California leaders set for high-speed rail groundbreaking Tuesday

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

California leaders set for high-speed rail groundbreaking Tuesday

BY ROBIN RESPAUT
Fri Jan 2, 2015 6:38pm EST

(Reuters) - California on Tuesday will break ground in Fresno on its ambitious but controversial high-speed rail project, marking another milestone for Governor Jerry Brown and for foreign manufacturers waiting to bid on lucrative train contracts.

The United States lags behind Europe and Asia in building both high-speed rail and its trains. The 800-mile (1,287-km)high-speed rail is expected to be the legacy project for Brown, whose unprecedented fourth inauguration will take place the day before the groundbreaking on Monday.

President Barack Obama, too, wanted high-speed rail to be his signature transportation accomplishment. But in the six years since he took office, plans have lagged or been squashed. California's rail is the most ambitious project and one of the few still on track, although it has been mired in environmental lawsuits and eminent domain land disputes.

Still, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has enjoyed victories in recent months. One of seven environmental lawsuits was settled in December, after the rail authority agreed to find an alternative route through the city of Bakersfield. In October, the California Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging the project's funding.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/02/us-usa-california-highspeedrail-idUSKBN0KB1FZ20150102

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. It WILL NOT be "high speed" rail and will cost enough money to build SIXTY DESALINATION PLANTS.

Screw Jerry Brown's legacy. This will be one of the biggest boondoggles ever. A significant portion will be using existing rail. The trains aren't projected to be able to reach the speeds needed between stops to be considered "high speed" rail, and ridership is not expected to rise to the levels sold to the public.

60 desalination plants like the Sorek plant in Israel would make California "drought proof", and return the central valley to its growing potential, feeding millions and employing a large number of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail#Ridership_and_Travel_Time_Projections

http://www.water-technology.net/projects/sorek-desalination-plant/

[Luminous Animal]

3. Nice wiki link you got there citing 3 conservative organizations.

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. Damn I HATE when I get p'wned this way... with all kinds of refutations, debunks, and shit...

Oh wait.

You didn't DO that, did you? Do you have a point to make? Have you ever actually driven from anywhere in SoCal to San Francisco? It's TOUGH, mate; but it ain't worth spending a HUNDRED FUCKING BILLION DOLLARS on, when that money could be better spent elsewhere because you see; Once you get past Burbank... it's wide open road.

I'm guessing you DON'T BELIEVE in anthropomorphic climate change. If you really did, you'd think getting water to California's central valley was more important than protecting some asshole's "legacy".

But no, because... Jerry Brown! and shit.

[Luminous Animal]

23. I don't waste my time debunking libertarians. And yes, I've driven back and fourth between SoCal and

San Francisco many times. And I've flown. I have also driven and flown between Madrid and Barcelona. And I've taken the relatively new high-speed train. The train is great. When I lived on the east coast, I'd often take Amtrak between Wilmington, DE and NYC. Clean, comfortable, and efficient with the added luxury of reading a book or taking a nap.

Though, I question your use of anthropomorphic… I do believe in climate change. The train is projected to remove millions of tons of CO2 in it's first year alone. High speed trains will be an integral part of solutions to address climate change. There is no reason why we have to choose between one solution or another. If we severely reduce construction and widening of new roads and expressways, (single occupancy vehicle infrastructure is currently subsidized by 51% of all monies earmarked to expand and maintain it) we could divert billions of dollars to high-speed train systems and local train systems.

[Live and Learn]

25. Actually, we voted for it. And I for one still want it.

Not sure why you are blaming Brown for it.

[ripcord]

41. What we voted for is nowhere near what we are getting

The ballot initiative set a specific budget and a specific time for the trip, there is no way they can meet either one. I don't understand how this can be in any way legal.

[Live and Learn]

43. So sayeth the RW propaganda radio stations out here.

It has been tested in court and allowed to proceed.

[CatWoman]

42. i think it's a wonderful idea

sure wish the state I live in (Georgia) wasn't so effing backwards........

[Codeine]

69. Anthropogenic Global Warming

Anthropomorphic Global Warming would be something about cute animals with human features or furries.

[cherokeeprogressive]

72. Damn autocomplete!

Can't believe no one caught that...

[Luminous Animal]

74. I caught and pointed out your questionable usage of the word in my reply to you.

[cherokeeprogressive]

81. Oh man, I'm sorry I didn't give you credit for finding it... consider yourself credited.

[Luminous Animal]

93. Thank you. Credit where credit is due.

[tularetom]

4. "Columbus, you should give up, you're gonna sail off the edge of the earth"

If god intended man to fly he would have given him wings.

Men walking on the moon? What a crock.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

6. Man might not have wings, but airplanes do.

Passenger rail in America is like opening a government subsidized clinic that performs amputations for only twice the price of a cast.

[tularetom]

66. You wanna talk subsidies and you bring up air travel?

How about the huge governmental investment in airport construction?

The operating budget of the FAA and the TSA?

How about the billions that were spent bailing out the airline industry when it started to go down the tubes after 9/11?

I'm not saying its wrong, investment in transportation infrastructure and operations is a prudent use of public funds.

But passenger rail in America has a long way to go before it sucks as much off the public teat as air travel has.

[Luminous Animal]

76. And the subsidies for roads...

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/09/21/reminder-amtrak-subsidies-pale-in-comparison-to-highway-subsidies/

Mica went after subsidies in this one, and he clearly thinks this is a winning issue. After all, Amtrak has gotten nearly $1 billion a year in federal funds over its 41-year existence. The per-ticket subsidy over the past five years has averaged nearly $51. Mica compared that to other forms of transportation: Using 2008 data, he showed that the average per-ticket subsidy to aviation was $4.28, for mass transit was 95 cents, and for intercity commercial bus service 10 cents.

What’s missing? Highways, of course. Luckily, Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman was on hand to remind him. “In the past four years, the federal government has appropriated $53.3 billion from the general fund of the Treasury to bail out the Highway Trust Fund,” Boardman told the committee. “That’s almost 30 percent more than the total federal expenditure on Amtrak since 1971.”

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

83. Everybody needs roads, Precious few can even use Amtrak, much less need it.

[Luminous Animal]

88. 3.93 million riders in 2013 on 2 of California's lines

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/21/local/la-me-ln-amtrak-train-record-20131121

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

90. "Caltrans provides $109 million annually to its cooperative arrangement with Amtrak..."

How many individuals account for all those trips?

How many of those trips couldn't have been made by some other means?

[Luminous Animal]

91. Caltrans budget is 10 billion a year. $109M 0.010900% of it's budget.

Caltrans subsidizes single occupancy vehicle transportation (roads, bridges, tunnels, signs, etc.) by more than 40%. The airline corridor is becoming increasingly clogged… expanding (widening and building new) roadways has always been futile in addressing congestion and environmental impact.

California residents are already using very pokey train travel and bus to get around. A more efficient, faster, and comfortable option would likely be welcome.

One result of the Barcelona to Madrid HSR is that more people who were adverse to traveling to between the two cities (that is, first time travelers) decided to take the HSR train.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

97. And for that they're moving approximately 10,500 people a day

I would imagine there are bus routes in L.A. that carry significantly more people than that in a day and far more deserving on that investment.

Unless you're traveling with something you might not want x-rayed at the airport, what reason is there to be adverse to traveling within California by plane? There is nowhere easier to travel by plane than California. Just look at how many airports there are in Southern California and the Bay Area and you can fly between just about any combination there of. Suburb to Suburb (or even cross-country), no hassle and it is cheap.

And even when I am in Europe flying is almost always less expensive than their much vaunted trains. I have seen France, much like I have seen California. The journey isn't half the fun anymore. I just want to get where I'm going.

[Luminous Animal]

98. Similarly, the Bay Area's ferry service has low ridership compared to other modes of transportation.

But it is a necessary service that provides relief from those other modes of transportation.

You prefer plane. Others prefer bus or car. And some others prefer train. It is all part of an integrated transportation system. You keep bringing up price as if that is the end all to all human beings transportation experiences and the kind of experience that all humans are willing to bear for that experience. You seem to comfortable with asserting that everyone should prefer to live their lives to your expectations. I.e., you want to travel cheaply and by the quickest method available so EVERYONE else should do the same.

FYI, I don't want to be x-rayed at the airport. I'm high risk. I am a 13 year breast cancer survivor and I will do what I can to avoid unnecessary x-rays.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

99. I am comfortable asserting there is no intercity travel deficiencies in California

that are going to be met by high-speed rail. Or any need at all that justifies the price tag.

If California has billions of dollars to invest on transportation, which we don't, this shouldn't even register. The unmet transportation needs in urban areas are already severe.

[Luminous Animal]

100. And as I have pointed out. The unmet regional needs need to be addressed by the region. As did the

SF Bay area when it developed it's BART system. Sure, there were grants from the state but each region where BART has expanded was approved by the voters of that region and a local tax levied. And, as has San Francisco time and time again when it developed its MUNI train system and continues to expand it. Neither system exists in a vacuum. They were developed (and expanded) through leadership whether elected or citizen advocates and usually both.

Here is where Jackle Speier celebrated years of work… YEARS and locals willing to pitch in to expand the Bay Area's ferry service.

http://speier.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=695:hate-the-commute-take-a-boat&catid=2&Itemid=15

Yes. She delivered federal pork (augmented by local initiative) but it was a people driven pork.

I've been a member of the San Francisco bicyclist coalition for 2 decades. Without our relentless advocacy (against severe opposition), we wouldn't have succeed on creating the wiggle or a myriad of other bike friendly dedicated lanes.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

101. This is a funding issue, not a bureaucratic one.

You won't find a transit project of any significance in the entire state that isn't funded by some combination of Federal, State and Local funds.

It's all academic because the State doesn't have the money to do any of this, but if they did stepping up to the plate for local projects should be a much higher priority than this.

[Luminous Animal]

102. The state won't step up until there is a local will to make it happen. It's seems you want all

the perks from any success due to local mass transit advocates and the leisure to engage in batlen kvetching in the meantime.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

103. No, I just think State priorities should reflect actual needs

We don't need this.

[Luminous Animal]

104. Needs are reflected by the will of the people The people said, "Make it so."

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

105. That's a dangerous line

Given what the "will of the people" has been on a number of subjects recently.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

82. I don't have a problem with subsidies, I have a problem with subsidies for trains

I am flying from Orange County to Sacramento next week for the princely sum of $61.10 for a 90 minute flight. This is not a circumstance so terrible as to require billions of dollars in government investment.

If you were to list the top 1000 transportation and infrastructure needs in California, this wouldn't make the list.

We need regional transit that doesn't suck. We don't need a bullet train to Methsfield.

[hunter]

21. 60 desalination would be an even greater boondoggle.

Burning fossil fuels to desalinate water is a dumb idea.

If you say they could be powered by renewable energy, then building these renewable energy plants has to be factored into the already unbearably expensive cost of the desalinization plant, making the water utterly unaffordable.

Minimizing the environmental impacts of desalinization plants isn't a trivial problem either.

Both water and transportation could be much better managed in California, but there are too many greedy and politically powerful people who already have theirs, so screw everyone else.

The high speed rail plan seems a little less offensive to me than our worship of the automobile and the absurdities and inconveniences of short-hop air travel. Flying or driving between San Francisco and Los Angeles is literally a pain in the ass.

[Luminous Animal]

34. +1

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. You're stuck on burning fossil fuels. I'm not. You're anti-nuclear energy. I'm not.

Each of these desalination units can be powered by a nuke plant smaller than the trailer of the semis you see going down the road, delivering everything you need to survive.

I'm guessing that's where the conversation ends though.

So much for open minds.

