New CHSRA San Gabriel Tunnel Animations

Sep 20th, 2016 | Posted by

The California High Speed Rail Authority has published new animations of the three possible routes from Palmdale to Burbank. All three involve significant tunneling under the San Gabriel Mountains. The main difference is in whether the tunnel goes under Pacoima, or goes further to the east through Sunland-Tujunga (with an aerial structure in the middle).

From west to east, we start with the SR 14 alignment:

The E1 alignment:

And the E2 alignment:

The Authority continues to examine these options for getting the bullet trains from the Antelope Valley to LA.

  1. John Nachtigall
    Sep 20th, 2016 at 23:10
    #1

    Thank goodness we launched satellites into space and waited until technology made imaging cheap so we could one day reach the point where people could draw colored lines on a Google Earth backdrop. That was totally worth the wait.

    Now the real trick, how to pay for it (not the colored lines, the actual railroad).

    Jerry Reply:

    Could it be paid for the same way the true conservative Donald Trump will pay for, “The Wall”??

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Wait the imaginary Mexico money will pay for HSR?

    That’s a new one..

    Jerry Reply:

    Now that would be a real trick.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    How much would it cost to provide the same capacity with more road and airport?

    Jerry Reply:

    Now that would be another real trick to get a comparison like that. Or even to include a comparison including pollution rates.

    joe Reply:

    http://www.sacurrent.com/current-events/archives/2016/09/20/does-governor-greg-abbott-even-have-a-clue-how-transportation-works

    In an article ripping Texas Gov over his criticism of HSR

    And according to a TxDOT report released earlier this month, it would take $36.7 billion (that’s right, billion) to pay off the debt from Texas’ 53 toll roads and 28 financial tolling systems.

    That’s not to say Texas roads only cost 36.7B, just that they owe this outstanding debt on their HW’s right now.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    But roads are free and Americans love their cars.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Its a completely false choice.

    There is already much much much much more road capacity to travel from LA to SF than there is rail travel. The vast majority of traffic jams exists in the cities, not between them. The vast majority of travel is less than 20 miles. Even the authorities own estimates show that passengers miles will fall by about 1% with HSR.

    This project is just about taking existing passenger miles from existing modes of transit, not expanding them.

    as for pollution, without rail the US has made great progress….don’t believe me, how about the EPA

    https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health#pollution

    Rail is not the only solution to pollution.

    Finally, on cost. No one is arguing that roads are free. The argument is that people use roads, roads are expensive, and to maintain roads and rail is just added expense that is not worth the benefit. If Texas builds HSR, they will STILL owe 37 billion on those roads. and they will STILL need those roads.

    At no point, in any discussion, has anyone suggested that HSR is going to replace any existing transport system. Its just added expense

    Zorro Reply:

    People do ride trains, when they are available, and in large numbers, which makes roads last longer.

    EJ Reply:

    HSR competes with air travel more than it competes with cars.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    agreed

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    So you agree that HSR could help relieve clogged airports?

    synonymouse Reply:

    PBCAHSR has next to nothing to do with airlines. It is all about building tracts.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    Prove it.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Syno is living in a post-factual world.

    Facts don’t even enter his (her?) mind

    JBinSV Reply:

    If you look closer, it’s easy to trace…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    You continue to misunderstand my position. I am not arguing that HSR does not provide benfits, like all forms of transportation, it has benefits. My position is 2 fold

    1. I dont think the capital costs outweigh the possible benefits.
    2. The project is not being run well and is not within the parameters established by prop 1a

    Will HSR take some of the travel from airports….absolutely. I would personally try out train service to Las Vegas if it was available.

    Is it worth 100 billion to achieve those gains…no it is not. The existing forms of transit are sufficient. You can currently drive or fly at a moments notice to anywhere in CA and quite frankly the world. How much is it worth to be able to take a train between LA and SF?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    You won’t be able to in 2030 unless more capacity is added.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    you know that is flat out untrue. Do you expect in 2030 that all transport comes to a halt? Road have a neverending traffic jam? airports shut down?

    We have to continue to expand transportation infastructure as population grows (in the US as a very slow rate) regardless. The question is if HSR is worthy of some of that money. Road and airports get expanded no matter what because HSR is not going to replace them.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    So you admit more capacity is needed. Building roads and airports costs money. How much money to get the same capacity as a train? The people on the train aren’t using the road or the airport. Which frees up space for people who are going someplace the train doesn’t go.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Basically if you were being intellectually honest you would be asking:

    Where do I get the most bang (capacity) for the buck (money)

    We know the capacity of road expansions and the capacity of airport expansions. We can also provide ballpark figures as to their cost. We can also draw reasonable estimates from other high speed rail projects as to their capacity though cost is arguably harder to calculate given that the US is notoriously expensive.

    If we do those calculations honestly the conclusion we must draw is: HSR is the most cost effective solution even if we ignore whether or not railroads airports or highways make a profit and even if we pretend peak oil and global warming are liberal conspiracies perpetrated by the Chinese.

    So to me the decision is clear.

    I am not (just) a friend of railways because I like 300 km/h cruising speeds and the sleek design of modern HSR. I am a friend of railways because they make sense if you go at the problem rationally.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    bang for the buck is a really reasonable argument. But we all know that transportation networks do not scale linearly with capacity, especially at the beginning. Just like 1 airport is useless, a single rail line has limited value.

    This is a real problem for HSR. 1 single line from LA to SF for 100 million has some (limited) value. Because you still need 100% investment in roads and air. So it is all just additive. To truly make HSR useful, you have to do what Japan, China, and some countries in Europe did and build out a whole network.

    So to get the bang for the buck, you have to commit to a whole network, not just a single line. This is why they are having trouble getting the finances to work. I mean be honest, do you really think the line from SJ to a pad in the middle of knowhere is going to be profitable.

    If you want to make the “bang for the buck” argument, you need 500 billion (minimum) and a plan to link all the big metro areas under a single dedicated system with extensive service commitments.

    http://www.govtech.com/fs/What-Makes-Transit-Successful-Survey-Says-Its-Frequency-Reliability-and-Shorter-Travel-Times.html

    Frequency and network.

    I am being intellectually honest…are you? 1 line is just added expense at this point and they dont have the money for that. If there was a dedicated funding source and a plan to link all metro centers, I would grant that it would be transformational in CA. That is not the case.

    Joe Reply:

    Caltrain is a single line. Ridership growing.
    It’s doing a lot of Banging. Maybe you can explain this outlier.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Networks can be lineal. The thin line running from San Francisco to Los Angeles will be a network. In networks of congested roads and airports. It will eventually work it’s way to Anaheim, San Diego and Sacramento. And someday Las Vegas and Phoenix or even Tucson.
    I’ll ask again, this question has been answered by multiple studies and auditors, how much does it cost to provide the equivalent capacity using roads and airports.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Caltrain has not prevented 1 road expansion or airport from being built. So it is no outlier. It’s just added expense. It’s a small fraction of the car trips

    And you are just agreeing with me now. HSR is “really” useful once it expands to San Diego, Sacramento, LV and Arizona. I agree, HSR would be useful if it had that network

    That’s not the plan and that money does not exist at the moment. This is why it is so hard to build. The first steps are just added expense. You don’t save on other modes. It only gets really useful with a moderate network, so you get in a loop.

    You want to build but no money/support. But if you built it you would show it works great and get money/support. But you can’t because you don’t have money/support.

    Which is why all the supporters on this board spend most of the time just begging to ignore the cost/time/mismanagement and saying “just build it”. Because you belive that once it’s up and running, at any cost, you can build support for the buildout. Its a reasonable argument

    Your problem is that people like me are not wrong either. This first line won’t do jack in the overall transport picture. We will still have to expand roads and airports.

    You keep arguing that it is cheaper “capacity” which is true but ignore that it is different “capacity” then what is needed. The 100billion we would spend on roads is not another one between LA and SF, it is roads inside Thais cities. Light rail has a better argument for replacement capacity than HSR. HSR is just additive. It’s not just cost per seat/mile. It’s where and when those seat/miles happen.

    Joe Reply:

    You were lecturing us about the need for a Rail network.

    Caltrain is an example of a nonnetworked rail system that is operating many trains overcapacity and experiencing approximately 10% growth annually for the past several years.

    It’s an example that proves your theory wrong. It also exist in the state to which your theory is supposed to apply. Naturally you want to change the topic to some nonsensical argument about Caltrain preventing airports are trains.

    Rail systems don’t necessarily need to be part of networks to be successful. Caltrain as an example. High-speed rail will be successful as an end and system between Northern and Southern California.

    Joe Reply:

    At John you also misrepresent the LAO’s positive cost assessment for the high-speed rail system.

    High-speed rail provides $100 billion worth of capacity between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
    The necessary airplane and road infrastructure to substitute for high-speed rail would cost $100 billion. This need it infrastructure between the two urban areas has nothing to do with all the other roads expansions and repairs that are needed across the state.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Yes it does provide different capacity. That’s the point. People on a train aren’t flying and they aren’t driving. Different people can fly to places the train doesn’t go and other different people can drive to places the train doesn’t go because the people on the train aren’t driving or flying.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Caltrain is simply not a “success” It moves a few people at a large loss. What is successful about it? So what that it is growing. Its still just a few people at a large loss. It does not prevent having to build road, airports, etc.

    As for the capacity argument, let me try making my argument this way. Once HSR is built, what infrastructure will not be necessary? We will still build and expand roads and airports in and around LA and SF. So it is ADDITIVE. I will have to spend 100 billion on roads and airports and another 100 billion on HSR. Its just added money for no benefit.

    Joe Reply:

    Once HSR is built, what infrastructure will not be necessary

    Another strawman argument.

    The CA LAO estimated HSR will relive California from having to build 100B worth of new roads and airport runways.

    What you wrote isn’t an honest representation of the facts.

    synonymouse Reply:

    More freeways will be built to accommodate and support the targeted 200 million.

    PBCAHSR via Palmdale is indeed additive. Same modus operandi as BART, the friend of the freeway and airport and the enemy of other transit ops.

    synonymouse Reply:

    @ John N.

    BART-MTC has not intended that Caltrain succeed, but be replaced with broad gauge.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    If everybody who uses Caltrain during rush hour decided to drive alone to work how many lanes of highway would need to be built?

    Neil Shea Reply:

    Caltrain’s 60k current ridership represents ~2 lanes in each direction.

    Freeway lane carrying capacity ranges up to ~2000 vehicles per hour until the freeway collapses down to Level of Service F, when the road is saturated and capacity falls dramatically. Unfortunately major portions of US 101 operate at LOS F for much of the rush hour period, especially in northern San Mateo County and Central and Southern Santa Clara County. Conversely when a freeway is at LOS A, with speeds of 60+ mph, it is only carrying <700 vehicles per hour. US 101 traffic is predominantly single occupant as we see from carpool lane usage.

    Most of Caltrain ridership is at rush hour (non-rush hour trains are far less frequent and crowded). In rough numbers, if Caltrain moves 20k riders in each direction over a 5 hour rush hour period, that's 4k commuters per hour requiring 2 freeway lanes in each direction.

    In a low cost city with available space, 2 lanes could be added for maybe $10m per mile, or $500m each way along the Caltrain route. But here there is no space, and building upward would cost several $Billions. But we'd then just exacerbate the LOS F problem, since SF and the other towns cannot handle that traffic.

    The simplicity of 'flat earth' thinking must be nice where transportation issues can always be solved with 'more lanes' without any pesky externalizes like omnipresent congestion, no more parking, melting planet, and no more $Billions for unpriced roads.

    Much info on capacity is published. One quick example:
    https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/methods/highwaysfd.html

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    10 million is too low. Usual number cited for an Interstate grade lane mile is 25 million.
    The Deseret News estimated that adding a lane to I-15 in exurban Salt Lake City cost 27 million per lane mile. That’s from the time the traffic counts get high enough that someone writes the memo that something might have to be done to the time the lanes open. Widening I-405 in Los Angeles cost a bit more.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Your comparison of a single rail line to a single airport is intellectually dishonest and I am quite shocked that no one has yet called you out on it, Nachtigall.

    The correct comparison would of course be a single airport to a single railway station.

    Both can be marginal improvements if they add to an existing network but they are worthless if they do not add to an existing network.

    As minds smarter than my own have pointed out; a “network” can be linear.

    We know what has happened over single corridors when a single rail lines of higher speeds has opened. Your spurious argument that only a network covering the whole country can solve it all has been tried in the real world and it has failed.

    The Barcelona-Madrid line and the Paris-London line end on a “dead end” on at least one side; at least if you only consider HSR. Yet they still have been a success and helped reduce aviation along those routes. True, the fact that Frankfurt-Cologne is part of a network helps it grow ridership, but it was a worthwhile investment all by itself.

    Joe Reply:

    California collects traffic census data.

    http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov

    I think Caltrain carries roughly the same as two hours of peak traffic on 101 (8 lanes or both directions) or 14,500 cars per hour. Assume the San Mateo / SF county border.

    Neil Shea Reply:

    Adirondacker is right about urban California highway costs. The 405 Sepulveda project was $1.1B for ONE HOV lane, Northbound only, plus other improvements, thus pushing $100M per lane mile. The I-110 Harbor Transitway project was $530m in pre-1996 dollars for one lane each direction for 11 miles, with portions elevated, or $800M+ in today’s dollars, about $40M per lane mile.

    Thus costs might range between $50-100M per lane mile per direction.

    Caltrain carries at least 2 lanes per direction worth of riders. Over all 50 miles between SF & SJ. In both directions. That’s 200 lane miles worth of urban California freeway capacity. BEFORE going to frequent electrified service with 8 cars per train. So think of 50% more capacity on its little 2 track system, or 300 lane miles worth.

    That’s $15B minimum, $30B conservatively worth of transportation capacity. Lil ole un-networked Caltrain.

    But then of course SF and the other cities can’t absorb these extra 100k cars in their exits, streets or parking. Even if we park them on the lawns of everyone on here fighting against Caltrain. So no point in trying to save up that $30B anyway…

    Clem Reply:

    @Neil: average Caltrain trip length is 22.7 miles. Need to work that in… About 45k peak riders/weekday (other 15k off-peak) @ 22.7 miles = 1 million passenger miles per weekday rush. 8 lanes of freeway * 2000 pax/lane/hour * 6 hours of peak * 48 miles = 4.6 million passenger miles per weekday rush.

    So Caltrain = 2 lanes of freeway, not four, due to trip length being 1/2 of the SF to SJ distance.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Unfortunately commuters don’t neatly arrange themselves uniformly across peak hours or trips. On roads or trains.

    Neil Shea Reply:

    @Clem: Thanks for the confirmation and adjustments to the calculation. Of course 2000 vehicles per lane per hour is a MAXIMUM which assumes that the facility is operating at Level of Service D, not A-C and not F.

    Under LOS F, the vehicle throughput can fall by half or more, depending on the downstream absorption of vehicles. 101 clearly operates at LOS F across major segments for much of rush hour peak. Similarly when portions of a freeway are operating at LOS A-C. Speeds of 60+ mph are associated with 700 vehicles per hour.

    101 can have segments of LOS A and F in the same commute. So as an overall facility, during peak, it may not have a net throughput much greater than 1000 vehicles per hour. And it’s difficult to optimize this, given the chunkiness of usage.

    That again means that Caltrain may be handling the equivalent of 2 lanes *per direction*. And after Caltrain capacity is maximized for 2 tracks, about 3 lanes worth.

    Clem Reply:

    @Neil: Note the units. 2000 passengers/lane/hour is not the same as 2000 vehicles/lane/hour… the number of vehicles is indeed less than 2000/lane/hour, but the number of occupants is definitely more than 1 per vehicle, especially if you consider tech buses.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    So in other words an S-Bahn is much more space efficient than highways.

    It’s nice to know that my hunch is correct.

    Neil Shea Reply:

    @Clem: if we consider stretches with carpool lanes, 3 of 4 lanes are jammed with cars with single occupants. In the HOV lane, busses are the exception, most vehicles have 2 pax. I think the average on 101 is far closer to 1.2 than 2.0.

    Neil Shea Reply:

    @Clem: for today, we can split the baby and say it may be about 1.5 lanes. But going forward, 101 capacity is basically fixed, while the Caltrain modernization program should increase capacity by what percentage? Between faster acceleration, shorter dwell times through level boarding, and eight car trains, I’m thinking about 50%?

    Joe Reply:

    Clem has a simple xls sheet that calculates improved capacity with faster acceleration and shorter dwelL.

    Also http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2016/05/caltrain-has-dwell-time-problem.html?m=1

    We’re really cooking now. We can squeeze 12 trains through in one hour on the same track. That represents a massive capacity increase, with the combined effect of reduced and predictable dwell times providing a similar benefit as electrification alone did

    Joe Reply:

    Also

    http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-capacity-problem.html?m=1

    An eight-car Stadler KISS with 2+2 seating will accommodate about 750 seated passengers and another 1000 standees.

    Clem Reply:

    @Neil: didn’t mean to quibble. Bottom line is that Caltrain can easily double capacity with 6 tph per direction using 8-car KISS EMUs seating 800 + 1000 standees

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    So Caltrain is currently not running even close to the maximum capacity of a railroad ROW its size whereas the highway is run almost beyond capacity…

    Well it seems clear what should get future investment…

    Neil Shea Reply:

    Thanks Clem. So Caltrain or a similar 2-track corridor can easily move 10,000 pax per direction per hour. That is equivalent to an 8-lane freeway with 1.25 pax/vehicle operating at a decent Level of Service (not F).

    A 20′ wide RR corridor has the bidirectional capacity of a 120-150′ freeway corridor, without the pollution and the need for parking for 50k-100k cars — which at 150 cars/acre, requires 333 to 666 acres to store during the workday. At $50k per lane mile to build that 50 mile 8-lane freeway costs at least $20B to build, not including the 18 acres land per mile. Unfortunately the one we have, US-101, is now saturated and unable to address growth.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    So why don’t we take away two lanes from US-101 and turn it into two railroad tracks. There will still be more than enough space left for people who “have to drive” and we will create a whole lot more capacity for people traveling in the area…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Before they start tearing up highway lanes it makes more sense to just use the capacity on the existing railroad.

    Roland Reply:

    @Clem: Absolute bullshit.

    1) An eight-car KISS has a maximum of 750 seats (150 less than 7 Bombardier bi-level cars), not 800 and cannot possibly carry 100 bikes (let alone 7 toilets!)
    2) You forgot to remove 128 seats for the stupid double sets of doors (but that’s OK because it will never happen).
    3) You forgot to remove another 100 seats for the eight-to-one seat-to-bike ratio.
    4) Caltrain ridership actually dropped when SamTrans created the artificial “capacity crisis” by refusing to deploy the Metrolink cars (Everybody knows that you no longer ride Caltrain because of overcrowding. What makes you think that anybody else is going to put up with this kind of crap?)

    Conclusion: your CalFranKISSentrain can only carry 6,300 passengers/direction/hour and is DOA.
    https://mtc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4680831&GUID=1869C0B5-91EC-4A18-AAA4-B4668CF0D201 (slide 9).

    J. Wong Reply:

    Actually, @Roland, the only bullshit artist around here is you.

    Per the preliminary brochures for the Caltrain KISS configuration, an 8-car consist should have seats for 775. Clem estimates 10% reduction during level-boarding transition. That’s no more than 80 seats. 80 bike spaces are already accounted for in the 775 seats, so no an additional 100 seats need not be removed.

    Clem’s numbers include standing passengers, which seems reasonable given the higher thru-put that allows, while you seem to believe that every passenger should have a seat. @Roland, you need to look at the bigger picture not just what would benefit you. Pretty clearly, you’re not a typical passenger on Caltrain. Optimizing for you is not what should be anyone’s goal.

    Joe Reply:

    Pretty clearly, you’re not a typical passenger on Caltrain. Optimizing for you is not what should be anyone’s goal.

    So what’s with the emphasis on Toilets?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I think every passenger should have two toilets and three bikes.

    And of course expanding capacity on the current Caltrain ROW should come before expanding the Caltrain ROW but both those things should come before yet more highway miles…

    Roland Reply:

    @JAW (AKA “First Class Bullshit artist”) Kindly help me understand which part of
    Seating capacity tbd
    Tip-up seats tbd
    Seating capacity total tbd
    Standing spaces 4 pers./m2 (AW2) tbd
    Number of bike spaces tbd
    It is that you do not understand:
    http://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/stadler_caltrain_emu_brochure.pdf

    J. Wong Reply:

    @Roland

    What is it that you don’t seem to understand about “tbd”?

    You make outrageous claims about the seating of the Caltrain EMUs trying to gin up controversy, but one someone calls you out on that, you point to “tbd”. You cannot make claims about the seating that you pull out of your ass. Instead maybe look at sample layouts and actually count the seats. That’s a better approximation then anything you’ve managed to come up with.

    I’ll let the other readers here judge as to who is the true “bullshit artist”.

    Jerry Reply:

    We all agree that you are misunderstood.
    And you seem to misunderestimate your own ability to create the misunderstanding.
    But keep trying.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    ok i will, thanks

    StevieB Reply:

    Can you fly at a moments notice from Fresno or Merced to D.C. or NYC or Paris? These cities have some of the worst air service in the country in terms of numbers of missed connections and hours of delay due to missed flights. How much is it worth to take a train between the Central Valley and San José or SFO?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Your examples make no sense, they are not negated by HSR. I am never taking a train from CA to NYC or Paris. HSR is a 200-500 mile sweet spot.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    If most of the East Coast puddle jumpers go away your flight from California to the East Coast is less likely to be delayed. If most of the Midwest’s puddle jumpers go away your flight to the Midwest is less likely to be delayed.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    also, you just said that 200-500 miles is a HSR sweet spot, yet you oppose CAHSR. Why?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    It would be interesting to see how many slots were freed up by different HSR routes coming online.

    I for one believe the LEJ-FRA and DRS-FRA flights will become redundant in a couple of years (I still don’t understand why anybody would fly those distances, let alone as a standalone flight, but I know people who do)

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Lots and lots of them when there is a network across the Northeast and Midwest.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Yeah, but it is probably hard to measure as there is a lot of noise in the data. After all, slots that were freed up by a new HSR line reducing traffic along a certain line may well have been consumed by some harebrained subsidy scheme from local government….

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The yokels get their Essential Air Services subsidies from the Federal Government.

    There’s a gazillion “fly from the secondary airport to a hub to change planes to get to a secondary airport ” trips in a network across the Midwest and Northeast.
    ……… the really expensive non stops to DCA go away…..

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    What’s non stop to DCA?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Washington D.C. has three major airports. DCA is the one you can almost spit at from the White House. The airport with a Metro Station.
    The airport business travelers pay extra to fly in and out of…. The one that used to have more flights to New York before Amtrak ate into the business.
    Paying extra to fly into DCA is one of the reasons Amtrak is able to charge so much for Acela.
    The low fares, that compete with Amtrak’s regional fares, go to the other airports.

    Semi-anecdotal: Southwest pulled out of the Providence to Philadelphia market. Fares went up. Amtrak’s business between the two cities increased 94 percent. There’s a lot of business hiding in the Northeast and Midwest other than NY-someplace else and Chicago-someplace else.

    It’s not just DCA they pay extra for. Airline load management software can give ever shifting answers. At this instant in time, for dates in November, it’s 229 to fly from Boston to LaGuardia, 143 to JFK and 109 to Newark.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Wait, you pay most to fly to the crappiest of all those three airports? Isn’t La Guardia the place the VP himself compared to the third world?

    And yeah, “City” airports are a rare sight in Europe. LCY comes to mind (which has business class only flights to NYC IIRC), but where they exist you pay a premium for flying into them. As well you should.

    However, most of those people who would make up the market of those airports are now HSR customers. In Germany they often pay the markup for the “ICE Sprinter” which takes usually 3:30 end to end and makes no or few intermediate stops (Nuremberg is going to get a Sprinter stop for a 3:30 or 3:00 trip to Berlin come December 2017)

    As for your assertion that Chicago and New York City are not the only places that would create travel demand given a HSR network.

    (Imagine Cenk Uygur’s voice) “OF COURSE!!!!!”

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Because the cab ride to your apartment or hotel on the Upper East Side is shortest from LaGuardia. 70 percent of the people using it, as an origin or destination, are going to the Upper East Side.

    EJ Reply:

    Flights out of LCY seem to be priced almost at random. I once flew to Milan from there for $99.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    London to Milan for 99 bucks?

    I am sorry to say, but if you are willing to fly from “London” to “Milan”, you can get that for half that price (unless of course you want to take luggage)

    Just a random search on Ryanair.com for a flight leaving Stansted on October 26 for Bergamo gave me a cheapest possible rate of 12.99 British Pounds.

    Roland Reply:

    No problem if you can survive a London to Milan flight without using the toilet but do you have any idea how much RyanAir would charge you if you really had to go?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    As my Spanish speaking friends would now say “caíste!” or as we would say in German “reingefallen” (though the meaning is subtly different)

    Michael O Leary is well known for advertising stunts using the media. Basically a bit like Trump. Musing aloud about standing space or charging for toilets is exactly that. He never really and seriously considered that. But it gave him and his company free media.

    By the way, Bergamo is quite some distance from Milan but still sold as Milan by Ryanair…

    EJ Reply:

    Yeah I can survive a 2 hour flight without desperately needing a pee break. Europe is small.

    @Bahnfreund yeah but this was a last minute, spur of the moment thing, and it was straight from LCY to Linate. Ryanair wouldn’t sell you a 13 pound ticket on those terms.

    EJ Reply:

    Oh, and yes, I had luggage – I live in the US remember.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    They would most likely not.

    And yes luggage and accounting for actually getting to and from the airport would likely make the thirteen pound ticket not that cheap after all.

    blankslate Reply:

    They have “surge pricing” which measures the turbulence in your bowels and raises the bathroom charge accordingly.

    Jerry Reply:

    @blankslate
    Now that’s real capitalism at work. :-)

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    The uber of toilets.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Surely you can solve all that by writing an app?

    Jerry Reply:

    @JN
    “At no point, in any discussion, has anyone suggested that HSR is going to replace any existing transport system.”
    Some people, not me, but some people, not me, but some people have really argued that on short routes such as CAHSR the airlines have stopped flying those short routes. (But I guess they didn’t say replace them.)
    Some people have even claimed that some airlines would even welcome getting out of the short haul business.
    Some people, but not me, even claim that trains pollute much much much much less than planes.
    Click your heals five times John, and just hope that those people don’t show up on this blog. Otherwise, you might just be wrong AGAIN.

    Danny Reply:

    even SW’s fabled $69 SF/LA route is a loss-leader; the shortest flights get the longest delays and the pilot just TOGAs up and then lands while the attendants pick at the paint

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    What’s TOGA?

    And yes, on many existing HSR routes the opening of HSR has led to a very notable decrease in available airline seats per week. Frankfurt-Cologne has apparently seized being a flight corridor entirely, but with a one hour train travel time that’s not exactly a great surprise.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    ceased not seized.

    Goddammit English language, with your Tudor spelling for a Windsor language

    Ted K. Reply:

    Proper spelling : TO/GA (Take-Off / Go Around)
    It’s a switch on the autopilot console.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeoff/Go-around_switch

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Is that merely aviation slang or is that something college educated middle class Americans generally know and understand?

    Ted K. Reply:

    I would say “advanced aviation jargon” and I’m speaking as a former groundsider (T+C) who has a basic familiarity with the inside of a cockpit. I would expect the CEMCA’s to at least know that Bernoulli gave his name to the principle behind how wings function.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle

    Beyond that I would NOT expect very much unless they’re from somebody’s Outback (e.g. Australia, Africa, Canada, or Alaska). If your life depends upon a flying doctor than you have a good reason to learn about how he / she got to your backwoods / outback location.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Yeah, that makes sense

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    so are there no short haul flights in Japan, Europe, or China?

    Oh wait, there are. They took some of that travel (which I agreed to above) but DID NOT REPLACE the mode of transit.

    So China still has airports and roads and has to pay for such. As does Europe and Japan.

    So “Some People” can argue whatever they like, empirical evidence shows us that HSR takes a share of the transportation market, but does not replace it.

    So if you are going to argue that it saves “society” money “some people” would have to argue that a 1/2 used airport is significantly cheaper than a 100% used airport. Since that is not true, “Some people” are wrong.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    and just in case “some people” think they are still right. Those low cost carrier you are putting out of business, they rose to power in Europe AFTER HSR was in effect. So says people who work at MIT, so they are MIT people, not “some people”

    http://www.mit.edu/~hamsa/pubs/ClewlowSussmanBalakrishnan_TrPolicy2013.pdf

    While the introduction of high-speed rail has played a significant role reducing domestic air travel in Europe, over the same time period low-cost carriers have had a more significant influence increasing air travel, through primarily medium-haul, intra-EU flights. Considering both trends, the result has been a significant net gain in the total passenger-kilometers traveled in western Europe

    Max Wyss Reply:

    This statement is not surprising, as it shows a (sad) reality in Europe. Europe (not even the EU) is not a single country; the EU countries are individual, and have their own policies. That said, high speed rail is essentially a domestic affair; the leading state railways having high speed all have their own system, mostly not interoperable, and also their own goals.

    Yes, the exception is the channel tunnel, and the link between Port Bou and essentially Barcelona, plus between France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

    For certain domestic corridors, HSR has taken considerable market share, such as Paris – London, or Madrid – Barcelona, or, as already mentioned Frankfurt – Köln or Frankfurt – Stuttgart.

    I was recently at Lyon Satolas, and there are flights between LYS and CDG, but they make about half the number of connections; the other half is trains, and that is mainly because there are not that many trains linking LYS and CDG. The flights are mainly feeder flights for CDG. But looking at the whole Lyon – Paris traffic, air has become a small share.

    Now, the lowcost airlines provide direct connections between secondary airports (famous example, Hahn for Frankfurt). There are some places where a lowcost airline is dominant. Genève comes to my mind, where Easyjet has more than 50% market share, but this has more to do with Swiss neglecting GVA than the success of the lowcost airline.

    So, essentially wherever you have a city pair, or corridor with HSR, rail will get a high market share. There still are flights, but way fewer.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    so we all agree, HSR does not replace air travel. I am glad we can all agree.

    Therefore you still need airports and roads and have to pay for them.

    Zorro Reply:

    Dear John: NO, I do not agree, wherever HSR or anything close to HSR exists at, airlines have much less passengers, the NEC/HSR dominates air(except international), like 80/20 or so from what I’ve read, and HSR dominates over air travel in Spain, France, Germany, China, and Japan…

    So I call your statement BS.

    Zorro Reply:

    “So I call your statement BS.” was supposed to be for another website, not here.

    Jerry Reply:

    John N. confuses international flights flying over the ocean with HSR. He calls himself a conservative, but he is too far into left field with his confusing comments. But that is the ‘new’ way of making allegations of which the true conservative D.Trump is a master.

    Jerry Reply:

    I guess you call it FUD.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Read the facts. In China HSR is the biggest anywhere in the world and domestic flights have doubled in less than 10 years and make up 90 of air travel. You are just flat out wrong

    Jerry Reply:

    You John N. neglected to say who was flat out wrong.
    You John N. neglected to say what was flat out wrong.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    China is a big country. The people on the trains free up space at the airports.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Zorro was flat out wrong (but you are not far behind so dont get upset).

    In countries where HSR exists, there are not less passengers on airlines. I posted articles that prove in both Europe and China the airline industry has grown as historic rates.

    his comment is flat out wrong

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    On individual corridors HSR has a clear effect on the number of air passengers.

    The experiment has been run a couple dozen times under field conditions by now; the result has always been the same. No HSR= flights stay the same or rise; HSR = Flights decrease dramatically within a handful of years.

    If you look at the whole country or even the whole continent you will mistake noise (Michael O Leary being a dickhead; state governors “needing” their own money losing airport) for data, but if you look a t a significant amount of city pair you can make an assessment where only one factor figures in: HSR. And yes, HSR has a huge effect on aviation.

    It might not get rid of aviation (yet); Frankfurt-Cologne notwithstanding, but it is the most efficient thing we know to free up airport capacity.

    Flying a few hundred kilometers just makes no bloody sense. So that’s why some smart person came up with HSR. And trust me, apart from a few turboprop enthusiasts even aviation in the US is secretly jubilant that they can return to milking long distance instead of having to compete with loss-leading puddle-jumpers.

    wdobner Reply:

    Your attempt to twist their conclusion to support your spurious case fails on a very basic level. The paper you linked to takes great pains to illustrate that after the introduction of high speed rail airline travel between cities within Europe on a per capita basis has fallen despite the overall increase in the utilization of air travel. Nobody is seriously making the argument that HSR is going to receive 100% of the market share between city pairs it connects, and your claim that that does not result only hurts your case. But it can be used to provide relief for the air traffic system from shorthaul flights which spend a disproportionately large amount of time in the terminal area and thus are major limiting factor in the capacity of airways and airports.

    And IMHO you have the LCC/HSR relationship backward. The LCCs arrived after high speed rail because it was the impact of HSR which killed off the (at least in Europe) flag carriers’ lucrative short haul route structure. Lufthansa, Air France, and others were driven out of a number of markets by the introduction of rail routes which delivered comparable door-to-door times at lower cost to the passenger. The LCCs have taken advantage of the flag carriers fleeing short haul routes before the onslaught of high speed rail competition to pick around the edges of what airline traffic remains.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Pick a side. Short haul routes are lucrative or short haul routes are loss leaders.

    Regardless, my logic is just fine. I asserted that air travel and road travel does not go away and therefore the capital investment in those does not go away either. HSR is additive.

    This proves that air travel expanded, not shrunk, in the presence of HSR. Exactly my point.

    Jerry Reply:

    There you go again John N.
    Telling someone else to, “Pick a side.”
    You do this to try and make your confusing (FUD) point.
    It does nothing to clear up YOUR confusing FUD.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    While roads and airports do not go away, they also don’t need to be expanded. With HSR, LAX won’t need to grow for decades. Without it, it’ll likely need one or two new terminals.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Nachtigall, ick hör dir trapsen

    You are intentionally confusing noise and data.

    If HSR was additive how do you explain what happens on those city pairs where HSR has opened after it did open?

    Michael O Leary and all that just happen to happen during a certain time. In the US it happened (more or less) in the absence of any competition to air travel in Europe the picture was muddled by the presence of HSR and there are indeed routes that even the no frills carriers won’t touch. For the most part Ryanair does not do domestic flights in Germany. There’s just no money in it for them. What they do do are midrange flights. But Ryanair knows that they cannot possibly hope to make a profit off of HHN-SXF. They can make a profit off of Schönefeld-Girona or Schönefeld-Beauvais (or whatever it’s called)

    Peter Reply:

    @John N.

    Short haul routes are lucrative. Until they’re not because of cheaper, more comfortable, and often faster HSR service, ON THAT CORRIDOR. HSR can obviously not replace air travel between city pairs it doesn’t serve.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    If an airline can chose whether their given planes should fly short routes or long routes, the choice is rather easy to make for them..

    wdobner Reply:

    Pick a side. Short haul routes are lucrative or short haul routes are loss leaders.

    Talk about misunderstanding. The short haul routes that were lucrative for the flag carriers were between cities now served by high speed rail. Paris-Marseille is a prime example. Prior to the TGV coming along it was a magical money tree from which Air France could shake the money needed to keep the Concorde flying. After HSR was built and absorbed most of the market the airlines were effectively driven from the city pairs along the route. The LCCs’ short haul routes exist to connect places with poor intercity ground transportation, or they provide far less service between HSR served city pairs than did the flag carriers. In either case they’re making far less money on those routes than the flag carriers did between what today are anchor cities on high speed rail networks.

    Regardless, my logic is just fine. I asserted that air travel and road travel does not go away and therefore the capital investment in those does not go away either. HSR is additive.

    Look at Barcelona-Madrid. The airline travel market between that city pair has been reduced by almost a third since 2011. Much of that is directly as a result of the introduction of AVE service between those cities. Such a drastic reduction allows the airports in both cities to more reliably serve markets that do not compete with the HSR line without having to undergo enormously expensive expansion programs.

    This proves that air travel expanded, not shrunk, in the presence of HSR. Exactly my point.

    That might be your point, but it’s a point that doesn’t say anything meaningful and proves absolutely nothing. Of course overall travel expanded, because population increased. What matters is that on a per capita basis usage decreased because the high speed rail network absorbed passengers who otherwise would have crowded the airports and airway network.

    Joe Reply:

    Clip and save

    That might be your point, but it’s a point that doesn’t say anything meaningful and proves absolutely nothing.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Most LCC actually serve mid-distance corridors more than they do short corridors. While there are still your Hamburg-Munichs and your Berlin-Munichs (which will soon face stiffer competition from HSR), Ryanair’s money making routes are Hahn Girona and the likes.

    Oh that’s another thing, the flag carriers fly out of major airports whereas the LCC fly out of Pahdunkdale or former military airfields…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    How much would it have cost to expand the airports to accommodate both?

    Jerry Reply:

    In the HSR, “corridor such as Frankfurt – Cologne, …air traffic was reduced to zero,” so says people who work at MIT, on page nine.
    http://www.mit.edu/~hamsa/pubs/ClewlowSussmanBalakrishnan_TrPolicy2013.pdf

    Would ‘zero’ qualify as ‘replace’ or ELIMINATE? ????

    The MIT people even acknowledged the environmental benefits from mode substitution.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    if you limit your view to small enough, you can always find zero.

    The conclusions support the argument. Air travel expanded, so the captial required expands also.

    This is where I point out I am presenting facts with citations and you are presenting opinions with no proof.

    Jerry Reply:

    No I am not presenting opinions, I am simply challenging your FUD.

    Jerry Reply:

    You John N. are the one who claims that you John N. are misunderstood.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    “There is some evidence from the European experience that HSR
    is, in fact, a competitive alternative to air transportation, particularly for short-haul, intercity markets”

    Did you even read the abstract?

    Nachtigall, ick hör dir trapsen…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    read the conclusion section

    The second major issue that this paper highlights is the influence of low-cost carriers on air travel
    demand. While the introduction of high-speed rail has played a significant role reducing domestic air travel
    in Europe, over the same time period low-cost carriers have had a more significant influence increasing air
    travel

    HSR lowered air travel…and low cost carriers raised it more than was lowered.

    i.e. overall, air travel went up

    Jerry Reply:

    Hey John N.
    Do the Low Cost Carriers pollute LESS than
    The High Cost Carriers???????
    Do YOU John N. have papers handy to prove that???

    Jerry Reply:

    Hey John N.
    Do the Low Cost Carriers have roomier seats than
    The High Cost Carriers? ?
    Do the Low Cost Carriers have roomier seats than HSR???

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    One of the reasons the airfares can be so low is that people who are less…. frugal?… are on trains.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    So guess what would have happened in the presence of low service carriers and the absence of HSR…

    Jerry Reply:

    Again. You are as clear as mud.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Now that’s an insult to the clarity of mud.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    HSR will decimate bot air and car travel between the bay and la. Who would opt for either of those options once HSR is open.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    People who really love bumper to bumper California traffic?

    People who get weird kicks out of fog delays and getting their knees crunched?

    I don’t know…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    It’s not a false choice. It’s one of the primary reasons to build the train. It’s the cheapest option for more capacity. Unless you want to assume that the population will never increase and their incomes and leisure time stay the same. forever.

    Jerry Reply:

    Some people even are audacious enough to claim that you have much much much roomier seats on HSR as opposed to the less less less roomy seats on an airplane. But is a roomier seat really worth paying less money for when you can get a much much more cramped seat at much much more money?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Why of course?

    Why would I pay less money to get a better product?

    Are you insane?

    Everybody knows that Apple would have to revise its sales figures downward if it made better phones at lower prices. Can’t have the plebs have audio jacks.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    I posted above showing europe. Now China

    http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/china-airline-growth-57-international-surge-while-domestic-holds-up-and-hong-kongmacau-fall-226730

    did someone forget to tell the airlines that HSR was going to kill their business, because 57% growth is pretty robust.

    Facts….they can be disconcerting I know.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Who has suggested that a train from San Francisco to Los Angeles will replace flights from either of them to the other side of the continent, across the ocean or even Salt Lake City?

    wdobner Reply:

    JN: What facts? You’re again linking to something which does not support your argument. As Adirondacker was nice enough to point out, that 57% growth is only in international travel, where there no competition from the Chinese high speed rail network. Domestic airline travel in China grew by 11% between 2014Q1 and 2015Q1. Meanwhile the high speed rail system, with more than ten times the ridership of China’s international and domestic airline market, grew by nearly 30% between 2014 and 2015. Their HSR network was expensive, but it would be even more outrageously expensive for China to build the airports required to accommodate those billion HSR passengers.

    The one thing clear from your link is that high speed rail really is killing Chinese domestic airline travel. The airline market is growing far more slowly than the demand being captured by the HSR network would indicate.

    Jerry Reply:

    @wdobner
    John N. is a very confused person who says he is misunderstood.
    He confuses his opinions with facts.
    We all know that all people are entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own ‘facts’.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    11% dometic travel growth in 1 QUARTER!!! then you use a yearly growth from HSR. Not very tricky.

    The point is simple, look at the 1st graph, domestic travel grew more than 100% between 2008 and 2015. International travel is a small fraction of domestic. The China air market is having explosive growth WITH HSR.

    HSR did not kill air travel, dometically or otherwise. So I am right, you still have to invest in airports and roads.

    Jerry Reply:

    And again John N. you leave out pollution.

    Jerry Reply:

    Again John N. you leave out the difference between investing in the maintenance of the current roads and airports and investing in expanding the current airport and roads.

    Jerry Reply:

    Do you John N. want additional runways at the airports and additional lanes on the highways? ??

    Jerry Reply:

    And remember John N. you assert in all of this that, “success is defined by efficiency.”

    Joe Reply:

    John has constructed another strawman argumenmt.

    He argues against HSR and wants to sucker people into the counter argument that HSR means no more road or airport investment. Or that HSR did not “kill” Chinese airport traffic.

    California LAO: Passenger capacity of HSR in CA equals the cost of 100b in new road and airport capacity. NEW.

    HSR isn’t going to kill roads or airports in CA either. It’s a lower cost, greener, alternative that creates economic growth.

    Jerry Reply:

    I agree Joe.
    But John N. doesn’t understand that. Or more likely, as a conservative he doesn’t want to understand that.

    Joe Reply:

    Stick to your point and don’t get distracted if he misrepresents. Usually he’s on to another hoax afaik.
    Like this one:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Were you so excited you could not stop hitting the submit button?

    Reminding me of dehydrogen monoxide made me smile so thanks for that

    Jerry Reply:

    But again John N. you are the one who ignores basic questions about what YOU assert.

    Jerry Reply:

    @ John N.
    Joe pointed out:
    “California LAO: Passenger capacity of HSR in CA equals the cost of 100b in new road and airport capacity. NEW.”
    That is a reference to California. NOT China.
    I hope you know the difference.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    HSR will cost 100B….so it is a wash…thanks for proving my point.

    Joe Reply:

    Reminding me of dehydrogen monoxide made me smile so thanks for that

    Me too.

    I didn’t troll coeds. We probably had very different college experiences.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Wait trolling is what you are supposed to do with coeds?

    I have been doing university all wrong ;-)

    On a more serious note though, China has a explosively expanding middle class. If China was not building HSR, aviation would be growing at ridiculous rates. Instead HSR is growing.

    Of course in a country as big as China there will still be people who will fly, but they won’t fly on the 100 km routes when there is HSR available.

    Jerry Reply:

    @ Bahnfreund
    You are right about China’s growth. Which of course will mean airline growth. But don’t try to confuse John N. anymore.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well if I cannot make the Nachtigall sing, I might make the Nachtigall listen.

    This song might not be the sweetest melody, but it’s worth listening to nonetheless…

    wdobner Reply:

    11% dometic travel growth in 1 QUARTER!!! then you use a yearly growth from HSR. Not very tricky.

    Please go back and read the site you linked to for comprehension. Specifically the second paragraph. That was 1Q2014 to 1Q2015. There is no mention of Q2 or Q4 to be found at all in any of the articles. It is 11% annual growth in domestic airline travel. We’re comparing apples to apples and the simple, unavoidable fact is that the Chinese HSR network is squelching growth of their domestic airline market. You can try to deny it, but as others have pointed out, you’re not entitled to your own facts, especially when your opinions are grounded in your rampant misinterpretation of those facts.

    The point is simple, look at the 1st graph, domestic travel grew more than 100% between 2008 and 2015.

    …and their high speed rail travel market grew by about 900% over the same time period, to the point where today it’s nearly ten times larger than Chinese air travel, both domestic and international. You can say Chinese airline travel exploded, but really Chinese travel exploded, and by far most of those passengers are travelling by high speed rail.

    HSR did not kill air travel, dometically or otherwise. So I am right, you still have to invest in airports and roads.

    You must acknowledge that without the construction of the high speed rail system they’d be faced with an even more costly program building airports and highways to accommodate the passengers who’d be forced to rely on the airlines and their own cars for intercity trips now made on high speed rail. They’d be faced with a billion passengers with no mode for intercity travel.

    Jerry Reply:

    Thanks wdobner for pointing out that John N. completely misrepresents the facts. Gee. That John N. is shifty.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Wasn’t there a two day traffic jam somewhere in China a few months ago?

    Loren Petrich Reply:

    Except that not everybody enjoys driving the 388 or so miles between LA and SF. It’s a 6-hour drive.

    I then checked Southwest’s schedules for LAX – OAK. It is nearly once an hour with 1h 15m flight time. Airport access and check-in will add some hours to that, and that is why high-speed trains so successfully complete with paralleling airlines. If flat roads are all that one needs, then why would anyone bother to go by air?

    joe Reply:

    For a workday, the drive from Gilroy to SF, for a solo driver, is 80 miles and I bet averages 25 MPH or over three hours time. I know my car trips to LA have a significant fraction of time in the basin driving in traffic.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    In Real America ™ there is no congestion. The parking is always free and gas is cheap. Google maps underestimates the driving time and kidneys can be shut down at will..

    joe Reply:

    Getting to LA is like getting into the ring to fight a WWF bout. All this time on I-5 in the CV is tedious but driving in the LA Basin is serious shit.
    I think waze uses personal history since my trip times with waze are pretty close and I’m a car pool. Google/Apple maps, I can usually beat.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    I’ve found that Google assumes I’m going to go slightly over the speed limit where it’s 65 and a lot over it where it’s 55 or less. It also assumes I don’t have kidneys, bowels or a stomach.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    That would never fly in France.

    There you get a ticket when the toll gate timestamps determine you had to go over the speed limit to achieve that trip time.

    EJ Reply:

    Google just averages the speeds that people actually drive, with little regard to the speed limit.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Someone should sue google for encouraging people to break the law…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Google says it takes 3:15 between here and the place I moved from. It is. If there is no traffic at all. Using the high speed electronic toll lanes. And the weather is good. And I don’t stop to pee. Did it twice in the dozens of trips between here and there. Late at night, when the weather was good and I didn’t stop to pee.
    It will adjust the travel time if there is traffic. Chances are real good that whatever is backing up the Garden State Parkway when I’m leaving Albany will clear up by the time I get there. Knowing what the average speed is 200 miles away from where I am now is nearly useless.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    But people don’t hold google to the same ridiculous standards as the railroads.

    If your google maps schedule is off by a few minutes nobody gives a crap. But if the train schedule is off by a few minutes everybody treats its like Zombie hordes in the street…

    EJ Reply:

    But people don’t hold google to the same ridiculous standards as the railroads.

    And they shouldn’t. Google is just trying to describe the chaos of ordinary traffic. Railroads run in a highly predictable fashion along a fixed route and should be held to a high standard of schedule adherence. I mean it’s kind of their thing.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I still find it ridiculous how often people in Germany bash on DB for things they simply accept for cars planes or buses…

    Like delays due to “acts of god” (I by the way like the German way of putting this which translates as “higher violence” better) or simple congestion…

    EJ Reply:

    Railroads shouldn’t experience congestion – if they do that means somebody screwed up or something broke, and people are perfectly right to criticize the railroad for it. Now, in the US, a lot of freight railroads have somewhat vague or even non-existent schedules, and dispatches just stick trains in wherever they’ll fit, but I don’t think that’s the case with DB.

    EJ Reply:

    You’re basically saying that people shouldn’t expect something from a railroad that is in fact should be one of the major selling points of rail transportation – punctuality and predictability.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    All rail lines are owned by the state. And while several sectors of DB are indeed money making enterprises, the overall profit goes into the hands of the state. And ultimately every last railroad construction is subject to a vote in some state local or federal legislature. So unlike Kansas City Southern who can just build a new rail line out of profits of the past or the future (via a loan) DB cannot. And thus a line can become congested because the state does not see the need for investment that railroad experts might have seen decades ago.

    Now you can run a rail line beyond its “optimal” capacity. This works if all overtaking is done exactly according to schedule. Throw in one train that is even a few minutes late and the whole thing can back up for a few days with delays adding up and reinforcing one another. I have seen a documentary from way back when about the Rhine Valley Line (which is now partially bypassed by HSR lines and still heavily used by freight and local traffic) which spelled it out quite nicely in German.

    Yes, most of the time someone is indeed to blame, but DB is often enough misblamed for things that were (wrong) political decisions.

    Neil Shea Reply:

    I-5 in the CV often does have a fair amount of congestion, especially on weekends and holidays. A flight to LAX is generally a four hour commitment, and increasingly pricey. HSR will be so much better

    William Reply:

    Wasn’t this the intention of funding IOS North first: whoever funded the Bakersfield-LA section gets the concession to operate IOS North, then Bay-to-Basin when it is completed?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    The rest of the system is going to cost 30+ billion. Do you really think running IOS is going to make more than that, because remember a private company wants money, on top of 30+ billion in investment?

    William Reply:

    If they are allowed to put a surcharge on all passengers through the mountain sections to recover/finance the tunnels, then I think it should be a very attractive propositions to private investments.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    They just have to be allowed to set/collect track access charges.

    Though if there is no strong control they might be tempted to simply set track access charges at such a level as to make it prohibitively expensive…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    an access charge for who? They are the only ones who would use these tracks?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    The owners of the tracks are not necessarily the owners or the operators of the rolling stock.

    It might make sense for a pension fund or other long term investors to buy a key part of the CaHSR network in order to have a guaranteed revenue stream from track access charges.

    Or do you think the owner of a toll road is also the only legal trucking company on said toll road?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    they are in the US. Hence the term “class 1”

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    No they’re not.

    There is no single railroad that owns major trackage on both coasts and in between.

    But there is coast to coast freight traffic.

    Which makes it pretty clear that someone is running trains over tracks that aren’t their own. And of course the owners of the track won’t do that for free. Instead they will cover a fee.

    Also known as track access charges.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    owned by other class 1 railroads. They just swap the fee amongst each other.

    There are no people who own track and dont run railroads. Hence the reason that Amtrack needs a federal loaw to maintain its priority, because the class 1s who own the track dont want to give it to them

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    hit submit too soon

    Unlike Europe, the tracks are not publically owned.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Does a railroad care whether the host railroad just owns the tracks or also runs trains over them?

    Why is it so hard to even theoretically imagine a railroad that does nothing else but own rent out and maintain a piece of rail infrastructure without owning or running any trains?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Because private companies can’t make money that way. Which is why only governments do that.

    To make money owning tracks as a private company you also need to run the trains.

    Why do you think it is only “theory”. If it’s so great, Goldman Sach would own tracks

    Jerry Reply:

    Sorry, but I got lost in the different references.
    Private companies can’t make money which way?
    And why can only governments make money that eay?

    Jerry Reply:

    Didn’t the government give the ROWs to the railroads? And a whole lot of land joining the ROWs?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    We need a trainspotter’s trainspotter. There are railroads that don’t own any track, for instance TTX and railroads that own track but not any locomotives or cars Conrail for instance.

    Roland Reply:

    HS1 Ltd paid the UK Government $3B for a 30-year lease on the tracks and the stations. HS1 Ltd do not own any locomotives or cars. http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/high-speed-1

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Nachtigall is whistling the wrong tune once again.

    And is proven wrong once more.

    There are railroads that only own (lease) tracks and no trains and yet they make money. Marvelous, isn’t it?

