California's Costly Propositions (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco: middle school, college, utilities)

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by sav858

I didn't pretend it was a normal fare, I acknowledged that is was for travel during a holiday period so don't act like I didn't already state that.

I said you can get one-way for $70 and you acted like that was not true because you paid $250. The vast majority of the time a round trip from SD to SF will cost you around $140. Furthermore, fares on a high speed rail will go up during peak travel periods too.

And fare increases is a trend that is going to go away. Oil has declined massively over the last couple of months and we are now going into a deflationary period. The increase in fare was caused by the rapid increase in the cost of oil this year up until July where it peaked.

Originally Posted by sav858

Just b/c it makes sense in your head and seems logical doesn't mean that is how it works in the real world. Do you really think you somehow have figured out the solution to congestion and you're the first person to propose that "simple logic"??

Again, what I'm saying is simple logic (or...rather mathematics). Many expansion projects don't work because of latent demand, not the magical materialization of cars or whatever else you think causes expansions not to work. If you account for the latent demand (which is hard to measure btw) then a highway expansion will likely work.

The problem with expansions is not that they don't work, is that more often than that you can't expand the highways enough to supply all demand.

Originally Posted by sav858

This has come up many times and has been disproved everytime. It just doesn't work that way. Yes I see how it seems so logical but there are a wide array of factors that cause it not to be a reality.

If you think disagreeing with me is disproving me then...I don't know what to say. Tell me why if you expanded a highway above the number of lanes required by all current and latent demand it would not reduce congestion. It would, the problem is the trouble in calculating latent demand.

You seem to not understand why many expansion projects didn't work. They didn't work not because expanding highways can't reduce congestion, they didn't work because the planners did correctly calculate demand.

When there is only 1 or 2 routes (as is the case through the central valley) its much easier to estimate the demand. In cities its very hard because there are so many variables and so many different routes people can take.

Originally Posted by sav858

To increase capacity on a rail line you can add cars to a train set and/or run more trains. You don't have to spend years and billions of dollars adding new track, you just have to add more trains. Rail is a lot better situated to handle increased or decreased demand.

Are you serious with these comments? You can only increase capacity on a rail if its currently operating under capacity. This is like me saying that highways deal with congestion better because if you add a lane to a highway with no congestion there is no congestion. Given the high travel speed of the trains you can't put too many of them on the tracks at once. Once that number is reached you can't add another train.

Also, do you think high speed trains are cheap? Each train is added represents a very significant cost both in terms of purchase and maintenance.

Originally Posted by sav858

If you live in SoCal and have not seen an interchange like this then you're not looking hard enough. The 5/805 interchange is one in SD along with another in OC. And CA isn't the only place with these mega interchanges either.

I see the interchanges all the time and I repeat they cause congestion because they are bottlenecks, they are points where lanes start to contract.
This is much different than congestion on an open highway.

Originally Posted by sav858

Yeah diverted to SR-99, an already congested highway. People traveling 300+ miles between NorCal and SoCal aren't going to cancel a trip b/c of $5 or $10 in tolls.

Firstly, now do you know this? Secondly, by no means is all the traffic on these highways from travel from Southern to Northern California. It will not reduce all traffic, that of course isn't the point! The point is to get people to start to pay for what they use, when you do so it reduces consumption.

Originally Posted by sav858

Yet you sure as hell use them. I guess public education is a "half baked notion" as well.

I said "I'm not interested in half baked notions of public good that fly against economics", not that I'm against anything done for the public good. Programs need to be informed by economics but many public programs are not, in fact they distort free markets. Public education causes distortions of the free market and hence why there are so many problems with it in this country.
Why are all teachers paid the same? Why are all teachers given raises in the same fashion?

Incidentally, public education funding is not spread out. The wealthy neighborhoods get for more funding. I would be more than happy to see the public education system go away, it doesn't work.

Originally Posted by sav858

But do you honestly think this would ever happen?

Its unlikely to happen, instead as oil starts to raise (after the recession) it will act in the same fashion. The difference will be the government will have no control over it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to support costly "alternatives" that aren't going to solve a thing.

Originally Posted by sav858

It's not meant to "solve" anything.

I couldn't agree more! But if doesn't solve anything why are we doing it? Just to provide an alternative? Huh?

