4 ms·

Are you referring to the anti-government cult in CA that couldn't build a train from SF to LA for $100 billion, so they decided to instead build a massive train

Are you referring to the anti-government cult in CA that couldn't build a train from SF to LA for $100 billion, so they decided to instead build a massive train that nobody will ride from Sacramento to Bakersfield? Because that cult really is destroying the government's reputation.

dimitrios1 6y ago
No, no, they must be referring to the anti-government cult that couldn't repair a one mile stretch of subway in NYC for 3 billion!
gumby 6y ago
I have worked in the Central Valley. Frankly anything that ties the SF Bay Area and LA Basin to the Central Valley is a good thing. This does not defend the appalling incompetence in "managing" the HSR project, I'm just defending the choice of running the train up the Central Valley which I had not understood at the time the project was initially approved.
- 0xffff2 6y ago
  Running the train up the central valley was always part of the plan and is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The problem is that California is currently building a train from one end of the valley to the other that _doesn't_ actually connect to either major metro area.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    CAHSR essentially consists of 6 separate pieces: Bay Area-to-Central Valley; the SF Peninsula run; Sacramento-to-Central Valley; LA-to-Central Valley; LA-to-San Diego; and the Central Valley itself. San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento were all planned to be later phases anyways, which means the initial operating segment choices are either the Central Valley itself or crossing into it in the Bay Area or LA. The Central Valley was chosen as the first construction package area because a lot of the initial money CAHSR got from the federal government had to be spent quickly, and flat ground means that the construction would be the cheapest and quickest construction portion. That the result has neither been cheap nor quick is a pretty severe indictment of the epic mismanagement involved.
    - gumby 6y ago
      It's also politically astute to do the first major public spending in the reddest part of the state, and then connect to the endpoints who are less likely to change their minds.
hiram112 6y ago
> Are you referring to the anti-government cult in CA that couldn't build a train from SF to LA for $100 billion... Not sure if I'm misinterpreting your comment, or you're being satirical or what. I was under the impression that it was the government in CA that massively misspent the tax payer billions they were given. As far as I know, there is still no usable "high speed" rail between LA and SF, which is exactly the type of project the left claims they could build, if we just gave the benevolent government more cash. But maybe I'm in my own bubble, and have not heard the truth. I'm more familiar with the "great" government infrastructure we've got in my own area. Let's just say the DC metro is garbage, and should've been seized from the corrupt local politicians who've used it as a crony jobs program for the last few decades. But instead, they'll be gifted with tens of billions of more tax payer dollars as part of the various stimulus bills. Forgive me if I've absolutely no faith in anything the government touches anymore.
- door101 6y ago
  > Forgive me if I've absolutely no faith in anything the government touches anymore. do you drive on roads
  - stickyricky 6y ago
    The thing governments keep building despite their contribution to climate change, air pollution, destroyed neighborhoods, and inefficient land use? The thing funded by the poor at the same rate as the rich? You know... I think I've heard of them. My government is building another 6 lane overpass over a neighborhood (and its a toll!). Hope this one works out!
    - door101 6y ago
      I am disagreeing with the parent . People don’t think that the government should build trains, but that it should build roads, which have all the problems you mentioned.
      - syshum 6y ago
hellbannedguy 6y ago
I used to be a general contractor. I kinda know how government building contracts are handed out. In order to bid on a project, the government needs three bids from three from three different companies. In my county, we have continual road, sewer, communications work. It's almost like it's never ending work that doesn't get completed? I live in the lovely liberal enclave of Marin County. I noticed, in my county, there is one company that gets All the work. (A very old company. If you live here you know it's Italian name.) A few years back I started looking at the competing three bids. I looked up the heads of the companies that were bidding. What I found was surprising. In many cases the three companies that bid on a government job had a family member, related to the company that gets all our county work, on their contractor's licenses. It looks like the Italian family sent their kids/grandkids to Sacramento to pass a very easy test, and had them set up "separate" companies. Why--so at bidding time the three companies would be eesntially bidding against themselfs. The winner of the "rigged" bid gets the contract essentially for the Italian family that gets all the jobs, and keeps the never ending road infrastructure jobs going. The companies must share equipment, and employees? I guess it's all legal? So---if you ever wonder why one company seems to get all the contracts, it might now be that it's the best company. I do understand it takes millions in machines to build projects, and not every company has the equipment. I just feel like the system is rigged, and not more efficient than many government run projects. When there no real competition, and politicians who are way out of their expertise, granting the OK for a huge job; the private company can pretty much do whatever it wants, and blame the slowdown on the, "infarculator of the ground water table rod of thelvin, and that's why it's taking so long Chief?" (Some projects have Performance Bonds. Many do not require them. Those ongoing projects where they seem to did up a road, and repair it, then dig it up again; most likely don't have Performance Bonds.)
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  I'm paraphrasing Adam Carolla here, but he's not the only one who has made this observation: the average business owner is way smarter than the average politician. They will run rings around any regulations that hurt their profitability, and if they can't, they will leave and take the economic contributions of their business with them.

dimitrios1 6y ago

No, no, they must be referring to the anti-government cult that couldn't repair a one mile stretch of subway in NYC for 3 billion!

gumby 6y ago

I have worked in the Central Valley. Frankly anything that ties the SF Bay Area and LA Basin to the Central Valley is a good thing. This does not defend the appalling incompetence in "managing" the HSR project, I'm just defending the choice of running the train up the Central Valley which I had not understood at the time the project was initially approved.

0xffff2 6y ago
Running the train up the central valley was always part of the plan and is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The problem is that California is currently building a train from one end of the valley to the other that _doesn't_ actually connect to either major metro area.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  CAHSR essentially consists of 6 separate pieces: Bay Area-to-Central Valley; the SF Peninsula run; Sacramento-to-Central Valley; LA-to-Central Valley; LA-to-San Diego; and the Central Valley itself. San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento were all planned to be later phases anyways, which means the initial operating segment choices are either the Central Valley itself or crossing into it in the Bay Area or LA. The Central Valley was chosen as the first construction package area because a lot of the initial money CAHSR got from the federal government had to be spent quickly, and flat ground means that the construction would be the cheapest and quickest construction portion. That the result has neither been cheap nor quick is a pretty severe indictment of the epic mismanagement involved.
  - gumby 6y ago
    It's also politically astute to do the first major public spending in the reddest part of the state, and then connect to the endpoints who are less likely to change their minds.

hiram112 6y ago

> Are you referring to the anti-government cult in CA that couldn't build a train from SF to LA for $100 billion... Not sure if I'm misinterpreting your comment, or you're being satirical or what. I was under the impression that it was the government in CA that massively misspent the tax payer billions they were given. As far as I know, there is still no usable "high speed" rail between LA and SF, which is exactly the type of project the left claims they could build, if we just gave the benevolent government more cash. But maybe I'm in my own bubble, and have not heard the truth. I'm more familiar with the "great" government infrastructure we've got in my own area. Let's just say the DC metro is garbage, and should've been seized from the corrupt local politicians who've used it as a crony jobs program for the last few decades. But instead, they'll be gifted with tens of billions of more tax payer dollars as part of the various stimulus bills. Forgive me if I've absolutely no faith in anything the government touches anymore.

door101 6y ago
> Forgive me if I've absolutely no faith in anything the government touches anymore. do you drive on roads
- stickyricky 6y ago
  The thing governments keep building despite their contribution to climate change, air pollution, destroyed neighborhoods, and inefficient land use? The thing funded by the poor at the same rate as the rich? You know... I think I've heard of them. My government is building another 6 lane overpass over a neighborhood (and its a toll!). Hope this one works out!
  - door101 6y ago
    I am disagreeing with the parent . People don’t think that the government should build trains, but that it should build roads, which have all the problems you mentioned.
    - syshum 6y ago

hellbannedguy 6y ago

I used to be a general contractor. I kinda know how government building contracts are handed out. In order to bid on a project, the government needs three bids from three from three different companies. In my county, we have continual road, sewer, communications work. It's almost like it's never ending work that doesn't get completed? I live in the lovely liberal enclave of Marin County. I noticed, in my county, there is one company that gets All the work. (A very old company. If you live here you know it's Italian name.) A few years back I started looking at the competing three bids. I looked up the heads of the companies that were bidding. What I found was surprising. In many cases the three companies that bid on a government job had a family member, related to the company that gets all our county work, on their contractor's licenses. It looks like the Italian family sent their kids/grandkids to Sacramento to pass a very easy test, and had them set up "separate" companies. Why--so at bidding time the three companies would be eesntially bidding against themselfs. The winner of the "rigged" bid gets the contract essentially for the Italian family that gets all the jobs, and keeps the never ending road infrastructure jobs going. The companies must share equipment, and employees? I guess it's all legal? So---if you ever wonder why one company seems to get all the contracts, it might now be that it's the best company. I do understand it takes millions in machines to build projects, and not every company has the equipment. I just feel like the system is rigged, and not more efficient than many government run projects. When there no real competition, and politicians who are way out of their expertise, granting the OK for a huge job; the private company can pretty much do whatever it wants, and blame the slowdown on the, "infarculator of the ground water table rod of thelvin, and that's why it's taking so long Chief?" (Some projects have Performance Bonds. Many do not require them. Those ongoing projects where they seem to did up a road, and repair it, then dig it up again; most likely don't have Performance Bonds.)

throwawayboise 6y ago
I'm paraphrasing Adam Carolla here, but he's not the only one who has made this observation: the average business owner is way smarter than the average politician. They will run rings around any regulations that hurt their profitability, and if they can't, they will leave and take the economic contributions of their business with them.