California High Speed Rail Thread

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by pesto

You realize you are doing the same as what you are criticizing? Do you understand the difference between Europe and California? Start with differences in urban centralization, density, car ownership, gas prices, disposable income level, distance between cities, parking availability, air alternatives, etc.

All things consdered, HSR makes a lot of sense in the 3rd world, much of Europe and in the Northeast US but much less in California.

What makes you an expert on urban and/or regional land economics? Unless you have some qualifications and experience to lend credence to those terms that you occasionally throw around to make it seem like you value facts (when in reality you are just another Libertarian-esque noisemaker), put a sock in it.

I would argue that California is not so different than France or Germany or Spain in terms of geographical size, population and density to warrant the dismissal of transportation modes that work well in those countries. Many of those other "differences" you cited are a consequence of our government (in its current heavily corporate influenced state) subsidizing some forms of transportation and land development over others.

Part of the idea of laying the infrastructure for HSR now, is to accommodate future growth and increases in population density, congestion, etc.

I'm not sure what kind of philosophy you are trying to promote by insinuating that HSR and other public rail infrastructure projects are meant to work in 3rd world countries, but not here.

[skyscraperfan23]

Originally Posted by drifting sun

You know what's worse than either Republicans or Democrats? Libertarians. Libertarians with their vague rants about "stop wasteful spending"...."government stay out of our lives"...."I'm a Libertarian and thus, rise above the muck of both political parties"....ad nauseum. Amidst your typical vague Libertarian ranting exists gross inaccuracies. High speed rail has been successfully implemented in Europe and Japan for decades, long before China got on the bandwagon; at least strive for some semblance of historical accuracy when spewing your Libertarian dogma. Also, you don't make sense at all when you profess (falsely, I presume) to being a fan of HSR as an alternative, while at the same time bashing it as a "a complete waste of taxpayer's money".

But at least we libertarians are truly sick and tired of big government, because big government on both sides of the ile ever since FDR has destroyed everything and that has to stop.

I Enjoy HSR, But please get the federal government out of the way and let the market decide.

[skyscraperfan23]

Originally Posted by pesto

You realize you are doing the same as what you are criticizing? Do you understand the difference between Europe and California? Start with differences in urban centralization, density, car ownership, gas prices, disposable income level, distance between cities, parking availability, air alternatives, etc.

All things consdered, HSR makes a lot of sense in the 3rd world, much of Europe and in the Northeast US but much less in California.

and in florida as well.
that is why as corrupt as rick scott is, He did the right thing to kill it, to save taxpayers a lot of money.
no wonder we are in big defict right now in florida.

[skyscraperfan23]

And We can build high speed rail by ending all of the unnecessary and immoral wars all over the world and use that money here at home.

[Lipani]

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23

But at least we libertarians are truly sick and tired of big government, because big government on both sides of the ile ever since FDR has destroyed everything and that has to stop.

Obviously libertarians don't believe in staying on topic. Go troll another forum if this is the only conversation you are capable of having.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by drifting sun

Also, you don't make sense at all when you profess (falsely, I presume) to being a fan of HSR as an alternative, while at the same time bashing it as a "a complete waste of taxpayer's money".

Hogwash.

One can be a fan of high speed rail as a mode of transportation where it would work, and at the same time not believe its the best fit for the region in which one lives.

That is perfectly plausible and your melodramatic responses exposes the fact that you are probably too biased on one side of the argument to even process the thought that there are legitimate concerns that must be addressed by those who have a different view from your own.

[drifting sun]

Sorry, didn't mean to kick off a troll-fest. My initial rebuttal was to skyscraperfan addressing his idea that intercity HSR (as a concept) originating in China was patently false.

If, on the other hand, what you meant by the China comment is that the technology to build California HSR is likely going to come from China, then I apologize. Given your (skyscraperfan23) predilection for relying on stock libertarian soundbytes like, "big government", "let the market decide", and "taxpayers have had enough!" as your arguments, I assumed it was the former.

Anyway, sorry again, back to the topic!

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by drifting sun

What makes you an expert on urban and/or regional land economics? Unless you have some qualifications and experience to lend credence to those terms that you occasionally throw around to make it seem like you value facts (when in reality you are just another Libertarian-esque noisemaker), put a sock in it.

I would argue that California is not so different than France or Germany or Spain in terms of geographical size, population and density to warrant the dismissal of transportation modes that work well in those countries. Many of those other "differences" you cited are a consequence of our government (in its current heavily corporate influenced state) subsidizing some forms of transportation and land development over others.

Part of the idea of laying the infrastructure for HSR now, is to accommodate future growth and increases in population density, congestion, etc.

I'm not sure what kind of philosophy you are trying to promote by insinuating that HSR and other public rail infrastructure projects are meant to work in 3rd world countries, but not here.

couldnt have said it better myself. perfect.

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Hogwash.

One can be a fan of high speed rail as a mode of transportation where it would work, and at the same time not believe its the best fit for the region in which one lives.

That is perfectly plausible and your melodramatic responses exposes the fact that you are probably too biased on one side of the argument to even process the thought that there are legitimate concerns that must be addressed by those who have a different view from your own.

Hogwash back to you.
It would be plausible if Pesto or skyscraperfan23 were talking about a HSR line say, between Cody and Laramie, Wyoming, as being an example of a waste of money. The various nodes in the proposed California high speed rail line are huge metro areas, with more than enough density and demand for fast, regional rail transportation to not be a waste of money.

I would have respect for a view that differs from mine on the specifics of carrying out the HSR plan. For example, I think that the debate on whether it is better to go about constructing the central valley route, or start from the opposite poles and build outward, regionally, is a valid debate.

[202_Cyclist]

dimondpark:

One can be a fan of high speed rail as a mode of transportation where it would work, and at the same time not believe its the best fit for the region in which one lives.

Please explain why high speed rail won't work in CA. California has three of Amtrak's five highest ridership routes (http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-0...heast-corridor). CA is as dense as Spain, where high speed rail is of course very successful. Both San Francisco and Los Angeles (http://www.uctc.net/access/37/access37_sprawl.shtml) are very dense cities.

California has some of the nation's worst highway congestion and SFO is one of the most delayed airports. California cities will have pretty decent feeder networks of subways and local commuter rail by the time high speed rail is completed (LA County is spending $20B or more on transit, including the westside subway, thanks to Measure R).

These all sound like reasons why high speed rail can be expected to be pretty successful in California.

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Hogwash.

One can be a fan of high speed rail as a mode of transportation where it would work, and at the same time not believe its the best fit for the region in which one lives.

That is perfectly plausible and your melodramatic responses exposes the fact that you are probably too biased on one side of the argument to even process the thought that there are legitimate concerns that must be addressed by those who have a different view from your own.

Well, maybe you can utilize your special anti-bias powers to "process the thought" of how California and the U.S. as a whole, is supposed to deal with an ever growing population that will need to get from point A to point B to conduct business, educate, entertain, and keep our society functioning in general, without the addition of millions of more automobiles spewing pollutants in the atmosphere. Electric trains still pollute, yes, pollution from centralized sources like a coal plant can be easier to deal with that millions upon millions of discrete sources....and that's even leaving out the possibilities if we got serious about developing alternative sources for electrical generation.

[202_Cyclist]

drifting_sun:

Electric trains still pollute, yes, pollution from centralized sources like a coal plant can be easier to deal with that millions upon millions of discrete sources....and that's even leaving out the possibilities if we got serious about developing alternative sources for electrical generation.

CA actually generates very little of its electricity from coal. Most comes from natural gas, and some from renewable. Natural gas has about half (or less) the emissions of coal and there are vast supplies of it. Partly for this reason, however, I'm very optimistic about electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.

[drifting sun]

I am looking forward to the time (hopefully soon) when electric/hybrid vehicles perform on a level that is suitable for mass consumption. That would help the air pollution problem in a big way, but the congestion problem would probably remain. However, as long as all the different modes (auto, bus, rail, bicycle, pedestrian) are supported, I cannot begrudge those individuals that still prefer to get around in an (electric) automobile. Or, think of it this way - if convenient, fast rail is provided (and truly supported), die-hard auto enthusiasts will have slightly more space on the road.

The thing that is so great about fast rail travel is the level of comfort and convenience over car and plane travel for medium to sort-of-long distances.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by drifting sun

Hogwash back to you.

Sorry, it fits you better.

*yawns*

I am very surprised by the misplaced and uncalled for zeal by overly excited out-of-staters, however my opinion of this project remains undeterred and actually reniforced due these developments recently made known through admissions made by the CASHR Authority.

1. The California High Speed Rail Authority underreported the total cost of just the first phase of the project by $60 Billion? So it turns out the true cost(Not even including Sacramento or San Diego) is $98 Billion--not $30 Billion. Extensions to either San Diego or Sacramento wont begin until 2032 at the earliest.

2. Their ridership projections and ticket price projections were unrealistically optimistic.

3. The actual impact this thing would have on traffic within the major population centers of California is almost nothing. However, anyone with even a minor knowledge of California knows that the traffic flow of vehicles specifically between the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin is very small as it is.

Of course, all of this was totally glossed over by the California High Speed Rail.

Ultimately, what will be this project's undoing is the arrogance and disrepect demonstrated by the CAHSR Authority, which thinks it can force its will on an unwilling and fast growing list of communities who feel totally shut out and spat on by their planning.

And trust me, voters have taken notice:

Out of 573 votes cast, the vast majority, 60 percent, voted to say that the plug should be pulled on High-Speed Rail projects, that they're too costly at almost $100 billion...

Others expressed varying levels of support for connecting the state by rail. About 19 percent said High-Speed Rail should move full speed ahead, and that California should give the project the support it needs. Another 11 percent said the project should stay on track, but work should be required to start in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Another 9 percent said the project should be kept on track, but that stricter oversight should be imposed. A final 1 percent voted for other...

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...peed-rail.html

A stark contrast from 2008 when we passed what seemed like a good plan, but now appears to be a reckless boondoggle. Jerry Brown and Barack Obama should know by now that they cannot coerce Californians to do anything simply because most of us are Democrats.

Like Ive stated, I would love nothing more than to spend $98 Billion to expand existing transit systems up and down the state of California...how glorious that would be.

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Sorry, it fits you better.
Of course, all of this was totally glossed over by the California High Speed Rail.

Ultimately, what will be this project's undoing is the arrogance and disrepect demonstrated by the CAHSR Authority, which thinks it can force its will on an unwilling and fast growing list of communities who feel totally shut out and spat on by their planning.

And trust me, voters have taken notice:

I have yet to witness any real proof of this "utter disregard and manhandling of poor, poor NIMBY's and such by the rail authority, beyond the usual sensationalist tripe. In fact, the reason that costs often overrun in a project such as this is that the appointed authority spends all too much time and money trying to please every last damn individual, because, doggone it, didn't you know that this is America? As to your other points, I am sure you feel like you stated them oh so eloquently, and with a reasoned voice, but, aside from the one link, they lack citations to any evidence.

[drifting sun]

Actually, that link doesn't count, because the article, which admits to being an "unscientific poll" is a joke, and surveyed a whole....573 people! My goodness, if 573 people can't speak for the majority of the +37,000,000 Californians, what is this world coming to?

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by drifting sun

beyond the usual sensationalist tripe.

How incredibly ironic.

My goodness, if 573 people can't speak for the majority of the +37,000,000 Californians, what is this world coming to?

A sample of the population is how polls are done

[pesto]

Originally Posted by drifting sun

What makes you an expert on urban and/or regional land economics? Unless you have some qualifications and experience to lend credence to those terms that you occasionally throw around to make it seem like you value facts (when in reality you are just another Libertarian-esque noisemaker), put a sock in it.

I would argue that California is not so different than France or Germany or Spain in terms of geographical size, population and density to warrant the dismissal of transportation modes that work well in those countries. Many of those other "differences" you cited are a consequence of our government (in its current heavily corporate influenced state) subsidizing some forms of transportation and land development over others.

Part of the idea of laying the infrastructure for HSR now, is to accommodate future growth and increases in population density, congestion, etc.

I'm not sure what kind of philosophy you are trying to promote by insinuating that HSR and other public rail infrastructure projects are meant to work in 3rd world countries, but not here.

So now you are adding "rude" to your resume to go with "brain dead"?

First of all, I am far from libertarian; I can think of 10 major issues I disagree with them on off the top of my head. Transit, eminent domain, SEC policy, public lands, employment law, etc.

Second, you didn't address any of the issues I tossed out. For example, it is 400 miles from SF to Union Station and in SF and LA only tiny percentages of the metro populations are within, say, 5 miles of the main stations; this is very different from the typical European city and 400 miles is typically outside the range where HSR can compete with air. At 200 miles, non-stop HSR is a clear winner.

There are 5 local airports in LA and 3 in the Bay Area each with excellent connections to the other region. There are 3 major highways connecting the areas. Car ownership is high, gas prices are low, parking is available, compared to Europe. Electric will have replaced gas for small and mid-sized commuting vehicles by 2030, when HSR is ready. As a result, cars just blow away HSR on cost and air blows them away on time.

[202_Cyclist]

pesto:

Car ownership is high, gas prices are low, parking is available, compared to Europe. Electric will have replaced gas for small and mid-sized commuting vehicles by 2030, when HSR is ready. As a result, cars just blow away HSR on cost and air blows them away on time.

I don't disagree with this but CA's highways are already some of the most congested in the US. If plug-in hybrid/electric vehicles become widespread, which the likely will and the cost of driving falls, you can expect that congestion will increase as the marginal cost of driving decreases. Total travel costs (direct costs and not social costs like sprawl, accidents, pollution, etc...) include passenger time and vehicle operating expenses. If energy required for passenger vehicles becomes cheaper, it is not at all clear that total travel costs will be reduced, as people might start driving more.

[DJM19]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

How incredibly ironic.


A sample of the population is how polls are done

No, a sample is how surveys are done. A simple poll such as the one you are referencing is entirely unscientific (as the website notes) and is open to anybody to respond, which means anyone can rally some group of HSR haters on a forum and then they flood the poll.