[hunter]

73. Nuclear power doesn't excite me much anymore, pro- or anti-

People here on DU have accused me of both.

From the mid-'seventies to the early 'eighties I got into quite a bit of mischief as an anti-nuclear activist. My position now is agnostic. Modern nuclear power plants, and many proposed designs, are better than coal or fracked natural gas power plants. But that's like saying you'd rather pick up a rattlesnake than a water moccasin.

Crotalus oreganus


Agkistrodon piscivorus

These days I think it's our high energy society and our antiquated views on economic productivity that pose the greatest danger to this world civilization. What we call "productivity" is largely a measure of the damage we are do to both the environment and the human spirit.

I am anti-automobile, even though I've burned much more than my fair shore of the world's fossil fuels, and spewed much more than my fair share of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, much of it driving and flying back and forth between Los Angeles and San Francisco, especially when I was young and gasoline was inexpensive in comparison to the money I was making. Perversely, in retrospect, much of that gasoline was burned supporting anti-nuclear activism.

When my wife and I first met we were Los Angeles automobile commuters. Neither one of us enjoyed it. We've managed to avoid the commuter lifestyle for more than a quarter century now. Maybe that makes up for the excesses of my youth.

I've come to believe that along with the World Wars, our automobile culture is among the great human misadventures of the twentieth century.

Returning to the subject of desalinization projects, I'm against them, whatever they are powered by. Coastal environments are fragile. The desalinization plants themselves damage the environment, whatever industry powering them damages the environment, and worse, desalinization plants encourage further very expensive coastal development.

Coastal housing that was once easily obtainable to me as a college student, or as a beach bum who could load and unload trucks and keep crappy student housing relatively habitable (I inhaled lot of KILZ® fumes, maybe that's my problem...) is now only available to affluent people, and more and more of them just keep coming, their highly manicured landscaping oozing herbicides and pesticides into the ocean, as they complain about the seabird poop on their cars, and the marine mammals and lower class humans on "their" beaches.

[cherokeeprogressive]

59. Yeah... tell that to the Israelis.

[Codeine]

70. Nuclear-powered desalination would work just fine. nt

[brush]

65. Getting high-speed rail done is like finally getting the ACA done

It may not be perfect but it get's the ball rolling. Once it's demonstrated that it can be done and the many jobs and boost to the state's economy that result, other states will get on board — even some red states, like the ones that are reluctantly finally expanding Medicaid and helping their uninsured citizens get healthcare.

Desalination is a good thing also but just like high-speed rail, there are many kinks to work out before it can get rolling — like how do you power the plants efficiently without using fossil fuels that will drive up the cost of the water produced exponentially?

My larger point is both can and should be done.

You just have to start somewhere, but getting to that point through all the obstacles — nimby obstruction, obstruction by those with other pet projects, air travel lobbying, et al — has not been easy as demonstrated by the many anti-HSR posters here.

I'm happy to see the concept of building HSP and beginning to work on our infrastructure is finally getting off the ground.

I say think big picture.

[sakabatou]

2. Waste of money

[MisterP]

9. just like roads, airports, bridges, and tunnels!

[sakabatou]

10. *facepalm*

Two different things. We need to upgrade our older rail systems as well as other needs.

[MisterP]

19. chintzing out on one transport type doesn't really leave more money for the others

go play with Randal O'Toole

[sakabatou]

40. I'm not going to play with your childish behavior

And I have no idea who the hell that is.

[MisterP]

77. all right, let's assume that "facepalm" is how one asks for a reasoned, mature discussion

I see nothing in CA's political or infrastructure situation that indicates that pulling the plug on HSR would allow some sort of commuter-rail renaissance: in fact HSR will provide both "push" and "pull" demand for local subways/LRT but also heavy commuter; cancelling one sort of train won't be *good* for other sorts of train since the competition isn't within public transit, but between transit on one hand and roads and air on the other: for instance, breaking Amtrak into state consortiums wouldn't make commuter rail sprout from Columbus to San Antonio (and I'm in fact much more pro-commuter rail than I am pro-HSR, since 40% of the country's emissions are just commuting)

CAHSR is not what's making Metrolink fatally feckless, HSR's not what's making Caltrain and BART complacent and refusing to play nice with anyone else, HSR didn't mangle both ends of the Green Line, HSR's not what delays passenger rail for up to two hours with freight traffic, and HSR's not what held up LA's Expo Line for 5 years solid (in fact it's been *one man* hired by *one neighborhood*)

CAHSR's final plan is called the "blended plan" because maybe half the money is in fact going to old, existing systems north of Gilroy and south of the massive wall of mountains around LA: the OC tracks even sponging heavily off HSR funds (without the HSR network getting much back): HSR money is what's making commuter rail faster, safer, and more reliable--basically bringing it up to *Bulgarian* standards

from a transport-mode perspective, HSR's core benefit is that it knocks out the numerous but unprofitable "puddle-jumper" flights under 500 mi., which the airlines themselves want to drop--even Southwest has been sick of intrastate flights since 2000 (but again that's their own fault after what they did in TX); it's even profitable in most countries since its cost is upfront (whereas airlines' costs are day-by-day and fluctuating)--Amtrak's profitable (ceteris paribus) BosWash and San Jose-Sacramento, and that's under current conditions that don't let it past 80 mph average; FAA reports 18,000 fly Bay Area/LA a day, so CAHSR Express will dig into that $2.5M daily market (which is currently heavily congested and becoming a liability for the airlines at $135 a ticket)

CA has had to pay for CAHSR on its own, since the Pee Party cut *even the programs that wouldn't cost Washington, CA, or NV a cent*: CA's transit funds (road and rail) are more county-based, but they're very plush, so again HSR isn't crippling commuter rail (commuter rail is actually painted into a corner by long waits between trains and heavy spikes in traffic--it's useless during three-quarters of waking hours under its current model)

[sakabatou]

79. Hmm... you do have valid multiple points

[MisterP]

80. groovy

[Luminous Animal]

87. Excellent post. Thank you MisterP.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

5. I don't have trouble getting from Orange County to San Francisco

I have trouble getting from Orange County to downtown Los Angeles or Burbank. Make public transit useful to people who can otherwise afford cars. Don't compete with Southwest Airlines.

[Ron Green]

7. Herb Kelleher and his lobbyists made sure, for years,

that nobody with ideas for more efficient transportation could compete with Southwest Airlines.

[Luminous Animal]

35. That is a regional issue. The San Francisco Bay Area has done a pretty good job solving that problem

for themselves. I suggest SoCal get off the pot.

[demosincebirth]

8. Another big money pit like the Oakland span of the Bay Bridge.

[Jesus Malverde]

11. One of the dumbest projects ever.

It goes everywhere but where it should go. It doesn't start in an urban center (phase 1) where the people could use the track as it was implemented over time and instead connects nothing to nothing in the central valley.

Fresno to North of Bakersfield is the the first phase at a cost of $1.5 billion to $2 billion

[gratuitous]

12. $2 billion???!!!

Why, we could pay for a month's worth of war in Afghanistan for that kind of dough!

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. Or... we could pay for 4 desalination plants that would be online in 3 years or less...

Instead of the THIRTY FUCKING YEARS this boondoggle will take.

[gratuitous]

15. So make your case for that if you can

What's stopping you, besides your highly disagreeable personality?

[CatWoman]

44. ....

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. People like you, who are more concerned with the legacies of public servants than the public good.

[gratuitous]

68. You've certainly convinced me!

Well done.

[Jesus Malverde]

17. Good one...nt

[MisterP]

20. there's a lot of dickering about Central Valley vs. urban-focused

dickering here:
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2015/01/2015-breaking-ground-on-hsr-finally/

[Jesus Malverde]

22. I have no idea why the first legs can't be in the bay area or LA

Places where trains could be running in the next few years. LA to SF, with a stop in merced?!?