    There are of course good reasons for the state owning infrastructure but the Nachtigall idea of somehow private companies being unable to make money owning railroads is not the answer. I’ll give you a hint; the answer is the opposite. Just imagine private ownership of a critically, nay strategically, important transportation corridor…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Name a private company in the US that owns tracks and does not run trains.

    As for HS1. You obviously didn’t research that at all. That deal is a result of the Chunnel operators going bankrupt. So the UK government sold the rights at a discount to recoup some of the money.

    So I repeat, you can’t build and own tracks and make money without running the trains

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    I did. Conrail. They own the tracks and do track maintenance. So that CSX and NS can run trains over their tracks.

    Paul Dyson Reply:

    Conrail switches cars in the shared assets area

    Roland Reply:

    @ John N

    The reason I brought up HS1 Ltd, is because it is indeed profitable. Having said that, here is some light reading for anyone interested in the chronology of events that eventually led to the sale of the franchise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_and_Continental_Railways (nothing to do with Eurotunnel per se).

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    1. Conrail is wholly owned by the class 1s, who run trains (CSX and NS). Also, it was formed out of bankruptcy. So no, that is not an example unless you think holding companies are independent (they are not).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrail

    2. HS1 went bankrupt

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_1

    “By May 2009 LCR had become insolvent and the government received agreement to use state aid to purchase the line and also to open it up to competition to allow other services to use it apart from Eurostar”

    So they specifically used state aid to sell it at a loss to prop up the next guy.

    Also, just for the record

    http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/22547/hs1-annual-report-2015-16.pdf

    they lost money in FY14 and made money in FY15. both pathetically small amounts (net +200k pounds in 2 years). its basically a holding company made to break even on paying the debt they accumulated in “buying” the lease (see 3.28).

    So again, it is not an example of a private profitable business, they were effectively subsidized by the government when they sold the assets in bankruptcy.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    You said private company. You didn’t say private company with 427 conditions.
    The link you provided is for the company that was dissolved. A new one was formed which commonly uses the same name.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrail_Shared_Assets_Operations#Locomotives

    They use locomotives. They don’t own them.

    I’m sure there is a trainspotter, complete with a logbook of car numbers, who could rattle off a list of shortlines that don’t own anything besides tracks. And railroads that only own rolling stock. Like TTX.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Also I do not think that profitable lines like Paris-Marseille would suddenly cease being profitable if they were privatized.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    i didn’t say companies who own trains and not track, I said companies that own track and not trains.

    Conrail is owned 100% by the class 1s, who run trains. Its not a condition, it was the point. Conrail does not “own” anything. They are just a way to share expenses and revenue among 2 rival businesses. Plus they run trains which disqualifies them on that count also, I never said they had to own the trains.

    They dont make “money” renting track because they rent to themselves

    I could “rent” my condo to myself for 1 million dollars a month, but so what, I would not be making a million dollars a month. Its a shell company.

    Paul Dyson Reply:

    DtTX is not a railroad, it’s a leasing company owned by its customers the railroads

    Paul Dyson Reply:

    TTX

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Locomotives and cars don’t make much money unless they are moving something. I’ll agree that railroads that don’t move any locomotives or cars find it difficult to make money on railroading.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Wasn’t the original assertion some Nachtigallian BS that it is impossible for a private business to make money with a rail line while not owning or running any trains over it?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    yes…still waiting for an example (and I said governments dont count, it has to be a private company)

    Roland Reply:

    @John. N.

    Wrong again: the company that went bankrupt is London & Continental Railroads (LCR) the privately funded consortium responsible for the construction of the line, not HS1 LTD which did not even exist at the time (HS1 was referred to as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL)).

    HS1 Ltd was slapped together with 400 employees for the sale of the lease as soon as the project was completed. Please meet Nicola Shaw, HS1’s (former) Chief Executive: http://www.standard.co.uk/business/markets/nicola-shaw-the-woman-in-a-man-s-world-who-is-running-a-railway-at-high-speed-10201195.html

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    But proving something possible does not necessarily require an example of the exact same thing happening.

    All we need is a number of things that are similar enough and a plausibility assessment. And I find it highly plausible that in a country that is hell bent on libertarianism and has pre-existing private railroads and an associated culture such a thing is not inconceivable.

    Also, I fail to see how Class 1s renting out tracks to other railroads (and I am sure there are parts of Class1 networks that are rented out more often than used by their own trains) are so different from a private railroad owner along the CaHSR corridor or anywhere else.

    Nathanael Reply:

    John N, you’re lying again. I know of multiple examples of private for-profit companies which own tracks and make money simply by renting them out to other railroads. If you’d *ever done any research at all* you’d know there are quite a few in the US. Heard of the Kansas City Terminal Railroad? How about the current version of Conrail Shared Assets? That not good enough for you, how about the RF&P until about 2002?

    Nathanael Reply:

    Obviously, practically all that these companies do is accounting.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Accounting can be outsourced. Someone in the outsourced management company has to make sure the outsourced auditor agrees no hanky panky has been going on.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Maybe we should just stop doing his research for him?

    Danny Reply:

    most of the complained-about expense is because CA delayed, delayed, delayed on a system that we should’ve had in the 70s

    Domayv Reply:

    because the US said that freeways and airlines are the end-all be-all solution for transportation.

    Danny Reply:

    well, it’s not our fault cars, roads, planes, and airports are completely and absolutely free

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well to be fair airplanes are dual use (what do you think is the reason for Lufthansa’s stellar rise in the 1920s and 1930s, at a time when Germany was disallowed from having an air force?)

    And highways were sold to us by Eisenhower as a military investment. Ike’s biggest mistake or Ike’s biggest lie; your choice.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Roads worked….its that simple

    The US grew to the most powerful economy in the world based on roads, and to a lesser extend airports

    So you can say all you want, but roads worked

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    It became the biggest economy in the world before 1900.

    Jerry Reply:

    Roads worked …… based on cheap oil. It’s that simple.
    Even the true conservative Donald Trump says that we should have kept the oil we fought for in Iraq.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    and oil remains cheap, and will for the next 200 years

    You cant even claim we are stealing it from the mid-east anymore, we are a net producer once again.

    God I love technology.

    It must relaly burn your hide that you turned out to be wrong and oil did not disappear.

    Jerry Reply:

    John N. you are shifty.
    No. It does NOT burn my hide.
    No. I NEVER said oil would disappear.

    Jerry Reply:

    No. I NEVER claimed that we are stealing it from the mid-east.

    Joe Reply:

    Of course Jerry didn’t say oil would disappear. Another strawman argument from John.

    As for 200 years of cheap oil, Civilization cannot sustain fossil fuel use at current levels. Already co2 is past 400ppm which prehistorically humans have never lived. We evolved and adapted to a lower co2 ppm world. Last time co2 changed this quickly was a mass extinction.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    No one ever said oil was going to disappear. They said that if demand kept rising the prices would get too high. Alternatives would be cheaper. At the time they were saying it, alternatives were much more expensive.
    They aren’t any more. I don’t care how my house stays warm ( or cool ), how the water in the tap gets hot or what makes my car go. When it’s cheaper to slap PV in my backyard and batteries in the basement I’ll stop burning stuff. Respectable people claim that it will be cheaper very soon.
    Cheap electricity doesn’t make highways wider or airport terminals bigger. Or create more parking spaces.
    …we are awash in oil because the people in the Middle East decided they would rather get 40 bucks a barrel now instead of 10 bucks a barrel in 2040.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Revisionist History.

    Peak Oil theory absolutely said oil would disappear. Total production was supposed to peak in 1970 at 3 million barrels a day and after that there was a slow decline to 0. Now in 2016 we were supposed to be sitting at a little over .5 million barrels a day in production. We are actually at 3 million.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#/media/File:Hubbert_Upper-Bound_Peak_1956.png

    because Peak oil was wrong, just like you are wrong. Not only can we sustain this level for hundreds of more years its probably longer than that given future advances in technology. We are going to extract and burn it all. And it pisses you off to no end, because you cant stop it.

    We figured it out because we are smart….sorry, but not sorry
    How does it feel to be 100% wrong….wrong about the whole thing.

    Wrong about peak oil
    Wrong about economics
    and Wrong about pollution.

    Because the US, during this time when we are extracting and burning this oil, the US has DECREASED CO2 emissions. Me and my fellow engineers are so smart we figured out how to do it and not even feel guilty about the pollution

    I am sure this will trigger you and the defeatist treehuggers to post a series of scathing comments on how all is lost and the world is coming to an end, but remember this.

    When you get up tomorrow, you will pass gas stations with low prices. Somewhere in the Bakken fields they will be pumping in sludge to frack a well. Oil tankers will be carrying oil out of the US to other countries.

    We win, and no amount of comments on an HSR blog will change that. We win.

    Jerry Reply:

    There you go again shifty John N.
    I never said oil would disappear.

    Jerry Reply:

    Shifty John N. said:
    “It must relaly burn your hide that you turned out to be wrong and oil did not disappear.” (PS I believe you mean, really.)
    I responded, No. It did not burn my hide.
    I also responded that, I did NOT say that oil would disappear.
    See how shifty you are John N.
    You state that I said, oil would disappear. Which I most certainly did NOT ever ever say. You YOU John N. are completely WRONG in asserting that I said something which I did NOT say.

    Jerry Reply:

    Oh. By the way John N. after YOU created a FUD allegation about oil disappearing, YOU John N. go running of with a diatribe about, “Revisionist History.”

    Jerry Reply:

    See how confusing you are John N.
    But the you will say you are misunderstood.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    In 2040 it’s going to be difficult to find a gas station. The last of internal combustion powered cars rolls off the assembly line in 2030 there won’t be much demand for refined dinosaur juice.

    Jerry Reply:

    Oh. Sorry John N.
    I should have asked you if that was a diatribe or a rant.
    Pick a side, as you would say.

    Joe Reply:

    Peak oil refers to light crude oil field production.

    Misrepresenting the concept into a ridiculous strawman is status quo.

    EJ Reply:

    We win, and no amount of comments on an HSR blog will change that. We win.

    Pathetic. Hopefully you’ve embarrassed yourself enough that you’ll go elsewhere to work out your weird issues.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    Oil may last for years, but if we don’t cut back on its use, then much of coastal CA won’t.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    We did not end the stone age because we ran out of stones.

    Oh and “grid parity” (solar electricity from your rooftop costing the same as electricity from the utility without any tax incentives)… Yeah we are past that point. In Germany and 30-odd other countries as well as several US state including California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grid_parity_map.svg

    I for one look forward to what comes after the age of oil and the age of cars.

    But you would much rather have the Ronald Reagan presidency for the next 200 years.

    Well I have always assumed the intellectual capacities of those yearning for Reagan Kohl or Thatcher to be lower, but as you have not (yet) stated your admiration for any of those I will let that slide for now…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    That’s why they are using the same campaign slogans as 1980!
    I want to know why after 36 years of making America Great Again ™ it isn’t the mostest fantabulous place everly.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    wow…the revisionist history just never stops.

    All those years of “peak oil” and now it is “Hey, we always thought the alternatives would take over before we ran out”. What a joke.

    Yes, at some point batteries and electricity, probably created by solar, will take over as the predominate source of energy. We wont run out of oil, we will just not need it anymore. and once and for all these guys will be forever exposed as the laughingstocks that they are

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._King_Hubbert
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_S._Deffeyes
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Laherr%C3%A8re
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Allen_Pfeiffer

    Joe Reply:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

    Peak oil, an event based on M. King Hubbert’s theory, is the point in time when the maximum rate of extraction of petroleum is reached, after which it is expected to enter terminal decline.[1] Peak oil theory is based on the observed rise, peak, fall, and depletion of aggregate production rate in oil fields over time. It is often confused with oil depletion; however, peak oil is the point of maximum production, while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply

    Sadly you couldn’t link to a description of peak oil.

    Jerry Reply:

    Hey John N.
    Just remembered that I NEVER said that oil would disappear.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    And production didn’t peak. And reserves are not depleting. And hubbert predicted both.

    Notice his original graphs are using reserves. He used the reserves to predict production. He was wrong about everythint

    http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2016/09/16/where-hubbert-went-really-wrong-on-peak-oil/

    Joe Reply:

    Oil Production in the US 48 peaked at 3,500 million barrels at or near 1970.
    Even with the increase of fracking techniques and non traditional sources excluded from Hubbard’s analysis, oil is below the peak value.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    The only question about peak oil is when it will occur or did occur.

    The “if” lies in the nature of oil as a non renewable resource.

    Or are you one of those http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiotic_oil cranks?

    Nathanael Reply:

    John N, you’re lying again. I’ve studied the history of Peak Oil, as developed by M King Hubbert. It was based on the theory of peak anthracite.

    We still have anthracite. But we passed peak anthracite a LOOOOOONG time ago. Same thing happens with oil.

    Aarond Reply:

    Private money means Class 1s. They’ll build the tunnels if they can run double stack, diesel-hauled freights through them. CHSRA will get creative with the railroaders if LA won’t share Measure M money with them.

    Paul Dyson Reply:

    Aarond, class ones will not be investing in new tunnels that can accommodate HSR. Where do you get these silly notions?

    Aarond Reply:

    If CHSRA is going to cut business deals with a rail system, the most interested parties will obviously be the existing railroads. While freight-compatible tunnels are more expensive than straight HSR tunnels, the cost to taxpayers would be lower if it was split amongst three parties.

    It’s not the preferred solution, but it’s one that would get an HSR compatible link built. It all depends on how much money LA is willing to throw at HSR, and whether or not Congress continues to commit federal money.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    do you have any idea how cheap the class 1 railroads are. This is an industry that uses 100+ year old technology because they are not interested in upgrading. In what universe would they shell out for tunnels they dont require??

    Aarond Reply:

    Class 1s also built a $2.4 billion trench through southern LA. Tehachapi Loop is a bottleneck at the northern end. Eliminating it means more money can flow through it, the state just has to make them a good enough deal.

    That’s not to say they are though, but of all the businesses that might be interested in buying all or part of a high speed rail system the Class 1s are the people with the most money and the most reasons to do so.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    The Class 1s are not in the passenger hauling business.

    Most of them have no intention of getting back into it.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Do we have to restart the debate on the merits of mixing freight and HSR again?

    agb5 Reply:

    The cost of digging a tunnel tends to increase exponentially with diameter, and the tunnel would need to be longer to avoid unacceptably steep inclines, so the financials would not add up.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    This is what I have wanted XpressWest to do for ages. If they ever get money.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Where do you think Xpreswest could even possibly get the money from?

    Maybe after Texas Central is up and running there’ll be domestic interest on the US, but thus far they have to rely on China (already out) Japan (engaged in Texas) or France (do you know anything about their plans in the US besides Avelia?) to get off the ground.

    Aarond Reply:

    XPW has three sources of plausible income: MGM Group, Ceasar’s, and Station LLC., potentially a fourth given the providential location of Trump International Hotel. Also, as the casinos run Nevada they would ensure some sort of public grant. Remember that the most expensive part of the project, Palmdale to LA, would be paid wholly by CHSRA. There’s also developers sitting on the sidelines, wanting to jump in and pave over the high desert with housing.

    Also remember, the type of people who speculate on casinos also speculate on homes in Florida. They want to see how well Brightline does, and they will likely emulate them.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I am not saying that project as such is dead, but Xpresswest has thus far had problems attracting a big money backer and unless this changes in the next year or two, we will probably have to wait for the next attempt…

    Aarond Reply:

    For all my misgivings about XPW, there’s no information confirming or debasing claims of it’s demise just yet. I’d call it vaporware, if it was not for NVHSRA giving XPW the franchise rights. Surely, a public agency would update their website reflecting the CRI split before the new year?

    joe Reply:

    No XPW without a low interest Fed Loan and no Fed loan until a domestic train-set builder sets up shop.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Alstom, Siemens, Kawasaki, Rotem, CAF and others have shops in the U.S.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avelia_Liberty

    Joe Reply:

    Xpresswest clearly indicated and so did senator Reid that there are no us based trainsets.

    Expresswest can’t by us built 150 mph trains.

    That’s why CA HSR is critical. we’re a larger enough buyer with an plan to establish us based suppliers. Once a us base supply exists, other systems can go forward and meet buy-USA requirements.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    That’s just one of myriad reasons why getting the first line built is incredibly important.

    And knows that better than the opponents of HSR.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    The last sentence should have been “And nobody knows that better than the opponents of HSR”

    I would like there to be a “edit post” feature…

    Joe Reply:

    Xpresswest wanted DMUs however the NEC trainsets that can travel 180mph do meet their 150 mph speed objective.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    When did they ever say they wanted DMUs?

    Paul Dyson Reply:

    Income or investors?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Ceasar’s is bankrupt and Station LLC just exited bankruptcy.

    They dont have billion lying around to finance a train that no one else thinks is worth it.

    Expresswest is living (actually dead ) proof that you cant build HSR and make money if you have to pay for the capital costs.

    Neil Shea Reply:

    Vegas will focus there next few $billion on sports teams, including a new football stadium.

    Meanwhile many toll road endeavors struggle to return their capital costs, orange county being a prominent example, confirming that many road expenditures are just naked subsidies for land speculators.

    synonymouse Reply:

    “many road expenditures are just naked subsidies for land speculators.”

    Ditto for PalmdaleRail.

    Wells Reply:

    If cost and speed were such big concerns, the Tejon route would’ve been chosen. The latest California Rail News article “Tejon or Tehachapi” shows a map of a 1950 Santa Fe proposal for a 2-tunnel Tejon route (9.7 and 13.5 miles). Who knows whether this route’s tunnels will be more or less complicated. To me it just seems that automobile-related business interests control transportation planning and find ways to sabotage rail transit competition.

    Domayv Reply:

    I wonder how the two Santa Fe routes would meet modern safety standards as they would have to deal with the San Andreas and Garlock faults.

    http://www.calrailnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/crn0416finalonline.pdf

    synonymouse Reply:

    This quite late proposal on the part of the Santa Fe(1950)must have been kept top secret subsequently. AFAIK no one on the various blogs has alluded to this study. TRAC never mentioned it before either to my knowledge.

    Clearly this development merits thorough investigation. First off is it a fiction? Clem, do you know of this?

    So typical that Antelope Valley real estate interests from the outset tried to stop the Grapevine highway itself and again that what was to become the Division of Highways appropriated the 1921 Santa Fe route for the road. Does anything ever change in this corrupt State? We re-live Chinatown every damn day.

    Wells Reply:

    Maniacal traffic is convincing evidence that transit systems fail by design. BART general manager Grace Crunican was rightly fired twice, (from ODOT in 2000, from Seattle DOT in 2009), as her road and bridge work in both jobs were hotly contentious rather than productive, yet she’s hired at BART as if her record proved admirable in screwing things up badly and getting away with it. Automobile-related business interests NOW want us to believe self-driving cars isn’t idiotic while thoughtless idiots go all ga-ga for the idea. It should be easy to recognize self-driving cars as a fraud and a ruse, but if the TV says it’s fantastic, that’s what watchers believe.

    EJ Reply:

    By “Chinatown,” do you mean the fictional Roman Polanski film? Are you one of those northern Californians who thinks it’s even remotely based on history?

    synonymouse Reply:

    practically gospel

    synonymouse Reply:

    Clem, did you come across this in your study?

    http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=HTES19510329.2.172

    Proposed road and rail tunnel thru Tejon. Dunn was chairman of the Occidental College economics department.

    I doubt the Chandlers and the Ranch were amused. This fight has been going on since the 19th century.

    Cheerleaders, here is illustrated why autos win and trains lose. The nascent Division of Highways is so powerful the Chandlers and the Ranch lose. And Palmdale, et al. Decades later nothing has changed and PBCAHSR gets stuck with the consolation prize of a huge detour and a commute run.

    Jerry Reply:

    Synonymous. Your info might be in the following:
    Thompson, Gregory Lee. The Passenger Train in the Motor Age: California’s Rail and Bus Industries, 1910–1941. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1993.

    synonymouse Reply:

    “The proposal gaining most public attention has been worked out by Dr. Cecil Dunn, economic analyst and engineer and professor of economics at Occidental College, who has been one of the pioneers in the Tehachapi Tunnel proposal. Dunn’s plan calls for tw-o shorter tunnels, one entering the mountains six miles north of Castaic a n d emerging 13 5-10 miles further north, followed by five miles open road, with the second tunnel entering the mountains near Gorman and emerging at Grapevine, after a 9 7/10-mile run.”

    …”Advocates, of the Dunn plan hold that it has several advantages, among them the fact that the route would cross the San Andreas fault on the surface rather than underground along the five mile open route between the portals in the upper Ante* lope Valley. Also they point out that by constructing of two short sections of tunnel, instead of the originally proposed 20 mile bore, the problems of ventilation would be greatly simplified.”

    The description given is pretty vague and some say areas available heretofore are now under water but it roughly sounds somewhat like what Clem proposed.

    Clem Reply:

    What I proposed was far from optimal. I didn’t have fancy GIS software or a team of engineers. The CHSRA has done studies that show even better options exist. They’re kept under wraps, seeing as they don’t meet the “purpose and need” of serving Palmdale, the center of the HSR universe.

    synonymouse Reply:

    So highway interests monopolize the optimal route and rail is relegated to sloppy seconds. PB’s gift to auto and bus competition.

    synonymouse Reply:

    It would seem likely Van Ark had solid exploratory study information that a better route was present at Tejon when he suggested a revisit of the whole southern mountain crossing issue.

    Clearly Van Ark(why do I want to say Van Helsing?) was encouraging his engineers to investigate Tejon and even under Richard they quietly continued to examine all the options despite PB’s public capitulation to the Tejon Mountain Village.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    I 5 is already ridiculously wide over the grapevine. It could probably be just 2 or 3 lanes in each direction. If anything might be widened in the future, it’s the 101 from Ventura to Gilroy.

    Jerry Reply:

    Interesting tunnel. A double decker.
    Cars on top.
    And trucks and trains on the bottom.

    synonymouse Reply:

    A couple of truths emerge:

    I-5 is the default link between NorCal, the Valley and the Los Angeles Basin and it will inevitably be seriously expanded and improved in the future. The Ranch and Palmdale cannot stop that. Those shippers have a lot of money and power.

    And whatever are the daunting technical difficulties PBCAHSR faces its political and turf wars are much worse.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    People shipping cheap stuff want cheap shipping not fast shipping.

    Neil Shea Reply:

    Toll I-5, then we won’t need to discuss expansion for many years, and we’ll have funds to ensure HSR can offload a good share of pax traffic.

    synonymouse Reply:

    You’ll want to add on some reserved high-speed lanes for new, more powerful buses that can climb the hill with no problem. Take advantage of the express, default route from NorCal to SoCal the highway lobby was able to wrest from the Ranch and Antelope Valley real estate gangsters.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Even if they ran at 100 mph they would still be slower than the train.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    There was a question on Quora recently that asked whether a highway only used for buses could carry more people than a rail line…

    synonymouse Reply:

    As if PBCAHSR is not already playing weak sister to Caltrain at the northern end, moronic PB wants to duplicate that bad situation at the southern end with a commute detour off to Palmdale. All faux hsr trains will be Palmdale Flyers. That’s why the is being diverted to Palmdale in the first place. It is as if the Cheerleaders are afraid they cannot muster enough ridership with a real HSR and have to go wandering all over SoCal looking for ticket buyers. Palmdale is not on the north south route; it is that simple.

    Kudos to the highway guys for not falling for the Antelope Valley-Tejon Ranch bullshit from the get-go.

    synonymouse Reply:

    the alignment is being diverted

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    At the peak of the peak the Lincoln Tunnel eXclusive Bus Lane carries 700 buses an hour.
    The Port Authority wants to expand the bus terminal at the Manhattan end of the Lincoln Tunnel. For 10 billion dollars. … 700 buses need some infrastructure other than the lane they travel on…

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    I love Quora But no, I very much doubt a 2 lane bus highway could carry more people than a 2 track rail line, or a 4 lane highway vs a 4 track rail line. Only if the highway was wider than the railroad could it compete.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Aren’t highway lane broader than railway tracks plus the space between them?

    EJ Reply:

    @Bahnfreund in the US it’s actually about the same.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    But for highways you have to add shoulders and the space between the lanes of each direction. Which in railways are already accounted for by the distance between the tracks…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    It’s nice to have shoulders and medians. There are substandard roads without them. That will never have them. It would cost too much to fix it. Very rarely the shoulders get converted to traffic lanes. It’s quite common for the median to be used for additional lanes. It’s common for the median to be designed that way.

    Jerry Reply:

    Very interesting article. It was written by a Ph.D., who has written a book on the subject. He may have more information about it in his book.

    Roland Reply:

    I think that many people on this revered blog came to the same conclusion many years ago even though they were not aware of this 1951 study. Everything points to crossing the San Andreas fault at grade on the east side of the I5/134 junction with a wye connecting to the Palmdale/Las Vegas branch.

    Having said that, I don’t see anything short of PBRRA euthanasia that could possibly stop these rentseekers from pissing away billions of Prop1A bonds in additional San Gabriel Mountain “studies”.

  2. Roland
    Sep 21st, 2016 at 00:38
    #2

    I asked NICELY last time I was down there if they would be willing to share KMZ/KMLs of the various alignments to facilitate additional context analysis in specific areas.

    joe Reply:

    You should get a “No.”

    These are coarse cartoons for illustration purposes and you’ll happily misuse the digital data as the HSR alignment to make contextual analysis in specific areas. Actual engineering isn’t in Google Earth.

    Better that you spend time designing a diesel/electric HSR train with a high toilet to seat ratio.

    EJ Reply:

    Glad to see you’re still fighting the good fight against government transparency.

    Joe Reply:

    To the contrary, I want transparency, integrity and accuracy.

    Releasing preliminary, crude GIS data like the KVM files for animation, is irresponsible and can harm private partiesland owners if released standalone.

    The digital data would be official government documents in the public record describing the alignment.

    GIS readable data for cartoonish animations is official data and can be overlaid on high quality digital maps by any third party and incorrectly show impacts to Private Property. This could cost landowner money and lead to litigation between third parties with HSR data.

    HSR should make precise maps of the alignment with rectified data.

    We tried to release a web GIS in the mid 1990s but the state couldn’t allow imprecise maps made on the fly by overlaying various individual maps at different resolution/precision. We were showing state level wetland map overlayed on precise land ownership maps. The mismatch between the two layers misplaced small wetlands on farm land. Since wetlands are protected, this has serious consequences to the farmer.

    HSR Alignment needs to be rectified to land ownerships maps prior to release.

    Wow. What’s not transparent ? They released a video.

    Roland Reply:

    @Joece: Better that you spend your time designing express bus lanes in South County https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VTA185

    Joe Reply:

    Oh no. I don’t play engineer and then attend every Caltrain meeting speaking on every topic.

    “Kindly look at my omneo train drawings and kindly tell what about these awesome designs you don’t understand.”

    Danny Reply:

    I like how the bus doesn’t get stuck in freeway traffic, because no commuter ever ever think of rat-running

    Roland Reply:

    @Joece

    “Kindly look at PBRRA 250 MPH viaduct drawings and kindly tell what about these awesome designs you don’t understand.” http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/09/21/high-speed-rail-finds-a-more-business-friendly.html

  3. Trentbridge
    Sep 21st, 2016 at 06:13
    #3

    Interesting that the three proposed routes are less and less about avoiding tunnels and more and more about straightening the route. I suggest that tunnel engineers have convinced the planners that tunneling is not as difficult or expensive as originally thought. Furthermore the proposition requirement of 2 hours and 40 minutes from SF to LA doesn’t have a “take an extra ten minutes if it’s cheaper” clause so the CA HSR Authority has a strong incentive to straighten the route when possible – even if the cost is higher. ( No – not the I5 Freeway route beloved by some..)

    synonymouse Reply:

    The reason for the tunnels is rich people are bitching get off my lawn. But tunnels make it harder to add more commute halts. A problem for a commuter rr, which is PBCAHSR.

    If genuinely you want faster and cheaper go Tejon.

    J. Wong Reply:

    Obviously, they don’t care about adding more commute halts, so maybe they don’t consider CAHSR a commuter railroad? (Always draw the simplest conclusion, @syno.)

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Occam’s razor?

    Something syno never heard of.

    Syno’s razor would be something like “The path that connects the issue at hand with Parson’s Brinckenhoff and or BART being evil in the least amount of steps should be taken”…

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    Which would have tunnels.

    Danny Reply:

    the rich people are bitching about the tunnels as much as the flyovers: they just don’t want to see yellow road graders and white-and-blue trains breaking 150 knots in their sun-dappled oak-drenched valleys while they’re on horseback leading their other rich guests to the wine shed
    that’s why I call them NIMFYs–NIMBYs are against projects’ spillover (Exide, Arcadia’s McMansions, gentrification, getting a house knocked down) or against being inconvenienced for the public good, NIMFYs are against getting something useful that doesn’t damage anyone
    that’s why NIMFYs waste millions on nuisance suits (they’re delaying the project and running up the costs to hamper future projects) and why their arguments are such obvious lies: “it’s too fast and it’s too slow and it’s too expensive and it’s too cheap and the riders are too Black and the riders are too White”

    synonymouse Reply:

    Tejon Ranch qualify as a “NIMFY”?

    Danny Reply:

    probably–but to put it delicately, they might not have quite the pull you think they have
    I don’t recall them riding into LAUSD on horseback and bringing goats

    synonymouse Reply:

    “You think you know what you are dealing with here, Mr. Geddes, but believe me you don’t”

    Nathanael Reply:

    You have heard of BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone)? I think a lot of opposition qualifies.

    The horseback riders and their horses will be perfectly happy riding under the iconic, beautiful flyover bridge. Seriously. The horse-riders complaint is such bull.

  4. synonymouse
    Sep 21st, 2016 at 10:51
    #4

    Lee and ultimately Jerry may have an expensive embarrassment on their hands:

    http://kron4.com/2016/09/20/sf-city-attorney-subpoenas-millennium-tower-developer-over-sinking-structure/

    “Millennium Partners officials today argued that the building’s foundation is of the same design used by most current buildings of its size in the city, and that drilling down into bedrock is not normal practice.

    While they acknowledged that the building had sunk more than projected by 2010, they said the amount was well within design limits.”

    If Millennium can document and sustain their foundation argument and somehow get a jury trial and around Machine judges this could get quite expensive and even more scandalous than up to new.

    But Prop 1a is vacated so why worry, right?

  5. synonymouse
    Sep 21st, 2016 at 11:12
    #5

    http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2016/09/millennium-tower-developer-sinking-tower-sf.html

    “Jeffries said that while some sinking was expected, the building’s sinking of 16 inches is more than engineers anticipated and is directly related to the TJPA’s digging a 60-foot hole for the train tunnel.”

    Interesting they should specify the Caltrain-PBCAHSR tunnel as the culprit.

    Peter Reply:

    Interesting they should specify the Caltrain-PBCAHSR tunnel as the culprit.

    You’re surprised that they’re trying to blame someone other than themselves? I thought you’ve been around the block a few times…

    synonymouse Reply:

    Key question is how many millions could Millennium Partners extort from the taxpayers to shore up their building assuming they could win in court. The TBT Tunnel is getting to be pricey even for SF.

  6. Jerry
    Sep 21st, 2016 at 13:10
    #6

    Finally, proof that you live longer with HSR:

    “Independent scientific research shows that reductions in air pollution are associated with widespread public health benefits. For example, one study found that reductions in fine particle pollution between 1980 and 2000 in U.S. cities led to improvements in average life expectancy at birth of approximately seven months.”

     https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health#pollution

    Cleaner air with HSR. Live longer with HSR.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Plus ceteris paribus people who use public transit are more likely to walk.

    If you are already on the train when you get into LA or San Francisco, you are less likely to take a car next than you’d be if you are taking the car to get there…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    I am glad you read the link that I posted. But you forgot the part where these gains have been achieved WITHOUT HSR in the US.

    Jerry Reply:

    And the gains will be even better WITH High Speed Rail.
    People will live longer WITH High Speed Rail.
    And they will have cheaper seats with much more room than the seats on airlines.
    And they will save on car insurance if they use HSR than if they use their cars.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    say Jerry. I acknowledge you have an opinion.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Ah, but an opinion based in fact is better than an opinion that has to alter the facts…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    i have not seen a single fact posted except by me

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Should I feel insulted by this or should I laugh about this?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    I am not talking about my opinions. You, Jerry, Joe, are always demanding citations from me which I provide. But when you spout off your opinions, I dont see citations in return.

    Jerry Reply:

    I have never demanded a citation from anyone.

    Joe Reply:

    It’s a strawman argument once more.

    You can’t fix a strawman argument with a citation.

    Health benefits form using mass transit include HSR as one of those modes of transit but no one suggests this is an exclusive benefit.

    Gains made without HSR don’t disprove additional benefits can happen with HSR.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Also, we all know that public transit has grown quite a bit in recent years. Even in the US.

    Of course the cleaner air has something to do with regulation (boo hiss) and the decline of American manufacturing as well, but the mode choice of Americans certainly impact the air quality they experience.

  7. William
    Sep 21st, 2016 at 13:16
    #7

    OT: on another note, if LA wins the right to host the 2024 Summer Olympics, which we should find out by the end of next year, is it more likely that IOS South be considered again, or the federal government will be more likely to fund the Bakersfield-to-LA section in addition to IOS North?

    Aarond Reply:

    Depends on on the mood in Washington, which over eights years is unpredictable.

    My hot opinion is that CHSRA would have a better case for federal funding by switching back to a southern IOS, especially if LA puts up Measure M money towards it. But this would also annoy their friends here in norcal who want bay-to-basin done sooner rather than later. Perhaps LA putting up Measure M money could result in San Jose matching funds?

    That is just speculation though.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    Mabye the feds would pay for all of ios south, and iOS north would continue on as usual. Thus completing the entire system before 2030.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    you cant get it built by 2024, even if you had the funds, which you dont

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    [citation needed]

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    in 2014, when CAHSR was prioritizing IOS-South, they thought it would take till 2028

    http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2014_Business_Plan_Final.pdf

    so either you think the authority is sandbagging…or it cant be built that fast

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    You can build (almost) arbitrarily fast if you arbitrary sums of money. Of course the return on investment of more money becomes laughably small at some point, but if you have hundreds of crews working all at once on different parts of the project instead of just a handful, you can get it done much faster.

    The authority made their assumptions based on a project that would be finished in stages one after the other. If you build all stages at the same time, you will be done faster.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    So you accept my cite.

    Now you vote an article supporting your assertion that it could be done and for what amount of money

    Quid pro quo

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Vote = cite. Autocorrect

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Take your own article and read how long each individual phase would take, then see which of them can be done at the same time and you get a rough estimate for the minimum time give or take one or two years…

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I’m not willing to play your nanny that has to predigest any information for you.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Translation: I didn’t think you would be able to provide and actual citation, but now that you have I have nothing to refute it with so I will instead say it is below my station.

    The very premise of your argument is wrong. No amount of money can make environmental reviews go faster or create TBMs that don’t exist. Add in the fact that the authority is taking 4-5 years just to build a flat, no tunnel section.

    Simply put, no way, no how, no chance.

    joe Reply:

    HSR is not a project with interdependencies so the critical path would be the tunnel.

    The Alaskan Highway is such a project where completion was paramount and money and effort were used to accelerate construction and blow by paperwork:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Highway#Construction

    Environmental reviews can be done in parallel and for CAHSR, they should not follow CEQA and do the federal EIR as HSR is a Federal, not a State Project.

    Thank You Jeff Denham for asking the STB to Federalize HSR.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    did you just really compare a dirt trail in Alaska with a war as motivation to building HSR in California with the Olympics as motivation? You did. Wow Joe, you are really bad at this. I mean it, you just cant debate worth a damn. Here, I will debate both sides just to make it sporting

    Joe: There are several examples were infrastructure was built as an “impossible” rate. The most famous is probably the Hoover Damn which is considered a modern “wonder of the world” and was completed in only 5 years. And there the method of construction was unknown at the time of start. A more modern example was the I-580 repair

    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A-MAZE-ING-His-reputation-on-the-line-2592154.php

    All this shows that with the right people in place, any job can be done in an “impossible” time.

    John: Good examples, but those are geographically limited jobs (i.e. not spread out). More importantly, they had exceptional leaders. Are you saying CAHSR has those level of leaders, because I would hate to have to copy and paste the results so far on the 2 year delayed 30 mile CP1 section.

    Joe: Your argument was that it was not possible. I think these examples show it is possible, however improbably with the current leadership

    John: Fair point, I should have said impossible with the current leadership.

    There you go Joe, you won.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Nobody ever argued it would be particularly cost efficient or likely, but your contention was “impossible”. And that it is not.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    with the current leadership, it is impossible.

    But I will concede as pseudo-Joe argued above it is not absolutely impossible with the right leadership, money, and motivation. It took 8 years to land a man on the moon from JFKs speech. This would be a hell of a lot easier than that.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    So then that’s settled there…

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    For once, John n is right. It isn’t realistic to build the whole system in just 7 years, or more like 5 because they don’t have the land and contracts and design.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    At least not without spending a lot more money and political capital on it.

    It’s not impossible but it is unlikely that anybody would accept wat it would take to do it. Among those things is steamrolling lawsuits…

    Neil Shea Reply:

    JN is right. And anyway this large expenditure is most compelling when there is 250 miles of tail track to the north, reaching 12 million people and major portions of the California economy. The logic of closing the gap, even if expensive, will be hard to deny.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well the Shinkasen was in part built for the then Tokyo Olympics so LA winning the Olympics might indeed make DC more inclined to cough up funds.

    But of course the event that is more likely to determine the willingness of DC to invent in CAHSR is the election.

    Eric M Reply:

    Not sure if the geotechnical and actual tunneling can be finished in time

    Aarond Reply:

    I believe it could. Let’s envision a best-case scenario: In 2018 when the Bakersfield-Burbank EISes are completed Congress could fund it entirely, which would start construction in 2019 and be done in 2022. At the same time, LA (using Measure M money) would complete the studies necessary for a compliant Burbank-LAUS corridor, starting construction in 2020 completing in 2022.

    But this is also a very, –very– optimistic scenario, one which requires Congress to give CHSRA $30 billion dollars.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    If LA has to pay for bringing rail to the heart of the largest and most important city west of the Appalachians, then SF can pay for everything north of dirdon.

    synonymouse Reply:

    PodunkDale is “the heart of the largest and most important city west of the Appalachians”?

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    No, Los Angeles is.

    Danny Reply:

    extend the Hilltopper Washington-Roanoke-Bristol-Knosville-Chattanooga-Huntsville-Decatur-Bing-Monty

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    ???

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    You’re not the only one to not understand a thing…

    Aarond Reply:

    SF is doing just that, the DTX will not get any HSR money because it’s an SFMTA project. Adding 12 miles of HSR track is cheap especially when the line is mostly grade-separated and is wide enough for two more tracks.

    Also, no matter what happens everyone in the Bay Area will be paying for LAUS-Anaheim.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    Burbank plus LAUS plus Norwalk plus Anaheim serves about 12-13 million people. TBT serves about 2 million people.

    Joe Reply:

    How long will it take to dig under the mountains ? I think years, possibly a decade.

    Aarond Reply:

    drill and blast is faster than a tunnel boring machine

    Max Wyss Reply:

    Thanks, that made may day… but now, my back aches from all that rolling on the floor…

    EJ Reply:

    Now that’s how you do trolling.

    Aarond Reply:

    more boom = less rock = more space for trains

    EJ Reply:

    If “being wrong about everything” was an art form, you’d be Michelangelo.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    How about nuclear tunneling though?

    We could revive Operation Plowshare that those damn political correct hippies shut down prematurely…

    Joe Reply:

    Large man with a hammer in his hand is even faster than dill and blast.

    EJ Reply:

    As proven by one J. Henry.

    Joe Reply:

    Yep. Thank you for noticing.

    EJ Reply:

    Lol kids these days don’t get the reference.

    Joe Reply:

    D.C. Even made up a comic book hero in his honor.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_(John_Henry_Irons)

    What about Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox in the Northwest Territories aka Michigan?

    Danny Reply:

    it might be fakelore, like Joe Magarac–like Nikola Tesla, in fact!

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    All folklore is fakelore…

    Or at the very least it is younger than most people think…

    EJ Reply:

    John Henry was most likely a real person, though, who really did die building a tunnel. Obviously the legend is romanticized, but it most likely has at least some truth to it.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Some people say the basis for Siegfried of the Nibelungen saga is actually Arminius of beating three Roman legions fame… And the dragon is the Roman army…

    agb5 Reply:

    It depends how many tunnel boring machines you have. The tunnel routes were chosen to provide for intermediate access points for multiple TBM’s

    Derek Reply:

    ~20 miles at 75 feet per day with a single TBM comes to almost 4 years.

  8. Trentbridge
    Sep 22nd, 2016 at 10:31
    #8

    As you drive up or down I% n the CV you see acres of land given over to Pistachio Trees.

    The biggest farmer of nuts is the Wonderful Company: here’s the Wikipedia page for them:

    The Wonderful Company LLC, formerly known as Roll Global, is a private corporation based in Los Angeles, California. With revenues of over $2 billion, it functions as a holding company for Stewart and Lynda Resnick, and as such is a vehicle for their personal investments in a number of businesses. The company currently counts as business divisions the following brands: flower delivery service Teleflora, juice company POM Wonderful, bottled water company FIJI Water, Wonderful Pistachios and Wonderful Almonds (formerly Paramount Farms), Wonderful Citrus (formerly Paramount Citrus), sea freight company Neptune Pacific Line, JUSTIN Vineyards and Winery, pest control company Suterra, and in-house marketing agency Wonderful Agency (formerly Fire Station).

    Here is the report on water use….

    Crop Water Use
    Using long term average pan evaporation for the San Joaquin Valley and assuming a 17 x 17 ft tree spacing results in crop water use values for a normal year that range from 2
    gal/tree/day in early April to 57 gal/tree/ day in early July, decreasing to 4 gal/tree/
    day in early November.
    Average ET from June through August is 52 gal/tree/day.

    For the season, Table 1 shows a cumulative crop water use value of 40.1 inches for an average year.

    So, lovers of farmland in the Central Valley – you are supporting the state water system to enrich a couple in Beverly Hills…to grow water-intensive crops for export. No wonder they are “Farmers for Trump”.

    synonymouse Reply:

    And you want to replace that with ghetto tracts? What’s the eco-difference?

    Trentbridge Reply:

    Ghetto tracts? Housing must be a priority. If you can persuade the innumerable NIMBY groups in the Bay Area to allow housing development in their neck of the woods, they’d be no need for commuting from the Central Valley. Today I see a Curbed SF article: It’s almost October, and the rents are still high. How high? Well, apartment site Abodo reckons that a single bedroom in San Francisco now runs $3,715. (A six percent decline from the Abodo median of a month prior, which itself was a six percent spike.)

    From Curbed LA: On Ocean Park Avenue in Santa Monica, this 500-square-foot unit in a fourplex has a newly remodeled, petite kitchen; a decent amount of storage space; and a small private patio. The one-bedroom apartment is furnished with hardwood floors and a “custom” bathroom. On-site laundry and a carport parking space are also selling points. Rent is $2,800.

    Aarond Reply:

    Remember that most CA farmers were for Cruz and the CAGOP politburo for Jeb!. Now most are for Hilary, as Trump has promised he will force them to hire American. Trump supporters (mostly in Jefferson and the CV) themselves loathe local farmers for, quote, “bringing in all the mexicans”.

    Regardless, the water issue is inherently a norcal vs socal one and not party based. The farmers are just an angle in a much larger pissing match.

  9. synonymouse
    Sep 22nd, 2016 at 11:02
    #9

    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Sinking-Millennium-Tower-puts-building-agency-on-9220921.php

    “Peskin also wants to know whether other downtown high-rises were approved without going to bedrock.

    ‘“We have to make policy decisions as to whether or not we are going to allow these kind of friction piling systems under very heavy, very tall buildings,”’ he said.”

    Great news if the upshot of the leaning richie tower would result in much stricter foundation code that would make highrises more expensive. Hopefully a not more expensive.

  10. Joe
    Sep 22nd, 2016 at 14:38
    #10

    Caltrain twitter:

    Yesterday our #TransitPD issued 52 tix to drivers at railroad crossings in San Mateo & Burlingame. #CaltrainSafe @CAOpLifeSaver @SMCSheriff

  11. Jerry
    Sep 22nd, 2016 at 23:18
    #11

    Hey John N.
    You said:
    “Because the US, during this time when we are extracting and burning this oil, the US has DECREASED CO2 emissions. Me and my fellow engineers are so smart we figured out how to do it and not even feel guilty about the pollution.”
    So YOU did it? YOU are the one who figured it all out. YOU and YOUR fellow engineers.

    Jerry Reply:

    Wow…
    YOU did ALL of that. YOU and YOUR fellow engineers did ALL of that AND all of you didn’t feel guilty about any of the franking pollution? Or was that just the air pollution? Or was that BOTH the air pollution AND the water pollution??
    Gee. You must be really proud. Now don’t be shy. Did you and your fellow engineers have any patents on what you all did?

    Jerry Reply:

    ‘fracking’

    Jerry Reply:

    PS. I forgot to add that I’m glad to hear that you’re, “so smart.”

  12. Jerry
    Sep 22nd, 2016 at 23:35
    #12

    Hey John N.
    Regarding oil production. You said:
    ” Not only can we sustain this level for hundreds of more years its probably longer than that given future advances in technology. We are going to extract and burn it all.”
    Now while you are burning all of this for hundreds of years I’m just curious as to what impact this might have on pollution? ?

    Jerry Reply:

    Oh John N.
    One of your papers said:
    “Although the air transportation sector has achieved significant efficiency improvements over time, there are limited opportunities for airlines to replace more CO2-intensive energy sources with less CO2-intensive energy sources.”
    Gee. Could you explain what that might mean?
    Are you and your engineers working on that problem?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    they figured that out a long time ago. It costs more than digging it out of the ground.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-neutral_fuel

    Jerry Reply:

    Notice that John N. ignores the increase of airline pollution. With very little that the airlines can do about it.
    But that’s according to HIS source.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Well, I already said this, but I expect pollution to drop, just like it is now.

    CO2 emissions in the US are at dropping faster than anywhere else in the world. All because of fracking

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/12/07/surprise-side-effect-of-shale-gas-boom-a-plunge-in-u-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions/#2d7a76d667c3

    So we increased production, decreased pollution, and lowered prices for everyone. A good day I say

    And because I know this will trigger you further, here is the next one for 20-30 years from now. Coal to Oil. Like I said, we will extract every last ounce and burn it

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction

    Or we may not need that oil because electrical takes over. Solar costs are dropping like a stone, they just have not figured out a good storage option yet.

    One thing is for sure, in 20 years pollution in the US will be lower either way

    Joe Reply:

    Trolling, troollling, troooooling.
    He’s triggering us like alt-right provocateurs.

    Write extreme stuff and people respond – trigger.

    Methane emissions over the us increased and the EPA is revising emission estimates upward to correct for underestimating contributions from fracking and natural gas leaks.

    Methane is approximately 30 times more radiative which makes it a CO2e of 30.

    Measure for green house gas isn’t co2, it’s co2e. T

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Ok easy, since you asked (not nicely) CO2e emissions from the EPA because I know that Obama is your hero of change and any other source is alt-right bullshit.

    https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    Figure 3

    Emmisions per capita at ~80% of 1990 levels and per GDP at 60% of 1990 levels. Like I said, decreased pollution.

    Now ask yourself the real question. If you want to stop global warming, why are you sad/angry/in denial of the fact that the US took on the challenge and reacted. Is it because you only care about winning the argument and not solving the actual problem?

    If you want to stop global warming, I suggest you take your eco-babble over to your favorite country China. With their super-cool HSR system. The have double the emissions of the US and they are not dropping like they are in the US.

    But they have HSR, so it must be a vast right wing conspiracy to tarnish the good name of China.

    While you babble on, the engineers over here are just going to solve the problem. thanks for not helping.

    Joe Reply:

    What do is this link have to do with asking everyone to thank you for fracking?

    This is another strawman with a bait and switch — you first make a provocative statement and then flip your argument to pretend someone has taken a contrary position to a different argument.

    Joe Reply:

    You wrote this.

    CO2 emissions in the US are at dropping faster than anywhere else in the world. All because of fracking.

    It is a lie.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    nope, its true. You dont have to believe me, read the Forbes article. The title is “Surprise Side Effect Of Shale Gas Boom: A Plunge In U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions”

    You are the one who brought up CO2e….I just proved you were wrong…again…like always.

    exactly on point.

    CO2 is part of CO2e. CO2 is dropping because of fracking. Therefore CO2e is dropping.

    I dont expect you to thank me or to even admit the truth. But the facts are the facts. I know it is disappointing to be wrong all the time. it must wear on you in terrible ways. Your deeply held beliefs…wrong. Your thought and opinions…wrong. I dont dislike you Joe, i just pity you. Its just sad

    Joe Reply:

    First, GHG emissions are measured and managed in CO2e.

    The reason I bring it up is to maintain science literacy. Methane, CH4, is a greenhouse gas. It is assigned a value of CO2e ranging from 25 to 100, depending on the time frame one uses to average the effect.

    California’s cap and trade uses CO2e as the unit of exchange. Methane is approx 30 CO2e and is traded on that market.

    Forbes may or may not understand or care to accurately discuss climate change.

    Second, you lied. There are many efforts to reduce CO2e including solar, electific vehicles, appliance standards, public transit, conservation…..it’s not all fracking.
    You lied.

    Additionally,fracking has prodcer’s EPA methane emissions have been under estimated. There are higher than expected concentrations of methane over the IS and every molecule is 30 times co2.

    The EPA is establishing new standards to clean up the mess.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    I am aware that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. I have been following this since “the ozone hole” was the big story and “global cooling” was the prevalent theory.

    The EPA data clearly shows that methane has remained at the same level. Oh, the EPA is part of the vast conspiracy now. So that EPA graph that shows constant methane levels , which it does, must also be a lie. Becasue Joe is right and everyone else is wrong.

    I have written cites by independent sources and you have a (wrong) opinion. Still sad

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    A cover on Time magazine isn’t “prevalent theory”

    Jerry Reply:

    Hey John N. did you invent fracking before or after you invented the Internet?

    Joe Reply:

    I am aware that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas.

    I can only conclude you willfully misrepresented fracking by ignoring the methane contribution to warming.

    The revised data including historical show 27% greater contribution by the “please thank fracking” industry.

    You point to CO2e reductions and attribute it all to fracking- that’s a lie.
    You don’t acknowledged the under estimation of fracking methane resulted a higher methane emission and now wan to assign all positive outcomes to fracking.

    In light of the revised estimates, the us and Canada seek to regulate and reduced this underestimated GHG source.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    DATA!!!

    What “revised numbers”? I posted official government numbers. Numbers that include Methane. The methane emissions are shown on the graph. You have an opinion. i have actual DATA!!!

    You are correct however, I dont acknowledge the “under estimation”

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    If you believe a more efficient way to mine stones is gonna prolong the stone age, I’ve got some bad news for ya.

    Joe Reply:

    Revised despite you not knowing.

    And now regulations to reduce the problems.
    https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html

    Thanks Fracking!

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Your cite does not say anything about revising the numbers. You are the one always accusing me of strawmen and changing the subject.

    Post a cite showing the revised methane emission are actually larger than what the EPA has published in my cite. Its that simple

    Joe Reply:

    Oh for fucks sake

    It’s unavoidable information if you Google methane and oil gas.

    Also at the EPA link where you got your DATA.

    https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2016/03/epa-taking-steps-to-cut-methane-emissions-from-existing-oil-and-gas-sources/

    But as science advances and new data emerge, we need to make sure we’re continuing to address the biggest climate challenges in the best ways possible. Over the past year, EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, along with studies from groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and industry and researchers at Colorado State University, Carnegie Mellon, the University of Texas, Washington State University, and others have provided significant new data on methane emitted by existing operations in the oil and gas sector.

    The new data show that methane emissions are substantially higher than we previously understood. So, it’s time to take a closer look at regulating existing sources of methane emissions.

    Jerry Reply:

    Hey John N.
    Does fracking cause earthquakes?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    per the USGS yes, but they are too small to be of any safety concern

    https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9833/3428

    Joe Reply:

    The injection of wastewater and salt water into the subsurface can cause earthquakes that are large enough to be felt and may cause damage.

