Lipstick on a California

[dgbldr]

Q:What does bankrupt CA really need right now?
A: A new $68 billion project, of course.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/travel...ss_igoogle_cnn

[David Meiland]

High speed rail between LA and SF is a great idea.

[johnny watt]

High speed rail makes sense to serve those areas. But it should be paid for with a new tax.

Call it the pension protection and affordability care tax. Tax all government pensions above 45k per year at 100% . Apply it to both instate and out of state beneficiaries, as it was "earned" in state. Use the left over money to pay down debt.

[Mark G]

The most optimistic estimates of ridership between LA and SF don't replace many flights plus the present plan doesn't come close to either area! What a waste.

[dgbldr]

Personally I would take the train LA to SF if it cost roughly the same as flying, as I'd probably avoid the lengthy security lines.

But I don't want a railroad run by the government any more than I want an airline run by the government. You will note that in Europe, where rail makes sense, private companies are getting in the game.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/22/travel...ntv/index.html

I wonder if a real for-profit company, say CSX, might want to invest in a project like that :)

[Dick Seibert]

This is all part of United Nations Agenda 21, replace the private home with Urban Core stacked-over-retail housing, replace farming with Wildlands between the Urban Cores, move people through the Wildlands in public trains instead of privately owned cars and airplanes. This is to be paid for by grants from the Federal government (that mans you), and carbon taxation.

When California's economy was booming in 2006—remember that?—Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and many Californians wanted to show their environmental virtue by becoming the first state to pass a comprehensive climate change law. And so they did, for which the bill is starting to come due.

Lawmakers and environmentalists predicted that the new law, called AB 32, would become a model for the rest of the nation. It never did. They also said the Golden State's head start in developing green technologies would create thousands of new jobs. In 2008 the California Air Resources Board even estimated that the new rules and cap-and-trade tax would increase state GDP. In short, AB 32 was sold to the voters who declined to overturn it in a 2010 referendum as a green free lunch.

Now fast forward to 2012. California's economy is still struggling, the jobless rate is 10.8%, and AB 32's taxes and regulations are starting to bite. Two new studies by private consulting firms add up the real-world cost to California families and businesses.

The first study—sponsored by the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, whose members employ 1.2 million residents—estimates the price tag for three major new regulations associated with the law: cap-and-trade taxes on carbon emissions, a "low carbon fuel standard," and a stringent 33% renewable mandate for electricity production. Together these policies raise energy costs and are expected to reduce state GDP by between 3.5% and 8.9% by 2020.

Even under the "optimistic" scenario, that's a loss of up to $447 billion in California output over eight years and represents a bigger loss in income than the 2008-09 recession. The cost per California family is estimated at $2,500 a year due to higher costs. Repeat after Milton Friedman: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

One alarming conclusion is that "emissions reductions due to economic harm account for 26% of total reductions, more than any ARB mandated program" except cap and trade. This means that a major way Californians will reduce their greenhouse emissions is by slower growth, chasing industry out of the state, and putting more people out of work. If Californians produce less, their carbon footprint is smaller. The Sierra Club must be loving this weak recovery.

The second study by the Boston Consulting Group for the Western States Petroleum Association examined AB 32's low carbon fuel standard. This regulation requires a 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of California transportation fuels by 2020, which can only be achieved with biofuels (but not corn ethanol because it is too carbon intensive).

This idea was devised in 2006 when the Bush Administration fantasized that cellulosic ethanol would soon become plentiful and cheap. The White House and Congress thought that by 2011 the U.S. would be producing about 240 million gallons a year. Even with lavish federal subsidies, it produced about seven million. (See "The Cellulosic Ethanol Debacle," December 14, 2011.)

So the California government is forcing oil and gas companies to sell a fuel that barely exists. The only viable short-term compliance option is for California to import sugar-cane ethanol from Brazil. One result is that gasoline prices could rise by anywhere between 50 cents and $2.70 a gallon at the pump after 2015, says BCG. Californians could pay $6 a gallon. Maybe this is how Sacramento politicians think they can get left coasters to ride their high-speed train.

Environmentalists dismiss these studies as biased, but they echo the government's own recent studies. The only real argument is over the extent of the economic damage. Californians may believe this price is worth it, but they shouldn't pretend they aren't paying it.¹

Don’t look now, but the California bullet train may derail the Cap and Trade auction.

The auction is the scheme devised by California environmental regulators to squeeze billions in revenues from greenhouse gas emitters to finance various energy and environmental projects. It is not necessary to achieve the GHG reductions mandated by AB 32; that can happen with or without the auction.

An offhand remark by Governor Brown last January kicked off the chatter. Asked about how he would pay for the mounting costs of high-speed rail, the Governor responded, “We do have other sources of money: For example, cap-and-trade, which is this measure where you make people who produce greenhouse gasses pay certain fees – that will be a source of funding going forward for the high-speed rail.”

Other official documents had different ideas for the proceeds, including “(1) clean and efficient energy, (2) low-carbon transportation, (3) natural resource protection, and (4) sustainable infrastructure development.” More urgent, though, were claims that much of the initial proceeds could be used to offset state General Fund spending and thereby reduce the budget deficit.

But visions of a pot of gold beneath a pile of carbon credits continued to dance in the railmen’s heads.

The Governor’s top aide engineering his strategy recently echoed this sentiment: “(Cap and trade auction) gives us a backstop dedicated funding stream that gives us confidence that we can go forward,” said Dan Richard, chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.²

The arrogance of it all is astounding, notice in the video DG linked they even painted the train blue and gold, the colors of our state Communist University system, see why our Communists here supported global warming so aggressively? Now that global warming has collapsed into a whimper of climate change, the plans forge ahead to move the population into the urban cores to eliminate the freedom of the private home and automobile, and transport the emasculated population in public conveyances.


¹ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle
²http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top...arbon-credits/

[parkwest]

There was a dictator a few years ago who was big into using railroads to transport people... whether they wanted to use the rail system or not was immaterial.

It must really be hard for these meglomaniacs to understand there is no free lunch!

[David Meiland]

But I don't want a railroad run by the government any more than I want an airline run by the government.

How about a highway system run by the government? Or, airports? That OK?

[MarkMc]

... they even painted the train blue and gold, the colors of our state Communist University system,

So if they had painted it il Cardinalidae red you'd be down with it?

[Dick Seibert]

So if they had painted it il Cardinalidae red you'd be down with it?

No, we fired all of our Communist professors, it was the Communist professors at Cal who refused to sign the loyalty oaths in the 40s, turns out Joe McCarthy was right after all.

Railroads made fortunes for the robber barons, when political correctness demanded that we retire the name Indians there was a movement to name us the "Robber Barons", ended up just Cardinal (singular).

I stupidly voted for BARTD in the 60s thinking that private transit wasn't making money anymore, now the system is so filthy and crime-ridden that I won't think of riding it, I did ride it twice in it's early days, it broke down both times, I bought a new sports car on the Peninsula, when it came in I decided to take BARTD to pick it up, I ended up stranded on a BARTD platform somewhere in San Francisco, I was able to call the dealership and have them wait for me, I got there at 10:00 that night, but what can you espect from a system operated by public employees? No matter how much you pay them, how many benefits and pensions you pay them, they screw up everything they do, example look at public school teachers.

[MarkMc]

loyalty oath

Cardinal (singular).

Assimilation, compaction. Capiche?

Funny about Bart, while I've only used it a couple dozen times over the past 15 or so years, I have never been attacked or stuck on a broken train. I have been attacked by trash and falling debris and body parts on the road systems there and of course robbed at the gas pumps.

So was the color red chosen to signify acceptance and subserviance to the Popes color scheme, or some other socialistic communitarian groups dogma... oh, wait, you did mention the robber baron's. Never mind.

[David Meiland]

I've ridden BART a couple thousand times and never once been stuck on a train, very rarely been late, never been robbed, met some incredibly cute women, paid very little, never crashed, occasionally sat next to someone with some offensive quality or other. I agree Dick, it's totally f&$ked up.

Up here I ride a huge public transit system on a regular basis, but they don't charge enough so they're always in the red, which I do think is f&$ked up. Raise prices, break even.... duh.

[dgbldr]

How about a highway system run by the government? Or, airports? That OK?

Absolutely not. Our "highways" in my neck of the woods are a pathetic pothole-infested mess. Crumbling rusting bridges and all. Poorly built and maintained. If I were king, I would immediately sub it out to a competent private outfit.

Airports same thing. Don't see any reason the county (in our case) is more qualified to own/run it than a private company. While many enjoy the free (i.e. taxpayer-funded) TSB frisking experience, I'm sure a private operator could provide the same for a nominal fee.

[dgbldr]

met some incredibly cute women, paid very little

So they provide taxpayer-subsidized hookers?

[Hoover]

High speed rail between LA and SF is a great idea.

No really it is a terrible idea. They have done studies and people just are not going to ride it. The BART system or subways in NYC, Boston, Chicago, etc. make sense because you have population masses and short trips. You speak of using mass transit in your area. If you lived in SF, how often would you ride a train to LA or anywhere in between? You may use the BART system often but you would very rarely need to or want to go to LA or in between.

Also, as Mark G who lives in Cali says, the trains are not from SF to LA. The real estate near LA and SF is ridiculously expensive so even with eminent domain, there is no way in the world they could have the money to purchase the land (not to mention those rich suburbs would never allow a new train to pass through their town and lower their quality of life i.e. noise, etc.) So there is no bullet or high speed train as these trains will share existing tracks with freight trains, etc.