Comments on: California Election 2008: Proposition 1A

By: Angelo Alberico

Angelo Alberico — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:09:25 +0000

I’ve heard about that bullet train idea for many years, not sure why it has never materialized.

By: nixon

nixon — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 04:12:31 +0000

What we really need is a bullet train from LA to Vegas.

By: Niall

Niall — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:56:29 +0000

Eh, I would absolutely love to disagree with you Nathan (come on, when do I not?) but I think you’re right on this.

Being in Europe for these last two months has made me fall madly in love with wonderful public transportation and I would love to see the values represented here transfer to an American practice. However, this hope isn’t enough to make money come out of the air with which to pay for something of this caliber. I guess we just hope that Sac-town gets it’s act together so that wonderful things, like decent and reliable public transportation, can come from periphery spending, and not through a reliance on bonds.

Ugh, I support the blarg’s position on Proposition 1a. Let’s see how many others we agree on.

By: ~kevin

~kevin — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:41:52 +0000

An improved train system would be awesome. I love the train. Currently you can ride from Bakersfield to Fresno for $19. But this prop isn’t an improvement. If a state is going to spend money, especially money it doesn’t have, there needs to be more of a return to the state. Like when New York financed and built the Erie Canal. They spent $10 million and within the first several years it was completely paid off and in fact turning a profit of $3 million a year. And that was in early 1800’s dollars. There now you all benefit from my history classes. But seriously, a bullet train? That is like the people in Section 8 housing that have an Escalade in the driveway. You might think you’re cool, but you’ve actually set yourself back instead of moving forward.

By: nathan118

nathan118 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:36:19 +0000

Sounds like we’re on the same page then.

By: Trento

Trento — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:44:32 +0000

Even if it was a bond for 48 billion plus an additional 10 billion for the operating budget for the first ten years, I wouldn’t vote for it. I, like you, don’t vote for bond unless I deem it absolutely necessary.

What I’m saying is that the idea is good, but any plausible execution, besides having a private company build and run it, is not. I didn’t say disease, I said endemic social norm. I think that Californians love their cars, and while it would be nice to have more cars off the roads (don’t you agree) a tax payer funded bullet train is not going to do the trick.

By: nathan118

nathan118 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 05:07:12 +0000

As for how many people make the commute from LA to SF…I’d love to see some stats. A boeing 737 that southwest flies holds 189 people based on what I can find. Assuming 48 flights if they go every half hour of every day, and ignoring people returning home the same day…that’s about 9000 people. That’s also ignoring that the middle of the night flights probably aren’t as full. I’m not factoring in other airlines though.

Another way to look at it…Andrew quoted a figure of around $1 billion dollars a year to operate it. Obviously as John pointed out, a plane ride would be the most direct competition. At $1 billion a year that’s about $2.7 million a day. The cheapest southwest ticket I see at a long notice is $69 round trip. Assuming they charged the same price for the train, they would need almost 40k people to ride it each day just to break even. So even if you assume that 40k people make the trip everyday…why would you pay the same price for a slower trip?

Of course, all of the above is super speculative, but the sad part is that none of this is broken down in the bill. When voters have to vote on a bond measure like this, it’s essentially like making a business deal. No business venture in the private sector would be so poorly planned or laid out. I shouldn’t have to be calculating how many people would take the dumb thing, because that should already be figured out.

And Trent, I think it’s going to be interesting reading your responses. So far I’ve gotten that you don’t like that the bonds are insufficient, but you do think cars are a disease to society.

By: Trento

Trento — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:57:14 +0000

On this proposition, I am very supportive of the idea. I think that we need to definitely change the way Californians view transportation, and a better train system would be a beneficial step in the right direction. But the convenience of cars is an endemic social norm that isn’t going to be changed by an insufficient bond issue that pays for only a portion of the train. The benefits don’t outweigh the costs.

By: Trento

Trento — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:48:08 +0000

I think its going to be interesting hearing your perspective on all the props because I’ve already voted.

By: nixon

nixon — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 02:07:35 +0000

Great idea I look forward to reading your take on all the props.

Just a side note I think you might be surprised how many make that commute from LA to SF. Why do you think Southwest has a flight to SF every half hour. Just saying. I’m still voting NO.