[LeftyMom]

30. Bay Area up the 80 corridor to the foothills is some of the busiest rail in the US already.

Upgrade that to HSR, increase capacity, do dedicated lines so people commuting aren't made late by freight trains on a regular basis?

People would USE that. And it would be comparatively cheap. Maybe more expensive than connecting Fresno to Hanford or some stupid thing, but that's a waste of money at any price because it's useless.

[Luminous Animal]

37. So what stops are you willing to eliminate on that HSR line? You can't have an HSR line and make

all the current stops. That defeats the purpose of HSR.

[LeftyMom]

38. Here's the current route:

http://www.capitolcorridor.org/route_and_schedules/

A Richmond (BART connection)/ Davis / Sacramento / Easternmost feasible point (Roseville? Auburn? Not sure how far HSR would work uphill) line would only drop about half of the usual stops and would still work for most of the commute traffic and likely take many commuters and weekend travel trips off of the road. Possibly some of the trains could skip Davis, but I suspect you'd get a lot of traffic out of the university students.

[Luminous Animal]

45. Again. HSR is a means of getting to one highly populated transit center to another.

HSR is not pulling into local stations at 200 mph and dumping people out and scooping people in. The system provides hubs akin to an airport system. Nobody would propose a commuter airport system that stops every 10-20 miles. A nonstop HSR system between San Francisco (or Oakland) and Sacramento makes sense with no stops in between.

[LeftyMom]

54. Fine. My point is that that's one of the busiest rail routes in the country,

there's already demand there, it's feasible. But not only are they starting with a route connecting two towns in BFE, the planned system only connects Sac and the Baeria by way of Stockton. So it'll likely still be faster and less hassle to drive.

It's a stupidly designed system that is not going to be useful for many people. Even when it's built out it still won't have routes that make any damn sense or save time on routes people travel frequently. So it'll be a huge investment to take very few cars off the road.

[Luminous Animal]

57. Try selling that story to the rest of the world that has highly successful HSR systems.

[LeftyMom]

60. I'm not opposed to HSR if it's planned well. The proposed routes are painfully stupid.

They don't connect population centers in a logical and efficient manner, and that's the whole fucking point of a HSR system.

[Luminous Animal]

94. If the point of an HSR system is to move the population from one major urban center to another….

what population centers do you feel that are left out? (From my point of view, the current configuration includes too MANY population centers. For instance, Anaheim should have been left off altogether.)

[cherokeeprogressive]

63. The rest of the fucking world ISN'T riding a train from L.A. to San Francisco.

In fact, VERY FEW people even drive there; given the current population of California and how many SoCal residents travel to San Francisco on a regular basis.

Stop trying so hard to be like the rest of the world, or move there.

[Luminous Animal]

96. 3.93 million riders currently using Amtraks pokey long distance train system. Annually.

[Piedras]

78. There will be express trains with few stops

and local trains with more stops. The express train is projected to travel from downtown LA to downtown SF, or the opposite direction, in two hours forty minutes. The "local" trains will be slower because they make more stops.

[Luminous Animal]

24. The reason it is the first segment starting construction is that it is the first segment that

has been approved by all agencies and federal subsidy is set to expire in 2017. Use it or lose it.

[Jesus Malverde]

26. Still a dumb route.

The shorted link from the bay area to the la area is not through the central valley.

They are building track that will need to be maintained for years before it's actually used.

[Luminous Animal]

33. When the routes were being debated, every town nearer to the coast wanted a stop.

The proposal was losing momentum from all the bickering and towns threatening to disallow right of way in retaliation. Locating it to the central valley where the population is significantly smaller was the practical course of action. And even though the coast is less distance as the crow flies, Route 5 is faster, by far, when driving between LA and SF.

[zappaman]

84. Yes, route 5 is faster but

a LOT less prettier.
We usually drive in one direction using the coast.
I recommend it to everyone at least once.

[Luminous Animal]

86. We do the same! I love the coastal route. If we have the time, we'll do it in 2 days

so we can stop and enjoy the views and each other's company away from San Francisco.

[zappaman]

89. Same with us, but Los Angeles.

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. the reason it has been approved by all agencies? It's the first flat part.

Look at a topographical map and think about it.

[Live and Learn]

27. And? We just spent close to a billion for a new computer system in LA County.

And I guarantee it won't get any of us anywhere. Nor did we vote for it like we DID for the rail system.

[Jesus Malverde]

29. Whats the computer system do?...nt

[Live and Learn]

31. Still to be proven but supposedly a new Welfare and Children and Family services System.

I have my doubts it will even adequately replace the current systems.

The point is, just spouting about the money involved in the rail system is silly since tons of money is spent indiscriminately all the time. California actually voted for the rail system unlike most of the money spent.

And also keep in mind that both projects bring in lots of Federal dollars that will be spent in the state (although in the computer system case lots of it will be going to India).

[Xolodno]

16. Damn! Thought I was reading a thread on FreeRepublic!

...until I checked the url.

[Luminous Animal]

28. Crazy the hatred for mass transportation in this country. Just crazy.

A friend of mine informed me that she won't take BART (San Francisco's Bay Area Transit) to her new job because the commute will add 20 minutes each way… and then she said, 'Unless there is traffic." What the hell! There is always traffic. And asshole drivers that and the constant necessity of being alert and defensive. I'd gladly trade off those extra 40 minutes inside the train each day… reading, doing a crossword, composing emails, writing, napping… than negotiate or be stuck in traffic.

[LeftyMom]

36. We're mostly not very good at doing useful, pleasant mass transit projects.

Last edited Sat Jan 3, 2015, 03:10 AM - Edit history (1)

I really liked the Metro in DC, and I use the heck out of the Max when I'm in Portland. They're clean, they're fast, they show up on time, they generally go where I want to go, they're not very expensive. They are unfortunately the exception.

BART is working on the clean part finally (god bless whoever decided to get rid of the carpets and dingy upholstered seats) but the trains are stuffy and the transit connections can be wonky if you're not going someplace within walking distance of a stop, and it's surprisingly expensive. If you're out late you're out of luck, which is just unacceptable in a big city. It leaves a lot to be desired, and it's biggest selling point is that it's less of a hassle than driving over a bridge and finding parking, but that's like saying that the flu is less of a hassle than cancer. It's true but it doesn't mean that it isn't an enormous drag in it's own right.

Then again the transit system out here in Sac makes BART look ideal. It's filthy, crime-ridden, slow, expensive and has routes could not be designed in a less effective way if one tried. So it could actually be worse. Sacramento also told BART no when they were building and wanted to run the line out here, because this is where urban planning goes to die.

[Live and Learn]

39. Yep, LA has done a poor job too.

Have a train that goes right by our office but trying to take it would add nearly an hour to the commute because the nearest station is miles away and the bus system is so poor.

[cherokeeprogressive]

56. I worked at the OC County Registrar of Voters and rode the Metrolink from Mission Viejo to Santa Ana

Mondays I drove to Santa Ana, then to the Metrolink station at the end of the day. I left my car there. Tuesday I rode the train and took my car the rest of the way to work. Friday I drove my car home.

Fucking awesome. Leisurely ate my McMuffin, read the sports page, and my car wasn't 200 feet from where I got off the train.

The cost? More than the gas it would have taken me to drive, but the lack of traffic and the relaxation made it all worth it.

This ain't what we're talking about though.

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. It's not about "mass transportation". It's about a convoluted definition of "high speed rail".

Seriously? High speed rail? How many people actually travel from L.A. to the Bay Area? Enough to justify spending a HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS?

Not.

[Luminous Animal]

55. In 1994, UC Berkeley predicted by 2010 that HSR would divert 15.7 million passengers miles

from air and auto annually.

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. LOL I guess they got that wrong... non?

Earlier you pointed your rhetorical gun at my head for using what you called "conservative" sources.

I won't do the same to you... I'm more intellectually honest than that.

