Environmentalists Need To Keep Perspective
There are two kinds of environmentalism out there. The older kind is a 20th century environmentalism that believes the automobile society is perfectly fine – the problem is when it encroaches on open space. This kind of environmentalist looks at you quizzically when you talk about carbon emissions or sustainable transportation, but gets very worked up about a proposal to convert open space to some kind of use. This kind of environmentalist is willing to oppose solar and wind power because of its effect on open space. They don’t ever really stop to consider the big picture, because they believe everything is just fine if we never build on open space ever again.
The newer kind of environmentalism is a 21st century environmentalism that understands the huge crisis we have placed our planet in because of our burning of fossil fuels. This kind of environmentalist knows that the status quo is killing species left and right – that even if we never built another thing on any existing open space, we’d still be fucked because we’re burning carbon like it’s going out of style (which it actually is). This kind of environmentalist knows that it’s worth trading some open space for sustainability, because it won’t do us or other species much good if we preserve open space and yet keep on burning carbon.
Open space environmentalism has reached the end of its useful life. Its de facto alliance with the automobile society has produced a huge crisis for our environment, a crisis which sustainability environmentalism has to solve. And some of those solutions necessarily require open space to be used. Something has to give if we are to tackle the big issue, the climate crisis.
That situation ought to be kept in mind when reading Dug Begley’s excellent article on DesertXpress detractors. The article discusses concerns in Barstow and Baker about being bypassed, and we’ve dealt with that issue before – we should spend money to help a place like Barstow adapt to change, rather than spend money to allow it to cling to a failing model. Serving freeway travelers is not going to be something much in demand in the 21st century. They deserve help to develop something new, not a pointless station.
But the other objection being lodged is from open space environmentalists, as Begley reports:
Environmentalists worry the trains would do more harm than good. Taking cars off the road reduces vehicle emissions, but construction of the route will leave an impact on some of the most sensitive areas of the Mojave, they say. Rare plants such as Joshua trees and centuries-old Mojave creosote would be displaced.
About two square miles of habitat for the desert tortoise — fully protected by federal and state laws — would be permanently affected.
What has to be kept in mind is that something like climate change is going to impact even the desert tortoise. Displacing plants is unavoidable, and can be mitigated. Dealing with habitat for a species like the desert tortoise is not easy, but there are solutions that can be employed:
What might be less damaging for the tortoises is if the train traveled through a small section of the Mojave National Preserve south of I-15 through the Ivanpah Valley, said Larry Whalon, the preserve’s interim superintendent. Whalon said National Park Service officials have told Desert Xpress backers the procedure for taking a portion of the preserve, which would require an act of Congress….
Many desert creatures could see their territories fragmented by the train, which could be difficult for them to cross. Animals can use washes to get beneath the freeway, [David Lamfrom, a conservationist] said.
“But the train, I don’t see that as passable with a rail line and the electrical system,” he said.
I’d think that if preserving habitat can be done by taking a small piece of Mojave National Preserve for the train, it’s worth doing – open space environmentalists would probably howl, but the Mojave is better off with fewer cars on I-15 than with a small piece of the preserve remaining as it is today.
Additionally, I have to believe that a train would be just as passable as a freeway. It would have to bridge the same washes that I-15 does. Otherwise the tracks would be at risk of getting swept away during a desert flash flood – exactly why the desert freeways (Interstates 10, 15, and 40) all have lots of little culverts underneath them where washes exist.
In any case, it’s to the benefit of the Mojave and everything living in it – including Barstow and Baker residents – that this train get built. The big picture of rising gas prices and a climate crisis have to be kept in foremost mind. This doesn’t mean we just pave over the desert without care, or that we just wave goodbye to towns like Barstow and Baker. We can and should mitigate the impact to both.
Joshua Trees and Mojave Creosote bushes exist a lot out here, Joshua Trees get more numerous the closer one gets to Cajon Pass of course, As rare depends on ones point of view, the DX will not displace or effect all that many of these two plant species, At least not enough to hurt the two species, As they are not even close to extinction or being endangered, They just see DX as more development to be stopped, If a Volcano or two in the area nearby rumbled back to life(god forbid), It would destroy as many or more as DX would and the environmentalists would not say a thing, Man is a part of the environment and must be sensitive in what We as a species do, If some plants must go for DX, then that is that, At least the tracks will be better than more & more freeway expansion. And yes something must be done to Help those in Barstow and for the surrounding desert communities that depend on Barstow for their very lives, Plus Baker must not be ignored as It’s important too.
K. Star Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 6:10 pm
I’m not sure how worked up I can get about welfare about those desert communities. I’m not certain that high speed rail will supplant much car travel as much as the long terms effects of ever rising oil prices. They should view this project as transitional help as rail starts to supplant truck and car traffic in the economy in general.
As for the track, fences and wildlife overpasses are mandated by the DOT and EPA:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/downloads/Appendix_F_B_Highway_Interface_Manual.pdf
joe Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 8:23 pm
The point is rising oil prices WILL impact travel and hurt the economy.
I’m of the camp that thinks poor economic conditions puts the environment more at risk than an economy with a higher standard of living – that uses less energy.
We’ve equated that higher standard of living with owning and operating a big fat car.
If we move to better, less costly transportation then we’ve helped maintain a quality of life and cut down on de facto mandated automobile use.
maybe the demise of the US auto industry will allow this shift to happen.
VBobier Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 9:54 pm
I for one do not own a big fat car, I own a 1999 Ford Escort zx2 Hot Coupe that needs some more work on an A/C leak that’s under the dash most likely and the estimate at Ford will cost Me $98 in either July or August to get done, the actual work might not get done until December, But then I have prior obligations before July and I live on a fixed income, which makes things difficult sometimes. Considering where I live a car is not optional as food can not be brought home on a bus as the limit is 4 bags per person per trip and I shop once a month and the bus only accepts coins which I rarely keep on hand.
Joe Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Those sound like tough circumstances. I lived for 13 years on a grad stipend. In tried to live in places that were walkable and used transit. It was voluntary but very tight.
We can continue to build cities and require cars or move to something else. HSR will promote local transit at the connections and reduce car dependency.
We live in an older neighborhood, walkable to Caltrain, shopping and city services, rather than living in a car based subdivision. We can get by on one car if necessary, if we have to downsize.
Donk Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 11:00 pm
13 years in grad school?!? I hope they gave you at least 2 PhDs and 4 MS for all of that! Maybe they threw in an MBA also…
VBobier Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Tight, Hmm, I don’t know anything about being a grad student, I suspect that My older niece does, She has a BA Degree in English & yep She pulls down a decent amount per year I’m told, I currently get $845 a month, As of July 1st It will be $830 a month as I’m a disabled person, I won’t go into the how or why though.
Al Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 9:36 am
And you, more than anyone, are hurt by rising oil prices, fat car or not. But we’re faced with a choice: for the government to continue to attempt to keep oil prices low (whether by direct subsidy, or by war, or by allowing more environmental degradation) in the face of steadily rising demand elsewhere, even as our debt balloons; or, for us to develop alternatives so that people like you and everyone else has the option to live a good life without maintaining today’s high fuel use. I choose that.
Ken Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Here’s a tip from a guy who feels the pain at the pump as you do: ditch the car and buy a motorcycle/scooter.
It’s the best of both worlds; gives you the freedom like a car yet it’s more maneuverable that it can squeeze through traffic, it gets great mileage (I get close to 60 mpg on my Suzuki Burgman), and you’d be amazed how much it can hold underneath the seat.
K. Star Reply:
April 6th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Ever driven through Barstow in August on a scooter…
VBobier Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 9:08 pm
There are people who live out here who can’t afford to live anywhere else through no fault of their own, I’m one of those people, I shop for some of My supplies like cat litter at Vons cause Stater Brothers won’t carry World’s Best cat litter which is made from corn and is flushable(Clay cat litter is bad for the lungs and one can get silicosis, It’s similar to black lung), A manager @ Stater Brothers in Barstow CA said that the litter was discontinued which is a lie, Vons still sells It(It flies off the shelf there), My costs would go up by about $37 a month If I had to shop only there and My income like a few others isn’t very much, But It’s better than being homeless, As of July 1st $930 a year below the poverty level.
K. Star Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 10:06 pm
I’m honestly not so bearish on Barstow. The Mountain Pass mine is set to reopen. With that Baker and Barstow will be boom by the time the DesertXpress starts running.
Ken Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
There are many ways one can do to cut costs. Have you looked into ditching your landline phone service and just go cell phone only? Lots of people are doing that these days.
Changing your lightbulbs to CFLs are another way to cut costs. It may cost more to buy, but the savings you get on your monthly electric bill are huge that it outweighs the initial cost. I halved my monthly electric bill by changing all of my bulbs (and by all, I mean ALL!) to CFLs.
James M. in Irvine Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 9:38 am
There will always be those that drive I 40 and I 15 through Barstow and Baker. My forecast is that after DX gets built, you won’t see much impact on Barstow revenues, at least at McDonald’s and other places frequented by highway travelers. Why? Because DX can’t carry motorhomes, boats and off-road recreational vehicles. Plus, there are always those travelers who just HAVE to have their car wherever they go. So, they still have to make the fuel stops and leg stretch stops.
I expect that after DX gets built to an L.A. connection, it will draw a lot from those whom would have flown and a lesser extent those that don’t want to sit in traffic. This would free up some space on the highways, and it makes room for other travelers.
$.02 worth from
Jim M.
VBobier Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 10:52 am
The UPRR has a rail line going near there, Outside of track going to the mine possibly, I don’t see much benefit to anywhere outside of maybe Baker, Primm(& Proper;)) or Las Vegas.
Although I don’t usually instigate thread drift, I was sort of surprised that Robert didn’t highlight this article from the LA Times about Southwest’s decision to ground almost 15% of their fleet after discovering stress fractures on the fuselage of the plane that lost cabin pressure Friday: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-southwest-20110403,0,68917.story
Dug Begley’s piece is very thoughtful, but it doesn’t really provide any new information. Besides, the Sierra Club supported Prop 1A after a few “conditions” were met.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 6:07 am
What ages a plane’s fuselage is not years or the number of miles flown. It is the number of pressurization-depressurization cycles creating cracks due to metal fatigue. Detecting those cracks demands long and expensive testing. In fact, these tests are only performed when a serious in-flight incident happens.
That’s one more advantage of HSR over short-haul airlines.
thatbruce Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Southwest’s fleet, along with other busy short-haul airlines, are more susceptible to pressure-cycle-induced metal fatigue than the fleets of the typical medium to long distance haulers due to the higher number of cycles that their aircraft go through in a given time period.
VBobier Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 10:23 am
And this is precisely one of the reasons why Southwest supports HSR, Cause these repairs are a drain on their accounts and the bad news from them is not too good either. Luckily the pilots could set down in Yuma AZ at a Marine Base/International Airport with No loss of life as It’s a 5′x1′ section that ripped open, The Government is getting a 9′ long section from this Ruptured Duck to closely examine.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Oh yes, I’m very aware of all this. What I’m surprised is that HSR Advocates are not using this situation, this “rolling blackout” of air travel if you will to their advantage. Forget high gas prices, the best selling point for HSR is incidents like this one.
Alan F Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Not really. Commercial airline travel in the US is incredibly safe on a statistical basis. You want to do something really dangerous, drive in a car for intercity travel.
HSR trains can have problems that can take a fleet out of service. The Acelas had problems with their brakes several years after they entered service on the NEC that caused Amtrak to take them out of service for a time until the problem was fixed.
The economics of short haul flights is what is going to get clobbered by sustained high fuel prices. The extra fatigue put on the airframes for repeated short haul pressurization cycles resulting in shorter operating lifespans in total hours compared to long distance flights is another cost for short haul flights.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Um yes, and no.
It’s true that Southwest “saved money” by abandoning a hub and spoke system in favor of point-to-point-(to point) flights that worked the planes much harder than previously envisioned. The danger is not what I am suggesting be exploited…it’s the unreliability. This could be a major problem for Southwest going forward and could cripple the ability of people in CA to get around.
thatbruce Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
The unreliability of what, exactly?
All of the things which could be characterised as ‘unreliable’ in this instance, such as an individual vehicle, vehicle class, operating company or system can be easily applied to any form of mass transit.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Southwest markets itself as being very reliable as an air carrier. It’s basically like taking a bus. The downside of this marketing strategy is that it belies that its planes (and crew) are worked harder than the competition. For years, this allowed Southwest to make money and take legacy carriers head on. Now we see, that it was a Faustian bargain and any number of planes out there could pop open next.
This isn’t about fear, though, it’s about the fact that as Robert himself admits, HSR tends to get more support when its obvious that the current transportation system is unraveling. So why should an incident like this one change the overall strategy? I don’t get it.
Spokker Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
It would be disingenuous to exploit the Southwest hole incident to ridicule an otherwise extremely safe form of travel. I’d phase out the 737s to appease a frazzled public and move on with life.
Opponents of rail also have plenty of examples to cherry pick.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Because?
Spokker Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Because it doesn’t make sense. Air travel is very safe.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Well that’s just it. The only plane that Southwest flies is a 737. These design flaws are well known, and really, CHSRA doesn’t have to mention the incident at all. Instead, a good strategy would be ratchet up HSR advertising and the like around the times such incidents happen.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 8:03 am
HSR supporters shouldn’t resort to the fearmongering tactics sometimes used by its opponents.
Phasing out B737s has no technical basis. The B737-NG (New Generation) has exactly the same fatal-accident rate as its competitor, the A320 (source airsafe.com).
Design flaws only affect older B737 models. Exploiting them is as unfair as exploiting the Eschede ICE disaster. Repairing faulty panels will solve the problem. It will oblige Southwest to increase fares, and that’s a more loyal argument than exploiting people’s irrational fears.
By the way, and contrary to what I read in other blogs, grounding B737s would have a negative impact on French aerospace industry. France’s largest jet-engine maker SNECMA would be badly hit since the B337 is its main source of revenue. It would be an immediate loss whereas the gain (if any) for Airbus would take years to materialize.
Clem Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Tell that to the survivors of the Eschede disaster… HSR done in by metal fatigue
Alex M. Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Wasn’t that train not going high speed?
thatbruce Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
The derailment occurred at 200km/hr (125mph). High-speed for some.
The accident was a series of unfortunate events, ie, if DB had properly tested the new wheel design before pressing it into high-speed service, then it might not have catastrophically failed. If the reports of excessive vibration on the failing wheelset had been acted upon earlier, then the accident may not have happened. If the passenger who initially noticed the wheel fragment embedded in the seat rest had hit the emergency stop immediately, then the train might have come to a halt before derailing. If the conductor had likewise hit the emergency stop immediately on being told of the event by the passenger, then the train might have been at a lower speed when it derailed. If the bridge did not have supporting piers in the middle of the ROW, then the train might not have brought the bridge down atop itself, bringing the rear carriages to a sudden and fatal halt.
A lot of ‘if’s there, and plenty of opportunities for avoidance.
egk Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
… combined with a very unfortunately-located switch and a concrete bridge.
The fun site http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm points out that over 90% of air fatalities happen in the first and last stages of a flight, making fatalities/trip a much more accurate measure of risk for air travel than fatalities/passenger-mile.
So since there are about as many air passenger trips in the USA annually (just about 650 million) as there are rail passenger trips in Germany, we can directly compare the average of 22 American air fatalities per year to the 5 German rail fatalities. Flying is way more dangerous than taking a train.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 8:14 am
Are there any statistics for people having an accident on the road to the airport?
I wouldn’t be too surprised if the most dangerous part of a trip was driving to/from the airport.
You’re kind of butchering environmentalism’s history. In reality, the dividing line is not 2000, but 1960, between the pro-management, pro-authority environmentalism of Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir, and the small-is-beautiful environmentalism of Rachel Carson. (For what it’s worth, Carson, Jane Jacobs, and Christopher Alexander came from the same place, which is why the newer kind of environmentalism is more sympathetic to organic cities; the conservationists of the early 20th century were precisely the anti-urbanists Jacobs rebelled against.)
What you’re describing is not an ideological rift within environmentalism. It’s a fact of life that everyone can be assholes, even environmentalists. Berkeley rejects BRT for NIMBY reasons, almost-as-liberal Peninsula cities scaremonger against HSR, and the Kennedies oppose wind power in Cape Cod.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 9:35 am
Its only not an ideological rift within environmentalism if you define environmentalism narrowly enough to exclude the Teddy Roosevelt / John Muir ideology which still exists, and to which greenwashing efforts by corporations often have recourse.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Oh, of course that ideology still exists – but it’s been reformed somewhat. People like Bloomberg and Thomas Friedman still think in terms of big, spectacular planning for a greener future, and are antipathetic to local concerns. Climate change to them is yet another problem to be solved by enlightened capitalists. But they pay more lip service to the effects on ordinary people, trumpet stories of bottom-up success, etc.
However, that rift is completely orthogonal to the question of urban boosterism (which includes HSR, at least the way it’s promoted by liberal US thinktanks) vs. suburban NIMBYism. Some environmentalists are into one, and some are into the other – just like non-environmentalists.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
What we’re seeing is a similar shift, just as significant as that which occurred around 1960. In the ’60s and ’70s environmentalism took the automobile and oil society as a given, and merely wanted to clean up its excesses. It believed that protecting open space was key because everything else in the built environment was functioning just fine.
That is now changing dramatically. Suburban NIMBYism stands against the needs of a 21st century environmentalism. They are not at all compatible.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Maybe the mainstream environmental organizations did, after various reforms from the bottom up. Maybe. For the most part, environmentalists didn’t think about oil issues then – they thought about DDT, Love Canal, and smog. The regulations they passed had big enough of an effect that some environmentalist transit proponents today, such as Charlie Komanoff, believe that cars’ air pollution is no longer a major problem.
It’s reasonable to be concerned about corridors and the impact of bisecting the desert and pacheco pass open space.
I’m an ecologist by training and am NOT worried about HSR in CA doing more net damage than plane/automobile based transportation. Not by a long shot.
We’ve seen (published) gradual warming in coastal influenced areas (Napa) and changes in fog frequency along the peninsula. It’s happening folks and we need to both reduce CO2 emissions and preserve our economy.
Rail on steel wheels/steel rails is low friction and uses efficient electric motors and the electricity is generated by “clean” efficient power stations. Contrast that mode to an internal combustion oil engine.
I think, not my area of expertise, that track design can accommodate wildlife – and that consideration must be part of the initial design. Hey, maybe CARRD can use this accommodation to further inflate the construction costs.
HSR is a net gain for the environment but there maybe some offsets that can be done for the local habit taken.
I just don’t agree that we know no way around our carbon problem without digging into what is appropriately named a preserve. Why do desert species have to shoulder such a heavy burden for CO2 reduction efforts? Last time I checked the Mojave desert wasn’t largest emitter of greenhouse gases. It wasn’t the second largest either, you get my point.
You’re definition of ‘open space’ isn’t the same as everyone else’s. Or the rest of the community of living things. Same arguments were made about the massive solar projects happening now in the Mojave. But these are simply more privatization of gain and socialization of loss as far as I can tell.
It’s just a fucking tad bit ironic that we’re trying to sell the environmentalism of a train that takes people to and from the capitol of consumption culture. There is nothing sustainable about Las Vegas. It reminds me of the folks who celebrate the fact that the U.S. military is trying to pioneer the use of biofuels to mitigate carbon emissions in our never ending wars. Has Tom Friedman written a column about this train yet?