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by sav858

Also what do you really think that forcing everyone to drive small cars is going to be viable anytime in the near future? People aren't all going to start driving tiny little small cars anytime soon. Yes there is a trend towards smaller more fuel efficient cars, but nothing that will transform and revolutionize highway travel to the point of there being no congestion.

People will be forced into small cars. The time to increase the fuel tax was years ago. And.....the whole point of "revolutions" is that they introduce ideas/solutions that were not known before. So saying nothing will revolutionize such and such is a bit odd.

The US needs to use the infrastructure it already has. The environmental nuts and other Euro-wannabes want to make this country like Europe, but its not going to happen without massive funding. European countries are more dense than the US and are the way they are due to hundreds of years of different policies/culture. Implementing ideas around our vast road and highway system is both the most cost effective and practical solution.

Originally Posted by sav858

And what "ridiculous transportation schemes" are you speaking of? Just curious on some examples? Our interstate highway system, the bridges up in the Bay Area, expanded airports, the successful rail systems in several of our cities??

Every 2-3 years these is a new idea. The high speed rail isn't a new idea, its come up before. Another recent example is the California energy crisis which was caused largely by dumb ideas.

Originally Posted by sav858

I have yet to see a natural gas, electric, or solar plane. HSR is ALTERNTIVE technology that we have now and that is already in use around thw world. So why not use an alterntive that already exists and is in use currently?

There are alternative jet fuels that have and are being worked with. They aren't used because they are still more expensive. Alternative engines and fuels could be on the market within a few years, how long would it take to build the high speed rail? Its no more an "alternative that already exists" as alternative jet fuels.

Originally Posted by sav858

We also don't pay the full cost for using a freeway. Also what makes you so sure that you will never use it? Didn't you say you use Amtrak to get around SoCal sometimes? If this is built then I would guess than Amtrak Service between LA and SD would be discontinued since most, if not all, of those riders will switch to HSR.

I may use the high speed rail if it existed, but so what? I'm perfectly happy using the current choice, the will both work in the same fashion for me.

And yes we can't pay the full cost for using a freeway, hence why I'm talking about tolls.

Originally Posted by sav858

This whole "its just a fancy toy" argument is the same crap opponents of urban rail expansions say. Is the NYC subway, DC Metro, BART, etc .. "just a fancy toy" people use?? Are Europeans and the Japanese keeping their countries moving with "toys"? How can you even call this a "toy" when it is already in practical use around the world and has been for over 20+ years?

Because for California it is just a fancy toy. How well it worked in Europe and Japan does little how well it will work here. Transportation wise pretty much everything is different between the US and these countries. Y


But really, even if the people vote yes its going to fail. Other states have tried this and had to pull back the plans. But now its not even up the people or the government the money for this project will never materialize. There will be one way to fund this project: with taxes. How many people do you think will vote yes if their taxes have to increase? But that is the trick with these stupid propositions. They sell bonds and try pretend as if its not going to cost the tax payers anything as if the money magically materializes out of thin air.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

And fare increases is a trend that is going to go away. Oil has declined massively over the last couple of months and we are now going into a deflationary period. The increase in fare was caused by the rapid increase in the cost of oil this year up until July where it peaked.

Yet airlines have not rolled back any of the extra fees and surcharges they implemented recently, at least not from what I have read. So those do not seem to be going away.

Also later on you state something that basically contradicts this:

Its unlikely to happen, instead as oil starts to raise (after the recession) it will act in the same fashion. The difference will be the government will have no control over it.

Again, what I'm saying is simple logic (or...rather mathematics).

I know what you're saying and it's logical and makes sense, I am not arguing against that. But the fact of the matter is that in the REAL WORLD it doesn't ever pan out that way and never will. And a big reason it never will is because of:

The problem with expansions is not that they don't work, is that more often than that you can't expand the highways enough to supply all demand.

And that will always be true in any region that has population growth, especially in a place like CA. You cannot keep expanding freeways because they will always fill up and therefor jam up. Population growth makes what you say impossible but population growth is a whole another subject, basically you want to stop growth then stop creating jobs.

American cities have reached a point where many are realizing they can't just rely on freeways to move people around. You even yourself advocated for urban rail and all of the arguments you make against HSR you can also make against urban rail.

Light and Heavy rail systems don't "solve" congestion either so why did you advocate for investing money into expanding them? It makes no sense and is a huge double standard. The same basic concept of light/heavy rail providing an ALTERNATIVE to driving, and in this case flying as well, can be applied to HSR.

Places like NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, etc.. all have horrible traffic BUT they have ALTERNATIVES to traffic. Something that the majority of people in SoCal and most of our large urban areas do not have.

If you think disagreeing with me is disproving me then...I don't know what to say. Tell me why if you expanded a highway above the number of lanes required by all current and latent demand it would not reduce congestion. It would, the problem is the trouble in calculating latent demand.

You seem to not understand why many expansion projects didn't work. They didn't work not because expanding highways can't reduce congestion, they didn't work because the planners did correctly calculate demand

The problem is freeways will NEVER be able to meet the demand as long as we keep growing. And you will NEVER be able to expand freeways enough to meet that current and latent demand b/c it will be too cost prohibitive. If you want to meet the current and latent demand of the 405 freeways then you would have to at the very least DOUBLE-DECK the entire thing. Just think about how much money that would cost as opposed to a rail line that would provide an ALTERNATIVE to congestion on the 405. It's actually more expensive to do what you are suggesting that to actually build a rail line.

It is more expensive to expand the highways and airports to meet all of the future demand than it is to build this HSR system. So why do you keep insisting on it when it's actually more $$ to do that than the HSR?

Are you serious with these comments? You can only increase capacity on a rail if its currently operating under capacity. This is like me saying that highways deal with congestion better because if you add a lane to a highway with no congestion there is no congestion. Given the high travel speed of the trains you can't put too many of them on the tracks at once. Once that number is reached you can't add another train.

Once again, showing your lack of transportation knowledge.
Do you really think every rail line out there is operating at the maximum capacity? Do you notice how during rush hour there are more trains running closer together than there are during the middle of the day and at night?? During rush hour trains may arrive every 3-5 minutes instead of 15 minutes. If you run trains closer together then you can move more people per hour. Or if you simply make a 6 car train an 8 car train that increases how many people you can move. Do you get it know? To move more people on a rail system you can run trains closer together, meaning more often, or make the train set longer, if you can.

You can't make cars travel closer together and force more people into each car to add capacity to a freeway but you can with rail.

Also, do you think high speed trains are cheap? Each train is added represents a very significant cost both in terms of purchase and maintenance.

You honestly think the cost of rail cars is equivalent to adding a freeway lane AND maintaining it??

I see the interchanges all the time and I repeat they cause congestion because they are bottlenecks, they are points where lanes start to contract. This is much different than congestion on an open highway.

And to get rid of those bottlenecks completely you would have to expand the freeway that many lanes. Do you really think it's cost effective and even possible to make the freeway 20+ lanes? Once again you are coming back to a point where you cannot expand freeways that wide.

Firstly, now do you know this? Secondly, by no means is all the traffic on these highways from travel from Southern to Northern California.

When you look at what it costs total to travel between NorCal and SoCal driving, $5 to $10 is not that much and I just don't think it would deter people IMO.

Incidentally, public education funding is not spread out. The wealthy neighborhoods get for more funding.

So you think it should be even funding for all districts then?

I would be more than happy to see the public education system go away, it doesn't work.

wow, and so people who can't afford private school just go w/o education? It's not perfect and could be improved upon, but it does work. Do you think we'd be better off w/o it honestly? If so, please show me an example where that does does work.

I couldn't agree more! But if doesn't solve anything why are we doing it? Just to provide an alternative? Huh?

Yes, b/c if you don't do anything then congestion will get worse, costs to travel rise, and it will reduce economic activity in the state. Building more airports and expanding highways will cost more $$ than rail and NOT solve OR provide an alternative for traveling. There are will be just too many people in Ca for just highways and airports to handle, not to mention the pollution associated with that type of travel compared to HSR. It will also generate a lot more economic development around stations and help spur more rail construction in our cities.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

People will be forced into small cars. The time to increase the fuel tax was years ago.

They will be in smaller cars like maybe a Camry instead of an SUV or a Corolla or something but I genuinely doubt Americans wills start driving 2 person smart cars.

The US needs to use the infrastructure it already has. The environmental nuts and other Euro-wannabes want to make this country like Europe, but its not going to happen without massive funding. European countries are more dense than the US and are the way they are due to hundreds of years of different policies/culture. Implementing ideas around our vast road and highway system is both the most cost effective and practical solution.

We're talking about CA here, not the entire nation. CA could easily be compared to a European country with HSR. Look at France, similar sized economy and about the same population density. TGV service in France began in 1981, when there was about 54 million people. CA in 2030 is expected to have 50 million people and 60 million by 2050. It makes a lot of sense to invest in this for that future population growth. Just imagine how much you would have to expand highways and airports to meet that growth.

Every 2-3 years these is a new idea. The high speed rail isn't a new idea, its come up before. Another recent example is the California energy crisis which was caused largely by dumb ideas.

You mean deregulation? What about the energy crisis was a "dumb idea" and what does it have to due with large infrastructure project like this?

You still didn't provide one TRANSPORTATION example or really any at all.

Was CA's Aqueduct system a bad idea? The Bridges that cross the Bay Area?

There are alternative jet fuels that have and are being worked with. They aren't used because they are still more expensive. Alternative engines and fuels could be on the market within a few years, how long would it take to build the high speed rail? Its no more an "alternative that already exists" as alternative jet fuels.

"could" being the operative word there. You still don't have a working, cost feasible alternative to regular crude oil being used for cars and planes. I of course hope it comes along rather than sooner. But it's a safer bet to use something that is already proven as well.

I may use the high speed rail if it existed, but so what? I'm perfectly happy using the current choice, the will both work in the same fashion for me.

"If you build it they will come". If you build this and build it right people will use it. It's teh same thing will good urban rail systems, people use it if it is available and built right. People who vote for this are people who want to use and that is A LOT of people.

Because for California it is just a fancy toy. How well it worked in Europe and Japan does little how well it will work here. Transportation wise pretty much everything is different between the US and these countries.

Yeah that is because we are BEHIND them on transportation issues. They still have cars, highways, and airports like we do except they also have better rail systems within the cities and between the cities. CA will only grow and become more populated and denser like Europe, so why is it bad to build similar transportation infrastructure?

No offense but you really seem to be stuck in the past. Highways and airports took plenty care of our needs for a long while, but this state has grown beyond those two means of transportation meeting our future needs. We're too congested already and will only become denser and more crowded, HSR makes a lot more sense to move people around than highway expansions or airports. You're taking a "do nothing" approach basically and that in no way helps the state....

[chuck22b]

I've been reading both you guy's posts, and both sides have fair arguments.

In regard to highway expansion, I don't think Humanoid is talking about highway expansion of city-limit freeways (ie, 405, 5, etc.), but expansion of highways in the city outskirts/interstate which should be a whole lot cheaper to build (although more miles) and is what the HSR would address.

Furthermore, we should focus on what is the "purpose" of the HSR. I believe that it would address:

1) An alternative means of interstate travel comparable to Air
2) Reduce traffic of city highways by reducing transient cross-city, passerby travel (ie those that drive through the city to get someplace else... ie, San Fran to San Diego going through LA) and those driving to the Airports.
3) Reduce Air travel interstate
4) Reduce traffic on interstate lines

Economically:
We'd have to analyze which is cheaper. Building X number of lanes on to the interstate freeways and expanding airports (San Fran, LAX, and San Diego)
OR
building the HSR system and running it


You can take a look at the Stats from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics:
RITA | BTS | Transtats

Sav858 has some validity that airlines prices have increased and with mergers and higher energy costs... I don't see fare prices going down anytime soon.

RITA | Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)

According to Transtats - Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
Airplane travel between LAX to San Fran Ranks 10th in travel of all domestic flights carrying 2.24 million passengers in the last year. LAX to Chicago was the 4th most traveled with 2.52 million. I'm sure you can find the highway stats of interstate travel as well. Just from the domestic flight standpoint... it is quite obvious that there is a Lot of interstate travel (millions of people aren't just traveling up and down the state to go see mom and pa).

IF the HSR can reduce any of this amount... it would significantly increase the capacity of LAX and reduce airplane energy and potentially fare costs.

According to an Old Analysis by the LA Business Journal, an expansion of LAX would cost between 9-12 billion dollars and this was an estimate in 1996 so it's probably more now.
LAX bursting at the seams; but airlines may balk at high expansion cost. | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com (http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-california-metro-areas/592689-1.html - broken link)

Lastly, we have to think about efficiency. Is it more efficient to have more cars driving the interstate? More planes flying interstate? Or is a train more efficient? IMO, with the same number of people, a train would be more cost effective in both energy use and cost per capita. The good thing about California is that essentially there are only a handful of major cities. A HSR would in this sense be very similar to what is available in Europe, Japan, and even China.

In regards to adding lanes to improve city-limit traffic... it does make logical sense... but practically speaking it would cost way more than this project.. AND it really isn't what this project is addressing. Furthermore, I would have to put more weight on sav858's word that adding lanes wouldn't reduce congestion since he is a traffic engineer and that is his profession and expertise. I'd agree that it makes sense logically... but I'm no expert.

Proposition 1B voted for back in 2006 was directed toward congestion, safety, and security issues of California's highway and bridges system. The current Proposition 1A is more directed toward interstate travel.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_1B_(2006 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_1B_%282006 - broken link))

Furthermore, $950 million of the funds will be directed toward inner-city rail to link with the HSR system. So, in a sense it will address some inner city rail issues that others have wanted.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph..._1A_%282008%29

So, overall even with an "economic" view point. Building a HSR is more effective in addressing interstate travel than solely relying on existing systems of Air, highway, and amtrak.

1) Reduce Air Fare Cost dependency
2) Free up Airport capacity
3) California landscape supports a handful of major cities and stops
4) Airport and Highway expansions would be far more expensive than a HSR
5) Proposition 1B passed in 2006 already addresses congestion, safety, and security

-chuck22b

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by sav858

Also later on you state something that basically contradicts this:

No contradiction. Over the recession is over and demand starts to increase again the price of oil will start to raise again. It will keep raising until alternatives start to reduce demand. This will be in a few years, the high speed rail isn't going to help.

Originally Posted by sav858

American cities have reached a point where many are realizing they can't just rely on freeways to move people around. You even yourself advocated for urban rail and all of the arguments you make against HSR you can also make against urban rail.

No they can't. A light rail system has the possibility of reducing congestion in cities, that is it actually solves something. But, really I wouldn't vote for a light rail system either. At least in Southern California adding buses is a far more cost effective way to increase public transportation. If the demand gets high enough they can start to create some bus only lanes.

Originally Posted by sav858

Places like NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, etc.. all have horrible traffic BUT they have ALTERNATIVES to traffic. Something that the majority of people in SoCal and most of our large urban areas do not have.

If there were true alternatives to congestion why would there be congestion? Are the people driving just stupid? Of course, rails etc aren't always alternatives in terms of travel time. For example, with the high speed rail. If I wanted to take it to Fresno I'm unlikely to save any time and its going to be more inconvenient. So why take it? Mostly people will take it because they don't have a car.

Originally Posted by sav858

The problem is freeways will NEVER be able to meet the demand as long as we keep growing.

Unless you think demand is infinite then this is false. You could build enough freeways to meet demand, the doesn't mean its cost effective to do so etc.

Originally Posted by sav858

Once again, showing your lack of transportation knowledge.
Do you really think every rail line out there is operating at the maximum capacity?

You didn't refute anything I said. I never claimed that all rail systems are operating at maximum capacity. Rather I said rail systems aren't able to deal with increased demand better than freeways, in fact they are worse because the number of trains you can run is very rigid. They will max out just like a freeway will... Your claim was absurd and I'm the one that "lacks knowledge".

Originally Posted by sav858

You can't make cars travel closer together and force more people into each car to add capacity to a freeway but you can with rail.

Half of this is plainly false. What do you think the point of having car pool lanes is? Oh yeah...to get more people into each car. You don't "force" it you create insensitives so people will do it.

Originally Posted by sav858

When you look at what it costs total to travel between NorCal and SoCal driving, $5 to $10 is not that much and I just don't think it would deter people IMO.

I'll say it again, not all traffic on the highways in question are from traffic going between Southern and Northern California. I don't know why you keep saying this. Should we also pretend like everyone going on the 405 is going from SD to SF? So, its unlikely to reduce much of the demand you are talking about, but this is by no means the only demand. It will instead reduce demand for more local travel. The kid in Bakersfield may not go see a show up in Fresno etc.

