29 ms·

A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

115 points by JamilD 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
davidf18 10y ago
Money if fungible. California spends an enormous amount of money on illegal aliens (illegal immigrants). For example, there was an NYT op-ed piece which explained that 200 illegal aliens are allowed to attend at in-state tuition UC Berkeley. Thus, the Federal Funds noted in this article were in fact being used to fund people who are residing in this country illegally. We don't even have enough money for the poor who live in this country legally. So, for California to get the funding it needs for the train, stop funding illegal aliens K-12 education, healthcare, university education, ....
- rconti 10y ago
  Is there a reason to believe that the distribution of funds vs the economic activity generated by illegal immigrants is significantly different from any other group?
  - jxramos 10y ago
    I'm not sure how accurate it was, but someone wrote a piece about how there's just no way to measure how much a cost that group of people inflict vs contribute. The title of the article kind of says it all, undocumented and unmeasured. https://www.city-journal.org/html/undocumented-and-unmeasured-14713.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/undocumented-and-unmeasure...
  - Pilfer 10y ago
    In the U.S. it is illegal for employers to hire illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants have trouble finding work and the majority of them work in low-skill, low-pay jobs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/majority-of-undocumented-immigrants-work-in-low-skill-jobs-report-finds/2015/03/26/dada9f2a-d3bc-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/majority-of-undocumente... Illegal immigrants generate much less economic activity per person than their legal immigrant counterparts.
- JamilD 10y ago
  Support for amnesty and lighter policies against undocumented immigrants comes from both sides of the aisle in CA -- a significant portion of California's economy comes from agriculture in the Central Valley, and almost 100% of the workers there are undocumented. They're a huge net contributor to California's economy. http://nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-trump-but-now-fear-losing-field-workers.html http://nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-t...
- projectramo 10y ago
  You know California is a net contributor to the federal government, right? By your argument, California could easily afford to pay for it if only Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Montana, and Kentucky were not "mooching" off of it.
  - davidf18 10y ago
    > "By your argument, California could easily afford to pay for it if only Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Montana, and Kentucky were not "mooching" off of it." Not if the funds are paying for people living in these states legally.. Surely you see the distinction between funding people legally living in the US and those living here illegally. What I know is that if California elected responsible politicians that used tax money for Californians and not for people living in the state and country illegally they wouldn't need the federal money. Get rid of your politicians and elect responsible ones and stop whining.
    - davidf18 10y ago
      Instead of down voting, please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally instead of funding a train for people who are here legally.
      - johnduhart 10y ago
        I'm confused, where did the he/she state that?
      - Kluny 10y ago
        I don't think anyone wants to fund them, and we aren't. We pretty generally agree that they contribute more to the economy than they take out of it. The California agricultural economy would collapse without them since employers can't afford to pay legal wages. Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage is a whole other problem. But as it stands, California is getting a damn fine deal out of their illegal Mexicans.
- davidf18 10y ago
  People are down voting, the but the assessment is a correct one: California citizens need to elect responsible politicians that spend money on people who live in the the US and CA legally instead of those illegally. If they elected responsible politicians that understood this, they would have their train funded. Taxes should be only spent on people living in the US legally. Not certain why people have a problem with that.
  - pvg 10y ago
    They're much more likely downvoting you for trying to hijack the thread with an unrelated political topic/flamefest and then complaining about getting downvoted.
    - davidf18 10y ago
      But it is related. The fact is that the NYT article was complaining about the lack of federal funds, but the true fact is that if the citizens of California elected politicians who did not unwisely pay for people living here illegally, they would have the money for the electric rail. Since money if fungible, since California politicians decided that taxpayer money should go towards people living here illegally, then it means that federal funds are going towards people living here illegally. I think this argument is very sound. I'm really tired of people writing articles and other complaining without stating the full context. If that electric rail is so very important to California, and I believe it is, then the citizens of California should elect officials that do not use valuable and scarce taxpayer funds to pay for services for people living here illegally. They should elect politicians that spend taxpayer money for the benefit of people living here legally which includes the electric train.
      - pvg 10y ago
        You can relate almost any topic to any topic with the insight 'money is fungible'. Using this to switch subjects to your favourite flamerant is bad, your comment was bad and you should feel bad.
  - 1_2__3 10y ago
- iagooar 10y ago
  Words can't express how sad I feel about people who write and believe in such a logic. Where is our humanity gone? How can you think that by helping people (legal or not) you are doing something wrong? USA is a country that has a massive problem with not accepting what it is, what it has, and what it could have. But then again, a country is made of diverse people. I feel happy that some people in California feel that they need to help and support those who are most vulnerable and mistreated by the system. The poor living legally in your country ARE NOT competing for resources with "illegal aliens" you call them (I find it absurd to even consider a person, a HUMAN BEING, to be illegal, but that's a different topic). Your country has way more resources available than those dedicated to eradicating poverty.
  - davidf18 10y ago
    > "Words can't express how sad I feel about people who write and believe in such a logic. Where is our humanity gone?" The correct term is illegal aliens. I didn't create the term, but I do use the language correctly. My humanity is for those poor people who live in the US who don't get enough funding as it is and who lose out on the funding because of illegal aliens. That is where my humanity is. My question to you is where is your humanity for the poor Americans, many who don't have nearly the IQ of readers of HN and who are losing their jobs and not getting enough support. > "The poor living legally in your country ARE NOT competing for resources with "illegal aliens" you call them (I find it absurd to even consider a person, a HUMAN BEING, to be illegal, but that's a different topic). Your country has way more resources available than those dedicated to eradicating poverty." That is an incorrect statement. There is only so much tax money and much of that money is used for funding K-12 education, university education, healthcare, etc. etc. for illegal aliens instead of better funding the poor.
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      The vast majority of children of immigrants in public schools are US citizens by virtue of being born in the US. This argument about spending money on educating illegal immigrants is pretty facile.
- jedberg 10y ago
  Holding transit money hostage to punish the state for other transgressions is petty and authoritarian. Instead, step up enforcement of the immigration issue and keep the train issue separate. And before you scream, "sanctuary state!", either decide immigration is a state issue or not, but don't say it's a federal issue and then rely on states to enforce it. That's a pretty typical MO for the federal government -- demand that the states enforce things that cost money but don't actually provide money for it.
  - masonic 10y ago
    The hostage-taking here is in the form of the $647 million omnibus transit bill encompassing the Caltrain electrification portion. It's like kidnapping a kitten and demanding a $100 ransom for "kitten food" or the kitten dies... then spending $1 on kitten food. And you'll likely have to pay more to get the kitten back later anyway. The Democrats are free to introduce a clean bill with just the Caltrain electrification funds. A clean bill (funding ALL of it, even) would sail through Congress.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > California spends an enormous amount of money on illegal aliens Do you have a source on how much this is in aggregate, preferably both in gross (total) and net (minus the value of undocumented migrants'/illegal aliens' economic input to the California economy) terms? I'm just sceptical that this--versus so many other categories of frivolous state spending--is the lowest-hanging fruit.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  > We don't even have enough money for the poor who live in this country legally. And I'm sure you're a big proponent of changing that, huh.
- nerfhammer 10y ago
  > 200 illegal aliens are allowed to attend at in-state tuition Even assuming your premise here, take the differential between in-state and out-of-state UC tuition and multiply it by 200. That's going to be something on the order of like 3 million dollars? Versus 650 million in transit funding? I propose that "illegal immigrants" is a pointless red herring with respect to this issue.
- mtviewdave 10y ago
  I see that you don't say you want immigration labor laws enforced. What you say is that you don't want illegal immigrants to get benefits. This is sadly typical. There are plenty of people here in California who are fine with using illegal immigrant labor to save money getting crops picked or construction built, but if one of these laborers slices their hand open on piece of equipment and needs to go to the emergency room, then and only then does the hand-writing about "spending money on illegals" begin. I have no patience for this sort of sadistic, extractive capitalism. Especially when it wraps itself in a faux mantle of concern about the law. If you don't want illegal immigrants in this country, then enforce the labor laws against the employers. What's ironic of course is that most of the 14 California congresspeople who signed the letter represent districts who are heavily dependently upon illegal immigrant labor, and thus upon the very sort of lax enforcement of immigration laws that they claim to be against. At this point, I'd be more than happy to see ICE conduct a vigorous enforcement of immigration laws throughout the Central Valley. Perhaps staring in September?
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    Right. I have heard people make the literal argument that while we should go after illegal aliens, we should _NOT_ go after those who hire undocumented workers, as to punish or penalize them for doing so would be "unfair" to them, because it would make them noncompetitive against other employers doing the same. And at the same time they stammer that the idea of a drug dealer telling a cop "It's unfair to me, because all these other people are out here selling drugs too!" is somehow in no way the same thing. Capitalism writ large. It's perfectly acceptable to break the law to make a profit if you're a company, but not to be breaking the law to give yourself a livelihood.
- jhallenworld 10y ago
  I recently learned that what some think of as an illegal alien problem today began as a legal guest worker program between 1942 and 1964: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_program This set expectations for generations of businesses and workers and obviously continues to this day. The re-branding of welcome migrant workers to vile illegal aliens is just politics. Do migrants depress the wages of American workers? Probably to some degree (I suppose it's like the H1B visa program). Do they interfere with the sovereignty of the United States? I think the argument is ridiculous, just pandering to nationalists.
ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
They should've started high speed rail in the bookends, since any construction there would have immediate benefits for hundreds of thousands of riders, and instill public confidence in the project. That would've helped Caltrain electrification right there.
- gumby 10y ago
  Well the Caltrain electrification is in one of the book ends. The logic for starting in the middle is that it created economic assistance (as a side effect) in an area with a jobs problem. Why not start that part sooner rather than later?
  - jedberg 10y ago
    Because no one will ride that section. If you start on the ends people will actually pay money to ride the train, which then funds construction on the other part of the train and provides steady jobs instead of only temporary ones. If you want to provide welfare to people without jobs, then provide welfare. Don't provide secret welfare and call it a high speed train.
    - ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
      Politically it would've helped the project much more to have had tangible success in the economic heart of CA, impacting shitloads of people (and voters).
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > If you start on the ends people will actually pay money to ride the train The initial operating segment runs through the Valley to San Jose; that's pretty close to the S.F. end , and is the third biggest city in California (and the second biggest covered by the whole Phase 1 LA-to-SF alignment.) Obviously, the initial operating segment isn't going to connect both ends, and short of doing that, where specifically would be better than the actual planned IOS? Sure, the initial construction segment is a small section in the valley that would probably see little ridership without being connected to some place nearer to the endpoints, but the ICS is not the whole IOS.
erentz 10y ago
Question: the imbalance between what California contributes vs receivers from the federal government is pretty crazy to me. I'll grant some imbalances are necessary - you will always have richer and poorer areas of the country. But when he gap is as wide as it is, and then it is turned into a tool for punishing CA due to our politics, at what point should CA seek to seriously tackle this? Firstly of course is the very long shot possibility of successon, but I was wondering if there might be something in the tax code that would allow CA to shut off the flow of money to the federal government? Perhaps by implementing some kind of massive tax and dividend scheme (e.g. naively I'm thinking if I'm allowed to deduct state taxes - what stops CA from taxing 100% of my income, so I pay nothing to the federal government, then CA pays me a "dividend" equal to my income minus whatever the real tax rate should be (30% or whatever).
- rocqua 10y ago
  I'd venture such a dividend scheme would immediately get hit with lawsuits by the federal government.
- coredog64 10y ago
  Why is it that progressive income taxation is so awesome for everyone else and sucks when applied to you? (FWIW, I've looked at the report that purports to back the 'CA pays more than it receives' and it isn't super accurate)
  - ptc 10y ago
    But it isn't progressive, right? An individual in CA who makes 50k gets less in Federal funding to projects that would benefit them, than if that same individual moved to another state, and made the exact same amount. Not saying I agree with the conceit that a state should have the level of economic autonomy argued for the the original post, but your argument doesn't hold water.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      Would they still be making 50k if they moved to a different state though?
entee 10y ago
The bay area is a bit of a mess public transportation-wise, and at least for this particular project, the cost seems not all that large in the scheme of things ($1.9B overall, need $647M in federal money). I hesitate to propose this because I fear there might be a flame war, but is there any way we could tax some of the large tech companies very slightly to quickly get enough money to make Caltrain and other public transportation systems modern and sustainable?
- CaliforniaKarl 10y ago
  I am curious, how many people here use a Caltrain GO pass? If yes, how much is subsidized by your employer? Here's an interesting comparison: 48 business weeks of trips, on Clipper card: $3,456 (48•5•2•7.20) 12 monthly passes: $2,289.60 (12•190.80) 1 annual GO pass: $190 (assuming 83+ other people also use it; min. $15,960 spent per company.) I know (from personal experience) that Stanford is a heavy GO pass user. I'm curious how many others are. You may not need a tax. Instead, an increase in the coast of the GO pass may be enough!
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    Isn't the GO pass priced such that you buy it for everyone and then Caltrain hopes that peak usage isn't too high as a result? Which means you don't have enough data to evaluate if it's priced correctly or not. I bet Caltrain makes individual deals with Stanford and other large users that reflect actual usage.
masonic 10y ago
Only a small amount of that $647 million was going to Caltrain electrification. It was wrapped in a boondoggle of an omnibus transit spending bill. The real political battle here is to limit Federal spending on CA's ill-routed HSR. The Democrats are free to introduce a clean bill with just the Caltrain electrification funds. A clean bill (funding ALL of it, even) would sail through Congress.
- guelo 10y ago
  Voters kicked radical Republicans out of Sacramento so now they're getting D.C. to their dirty work for them. Luckily many of them will lose in 2018, including Darrel Issa.
- ruw1090 10y ago
  citation?
hueving 10y ago
>Caltrain plans to use the money to switch to modern electric trains, from old diesel locomotives that are prone to failure. I ride the Caltrain about once a week and I haven't encountered a delay due to a locomotive failure. How often does this happen?
- saym 10y ago
  Happened to me once two weeks ago. I've also been on a train that had 'broken down' where it couldn't leave a station after coming to a stop. Also accidents with cars and pedestrians happens more frequently than they should. I don't know if the upgrades to the line include raising and separating the track wherever possible.
  - martinald 10y ago
    Yes, there is a lot of grade seperation work in the project. Tbh it's pretty nutty the US doesn't do more of this, even in new schemes like LAs light rail there are dozens of at grade crossings. While more expensive in the short term to build i think really you should be aiming for 100% grade seperation for new projects, even if that means closing some less used roads to make it affordable.
- magila 10y ago
  I commute daily between SF and San Mateo, which covers about a third of Caltrain's line. I get delayed due to mechanical failures (usually on other trains) once a month or so on average.
  - jdavis703 10y ago
    One just happened last week. A problem with the air brakes that made them evacuate an entire car on the train. I've been on other trains that lost all electrical power in the passenger cabs. Had engines that could not start after pulling into stations. Not too mention when one train breaks down others get stuck behind it.
- greglindahl 10y ago
smaili 10y ago
> By any measure, Caltrain is the equivalent of a dated personal computer running Windows 95 way overdue for an upgrade. Rush-hour trains are so crowded that their aisles are filled with passengers. Trains break down frequently and the locomotives belch plumes of black smoke into the air — a sight more in line with the early industrial age than 21st century Silicon Valley. As a frequent commuter, I couldn't agree more with this paragraph.
- Johnny555 10y ago
  Most of Caltrain's locomotives date back to 1985, so they are more like Windows 2.1
  - tmaly 10y ago
    You should see the old metro north ones that run from CT to NYC, they are even older.
    - martinald 10y ago
      Nothing really wrong with old trains tbh assuming they are maintained and refurbished. The intercity 125 in the UK despite being over 40 years old is still fast (125mph), reliable (engines have all been replaced fairly recently) and very comfortable and quiet, even in standard class.
      - caf 10y ago
        If you want to see a case study in exactly what you're talking about, you could check out the Australian version of the same train, the XPT, which is in dire need of refurbishment.
      - aninhumer 10y ago
        And in my experience, the 125 is much nicer than the newer Pendolino, which is claustrophobic, dimly lit, and the areas around the toilets smell of piss.
    - 10y ago
mikejmoffitt 10y ago
One thing that shouldn't change is the Caltrain ticketing UI. The interface is simple enough to use, and it responds to user input instantly. I can select the ticket I want with four taps in about a second, where the only slowdown is the actual payment.
- EnFinlay 10y ago
  That sounds amazing. My car made in 2015 has a touch screen with a 0.5-1.5s lag, it's infuriating.
- astrange 10y ago
  My experience is more like: - I tap my Clipper card. - A Caltrain employee checks my card about every other time I'm on a train. - Sometimes they threaten to arrest me because I didn't tap it hard enough 3 days ago.
  - mikejmoffitt 10y ago
    Yeah, that's a bummer - but that's not the caltrain ticketing UI. That's using Clipper on the caltrain.
martinald 10y ago
This is a real shame. I believe this would have allowed 6trains per hour each way throughout the day, bringing the service closer to real urban rapid transit. It would also have a big impact on journey times as electric trains can accelerate and decelerate a lot quicker than the current diesel ones. Why don't they look at variable tolling on 101 (or at least an express toll lane) and divert funds to this project? That would seem like a win win: transit users get upgraded service which would encourage more people to switch and drivers have less traffic to deal with as people move to transit, plus they can pay for a more reliable journey if they are in a rush.
quietmonkey 10y ago
The Bay Area would have its money better spent on electric buses anyway. Has anyone breathed while walking down the road in SF?
rebootthesystem 10y ago
> The Transportation Department is withholding $647 million in federal grants for a $1.9 billion project that would modernize and increase the capacity of Caltrain. About 65,000 people use the rail line every day to commute between San Francisco and San Jose OK. Just thinking out loud here. $1.9 billion. 65,000 people per day. That's about $30K per person. In other words, you can almost buy a Tesla Model 3 for each person. Yet, that would not deal with congestion. Scratch that idea. Is this a point-to-point route? Are most of those people going from San Jose to San Francisco or are there a ton of stops in the way? Next thought is: How many electric buses could one purchase with that money? At $400K each, 4,750 buses. That's a lot of eco-friendly buses! OK, but, how many do we need to move 65,000 people per day? Well, if all 65,000 want to go at once, about 1,625 buses. And that would cost $650 billion, or 1/3 of the $1.9 billion set aside for this project. How would 1,625 electric buses, for 1/3 the cost, affect the region? Yet, it is probably reasonable to assume we don't need to move all 65,000 people at once. In looking around it seems reasonable to assume around 2,000 riders per hour on average. If we go with 10,000 (why not?) we would need 250 buses. Now our equipment cost is down to $100 million. BTW, if we switch to natural gas buses that cost goes down to $62.5 million. Not saying this is the best option, just providing comparative data. I am not going to reach any conclusion here. Just exploring very, very rough numbers quickly. I think this would only work well if the bus riders are "long haul", meaning they don't have to stop at every freeway off-ramp and navigate surface streets to pick-up and drop-off people. One could use check-in/out to optimize bus routes. Don't stop where nobody wants to get on/off. There's a lot of space between $100 million and $1.9 billion. That's 19 times more taxpayer money spent. Is this sensible? Does it survive mathematical analysis more strict than my quick 10 minute think? On the one side I think I'd rather spend $100 to even as high as $500 million on an electric powered bus infrastructure. Why? Because this would be a huge shot in the arm for that industry and the consequences could ripple throughout the nation. Bus prices could go down from the current $400K, new technologies could be spurred into existence and electric vehicle adoption across the board (passenger cars) is likely to see gains as well. My numbers could be completely off the mark, I know. That said, on an admittedly very flawed first inspection, I would not be surprised if investing a few hundred million on a next-generation electric bus transport system might be better than dumping 19 times more money on rail. I doubt this approach would make any sense at all in a place like Los Angeles, but this Caltrain case might be unique. I'd rather invest in the future whenever possible.
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
Considering the great job CA has done playing ball with the new administration I'm not exactly surprised said administration is in no hurry to shovel money in their direction. /s
sjg007 10y ago
I think the train makes sense. House prices are out of whack and the roads are packed. It will encourage growth in Modesto and the Central Valley which will bring not just commuters but other businesses and ease roadway congestion. The Central Valley communities will improve and it'll reduce pressure on rents across the Bay area.

115 points by JamilD 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Money if fungible. California spends an enormous amount of money on illegal aliens (illegal immigrants). For example, there was an NYT op-ed piece which explained that 200 illegal aliens are allowed to attend at in-state tuition UC Berkeley. Thus, the Federal Funds noted in this article were in fact being used to fund people who are residing in this country illegally. We don't even have enough money for the poor who live in this country legally. So, for California to get the funding it needs for the train, stop funding illegal aliens K-12 education, healthcare, university education, ....

rconti 10y ago
Is there a reason to believe that the distribution of funds vs the economic activity generated by illegal immigrants is significantly different from any other group?
- jxramos 10y ago
  I'm not sure how accurate it was, but someone wrote a piece about how there's just no way to measure how much a cost that group of people inflict vs contribute. The title of the article kind of says it all, undocumented and unmeasured. https://www.city-journal.org/html/undocumented-and-unmeasured-14713.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/undocumented-and-unmeasure...
- Pilfer 10y ago
  In the U.S. it is illegal for employers to hire illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants have trouble finding work and the majority of them work in low-skill, low-pay jobs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/majority-of-undocumented-immigrants-work-in-low-skill-jobs-report-finds/2015/03/26/dada9f2a-d3bc-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/majority-of-undocumente... Illegal immigrants generate much less economic activity per person than their legal immigrant counterparts.
JamilD 10y ago
Support for amnesty and lighter policies against undocumented immigrants comes from both sides of the aisle in CA -- a significant portion of California's economy comes from agriculture in the Central Valley, and almost 100% of the workers there are undocumented. They're a huge net contributor to California's economy. http://nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-trump-but-now-fear-losing-field-workers.html http://nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-t...
projectramo 10y ago
You know California is a net contributor to the federal government, right? By your argument, California could easily afford to pay for it if only Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Montana, and Kentucky were not "mooching" off of it.
- davidf18 10y ago
  > "By your argument, California could easily afford to pay for it if only Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Montana, and Kentucky were not "mooching" off of it." Not if the funds are paying for people living in these states legally.. Surely you see the distinction between funding people legally living in the US and those living here illegally. What I know is that if California elected responsible politicians that used tax money for Californians and not for people living in the state and country illegally they wouldn't need the federal money. Get rid of your politicians and elect responsible ones and stop whining.
  - davidf18 10y ago
    Instead of down voting, please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally instead of funding a train for people who are here legally.
    - johnduhart 10y ago
      I'm confused, where did the he/she state that?
    - Kluny 10y ago
      I don't think anyone wants to fund them, and we aren't. We pretty generally agree that they contribute more to the economy than they take out of it. The California agricultural economy would collapse without them since employers can't afford to pay legal wages. Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage is a whole other problem. But as it stands, California is getting a damn fine deal out of their illegal Mexicans.
davidf18 10y ago
People are down voting, the but the assessment is a correct one: California citizens need to elect responsible politicians that spend money on people who live in the the US and CA legally instead of those illegally. If they elected responsible politicians that understood this, they would have their train funded. Taxes should be only spent on people living in the US legally. Not certain why people have a problem with that.
- pvg 10y ago
  They're much more likely downvoting you for trying to hijack the thread with an unrelated political topic/flamefest and then complaining about getting downvoted.
  - davidf18 10y ago
    But it is related. The fact is that the NYT article was complaining about the lack of federal funds, but the true fact is that if the citizens of California elected politicians who did not unwisely pay for people living here illegally, they would have the money for the electric rail. Since money if fungible, since California politicians decided that taxpayer money should go towards people living here illegally, then it means that federal funds are going towards people living here illegally. I think this argument is very sound. I'm really tired of people writing articles and other complaining without stating the full context. If that electric rail is so very important to California, and I believe it is, then the citizens of California should elect officials that do not use valuable and scarce taxpayer funds to pay for services for people living here illegally. They should elect politicians that spend taxpayer money for the benefit of people living here legally which includes the electric train.
    - pvg 10y ago
      You can relate almost any topic to any topic with the insight 'money is fungible'. Using this to switch subjects to your favourite flamerant is bad, your comment was bad and you should feel bad.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
iagooar 10y ago
Words can't express how sad I feel about people who write and believe in such a logic. Where is our humanity gone? How can you think that by helping people (legal or not) you are doing something wrong? USA is a country that has a massive problem with not accepting what it is, what it has, and what it could have. But then again, a country is made of diverse people. I feel happy that some people in California feel that they need to help and support those who are most vulnerable and mistreated by the system. The poor living legally in your country ARE NOT competing for resources with "illegal aliens" you call them (I find it absurd to even consider a person, a HUMAN BEING, to be illegal, but that's a different topic). Your country has way more resources available than those dedicated to eradicating poverty.
- davidf18 10y ago
  > "Words can't express how sad I feel about people who write and believe in such a logic. Where is our humanity gone?" The correct term is illegal aliens. I didn't create the term, but I do use the language correctly. My humanity is for those poor people who live in the US who don't get enough funding as it is and who lose out on the funding because of illegal aliens. That is where my humanity is. My question to you is where is your humanity for the poor Americans, many who don't have nearly the IQ of readers of HN and who are losing their jobs and not getting enough support. > "The poor living legally in your country ARE NOT competing for resources with "illegal aliens" you call them (I find it absurd to even consider a person, a HUMAN BEING, to be illegal, but that's a different topic). Your country has way more resources available than those dedicated to eradicating poverty." That is an incorrect statement. There is only so much tax money and much of that money is used for funding K-12 education, university education, healthcare, etc. etc. for illegal aliens instead of better funding the poor.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    The vast majority of children of immigrants in public schools are US citizens by virtue of being born in the US. This argument about spending money on educating illegal immigrants is pretty facile.
jedberg 10y ago
Holding transit money hostage to punish the state for other transgressions is petty and authoritarian. Instead, step up enforcement of the immigration issue and keep the train issue separate. And before you scream, "sanctuary state!", either decide immigration is a state issue or not, but don't say it's a federal issue and then rely on states to enforce it. That's a pretty typical MO for the federal government -- demand that the states enforce things that cost money but don't actually provide money for it.
- masonic 10y ago
  The hostage-taking here is in the form of the $647 million omnibus transit bill encompassing the Caltrain electrification portion. It's like kidnapping a kitten and demanding a $100 ransom for "kitten food" or the kitten dies... then spending $1 on kitten food. And you'll likely have to pay more to get the kitten back later anyway. The Democrats are free to introduce a clean bill with just the Caltrain electrification funds. A clean bill (funding ALL of it, even) would sail through Congress.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> California spends an enormous amount of money on illegal aliens Do you have a source on how much this is in aggregate, preferably both in gross (total) and net (minus the value of undocumented migrants'/illegal aliens' economic input to the California economy) terms? I'm just sceptical that this--versus so many other categories of frivolous state spending--is the lowest-hanging fruit.
1_2__3 10y ago
> We don't even have enough money for the poor who live in this country legally. And I'm sure you're a big proponent of changing that, huh.
nerfhammer 10y ago
> 200 illegal aliens are allowed to attend at in-state tuition Even assuming your premise here, take the differential between in-state and out-of-state UC tuition and multiply it by 200. That's going to be something on the order of like 3 million dollars? Versus 650 million in transit funding? I propose that "illegal immigrants" is a pointless red herring with respect to this issue.
mtviewdave 10y ago
I see that you don't say you want immigration labor laws enforced. What you say is that you don't want illegal immigrants to get benefits. This is sadly typical. There are plenty of people here in California who are fine with using illegal immigrant labor to save money getting crops picked or construction built, but if one of these laborers slices their hand open on piece of equipment and needs to go to the emergency room, then and only then does the hand-writing about "spending money on illegals" begin. I have no patience for this sort of sadistic, extractive capitalism. Especially when it wraps itself in a faux mantle of concern about the law. If you don't want illegal immigrants in this country, then enforce the labor laws against the employers. What's ironic of course is that most of the 14 California congresspeople who signed the letter represent districts who are heavily dependently upon illegal immigrant labor, and thus upon the very sort of lax enforcement of immigration laws that they claim to be against. At this point, I'd be more than happy to see ICE conduct a vigorous enforcement of immigration laws throughout the Central Valley. Perhaps staring in September?
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Right. I have heard people make the literal argument that while we should go after illegal aliens, we should _NOT_ go after those who hire undocumented workers, as to punish or penalize them for doing so would be "unfair" to them, because it would make them noncompetitive against other employers doing the same. And at the same time they stammer that the idea of a drug dealer telling a cop "It's unfair to me, because all these other people are out here selling drugs too!" is somehow in no way the same thing. Capitalism writ large. It's perfectly acceptable to break the law to make a profit if you're a company, but not to be breaking the law to give yourself a livelihood.
jhallenworld 10y ago
I recently learned that what some think of as an illegal alien problem today began as a legal guest worker program between 1942 and 1964: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_program This set expectations for generations of businesses and workers and obviously continues to this day. The re-branding of welcome migrant workers to vile illegal aliens is just politics. Do migrants depress the wages of American workers? Probably to some degree (I suppose it's like the H1B visa program). Do they interfere with the sovereignty of the United States? I think the argument is ridiculous, just pandering to nationalists.

ZanyProgrammer 10y ago

They should've started high speed rail in the bookends, since any construction there would have immediate benefits for hundreds of thousands of riders, and instill public confidence in the project. That would've helped Caltrain electrification right there.

gumby 10y ago
Well the Caltrain electrification is in one of the book ends. The logic for starting in the middle is that it created economic assistance (as a side effect) in an area with a jobs problem. Why not start that part sooner rather than later?
- jedberg 10y ago
  Because no one will ride that section. If you start on the ends people will actually pay money to ride the train, which then funds construction on the other part of the train and provides steady jobs instead of only temporary ones. If you want to provide welfare to people without jobs, then provide welfare. Don't provide secret welfare and call it a high speed train.
  - ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
    Politically it would've helped the project much more to have had tangible success in the economic heart of CA, impacting shitloads of people (and voters).
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > If you start on the ends people will actually pay money to ride the train The initial operating segment runs through the Valley to San Jose; that's pretty close to the S.F. end , and is the third biggest city in California (and the second biggest covered by the whole Phase 1 LA-to-SF alignment.) Obviously, the initial operating segment isn't going to connect both ends, and short of doing that, where specifically would be better than the actual planned IOS? Sure, the initial construction segment is a small section in the valley that would probably see little ridership without being connected to some place nearer to the endpoints, but the ICS is not the whole IOS.

erentz 10y ago

Question: the imbalance between what California contributes vs receivers from the federal government is pretty crazy to me. I'll grant some imbalances are necessary - you will always have richer and poorer areas of the country. But when he gap is as wide as it is, and then it is turned into a tool for punishing CA due to our politics, at what point should CA seek to seriously tackle this? Firstly of course is the very long shot possibility of successon, but I was wondering if there might be something in the tax code that would allow CA to shut off the flow of money to the federal government? Perhaps by implementing some kind of massive tax and dividend scheme (e.g. naively I'm thinking if I'm allowed to deduct state taxes - what stops CA from taxing 100% of my income, so I pay nothing to the federal government, then CA pays me a "dividend" equal to my income minus whatever the real tax rate should be (30% or whatever).

rocqua 10y ago
I'd venture such a dividend scheme would immediately get hit with lawsuits by the federal government.
coredog64 10y ago
Why is it that progressive income taxation is so awesome for everyone else and sucks when applied to you? (FWIW, I've looked at the report that purports to back the 'CA pays more than it receives' and it isn't super accurate)
- ptc 10y ago
  But it isn't progressive, right? An individual in CA who makes 50k gets less in Federal funding to projects that would benefit them, than if that same individual moved to another state, and made the exact same amount. Not saying I agree with the conceit that a state should have the level of economic autonomy argued for the the original post, but your argument doesn't hold water.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    Would they still be making 50k if they moved to a different state though?

entee 10y ago

The bay area is a bit of a mess public transportation-wise, and at least for this particular project, the cost seems not all that large in the scheme of things ($1.9B overall, need $647M in federal money). I hesitate to propose this because I fear there might be a flame war, but is there any way we could tax some of the large tech companies very slightly to quickly get enough money to make Caltrain and other public transportation systems modern and sustainable?

CaliforniaKarl 10y ago
I am curious, how many people here use a Caltrain GO pass? If yes, how much is subsidized by your employer? Here's an interesting comparison: 48 business weeks of trips, on Clipper card: $3,456 (48•5•2•7.20) 12 monthly passes: $2,289.60 (12•190.80) 1 annual GO pass: $190 (assuming 83+ other people also use it; min. $15,960 spent per company.) I know (from personal experience) that Stanford is a heavy GO pass user. I'm curious how many others are. You may not need a tax. Instead, an increase in the coast of the GO pass may be enough!
- greglindahl 10y ago
  Isn't the GO pass priced such that you buy it for everyone and then Caltrain hopes that peak usage isn't too high as a result? Which means you don't have enough data to evaluate if it's priced correctly or not. I bet Caltrain makes individual deals with Stanford and other large users that reflect actual usage.

masonic 10y ago

Only a small amount of that $647 million was going to Caltrain electrification. It was wrapped in a boondoggle of an omnibus transit spending bill. The real political battle here is to limit Federal spending on CA's ill-routed HSR. The Democrats are free to introduce a clean bill with just the Caltrain electrification funds. A clean bill (funding ALL of it, even) would sail through Congress.

guelo 10y ago
Voters kicked radical Republicans out of Sacramento so now they're getting D.C. to their dirty work for them. Luckily many of them will lose in 2018, including Darrel Issa.
ruw1090 10y ago
citation?

hueving 10y ago

>Caltrain plans to use the money to switch to modern electric trains, from old diesel locomotives that are prone to failure. I ride the Caltrain about once a week and I haven't encountered a delay due to a locomotive failure. How often does this happen?

saym 10y ago
Happened to me once two weeks ago. I've also been on a train that had 'broken down' where it couldn't leave a station after coming to a stop. Also accidents with cars and pedestrians happens more frequently than they should. I don't know if the upgrades to the line include raising and separating the track wherever possible.
- martinald 10y ago
  Yes, there is a lot of grade seperation work in the project. Tbh it's pretty nutty the US doesn't do more of this, even in new schemes like LAs light rail there are dozens of at grade crossings. While more expensive in the short term to build i think really you should be aiming for 100% grade seperation for new projects, even if that means closing some less used roads to make it affordable.
magila 10y ago
I commute daily between SF and San Mateo, which covers about a third of Caltrain's line. I get delayed due to mechanical failures (usually on other trains) once a month or so on average.
- jdavis703 10y ago
  One just happened last week. A problem with the air brakes that made them evacuate an entire car on the train. I've been on other trains that lost all electrical power in the passenger cabs. Had engines that could not start after pulling into stations. Not too mention when one train breaks down others get stuck behind it.
greglindahl 10y ago

smaili 10y ago

> By any measure, Caltrain is the equivalent of a dated personal computer running Windows 95 way overdue for an upgrade. Rush-hour trains are so crowded that their aisles are filled with passengers. Trains break down frequently and the locomotives belch plumes of black smoke into the air — a sight more in line with the early industrial age than 21st century Silicon Valley. As a frequent commuter, I couldn't agree more with this paragraph.

