SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   California High Speed Rail Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=180558)

jmecklenborg May 20, 2019 6:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 8578846)
That said he still would have had despicable creatures like Walker and Scott making political hay out of rejecting federal investment in rail on purely ideological grounds


Don't forget Kasich. He returned the $450 million awarded to Ohio for cross-state passenger rail service. The "3-C's" service was going to connect Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland (a combined population of about 8 million in 250 miles) with 110mph diesels similar to what operates in Michigan. They were going to double track all single-track sections, purchase five trains, and operate five trains per day per direction. In short, a totally sensible plan that was going to cost a hair over $1 billion to implement and $20 million per year to subsidize in a state of 12 million residents.


Kasich cancelled the whole thing the instant he took office in 2011. Most of that $450 million grant was redirected to California, but now Trump is trying to yank that same money back and direct it to...the wall? That is unlikely to happen, but we just sit here decade after decade as informed U.S. citizens watching the fossil fuel industry endlessly harass public transportation and intercity rail, and politicians winning cheap points with all of the people out there who don't read.

Back to what is actually being built in California -- back when Prop A was on the ballot, I never saw a proposal floated that would have built a double-track HSR line parallel to I-5 and then a conventional electric railway with slower speeds and some grade crossings in the Central Valley. It seems like a new double-track electric railway in the Central Valley compatible with the SF and LA approaches but with much less grade separation and slower speeds near the stations would have been a worthwhile project.

jmecklenborg Jun 10, 2019 10:46 PM

California will enjoy a gigantic budget surplus this year -- over $20 billion. That on top of a $9 billion surplus in 2018.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/ente...509-story.html

So the idea that there isn't enough money to proceed with the HSR project as planned is comical.

At this rate the state could pay cash for the HSR project -- even the doomsday $100 billion scenarios -- in just five years. Now I'm not advocating that -- these things are always financed with bonds, of course -- but let's get some perspective.

Sun Belt Jun 10, 2019 11:18 PM

We're rich!

Wonder where that money will end up. It's a mystery.

Busy Bee Jun 10, 2019 11:54 PM

Things that make you go hmmm.

jmecklenborg Jun 11, 2019 5:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8601296)
We're rich!

Wonder where that money will end up. It's a mystery.


From what I have read, much will go to shore up state & municipal pension funds, to subsidize Medi-Cal, and to subsidize health insurance premiums for the middle class. Additionally, a ton will be locked in a rainy day fund.

With all of those issues shored up, hopefully in 2020 Gov. Newsom will direct money to big infrastructure projects like HSR. And it's likely that Trump will be shown the door in 2020, meaning that a Democrat President will pick up where Obama left off with support for CAHSR.

Where is California's windfall coming from? A lot of it is coming from capital gains, since California taxes capital gains as ordinary income, and California has a ton of wealthy citizens. Some other states do that as well, like Ohio, but Great Lakes and Midwestern trust funders tend to move places like...California.

By contrast, Tennessee has never had an income tax and will eliminate its 6% capital gains tax, known colloquially as the "Hall Tax", by 2021. This is a huge giveaway to the wealthy, since the working class rarely experiences a capital gain. This loss in revenue is being covered by -- you guessed it -- raising the sales tax. And typical of "low tax" states, Tennessee's sales tax taxes food, which "high tax" states often do not. "Low Tax" is simply a euphemism for pushing tax collections in a regressive direction.

202_Cyclist Jun 11, 2019 1:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 8601331)
Things that make you go hmmm.

But Faux 'News' says California is a socialist disaster on par with Venezuela...

jmecklenborg Jun 11, 2019 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 8601729)
But Faux 'News' says California is a socialist disaster on par with Venezuela...

The other thing Fox News doesn't ever recognize is that some states handle local tasks at the state level that others push state issues down to localities. So "low tax" states not only structure things more regressively, they push things like schools and police completely down on localities.

Maryland funds local public transportation in Baltimore City along with the DC suburbs that extend into Maryland. Most states do not do this and so subsidies are paid by cities or counties.

jtown,man Jun 12, 2019 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8602213)
The other thing Fox News doesn't ever recognize is that some states handle local tasks at the state level that others push state issues down to localities. So "low tax" states not only structure things more regressively, they push things like schools and police completely down on localities.

Maryland funds local public transportation in Baltimore City along with the DC suburbs that extend into Maryland. Most states do not do this and so subsidies are paid by cities or counties.

Eh. Most Americans don't even understand the different levels of government. They see government=Washington. This is probably one reason Democrats are doing good, people don't realize some things could(read:should) be done at the state or local level.

jmecklenborg Jun 13, 2019 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8603681)
Eh. Most Americans don't even understand the different levels of government. They see government=Washington. This is probably one reason Democrats are doing good, people don't realize some things could(read:should) be done at the state or local level.

Simplistic state-to-state comparisons and simplistic city-to-city comparisons in different states are messy because state laws, especially with regards to municipal taxation, vary wildly from one to the next.

It's also very difficult for states to collaborate on cross-state projects, plus weird border disputes have worked to the detriment of poorer states. For example, the supreme court ruled that nearly the entirely of the Ohio River is in Kentucky; therefore Kentucky is required to maintain the majority of its cross-state bridges with Indiana and Ohio, and it is required to pay the majority of the cost for new bridges.


Germaine to CAHSR, an LA>Las Vegas HSR line would only have 15~ miles in Nevada, but the line would primarily benefit Las Vegas, not Los Angeles. Any attempt to split the cost of construction in California would spend years in the courts.

jtown,man Jun 14, 2019 1:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8604950)
Simplistic state-to-state comparisons and simplistic city-to-city comparisons in different states are messy because state laws, especially with regards to municipal taxation, vary wildly from one to the next.

It's also very difficult for states to collaborate on cross-state projects, plus weird border disputes have worked to the detriment of poorer states. For example, the supreme court ruled that nearly the entirely of the Ohio River is in Kentucky; therefore Kentucky is required to maintain the majority of its cross-state bridges with Indiana and Ohio, and it is required to pay the majority of the cost for new bridges.


Germaine to CAHSR, an LA>Las Vegas HSR line would only have 15~ miles in Nevada, but the line would primarily benefit Las Vegas, not Los Angeles. Any attempt to split the cost of construction in California would spend years in the courts.

In the particular case of HSR in California, just not having a spur to LV would end any worry or extra time spent dealing with two states. However, I get your overall point, but most things do not cross borders like transportation does.

electricron Jun 14, 2019 4:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8605023)
In the particular case of HSR in California, just not having a spur to LV would end any worry or extra time spent dealing with two states. However, I get your overall point, but most things do not cross borders like transportation does.

The federal government usually gets involved in one way or another when transportation projects crosses state borders. It is only a political problem when the states are funding the projects without federal involvement. But as soon as private enterprise is funding and operating the transportation project, it is no longer a problem for the states to solve with one another.
For example, almost all of the original bridges crossing the Mississippi River prior to the Federal Highway Trust Fund were privately funded, either by railroads themselves or by state government's selling bonds to fund which were eventually paid by users with tolls. Almost all the Mississippi River bridges except those in Minnesota crossed state borders.

The LV to LA HSR train will have to cross a state border. Virgin (Brightline or XpressWest) is a private company. Nevada taxpayers are not going to have to spend much in California, likewise California taxpayers are not going to have to spend much in Nevada. But do not be surprised by Virgin asking for tax abatements in both states for stations and maintenance shops within both respective states.

TWAK Jun 14, 2019 5:32 AM

I was under the impression that the Newsome govt would go over the plan again and "fix" it. Like it or not it passed a vote so we should get 9 billion of construction, but 9 billion now is what...worth a few miles? :haha: We should have HSR around the entire country IMO, or at least electrify the system nationally. Clearly plenty of the opposition is from people who don't live here, which is fine, I get it. People aren't gonna support something that they can't see or use.

jmecklenborg Jun 14, 2019 7:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8605023)
In the particular case of HSR in California, just not having a spur to LV would end any worry or extra time spent dealing with two states. However, I get your overall point, but most things do not cross borders like transportation does.

I don't anticipate that the LV thing is really going to happen.

The right way to do this is to create a 3-state agency to handle a triangle of HSR between LA/SD, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.

A line between Phoenix and Las Vegas could use the Phoenix-SoCal tracks past the Calfornia border, then travel due north parallel to US 95. Such an alignment would avoid having to cross the Colorado River at the Hoover Dam or any of the difficult spots to the south.

Much of the construction would be through a landscape like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0974...7i16384!8i8192

electricron Jun 16, 2019 9:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8605790)
I don't anticipate that the LV thing is really going to happen.

The right way to do this is to create a 3-state agency to handle a triangle of HSR between LA/SD, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.

A line between Phoenix and Las Vegas could use the Phoenix-SoCal tracks past the Calfornia border, then travel due north parallel to US 95. Such an alignment would avoid having to cross the Colorado River at the Hoover Dam or any of the difficult spots to the south.

Much of the construction would be through a landscape like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0974...7i16384!8i8192

Yes, much of the landscape is rural and desert, so construction costs should be lower. But where will the builders/contractors live during construction? How much will that add to the costs to build?

I keep repeating that HSR has a two to three hour sweet spot. Amtrak’s Acela Service between NY and DC takes 3 hours 10 minutes on average (225 rail miles), and NY to Boston takes 3 hours 50 minutes on average. It falls just short of that sweet spot, which is why Amtrak is willing to spend $Billions for a relatively small 10 minutes of time savings.
LA to LV by driving distance is 263 miles. LA to Victorville is 82 miles, Victorville to LV is 188 miles - yes the sum of the legs do not add up to the total.
For a train to make the LA-LV trip in 2 hours, it would have to average 132.5 mph.
For a train to make the LA-LV trip in 3 hours, it would have to average 88.3 mph.

LV to Phoenix driving distance is 297 miles.
For a train to make the trip in 2 hours, it would have to average 148.5 mph
For a train to make the trip in 3 hours, it would have to average 99 mph
LA to Phoenix driving distance is 373 miles.
For a train to make the trip in 2 hours, it would have to average 186.5 mph
For a train to make the trip in 3 hours, it would have to average 124.3 mph

Keep in mind that Acela trains between NY to DC average around 70 mph. Trains to LV will have the advantage of no stations between Victorville and Las Vegas, and could reach maximum speeds for about 188 miles, a fairly long time for HSR trains. So they should have higher average speeds than what Acela achieves on the NEC with even slower trains.

But I still do not see LA to Phoenix passengers choosing HSR over a jet plane in the numbers required to make it worthwhile.

Busy Bee Jun 16, 2019 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8601592)
From what I have read, much will go to shore up state & municipal pension funds, to subsidize Medi-Cal, and to subsidize health insurance premiums for the middle class. Additionally, a ton will be locked in a rainy day fund.

With all of those issues shored up, hopefully in 2020 Gov. Newsom will direct money to big infrastructure projects like HSR. And it's likely that Trump will be shown the door in 2020, meaning that a Democrat President will pick up where Obama left off with support for CAHSR.

Where is California's windfall coming from? A lot of it is coming from capital gains, since California taxes capital gains as ordinary income, and California has a ton of wealthy citizens. Some other states do that as well, like Ohio, but Great Lakes and Midwestern trust funders tend to move places like...California.

By contrast, Tennessee has never had an income tax and will eliminate its 6% capital gains tax, known colloquially as the "Hall Tax", by 2021. This is a huge giveaway to the wealthy, since the working class rarely experiences a capital gain. This loss in revenue is being covered by -- you guessed it -- raising the sales tax. And typical of "low tax" states, Tennessee's sales tax taxes food, which "high tax" states often do not. "Low Tax" is simply a euphemism for pushing tax collections in a regressive direction.

What he said.

badrunner Jun 16, 2019 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8605790)
A line between Phoenix and Las Vegas could use the Phoenix-SoCal tracks past the Calfornia border, then travel due north parallel to US 95. Such an alignment would avoid having to cross the Colorado River at the Hoover Dam or any of the difficult spots to the south.

I don't know if such an alignment will be viable for LA-Vegas.
~270 miles by car vs. ~450 miles by train. Driving would be faster in most cases.

jmecklenborg Jun 17, 2019 6:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 8607096)
But I still do not see LA to Phoenix passengers choosing HSR over a jet plane in the numbers required to make it worthwhile.

Well CAHSR Phase 2 is the preparation for HSR to Phoenix. It will be 110mph fully grade separated operation between LA Union and San Diego via a wildly circuitous route to Riverside. The goal of this project is not to link San Diego with NoCal but rather to create very high quality regional/commuter rail and set the stage for HSR trains to and from Phoenix from both Los Angeles and San Diego.

It's going to be about a 2hr 30 minute ride from LA Union or DT SD to Phoenix but obviously much shorter from the Inland Empire, which has a population of 4+ million. My guess is that there would be a station at Palm Springs and maybe one in the west suburbs of Phoenix aside from their downtown.

SFBruin Jun 24, 2019 2:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8607370)
It's going to be about a 2hr 30 minute ride from LA Union or DT SD to Phoenix but obviously much shorter from the Inland Empire, which has a population of 4+ million. My guess is that there would be a station at Palm Springs and maybe one in the west suburbs of Phoenix aside from their downtown.

That would actually be pretty dope. I could see lots of people taking the train from LA to Phoenix, given that the demographics of the two metros are similar (lots of young people, I would imagine) and the terrain probably allows for a reasonably direct route.

It all depends on the price of a ticket.

jmecklenborg Jun 27, 2019 4:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin (Post 8614298)
and the terrain probably allows for a reasonably direct route.

From what I can tell from Google Earth (I have never been to Arizona) it does not appear that there will need to be any tunnels or major bridges between Palm Springs and the edge of Phoenix. That is a distance of about 250 miles of high speed operation, so about 1 hour, 15 minutes of travel time. It's unclear how complicated things will be between Riverside and Palm Springs (again, I've never been to that area).

Unfortunately the freight railroad approach to Phoenix's downtown station has a ton of freight sidings, so getting HSR into downtown Phoenix with a fully grade-separated ROW will be very expensive. It'll probably be cheaper to buy out some of the businesses and pay to move them elsewhere in the metro than to build miles and miles of viaduct or trench for HSR. This would be needed even for 110mph like the planned blended service approaching LA and SF.

Not counting the CAHSR Phase 2 construction to the Inland Empire from both LA and San Diego, a new railroad between that point and the edge of Phoenix, including trains and a maintenance facility, will probably cost at least $20 billion. But there shouldn't be any of the big unknowns that haunt CAHSR like the Pacheco Pass Tunnel, Grapevine vs. Palm Springs alignment, I-5 versus Central Valley, etc.

electricron Jun 27, 2019 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8617821)
From what I can tell from Google Earth (I have never been to Arizona) it does not appear that there will need to be any tunnels or major bridges between Palm Springs and the edge of Phoenix. That is a distance of about 250 miles of high speed operation, so about 1 hour, 15 minutes of travel time. It's unclear how complicated things will be between Riverside and Palm Springs (again, I've never been to that area).

Unfortunately the freight railroad approach to Phoenix's downtown station has a ton of freight sidings, so getting HSR into downtown Phoenix with a fully grade-separated ROW will be very expensive. It'll probably be cheaper to buy out some of the businesses and pay to move them elsewhere in the metro than to build miles and miles of viaduct or trench for HSR. This would be needed even for 110mph like the planned blended service approaching LA and SF.

Not counting the CAHSR Phase 2 construction to the Inland Empire from both LA and San Diego, a new railroad between that point and the edge of Phoenix, including trains and a maintenance facility, will probably cost at least $20 billion. But there shouldn't be any of the big unknowns that haunt CAHSR like the Pacheco Pass Tunnel, Grapevine vs. Palm Springs alignment, I-5 versus Central Valley, etc.

Very true from Palm Springs to Phoenix, but when will CHSR build its lines from LA to SD? This HSR corridor is even more handicapped with the non-existent for decades section of CHSR as the HSR corridor to LV! And there is still the gap over significant grades between Palm Springs and San Bernardino, which will probably cost as much to build as between Palm Springs and Phoenix. Additionally, land values within the LA basin is amongst the highest in the nation.

It’s 313 driving miles between Palm Springs and Phoenix, 54 driving miles between San Bernardino and Palm Springs, and 60 driving miles between LA and San Bernardino. The total distance is around 427 miles following I-10.

Obadno Jun 27, 2019 8:34 PM

Southwest HSR loops Between LA, San Diego, Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson would be awesome but I dont see it happening bro's

Well not for several decades that is.

There are already things like Flixbus https://www.flixbus.com/bus-routes and JetsuiteX https://www.jetsuitex.com/destinations are both staring out in the emerging great southwest regional connections.

jmecklenborg Jun 27, 2019 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 8618087)
Very true from Palm Springs to Phoenix, but when will CHSR build its lines from LA to SD?

There is no specific date in the current political climate. If Clinton had defeated Trump (well, actually she did), there would be way more federal money headed to rail nationwide instead of cutbacks and the usual harassment. Trump is likely headed back to his perch in Trump Tower in 2020 so we should see a return of TIGER grants, robust intercity rail funding, etc.

This graphic is a bit out-of-date but it illustrates the options that are to be studied:
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/State..._sandiego.html

Obviously, the eastern option favors SD>Phoenix whereas the western option favors SD to NoCal. However, you also see the southern route near LA Union that would be necessary for trains that originate in SD to continue north to NoCal.

My hunch is that switching trains at LA Union for service from NoCal to San Diego won't be a big deal, and therefore save billions in the cost necessary to build a thru connection, but that's why these things are studied.






Quote:

Additionally, land values within the LA basin is amongst the highest in the nation.

Most of the rail ROW's in the LA basin are 100 feet wide, which is insanely wide by national standards. That width will easily accommodate 4 parallel tracks - 2 for freight and 2 for electrified intercity passenger rail and electrified commuter rail.

Judging from Google Earth it looks like there is a 100-foot ROW available pretty much everywhere from Ontario Airport eastward to San Bernadino and over the hills to Palm Springs. The big obstruction is this rail yard, which will have to be bridged or tunneled under:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pa...4d-116.5452921

Obadno Jun 27, 2019 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8618238)
There is no specific date in the current political climate. If Clinton had defeated Trump (well, actually she did), there would be way more federal money headed to rail nationwide instead of cutbacks and the usual harassment. Trump is likely headed back to his perch in Trump Tower in 2020 so we should see a return of TIGER grants, robust intercity rail funding, etc.

This graphic is a bit out-of-date but it illustrates the options that are to be studied:
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/State..._sandiego.html

Obviously, the eastern option favors SD>Phoenix whereas the western option favors SD to NoCal. However, you also see the southern route near LA Union that would be necessary for trains that originate in SD to continue north to NoCal.

My hunch is that switching trains at LA Union for service from NoCal to San Diego won't be a big deal, and therefore save billions in the cost necessary to build a thru connection, but that's why these things are studied.








Most of the rail ROW's in the LA basin are 100 feet wide, which is insanely wide by national standards. That width will easily accommodate 4 parallel tracks - 2 for freight and 2 for electrified intercity passenger rail and electrified commuter rail.

Judging from Google Earth it looks like there is a 100-foot ROW available pretty much everywhere from Ontario Airport eastward to San Bernadino and over the hills to Palm Springs. The big obstruction is this rail yard, which will have to be bridged or tunneled under:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pa...4d-116.5452921

I dont think getting transportation funding out of the Trump admin is actually as difficult as the left wing is sqwaking. Compared to a normal Republican he has expressed many times his support for a massive infrastructure bill.

Policy wise he is roughly a democrat from 20 years ago.

As usual its congress that is the biggest obstacle and mostly useless vestigial organ of the government.

jmecklenborg Jun 28, 2019 5:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8618272)
I dont think getting transportation funding out of the Trump admin is actually as difficult as the left wing is sqwaking. Compared to a normal Republican he has expressed many times his support for a massive infrastructure bill. As usual its congress that is the biggest obstacle and mostly useless vestigial organ of the government.

The last Republican President to sign a pro-transit, pro-rail bill was Nixon's UMTA in 1970. It funded a bunch of stuff we see around the country today (MARTA, Baltimore Subway, Miami Metrorail, Buffalo's Subway) plus it was a backdoor bailout of NYC and Chicago since they were able to avoid state/county/city bailouts of the MTA and the L for deferred maintenance.

Since then, nothing explicit has passed under a Republican. Reagan signed off on the Big Dig, but that wasn't rail, obviously. I have actually read the entire 1982 Transportation Bill and there were a few handouts for bike trails and rail back then when earmarks were still a thing.

But after Newt Gingrich, and certainly during the reign of Mitch McConnel, there have zero earmarks, excepting the Olmstead Lock & Dam $3 billion that was slipped into one of the government shut-down bills by you-guessed-it, Mitch McConnell. And where is the Olmstead Lock & Dam? In Kentucky - er - between Kentucky and Illinois.

I'll repeat that there really needs to be an interstate coalition to get rail built between California, Nevada, and Arizona. That will require the state of Diane Feinstein, etc., collaborating with the states of Barry Goldwater and Harry Reid. In the past, these sorts of efforts happened all of the time. Unfortunately, the Republican party since Gringrich went nuts and sensible coalitions haven't occurred in 20~ years.

the undertaker Jun 28, 2019 6:41 PM

Metro Board Approves Link US Union Station Run-Through Tracks

https://la.streetsblog.org/2019/06/2...hrough-tracks/

Busy Bee Jun 29, 2019 2:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8618914)
The last Republican President to sign a pro-transit, pro-rail bill was Nixon's UMTA in 1970. It funded a bunch of stuff we see around the country today (MARTA, Baltimore Subway, Miami Metrorail, Buffalo's Subway) plus it was a backdoor bailout of NYC and Chicago since they were able to avoid state/county/city bailouts of the MTA and the L for deferred maintenance.

Since then, nothing explicit has passed under a Republican. Reagan signed off on the Big Dig, but that wasn't rail, obviously. I have actually read the entire 1982 Transportation Bill and there were a few handouts for bike trails and rail back then when earmarks were still a thing.

But after Newt Gingrich, and certainly during the reign of Mitch McConnel, there have zero earmarks, excepting the Olmstead Lock & Dam $3 billion that was slipped into one of the government shut-down bills by you-guessed-it, Mitch McConnell. And where is the Olmstead Lock & Dam? In Kentucky - er - between Kentucky and Illinois.

I'll repeat that there really needs to be an interstate coalition to get rail built between California, Nevada, and Arizona. That will require the state of Diane Feinstein, etc., collaborating with the states of Barry Goldwater and Harry Reid. In the past, these sorts of efforts happened all of the time. Unfortunately, the Republican party since Gringrich went nuts and sensible coalitions haven't occurred in 20~ years.

100%:hell:

SFBruin Jun 30, 2019 4:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8618914)
I have actually read the entire 1982 Transportation Bill

Kudos to you for doing that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8618914)
I'll repeat that there really needs to be an interstate coalition to get rail built between California, Nevada, and Arizona.

I couldn't agree more.

Obadno Jul 9, 2019 3:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8618914)
The last Republican President to sign a pro-transit, pro-rail bill was Nixon's UMTA in 1970. It funded a bunch of stuff we see around the country today (MARTA, Baltimore Subway, Miami Metrorail, Buffalo's Subway) plus it was a backdoor bailout of NYC and Chicago since they were able to avoid state/county/city bailouts of the MTA and the L for deferred maintenance.

Since then, nothing explicit has passed under a Republican. Reagan signed off on the Big Dig, but that wasn't rail, obviously. I have actually read the entire 1982 Transportation Bill and there were a few handouts for bike trails and rail back then when earmarks were still a thing.

But after Newt Gingrich, and certainly during the reign of Mitch McConnel, there have zero earmarks, excepting the Olmstead Lock & Dam $3 billion that was slipped into one of the government shut-down bills by you-guessed-it, Mitch McConnell. And where is the Olmstead Lock & Dam? In Kentucky - er - between Kentucky and Illinois.

I'll repeat that there really needs to be an interstate coalition to get rail built between California, Nevada, and Arizona. That will require the state of Diane Feinstein, etc., collaborating with the states of Barry Goldwater and Harry Reid. In the past, these sorts of efforts happened all of the time. Unfortunately, the Republican party since Gringrich went nuts and sensible coalitions haven't occurred in 20~ years.

Do you really think Arizona of 1960 is anything like Arizona today?

Why are you comparing the Current admin that has EXPRESSLY STATED it wants a massive infrastructure bill to Bush's?

The only reason there is not currently an infrastructure bill being debated in congress is because the Congressional democrats dont want to work with Trump for political reasons. Trump has specifically asked Pelosi to work on infrastructure multiple times.

Now you are correct the other idiots in congress, senate republicans, will be a bitch to deal with but you have a house and a president that would work on infrastructure even if McConnell would be reluctant.

202_Cyclist Jul 9, 2019 8:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8627626)
Do you really think Arizona of 1960 is anything like Arizona today?

Why are you comparing the Current admin that has EXPRESSLY STATED it wants a massive infrastructure bill to Bush's?

The only reason there is not currently an infrastructure bill being debated in congress is because the Congressional democrats dont want to work with Trump for political reasons. Trump has specifically asked Pelosi to work on infrastructure multiple times.

Now you are correct the other idiots in congress, senate republicans, will be a bitch to deal with but you have a house and a president that would work on infrastructure even if McConnell would be reluctant.

JajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaJajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaJajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja!

"The Trump Administration wants to cut funding for new transit projects by 39 percent and slash funding for Amtrak by 23 percent — even as it raises highway spending — the preliminary 2020 budget reveals."

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/03/...ransit-amtrak/

LosAngelesSportsFan Jul 9, 2019 9:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8627626)
Do you really think Arizona of 1960 is anything like Arizona today?

Why are you comparing the Current admin that has EXPRESSLY STATED it wants a massive infrastructure bill to Bush's?

The only reason there is not currently an infrastructure bill being debated in congress is because the Congressional democrats dont want to work with Trump for political reasons. Trump has specifically asked Pelosi to work on infrastructure multiple times.

Now you are correct the other idiots in congress, senate republicans, will be a bitch to deal with but you have a house and a president that would work on infrastructure even if McConnell would be reluctant.

the willful ignorance displayed by trumpanzees is freaking unbelievable

Busy Bee Jul 9, 2019 9:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8627626)
Do you really think Arizona of 1960 is anything like Arizona today?

Why are you comparing the Current admin that has EXPRESSLY STATED it wants a massive infrastructure bill to Bush's?

The only reason there is not currently an infrastructure bill being debated in congress is because the Congressional democrats dont want to work with Trump for political reasons. Trump has specifically asked Pelosi to work on infrastructure multiple times.

Now you are correct the other idiots in congress, senate republicans, will be a bitch to deal with but you have a house and a president that would work on infrastructure even if McConnell would be reluctant.


Please Tell Me You're Joking

Do you really think his own party is going to pass an ambitious infra bill? They aren't going to spend ONE dime! They don't have a dime anyways, they gave it all to rich folks who didn't need it and corporations making record profits and hardly paying any taxes in the first place. And even if they did they'd just figure out a way to give it to the Pentagon/MIC. Wake up kid, doo doo's coming out your mouth. President game show host is a loathsome confidence artist and conscienceless self-promoter without precedent. Some people knew it years ago and some people still don't, but with time all will. Well maybe not all, every fanatical cult has true believers that are fools to the grave.

mousquet Jul 9, 2019 10:43 PM

I'm pretty pissed at what's happening. I don't care whether human industry would be responsible for so-called climate change or not.
That's not even the point. The only point is it's always far better to be clean than filthy, and y'all know it.
It just feels better. You all feel better after taking a good shower.
So that you don't stink, pigs.

According to our news over here, the Trump administration has been much much busier at messing up US environmental regulations than at funding efficient infrastructures, which is quite some concern here in Western Europe.

Just beware of short-term money. It certainly doesn't mean serious innovation or survival in our experience... It only means stupid greed.
Senile fossil Mr Trump doesn't seem to be aware. I surely would call him the same if I had to face him for real. Unlike him, I'm nothing in the world, then I don't give a crap.

For instance, when Michigan's national parks are completely ruined by highways and pipelines, your country's done and your progeny has to move.

Obadno Jul 9, 2019 10:48 PM

Its like you people didnt even read my whole post

Lol whatever, the guy publicly advocates for infrastructure bills which is absolutely true. Raging about Trump because the GOP generally does not support infrastructure and Transit is just partisan idiocy.

Which is exactly why there will not be an infrastructure bill despite the current president obviously being willing to sign one because he wants one.

badrunner Jul 9, 2019 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8628186)
Its like you people didnt even read my whole post

Lol whatever, the guy publicly advocates for infrastructure bills which is absolutely true. Raging about Trump because the GOP generally does not support infrastructure and Transit is just partisan idiocy.

Which is exactly why there will not be an infrastructure bill despite the current president obviously being willing to sign one because he wants one.

He also publicly advocated for "draining the swamp" and "fighting for the little guy." I bet you believe that too.

Obadno Jul 9, 2019 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner (Post 8628193)
He also publicly advocated for "draining the swamp" and "fighting for the little guy." I bet you believe that too.

This has nothing to do with what I believe. The current admin has been beating the infrastructure drum since the campaigns of 2016.

Of any recent republican president that would mean to me the current one is the best chance you are going to have to get an infrastructure bill passed outside of some unlikely future democrat super majority.

But you guys are more interested in having a Trump bitch fest so why bother? Partisan nonsense

badrunner Jul 9, 2019 11:18 PM

Infrastructure can be anything - highways, oil pipelines etc. The post you were responding to specifically stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8618914)
The last Republican President to sign a pro-transit, pro-rail bill was Nixon's UMTA in 1970.

Which, incidentally, is what this thread is about...

I also like how you completely ignored this:

"The Trump Administration wants to cut funding for new transit projects by 39 percent and slash funding for Amtrak by 23 percent — even as it raises highway spending — the preliminary 2020 budget reveals."

So yeah, keep beating that infrastructure drum. It's all the democrats fault :haha:

Busy Bee Jul 10, 2019 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8628201)
The current admin has been beating the infrastructure drum since the campaigns of 2016.

Along with all the other Democratic positions he co-opted and sold to the hoards of low information voters

electricron Jul 10, 2019 1:59 AM

Stop blaming Trump for California's Governors slowing down the CHSR project. The democratic governor of California slowed future construction funding by the state all by himself.
It is way over budget, way late, and poorly managed. And you still expect the rest of the country to fund it? Golly, just this past week they announced their preferred alternate build between SJ and Gilroy. We are still waiting the preferred alternate build between Bakersfield and Los Angeles, Los Angeles to San Diego, and Merced to Sacramento. Have they or have they not finalized the preferred alternate build for Gilroy to Merced, and Los Angeles to Anaheim yet?

You can't spend money building something you have not finalized where and what to build, even if you have it, which they do not.
Golly, it should not take 12+ years (three Presidential terms) to decide exactly where and what to build, and how much it will ultimately cost.

jmecklenborg Jul 10, 2019 2:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8628186)
Its like you people didnt even read my whole post

Lol whatever, the guy publicly advocates for infrastructure bills which is absolutely true.

He has lied about everything his entire life, but you're believing him.

jmecklenborg Jul 10, 2019 3:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 8628337)
Stop blaming Trump for California's Governors slowing down the CHSR project.

If Clinton or any other Democrat had been elected, federal money would be flowing freely to CAHSR. We'd be much further along than we are now, meaning the project couldn't have served as a wedge issue, and so Newsom (or whoever won the office after Brown) would be under no pressure to take their foot off the gas.

Obstructionists intentionally cause problems - especially budget problems - to create wedge issues that they themselves frame in such a way as to doom their target. It's been going on since Ancient Greece. It keeps working because a low percentage of the public recognizes the behavior, including plenty of internet forum know-it-alls.

Obadno Jul 10, 2019 4:41 AM

Can you freaks take a second to remember how bills are passed in the united states? ??


Srsly stop and use your brain to stop raging about Trump for a second.

To pass a bill the House, Senate must agree and then the President must sign.

What other combination is there going ot be a chance to pass a federal infrastructure bill.

Currently, You have a house that would vote for it, and a President that would sign it. All you would need to do is compromise with the Senate GOP. A much easier task than any other potential especially with a GOP president.

lets consider the alternatives other than the very unlikely possibility of a super majority house and senate and President all controlled by the DNC.

-Gop House, Gop Senate, GOP president

No go, the congress wont propose a bill even if Trump would be willing to sign it, a normal GOP president wouldn't

-Democrat House, Senate and GOP president

A GOP president would not sign a bill, if Trump he likely wouldn't do to political posturing. Good luck getting enough votes to overturn a veto

- Split house/senate with a DNC president.

Dead in the water, GOP would kill it in congress

-GOP house senate wit DNC president

No bill would be presented for the DNC president to pass.

You idiots are so locked into meaningless Turmp bullshit that you cant even take a second to give one single issue a moment of analysis.

If you want an infrastructure bill anytime soon, the house should work with Trump to get the GOP senate to compromise. Its literally the best potentially opportunity for the foreseeable future. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to consider what it takes to pass a bill.

I look forward to a few more nonsensical posts about how I am some sort of "brainwashed trump supporter" for simply stating the reality.

SFBruin Jul 10, 2019 5:13 AM

Can we please talk about the actual project and not about politics?

jmecklenborg Jul 10, 2019 6:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8628428)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to consider what it takes to pass a bill.


Republicans have been intentionally starving public works for decades to set the stage for privatization of...everything. They'd sell off the interstate highways to their Wall St. buddies if given the chance.

Busy Bee Jul 10, 2019 8:17 PM

Along with their souls if they haven't already.

badrunner Jul 10, 2019 8:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin (Post 8628447)
Can we please talk about the actual project and not about politics?

No, apparently we needed a civics lesson from a simpleton :haha:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ea/af...e4625fde1a.jpg

SFBruin Jul 11, 2019 4:38 AM

Since I am a little behind on this project and am trying to get a better sense of local projects in general: Has there been a study of the financial viability of a San Jose to Anaheim segment without a connection to San Francisco?

I am wondering if that could be financially viable as a standalone segment for some years while the details and financing of the portion from San Jose to San Francisco are worked out.

electricron Jul 11, 2019 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin (Post 8629422)
Since I am a little behind on this project and am trying to get a better sense of local projects in general: Has there been a study of the financial viability of a San Jose to Anaheim segment without a connection to San Francisco?

I am wondering if that could be financially viable as a standalone segment for some years while the details and financing of the portion from San Jose to San Francisco are worked out.

They are building the SJ to SF section already with the electrification of the CalTrains line, and the building of the new train station in SF. The latest DEIS preferred alternate does not include adding third passing tracks. So that leaves how they will improve the station in SJ and where to build layover and maintenance facilities. As far as the mainline between SF and SJ is concerned, it is being refurbished as much as it will be right now.

SFBruin Jul 12, 2019 5:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 8629507)
They are building the SJ to SF section already with the electrification of the CalTrains line, and the building of the new train station in SF. The latest DEIS preferred alternate does not include adding third passing tracks. So that leaves how they will improve the station in SJ and where to build layover and maintenance facilities. As far as the mainline between SF and SJ is concerned, it is being refurbished as much as it will be right now.

Got it, thank you.

sammyg Jul 12, 2019 2:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin (Post 8628447)
Can we please talk about the actual project and not about politics?

There used to be a separate thread for these political arguments, what happened to it?

SFBruin Jul 13, 2019 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammyg (Post 8630632)
There used to be a separate thread for these political arguments, what happened to it?

Yeah, sorry for being all preachy about everything. I come to this thread in part to escape politics, and I get annoyed when it is here front and center.

I guess I should just ignore it. I'll try to do that from here on out.

Having separate threads is a good idea, though.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:00 AM.

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