HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1021  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 7:35 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfastx View Post
If driving is unaffordable, how did over 40% of people make the drive before HSR? And if they can't afford to drive, then how would 40% of folks be able to fly? Isn't flying more expensive?


Madrid and Barcelona have suburbs too. San Francisco is an incredibly dense city. This just isn't true, if downtown Los Angeles isn't accessible from most locations, how do people get to work every day? Your response is just an opinion, the chart above are factual statistics.
First rule of having no intelligent arguments: make color charts and run them in the popular press.

The chart is meaningless and contains irrelevant comparisons. What difference does it make what the size and density of the country is? Size and density of the relevant cities is more to the point.

SF is a tiny percentage of the Bay Area, which extends from Sonoma to Gilroy. Over 100 miles. Even the core (SF-SJ-Pleasanton) is about 60 miles by 20 miles. LA even more so.

Madrid and Barcelona are not only much smaller overall, but a much higher percentage live in multi-story blocks in the city centers. I can't even imagine how you could argue otherwise if you have spent time there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1022  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 7:40 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
And how are we going to get these millions of additional passengers TO LAX and where are we going to put their cars when they get there. FYI, I live in Brentwood, just a few miles north of LAX (half-an-hour drive if there is any traffic at all) and I've actually timed it out. Figuring in drive time to LAX, parking the car, getting past the security Nazis, waiting for the inevitable flight delays, and getting into San Francisco from SFO after the plane has landed, it is only about 1 1/2 hours quicker to fly than it is to drive. Serious delays in the flight schedules can easily push the flight time longer than the drive time. Serious delays in the Grapevine or on the 5 can turn the trip into a genuine driving nightmare.

But nah, we don't need HSR in California.

PS. Since airlines treat their passengers considerably worse than livestock haulers treat livestock, I try to avoid airlines and airplanes. Lived in DC for twenty years and always took Amtrak to NY, even before the Metroliner. It was just more comfortable and hassle-free.
From DC to NY by train makes perfect sense (urban, dense, shorter distance, miserable traffic, poor roads, congested airports, etc.). Not so much LA-Bay.

If you live in Brentwood, use Burbank: plenty of flights to 4 Bay Area airports.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1023  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 7:45 PM
mfastx mfastx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
First rule of having no intelligent arguments: make color charts and run them in the popular press.

The chart is meaningless and contains irrelevant comparisons. What difference does it make what the size and density of the country is? Size and density of the relevant cities is more to the point.
The chart in question is a good representationof what HSR does to a region. You could make a similar chart showing the advantages of HSR for many other cities around the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
SF is a tiny percentage of the Bay Area, which extends from Sonoma to Gilroy. Over 100 miles. Even the core (SF-SJ-Pleasanton) is about 60 miles by 20 miles. LA even more so.

Madrid and Barcelona are not only much smaller overall, but a much higher percentage live in multi-story blocks in the city centers. I can't even imagine how you could argue otherwise if you have spent time there.
So? Just because a city isn't quite as dense means it will not support HSR? Do you have any proof of this? What's the difference between driving 30 minutes to an airport, and driving 30 minutes to a train station?

Why do people think that in order for HSR to work there needs to be huge amounts of public transit around the city? What's the difference in a HSR and an airport?

It doesn't make sense to me that some people are so against doing something that practically the rest of the developed world is doing. HSR obviously is the best form of transportation between two medium-distance cities, and it has been proven around the world. Why wouldn't it work here?

Is the rest of the world really that stupid? I don't think so..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1024  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 7:52 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
You're not serious, are you? Spain is the 14th largest economy in the world even if you include California.

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/first_world.htm

Seriously, this probably ranks as one of your most inaccurate comments thus far on this forum.



Wrong, it's not infrastructure.

http://gulzar05.blogspot.com/2011/12...eign-debt.html
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012/01/12/63720328.html
Perfectly serious. Size of the economy is not relevant; China and India are bigger but no one would call them developed or even close.

Spain had an artificial boom sponsored by govt. and private debt, which gave the illusion of development and has left them bankrupt and with Greece-like unemployment. Institutionally it is still very much lagging Northern Europe in educational, social, business, finance, agricultural, employment, administrative, regulatory compliance and other aspects of developed countries. Examples are numerous, but suffice it so say that Spain is still exempted from many EU rules on employment rules, tax compliance, agricultural production and wages, etc. It just doesn't have the institutions to comply. Spanish corruption in city and local govt. is famous in the EU and easily checked out on the internet.

It is not a basketcase, but it is not a developed country either. I wouldn't have thought anyone would argue this after the last 5 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1025  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 8:06 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfastx View Post
The chart in question is a good representationof what HSR does to a region. You could make a similar chart showing the advantages of HSR for many other cities around the world.


So? Just because a city isn't quite as dense means it will not support HSR? Do you have any proof of this? What's the difference between driving 30 minutes to an airport, and driving 30 minutes to a train station?

Why do people think that in order for HSR to work there needs to be huge amounts of public transit around the city? What's the difference in a HSR and an airport?

It doesn't make sense to me that some people are so against doing something that practically the rest of the developed world is doing. HSR obviously is the best form of transportation between two medium-distance cities, and it has been proven around the world. Why wouldn't it work here?

Is the rest of the world really that stupid? I don't think so..
I wouldn't disagree with improving transit to LAX or to Union Station. I support both additional subway lines and the massive parking structures in the expanded Union Station.

But this still doesn't make it even close for building HSR; air blows it away on time and car blows it away on cost. Hence, their inability to show a business plan that shows anything but bleeding cash forever. Again, have you noticed that EVERY auditor in the Democrat-controlled state govt. has rejected the proposal? These are not air and road junkies, oil addicts or anti-environmentalists. But even they can't stomach it.

Most of the world is poor; much of the rest is very densely crowded with large cities within 200 miles of each others. HSR (or cheaper train service) is great for these places. This does not describe LA-Bay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1026  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 10:49 PM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
From DC to NY by train makes perfect sense (urban, dense, shorter distance, miserable traffic, poor roads, congested airports, etc.). Not so much LA-Bay.

If you live in Brentwood, use Burbank: plenty of flights to 4 Bay Area airports.
LA-SF, HSR still makes sense, although the distance is at the outer range.

The drive time from my place to LAX is less than the drive time all the way over to Burbank, plus, I don't need to subject myself to the 405 when I go to LAX; not so with Burbank.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1027  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 10:52 PM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
But this still doesn't make it even close for building HSR; air blows it away on time and car blows it away on cost.
Ah, but with HSR, no security Nazis and most importantly, no airlines and their surly employees.

I almost always drive when I go to the Bay Area, although 5-6 hours behind the wheel is tiring.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1028  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 11:59 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Hence, their inability to show a business plan that shows anything but bleeding cash forever.
Present us the business plan showing California's freeways won't bleed cash forever, or admit you're just applying a double-standard as part of your bias toward petroleum-based transportation.

Quote:
Again, have you noticed that EVERY auditor in the Democrat-controlled state govt. has rejected the proposal? These are not air and road junkies, oil addicts or anti-environmentalists. But even they can't stomach it.
Fortunately, the Governor remains steadfast in giving California an alternative to congested, polluting freeways and runways.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1029  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2012, 12:08 AM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Present us the business plan showing California's freeways won't bleed cash forever, or admit you're just applying a double-standard as part of your bias toward petroleum-based transportation.
Curious that the anti-rail crowd never seems to expect the freeways to turn a profit, isn't it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1030  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2012, 12:46 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Perfectly serious. Size of the economy is not relevant; China and India are bigger but no one would call them developed or even close.
My point is you're exaggerating... about this AND the advantages of airlines.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1031  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2012, 1:11 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,474
A good way of looking at this would be to look at how much money California has spent on highway and airport expansions in the past.

Then you can extrapolate lane-miles/population and project those numbers based on current growth rates.


Don't forget to figure in the cost of inflation!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1032  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2012, 4:57 AM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,489
Well, I believe I read the 99 would cost about 25 billion to expand...6 years ago.

