4 ms·

No, the upper-middle-class robbing the poor has been the history of our highway system, which you can't use without owning a car and paying ~ $0.55/mile to oper

No, the upper-middle-class robbing the poor has been the history of our highway system, which you can't use without owning a car and paying ~ $0.55/mile to operate it. We have shoveled hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies down the throat of the automobile culture and we did not get a functioning transportation system from doing so. We got a massively regressive, barely functional system and all of its attendant externalities in the form of health problems for those living near the roads, and end-of-civilization CO2 pollution problems for people living everywhere. The cost of HSR suddenly sounds so much more reasonable if you frame it in terms of the road budget. HSR's all-in cost for right-of-way, tracks, stations, and trains is about four years worth of California's current road budget.

rayiner 8y ago
That's completely divorced from reality. Even poor people own cars! 80% of people in poverty have access to a vehicle.[1] $0.55/mile is about $120 for an LA to SF trip. For a family of four, this train is $350. Which one do you think a low-income family is going to take to visit relatives for Christmas? In any case, poor people who don't own cars rely on busses and subways--which this boondoggle does nothing for. [1] $77 billion would also create a perpetual fund that would be able to buy a $10,000 used car for every household in poverty every 5 years.
- ebikelaw 8y ago
  That's cherry-picking a favorable example for the car. It's always better to take your car when you fill it up with people, compared to other modes that charge per person. It's true locally - always cheaper to drive from Oakland to San Francisco vs. four round-trip BART tickets - and it's true regionally - cheaper to drive the whole family than to fly, if you don't value your time. Of course both of those assume that you can afford the car and that the car you can afford will survive the trip. Anyway, your last sentence is wrong. Much of the money under the HSR project is going to local transportation projects. So far they have spent or committed seven billion dollars for Caltrain, BART, Muni, Sacramento RT, Capitol Corridor, ACE, LA Metro, Metrolink, San Diego Blue Line, and Coaster, among others.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    It's a highly relevant example. What are the reasons a lower-income person might travel from LA to SF? Traveling to visit family is probably the primary reason. You can see this play out with the Acela on the east coast. It's almost all business travelers or nicely dressed professional looking people. People who can't afford $100+ per ticket take the bus ($35). Likewise, even lower income people traveling alone aren't going to spend $86 for a ticket on HSR (if it's not more like $100+ by the time it's finally open). They'll pay $35 for a Bolt bus.
    - ebikelaw 8y ago
      Speaking of disconnected from reality, you seem to be claiming that poor people travel, which they don't. In yet another example of American inequality, the bottom income quartile of families are quite stationary; they can neither afford to move about nor do they have "days off" as such because an American is not legally entitled to any. The supermajority of American families cannot even afford an unexpected $500 expense; they sure as hell aren't going to blow hundreds to drive to LA.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        'rayiner seems to have argued you in a circle here. He is the one claiming the poor aren't going to ride this train; you hardly contradict him when you argue they aren't going to use cheaper transportation either.
        ebikelaw 8y ago
        Not at all. He hasn't addressed my point which is that for individuals travelling alone the train will be dramatically cheaper than driving over long distances.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        8y ago
- yongjik 8y ago
  Even poor people are forced to own cars because the whole cityscape is designed with that assumption, so they have to shell out thousands of dollars they could've used on food or other niceties, to buy a barely functioning vehicle that costs them more money and time to repair constantly.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    And the alternative would be ? (Note: those poor people need to be able to do 30-40kg groceries, at a distance of, say 5-10 kilometers, when they're 50 years old)
slg 8y ago
That $0.55 / mile is dropping with EVs (which also help address some of the other problems you mentioned) and would crater if driverless cars become a reality in the next decade or so. A driverless EV should easily be able to beat $86 for a 400 mile trip from SF to LA. Which makes we wonder if the time for high speed rail has come and gone.
- ebikelaw 8y ago
  The difference between HSR and driverless EVs that can go from SF to LA is the former has existed for 50 years and the latter has literally never been demonstrated.
  - slg 8y ago
    And another difference is that the development of a rail line requires billions in additional public funds (and also takes years if not decades to build) while the development of driverless cars is being paid for by private businesses. Wasn't your initial argument about saving money?
    - ebikelaw 8y ago
      That characterization seems hilariously disconnected from the facts, which are that DARPA kick-started autonomous vehicles more than fifteen years ago with millions in government money, and that the vast majority of development of such vehicles has occurred on public roads, mostly in California. The parts that have been developed off-road have been done at an old Air Force base, and if you want to argue that facility is privately funded that will only make your argument sound even more dumb.
      - slg 8y ago
        You are right that I should have included a qualifier in that statement that it is not 100% funded by private business but that percentage is probably pretty close. Yes, DARPA got things moving but like you said their investment was in the millions. Google, Uber, Tesla, GM, etc have invested billions into the tech. Once again if this is a question of the effectiveness of the money spent, DARPA's investment in driverless tech greatly exceeds the potential of billions being spent on high speed rail.
icebraining 8y ago
you can't use without owning a car Or taking a bus, no? Seems like you can get a trip for under $15.

