PBS NewsHour Looks at California HSR Project
Last week the PBS NewsHour filed this 9-minute report on the California high speed rail project. It’s an overview of the project, some of the debates around it (including a visit to Kings County) and short interviews with Dan Richard of the California High Speed Rail Authority, US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, and Republican Senator Doug LaMalfa who wants to kill the project. It’s worth watching:
Watch Will Brown’s Vision for High-Speed Rail Stay on Track? on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.
It doesn’t delve too deeply into the issues, and tends to take the usual “he said, she said” approach to journalism that consistently fails to inform the public about what is actually going on.
That being said, what I do like a lot about this report is that it continues to help frame the debate as Republicans versus Jerry Brown and Barack Obama. PBS has been bullied into cowardice by 15 years of Republican attacks, so they didn’t mention that the states of Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida rejected HSR funds because their Tea Party governors insisted on it for ideological reasons.
But the basic “GOP vs Brown/Obama” framing is there and that’s what matters. And that is why people like Senators Alan Lowenthal and Joe Simitian are so far out on a limb with their opposition to high speed rail funding. They actually think Californians will want to side with the Tea Party over their governor and their president – and that siding with the Tea Party is a good place for themselves to be politically. They will quickly discover how wrong they are.
“I do like a lot about this report is that it continues to help frame the debate as Republicans versus Jerry Brown and Barack Obama”
With all respect, you still don’t get it. The Peninsula NIMBY’s are liberal Democrats. This isn’t a left Vs. right issue. By oversimplifying the conflict you cannot effectively take on the resistance to the project.
Neil Shea Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
I like Robert’s framing. It has been very negative criticism, implying that it is OK to just end the project (e.g. “we can’t trust the ridership projections”). It has not been of the type of “Let’s get some more $$ to California so we can make the project better” and “How do we accelerate the timeline”.
If we don’t build this project, what are the other actions we will take to address the transportation needs of California’s fast growing population; the rising cost of oil, imported from unfriendly places; climate change and rising sea levels; the increasing desire of people to have alternatives to single passenger automobile transportation; etc?
Democrats are working to address these issues, Tea Party folks are playing the ostrich with its head in the sand, working to cut funding for transit and bike paths as well as trains. It’s a clear choice and it seems Simitian and Lowenthal are comfortable being on the wrong side of history here.
Walter Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
True liberals don’t protect their property values at the expense of everyone’s future. Let’s stop pretending that the CARRD crowd hates the project with fiery vitriol for altruistic reasons.
They might vote Democratic, but they certainly don’t live out their values when they come within a few hundred yards of their houses.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Rational people look at the experience the world over, including places in the US, where fast clean quiet electric trains increase property values. Unless they truly believe blaring horns, clanking bells, diesel fumes and the delays at grade crossings make an area more attractive.
Jonathan Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Electrification won’t do away with blaring horns.
Electrification won’t do away with clanking bells.
Electrification won’t do away with delays at grade-crossings.
For those, you need grade separation. And sane operating rules.
The PAMPA NIMBYs have been all railed up by stories of trains running right by schools at 125mi/hr, and stories of 70-foot structures (berm/aerial, plus overhead catenary).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Yes the catenary is going to destroy the bucolic charm of Palo Alto
http://g.co/maps/dr3gq
Matthew Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Don’t forget the pedestrians promenading down Alma Street.
http://g.co/maps/yd3ny
Oh no, did they start electrification yet? I see overhead wires!
Jonathan Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:26 am
Some people with homes near the tracks think their views will be spoilt, which iwll affect their property prices, so they’re campaigning vigorously against.. any Caltrain modernizatoin, apparently.
I was amused by the sincere-sounding Menlo Park resident in the meeting Morris Brown cited recently, who though there was a big difference between getting hit by a train traveling at 80mi/hr, and by a train traveling 110mi/hr.
I will be very interested to see whether CARRD manages to come up with a rational, responsible objection to whatever dribs-and-drabs of “Early Investment” HSR money MTC lets Caltrain apply for.
VBobier Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:33 am
Actually I’d think one would just be dead, regardless of the speed.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Yes the only difference between getting hit by a train at 80 and getting hit by a train at 110 is the lenght of the debris trail along the tracks.
Jonathan Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:11 pm
you know that, and I know that, but the concerned citizens of Menlo Park are saying something completely different.
VBobier Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Electrification won’t need blaring horns when the Tracks are elevated.
Electrification won’t need clanking bells when the Tracks are elevated.
Electrification won’t have any at grade-crossings when the Tracks are elevated, as the roads will be going underneath the tracks.
70′, the CHSRA could have done a better outreach on this, but then the legislature has kept the CHSRA on a tight leash for money and staff, so No PR…
Then We are in agreement, only the ignorant Nimbys will disagree.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Wrong. Just as you are every single time.
Visit grade-crossing-free Belmont or San Carlos or Hillsdale or Bayshore (can you find them on a map? Good boy!) or any other Caltrain station some time and report back on the lack of horns and bells.
Or search youtube if you’re too lazy to do any field work.
HONK HONK HONK dingdingdingdingding HONK.
VBobier Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
I said they won’t be needed, I didn’t say they aren’t there, shove it.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 10:53 pm
That’s special. Now please explain it to Caltrain. It’s Caltrain’s World Class Staff and America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals actively seeks to continue running a dinddingdingding HONK HONK Olde Tyme historic replica 1:1 scale Commuter Railroad, only with wires above. Grade separations don’t change things in the slightest.
Keep up the sterling 0% accuracy work, little trooper!
VBobier Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Not all sections of the Caltrain ROW are elevated, when all sections are elevated then & only then will the two not be needed or at least used anymore, so how am I wrong??? A half truth is still a lie of omission…
Jonathan Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
because there are still DING-DING-DING 19th century bells at San Carlos and Belmont when trains stop.
And horns which are audible lo, 2 miles into the hills, at 1am or whenever-it-is.
FRA regulations and California law require trains to blow horns at, uh, 440yds from a station, and while passing thtrough the station even if the train does not stop.
VBobier Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Well does that happen over in France with their HSR or in Japan? If not then the FRA regs need a waiver or just plain updating.
Jonathan Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
FRA regs need [...] just plain updating?
Well surprise, surprise, surprise.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Quick, get the FRA on Metro North’s case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh-MG7NFpQA
Alon Levy Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Horn? What horn?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_pA31TX33g
swing hanger Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Apparently the FRA only “recommends” that a bell be sounded when a train enters or leaves a station (regardless of whether or not it stops). Horns are required to be used at grade crossings.
Jeff Carter Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Oh my god!!!
Trees right next to an electrified 4-track rail line!!!
A (residence/business) building right next to an electrified 4-track rail line!!!
A diesel Amtrak train running under the (OCS) overhead centenary!!!
How is this possible?
How come they did not clear cut all trees within ¼ mile of the tracks?
How come the buildings have not been vibrated off their foundation?
How come the diesel locomotive didn’t self-destruct under the centenary or how come the diesel exhaust did not disintegrate the OCS wire?
Where are the stupid blaring horns?
Sure this is not a HSR line, but still…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
A diesel Amtrak train running under the (OCS) overhead centenary!!!
Not only Amtrak diesels but Metro North diesels too!! And the odd P&W or other freight locomotives.
Jeff Carter Reply:
March 7th, 2012 at 4:50 am
Freight locomotives/trains…. No way….
Don’t tell that to CC-HSR or Boondoggle, they have done lots of research and everything they say is 100% true and accurate!!!
joe Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
125 MHP on HSR track is safe compared to now.
What I fail to understand is how NIMBYs in Palo Alto can see GUNN high school with a sad legacy of kids committing suicide by train, sit right against the 150 year old ROW and still unconditionally oppose track and grade separations that would save lives of students and those accidentally killed along the city ROW.
One would think PA would be saying “Yes, if” and making counter-proposals for self interested grade separations and safety.
PA shut down and the city opposes HSR. Period.
peninsula Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Thanks for confirming you don’t know crap about the area you’re railroading through. GUNN high school does not sit right up against the tracks.
VBobier Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Yes, You are right, Gunn H.S. isn’t next to the tracks, just a few blocks away Caltrain ROW and Gunn High School. Here’s a Close up, Just as Cecil B. DeMille would like…
joe Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Yes, Palo Alto High School is it’s name, not Gunn. Even more stupid is that I carpool and pick up my spouse at Town and Country Shopping Center across the street from PAHS. I also don’t know the school mascot.
But the rest is right – suicide by rail and all. You know, the trivial stuff – right?
Spokker Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 1:38 am
Suicide by rail is a good contender for trivial. Suicide in general, an issue. By rail? It’s an inconvenience for those delayed hours. You don’t tackle suicide by tackling suicide by rail. The suicides go elsewhere.
I think a good question to ask is, “How much higher would Japan’s suicide rate be if their railroads were not as grade separated as they are?”
Brian Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
@ peninsula,
I suspect you are the one that does not know shit about the area.
In case you were not following the news in the last few years there had been a series of suicides by Gunn High School students on the tracks. It made national news as they tried to figure out what was happening. Yes, Gunn is actually a couple miles away but most students live on the other side of the tracks from the school and need to cross them every day.
Except for aerial structures, grade separation would not completely eliminate the suicide risk (can still climb over fences) but it makes it a hell of a lot more difficult. Very rarely do you ever hear about someone committing suicide by BART. I believe it happened last year but the person jumped on the tracks from within the station.
peninsula Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Thats what I love about this blog – listening to a bunch of know nothing smucks that think they are so fucking smart, make a bunch of bloviated pronouncements – the best ones of which are about other peoples neighborhoods. Joe premised his point that suicides happening at Gunn were correlated to Gunn sitting right up against the track. Wrong; Gunn doesn’t sit up against the tracks – that’s Paly. Suicides at Gunn are unrelated to location of Gunn against tracks (because its not). Suicides at Gunn have nothing to do with the tracks other than the tracks are across town and they are accessible method for children. Many towns have tracks in town or near town somewhere – why don’t all towns have this kind of suicide story? Its a bigger issue. To use suicides to further your HSR at any cost (pathetic) argument is slimy and disgusting. But, by the way, I’m not surprised at all, because that’s what this blog is all about – the slimhy and disgusting forcing their way into areas they have no fucking business being.
Tim Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Um ok?
Jonathan Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
@peninsula:
Joe meant Paly. Joe corrected himself well before your tirade.
Brian _did_ mean Gunn, but he also explained that a number of Gunn students who live on the opther side of the tracks, have suicided on the tracks.
joe Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Thank you Jonathan.
Here’s some references to death by train.
Also accidents – people get confused and die along the Paly ROW. Fix it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BibQHBA4_D0 – 20 second warning.
and
and
The city is putting lipstick on a pig but their efforts demonstrate the city has a responsibility to improve safety. No attempt to blame kids or out-of-town visitors who get killed at the confusing gates.
The Caltrain ROW is crappy and dangerous – PA should use HSR as an opportunity to fix it and save lives. Some homes will be taken.
Responsible_Thought Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
peninsula said,
“Thats [sic] what I love about this blog – listening to a bunch of know nothing [sic] smucks [sic]”
Is that how you spend your life? Really?
and “the slimhy [sic] and disgusting forcing their way into areas they have no fucking business being”
Is that what you think of all the people who will be riding the train coming through
your neighborhood? Is that what “responsible” rail planning means to you? Like, “not in my over-priced neighborhood”?
I guess this about sums up where the NIMBYists are coming from. Thanks for speaking up in a way that others politically won’t.
NOW: I realize property values are down all over — including the multi-million-dollar homes; but, can we please have some proof of what specific impacts this project will have on your property values? Evidence, please.
Spokker Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 3:21 am
“NOW: I realize property values are down all over — including the multi-million-dollar homes; but, can we please have some proof of what specific impacts this project will have on your property values?”
He wasn’t talking about any of that here.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
It sounds like your hearing is defective. You ought to have it checked. Perhaps the ear canals are clogged with foam?
Neil Shea Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 7:12 pm
It’s a great point joe, after the terrible spate of suicides you’d think you’d want to separate the tracks and road. Instead my town of Palo Alto paid a part time security guard near one of the crossings for several months, and never considered permanent solutions.
And ‘peninsula’: By attaching joe, are you saying you seem to want to leave a busy active railroad crossing several streets at grade, with it so easy for a depressed child to irreversible step?
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Riiight…because grade separation will prevent suicides.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Don’t forget the trio of drunk teens who decided to go sleep on a grade separated portion of LOSSAN only to get hit by a Metrolink train.
joe Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
No, they’ll reduce suicides – and eliminate accidental deaths.
Palo Alto isn’t trying anymore – they are busy drafting a “Why we oppose HSR” manifesto and walked away from the entire project.
It is shameful the City isn’t trying to grab the HSR money to build a safer ROW – but that would piss off the NIMBYs. Palo Alto city government is cowered.
VBobier Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Yep, No Guts and No Glory…
Spokker Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 1:34 am
Grade separation as a suicide prevention tool is poor policy. People determined to commit suicide will do so. If there is another reason to grade separate, go ahead and have the debate. There *may* be benefits to not having suicides at that specific location, but don’t pretend you’re saving lives or something. The suicides just happen elsewhere.
Andy M. Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 2:37 am
I disagree that people who are committed to suicide will do so anyway.
Suicidal depressives tend to go through suicidal phases that can often be as short as minutes and can easily be ended by an unexpected shock or distraction, a change of location or by intense physical activity. If you make them walk further or force them to climb over high fences or put other obstacles between them and train lines you will definitely save lives.
Spokker Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 3:23 am
You could also wrap the whole world in bubble wrap and remove the knives from people’s homes.
You could also not permit the trains to serve cities with tall buildings and bridges.
Spokker Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 3:27 am
What Japan has done is mandate fines against the next of kin of those who have committed suicide if they do so on railroad tracks. Since many of their lines are grade separated, the suicidal Japanese people kill themselves at stations. They plan to install barriers at all stations.
So grade separation alone will not do it. You need barriers at stations as well. And then…
Neil Shea Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
It is not true that people who commit suicide at convenient popular places would do it somehow anyway. There is a lot of research that Andy M is right. Palo Also has become a suicide hot spot, with folks from up and down the Caltrain line going to East Meadow and Charleston crossings to end their lives.
There are also accidental deaths on Palo Alto’s crossings, including the tragic older woman last year.
joe Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Thanks Neil;
FWIW the Golden gate bridge has suicide prevention structures. They prevent suicides.
Grade separations will not stop suicides but the track is still too accessible.
Spokker Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Suicide prevention measures at a specific location prevent suicides at that location, yes.
Matthew B Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 3:53 am
Let’s try some facts: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/saves-lives/index.html
Reducing access to “lethal means” will reduce suicides by that mean, and often reduces suicide rates overall. Yes, it’s theoretically possible that someone could commit suicide by some other means, but a significant proportion of people do not. A reasonable person should therefore conclude that reduced access to a method of suicide will save lives overall. This is not a slimy or callous strategy to force some outcome, but to ask that public safety be considered in building public infrastructure. I would be very happy if we could eliminate grade crossings where high numbers of suicides have taken place.
Emma Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 12:18 am
It depends on the grade separation. That’s why I think any below-grade structure is pure crap. People can’t wait to fall down and I bet some 18 wheeler will manage to someone fall on the rails and it will take us hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a car/truck lifted out of there. Above-grade or at grade. Everything else is not going to work in this state.
Andy M. Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 5:03 am
Why should it cots hunderds of thousands to life a truck out of a hole in the ground?
You can hire very big cranes for much less than that.
If that fails, you just send a couple of guys down with good old-fashioned acetylene torches and cart the truck out in pieces.
VBobier Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:40 am
@ Andy: The costs will be more than just lifting vehicles out of a trench, it would be restoring the caternary and the rails on the ROW, restoring the bridge rails, the cost of firefighters & police isn’t free, so it’s better to have an elevated ROW than one that is trenched as an elevated is less costly to everyone, besides a Trench is OUT, If YOU want a Trench, then YOU pay for It, up front.
Miles Bader Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Sorry Emma, but that’s pretty much the stupidest “argument” that I’ve ever seen you make.
There are these things called “fences” and “railings” that do a great job of preventing people from falling down….
[and the thing about an "18 wheeler" is simply bizarre—once you start avoiding building things "because somebody might drive an 18-wheeler off the road and get into trouble," you're basically going to have to stop building anything. Elevated structure? Somebody might drive an 18-wheeler into one of the pillars! Wall? 18-wheeler. Kindergarten? Somebody might drive an 18-wheeler into it and kill hundreds of children! Won't anybody think of the children?!?]
Responsible_Thought Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Emma: so, like really: you mean to say that the project will leave holes in the ground that everyone will fall into? Do you fear that they won’t think of this come construction time?
Also, do tell us: what specific evidence do you have that this specific project will lower your
property values? Evidence, please?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
And putting the trains overhead comes with it’s own risks. Off the top of my head
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbridge_train_wreck
thatbruce Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 11:40 am
@Emma:
The Alameda Corridor’s trench doesn’t seem to have attracted many suicides or errant vehicles diving into its depths.
Matthew Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
What’s their plan to stop suicides by truck or bus on the high speed arterial roads that pass through Palo Alto? Or for that matter, accidents?
VBobier Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Simple get rid of Caltrain…
joe Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Matthew, can you give us some examples of suicide by bus in PA? I can’t find any.
We know the city collects millions from Stanford expansions for traffic mitigation and uses that money to improve traffic safety.
CARRD members tell us their city cut a 4 lane road feeding traffic from HW 280 down to 2 lanes and widened the bike lanes. Safety first.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=21781
So they really do need to address the ROW. It is a shame they can’t figure a way to engage CAHSRA.
Responsible_Thought Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Perhaps they can’t figure out a way to engage CAHSRA because they are incapable of anything rational. These people are not interested in making a good project happen. Looks like all screaming, venting, and politics, to me.
Spokker Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 1:35 am
You are using the suicide for political gain. You care not for those who take their own lives anymore than I do.
joe Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
I use suicide by train as reminder that the Palo Alto tracks are dangerous and too accessible.
VBobier Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
I’d expect the PA City council to float a measure to rip the Caltrain tracks out to solve their suicide, noise & HSR problem… Not that PA can do this by themselves of course, they’d need something like all the cities along the ROW & the state of CA to all agree to this, I don’t see the PA Police stopping HSR construction at the PA border, as they would be exceeding their statutory authority, as HSR will go through, with or without the PA City Councils cooperation and that goes double for Menlo Park, Atherton or Burlingame…
Spokker Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Less dangerous than the roads and highways. We complain about fiscal conservatives holding railroads up to a higher standard. Should we hold them up to higher standards too, if it gets us what we want?
If you truly feel that it will save lives, then fine. I will not cast aspersions on your intentions anymore. But you’re wrong about it.
VBobier Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
That’s cause the current PA City Council wants Caltrain gone, they don’t want an upgrade to Caltrain, as that would give Caltrain a new lease on life.
synonymouse Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Pure nonsense. The Peninsula saved the SP commute service from BART, but which in the early 90′s killed the TBT Tunnel and electrification program. The enemy is not the Peninsula – it is BART, MTC, Amalgamated.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
No true Scotsman, eh?
Alon Levy Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Ted Kennedy. Wind farms. Cape Cod.
Peter Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 9:06 am
Cape Wind, now THAT’s an epic environmental battle. HSR is a minor sideshow in comparison in terms of regulatory and court battles.
Jo Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Liberal democrats can be just as inept as tea party republicans.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Oh I get it – the Peninsula NIMBYs are “liberal Democrats.” That’s my point. They are going to side with Tea Party Republicans and help undermine President Obama for their own selfishness. And they are going to demand that Democratic elected officials in Sacramento join them in doing so. They are completely deluded if they think that most Sacramento Democrats will side with them and the Tea Party over President Obama in an election year.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Oh, my. Peninsula Democrats aren’t ditto-heads, and will support the President’s policies iff they are the correct policies.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
So they’ll support grade-separation and a speed increase of a hybrid plan because it’s the correct thing to do, and limit their criticism of the HSRA to what you and Richard are saying?
joe Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Siding with the opposition and obstructing the President, The Gov, the Senate leader and House minority leader has political consequences. And doing so in an election year.
If elected, on which Committees would Nancy Pelosi Assign HSR-opponent and junior house member Alan Lowenthal? It is her call.
VBobier Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Janitorial duty is where Alan Lowenthal belongs, but then He’s almost a Repugnican, He may as well go all the way, as He won’t be trusted with anything important If He crosses the President, Palosi and a couple of US Senators on HSR.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 11:35 pm
Next time President Romney tries to pass yet another indefinite detention bill, I hope people will obstruct him as much as possible.
joe Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Alon, Alon, time to wake up. Time for school.
Jonathan Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
You’re such an optimist….
Spokker Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 1:31 am
Haha, damn, Joe. Even the Republicans aren’t giving Ron Paul this much shit for criticizing his own party. Romney even treats him like a bro.
Spokker Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 1:32 am
Haha, Lowenthal has a contrary opinion on HSR. Bring out the tar and feathers? Obstruct his career? What is this nonsense? What is the end game here?
Alon Levy Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 3:02 am
You sound like the kind of person who votes Republican just to be bipartisan. Otherwise, what is wrong with campaigning against a politician who opposes your agenda?
Spokker Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 3:21 am
Diversity of views, lived experiences, honest debate with a full set of opinions in the interest of the public good.
His presence on, say, a transportation committee, would be an asset, especially if he is offering new and different viewpoints than the rest of the committee.
VBobier Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:43 am
Put Him on Defense, not on Transportation or much else, that’s what I’d do & make sure He has no power…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
If he talks like a Republican and votes like a Republican why should the Democrats have anything to do with him?
VBobier Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Good point. But then there is the old saying, Keep Yer friends close and Yer enemies closer, I’m not sure how that applies to A. Lowenbrow…
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
You people are total lunatics. Completely divorced from reality.
This is a Republican voting record?
Lunatics.
Frank H Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
IF…….. Lowenthal’s committee assignments are determined by Pelosi – “diversity of views, lived experiences, honest debate” are great – but she wont put him on a committee where his voting record is clearly too divergent from Democratic goals. She needs dependable votes – he can submit his views and experiences for the Congressional record. The last thing she needs is a wild card.
I’m just saying that’s probably what the thinking will be.
synonymouse Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 11:19 am
Simitian could very well be Caltrain’s last and best friend. If he goes over to Ring the Bay his voice could be the one that launches the BART offensive. The CHSRA is then stopped at San Jose.
Tom McNamara Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
I think you have that backwards. The people who would want CHSRA to stop in San Jose if there’s Ring the Bay are guys like DeSalunier who want that revenue chokepoint to pay for more improvements out his way…
Simitan doing what you describe would be a sort of “shoot the moon” or “grim trigger” approach which likely won’t succeed.
Instead, BART and CHSRA will eventually design a “blended approach” that elevates BART above CHSRA from SFO/Milbrae to San Jose. But that’s a ways off for now….
synonymouse Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
The veto precedent established by LA over Tejon secures San Jose’s veto over Altamont, so that kills CHSRA and Ring the Bay together from Dumbarton north via Altamont.
So it’s either blended Caltrain-CHSRA, CHSRA solo or Ring the Bay with PAMPA subway and hsr bottled up for good at San Jose.
BART-hsr berms or hollow core aerials in PAMPA – a cheerleader’s crack-dream.
But I could see Simitian throwing up his hands with the LA-Fresno-San Jose triumvirate and going along with BART-MTC-Heminger, Richard, Brown and advocating Ring the Bay solo with subway for PAMPA.
VBobier Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Syno are You crazy? Tejon is dead, finished, it’s settled and no amount of whining on anyones part is going to change that, so get over it and move on.
Tom McNamara Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
I don’t think you quite get it:
1) Ring the Bay is inevitable not because of BART’s magic power but that it’s a prisoner’s dilemma for local governments. If they don’t seek extensions, someone else will.
2) The only way that you get Ring the Bay built is with HSR as a joint venture. $8 billion isn’t dropping out of the sky for local transit…but statewide projects….different story.
3) The Malone-Burton-Brown-Pelosi-Shelley-Kim “machine” will not allow, under any circumstances, CAHSR to end in San Jose. San Francisco knows what it lost when it ceased to be the “end of the line” for Southern Pacific in the post World War II era and will not, by any means necessary, let that happen again….
VBobier Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
I don’t give a damn about BART, OK???? Take BART and shove It where the sun don’t shine.
synonymouse Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Sorry, you don’t get how it works around here. BART and its unions put the local taxpayers where the sun doesn’t shine.
synonymouse Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
San Jose is now the LA of Norcal – San Francisco can’t even keep the 49′ers. San Jose belongs to the triumvirate that created hsr in its own image and runs it.
BART and its unions own Pelosi and she is the titular head of the patronage machine in the process of taking over California. BART is the fundingmeister – $8 bil.- no problem.
$8bil – you’ll blow more than that on that moronic moneypit roundabout at Tehachapi. It would receive a lower cost-benefit rating than the abysmal one MTC gave to the TBT tunnel.
Tom McNamara Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 6:48 am
But …. L.A…. (still) doesn’t have a…. football team? And San Jose’s major employers already wear safety equipment….
synonymouse Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 9:20 pm
The Central Suxway should be adequate proof that San Francisco “knows” nothing but how to **** up royally.
Spokker Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 1:40 am
At the end of the day, all politics is local. The NIMBYs care more for their home values than political ideology. People are self-interested. Liberals pretend not to be, but they are. They also do not practice what they preach.
Which is fine. Most people don’t. I don’t. I’m scum. So are you people.
synonymouse Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 11:38 am
@ Spokker
Thanx for the candor – refreshing. If you are interested in puppeteering I recommend “Limitless”, a sleeper that I think bombed but a both innovative and entertaining take on how “predicting” could play out.
I think the TARPers have already taken the baby steps to gaming everything.
Spokker Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Thanks syn! Let’s ride the rails together!
… at 7:45, it’s going to make the cows go dry. What is this 1835?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
And at 8:07, a train in Europe goes past cows, and they don’t even flicker their ears or turn their heads. . .I wonder what that dairy farmer things after seeing that. . .
StevieB Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
The section of the Newshour with the cows comes from KQED’s Train Wars.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
That he won’t be able to get quite as much as he would like when he decides to grow McMansions.
Jeff Carter Reply:
March 7th, 2012 at 7:45 am
Terrorize the cows? What planet are they from? Planet Zork?
I guess those cows have not friended on Facebook or chat with the cows along the 101 freeway in Marin and Sonoma Counties???
How come the Marin/Sonoma cows are not terrorized by the cars and big rig trucks zooming by them on the 101?
How come the grape vines along the 101 in Sonoma Co. aren’t terrorized into NOT producing fine wine grapes?
I’m sure that Boondoggle and CC-HSR has the well-researched answers to these all important questions…
The way I judge such stories is: did they got the demographics right? Do they say that Fresno has a metropolitan population of 930 thousand? That Bakersfield has 730K? I think that many enemies of high speed rail want people to think that the project is much more distant from population centers, as if it was Alturas to Yreka, because they don’t want voters to see the reality that there are already 6 trains (round trip) between Fresno and Bakersfield.
VBobier Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Sounds like some want the 6 to go away, far away.
Paul Dyson Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
How many tickets do they sell for journeys between Fresno and Bakersfield?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Who cares? Nobody is planning to have the initial operating segment be Fresno-Bakersfield.
DingDong Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:39 am
At least in 2009 (I don’t have more recent data) Bakersfield was the top destination or point of origin for passengers embarking or disembarking at Fresno. http://www.narprail.org/cms/factsheets/cities_all.pdf
blankslate Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 10:53 am
Except that this fact sheet does not tell us whether passengers that used Amtrak to get between Fresno and Bakersfield were actually traveling to/from Bakersfield or were using using one of the connecting buses to/from Socal (channeling Sobering Reality, whether they are “O&D”)
DingDong Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 11:14 am
Yes, that’s true. But I’m not sure what difference that makes. Are you suggesting that HSR between Fresno and Bakersfield would not significantly increase ridership between the two cities because the only potential rail ridership between the two cities now is very price-sensitive but time-insensitive SoCal-bound passengers, so the faster trip to Bakersfield would not make a difference (i.e. because they are already capturing all of the potential market with current service)?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 4th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Well, they didn’t go into as much detail as I’d have liked, and PBS has been afraid to call bullshit on things like that, preferring he said/she said journalism.
Neil Shea Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 1:40 am
Overall the piece was relatively positive, but they implied that the central valley is sparsely populated when in fact is has more residents than half the other states. They also could have mentioned the inevitable need for transportation in a state which is projected to add 10m residents while HSR is being built.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 3:01 am
Yes, the CV has a lot of residents, if you include Sacramento and the spillover exurban sprawl from the Bay Area. What’s your point?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
That it makes more sense to build HSR in the Central Valley than it does to build it between Cheyenne and Boise? Or maybe that it makes sense to build it through the cities and not miles and miles away along I-5?
Alon Levy Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Sure, you know I have nothing positive to say about I-5. But, the main markets for CAHSR are not internal to the CV; they’re LA-SF, LA-SD, SF-Upper CV sprawl, and LA-CV.
Matthew B Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 4:32 am
If the whole “debate” is about whether it makes sense to start in the CV, the only region pair you listed there that don’t involve travel through the CV is LA-SD.
jimsf Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 6:07 am
actually the central valley is where its needed most. la sf and sd already have plenty of local infrastructure and and plenty of flights between them. Its travel to and from the the central part of the state and within the central part of the state that is most lacking. They have have been left behind for decades. This investment will make up for those years of neglect.
joe Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 7:23 am
You are all right
Alon reminds is that the HSR’s primary goal and design is for SF-LA and other intercity routes.
Jimsf is right that the HSR system will help where it is needed the most (in the CV), between CV cities and connecting them to the coast.
Matthew: Linking LA and SF de facto involves the CV.
Neil Shea: CV has more citizens than HSR worthy Wisconsin.
jimsf Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:01 am
about 4 million not counting the sac metro area.
Tom McNamara Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 11:49 am
California isn’t going to add ten million people. That doesn’t mean there won’t be more population shifts, but it’s crucial to understand that this “growth” won’t pay for itself.
Thus, all future infrastructure investments need to encourage density, whether or not they are transportation related. Population density allows government to achieve efficiencies that currently don’t exist. That’s the only “new” bucket of money left to modernize the country. The rest will all come from existing GDP.
VBobier Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Who says this? Where is the link to Yer source? Put up or shut up…
jimsf Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
actual:
1950 – 10,586,223
1970 – 19,953,134
1990 – 29,760,021
2009 – 38,292,687
so far about 9 million per 20 years
census projections
2010 – 38,067,134
2015 – 40,123,232
2020 – 42,206,743
2025 – 44,305,177
2030 – 46,444,861
synonymouse Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Now run the figures for the Rust Belt.
Neil Shea Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Umm, actually, the Calif. Dept. of Finance does indeed project California population to exceed 50m in 2032 and to hit almost 60m in 2050. So the growth is not slowing down — we absolutely should be thinking ahead to a California with 50% more people than today (ouch – crowded roads!).
Half of the 10 fastest growing counties are in CV on the HSR route: Madera, Kern, San Joaquin, Merced, Tulare. Almost 2m people will be added in the next 20 years just to the CV counties on the Phase 1 route. (What would that do to land acquisition costs?)
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/p-1/documents/P1_Press_Release_7-07.pdf
Tom McNamara Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
The Department of Finance has consistently overestimated on population growth:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/price/research/popdynamics/pdf/2011_Pitkin-Myers_CA-2010-New-Benchmark.pdf
In addition, Latino births accounted for nearly all the population growth in the country. The only place where Latino births were stagnant? That’s right, LA County. Right now more than half of California’s population lives south of Tejon, which is unsustainable. The state should set a target that no more than half it’s population can live south of the San Joaquin River (where it’s too dry to live without irrigation).
If we put that target at say, 40 million total, then we can concentrate most of the population growth in Northern California and minimize the impact of all this. Keep in mind we need water for electricity, crops, wildlife AND oh yeah, homes.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
You need water for crops. You don’t need water for buildings – residential and commercial water consumption is pretty minimal, when people realize they don’t need ornamental yards.
Tom McNamara Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 6:42 am
1) You can’t export homes. You can say all the nasty stuff you want about California agriculture and farmers, but they are an integral part of the state’s economic future because they can grow lots of very valuable cash (*cough*) crops.
2) People already realize they don’t NEED yards… that’s why they buy them!!!! Home ownership isn’t about Adam Smith’s invisible hand… it’s about demonstrating that they belong in the social hierarchy. Asking anyone above the median income to sacrifice his or her yard for the good of mankind is pointless.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 6:49 am
Agricultural products don’t even make it into the top 10 of CA exports.
joe Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 7:33 am
Hmm.
Almonds are listed as #11. That’s breaking tree nut production down into nut type and it still makes it to #11.
The total for 2009 is 120,080B
The USDA September 2009
California is the largest producer of agricultural products and the top exporting State. In 2008, the State’s cash farm receipts totaled $36.1 billion. California ranked 1st among all 50 states in 2008 with agricultural exports estimated at $13.6 billion.
So Ag is over 10% of CA Exports.
The current system is broken but Ag is important. The Corps and Dudes that own most of the Ag land – no as important.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 8:57 am
Some of them buy them because the zoning requires them. It’s that or live under a bridge in a cardboard box. How many people in Manhattan have a yard? How many people in Manhattan that do have a yeard own a lawn mower?
Jonathan Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Plants from outside their natural range may need irrigation. Intensive crops may need irrigation.
*Peolple* don;t need irrigation.
But that’s beside the point. 80% of California’s water supply goes to farmers who get it at dirt-cheap prices, and therefore use it inefficiently. Compared to that, watering lawns in the San Fernando Valley is *almost* in the noise.
joe Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
But the water use is still amazing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16086109
In this study, relating turf grass area to an estimate of fractional impervious surface area, it was calculated that potentially 163,800 km2 (+/- 35,850 km2) of land are cultivated with turf grasses in the continental United States, an area three times larger than that of any irrigated crop.
I do disagree with Tom about population expansion, babies are made, immigrants come. They have choices and CA has the climate, space and infrastructure – also cultural tolerance.
If not here then where? Think about energy per capita which is lowest in CA. How about heating in the rust belt. A/C in the SE USA. CA is a good destination.
The NIMBYs don’t have to worry about anything anyway. By the time this system is finished, most of them will be in their graves or in nursing homes. Let be real here.
“The NIMBYs don’t have to worry about anything anyway. By the time this system is finished, most of them will be in their graves or in nursing homes.”–Emma
I wonder what the NIMBYs who read this site think of that statement.
Indeed, I wonder how many do read this site; they should want to, if for no other reason to find out what their opposition doing.
Are there any groups actively gathering signatures for a Prop 1A “do-over?”
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:55 am
There are one or two approved to gather signatures, but I doubt they’ll succeed.
J. Wong Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
At least not by the November election, so bond money will get allocated anyway.
Which is greater? …the number of Tea Partiers who support the catastrophe or the number of Liberals who are sick to death of pushing on the string?
This is a fiscal disaster in the making…and for transportation benefits that are below marginal, even if the wishful projections could be believed.
Which they can’t.
Dan Richard gave a radio interview where he said more bond funds may be asked for this year for regional projects. I see this as a way to gather political support for releasing bonds by spreading the direct benefits to more state legislature districts.
NPR had a little report this morning on how farmers in the San Joaquin Valley are complaining about high gasoline and diesel prices, and how it is hurting their business. If high oil prices are hurting them, how do they think it is effecting business and individuals across the country and California as a whole. It is hurting everybody in the country and state of California. The trucking industry is already beginning to convert to natural gas to run their trucks. This illustrates why we need alternatives to oil, and why we need high speed rail. And an alternative to oil is of course running the CAHSR with renewable energy. If we continue just with oil and close our minds to alternatives, we will be hurting ourselves and our future as the San Joaquin Valley farmers has just illustrated.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 9:10 am
High speed rail is pretty pointless on the whole “oil alternative” deal. Commuter rail does a rather better job on that along with car competitive intercity rail (which means up to 125mph).
Hell, just relaxing EIR nonsense enough to allow quickly bringing back granger railroads in the SJV would be far better and more helpful (and they can even be oil alternative, string up some 600V DC cheaply and there you go).
Tom McNamara Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 11:32 am
That argument stems from the amount of oil that is used for transportation, not the degree in which that mode of transportation is reliant on petroleum. Airlines and all forms of shipping have no alternative at all.
But as a percentage of the total oil demand nationwide those needs are dwarfed by intercity transportation.
The only way, however, that you get intercity transportation to be effective is if you develop the “colonial style” system that feeds job centers from the hinterlands. And that requires putting inter-regional modes back in downtown and high speed rail is the only real option there.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 11:45 am
Nonsense. You don’t need interregional passenger to be in downtown in order to have dense housing and employment conducive to mass transit. You need a concentrated interregional freight in order to serve manufacturing and regional import/export.
Henry Porter Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
“High speed rail is pretty pointless.”
Got that right.
VBobier Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Only if one is a Penguin living at the South Pole.
VBobier Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
That won’t happen as Granger RR’s would have to compete with Semi-Trucks & a lot of farms own their own trucks now.
Peter Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
The fueling of which is costing them a pretty penny now.
VBobier Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
One farmer grows his own fuel in this CNN article, takes the corn/soybeans to be made into what He needs and then He has fuel, so much for a huge cost, read the quote below… You don’t seem to know what Yer talking about.
Peter Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 5:07 am
“You don’t seem to know what Yer talking about.”
I’ll take that as a compliment coming from you. The article forgets to mention the tens of thousands of other farmers who don’t do any of the things this farmer appears to be doing right.
Info on the Bakersfield Hybrid route under study that was mentioned at last week’s Board meeting was posted Friday.
Looking at the maps,
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/232/335/b1175e17-dd1d-4a5a-9ade-a4e592588456.pdf
the hybrid under study starts west of downtown Bakersfield and first follows the B2 alignment on the north side of the rail yard. That uses the alternative further away from Bakersfield High.
The hybrid route then leaves B2 with a short curve to dip a block south of the civic center/convention center before heading east out of downtown Bakersfield. That is slightly more south of those two community complexes than the previous 2 alignments.
Leaving downtown on the east, the hybrid appears to be adjacent to the Santa Fe tracks rather than going thru the middle of an existing neighborhood like the other 2 alignments. The hybrid then curves southeast to follow the existing rail ROW toward Tehachapi.
The potential station site study area increases to include the east side of Union Avenue as well the west side of Union Ave.
The new route under study appears to address some of the community concerns with the previous alternative locations. It still remains as an elevated plan thru downtown Bakersfield but does attempt to avoid community landmarks, follow existing transportation corridors closer, etc.
jimsf Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
I don’t see why they don’t just stay in the existing row. there’s plenty of room there.
Peter Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Where? It’s already triple- and quad-tracked most of the way through downtown, with pretty much no room left to spare.
jimsf Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
The tracks will be elevated Theres room for columns which has to be better than taking out all the other property unnecessarily. Thast what is making everyone mad…. because it was sold as “built in existing row” and then they see it not being built in existing row.
Peter Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Did you look at the hybrid alignment? It pretty much eliminates all residential takings, and, as a bonus to the Bakersfield community as a whole, will slow trains down significantly through town (much less noise).
jimsf Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
ok well if thats what they have to do….
Just seems like all the way down the valley theyd have fewer probs if they stay in the bnsf row, saved the money and grief of takings, and spend the savings to trench or mitigate as needed. Stay on RR property.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
While of course making things worse for through travelers. Someone remind me why I-5 with 90-110 San Joaquin connections was a bad idea again?
jimsf Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
The travelers live in cities and towns along the bnsf and up rows. How would giving them less service be better again?
jimsf Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
sf la travelers can simply choose express departures if they are in that much of a hurry.
just run one local, one limited and one express, per hour. People can choose which they prefer.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
If they all go through the same tracks, and thus are forced to slow down by this alignment in Bakersfield, then it slows down expresses and limiteds.
Peter Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Not by more than a couple of minutes or so, in exchange for likely greatly decreased opposition from the locals.
Is maintaining the 2:40 express time really worth fighting it out against Bakersfield? It seems to me that this will be one of the first “requirements” of Prop 1A that will be dropped by the wayside.
jimsf Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
If the top speed is 220 and and express has to slow down to 125 a few times for a couple a of minutes worth of travel, they can still make 240
jimsf Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
and whats the big hurry anyway? a 3 hour door to door train trip with its comforts and amenities, ease of boarding, beats a 4 hour door to door plane trip and a 5 hour car trip any day. Add the other pluses such as a station closer to your departure and destination points (than your nearest airport would be) and the ability to show up 15 minutes prior instead of and hour prior…
.. the comfort alone is far superior to sitting in a car or on a plane.
Beta Magellan Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
@jimsf SNCF used 3 hours as a benchmark for the first TGV line—they guessed it was the maximum one-way travel time they were willing to endure for a day trip. Given the success of Paris-Lyon, it’s a good standard to follow.
Why did they settle on 2:40 for SF-LA, anyway?
Tim Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Weren’t all express trains going to stop in Bakersfield anyway?
jimsf Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
I dont know why 2:40 is the number other than maybe they figured a nonstop train departing sf and running at 125 through urban and mountain areas and 220 in flat and rural areas could reach union station in exaclty 2:40. Im sure someone over there must know how to do the math. Seems reasonable?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
PB dictated the Prop 1A language to lock in their chosen route and maximize private profiteering.
Simple as that. The numbers weren’t pulled out of thin air: they serve a very powerful economic interest — one that isn’t the state’s or the voters’.
Any improvement or modification (at least ones that decrease costs and improve service) can be rejected out of hand as “against the will of the people” if all else fails.
Altamont, for example, is example.
Grapevine for example.
jimsf Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
So going over pacheco is more infrastructure for pb than going over altamont, plus two separate lines to sf and sj, plus a new bridge?
And its not that the time couldn’t have been shorter, but the goal was how short could it be while still including, you know, then entire central population of the state?
And it was all because of evil pb and had nothing to do with the all the voters and taxpayers in all those central valley counties and la county?
it was all a sinister plot!
Tom McNamara Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Honestly, yes. Especially when you tack on all the other connecting routes that will be added eventually (Las Vegas, Arizona, San Diego, Reno, Sacramento).
Alon Levy Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Express trains are planned to run nonstop from LA to SF, or sometimes with only one intermediate stop, at SJ.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Because the connections are infeasibly long and slow.
A west-of-99 alignment with a combination of peripheral stations and/or lower-speed loops (directly service by HS trains, no Amtrak crap) on the other hand …
As for Bakersfield, express trains should head straight south out of to Shafter, parallel to Hwy 43, on their direct way to LA via Tejon. Running through Bako (or Fresno, or Gilroy, or anywhere else) at full speed is bat shit insane, from both transportation economic and urban development points of view. Bat. Shit. Insane.
Wasn’t there a google map or something of the speeds expected in the various segments?
The Palo Alto Daily Post ran another full-page anti-HSR ad from Burlingame’s highspeedboondoggle.org on Saturday with this headline:
High Speed Rail is still alive and it wants to nest in your backyard.
As one can see, it features a cartoon, apparently by Russ Cohen, the former Burlingame councilman who last year was appointed chair of Palo Alto’s Downtown Business and Professional Association. As indicated in this photo & caption accompanying this story, Mr. Cohen was also “the organizer” of the big Burlingame anti-HSR rallies (lynch mobs?) and marches in late 2010.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
Please, use real links, not opaque, unreliable, spyware shortener nonsense.
http://goo.gl/vZGml -> http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=18908
How hard is that?
“url shortening was a fucking horrible idea”
Spokker Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 3:26 am
Why is he even using URL shortening on a blog? Isn’t that shit only useful for Twitter and things of that nature?
Miles Bader Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 3:57 pm
What’s particularly absurd is that he used shortened URLS in an html link tag that hides the URL…
[I think that shortened URLs can be useful in cases where the URL is particularly long and obnoxious, and isn't hidden in the presentation. Whether one really wants to click on a shortened URL, of course, is a matter of trust, in the author, the shortener (some restrict the target to a given site, e.g. flic.kr), etc. goo.gl, for instance, I think has "restricted subdomains" e.g. "goo.gl/maps", which could give more reassurance...]
Spokker Reply:
March 6th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
If I have long and obnoxious URLs such as Google Map links, you can always hide them in HTML tags or VB code (like on a forum). Facebook will also take a link and turn it into a fancy preview.
Some material that might be of interest from the standpoint of older drivers and safety:
http://www.streets.mn/2012/03/05/790/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Streetsmn+%28streets.mn%29
The report mentioned above:
http://www.tripnet.org/docs/Older_Drivers_TRIP_Report_Feb_2012.pdf
Overall, an excellent and informative article. HSR has to go where people live and work–the I-5 corridor is essentially a no-man’s land My perception is that the Peninsula nimby’s (Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, etc.) do have valid concerns, BUT their negative and reactionary stance is one of the main obstacles to getting the HSR project underway. If they are successful with a blended CalTrain/HSR system, I do not think that the Peninsula rail corridor is capable of adequately accommodating enough rail traffic. I think there should be another line up the East Bay where there exists more than enough room corridor-wise and have a terminus at the West Oakland Bart station. This way, both the East Bay and Peninsula are served. Together, the two lines will serve the needs of the entire Bay Area without putting too much emphasis/traffic on one inadequate (the CalTrain) corridor.