• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Reopening Disneyland

Status
Not open for further replies.

October82

Well-Known Member
This railroad had nothing to do with COVID relief, but you are in your rights to think so, and the thought of a underground high speed rail for the Silicon Valley folks to use does sound cool.

My fear is that this money (that could actually have been used for COVID relief) will be spent trying to build this cool underground rail but there will be problems, cost overruns etc. and the railroad will never be finished.

This isn't really how spending of this type works. The economic stimulus bills have had several independent goals. One is to provide emergency funding to meet healthcare costs and vaccine distribution expenses so that the pandemic can end. Ending the pandemic is the first, and absolutely necessary, step towards getting the economy to recover, but it isn't enough, by itself. The economy has undergone a historically large shock. The way you address the economic impacts of Covid is through fiscal and monetary stimulus.

For economic recessions of this sort, fiscal stimulus is generally the more effective policy option. This is something that both the Fed chairman and treasury secretary have discussed in public comments recently, and its something that most professional economists agree on. Among the options for fiscal policy, infrastructure spending (roads, trains, renewable energy, airports, etc.) historically have high returns, both in terms of their immediate effects on returning the economy to its pre-recession levels and on providing longterm benefits.

gfmiblog1.png


Not to discount what you're saying, because it's always reasonable to be concerned about cost overruns and the like, but I would caution you not to miss the benefits of infrastructure spending (and fiscal policy in general) because of these things. Yes, keeping projects on time and under budget is important, but what is more important is stimulating the economy and getting people back to work. And that has everything to do with Covid.
 
Last edited:

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
This isn't really how spending of this type works. The economic stimulus bills have had several independent goals. One is to provide emergency funding to meet healthcare costs and vaccine distribution expenses so that the pandemic can end. Ending the pandemic is the first, and absolutely necessary, step towards getting the economy to recover, but it isn't enough, by itself. The economy has undergone a historically large shock. The way you address the economic impacts of Covid is through fiscal and monetary stimulus.

For economic recessions of this sort, fiscal stimulus is generally the more effective policy option. This is something that both the Fed chairman and treasury secretary have discussed in public comments recently, and its something that most professional economists agree on. Among the options for fiscal policy, infrastructure spending (roads, trains, renewable energy, airports, etc.) historically have high returns, both in terms of their immediate effects on returning the economy to its pre-recession levels and on providing longterm benefits.

View attachment 535003

Not to discount what you're saying, because it's always reasonable to be concerned about cost overruns and the like, but I would caution you not to miss the benefits of infrastructure spending (and fiscal policy in general) because of these things. Yes, keeping projects on time and under budget is important, but what is more important is stimulating the economy and getting people back to work. And that has everything to do with Covid.
Infrastructure is great! Underground hi speed rail is great! It’s just NOT COVID relief. They just jammed that in to the bill like the bridge between NY and Canada.

Give the money to California, that’s fine, but give it to all the small businesses like restaurants that were shut down, and this is a stretch as far as it being COVID relief, but help the homeless camping on the sidewalks in San Francisco, who are shooing up and defecating on the sidewalks.
 
Last edited:

October82

Well-Known Member
Infrastructure is great! Underground hi speed rail is great! It’s just NOT COVID relief. They just jammed that in to the bill like the bridge between NY and Canada.

Of course it's Covid relief. It's relief for the economic devastation caused by a pandemic. When we engage in fiscal policy, we don't launch money into space or throw it in pits in the desert, we spend it on employing people and building things. Given that we both agree that this is a good thing to be spending money on, I'm just not sure what your concerns really are. And to be clear, I'm interested in hearing about them. Nothing has been done in a misleading or inappropriate manner, and spending of this type has been part of the response to every recession since the Great Depression.

Give the money to California, that’s fine, but give it to all the small businesses like restaurants that were shut down, and this is a stretch as far as it being COVID relief, but help the homeless camping on the sidewalks in San Francisco, who are shooing up and defecating on the sidewalks.

Okay, your points make more sense if what you're saying is that we should be spending more on direct payments than on infrastructure. I agree, we should be spending some amount of money on direct payments, but as the graph in my previous post points out, infrastructure has a large "multiplier" effect. The money we spend on infrastructure projects gets paid to construction workers, who tend to be "lower skilled" people who otherwise would be at risk of losing their homes and the like, and those people spend that money on buying from local businesses. Those local businesses then spend on hiring people or buying from suppliers, who in turn hire workers of their own. That's why infrastructure spending is so important in responding to recessions. It props the rest of the economy up while delivering large direct investments to cities and towns. It does both things we care about at the same time.

Of course, we should also spend on things like the paycheck protection program and other grants and loans to small businesses. We should spend on taking care of the homeless too. But all of these things work together, and they're all part of the solution. Here is a nice article (and paper) from Brookings on how these things can work together. We don't need to do one at the expense of the others, and things like spending on infrastructure do, in fact, support businesses and help lift people out of poverty.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Yes, actually, we absolutely should. California High Speed Rail has already generated billions in local economic growth and created thousands of jobs.

And after 13 years of light construction, $6 Billion spent, and not a single passenger moved a single mile! Your tax dollars at work! 🤣

I voted for Prop 1A back in 2008. I actually use Amtrak to travel long distance, on overnight trains. And not because I'm afraid of flying. I also take trains regionally between San Diego and Orange counties. And I use trains often in foreign countries, and they are light years better/faster/nicer than anything Amtrak operates.

But the California bullet train is a complete joke. It will have cost over $100 Billion dollars and a decade from now will only work between Bakersfield and Merced. And the trains between Bakersfield and Merced will be diesel powered and no faster than a regular Amtrak diesel locomotive that's been in use since the 1970's.

No wonder Governor Newsom wants to kill the whole thing off. One of the few issues I agree with him on.
 

October82

Well-Known Member
And after 13 years of light construction, $6 Billion spent, and not a single passenger moved a single mile! Your tax dollars at work! 🤣

I voted for Prop 1A back in 2008. I actually use Amtrak to travel long distance, on overnight trains. And not because I'm afraid of flying. I also take trains regionally between San Diego and Orange counties. And I use trains often in foreign countries, and they are light years better/faster/nicer than anything Amtrak operates.

But the California bullet train is a complete joke. It will have cost over $100 Billion dollars and a decade from now will only work between Bakersfield and Merced. And the trains between Bakersfield and Merced will be diesel powered and no faster than a regular Amtrak diesel locomotive that's been in use since the 1970's.

No wonder Governor Newsom wants to kill the whole thing off. One of the few issues I agree with him on.

What a predictable response. California's High Speed Rail project is bringing jobs and investment to the parts of the state that are most in need of it. And your response is to say that those people don't deserve it because the people impacted by it live in Bakersfield and Merced rather than Orange County. Just reveals that your rhetoric around "reopening Disneyland" because of the jobs and the people out of work was never sincere.

For the record, The High Speed Rail line is completely electrified, actually cheaper (by about $50 billion), will be completed earlier than alternatives (by a decade or more, with 120 miles of track under construction), and will have a speed between Bakersfield and Merced of 220 mph. But don't let facts get in the way of an already tired argument.
 
Last edited:

TP2000

Well-Known Member
What a predictable response. California's High Speed Rail project is bringing jobs and investment to the parts of the state that are most in need of it. And your response is to say that those people don't deserve it because the people impacted by it live in Bakersfield and Merced rather than Orange County. Just reveals that your rhetoric around "reopening Disneyland" because of the jobs and the people out of work was never sincere.

You realize there are already eight trains per day between Bakersfield and Merced, right? It's a 3 hour trip, one way. The trains go 79mph, but the diesel locomotives used are designed to go 125mph but are kept to 79mph due to track quality issues.

