-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
On Thursday, the California High Speed Rail Authority board unanimously approved the 65-mile “train to nowhere” that would link two tiny towns at a cost of $4.15 billion, all because the state didn’t want to lose $2 billion in federal stimulus funds.
The rail line would connect two central California towns, Borden and Corcoran, with a combined population of 25,000. But that’s merely an estimate from Democratic Rep. Dennis Cardoza, an opponent of the plan. In reality, the San Jose Mercury News notes, Borden “is an unincorporated community for which the U.S. Census Bureau doesn’t even keep official population estimates.”
The line is supposed to be the first part of an ambitious $43 billion project aimed at linking San Francisco and Anaheim, but the decision to start in such a low population density area even had members of the rail authority scratching their heads earlier this week.
A Mercury News story originally posted Tuesday, reported:
Even rail authority member Rod Diridon, of San Jose, said he spent four hours on the phone with authority staffers trying to make sense of it.
“I’m still struggling to understand why the originating system wouldn’t interconnect to major communities,” Diridon said.
But he noted that federal officials have threatened to yank funds if the authority hasn’t chosen a starting point by the end of the month, so Diridon has proposed what he calls a compromise: Build the Corcoran to Borden section, with the promise that the rails would extend to Merced and other large cities next.
That was Tuesday, and on Thursday the board voted 7-0 to approve the project, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Last month, Rep. Jerry Lewis introduced a bill to rescind $12 billion in unspent stimulus money, which would include $2 billion for the high-speed rail project. (The original award was $2.25 billion, but California already spent $200 million on “planning,” reports the Mercury News.) The Obama administration responded by telling Lewis that rescinding the funds would “negatively impact our economic strength both now and in the future.”
What’s more, California is hoping to get $15 billion more in federal funding for the project over the next decade.
So to sum up, a state that’s broke is spending billions of dollars on a project that benefits a tiny percentage of people, so that it doesn’t lose billions of dollars in payments from a country that’s broke. For all the lofty promises made by President Obama about remaking the foundations of the American economy, this is the reality of big government.
View all comments (58) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/03/california-rail-board-approves
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Chris | 12.3.10 @ 11:04AM
Home-f**king-run. Well done Mr. Klein. Please ensure that the last paragraph gets out to as many citizens as possible.
24AheadDotCom | 12.3.10 @ 3:19PM
It's a home run with a great big asterisk. Almost all "fiscal conservatives" fail to note that their loose borders policies are a major reason why CA is in the shape it's in. The mass immigration supported by most "fiscal conservatives" leads not only to increased spending, but to more power for the free-spending far-left. And, those "fiscal conservatives" consistently fail to take responsibility for what they've done and keep blaming the victims of their policies.
js| 12.3.10 @ 4:32PM
You mean the 'fiscal conservatives' that run California, and write it's laws, right? We paid a hefty price the last time a conservative (Reagan) gave amnesty to illegals, but conservatives have since learned their lesson from that. The true culprit is the fact that CA is not willing to enforce it's own, or federal immigration law. On the contrary, it goes out of it's way to insure that the term 'illegal immigration' is nothing more than a formality describing people who have the right to everything CA overspends for, that the rest of the nation has to cover.
24AheadDotCom | 12.3.10 @ 10:48PM
The problem is that, as with the other one, I know more than you do. For instance, CA has actually sent the Feds billions more than we've received (at least as of 2005, which are the latest figures I saw).
And, once again but slower so you might be able to understand it, the "free market"/Profits at any Price types encouraged/supported/enabled massive and illegal immig., which led to a huge power base for the far-left and even those like GilCedillo who basically represent another country from inside the CA legislature.
MNright| 12.3.10 @ 4:32PM
It's a joke right. The right is the open borders amnesty crowd? Then why are they pushing for a fence to be built and more border security. Is it the liberals that want to close up the border now? What am I missing here?
24AheadDotCom | 12.3.10 @ 10:45PM
The problem is that I know more than you do. I know that there's the GOP/right base, and the GOP/right leadership. Most of the former is on the right side, but many in the latter camp are not. Libertarians and other "free market" types are definitely not on the right side.
For instance, do a find for "hearts" here:
24ahead.com/s/freedomworks
Then, take a look at the other entries about that TP leader. Then, you can look at:
24ahead.com/s/jeb-bush
24ahead.com/s/chris-christie
Then, you can read a summary of just some of the things GWB did:
24ahead.com/n/10273
Then, you can take a look at:
24ahead.com/s/tea-parties
Note that they almost completely ignored immig. for over a year. And, as I spend lots of my valuable time trying to oppose the DREAMAct on Twitter, I only see a few teapartiers here and there.
That doesn't mean that the left is better on the topic. It just means that most of the right is too dumb (teapartier base) or too corrupt (teapartier leaders, GOP leaders) to be on the right side of this issue.
Rogue Elephant| 12.3.10 @ 11:20AM
Rail backers (including Anaheim's Republican mayor, Curt Pringle) sold this great boondoggle to voters as a "green" initiative that would reduce traffic congestion (ridiculous) and fight global warming by reducing CO2 emissions.
California voters were just stupid enough to fall for it.
JmsA| 12.3.10 @ 2:13PM
"California voters were just stupid enough to fall for it."
Not all of us did.
fedupcalifornian| 12.3.10 @ 3:58PM
Some of us in California didn't vote for Obama or the latest batch of Democratic losers. Unfortunately the rest of the state is operating in the dark with ear plugs.
martin j smith| 12.3.10 @ 11:27AM
I have an idea. Lets form a new debt commission one that looks at not only at the Fed budget but state by state economic analysis. Those state like California cannot get any money until it develops its own debt plan and runs with it. And, by Debt plan I mean cuts in spending.
George Fink| 12.3.10 @ 11:51AM
I know, let's have California quit subsidizing all these "red" states and then see how far their anti-government rhetoric reaches? California has a *surplus* if we didn't have to superfund the vast Republican interior.
Eric Cartman| 12.3.10 @ 12:38PM
George is starting his "Hemp Therapy" early today. One can see the initial signs such as inflated self-esteem (delusions of grandeur, false beliefs in special abilities), loss of contact with reality, usually including false ideas about what is taking place or who one is and seeing or hearing things that aren't there.
Of course, when coming down, reality hits and the opposite state of being becomes apparent: persistent feelings of sadness, anxiety, guilt, anger, isolation, or hopelessness; disturbances in sleep and appetite; fatigue and loss of interest in usually enjoyable activities; problems concentrating; loneliness, self-loathing, apathy or indifference.
Poor George. The treatment is rather simple: Pulling his head our of his Liberal Ass is the first step. But Liberal Aholes seldom do that. Instead they continue enjoying their own fart smelling and blaming others. Tsk, tsk. Poor George.
David W| 12.3.10 @ 12:41PM
Please provide details on what you mean. Us dumb conservatives are smart enough to unnerstand what you mean.
Eric Cartman| 12.3.10 @ 2:09PM
Well, here's the dealio: Since 81, CA has received and average of 90 cents for every tax dollar paid (most received 1.08, least received .78) but the decline is due to base closings and military spending reductions, not Liberal wonderfulness. Their average rank of taxes paid is 12, while average rank of taxes received is 28. In other words, no big whoop. Alaska sends more money to DC than CA (per capita). Liberal Ahole Californians just smoke more dope than most and think they are better for paying more taxes, if you can believe it. HA! What putzes.
Brubaker| 12.3.10 @ 2:47PM
I hope for your sake that this is just a joke. The only alternative is that you're really looney tunes. California is bankrupt and increasingly dependent upon the largesse of taxpayers in the other 49 states (48 if we discount New York).
Dr Randolph Scott| 12.3.10 @ 11:53AM
I agree that building the first phase here is really dumb, but remember, it's just a political game. No one is seriously talking about running trains between those two towns.
The greater project - SF to LA - is the most important infrastructure project in the US since the interstate highway and absolutely needs to be built. The price is high, but sill a lot lower than the cost of doing nothing!
Me| 12.3.10 @ 2:33PM
why don't we just continue to bankrupt the state so all the productive people and businesses move out and pollute some other place. then california can be a very beautiful place for homeless and starving pesants. and you are right, the cost of doing nothing might prevent that.
Curtis Rasmussen| 12.3.10 @ 2:51PM
Even if the run is completed, the ticket price will never be able to compete with the airlines. For the handful of smug greenies that do take the train, the out-of-pocket expense will never approach the generously subsidized actual cost . Who makes up the difference for this fiasco? I'll give you one guess, moron.
ertdfg| 12.3.10 @ 5:39PM
And I'm sure it'll come in on time and under budget too.
Actually, any bets on the over/under of the entire project clearing the $43 billion price tag? Or even 100 billion?
How long until this thing is cost effective? Any bets? Ever?
How much less than a plane ticket will this train cost at a "break even" margin? Will it be less?
Or, as many suspect, will this be a huge over-budget boondoggle that will never turn a profit and be priced at a rate unable to compete with the existing airline traffic?
How is this better than doing nothing?
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 12.3.10 @ 11:54AM
When can I make a reservation? I'm planning on going nowhere on my next vacation, and this train will get me there very fast!! It's perfect!! A Billion here, a Billion there, what's the big friggin' deal? It's a high speed rail folks, it can cover the roundtrip at least 80 times a day, so just imagine that. Going really, really fast between two tiny towns, that nobody would have any reason to visit otherwise, if it wasn't for their expensive new fast train. Get with the program, it's about saving the Earth from something or another, and it's fast too!!
John| 12.3.10 @ 11:59AM
High Speed rail was on the ballot during the 2008 elections and we the people of California voted NO! Why do these well funded, union politicians, go behind our backs. We have an new East Bay Bridge span being built for the past 12 years. Why is the Senate not investigating this and the unions who keep workers working, by telling them to work slow or work your way out of a job? Our fore fathers would have finished the job in four years without the current technology.
Eric| 12.3.10 @ 1:46PM
Uh, the majority of the state voted YES smart guy. Proposition 1A passed in Nov. 2008!! Wake up.
thetruth| 12.3.10 @ 12:00PM
Its the very first section for testing and building in both directions for a full system...more "reporting" and less loud mouth Faux news information is needed
Dan| 12.3.10 @ 12:14PM
Dear George: Calif hasn't has a surplus in 20 plus years. Study up. 2011 is coming. Moonbat Brown will face a 26 billion dollar hole. Wasnt for Fed funds which translates into those rotten RED states bailing out your liber la-la land, you would be looking at double that 26 billion deficit. Keep drinking that libland koolaid on the left coast.
George Fink| 12.3.10 @ 12:22PM
Dear Dan, California has supported the rest of the nation since the early 80s. If California did not have to donate revenue to the rest of the loser states, California would indeed have a surplus to the tune of $2 billion.
AJsDaddie| 12.3.10 @ 12:57PM
Links please, to corroborating statements. If indeed true, it's certainly not something we know here in flyover country!
Eric Cartman| 12.3.10 @ 1:21PM
If this is true, then you Liberal Aholes are dumber than we thought!
Brian| 12.3.10 @ 2:45PM
George you are not paying from the state treasury. The money California pays are the federal taxes income etc. So yes you don't get back all that you pay in however that is not what is making you broke. What is making you brokw are your idiotic liberal programs sucking up money while your regulations and taxes are sending business out of state.
iconoclast| 12.3.10 @ 4:15PM
That is true. And this disparity is mainly the result of progressive taxation, which is the darling of California politicians. The phrase "hoist on your own petard" comes to mind here...
thetruth| 12.3.10 @ 2:13PM
NORED Cali is a doner state..we have support theREDS for decades
iconoclast| 12.3.10 @ 4:17PM
Since I am one of the 50% who pay income taxes (actually one of the 5% who pay nearly 60% of all income taxes), can I talk the same way about the individuals who take more money in from federal spending than pay?
Ann| 12.3.10 @ 12:17PM
I'm still for high speed rail. I wish Texas invested in this. I go to Texas Tech, and it takes me 12 hours to get to Lubbock from Houston and 12 hours back. That's a lot of gas money, and I'm just a poor college student. Imagine if we had one of those Japanese trains all over Texas! Why is Texas always so behind?
Please don't make this into a political game, the American people need this.
ncatty| 12.3.10 @ 1:02PM
Texas is large and not densely populated. Japan is small and very densely populated. Mass transit, "light" rail, "high speed" rail, or any rail works in Eurpoe and Japan. If it worked here, Amtrak would turn a profit.
Sense Junkie| 12.3.10 @ 2:34PM
Ann:
Couldn't get into a school closer to Houston? You make a dumb decision to go to school in Lubbock then b1tch 'cause there's no train? Wake up, you and those like you are the problem. You make a dumb-a$$ decision like that, then want the Gubmint to bail you out. Sheesh.
ertdfg| 12.3.10 @ 5:45PM
Ok, so they spend 5-10 billion dollars to connect Lubbock to Houston with high speed rail, and several million a year on trains, running cost, and maintenance. Then they figure out their costs and expected traffic for pricing.
Now the break-even price on a ticket, given the cost and need to pay off the build price comes to, about $2,000 dollars for a one-way ticket.
How much were you spending in gas again?
Or did you want someone else to pay most of the $2,000 for your ticket for you so you could save a net of around $20 in gas?
Why is your money so precious that others should spend 10 times as much so you can keep it again?
Why does the American people need to spend more to subsidize a small few who will use this; or why do they need a choice for transportation that is slower and costlier than flying?
RJ| 12.3.10 @ 1:13PM
As a Californian, it is depressing to see the state continue coming up with fiscally irresponsible policies like this. I like trains as much as anyone, having childhood dreams of Los Angeles getting a subway like the other major cities. But as ncatty says above, it doesn't work when you don't have densely populated areas.
Likewise the LA to San Francisco high speed rail is simply too expensive for its utility, but I expect the next announcement from Sacramento will be to increase costs 10 fold by making it a 350 mile subway to please the environmentalists from seeing trains on the landscape.
Tina Ferrer| 12.3.10 @ 2:31PM
People, according to Stanford's California Pension Report, California now has $500 billion plus in unfunded pension liability. Does anyone think the Fed will bail this out? Does anyone think that those States that voted for fiscal reasonability November 2 are merely going to allow their own fiscal discipline be sprinkled over the lofty liberal highs of Height and Ashbury? Not a chance. As forensic accountants for the State, them there are the apples.
Todd| 12.3.10 @ 3:40PM
And by the Fed bailing them out, you mean the tax payers in the other 49 states from California being overly generous with their pensions.
misterbee| 12.3.10 @ 2:35PM
Well, on the bright side, there should always be plenty of seats available.
Oh, and for "Ann| 12.3.10 @ 12:17PM". I haven't ridden one of those Japanese trains for almost 50 years, but believe me both Japan and the Japanese are smaller than Texas and Texans. Some numbers:
Japan: population- 127,360,000
area - 145,925 square miles
Texas: population - 25,373,947
area - 260,000 square miles
So, Texas is almost twice the size of Japan with about 20% of Japan's population. If you're in college you can work out the density. If there were a need for high-speed rail in Texas, I think some enterprising Texans would have already put it in place and would be turning a profit. That's one of the things I appreciate about folks in Texas.
Pete| 12.3.10 @ 2:37PM
Let that place continue on its path to destruction. By the time half of it is windmill and solar farms and the other half high speed rail, all the productive people will be long gone. I suppose we could accelerate things by refusing to sell them electricity and water.
Anonymous Californian| 12.3.10 @ 2:42PM
California needs to import Chris Christie for a few minutes and let him cancel this stupid project like he did that new tunnel into New York. California _does not have the money_ to pay for it's portion of this boondoggle. Who cares if we lose the Federal dough? In what alternate universe does it make sense to spend $4 Billion _WE DON'T HAVE_ to get $2 Billion from the Feds? Nevermind that the cost of tickets is projected to be comparable to airplane tickets, and you still have to get from the station to your ultimate destination. There's _no advantage_ over airplanes except not getting groped by TSA, but somehow I bet the scope of TSA will be expanded to cover this project and then you can enjoy that humiliation, too.
matt brett| 12.3.10 @ 2:49PM
There are 7 airports in the LA region. I count 3 major airports in the SF Bay (SFO, Oak, San Jose) area that have flights into these LA airports. They leave every 30-45 minutes for $29-$99 each way. I guarantee the cost overuns for building this boondoogle will go into the tens of billions. I also guarantee these trains will be empty. Just like most of the "light" rail projects. But whatever right? Bernanke is cranking up the printing press.
GarandFan| 12.3.10 @ 2:51PM
Every one of those members of the rail board should be in prison. The entire concept, just like ObamaCare 'bending down the cost curve', is based on a pack of lies. The cost estimates were understated and the eventual ridership overstated. There is no way this boondoggle is ever going to be self-supporting. The only people making money off this are those on the board with their snouts in the public trough feeding off of tax dollars - while they try to convince people that the project is worthwhile.
Sense Junkie| 12.3.10 @ 2:55PM
When did lite rail become the Holy Grail for libtards, anyway? The damn mayor of Columbus wanted to bring back cablecars downtown. It's so congested you can't drive there now, and numbnuts want to run traintracks down the middle of the streets. Sheesh.
bruce| 12.3.10 @ 3:07PM
all aboard!
the crazy train
misterbee| 12.3.10 @ 3:51PM
Catchy! I think you have a winner.
TallDave | 12.3.10 @ 3:16PM
Well done.
I see Philip Klein is far superior to those hacks Ezra and Joe.
melanerpes| 12.3.10 @ 3:18PM
Wikipedia:
Corcoran is most famous as the site of the California State Prison, Corcoran, home to a number of notable inmates such as Charles Manson, and Juan Corona. The California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran is a separate facility that is also located in the city. As of September 2007, the two prisons held a combined total of 13,144 inmates.
Let's see. Subtract the 13K inmates from the 25K combined population, and we're left with 12K folks free to take the 20 minute ride to Fresno.
Henrychance| 12.3.10 @ 3:39PM
The cost of this fiasco will be tripple of the current estimate. It is actually unions and environmentalist stunts that will force the costs upward. I rarely see it but rail is a greater polluter of CO2 than is air. Trains are very heavy and the only way they look efficient is if they are always full.
RobertD| 12.3.10 @ 3:50PM
As a conservative Californian, living in the Central Valley, that did not vote for the high speed rail proposition, I find this article misleading. While Borden and Corcoran are small towns, this segment of the line would serve Vislaia/Tulare, Fresno, Clovis, Madera, and my hometown of Hanford. That is closer to a million people and it would provide jobs to an area of the state and nation with the highest unemployment.
ertdfg| 12.3.10 @ 5:50PM
And those trains are needed and will be used by those million people? They'll have enough business to be cost-effective? I see that isn't mentioned, and for good reason.
But they'll provide jobs, even if they don't make something that will be of value. I agree, but why not demand the government pay $50/hr for someone to dig a hole, and pay another guy $50/hr to fill in that hole? I mean if we're willing to spend money without value; why not just do it openly?
norcal gal| 12.3.10 @ 3:54PM
The CAHSRA is lying through it's teeth. Thank God someone like Cardoza is waking up to the fact that if the first part of the rail line is installed the flawed logic will be that they have finish building this boondoggle.
So many writers here may live in California but I actually live 6 blocks from where this monstrosity will be built. We are fighting like hell to stop it or, at least, underground so we don't loose the quaintness of our town, our downtown commerce, our peace and quiet and the value of our property for another f-d up government project. It's an issue uniting Repubs, Dems and Independents like I've never seen.
ZmanInCT| 12.3.10 @ 3:59PM
High-speed rail has its place, but the decision to build it should be based on profitability and utility--can it get passengers from A to B faster and/or cheaper than a plane?
Let's suppose it takes a half hour to travel from downtown to an airport, then an hour to get thru TSA pat-downs, and a half hour to get from the destination airport to downtown. If the plane flies at 500 mph and the train averages 180 mph (like the TGV in France), a passenger on the train can travel downtown-to-downtown faster than the plane passenger for a distances up to 562 miles.
High-speed rail requires much straighter, flatter tracks than low-speed rail, with only gentle slopes and wide curves, no grade crossings, and fences along both sides of the track to prevent collisions with wildlife and livestock. This can be done relatively cheaply through sparsely-populated flat land, but is prohibitive in urban or mountainous areas (such as around San Francisco). In France, which has some mountainous areas and some sparsely-populated flat land, high-speed trains travel at 180 mph over specialized track through rural, flat areas, then connect to older, existing track through urban and mountainous areas, where they travel more slowly (50 mph), which still saves time over conventional trains.
The criteria for building a high-speed rail line should be: two large cities, with large populations wanting to travel between them, separated by less than 500 miles of mostly sparsely-populated flat land. Some interesting combinations might include Houston-Dallas, Chicago-St. Louis, or Miami-Atlanta (if the route through Florida runs inland).
But the decision should be based on the demand for trains and the topography of the intervening land, not on the availability of Federal dollars. San Francisco-Los Angeles is a loser due to the mountainous terrain between them.
TSA| 12.3.10 @ 4:14PM
Sorry, but what makes you think there won't be the same TSA delay for a high speed train? An explosive set off in a train traveling 180 mph will destroy it (and the neighborhoods around the rail line) just as violently as a bomb in a jet.
norcal gal| 12.3.10 @ 4:00PM
I forgot to say - I'm not living in the Central Valley. We are on the densely populated SF Peninsula where the entire line is proposed to be like a 6-lane highway going down the middle of the it.
And, this entire project is predicated on cheap tickets that are rising faster in cost than airfare even before this project is even finalized let alone built. High-speed rail assumes that technology will not advance to solve a capacity problem. Did you ever think you'd watch TV on a phone that goes with you everywhere? Well the HSR planners must be Luddites.
Don't do it| 12.3.10 @ 4:09PM
OK, $43 billion to link SF and LA.
Current airfares: $110
With $43 billion we can buy about 391,000,000 airfare tickets.
So for the estimated cost of the train (not the true final cost) we can fly about 200,000,000 people from LA to SF and another 200,000,000 people from SF to LA.
sez | 12.5.10 @ 4:42AM
hello the info on this site is just incredible it keeps us coming back time and time again ,personally i met my wife using this site so i couldnt love it any more i have done my best to to word out about this site as i feel that others need to see this thang ,cheers for all your time spent in making this brilliant blog ! ok,cheers Bob