Some people are blissfully ignorant no matter how much an issue is publicized. You could tape it to their medicine cabinet and some would still say they haven't gotten around to informing themselves about the project. I just lament the American spirit of common purpose and sacrifice that would help along an ambitious and socially beneficial transportation project like CaliHSR, instead of the 'me first,' 'not at my expense' selfish attitude that seems to dominate nowadays.
|
A couple of comments, mostly re politics:
I don't blame just Obama; the debt problem and the idea of government management of the economy is an old one (and, thankfully, one with less and less credibility). Obama (or more correctly, his advisors) is to blame for the failed stimulus package but not for the prior history, which included GOP as well as Democratic support. Tax cuts generally will stimulate investment and spending to a moderate degree. Aside from targeted tax benefits, such as investment or R&D credits, there is no other good way of encouraging investment without repercussions or inefficiency. Increased investment leads to greater long-term growth. Just to make it less political, a look at the UK (Thatcher) and Sweden (around the Olaf Palme era) indicates the general effect of lower taxes and moderated government spending on long-term growth. Kennedy era tax changes (yes, by a Democrat) might also prove instructive. I'm afraid the SGV residents are just catching up with the Peninsula and SJ area residents who have concerns about destruction of communities and eminent domain as well. An intelligent solution is to mitigate in areas where there is local opposition, either by changing routes or appropriate soundproofing or tunneling. A not so intelligent approach is to call them dummies and anti-social troublemakers. |
Wow, those NIMBY's are getting their kids involved even. I bet they don't know a damn thing about the project.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Forget track-sharing... The most likely scenario is that it's gonna use the Riverside Metrolink ROW that goes through City of Industry. |
Riverside officials press for March area bullet train stop (Press-Enterprise)
Riverside officials press for March area bullet train stop
By DUG BEGLEY The Press-Enterprise 8/12/2010 Analysis of which route is best for bullet trains to get from Los Angeles to San Diego is still about six months from completion, but Riverside business and city officials are continuing an aggressive push to have a station near March Air Reserve Base. High-speed trains are proposed to run from downtown Los Angeles to San Diego, via a sweeping loop to lure Inland residents. The line is part of a larger system that planners hope will link San Diego to Sacramento by 2030. http://www.pe.com/imagesdaily/2010/0...hspeed_400.jpg Photo courtesy of Press-Enterprise The contention is how far east that loop goes from LA to San Diego. Corona officials and others have suggested the line travel west from LA to Ontario International Airport, and then slash down Interstate 15. San Bernardino and Riverside officials are pressing for a route that goes from the airport east to San Bernardino and then down Interstate 215.... http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/...3.2c68059.html |
High-speed rail factions on display at meeting
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BUV51EP5HU.DTL Quote:
|
"Destroy our communities" -- talk about hyperbole. Running in an existing ROW, eliminating the noise and inconvenience of grade crossings and running a few extra yet far quieter trains is now considered destroying the community. Got it.
|
Who will pay for California's high-speed rail system?
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stori...=1&forced=true Quote:
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...nprice_200.jpg |
Why can't they find private $$$?
|
Quote:
|
A more complete answer is that private companies don't ever pay because they don't see the return being there. That's what makes the public debate about this necessary. If it were a money maker, it would just need some public permits and the funding would be forthcoming.