It's part of the highly subsidized San Joaquin service run by Amtrak California, operated there for the last 40 years.

For non-Californians; Bakersfield is a dusty, small city of 375,000 people about two hours north of LA. Merced is a much smaller but equally dusty city of 80,000 about 170 miles north of Bakersfield. It's the Midwest equivalent of spending 23 Billion dollars for a high speed rail line to link Wichita, Kansas with Lawrence, Kansas, with the hope that 20 years and 100 Billion more dollars later the line will be expanded from Wichita-Lawrence to run between Dallas and Chicago.

Also, you have to pretend that the state of Kansas was already spending millions of dollars per year to heavily subsidize a passenger railroad that ran 8 trains per day at 79mph between Wichita and Lawrence. But they wanted to go faster!

For the record, The High Speed Rail line is completely electrified, actually cheaper (by about $50 billion), will be completed earlier than alternatives (by a decade or more, with 120 miles of track under construction), and will have a speed between Bakersfield and Merced of 220 mph. But don't let facts get in the way of an already tired argument.

For the record, if (an increasingly big if) the "high speed rail line" opens a decade from now between Bakersfield and Merced, they will likely be using diesel locomotives. California legislators want to move 4 Billion in funding from the Train To Nowhwere to SoCal's Metrolink system, and start the Bakersfield to Merced line with regular diesel powered Amtrak locos. Presumably, the diesel locos could go 125mph like they currently do in Michigan and other Midwest states because the track would be designed for high speed rail and able to handle that speed.

It starts with diesel locomotives, not electric.


That's if the 170 miles of track between Bakersfield and Merced is even completed by the end of this decade. Which is a big if when even a liberal Democrat governor like Gavin Newsom realizes it's a giant waste of money and literally a Train To Nowhere and wants to kill the whole thing off and pretend it never happened.

23 Billion dollars for a Train To Nowhere. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

The Merced to Bakersfield portion, estimated by Gov. Gavin Newsom to cost about $20.4 billion, is now estimated by the California High Speed Rail Authority to end up in the range “from $21.3 to $22.8 billion.”

“Let’s be real,” Newsom said two years ago in his first State of the State Address. “The current project, as planned, would cost too much and take too long.”


 
Last edited:

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Its good to temper your expectations. However this is different than last year. Last year we had no vaccine and the pandemic was still in its infancy. Now we have a vaccine and there is a huge light now at the end of a long tunnel. So there is reason for optimism that Disneyland and other entertainment venues will open this year.

It would be nice if they could start ramping up and actually allow people younger than 60 to get the vaccine instead of constantly altering their priorities. That would help definitely with the prospects of reopening.

One of the key advantages to the mRNA vaccines like the ones from Moderna and Pfizer is they can quickly, and I mean in a matter of days, be modified to combat any new variants that come along. So really this technology is a powerful tool to not only end this pandemic but also help prevent new ones in the future.

Once again, it would be nice if they would start expanding vaccine privileges to everyone. That would be a great way to get the cases to come down and thus reopen things sooner.
 

MansionButler84

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
It would be nice if they could start ramping up and actually allow people younger than 60 to get the vaccine instead of constantly altering their priorities. That would help definitely with the prospects of reopening.



Once again, it would be nice if they would start expanding vaccine privileges to everyone. That would be a great way to get the cases to come down and thus reopen things sooner.
Soon. Already up to 18.4% of adults in CA receiving vaccine.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Soon. Already up to 18.4% of adults in CA receiving vaccine.

Where did you see 18.4% of adults in CA have received a vaccine? That's today's rate for South Dakota, not California.

The stats as of late this afternoon were as follows;

California = 14.3% of Population Given 1 Shot, 5.5% of Population Given 2 Shots (fully vaccinated)
Florida = 13.7% of Population Given 1 Shot, 7.2% of Population Given 2 Shots (fully vaccinated)
West Virginia = 16.5% of Population Given 1 Shot, 10.0% of Population Given 2 Shots (fully vaccinated)
South Dakota = 18.4% of Population Given 1 Shot, 9.0% of Population Given 2 Shots (fully vaccinated)


So, West Virginia has almost double the percent of fully vaccinated citizens than California. And Florida is quite a ways ahead of California on the fully vaccinated front as well. As of close of business on February 24th, at least.

 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
It would be nice if they could start ramping up and actually allow people younger than 60 to get the vaccine instead of constantly altering their priorities. That would help definitely with the prospects of reopening.



Once again, it would be nice if they would start expanding vaccine privileges to everyone. That would be a great way to get the cases to come down and thus reopen things sooner.
They are opening up eligibility on March 15th for more people to be vaccinated. It'll be for those aged 16-64 that are high risk under the following categories:

Cancer, current with weakened immune system
Chronic kidney disease, stage 4 or above
Chronic pulmonary disease, oxygen dependent
Down syndrome
Solid organ transplant, leading to a weakened immune system
Pregnancy
Sickle cell disease
Heart conditions, such as heart failure, coronary artery disease, or cardiomyopathies (but not hypertension)
Severe obesity (Body Mass Index ≥ 40 kg/m2)
Type 2 diabetes mellitus with hemoglobin A1c level greater than 7.5%

And then shortly there after, sometime in April, I suspect is when the rest of Californians will be eligible.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Where did you see 18.4% of adults in CA have received a vaccine? That's today's rate for South Dakota, not California.

The stats as of late this afternoon were as follows;

California = 14.3% of Population Given 1 Shot, 5.5% of Population Given 2 Shots (fully vaccinated)
Florida = 13.7% of Population Given 1 Shot, 7.2% of Population Given 2 Shots (fully vaccinated)
West Virginia = 16.5% of Population Given 1 Shot, 10.0% of Population Given 2 Shots (fully vaccinated)
South Dakota = 18.4% of Population Given 1 Shot, 9.0% of Population Given 2 Shots (fully vaccinated)


So, West Virginia has almost double the percent of fully vaccinated citizens than California. And Florida is quite a ways ahead of California on the fully vaccinated front as well. As of close of business on February 24th, at least.

And yet every week that "lead" is chipped away as California does over 200k doses per day, and still ramping up. Remember that California changed focus in late January to making sure more 1st shot vaccinations occurred. So as each week goes by all those 2nd dose schedules are coming due. Which means over the course of the next couple weeks you'll see that percentage for the 2nd shot skyrocket. I mean it was only a couple days ago when California was at 4.4% for the 2nd shot, that is 1.1% or over 430k getting their 2nd shot in just a couple days. And as you are very much aware this past weekend only 2nd shots were given out due to the supply disruption back east.

And just for comparison since you like to do that, Florida was at 6.4% for second dose a couple days ago. So they've only done 0.8% of their population getting the 2nd shot in the same time period, which is only about 171k people in a couple days. If Florida was doing so much better they'd be doing a larger percentage of their population daily, but they aren't.

So I'll keep telling you its not a competition because we're all one country trying to get back to normal. But California is still doing a lot better than you like to keep portraying.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
For the record, The High Speed Rail line is completely electrified, actually cheaper (by about $50 billion), will be completed earlier than alternatives (by a decade or more, with 120 miles of track under construction), and will have a speed between Bakersfield and Merced of 220 mph. But don't let facts get in the way of an already tired argument.

Just so folks understand what California High Speed Rail in its current format would offer, here's what the two multi-billion dollar options buy us, versus doing what Governor Newsom wants and shutting the whole thing down and pretending it never happened. What $6 Billion we spent on high speed rail between Bakersfield and Merced? That wasn't me!