Finally, if as you say freeway travelers aren’t going to be a big force in the 21st century, then how do you suppose that air travelers are? You’ve made that point over and over again and I agree with you. But that desert oasis won’t last long without McCarran buzzing at the levels it does today. And that certainly won’t happen at $150 to $250 oil. Airlines and consumers will go bust and then so too will the casinos. The overwhelming majority of visitors to Vegas come via air, and not from California. Your own arguments suggest we’re building a train to nowhere.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Speaking of what you say… I forgot to mention in my previous comment that one of the differences between pre-1960s and post-1960s environmentalism is the attitude to deserts. Pre-1960s, they were unimportant – empty quarters, so to speak – and the focus was on preserving forests. This changed, partly due to advances and partly due to (deserved) skepticism of top-down attempts to build cities and agriculture in the desert, so that now people are concerned about the desert environment as well.
That said, Las Vegas is probably going to survive any oil peak. It’s already a less attractive casino destination as a result of the proliferation of Indian gaming, and most likely it will adapt and become like Phoenix today. Phoenix lives off of massive irrigation and sprawl, but its economy (as opposed to its urban form) isn’t as dependent on cheap oil.
VBobier Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 12:17 am
Las Vegas will survive, As It’s a unique place in the southwest, It has Hoover Dam and now a Bridge that is no ordinary bridge, Sure those 2 monuments are shared with Arizona, But I think Las Vegas is closer to those 2 then any City in Arizona, The Largest Concrete Arch Span Bridge in this part of the world, Built over a steep canyon with a decent sized river in It(the Colorado River), While also being in view of that said Dam, Las Vegas is a tourist trap and It always has been. Will It always be a tourist trap? Only time knows and so far It’s lips are zipped and You may as well ask the Spinx for an answer, For all the good that would do.
Wad Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 12:34 am
I’m of the position that Las Vegas will become the Detroit of the 21st century.
Las Vegas repeated the very same mistake Detroit did: It has so much of its economic fortunes deeply invested in gambling-related tourism that it won’t be able to transition into something else.
Detroit wasn’t punished for doing anything wrong; it failed because it was so successful. Other cities in America, and even later the world, coveted the industrial economy Detroit provided. Its own automakers transplanted that work into lower-cost cities, and then other nations wanted to build automobile sectors for domestic consumption and export markets. Detroit didn’t have a monopoly on automobile production, though it needed it.
Now, Detroit joins other economically depressed cities and Indian reservations in coveting what Las Vegas has: an economy built on attracting outside money, something that is location-dependent, and produces a lot of jobs with very low input and high output.
It won’t be before long when most American metro areas will have a resort-casino within a two-hour drive. Plus, the Vegas-based resort-casino operators are lending the expertise and capital to make it happen.
Once this day comes, Las Vegas loses all of its specialness.
VBobier Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 12:50 am
Well Las Vegas does have Lake Mead for Tourism and It does have some mining and manufacturing activity, My Nephew once picked up drywall north of town with a semi truck with while working for the Trucking firm that He’d worked for back then(I rode along once) and as long as the river is there, Vegas will be open, But It has Hoover for power, The Indian Casinos don’t have that, Nor canyons on a large lake, Those are Unique to the area, It also has Racing too, Plus It has UNLV(University Nevada Las Vegas), Which the other Casinos also do not have.
Andy M. Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 2:28 am
I disagree. Las Vegas is a tourist attraction in its own right. For every serious gambler out there there are about 10 tourists there who are there for the quanitness of the concept of the gambling, and may spend some smaller sums just to be able to say that they’ve been there and done it. Think New Orleans. Doomsayers are always telling us this city is finished. There’s nothing here but tourism and a lot of that has become pretty cheap and tacky (many paralles to Vegas come to mind). Katharina was supposedly the merciful blow that was supposed to end the suffering, but New Orleans is coming back. Why? Places like that have such a unique attraction on people’s imaginations that they will continue to come and see them and so they will continue to thrive, maybe not at the same level as before, but at some level. Every schoolchild in the world has heard about Las Vegas and many will want to see it one day. Even if only one in 10 do, and only stay a single night, do the maths. A city like that cannot die.
jimsf Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 6:27 am
The key to vegas’ future is not that its based its economy on gaming and will then become the detroit of the west one day because of it, its that its based its economy on entertainment in a broad, and “no where else on earth” manner and it will continue to evolve and remain on the cutting edge of entertainment technology. They build hotels and casinos knowing full well they are going to tear them down and replace them as needed when the time comes. Vegas is designed for evolution and will continue to the place to go for unlimited pleasure. Sex, money, luxury, big names, stuff for kids, stuff for the outdoorsman, high end shopping, top chefs, and its all in one place where the whole family can indulge. I don’t care for vegas myself, but like la, its quite a spectacle. it still amazes me when I look at it in totality. So yes as long as they get water and power, it will grow into an even more spectacular den of sensory indulgence.
Andy M. Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 10:53 am
Very well put. That’s more or less what I was going to say but failed to put it in such words.
Wad Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
JimSF, Dubai also has a “nowhere else on Earth” manner — it build a manmade island in the shape of a palm tree! — and the global economy also knocked the wind out of it.
I say Las Vegas is a one-trick pony. You reply, “But what a trick!”
Las Vegas’ evolution involves adornment of gambling-tourism. It’s not attracting too many businesses that can exist parallel to tourism. Las Vegas cannot wean itself from gambling.
Almost every Indian reservation and economically depressed area wants to get Las Vegas’ economy. And they’ll have a much gentler learning curve. Las Vegas needed about 50 years to go from a smoke-filled slot-and-table lounge with entertainers whose careers went to die to a Disneyland-and-video-arcade for adults.
Pechanga, Pala and Morongo did the same thing in less than 10 years.
Andy M. Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 12:46 am
Maybe the wind has been knocked out of Dubai but I believe it is coming back.
Las Vegas was also almost dead at one point in its history but managed to reinvent itself double quick. There may be other places around that imitate the concept but ultimately these are just copies and Las Vegas remains the original.
Wad Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 3:59 am
Original does not equal an economic moat, Andy.
How does Las Vegas’ originalism help it against Temecula, northern and eastern San Diego County, Coachella Valley, Brooks, Laughlin, Reno, Kansas City, Detroit, New Orleans, Tunica, Atlantic City, Mashantucket or Uncasville?
Must be the slots and tables. Or the buffets. Or the restaurants. Or the entertainers. Or the boxing. Or the shopping.
The point is, the Las Vegas formula can easily be copied — and much more quickly.
The gamblo-tourist economy is quickly turning into what in business circles is known as a commodity market, in which everything becomes so standard and commonplace that ultimately the winner will be the lowest cost producer. Las Vegas won’t be so special, then.