That's why a serious audit and analysis of costs is required, along with a clear view of alternatives (electric cars, airplanes) and their costs. It will lose money; the question is how much are you willing to lose. And, of course, there are the local community issues as well. btw, both of the IE routes are silly. The only time-effective connection between LA and SD is via the OC. The IE routes are too long with too many stops. In effect, it's an overly long commuter line that encourages even more sprawl. Cut it off at UC Riverside. |
Quote:
A big chunk of those using CA HSR will be tourists, and they will want a quick link between LA and SD via OC, not via the mostly job-oriented IE. I think an IE branch is necessary, but I also agree it should stop around San Bernardino or Riverside and make stops near Industry, Pomona, and Ontario. Currently, Amtrak operates between Irvine and SD's Santa Fe Depot for over $40 round trip. That's a total joke. There's no way a trip to SD for an OC resident could cost $40 in gas, parking, and car maintenance. I drive a Prius, and I'm a huge fan of taking public transit, but it has to be practical. I could see myself paying $40 RT for an OC-SD trip, but only if it were for HSR and if it included the parking. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The government has to be involved for a variety of reasons including thinking long term, the ability to factor in the many, many reasons to build HSR that aren't directly related to its immediate profitability, the ability to raise the massive sums of money required, and the ability to use government powers such as eminent domain. I agree that there should be more private investors involved, but I believe that the primary reason they are not materializing yet has less to do with the profitability of the project and more to do with the still speculative nature of the project. You're not going to start seeing serious private money committed to this until after the EIRs are finalized, the route is finalized, and we are seriously into the specific design phase. Until then, it is too easy for the plug to get pulled before anything even happens, and it is too long before trains start running and investors see any kind of ROI. Quote:
Have you ever ridden Amtrak or the Metrolink/Coaster along that route? There are long sections where it is single tracked, the trains run slow for environmental sensitivity reasons, and (particularly between about Oceanside and about San Juan Capistrano) there are long stretches where the ROW is limited to single track by geography (the ocean on the west and the bluffs to the east). There are significant stretches where the tracks run right along the beach and look unsustainable in a serious storm as they're built now. Add in that long portions of that ROW run through Camp Pendleton and environmentally sensitive areas and it's almost all controlled by the coast commission, and you begin to see how impossible it would be to even double track that ROW the whole way, much less add the 3rd and 4th tracks that would be necessary and get approval for high speeds. I agree that the general route through OC makes much more sense than the IE routes, but it's too infeasible when you try to figure out the actual details. The current ROW isn't upgradeable enough, a whole new ROW is completely out of the questions given the costs of ROW acquisition through that area, Camp Pendleton and other state and federal land, etc., and prop 1A requires a route that goes through the IE. |
Why do governments invest in transportation infrastructure?
The answer is economic development. The profitability of high-speed rail does not exist in a vacuum. And, clearly, California realizes that Smart Growth in the Central Valley and in the Inland Empire is in the economic interests of the State. High-speed rail, like airports, has a tremendous impact on the patterns of development. |
Quote:
|
One of the reasons the Inland Empire has been having so much trouble with job growth since the Great Recession hit is because L.A.W.A. has fees set inordinately high at L.A./Ontario International Airport, which, as a result, has been losing flights.
Employers need a certain number of convenient non-stop flights. High-speed rail will serve the same function and will also connect more cities to airports, themselves, thereby regionalizing air-travel demand. High-speed rail will be absolutely essential to the U.S. and California's economic competitiveness in the future. And, de-suburbanizing the Inland Empire will be imperative for maintaining California's historic levels of job growth and productivity. The Central Valley needs Smart Growth for some of the same reasons, but, considering that the region is the most fertile farmland on the planet, the agricultural output there, likewise, needs to be preserved. |
PragmaticIdealist:
Quote:
|
Rail authority stands by its ridership projections (SJ Mercury)
Rail authority stands by its ridership projections
By Bonnie Eslinger San Jose Mercury Posted: 08/21/2010 The California High-Speed Rail Authority released a revised environmental study Friday night that stands by its ridership projections, despite a contention from project opponents that the numbers are inflated. The 2,454-page revised environmental impact report was unveiled at 6 p.m., one day after Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny tentatively ruled he won't reopen a 2008 lawsuit by Atherton, Menlo Park and other groups that sought to block bullet trains from zooming up and down the Peninsula. After a short hearing Friday, Kenny said he would issue his final decision next week. In October 2009, Kenny concluded that the rail authority's environmental impact report needed revisions, but he rejected the plaintiffs' request to halt the $42.6 billion project. The report released Friday is supposed to address some of the concerns raised by opponents.... http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...058?source=rss |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.