5 ms·

This project will easily create a 10x return in economic development within 5-10 years. Public transportation is an investment in your areas overall upward mobi

This project will easily create a 10x return in economic development within 5-10 years. Public transportation is an investment in your areas overall upward mobility for everyone and expand options and choices in ways that are entirely unheard of today. If they don't build this now, then it will take and cost longer to build later.

the_optimist 4y ago
Maybe we should invest 10x more and reap 100x the reward, in 5-10 years, nonetheless. It’s a money machine better than counterfeiting. You Cannot Lose.
ralph84 4y ago
You’re gonna have to show the math for $1 trillion in economic development in 5-10 years for a route that’s already served by air and road options in a state with stagnant population and declining usage of existing public transit. We’re 27 years since the California High-Speed Rail Authority was established and not a single passenger has been carried yet.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  But… trains! They are better! …because!
- simplotek 4y ago
  > (...) for a route that’s already served by air and road options in a state with stagnant population (...) Mass transit systems have some peculiarities that private transportation systems don't have, such as creating mass demand and concentrating it on specific spots. Each train stop is a natural generator for demand for housing and services in volumes that urban sprawl does not, and this leads to more affordable housing with shorter commutes and with far better services that lead to a far better quality of living. But this potential to be realized needs urban development that takes advantage of it, which require investment. I'm not sure if the figure is $1T but there are examples in the world where railway operators get their main source of funding and incentive to grow their network by being granted favourable conditions to invest in real estate surrounding new train stops. > (...) and declining usage of existing public transit. I'm sorry, the US is notorious for having self-sabotaging public transportation services, designed to pay lip service for the need to provide mobility alternatives,but actually designed to be impactical and outright hostile to commuters. If the US learns basic lessons from the many case studies from throughout the world, nothing stops the US from benefiting from identical adoption rates seen outside of its borders.
- thecopy 4y ago
  Stagnant public transit use is caused by bad public transit. Hence investments are needed. The USA’s transit is like a 3rd world country’s.
unmole 4y ago
> 10x return in economic development within 5-10 years. That is an extraordinary claim. 10x of 100 billion is a trillion. The GSP of the entire state of California is ~3.5 trillion USD.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  It does seem kind of difficult to arrive at no matter how one calculates it.
philwelch 4y ago
This project will not carry a single passenger within the next 10 years.
diebeforei485 4y ago
This is a jobs program not actually a transportation plan. The alignment was to create jobs in certain areas to win local elections, not to optimize transport.
tsuujin 4y ago
The problem with this project is that it has been so woefully mismanaged that in 5-10 years I have no hope any trains will actually be running. I routinely drive by one of the overpasses built in the Central Valley, a constant reminder of a shattered dream of quick transit to the Bay Area.
ars 4y ago
For the amount of money this costs you could subsidize plane tickets for Californians and it would cost less money AND emit less CO2. 100 Billion worth of CO2 is enormous (to a rough estimate monetary cost is proportional to emissions).

the_optimist 4y ago

Maybe we should invest 10x more and reap 100x the reward, in 5-10 years, nonetheless. It’s a money machine better than counterfeiting. You Cannot Lose.

ralph84 4y ago

You’re gonna have to show the math for $1 trillion in economic development in 5-10 years for a route that’s already served by air and road options in a state with stagnant population and declining usage of existing public transit. We’re 27 years since the California High-Speed Rail Authority was established and not a single passenger has been carried yet.

monero-xmr 4y ago
But… trains! They are better! …because!
simplotek 4y ago
> (...) for a route that’s already served by air and road options in a state with stagnant population (...) Mass transit systems have some peculiarities that private transportation systems don't have, such as creating mass demand and concentrating it on specific spots. Each train stop is a natural generator for demand for housing and services in volumes that urban sprawl does not, and this leads to more affordable housing with shorter commutes and with far better services that lead to a far better quality of living. But this potential to be realized needs urban development that takes advantage of it, which require investment. I'm not sure if the figure is $1T but there are examples in the world where railway operators get their main source of funding and incentive to grow their network by being granted favourable conditions to invest in real estate surrounding new train stops. > (...) and declining usage of existing public transit. I'm sorry, the US is notorious for having self-sabotaging public transportation services, designed to pay lip service for the need to provide mobility alternatives,but actually designed to be impactical and outright hostile to commuters. If the US learns basic lessons from the many case studies from throughout the world, nothing stops the US from benefiting from identical adoption rates seen outside of its borders.
thecopy 4y ago
Stagnant public transit use is caused by bad public transit. Hence investments are needed. The USA’s transit is like a 3rd world country’s.

unmole 4y ago

> 10x return in economic development within 5-10 years. That is an extraordinary claim. 10x of 100 billion is a trillion. The GSP of the entire state of California is ~3.5 trillion USD.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
It does seem kind of difficult to arrive at no matter how one calculates it.

philwelch 4y ago

This project will not carry a single passenger within the next 10 years.

diebeforei485 4y ago

This is a jobs program not actually a transportation plan. The alignment was to create jobs in certain areas to win local elections, not to optimize transport.

tsuujin 4y ago

The problem with this project is that it has been so woefully mismanaged that in 5-10 years I have no hope any trains will actually be running. I routinely drive by one of the overpasses built in the Central Valley, a constant reminder of a shattered dream of quick transit to the Bay Area.

ars 4y ago

For the amount of money this costs you could subsidize plane tickets for Californians and it would cost less money AND emit less CO2. 100 Billion worth of CO2 is enormous (to a rough estimate monetary cost is proportional to emissions).