tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post8157784495492356038..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: Now Is The Perfect Time To Build A RailroadRobert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-59331732329787343662009-07-22T08:53:59.683-07:002009-07-22T08:53:59.683-07:00I scanned a lot of your postings and read them-- f...I scanned a lot of your postings and read them-- found them very interesting and enlightening! Thanks for sharing.Best Credit Cardshttp://www.creditagogo.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-9863799047854931632009-07-22T07:28:10.376-07:002009-07-22T07:28:10.376-07:00Fred Martin's comments about the routing are e...Fred Martin's comments about the routing are exactly on target.<br /><br />This project has been scraped together by politicians, each looking to feather their own nests. It certainly is not as advertised, that being a project to move passengers, fast and efficiently from north to south. It will cost 3 times as much as it should; take 3 times longer than it should to build also. <br /><br />It will never turn a profit and will be a constant drain on the State Treasury for generations.<br /><br />Knowning the chief proponents of the project, Kopp, Diridon, Morshed, their past history, we are getting just what their history would foretell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-9375007822345858692009-07-22T00:40:52.088-07:002009-07-22T00:40:52.088-07:00Given the mountainous topography of Japan, the ori...Given the mountainous topography of Japan, the original Tokaido Shinkansen is basically the most direct flat route between Osaka and Tokyo. Building along the coastal plains is much cheaper than going through mountains, and Japanese urban centers happen to be along the coast. The sprawling ag-oriented cities (all of a limited size and of limited economic prospects) are NOT on the easiest-to-build, most direct route between the Bay Area and SoCal, which is the I-5 corridor. <br /><br />LA is kind of large, but it is also quite some distance from the Bay Area. Proximity is a very strong determinant of transportation activity. Sacramento, an urban region of 2 million, is simply closer to San Jose, making the connections stronger. Even though San Francisco is bigger than Palo Alto, I suspect there are at least as many transportation trips between Palo Alto and San Jose as between SF and San Jose. <br /><br />Japan, France, and Germany all built their HSR systems on top of well-established rail networks. California's existing passenger rail network is rudimentary at best, yet a single line between SF and LA neglects all the necessary feeder connections necessary. Building full HSR along the I-5 would save so much money compared to the SR99 corridor that the saving could finance a fast regional rail system along the SR99 corridor. The slower regional rail system will actually connect all the smallish cities along SR99 better than a 220mph HSR system would (think of all the stops or at least station slow-downs).Fred Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-35770478335692399532009-07-21T13:55:44.781-07:002009-07-21T13:55:44.781-07:00Questioning Crapshank's pipe dream.
Dan Walte...Questioning Crapshank's pipe dream.<br /><br />Dan Walters: Is now the right time build a railroad?<br /><br />dwalters@sacbee.com<br />Published Sunday, Jul. 19, 2009<br /><br />http://www.sacbee.com/walters/story/2037414.html<br /><br />California is mired in the worst recession since the Great Depression, more than 2 million Californians are unemployed, its budget is riddled with deficits, its credit rating is dropping into junk status, and Sacramento is issuing IOUs in lieu of checks.<br /><br />Is this the time to launch construction of a high-speed railroad line between Northern and Southern California that will cost at least $40 billion, much of it from bonds to be repaid from a state budget that's already gushing red ink?<br /><br />Yes, say its fervent advocates, contending that a bullet train, similar to those in Europe and Japan, will reduce air and auto congestion, reduce greenhouse gases and generate many billions of dollars in economic benefits.<br /><br />Last year, California voters passed a $9.95 billion bond issue to provide initial financing for the system, the rest to come from the federal government, private investors and perhaps revenue bonds.<br /><br />The criticism continues, however, questioning both whether a high-speed rail system makes transportation and economic sense and the route adopted by the California High-Speed Rail Authority, especially running trains over the unpopulated Pacheco Pass between San Jose and the Central Valley.<br /><br />Bullet train advocates have been touting California as qualifying for a significant portion of the $8 billion set aside in federal stimulus money for transit because of the bond issue.<br /><br />Recently, however, the feds decided to place the Los Angeles-Las Vegas high-speed route promoted by Nevada interests, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in the California system. It raises the specter that huge sums would be spent to make it easier for Californians to spend money in Las Vegas casinos.<br /><br />Meanwhile, opposition to the Pacheco Pass route appears to be growing because it would mean routing trains down the bucolic San Francisco Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose. The alternative would be to run trains over the Altamont Pass along Interstate 580 into the Stockton-Tracy area, a more heavily traveled commuter corridor.<br /><br />Environmental activists in Palo Alto are complaining about the impact on their city and, somewhat mysteriously, language appeared in still-pending revisions to the 2009-10 state budget that makes allocation of $139 million in high-speed rail planning funds contingent on "alternative alignments" being considered. Advocates of the Pacheco Pass route consider that to be a poison pill and will try to get it removed before a final budget is enacted, if that ever occurs.<br /><br />While $9 billion of the voter-approved bond issue is to be used for the system, if and when it is ever built, the remaining $995 million can be spent on local mass transit systems on the assumption that they will improve access to high-speed rail.<br /><br />There is a suspicion among those who chart the erratic course taken by the bullet train project that when push comes to shove, its only tangible fruit will be those local projects.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-90132368934717476012009-07-21T13:39:30.535-07:002009-07-21T13:39:30.535-07:00Anonymous-
Have you ever taken an AM Baby Bullet o...Anonymous-<br />Have you ever taken an AM Baby Bullet out of Dirdion? You know, the ones that are standing room only? Or become SRO by the time they leave Palo Alto?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-42011055282680354552009-07-21T13:06:22.425-07:002009-07-21T13:06:22.425-07:00@Fred Martin
I'll bet there is heavier traffi...@Fred Martin<br /><br /><i>I'll bet there is heavier traffic between Sacramento and San Jose than between San Jose and LA.</i><br /><br />For now. Direct fast trains can change that equation, since Los Angeles is kind of large and has lots of businesses and money. (You may have read something about this in the papers.)<br /><br />Mostly, the Pacheco/Altamont/SJ debate actually reminds of the Tokaido Shinkansen, which if you ever look at a map of it, traces a giant S curve winding its way through every city of note in Southern Japan between Tokyo and Osaka. I wonder what the reaction would have been if a large constituency had insisted in 1958 on a direct route that bypassed Yokohama, Nagoya, and Kyoto, in order to shave a few minutes off of the Tokyo-Osaka running time. Remember that the first Shinkansen ran slower than the Acelas do today, with a top speed of 137 mph and a 3:10 run time, so every minute was crucial.<br /><br />I still suspect that advocates for a direct route would have been laughed out of the room.CComMackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12550551241647726298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-1287107962373718732009-07-21T13:03:36.294-07:002009-07-21T13:03:36.294-07:00What about the San Jose connections to Sacramento ...<i>What about the San Jose connections to Sacramento and even Livermore, Pleasanton, and Stockton???</i><br /><br />Oh, no, no, no... those connections would negatively impact HSR. After all, it was shown by their <a href="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20090403113249_R8b_FINAL_Ridership_Report_2007-26-10_AXK.pdf" rel="nofollow">ridership study</a> that a San Jose branch from an Altamont alignment would be detrimental to total system ridership, compared to not serving San Jose at all.<br /><br />As absurd as that sounds.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-68612331249524230382009-07-21T12:34:26.545-07:002009-07-21T12:34:26.545-07:00the regional commute connections between san jose...the regional commute connections between san jose livermore oakland sacramento stockton and so forth will be handled by upgrades to exisiting agencies. There is no need to implement full hsr in these markets. Travel within this area with upgrades will be more than sufficient. hsr to sac is for the purpose of getting the great sac population a means of getting to southern california not to the bay area.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-61023042454790566242009-07-21T12:06:48.447-07:002009-07-21T12:06:48.447-07:00What about the San Jose connections to Sacramento ...What about the San Jose connections to Sacramento and even Livermore, Pleasanton, and Stockton??? Aren't those important too? I'll bet there is heavier traffic between Sacramento and San Jose than between San Jose and LA. The highly political Pacheco Pass selection decimates these connections and actually hurts San Jose.<br /><br />As for the CV, Fresno can be included in an upgraded rail NETWORK (not a single capital-intensive line that meanders all over the state, Bruce), but the fully-grade-separated mainline HSR should go along the I-5 where it is both cheaper to build, less political (no local NIMBYs), and much more direct between the dominant population hubs of the state. An improved 110mph rail line can go along the SR99 corridor to connect all of these CV cities to the HSR <b>network</b>. Going along the sprawl-zone SR99 corridor with full HSR is going to be damn expensive, slow, and long.Fred Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-76057255742342878342009-07-21T11:09:31.099-07:002009-07-21T11:09:31.099-07:00It is far more important to have the states larges...It is far more important to have the states largest city (LA), third largest (SJ), and fourth largest (SF) on the HSR mainline (via Pacheco) than connecting "Cow Town" (aka Sacramento) to SF via Altamont. Altamont to Sac can happen waaaay later via HSR overlay.<br /><br />Political (yes) AND technical basis for Pacheco Pass Clem! And others who keep hating on SJ!Tony D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03392232221747908883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-41550336949754423272009-07-21T00:17:35.803-07:002009-07-21T00:17:35.803-07:00"No, Spokker, not true."
I didn't a..."No, Spokker, not true."<br /><br />I didn't actually read what that person said.Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-17145500512813404912009-07-21T00:00:10.618-07:002009-07-21T00:00:10.618-07:00south city means south san francisco. not san jos...south city means south san francisco. not san jose. this is not negotiable. <br /><br />and why is everyone rehashing the same arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-47824672253047204462009-07-20T22:00:43.756-07:002009-07-20T22:00:43.756-07:00Rafael,
Sacramento is actually much smaller than S...Rafael,<br />Sacramento is actually much smaller than San Jose, not larger.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-31986313956652785032009-07-20T21:12:57.477-07:002009-07-20T21:12:57.477-07:00@ anon @ 8:52pm -
California will always limp fro...@ anon @ 8:52pm -<br /><br />California will always limp from one tortuous budget to the next as long as there is a 2/3 rule to get one passed. Voters need to get rid of that so one party is in charge and the other in opposition. Only then will there be two distinct but internally consistent sets of fiscal policies to choose from.<br /><br />Don't assume that this would translate into a quasi-permanent Dem majority. The objective should be a genuine choice and, the state constitution currently prevents that with its anachronistic pious hope of forcing consensus.<br /><br />On the substantive point: in a <i>deep</i> recession, the state is supposed to be the buyer of last resort. Measuring its economic behavior with the yardstick used by individual consumers is exactly the wrong thing to do.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-46743040863773210992009-07-20T20:52:56.541-07:002009-07-20T20:52:56.541-07:00Well they just announced a state budget agreement ...Well they just announced a state budget agreement -- sounds like more of the same -- just move around the money shenanigans again.<br /><br /><b><br />That includes $15 billion in cuts, which will come on top of an equal amount of spending cuts enacted in February. The rest of the deficit will be made up by a combination of borrowing from local governments, shifting money from other government accounts and accelerating the collection of certain taxes. </b><br /><br />This is a budget. We should all like to balance our budgets this way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-28435521948924035592009-07-20T19:41:30.147-07:002009-07-20T19:41:30.147-07:00San Jose is the tenth largest city in the US.
So?...<em>San Jose is the tenth largest city in the US</em>.<br /><br />So? Phoenix is the fifth largest, how many intercity trains a day stop in Phoenix? How many are planned? <br />Philadelphia is the the sixth largest and they have regional, Keystone and Acela service in addition to SEPTA as doesTrenton.. Poor Wilmington has to make do with just Acela, regionals and SEPTA. <br /><br />Bridegeport CT, one of the poorest communities in Connecticut has six trains a day to Philadelphia. White Plains, or for that matter any station along the Harlem Line, never had intercity service and never will. The difference is that Bridgeport, Trenton, WIlimgton are on the main line of the Northeast Corridor. <br /><br /><em>Santa Clara county is the wealthiest in the state of California</em>.<br /><br />I'll raise you Nassau County in NY and Somerset or Morris County in NJ. There is no long distance train service in any of those counties. Morris County used to have service to places like Buffalo and Chicago. They may get it back, to Scranton, someday. Scranton is Pennsylvania's third largest metro area. Scranton doesn't have any train service at all. The rest of California sees San Jose as a suburb of San Francisco. They aren't going to see any great need to extend service out to the 'burbs, <br /><br /><em>Both it and its primary city San Jose are politically powerful at the state level</em>.<br /><br />The legislature meets in Sacramento. Are the legislators going to be more inclined to give themselves a fast relaxing ride to their districts in SoCal or are they going to bend over backwards so people in San Jose can shave a few minutes off their trip to LA? How many people in Los Angeles want to go to San Diego versus San Jose? I'm sure the Pan Galactic is going to be impressive but not worth a trip from Burbank. People destined for Palo Alto or Sunnvale, even Mountain View are they going to get off in Redwood City and take Caltrain south or are they going to go to San Jose and backtrack on Caltrain? A spur off the mainline to San Jose is very very important to a few people in San Jose, the rest of the state couldn't care less. <br /><br /><em>South city may not be as well known as the smaller San Francisco outside the state, let alone to foreign tourists</em>.<br /><br />There might be a reason for that. <br /><br /><em>However, your comparison with White Plains seems inappropriate</em>.<br /><br />True. I really shouldn't disparage White Plains like that.Adirondacker12800https://www.blogger.com/profile/17108712932656586797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-47080445108298898662009-07-20T17:42:47.621-07:002009-07-20T17:42:47.621-07:00No, Spokker, not true. On the terms of Federal HSR...No, Spokker, <b><i>not</i></b> true. On the terms of Federal HSR funding to date, California will <b><i>not</i></b> have to come up with "most of the funds", unless you have a bizarre definition where "most" = "less than half"<br /><br />Indeed, not only is the Interstate Highway 80:20 match emerging as the dominant Federal HSR funding formula, but beyond that, the CHSRA is not even <i>permitted</i> to use the state bonding authority to pay for more than half of <i>any individual segment</i>.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-67135908321756930932009-07-20T17:12:51.124-07:002009-07-20T17:12:51.124-07:00"The problem with the HSR is that the State o..."The problem with the HSR is that the State of California will have to come up with most of the funds. And since California has only limited capacity to deficit spend (especially with bonds at junk bond status), the task is not going to be easy."<br /><br />True, but I support a more robust federal funding effort for high speed rail. Let's call it the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Railways.Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-91801133201767398772009-07-20T17:10:19.511-07:002009-07-20T17:10:19.511-07:00According to Krugman, the current stimulus efforts...According to Krugman, the current stimulus efforts are slowing the recession. It would be far worse without it.<br /><br />Just like the depression would have been far worse than without the New Deal.Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-38663019982717688732009-07-20T17:05:41.962-07:002009-07-20T17:05:41.962-07:00Anon: an unemployment rate of 14% in 1940 might ha...Anon: an unemployment rate of 14% in 1940 might have been high by today's standards, but it was 10 points lower than what it was when FDR took office. <br />I don't dismiss that WW2 took care of the depression for good, but I do dismiss the claim that some make that FDR's policies prolonged, and even worsened the depression. <br />The restrictive monetary policies of the FED and the reluctance by the Hoover's administration to increase Gov't spending were the cause of the depression, not FDR.<br />I suggest that you choose a Nickname for yourself instead of using the anonymous one. I suggest that you use Ditto Head, since you seem to talk like your master Rush (you know, the Chairman of the Republican Party)Devil's Advocatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-40869791297167418672009-07-20T16:51:32.941-07:002009-07-20T16:51:32.941-07:00"South City"? Like, srsly?
"Rafa..."South City"? Like, srsly?<br /><br />"Rafael" (and his CHSRA buddies) ought to visit Planet Earth some time.<br /><br />Just to check it out. No permanent commitment implied.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-48596848248217707472009-07-20T16:32:08.538-07:002009-07-20T16:32:08.538-07:00Anonymous said...
""By 1940, the unemplo...Anonymous said...<br />"<i>"By 1940, the unemployment rate was 14.6% if you don't include emergency workers as employed (less than 9% otherwise)."<br /><br />Tells me that the unemployment rate was still too high. And you're telling me based on this that he didn't extend the Depression? All that money, and the unemployment rate was still 14.6% 7 years after?</i>"<br /><br />Of course he extended the Depression. Rather than increasing the modest deficit spending of the First and Second New Deals ... which were effective in reducing unemployment ... Roosevelt gave in to pressure in 1937 to deliver a balanced budget, leading to the Roosevelt Recession.<br /><br />Indeed, <b><i>precisely as those who wrote the talking points you are copying from here are calling to be done today</i></b>.<br /><br />However, with broad unemployment present at 16.8% unadjusted, 16.5% seasonally adjusted, and a far bigger institutional population outside the civilian labor force in prison and the army than in the 1930's, it debatable whether the unemployment rate of 9% in 1940 was worse than today.<br /><br />And further, what brought the economy to full employment was a truly massive deficit spending and direct employment program called "World War II".BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-77721636769008116312009-07-20T16:08:51.844-07:002009-07-20T16:08:51.844-07:00Hey Devils
It's me, Anonymous.
"By 1940...Hey Devils<br /><br />It's me, Anonymous.<br /><br />"By 1940, the unemployment rate was 14.6% if you don't include emergency workers as employed (less than 9% otherwise)."<br /><br />Tells me that the unemployment rate was still too high. And you're telling me based on this that he didn't extend the Depression? All that money, and the unemployment rate was still 14.6% 7 years after? <br /><br />That's still worse than today.<br /><br />Sorry. Your line of reasoning doesn't work. You may be an economist by training, but give me a break.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-70025223506350346442009-07-20T15:59:51.626-07:002009-07-20T15:59:51.626-07:00I agree that excluding Fresno from the route would...I agree that excluding Fresno from the route would be crazy. Fresno County has a very large population and it's located at what is considered the dream distance (200 miles) from two major urban centers (SFBay - LA). In addition flying in/out of FAT is generally more expensive than LA or SFBay airports, therefore competion to the train from air travel would not be threatening. I actually forecast that Fresno will become the most important hub for the HSR, especially once the branches to Sacto and to Las Vegas are built. The shortest distance between SF and LA wouldn't be along the coast or US101 anyway, but rather along I-5. The Fresno detour doesn't increase the distance by much anyway. But I do agree that Mojave-Palmdale does somewhat. But I don't know how physically and politically feasible would be to bypass PMD and tunnel through the Grapevine.Devil's Advocatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-81521250472929130462009-07-20T15:44:28.597-07:002009-07-20T15:44:28.597-07:00Jack said,
"Of course the Palo Alto residents...Jack said,<br />"Of course the Palo Alto residents are horrified by the fact that, those illegals may invade their area."<br /><br />What's with all the Palo Alto hate today. I live two blocks from the tracks, fully support HSR, and my uncle was an illegal about 55 years ago and no I am not horrified by the hard working illegals. I am horrified by the border drug wars as well as the Bay Area drug wars, San Francisco drug wars...Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17296808260419563238noreply@blogger.com