Prop 1
Since Kevin Drum’s decided to become a California High-Speed Rail opponent, perhaps I should say more on this. Or, at a minimum, offer some links since Kevin’s post sort of makes it out that this is just some nutty idea being pushed by blogger train enthusiasts:
- Here’s an endorsement from the LA Times.
- Here’s one from the San Francisco Chronicle.
- Here’s one from the San Jose Mercury News.
- Other endorsements from smaller papers can be found here.
- The Sierra Club is for it too.
On the idea that ridership estimates are unrealistically optimistic, it seems to me that the sad reality of politics is that it would be irresponsible for advocates of any large-scale infrastructure project to do anything other than present unrealistically optimistic measures. For better or for worse, that’s politics. Similarly, I never really understand the sentiment that Large Infrastructure Project A shouldn’t be done because Large Infrastructure Project B might be better. Sometimes you really do get asked “should we do A or should we do B” in which case, of course, if B is better than A you ought to answer “B.” Similarly, sometimes doing A really does prevent you from doing B — like if A and B would both require the same right of way. But that’s not generally the case, and it’s certainly not the case when you compare a statewide HSR system to a series of different local transit projects. In general, large infrastructure projects should be evaluated on their own merits. If California HSR is worth doing, then it really doesn’t matter if there may be other transit projects that are also worth doing. You do the HSR, and then you start organizing for the other projects. Doing worthwhile infrastructure projects ultimately grows your capacity to do future infrastructure projects.
For example, it seems that when we started building the Interstate Highway System the first projects funded were a stretch of I-70 in Kansas and a stretch of I-44 in Missouri. I seriously doubt that those two were the highest-value projects conceivable or, indeed, anywhere close to being the highest-value projects conceivable. But the goal of the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 was, rightly, not to impose some kind of incredibly strict scrutiny to different projects. Rather, the goal was to make money available for a wide variety of worthwhile projects rather than spending decades tied up in arguments about exactly which highway would be the best one.
114 Responses to “Prop 1”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 27th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Here’s why I’m voting against it, as a Californian who would actually like to see some light rail:
1 — The state has such a huge structural deficit and so much debt that I’m voting against anything that brings more bond debt right now.
2 — Given the state’s abysmal record at actually doing anything, I don’t trust that this will be up and running in less than 20 years. If ever.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Also important! Kevin says it will not be competitive against air travel if it is not super fast. But air travel is going…going…drastically curtailed in the coming decades. That argument is not based on any sort of predictive capacity.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I think this discuss helps to show how unworkable it becomes when major spending decisions are decided by direct vote of the people, rather than the legislature. I would love to see a proposition that abolishes the proposition system.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I-70 (and probably I-44, too) were built to serve both transportation purposes and as alternate runways for our military aircraft. There’s an anecdote about Kruschev intentionally being flown cross-country at low altitude mirroring I-70 to show off how he could never hope to destroy our ability to get long-range bombers into the air.
Or something to that effect… I might’ve messed that one up. Point being, there was good reason to start I-70 in the easiest place in the country to build a perfectly straight road.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
TRANES R FAIL.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Matt is getting really sloppy. First he does French from memory (in an article title no less) and completely slaughters it. Now he comments on a post by Kevin Drum without linking to it. What next?
October 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
““I never really understand the sentiment that Large Infrastructure Project A shouldn’t be done because Large Infrastructure Project B might be better.”
Maybe because funds are are scarce resources and thereby we should try to evaluate which expenditures produce the greater benefits? Is that difficult to understand?
October 27th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
In response to Zach, I’d always heard that interstates were required to have straight stretches for military planes to land on them. But according to the Wikipedia article Matt linked to, “Contrary to popular lore, Interstate highways are not designed to serve as airstrips.”
October 27th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
There’s a place for high-speed rail in CA, but not right now. I voted No on all props this year that called for a Bond issue. We need to get the state back on a better financial footing before taking this on.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
On the idea that ridership estimates are unrealistically optimistic, it seems to me that the sad reality of politics is that it would be irresponsible for advocates of any large-scale infrastructure project to do anything other than present unrealistically optimistic measures. For better or for worse, that’s politics.
Shorter Matt: If there’s no net benefit then just pretend one exists.
Um, okay, but why bother lying if there’s not going to be a net benefit from the lie? What’s the point?
I must be missing something here, because if I’m not mistaken Mixner sounds pretty reasonable compared to Matt — at least on this particular project.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Similarly, I never really understand the sentiment that Large Infrastructure Project A shouldn’t be done because Large Infrastructure Project B might be better.
I agree with Matt here, but again, this surely presupposes the cost of the inferior Large Infrastructure Project A produces a net benefit. According to California expert Kevin Drum, it doesn’t.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
@ Edward
Damn you catching my reliance on urban legends. I don’t even remember where I heard that but it certainly makes sense! Regardless, it’s obviously beneficial to national security to be able to move things around the country more easily, and a lot of our Cold War era national security infrastructure was in the middle of the country
October 27th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
On the idea that ridership estimates are unrealistically optimistic, it seems to me that the sad reality of politics is that it would be irresponsible for advocates of any large-scale infrastructure project to do anything other than present unrealistically optimistic measures.
Except, of course, when they’re successful, in which case opponents will claim that it’s because the ridership projections were deliberately lowballed so transit advocates could crow about how they exceeded the projections! I’ve heard this a million times about the light rail line in the Twin Cities. I’m baffled why anti-transit people think proponents would underestimate ridership numbers when they’re trying to secure money for a project.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Matt-
What a complete distortion of what Kevin said. Here. Since you won’t link to it, I will:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/10/california_propositions.html
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/10/more_on_prop_1a.html
The core of his opposition is that CA can’t afford it. That’s dead on.
As for my own opinion, if you’re going to allocate more money to mass transit, why wouldn’t you work on improving the mass transit in the metro areas? You know, where all the driving occurs?
This HSR link would, if all went well, replace/reduce plane flights between LA & SF. There’s already a very nice restrictor on those, called the price of a plane ticket. It even has congestion pricing.
I can’t imagine that is one of the highest priority items in California’s transit system, let alone the one of the highest priority items in the whole state. Fix metro transit first, or improve the schools. Politics is always a matter of priorities, not just whether something is a good idea.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Wow, I read Drum’s post, and Matthew doesn’t actually address anything he said. Drum’s argument boils down to this:
“We. Don’t. Have. Any. Money.”
He says he’s skeptical of the claims of the proponents, but then he says, “But those are side issues that would only be worth discussing if we had the money to support this in the first place. We don’t.”
October 27th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
> Or something to that effect… I might’ve messed
> that one up. Point being, there was good reason
> to start I-70 in the easiest place in the country
> to build a perfectly straight road.
I believe it is generally considered that it was the combination of the US Army’s great cross-country motor trek in 1920 (commanded by a Capt Eisenhower) and the Army’s analysis of the German autobahn system in 1945/46 that provided the military input to the Interstate system. It was high-speed convoy transit that was the Army’s desire.
As for I-70, the Missouri Dept of Highways and the City and County of St. Louis had completed several highways on the autobahn pattern in the 1936-1940 timeframe (probably a result of St. Louis and Missouri connections back to Germany) and were probably as knowledgable as anyone about how to build them.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
For the record, it’s Prop 1A, not Prop 1.
I’m voting for it, because I think (a) it would be a great alternative to the existing ways to travel up and down the state, and (b) it would be a big public jobs project, a 21st-century WPA if you will.
But it’ll cost a lot, so I’m not going to be too down if it fails. What I’d really like to see pass is L.A. County Prop R, which would fund a wide array of local transportation projects (including rail, bus, and highways) across L.A. County. The big problem, though, is that it would require a 2/3 majority to pass.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Given the nonsensical nature of the reasons the LA Times and SF Chronicle offer to justify their endorsements, one can only assume their real motive is narrow-minded economic self-interest. Los Angeles and the Bay Area stand to receive most of the benefits of the project, courtesy of massive subsidies from taxpayers elsewhere in the state. The LA Times even admits the CAHSR cost and ridership projections are absurdly optimistic:
But it’s irrelevant, anyway. Even if the measure passes, they’re never going to raise the $30 billion they need from the feds and the private sector just to build the initial segment. It’ll just be a rerun of the HSR fiascos in Texas and Florida.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Speaking of transit, are you going to write about Metro’s decision to spend police resources random bag searches? Bruce Schneier explained years back why the similar New York policy was useless.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Dmoore,
Thanks for the link.
If Matt has some class he’ll put up in the post.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Re planes landing on interstates, the Department of Transportation says:
Airplanes occasionally land on Interstates when no alternative is available in an emergency, not because the Interstates are designed for that purpose.
And in fact googling ["plane lands" interstate] returns a lot of stories of such landings.
So interstates may not be designed for this purpose, but they do serve it. (Isn’t this how evolution works too?)
And if there actually was a military intent in the design, would the government admit it?
October 27th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I’m in the target demographic (upper middle class, resident of a dense neighborhood in central SF, occasional visitor to LA), and I’m voting no on 1A. SF (and the Bay Area as a whole) would benefit much more from improved regional transit than from a high-speed rail link to LA – transit around here is generally terrible and balkanized, totally insufficient to the task of getting people to their jobs. Which reminds me of the most galling (to me) aspect of the proposed HSR line: its SF terminus doesn’t connect to any of SF’s other rail transit systems (BART, MUNI, Caltrain)! (To be fair, there are plans to extend Caltrain to the Transbay Terminal, but very few people would ride HSR to SF, and then turn around and ride Caltrain south. BART and MUNI are the much more important links.) LA and SF both need to become more transit-friendly cities, with extensive links to outlying areas; then, an HSR link would be a good investment.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
If Matt has some class he’ll put up in the post.
Given that he just endorsed deliberate misrepresentation for political ends, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
SMELI PPL RYD TRANES
October 27th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
It would be irresponsible to tell the truth?
I wrote a longer screed, but I’m sure no one would read it. Instead, I’ll just write this:
If you’re willing to lie about mass transit statistics in order to get a win for your pet projects, you have no integrity, and it’s safe to assume that you’re willing to lie about anything. In the end there is no truth, no accountability. There is only power, and the will to use it.
And yes, I think the Republicans are pretty much in the exact same place.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
“Los Angeles and the Bay Area stand to receive most of the benefits of the project, courtesy of massive subsidies from taxpayers elsewhere in the state.”
Well, the LA area has more than 15 million people, and the Bay Area has around 7 million, so that’s roughly two-thirds of the state’s population that would benefit. That’s pretty good, even if you don’t believe the planned extensions to Sacramento and San Diego will ever be built, and it doesn’t even consider the fact that the thing will run through Fresno and Bakersfield in the Central Valley.
It seems like most people in the state would benefit to me. I don’t think we have a standard that every single person in the state has to benefit from every single government program.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
“Doing worthwhile infrastructure projects ultimately grows your capacity to do future infrastructure projects.”
Awesome. And victory in Iraq points to a win in Afghanistan!
I mean, seriously. One thing holding back infrastructure projects is… cost. The more you spend on one thing… oh forget it.
In the meantime, I am thinking about a large-scale transportation project that would build a one-man maglev from my home directly to my office. No stops in between. Staffed by busty Swedish beauties.
This will clearly offer SOME benefit. So no reason to choose your B over my A. And get this: You will actually be better off. Because your ability to build major infrastructure projects (yours) increases when you build major infrastructure projects (mine). Promise.
I estimate that several hundred million people will ride this system every hour. Seems high, maybe, but come on. It’s irresponsible for advocates of any large-scale infrastructure project to do anything other than present unrealistically optimistic measures.
I look forward to my maglev.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
the LA area has more than 15 million people, and the Bay Area has around 7 million, so that’s roughly two-thirds of the state’s population that would benefit
I think you should count only those people who need (or want) to travel frequently between the two cities. Not their entire populations. By contrast, improved local public transport affects almost everyone.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
The world’s 8th largest economy (or whatever) doesn’t have any money to build a bloody railway – boy, you’re in serious trouble.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Drum’s argument boils down to this:
“We. Don’t. Have. Any. Money.”
I don’t want to put words in Matthew’s mouth (on his fingertips), but I’d imagine that the response would be: “Yes. You. Do.” Raise taxes to pay for the bonds that are issued. It’s not that difficult, and you only need to figure out how to accomplish the tax raise over the next 30? 25? years.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I’m voting for Prop 1A, because a bond measure means funding for a project which cannot be held hostage by a handful of Republican state senators during budget negotiations. Let them return the VLF to its pre-2001 levels if they can’t come up with scratch.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
“military input to the Interstate system.”
Actually, rail lines are a far more efficient way to move troops and equipment crosscountry. I see tanks moved by rail all the time, can’t remember the last time I saw a tank carrier (or a tank!) on an interstate.
“The military input” was because Captain Eisenhower went on to a pretty impressive military career and then dabbled in politics for a while. Ike knew there were “fiscal conservatives” in Congress that were against funding anything that didn’t relate to the military. That’s why the word Defense is in the Interstate bill. He did the same trick with education funding.
For years, federal education bills had foundered on three main points: a long-standing aversion to federal “meddling” in education, which most Americans believed should remain a local concern; sticky questions about how to handle federal aid to parochial schools while maintaining a separation between church and state; and (especially after the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling) equally thorny issues about whether school districts must complete desegregation before receiving federal monies (Clowse, 1981, chap. 4; Rudolph, 2002, chaps. 1, 3). Suddenly Sputnik, combined with DeWitt’s figures, allowed proponents of federal education aid to redefine the debate. The nation needed a new “National Defense Education Act” (NDEA), its backers declared, using the manpower scare to tie education to national security.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_4_73/ai_n27100085/pg_6?tag=artBody;col1
October 27th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
People travel between cities for lots of reasons. There are vacationers (who are unlikely to use rail, giving family paraphernalia). There are many business travelers, who no doubt will if conditions are right, as in the northeast corridor.
But the huge mass of working-class and middle-class people take to the roads to commute to work, for weekend shopping, or to do daily chores. They are both the people we need to address on moral grounds (rather that intracity corporate trips) and practical grounds, as they eat up the roads and, ultimately, if mass transit and housing are made strong, diverse, and affordable, really will reshape the lay of the land, where people live, and how energy is used.
In fact, without the ability to move comfortable in a metro area so that the station for intracity rail doesn’t add another two hours, there’s no point in anything else. Matt’s got a yearning for thinking big that may relate in part to futurism. But if we’re going to address spending priorities for infrastructure, we can’t afford to think as in a graphic novel. I’m not opposed on principle to intracity rail. but I do worry about the proposition’s priorities.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I would love to ride a high-speed train from SF to LA someday, but I don’t live there and it’s not my tax money on the line. If I did live there, I’d vote against it. It’s a lousy idea for a great many reasons, which Drum covers in great detail. The biggest problem is that it’s being pushed as a ballot initiative rather than a standard budgeting decision.
The entire system by which Californians can make budget decisions at the ballot box, and amend their state constitution by simple majority vote, is the worst form of democratic self-government ever invented. That state needs to burn its Constitution and start over from scratch.
Also, what jb said at #25. Dishonest budget projections are the bane of sane government. Only a Grade A Hack would make excuses for that sort of thing.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
“Yes. You. Do.” Raise taxes to pay for the bonds that are issued. It’s not that difficult, and you only need to figure out how to accomplish the tax raise over the next 30? 25? years.
Somebody did just that:
October 27th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
As a longtime bay area resident I understand that most everyone sees the HSR project primarily an express between SF and LA. That’d be really cool and convenient, but not worth anything like the money we’re talking about.
But the project is more important in supporting the predicted population growth in California. About 10 million by 2030. That growth, if it happens, will mostly take place in the central part of the state.
If you are only looking at the HSR project from the perspective of a SF or LA resident, then you are missing at least half of the picture.
This isn’t meant to be for SF or LA – it’s meant to tie together most of the people in California.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Well, the LA area has more than 15 million people, and the Bay Area has around 7 million, so that’s roughly two-thirds of the state’s population that would benefit.
The benefit would be concentrated in the city of LA, which has less than 4 million people.
Actually, though, the train would carry no people at all and would cost ten trillion dollars. I’m telling you this because, per the Matthew Yglesias philosophy of political discourse, it would be irresponsible for opponents of any large-scale infrastructure project to do anything other than present unrealistically pessimistic numbers.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Geez, #22 is the only commenter to comment on the specifics of building HSR between SF and LA. Everyone else is talking in general terms about the state’s economic condidition, or only taling in the most specifics about how it’ll work.
I am a big public transportation supporter (I rely on it everyday) but there are so many issues about how the train will operate in the SF Bay Area that I dont’ think its worth it. Plus, I’d rather have much more improvements to local Bay Area transportation first-BART, Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, etc. I’m sure there’s more than enough Keynesian spending there to help the economy.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Ok, if the train has to stop at every suburb and podunk shithole between SF, SJ and LA, how is it supposed to make it in 2 hours and 30 minutes? Having dedicated high speed rail between SF and LA is a nice idea, but as soon as you start adding stops (and oh boy are smaller towns going to bitch about having to have stops) its gonna slow the trip down drastically.
Oh, and by the way, those yuppie scum towns in the Peninsula are gonna bitch big time about their gentrified downtowns being torn up to make room for HSR. I bet dollars to doughnuts they are gonna litigate (and therefore delay) the hell out of the inevitable eminent domain grab, and threaten to drag this out or get HSR stops. The end result is more delay.
I’m well aware of the issue of peak oil and how air travel is gonna suck in the future, but we shouldn’t be deluding ourselves that 2:30 is a reasonable travel time between SF and LA with a shitload of stops.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Ever hear of “Truth in advertising”, Matt? Because it sure doesn’t look like you believe in it. Kevin made it pretty clear that he is opposed to this initiative for very valid reasons which he elaborates on in his post:
a. We.(the state) Don’t. Have. Any. Money.
b. Initiatives like this have no place being part of a state’s Constitution.
