|
Irritating. I really want this thing to back to the drawing board and done over again.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
Quote:
|
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:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
And AGAIN: WHY NOT HAVE THE UC SCHOOLS VALIDATE THE COSTS AND BENEFITS? You are studiously avoiding answering that question. |
Quote:
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/first_world.htm Seriously, this probably ranks as one of your most inaccurate comments thus far on this forum. Quote:
http://gulzar05.blogspot.com/2011/12...eign-debt.html http://english.ruvr.ru/2012/01/12/63720328.html |
edit
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
If you live in Brentwood, use Burbank: plenty of flights to 4 Bay Area airports. |
Quote:
Quote:
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.. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
I almost always drive when I go to the Bay Area, although 5-6 hours behind the wheel is tiring. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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! |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
EDIT - Sorry for the messy post, for some reason it isn't "quoting" correctly. |
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:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
How is HSR not a "sunk cost"? So? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
Don't know about the 99, although I can't imagine it's any better than the 5. HSR is an investment California needs to make. |
Quote:
Good post. Just an historical factoid - the deathknell for passenger rail was sounded when the Post Office quit using trains to deliver first class mail (at one time, "air mail" was more expensive). That was a big subsidy and without it, the railroads began to dump every passenger train they had. Meanwhile, the government was pouring money into highways and air travel. |
Quote:
But in any event, it doesn't seem relevant to California; you really should check your facts. Ca HSR themselves EMPHASIZED the issue of profitability while pushing the ballot initiative, claiming that they would make money and return revenues to the state. Presumably they took this approach because they had minimal chance of passing the ballot measure if it was understood to cost 100B up front and large operating losses annually thereafter. On review, it turned out that their business plan was so flawed that the DEMOCRAT controlled state legislative analyst and 3 other state audit agencies found the documents did not constitute a business plan. The re-did it with no better success. Still no adequate support for revenues, cost or funding sources. HSR also SPECIFICALLY said that private parties were eager to be involved due to the profit potential. They have gotten zero interested investors. They also suggested that funding would be available from the Chinese, Japanese or others engineering firms. Turned out the Chinese would only extend funds if the repayment (plus interest) was guaranteed by the federal govt. AND if they got their usual profit margins to boot. A final blow was the arrogance of HSR, basically disregarding those who complained about noise, eminent domain, splitting of cities, etc. Apparently these are little people, who don't count. This is why so many previous supporters (including myself) have changed their minds about HSR and the people who run it. |
I think there has been plenty of private interests in this project, unfortunately none of it Californian or even American.
|
Your self-serving anecdotes don't address the consensus among the experts in the field that population increase over the next 30 years will increase intra-state transit beyond what the current infrastructure can handle.
Quote:
|
OMG... Are we really still debating whether High-Speed rail in general is a good investment for California, and not the precise reasons for it's increased costs (grade-sepeation, dedicated ROWs, etc.)?
|
Story from This Week in Northern California on KQED
Las Vegas is mentioned a few times in this story and I am not aware that Vegas is part of the plan--is CAHSR saying that? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
(sarcasm) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 7:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev