Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5669877)

I didn't say it was different from highways; but this is immaterial because the ones that perform the functions of HSR (connecting LA to Bay) are aleady built. I would vigorously object to a 55B additional road building project connecting areas already well served.

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5669877)

I hate to remind you again, but HSR passed on the claim it would take peanuts to build and would run a profit. And not one auditor (seriously, NOT ONE) has believed that there is the slightest chance this will happen.

Originally Posted by mfastx (Post 5671143)

Well, many, many flights per day peform the "same functions" as highways (connecting LA to Bay) don't they? So you're advocating that all flights between LA and the Bay area cease to operate!?



Costs have gone up because of delays in construction and NIMBY's.

Originally Posted by jg6544 (Post 5678883)

Article on Huffpo about how the San Joaquin Valley contains several of the most polluted regions in the country. Do we really want more cars on the 5 and the 99?

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5678922)

the LA to Bay drivers are going to be using ELECTRIC cars by the time that HSR is done

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5678911)

Without belaboring the distinction between operating costs and capital expenditures, please note that the analogous argument is that I am arguing that no new airport infrastructure would be needed. And this is essentially true (Burbank, Ontario, OC, Oakland, SJ have plenty of excess capacity; LAX is undergoing huge expansion as is).

The real reason for the changes in estimates is easy to find if you read the auditors comments: bad estimates, over-estimation of private investment, etc.; more than one auditor has commented that there was no plan to audit, just invention and guesswork. That's why is has gone through two major revisions.

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5678922)

The 10M or so people living there plus ag business are the real polluters; don't try to give them lame excuses.

Originally Posted by DJM19 (Post 5679180)

Dont tell LAX they are expanding...they will shoot that argument down. They are renovating.

Originally Posted by jg6544 (Post 5679100)

The "massive" expansion at LAX consists principally of a new terminal for international flights and making some of the terminals less cesspoolish than they are now. And for the umpteenth time, the biggest obstacles to LAX growth, after the neighbors, are getting there and finding a place to park your car when you do.

How do you feel about building the runway in the Bay at SFO?

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5680210)

Population growth ii on the outskirts of SF (East Bay, South Bay). SF County and SM County and the 2 slowest growth counties. And Oakland already has the most daily flights to LA (per their advertising).

But, to be fair, I assume there will be some need for expansion of terminals here and there. But, again, recall that LAX and SFO are overwhelmingly national and international airports, not intra-state focused. And Southwest has a TON of excess capacity at LAX most times of the day.

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 5679178)

Stop diverting attention from the huge role petroleum-based transportation plays in Central Valley pollution:

"Cutting through the valley are the state's two main north-south highway corridors, the routes for nearly all long-distance tractor trailer rigs, the No. 2 source of particulate pollution in the valley." http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/r...tland-15311690


You employ such interesting and self-serving double-standards: one rigorous and unforgiving standard for any claim made about any aspect of HSR, and then another standard of unquestioning acceptance for any claim that you think can work against HSR, like this faith-based conjecture about 'the electric future' you're promoting. Maybe that won't happen. And maybe you're okay with that--because above all, you are against HSR no matter what--but the rest of us aren't.

It is a bad idea to today commit our state's future to a petroleum-based transportation system because we really, really believe the unenforceable but feel-good promise that full electrification is just around the corner. Remember when everyone said we'd have flying cars? Sometimes the promises aren't kept, which is why it's a bad idea to gamble our future on them.

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5680232)

Electric is not even considered debatable. In 30 years it will be the overwhelming winner in small vehicles.

Originally Posted by jg6544 (Post 5680229)

Basically, unless you live in Long Beach or Los Feliz or east, if you want to fly to San Francisco, you fly out of LAX. Travel time to the other airports is too long and that's on the rare occasions when traffic is decent.

Southwest may have excess capacity at LAX; unfortunately the routes to and from the airport don't; neither do the parking lots. Basically, if there were HSR, they could limit LAX to interstate and international flights and that might help. But there's no other way to build ourselves out of the problem.

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5689957)

This availability-payment method of financing proposed for the maintenance yard is being used to finance the new state courthouse in Long Beach, CA.

High-speed rail sets Valley route, gets $1 billion offer

By Tim Sheehan
The Fresno Bee
May. 04, 2012

"The California High-Speed Rail Authority took a key step toward developing its proposed passenger-train system Thursday, certifying environmental reports and formally approving the first portion of the line between Merced and Fresno.

Skeptics remain even as the authority pushes forward on building as soon as this year. But Thursday, a new booster stepped forward -- Madera real-estate developer Ed McIntyre, who said that he and partners are ready to spend $1 billion developing a maintenance yard and more if the authority puts it on their property in Madera.

McIntyre told the board before its vote that his group believes high-speed rail pencils out as a money-maker. In his group's case, he said, they're certain they can secure financing and recoup their investment through a lease-buy deal with the authority..."

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/05/03/...ley-route.html

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5690028)

I guess you would call this non-news. Of course they approved the EIR and of course it's not a problem to hire someone who (at a profit) will provide services.

Of course, you have to laugh at the gratuitous comment that the private developer, who is about to land a huge contract, believes that HSR is going "to pencil out as a money-maker". Ask him if he'd buy their bonds or front them some loans? The Chinese and Japanese alread said no way without Federal guarantees.

Originally Posted by jg6544 (Post 5680397)

It is until they have an electric vehicle that will cruise safely at highway speeds with the air conditioner running and it's possible to recharge the battery in 5 minutes.

In 30 years, a lot of us will be dead.

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH (Post 5690688)

So first you said nobody is investing capitol in this project... and now you say this guy that might is foolish? :shrug:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5690024)

taking HSR just shifts parking to downtown SF and Union Station, which are equally crowded and more expensive.

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5691097)

But that's when HSR is scheduled to be completed so it makes no sense to compare it to today's technology.

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5691802)

pesto:


Availability payments, which is being proposed for the maintenance facility, is one of the innovative financing strategies proposed for infrastructure. As mentioned above, this financing method is being used to finance the Long Beach courthouse. This form of public-private partnership (PPP) has also been used to finance and build schools in Puerto Rico and used to finance the maintenance of London's subways.

With availability payments, the private company builds and operates the asset for a very long time (usually 20-30 years) and the government agency provides a stream of payments over that system.

This system has the advantage that the government agency doesn't have to pay for the entire upfront cost of infrastructure in one fiscal year and can instead spread the financing out over the life of the asset. Additionally, if the contract is well-written, periodic payments are made based on a certain level of performance being met. This encourages the concessionaire to build a better asset that will last for the life of the contract.

Availability payments can also be advantageous when there is no direct income stream necessary for more traditional public-private partnership (i.e. tolls or other user-fees). A courthouse, public schools, and a maintenance yard all can't be tolled easily, if at all.

There is a good paper, "Introduction to Public-Private Partnerships With Availability Payments," by Mike Parker if any of you are interested in reading about this financing method. Here is the link: http://www.transportation-finance.or...ments_0709.pdf

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5692088)

pesto:


Of course with these innovative financing arrangements, the private sector partner is going to want to recover its cost of capital and a certain amount of economic profit. They aren't investing in new roads, bridges, or other transportation assets out of the goodness of their hearts. These public-private partnerships would not be necessary, however, if the Ayn Rand-disciples in the Republican party in Congress didn't think the only investment worth making was endless Middle East wars and yet more tax cuts for hedge-fund managers and oil company executives. If we raised the federal gas tax (which hasn't been raised in two decades) or found some other source of revenue to pay for investments in modern, efficient, infrastructure, we wouldn't have to pay private sector firms the capital costs and profits expected in such deals. Instead, the Republican party in Congress is committed to the Somali-style strategy of economic growth: let our infrastructure crumble, don't provide any money for research or education, and hope that through trickle-down economics, we'll somehow enjoy prosperity.

Originally Posted by galeforcewinds (Post 5699902)

The previous post you made about PPPs was great at explaining it, but with all due respect, this post was nothing but frivolous partisan vitriol. Republicans in congress are just as eager to spend on every domestic program, including welfare and entitlements, as the Democrats. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, refusal to reform SS and Medicare, and massive corporate welfare with no actual spending cuts to pay for them are establishment GOP positions just like overseas intervention, corporate bailouts and welfare, restrictions on civil liberties and no real solutions to any problem are part of the establishment Democrat play book.

If you think there's any substantial difference between either party on monetary, fiscal and foreign policy, civil liberties, and willingness to make tough decisions you're either blinded by your partisanship or just blind to policies in general. Both parties use distractions such as social issues and scare tactics ("grandma won't get her SS check", "republicans hate women", "democrats want to abort every baby", etc) to try and create an illusion that there is any substantial difference between them.

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 5699932)

Folks, partisan politics and broad statements about political ideology belong in the Current Events subforum, not in Transportation threads like this one.

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey (Post 5717815)

I think its time will just kill this project and give all the funds to NE which will show the country how to build a HSR network.

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 5717823)

The NE already has a HSR network, of which I'm not very impressed with. It's Amtrak's NEC.

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey (Post 5717834)

I mean't our Next Gen Network ,which will take 40 years to build in segments...and cost upwards of 125 Billion $. And Amtrak's NEC is not a Network its one line and its not really HSR...

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 5723448)

Sorry to be rude, but 40 years is just a pathetic time line and an indictment of the status of infrastructure development in this country. This just emphasizes the fact that we are extremely disorganized and unenthusiastic when it comes to planning large rail projects. This is ridiculous, 40 years to ride HSR when Japan and France have both had it since the 70's or so. They might as well not bother if they can't muster enough funds to bring this project to fruition in a civilized time frame, like any other developed nation, since this just reeks of mismanagement or poor planning. Again, 40 years for 1 HSR line, just absolutely ludicrous, no matter what the difficulties or challenges that lie along the projected route. This is a figure worthy of the most epic 'face palm' in the history of mankind and one that would evoke jeers from countries where HSR has been in place for decades. The US needs to decide if it wants to build HSR or NOT, and if so, do the damn thing properly once and for all!! Stop stringing the project on for years, just make a commitment to build it PROPERLY or cancel it outright and devote all funding to higher priority projects.

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey (Post 5717834)

I mean't our Next Gen Network ,which will take 40 years to build in segments...and cost upwards of 125 Billion $. And Amtrak's NEC is not a Network its one line and its not really HSR...

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 5724192)

The line to Harrisonburg nor the line to Springfield don't count as a feeders? The line to Harrisonburg is electrified with the same voltage and frequency as the NEC as well, although I'll admit I don't know if the line to Springfield is electrified or not. There's other Metro North, NJT, SEPTA, MARC, and VRE branches extending off the main NEC.

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 5725838)

I'll take that as a yes...