The vast majority of people don't want to use public transportation.
That's true. They prefer to sit in traffic, as evidenced by the large number of people who sit in traffic every day.
And since public transportation and road construction are both expensive, taxpayers could save a LOT of money by giving people what they "want": less public transportation and more traffic congestion. Right?
Or we could make road users pay 100% of the cost of the roads instead of less than half, and find out if people still prefer to drive.
Every claim you just repeated by the State has been proven _False_ by other agencies
That's false. The Legislative Analyst's Office questioned the assumptions but did not find anything in the CAHSR's numbers that were factually incorrect. The State Auditor found some risks and weak oversight but again could not disprove the numbers. We see the same thing over and over again, and each time it helps California improve its planning and oversight.
Meanwhile, every HSR line in the world that's at least a few years old is already making a profit.
Every.
Last.
One.
Even Amtrak's Acela Express makes a profit. So why would California's HSR be any different?
But hey, we got more welfare and crony projects like the Bullet-CrazyTrain.
Yes, the train that will cost $68.4 billion and fulfill the same transportation demand as spending $119.0 billion on 4,295 new lane-miles of highway plus $38.6 billion on 115 new airport gates and 4 new runways ($158 billion total). Let's not build it because we need that $68.4 billion for other things, right?
Long-haul freight really ought to be moved by rail where it causes less traffic congestion, emits less greenhouse gases, and doesn't tear up the roads. Also, it's easier to automate a vehicle that cannot steer. Unfortunately, the trucking industry is so heavily subsidized that there's no incentive to change.
If I patent something and I am not allowed to sell my patent, or the buyer is not allowed to enforce it, doesn't that reduce the value of my invention and thereby suppress innovation?
There is no shortage of people with an CS degree. But there is certainly a shortage of people that can actually write good code for non-trivial tasks.
Wrong again. A shortage means that those people cannot be hired on the open market at any price. The real problem is that employers don't value those people enough to pay the market clearing rate.
Yes, automatic brake control and so on can increase the capacity of a freeway, but that still won't eliminate traffic congestion. At best, it can only delay the onset of congestion for a few years, because once people see that the freeway is flowing smoothly again, they will drive on that freeway more often, developers will build along the freeway, and so on until the freeway is gridlocked again. This happens every time you widen an unpriced freeway without also preventing development (particularly places to park) along the corridor.
So there are two permanent solutions to the problem of freeway traffic congestion: (1) stop pricing the freeway below market equilibrium (because this only encourages people to drive and create traffic congestion), and (2) stop forcing developers to overbuild their parking lots (because overbuilt parking lots also encourage people to drive).
I can guarantee you that if you guaranteed everyone, say, $20k/year, that landlords will get as close to that $20k/year as they can because they know that everyone will get at least that much.
This is why the minimum wage should be eliminated at the same time. When people are getting only $1/hour for their labor, they will have a HUGE incentive to find a cheap place to live, because living cheaply will bring a far greater ROI compared to working than it does now.
With a basic income, the consequence of failure will no longer be debt and homelessness, but there will always be an economic incentive to succeed.
And you're correct that a basic income will reward stupid decisions, which means it will also eliminate a big part of the risk of starting a new business, and that would be a very good thing for the economy.
Don't worry, deniers. With 2015's El Nino now over, you can look forward to cooler temperatures in 2017, and then when 2018 rolls around, you can declare that 2017's lower average global temperature proves that global warming has ended (again). Patience is key. Good luck!
SFPark is like an auction for parking spaces. When there are more people who want to park than there are parking spaces (demand > supply), you simply raise the price until enough people decide to go elsewhere that everyone who remains gets a parking space (so demand = supply).
And when you have fewer people who want to park there than there are parking spaces (demand < supply), you lower the price to make it more attractive and bring in customers to the nearby businesses (so demand = supply).
But if that equilibrium price (the price where demand = supply) is always $0 then there's no point in putting in meters at all.
For more information about the effect of price on demand, I recommend taking a beginning economics course at your local community college. Pay special attention when the topic is on the demand curve.
And also commuter rail, for example from Millbrae to downtown San Francisco.
