I don't understand how having one train replace the need for X number of cars hurts the enviroment more.

I fully support whatever California wants to do as long as it implodes more quickly.

MemeSlave: I fully support whatever California wants to do as long as it implodes more quickly.

On behalf of my fellow Californians, I'd like to thank the economy for giving non-Californians another joke besides "waiting for the Big One so California will fall into the ocean."

That said, despite my total support for rail, CA high speed rail is a clusterfark in the making. The project's only selling point is getting you out of Fresno quickly.

FTFA:

Authority officials plan to start building the first 130 miles of track in the Central Valley by the end of the year. That $6-billion section, which will not be equipped to operate trains, is supposed to be finished by 2017 to avoid losing federal funds.

Umm, $6 billion and it is not equipped to operate trains? WTF are they building -- lego tracks?

The LA Weekly covered some of the issues related to the bullet train. Several things are going to go wrong: The number of passengers projected is far too high (higher than the East Coast Boston-to-DC corridor with actual trains and a stronger public transit history) and every state senator along the way seems to want a stop in their town, thus killing the speed.

Farking hell not this again.

How about some competently operated normal-speed trains first? Oh no. We've got to have SUPPER DUPER AMAZING BULLET TRAINS! To more quickly spend all of the money, I presume.

0MGWTFBBQ: FTFA:

Authority officials plan to start building the first 130 miles of track in the Central Valley by the end of the year. That $6-billion section, which will not be equipped to operate trains, is supposed to be finished by 2017 to avoid losing federal funds.

Umm, $6 billion and it is not equipped to operate trains? WTF are they building -- lego tracks?

I wonder if this is just train bed preparation, or being built without the signals in place yet. Either way, check out my previous post about the clusterfark. Also, $68 billion estimate is off, it is actually closer to $100 billion.

0MGWTFBBQ: FTFA:

Authority officials plan to start building the first 130 miles of track in the Central Valley by the end of the year. That $6-billion section, which will not be equipped to operate trains, is supposed to be finished by 2017 to avoid losing federal funds.

Umm, $6 billion and it is not equipped to operate trains? WTF are they building -- lego tracks?

I also questioned what exactly that means.

46 million dollars a mile? What could possibly cause any type of transportation to cost over 9k a foot? Even in a state as ridiculous as California, this seems incomprehensible.

All of the western states need this.

I'm in favor of just about anything that stops that boondoggle from getting off the ground. And fark all those jackass citizens who voted for spending billions and billions of dollars on a project that could never possibly be self-sufficient when the state economy was already proper farked. Sweet, merciful crap, people are stupid.

MemeSlave: I fully support whatever California wants to do as long as it implodes more quickly.

You know, California would be a wonderful place if only everything to the left of the San Andreas Fault simply fell into the ocean. And think of the SyFy Movie we would get out of it. What I like to call a Win Win Situation.

Hurf durf, Imma rootin tootin repulocan, and I hates those liberal blue cities on that thar coast.

Horses and leather forever!

jtown: I'm in favor of just about anything that stops that boondoggle from getting off the ground. And fark all those jackass citizens who voted for spending billions and billions of dollars on a project that could never possibly be self-sufficient when the state economy was already proper farked. Sweet, merciful crap, people are stupid.

GIS Boondoggle... I never knew this was what that was called.

Ed Willy: Also, $68 billion estimate is off, it is actually closer to $100 billion.

By the time it's actually built and running, $225 billion, easy.

/not from california
//don't want to BE from california
///typical huge govt program

This just reinforces what I have said for years. Environmental study and reporting requirements are non-value added fluff. The only purpose they ever serve is a as a mechanism for someone with ax to grind to derail construction projects. Its ironic that now such suits are being used to stop something that on balance would probably benefit the environment by reducing car miles traveled. The farmers have caught on to the enviro-weenies tactics.

I live in Bakersfield. Please... someone kill me.

Okay Farkers, here comes the math:

Cost of the railroad: $68 billion----- IF it is built on budget, fat chance;

Cost of an airplane ticket, one way: $125 average;

Number of tickets you have to sell to break even in 10 years: 148,000/day.

That would work out to a train packed with 400 people, every 4 minutes 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; not likely.

olddinosaur: Number of tickets you have to sell to break even in 10 years: 148,000/day.

Actually it depends, do you consider yourself in the hole when it starts operation or do you consider yourself at $0.

HotIgneous Intruder: Farking hell not this again.

How about some competently operated normal-speed trains first? Oh no. We've got to have SUPPER DUPER AMAZING BULLET TRAINS! To more quickly spend all of the money, I presume.

Other states are doing incremental upgrades to make high speed eventually possible, but California wants to avoid expanding airports that just can't be expanded. San Diego really has no option to expand the number of people than can use SAN. There just isn't any flat land left that can be used without going 90 miles or so from downtown. LA has the same problem with LAX. There are other airports around, but they're not well located (such as ONT.)

Because of this, the people with the money to push a project like this think they need HSR to get people to these remote airports or to avoid flying altogether. A lot of flights connect between CA airports, so the hope is that HSR will free up some gates for out of state/country flights.

olddinosaur: break even in 10 years

Why 10 years? The ROW will last forever, and the tracks themselves should last a lot longer than 10 years.

Libs, you ever wonder why conservatives refuse to negotiate on economic policy with you? Stop farking up simple tasks

Gdalescrboz: you ever wonder why conservatives refuse to negotiate on economic policy with you? St

Because conservatives demonstrate such facility for economic policy.

Voiceofreason01: Ah, environmental lawyers, California's most abundant natural resource second only to bureaucrats.

The Economist had sn article last year that showed CA has one of the smallest government worker to resident ratios in the country. It would have shrunk even further over the past decades except for the education and corrections departments continued growth.

So lad I left that flush with cash state.

Ima4nic8or: This just reinforces what I have said for years. Environmental study and reporting requirements are non-value added fluff. The only purpose they ever serve is a as a mechanism for someone with ax to grind to derail construction projects. Its ironic that now such suits are being used to stop something that on balance would probably benefit the environment by reducing car miles traveled. The farmers have caught on to the enviro-weenies tactics.

You know, it's exactly that reason why we don't have anymore "grand projects." I always see people write stuff like, "Why don't we have any more Hoover Dams or Empire State Buildings? We built those in months!" Because I'm betting they didn't have a swarm of "environmental advocacy" groups waiting to swoop in and file a law suit claiming the construction would displace smelt herders.

Gulper Eel: Kaldea: I don't understand how having one train replace the need for X number of cars hurts the enviroment more.

Because the train would be running along a route where X isn't all that big.

Between two places that nobody in their right mind wants to go.

By the time they finish building this white elephant it will be as fast as a bus in downtown rush hour traffic, and not go anywhere you want to go. The only purpose of the bullet train is to give large amounts of money to the right people.

snocone: Here in Minnesota, we have these deer ticks. They get on you and infect you with Lyme's Disease.
You get to feeling sick.
You spend all your money missing the diagnosis.
The infection causes dementia and you lose your mind.

In California you have these lawyers,,,

Want to trade?

Remember how America used to be able to send men to walk on the motherfarking moon and shiate? That was awesome.

Is the Ironic tag high on medical marijuana?

/I love it when the left self destructs

hstein3: You know, it's exactly that reason why we don't have anymore "grand projects."

Actually it's not. It's that no one wants to actually make them happen any more. The environmental regs thing is often way overplayed. They were doing some highway construction near here a few years back and one of the bridges was supposed to go right over a little bit of marsh. Turns out, that simply making it run a bit higher took care of the issue.

beta_plus: /I love it when the left self destructs

Please explain how high speed rail is a left vs right issue.

snocone: Here in Minnesota, we have these deer ticks. They get on you and infect you with Lyme's Disease.
You get to feeling sick.
You spend all your money missing the diagnosis.
The infection causes dementia and you lose your mind.

In California you have these lawyers,,,

Normally, I would say burn all the lawyers at a stake, but these are slowing the progress and may stop it in its tracks (pun intended). Therefore, I am going to hold off tossing gas on them, for now...

California will take the monorail out of Debtville.

fredbox: Remember how America used to be able to send men to walk on the motherfarking moon and shiate? That was awesome.

Remember how America used to care about trying out new technologies instead of obsessing about out of date early 19th century modes of transportation? That was awesome.

/build privately leased toll roads
//you know, like how your favorite country in the world France does

beta_plus: /build privately leased toll roads

Actually the companies that administer them are part stated owned. And the national government still has direct oversight.

davidphogan: olddinosaur: break even in 10 years

Why 10 years? The ROW will last forever, and the tracks themselves should last a lot longer than 10 years.

That is true, but trains need fuel, trains wear out in time, people to drive them need to be paid, and so do the people who swell the tickets, so do the people who work at the depots, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseam.

I only cited the 10-year figure to cover the cost of building the railroad, the cost to operate it was not factored in. That would add at least 50% to the figure.

lohphat: Since when does infrastructure have to be profitable? How much profit does the FAA make? How about the streets and roads you use? What of their profit?

And the same people that talk about it being in the read never apply the same math to other things, like defense projects.

WhyteRaven74: beta_plus: /build privately leased toll roads

Actually the companies that administer them are part stated owned. And the national government still has direct oversight.

Hence the term leased - oversight of such projects is implied.

The spend far less on their roads as a result of paying the contractor with the tolls from the highway.



/how much would you pay for the tallest bridge in the world?
//French only paid about $ 1/2 billion
///In America, the same would have cost $10 billion

olddinosaur: but trains need fuel,

If you power them with electricity you can power them for cheap. California what's more is uniquely suited to provide tons of dirt cheap electricity were someone inclined to put up the infrastructure and generation facilities.

That would add at least 50% to the figure.

Actually operational costs aren't very much.

Why are we wasting our time on high-speed rail? Someone needs to invent the flying Delorean or at least a teleporter... sheesh ,this is 2012 after all.

Good to see California is handling it's budget deficit so well.

hstein3: Ima4nic8or: This just reinforces what I have said for years. Environmental study and reporting requirements are non-value added fluff. The only purpose they ever serve is a as a mechanism for someone with ax to grind to derail construction projects. Its ironic that now such suits are being used to stop something that on balance would probably benefit the environment by reducing car miles traveled. The farmers have caught on to the enviro-weenies tactics.

You know, it's exactly that reason why we don't have anymore "grand projects." I always see people write stuff like, "Why don't we have any more Hoover Dams or Empire State Buildings? We built those in months!" Because I'm betting they didn't have a swarm of "environmental advocacy" groups waiting to swoop in and file a law suit claiming the construction would displace smelt herders.

A lot of those same people will also complain that the WTC is still a hole in the ground and the real terrorists are the lawyers, without realizing that it's already 70% built (I believe, number might be a bit off). But I do agree, would ANY freeways have been built with all of the environmental lawsuits now? Would all of California still be a land of rural backwater hicks, instead of just most of it? Would the US GDP have been anywhere near what it has been for the last century if the highways (and thus cities) here had never been allowed?

Cubansaltyballs: Nice. Central Valley farmers...

If you've driven I-5 lately, you'll notice that since Republicans took the House, the signs changed from "Stop the C0ngress Created Dustbowl" to "Stop the Dem0crat Created Dustbowl."


So yeah,... Central Valley farmers are dumber than Snooki after huffing paint.

Most of the central valley is owned by massive multinational agribusiness conglomerates who heavily fund Republican/Tea Party candidates, so of course they with lie, cheat, and steal in their political campaigning. They do have a bit of a point, but they would prefer that in dry years they get all the water they need to protect profits, even if it dries up all of the cities and lakebeds. It's not like the billionaire owners have to care. The few independent farmers are your typical salt of the earth, and even they're pretty well to do, so it's no surprise they buy into it as well.

beta_plus: The spend far less on their roads as a result of paying the contractor with the tolls from the highway.

Care to prove that?

STRYPERSWINE: So lad I left that flush with cash state.

Only a lad? Well good riddance, it's becoming an Asian sausage-fest in my area.

hard to see how this wasn't all but impossible after the last 40 years of prolific property value and population increases. should have done it in the 1970's or 80's. they actually tried in the 1980's, but apparently environmentalists and nimby cities squashed it? private industry wanted a piece of it back in the early1980's, but now shop little interest in the development
the capital outlays are so much larger now, it's gotta be close to financially impossible to recoup the costs at this point.
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/10/30-lost-years/

foxyshadis: . But I do agree, would ANY freeways have been built with all of the environmental lawsuits now?

NIMBYs are a far bigger problem.

Tellingthem: Bullet trains are not bad but this plan was. That is the big difference. People were told a whole lot of BS so that they would vote for it. And then as more and more reports of all the bad numbers they used to sell it came out people got angry for being lied too. I have zero problems with high-speed rail. I have lots of problems for projects that lie their ass off in order to get it approved. And then drop the "oops we may have made a mistake so we need lots more money to continue working" line. And also maybe we should probably figure out how to get a train to go from LA to San Fransisco first.

So far nearly all of the cost overruns come from the legal fees to fight lawsuits and the fact that everyone even remotely involved threatens to hold it up unless the route is realigned to their constituency. So of course every time the route changes new studies have to be done in accordance with the law, land grabs negotiated, stations designed, and so on, that's why the cost keeps going up every year.

The project lacks a leader and a vision because California government is a bunch of whiny squabbling babies all fighting over the ball while the state falls apart from auto-asphyxiation. Even Jerry Brown can't work his old steamrolling magic because no one can even get a majority of the assembly & senate to even agree that the sky is blue, and it's a small portrait of the whole me me me attitude of the entire country. What is the benefit to me is the only metric anything is judged on anymore, even if it would tremendously benefit your neighbor and increase the tax base.

NateAsbestos: I live in Bakersfield. Please... someone kill me.

I do too. Have you heard the talk about where the tracks would actually go? They want to plow through the middle of downtown and go through the BHS campus.

This plan will require a rail line through the Tejon Pass. Given this and the assorted objections to HSR, I think it would be a much wiser plan to simply cut a path through the pass and lay standard track from Bakersfield to Los Angeles. It would be much cheaper and obviate the need for people to switch from trains to buses when traveling between these two points.

WhyteRaven74:
Actually it depends, do you consider yourself in the hole when it starts operation or do you consider yourself at $0.

You consider yourself in the hole. That money has to come from somewhere, and you have to be a complete moron to even consider pretending that a $100 billion project didn't cost anything to build.

Please explain how high speed rail is a left vs right issue.

Because almost all of the people who want to build this white elephant are Democrats, and almost all of the people who keep showing them what a bad idea it is are Republicans.

The fact that even the hard-left LA Weekly has finally noticed what a bad idea this is should be a HUGE hint of just how mind-bogglingly bad it is. We've known for at least a couple of years that it would never make its completely insane ridership predictions, and anyone who's ever paid attention to government projects knows that the initial $40 billion estimate (from last year) wasn't going to pan out.

WhyteRaven74: foxyshadis: . But I do agree, would ANY freeways have been built with all of the environmental lawsuits now?

NIMBYs are a far bigger problem.

can you even effectively be a nimby without the environmental red tape at your disposal at this point? aren't you essentially left with suing for nuisance damages after the shiat is completed without the environmental private enforcement laws that allow citizens to sue and delay construction on behalf of the state government prior to any development at all? I can't remember if California has that mechanism, but I'd be very surprised if they don't.

WhyteRaven74: foxyshadis: . But I do agree, would ANY freeways have been built with all of the environmental lawsuits now?

NIMBYs are a far bigger problem.

Most environmental lawsuits are filed and fought by NIMBYs, with a little input from big greenies on the coast. NIMBYs almost always use the courts to fight change now, all over the country, and environmental law is the easiest way to entangle a project to the max; that way you don't have to deal with changing anyone's opinion but the judge's, and it can be filed in the court of one of the known green judges.

/Happy to be an environmentalist, but that ship sailed a very long time ago in the valley. Factory farms are not scrub wetlands, people.

LaughingRadish: NateAsbestos: I live in Bakersfield. Please... someone kill me.

I do too. Have you heard the talk about where the tracks would actually go? They want to plow through the middle of downtown and go through the BHS campus.

This plan will require a rail line through the Tejon Pass. Given this and the assorted objections to HSR, I think it would be a much wiser plan to simply cut a path through the pass and lay standard track from Bakersfield to Los Angeles. It would be much cheaper and obviate the need for people to switch from trains to buses when traveling between these two points.

I hadn't heard that. That is some terrible placement

yteRaven74

Gdalescrboz: you ever wonder why conservatives refuse to negotiate on economic policy with you? St

Because conservatives demonstrate such facility for economic policy.


Texas seems to be doing something right. And as we all know here on Fark, Texas is full of a bunch of dumbass redneck conservatives who can't grasp the simplest of things let alone economics

foxyshadis:
So far nearly all of the cost overruns come from the legal fees to fight lawsuits

So the cost increase from $40 billion (last year) to $68 billion (this year) are from TWENTY-EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS in legal fees?

That's just goofy.

The "cost overruns" came, as they always do, from some government bureaucrat who picked a lowball figure that they thought they could get away with (that people voted on), and the current lowball $68 billion comes from people noticing that they didn't do the math right the first time.

By this time next year, the lowball $100 billion that they'll admit to will include more of the land purchases and hardware that they "forgot" to put in the original estimate, plus the interest from borrowing the cash in the first place.

Gdalescrboz: Texas seems to be doing something right

Actually it doesn't seem to be doing much of anything right. Unless you happen to like minimum wage jobs.

crotchgrabber: Man, I love the California hate threads.

Yeah, funny how the fact that California's input into the federal treasury props up the red welfare states is always conveniently ignored. Honestly, I really wish California would say "fark you" to the other 49 states and leave. Get your welfare payments from someplace else.

Oh and by the way, I detest the bullet train idea and am not a conservative.

Cubansaltyballs: Nice. Central Valley farmers...

If you've driven I-5 lately, you'll notice that since Republicans took the House, the signs changed from "Stop the C0ngress Created Dustbowl" to "Stop the Dem0crat Created Dustbowl."


So yeah,... Central Valley farmers are dumber than Snooki after huffing paint.

I root against anything the Valley wants because the people from there are an utter blight to the state, not really based on any practical reason. Those flat-billed hat wearing, lifted-truck driving, faux-Southern douchebags can go fark themselves. They come through this area every goddamn weekend on their way to Pismo and the dunes - bunch of loud, littering, rude retards.

LaughingRadish: NateAsbestos: I live in Bakersfield. Please... someone kill me.

I do too. Have you heard the talk about where the tracks would actually go? They want to plow through the middle of downtown and go through the BHS campus.

This plan will require a rail line through the Tejon Pass. Given this and the assorted objections to HSR, I think it would be a much wiser plan to simply cut a path through the pass and lay standard track from Bakersfield to Los Angeles. It would be much cheaper and obviate the need for people to switch from trains to buses when traveling between these two points.

As long as you're building in the middle of nowhere anyway, it's always better to go big from the start. Build the high speed rail and then put the Amtrak on it, with connections to Phoenix and Las Vegas, and we'll see what we could really expect from high speed rail. Amtrak is reasonably fast anyway when it's not behind a freight train - 80 mph or so max - with no stops except at Magic Mountain and Burbank it's not like it would take any longer than driving. If the project gets abandoned halfway into construction, at least make it possible to link into the existing Santa Fe lines for Amtrak riders to get some benefit out of it.

Pragmatic engineering will lose out to grandiose failure, though, just like the Bay Bridge.

CrotchgrabberStay out of the Sierras. Go to Big Bear or Mt. San Jacinto. The sensible people who live here don't want you or your HSR boondoggle. California can't afford it, and the Feds aren't going to pay for it, either.

WhyteRaven74:
Actually it doesn't seem to be doing much of anything right. Unless you happen to like minimum wage jobs.

Except, of course, that 3/4 of the jobs created in Texas (1 million in the last ten years) are paid better than minimum wage - only a quarter of Texas' new jobs are at or below minimum wage.

You should also note that service jobs like waiters and bartenders fall under that "at or below minimum wage" level - and they tend to make a lot more than that in actual wages in a growing economy.

ambercricket: crotchgrabber: Man, I love the California hate threads.

Yeah, funny how the fact that California's input into the federal treasury props up the red welfare states is always conveniently ignored. Honestly, I really wish California would say "fark you" to the other 49 states and leave. Get your welfare payments from someplace else.

Oh and by the way, I detest the bullet train idea and am not a conservative.

you aren't paying jackshiat to the state; you're paying it to old people and poor women and children almost exclusively. got to love when pho-progressives get their panties in a wad when asked to actually pay for the national social programs they demand. and I can't imagine someone as ignorant as you is paying much at all if anything in any event.

Cubansaltyballs: Nice. Central Valley farmers...

If you've driven I-5 lately, you'll notice that since Republicans took the House, the signs changed from "Stop the C0ngress Created Dustbowl" to "Stop the Dem0crat Created Dustbowl."


So yeah,... Central Valley farmers are dumber than Snooki after huffing paint.


Corporate and old school conservative family owned farms all vote Republican, so they can have cheap illegal workers and little taxes.

Cubansaltyballs: Nice. Central Valley farmers...

If you've driven I-5 lately, you'll notice that since Republicans took the House, the signs changed from "Stop the C0ngress Created Dustbowl" to "Stop the Dem0crat Created Dustbowl."


So yeah,... Central Valley farmers are dumber than Snooki after huffing paint.

I drive that route about 4 times a year and the signs are freaking hilarious! Just about as funny as the family running across the freeway that you have in SD county.

\This is a horrible idea
\\ Fix the schools before we build a train not enough people will use, ever!

MemeSlave: I fully support whatever California wants to do as long as it implodes more quickly.


If California fails, America is screwed. Highest GDP, highest population, largest agriculture industry, silicon valley, etc. None of you red states would be able to steal tax dollars from them.

ShivaHVishnu: CrotchgrabberStay out of the Sierras. Go to Big Bear or Mt. San Jacinto. The sensible people who live here don't want you or your HSR boondoggle. California can't afford it, and the Feds aren't going to pay for it, either. Sean Hannity told me that investing in infrastructure is socialism!

beta_plus: the left


Because nothing says the left like a state with governors Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Jerry Brown, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

ambercricket:
Yeah, funny how the fact that California's input into the federal treasury props up the red welfare states is always conveniently ignored.

You do know that those "red states take in more taxes" numbers all include the money spent on the military in those states, right? A huge portion of that money goes right back out of those red states to the blue states that supply the military. It's "spent" in the red state, but the money lands in places like California or Washington State, for example. A lot of the "outlay" is also towards retirees - which is why they pay taxes in their expensive blue state for their whole lives, then spend the money in the red state they can afford to retire in.

They also count highway expenditures - which means that those nice big Interstate highways that are used to haul stuff from coast to coast are counted as "income" for those states - when the major beneficiaries are the blue states on the coasts.

One other caveat that's always ignored by people reading those "red states get more" stories is that is only shows where the Federal taxes are collected - not where the tax burden is originated.

Gdalescrboz: Texas seems to be doing something right.


They were born under the largest amount of oil in the country?

The oil economy is directly or indirectly responsible for 80% of new jobs created.

ZipSplat: "I root against anything the Valley wants because the people from there are an utter blight to the state, not really based on any practical reason. Those flat-billed hat wearing, lifted-truck driving, faux-Southern douchebags can go fark themselves. They come through this area every goddamn weekend on their way to Pismo and the dunes - bunch of loud, littering, rude retards."
So why don't you join me in my effort to have all the non-coastal counties secede and form their own state? You smart guys on the coast could have your own state, call it "Pacifica." and we could be California. Then you wouldn't be associated with us rubes out here and could say you're not from CA. It's a win-win. We could grow all the food you need, cut all your lumber, and maybe build a few refineries to provide you with gas for your Prius. I think it's a potential Utopia you're looking at.

cirby: You do know that those "red states take in more taxes" numbers all include the money spent on the military in those states, right?


Another government welfare program needed to prop up red states.

ZipSplat: HSR is not infrastructure. It's a make work program that will need massive subsidies to continue operating after the construction is finished. There aren't enough people in CA to support it. Even if you made it illegal to drive on I-5 and 99 from LA to SF people would just fly, because that's cheaper and faster.

Cubansaltyballs: Nice. Central Valley farmers...

If you've driven I-5 lately, you'll notice that since Republicans took the House, the signs changed from "Stop the C0ngress Created Dustbowl" to "Stop the Dem0crat Created Dustbowl."


So yeah,... Central Valley farmers are dumber than Snooki after huffing paint.

I think you're the one that's been huffing..............retard.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020473180457438473189837 5 624.html

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/drought/2009-07-27-drycalifornia_N.ht m

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/10/farmers-vs-fish-californi_n_ 4 57581.html

The EPA has mandated that billions of gallons of water get dumped into the ocean to protect a farking 2 inch long fish.......sacrificing a huge swath of perfectly good agricultural land and throwing thousands of people out of work.

Congress has been mostly controlled by Dems since this madness started and has done nothing to intervene and stop this but the farmers in California are stupid.............right?

Go fark yourself.

intelligent comment below:
The oil economy is directly or indirectly responsible for 80% of new jobs created.

In Texas? Actually, only about a quarter, at best.

ShivaHVishnu: So why don't you join me in my effort to have all the non-coastal counties secede and form their own state? You smart guys on the coast could have your own state, call it "Pacifica." and we could be California. Then you wouldn't be associated with us rubes out here and could say you're not from CA. It's a win-win. We could grow all the food you need, cut all your lumber, and maybe build a few refineries to provide you with gas for your Prius. I think it's a potential Utopia you're looking at.

1) Learn to use the quote feature properly. Formatting is friendly.
2) If we handed over inland control to you, it would be about a week before Yosemite would be "Brought to You By Mountain Dew and Taco Bell". We can't even let you guys have pseudoephedrine and bleach without you finding a way to hurt yourselves.

intelligent comment below: Gdalescrboz: Texas seems to be doing something right.


They were born under the largest amount of oil in the country?

The oil economy is directly or indirectly responsible for 80% of new jobs created.

Don't be too hard on Texas; Los Angeles was originally built on its heavy crude deposits as well. Oil is still a decent fraction of the state's GDP.

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: Congress has been mostly controlled by Dems since this madness started and has done nothing to intervene and stop this but the farmers in California are stupid.............right?

Yes, because the solution to this was to vote for Republican congressional candidates. Now that they're in office, the problem still persists yet the "CONGRESS CREATED DUSTBOWL!1!" signs are gone, and Sean Hannity isn't broadcasting live from the artichoke fields anymore.

cirby: In Texas? Actually, only about a quarter, at best.


Not sure if serious

Forget LA to SF. They should have HSR between LA and Las Vegas. It's through the desert anyway so it should be easy.

MemeSlave: I fully support whatever California wants to do as long as it implodes more quickly.

Amen!

Cubansaltyballs: Nice. Central Valley farmers...

If you've driven I-5 lately, you'll notice that since Republicans took the House, the signs changed from "Stop the C0ngress Created Dustbowl" to "Stop the Dem0crat Created Dustbowl."


So yeah,... Central Valley farmers are dumber than Snooki after huffing paint.
.
.

huh?

david_gaithersburg: Cubansaltyballs: Nice. Central Valley farmers...

If you've driven I-5 lately, you'll notice that since Republicans took the House, the signs changed from "Stop the C0ngress Created Dustbowl" to "Stop the Dem0crat Created Dustbowl."


So yeah,... Central Valley farmers are dumber than Snooki after huffing paint.
.
.

huh?


You're a dumbass, we know this already.

cirby:
In Texas? Actually, only about a quarter, at best.

intelligent comment below:
Not sure if serious

Serious. Only 15% of new jobs in Texas over the last few years have been in the oil industry, with another ten percent or so in support businesses.

Texas has a huge manufacturing sector, a very large agricultural sector, and a diverse economy overall. They've been directly benefiting from California's foolish business policies, and picking up a lot of the industrial expansion that California gave up for higher taxes and more extensive regulations. Per capita, there's more manufacturing going on in Texas than in California: 13% of the gross state product compared to 11.2% for California.

California is actually below average, per capita, for manufacturing versus GDP (11.7% nationwide). And falling.

Before spouting off any more about it, you might try basing your argument on something better than a psychotic movie clown's quote...

Kreighund:
If a Democrat tried to make "Steak and a BJ" day into a legal holiday, Central Valley farmers and Orange County leaders would oppose it.

Because the Democrat would try to make it a statewide holiday and make the farmers and the businessmen pay for it. Then they'd set it up to only take place in downtown LA and San Francisco, on a weekday. At three PM.

cirby: Serious. Only 15% of new jobs in Texas over the last few years have been in the oil industry, with another ten percent or so in support businesses.


You have that backwards.

80% of new jobs are directly because of the oil industry.

intelligent comment below: Gdalescrboz: Texas seems to be doing something right.


They were born under the largest amount of oil in the country?

The oil economy is directly or indirectly responsible for 80% of new jobs created.

California ranks third in the nation for proven reserves why don't they develope them?

ImpendingCynic: MemeSlave: I fully support whatever California wants to do as long as it implodes more quickly.

On behalf of my fellow Californians, I'd like to thank the economy for giving non-Californians another joke besides "waiting for the Big One so California will fall into the ocean."

That said, despite my total support for rail, CA high speed rail is a clusterfark in the making. The project's only selling point is getting you out of Fresno quickly.

Id rather we just nuke Fresno from orbit and be done with it (and Bakersfield while were at it).

Far left greens block project


Fark's far left moonbats to blame Right wing conspiracy in 4...3...2...