    Never ever trust John. Read the link.

    Example:

    In the wake of a record-tying 5.6 magnitude earthquake in Oklahoma, state officials have ordered the shutdown of 37 disposal wells used for fracking.

    According to the Associated Press, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission will shut down wells in a 725-square mile area near the quake’s epicenter.

    5.6 damaged older brick buildings in OK.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Fracking causes extremely small earthquakes, but they are almost always too small to be a safety concern.

    that is a direct quote

    And a 5.6 that damaged an old brick building is unimpressive. Are you trying to imply that fracking is bad because it causes earthquakes? did you think the movie 2012 was a documentary also. Or the day after tomorrow?

    They are nothing, and considering the number of wells the risk is practically zero. Hence no federal regulations. Hell trains have cause way more deaths.

    Robert Benson Reply:

    John’s reply is inaccurate because the issue is one of scale. While the intensity of an earthquake due to fracking of one well might be extremely small, when there is extensive fracking so that there is a large amount of water distributed along many faults the intensity of an earthquake can be very large.

    Oklahoma now is a major center of significant earthquakes whereas earthquakes were rare there in the first half of the 20th century. The cause is due entirely to fracking.

    Joe Reply:

    Oklahoma shutdown injection wells in a 750 sq mile area due to fracking induced earthquakes.

    Damage to older brick buildings is damage to property and justified the ban.

    Thank you fracking.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    And the result of this drastic increase in small quakes…nothing

    Just becaus OK overreacted does not make the risk any more dangerous.

    In fact, small quakes relieve pressure and prevent large quakes.

    And FYI, there has always been seismic activity in that area, just not recently(in geologic terms)

    Joe Reply:

    And FYI, there has always been seismic activity in that area, just not recently(in geologic terms

    and OK was once a sea floor.
    USGS tells us fracking directly causes earthquakes in an area that had none.

    In fact, small quakes relieve pressure and prevent large quakes

    There is no natural seismic pressure to relive — fracking causes these earthquakes so they banned the injection wells near the epicenter.

    Just becaus OK overreacted does not make the risk any more dangerous

    It’s not your decision that a 5.6 EQ is “trivial” in a previously non-seismic area.
    This is Oaklahoma which depends on oil/gas industry. It isn’t a hippy hot bed of environmentalism.

    Fracking limitations in OK are a BFD

    Jerry Reply:

    You’re trying to confuse John N. with the facts from HIS own article/citation.

    Jerry Reply:

    Should be to Joe’s 7:07 am reply to John N.

    Jerry Reply:

    About John N. misrepresenting EPA methane information.

    Jerry Reply:

    Hey John N.
    Does fracking cause water pollution?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    according to the EPA, it is possible but has not happened on a widespead basis

    https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf

    From our assessment, we conclude there are above and below ground mechanisms by which
    hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources. These
    mechanisms include water withdrawals in times of, or in areas with, low water availability; spills of
    hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water; fracturing directly into underground drinking
    water resources; below ground migration of liquids and gases; and inadequate treatment and
    discharge of wastewater.

    We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on
    drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report,
    we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water
    resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases,
    however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.

    Jerry Reply:

    Just as I thought John N. , you and your Frackers are part of the Communist Conspiracy to get monatomic anion of fluorine with the chemical formula F− into the water supply.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    I am on the right wing…shouldn’t it be a fascist conspiracy?

    Nathanael Reply:

    New York Department of Environmental Conservation released a much more comprehensive study which concluded that fracking routinely poisons well water drinking water supplies.

    This isn’t surprising given that the companies which do it are typically fly-by-nighters whose business model is defrauding other oil companies. I figured this out a while back and can explain it with citations to Cheseapeake’s annual report.

    Joe Reply:

    Science advisors balk.

    Last month, the panel of 31 independent scientists charged with reviewing the EPA’s draft report stated that the agency’s broad conclusion about the mining technique known as fracking is at odds with the evidence and “inconsistent with the observations, data, and levels of uncertainty presented.”

    According to the scientists, in looking at the issue nationally, the EPA failed to give due consideration to several cases in which fracking may have contaminated water supplies locally.

    Nathanael Reply:

    John Nachitgall should just be banned from the blog at this point. He’s a global warming denier crank and has proven himself dishonest in *three different ways* on this *single coment thread*.

    Synonymouse is a crank, but he’s less of a crank than Nachitgall. Get Nachtigall to stop putting droppings all over the comment section, please.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Maybe the two could fuse together in one totally new being?

    Jerry Reply:

    ala Donald?

    Jerry Reply:

    Amusing crank v. Obnoxious crank?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Crank it up.

  13. Jerry
    Sep 23rd, 2016 at 11:39
    #13

    But John N. we need HSR in California.
    The voters said so.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Voters schmoters… We should have never let the rabble without property vote.

    Government should go back to what it was always supposed to be: Protecting the rightful godly order of property and defending the land against heathen invasions. Instead we have it build schools for the poor.

    Aarond Reply:

    Trivia: the original boss of California was Republican Leeland Stanford, the guy who built all the railways here. He owned more land than the state did. SP’s Headquarters is at 1 Market for a reason.

    Bonus Trivia: Our first hispanic Governor, Romualdo Pacheco, was also Republican. During the Civil War Stanford put him in charge of disarming Confederate sympathizers in the Los Angeles area.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    There were Confederate supporters in the LA area?

    Joe Reply:

    Wikipedia !

    “Following the Gold Rush, California was settled primarily by Midwestern and Southern farmers, miners and businessmen. Democrats dominated the state from its foundation. Southern Democrats sympathetic to secession, although a minority in the state, were a majority in Southern California and Tulare County, and were in large numbers in San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Monterey, and San Francisco counties. California was home for powerful businessmen who played a significant role in Californian politics through their control of mines, shipping, finance, and the Republican Party but were a minority party until the secession crisis.”

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    So if history had gone a bit differently the “Battle of Los Angeles” could have totally been a thing during the Civil War… Maybe with a Russian naval invasion on the side of the Confederacy…

    That’s an alternate history scenario few have heard of, I bet…

    Aarond Reply:

    Twas impossible. The South was crippled by the lack of an adequate rail network, most of which was narrow gauge. Meanwhile the Union had over 10 times the trackage (in miles) and was building the Transcontinental Railroad (completed 1869).

    Infrastructure matters, it’s why we should always build it.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Broad gauge, which got changed over to standard-ish gauge over two days in 1886.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Yes, I know, the South had a crappy infrastructure and that was just one of many reasons why it had the worse hand and could’ve only won politically or by outside intervention…

    But, I find it kinda funny that England and France (at the time liberal-ish monarchies) are always considered as potential interventionist powers, but never are Prussia or Russia brought up… After all, those were much more agrarian and authoritarian regimes that could have seen the South as a kindred spirit…

    EJ Reply:

    After all, those were much more agrarian and authoritarian regimes that could have seen the South as a kindred spirit…

    That makes no sense. Britain toyed with intervening on the side of the South because they were a major market for Southern cotton and could plausibly have gotten better trade deals with an independent Southern confederacy. What would Russia or Prussia have had to gain?

    EJ Reply:

    The tsar was gonna go, hey Jefferson Davis, U have slavery, we have serfdom, they’re kinda similar, let’s be pals?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Remember that Russia at the time owned Alaska and could have had an interest in weakening the US. And Prussia could have trained their military and squashed a bit of rabble. You know, rabble-squashing being a popular past time among the major landowners east of the Elbe…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Britain figured out that it was a bad idea to have one source and developed their own within the Empire. And that pissing off one of their major customers would be a bad idea.

    EJ Reply:

    @adirondacker Slavery was a big problem for Britain. They’d finally abolished it in 1843 after a bitter political fight; they were willing to turn a blind eye and buy slave-produced cotton from America, but military intervention in support of a slave-owning society was a bridge too far for the British public.

    @Bahnfreund

    What “bit of rabble” are you referring to? The US army was massive and modern. As for Russia, they were never particularly serious about colonizing North America; a few decades later, they sold Alaska for next to nothing.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Yeah yeah yeah. Their money was invested in the North. Their grain shipments came from the North.
    Cotton shipments stop there are a lot of cotton workers out of work. Don’t feed the cotton workers they riot.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    i will play. exactly how was Russia (or Prussia) going to get this great butt kicking army to North America.

    At the time there were precious few nations with the ability to project power into the Western Hemisphere and those 2 were not on the list. No Navy, no logistics, no chance.

    As the war of 1812 showed, even the biggest country (empire) with the biggest and best navy and the best army had a hard time projecting their power and they already had an established outpost and logistics stream (Canada).

    all to intervene in a fight they dont care about with a nation they dont care about.

    yeah, it was close thing.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I referred to potential peasant uprisings in Prussia or Russia when talking about the “rabble”. The Northern army was of course no such thing.

    And projections of power over large distances are and always have been difficult. The British almost lost the Falklands war because even today it is difficult. I am not saying that Prussia (who were by the way busy fighting Denmark in 1864) or Russia intervening in the Civil War was particularly likely, but I always found it strange that all alternative history fictions only ever considered those two. Spain could have conceivably shipped arms via Cuba (then still Spanish) although the more or less open desire by the South to take over Cuba as a slave state and otherwise make the former Spanish Empire their new Empire would have made that highly unlikely.

    Still, I was mostly thinking aloud and I would totally read a well written book where William T. Sherman crushes the Russians in the battle of L.A. even if it required some limited suspension of disbelief. Do also recall that prior to the opening of the transcontinental railroad the US found it easier to send its military through Panama or Nicaragua (https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Ruta_del_Tr%C3%A1nsito) then let it make the arduous overland schlep.

    Also what you forget about the War of 1812 is that the UK at the time was engaged in a much more pressing war against Napoleon and North America was at the time still seen as a backwater. The British Empire in its full might could have crushed the Americans in 1812 but they would have had to spend more resources on it than they did and it could have left other possessions (Gibraltar, India or even the mainland) much more vulnerable to the French…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    yeah we agree, Russia and Prussia were not able to project power of any kind over that distance.

    we also agree that alternate history fiction can be a good read.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    They would have been able to lend some material and military support, but they would probably have been unable to for example break the blockade. Russia might have had the wherewithal to open a second front in California, though. Japan of course being the “hermit kingdom” at the time would not have either the wherewithal or the motivation to do so.

    Ted K. Reply:

    Try looking up Harry Turtledove’s “Guns of the South” (cover depicts Robert E. Lee with an AK-47). Time traveling South Africans try to give the South an edge. HT took the idea further with a stack of books :

    https://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/greatwar.html

    Or you could try Harry Harrison’s trilogy about what a British intervention gone wrong could result in. Keep in mind that Union hardware and Confederate cavalry could put a British invasion from Canada in an evil position.

    Ted K. Reply:

    By the way, HT’s mind-bending left SoCal alone. Instead, the Confederacy bought a sizable chunk of northern Mexico so as to get a Pacific port across from Baja Calif. And yes, the North took that as a causus belli and invaded Baja.

    HH’s trilogy : Stars and Stripes …
    1) Forever
    2) in Peril
    3) Triumphant

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I have heard of Turtledove but thus far have stayed with Eric Flint…

    Ted K. Reply:

    Ah yes, Grantville / Ring of Fire and Belisarius.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Thus far I have only read his Ring Of Fire stuff (by the way, am I the only one to find the Marxist overtones surprisingly obvious); is the Belisarius stuff any good?

    Ted K. Reply:

    The Belisarius series is built around the idea that the Eastern Roman Empire looked to the East (Persia and India) instead of the West (Italy and Spain). Throw in a pair of time-traveling messengers with some tech updates and you’ve got a great framework for clashes of military titans.

    I found the books to be fun to read and loved the jabs at various sticks-in-the-mud that often had modern equivalents. At one point one of the books avoids a Kent State / Tiananmen Square scenario by deploying monks with quarterstaffs instead of infantry or archers. The idea was that breaking someone’s head with a stick was just a street fight. But using swords or arrows was oppression and grounds for an uprising. So, all in all, good fun.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Might check it out at some time.

    One problem with Flint is that his work tends to spread out and be told not exactly in one straight linear string from beginning to end but several overlapping interdependent stories. A bit like real life…

    Aarond Reply:

    Southern California sits below the Mason–Dixon Line (Parallel 36°30′ north). So, yes.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    if they build HSR per prop 1a, I am fine with that. I believe in democracy, even when it gives the answer I dont like.

  14. Brian_FL
    Sep 23rd, 2016 at 17:17
    #14

    More videos of the progress at the AAF Miami and Ft Lauderdale Brightline stations. It’s interesting to see how the station track is supported by I-beams along the length of the Miami site. First complete trainset to be delivered from Sacramento next month to the West Palm Beach maintenance facility. Siemens says they can deliver 4 coaches a month. So all 5 initial trainsets should be on property by spring of 2017 for service to start next summer or fall.

    https://youtu.be/wBLxhOuKtow

    https://youtu.be/rDRCXNLdhM0

  15. synonymouse
    Sep 24th, 2016 at 00:26
    #15

    SMART and NCRA-NWP duke it out on tv:

    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/09/23/tanker-cars-liquid-petroleum-gas-abandoned-on-sonoma-county-smart-train-tracks/

    Abandoned? uh huh full? And Doodlebugs to Schellville? Calling MTC, STB, FRA, Jerry?

    BozosRus

    Aarond Reply:

    I don’t even know what to make of this. NCRA’s office is IN Schellville, they’ve used the turnout there as car storage for quite a while now.

  16. JimInPollockPines
    Sep 24th, 2016 at 11:34
    #16

    I don’t think hsr competes more with airlines than with cars. The real value of HASR in California anyway, is its service to intermediate cities. Its already easy and quick to fly from sfo to lax or san diego. What is not easy to do in california, well, easy but tedious, frustrating and time consuming, is to travel between sfo and any intermediate location in the state, or to travel between two intermediate locations and that where hsr will be such a welcome relief. If you live in Foster or Millbrae and your destination is Burbank or El Segundo then flying is good choice. Any further from major airports and Hsr is likely to be closer to you and likely to take you closer to your actual destination.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Unless you live at the airport and are staying at an airport hotel on the other end, the train will be faster than flying.

    Danny Reply:

    it’s like with roads–the capital costs of airports and the time spent to get onboard is hidden: all that rhetoricians consider is the price and times on the ticket
    rail is its own mode, with unique speed, weather, service, schedule, and capacity factors: you can even have a LAUS-Burbank-Palmdale-SF service pattern that’s local at one end and express at the other

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    People beyond the last major stop don’t care much if their one seat ride to that major stop has a local or an express pattern.

    Or in other words, you can run the train coming from Munich as a local beyond Hamburg, because people won’t care that much about the stopping pattern in that part of the trip…

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Evidence from pretty much all over the world suggests HSR does compete more with flying than with cars.

  17. morris brown
    Sep 24th, 2016 at 16:14
    #17

    France, Spain Take Over High-Speed Railway as Operator Collapses

    Another HSR success story!!!

    Yet Dan Richard keeps saying (last time at the Federal hearing in SF the other day), all HSR systems make money.

    Joe Reply:

    All major US commercial passenger airlines but southwest have declared bankruptcy.

    Jerry Reply:

    And the government started/funded the airports for the airlines.
    And the government subsidized the startup of airlines with air mail routrs.

    Jerry Reply:

    The government’s even get stadiums built for football and baseball.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Why do governments do that?

    EJ Reply:

    Usually because there are enough local sports fans who want the stadium built and are willing to buy into the “it creates jobs” argument.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    But it never does.

    And this clearly an example of local government being hurtful. If the Feds made the decision of where new stadiums get built there would not be new stadium construction based on relocation threats…

    EJ Reply:

    How does it work in Europe? Those giant football stadiums aren’t cheap. Does the federal government determine where they go or what?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Those are mostly sui generis really. First of all a surprising number of soccer stadiums (there is only one purpose built American Football stadium I can think of and that is in Schwäbisch Hall) are actually decades old. That of course explains the track and field facilities that would not fly in a modern soccer stadium.

    Anyway, I know for a fact that the Augsburg stadium (yes there is a first division soccer team in Augsburg) was built by the Bavarian state government but the Augsburg soccer team also paid part of the cost. Meanwhile the Nuremberg stadium is (at least in part) owned by the city and they also call the shots when it comes to naming rights and get part of the money.

    Overall, you cannot move teams in most sports leagues in Europe and thus that particular method of blackmail does not exist, but public money does sometimes go towards building stadiums. However, the German soccer league has a 34 game regular season (no Playoffs, but there are cup and European matches) (the GFL, German Football League has a 14 game regular season, but they usually use pre-existing stadiums and not purpose built stadiums) and stadiums are of course also used for other events such as concerts.

    Another thing that happens is that cities lend money to sports teams (usually for soccer teams) as has happened with Dynamo Dresden which is (in)famous for riots and clashes with police during soccer games.

    However, some stadiums are also built entirely or mostly from money of the teams, so it is really a rather complicated mess and you cannot really say anything meaningful about how things work “in Europe”…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Why should the Federal government be involved? If the stadium is such a fabulous idea the owners can use their own money. Or find investors.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Precisely. If the Feds are the only ones who can (and they never will be inclined to) that means private investors will have to step up.

    EJ Reply:

    Hey, look over there!

    I mean, I support CAHSR, but this is a reminder that HSR projects have to be properly planned and executed. They don’t just automatically print money the way some supporters claim.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I don’t know the details of this case but RENFE is currently losing small amounts of money for – at least partially – political reasons. Remember that Spain is in the midst of a recession and has an unpopular government. They may be weary of raising ticket prices too much…

  18. synonymouse
    Sep 24th, 2016 at 16:40
    #18

    Could a private operator afford Amtrak scale? It is going to be a government op – let BART have the northern region of PBCAHSR and Metrolink the southern.

    Rumor is there will be Santa Fe steam at the dedication of a new Metrolink station in the Acton area. Fast enough. The PB detour to Palmdale is a commute run – build out the cheapest and slowest route along SR14 and have numerous commute halts.

  19. morris brown
    Sep 24th, 2016 at 17:52
    #19

    @Joe

    You wrote above:

    The CA LAO estimated HSR will relive California from having to build 100B worth of new roads and airport runways.

    Please post a link to that report from the LAO!

    I have never seen the LAO saying that; I have certainly read plenty of PR from the Authority to that effect. I want the link to the LAO making that statement.

    Jerry Reply:

    Maybe John N. has it. He said it’s a wash.

    Roland Reply:

    @Morris

    Why bother with retards who have nothing better to do than standby 24×7 ready to pounce on any semi-intelligent comment with “High-speed rail provides $100 billion worth of capacity between San Francisco and Los Angeles” drivel?

    Joe Reply:

    Please post a link to that report from the LAO!

    If I did, you would NOT change your opinion and just continue with the same bullshit.
    You just like to demand things.

    Roland Reply:

    How about a link supporting your assertion that capacity is measured in Billions of dollars instead?

    morris brown Reply:

    Joe writes above replying to my request for the LAO link:

    If I did, you would NOT change your opinion and just continue with the same bullshit.
    You just like to demand things

    That is your answer Joe? Obviously you don’t have such a link. Just like Donald Trump, you write crap expecting to be believed. I want the link to the LAO article, not your BS.

    joe Reply:

    See reply below for details and link to HTML version here.
    http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/trns/high_speed_rail/high_speed_rail_051011.aspx

    Jerry Reply:

    There are many studies and cost comparisons of not just building roads, airports, and HSR, but also the cost of using each mode.
    An interesting article in Forbes magazine used the AAA trip calculator and came up with the cost of 75 cents a mile for a trip. A 500 mile trip by car would cost $375.00.
    So if a HSR ticket cost would be $100 you would come out $275 ahead. Four people in the car and you come out $25 behind.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/tombarlow/2011/04/25/your-cost-to-drive-is-higher-than-you-think/#682dfb6422c3
    The sedan average of 57 cents a mile in the AAA 2016 analysis changes the picture again. So a 500 mile trip by car would cost $285.00. And you would come out $185 ahead for a single HSR ticket at $100.
    http://newsroom.aaa.com/auto/your-driving-costs/

    Jerry Reply:

    @ Morris. You said, “I have never seen the LAO saying that.:

    OK Morris here is your reference to the LAO saying that.
    The proposed high-speed rail system could have some positive fiscal benefits. For example, HSRA estimates that this project would alleviate the need to build 3,000 new lane-miles of freeway, and 5 airport runways and 90 new departure gates—at a cost of nearly $100 billion—that would otherwise
    be necessary to accommodate intrastate travel by 2030.
    Page 13 of the LAO report entitled: High Speed Rail is at a Critical Juncture, dated May 10, 2011.

    Jerry Reply:

    The information was updated in:
    “Comparison of Providing the Equivalent Capacity to High-Speed Rail through Other Modes”
    After adjusting the analysis to be more comparable to the costs described in the Business Plan, the total costs of equivalent investment in airports and highways would be $123-138 billion (in 2011 dollars) to build 4,295-4652 lane-miles of highways, 115 gates, and four runways for Phase 1 Blended and Phase 1 Full Build, respectively… In year-of-expenditure (YOE) dollars, the highway and airport costs would be $158-186 billion.

    Jerry Reply:

    In 2011 dollars the costs would be $123-138 billion.
    In year of expenditure (YOE) dollars the costs would be $158-186 billion.

    morris brown Reply:

    Jerry writes:

    The information was updated in:
    “Comparison of Providing the Equivalent Capacity to High-Speed Rail through Other Modes”
    After adjusting the analysis to be more comparable to the costs described in the Business Plan, the total costs of equivalent investment in airports and highways would be $123-138 billion (in 2011 dollars) to build 4,295-4652 lane-miles of highways, 115 gates, and four runways for Phase 1 Blended and Phase 1 Full Build, respectively… In year-of-expenditure (YOE) dollars, the highway and airport costs would be $158-186 billion.

    Yes indeed Jerry, this is what is written. Not written by the LAO. NO NO NO!

    The document is found at (why didn’t you provide the source link?!!!)

    http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2012CompareEquivalentCapacity.pdf

    Note the source:

    Parson Brinkerhoff for the California High Speed Rail Authority April 2012… just another piece of the PR materials the Authority uses.

    Again Again, provide where the LAO makes such statements. They didn’t then and haven’t to date made such statements.

    Jerry Reply:

    You are absolutely correct. But the LAO did say it/report it.

    joe Reply:

    The LAO has the responsibility of reporting their assessment of the project and benefits.

    This isn’t a middle school report. It’s the independent LAO’s assessment of the project and when the LAO use data or conclusions in a LAO report they’re assessing the credibility of the data and interpretations.

    This is the official public record — Morris can’t dismiss it as PR materials or unconstitutional behavior.

    100 Billion goes quickly. One interchange 101 and 800 will cost 1,000,000,000 dollars to redesign. No added lanes — just redesign a single interchange between LA and SF/SJ.

    Roadshow: $1 billion price tag for San Jose’s 101-880 interchange.
    http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/10/21/roadshow-1-billion-price-tag-for-san-joses-101-880-interchange/

    Jerry Reply:

    Wow. A Billion dollars for one interchange.
    Bet the LAO never saw that coming.

    joe Reply:

    Additionally this is new road construction proposed along the HSR ROW Between Fresno and Gilroy.

    Only the proposed toll road along the Highway 152 corridor between Highway 156 and Highway 101 south of Gilroy would cost more among the regional projects ($1.04 billion).

    1 billion in rural construction produces 8 miles of HW.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/01/20/roadshow-highway-152-toll-road-still-under-consideration/
    The Valley Transportation Authority is studying a plan to bypass 152 with an 8-mile, four-lane freeway that would run parallel to and south of it and be a toll road to I-5.

    The potential cost: $848 million. [Now priced at 1.04B)

    Under one scenario, traffic from 101 would take Highway 25 for a short stretch, then turn onto the new highway, which would link to either 152 or 156. But this is many, many years away.

    Also
    2.4 B to improve SFO – not add runways or new terminals or gates — just logistical improvements, extending airtran and more parking.
    http://media.flysfo.com/media/sfo/about-sfo/capital-plan-fy1415.pdf

    The CIP reflects the need and urgency to not only improve facilities to meet SFO’s premier customer service standards, but to also increase terminal and gate capacity to handle the growing number of passengers.

    So here’s 8 miles of HW, 1 interchange redesign (not adding lanes) and airport improvements (not adding ages or terminals or runways) at a cost of 4.4 Billion.

    All along the HSR ROW and this is not comprehensive. It’s simply using google.

    Jerry Reply:

    It’s the old circular argument.
    The Bible is the word of God.
    How do we know??
    The Bible says so.

    Jerry Reply:

    “(why didn’t you provide the source link?!!!)”
    Because I did not know how to cut and paste on the cell phone.

    Jerry Reply:

    or,
    copy and paste

    Jerry Reply:

    But the information is out there and I’m surprised that you never saw it before.

    Jerry Reply:

    Come on Morris, weigh in.
    What do YOU think the numbers should be?
    What would the total cost of the equivalent capacity to HSR in California in other modes be?

    Jerry Reply:

    Come on Morris.
    Neil Shea and Clem have weighed in on the numbers for CalTrain replacement on 101.

    Roland Reply:

    Morris is correct: “For example, HSRA estimates that this project” means that these are brown pencil numbers straight out of PBRRA’s ass, not the LAO. http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/trns/high_speed_rail/high_speed_rail_051011.pdf

    Jerry Reply:

    See above.
    It’s the old circular argument.
    The Bible/Koran is the word of God.
    How do we know?
    The Bible/Koran says so.

    Jerry Reply:

    They might be napkin/parchment words or numbers pulled out of someone’s ass, as you say. I agree. But what do YOU think the words/numbers should be??

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Eleventy Billion!

    Jerry Reply:

    There you go. It’s easy. But Morris never has an answer.

    joe Reply:

    LAO Report
    May 10, 2011
    High-Speed Rail Is at a Critical Juncture
    http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/2475
    Project Could Have Some Positive Outcomes. The proposed high–speed rail system could have some positive fiscal benefits. For example, HSRA estimates that this project would alleviate the need to build 3,000 new lane–miles of freeway, and 5 airport runways and 90 new departure gates—at a cost of nearly $100 billion—that would otherwise be necessary to accommodate intrastate travel by 2030. This is because the state’s population is projected to grow steadily for decades and significant investment in transportation infrastructure is expected to be needed to accommodate travelers between Northern and Southern California. In theory, if those travelers choose the high–speed rail system instead of other modes, the project could reduce the state’s overall infrastructure costs.

    morris brown Reply:

    @ Joe

    Again another Donald Trump like response:

    You originally wrote:

    The CA LAO estimated HSR will relive California from having to build 100B worth of new roads and airport runways.

    But as I have pointed out, the CA LAO did not do the estimate… indeed from your quote here, the key words in bold…

    For example, HSRA estimates that this project would alleviate the need to build 3,000 new lane………..

    The LAO did not do this estimate, the Authority did the estimate — The LAO only reported what the Authority claims.

    Enough of this….

    Jerry Reply:

    Again the circular argument.
    The merry-go-round goes round and round. Enough of that.

    Jerry Reply:

    Morris what are YOUR numbers????
    You are just like Donald Trump. You do not support YOUR position with any numbers at all. Why???

    Jerry Reply:

    Morris – I’m still waiting for YOUR answer. For YOUR numbers.

    Jerry Reply:

    Morris – Maybe you could use your influence with your friends at Fox and Hounds to get Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown and Root to come up with some comparative numbers.

    joe Reply:

    First you denied it was in any LAO report and I showed it was in a report.

    Second the LAO report gave an estimate of 100B & explained why it’s credible. The data came form the authority but they read and reported it as a rounded number (her number) which is very, very significant.

    That same LAO report challenges other Authority findings, statements, construction plans and even recommends the State disband the authority and move HSR to Caltrans.

    It is within the scope of the LAO to assess HSR is not worth the investment — they didn’t.
    it is within their scope to comment, correct, challenge, or out-right refute the 100B estimate but they instead made an rounded 100 B estimate with explanation.

    Absolutely no way they gave any hint your NIMBY criticisms have any shred of fact.

    100B is in the public record and Morris Brown doesn’t get to invalidate data or findings because they upset his biased opinions.

    The LAO could have called the 100B estimate PR or bullshit but they don’t. Here we are.
    You had enough…

    Neil Shea Reply:

    Morris and everyone — seems like we’re all onboard that $100B is the realistic comparison.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    It’s at least in the ball park…

    Jerry Reply:

    Agreed. And that number has been out there for years.
    And no one seems to have come up with numbers to refute it.
    Even when the numbers have been updated to over $158 Billion.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    Except the authority is a non-biased governmental organization that exists to serve accurately and appropriately the needs of the Californian citizenry, not to bend numbers to perpetuate its own existence.

  20. Aarond
    Sep 25th, 2016 at 12:17
    #20

    O/T

    A pro-nuclear environmental group is going to petition CPUC over the imminent Diablo Canyon shutdown, claiming that it will (1) raise Co2 emissions and (2) that such an issue needs to be handled by the legislature and not PG&E:

    http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2016/09/05/diablo-canyon-shutdown-gets-personal/#sthash.XKP5l0FS.uGl6kAzx.dpbs

    While I applaud their effort, it’s running against the wind. Sacramento will not be authorizing tax increases for nuclear anytime soon (a shame, but reality). Dems are bought by the solar/tech lobby and the remaining Republicans want oil. And this is assuming CPUC even realizes that PG&E is not to be trusted.

    Jerry Reply:

    PG&E has already killed people due to their negligence.
    More than Benghazi.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I thought Benghazi was a liberal conspiracy to distract from the ball pressure at Patriots games…

    Or something to do with Clinton being the Antichrist…

    I don’t know, I don’t frequent world nuts daily…

    Neil Shea Reply:

    California is right to join with Germany and Japan and shutting down all nuclear, and with China and Spain in strongly ramping solar energy

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Germany has also invested quite a bit in solar in the past. They were the world’s leading solar power before China took over. And Germany currently has solar produce energy cheaper than you would get it buying from the utility…

    synonymouse Reply:

    France and the UK notable dissenters.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Even though the UK is officially “building” a new nuclear power plant, those projects are rather rarely really put in practice…

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    stupid hinkely point. I prefer nuclear to fossil fuels, but when investing in renewables is more cost-effective and environmentally beneficial (as it is in Hinkely Point), then it is idiotic not to invest in them instead.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well the Jury is in, the future is in renewables.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The three billion dollar reactor the French were going to build lickety split because it has a simpler cheaper design is way behind schedule and way over budget. So is the duplicate the Finns are building.
    Supposedly The City has spoken about the U.K. program. Things like “out of their minds” get said.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    But Thorium is gonna solve all that!

    Aarond Reply:

    We aren’t. For example:

    http://www.nrg.com/generation/projects/carlsbad-energy-center/

    “The need for new generation is urgent. After losing 2,200 MW of capacity with the retirement of the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station, the region will lose another 965 MW of capacity when the Encina Power Station is retired in 2017 to comply with State regulations governing the use of ocean water for once-through cooling.”

    More Co2 and higher energy prices, as a direct result of a nuclear plant shutting down.

    Nathanael Reply:

    Not gonna happen. Solar and batteries are being installed in California at a truly spectacular rate, and at the same time, LED lighting adoption is cutting total electricity use massively.

  21. joe
    Sep 25th, 2016 at 17:10
    #21

    Changes to HSR since 2011 that follow the LAO Report’s Three Segment Suggestions

    LAO Report
    http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/trns/high_speed_rail/high_speed_rail_051011.aspx
    Alternative Segments Could Provide More Benefit to the State
    For several reasons discussed earlier, there is a significant risk to the state that the statewide high–speed rail system envisioned in Proposition 1A will never be fully completed. ….Below, we describe three segments that warrant consideration as alternatives to the Central Valley line.

    [1] Los Angeles–Anaheim. This highly travelled corridor includes commuter, freight, and intercity rail traffic, which could benefit greatly from corridor improvements along the alignment shared with the proposed high–speed rail system. …

    One troublesome crossing will be grade separated now. Morris made a BFD about this work. Improvements to this segment in anticipation of HSR provide immediate benefits. Additional work will not be done with Prop1a money. Post Prop1a no useable segment is necessary to spend money.

    [2] San Francisco–San Jose. Similar to Los Angeles–Anaheim, capital projects in this heavily congested corridor could improve both rail and auto traffic. This segment currently hosts 86 commuter trains daily, and freight trains use it at night.

    Achieved with Caltrain Electrification and Blended HSR. Not part of Phase 1 HSR but allows HSR service to SF 4thand King.

    [3] San Jose–Merced. The state provides intercity rail service from Sacramento to Merced (and on to Bakersfield), and a separate rail service between Sacramento and San Jose. If the state chose the segment between San Jose and Merced for a high–speed rail project, the state would essentially “close the loop” and enable a significant increase in passenger rail mobility between the Central Valley and the Bay Area. This benefit from high–speed rail construction would result even if high–speed trains ultimately were never operated on the system. A recent report prepared by a Bay Area transportation commission projects that the number of commuters traveling daily from the Central Valley to the Bay Area will double by 2030, adding 60,000 commuters a day.

    HSR Construction Package 1 added work to build north to Merced but stopping short of reaching Merced with Phase 1 money.

    Note:

    Bay Area wages soaring — but still can’t keep up with housing prices


    http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/25/bay-area-wages-soaring-but-still-cant-keep-up-with-housing-prices/
    The typical Silicon Valley income — well over $100,000 annually — is now double the national average, according to a Bay Area News Group analysis of ten years of federal data. But while pay here is soaring, the cost of housing is rising even faster.

    Aarond Reply:

    Re: wages/housing cost

    Such a trend cannot continue. Prospective employees and employers cannot afford the Bay Area. I’m not the alarmist type, but the economics here simply do not work out. Silicon Valley (especially SF) has gone completely nuts, it’s going to bust even if the tech industry keeps growing.

    The demand for growth has far outstripped the region’s willingness to provide, which means the jobs will go elsewhere.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    its a fascinating example of how human behavior will trump the logic of economics. The owners of these companies are emotionally attached to the area and therefore stay even when after they achieve success they would be much better off leaving.

    You may be able to make a logical argument that starting in an area with a high density of the kind of talent you need is necessary or logical, there is no reason to stay after. Google, Yahoo, Uber, the others are just paying 2-3x the salaries they have to then if they had moved to another location.

    By my observation, it is just emotional attachment to the area and the “culture”. Since the senior members of the company can afford to live, and since the junior members of the company are “happy to be working there” it keeps going.

    But I agree, at some point it corrects. Most likely when the bubble bursts (again). But it will grow back again in the Bay Area because the VCs and the talent will stay and the density will remain.

    If you give it some thought it is really no different than the towns or neighborhoods (both in Europe and the US) that grew around an industry. Silver working, furniture makers, fetchers, weapon smiths, etc all clustered in towns and neighborhoods rather than spreading out. So this high tech modern industry is just emulating something that has happened for hundred, if not thousands of years.

    J. Wong Reply:

    “[T]here is no reason to stay after.”

    Actually, there is. The very same reason the entrepeneurs start in the Bay Area: The density of talent. Do you believe that somehow successful companies don’t need that talent once they succeed? Do you think they’ll keep that talent if they decide to relocate? Don’t discount network effects.

    And as one of the talent, do I want to relocate to an area where my employment with a particular company would be one of the few choices available to me? Or would I rather stay somewhere I can easily find another position if circumstances warrant?

    The reality is that economics is complicated. And human behavior is very much part of it so you cannot claim that it trumps “the logic of economics”. If it didn’t make economic sense to stay in the Bay Area, companies would leave.

    synonymouse Reply:

    They are not all staying in the Bay Area.

    J. Wong Reply:

    No, they are not, but they are also not leaving in droves. For every company that leaves, another 10 start up, and one of those survives.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    There comes a point when the talent you want doesn’t want to move. Employees, silly silly employees, have friends and relatives, spouses with friends and relatives, children…

    http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-new-11-storey-office-in-londons-kings-cross-2016-6?r=UK&IR=T

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111_Eighth_Avenue

    Joe Reply:

    Most Bay Area IT workers dont have extended family living locally. Leaving here means going back to family.

    Bay Area offers soul crushing mortgages and commutes.

    Today I Left 6:50am and with a “on the way” drop off at middle school, reached Stanford at 9:18 today. Car pool all the way.

    Using Google Map api I have seen how Commute traffic congestion starts 5:30 am and ends 11. The reverse traffic congestion starts at 2:30pm.

    Housing and better public transit are need to sustain the valley leadership.

    Nathanael Reply:

    Actually, most of them do have extended family semi-locally (in California, not in other states).

    The zoning in the Bay area makes it impossible to build the near-downtown housing which people want.. That’s the problem. That’s the *entire* problem. Abolish the “single family” zoning rules, the height limits, etc., and the rent drops.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    why do you believe if it didnt make sense??

    Facenbook is controlled by 1 man, even though they are a public company. If that man decides they stay then guess what, they stay

    Even Apple, which is not individually controlled by a single person, the sr managment, the ones who make these decisions are attached to this community. How may people would make the decision to move their company when it means uprooting their personal family?

    For sure, the employees have an effect. You claim you want to stay in the area. So the flexibility of going from employer to employer (and inertia of being here now) outweights wanting a higher standard of living. Fair enough. But if Facebook (Apple, Google, etc.) moved or started significant operations in other states, do you think they would not be able to fill those positions? How many people would move rather than quit?

    We agree, the economics are complicated. And in fact, as I pointed out, this is not a new phenomena. The question is can it continue when the location (in this case the Bay Area) is so hostile to accommodating the workers (i.e. build new homes)

    J. Wong Reply:

    It’s a mistake to argue that it is only upper-management that wants to stay in the Bay Area. You said it yourself: “How ma[n]y people would make the decision to move their company when it means uprooting their personal family?”

    And believe it or not, I have a pretty high standard of living as it is. Why is having more bedrooms and a yard a higher standard of living versus access to multiple museums, a diversity of restaurants, and multiple music venues plus a reasonable transit system?

    Also, I can see at least 500 new apartments out my window at work newly built or being built. San Mateo is building in Bay Meadows. San Francisco also has a large number of apartments in the process of being built and in the pipeline. That’s probably not enough to account for all the recent jobs, but hopefully, it will continue. Rents have already started to come down from their peak.

    Joe Reply:

    Yes.
    Critical mass of jobs in the Bay Area means greater career stability for residents. It protects home investment as industry evolves and jobs shift. It also means better opportunities for keeping current and competitive.

    No this isn’t sustainable. 800 tech buses a day prove there is a problem. Too few homes are limiting economic growth and housing still falls behind. A large disruption like Hayward Fault slips, there is a good chance for a shift of employers out of the Bay Area.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    you have just summed up the “Google Bus Movement” in a few short paragraphs.

    The tech workers do have a decent (not great considering the base pay) standard of living. The non-tech workers do not. Unless you think we are going to pay kindergarten teachers 100k+ a year and mechanics and plumbers and builders and housekeepers, etc. Which is why they resent the tech workers because they dont see a problem.

    the average 2 bedroom in SF rents for 4683 a month. If you want that to be 40% of your take home (which is high its supposed to be 30%) that means 140k take home net or about 200k gross (because you are in the 1% and deserve to pay high taxes) for a family. The average teacher makes 60k. there is a bit of a gap there (but your taxes are much lower)

    Now me, I am a dirty Republican bastard 1% class warrior, so I have no problem with the rich getting all the housing. But I do think it may be a long term problem to have all those rug-rats running about without educations. And I dont change my own oil so I need mechanics. And I dont get my hands dirty with cleaning so I need housekeepers. I am also told that society needs things like artists and musicians, although I only listen to top 40 music and soundtracks of baby seals being clubbed.

    Do you really think the company is doing anyone a favor by directing all the growth into this concentrated area? 75% of SF apartments are rent controlled already. So that is not going to do it, there needs to be massive building just to catch up to the current demand. Of course that wont happen because those with 1 million dollar 1200sqft condos dont want to see the value cut in half due to supply being expanded.

    So we continue to protest high prices while doing nothing to combat the issue. But enjoy the museums (you dont actually visit) and the restaurants (that exists in other towns also) and the music venues (with musicians who cant afford to live in the area). I am with you.

    Jerry Reply:

    What do you suggest be done, “to combat the issue.” ??

    Jerry Reply:

    PS Have you made the soundtrack, “of baby seals being clubbed” as your cellphone ringtone?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    build, build, build then build some more

    At this point all kinds. Dense housing, in-fill, single family homes, homes above stores. Build it all

    To do that, any entity that challenges building and loses has to pay for not just the court case but the delay. So NIMBYs have to put the money where the mouth is.

    Dont stop until housing and rentla prices are 1/2 current (inflation adjusted)

    Thats my plan…whats yours?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    oh and I alternate mt ringtone from indiana jones and mission impossible.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    What about Overture 1812 with real cannon fire?

    Jerry Reply:

    John N. – – “build, build, build then build some more”
    Tell that to PAMPA. Palo Alto mayor has even suggested that Palo Alto stop any more business from entering Palo Alto.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/us/spotty-cell-reception-in-the-heart-of-silicon-valley.html?_r=0
    Menlo Park let in Facebook with thousands of employees, but no room for housing.
    So your suggestion is good John N., but tell PAMPA.
    As for my suggestion. I have none.
    I’ll let it up to you as a, “a dirty Republican bastard 1% class warrior”.

    Neil Shea Reply:

    Redwood City, San Mateo, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Milpitas and San Jose are building some infill density — generally 4 or 5 stories but several 6-8 in RWC. SJ is not afraid of density in their core.

    It will be checkerboard — PAMPA will fall far short or their share, and no city is doing enough yet. But this can be compatible with rail transit that goes between neighborhood cores. Besides maxing Caltrain we do need BRT down El Camino, replaced with LRT in the future.

    Reality is that this density will need to expand South to So. Santa Clara County and (gasp!) Los Banos, and East along Altamont. I’m not sure to what extent the North Bay is close enough or easy to connect, and to what extent Alameda, Contra Costa and San Mateo counties will build upward.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    As is usual, leave it to the engineers (or the GOP) to actually solve the problem

    Notice I specifically included a provision for PAMPA and all the NIMBYs.

    The environmental review process is necessary. We didn’t like our environment very much without it (reference all superfund sites). But it has been taken over by those who oppose progress at any cost (even low cost). It needs to be taken back.

    Specifically the standard needs to be changed. Right now it is “lowest impact possible” It needs to be changed to “benefits outweight the negatives”

    Take an example from the past. The Hoover dam has a lot of negatives associated with it. It completely changed that ecosystem along the river. But the positives (energy, water, etc.) as so overwhelminly big that whatever negatives resulted from the dam are irrelevant by comparison.

    But could you build a Hoover Dam today….hell no. The very same people that claim the earth is at critical stage on global warming would fight having a significant portion of 100% carbon free power and water for millions.

    Now lets be clear, if you loosen the standard, then bad things are going to happen. Projects are going to get built of questionable use and there will be environmental damage of a permanent nature. But you would get great projects also. Its a change in the balance. More positives for a few negatives

    You want great infrastructure projects again, you are going to have to convince those who claim to care the most to actually care instead of just pretending to care.

    Nathanael Reply:

    John, the GOP is dead set against building apartment buildings and tends to vote very reliably *against* upzoning, in almost every city.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    That’s because the Republican Party is the party of Freedom ™ . The freedom to be a rich straight Protestant white guy who lives in the suburbs and drives everywhere.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Oh no, you dont get away with that

    San Francisco does not have a single conservative within city limits. When I drive through I have to register and promise not to stop and disturb the homeless. Seriously, they are 8.6% GOP voters….you cant blame the GOP for anything in San Francisco.

    Being the most liberal city in the US they are also the most NIMBY in the US. So dont come here with that “GOP stops development” crap. Its not a conservative, liberal thing. Its a current homeowner vs new homeowner thing.

    Now rise and repeat at all the liberal cites going down the peninsula. Palo Alto, Berkley, San Jose, etc.

    So take your conservative bashing and shove it. Heal Thyself.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well why doesn’t the San Francisco GOP run on a pro-development platform? It’s worth a shot, isn’t it?

    Jerry Reply:

    By the way. Those museums, restaurants, and music venues, are part of the tourist draw and the convention draw. Which is the number one industry in San Francisco.
    Some of those tourists and conventioneers might even ride a very fast moving train.

    Jerry Reply:

    Brightline in Florida (a very high tourist state) has a survey which says that tourists will spend an extra day (and more money) if a very fast moving train is available to use.

    Jerry Reply:

    Tourists extend stay when very fast moving trains are available:
    http://www.allaboardflorida.com/project-details/study-fact-sheet

    Jerry Reply:

    Some of the testimonials from the Florida tourist industry regarding very fast moving trains:
    http://www.allaboardflorida.com/get-on-board/testimonials
    The Brightline (All Aboard Florida) web site is filled with interesting information.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    But it’s a boondoggle that will destroy the state!

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    wow, a survey from a train company saying trains are good. Amazing and so un-biased.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Do you have sources that say something else?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    There’s lots of sources aimed at Real Americans ™ that say Real Americans ™ drive everywhere.
    Special dispensations and indulgences for Alaskans who fly to realer places in the lower 48.
    ….we won’t bring up the Alaskans who go to Manhattan for shopping…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    no i dont. Thank goodness Amtrak exists so people can stay in all those other states for an extra day.

    So basically the theory is that people stay an extra day (on average I assume) because train service exists. So if Amtrak was closed, all the states with Amtrak service would see a drastic 1 day (average) drop in tourism.

    While the impact in Nevada alone would be catastrophic. Thank goodness for trains. And to think they have this impact while only accounting for less than 1 percent of the travel. Amazing.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    “Fast moving trains”…

    Amtrak is a great many things, but outside of the NEC it is one thing not: “Fast moving trains”.

    Jerry Reply:

    80% of 100% is 80% John N.
    Whether the tourists walked, came by kayak, hot air balloon, jitney, camel, or yes even by car.
    Over 50% of them (survey said 80%) said that they would happily stay an extra day if a bright new shiny fast moving train was available for them to use to visit a nearby tourist/visitor destination. Some would even visit that relative or friend that they have not seen for years.
    So it accounts for all of travel. Not just for less than 1%.
    And no. Amtrak takes 11 hours just to go from San Jose to Los Angeles. So no side trips to Santa Barbara via Amtrak from San Jose.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    What is a “fast moving train”? You don’t think they left it non-specific because they wanted to give the impression it was HSR when in fact it was not do you, surely not. Let me guess, a “fast moving train” is whatever speed they travel.

    I did notice there was no link to the actual survey. I kind of wanted to read the very neutral and non-leading questions they specifically asked to achieve this superior result. Alas, no link. I did notice this statement

    “With the help of an express inter-city rail service, 80 percent of participants agreed that they would visit more cities on their trip than they’d originally planned.”

    I only mention it because there is no express inter-city rail service. So I imagine the question went something like.

    “If you were able to travel to destinations using a combination of intra-city and inter-city rail on fast moving trains and thereby avoid the hassles of traffic, parking, and contribute to a greener society would you extend you stay by at least a day”

    And 80% said yes, which makes you wonder why the other 20% said no because I would totally take that deal. Of course even after AAF is built that wont be true, because there in to inter-city “fast moving” trains in Florida. But details right…

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    If you say so.

    Nathanael Reply:

    “Fast moving train” == faster than driving. Pretty straightforward really. Basically nobody wants to go slower than driving.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Except when the ride is an attraction in itself

    Aarond Reply:

    Companies that don’t offer the lowest cost will be outcompeted by those that do. This was the original raison d’être of Silicon Valley, after all. The fact we’re in this position indicates some serious mental rot occurring.

    I’m also very doubtful that it can simply bounce back, like we did after the dotcom bust. If prices don’t fall far enough people simply won’t move back in. Talent follows work, especially young talent. As tech CEOs and VCs age into retirement, who will replace them? Their children cannot afford to live here.

    EJ Reply:

    Unless, of course, they build satellite campuses in cheaper parts of the state. Of course, you’d need an affordable, efficient way for workers to move around the state. Perhaps a High Speed Train.

    Aarond Reply:

    At some point it makes no sense to have a “main” campus if the majority of operations are in the “satellite” campuses. A sensible company will not put vital functions in a place where employees cannot afford to live.

    HSR will help expedite this process. The initial pullout will be east to Stockton and Sacramento; terminals for CapCor and ACE. The economic center will shift east and south as the CV fills in. Hopefully most will stay in CA, and not jump ship entirely.

    Neil Shea Reply:

    We have long had the pattern of satellite operations a short flight away in suburbs of Portland, Phoenix, Denver and in Austin. An easy non-stop Southwest flight for middle managers, easy corp jet hop for senior leadership. Intel and HP made strong use of this model. Good universities nearby were a key factor.

    Financial firms, AAA, PacBell and others had previously leveraged BART to move to major operations to Concord, Walnut Creek and San Ramon — which are no longer very low cost anymore.

    Aaron is right we’re on the verge of tech jobs not moving back. I dont know who wants to live in Stockton, but much of the workability of this approach depends on quality (tech) education from UC Merced, UC Davis, Sac State, Fresno State, CSU Monterey Bay, Cal Poly, etc.

    Joe Reply:

    Work in CV and live in the sierra foothills.

    Jerry Reply:

    And HSR will certainly help out alot with all of that.

    Jerry Reply:

    Which irritates John N. so much because he’s just stuck with the SMART trsin.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Rumor floating around SMART is having issues with its doodlebugs’ prime mover.

    synonymouse Reply:

    And OT if I read right Santa Fe steam(#3751)tomorrow in Acton area. My kind of HSR.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well that’s really what’s at the basis of all your ranting… Thanks for clearing that one up…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Suburbs of Albany…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalFoundries#Fab_8

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    Honestly, outside of the City of San Francisco, Berkeley, bits of Oakland, and the occasional town here and there, what’s to like about the Bay Area? Seriously, Facebook, Google, and Apple aren’t located in nice places to live.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Well, having lived in the Bay area for 15+ years. Its great weather year round. Almost no crime. And feels very young although the statistics on that are mixed. Other than the housing prices, its a very nice place to live.

    Im not sure what you qualify as a “nice place to live” but excluding cost, the bay area has to be close to the top in almost every other category. And I say this as someone who has no loyalty to the area and will never retire here.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    I don’t hate the bay, but much of it is overpriced suburban sprawl that isn’t much better than phoenix or Vegas.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    you didn’t watch last night did you? Donald Trump was channeling Richard Nixon and chanting about law and order. America is a dystopian cesspit of crime and only The Donald can save us.
    They’ve been bringing us law and order since 1968 and making America Great Again since 1980.

    synonymouse Reply:

    The media and Hollywood want Hillary so bad that if she debated Jesus they would have him losing.

    The Donald was and is always a great longshot. But the media have already cast him as a sleaze, lowlife, cheat, etc.. So he did ok, maybe a little bit better than I expected as he is no einstein. I was surprised that he may have been interested in politics more than one would expect of a tv reality show personality. He claimed, fairly convincingly, that he was against the Iraq invasion from the beginning. If so he is not as dumb as we think.

    On the other hand Hillary is coming out of every debate more damaged goods. It might turn out at election day 40% of the voters really don’t like her at all. No honeymoon in January. The GOP owe the Donald for that. A Kasich-Hillary debate would have been a snoozefest and Hillary would have enjoyed somewhat of a landslide. Instead it will just be a majority.

    Jerry Reply:

    Hey syno. It’s obvious that if a guy has to walk on water, he can’t swim.

    synonymouse Reply:

    There be sharks and barracudas down below the waves As Dave Allen used to point out there are no solicitors in heaven.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Nominate a sleazy lowlife cheat the press is going to point it out.

    Aarond Reply:

    Not unless it’s Hilary Clinton, in which case she’s going to get nothing but praise.

    Not outside the MSM though. If Trump wins this year, it’ll he historic in the sense that it will be hard proof that the media no longer controls the narrative.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    If you ignore how often they attempt to tear her to shreds. Just a few days ago she was on her deathbed.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    Don’t be an idiot. The media is not biased and corrupt. You and your Bernie bros and alt-right psychopaths are. If you cant trust the media, then who can you trust–redditt?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Why do people hate Hillary so much?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    She’s not a rich straight white guy out to punish poor people?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    She is rich straight and white…

    But she is a woman.

    And I do think she at the very least started out with genuine concern for the less fortunate. Whether you think she still has that concern is for you to judge…

    JimInPollockPines Reply:

    are you kidding me?

    the number one and two reasons to live in the bay area have always been
    1. the perfect assortment of mild microclimates
    2 the geography

    always has been always will be
    regardless of economy, or any other factors

    synonymouse Reply:

    The Bay Area is overrated now; it is a lot more like LA, which looms like a god to places like San Josie.

    Many young people have migrated to places like Sac, with more opportunities for the non-wunderkinder.

    EJ Reply:

    The Bay Area was half-rural when you moved there. My parents bought there first house in Los Gatos in 1970 for the equivalent of about $200K in today’s money, and that was a house somewhat above the average market price, in a nice area. I just looked it up on Zillow and their estimate for its worth today is $1.5 million. Back in the 70s the Bay Area was the kind of place people moved to partly because it was affordable. Now it’s not, and places like Sac are. So it goes.

    synonymouse Reply:

    With 200 million you’ll have an Embarcadero Freeway right up to El Capitan.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Or that will be underwater.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    Or wherever you live will be high rise apartments, thus stopping sprawl.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Manhattan! BART! Parsons Brinckenhoff! (sorry Syno, I just wanted to predict your answer before it happened)

    Joe Reply:

    We are a major earthquake away from Bay Area companies having to relocate or rebuild. Facebook google oracle are all centered on mud flat which liquifies when shook. Much of SF business is mud farm bay fill.

    Immediately after a major EQ — which will happen — they’d have to shift operations and then assess how much needs to be rebuilt and how much can stay remote.

    Meanwhile roads and bridges will need repair. Telecommunications and power restored.

    The high cost of living and strict regulations abused by NIMBYs will hamper a return to normal.

    Danny Reply:

    and all the tilt-up construction

    EJ Reply:

    I remember when I lived in Santa Cruz in the early 1990s the downtown was still pretty banged up from the Loma Prieta earthquake back in 1987. There were a bunch of old buildings that were prohibitively expensive to repair and bring up to modern earthquake code (in cases where that was even possible), but were mired in historical preservationist red tape so couldn’t be demolished. A bunch of them mysteriously burned down in the first couple years I lived there.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Managua still has a cathedral that was damaged in a 1972 earthquake (which ultimately lead to the death of a former Major League Baseball star in a plane crash)… The Cathedral was damaged too much for it to be open to the public yet it still stands in pretty much that state…

    Gotta love Managua…

  22. synonymouse
    Sep 25th, 2016 at 20:35
    #22
  23. Roland
    Sep 26th, 2016 at 02:42
    #23

    Back on topic: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/25/china-developing-500kmh-trains-to-lead-export-of-high-speed-rail-technology.html

    Aarond Reply:

    “Since then, Chinese companies have “absorbed and digested” foreign technology, in the process creating innovations of their own, said Jia.”

    Made me laugh.

    Jerry Reply:

    Yeah, but our army can beat up their army. So who needs stinkin’ HSR?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    True, but what does that have to do with the point being made that China has stolen the technology they use without regard to intellectual property?

    Jerry Reply:

    Was it ‘intellectual property’ from the USA?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    If it’s specifically high speed rail technology, they didn’t steal it from the US.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Because the US does not have HSR technology…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    really, so the computers they run and the base technologies they use, you are SURE none of that was US technology. GPS….Cell Towers…all the stuff needed to run a modern railroad, the US has no intellectual property on that at all?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    If they are running all that stuff on cheap ARM processors the IP is British. I would hope with something other than Microsoft Windows.
    GPS works well for low frequency trains on single tracked lines. Not so much where there are two tracks. It doesn’t have the resolution. Cell technology back in the 90s was likely to American.
    Not so much nowadays. The concept of having a transmitter and a receiver at both ends is a 19th Century Italian one.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    The Chinese have their own GPS.

    And by the way, when are the US going to pay patent fees for paper and gunpowder to China?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    So do the Russians and Europeans. . . it’s such a good idea that other people decided they wanted to assure they had a system under their own control.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    no, the Chinese and the Russians and the Europeans are trying to build GPS systems. because they hate being reliant on America. Just another example of “digesting” the tech.

    Almost all computer technology IP originates in America. From memory to the chips to the manufacturing techniques. I am pretty sure they are using computers.

    no, payments on paper and gunpowder because, surprise, they didnt have patents. because the concept of protecting intellectual property had not been invented yet. Hence the reason things had to be invented over and over again, because anything you found had to be kept secret and therefore when people and countires died, they took the secret with them. Very inefficient.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Determining your location based on what time it is by observing Jupiter’s moons or our Moon or both has been around for centuries.

    Computer technology was an American thing in 1965. They ship a few hundred million X86 processors a year. They ship billions of ARM processors every year. The majority of them run Linux.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    and GPS runs a whole different way. So what

    If you want to count all current US patents on computing good luck, they are too numerous. But I can tell you a company like Moterola get hundreds of million just for old portfolios. They exist and are valuable because IP matters

    Useless Reply:

    John Nachtigall

    because they hate being reliant on America.

    China and Russia must build their own global positioning system for their own national security reasons.

    There are two GPS signals, military and civilian.

    The civilian code is open to all, but is restricted to subsonic speed and has a higher margin of error and is prone to jamming. The military code is not open and even US allies don’t have access to military GPS code, except for US exported weapons.

    This is why China, Russia, EU, Japan, and Korea are building their own global positioning systems, because they need it for military purposes, such as guiding supersonic ballistic missiles.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    all electronic signals run at the speed of light, not subsonic

    They used to purposely introduce error on the civilian side, because they were afraid people would use it to target missiles and such. They stopped that a long time ago. There are still accuracy differences, but the Government is working to provide equivalent civilian service

    http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

    I agree China and Russia are building system for national security reasons. Europe is just doing it because of pride, they know they could use the US system without restriction and as NATO members they have access to the military signal.

    One final note, if you were looking for an example of a government program with excellent benefits that a private company would not be able to provide, GPS is an almost perfect example. It is very capital intensive and requires money to run the grid on a continuing basis. It is almost impossible to charge for the service. So the government provides it for free and literally entire industries are possible because of it. Almost everyone is more productive because of GPS. All delivery and transportation services to start. GPS phones get used a thousand ways from trivial (Pokemon) to critical (911 services). Planting crops is more efficient. millions of examples. Its universal at this point.

    It is a great example of the government providing a common good

    Ted K. Reply:

    The Russian GPS, GLONASS, is up and running. The other two, China’s Compass and Europe’s Galileo, may be in full service by 2020.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_navigation

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS

    Useless Reply:

    John Nachtigall

    all electronic signals run at the speed of light, not subsonic

    Flying objects that receive GPS signals do. Civilian code is useless for supersonic objects in the air, nor does the Civilian code offer jamming resistance capability.

    Europe is just doing it because of pride, they know they could use the US system without restriction and as NATO members they have access to the military signal.

    Europe can buy military code enabled weapons from the US.

    European made weapons cannot access US military GPS code signals without US approvals on individual case by case, and this is the reason why the EU started its own positioning system and Korea/Israel joined the program.

    Jerry Reply:

    As John N. would say – They want their own intellectual property. That way they can sell and use their own weapon systems.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Alan Turing and Konrad Zuse just became Americans?

    Tell me more…

    What about Linus Torvald?

    And who do you think runs Lennovo?

    Also, your assertion that countries had to keep stuff secret prior to patents (as if there were no industrial espionage today) is laughable, because guess how silk and paper and all those other goodies came to Europe? China failed to keep them secret. As any secret kept over too long by too many eventually becomes public knowledge. That’s just the cost of doing business.

    Jerry Reply:

    And an additional point is, what is the USA going to do about it?
    What are the other countries going to do about it?
    What do you suggest be done about it?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    “Intellectual property” has been “stolen” since time immemorial. On the whole it advances humanity when it’s done more often than not…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    so we agree, China is stealing technology.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    You say that as if it were a bad thing…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    yes…stealing is bad. People worked to create that intellectual property, they deserve to profit from it.

    Do you not think stealing is bad? Because if people are not rewarded for invention, they dont invent at nearly the rate as if they do get rewarded. Several countries have proven this point. Russia had to hold their scientists at gunpoint to get them to work. In the same time period the US invented the modern computer, which is used to everything now. Just 1 example of course

    So important, it was specifically addressed by the founding fathers in the Constitution. interesting that in 1780 they realized the importance but you dont.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Oh do be serious.

    Copyright and “intellectual property” laws have changed a lot since the 1780s. Back in those days patent spamming or patent trolling had not entered the lexicon and the public domain was actually a thing. (Geothe’s contract with his publishers that granted his heirs rights 30 years past his death was considered scandalous).

    Innovators will always have the first shot at making something out of their innovation by the nature of them having innovated. But if we do not allow others to build on that innovation after a certain period of time, we actually hinder innovation instead of furthering it. The Soviet Union had problems with scientists because rigid doctrinaire systems are not conducive to the free inquiry that science needs to thrive. The same thing applies for the theocratic 16th century Spain without Jews or Muslims. While just a few centuries before this area was one of the most innovative in the world and it now was blessed by the wealth of the new world, Spain could not innovate because all critical thinkers were either dead, in exile or both.

    The thing with the Epi-Pen could only happen due to patent abuse. And don’t forget that a lot of innovation happens with government grants. The US got great by building on innovations of others. Germany started out as a cheap low quality manufacturer of knock-off English brands. And China is already undergoing the transition from cheap knock-off crap to high quality stuff. Ten or twenty years from now people will unironically buy Chinese stuff for its quality.

    Ideas are like air, you cannot lock them up and trying to do so is as futile as trying to make water run uphill. Europeans stole the Chinese ideas for gunpowder silk and paper and now China is stealing European ideas. I don’t see how that is such a negative thing. Innovators will continue to profit off their innovations, but you need to keep the pressure high so that competition makes people innovate more and drive the prices down.

    Having shit copyrighted hundreds of years after the death of the author and patent trolling and patent spamming is not going to help bring forth innovations.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The Chinese have been exporting high quality goods for centuries if not millennia. It’s one of the reasons all those Europeans started taking years long ocean voyages hundreds of years ago.
    They still do.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    so you pay millions to create and run trials on a product and you get a whole year before the knockoffs come. Wow, you are right, that is not going to change my decision to invest in new technology at all.

    Protecting IP has worked in America for hundreds of years, and yes Epi-Pen is because of IP. So is penicillin. Right now there is a really expensive drug that cures Hep C. So expensive that people say it is priced unethically. But if they didnt have IP protection, they would not have invented it.

    So what is better, no rug at all or an expensive drug. I pick expensive, but if you want to watch all tech progress stop then go ahead, dont respect IP.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    There are other ways to finance drug development besides gouging patients in the U.S.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Really. Name that way.

    And if you are going to say the government will do it then I expect an example of the government doing it successfully.

    You see that’s never happened. Even the amazing Norway government, who can do no wrong, they don’t make new drugs. They just underpay for the ones that others develop.

    It’s simple, unless there is a market where people can get an ROI on the investment, there is no investment. Since drugs are very risky (you can invest 100 million and it does not work) they expect a very high ROI. Right now, the US is that market. If you take that away then 2 things happen. Existing drugs get cheap, new drugs get scarce.

    Besides the occasional exception, all successful drug development has come from private companies. Governments don’t have the creativity and the tolerance for failure necessary to succeed.

    IP protection works and has helped create the worlds most powerful economy. Why would we screw that up.

    PS. It’s way more than just drugs. That’s just 1 example

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    The guy who invented the Polio vaccine intentionally did not patent it in order to save more human lives.

    Was Penicillin invented in a private or a state run lab?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Sulfonamide was off patent when Ernest Fourneau at the Pasteur Institute figured out that it was the active part of the drug Bayer had developed. The tin foil hat crowd claims Bayer knew that but suppressed the information.

    More than one person observed that penicillin molds suppressed bacteria growth. Fleming did something with the information and Florey, who first began treating patients said

    “People sometimes think that I and the others worked on penicillin because we were interested in suffering humanity. I don’t think it ever crossed our minds about suffering humanity. This was an interesting scientific exercise, and because it was of some use in medicine is very gratifying, but this was not the reason that we started working on it.

    …some people have goals in life other than making lots of money.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Wait, people not motivated by MONEY exist?

    Whole worldviews are based on this assumption…

    Jerry Reply:

    Yes I certainly agree John N. that China has been stealing Technology. And they have been for YEARS.
    Have they been stealing jobs? I don’t know. Why do they have to steal jobs if we (USA) gives them the jobs. (Apple iPhone anyone?) But hey. That’s part of the ‘new’ international capitalism.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    There is nothing new about this.

    In fact, some industries are already moving out of China because salaries are too high there for them.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    you cant steal a “job”. Thosejobs were placed there by an economic force called globalization and free trade. And thank God for it

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/09/20/the-guardian-wrong-apple-suicide-china-wages-about-everything-all-the-time/#392263781203

    Now I am sure you dont belive me, but Paul Krugman (whom I despise) is a Nobel winning economist and as liberal as they come and he said (2nd page of the article)

    In short, my correspondents are not entitled to their self-righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty.

    In summary

    Yes China steals technology
    Yes stealing is bad
    Yes they have expanded their economy because of free trade and globalism
    Yes that is a very good thing for the world

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    You cannot “steal” ideas. That concept is about as ridiculous as the concept of “cultural appropriation”, which I am sure you decry as an evil liberal social justice warrior bullshit concept…

    Jerry Reply:

    “Yes they have expanded their economy because of free trade and globalism”
    based upon stealing technology, wouldn’t you say John N.??
    So you want to have it both ways.
    Take it up with your one and only true Conservative, Donald John Trump, Sr.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    people dont steal ideas, they steal inventions, which is entirely different.

    – I have an “idea” that freedom and democracy are great.
    – I have an invention that adding a tab to the top of a soda can will make it easier to open

    one is protected and one is not

    And free trade is not exclusive to stealing IP. The US has almost always been free trade and is today. NAFTA etc. But has very strict IP laws. You can have 1 without the other. Stealing is just wrong, its not a question.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    “The US has almost always been free trade”

    Not true. Not only not true, so pants on fire not true that Andrew racist Jackson nearly hanged his own VP for treason over a tariff the latter did not want.

    Throughout its industrialization the US was either protectionist or had a highly influential protectionist political current. The only free trade advocates during that era was the Southern planter aristocracy. Only when US industry had become the eighty thousand pound gorilla in the room did they advocate “free trade”, because now it benefited them.

    The point in time at which countries became advocates of free trade has much more to do with the state of their industrial base then with any ideology…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    that was not the question. Because I dont want to be accused of making a strawman, I will only post this link with excellent information

    http://www.industryweek.com/intellectual-property/what-could-be-done-about-chinas-theft-intellectual-property

    China steals intellectual property. What does that have to do with who’s army is best?

    Jerry Reply:

    “What does that have to do with who’s army is best?”
    1. It’s a ‘ take off’ of the bumper sticker war (and USA bumper sticker mentality).
    Bumper Sticker A: My child is an A student at blank high school. (high achiever, intellectual)
    Bumper Sticker B: Well my under achiever child can beat up your A student child. (military, army)
    2. It’s also a reference that we (USA) are spending so very much more on the military (and on wars) than China is. So after all of this spending on the military and on wars we come out on the losing end of the (intellectual?) war/competition. And all we are left to say is, yeah, but my child (army) can beat up your child (army).
    PS Don’t worry John N., I won’t quit my day job.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    The thing is, if you are rich and dead you are still dead.

    Jerry Reply:

    “Hardly a week goes by without a report of Chinese “hacking” or intellectual property theft”
    Make that, ‘years’.
    Good article John N.
    It should be a major topic in a national political campaign.
    Not a campaign about the length of someone’s fingers. Or about how we ‘have to spend more money to upgrade our old naval vessels”, etc., etc., etc.

    Nathanael Reply:

    Like the US in the 19th century, constant “intellectual property theft” — it made the US rich.

    Along with stealing land from the Native Americans, of course.

    Jerry Reply:

    And countless American corporations stole patents and ideas from people

    Jerry Reply:

    Steve Jobs got his ideas from Xerox. But he only borrowed them.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    When people go to work for corporations they sign over the rights to ideas. In the US a company cant patent and invention, only a person. That is a voluntary act. I did it, I get a salary and anything I invent goes to the company for $1000. some companies only pay a token $1. Regardless, they are not stolen.

    And according to the Supreme Court, Steve Jobs stole nothing from Xerox

    But nice try.

    Joe Reply:

    The US did violate patent laws when we were an emerging nation. Our lose enforcement bankrupted Eli Whitney.

    People forget that SW wasn’t considered patentable at that time xerox innovated the mouse pointer and object oriented UI. One effective attack on patent trolls is prior art, stuff invented before patents were granted and thus invalidating a later patent.

    Also a Patent has to be protected. Ask the patent holder of the intermittent windshield wiper.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Wrong on all 3.

    Robert Kearns won in court. It’s a great example of why IP protection is important. A single individual won against a top 3 industry. Great stuff

    Apple lost because they didn’t steal the software, the copied the “look and feel”. 1 is patentable and the other is not. If you recall the PC wars if you came up with the software yourself (most notably the PC BIOS) it was not infringement. The system is still the same

    And the government did not violate any patents. People do, and courts decide. But the US has always respected IP, hence it is in the highest law in the land. Early on it was still being developed, so laws were evolving. Whip they got screwed, but not because yet he US was stealing IP

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    that should read, “apple won because”

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    And who makes those laws or chooses to (not) enforce them?

    Aarond Reply:

    Two routes: #1 is the TPP, which is designed to punish and sanction China if they don’t respect our IP laws. #2 is a hard tariff on imports from them until they stop. Either way, they’re going to have to shape up. The question is if they’ll accept it, come to the table and begin the arduous process of political reform, or if they’ll back off and start a pissing match.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Agreed

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    If the US puts tariffs on China they hurt themselves more than they could ever hope to hurt China.

    Useless Reply:

    Aarond

    TPP, which is designed to punish and sanction China if they don’t respect our IP laws.

    Huh? China isn’t a part of TPP.

    Nathanael Reply:

    John, the US “stole” (which is the wrong word) everyone else’s “intellectual property” (which is also the wrong word) for the whole of the 19th century. The US was FAMOUS for not respecting any other country’s patents or copyrights.

    China’s just copying us. Can’t blame them for that, can you?

    Aarond: TPP is a dead letter and China will laugh at us for trying to pass it. The US is so dependent on China now that a tarriff won’t change the amount we import. China will shrug, keep collecting the same amount of money, and American consumers will pay the tarriff to the government.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    proof….

    The US has always had a patent system

    Joe Reply:

    Eli Whitney’s inability to profit off his invention is proof our patent system was not enforced.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I am probably an idiot for asking, but… Eli Whitney?

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    helped revolutionize cotton production.

    Joe Reply:

    Use Google.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Google is evil.

    EJ Reply:

    The modern US patent system is broken. From the idea that you can patent a business process (Amazon has a patent, which is enforced, on one click ordering!) to enabling patent trolls who patent every idea that randomly flits into their heads, without remotely reducing it to practice, only to surface years later when someone puts the hard work in to actually make the thing work and demand royalties…

    Jerry Reply:

    EJ – So true.
    Patent law reform comes up repeatedly. (Sen.Kerry even brought it up in his 2004 campaign.)
    But crazy amendments are added (stop Planned Parenthood) and the reform laws go nowhere. Similar to copyright laws. Deceased Elvis makes more money than living Elvis ever did. No image of Mickey on birthday cakes unless Disney gets a cut.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I recently heard a bit about some of the maddeningly arbitrary aspects of the ancien regime in France that made people revolt… And I thought to myself… Some of this (e.g. numerous overlapping jurisdictions for different things and purposes, hereditary privileges etc.) is not so different from things happening today in the US…

    EJ Reply:

    Also, well it’s certainly true that the Chinese government nowadays doesn’t seem to have much respect for intellectual property, a lot of the IP that’s supposedly “stolen” is part of technology transfer agreements. It’s not stealing if it’s in the contract that they’re buying the technology.

    Nathanael Reply:

    The fact is, just like the US in the 19th century, China respects LOCAL patents. But not foreign patents. China respects LOCAL copyrights. But not foreign copyrights.

    This is exactly identical to US 19th century policy. Easy enough to look up this fact.

    Nathanael Reply:

    (So, if you learn formal legal Chinese and hire a competent Chinese lawyer, you’ll find you can have very tightly protected intellectual property.)

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    And their trade policies are also not exactly different from what the US or Germany did in the 19th century. And they are equally successful. As stupid as protectionism is for a country like the US, as stupid is unrestricted free trade for emerging economies…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    1 example…thats all you have. that 1 example proves “The us stole technology”

    Get real

    Aarond Reply:

    The TPP would give the US a means to start sanctioning China unless Chinese companies (especially state owned ones) respected patents and international waters. China is expendable (like it’s workforce) and American consumers are free agents, Vietnam and India are more than happy to embrace American firms.

    The peaceful Sino-American relations are over unless the Chinese politburo gets serious about moving towards Democracy. This clearly is not going to happen.

    Useless Reply:

    Aarond

    The TPP would give the US a means to start sanctioning China

    How?

    unless the Chinese politburo gets serious about moving towards Democracy.

    With people like Jackie Chan saying democracy and China are incompatible, the CCP is extremely successful in convincing its population that democracy actually harms China’s best interests, so don’t expect to see a democratic China until the day you die.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Democracy and huge populations don’t mix. California has what some would termed totalitarian democracy – a one party patronage machine with total control of the media and the bureaucracy. To claim that the masses have any real input insults our intelligence. Functionaries are in power for life and have to literally die off for any change to happen.

    China is building up its military and I would have to conjecture for the purpose of intimidating the rest of Asia and gradually driving the US out. As far as I am concerned nothing happens in North Korea but what China approves.

    Useless Reply:

    synonymouse

    Democracy and huge populations don’t mix. California has what some would termed totalitarian democracy

    France, Germany, and UK have larger population than California, yet democracy works.

    As far as I am concerned nothing happens in North Korea but what China approves.

    You don’t understand the relationship between North Korea and China then. China has nearly zero influence over North Korea; Chinese are frustrated that Americans do not understand this and morons like Trump says during debate that China should jump into North Korea to solve the nuke problems for them, when China no long has the ground forces needed to invade North Korea, much less face an ROK Army which is now billed as the largest standing army in the world, larger than the US Army.

    Rather, the relationship between North Korea and China is that of a suicide bomber and a hostage victim. That is North Korea threatens to blow itself up and take China down with it, and China is forced to pay a ransom so that the suicide bomber doesn’t pull the trigger.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    China has 100% influence over North Korea…turn off the food. North Korea cant support itself and the food and aid all comes across the border from China

    China wont hold North Korea accountable for 3 reasons

    1. The military is still living off the glory of fighting the US an allies to a stalemate. Keep in mind there are only 5 communist countires left in the world and 4 of the 5 are in Asia.
    2. If North Korea collapses, it just becomes part of Korea and they have a land border with a US ally, unacceptable to them
    3. They dont want the refugees who will stream across the border rather than starve

    So they tolerate the stupidity of North Korea and prop them up because the alternatives to them are not acceptable.

    EJ Reply:

    You guys are basically saying the same thing. China doesn’t want to deal with the chaos that a collapse of the NK govt. would inevitably cause, so they just prop up the status quo.

    synonymouse Reply:

    I respectfully disagree. When China wants to provoke, to act out its unhappiness with the rest of the world and past humiliations experienced, when it wants to release some hostility and discontent it unleashes North Korea and then fakes an “oh my”.

    It has learned the hard way from the Empire of Japan and the Co-Prosperity Sphere. And now wants to do it too.

    Useless Reply:

    John Nachtigall

    China has 100% influence over North Korea…turn off the food.

    And North Korea collapses, taken over by the ROK. A US migh even get to build an air base 400 miles away from Beijing. The CCP’s worst nightmare come true.

    2. If North Korea collapses, it just becomes part of Korea and they have a land border with a US ally, unacceptable to them

    This is why China has ZERO influence over North Korea. There is nothing China can threaten North Korea with.

    So they tolerate the stupidity of North Korea and prop them up because the alternatives to them are not acceptable.

    So you know there is nothing China can do, hence why Kim Jong Un doesn’t listen to Xi Jinping.

    Useless Reply:

    synonymouse

    when it wants to release some hostility and discontent it unleashes North Korea and then fakes an “oh my”.

    Same outcome. North Korea collapses and is taken over by the ROK, the dreaded US air base 400 miles away from Beijing, etc.

    Nathanael Reply:

    I’ve now managed to read some rare information from tourists who managed to visit North Korea. I get the impression that China doesn’t really have control over North Korea. The cult of Dear Leader is really, really strong. It’s a *religion*. It won’t collapse easily.

    This is China’s conundrum. They want peace. If they try to remove Dear Leader they’ll have war because of the religious cult. They are trying to gently ease him into less crazy behavior, but that’s not working. Etc…

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    The late Christopher Hitchens (he died before Kim Jong Il) described it as “one short of a trinity”. Well now it has its trinity…

    Aarond Reply:

    Key TPP provision: if a country does not take adequate steps to enforce copyright law, an international council can vote to sanction them by placing taxes on their goods.

    Useless Reply:

    Aarond

    Key TPP provision: if a country does not take adequate steps to enforce copyright law, an international council can vote to sanction them by placing taxes on their goods.

    And how does this apply to China since China is not a member of TPP and is not subject to the rules of the TPP, assuming it actually passes since it won’t?

    Aarond Reply:

    Because if China wants to retain unobstructed trade with the US, they’re going to be roped into it. And while the hopes for a TPP under Obama are very slim, a rebranded bill would easily slip through under Hilary (assuming she even wins).

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    While the US and China need one another, China can do without the US more than the US can do without China.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Going without a new cell phone every two years would make hipsters break out in hives. They’d have to wait while production ramped up someplace else. The unemployed factory workers in China would have to go vegan. Partly because they are unemployed and partly because there wouldn’t be any money to import food.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well they could work in one of those factories that produces all the delightfully bizarre crap on sale on Chinagadget sites (I am looking at you aliexpress.com)

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well the British army beat up the German army twice in thirty years. And it wasn’t even close. Still did not help the British economy…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    They were pounding each other into a stalemate until the Americans showed up. It’s a good thing they did. The winter of 46-47 would have been much worse without Spam.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well the American help was nice and all, but…

    Had Chamberlain not done that stupid shit in Munich, the war could have been over by mid 1940…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    There is some consensus that both of them were stalling for time while production increased.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Yes, but the way Czechoslovakia did play out in the end not only were the weapons of Skoda never wielded against the Wehrmacht, Skoda remained in production throughout the war producing weapons for the Wehrmacht. And if the Nazis of 1940 were unable to invade Britain, they would have been even more unable in 1938.

    Also – but this cannot be blamed on the British who could not possibly have known – there were plans to assassinate Hitler in 1938 that would have been triggered by war breaking out.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    I am no history buff, but i do belive that the British army got some help, especially on the 2nd one.

    EJ Reply:

    As a history professor of mine was wont to say, “WWII in Europe was a conflict between Germany and the Soviet Union. Everything else was a sideshow.”

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    This may be so, but from the fall of France to Hitler’s invasion of the USSR there was one man standing between Hitler and the domination of Europe: Winston Churchill.

    And you might further recall that while the “battle of Britain” was inconclusive, “Bomber Harris” (who is quite popular among certain circles of the German left) was quite able to lay the German cities and military installations in ruins…

    Nathanael Reply:

    Russia is, in actual fact, in Europe. I suppose you mean Western Europe.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Russia was neutral/allied with Hitler from 1939 until “Operation Barbarossa” (I apologize for even knowing that name; Guido Knopp and his Nazi-adoration is to blame)

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Germany had to keep about 1/3 of the army in the West to defend against the US an allies. Eastern front may have looked a little different without that

    And

    The US kept Japan at bay all by themselves in the meantime

    And

    The US also supplied weapons and materials to Russia and Britain and the rest of the allies (at the same time)

    So I think it is a little bit of an understatement to claim the US was a “sideshow”

    Nathanael Reply:

    No, really, Eastern Front wouldn’t have looked any different. At least not from a William T. Sherman logistics perspective.

    The big issue is actually that there was a massive industrial production base and enormous cities behind the Ural Mountains. The Tsars had been secretive about them and Lenin had been secretive about them and Stalin had been even more secretive about them. So most people outside the USSR didn’t really realize that they *existed*.

    The German High Command, and especially Hitler, didn’t realize what was going on there. They thought they’d win if they conquered Moscow and St. Petersburg. Ha! They would barely have begun the campaign. They had no idea.

    This fundamental analysis failure meant that Hitler was doomed as soon as he betrayed Stalin. The entire resources available to him in Western Europe were too small. But of course he didn’t realize that.

    Nathanael Reply:

    Russia certainly appreciated Lend-Lease. But the US airmen involved in it came back commenting that there was way more domestic production and population on that side of the Urals than they had imagined…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    And Nikita Khrushchev said “Without Spam, we wouldn’t have been able to feed our army.”

    Bullets and guns and cavity magnetrons and automated cryptographic decoders are important. They don’t do much good if their operators starve to death. North and South America had the food production. And the fuel to move it halfway around the world.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Ha.

    You know who really won the war?

    Anastasio Somoza Garcia! Without him expropriating German coffee plantation owners the war could not have been won.

    Sorry for the levity, it’s no laughing matter.

    EJ Reply:

    I referenced WWII in Europe. Obviously the Pacific was mostly the US. 7 out of every 8 man-months in a combat zone for the German army were on the Eastern Front. Even Churchill said it was the Red Army that “tore the guts out” of the Wehrmacht.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Talking about the Pacific War and not mentioning the Chinese?

    That’s a paddlin’

    They may not have been winning, but without the Chinese Japan could have (and likely would have) attacked the Soviets from the East. And that would have been an entirely different ball game.

    EJ Reply:

    Sure, the Chinese helped. Ho Chi Minh helped out in Indochina. Much like how the US, Britain, the Free French, Yugoslavian partisans, etc., etc. helped out the Soviets in Europe. The large majority of military action against the Axis in the Pacific was undertaken by the US, just as the large majority of fighting in Europe was between Germany and the Soviet Union.

    None of this takes away from the heroes of D-Day, the Battle of Britain, Market Garden, Changsha, etc.

    Nathanael Reply:

    Oh, the Pacific War is a whole ‘nother story. Russia wasn’t even involved. Japan was trying to take advantage of the fact that the European colonial powers were distracted in Europe. The Pacific war was very much Japan v. US.

    And Japan’s government was, objectively speaking, crazy. Attacking Pearl Harbor was nuts. All the best Japanese experts said “if you get in a war with the US, you will lose”. All the best experts said that the US would never back down if it was attacked directly. They were ignored by the insane militarists who were running the Japanese government.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I think even some of the generals who carried out Pearl Harbor thought it was crazy and said so in the clearest way a Japanese subordinate can voice criticism of his boss short of suicide.

    Imagine if Japan had attacked the USSR instead of the US…

    Paul Dyson Reply:

    The British 14th Army helped keep the Japanese at bay in east Asia and eventually turned defeat into Victory. The Soviets kept the Japanese at Bay by the victory at Khalkhin Gol in 1939. It taught the Japanese not to become overextended by invading Siberia.

    Nathanael Reply:

    I’m not sure the Japanese military government ever really learned that lesson. They were bonkers.

    Their entire policy from the first (unauthorized!) invasion of Manchuria through the entire war consisted of being overextended. It just became imposssible for them to keep up the overextension in all directions at once.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    That’s the one good thing about fighting fascists. Fascists really believe the Bullshit they are spouting.

    And it turns out to be harmful to the war effort.

    Aarond Reply:

    Amtrak is a component of STRACNET. Rail is rather important to military prowess. Peacetime makes people lazy and unwilling to fund needed infrastructure.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    What’s STRACNET?

    EJ Reply:

    Seriously, do they not have Google in Germany? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/stracnet.htm

    Only a small portion of the ROW that Amtrak actually owns is part of STRACNET.

    Nathanael Reply:

    Actually, it looks like most Amtrak routes are part of STRACNET:
    — New York to Washington DC
    — DC to Tampa and Miami
    — Boston to Albany, NY
    — Albany, NY to Buffalo to Cleveland to Chicago
    — Chicago to Seattle
    — Chicago to Kansas City and nearly Wichita
    — southern Colorado to Albuquerque
    — Albuquerque to LA
    — New Orleans to LA
    — Sacramento to Seattle
    — Oakland to Denver
    — New Orleans to New York
    — DC to Cleveland
    — Pittsburgh to Philadelphia

    …this is off the top of my head. Nearly all the Amtrak routes are part of STRACNET.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    If I looked at the map correctly Albany to New York is the West Shore line…. well Selkirk to Newark.

    William Reply:

    China also use its market power to force technology transfers and cash to buy rights to many older technologies, then develop on top of them. So it is not entirely incorrect to say China can “absorbed and digested” technologies without stealing them.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    To be fair patents being sold for scrap has happened without Chinese involvement as well. The Advanced Passenger Train (developed by Britain) gave a major boost to Italian Pendolino development…

    Jerry Reply:

    “The Chinese program began in 2004.” “Three years later the first of the Chinese high-speed trains…rolled off the assembly line.”
    And the NEW China train will have, “wheels that can adjust to fit different gauges used around the world.”

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    500 km/h can be done.

    The real question is efficiency.

    Jerry Reply:

    China moved over 10,000 to build this:

    http://phys.org/news/2016-09-china-world-largest-radio-telescope.html

    And China did not even ask questions about ‘intellectual property’.

    Once it is announced that China is going to Mars will another space race begin?

    Jerry Reply:

    From the article:
    “Earlier this month, China launched the Tiangong 2, its second space station and the latest step in its military-backed program that intends to send a mission to Mars in the coming years. In August, the country launched the first quantum satellite experts said would advance efforts to develop the ability to send communications that can’t be penetrated by hackers.
    Also:
    “China has also completed the construction of tourist facilities such as an observation deck on a nearby mountain, reports said. Such facilities can be a draw for visitors—the one in Puerto Rico draws about 90,000 visitors and some 200 scientists each year.
    Wonder if some of those tourists in China will use HSR?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    No.

    No tourist ever uses HSR. John Nachtigall has proven that with a short look at the Brightline website… :-P

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Who would they be space racing against?

    Buffoon Trump?

    Brexit Europe?

    Russia their old pals?

    Nathanael Reply:

    Elon Musk, I suppose?

    synonymouse Reply:

    The US is not capable of a space race – that money has to go to prop up governments in the Middle East. And other things.

    To my mind the public interest in space travel seems to be trending down as we grasp better the immensity and the inhospitality of everything extraterrestrial. Just the radiation. Seti coming up with nothing.

    EJ Reply:

    Foreign aid is a whopping 1% of the Federal budget. The middle east is about 20% of that. Uninformed people often assume it’s much higher.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Is there even a single country of nontrivial size with a foreign aid budget exceeding 1% of GDP?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Apparently Sweden and Norway. 19 other countries spend more, expressed as a percentage of GDP.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors#Net_official_development_assistance_by_country_as_a_percentage_of_gross_national_income_in_2015

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    the US does not give state aid like other countries, they give private money.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/guess-nation-generous-world/story?id=27029103

    Per capita actual money the US is far and away number 1, also as a percentage of GDP. They have started this new “index” which counts volunteer time and other less tangable stuff and the US tied for number 1

    Simply put, the US is super generous.

    EJ Reply:

    Plus a lot of the US aid comes back into the US economy since it’s used to buy US-built military hardware.

    @John N.

    That’s extraordinary. I’m not sure if you’re trying to make a joke or you really are too stupid for words.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    How much of it is so the missionary can use an SUV to go out to remote villages to be ignored?

    Jerry Reply:

    Nevada even donated bus tickets to the homeless and people on welfare.
    But the tickets were only one way to California.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    what is stupid?

    In European countries most foreign aid comes from the government.

    In the US, the largest part of foreign aid comes from private individuals.

    I posted the cite, what is the stupid part?

    EJ Reply:

    The cite you posted isn’t about foreign aid, numbnuts.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Yes it is. Where do you think that money is going? Who funds the Red Cross? Who supports all those orphanages in Africa. Hell, Haiti’s whole economy is private charities.

    That foreign aid.

    This cite is old but it’s still true

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/apr/29/20070429-122223-6928r/

    The IS basically privatized forgiven aid. Weird but true

    EJ Reply:

    From the Moonie Times article you posted:

    By far the largest figure in U.S. private donations came from remittances, money that immigrants send home. According to the Hudson study, U.S. immigrants sent home — mostly to Latin America — $61.7 billion in remittances in 2005. In other words, two-thirds of U.S. private philanthropy overseas is in the form of remittances from legal and illegal immigrants.

    So, immigrants to the US sending money to family members back home. The Times actually tries to spin this as charitable donations. Do you even read the things you cite?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    It’s going to charities in the U.S. ?
    That are on a much smaller scale or don’t even exist in other countries because the government provided social services make it unnecessary?

    Nathanael Reply:

    If you count spending money to bomb and murder foreigners as “foreign aid” then I suppose the US spends a lot on foreign aid.

    By any other measure, we spend practically nothing.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    what makes send money back home not charity

    Charity is giving money to someone with no strings attached that you dont have to.

    Its not spin, all sources consider that charity. Do your own search, the US is at the top of every charity list in absolute, per capita, and per GDP. Its just a fact.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    more data, from a non-profit

    https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2015-press-release-giving-usa-americans-donated-an-estimated-358-38-billion-to-charity-in-2014-highest-total-in-reports-60-year-history/

    another non-profit

    https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/

    gifts to individuals…2%

    http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/42

    now the real question, why do you want the USA to be non-charitable. SHouldnt you be happy they are charitable?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The subject is foreign aid not maintaining a pretty building where you go sing songs together once a week. Or endowing colleges. Or giving money to the emergency pantry. Or the APSCA or Humane Society.
    Since when has supporting your spouse and children – sending money back home includes that – considered charity?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    If remittances were considered charity and the origin countries were considered givers of foreign aid, Costa Rica would be one of the biggest “donors” for Nicaragua. And those two countries are in a weird state of cold war over border disputes and highway construction (if you ask me about it I will provide more background) despite Costa Rica not even having an army.

    And I have met some of those people doing “charitable work” on flights to Nicaragua… Honestly, I much prefer European secular aid organizations. European aid organizations know what they are doing, they have decent funding, people who speak the local language and they are not trying to proselytize for some man in the sky. Sure, there are also church based charities in Europe (in Germany they get most of their money from the state), but even they are much less in the mission and much more in the helping people business…

    Yes the US is probably among the biggest originator countries of missionaries, but I would not consider that a good thing. And if you doubt me ask a gay person in Uganda…

    EJ Reply:

    now the real question, why do you want the USA to be non-charitable

    And your type are always accusing us Liberals of not understanding the difference between “is” and “ought.” It’s just that we don’t live in your silly fantasy world where people giving money to family members counts as “charity.”

    Jerry Reply:

    But he makes up questions. And calls them “real”. And expects other people to jump through HIS hoops. Just to satisfy his silly fantasies. Only to try and justify his silly argument.
    So sad.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    My problem is with you denying facts.

    I posted 3 cites from non-profits all consistently saying the US is the top giver. So they are all wrong. Specifically this one says personal gifts are 2% of the total

    http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/42

    You may not like the donations, you may not like who is making them, and you may not like their religion or why they do it. But the FACT is that the US gives the most foreign aid in the world, and the vast majority of it is private donations

    As for the remittances, you failed to copy the next sentence down from that article

    “Some people say we should not include these figures, because that is just family members giving to family, but the studies clearly show that remittances reduce poverty,” Mrs. Adelman said.

    or this part directly saying it is foreign aid, not charity in the US.

    “But since 1990, private philanthropy has far exceeded government funding. U.S. private donors coughed up an estimated $95.2 billion in 2005 — nearly four times the $27.6 billion spent in official foreign aid — for schools, orphanages, medical clinics, supplies and other development programs in Africa, Latin America, Russia, Eastern Europe and Asia.”

    or this

    However, in total amounts, the United States government and private donors spent nearly $123 billion in overseas assistance in 2005, six times more than any other nation. Britain followed in second place with $19.8 billion and Japan in third with $19.68 billion.
    “American colleges and universities give more in scholarships to foreign students than Norway, Finland, Sweden or Denmark each gives in [total] foreign aid,” said Mrs. Adelman.

    Even 1/3 of the US giving is more than anyone else.

    Either find actual evidence that it is not true or admit you are wrong.

    @Bahnfreund, I am sure you are do like European organizations better, but there are way more US organizations and that was the argument. PS. If you die of starvation or disease, your sexual orientation is not really relevant.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    THe subject was not charity, it was foreign aid. And who spends the most as a percentage available not how big the checks are. I’m sorry you can’t grasp the concepts that fourth graders can.

    It’s really really good that Americans give lots of money to Americans. Or really really sad that in the richest country in the world people have to depend on charity. Take your pick.

    Jerry Reply:

    Many thanks adirondacker12800
    John N. simply does not understand the difference between charity and foreign aid.
    But he likes to go off into the wild blue yonder with his silliness.
    So sad.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    I cant understand the concept?

    1. That charity is outside the US. Who do you think funds those NGOs like the Red Cross or food aid in Africa. Every time you see a TV commercial with the “only $0.25 a day, that is outside the US. SO adirondacker, you completly miss the point.

    2. In almost every other country, take Germany or Norway as an example, the government provides money to those NGOs or diret aid to the other government. And the US has a small budget for that. But in the US, its private donations.

    So tell me the difference between money given to Doctors without Borders, a french NGO from the French Government or money given from Joe Smith in Kansas? There is none, it is all money and it is all foreign aid.

    Just because your socialist minds cant grasp the concept that aid can come from something other than the government does not make it false. Neither does your constant narrative that the US is cheap and or evil.

    So if your statement is US GOVERNMENT Foreign aid is 19th in the world then fine, but US aid overall is 1.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The gazillions of dollars we collect every year most of it gets spent in the U.S. As it says in the references you gave.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    People in Uganda are not currently dying of starvation or disease. What a disgusting thing to just “assume” of a country. You probably think all Africans sit in the same collective hut with a fly in their eyes waiting for the mighty whity to save them. Well I got news for you buddy, that’s a cartoon. That’s not real life. In real life Africa has both real problems and real solutions, real hope for the future and real quagmires with no way out. Your way to approach Africa is one of the problems with the current poverty porn aid industry. /rant

    But do you know what does kill Ugandans? Lynch mobs. Homophobic lynch mobs. You know who incites those people? Evangelical preachers. Now where do they get there ideas and their money from? Oh, right, the US of A. So next time you hand over your “tithe” to some slimy ass bastard in a private jet preaching against homosexuality before getting a handjob from a male sex worker in an airport lavatory think what you are doing to very real people half a world away. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2W41pvvZs0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJkiWwMKwSo

    Of course your driving a car also supports gay hating regimes in oil countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia… But that’s beside the point right now.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    By the way, even during the high point of Apollo, NASA never even crossed the nickle on the tax dollar level…

  24. jedi08
    Sep 26th, 2016 at 06:55
    #24
  25. morris brown
    Sep 26th, 2016 at 07:25
    #25

    Bullet train route across Big Tujunga Wash meets growing opposition

    Nathanael Reply:

    You name it, some doofus opposes the route.

    The horses will be fine underneath the soaring bridge high in the sky with the very quiet trains running on it.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Just like the cows right next to the tracks in France. And no, I am not digging up that Youtube video again…

    Roland Reply:

    These cows turned deaf a long time ago (they could not sleep at night).
    https://youtu.be/aKG2yW-RRZE
    https://youtu.be/He5VbCcrfjc

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Deaf or accustomed?

    Probably just the same as cows next to highways…

    Roland Reply:

    Ever heard of Harris Ranch? None of those cows look like the zombies in the video.

    EJ Reply:

    Read the article. It’s one of the more unspoiled pieces of land left in the LA area.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    So…

    How is paving over unspoiled land for highways okay but doing it for rail lines isn’t?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    It was fabulous when they turned it into suburbia with barns for the recreational horses. Now that they can indulge their fantasies it should stay that way.

    EJ Reply:

    Don’t let your complete lack of knowledge of southern California hold you back. Protip – this is a different part of the line from Acton, which is where all the horse people live.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    All them have been getting their rondels in a swizzle.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-horses-20160523-snap-story.html

    Paul Dyson Reply:

    The horse people also live in Sylmar, Sunland and Tujunga, not to mention Glendale and Burbank. The Sylmar neighborhood council is dominated by the equestrian faction. While the Burbank and Glendale ranchos are not close to the tracks the horse people are allying with the other areas to cause problems for the project.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Horses giving Jerry, PB, Antonovich, Palmdale, Tejon Ranch problems?

    Life is good.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Why don’t we add one train a week that can carry horses and be done with it?

    Nathanael Reply:

    It’s not being paved over. Building a bridge over a river (or a “wash” or a dry river) is a pretty normal thing to do even in a wilderness.

    And if there are no permanent access points (which there *aren’t* with an express rail line), this leaves the land, well… unspoiled.

    Particularly when the bridge is as high and as tall as this one. IT’s not going to obstruct the water flow or the animal migration or ANYTHING.

    In fact, when highways are going through wilderness areas with ravines, a common proposal to keep the land “unspoiled” is to put the highway on a high bridge so that water and wildlife can pass under… and of course to have *no exits* so that nobody can stop.

    Nathanael Reply:

    I would, for reference, oppose a surface ground-level route across this.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    A tunnel under that and a bridge over an exurban wasteland aren’t harming the environment. Its a flawless route, and the arguments against it are fundamentally selfish.

    Roland Reply:

    Kindly humor me by reminding me once again where San Francisco is?

  26. Jerry
    Sep 26th, 2016 at 12:40
    #26

    OT to Paul Dyson.
    Any new info/insight from your big meeting last Saturday, Sept. 24, in Sacramento?

  27. Joe
    Sep 26th, 2016 at 19:16
    #27

    Texas High Speed Rail project slipping due to lawsuit.

    Lawyers for a proposed high-speed rail line between Houston and Dallas withdrew their request for entry to a local landowner’s property, after opponents and the landowner opposed it in front of a Harris County judge, according to opponents of the project.

    The line, using Japanese trains and technology, is expected to cost around $12 billion and would take between four and five years to build before ferrying passengers. Though backers initially hoped to start in 2017, Keith said that could slip into 2018 as federal approval and final route decisions are made.
    http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/High-speed-rail-critics-claim-eminent-domain-win-9242866.php

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Old news. They’ll lose eventually. I’m sure their lawyers told them that. But if some idiot wants to buy lawyer by the billable hour they are welcome to piss away their money. It may just be a different idiot than the one(s) in the old news.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    They think they can outspend and outlast Texas Central…

  28. Car(e)-Free LA
    Sep 27th, 2016 at 11:00
    #28

    Hey Robert, with this post getting so long, can we have an open thread so things are easier to make sense of?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I second this motion.

  29. Jerry
    Sep 27th, 2016 at 11:15
    #29

    PAMPA set back. CalTrain wins lawsuit.
    On Monday, Superior Court Judge Barry Goode sided with CalTrain arguing that its environmental impact report was adequate.
    Atherton loses another lawsuit.

    synonymouse Reply:

    So this means they hang some catenary in Atherton?

    Jerry Reply:

    I guess so.

    Jerry Reply:

    Might even mean that a few trees will have to be trimmed back. OK. Some of them might even have to be removed. But to people in Atherton those eucalyptus trees are the most beautiful trees in the whole world. They were imported from Australia. And people in Atherton enjoy having their illegals clean up all the shedding bark and leaves from those trees.

    Jerry Reply:

    Who would have thought that Atherton has so many tree huggers?

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    Oh they’ll hug trees in front of cameras unless the tree is in the way of a proposed road for their SUV to drive on.

    Aarond Reply:

    The stupid tree shit has been going on for at least three if not four decades now.

    It’s become particularly insane as of late, as most of the “protected” trees are themselves dying off (most were planted when the subdivisions were put down in the 40s, 50s and 60s) and the new buyers are all richie rich foreigner types that don’t bother following the law.

    Witness the insanity here:

    http://www.belmont.gov/home/showdocument?id=410

    http://www.belmont.gov/home/showdocument?id=406

    Joe Reply:

    I suspect many of these impacted ROW trees are volunteers including invasive species.

    Atherton can demonstrate their commitment to urban forestry and plant trees to make up for those impacted.

    Joe Reply:

    Good

    Here’a a problem electrification / level boarding will address.

    #NB139 is -10 mins late due accommodating 237 passengers, and bikes. #Caltrain

    Jerry Reply:

    Soon we’ll probably see passengers riding on the roofs of the train.
    Similar to scenes in those movies that are out there, everywhere.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    You mean in India?

    Roland Reply:

    Like this? https://youtu.be/n9dTb3BxwQU

    Roland Reply:

    @Joe Kindly help me understand which part of “Unequivocally YES the new EMU fleet will have fewer seats per car than the current locomotive-hauled fleet” it is that you do not understand.
    http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2016/09/emu-brochure.html?showComment=1474488639020#c4348038575565405704

    Jerry Reply:

    Stuart Flashman and David Schonbrunn were disappointed. Said it was too early to determine whether they would file an appeal.
    Schonbrunn complained, according to the Daily Journal, that the EIR showed CalTrain running out of capacity in the year 2040.

    Jerry Reply:

    Here we go again. More seats and toilets are necessary in the year 2040.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    But what about toilets for cyclists?

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    Start mandating built in toilets for cyclists. Seriously though, if bikeshare ever gets better and spreads everywhere, it’ll be more efficient than everyone owning their own bike.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    There are still downsides of bikeshare (I am an avid user, but since I moved I do not have a station close enough to home for it to make sense as a getting home at night tool).

    What does help reduce bikes on trains is good secure bike parking at the station. Much more cost efficient than park&ride…

  30. Jerry
    Sep 27th, 2016 at 11:54
    #30

    Menlo Park agrees to 6,550 more Facebook employees.
    The Menlo Park Planning Commission said OK to the 1.3 million square foot campus expansion on Monday.
    Menlo Park also agreed to further studies of any traffic problems.
    Gee. More traffic in Menlo Park from 6,550 more workers?
    Bet they didn’t see that coming.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    They could expand public transit service…

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    Force them to pay for a shuttle train from RWC Caltrain to Facebook please. They wouldn’t have to built more parking that way, and DumbartonRail could be accelerated.

    Jerry Reply:

    The ROW and tracks are already in place. And Facebook could afford a shuttle train from Redwood City directly to their front door.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    That’s what I meant. They could save money on tech shuttles too.

  31. Robert
    Sep 27th, 2016 at 17:52
    #31

    Ralph Vartabedian has a piece in the L.A. Times today about some people unhappy with the E2 alternative.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bullet-train-river-20160924-snap-story.html

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    idiots

    Nathanael Reply:

    Write to Shelby Grad and tell him to stop allowing Vartabedian to write his insane, worthless hit pieces attacking HSR.

    Joe Reply:

    Such a plan would put Southern California on par with the Bay Area, which succeeded in defeating the rail authority’s intent to build separate tracks through the wealthy peninsula communities of Silicon Valley. The compromise meant that future trains will have to share tracks at slower speeds with commuter trains

    This is a petty and inaccurate comment.

    The blended HSR row is exactly the route HSR wanted. The ROW didn’t move one inch and blended gave HSR access to Caltrain electrification infrastructure and service saving the state Billions as detailed in the revised and lower cost estimate Ralph criticizes.

    Joe Reply:

    Blended provides access to SF while saving 30 along the exact same route as full build with opportunity to expand the ROW when/as needed.

    The Phase 1 Blended option eliminates the need for costly and intrusive new HSR infrastructure in urban areas, reducing the cost of delivering the HSR system called for in Proposition 1A by nearly $30 billion (year-of-expenditure dollars [YOE$]) from the previous Phase 1 Full Build proposal.

    Page 3-2. http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2012Ch3_Cap_Cost.pdf

    synonymouse Reply:

    You’re bonkers if you thing PAMPA is going to allow a “full build”. PAMPA is richer than the Tejon Ranch Co. and Palmdale combined. And the horsey set.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Hell, you might not even get the build to the TBT.

Comments are closed.