Thread: California is totally fucked

Originally Posted by nickwm21

Do you really believe that this whole thing will be built in China, shipped in segments, and install by illegal Mexicans?

All of the concrete, aggregate, and asphalt will be batched locally and set by a local contractor.

All of the steel will probably come from Arizona and erected by a local contractor.

If there is any lumber, it will most likely be from Oregon and installed by a local contractor.

If this is not a BAA project (which it most likely is) than some of the materials will come from China, like wiring, switchgear, hardware, etc...

But all of these materials will be installed by Americans paid prevailing wage.

The only sticking point I see is the actual train.....

I just really don't see California putting a multibillion dollar project on the books without BAA and SBE language in the contract.



sent from the future using my mind powers

I worked on Cal HSR and can tell you that the idea that it would be built by the Chinese is complete and utter bullshit. It is true that some state sponsored projects in California utilize Chinese steel because it's cheap...but projects with Federal funding, like California HSR, cannot do this. Unless California turns down all Federal matching funds this will continue to be the case.

There's also a big misunderstanding about why the project construction is starting where it is...the plan is to start building where right of way issues are minimal...and then continue the construction of the line to higher population areas as ROW becomes available. As you can imagine purchasing ROW for this project is extremely complex and only gets moreso in areas like the Bay Area...so while from a utility standpoint building the line from SF to LA might seem most logical, it is one of the most difficult logistically from a ROW standpoint.

We can debate the merrits of the project though...I think it's a good idea seeing as how fuel costs for flying will continue to go up thus driving up the cost for air travel...plus, airports are already largely at over capacity, clogged with small commuter planes like those that fly from SF to LA or elsewhere that HSR would service. So that leaves the debate to expanding roadway infrastructure or expanding rail infrastructure to accommodate HSR. The convinience of the automobile is difficult to overcome for HSR...but if you're chosing between a faster HSR option where you can work during the trip vs. driving then I think it makes more sense. Plus, if you're poor it's likely that you cannot afford a car, and thus are relegated to the bus. And as has been said here already, building roads isn't exactly cheap...expanding freeways to accommodate new traffic, etc. is going to cost a lot as well...so it just depends on how we want to prioritize transportation. IMO expanding roadway infrastructure is short sighted and will not solve the problems that would be addressed by HSR...you could shift the focus to expanding airports, but that is also extremely expensive...

Bottom line is that people are going to complain about the government spending money on anything these days, even if it's in their interest...

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

you could shift the focus to expanding airports, but that is also extremely expensive...

not just expensive, it's practically impossible to expand the current airport infrastructure meaningfully in the Bay Area or LA. Unless you want to fly out of Ontario or Stockton or some such shithole (which then raises the huge transport issue of getting people to the airport), the major airports won't get expanded because of NIMBY's and general fucktardery. Similarly with highway expansion. Course the children that populate CA and the US won't accept that. Oh well, was once a nice country

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

I worked on Cal HSR and can tell you that the idea that it would be built by the Chinese is complete and utter bullshit. It is true that some state sponsored projects in California utilize Chinese steel because it's cheap...but projects with Federal funding, like California HSR, cannot do this. Unless California turns down all Federal matching funds this will continue to be the case.

There's also a big misunderstanding about why the project construction is starting where it is...the plan is to start building where right of way issues are minimal...and then continue the construction of the line to higher population areas as ROW becomes available. As you can imagine purchasing ROW for this project is extremely complex and only gets moreso in areas like the Bay Area...so while from a utility standpoint building the line from SF to LA might seem most logical, it is one of the most difficult logistically from a ROW standpoint.

We can debate the merrits of the project though...I think it's a good idea seeing as how fuel costs for flying will continue to go up thus driving up the cost for air travel...plus, airports are already largely at over capacity, clogged with small commuter planes like those that fly from SF to LA or elsewhere that HSR would service. So that leaves the debate to expanding roadway infrastructure or expanding rail infrastructure to accommodate HSR. The convinience of the automobile is difficult to overcome for HSR...but if you're chosing between a faster HSR option where you can work during the trip vs. driving then I think it makes more sense. Plus, if you're poor it's likely that you cannot afford a car, and thus are relegated to the bus. And as has been said here already, building roads isn't exactly cheap...expanding freeways to accommodate new traffic, etc. is going to cost a lot as well...so it just depends on how we want to prioritize transportation. IMO expanding roadway infrastructure is short sighted and will not solve the problems that would be addressed by HSR...you could shift the focus to expanding airports, but that is also extremely expensive...

Bottom line is that people are going to complain about the government spending money on anything these days, even if it's in their interest...

Well, ok, then, who's going to build this thing? Do we have a high speed rail industry in this country, with the engineering expertise within it to tackle such a project? Nope. Shit, we barely have a passenger rail industry left. Who the fuck rides trains outside of the Northeast corridor? So, to be cost efficient, we should be auctioning this off to the Chinese or Japanese or French, who have a lot of experience in the matter. Yeah, right, like that will happen. No, we'll just get substandard (by world standards) product that was the result of good old American corruption wrapped in the flag, for five times the amount of taxpayer money it should have cost.

Nobody will use it anyway, because most love their cars, and, it will be too expensive for most to use. What, do you think the taxpayers will support this to eternity? Sooner or later, the revenue at the ticket window has to cover costs, which means ticket pricing only corporate clients and at least the upper middle class can afford. The poor? Please. I don't see poor people on the Acela the few times I use it. Shit, I can't justify the cost, and I'm far from poor. The workers and little people of China aren't riding on the HST, only the rich elites. Most cars are empty, I hear. 8 billion for a quirky way for the 1% to travel.

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Well, ok, then, who's going to build this thing? Do we have a high speed rail industry in this country, with the engineering expertise within it to tackle such a project? Nope. Shit, we barely have a passenger rail industry left. Who the fuck rides trains outside of the Northeast corridor? So, to be cost efficient, we should be auctioning this off to the Chinese or Japanese or French, who have a lot of experience in the matter. Yeah, right, like that will happen. No, we'll just get substandard (by world standards) product that was the result of good old American corruption wrapped in the flag, for five times the amount of taxpayer money it should have cost.

Nobody will use it anyway, because most love their cars, and, it will be too expensive for most to use. What, do you think the taxpayers will support this to eternity? Sooner or later, the revenue at the ticket window has to cover costs, which means ticket pricing only corporate clients and at least the upper middle class can afford. The poor? Please. I don't see poor people on the Acela the few times I use it. Shit, I can't justify the cost, and I'm far from poor. The workers and little people of China aren't riding on the HST, only the rich elites. Most cars are empty, I hear. 8 billion for a quirky way for the 1% to travel.

The engineering prowess is available in the US. Just because HSR has not been built in the US before does not mean that the ability to do so is not available domestically. The engineering firm I worked for previously (i.e. where I did Cal HSR work) includes high speed rail engineers in the US that work on projects abroad (Spain, Portugal, Germany, France, etc.). As for the trains themselves companies like GE where splooging over the prospects of building a shit ton of HSR units domestically. I worked on Ohio HSR before Governor Kasich shitcanned that project...the plan was to ressurrect manufacturing in Ohio as part of that project to build the locomotives and cars domestically. Depending on what company won the contract that money would either be to a US company, like GE, or perhaps a foreign company, like Seimens. It would be monumentally stupid to contract the Chinese to build our HSR as their system is a complete shitshow and is straight up dangerous. I really hope nothing catestrophic happens to their HSR over there but I think it's likely that something will. We could hire Japanese engineers or european engineers, but like I said, US engineers actually work on their projects, building this shit all the time, so that would be equally idiotic.

RE: No one will use it... I agree and disagree...people do love their cars and the convinience of driving is often the deciding factor when it comes to travel. I'll throw this at you though...I live in Portland and work in Seattle a few times a year...I don't need a car when I get to Seattle so I often take the Amtrak Cascades train up there. It's not HSR obviously, but it does gets you in roughly within 3.5 hours, which isn't much different than driving. Round tripper is like $75-$100 if you book early. More expensive than driving? Not really, because I stay downtown and need to pay for parking, which is typically at least $20/day, then plus gas, plus renting a car (if you don't own)...I think you get my drift. I could fly, but arrival at the airport is 1 hour before flight time, plus the 30 minute flight, then dealing with getting a rental car or riding the light rail downtown, and when all is said and done it's about the same. Anyhow, my point is that I can take a train, work the whole time on the train, and not deal with the BS that comes with air travel or driving...and I think folks will like that in Cali if the SF to LA line fires up. It'll also be faster than flying...and priced about the same.

As for the cost of the "ticket" paying for the line, well I disagree with you there as well. The plan for much of these lines is to run freight at high speed between point A and B, which also will cost frieght operators. The deal though is to have passenger HSR take priority so it will not get stuck behind freight trains...so, like an airport offsetting operational costs with freight traffic, so will the HSR lines. Additionally, our gas tax doesn't pay 100% for your car on the road....airport taxes don't pay 100% of the cost to use an airport...this would be no different, so I think your point is valid to an extent but also not really applicable because you're leaving out big components to how the project will be paid for year after year.

Like I said, I think you've got valid concerns, but also I think you've missed the boat a bit...

I like trains. But I don't particularly like California. I guess I have a problem.

Everyone, just stop. Most of you have a single fucking clue what you're talking about.

Background: I work for a California heavy civil contractor based in the Bay Area. We are one of many US firms that can build heavy rail (Yes, Benny, rail exists in the US and actually is doing quite well). I am a shareholder of this privately held company. This company has been involved with CA high speed rail before the bonds were voted on in 2008. I have seen the design documents for phase 1 in Fresno. I am going to be responsible for putting our bids together for some of this work. I know our competition.

All of this said, let me straighten some shit out for you knucleheads.

1. Federal Dollars apply = Buy America clause. Buy America isn't as restrictive as you think, as the special gear is really just the rolling stock and locomotives (cheap in comparison to the rest of the project).

2. All of the leads in the Joint Venture teams are corn-fed US contractors that can build this, as there isn't any significant difference in building 80 mph heavy rail and 220 mph heavy rail. Most of them have partnered with Euro firms for the design expertise. After China Rail's wreck, they didn't look impressive enough to partner with for the first phase and they're out of IOS-1.

3. The majority of the work is clearing out the right of way, building grade crossings, bridges, tunnels, etc, and mostly shit that cannot be outsourced by any stretch of the imagination.

4. Steel comes from China or Luxembourg. US Steel is close to dead, and there isn't fuck all West of the Mississippi. Stop kidding yourselves.

5. CA was pounded by the construction dropoff after the housing bust. Building massive public works (i.e. Hoover Dam, interstate highway) is a good way out of the unemployment hole.

6. Cars in LA and SF are done. The current project to add one lane to the 405 for 10 miles in Socal is 500 million and 5 years. The new span of the Bay Bridge will clear 1 billion before it is done. Sacramento just finished spending 1 billion to build a new airport terminal. SFO and LAX are beyond capacity on flights. SF MUNI is spending 1 billion to tunnel less than 2 miles through the city. It took me 1 hour to travel from Union Square SF to the other side of the Bay Bridge on Friday (5 miles). A new avenue for transportation is needed.

7. This is a 20+ year project. It will go through economic booms and busts, so stop wringing your hands waiting for the right moment to build. It won't come. We'll be grateful in 20 years when the project is complete, there are 60 million people in the state, and we haven't been able to meaningfully expand any other piece of our transportation infrastructure to accommodate the population boom.

8. If I remember correctly, Acela is Amtrak's only profitable line (or smallest loser, it's been a while since I saw the numbers) and the Capital Corridor (Sac--Oakland--San Jose) was second. BART and Caltrain are quite profitable on their own.

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

not just expensive, it's practically impossible to expand the current airport infrastructure meaningfully in the Bay Area or LA. Unless you want to fly out of Ontario or Stockton or some such shithole (which then raises the huge transport issue of getting people to the airport), the major airports won't get expanded because of NIMBY's and general fucktardery. Similarly with highway expansion. Course the children that populate CA and the US won't accept that. Oh well, was once a nice country

Exactly, and those little puddle jumpers cost the airlines to operate...they'd rather fill up a 747 or some massive airbus instead..that's where they make money. I worked on expanding Chicago's airports as well and if you want to get into shitshows try to do some land acquisitions near an airport like O'Hare.

People just dont' want the government to spend money, period...even if it is in their interest...

Originally Posted by powpig

WOW! Scary! You absolutely believe that BS don't you?

Yes. I'll say it again:

A major cause of California's problems (besides being a net donor to red land) is the Jarvis tax idiocy disease that has since infected much of the rest of the US. Prop 13 was one of the stupidest and most destructive pieces of legislation ever passed. It is one of the root causes of the collapsing of one of the world's great economies and educational systems. If broad anti-tax sentiment were not so pervasive, CA would do well to nuke it today.

If you do not get this, you might want to stay out of financial decision making processes - and maybe do the USA a favor by not voting. The red anti-tax meme disease may well go down in history as the thing that destroyed America.

Originally Posted by DJSapp

4. Steel comes from China or Luxembourg. US Steel is close to dead, and there isn't fuck all West of the Mississippi. Stop kidding yourselves.

I've heard this but didn't know that Federally funded projects can avoid the US requirement for steel. That's too bad...

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

The engineering prowess is available in the US. Just because HSR has not been built in the US before does not mean that the ability to do so is not available domestically. The engineering firm I worked for previously (i.e. where I did Cal HSR work) includes high speed rail engineers in the US that work on projects abroad (Spain, Portugal, Germany, France, etc.). As for the trains themselves companies like GE where splooging over the prospects of building a shit ton of HSR units domestically. I worked on Ohio HSR before Governor Kasich shitcanned that project...the plan was to ressurrect manufacturing in Ohio as part of that project to build the locomotives and cars domestically. Depending on what company won the contract that money would either be to a US company, like GE, or perhaps a foreign company, like Seimens. It would be monumentally stupid to contract the Chinese to build our HSR as their system is a complete shitshow and is straight up dangerous. I really hope nothing catestrophic happens to their HSR over there but I think it's likely that something will. We could hire Japanese engineers or european engineers, but like I said, US engineers actually work on their projects, building this shit all the time, so that would be equally idiotic.

RE: No one will use it... I agree and disagree...people do love their cars and the convinience of driving is often the deciding factor when it comes to travel. I'll throw this at you though...I live in Portland and work in Seattle a few times a year...I don't need a car when I get to Seattle so I often take the Amtrak Cascades train up there. It's not HSR obviously, but it does gets you in roughly within 3.5 hours, which isn't much different than driving. Round tripper is like $75-$100 if you book early. More expensive than driving? Not really, because I stay downtown and need to pay for parking, which is typically at least $20/day, then plus gas, plus renting a car (if you don't own)...I think you get my drift. I could fly, but arrival at the airport is 1 hour before flight time, plus the 30 minute flight, then dealing with getting a rental car or riding the light rail downtown, and when all is said and done it's about the same. Anyhow, my point is that I can take a train, work the whole time on the train, and not deal with the BS that comes with air travel or driving...and I think folks will like that in Cali if the SF to LA line fires up. It'll also be faster than flying...and priced about the same.

As for the cost of the "ticket" paying for the line, well I disagree with you there as well. The plan for much of these lines is to run freight at high speed between point A and B, which also will cost frieght operators. The deal though is to have passenger HSR take priority so it will not get stuck behind freight trains...so, like an airport offsetting operational costs with freight traffic, so will the HSR lines. Additionally, our gas tax doesn't pay 100% for your car on the road....airport taxes don't pay 100% of the cost to use an airport...this would be no different, so I think your point is valid to an extent but also not really applicable because you're leaving out big components to how the project will be paid for year after year.

Like I said, I think you've got valid concerns, but also I think you've missed the boat a bit...

Is that Portland to Seattle thing downtown to downtown? Then, yeah, sure, makes sense, just like the northeast corridor of Boston/NY/DC, for the convenience. Even the rich and powerful use the train between NY and DC. But, like I said, it ain't high speed - can't be in such a high density environment. Now, think of the years of lawsuits to take that amount of very valuable property from the LA and SF private sector. Ain't going to happen. They're going to have to build stations out in the burbs, which negates the whole I ain't taking a plane justification. Hell, probably twice the cost of a plane trip.

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Is that Portland to Seattle thing downtown to downtown? Then, yeah, sure, makes sense, just like the northeast corridor of Boston/NY/DC, for the convenience. Even the rich and powerful use the train between NY and DC. But, like I said, it ain't high speed - can't be in such a high density environment. Now, think of the years of lawsuits to take that amount of very valuable property from the LA and SF private sector. Ain't going to happen. They're going to have to build stations out in the burbs, which negates the whole I ain't taking a plane justification. Hell, probably twice the cost of a plane trip.

RE: PDX to SEA, yes it is downtown to downtown.

I can't remember what the cost estimates are for a trip on Cali HSR...I want to say that it's pretty much the same as flying or cheaper...

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

I've heard this but didn't know that Federally funded projects can avoid the US requirement for steel. That's too bad...

It depends whether the project falls under the 'Buy America' or 'Buy American' clause, and I'm not sharp enough to know what triggers which clause to apply. 'Buy America' is exceptionally restrictive and requires the steel to be melted in the US (even though the raw materials are imported), the other allows for goods from 60+ countries to be exempt due to trade agreements.

Originally Posted by DJSapp

6. Cars in LA and SF are done. The current project to add one lane to the 405 for 10 miles in Socal is 500 million and 5 years. The new span of the Bay Bridge will clear 1 billion before it is done. Sacramento just finished spending 1 billion to build a new airport terminal. SFO and LAX are beyond capacity on flights. SF MUNI is spending 1 billion to tunnel less than 2 miles through the city. It took me 1 hour to travel from Union Square SF to the other side of the Bay Bridge on Friday (5 miles). A new avenue for transportation is needed.

7. This is a 20+ year project. It will go through economic booms and busts, so stop wringing your hands waiting for the right moment to build. It won't come. We'll be grateful in 20 years when the project is complete, there are 60 million people in the state, and we haven't been able to meaningfully expand any other piece of our transportation infrastructure to accommodate the population boom.

8. If I remember correctly, Acela is Amtrak's only profitable line (or smallest loser, it's been a while since I saw the numbers) and the Capital Corridor (Sac--Oakland--San Jose) was second. BART and Caltrain are quite profitable on their own.

The Traffic Problems of most major cities are commuter based. How will a small amount of people riding high speed rails between cities have any inpact on that at all? It won't.

High speed is nothing but a sales job done on moronic politicians by people who make money building trains and hating cars.

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Is that Portland to Seattle thing downtown to downtown? Then, yeah, sure, makes sense, just like the northeast corridor of Boston/NY/DC, for the convenience. Even the rich and powerful use the train between NY and DC. But, like I said, it ain't high speed - can't be in such a high density environment. Now, think of the years of lawsuits to take that amount of very valuable property from the LA and SF private sector. Ain't going to happen. They're going to have to build stations out in the burbs, which negates the whole I ain't taking a plane justification. Hell, probably twice the cost of a plane trip.

If CA HSR uses the Caltrain right of way, the infrastructure is already there to get completely up the peninsula. The freight corridor from Port of LA/Long Beach to Riverside county is also under consideration. So, yes the first and last 50 miles of each trip might only be at 80 mph, but the middle section...

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

RE: PDX to SEA, yes it is downtown to downtown.

I can't remember what the cost estimates are for a trip on Cali HSR...I want to say that it's pretty much the same as flying or cheaper...

Well, Acela is a lot more than a quick shuttle flight, and that's heavily taxpayer supported. And slow.
Do you really think that, in these times, after spending what could be 100 billion or more, that the revenue needed won't be high for decades? Have you used Denver airport lately? I'm still paying for that thing each flight with fees and taxes.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

The Traffic Problems of most major cities are commuter based. How will a small amount of people riding high speed rails between cities have any inpact on that at all? It won't.

High speed is nothing but a sales job done on moronic politicians by people who make money building trains and hating cars.

100+ mile commutes are common, and this can serve as a bridge to complement the local light rail systems. The idea is to keep people from entering the city with their car in the first place. The idea of living completely outside LA or SF in a town with green space, hills, etc., jumping on a train for 1 hour and being in downtown appeals to lots of folks. With our current highways, this isn't possible.

And I wish my company had that kind of political sway. Loosen up your tin foil hat a bit.

Rails in the US are woefully inadequate, and a major effort should be made to expand and improve it. One way or another we'll go kicking and screaming to an alternative to driving our fat asses everywhere because of the costs associated with commuting by car.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

High speed is nothing but a sales job done on moronic politicians by people who make money building trains and hating cars.

Originally Posted by DJSapp

100+ mile commutes are common, and this can serve as a bridge to complement the local light rail systems. The idea is to keep people from entering the city with their car in the first place. The idea of living completely outside LA or SF in a town with green space, hills, etc., jumping on a train for 1 hour and being in downtown appeals to lots of folks. With our current highways, this isn't possible.

You should move to Westchester. We have bar cars, and there's an Apple store in Grand Central.

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

You should move to Westchester. We have bar cars, and there's an Apple store in Grand Central.

No thanks. The last time I talked to a Union labor BA from the Northeast I decided I liked living without weekly shakedowns.

Unless you're hiring. I could go for 120k + full benefits and 4 weeks paid vacation to shine your loafers daily.

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Well, Acela is a lot more than a quick shuttle flight, and that's heavily taxpayer supported. And slow.
Do you really think that, in these times, after spending what could be 100 billion or more, that the revenue needed won't be high for decades? Have you used Denver airport lately? I'm still paying for that thing each flight with fees and taxes.

I think of it like public transportation...just like airports are heavily subidized and roads are heavily subsidized...so would be HSR...probably forever...just like all the other transportation systems. the cost to ride a subway in NY isn't 100% covered by ticket fare...just like the costs of an airport aren't...or a city bus

Originally Posted by DJSapp

No thanks. The last time I talked to a Union labor BA from the Northeast I decided I liked living without weekly shakedowns.

Unless you're hiring. I could go for 120k + full benefits and 4 weeks paid vacation to shine your loafers daily.

How is it I get confused with Old Larry sometimes?

Hey, say what you will about NY metro, and, I'm one to go off, but, we have quite a transportation infrastructure in between the five big cities. Worth about ten zillions dollars to western states with their grand plans, now that they have to start from scratch. Sorry about that bad breakup with the car love. For that reason, the northeast corridor will be vital for years.

Originally Posted by spindrift

Yes. I'll say it again:

A major cause of California's problems (besides being a net donor to red land) is the Jarvis tax idiocy disease that has since infected much of the rest of the US. Prop 13 was one of the stupidest and most destructive pieces of legislation ever passed. It is one of the root causes of the collapsing of one of the world's great economies and educational systems. If broad anti-tax sentiment were not so pervasive, CA would do well to nuke it today.

If you do not get this, you might want to stay out of financial decision making processes - and maybe do the USA a favor by not voting. The red anti-tax meme disease may well go down in history as the thing that destroyed America.

I think it's you who doesn't get it as you're still operating on the premise of "the collapsing of one of the world's greatest economies" when that's a fallacy. It's a hoax and you've bought into it despite the evidence to the contrary.

So I'll say it again:

California's only problems is that they're run by a bunch of lying & dishonest, greedy scumbags. There is no shortage of money, California has hundreds of billions of dollars in surplus. Jerry Brown's assertion of a $15 billion deficit is a flatout lie!

Originally Posted by DJSapp

So, yes the first and last 50 miles of each trip might only be at 80 mph, but the middle section...

The middle section's fucked because there's now going to be stops in Bakersfield, Fresno, Merced and Sacramento. Bakersfield to Fresneck is about 150 miles. Fresneck to Merced (a town of approx. 80,00 souls) is 50 miles, Merced to Suckramento is about 120 miles. When exactly is this magic train going to achieve top speed and for how long?

I've read recently that a French hi-speed rail firm bailed on making this a joint venture because they could see what a clusterfuck it had become. Some Jap company likewise got the fuck out. The most logical and cost-efficient design would be to use the I-5 right-of-way with no stops between LA and the Gay Area. Re-routing this up the Hwy 99 corridor has not only driven up estimated costs substantively, but it now highly unlikely that the transit times requirement (i.e., legislated) will be met.

Originally Posted by Viva

Bakersfield to Fresneck is about 150 miles. Fresneck to Merced (a town of approx. 80,00 souls) is 50 miles, Merced to Suckramento is about 120 miles.

I rode the "Bullet Train" in Japan.

25 years ago so I've forgotten the exact details but I'm pretty sure the stops were closer together than that.

I was impressed and would love to see something similar here in this country.