Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?
2183 messages, Last post on Nov 21, 2009 at 5:13 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 06, 2008 3:58 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Nov 06, 2008 9:34 am) Calling somebody a hater?
|
|
|
Replying to: murphydog (Nov 06, 2008 5:12 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 06, 2008 3:58 pm) "But, then again, just about everything in Prop. 1A is made up out of thin air, as I noted in the last item of Sunday's print column. And voters just might buy it, pathetically enough. " And they did, 52.3% if only there were more California voters who thought like g. Btw oil closed at $60.77 /bbl today making the absurd economics g pointed out even more absurd. Sorry g, California voters, they pout, they whine, they say dude. Even the KFC proposition2 "PROP 2 Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Initiative Statute. Requires that certain farm animals be allowed, for the majority of every day, to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up and turn around. Limited exceptions apply. Fiscal Impact: Potential unknown decrease in state and local tax revenues from farm businesses, possibly in the range of several million dollars annually. Potential minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue. " Or as many like to say, dow down 483, 929 points in 2 days, relief perhaps after mid month but no obama bounce. But it's all good dude. What in the hell does that mean? Obviously some is not good.. Rather a vapid 90's phrase that when one connects an upper left hook to your mandible you'll reply with the rhetoric that it's all good. Well alrighty then.
|
|
|
Replying to: duke23 (Nov 06, 2008 7:42 pm) Makes $4 gas seem unimportant. We are in an enormous monetary crisis and people are afraid a chicken does not get proper exercise. We have people that cannot afford eggs right now and CA voters want to raise the price. Well China and India will raise chickens for eggs. CA is the Garlic capitol of the World. Or so I thought. I bought a bag of 3 nice garlic bulbs and when I got it home it says right on it. Product of China. CA is hell bent on running every bit of industry out of the state. At least CA has cheap enough gas right now for people to pack up from their foreclosed homes and get out of this state before it implodes. The only jobs will be for illegals mowing the grass of retired people and working in Mexican Restaurants. Good thing I love Mexican food. The cheaper the better.
|
|
|
And if things in CA weren't bad enough, isn't the Governator proposing a 1.5% increase to the sales tax rate (taking the rate in LA County to over 10%) to cover a budget shortfall predicted for the next few years? 100 million passengers? There are 36 million people living in the state of California; are we to expect that every person in the state (from Blythe to Humboldt) will ride this new train 3 times a year? It's not like it will be a commuter train (which does exist in SoCal by the way - and would run fine except for the engineers texting civilians when they should be looking at the signals), where someone would travel from SF to LA for the day, then return in the evening. |
|
|
|
I'm going to call you two doom and gloom!  OK, not sure where you got this 100 million figure, but the first two sources I pulled up had 70 million and 65-95 million passenger trips per year: http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt1a.htm http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/sunletters/la-oew-tempelis-moore21-2008- oct21,0,96665.story I think each leg of your trip counts as a trip, that would be standard parlance for environmental impact reviews of this type. So if you go to LA in the morning and come back in the evening, you have made two trips. I can believe that 35 million people per year would make that trip (or its reverse, LA to SF and back) once, or much more likely 7 million people make that trip 5 times per year (just Christmas and Thanksgiving would be four). Heck, I make it four to six times a year or more, so I ALONE am good for a dozen trips towards the count! Anyway, we can go on despising everything done by government, everything done by anyone but ourselves, anything and everything EVERYWHERE, or we can just accept that it might be nice to have a really good alternative to the airlines and I-5. And you never know, if gas is at $8 in 2020 when this thing is supposed to be up and running in its initial phases, an electric train that will take you from LA to SF in half the time of driving for the same price the gas would cost might seem like a good thing. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Nov 06, 2008 10:30 pm) Do the math, 35,000,000 per year is on average 95,000 a day, or on average just under 4,000 people an hour. If you average 1,000 people a train thats a train leaving every 15 minutes or about 20 trains running at one time. Somehow I don't think so. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 06, 2008 4:21 pm) Unless you are an accountant on the inside of this project, your imaginary numbers mean nothing. The people in this to make money would know the REAL numbers. They are not going to invest in something that's going to lose money. How stupid do you think they are? People don't generally get rich by being idiots. There are exceptions though.
|
|
|
According to the State website the hoped for figure is: The most recent ridership forecasts for the California High-Speed Train Project estimate between 88 – 117 million passengers annually by 2030 for the entire 800-mile high-speed train network connecting Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, Central Valley, Los Angeles, Orange County, the Inland Empire, and San Diego. How many people can be carried on a high-speed train? Operating “trainsets” will have multiple cars and will be up to 1,300 feet long, depending on the type of train and the market demand. At peak travel times, trains can be lengthened, or trainsets can be connected, to operate as a single train. The high-speed train could be configured in many different ways either to maximize seating, which would provide seating for up to 1,300 passengers or to provide more space per passenger than a conventional airline seat and provide a café area and other amenities, in which case trains could carry around 950 passengers. http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/ridership.htm Those numbers mean this train will carry at least 3 times as many as the high speed train on the East Coast. Amtrak claims 3 million per year for Acela Express. My concerns are as follows. The state currently has 304,000 employees. This system claims it will add 450,000 permanent jobs. Was that just a gimmick to get votes. I would say it was. And why should those not benefiting in most of the state be burdened with this tremendous debt? If the cities that want the train and will benefit from the train vote for it. They should pay the bill. Not all the counties that are not in any way going to benefit. The best we can hope for is no one will loan that money to the state with their current financial condition. peer reviews: The FRA and U.C Berkeley studies also produced lower high-speed train ridership
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