Andy M. Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 5:06 am
It’s because Las Vegas has a name that is synonymous with fun and entetainment. Any schoolchild in France, Germany, India or China has heard of Las Vegas. I guess that not even in the USA that everybody knows what some of the places you list are. The USA is a big tourist magnet. It’s one of the countries that everybody wants to have been to once in their lifetime. And what do they see, The Statue of Liberty Maybe and the Grand Canyon, and after that I guess Las Vegas is pretty high on the list. If the world has 7 billion people and 1 in 20 does that, that is 350 million people. If they all live to be 70 and once in their lifetime they’re coming to Las Vegas that’s 5 million visitors a year.
In a previous posting I mentioned New Orleans. New Orleans is similar. It’s got a grand name. Everybody has heard about it and people come to see it because of that. Personally I think New Orleans is a great place to hang out but objectively speaking, I don’t think its especially innovative or clever. It’s just what it is and that’s what people love about it. After Katharine doomsayersd were spelling the end of New Orleans but look how its been bouncing back. A lot of that is tourist dollar at work.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 9:27 am
People go to Disney World. People go to Branson. New York City and Chicago don’t have gambling but they manage a bit of tourism. … It’s warm in Las Vegas in the winter. There’s lots of place where it’s cold in the winter. Las Vegas will be around for a very long time.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
People on the East Coast who want to be warm in winter go to Florida. The Northeast-Florida air market is gigantic, out of any proportion to the sizes of the metro areas.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
They go to Las Vegas too. So do people from Seattle and Salt Lake City. Denver. Chicago is only a few hundred miles farther away from Las Vegas than it is to Orlando. Northeast and Midwest to Florida is out of proportion because the grandparent retire to Fla. Just like the grand parents retire to Phoenix or Las Vegas….. Casinos on everyblock aren’t going to make Las Vegas go away.
And while a city can’t base is economy on conventions Las Vegas is a convention destination. There are some conventions that can’t be held any place else. There aren’t enough hotel rooms any[place else.
Nathanael Reply:
April 6th, 2011 at 1:53 am
Detroit still has a huge population. Despite its decline, it’s still large enough to need ample rail service. Even in a worst case scenario, it’s likely the same will be true of Los Vegas, at least until global warming renders the entire Southwest permanently uninhabitable.
Wad Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 12:19 am
I don’t know about Phoenix, Alon.
Read Jon Talton’s Rogue Columnist. Talton, a Phoenix native and former Arizona Republic business columnist, regularly points out the flawed economy of Maricopa County. And he’s an excellent, engaging writer.
He’d fit in well with the Urbanophile types.
Phoenix may be the largest city in the U.S., but not the largest metropolitan area, to be dependent on a momentum-growth economy. (For what it’s worth, at least Dallas and Houston got dynamic city regions for doing the same thing.) For about a quarter century, the Valley’s economic strategy has been to create manic population growth and hope businesses want to get their piece of the go-go economy.
All Phoenix got was Fresno on steroids. It did attract a large proletarian work force who settled for the proletarian economy, a large community of retirees, as well as rural reactionaries from the Midwest and South (as well as the L.A. area after 1992) who bigsorted there.
The professional sector was limited to the same branch-office economy you’d see around any highway ramp in the Sunbelt. Otherwise, the golden goose was the house building, house servicing and house financing sector. Metro Phoenix was especially prone because of the area’s income dependency on that sector.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 2:17 am
The problem with trying to classify Phoenix is that it’s not 1910 anymore, and American cities aren’t specialized. Krugman argues very convincingly, with numbers to back it up, that American urban specialization peaked in the 1910s, and has been in decline since WW2; for example, what exactly does Atlanta do? How about Indianapolis?
Dallas and Houston aren’t quite the same as Phoenix. They’re your standard export-based economies – based not just on resource extraction, though that’s a big thing in both, but also on various heavy industries (the semiconductor was partly in invented in Dallas, by Texas Instruments). On the other hand, Dallas’s income growth numbers were basically flat last decade, though Houston’s were very much not.
The article you’re linking to doesn’t really deal with those economic questions. It deals with ones of urban form. The Phoenix exurbs aren’t going to look very good in 30 years – but neither are the exurbs of Boston or Chicago. American cities have immense levels of inequality, far surpassing those of anywhere else in the first world except Hong Kong and Singapore, and this translates to having huge regions of forgotten slums. In 1980, those were the inner cities; in 2040, they’ll be in the suburbs. That’s going to be true in most US cities, regardless of whether they’re in the desert.
Wad Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 3:47 am
To answer your first questions, Atlanta can count air travel, hardware and beverages as some of its alpha industries. Indianapolis has pharmaceuticals, insurance and auto racing.
Both of those cities, though, have so much more. Metro Atlanta’s economy isn’t entirely dependent on Delta, Home Depot or Coca-Cola. Atlanta survived after New York’s Time Warner consumed the Turner broadcasting empire.
Plus, both Atlanta and Indianapolis are the primate cities of their respective states.
They, along with Dallas and Houston, have diversified economies. There are business activities of different sizes and scope, incomes are diffuse, inputs can be replaced and multiplied, and some sectors can offset cyclical or secular downturns in others.
Also, I was pointing to the Rogue Columnist site as a whole, not to the lead article, which is “The city in mind” at the time of this post. Try the Economics and Phoenix categories.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
The big Australia cities survive off of resource incomes generated in their pseudo-colonized hinterlands. Though Arizona does not seem very forward looking in terms of developing their sustainable resource base, that dimension could well be as fragile as the “we’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here” sprawl development economy of metro Phoenix.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 11:56 am
Every city in the US Southwest: Los Angeles, Las Vegas, San Diego, Phoenix, and Tucson are in the same boat. Residential desirability does not equal economic viability, even if your CEO disagrees. Vegas is half the size of Phoenix. San Diego is a quarter of the size of L.A.
America’s economy is actually becoming more balanced, with commodities becoming more important again over pure manufacturing. Services are also beginning to shrink again. It’s just a painful process because the powers that be always resist this type of realignment.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
We need to electrify as many major corridors as we possibly can. I reject the argument that we can only do this on a few and so we have to pick carefully.
As to Vegas’s long-term prospects, I doubt it will grow much beyond where it is now. It may even shrink. But it is likely to remain a destination for some time. And that means it should be provided with electrified rail, as with all the other corridors out there.
As to the solar projects, um, what’s your alternative? Because if we do nothing, then we KNOW how that story ends – the middle class is destroyed by the soaring cost of fossil fuels.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Electrifying and building full HSR aren’t the same thing. Just electrifying the existing line and begging UP for some existing slots won’t cut it – the speed won’t be worth it.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
“Electrifying and building full HSR aren’t the same thing. Just electrifying the existing line and begging UP for some existing slots won’t cut it – the speed won’t be worth it.” I don’t see where Robert specified that ~ its more than a little pedantic to insist that he say “and the electrified rail they are provided with should suit their circumstance”.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
And freight trains can use electricity. They do all over the world. And did in the US up until recently.
Rob M. Reply:
April 6th, 2011 at 1:45 am
I’m not making the argument that we can only do HSR on a few corridors so that we must pick carefully. I’m making the argument that “sustainability environmentalism” is worthless if it argues we ought to build “sustainable” transportation to an unsustainable destination. I’ve seen many comments on the viability of Las Vegas so let me clarify. In my opinion Vegas is what it is today because of cheap oil, cheap water and cheap credit. At least the first two of those things are going away in the 21st century and if the third survives, it may not do any good without the other two. Can it still be a desert community with some tourism and gambling, with maybe other industries? Sure. But in its current incarnation it is highly levered, or priced for perfection. The near collapse of City Center via Ahu Dhabi and MGM in the last credit crunch should provide an object lesson for the future. This means that the I-15 corridor may not be nearly as jammed as it is today, and this may obviate the need, or certainly the demand for HSR. Whether or not I’m right, I can not be accused of not “ever really stop[ing] to consider the big picture.”
On the point of the solar projects, how do you infer that I advocate doing nothing? There is nothing in my comment that suggests that. Furthermore, in your reply, you’re shifting the argument from the carbon or global warming problem to the price problem and its impact on the middle class. The latter is not something I’m unsympathetic to, but you’ll forgive me for sticking to the former since that was the theme of your original post.
The opening line in my comment would be instructive in this regard. Maybe the sources of the CO2 emissions ought to bear a heavier burden than the receivers of global warming. Your post suggests that global warming will impact desert species no matter what. We’re probably well past the point where this is true. But in light of that, why should we be giving the worst carbon emitters a free pass? Why should we bend over backward and further stress species and ecosystems already under stress in furtherance of sustainability? Again, the Mojave desert is not the source of carbon dioxide pollution, it is the receiver of it. It was not that long ago where we thought we could get a cap and trade bill out of the congress. This is not itself the total solution, but at least it starts to put responsibility where it ought to be placed.
There are two kinds of environmentalism out there.
What is this, the media objectivity model?
If I found 10 people who self-identify as environmentalists, I would get at least 20 definitions on what constitutes environmentalism.
You could add additional filters to see where environmentalists stand with regard to specific technologies, human population control, public intervention in economic affairs, the ecology-economy balance, religion, feminism, and so much more.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 9:18 am
And surely had Robert said there are two and only two kinds of environmentalist, he would have had to edit out the “and only two” phrase, to bring it to what was written.
This is quibbling without addressing the issue: people who are “environmentalist” in the sense of pointing out the need to respect the ecological life support system that we human, among many others, rely upon will have a different reaction to people who are “environmentalist” in the traditional conservationist sense.
Wad Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 4:22 am
Robert did say that, Bruce. The number two, a positive integer, is precise in its meaning.
I quibble because there’s no point in addressing an issue when the start of discussion is based on a false premise.
I couldn’t posit another alternative myself. I would guess there are more than two kinds of environmentalists, and I think there are several subcultures that would constitute the environmentalism family. Then there are the group dynamics among the subcultures, as well as the subsequent divisions and dissensions.
Arthur Dent Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 9:39 am
There are two kinds of people out there. Those who agree with Robert and those who don’t.
… And then there are the HSR “environmentalists”…..
Robert, instead of labeling people how about asking the simple question:
Is this impact on the Joshua Trees even necessary? Can the route be shifted?
But nope, CHSRA is God.
Our father who art on rails, CHSRA be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, Rod’s will be done in Palo Alto as it is in San Jose.
Give us this day our daily diatribe,
and forgive us our slander,
as we slander those HSR deniers who trespass the HSR ROW;
and lead us not into Altamont Pass,
but deliver us from reason and understanding. Amen.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 8:59 am
Anymore drama nimby
BruceMcF Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 9:22 am
I read somewhere that according to the Park service, the impact on the desert tortoise could be reduced by routing it through the corner of a Preserve, though this would require Congressional action to approve.
Why didn’t Robert … oh, wait, the above post is where I read it.
Odd habit, that, to be posing questions that are addressed in a post as if they were not addressed.
To the extent that the impact on the Joshua trees can be mitigated, they should be, but allowing Joshua trees to be used as a pretext for protecting the Auto Uber Alles transport system would be shortsighted.
thatbruce Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 9:35 am
Is this impact on the Joshua Trees even necessary? Can the route be shifted?
But nope, CHSRA is God.
The ‘Joshua Tree’ issue is about DesertXpress, not any actions or route planning of the CAHSRA. Different windmills ;)
VBobier Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 10:58 am
Damned If You go away from the Tortoises and Damned If You don’t, the only other route that doesn’t involve Tortoises or Joshua Tress probably requires an expensive tunnel or even a cut or just may not be doable for some reason that I’m not aware of.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
The route can be shifted a slight bit, but with HSR trains you have much more limited ability to move it.
I love joshua trees. I know they need to be protected. But let’s be honest here. It’s more important for the environment – including ALL the joshua trees – that we reduce our carbon emissions as soon as possible. Even if we have to transplant some trees, it’s worth it. We need to keep our priorities in mind.
VBobier Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
I agree, As I’d rather transplant a Joshua Tree If possible, As It only needs similar conditions in the soil and such, Much easier than a Tortoise.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Well, much easier than moving complete tortoise habitat.
Wait this makes no sense. I thought the evil contractors like PB can’t wait to find excuses to build gold-plated viaducts?!?!?! I’m sure for an extra billion or two they will throw in a beautiful, natural colored overpass that allows the tortoises to have a great ol’ time watching the train zip by.
Environmentalists don’t actually care about the environment. Witness their great freak-outs over nuclear power, despite that the only suitable alternative is coal. They are best ignored and marginalized, kept safely away from any political power. The fact that they say idiotic things like not believing it’s possible for critters to go underneath an electrified rail line when they happily do so underneath freeways is simply further proof of the fact that they should be kept away from power of any kind.
Donk Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
How many deaths have there been that were directly related to nuclear power? There were 64 deaths from the Cherynobyl accident (some estimates say 4000 according to Wiki), and maybe a handful of additional deaths at other plants.
How many deaths have resulted from Coal power plants and their emissions? I don’t have a number for you, but I can guarantee that it was a helluva lot more. People freak out over 3 relatively small nuclear accidents over a 50 year span, but don’t even think about all of the coal-related deaths.
You should also probably factor the impacts of coal mining and uranium…
Alon Levy Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
64 direct deaths, plus a couple thousand more attributed to elevated cancer rates.
Fukushima is going to turn out similar, for what it’s worth.
Donk Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
I don’t think Fukushima will turn out nearly as bad. They didn’t even evacuate the Chernobyl area until after the meltdown.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
IAEA and WHO estimate a total of four thousand excess deaths from cancer thanks to Chernobyl over the lifetime of those exposed. For purposes of comparison, the ALA estimates 4,000 deaths annually thanks to coal power.
In the fine words of my contemporaries, lolwut? There’s nowhere near enough radiation released over a wide enough area for cancer levels to be elevated for members of the general populace. A handful of the workers may see elevated cancer risks, but the general populace is safe.
Nathanael Reply:
April 6th, 2011 at 1:58 am
IAEA and WHO numbers are still very lowball. Toxins are still being found in large amounts in the Ukraine in the vicinity of Chernobyl outside the “exclusion zone”, and the excess deaths due to the total destruction of a large section of farmland have never been estimated.
Sure, it’s far better than coal. But renewables are a realistic and much, much, much better alternative. Don’t get me started on uranium mining.
Nathanael Reply:
April 6th, 2011 at 1:59 am
Didja see the Israeli report from the entrepeneurs who think they can supply 90% of the country’s energy needs from renewables pretty much as soon as they get a chance to build them?
It’s not unique to Israel. We could do it here just as easily. It’s cheaper than nuclear anyway.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
I don’t think Fukushima will turn out as bad, for what it’s worth, but now that there’s a leak they can’t find, and radioactivity in water (below the safe levels, but pollution thresholds for other pollutants are being revised down and even that’s not enough – e.g. PM10 below the safe limit can still kill you), the higher population density in the area could somewhat counteract the better safety and lower radioactivity level.
OT: Amtrak finally applied for some money for the Northeast Corridor:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/119208264.html
YESonHSR Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
I bet its all ARRA funds as Amtrak must have to work thru a state to get at the 800million 2010 fundings 20% match..I think they might get that 450million for the NY-PHL upgrade
jim Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
The Portal Bridge is $570M Fed, $150M NJ(T). Which is slightly better than 20%. Never assume Joe Boardman is dumb.
Alan F Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 7:26 am
The Portal Bridge North replacement project is a high priority for Amtrak and NJ Transit as the 2 track swing bridge built in 1910 is a significant choke point on the busiest section of the NEC with slow orders lowering speeds over the bridge to 60 mph and when the bridge has to open for ship traffic. The replacement is a 3 track fixed high level bridge to the north of the current bridge. There were plans for a 2 track south Portal bridge as part of the ARC project which would get resurrected for the Amtrak Gateway project. Since the Portal bridge replacement is also a vital commuter transit project, it might be eligible for some of the $3 billion of FTA money that was to go to the ARC project. Pending that, the Portal bridge replacement likely has very good odds at getting some of the Florida HSR funds.
Alan F Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 7:33 am
NY State is applying for $517 million of the Florida funds. $295 million of that is for a 2 mile bypass at Harold Interlocking in Queens to avoid conflicts with LIRR which is a new project proposal to me. This would be a NEC trip time improvement project. NY press release: http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/040411highspeedrailproject
With Amtrak asking for $1.3 billion for NEC projects along with $350 million from NY state, $450 million total from MD, $31 million from Rhode Island, all for NEC related projects, that is over $2.1 billion of NEC requests for the Florida funds. Don’t know yet what Virginia, NC, IL are asking for. The competition for Florida funds is significant.
jim Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 8:23 am
The Harold Bypass is in the NEC Master Plan. It’s just on the track schematics, though, not addressed in the verbage. Part II, p.24.
Alan F Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Thanks, I found it in the Master Plan schematics. The Harold bypass is flagged in green as a long term project. Since this is not in the Amtrak application, wonder if this is something that MTA/LIRR decided to take a shot on because if Amtrak NEC trains get jammed up going through Harold Interlocking, then LIRR trains can also get held up by Amtrak trains. With the East Side Access project to Grand Central in progress, a bypass for Amtrak to/from Boston (and Metro-North if they run to Penn Station) might help clear future traffic jams at a complex interlocking.
Probably not going to get awarded this time around, but puts it into the system for future consideration with combined funding from multiple sources.
Washington asks for money for cascades:
http://www.tacomadailyindex.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=88&cat=23&id=1952547&more=0
Environmentalists supporting high speed rail are killing California jobs according to a Washington Examiner editorial. The reasoning is that environmentalists killed new dams in California which caused farmers to reduce planting. California then passed bonds for high speed rail that could have been spent on dams. A very sideways reasoning. The article ends with Japan’s cunning plan to harm California infrastructure by offering to pay for high speed rail.
I do not quite understand the line of reasoning as to how this would benefit Japan. Is this a legitimate newspaper?
VBobier Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
I know of one person Who’d agree that It’s a nefarious Japanese plot, But She’s thankfully dead, As She hated all people of Japanese descent, Whether born in Japan or here in the USA or elsewhere.
The paper is trying to sell Newspapers, Someone needs to get something written in the paper to counter that editorial.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
I don’t know if sending a rebuttal to that rag would be worth anything; I took a look at the some of the other editorials on this subject, and they had nothing positive to speak of for HSR, except the NEC.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/02/cut-dont-promote-high-speed-rail
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/virginia/virginia-high-speed-rail-heading-down-wrong-track
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/local-opinion-zone/2011/01/real-vs-phony-investment-high-speed-rail
http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/113536
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/01/high-speed-rail-fast-way-waste-taxpayer-money
A fellow named Michael Barone wrote that last one. Take a look at what he says about California and Texas, and tell me what you think of him:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/03/eyes-texas-are-sparkling-2010-census
My own opinion, quoted from Alon Levy: Circumstance does not always equal causation. Maybe what he says is true, maybe it’s not. I wouldn’t make such a blanket statement unless I was sure. And considering the size of both the California and Texas economies, I am certain there are many other factors. Indeed, one of them is the matter of sheer size; a really large economy, like California’s, can have a huge increase in economic activity, but its relative size (and the apparent “rate of growth”) will look smaller against a larger base line, compared with a smaller one. This makes the growth in Amtrak and public transit look really good as well, even though the real numbers are relatively small.
Of course, considering the handicaps rail has had to deal with for years, and the huge relative size of the auto travel market as it currently exists, any improvement in rail and transit ridership is welcome news to me.
Based on this little bit, I think the Washington Examiner is a low grade local Fox News. The paucity of comments on these stories, compared with what is seen here on this blog, the Infrastucturist, Palo Alto online, and other similar markets, suggests there isn’t much readership.
swing hanger Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
The Washington Examiner is funded by the South Korean-based Reunification Church (Moonies). That should give you an idea to its credibility.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
No your thinking of the Washington Times… the “Examiners” are all owned by a right-wing oil billionaire out in Colorado that also owns a lot of Union Pacific Railroad stock.. he bought the examiner in San Francisco and uses it literally as a propaganda mouthpiece against the Obama administration and gives the paper away free that’s how much money he has.. it’s kind of like a daily rag with auto ads and some local news and the two-page right wing opinion political spread in the center every single day throwing mud against anything democratic or Obama.. literally in San Francisco which voted 80% for the president
Nathanael Reply:
April 6th, 2011 at 2:02 am
The Examper isn’t a legit newspaper, see what YesOnHSR wrote. All the “Examiner”s are funded by a single crackpot rightwing billionaire.
A new 7 page economic report on the California HSR project has just been released.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52281279/Benefit-Middle-Class
It is Titled: Will The High-Speed Train Benefit California’s Middle Class?
It should be of interest to all, but at least to those still willing to accept that this project is a disaster, here is one more excellent input.
It will be posted (I have been told) also on:
http://www.cc-hsr.org
Eric M Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Oh, a report from a group of individuals that completely opposes the project and are currently suing the rail authority. Yeah, that’s a credible article!!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
WOW. That is one of the most dishonest and lie-filled things I’ve seen in a long, long time. If oil company shills like Gary Patton and the report’s authors are reduced to lying this baldly, then they really are desperate.
joe Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Another gem by the conflicted professor Alain C. Enthoven – Antheron resident with a home one block from the HSR route. He’s worried about his home’s value and impact on backyard entertaining.
Wiki sez:
Atherton is an incorporated town in San Mateo County, California, United States. Its population was 7,194 at the 2000 census. In September 2010, Forbes magazine placed Atherton’s zip code of 94027 at #2 on its annual list of America’s most expensive zip codes,[8] with a median home price of $4,010,200. Atherton is one of the wealthiest cities in the United States.[9]
Yeah that’s a middle class, working man hero-type-of-guy.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
He’s worried that the quiet electric trains won’t disturb conversation like the diesels do? Or maybe he’s worried that the electrics won’t be spewing diesel exhaust? Diesel fumes do add so much to outdoor entertaining…..
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
You know, I happen to be a big fan of steam locomotives, and can imagine part of this route having some sort of tourist service on it during the weekends.
Hmm, it’s been suggested that this route be reorganized as a shortline railroad to handle the freight business and avoid certain problems with Union Pacific. . .suppose for some reason, HSR was held at bay, couldn’t get past San Jose for at least a while, wonder how it would pan out as a steam shortline, a longer, heavier-duty version of the Strasburg Rail Road, which also handles freight, much of the time behind steam?
I wonder what Mr. Enthoven’s reaction would be to regularly scheduled steam operations?
According to some of the commentators, some of this footage is on the Peninsula:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv5BYEOQYLo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhaSrb2fCsI&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEBJCHvXiEE&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Commuter trains behind steam! I don’t know positively what Mr. Enthoven would say, but I have to say I would like it!
Highball!
joe Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwA3AJPWphQ
Nathanael Reply:
April 6th, 2011 at 2:04 am
Now that’s just a mean suggestion. I like it. If Mr. Enthoven doesn’t like quiet electric trains, let’s give him some dirty, loud steam trains and throw hot coals on his head.
OK, no, let’s not. Let’s just tell him he’s an idiot and to shut up — the train will increase his property value and make things quieter and he should realize that if he’s really a professor.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho!
Based on half the arguments in there, we shouldn’t support air service, either. You don’t use it to commute to work, and you don’t use it to go shopping. It draws money that could be used for education. Why, you can’t even use it to go to WalMart for a bottle of milk!
Yeah, air service is a real boondogle!
Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Say it again:
Boondoggle! Boondoggle! Boondoggle!
Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho!
This is about as good for anything as. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv5BYEOQYLo
BruceMcF Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Actually, on the commuting angle you should shut down big chunks of the Interstate Highway system ~ the parts dominated by interstate traffic, specifically.
Doubt very much commuting is taking place on I-77 between Beckley and Princeton, West Virginia ~ that is almost entirely wasted on intercity transport.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Old and rich and selfish sounds very Atherton!!!!
VBobier Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
Well that’s reputed to be where Meg lives…
Livermore’s mayor says: “It is important to look at alternatives that would provide an opportunity to leverage high speed rail funding to help pay for BART.“
Donk Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
It is great how people complain about the cost of HSR, which will benefit the entire state, when this BART leg to Livermore will cost $4B. It is quite an achievement to get the cost up to $4B for a line that runs in an already existing freeway median. The whole FLHSR system also ran in a freeway median and cost about the same amount of money, except the BART extension is like 6 miles and FLHSR was like 90 miles.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
But it’s BART!
joe Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Rhymes with…
Joey Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Yes, how they manage to push costs up so much is beyond me. True, much of the freeway will have to be rebuilt. And the fact that they chose a subway over the El Charro Road alignment probably contributes to it (this would have mostly solved the freeway median problem too). But yeah. BART knows how to make things cost much more than they need to.
Donk Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Wah? Why do they have to rebuild the freeway median?
synonymouse Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
What is extraordinary about BART is that not only can it spend the really big bucks but it knows where to find them and how to reel them in.
Joey Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
It narrows east of the current end of the line.
Peter Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 7:46 am
They’re not using the freeway median, actually, as they have (finally) realized that it might be a good idea to serve downtown Livermore and Lawrence Livermore Lab. It’s going to be a partially tunneled alignment to the Livermore ACE station and then follow one of the existing railroad ROWs.
The tunnel accounts for a good chunk of the cost, I believe.
Wad Reply:
April 4th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
It’s also $4 billion to Livermore.
In fairness, L.A. ought to demand a similar amount so we can extend the Gold Line beyond Azusa to, oh say, Redlands. And while we’re at it, let’s throw in the East L.A. Gold Line extension first to Whittier, then to Yorba Linda.
I agree, and I appreciate the distinction between the different types of environmentalism, but I thought it was a little too polarizing. I expressed my thoughts here: http://bit.ly/eTS7Xc.
The efforts of different kinds of environmentalism do matter though, as you rightly point out. Andrew Revkin at NYT and Dave Roberts at Grist have excellent discussions today of the same phenomenon, at the following respective links: http://nyti.ms/gC097N http://bit.ly/hIkdLp. The latter link is relevant to the California case, where a coalition of environmental justice advocates are suing to block AB32 after campaigning for its protection this past November.