OnlyM3: Far left greens block project


Fark's far left moonbats to blame Right wing conspiracy in 4...3...2...


skinnyhead strikes again

"California ranks third in the nation for proven reserves why don't they develope them"

I am no enviro douchebag and am all for getting the oil out if they can find a way to do it without destroying the coast. In response to the above I would say; because we have seen what that sort of develpment did to the gulf coast. When I sit on the beach I dont want to look out at 100 oil derricks, even if it means paying a buck or two more for a gallon of gas. I also would prefer not to have 50 bazzillion gallons of oil dumped in my states coastal waters by some greedy big oil d-bags who are too self interested to worry about actually following safety procedures.

The moment they figure out how to get the oil out while keeping all most of the apparatus below water level and find a way to make things like the exxon valdez, deepwater horizon, etc spills a 1 in 1000 year anamoly I will be all for them drilling off the CA coast.

I knew someone that had a house on the beach with oil rigs in the distance. There was always oil in the water.

Cubansaltyballs: Nice. Central Valley farmers...

If you've driven I-5 lately, you'll notice that since Republicans took the House, the signs changed from "Stop the C0ngress Created Dustbowl" to "Stop the Dem0crat Created Dustbowl."


So yeah,... Central Valley farmers are dumber than Snooki after huffing paint.

No, no they don't.

/drive that long boring drive all the time

WhyteRaven74: Actually it depends, do you consider yourself in the hole when it starts operation or do you consider yourself at $0.

If it costs more than $0 to build, then you're in the hole.

But realistically, you wouldn't be breaking even if you started at $0.

intelligent comment below: I knew someone that had a house on the beach with oil rigs in the distance. There was always oil in the water.

There is the chance the oil is natural seepage


Oil seeps occur naturally all along the coast of California, notably in the Santa Barbara Channel near Coal Oil Point. The widespread nature of oil seeps in this area is well documented by early explorers and by coast-dwelling Chumash Indians.


You can go to South Padre Island and see oil rigs in the distnace but no oil in the water. However at Galveston you get a lot of tar balls.


.

Took a ride on the Maglev in Shanghai last week. 431km/h. It is elevated and runs along the current highway. Why can't we do that in the US?

MemeSlave: I fully support whatever California wants to do as long as it implodes more quickly.

this,,,,

davidphogan: HotIgneous Intruder: Farking hell not this again.

How about some competently operated normal-speed trains first? Oh no. We've got to have SUPPER DUPER AMAZING BULLET TRAINS! To more quickly spend all of the money, I presume.

Other states are doing incremental upgrades to make high speed eventually possible, but California wants to avoid expanding airports that just can't be expanded. San Diego really has no option to expand the number of people than can use SAN. There just isn't any flat land left that can be used without going 90 miles or so from downtown. LA has the same problem with LAX. There are other airports around, but they're not well located (such as ONT.)

Because of this, the people with the money to push a project like this think they need HSR to get people to these remote airports or to avoid flying altogether. A lot of flights connect between CA airports, so the hope is that HSR will free up some gates for out of state/country flights.

There were discussions about taking over Miramar but there's no chance on that and with the new terminal and upgrades we're gonna be stuck with San for a while.

2nd busiest single runway in the world

BMFPitt: WhyteRaven74: Actually it depends, do you consider yourself in the hole when it starts operation or do you consider yourself at $0.

If it costs more than $0 to build, then you're in the hole.

But realistically, you wouldn't be breaking even if you started at $0.


Looking at the cost is stupid imo. Building the interstate highway system or the railroad system, did the government worry about the expense? Infrastructure isn't supposed to be profitable like private industry otherwise private industry would have done it already.

bjmooren: Took a ride on the Maglev in Shanghai last week. 431km/h. It is elevated and runs along the current highway. Why can't we do that in the US?


Because China can use cheap labor and kick off anyone living on the land, throwing them in jail if they protest.

bjmooren: Took a ride on the Maglev in Shanghai last week. 431km/h. It is elevated and runs along the current highway. Why can't we do that in the US?

Maybe the Chinese can't

CHINA'S high-speed railway network, once a source of great pride for the Communist Party, has turned into an embarrassment

China's High Speed Railway Blues

olddinosaur: davidphogan: olddinosaur: break even in 10 years

Why 10 years? The ROW will last forever, and the tracks themselves should last a lot longer than 10 years.

That is true, but trains need fuel, trains wear out in time, people to drive them need to be paid, and so do the people who swell the tickets, so do the people who work at the depots, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseam.

I only cited the 10-year figure to cover the cost of building the railroad, the cost to operate it was not factored in. That would add at least 50% to the figure.

You're estimating $3.2 billion per year for operations? Are you on crack?

SoCalSurfer: There were discussions about taking over Miramar but there's no chance on that and with the new terminal and upgrades we're gonna be stuck with San for a while.

2nd busiest single runway in the world

Yep, I was involved with a citizen's advisory panel in 2004 or 2005 or so when they were trying to find another site. I loved the Campo proposal of cutting the top of a mountain off to fill a valley and building high speed maglev trains under mountains to serve it. That was almost as amusing as the floating airport off Ocean Beach idea.

davidphogan: SoCalSurfer: There were discussions about taking over Miramar but there's no chance on that and with the new terminal and upgrades we're gonna be stuck with San for a while.

2nd busiest single runway in the world

Yep, I was involved with a citizen's advisory panel in 2004 or 2005 or so when they were trying to find another site. I loved the Campo proposal of cutting the top of a mountain off to fill a valley and building high speed maglev trains under mountains to serve it. That was almost as amusing as the floating airport off Ocean Beach idea.

You're kidding

intelligent comment below:
You have that backwards.

80% of new jobs are directly because of the oil industry.

Nope. Sorry. Repeating your wrong claimed number doesn't suddenly make it become correct.

Now, in some other states, this is true. When you look at places like Kansas, that's right. What's happening is that some folks are trying to pretend every non-government job in Texas is due to "oil money" coming in. The problem is that it really doesn't take that many new workers to keep drilling oil wells. Mostly, it's the same smaller number of roughnecks who travel from place to place along with the handful of rigs in operation.

That's the thing: there aren't enough rigs. They're not really building a lot more for the Texas market, either. Most of the new drilling rigs are headed to the big new fields in the Great Plains.

Texas? Nope. Sorry. There are under 1000 active oil wells being drilled at any moment in Texas. The number has only gone up by about 200 in the last year or two. That means only about 12,000 extra oil rig workers. Support staff, including all other suppliers and workers? Maybe another 8,000.

That's 20,000, at most, new oil field workers. Call it 25,000 to be generous. Out of 100,000 or so new jobs.

So no - you're just plain wrong.

It's almost like the real goal of environmentalists is to end civilization. But now that I think about it, that would be a lot better for the environment.

intelligent comment below: beta_plus: the left


Because nothing says the left like a state with governors Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Jerry Brown, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Eh? Jerry Brown is a certified moonbat. Schwarzenegger is a RINO.

cirby: Nope. Sorry. Repeating your wrong claimed number doesn't suddenly make it become correct.

Now, in some other states, this is true. When you look at places like Kansas, that's right. What's happening is that some folks are trying to pretend every non-government job in Texas is due to "oil money" coming in. The problem is that it really doesn't take that many new workers to keep drilling oil wells. Mostly, it's the same smaller number of roughnecks who travel from place to place along with the handful of rigs in operation.

That's the thing: there aren't enough rigs. They're not really building a lot more for the Texas market, either. Most of the new drilling rigs are headed to the big new fields in the Great Plains.

Texas? Nope. Sorry. There are under 1000 active oil wells being drilled at any moment in Texas. The number has only gone up by about 200 in the last year or two. That means only about 12,000 extra oil rig workers. Support staff, including all other suppliers and workers? Maybe another 8,000.

That's 20,000, at most, new oil field workers. Call it 25,000 to be generous. Out of 100,000 or so new jobs.

So no - you're just plain wrong.


That's a lot of false words to cover up the fact that you're wrong.

Directly and indirectly the state relies on the oil industry for its job creation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/business/in-texas-perry-rides-an-en e rgy-boom.html?pagewanted=all

The oil and gas industry now delivers roughly $325 billion a year to the state, directly and indirectly. It brings in $13 billion in state tax receipts, or roughly 40 percent of the total, financing up to 20 percent of the state budget.

...

The federal government has also helped support Texas. Federal spending in the state, home of NASA and large Army bases, more than doubled over the last decade to over $200 billion a year.

lohphat: bjmooren: Took a ride on the Maglev in Shanghai last week. 431km/h. It is elevated and runs along the current highway. Why can't we do that in the US?

Because communism or something.

Neil deGrasse-Tyson is right, ths country stopped dreaming and setting goals.

We now would rather sit around and get fat while hitching rides on Russian rockets and watching other countries progress with new technology.


Who cares about all that boring science stuff? I can't wait for the new season of SYTYCD

Federal spending in the state, home of NASA and large Army bases, more than doubled over the last decade to over $200 billion a year.

---

Because only Texas benefits from having an Army and a space program.

The 82nd Airborne only will defend Texas, and the satellites launched only service Texas as well.

LaughingRadish: intelligent comment below: beta_plus: the left


Because nothing says the left like a state with governors Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Jerry Brown, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Eh? Jerry Brown is a certified moonbat. Schwarzenegger is a RINO.

Also Ronny Raygun used to be a democrat when he was Governor of Cali.

SoCalSurfer: davidphogan: SoCalSurfer: There were discussions about taking over Miramar but there's no chance on that and with the new terminal and upgrades we're gonna be stuck with San for a while.

2nd busiest single runway in the world

Yep, I was involved with a citizen's advisory panel in 2004 or 2005 or so when they were trying to find another site. I loved the Campo proposal of cutting the top of a mountain off to fill a valley and building high speed maglev trains under mountains to serve it. That was almost as amusing as the floating airport off Ocean Beach idea.

You're kidding

Sadly not at all. One common suggestion people in San Diego gave to the airport problem was let's just build Metrolink so it's faster to get straight to LAX, which isn't really that bad of an idea other than LAX is nearing capacity as well. The CAHSR program conveniently makes all traffic between LA and SD pass by Ontario for a reason.

intelligent comment below: cirby: Nope. Sorry. Repeating your wrong claimed number doesn't suddenly make it become correct.

Now, in some other states, this is true. When you look at places like Kansas, that's right. What's happening is that some folks are trying to pretend every non-government job in Texas is due to "oil money" coming in. The problem is that it really doesn't take that many new workers to keep drilling oil wells. Mostly, it's the same smaller number of roughnecks who travel from place to place along with the handful of rigs in operation.

That's the thing: there aren't enough rigs. They're not really building a lot more for the Texas market, either. Most of the new drilling rigs are headed to the big new fields in the Great Plains.

Texas? Nope. Sorry. There are under 1000 active oil wells being drilled at any moment in Texas. The number has only gone up by about 200 in the last year or two. That means only about 12,000 extra oil rig workers. Support staff, including all other suppliers and workers? Maybe another 8,000.

That's 20,000, at most, new oil field workers. Call it 25,000 to be generous. Out of 100,000 or so new jobs.

So no - you're just plain wrong.


That's a lot of false words to cover up the fact that you're wrong.

Directly and indirectly the state relies on the oil industry for its job creation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/business/in-texas-perry-rides-an-en e rgy-boom.html?pagewanted=all

The oil and gas industry now delivers roughly $325 billion a year to the state, directly and indirectly. It brings in $13 billion in state tax receipts, or roughly 40 percent of the total, financing up to 20 percent of the state budget.

...

The federal government has also helped support Texas. Federal spending in the state, home of NASA and large Army bases, more than doubled over the last decade to over $200 billion a year.

citation?

California has the 3rd largest onshore proven oil and natural gas reserves in the nation (Behind Texas and Alaska) but won't develop them.

Are you saying there is no Military or NASA in California?

More than one in 10 federal defense dollars - nearly $57 billion - is spent in California, the second largest beneficiary behind only Virginia, according to a study by Bloomberg Government. Link

Military

Fort Irwin
Fort Hunter Liggett
Camp Pendleton
MC Recruit Depot, San Diego
China Lake Naval Weapons Center
Lemoore Naval Air Station
Twentynine Palms
Naval Base Coronadol
Miramar
Naval Surface Warfare Center Port Hueneme Division
Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC)
Port Mugu Pacific Missile Test Center
MC Logistics Base, Barstow
Beale AFB
Edwards AFB
Travis AFB
Vandenburg AFB
Los Angeles AFB


NASA facilities- California

Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex, Barstow, California

Ames Research Center, Moffett Federal Airfield, Mountain View, California

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California

Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, Los Angeles County, California

intelligent comment below: Looking at the cost is stupid imo.

Dumber words have rarely been said.

Building the interstate highway system or the railroad system, did the government worry about the expense?

For the highway system, yes. Also, that was at least partially a military project. For the railways not so much since the government didn't build it.

Infrastructure isn't supposed to be profitable like private industry otherwise private industry would have done it already.

I have a hard time describing the proposed rail system as infrastructure. If I were to even go that far, then it would still be reasonable to consider how much more useful infrastructure could be gotten for that kind of money.

There's no lawyer who would be caught dead anywhere between Borden and Concoran.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=from:borden,+ca+to:corcoran,+ca&saddr= b orden,+ca&daddr=corcoran,+ca&hl=en&sll=37.551276,-122.28755&sspn=0.011 551,0.017166&geocode=FZiIMwIdOoHY-ClZ6L8J0QyUgDEEi1AnXg4dIQ%3BFdfPJgId L6ffarkpFAB7FS3rgDHmwuQtTLLezQ&t=h&z=9

Cobataiwan: Federal spending in the state, home of NASA and large Army bases, more than doubled over the last decade to over $200 billion a year.

---

Because only Texas benefits from having an Army and a space program.

The 82nd Airborne only will defend Texas, and the satellites launched only service Texas as well.


No but it's just another of the many examples of Texas only surviving thanks to oil, gas, and government welfare.

LMAO. Just got back from a drive south where I saw this billboard, in the same big red on white text as the other anti-Democrat slogans around the valley:

To high speed rail advocates: EAT SH** AND DIE

Yeah, that'll convince 'em!

bjmooren: Took a ride on the Maglev in Shanghai last week. 431km/h. It is elevated and runs along the current highway. Why can't we do that in the US?

The original plan was to do that in Fresno. Then the cost projections came out, but believe it or not, the real reason the design was sunk was everyone within a mile freaking out over the noise levels and the shadow falling across their homes over the course of the day.

I'll let that sink in: People who already live near train tracks (the elevated alignment would parallel the existing freight/AmTrak tracks) were freaking out about hearing a train go by, when rough projections were that it would actually be slightly quieter than the freight going 80 mph. Oh, and the shadow covering their house for 10-15 minutes a day.

foxyshadis: LMAO. Just got back from a drive south where I saw this billboard, in the same big red on white text as the other anti-Democrat slogans around the valley:

To high speed rail advocates: EAT SH** AND DIE

Yeah, that'll convince 'em!

Classy and forward-thinking as always over in the Valley Real 'Murrica.

intelligent comment below: Cobataiwan: Federal spending in the state, home of NASA and large Army bases, more than doubled over the last decade to over $200 billion a year.

---

Because only Texas benefits from having an Army and a space program.

The 82nd Airborne only will defend Texas, and the satellites launched only service Texas as well.


No but it's just another of the many examples of Texas only surviving thanks to oil, gas, and government welfare.

Wrong; even the leftist acknowledge Texas pays more in Federal Taxes than it receives.


Link

. California ranks 3rd in on shore oil reserves in the nation but chooses not to take advantage of it . It has a lot military bases, NASA and other Federal programs. California's problem is not resources but how they run the state.

California: Nation's largest welfare state

hasty ambush: . California ranks 3rd in on shore oil reserves in the nation but chooses not to take advantage of it . It has a lot military bases, NASA and other Federal programs. California's problem is not resources but how they run the state.

Total crap. The California's problem isn't $173.46 per capital in welfare expenditures. Consider that CA per capita income is $22,711 so welfare's share of that is 0.763 % Whoop dee doo.

More significant is welfare we pay other states, handy dandy State Outlay to Tax Ratio Rank list provided below. One notes that California gets back $0.78 of every dollar we send to DC. So we're not only paying welfare for our own citizens, but lazabouts in other states as well.

Consider the Fed's collected $313,998,874,000 from California in 2007. And then gave 22% of that to other states. roughly $69,079,752,000. Well lookie there, the Fed swipes enough money from California every year to build a high speed rail system.

Okay, now I'm mad and need a beer.

New Mexico $2.03 1
Mississippi $2.02 2
Alaska $1.84 3
Louisiana $1.78 4
West Virginia $1.76 5
North Dakota $1.68 6
Alabama $1.66 7
South Dakota $1.53 8
Kentucky $1.51 9
Virginia $1.51 10
Montana $1.47 11
Hawaii $1.44 12
Maine $1.41 13
Arkansas $1.41 14
Oklahoma $1.36 15
South Carolina $1.35 16
Missouri $1.32 17
Maryland $1.30 18
Tennessee $1.27 19
Idaho $1.21 20
Arizona $1.19 21
Kansas $1.12 22
Wyoming $1.11 23
Iowa $1.10 24
Nebraska $1.10 25
Vermont $1.08 26
North Carolina $1.08 27
Pennsylvania $1.07 28
Utah $1.07 29
Indiana $1.05 30
Ohio $1.05 31
Georgia $1.01 32
Rhode Island $1.00 33
Florida $0.97 34
Texas $0.94 35
Oregon $0.93 36
Michigan $0.92 37
Washington $0.88 38
Wisconsin $0.86 39
Massachusetts $0.82 40
Colorado $0.81 41
New York $0.79 42
California $0.78 43
Delaware $0.77 44
Illinois $0.75 45
Minnesota $0.72 46
New Hampshire $0.71 47
Connecticut $0.69 48
Nevada $0.65 49
New Jersey $0.61 50