...that only well-off people will be able to afford...
They are planning to set the train fares at 83% of airfares.
...that will carry a small proportion of traffic on a route that is not congested anyway...
You obviously have never driven in or out of San Francisco or Los Angeles during rush hour!
...and is already well served by other mass transit options (airplanes, buses, Amtrak).
There's only one daily Amtrak train in each direction between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Otherwise you have to take a bus such as the California Shuttle Bus, or Amtrak Train + Amtrak Thruway bus.
The high speed transfers are (planned to be) from the far ends of the commuter rail systems, far outside the heart of the city. They abandoned the plan to directly link the city centers to keep the cost under $100 Billion.
You're thinking of the Initial Operating Section, where you'll take a commuter train (Metrolink) from Union Station to Palmdale, then a bullet train to San Jose, then another commuter train (Caltrain) to the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco. They just want to get something running quickly so the infrastructure doesn't sit idle.
Later, the plan for Phase 1 Blended (2029) is a one-seat ride from Union Station all the way to SF, but it will share tracks with commuter trains to Palmdale and again from San Jose to SF until they upgrade those sections in a later phase.
Because it's slower, much more expensive, and technologically backward.
More expensive? Then why has an airliner never built an airport while railroad companies have built railroads?
Technologically backward? Can you think of any mode of travel that's more fuel-efficient than electric trains (500+ passenger-MPGe)? I can, but it's a bicycle.
And airports can serve people who don't just want to go between LA and SF.
Can a single airline flight land at a couple dozen airports between LA and SF like a train can, and still be competitive on cost and time?
The cost of building equivalent capacity to the $68.4 billion bullet train is estimated to be $119.0 billion for 4,295 new lane-miles (6,912 km) of highway, plus $38.6 billion for 115 new airport gates and 4 new runways, for a total estimated cost of $158 billion (2.3x $68.4 billion).
So AK Marc's figures of $10 on mass transit vs. $20 on roads were a little on the conservative side.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true. They prefer to sit in traffic, as evidenced by the large number of people who sit in traffic every day.
And since public transportation and road construction are both expensive, taxpayers could save a LOT of money by giving people what they "want": less public transportation and more traffic congestion. Right?
Or we could make road users pay 100% of the cost of the roads instead of less than half, and find out if people still prefer to drive.
That's false. The Legislative Analyst's Office questioned the assumptions but did not find anything in the CAHSR's numbers that were factually incorrect. The State Auditor found some risks and weak oversight but again could not disprove the numbers. We see the same thing over and over again, and each time it helps California improve its planning and oversight.
Meanwhile, every HSR line in the world that's at least a few years old is already making a profit.
Every.
Last.
One.
Even Amtrak's Acela Express makes a profit. So why would California's HSR be any different?
Yes, the train that will cost $68.4 billion and fulfill the same transportation demand as spending $119.0 billion on 4,295 new lane-miles of highway plus $38.6 billion on 115 new airport gates and 4 new runways ($158 billion total). Let's not build it because we need that $68.4 billion for other things, right?
Because any American who works overseas is double charged on their taxes?
It wasn't always that way. Grocery stores used to have their own rail sidings, back when trucking wasn't so heavily subsidized.
Long-haul freight really ought to be moved by rail where it causes less traffic congestion, emits less greenhouse gases, and doesn't tear up the roads. Also, it's easier to automate a vehicle that cannot steer. Unfortunately, the trucking industry is so heavily subsidized that there's no incentive to change.
If I patent something and I am not allowed to sell my patent, or the buyer is not allowed to enforce it, doesn't that reduce the value of my invention and thereby suppress innovation?
Wrong again. A shortage means that those people cannot be hired on the open market at any price. The real problem is that employers don't value those people enough to pay the market clearing rate.
Yes, automatic brake control and so on can increase the capacity of a freeway, but that still won't eliminate traffic congestion. At best, it can only delay the onset of congestion for a few years, because once people see that the freeway is flowing smoothly again, they will drive on that freeway more often, developers will build along the freeway, and so on until the freeway is gridlocked again. This happens every time you widen an unpriced freeway without also preventing development (particularly places to park) along the corridor.
So there are two permanent solutions to the problem of freeway traffic congestion: (1) stop pricing the freeway below market equilibrium (because this only encourages people to drive and create traffic congestion), and (2) stop forcing developers to overbuild their parking lots (because overbuilt parking lots also encourage people to drive).
This is why the minimum wage should be eliminated at the same time. When people are getting only $1/hour for their labor, they will have a HUGE incentive to find a cheap place to live, because living cheaply will bring a far greater ROI compared to working than it does now.
What's so expensive about building a Knoppix CD, duplicating one for every public computer to boot from, and removing all their hard drives?
Actually, it does.
We could eliminate the minimum wage when we implement basic income.
With a basic income, the consequence of failure will no longer be debt and homelessness, but there will always be an economic incentive to succeed.
And you're correct that a basic income will reward stupid decisions, which means it will also eliminate a big part of the risk of starting a new business, and that would be a very good thing for the economy.
At only 50 cents an hour on certain blocks at certain times, San Francisco has some of the cheapest pay parking in the nation.
Don't worry, deniers. With 2015's El Nino now over, you can look forward to cooler temperatures in 2017, and then when 2018 rolls around, you can declare that 2017's lower average global temperature proves that global warming has ended (again). Patience is key. Good luck!
SFPark is like an auction for parking spaces. When there are more people who want to park than there are parking spaces (demand > supply), you simply raise the price until enough people decide to go elsewhere that everyone who remains gets a parking space (so demand = supply).
And when you have fewer people who want to park there than there are parking spaces (demand < supply), you lower the price to make it more attractive and bring in customers to the nearby businesses (so demand = supply).
But if that equilibrium price (the price where demand = supply) is always $0 then there's no point in putting in meters at all.
For more information about the effect of price on demand, I recommend taking a beginning economics course at your local community college. Pay special attention when the topic is on the demand curve.
Those businesses thank you for making a parking space available for people who don't expect to get everything for free.
Because the purpose is to keep a few open spaces on every block, and if a block always has open spaces, then the parking meters aren't necessary.
Or even $0 in road construction. Compared to running nothing but standing room only buses 24/7, our roads have a LOT of spare capacity.
How do you expect trains to compete with heavily subsidized roads and airports?
You're funny. I wish I had an electric car so I would no longer need to go to the gas station!
And also commuter rail, for example from Millbrae to downtown San Francisco.
They are planning to set the train fares at 83% of airfares.
You obviously have never driven in or out of San Francisco or Los Angeles during rush hour!
There's only one daily Amtrak train in each direction between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Otherwise you have to take a bus such as the California Shuttle Bus, or Amtrak Train + Amtrak Thruway bus.
And even the airlines don't think we need hundreds of departures every day from the Bay Area to Los Angeles.. The reason is because those short flights aren't profitable, and that's why wherever HSR is built, it always quickly gains market share from the airlines.
You're thinking of the Initial Operating Section, where you'll take a commuter train (Metrolink) from Union Station to Palmdale, then a bullet train to San Jose, then another commuter train (Caltrain) to the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco. They just want to get something running quickly so the infrastructure doesn't sit idle.
Later, the plan for Phase 1 Blended (2029) is a one-seat ride from Union Station all the way to SF, but it will share tracks with commuter trains to Palmdale and again from San Jose to SF until they upgrade those sections in a later phase.
Slower? Did you know that even bicycles are sometimes faster than jetliners?
More expensive? Then why has an airliner never built an airport while railroad companies have built railroads?
Technologically backward? Can you think of any mode of travel that's more fuel-efficient than electric trains (500+ passenger-MPGe)? I can, but it's a bicycle.
Can a single airline flight land at a couple dozen airports between LA and SF like a train can, and still be competitive on cost and time?
The cost of building equivalent capacity to the $68.4 billion bullet train is estimated to be $119.0 billion for 4,295 new lane-miles (6,912 km) of highway, plus $38.6 billion for 115 new airport gates and 4 new runways, for a total estimated cost of $158 billion (2.3x $68.4 billion).
So AK Marc's figures of $10 on mass transit vs. $20 on roads were a little on the conservative side.