rayiner 8y ago

That's completely divorced from reality. Even poor people own cars! 80% of people in poverty have access to a vehicle.[1] $0.55/mile is about $120 for an LA to SF trip. For a family of four, this train is $350. Which one do you think a low-income family is going to take to visit relatives for Christmas? In any case, poor people who don't own cars rely on busses and subways--which this boondoggle does nothing for. [1] $77 billion would also create a perpetual fund that would be able to buy a $10,000 used car for every household in poverty every 5 years.

ebikelaw 8y ago
That's cherry-picking a favorable example for the car. It's always better to take your car when you fill it up with people, compared to other modes that charge per person. It's true locally - always cheaper to drive from Oakland to San Francisco vs. four round-trip BART tickets - and it's true regionally - cheaper to drive the whole family than to fly, if you don't value your time. Of course both of those assume that you can afford the car and that the car you can afford will survive the trip. Anyway, your last sentence is wrong. Much of the money under the HSR project is going to local transportation projects. So far they have spent or committed seven billion dollars for Caltrain, BART, Muni, Sacramento RT, Capitol Corridor, ACE, LA Metro, Metrolink, San Diego Blue Line, and Coaster, among others.
- rayiner 8y ago
  It's a highly relevant example. What are the reasons a lower-income person might travel from LA to SF? Traveling to visit family is probably the primary reason. You can see this play out with the Acela on the east coast. It's almost all business travelers or nicely dressed professional looking people. People who can't afford $100+ per ticket take the bus ($35). Likewise, even lower income people traveling alone aren't going to spend $86 for a ticket on HSR (if it's not more like $100+ by the time it's finally open). They'll pay $35 for a Bolt bus.
  - ebikelaw 8y ago
    Speaking of disconnected from reality, you seem to be claiming that poor people travel, which they don't. In yet another example of American inequality, the bottom income quartile of families are quite stationary; they can neither afford to move about nor do they have "days off" as such because an American is not legally entitled to any. The supermajority of American families cannot even afford an unexpected $500 expense; they sure as hell aren't going to blow hundreds to drive to LA.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      'rayiner seems to have argued you in a circle here. He is the one claiming the poor aren't going to ride this train; you hardly contradict him when you argue they aren't going to use cheaper transportation either.
      - ebikelaw 8y ago
        Not at all. He hasn't addressed my point which is that for individuals travelling alone the train will be dramatically cheaper than driving over long distances.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        8y ago
yongjik 8y ago
Even poor people are forced to own cars because the whole cityscape is designed with that assumption, so they have to shell out thousands of dollars they could've used on food or other niceties, to buy a barely functioning vehicle that costs them more money and time to repair constantly.
- candiodari 8y ago
  And the alternative would be ? (Note: those poor people need to be able to do 30-40kg groceries, at a distance of, say 5-10 kilometers, when they're 50 years old)

slg 8y ago

That $0.55 / mile is dropping with EVs (which also help address some of the other problems you mentioned) and would crater if driverless cars become a reality in the next decade or so. A driverless EV should easily be able to beat $86 for a 400 mile trip from SF to LA. Which makes we wonder if the time for high speed rail has come and gone.

ebikelaw 8y ago
The difference between HSR and driverless EVs that can go from SF to LA is the former has existed for 50 years and the latter has literally never been demonstrated.
- slg 8y ago
  And another difference is that the development of a rail line requires billions in additional public funds (and also takes years if not decades to build) while the development of driverless cars is being paid for by private businesses. Wasn't your initial argument about saving money?
  - ebikelaw 8y ago
    That characterization seems hilariously disconnected from the facts, which are that DARPA kick-started autonomous vehicles more than fifteen years ago with millions in government money, and that the vast majority of development of such vehicles has occurred on public roads, mostly in California. The parts that have been developed off-road have been done at an old Air Force base, and if you want to argue that facility is privately funded that will only make your argument sound even more dumb.
    - slg 8y ago
      You are right that I should have included a qualifier in that statement that it is not 100% funded by private business but that percentage is probably pretty close. Yes, DARPA got things moving but like you said their investment was in the millions. Google, Uber, Tesla, GM, etc have invested billions into the tech. Once again if this is a question of the effectiveness of the money spent, DARPA's investment in driverless tech greatly exceeds the potential of billions being spent on high speed rail.

icebraining 8y ago

you can't use without owning a car Or taking a bus, no? Seems like you can get a trip for under $15.