Both of the two multi-billion dollar options require you to make bus/rail transfers like today's service, and you still spend about 4 hours on two different buses to get from LA to San Francisco via "High Speed Rail" for 170 miles thru the Central Valley. The highest cost and fastest option actually requires you to make an additional transfer, and use two different trains.

Current Amtrak Timetable Circa 2021 LA to San Francisco = 9 Hours 55 Minutes, Two Buses and One Train
  • Depart LA Union Station 9:00AM - Amtrak Bus to Bakersfield arriving at 11:55AM
  • Depart Bakersfield 12:12PM - San Joaquin 79mph train to Emeryville arriving at 6:14PM
  • Depart Emeryville 6:25PM - Amtrak Bus to San Francisco Salesforce Plaza arriving at 6:55PM
$19 Billion 125mph Diesel Timetable Circa 2030 LA to San Francisco = 9 Hours 15 Minutes, Two Buses and One Train
  • Depart LA Union Station 9:00AM - Amtrak Bus to Bakersfield arriving at 11:55AM
  • Depart Bakersfield 12:10PM - HSR 125mph diesel train to Merced arriving at 2:40PM
  • Depart Merced 2:45PM - San Joaquin 79mph train to Emeryville arriving at 5:35PM
  • Depart Emeryville 5:45PM - Amtrak Bus to San Francisco Salesforce Plaza arriving at 6:15PM
$23 Billion 220mph Electric Timetable Circa 2030 LA to San Francisco = 8 Hours 20 Minutes, Two Buses and Two Trains
  • Depart LA Union Station 9:00AM - Amtrak Bus to Bakersfield arriving at 11:55AM
  • Depart Bakersfield 12:10PM - HSR 220mph electric train to Merced arriving at 1:40PM
  • Depart Merced 1:50PM - San Joaquin 79mph train to Emeryville arriving at 4:40PM
  • Depart Emeryville 4:50PM - Amtrak Bus to San Francisco Salesforce Plaza arriving at 5:20PM
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Aux

Disney Irish

Premium Member
California's rate declined this week. Last week it was at 209,000 doses per day. Yesterday it was at 202,000 doses per day.

Actually according to Bloomberg it was 209K for the 23rd and the day before that it was 207K and the day before that was 210K and the day before that was 205K. Last week is where it was 202K, but hey who's counting.

So no California hasn't declined especially when you look at the average. The average is on an upward trend my friend even if certain days might be lower than others.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Actually according to Bloomberg it was 209K for the 23rd and the day before that it was 207K and the day before that was 210K and the day before that was 205K. Last week is where it was 202K, but hey who's counting.

So no California hasn't declined especially when you look at the average. The average is on an upward trend my friend even if certain days might be lower than others.

Today was 205,832.

 

MansionButler84

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Where did you see 18.4% of adults in CA have received a vaccine? That's today's rate for South Dakota, not California.

The stats as of late this afternoon were as follows;

California = 14.3% of Population Given 1 Shot, 5.5% of Population Given 2 Shots (fully vaccinated)
Florida = 13.7% of Population Given 1 Shot, 7.2% of Population Given 2 Shots (fully vaccinated)
West Virginia = 16.5% of Population Given 1 Shot, 10.0% of Population Given 2 Shots (fully vaccinated)
South Dakota = 18.4% of Population Given 1 Shot, 9.0% of Population Given 2 Shots (fully vaccinated)


So, West Virginia has almost double the percent of fully vaccinated citizens than California. And Florida is quite a ways ahead of California on the fully vaccinated front as well. As of close of business on February 24th, at least.

From the CDC:
D2A4EAE3-A1F1-44CB-954E-FBB300A3A07C.jpeg
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Another reason to temper my excitement...

Even as California sees a decline in cases, there is fear of another problem around the corner: a nightmare scenario from a new strain, a variant of the UK strain, which is apparently more resistant to the vaccine. It will likely be dominant by May.

Again, could @Disney Irish maybe weigh in? It came from the LA Times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom