tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post8356243104379358223..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: So What's Happening With The Transportation Bill?Robert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-41079814297197874452009-05-18T12:53:00.000-07:002009-05-18T12:53:00.000-07:00Brandon - you're putting the cart well before the ...Brandon - you're putting the cart well before the horse. Sounds like NASA preparing for fighting intelligent space aliens before we've even managed to put a man on another planet - and not pursuing any missions until those weapons are perfected.<br /><br />Jack up the gas tax now, then if we start to see a huge shift towards non-gas vehicles, we can look at absurdly expensive and complex new infrastructure to find ways to pay for roads. We'd be talking about years, if not decades, to deal with it (and it would seem to me to be worth it to have a few years where non-gas vehicles had a significant financial advantage, in order to allow them to gain critical mass and economies of scale).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-16885942327542223352009-05-18T06:29:00.000-07:002009-05-18T06:29:00.000-07:00"And, what do you do when the fleet of cars used b..."And, what do you do when the fleet of cars used by Americans transition to non-gas alternatives?"<br /><br />How many years away from that are we? 10? 20? 30? If a high gas tax encourages such a massive switch to new non-gas alternatives that it threatens the funding system, that will be such a incredible accomplishment that I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER believing that we can figure out something new - at that time. <br /><br />To me it seems like you're the space program worried about being attacked by aliens - before we've even managed to send a person to another planet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-75344638366181158722009-05-17T13:42:00.000-07:002009-05-17T13:42:00.000-07:00And, what do you do when the fleet of cars used by...<I>And, what do you do when the fleet of cars used by Americans transition to non-gas alternatives?</I>Then you have to spend way less money on Medicaid reimbursements for asthma treatments, river cleanups, energy efficiency schemes, and invasions of oil-rich countries. You have to spend less money on building and maintaining roads for cars and trucks, since some people, especially cost-sensitive shippers, will have switched to rail.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-69178926902350827822009-05-17T10:36:00.000-07:002009-05-17T10:36:00.000-07:00And, what do you do when the fleet of cars used by...And, what do you do when the fleet of cars used by Americans transition to non-gas alternatives?<br /><br />I tell you what you do... you go broke.<br /><br />If you cannot create a level or consistent tax payment for gas, electricity, CNG or other transportation fuel source... the cheapest fuel source become the new emphasis and the transportation piggy bank goes broke.<br /><br />I support a switch to cleaner fuel sources, AFTER we figure out how to fund transportation. And to that, I support a switch to a VMT method. <br /><br />If our electric represntatives choose to emphasize through incentives one particular fuel source over another in order to influence a change to a cleaner fuel source, fantastic... but only after they figure out how to fund transportation.... of which I support VMT.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-29135842500990409262009-05-15T23:22:00.000-07:002009-05-15T23:22:00.000-07:00Brandon: a high gas tax covers all road maintenanc...Brandon: a high gas tax covers all road maintenance and then some more. For instance, in Germany it's the second largest source of inland revenue, after the income tax. Even if behavioral changes halve VMT and double fuel economy, putting the US in line with much of Europe, a $3 gas tax will generate far more revenue than an 18.7-cent gas tax does now.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-14351003981062648582009-05-15T20:48:00.000-07:002009-05-15T20:48:00.000-07:00and $20 in gas .
I'll be a Devils Advocate and a...<EM>and $20 in gas</EM> . <br /><br />I'll be a Devils Advocate and ask this question. Even if gas is free how much does it cost you to drive 450 miles? IRS reimbursement rate for automobile travel is 55 cents a mile. 450 miles at 25 cents a mile is $112.50... it's three bucks worth of your $19.95 oil change every three thousand miles... Driving is seven hours of work. Taking the train is 4 hours of nap. <br /><br /><EM>You can't serve a spread out population with a TRAIN that goes ONLY in a straight line - without very robust mass transit to feed the train system</EM>.<br /><br />You can't serve a spread out population with only one airport - without a very robust mass transit to feed the airport. <br /><br />I'll repeat this from another thread. The good people of Wilmington DE, I'm sure are very proud of their mass transit system. It sucks. Wilmington has Amtrak's 11th most busy station. The major complaint about the Albany/Rennselaer station is that it's mass transit sucks - it's almost non existent. It's Amtrak's 10th busiest station. <br /><br /><EM>A VMT tax generates revenue and hits auto drivers in the pocket book. That influences drivers to drive less. Less driving means fewer emmissions and less congestion</EM>.<br /><br />A gas tax generates revenue and hits auto drivers in the pocketbook too. When gas was four dollars a gallon people drove less. Startlingly less. <br /><br />I drive a Mercury Sable. My husband drives a diesel Volkswagen. I get 25 mpg when I'm using the cruise control on the Thruway. He gets 50+ mpg on the Thruway. If we take my car and the gas tax is a dollar a gallon it costs us 4 cents a mile if we take his car it costs us 2 cents a mile. If there is a VMT tax it doesn't matter which car we take. If anything it pushes us toward using the Sable. My cost per mile is higher than his but it's not double his. <br /><br /><EM>That means gas taxes do not keep pace with roadway use and the need for transportation improvements</EM>.<br /><br />Raise the gas tax. No new infrastructure needed. No new tax collection system. Someone somewhere has to change something on their computer.Adirondackernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-3157702418471523202009-05-15T20:45:00.000-07:002009-05-15T20:45:00.000-07:00^^^So raise the gas tax and continue to do so as V...^^^So raise the gas tax and continue to do so as VMT decreases - no reason to come up with an additional complicated new tax that does the same thing, yet increase bureaucracy significantly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-5011230374264055912009-05-15T18:43:00.000-07:002009-05-15T18:43:00.000-07:00Alon,
I am glad you know that stuff. The more inf...Alon,<br />I am glad you know that stuff. The more informed people contributing... the better.<br /><br />I think you're mistaken in assuming I was speaking to emmissions and air pollution, etc. <br /><br />I was not.<br /><br />I was speaking to funding for transportation. And, while forwarding my opinion about VMT, I was not speaking to other revenue opportunities. <br /><br />But, maybe I should have been more clear concerning VMT. <br /><br />To it... I support it precisely for a reason you spoke to... cars are becoming more fuel effecient. <br /><br />That is a good thing, except with more fuel effecient cars... drivers are purchasing less gas relative to miles driven. That means gas taxes do not keep pace with roadway use and the need for transportation improvements.<br /><br />That is what I spoke to. Go back and re-read what I wrote if you want. But, either way I am glad you're hear and contributing.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-31496522644849540182009-05-15T12:53:00.000-07:002009-05-15T12:53:00.000-07:00Brandon: a gas tax is a better tactic if only beca...Brandon: a gas tax is a better tactic if only because the mechanism for collection doesn't violate people's privacy. ACLU liberals are typically urban and don't care much for big oil or big auto; you want them on your side rather than threatening lawsuits.<br /><br />Even if both approaches were equally politically palpable, a VMT tax would achieve less, because it would only reduce VMT. To successfully reduce emissions, you need to both reduce VMT and increase fuel economy. For example, France has twice the average fuel economy of the US, courtesy of $7/gallon gas, as well as lower car ownership and lower VMT per capita, leading to lower transportation emissions.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-86129240737761078632009-05-15T07:19:00.000-07:002009-05-15T07:19:00.000-07:00Redwood City council is dominated by high growth e...Redwood City council is dominated by high growth enthusiasts. Hartnet also has a seat on the PCJPB (CalTrain). If he has his way, the station is a done deal.<br /><br />Now the citizens are not that nuts and wanted to restrict development in the baylands, but an Initiative failed last fall. Now, Cargill is back proposing to build 8,000 - 12,000 homes there (25, 000 new residents). This is a completely different attitude from Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton. If you lived here, you would understand a bit about the local traffic situation already and why this kind of development is hopeless.<br /><br />In the meantime all of the City's over-reaching development plans have not panned out. The City just lost a CEQA suit in the downtown area and must revisit at great cost their whole "build it big,high and dense" downtown plan.<br /><br />So Redwood City has a lot on it s plate other than HSR, and most likely will see a major change on council shortly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-84945414440727558252009-05-15T06:38:00.000-07:002009-05-15T06:38:00.000-07:00Alon,
I was quite clear in my May 13, 2009 11:48 P...Alon,<br />I was quite clear in my May 13, 2009 11:48 PM post. Re-read it and you'll understand what I am saying.... insufficient funding is the enemy of transit and VMT should be added to the list of taxes/fees imposed on drivers. More taxes/fees = more hardship on drivers = less driving = less congestion = less pollution.<br /><br />Yes, pollution is bad for the environment. Fighting that can and should include a range of tactics. And, the best tactics should be selected for a particular issue.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-70624556634558672832009-05-14T23:54:00.000-07:002009-05-14T23:54:00.000-07:00Rider: if Diridon is so offputting that even RC ba...Rider: if Diridon is so offputting that even RC backs away from the idea of a station, then the project has bigger problems to worry about than what happens on the Peninsula. For now, though, RC explicitly refused to join the PA/MP/Atherton lawsuit on the grounds that "we don't to be part of a group that says, 'we hate high-speed rail'" (rough quote).Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-3664957260933338602009-05-14T20:29:00.000-07:002009-05-14T20:29:00.000-07:00I feel with the current budget in SAC that Federal...I feel with the current budget in SAC that Federal funds are going carry the project the first few years ..at least until we can issue the bondsYesonHSRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-9010576569456475132009-05-14T14:52:00.000-07:002009-05-14T14:52:00.000-07:00rider: sfcityscape is some enthusiast's site; that...rider: sfcityscape is some enthusiast's site; that map is drawn by them and has no connection to CHSRA or anything official. Their guess of where the mid-peninsula station will be is as good as anybody else's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-92197570666314066182009-05-14T13:15:00.000-07:002009-05-14T13:15:00.000-07:00http://sfcityscape.com/maps/graphics/CAHSR.pdf
We...http://sfcityscape.com/maps/graphics/CAHSR.pdf<br /><br />Well, this is interesting - found on line, but not sure where it is in the CHSRA website, or how old, but it shows REDWOOD CITY, and not Palo Alto. Should we assume its decided? <br /><br />Anon - if you take a look at Diridon's own comments on the matter of stations in these two cities - you'll realize the literal station itself on PCJPB land is not the least of the issues. Its what will surround and support the stations - parking, modifications of roads and approaches to the station, its services like rental car agencies around the stations, its transit systems serving the stations, not to mention the dense housing growth expectation that will flow from the station location. Its basically an entire transformation of the infrastructure of the city in that surrounding area. <br /><br />I don't think that's something HSR proponents disagree with - its been clear objective of HSR to be significantly transformational where it resides.<br /><br />For example:<br /><br />"“They have to show interest and enthusiasm in rezoning and infrastructure issues that would be necessary to house a station,” said Diridon."<br /><br />and<br /><br />“When the bond issue passed in November everyone here was real excited,” said Redwood City Mayor Rosanne Foust. “But like they say, the devil is in the details, and when it became clear that this could be a reality, we realized there needed to be a whole lot of community dialogue to discuss how this would affect our city.”...<br /><br />and<br /><br />"Redwood City mayor Rosanne Foust said her community needs more information before it is willing to consider the idea of hosting a stop on the high-speed rail route."<br /><br />http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/High-speed-rail-opposition-picks-up-speed-44031697.htmlridernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-1964541808008194582009-05-14T12:44:00.000-07:002009-05-14T12:44:00.000-07:00@rider: interesting thoughts.
One issue is that R...@rider: interesting thoughts.<br /><br />One issue is that RWC doesn't have an axe to grind re: EIR lawsuit... all HSR routes go through Redwood City. They also have better connectivity to 101.<br /><br />The other thing I'd point out is that there is an enormous amount of unused railroad land around both the Palo Alto and Redwood City stations. Take a look at the maps. The eminent domain takings could be quite minimal.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-72754692470874411982009-05-14T12:43:00.000-07:002009-05-14T12:43:00.000-07:00"In spite of what is being printed here, you get a..."In spite of what is being printed here, you get around in LA via the auto."<br /><br />Come on down here and I'll give you a tour of where you can get to in LA without a car.<br /><br />The Westside of Los Angeles is underserved, but that should be fixed by the time HSR is open.Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-62321235769778391972009-05-14T12:42:00.000-07:002009-05-14T12:42:00.000-07:00rider: The Palo Alto and Redwood City stations are...rider: The Palo Alto and Redwood City stations are owned by the PCJPB (Caltrain). They can presumably build a couple extra platforms on their property with minimal fuss, and with all the money and improvements they're getting out of CHSR they would be happy to do so. If all else failed, local HSR trains could pull over and stop at the Caltrain platforms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-52193728265911592412009-05-14T12:24:00.000-07:002009-05-14T12:24:00.000-07:00Metrolink has significantly (25%) higher ridership...Metrolink has significantly (25%) higher ridership than Caltrain. Ridership on LA Metro Rail is only about 20% lower than ridership on BART, and by the time HSR is completed will likely be higher with extensions to East LA, Santa Monica, LAX, and the downtown light rail connector. Contrary to popular belief, it's perfectly possible to live, work, and get around in Los Angeles without a car, and hundreds of thousands of people already do. With continued investment in transit this will become even more true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-30215603357731244612009-05-14T12:10:00.000-07:002009-05-14T12:10:00.000-07:00Here's the (off topic) question in my mind recentl...Here's the (off topic) question in my mind recently..<br /><br />What if neither Palo Alto OR Redwood City step up to aggressively lobby for a station? It sounds like at best, both cities are saying 'we need more info - we're not convinced of the benefit and we don't have enough info on the impact yet'. At worst, they may eventually both say - 'No thanks, we don't want the station.' But I get the impression that both are in the 'need more info' stage.<br /><br />Palo Alto we might easily say is a significant bit more hostile because of the Amicus brief - so perhaps that puts Redwood city at an eventual advantage, (likely the understatement of the century, since Diridon appears to be the sole decision maker on all matters CHSR - and boy is he pissed off about Palo Alto putting up their fight). But the last I read, Redwood City mayor was also distinctly in the 'we're not convinced, we need more info' stage, at best<br /><br />My impression is that Diridon and company calculated that the cities would fall all over themselves in a bidding war for the station - and therefore would pony up the land, the zoning changes, the infrastructure improvements, to 'win' those stations. It seems from his comments in City Council meeting and from the papers, that he expected a big bidding war with the two cities falling all over themselves to 'win' the station - just like Visalia <br /><br />So, if neither PA or RC want the station..<br /><br />1. Do they just pick a new city that REALLY wants it, that is willing to foot the costs to have it there? If so, wouldn't that violate the extremely black and white statements in the Program EIR about station locations - and therefore the basis for Measure 1A bond funds. Does lack of a station in one of these two cities invalidate voters approval of measure 1A? (ie: grounds for more lawsuits...)<br /><br />For example, Mt. View says they want the station - but that's not one of the options that was put forth in Measure 1A..<br /><br />2. A different station location definitely impacts ridership and revenue projections for the system. A station in Visalia, aint the same as a station in Palo Alto in terms of ridership attraction. When will they come up with the revenue and ridership projections for the station choices? <br /><br />2. Given the black and white expecations of the bond, AND the extreme reliance on Peninsula ridership for revenues, does CHSRA attempt to FORCE the station into one of these two cities? Then the costs for CHSR escalate significantly, since the original premise was that the cities would be ponying up for these stations (and loving every minute of it). How much? Does the CHSRA attempt eminent domain on city owned properties? Like roads and parks? Can it even be workable without high level of local support for the station (since alot of local funding was still expected, not to mention zoning law changes, etc)<br /><br />3. How far can the project level EIR really get without specifying a station choice and all resultant implications (design, eminent domain needed, total costs, who pays, ridership projections for that location, etc). When exactly does that station decision get made? On what basis?ridernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-49341220790270140432009-05-14T11:55:00.000-07:002009-05-14T11:55:00.000-07:00Someone who does not believe enough in their argum...Someone who does not believe enough in their argument to even pick a pseudonym said:<br />"<I>This project has never been about transportation, conservation and congestion relief. It was taken over by politicians, (Diridon and Kopp) to promote their self interests -- development and land values in SF and SJ. No objective view of the project would ever plan a route going from SJ to Gilroy to Merced. No real planner would run the tracks through the hearts of the cities in the valley.</I>Part of the checklist for evaluating any HSR alignment from the Bay to the LA Basin would be travel time from San Jose to LA, which would be a check in favor of the preferred alignment.<br /><br />The argument regarding Sacramento seems to be a red herring ... from the Bay, there is no need for Express HSR to capture a major share of that transport market, and from the LA Basin, the connection of Sacramento will be a Stage 2 extension of the line up through the Central Valley in any event.<br /><br />Regarding the argument that the HSR does not offer direct congestion relief ... neither does investment in inter-metropolitan interstate highways or in airport infrastructure. But the alternative investment in inter-metropolitan highway capacity <I>does</I> generate new local vehicle miles traveled and therefore more local congestion, so avoiding that is an indirect contribution to congestion relief.<br /><br />Regarding the claim that Kopp and Diridon stand to benefit personally ... first, whether there are transportation and energy efficiency benefits of the system is independent of whether there are private beneficiaries and, second, since there are transport and energy independence benefits, it would seem to be a good thing that there are also private beneficiaries, since it makes it more likely that the transportation and energy independence benefits will be delivered.<br /><br />It is certainly the case that conventional pro-sprawl urban planning in California would not place an HSR station in the heart of a Central Valley city that grew up around rail lines, and which therefore has rail alignments running through the heart of the city ... but the argument in favor of all-outer-suburban stations in the Central Valley is contradicted by:<br />"<I>Its all about promoting land values and population growth in certain areas. It would be the biggest enhancer of sprawl conceived.</I>"<br /><br />If its all about promoting land values and population growth in certain areas, then the location of stations in the hearts of CV cities would be promoting land values and population growth in the center of CV cities. And that would be the opposite of sprawl development.<br /><br />It might not turn out to be feasible to get the HSR corridor to run through the middle of Fresno, but if it is, that would be a substantial positive bonus.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-43161969847019950342009-05-14T11:01:00.000-07:002009-05-14T11:01:00.000-07:00Anon: LA has the third highest weighted density of...Anon: LA has the third highest weighted density of US urban areas, after NY and SF (it's ahead of SJ). If you go by standard density instead, then it has the highest density. The mass transit in LA is atrocious by the standards of New York or Paris, but not by these of Lyon or Marseille, or these of Baltimore or New Haven.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-85879633188056254852009-05-14T10:08:00.000-07:002009-05-14T10:08:00.000-07:00This is all so silly. Doesn't anyone here really w...This is all so silly. Doesn't anyone here really want to tell the truth.<br /><br />This project has never been about transportation, conservation and congestion relief. It was taken over by politicians, (Diridon and Kopp) to promote their self interests -- development and land values in SF and SJ. No objective view of the project would ever plan a route going from SJ to Gilroy to Merced. No real planner would run the tracks through the hearts of the cities in the valley.<br /><br />Its all about promoting land values and population growth in certain areas. It would be the biggest enhancer of sprawl conceived. <br /><br />Talk about silly. LA is the sprawl capitol of the world. In spite of what is being printed here, you get around in LA via the auto. At least in SF, you have a few reasonable options. And to compare any of this with NYC, is nonsense.<br /><br />Why go SJ to Gilroy, servicing that small community with outreach to Monterey. You cut off Sacramento, since SAC to Merced to Gilroy to SJC to SF is ridiculous. Sacramento should have been a prime target for this line, yet it will on be served in the 22sd century.<br /><br />The more the public learns, the less this will be accepted. I suspect about $2 billions down the toilet, it will come to a stop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-6230404731818251082009-05-14T07:32:00.000-07:002009-05-14T07:32:00.000-07:00Rider said...
"Alon - you miss the density point c...Rider said...<br />"<I>Alon - you miss the density point completely<br /><br /> "..LA...much of its city limits consist of unpopulated mountains. Excluding these.." (!)<br /><br /> NO, that's the POINT. You don't exclude those Those are REAL. and they are barriers to population density!</I>"<br /><br />They are "barriers to population density" at the County level, not to population density at the neighborhood level. The barriers at the neighborhood level are the legacy of decades of subsidy of sprawl development.<br /><br />"<I>And barriers to viability of mass transit solutions that are affordable and that REACH where people need to go daily.</I>"<br /><br />Here too, its the local population density that is critical in providing the potential ridership for public transport.<br /><br />Mass transit is only one extreme end of the spectrum of public transport services, and rail in particular can be quite effective in knitting together clusters of settlement with high local population density, even if the average regional population density is low.<br /><br />However, its not enough to simply eliminate legal mandates and remove ongoing public subsidies for sprawl development ... in addition to being allowed to fill in the population densities of neighborhoods, there also has to be a demand. Local rail corridors have been a proven means of generating that demand.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-58926800769950781872009-05-14T07:31:00.000-07:002009-05-14T07:31:00.000-07:00^^^I think his point is that a gas tax does EXACTL...^^^I think his point is that a gas tax does EXACTLY THE SAME THING, except that it devalues buying a fuel-efficient car (as compared to an increase in the gas tax). A gas tax is infinitely easier to impliment and track too (and far more difficult to evade).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com