[Luminous Animal]

92. So you are questioning the integrity of Berkeley's scientific analysis but buying the libertarians

argument whole hog. Got it.

[1step]

18. Leading by Example

[Live and Learn]

32. Good, California leading the way.

Yes we can do it and we voted for it!

If you don't like it, don't ride it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. I don't, I won't, and that fact means those people who want it will pay more for the privilege.

[Live and Learn]

51. Fine by me.

Though, I was looking forward to meeting you on it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. No reason you can't meet me NEAR it. You start at the Norwalk Station; I'll meet you in SF

with the cocktail of your choice.

In 2030.

I'll even leave from the station in Santa Ana at the same time you leave from Norwalk. Make sure you don't miss the bus from L.A. to where I-5 and US 99 split though... or you'll be drinking a cocktail I'll have to pay the bartender to make for you the next day.

High speed rail? By whose definition? A snail's?

[Live and Learn]

61. Well, it will take me quite a while to get to Norwalk.

But I am curious, why in the heck would it take me that much longer to leave from Norwalk than from Santa Ana?

And what exactly is your complaint? That leaving from certain places takes longer than others? That is already a given in LA.

BTW, I thought you posted something about living in Big Bear, in which case, it will always take you forever to get anywhere.

[cherokeeprogressive]

62. Just point the gun at my head and pull the trigger...

Your last paragraph describes my life to a T. Three lanes up, three down.

My Norwalk Santa Ana thing was about giving you a head start by oh, 20 miles or so. You ride California's High Speed Rail system, I'll drive I-5. You start now; I'll start some time in 2029. The State's going to spend well over a hundred billion dollars to get you from Norwalk to San Francisco. In 2030. I'll meet you there. I'll be old by the time you arrive, but I'll be there, waiting for you.

I picked Norwalk because it's the city of my birth, and one of the planned big stations. Santa Ana is due south on the same track.

So what are ya havin? Personally I like Cadillac Margs when I'm out... or Wild Turkey and Coke.

[Live and Learn]

64. So it will take a while to complete and you personally won't benefit.

Pretty selfish reasoning in my opinion.

As for what you are having, not sure what they are but I'll stick to something more civilized Make mine a water with ice.

[Luminous Animal]

95. I know, right? With Cherokeeprogressives attitude, the interstate would never have been built...

Or the rural electrification system. Or the rural phone system. Dagnabbit!

[yortsed snacilbuper]

52. Remember the dumb a$$ teabaggers complaining about the D.C.Metro?

6:52 pm ET
Sep 16, 2009

Tea Party Protesters Protest D.C. Metro Service

Protesters who attended Saturday’s Tea Party rally in Washington found a new reason to be upset: Apparently they are unhappy with the level of service provided by the subway system.

Rep. Kevin Brady asked for an explanation of why the government-run subway system didn’t, in his view, adequately prepare for this past weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services.

Seriously.

The Texas Republican on Wednesday released a letter he sent to Washington’s Metro system complaining that the taxpayer-funded subway system was unable to properly transport protesters to the rally to protest government spending and expansion.

link

[Recursion]

67. I hope the construction goes more smoothly than the planning has

It's been a painful process to watch.

[MindPilot]

71. I would be happy with some rail service...high speed is optional.

High speed rail will have the the problem of not working well enough to replace driving or flying. It sounds like it won't be fast enough and have too many stops to be a viable alternative to flying. It won't have enough stops to be an alternative to driving, and introduces the problem of how to travel when you get there, since most of the proposed destinations have lousy to nonexistent public transportation. Additionally, I'm convinced that TSA will do their best to make the high speed rail experience at least as miserable as flying.

I think we need to admit that--at least here in the west--the private automobile IS mass transit; we need to make it work because no amount of engineering--social or civil--is going to change that.

[Throd]

75. Hopefully it will be on time and on budget like the Bay Bridge!

A bad idea proposed by crooks and approved by morons.

[Brother Buzz]

85. It could be on time and on budget

That is, if we contracted with the Chinese to build it.

The cynic, i am