A similar lame brained idea was passed by ballot initiative several years ago in Florida. Like the California proposal, it was also an unfunded mandate. A couple years later, the voters did a revote & defeated it soundly. Just one reason to shoot down this one: It probably is not even possible to build a 220 MPH HSR link from LA to SF due to the terrain.
I have been reading Kevin a lot longer than I’ve been reading you. He is in favor of mass transit ides that make sense. This proposal doesn’t.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
“if the train has to stop at every suburb and podunk shithole between SF, SJ and LA,”
You might try looking at the CA HSR website. There is quite a bit of standard rail upgrade and feeders involved in making this work. Major stops would be limited to the larger valley cities.
The CA HSR project is incredibly large and complicated. And expensive. If it gets approved I expect it take longer to build than expected and to run way over budget. I still think it’d be worth it.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Prop. 1a is a bad idea for the following reasons:
-Cars take people point-to-point once you arrive so are far preferable over station-so-station transport. We already have station-to-station in the form of airplanes, which work fine. If a high-speed rail system were designed to ferry cars then it might get significant use.
-The boarding and de-boarding delays and stops along the way will wipe out much of the promise of going fast. 4 hours HSR vs. 6 hours driving–not worth the added hassle.
-Most of the life of this system will be in the distant future when cars and highways will be very different from now. By 2050 self-driving cars will be able to caravan down Interstate 5 at 110 mph, drafting bumper-to-bumper to save gas. Of course their energy source will be derived from renewables.
-California just cannot afford this. Check out the classrooms in my kids’ schools, check out the county hospitals, to see where the pressing needs are.
-California must not absorb a population of 50 million people. Our current water, pollution, education, health care, crime, energy, traffic problems are already due mainly to overpopulation. That’s got to stop.
So I’m voting no on 1a. Bring on high speed car-ferry rail in the future when we’ve got more pressing problems under control and afford to splurge on sci-fi.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Amanda: “Ok, if the train has to stop at every suburb and podunk shithole between SF, SJ and LA, how is it supposed to make it in 2 hours and 30 minutes?”
Ooh! I can answer this one. By not stopping at every suburb and podunk shithole.
Educate thyself.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
CK: “(To be fair, there are plans to extend Caltrain to the Transbay Terminal, but very few people would ride HSR to SF, and then turn around and ride Caltrain south. BART and MUNI are the much more important links.)”
Seeing as how HSR would use the Caltrain right-of-way, it would share stops at SFO, Redwood City/Palo Alto, and San Jose. In other words, your problem isn’t one.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
A ballot measure to force the State of Florida to construct a high-speed rail corridor linking Miami, Tampa, and, I believe, Jacksonville passed sometime in the 1980s and has been a part of the state constitution ever since.
Needless to say, 20-odd years later no such rail project has been constructed or even begun in the state. So good luck with that, California.
For what its worth, I’m in favor of projects like these, but ballot measures are a lousy way to enact them. The State Legislature, DOT, governor’s office, etc. all need to be behind a project like this for it to actually happen. If you want high speed rail in California, the best way to get it is to lobby your state legislator for it.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
wbswhav: “-The boarding and de-boarding delays and stops along the way will wipe out much of the promise of going fast. 4 hours HSR vs. 6 hours driving–not worth the added hassle.”
The 2.5 hour estimate already takes stops and de-boardings into account.
“Most of the life of this system will be in the distant future when cars and highways will be very different from now. By 2050 self-driving cars will be able to caravan down Interstate 5 at 110 mph, drafting bumper-to-bumper to save gas. Of course their energy source will be derived from renewables.”
Reliance on magic future technology works both ways. By 2050 we could have a magical fleet of robot cars waiting for passengers to arrive at their destinations, making the HSR even more viable than it is now.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Umm…there’s a lot more stops than that on Caltrain. So, you’re willing to bet that all those stops in the Peninsula will just be bypassed, that all those cities that HSR will go through won’t raise a shitstorm about not having stops?
October 27th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Rob Mac: “For what its worth, I’m in favor of projects like these, but ballot measures are a lousy way to enact them. The State Legislature, DOT, governor’s office, etc. all need to be behind a project like this for it to actually happen. If you want high speed rail in California, the best way to get it is to lobby your state legislator for it.”
The State Legislature, DOT, and the Governor’s office is already behind this. Proposition 1A is merely a funding measure for a HSR project that has already completed a lot of planning.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Amanda: “Umm…there’s a lot more stops than that on Caltrain. So, you’re willing to bet that all those stops in the Peninsula will just be bypassed, that all those cities that HSR will go through won’t raise a shitstorm about not having stops?”
There are already a lot of stops which are bypassed by Caltrain’s Baby Bullet service, and no shitstorm ensued. The HSR would service approximately the same number of stops as the Baby Bullet. So, to answer your question, yes I’m willing to bet.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
“-California must not absorb a population of 50 million people. Our current water, pollution, education, health care, crime, energy, traffic problems are already due mainly to overpopulation. That’s got to stop.”
The only way I see us not getting to 45 or 50 million is that we fall into a hole before that. A major environmental or economic hole that we cannot manage. Otherwise it’s going to happen. If Italy can deal with 58 million, I think that we can as well.
Not planning for a likely future won’t stop it from happing – it’ll only make it less manageable and more like a really bad dystopian science fiction novel.
Sadly, not planning for a likely future is as American as apple pie.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
For all you commenters who are skeptical about the HSR, the very least you could do is read through the FAQs on the official California HSR page: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/stimulus.htm.
Most of your stated objections are already addressed in the FAQs, and in some cases in the actual planning documents. Please inform yourselves before you vote, whether it’s for or against.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
While I always enjoy being talked down to like a child, I actually did vote for it, but I still have some major issues with it, and I don’t think there’s a problem with hashing them out, given how long this project will take to just get started.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Amanda, all I’m asking is that people inform themselves before they vote. Your specific objection that the HSR will have to stop at every “podunk shithole” between SF and LA is completely unfounded. And while I’m glad you voted for Prop 1A, that bit of rhetoric needs to be firmly corrected, for the sake of everyone who hasn’t yet voted.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
patm: “Not planning for a likely future won’t stop it from happing – it’ll only make it less manageable and more like a really bad dystopian science fiction novel.”
Well put.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
“Our current water, pollution, education, health care, crime, energy, traffic problems are already due mainly to overpopulation.”
Some of these things aren’t “problems” at all. California’s air is much cleaner than it was 30 years ago, when the population was way lower. Crime is much lower now. The schools suck, but they’ve sucked at a pretty constant level for 20 years or so as the population has grown. Everytime a bunch of brown people move into the state people say the end is near, but we’re doing OK so far.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Jer, I’m not really sure that the best way to answer your questions about Prop 1A is to go to the pro-Prop 1A website. Yes, according to the 1A campaign, once the initiative is passed, I’ll be teleported from LA to SF, and dogs will crap chocolate ice cream, but I’d like a more detached source.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Everyone commenting that you don’t like this measure because you don’t like “governing by initiative” or whatever, please stop. You are embarrassing yourselves with your ignorance. Prop 1A was passed by the state legislature. It went through the normal legislative process, but because it is a bond measure, it must be approved by the voters (by law).
You can argue the merits, but as to process this was done entirely the right way.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Ignore Jer’s nonsense. Directing you to the California High Speed Rail Authority website for “education” about the “benefits” of HSR is the equivalent of directing you to the Tobacco Institute for “education” about the “benefits” of smoking.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
too many steves: “Jer, I’m not really sure that the best way to answer your questions about Prop 1A is to go to the pro-Prop 1A website. … I’d like a more detached source.”
Of course, but that’s why it’s the least people could do.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Mixner would doubtlessly send you to the libertarian Reason Foundation’s study of the California HSR plan. While I disagree with its findings, it at least has the benefit of being informed: http://www.reason.org/ps370/ps370findings.shtml
October 27th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
How enlightening- a bunch more people who don’t know anything about the project, and are too lazy to visit the project website and learn, but at least y’all are not destitute- you have opinions!
Transit systems all over the country have been exceeding ridership projections. There is simply no basis for assuming that projections are skewed too high.
Nor, in fact, did KDrum offer a bunch of good reasons to oppose it. He offered his own opinions, with nothing at all to back them up.
But hey, it’s not like we need to plan for the future or anything, right? Look at Alferd E Neuman, hasn’t aged a bit in 50 years, and his motto is “What? Me Worry?” Surely everything will work out just fine if we keep doing what we’ve been doing. It’s been working so well.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
2,5 hours is faster than the French VLT. And sorry, if you don´t have a state of art commuter rail system that unrealistic.
Acela proved to be quite competitive in dense areas. Maybe it´s a better model.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Mixner: “Ignore Jer’s nonsense.”
This is why no one takes you seriously. You’re seriously advising people not to investigate the very proposition they will be be voting on. I didn’t think you could get more intellectually dishonest.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
TGV, no VLT. Duh. VLT is Light rail in Portuguese!
October 27th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Directing you to the California High Speed Rail Authority website for “education” about the “benefits” of HSR is the equivalent of directing you to the Tobacco Institute for “education” about the “benefits” of smoking.
Or the Institute of Mixner’s Rectum for anything Mixner proposes?
October 27th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
CK: “(To be fair, there are plans to extend Caltrain to the Transbay Terminal, but very few people would ride HSR to SF, and then turn around and ride Caltrain south. BART and MUNI are the much more important links.)”
Jer: “Seeing as how HSR would use the Caltrain right-of-way, it would share stops at SFO, Redwood City/Palo Alto, and San Jose. In other words, your problem isn’t one.”
As I said, I’m much more concerned about the poor integration with MUNI light rail (which is really SF’s only efficient mode of public transit – our buses are generally very slow, particularly downtown near the proposed HSR depot) and with BART (which is what would make this project useful to people living in the East Bay). (And just to preempt the inevitable counterargument: people in the East Bay will fly from Oakland to LA, if the alternative is a lengthy BART trip to SFO to catch the HSR, or a trip to Montgomery or Embarcadero BART followed by a walk to the depot.)
I stand by my earlier assertion that SF’s local transit infrastructure is insufficient to support HSR as proposed. You say that my “problem isn’t one”, but then you go on to only talk about Caltrain, which is commuter rail, not local transit. (Which is to say, Caltrain is designed to quickly cover large distances, like HSR; it’s not intended to really get you directly to your final destination.) As far as I can tell, this project does a poor job of connecting the (poor) public transit systems of LA and SF. On the SF side, if people can’t efficiently get to the depot (which most SF and East Bay residents can’t), they’ll simply drive/cab to SFO or OAK, just like they do now. Better local connections first; then HSR, if it’s still relevant.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
CK, I was talking only specifically about your HSR to Caltrain scenario. As for MUNI, I was under the impression that the Transbay Terminal would include all the Market St. MUNI lines, as well as BART.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Ah, I’ve found what made me believe that: there is a planned subterranian walkway from the Terminal to Mission St MUNI/BART stations. So, I don’t disagree with your objection; the HSR would be better if it connected directly with MUNI.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
“Ok, if the train has to stop at every suburb and podunk shithole between SF, SJ and LA, how is it supposed to make it in 2 hours and 30 minutes?”
Oh, you silly American train virgins, just because there is a station doesn’t mean that the train has to stop there. With a little clever logistics and appropriate infrastructure, the 10.03 train can leave LA direct to SF with no stops, and the 10.45 can stop at every station.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
“Doing worthwhile infrastructure projects ultimately grows your capacity to do future infrastructure projects.”
Yes, but creating gigantic and costly failures just undermines your case when you try to argue that the next project will be properly managed and will prove worthwhile.
I would love a high speed rail link to SF (live in LA), but it still takes me 1-2 hours to get to the train station by public transit from the west side of the city. It’s actually much faster to get to LAX, using the deicated shuttle.
simeon @ 69;
this ain’t europe buddy. theyll buy one train going each way to test the economic viability of the service. when the limited schedule kills it, they’ll curl up in a ball and say people don’t seem to want this great service.
Plus, experience with Amtrak in California and the public transit system of LA leads me to believe this thing will be run by idiots without the slightest conception of the needs of users.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Simeon: “Oh, you silly American train virgins, just because there is a station doesn’t mean that the train has to stop there. With a little clever logistics and appropriate infrastructure, the 10.03 train can leave LA direct to SF with no stops, and the 10.45 can stop at every station.”
You’re absolutely right, and the Implementation Plan specifies a 2020 goal of 20 daily express trains (making stops only in SF, SJ, and LA), 21 semi-express trains (making 3 stops between SF and LA), 20 suburban-express (stopping in all suburban centers), and 21 local daily trains. The 2:30 trip figure comes from the express line, so obviously the less-than-express lines will take longer.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I once had a professor tell me that the state of California is “ungovernable”.
This is a good example of why that axiom is true.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Confidential to Too Many Steves @ #55:
I agree, California can handle many of its challenges. But water is probably the biggest. Check out Aquafornia for coverage. It’s getting pretty hairy, especially if we’re entering a dry period due to climate change.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
bryan: “I would love a high speed rail link to SF (live in LA), but it still takes me 1-2 hours to get to the train station by public transit from the west side of the city. It’s actually much faster to get to LAX, using the deicated shuttle.”
I’m in no way saying whether your travel time is representative, but the planners did attempt to account for the time required to get to the HSR station: accounting for travel to-and-from the HSR station, waiting around for your train to board, etc, the total trip time (door to door) was estimated to be (on average) 3:30 by HSR, and 3:26 by air. (The planners describe their methodologies here.)
October 27th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Addendum: the Level of Service Assumptions and Forecast alternatives study is here, and it goes into greater detail about the assumptions made in the previous link.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Some of the anti-Prop1A writers either are, or claim to be, supporters of transit.
But Prop1A is not about transit, its about whether to spend $50b on a high speed rail line, or to spend $100b+ on the highway and airport infrastructure needed to provide the same transport capacity.
Indeed, a HSR station provides an effective anchor for local transit … for those who are supporters of transit, as opposed to the posers, voting for Prop1A is the most effective means they have available this year to support transit in California’s future.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
For the sake of the free flow of ideas, the non-broken link to the site Delicious Pundit mentioned is: http://aquafornia.com/
October 28th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Bravo, Matt!
I was among the hoards busting Drum for his boneheaded opposition to Prop 1. No, the proposition may not be perfect; yes, the speed and ridership numbers may be overly optimistic; and yes, thanks to the Jarvis initiative, California is chronically broke.
Kevin Drum lives in some ‘burb in Orange County.
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area.
This might be the crux of the disagreement. The Bay Area is much more like the Northeast corridor in that a high percentage of public transit ridership is made up of middle-to-upper-middle class people who are perfectly capable of owning and operating an automobile, but for convenience and/or thriftiness choose public transit over sitting in splendid isolation while idling along in creeping traffic and paying steep fees to stash the car when they get there. (Parking in downtown San Francisco costs upwards of $25 a day — make that $6,000+ a year, which goes a long ways towards holidays in Tuscany, remodeling the kitchen, or whatever.)
Orange county and the rest of SoCal is so car-centric, folks there are virtually incapable of imagining any other way of living their lives. Kevin Drum is culturally challenged when it comes to comprehending massive infrastructure expenditures that threaten to disrupt his daily routines.
As you correctly point out, HSR in no way precludes either incremental or major advances in local transit systems. I would take that one step further and suggest that it would drive (so to speak) upgrades across the board to better feed HSR hubs.
The other issue prisoners of the car culture have a hard time wrapping their brains around is that California should have started building a high speed rail system at least two decades ago. Putting it off can only serve to accelerate the climate change that is already all too evident to even the most casual observer here in the Golden State.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:44 am
I remember that piece of I-70 in Kansas. It ended, rather abruptly, in a wheatfield at the Oklahoma border. I think there was a picture of that on the cover of LIFE.
The road had no speed limit. My father goosed our ‘52 Dodge up to 100 mph, the biggest thrill of my first eight years.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:46 am
I don’t know if anyone’s still reading this thread, but up above Jer and CK were discussing this project’s links to MUNI in San Francisco. It could be better, I suppose, but the Transbay Terminal is only a (long) block from Market St, so that subterranean walkway should work for most people. Also, the proposed (and I think already funded) Central Subway will connect the Caltrain station at 4th and King to the Powell St station.
Somebody up above also wondered whether someone in the East Bay would use this train. I believe so, since I believe that one way or another eventually BART to San Jose will be built, and presumably the systems would be integrated in some fashion (leaving aside that they do have far-future plans for an Oakland station).
October 28th, 2008 at 3:39 am
A bit more on the “military planes on Interstate Highway” bit of urban folklore…
It is a false piece of folklore, as Wikipedia mentions. Runways are very different surfaces than roadways–specifically, an Interstate couldn’t safely support the weight of a big bomber or cargo aircraft. Those two lanes aren’t really wide enough, either. It could support the weight of a fighter, but those don’t need the super-long runways that the Interstates are supposed by the folklore to be, anyway.
Someone, somewhere first got this mistaken idea and it will probably live as folklore for as long as the Interstates exist.
About planes landing on Interstates from time-to-time: I’ve heard that pilots are told not to land on roads, especially highways, even though they are tempting in an emergency. After having witnessed a small plane emergency landing on I-40 when I was a child, I understand why. It missed hitting a large truck by a couple of feet. And, once down, at night, it was a danger itself to vehicles which couldn’t see it. My father and another stopped motorist first rescued the family that was on the plane, then struggled to turn it such that it was mostly not laying across the roadway.
There are also usually powerlines along roadways. They are not actually safe places to land planes, even in an emergency. A freshly plowed field is much better.
Finally, on-topic, I have to agree that the HSR’s own website is hardly a trustworthy source for information. I’m not sure what a trustworthy source might be; but one shouldn’t expect a rebuttal by the most biased defensive sourse to satisfy the project’s critics. Surely there’s a more neutral authority the project’s defenders can appeal to?
October 28th, 2008 at 8:39 am
I stopped reading Kevin Drum quite awhile back when he was on the “Amtrak must support itself” bullshit bandwagon. He rates rail travel for some reason. SUPERTRAIN!
October 28th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Considering that the project website is a government agency, and that the work they’ve done is all a matter of public record, I would like to see some proof before I regard it as untrustworthy. If we don’t believe that dinosaurs shared the earth with humans, and that Jesus is coming again, at some point we have to use environmental impact studies and population and cost projections to make decisions.
You will note that the rogue critics are not claiming that the long and thorough process that led this measure to the ballot is a fraud. The rogue critics are simply claiming that in their gut, they know better. KDrum, for example, offers no proof at all for his opinions. Many of the commenters in both threads obviously have no idea what the plans are, or how or why they were developed.
Fortunately, in America we have a party for people who think the government can never be trusted and prefer to rely on their gut feelings instead of learning anything about a subject. It’s called the Republican Party.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I have a question for those more in the know about rail:
There are several proposed HSR routes around the country (SF to LA, SEA to Portland). Will these systems eventually be able to link up to one another or will we end up with systems that use different technology which makes them incompatible with one another? For this reason is it better to put off more local projects until there’s a national plan?
October 28th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Doesn’t the HSR terminus in SF depend on the new Transbay Terminal being built, the current one being rather…well, not so good? In fact, a lot of this seems to depend on improving MUNI in SF in order to get people to HSR.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
There are basically two kinds of HSR projects- the baloney you read about in Popular Mechanics, and the actual projects moving forward.
In Washington State, for example, the state DOT has been upgrading passenger rail between Vancouver BC and Portland Oregon for over a decade. The DOT works with the railroads, Amtrak, and Canadian and Oregonian agencies. Higher-speed Talgo tilt-train technology is in use to improve speeds on existing leased freight rails. At the present time some trackage is being upgraded to allow speeds over 92 mph if the feds would allow it.
IOW, no, it would not be better to wait for some grand national scheme. Local corridors should be identified and upgraded as much as possible by local agencies. This develops the skills and resources to deal with complex problems like railroads.
The sad fact is that for 50 years nobody has had to meet a standard in our national transportation policy. If highways didn’t solve the problem, we just assumed more highways would. If 40,000 people died each year on the highways, we called it an accident instead of regarding it as a failure and a problem that had to be addressed.
So, when it comes to a serious business like running a railroad, we’re starting from a long ways behind.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
MosBen: “There are several proposed HSR routes around the country (SF to LA, SEA to Portland). Will these systems eventually be able to link up to one another or will we end up with systems that use different technology which makes them incompatible with one another?”
The biggest incompatibility would be if, like BART, the HSR was constructed with a non-standard gauge. (”Gauge”, the width between the two track rails and therefore between train wheels, is usually 4ft 8.5in, but BART uses 5ft 6in gauge. Because of this different gauge, BART can’t buy off-the-shelf equipment, making it more expensive to run.) But, since the HSR must share tracks with Caltrain at certain points, the HSR will use the standard track gauge.
The other possible incompatibility would be the electricity delivery system. The HSR will be powered via overhead high-voltage wires, much like MUNI, and as opposed to BART’s “third rail”. This is a relatively standard design, but to be completely compatible, other systems wanting to link up to the SF-Sac-LA HSR would have to adopt it.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Amanda: “Doesn’t the HSR terminus in SF depend on the new Transbay Terminal being built, the current one being rather…well, not so good?”
Luckily enough, the new Transbay Terminal is scheduled to be complete in 2019, and includes in its design a terminus for the HSR project.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
dbeach: ” It could be better, I suppose, but the Transbay Terminal is only a (long) block from Market St, so that subterranean walkway should work for most people. Also, the proposed (and I think already funded) Central Subway will connect the Caltrain station at 4th and King to the Powell St station.”
Indeed, the Central Subway will be cool, if for no other reason than the visual of a giant underground boring machine erupting from the middle of a playground in Chinatown.
One problem with the underground walkway is that there’s no BART station near the proposed route. A theoretical HSR passenger headed to Oakland would have to catch a MUNI train for one stop, and transfer to BART at the Embarcadero station.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Jer Says: October 28th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
There’s no risk that an HSR line would adopt a third rail design … the capital savings compared to the old DC systems is the reason that today’s HSR lines run on overhead wires in the range of 25kV-50kV AC. And since there is no long haul electrified rail lines in the US since the Milwaukee Road shut down its electric line, whatever voltage the California HSR settles on will basically make the voltage standard for long haul electric rail west of the Mississippi.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
MosBen Says: October 28th, 2008 at 11:23 am
First, not all local projects will be the same class of HSR. Many will be the 110mph “semi-HSR” using tilt-train technology that can operate in existing rail rights of way … for some, especially connecting very large cities that are more than three hours apart by tilt-train, the projects will be 220mph “full-HSR” systems, like the system that Prop 1A is helping to fund.
Any long-haul electrified rail system will use overhead catenaries, and there is no big hurdle in bridging systems with different catenary heights, since it only requires variable height pantographs for the actual rolling stock that runs through both systems. So the main issue of standardization is the supply voltage.
But the question of national supply voltages was settled back during the 1970’s Oil Price shock, and I have no information to suggest that the CHSRA is bucking the existing standard. In any event, there is presently no long haul electric rail west of the Mississippi, so whatever the CHSRA does will establish the de facto standard.
Second, the local corridors are the bulk of the transport task. The reason for running a long route is not to connect, for instance, Chicago to Los Angeles, but rather to make a wide variety of shorter trips available along that long route … for example, a majority of the passenger-miles on the Amtrak multi-day long haul routes are for trips of eight hours or less.
And so the most natural path to an integrated system is to start with corridors that can support themselves, and then proceed to extend those corridors, until the one corridor joins the other. And, indeed, simply electrifying the existing rail corridors would allow HSR carriages to travel on existing corridor at ordinary Express speeds of 70mph, so its quite possible to provide services with extended routes before the HSR corridor itself has been extended … as France still does with its TGV’s, very successfully.
October 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
teknozen Says: October 28th, 2008 at 12:28 am
This is as may be, but there is an airport in Orange County where people get out of their cars and walk onto an alternate form of transport. And if my hazy image of California geography is correct, Anaheim, the terminus of the first stage of the HSR project, is in Orange County.
SO don’t overstate the amount of mental stretch required for Messr. Drum to imagine getting out of the car somewhere in Orange County and walking into some other mode of transport … for the capture of current air travel mode share, only a very small mental leap is required, that is surely within the capability of Messr. Drum.
October 28th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Considering that the project website is a government agency, and that the work they’ve done is all a matter of public record, I would like to see some proof before I regard it as untrustworthy.
Is this funny to anyone else? Or is it just libertarian humor?
October 28th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
too many steves: “Is this funny to anyone else? Or is it just libertarian humor?”
I don’t get it; it seems more like libertarian baiting to me.
October 28th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“One problem with the underground walkway is that there’s no BART station near the proposed route. A theoretical HSR passenger headed to Oakland would have to catch a MUNI train for one stop, and transfer to BART at the Embarcadero station.”
Won’t the Central Subway connect to Market at the Powell Street Station, which serves MUNI and BART? That way its only a very short MUNI ride to transfer to BART (which will also help Caltrain commuters immensely).
October 28th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I live in Southern LA with a mom in Sonoma County. An integrated rail system from Norwalk to SFO would be awesome — I’d be willing to travel 7 hours. I could get up and walk around, or stretch out on a comfortable seat. I wouldn’t have the baggage restrictions that I do when I fly.
It may be “pie-in-the-sky” but it’s a tasty pie.
October 28th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Well, ‘too many steves’, if you think the facts and figures used by the state agency are wrong, why don’t you just tell us all about it? After all, that would be a substantial fraud if it was all faked, and you might even become an important and famous journalist if you could break the story.
Or maybe you have some new idea about how we can do things without studying the facts and having hearings and getting plans approved by the legislature. If you think you have some alternate road to a revealed truth, by all means, let us know- maybe you could save us a bunch of money.
And certainly, if you have some solid proof the state agency is wrong, the critics of Prop 1A would like to hear it, because they themselves don’t seem to have any. Let them in on your big secret and you can blow this thing out of the water!
But if you don’t actually have any facts to back up your whining, admit that you’re just another face in the “government is the problem” crowd. And excuse the rest of us if we’ve had a bellyful of that stuff over the past 8 years.
October 28th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
catowner, I don’t have any evidence that the state is giving out the wrong figures, I just think it’s funny that you would say we should trust the information because it comes from the government. If we’ve learned anything from the last 8 years …
October 28th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Amanda: “Won’t the Central Subway connect to Market at the Powell Street Station, which serves MUNI and BART? That way its only a very short MUNI ride to transfer to BART (which will also help Caltrain commuters immensely).”
It will, but it’s unlikely that’ll help the HSR: the Central Subway line will be about 3 long blocks from the Transbay Terminal. I guess if the HSR stops at 4th and King, then the Central Subway will help, but I haven’t seen anything which says there will be a HSR stop at 4th and King. Also, Caltrain will be extended to the Transbay Terminal on the same timeframe as the HSR, so Caltrain commuters will be much closer to downtown anyway.
October 28th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
too many steves, it may not be much, but the HSR plan went through a few iterations of peer review. The findings of the second peer review panel can be found here. The peer review panel included the following members:
• Ayalew Adamu (California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Headquarters);
• Jean-Pierre Arduin (independent consultant);
• Chris Brittle (independent consultant representing MTC);
• Billy Charlton (San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA));
• Kostas Goulias (University of California at Santa Barbara);
• Keith Killough (Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG));
• Frank Koppelman (Northwestern University);
• Chausie Chu (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(Metro)); and
• Kazem Oryani (URS Corporation).
One of those members may be a more credible and non-interested source.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:12 am
BruceMcF, thanks. You make my point perfectly.
SoCal car addicts are utterly incapable of conceiving taking a bus, trolly, light rail or whatever, to an HSR hub — and this part is truly paradigm shattering — walking more than 25 yards from a parking place. What if Drum had a meeting in S.F. and he didn’t have to drive at all to get there?
For both you and Drum, my wish is that you attempt to expand your horizons beyond whatever Private Idahos you respectively inhabit. Imagine, if you can, a California where you didn’t need to drag a ton or more of fossell-fuel slurping machinery every frakking place you go. Shockingly enough, it might actually be delightfully liberating. Yes, however, one understands how inapproachably alien these concepts are to those whose ego and auto are inextricably intermeshed.
Then again, Drum also enjoys kvetching about both his as well as his mother’s PCs, strenuously refusing to smell the coffee and get a Mac.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Better local connections first; then HSR, if it’s still relevant.
It will be relevant…
This line of thinking? Egocentric and shortsighted. This project should be advanced with a yes vote. The central valley is an underserved place, it’s also where I reside. Current travel times from the stockton area down to fresno? 2 hours+ traffic. Travel times to LA area? 6 hours+ traffic. travel times to san diego? 8-9 hours+ traffic. travel times to the SF bay area? 1 hour and a half to 2 hours+ traffic…
Travel from the valley to other areas in the state? Costly, time consuming, inefficient, higher energy consumption, etc.
If you have not dealt with it personally, you might not understand the point of view of someone who lives in the central valley. Putting it bluntly, it’s a pain in the ass to travel to this state’s major metropolitan areas.
we need a more efficient way to get around in this state.
This project would do that. Top world countries have utilized HSR as a first rate option, so what are we waiting for california???
yes on 1A
March 1st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:33 am
levitraIt is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:17 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Incredible site!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:56 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 am
viagra
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:51 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
How are you. You can tell a lot about a fellow’s character by his way of eating jellybeans.
I am from Ireland and bad know English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Cheap international business class tickets online to usa, europe, asia, india, middle east and africa.”
Thanks for the help 8), Lila.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:59 am
mE0in6 tvkqgxthcoau, [url=http://bmgciyoazrqh.com/]bmgciyoazrqh[/url], [link=http://agjyktmgbyzv.com/]agjyktmgbyzv[/link], http://tkbiudotjidw.com/