Sunday Open Thread
Via Grist comes this video produced in Japan to celebrate a new bullet train line. The video was made shortly before the March earthquake and tsunami, and so it was never aired, but it shows the enthusiasm around Japan for the bullet trains – people there fully understand the trains’ value, and are rightly excited by them.
You’ll never hear a NIMBY acknowledge this, but there are a hell of a lot of Californians who will react the same way when our bullet train project opens. It won’t just be the foamers. It’ll be the average Californian who will see it as a sign of progress, of savings, of environmental action, and of economic growth.
You guys know that my focus is not HSR itself. From what I have seen in Europe, I’m more than convinced that the stations is where the real money is.
Bike sharing. Would it work in the United States? I have seen it in Europe since 2005 and it worked well. 50 cents allowed you to bike around for 30 minutes. When you don’t need it, let it stand somewhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIFeSHCviuU
I’m sure it would work in NYC, but New York is definitely not the average American city. But we should learn from its recent improvements in favor of pedestrians.
This is one of the projects that, in my opinion, didn’t get the attention it deserved. The Green Light for Midtown project was a low-cost project with a huge impact on city life in Manhattan.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/broadway.shtml#greenlight
Cities really have to focus on creating a walkable, appealing area around the station or create access to public transit. Just because our budget is limited doesn’t mean that our stations have to look like Penn Station, NYC.
Joey Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
American cities need to focus on making themselves less hostile to pedestrians and bicycles before programs like bike sharing could work effectively. For instance, take Silicon Valley, which, being flat and having nice weather, should be ideal for bicycles. But no one rides because you don’t want to do that along a 6 lane expressway with only a small bike lane.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
There’s a chicken and egg situation there, though, as greater reliance on cycle transport would lead to more support for a more usable public right of way.
Also, the number of people can be substantially greater than “nobody” but still be stereotyped that way ~ a critical mass along a single street gives a much greater impression that “people use cycle transport around here” than the same number of us spread around a larger number of side streets.
Joey Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Let’s put it this way: the bicycle modal share is all but nonexistent. And the Valley’s leadership has made it clear that all they have no intentions of changing its auto-centric nature.
See this for some interesting insights.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:34 am
Yes, the mode share is non-existent, and yet cyclists put bikes on the Caltrain trains. I assume they drive to the station with the bike on a car bike rack.
ant6n Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
I think some cities that have bike share (Montreal, DC, …) use it as a way to increase the bike modal share, and create a visible ‘critical mass’ of bikers. It’s a shiny and cool way to get people into bicycling.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
California is never going to have Penn Station in NY. To need something like Penn Station in NY you have to be surrounded by the rest of NY. Philadelphia needs to be 90 miles away. Penn Station in Newark on the other hand would be more than adequate for anything other than LA Union Station. LA Union Station is already there.
Joey Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
I think she was talking about the dysfunctional pedestrian mess of Penn Station, rather than the volume of traffic.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
I have no idea what she was talking about. Nothing in California is going to be Penn Station NY in many ways.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
DC is doing a bike share thing if memory serves.
joe Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
“Cities really have to focus on creating a walkable, appealing area around the station or create access to public transit. Just because our budget is limited doesn’t mean that our stations have to look like Penn Station, NYC.”
We need to rethink the mandated parking requirements for city development and the number of slots our HSR rail stations. I would prefer an emphasis on space for bus/cab /shuttle/curbside pickup/drop off.
.
Miles Bader Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Yup. The usual number of parking spaces at Japanese HSR [and local] stations is zero (even in more car-centric areas than Tokyo).
If you want to go on a trip, leave your car at home and take a taxi/bus/local-train, or get a friend to drop you off. Private parking operators will spring up to cover any remaining demand (at appropriate rates — probably high, which is good). But parking isn’t, and shouldn’t be, the train operator’s job, and valuable space around HSR stations should not be wasted on parking lots.
Nathanael Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
I think it depends on the catchment area, as well as whether there is any sort of local transit system, or even taxis.
The Syracuse, NY station needs parking. Why? Not for people coming from Syracuse, they have buses and taxis. For people coming from *Ithaca*, who don’t. It doesn’t have enough (it’s got about 30 spaces).
If you have a station with a catchment of over 60 miles, then unless you have a huge Swiss-style rural transit system to feed people to the station, you’re gonna want some long-term parking. And yes, you can charge quite a lot for it. Yet private parking operators will *not* necessarily spring up in Hanford or even Fresno to cover the demands of people driving there from distant rural areas.
In California, I would suggest significant parking for many of the Central Valley stations, and (unless DesertXPress gets built) Palmdale; and perhaps even Gilroy. They’re going to attract people driving over 100 miles from the east (or perhaps west), from areas too rural to support transit service over that distance and too far to support taxi service.
The stations in the LA, SF, SJ, and Sacramento metro areas, on the other hand, need little or no parking, as they really do have enough transit links for practical travel (and are getting more).
Of course, I don’t mean more than a few hundred spaces. 15000 is insane.
Nathanael Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
I’ll add that the crazy thing is that there are actually acres of private parking next to the Syracuse train station. The trouble is that some of it is reserved for a stadium which is only in use occasionally, most of it is for a giant mall and people not going to the mall are not allowed to use it, etc…. and of course there are no walkways between all these disconnected private parking lots. And most of them aren’t secured or observed by any staff in any way…
If they could be replaced by *non-captive* parking lots, parking lots where anyone could pay to park and the parking lot had an attendant, the problem would be solved. There’s a failure-of-collective-action problem.
For this reason I hope that if the CHSRA builds parking lots or garages, they simply operate them as for-profit general purpose parking garages, and take the money. Train operators in other countries often operate other businesses, why not CHSRA?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
The lack of pay parking lots shows that there aren’t enough people willing to pay for parking to make it profitable to have a pay parking lot, with or without an attendant.
Joey Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Ithica? I’m sure all 5 of them would be very angry if they couldn’t park…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Only one or two of them, the other three or four realize they live out in the middle of friggin’ nowhere and have to live with things like driving to a train station 60 miles away that doesn’t have any parking.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 8:13 am
At the outset, there should be parking at the suburban stations, but it need not and, indeed, should not be hard by the stations. If a quarter mile radius around the station is reserved for infill development, gateway lots at the edge of that radius can serve double duty as the development shows up.
Joey Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:56 am
Park-and-ride at suburban stations will likely remain a reality for the forseeable future. It’s just not possible to provide transit access to everyone who might want to use the station. If you’re trying to create denser redevelopment zones, station parking should be consolidated into structures, rather than space-consuming lots.
Joey Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Fun fact: San José is planning nearly 15000 parking spaces for the Diridon area. And that’s without accounting for the proposed stadium.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:50 am
Excellent for infill development opportunities
Joey Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
This is a redevelopment plan. Where the infill opportunities should be provided.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 8:15 am
Should be, but lots of places trapped in a late 20th century mindset will be finding over the next 20 years that they built a lot of now empty parking lots, and the only way to get a benefit from that space will be infill development.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:07 am
This is what I hope will happen, but I’m not sure I’m optimistic. Car-oriented developments, including those that pretend to be TOD, tend to be hostile to pedestrians and make it difficult to redevelop more densely. Buildings come with huge plazas, entrance halls are set back from the street, and windows are placed with the expectation that the next building over is and will remain far away.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:58 am
And just to put it all together: the argument for running all high speed trains in the state through The Late Rod Diridon Memorial Intergalactic Mode Confluencing TransitPortal in San José (The Capital of Silicon Valley®) is that, although it is actively PLANNED be surrounded by 15000 parking spaces, that’s just a strategic ploy and the hush plan is REALLY to go nuts with Infiil TOD In The Post Peak Oil Weird Times.
So we throw the Evil Koch Brothers off our trail by just PRETENDING to one gigantic hollowed out failed strip mall, DECOY the Reason Foundation by going along with the whole freeway widening thing, HOODWINK all of the airline carriers (all of them!) by eagerly bending over and screaming “more, baby, more!”, and BAMBOOZLE the Republican Party by giving them tens of millions of slush funding … but all the time secretly plan to plaster the Diridon Memorial District with TOD, starting in 2060.
Truly a cunning plan!
Nathanael Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
I agree absolutely with Emma that the real top priority, nationwide, must be pedestrian infrastructure. An unwalkable area turns into a “cars required” area.
The pedestrian infrastructure used to be called the “roads”. Unfortunately, when the speed limits went above about 20mph, that became impractical. So now we need sidewalks, basically on every road with a speed limit over 20mph. But we don’t have ‘em.
Bikes also used roads as their infrastructure. But again, there’s a problem accomodating different speeds of traffic on the same road. Bikes are too fast to go with pedestrians over long distances (they can slow down in some areas and share) and cars are too fast to go with bikes in most areas (again, a nice flat road with a 20mph speed limit and they may be able to share). So then you need separated routes.
Cars are getting the existing roads mostly because they’re space hogs; they need the width. Bikes and pedestrians can both function with much narrower roads. (Trains even can function with narrower roads than automobiles.) So we’re stuck building a second road network for pedestrians and a third for bikes.
The pedestrian one is the crucial one.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
The sidewalks were there before the paved road was there. It’s really unpleasant to walk through mud and the effluvia of horses.
The GOP really think the American people are stupid. They’re claiming the high price of gas is Obama’s fault because he won’t open up oil drilling in certain regions of the country; “drill baby drill!”
The reality however is that it’s Wall Streets fault with wild speculation and manipulation of oil markets; hence record profits for Big Oil while we pay out of our a$$ for gas.
My point to this rant (other than the fact that the GOP are the slime of the Earth) is this:
We should have no problem paying an extra 10-15 cents a gallon on a hypothetical gas tax for transit, including HSR.
I would have no problem whatsoever paying a little more at the pump for our benefit.
Pay a LOT more at the pump to line the fat cat’s wallet? That’s pure slime!
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Also, many have said, it will take 5 years minimum in order to have the sources open and producing. It will only allow for a diversion from Middle Eastern resources. HSR is supposed to be the catalyst to densify and add better transit services within the region.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:32 am
And oil fields follow a production curve, with production expanding til the field matures, then declining by about 5% a year.
Since we consume a quarter of the world’s oil, and produce a tenth, boosting our production by 5% a decade from now ~ which is an optimistic estimate of the ramping up our current drill baby drill policies to the max ~ would only increase total oil supply by 0.5% … cutting our consumption by 5%, as an electric rapid freight rail that made substantial headway in long haul truck freight markets could indeed do, would cut world consumption by over twice that much.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
They are.. or more like arrogantly naïve as if the president has any control over the price of gas or for that matter international market prices yet they will blame him.. anyone wanting high-speed rail to go through better hope that the gas prices don’t skyrocket or this man may not get reelected. Yes it is funny about the 10 or $.15 a gallon tax that would produce huge amounts of investment for the United States infrastructure is being backbreaking and will ruin the economy if the price of oil went up a dollar this year clearly on market forces/ speculation.
Nathanael Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
“The GOP really think the American people are stupid. ”
Only *just* figuring that out?
Part of it is shameless manipulation by crooks who are running the GOP. Unfortunately part of it is that a lot of the elected GOP leaders actually ARE that stupid THEMSELVES, so they assume that the American people are just as smart as they are! Oy.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Well when someone protests that he is not a crook, hide the silverware.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M
When he lectures you about morality hide your daughters, though lots of men in the GOP apparently have broader tastes.
Came across some Japanese rail video clips (interestingly, following links from a post on Drunk Engineer’s site). The equipment looks interesting, including a sleeper train that, to my eyes, has a lot of former North American practice and technology in it (i.e., tail sign, knuckle couplers, locomotive hauled):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mDQT2K2Q1I&feature=related
I’m not sure what to make of this train set, which alternately reminds me of something 1930s retro, or of a submarine, or of Jules Verne:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyAWcI2EGEs&NR=1&feature=fvwp
I guess that’s the Japanese for you. . .
Joey Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Must be one of like three passenger trains in Japan that still use locomotives…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Now this is a type of Japanese railroading I can get into–steam powered, of course, and with an American sounding chime whistle to boot! And check out the last car in the train, with what looks like Pullman six-wheel trucks under it–I can personally tell you cars like that are the best riders I’ve been on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qgkXSUiNNQ&feature=related
This could be in my West Virginia, curves, hills, trees, and echoes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ybOlYcFyNQ&feature=related
Only one complaint–the Japanese should keep their snowplow pilots on the engines year round. To my eyes, it just doesn’t look right to see the leading wheels peeking out from under the buffer beam on a locomotive that otherwise would look at home here. (now, British power, with those link and buffer couplers, and the whole British tradition, is something else):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjRc0s7gJoE&feature=relmfu
Have fun.
Owen Evans Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 6:48 am
I saw the Yamaguchi-go in Tsuwano when I was in Japan back in 2003. It was quite a sight. Unfortunately I did not get to ride it.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 4:10 am
JR East’s recent advertising theme has supposedly been “Let’s connect Japan.” This has been adopted by a steam road there that recently started its seasonal operations, although delayed by the recent earthquake:
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110514p2a00m0na020000c.html
Looks like there might be some other interesting stories in the links below, including some about the power plant.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Did some looking around on that “submarine” or “spaceship” train, and found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nankai_50000_series
The trains operate in a limited service, between Kansai Airport and Namba Station in Osaka.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapi:t
The road they run on is a private company, apparently something like a rapid transit line here, although its heritage goes well back into the steam era of the 19th century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nankai_Electric_Railway
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Gee, the internet is great:
http://www.nankai.co.jp/global/english/
Accommodations are interesting for what amounts to a rapid transit equipment set; this is a reserved seat service, the cars have restrooms and food service by vending machine (I am surprised that they even have this form of food service on a run this short, only a little over half an hour):
http://www.nankai.co.jp/global/english/traffic/rapit/index.html
The company knows it has something distinctive in its equipment:
http://www.nankai.co.jp/global/english/traffic/rapit/goods.html
Maybe there are some ideas in all this for California?
swing hanger Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 6:58 am
Interestingly, both Kansai and Narita Airports are served by two competing railway lines (one serving Narita even runs trains up to 100mph- “higher speed” rail)- like wow, what a concept, competition in passenger rail transport! However, people always complain about the distance from the city center and how the train takes “too long” (30~60 minutes). People always complain, no matter how good they have it, I guess…
Alon Levy Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 7:11 am
In their defense, Narita is located really far from the city center. The distance is about the same as the distance from Islip Airport to New York.
Jay Jennings Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 7:30 am
Narita is in BFE.
Haneda would be a better option now that the international terminal is going for flying into Tokyo
BTW most express or limited-express have bathrooms and vending machines in Japan.
Some comments from Bruce McF on the LAO repoprt:
http://www.progressiveblue.com/diary/6089/sunday-train-legislative-analyst-to-fresno-screw-you-and-your-high-speed-rail
Jack Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
I <3 you Bruce!
Shinkansen stations have been a huge boon to those cities which received them, so it’s no wonder people feel like celebrating.
BTW, I love the one shot where the dog is also getting into the spirit of things!
That video looks like propaganda. Who would voluntarily go jump up and down because the bullet train is going by? It all looks set up.
Okay, go out and wave to the train or take a picture, but these people have streamers and are large groups going out of their mind and celebrating in unison. It doesn’t look realistic.
Miles Bader Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Er, it was a (never-aired) commercial, so who knows.
But it’s not quite as unbelievable as you seem to suggest … Japanese really are enthusiastic about rail, and any new line opening — especially a Shinkansen line — attracts huge masses of people and is accompanied by a general air of celebration…
quashlo Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
It’s not “propaganda” per se…
JR Kyushu invited members of the public up and down the new line to come out for the filming (basically a regular N700 unit that was equipped with multiple cameras was operated between Hakata and Kagoshima). These are 10,000+ regular folks just showing some love for the new Shinkansen extension, not extras in a film.
Alex2000 Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Of course it was set up! It was a TV commercial by JR Kyushu!
Here is a behind the scenes video of the making of the CM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L0ZgV8ueZA
From an article about it:
“They took special efforts to film it, and 10,000+ people showed up at various places along the route, hoping to be in the commercial. They filmed 3 hours of tape, and edited it down to 3 minutes, which the director said was extremely difficult, because everything was so good that they didn’t want to leave anything out. It aired maybe a dozen times, and then the disaster struck, and the commercial was pulled, as it was thought that it was bad to show people happy and having a good time in such a difficult time. Recently though, people have begun to wish for the commercial to be shown again, as it’s a good example of how Japan can do anything when people work together, and people can and will strive again.”
Spokker Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
But this is what Robert said: “You’ll never hear a NIMBY acknowledge this, but there are a hell of a lot of Californians who will react the same way when our bullet train project opens.”
Californians will react the same way when they are asked to be in a commercial.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:26 am
If you were to believe the NIMBY’s, the people that would turn out would all be protesting.
You don’t get 10,000 people showing up along a rail corridor to jump up and down or try to race a HST that they despise.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Found some material on the performer, a Swedish singer of Japanese descent named Maia Hirasawa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn2eLMUKOro&feature=related
http://www.maiahirasawa.com/
http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Maia+Hirasawa
Jack Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Propaganda is Gov’t, this is Marketing!
Donk Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
“Who would voluntarily go jump up and down because the bullet train is going by?”
-DP Lubic would, especially if it is was a steam train.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
And you would, too–you see how we need this, and it would be an accomplishment to get it over the objections of the oil biz, car biz, car insurance biz, and the old fogies, too–yes, you would jump for joy, too, and I wouldn’t blame you. . .it would mean America was becoming a great country again. . .yes, indeed.
Donk Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Yeah I probably would. Just giving you a hard time…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Hey, that’s OK, nice to have fun!
Nathanael Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
I would totally go. Electric trains are awesome, why not go out and jump up and down? Everyone needs to be able to go cheer for something good sometimes. Makes more sense than jumping up and down and cheering for, say, a football team (what good do THEY do for society?).
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 4:24 am
“Everyone needs to be able to go cheer for something good sometimes.”–Nathanael
How I wish I had more to cheer about.
“Makes more sense than jumping up and down and cheering for, say, a football team (what good do THEY do for society?)–Nathaneal
Oh, I agree, I wondered what all the fuss was about for football in high school (and was labelled a square because of it)>
I’m also put off a bit by all the whoop about the death of Osama bin Ladin. It’s not that he ultimately did not deserve what came, but rather that it seems, well, unseemly, like gloating. I understand why people wanted to celebrate–but at the same time, I sometimes wonder if this makes us look bloodthirsty, and not just in the eyes of the Muslim world, but in the eyes of God himself.
I also think this is premature; we still don’t know for certain that the organization he left behind is kaput, and we have other problems, too, like that ongoing oil addiction.
wu ming Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 11:32 am
a couple of reasons: one, because going out and cheering for something – anything, really – can be fun, if friends and neighbors are doing it too, and especially if you can dress up, wave flags, etc. haven’t you ever seen a parade? the cheering itself is fun. contemporary japanese culture is less terrified of looking lame as well, which makes their cheering look weird to us from our more cynical “whatever” cultural perspective.
two, japanese people genuinely like their HSR, and since this line is in kyūshu, a more peripheral island that until now was sort of left out on the cool shiny infrastructure things like shinkansen that the richer, more central urban cores on honshu have, it has a sense of having arrived.
This article is unusually accurate in where the project is today and why it is time to kill it.
The Press-Enterprise
http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_D_op_16_ed_highspeedrail.3162cb4.html
(this first paragraph only below)
A high-speed rail system cannot run on moonshine and pipe dreams. California does not need to revamp its current plans for a bullet train, but scrap them entirely. The Legislature should put an end to a scheme that defies fiscal reality and risks a massively expensive boondoggle.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Question 1: In view of greater cost of building roads, combined with the possibility that said roads will be white elephants when cars become unaffordable due to the oil situation, can California afford not to build the rail system?
Question 2: In view of Question 1 and in view of said concerns about finances, if the railroad is not to be built now, then when should it be built?
Question 3: In reference to Question 1, what are your alternatives to this railroad if cars become unaffordable and the railroad is not built?
Jack Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
The roads won’t be built in near his home so he doesn’t care. He’s affluent and doesn’t care, as for three he also doesn’t care. All he cares about is cool summer nights on his porch with the thunder of Diesel Locomotives for a back drop.
joe Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Baloney. Peninsula cities are going to choke on cars.
Their major roads, HW 101, will backup, metering lights will be turned on and traffic back up on side streets. Drivers will find side street short cuts.
Meanwhile, peninsula cities will continue to build infill housing and produce more cars and traffic. They’re asking for traffic mitigation funding to cope with the added cars right now.
Morris thinks they’ll can stop population and economic growth – put a big stop to the congestion and encroachment and the way to achieve this is stop all rail and public transportation and use environmental laws to stop development.
Wad Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
The irony is that the Peninsula created sprawl precisely because it set out to stop it.
The anti-sprawl policies kept the development footprint relatively close to 101/Caltrain (if the Peninsula had been L.A. County, every square inch of land plus any hill that could be graded or support stilt housing would have been inhabited), and the scarcity of housing supply makes properties astronomically expensive.
The San Joaquin Valley and Solano County picked up the slack.
Nathanael Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
…and they have anti-height policies. If you don’t allow development to sprawl sideways, it may shoot upwards, but if you don’t allow it to do that EITHER….
Daniel Krause Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:51 am
Palo Alto and other peninsula cities already have terrible localized traffic and then there is 101.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Lets not forget the delightful scent of exhaust fumes gently wafting over the porch.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
With regards to question 1, as in favor of rail as I am, but unless CA residents are incredible wusses, cars aren’t going to be unaffordable. The Brits, for instance, are paying $8.337 dollars per gallon. Even air travel wouldn’t do poorly were the price of jet fuel to double (about 2.82 per gallon as of March). On a per passenger basis, it’s about 5.5-6 gallons between LAX and SFO using average figures. The market should be able to bear a $10-15 dollar increase in fares. Consider, for instance, that the cost of fuel has trebled over the past ten years, even after accounting for inflation.
joe Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
I’m not sure cars are affordable now – it depends on where CA citizens want to spend time and money. Young adults are choosing public transit. Also, SF and LA are building up extensive public transit systems.
Oil, crude prices, are projected to rise by 30% over the next 3 years. The oil production experts say Earth hit peak oil production, globally, in 2006.
Do we need one car per adult or do we want?
Are airlines competitive? Not in Spain.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:48 am
“Consider, for instance, that the cost of fuel has trebled over the past ten years, even after accounting for inflation.” … while incomes for the 80 percenters have not increased after accounting for inflation, and incomes for the 50 percenters have declined after accounting for inflation.
“Affordability” always has to include both price and ability to pay.
Since a majority of the population is locked into a home to work commute, and many will not be getting an oil-independent alternative over the decade ahead, the burden of adjusting to gasoline price increases falls on those trips that are easiest to dispense with.
Also, where do you get that fuel cost? Is it from actual short hop fuel consumption, or from an average fuel consumption per mile figure? I ask because:
Gibson: A lot of the fuel burn is in takeoff and landing. The airplane is really efficient when it’s up high in the air. And so as fuel costs have gone up, it actually impacts short-haul flights as a percent of the airfare more than it impacts long-haul flying.
VBobier Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Jets are really good with fuel when their at their prime altitude, Otherwise their lousy, The UPrr had a Turbine Engine, It made lots of horsepower and yep lots of noise, It was canceled as It used fuel like crazy at low rpms, As the Turbine/Jet is most efficient with fuel at high rpms.
Nathanael Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Bruce pinpoints it. If we’re going back to a Gilded Age economy, which at the moment we seem to be, the vast majority won’t be able to afford cars, period, full stop; they’ll be toys of the rich again.
I’d rather we *didn’t* go back to a Gilded Age economy, but if we instead restore a more equal distribution of wealth, we get back to the problems of congestion, and the fact that the very large population which now exists is simply moved more efficiently (==cheaply, quickly) by train.
The “car culture” evolved in a society with relatively low population and most of them fairly well to do thanks to income redistribution policies (starting with the high income taxes put in under Woodrow Wilson), *as well* as evolving in a cheap oil economy. The underpinnings are dead. Cheap oil is never coming back, and the other underpinnings would require generations to come back, with a worldwide negative-population-growth policy…. not likely to happen in our grandchildren’s lifetimes.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
fact that the very large population which now exists is simply moved more efficiently (==cheaply, quickly) by train.
Once you get past the inner ring suburbs everything is too spread out.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
That was simply the cost of airline fuel itself, with the 5.5-6 gallon figure being an average of airline average passenger miles per gallon. This site indicates about 20 gallons round trip fuel consumption for LAX-SFO, which means I’ve low-balled it by 50%. In that case, a further tripling would most likely greatly interfere with travel. Unless it doesn’t of course, I don’t expect a great deal of rationality out of the American business world anymore (who I presume represents the large majority of those passengers).
And the 80 percenters aren’t those making the vast majority of the trips I would imagine, or if they do, it’s on a business account and thus not really a concern anyhow. As it is, despite that trebling of air fuel prices, theaverage passenger fare has actually declined over the past ten years.
Wad Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Use of the word boondoggle constitutes baby talk. Boondoggle is popular because it produces the “oo” sound that infants enjoy so much, as in “goo goo ga ga”. Same thing with choo-choo.
ProudPANimby Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 11:53 am
Wad, you might be correct. The over use the the word boondoggle is making it near meaningless. Roget”s Thesarus suggests other words we could adopt that are fresh but equally descriptive. Such as: betrayal, blarney, cheat, circumvention, craftiness, cunning, deceit, fraud, dirt, disinformation, dupery, duplicity, equivocation, falsehood, fast one, flimflam, hokum, hypocrisy, imposition, insincerity, juggling, legerdemain, lying, mendacity, pretense, prevarication, snow job, sophism, treachery, treason, trickery, trickiness, trumpery, untruth. Pick your new descriptive word from the above list for us NIMBY’s to use to describe our feelings about the management CAHSR and its mangement tactics.
Maybe we should just continue to use the word boondoggle since you seem to know its meaning. I’m sure most of the other words are over your head.
Wad Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Whatever floats your boat. Yeah, and use choo-choo a lot, too. The way grown-ups are taken seriously is that by acting like children, your opponents will be too frustrated or feel too sorry for you to mount a challenge.
I do know how to use a thesaurus, and know that a lot of the words you have listed aren’t suitable to substitute for boondoggle. Or, go ahead and chant “Pretense!” “Pretense!” when you chain yourself to the cement mixers.
Here’s a word that describes NIMBYs like yourself: Wrong. Just let me know if that one happens to be over your head.
VBobier Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
I know of another word that best describes the anti-HSR Nimbys: Losers
Jack Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Nothing will make me happier than the day I sit next to you on this train, two Corona’s in hand as we whisk by SJ. Nothing in the whole wide world.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Corona? If they are selling alcohol on the train I hope they sell beer along with the Corona.
Wad Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Amtrak’s corridor trains right now can do better than Corona — though it is sold. The San Joaquins and Capitols have Sierra Nevada; the Surfliners carry Stone (Arrogant Bastard et al.).
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:23 am
Do they have Bohemia? I could never fathom drinking Corona in Mexico when Bohemia was available.
Wad Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Nope. Amtrak’s beer selection is limited to Bud/Bud Light, Miller Lite, Heineken, Corona and a corridor-specific California-made microbrew.
Pacific Surfliner ought to be fun, then. San Diego has become California’s Munich.
Nathanael Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
So you’re just making up evidence-free crap again, only this time you don’t even *pretend* to have arguments, you just string together words which sound bad. That about sum it up, Morris?
Do you guys like the new Siemens ICX?
https://mediathek.deutschebahn.com/marsDB/scr/cache/4377v6.jpg
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=309498
Eric M Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:20 am
The ICX train sets only have a top speed of 230 and 250 kph.
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:24 am
They are tilt trainsets then to replace the ICE-T
Eric M Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:29 am
They are replacing IC 1 and 2
New LA Times editorial about the LAO report. These guys are complete buffoons. They are still talking about the Bordon to Corcoran train to nowhere and clearly know nothing about the project.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-bullettrain-20110516,0,5409734.story
Joseph E Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:49 am
It’s a little disturbing that they have not heard of the funding to extend it from all the way to Bakersfield. Clearly they read the LAO report and some of the CATO/Reason stuff that’s being parroted, yet didn’t do any research of their own.
I also noticed that they agreed with taking away authority from CHSRA and giving it to someone else, but did not name Caltrans as the next choice. Perhaps they realize that most readers see Caltrans as dysfunctional and untrustworthy?
synonymouse Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 11:25 am
This is an excellent editorial in that it starts off by castigating the glaring error of the Palmdale-Tehachapi detour. This is truly enlightened and unexpected; the customary mouthpiece of local business and political interests would have parroted the Palmdale party line. I guess the Chandlers don’t have any juice at the LA Times anymore.
The Borden to Corcoran complaint remains valid as the final amount of federal funding won’t be clear until the debt ceiling debate is settled. I see Geithner’s tapping of the federal retirees funds as a political mistake as many of the retirees are democrats. Now if he had tapped the agricultural subsidies.
Meantime the UP is planning major civil works on the Tehachapi line:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/envdocs/d6/draft_tehachapi_mnd.pdf
VBobier Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Yeah to the tune of $106.7 million in 2012 Dollars from Caltrans according to the PDF… Government money to help a Private enterprise? build the New tracks for the BNSF only, Or both RR’s if the UP agrees to concessions in the Central Valley in regards to HSR near the UPrr tracks.
thatbruce Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Project cost is $106.7 million (2012 dollars), half from BNSF and half from Prop 1B monies. No ongoing expenditure as the new track will be maintained by the RRs, mostly likely BNSF. UPRR appears to be providing coordination assistance within its RoW, but not significant funding towards the project; ie, the driving entity seems to be BNSF.
VBobier Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
I didn’t see that, I stand corrected, So BNSF is paying for half, sounds good, The BNSF must be getting tired of sharing track with the UPrr then. I have the pdf at 146% so I can read It clearly as My prescription glasses won’t read anything on the screen.
Nathanael Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Oh sweet. UP is being offered a rather sensible bribe/blackmail — be reasonable about being next to HSR in the Central Valley and you get to use the new Tehachapi track, be unreasonable and BNSF gets it all. BNSF obviously is more than ready to stop being a tenant to UP on that track. (I think they’d probably like their own track north of Stockton, too, but I guess they haven’t spotted a way to do it “on the cheap”.)
Nathanael Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Note that this will *not* double-track the entire line; it only double-tracks five of nine single-track segments. Looks like they’re avoiding double-tracking the tunnels.
wu ming Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 11:34 am
it’s not that they don’t know, it’s that they don’t care. everything in the valley is “nowhere” to those people.
synonymouse Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 11:43 am
Give me a break – Tejon gives the San Joaquin Valley faster service and the Palmdale caper was strictly to secure a free BART to LA. Kudos to the LA Times for integrity and putting the best interest of the State overall first.
Now to rethink I-5 and Altamont.
Joey Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 11:57 am
I thought you conceded the I-5 point given that (a) there’s A LOT of population you’re bypassing (b) It would only save about 5 minutes compared to a greenfield alignment near or in the cities and (c) Running down the I-5 median is not really possible without major modifications to some curves (which I-5 does have a few of) and a lot of overpasses.
synonymouse Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
A decent study first and then I will only too happy to concede.
And have all the route controversies really been settled on the 99 corridor? That’s a wild card. I-5 would elicit less controversy and could be very expeditious to construct.
No matter I-5 or 99 Sac should be put back on the starter route.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
I-5 elicits fewer controversies in number, but a bigger one in size, since it reduces the net Benefit/Cost of the system as a whole.
synonymouse Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Faster from LA to Livermore and Sac. That’s a benefit.
And then what would be the cost/benefit ratio of upgrading the UP 99 corridor to 110mph as an alternative for Fresno north?
thatbruce Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
No ridership in the Central Valley, or worse, encouragement of urban sprawl on the west side of the valley. That’s not a benefit.
synonymouse Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
I suggest you are painting an altogether too dire a picture. No stops on the I-5 racetrack from Tejon to Livermore, thus no sprawl. Fresno to Sac via UP 99 line at 110mph not too shabby as it is not that long a run and numerous stops enroute.
The real question is whether the stakeholders along the hsr 99 corridor are gung ho and have signed off on the final route. If they get litigious move the show on over to I-5. Sounds like there is a lot of sentiment in the Valley in that direction already.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
so you are back to building two railroads instead of one. How many miles of extra railroad do you have to build to do that?
Joey Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Actually, the larger Central Valley cities seem to have accepted the routing without much complaint. There have been grumblings, but no real push to actually switch to a different corridor.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
They did a decent study and decided that Palmdale makes sense. You insisting that it isn’t a decent study doesn’t make it any less decent.
synonymouse Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
When even the LA Times agrees that Tejon was and is always the way to proceed we can see how things worked out the way they unfortunately did and wasted years. First comes the political decision and then crank out the appropriate spin. Every penny now should go to Fresno-Bako-LA via Tejon so we can at least have north south train service. Getting the catenary up from the outset would be the best but diesels do operate in the Moffatt Tunnel, which I believe is 6 miles.
The UP trackage is legacy not extra, but obviously the UP will have to be bankrolled. Not cheap, but then consider the exorbitant alternative of the BART-Amalgamated-TWU management model. What about offering operating the hsr as a franchise to the UP and/or Santa Fe?
VBobier Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Tejon, Tehachapi, We’ll see where the line goes, Right now, It’s too early, They do need some good estimates from that Aussie firm that dealt with Caltrans in 2004, As I’m now not trusting Pb’s estimates either, Too much Lead, Shiny, But costly…
BART should stick to Subways and It should stay out of Southern California, That’s Metrolink territory(Pro HSR).
Utterly Pathetic? Not a chance, BNSF is friendly to HSR, But not that friendly, Amtrak knows more about passenger rail than the current BNSF management does, So they’d pass. Go ahead make an offer to them, I think You’ll leave them laughing.
BTW: Thanks for the pdf on the Tehachapi Pass from one of Your earlier posts.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Every penny right now is dedicated to Fresno/Bako, and there’s not enough money to get either to Palmsdale or to get started on the Tejon pass, so every penny is going simultaneously to Fresno/Bako/Tehachapi and Fresno/Bako/Tejon.
Since the money is proposed to be spent precisely as you demand, its time for you to fish or cut bait and make a contribution to beating back the proposal that the LAO is fronting to abandon the HSR corridor connecting the North and the South of the state in favor unsuccessfully trying to raid the funds for commuter rail in the Bay and LA Basin, and with greater than 50:50 odds fail to keep the Federal funding and therefore be left with no funds to raid.
VBobier Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Agreed, Syno It’s time to do as BruceMcF suggested. If Yer against Pb & Bart(a Toxic Brat?), Support the HSR project better.
VBobier Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Syno, the line through the CV will not go down the I-5, As others have said It has curves that are just too tight and lots of overpasses that would need to be rebuilt, You may as well be asking for what the LAO asked for and You aren’t going to get that at all.
wu ming Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
you have made your utter disdain for people living in the central valley crystal clear over the years. it is clear you do not give a damn about us, and that whatever blather you’re parroting about altamont or whatever is just a cynical tool to try and spread FUD about the HSR as a whole. you have long since blown any hope of the benefit of the doubt.
YESonHSR Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
No they are trying to steal the money from the valley and make a glam LA-ANA Metrolink which is just as bad as a glam SF-SJ Caltrain..HSR is in the valley not these last 50-35 mile segments
synonymouse Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
That would be the case if the whole project collapses, a possibility. In that event BART will be in there too hoovering up every penny in sight.
On the other hand I suggest that the real hidden hand behind the call for flexibility in the use of federal funds, just as with putting the TBT on the back, back, back burner, is the CHSRA itself. When the budget is really tight they want the freedom to move funds around.
In any event Fresno to Bakersfield trumps Borden to Corcoran.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Actually no it doesn’t—-
“Borden to Cocoran” i.e. the Wye to Wasco makes a tremendous amount of sense because there is real political instability over redistricting. It’s not that Democrats will lose control necessarily, it’s that power is shifting away from the big urban areas an into the suburbs. (This isn’t news, it’s that in the last go round, the Legislature gerrymandered itself more stability.)
So, don’t be foolish. The big regional transportation agencies benefit big time from Pacheco and Palmdale, not vice versa, and those agencies are ultimately influenced by the big city politicians including Minority Leader Pelosi.
Nevertheless, the feds have put down hard cash to be matched by the state to demonstrate that there will be a true HSR line running down the state in a few short years.
datacruncher Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
It is the HSR version of the fights over water, “Chinatown” on rails. LA and the Bay Area want the money and don’t care what happens to anyone else in the state.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Chinatown on Rails????? Nah, it’s that Lowenthal et. all want something to run on in 2012 when they find themselves in unrecognizable districts for re-election or Congress. The William Mulhollands and Fred Eatons of the 21st century want HSR from SF to LA.
California’s fully understand the impact it will have on the Central Valley. The train will tear through living rooms of homes that have stood for 100 years. People will have to sell their homes they have had in the family for generations. It will slice farmland in half so that the farmer will have to pay for ANOTHER pump on the other side of the train and then hopefully there will be enough farmland left to farm. That said farm has been in the family for generations. We understand fully that you will not have enough money to build it and we DO NOT want it in the Central Valley! “High-speed rail experts have carefully and objectively concluded that the San Joaquin Valley is the best place to begin construction of the system” ~ Quote from Jim Costa. No one has “carefully and objectively” concluded the impact on the valley residents and if they have…they don’t care! Another reason to NOT vote for Costa. The valley WILL fight this…count on it!
YesonHSR Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Is that you Aaron????WHAA whackA
synonymouse Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
So, it sounds like not everyone in the Valley is in love with the 99 route.
A friend pointed out to me today that the Sac conurbation amounts to some 3 million sould. How can you take the Prop 1A scheme seriously when it consciously refuses to serve such a major destination straight ahead with no obstacles(unlike Pacheco)in the way. The LA Times is right on with all its fault-finding.
Now to enliven the day and turn up the flames, let me suggest something totally outrageous and anathema to one of the most powerful entities in the State. That would be BART. Not only should the CHSRA come under the aegis of Caltrans but also BART. I am suggesting the unthinkable: seize selected BART trackage and either dual gauge or outright convert to standard gauge ocs so hsr can utilize said ROW. Break up the evil empire.
To quote Craig Ferguson, I look forward to your letters.
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Someone must have really spikked the Kool-Aid
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
I’ve already said that eventually, the HSR operator, BART, and commuter rail in Southern California should be merged into one agency. The Authority though isn’t that agency. Neither is CalTrans which uses contractors to run its lines.
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Ummmm, maybe in Bakersfield but as far as I saw in the plans, that was about it. What about the 20% unemployment in the major cities in the Valley? Especially the construction sector would love to be put back to work earning a living. Would you guys rather have SR 56 tear right through the valley instead?
The sky is no longer falling in the state budget (assuming Jerry Brown can get the taxes extended):
“Jump in Revenue Halves California’s Deficit, Brown Says”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17california.html?hp
VBobier Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
$10 billion is better than $15 billion any day, So this is good news indeed. But is still far from being eliminated, Repugs in power are only asking for More cuts to Seniors and more worthless gimmicks…
LA Times editors want to reprogram HSR money to LA Anaheim and SF SJ routes. Wants to re-negotiate with the Feds.
“The only practical way out of this mess is to follow the legislative analyst’s advice and start over, renegotiating terms with the federal government and building the initial segment in a more populous area, such as between San Francisco and San Jose or between Los Angeles and Anaheim. That way, even if the rest of the line is never built, we’d still end up with a heavily used urban rail line. Such renegotiation could jeopardize federal funding and delay construction, but the needless haste created by Washington’s arbitrary deadlines have resulted in mistakes that could be extremely costly.”
The LA Times is more than entitled to their own opinion, much like people such as
Morris Brown and synonymous are as well. By the way, when did this project become a train wreck?
Answer with facts, not with biased opinion.
VBobier Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
The LA Times, Smittyan, Lowenbrau, Eschew and the people at the LAO that advocated this cockamamie scheme can go to HELL. All the money for HSR will be spent on HSR in California and the CHSRA will stay where It is at, Semi independent and I’d think backed by the rest of the People of California, Legislature and of course by Governor Jerry Brown.
Amtrak CA is reporting via twitter and FB that the San Joaquin has reached one million riders.
VBobier Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Well that’s a Million people who aren’t buying as much fuel as they used to.
Just got back from Japan.
Used the bullet train a lot. the JR pass is awesome. I feel that if everyone could see how easy and quiet the trains are, getting it built here would be a non-issue and have happened already.
Jay Jennings Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Oh here is a vid shot out the window going by homes, apartments, rivers, schools.
no problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNPIkopF_fs
Seeing how much love many are displaying for the LA Times editorial:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-bullettrain-20110516,0,5409734.story
they can now deal with this LA Times Opinion Piece:
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/05/i-love-trains-one-of-my-earliest-memories-is-leaving-my-small-texas-town-to-move-to-nebraska-i-sat-in-the-dome-car-and-watc.html
California’s bullet train: A fast track to nowhere
joe Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
ZOMG!,
LA Times thinks Federal money should be reallocated from the central valley to the LA-Anaheim rail line.
Obviously this editorial is a high minded, unbiased view of how to take infrastructure from the Central Valley and move it to LA.
But really – do you want the HSR segment between SF-SJ corridor to start now? Really? Do you really want that segment built NOW?
I think this exemplifies why the CAHSRA is an essential entity.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Really give me a break about the opinions… all the early a.m. ones. long beforer anyone in California wakes up are from the usual tea bagger closet racists.. screaming about liberals and all the Mexicans riding the train to San Francisco.. so that’s your line of thinking also? The other opinions state these OPED is full of it and that also goes for the second opinion if you notice..
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 11:08 am
Didn’t get to look at all the opinions, but of the ones I did see, this stood out:
Lelliot4 at 8:30 AM May 17, 2011
At the heart of the controversy is money. There is far more money to be made to have a million people riding in a lot of $20,000 automobiles than to have a million people riding in a few million dollar trains. The conservative arguement is to do nothing and let the market sort it out. As students of California history know, California in the 1920′s had the most extensive interurban rail system in the world. The market decided cars were better and by the early fifties the rail system had pretty much disappeared.
The market decides things based on the profit motive. Quality of life and regard for the environment are issues the market doen’t normally concern itself with. So Southern California with its matrix of jammed multi laned freeways, its iffy air quality, its expensive hours long commutes are what you get when you let the market decide.
Had southern California elected to expand the existing light rail system of the 20′s with the same enthusiasum they later devoted to the freeway system, Los Angeles would now be a jewel of a city.
So many of the problems the country now faces are the result of putting the making of money ahead of all else. So southern California like the rest of the country has to decide, do we want to continue putting money ahead of quality of life or would we like to try something else?