Irritating. I really want this thing to back to the drawing board and done over again.

This story read like a put-up job. The article blithely talks about building more airports or enlarging LAX without mentioning that attempts to build another international airport in Palmdale or wherever have been rejected overwhelmingly. They also don't mention that Burbank and Long Beach have refused to enlarge their airports. As for increasing LAX's capacity, where? And how are they going to get passengers to the airport or park their cars once they get there?

Another note about LAX is that the airport is very careful not to call their construction an expansion. The neighborhood would throw a fit. Airport expansion is very unpopular in california. We tend to forget this when discussing HSR, as if HSR is the first project to hit a wall of shit from a town.

So why not allow the UC schools to evaluate this issue? Why should we trust the unvalidated figures from the lead construction contractor?

And a side note: LAX could handle many millions of additional annual travelers without a single additional penny spent for construction.

This is a new wrinkle in this ongoing saga which is just now coming to light that really, really irks me.

Enough for me to call my state legislative representatives in the assembly and senate today and give them(or whomever answers their phone) an earful.

UC experts are used around the world for these types of projects specifically because of their expertise on the subject, but they were not here in California? Give me a break.:rolleyes:

The arrogance of the CA High Speed Rail Authority is just astounding.


Well, expansion will undoubtedly be needed to keep up with the times, but we dont need to be lied to about the amount it will cost to keep the state's transportation infrastructure viable.

The CAHSR authority relied solely on the dire predictions made by a transportation contractor, probably because those dire predictions presented the most serious scenario possible-and now actual experts are calling that contractor's predictions for the BS that it probably is.

Oh really? Getting to or from LAX is difficult at best and nightmarish if traffic backs up, which it usually does; parking is getting more and more difficult to find and more and more expensive (unless you want to park at a remote lot, adding an hour onto each departure or arrival). The neighborhood erupts every time anyone even whispers about enlarging the airport. And nobody else in CA wants a damned airport in their back yard either. I don't know what planet you live on, but if you live anywhere near California, you must stay under a rock.

This has been torn apart so many times it seems hardly worth going over. Spain is a marginally 3rd world country, with about 2/3 the per capita income of Ca (before the full economic implosion; lower now). Car ownership is very low; gasoline is extremely expensive; road systems are bad (compared to California); the tax burden is very high. This results in low expendable income and makes driving unaffordable.

Madrid and Barcelona are dense cities, with people close to central rail stations. LA and the Bay are 100 mile expanses of cities and suburbs, with low density; central train stations are not convenient or accessible from most areas. But airports are (6 in SoCal; 4 in NorCal).

"Brown is under pressure from unions, engineering firms, big-city mayors and the Obama administration to stabilize and press ahead on a nearly $100-billion project..."

That's it for supporters of HSR; just them and the SF real estate developers. A collection of self-interested fat cats and their hired hands. But, hey, pigeons are for plucking, right?

I mean seriously, friggin' Berkeley is calling HSR supporters liars and frauds (in political speak).

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.

But there are going to be about 6 rail lines (red, purple, expo, both gold lines, blue) that lead directly to union station from all directions. That's just whats currently going to be built this decade. And HSR will also stop in Sylmar and Burbank (and in Anaheim and Irvine if we are talking about our hundred mile suburb).

DJM19:
Don't forget the nation's largest bus system and Metrolink commuter rail as well.

Actually, I am very well versed in the airport.

Take a look at the actual FACTS:
http://www.lawa.org/welcome_LAX.aspx?id=800

In 2000, LAX handled 67.3M passengers.
In 2010, LAX handled 59M passengers.

My statement is based in fact -- LAX could handle millions of additional passengers TODAY without moving a single piece of dirt. Fortunately LAX is undergoing modernization that will provide new terminals, redone terminals, and (probably) a link to public transportation via the Crenshaw Line.

In addition, Ontario is so underutilized they are talking about completely closing one of the two terminals to save money.

And again, why not utilize the UC system to validate the numbers? Why does it seem like they are trying to hide something? After all, it would be great if an INDEPENDENT 3rd party could validate the costs of the alternatives to HSR, rather than relying on the figures of the lead construction contractor.

No, I'm not living under a rock. It's the HSR supporters who attack anyone that dares question the costs or benefits of this project that could use some eye-opening.

Newsflash: We aren't Spain with an unlimited European checkbook to fund this thing. In case you haven't noticed, unbridled spending on massive projects has pushed many of those European countries to the brink of default.

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.

PPS: Ontario is wonderful if you live in Riverside. If you live west of downtown LA, not so much.

Not at the price we'd have to pay.

And AGAIN: WHY NOT HAVE THE UC SCHOOLS VALIDATE THE COSTS AND BENEFITS?

You are studiously avoiding answering that question.

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

edit

Marginally third world? Perhaps your thinking of Portugal.

I'll tell you what's third world - coming back from Tokyo to LAX, and that was last May, in the thick of all the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear reactor mess. The Japanese profoundly impressed me with their dedication to a high quality society - even at one of their worst points in recent history. Then, I had to come back and be reminded of the in-denial decaying state that is the U.S., exemplified by LAX.

Fine by me. And while we're at it, let's subject spending on the 5, the airports, and the air traffic control system to the same analysis. I wonder how much of a profit the 5 shows.

:cheers: