenter of each respective city's ghetto, and they're just extremely uncomfortable in general. The other alternative is air travel. The problem with air travel is that it's expensive (try finding a flight for under 180 dollars round trip) only really services San Francisco and occasionally Oakland (good luck if you live in San Jose), and you still have to go through all the crap you ordinarily have to go through on an airplane.

Personally I have been a huge fan and proponent of this High Speed Rail project at least since 2008. I really don't think there is much better that California can spend their money on. It beats the hell out of a lot of the other crappy pet projects who get portions of the budget allocated via the Proposition system.

I've already explained this to you in another thread Kochman. These sorts of things are not why California is in dire straits. It has nothing to do with expensive welfare or "costly" infrastructure expenses. It has to do with a variety of systemic issues including our budget amendment process, massive gerrymandering, and a backwards proposition system which forcibly allocates portions of the budget, no matter how silly and frivolous, to some person's (or corporation's) pet project via a simple majority. Often these propositions are intentionally worded confusingly to help this.

An excellent example of the above would be Proposition 8, which was a constitutional ban on gay marriage. The problem was that you would get people who wouldn't properly read the bill, but know (through ads and publicity) that the prop was about gay marriage. People would vote "yes" assuming this meant that they were saying "yes, I think gay marriage should be legal" rather than what they were actually voting for which was "yes I don't think gays should ever be allowed to marry ever". It sounds silly, but this really was a problem and I watched people get the bill mixed up on a regular basis.

Anyway, other problems with our state include the fact we are as populous and wealthy as most modern 1st world countries, and yet are forced to give away a sizeable chunk of our tax dollars and aren't allowed to run a deficit, effectively barring us from solving our own infrastructure and employment issues through deficit spending, as most modern nations would.

Additionally in the late 70s we voted through a measure making it so that property taxes cannot be higher than 1% of the value of the property. Oh, hey, guess where all of our school funding comes from? Yeah, that would be property taxes. Whoops. Chalk that one up to a proposition system success. We also repealed a tax on luxury car licenses that in the early 2000s was bringing in revenue to the order of over 10 billion. Yeah, sure wish we could have that back now, too.

I don't know why I keep having to remind you of this, I'm sure you've heard me say this at least 10 or 11 times by now.

Just for funzies, it's entirely likely that the "ghetto" will move or encompass new train hubs. Unless of course your continue hiring and encouraging BART cops along historical lines and set them loose.

 

[kochman]

@Owen
Holy wide ranging diatribe Batman. I'll respond in the spoiler...

Spoiler :

Yes but the bay area and LA are two regions which commonly commute between each other.

Shuttle flights are way faster for such people...
And yes, the drive DOES suck, I've made it many times. I recall it being more like 8 hours though...

If building this rail line means businessmen, students, and families (travelling for Disneyland, say) can get from one end of the state to the other (because honestly, who goes up to Redding?) both cheaply and affordably, and without having to go through the rigamarole of the airport, is that really such a waste of money (especially when it doesn't actually eat into our budget that much at all?

Will it turn a profit? That's my question... if it does, then I'd be a lot more accepting (not that CA needs my approval, but I should like to imagine that they did, all movie starlets would be required to visit me annually were I in charge).

Let me tell you as somebody who has had to travel from Northern California to LA. It sucks. If you're taking a car it really sucks. Gas is expensive, it's 6 hours and traffic stops entirely the instant you enter the San Fernando valley. If you get a flat out in the central valley ain't nobody gonna help you. If you don't have a car, it still sucks.

There are no trains, let me repeat that no trains which go from San Jose/San Francisco to LA directly.

Wasn't aware of this...

Your only alternatives are to take the Grayhound, which is cheap, but also takes 10 hours at minimum, requires you to wait for the buses literally in the epicenter of each respective city's ghetto, and they're just extremely uncomfortable in general.

Do you think the train will go through the rich section only?
The stations will likely be somewhat co-located to handle transfers, etc.

Personally I have been a huge fan and proponent of this High Speed Rail project at least since 2008. I really don't think there is much better that California can spend their money on. It beats the hell out of a lot of the other crappy pet projects who get portions of the budget allocated via the Proposition system.

How about paying its employees rather than furloughing them... cutting services to those who really need them.

I've already explained this to you in another thread Kochman. These sorts of things are not why California is in dire straits. It has nothing to do with expensive welfare or "costly" infrastructure expenses.

You've expressed your opinion... but when the top tax rate is about to go over 50% and be the highest in the nation (total tax, I mean), it does have an impact.

It has to do with a variety of systemic issues including our budget amendment process, massive gerrymandering, and a backwards proposition system which forcibly allocates portions of the budget, no matter how silly and frivolous, to some person's (or corporation's) pet project via a simple majority. Often these propositions are intentionally worded confusingly to help this.

This is something I am not too well versed on, and would like to see more about this if it isn't a bother to you... I wouldn't really know where to look.

An excellent example of the above would be Proposition 8, which was a constitutional ban on gay marriage. The problem was that you would get people who wouldn't properly read the bill, but know (through ads and publicity) that the prop was about gay marriage. People would vote "yes" assuming this meant that they were saying "yes, I think gay marriage should be legal" rather than what they were actually voting for which was "yes I don't think gays should ever be allowed to marry ever". It sounds silly, but this really was a problem and I watched people get the bill mixed up on a regular basis.

Stupid is as stupid does... if you have that many ignorants in CA, it explains a lot. You get the government you deserve.

Anyway, other problems with our state include the fact we are as populous and wealthy as most modern 1st world countries, and yet are forced to give away a sizeable chunk of our tax dollars and aren't allowed to run a deficit, effectively barring us from solving our own infrastructure and employment issues through deficit spending, as most modern nations would.

Give away a sizeable portion of your tax dollars... You mean via entitlements? Or to the Fed?
You've got no case with the Fed, those taxes have been in place long enough to have adjusted.
Not running a deficit, it actually keeps your state in a better credit rating than a lot of others... that helps in the long run. This idea that states always need to be able to run deficits is ridiculous. Having a balanced budget is the way to "Pay-Go"... It makes the people really consider what they need from the government, so you don't end up with nearly the pork the US Gov funds out...

Additionally in the late 70s we voted through a measure making it so that property taxes cannot be higher than 1% of the value of the property.

Goodness!!! Ok, that's somewhat insane.

We also repealed a tax on luxury car licenses that in the early 2000s was bringing in revenue to the order of over 10 billion. Yeah, sure wish we could have that back now, too.

Why did you let the rich people force that through?

I don't know why I keep having to remind you of this, I'm sure you've heard me say this at least 10 or 11 times by now.

Uh, what? Whatever...

 

[Cutlass]

Spoiler :

Just for funzies, it's entirely likely that the "ghetto" will move or encompass new train hubs. Unless of course your continue hiring and encouraging BART cops along historical lines and set them loose.

In the little city of Worcester Mass having a train hub connecting to Boston revitalized the area around the city center and train station. Not led to a decline of it.

 

[Farm Boy]

In the little city of Worcester Mass having a train hub connecting to Boston revitalized the area around the city center and train station. Not led to a decline of it.

It can! That's one possibility! I just don't want people assuming the dirty plebs will stay away from their nice, clean, rich trains.

 

[Cutlass]

It can! That's one possibility! I just don't want people assuming the dirty plebs will stay away from their nice, clean, rich trains.

The question being, can they afford them, do they have a need to use them? Which to at least some extent the answer will be yes. But the poor don't travel as much as the better off.

 

[Farm Boy]

The question being, can they afford them, do they have a need to use them? Which to at least some extent the answer will be yes. But the poor don't travel as much as the better off.

Well, I guess you can always price the undesirables out of the market.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Hey question for anyone who's used the train recently:

Are security procedures at train stations less rigorous/time consuming/borderline rapish lol than the ones used at airports?

 

[Farm Boy]

Hey question for anyone who's used the train recently:

Are security procedures at train stations less rigorous/time consuming/borderline rapish lol than the ones used at airports?

The Metra, unless you are commuting prime time, is usually nearly empty and there's no functional security fuss. It's just slow and not free. Then getting around downtown without your car is annoying, but at least you don't have to pay to park it! So that evens out some of the cab fare if you locations are too far to walk.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Thanks Farm Boy. I was really talking more along the lines of long-haul train service like Amtrack routes and not necessarily intracity trains. Unless I'm mistaken with my reading of your answer.

 

[Farm Boy]

Thanks Farm Boy. I was really talking more along the lines of long-haul train service like Amtrack routes and not necessarily intracity trains. Unless I'm mistaken with my reading of your answer.

Ah ok, it's not long haul, but the Metra is the train that runs from the Chicago burbs to downtown. The elevated line is the one that runs around within the city. I haven't taken that one to know.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Ah ok, it's not long haul, but the Metra is the train that runs from the Chicago burbs to downtown. The elevated line is the one that runs around within the city. I haven't taken that one to know.

Isn't the one within the city the El?

 

[Farm Boy]

Isn't the one within the city the El?

ELevated track.

 

[Joecoolyo]

The Metra, unless you are commuting prime time, is usually nearly empty and there's no functional security fuss. It's just slow and not free. Then getting around downtown without your car is annoying, but at least you don't have to pay to park it! So that evens out some of the cab fare if you locations are too far to walk.

Dunno when or where you take it, but whenever I do the Metra is usually pretty full.

Maybe I live on a more populated side of Chicagoland?

Also getting around downtown without a car is easy, everything's in walking distance! I love it!

 

[Farm Boy]

Dunno when or where you take it, but whenever I do the Metra is usually pretty full.

Maybe I live on a more populated side of Chicagoland?

Also getting around downtown without a car is easy, everything's in walking distance! I love it!

At 21 years of age, no baby in tow and no looming timetable on any given outing, it was much easier to consider everything walkable. The Metra for me is a drive east to get to the westmost lines, then a trip downtown, but only if I don't feel like screwing with parking once I get there. Otherwise, it's always less expensive and faster to for me to drive. Granted, if I needed to commute every single day for work a) I would move, or failing that b) I would take the train. Commuting by car through the entire Chicago suburbs during rush hour is annoying in the extreme.

 

[dutchfire]

In the little city of Worcester Mass having a train hub connecting to Boston revitalized the area around the city center and train station. Not led to a decline of it.

I think I've seen downtown mention that the areas around L stations in Chicago are noticeably the better parts in bad neighbourhoods.

Hey question for anyone who's used the train recently:

Are security procedures at train stations less rigorous/time consuming/borderline rapish lol than the ones used at airports?

The only trains that I've used, and I have used quite a lot, that had 'security procedures' were the Eurostar and Chinese subways/trains. The Eurostar is the train to England and the measures there are more to prevent people smuggling in drugs/illegal immigrants than actual safety. The Chinese required you to put your bags through an X-ray but that was very fast and not very intrusive. Deodorant cans are banned though, that caught a few of us.

 

[kochman]

Of course faster access to mass transit is going to increase the value in the immediate area... it's not like that stops the poor areas, it just pushes them further out... people can't afford what they can't afford.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, I guess you can always price the undesirables out of the market.

That snark doesn't address the issue at all.

 

[Farm Boy]

That snark doesn't address the issue at all.

To an extent. If we're complaining about the cost benefit of it, then I guess it's great that a rail line can make life more convenient for the relatively well to do. Seems like it sucks up a lot of opportunity cost for the government when it doesn't seem to improve the lot of those that need their lots improved the most.

But, it is valid that if we don't want to have to sit next to undesirable elements, or if the bus stopping in the "ghetto of every city" is a bad thing for our patrician friends, then pricing the smelly and dangerous poor out of using our beautiful trains is good for economic efficiency.

 

[Crezth]

I'm with Farm Boy. Abolish private property.