Factor in the inflation since then, the inflation over the time of the project and then in similar HSR fashion the suprise final cost and you have a 40-50 billion dollar project on one freeway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1033  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2012, 4:26 PM
mfastx mfastx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
But this still doesn't make it even close for building HSR; air blows it away on time and car blows it away on cost. Hence, their inability to show a business plan that shows anything but bleeding cash forever. Again, have you noticed that EVERY auditor in the Democrat-controlled state govt. has rejected the proposal? These are not air and road junkies, oil addicts or anti-environmentalists. But even they can't stomach it.
How does air "blow it away" on time?? Maybe air beats HSR a little time-wise, but many people are willing to trade off a little time for convenience. Again, this has been shown around the world, and even in our own country, where about half of the travelers in northeast cities choose rail. And that isn't even true HSR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Most of the world is poor; much of the rest is very densely crowded with large cities within 200 miles of each others. HSR (or cheaper train service) is great for these places. This does not describe LA-Bay.
Well that's your opinion, and I disagree. All there is to it. You don't know for sure that HSR wouldn't be "great" for California. Can you find real-world examples? Can you name a place in the world where HSR has failed?

EDIT - Sorry for the messy post, for some reason it isn't "quoting" correctly.

Last edited by hammersklavier; Jan 23, 2012 at 4:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1034  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2012, 11:32 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 49,862
Brown Asks California to Cheer Rail Project


January 18, 2012

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/us...imes&seid=auto

Quote:
Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday threw his unequivocal support behind a $100 billion high-speed rail line that has come under fire here in California and across the country, embracing it in a strikingly optimistic State of the State speech in which he asserted that government should pursue ambitious ventures even during times of economic strife. With his speech, Mr. Brown firmly linked his political fortunes to the proposed 520-mile bullet train connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles as he urged lawmakers to release the $9 billion in state bonds needed to begin the project this year.

- “Critics of the high-speed rail project abound, as they often do when something of this magnitude is proposed,” he said in his speech, adding: “The Panama Canal was for years thought to be impractical, and Benjamin Disraeli himself said of the Suez Canal, ‘Totally impossible to be carried out.’ The critics were wrong then, and they’re wrong now.” State Senator Ted W. Lieu, a Democrat, called the train “a symbol of what California can do,” but suggested that the project was as much about Mr. Brown as anything else. “He is a much more practical governor now than maybe 30 years ago,” Mr. Lieu said. “But he is still a dreamer. High-speed rail is very evocative and is one of those things that I think he would like to be part of his legacy.”

.....
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1035  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2012, 7:38 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
Curious that the anti-rail crowd never seems to expect the freeways to turn a profit, isn't it.
I think even you and fflint know how ridiculous this is but it must make you feel cool to repeat it to the cheering crowds. I suspect that this is what Jerry is doing, since he is not a stupid person, but can't afford to alienate the unions and govt. employees.

First of all, highways are sunk costs; HSR isn't. It makes no sense to have the best system in the world and not keep it maintained and add marginal extensions as needed. In any event, NO material expansion is needed on 5, 99 and 101 with respect to LA-Bay traffic. The great bulk of expansion is within the metros or places where HSR won't ever run.

Second, highways carry more than commuters from LA to SF. About 99.999 percent of their traffic is within the metro area, within the CV, trucks, service, emergency, etc., that can't use HSR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1036  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2012, 11:36 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
In any event, NO material expansion is needed on 5, 99 and 101 with respect to LA-Bay traffic.
That is not obviously true. If you can provide any credible source backing up that unsupported claim, then please do so. Until then, it's merely an article of your conservative faith.

Meanwhile, in reality, there is consensus that population growth over the coming decades shall require additional transportation infrastructure. The jury is out on how much it would cost to cram more cars onto congested freeways and polluting jets onto runways.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1037  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2012, 6:17 AM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
I think even you and fflint know how ridiculous this is

First of all, highways are sunk costs; HSR isn't.

Second, highways carry more than commuters from LA to SF.
I don't know anything of the sort. Rail is a transportation mode just as highways are and it is one in which we have invested far too little since WWII.

How is HSR not a "sunk cost"?

So?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1038  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2012, 6:20 AM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
That is not obviously true. If you can provide any credible source backing up that unsupported claim,
He obviously doesn't drive it very often. Traffic can move very slowly on the 5, for the simple reason that it's a 4-lane freeway which carries an enormous volume of trucks. Get behind one big-rig trying to pass another on an upgrade and then tell us how the 5 is perfectly adequate.

The problem with the air/highway crowd is that they refuse to acknowledge something every other industrialized nation in the world has recognized, that rail is as important as highways are and as the air traffic system is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1039  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2012, 4:55 PM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfastx View Post
How does air "blow it away" on time?? Maybe air beats HSR a little time-wise, but many people are willing to trade off a little time for convenience. Again, this has been shown around the world, and even in our own country, where about half of the travelers in northeast cities choose rail. And that isn't even true HSR.


Well that's your opinion, and I disagree. All there is to it. You don't know for sure that HSR wouldn't be "great" for California. Can you find real-world examples? Can you name a place in the world where HSR has failed?

EDIT - Sorry for the messy post, for some reason it isn't "quoting" correctly.
Fixed it for ya. It was just a minor misspelling in the code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
The problem with the air/highway crowd is that they refuse to acknowledge something every other industrialized nation in the world has recognized, that rail is as important as highways are and as the air traffic system is.
Air is a bit more complicated, but the key difference is that a double standard is being applied by the highway crowd.

They reason thus: Americans have a God-given right to cars and thus anything to do with them falls under public works. But every other mode of transportation is private and should be expected to turn a profit to have a raison d'être.

The problem with this is that there's a double standard. Only cars apply for the fulfillment of freedom of mobility.

...Part of the problem comes with the usage of that word, mobility. What we really mean is freedom of access. Freedom to go from Place A to Place B, whenever, however.

And so we can see where the problem comes in with a highway. A highway curtails which freedom...? for which freedom...? If you're going to see mobility as the core freedom being expressed, you're going to be able to justify highways as public works. Problem is, that can also be used to justify public railroads and public airlines (which was done in Europe, recall).

But, as I argue, the core freedom that needs to be addressed is one of access--of being able to get from place to place--and when you think in those terms, the only reasonable solution, from the government's perspective, is to provide the most efficient access network possible. That means maximizing the amount of access enabled per investment. That means that the only reasonable network worth public investment is the local streets and roads network.

Curtailing access for mobility is actually a subversion of the expressed freedom, if access is the critical freedom needing public guarantee.

When analyzed with this framework, it becomes clear that highways, rail, and air all express mobility over access. Mobility can be taken as a freedom, a God-given right, as well, which would imply that all transportation systems are in the public domain.

Or...mobility can be taken as a luxury overlain on the core freedom of access. That allows it to be commoditized, and relinquished to the market. Highways, rail, and air in this regard become something worth paying for. Quantifying, as it were, your time.

(Before the passage of the National Interstate and Defense Highway Act--or something with a similar name--this was how the United States' federal government approached transportation policy.)

This would be the theory...In fact, however, the railroads were enabled by the government giving them their land for free. Very few railroads in the United States were built without some sort of capex subsidy--the land one being most dominant. The same goes for air travel, where the actual facilities (airports) are the public's concern while the equipment (planes) are the airline's concern. Prior to this subsidy, most major airlines utilized seaplanes rather than land facilities.

...In rail terms, this approach would be equivalent to a rail approach where the infrastructure--the trackwork, signalling, and gateways (stations) are the public's concern--while the equipment--the train cars themselves--is a private concern. This is essentially the approach being tried in Britain right now.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)

Last edited by hammersklavier; Jan 23, 2012 at 5:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1040  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2012, 6:44 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
That is not obviously true. If you can provide any credible source backing up that unsupported claim, then please do so. Until then, it's merely an article of your conservative faith.

Meanwhile, in reality, there is consensus that population growth over the coming decades shall require additional transportation infrastructure. The jury is out on how much it would cost to cram more cars onto congested freeways and polluting jets onto runways.
Just drive them. They move easily virtually all the time.

Compare 80, 880, 101 (SJ, Peninsula and LA), 5, 10, 405 and 20 others: they don't move most of the time.

Now tell me where it makes sense to put rail dollars (HSR, subway, whatever).
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:14 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.