Johnny555 10y ago
Most of Caltrain's locomotives date back to 1985, so they are more like Windows 2.1
- tmaly 10y ago
  You should see the old metro north ones that run from CT to NYC, they are even older.
  - martinald 10y ago
    Nothing really wrong with old trains tbh assuming they are maintained and refurbished. The intercity 125 in the UK despite being over 40 years old is still fast (125mph), reliable (engines have all been replaced fairly recently) and very comfortable and quiet, even in standard class.
    - caf 10y ago
      If you want to see a case study in exactly what you're talking about, you could check out the Australian version of the same train, the XPT, which is in dire need of refurbishment.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      And in my experience, the 125 is much nicer than the newer Pendolino, which is claustrophobic, dimly lit, and the areas around the toilets smell of piss.
  - 10y ago

mikejmoffitt 10y ago

One thing that shouldn't change is the Caltrain ticketing UI. The interface is simple enough to use, and it responds to user input instantly. I can select the ticket I want with four taps in about a second, where the only slowdown is the actual payment.

EnFinlay 10y ago
That sounds amazing. My car made in 2015 has a touch screen with a 0.5-1.5s lag, it's infuriating.
astrange 10y ago
My experience is more like: - I tap my Clipper card. - A Caltrain employee checks my card about every other time I'm on a train. - Sometimes they threaten to arrest me because I didn't tap it hard enough 3 days ago.
- mikejmoffitt 10y ago
  Yeah, that's a bummer - but that's not the caltrain ticketing UI. That's using Clipper on the caltrain.

martinald 10y ago

This is a real shame. I believe this would have allowed 6trains per hour each way throughout the day, bringing the service closer to real urban rapid transit. It would also have a big impact on journey times as electric trains can accelerate and decelerate a lot quicker than the current diesel ones. Why don't they look at variable tolling on 101 (or at least an express toll lane) and divert funds to this project? That would seem like a win win: transit users get upgraded service which would encourage more people to switch and drivers have less traffic to deal with as people move to transit, plus they can pay for a more reliable journey if they are in a rush.

quietmonkey 10y ago

The Bay Area would have its money better spent on electric buses anyway. Has anyone breathed while walking down the road in SF?

rebootthesystem 10y ago

> The Transportation Department is withholding $647 million in federal grants for a $1.9 billion project that would modernize and increase the capacity of Caltrain. About 65,000 people use the rail line every day to commute between San Francisco and San Jose OK. Just thinking out loud here. $1.9 billion. 65,000 people per day. That's about $30K per person. In other words, you can almost buy a Tesla Model 3 for each person. Yet, that would not deal with congestion. Scratch that idea. Is this a point-to-point route? Are most of those people going from San Jose to San Francisco or are there a ton of stops in the way? Next thought is: How many electric buses could one purchase with that money? At $400K each, 4,750 buses. That's a lot of eco-friendly buses! OK, but, how many do we need to move 65,000 people per day? Well, if all 65,000 want to go at once, about 1,625 buses. And that would cost $650 billion, or 1/3 of the $1.9 billion set aside for this project. How would 1,625 electric buses, for 1/3 the cost, affect the region? Yet, it is probably reasonable to assume we don't need to move all 65,000 people at once. In looking around it seems reasonable to assume around 2,000 riders per hour on average. If we go with 10,000 (why not?) we would need 250 buses. Now our equipment cost is down to $100 million. BTW, if we switch to natural gas buses that cost goes down to $62.5 million. Not saying this is the best option, just providing comparative data. I am not going to reach any conclusion here. Just exploring very, very rough numbers quickly. I think this would only work well if the bus riders are "long haul", meaning they don't have to stop at every freeway off-ramp and navigate surface streets to pick-up and drop-off people. One could use check-in/out to optimize bus routes. Don't stop where nobody wants to get on/off. There's a lot of space between $100 million and $1.9 billion. That's 19 times more taxpayer money spent. Is this sensible? Does it survive mathematical analysis more strict than my quick 10 minute think? On the one side I think I'd rather spend $100 to even as high as $500 million on an electric powered bus infrastructure. Why? Because this would be a huge shot in the arm for that industry and the consequences could ripple throughout the nation. Bus prices could go down from the current $400K, new technologies could be spurred into existence and electric vehicle adoption across the board (passenger cars) is likely to see gains as well. My numbers could be completely off the mark, I know. That said, on an admittedly very flawed first inspection, I would not be surprised if investing a few hundred million on a next-generation electric bus transport system might be better than dumping 19 times more money on rail. I doubt this approach would make any sense at all in a place like Los Angeles, but this Caltrain case might be unique. I'd rather invest in the future whenever possible.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

Considering the great job CA has done playing ball with the new administration I'm not exactly surprised said administration is in no hurry to shovel money in their direction. /s

sjg007 10y ago

I think the train makes sense. House prices are out of whack and the roads are packed. It will encourage growth in Modesto and the Central Valley which will bring not just commuters but other businesses and ease roadway congestion. The Central Valley communities will improve and it'll reduce pressure on rents across the Bay area.