Originally Posted by sav858

wow, and so people who can't afford private school just go w/o education?

No, give every kid a voucher worth a certain amount.

Originally Posted by sav858

They will be in smaller cars like maybe a Camry instead of an SUV or a Corolla or something but I genuinely doubt Americans wills start driving 2 person smart cars.

Americans will soon be forced to drive smaller cars, the only thing that will change that is certain alternative fuels. Every other day I seem to see a Smart fortwo, so at least some Americans are perfectly willing to drive 2 person cars.

Originally Posted by sav858

Look at France, similar sized economy and about the same population density.

France doesn't have the same geography and it also has twice the population. The population in the cities is far more dense too. Have you been there?

Originally Posted by sav858

You still don't have a working, cost feasible alternative to regular crude oil being used for cars and planes. I of course hope it comes along rather than sooner. But it's a safer bet to use something that is already proven as well.

Perhaps you should read about alternative fuel automobiles? Electric and natural gas automobiles already exist, they don't cost much more than standard cars either. Honda has a fuel cell vehicle it is selling in limited numbers:

Honda Worldwide | Fuel Cell

The alternatives exist and are already being used. The high speed rail is not going to reduce are dependence on fossil fuels (most energy is created with them). Furthermore, the energy problem is going to need to be fixed before the rail is even working.

Originally Posted by sav858

No offense but you really seem to be stuck in the past.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you! High speed rails aren't the future they are the past. They've been around for 50 years.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

No contradiction. Over the recession is over and demand starts to increase again the price of oil will start to raise again. It will keep raising until alternatives start to reduce demand. This will be in a few years, the high speed rail isn't going to help.

Amazing how sure you are of something that isn't even practical use yet, unlike HSR.

No they can't. A light rail system has the possibility of reducing congestion in cities, that is it actually solves something. But, really I wouldn't vote for a light rail system either. At least in Southern California adding buses is a far more cost effective way to increase public transportation. If the demand gets high enough they can start to create some bus only lanes.

How can LR reduce congestion but a HSR line can't? One of the biggest arguments against LR is that is doesn't reduce congestion. Any congestion light rail reduces is minimal at best, heavy rail is far better suited to really reduce congestion since travel times can rival driving or even be faster. Find me a city that has managed to "solve" congestion with light rail. You won't be able to b/c there isn't one yet you will keep on insisting it just b/c it makes sense in your head.

Buses do not generally attract the ridership that rail does and it is not as fast either. And if you do have a successful bus line, like the Orange Line in LA, it is very difficult to expand capacity b/c it has higher operating costs due to more drivers being needed to move the same amount of people as opposed to a single train conductor with rail. A bu can hold a 100 people max as opposed to a train that can hold 1,000. Buses on the Orange Line are already crowded and that line should have been a heavy rail line instead of bus in the first place.

If there were true alternatives to congestion why would there be congestion? Are the people driving just stupid? Of course, rails etc aren't always alternatives in terms of travel time. For example, with the high speed rail. If I wanted to take it to Fresno I'm unlikely to save any time and its going to be more inconvenient. So why take it? Mostly people will take it because they don't have a car.

Do you understand the difference between an alternative and a solution? There is still congestion b/c rail is NOT a solution to congestion but an alternative. An alternative that is successful and proven and keeps major cities moving. Some people choose not take transit and some people cannot take transit, that is why people still drive. Building rail doesn't eliminate the need for cars, as it doesn't in Europe as well, but it gives one an alternative to using one. Also some people just prefer NOT to drive at all, even if the train takes slightly longer. Rail is there to supplement automobiles and freeways, NOT replace them. It's about having options instead of relying almost entirely on the automobile and freeways to move people around.

Unless you think demand is infinite then this is false. You could build enough freeways to meet demand, the doesn't mean its cost effective to do so etc.

exactly, and that is why you can't keep expanding freeways forever. As long as the population grows so will demand and I don't see CA's population to stop growing anytime soon. All the projections show the state growing for a long time and by a lot of people too.

You didn't refute anything I said. I never claimed that all rail systems are operating at maximum capacity. Rather I said rail systems aren't able to deal with increased demand better than freeways, in fact they are worse because the number of trains you can run is very rigid. They will max out just like a freeway will... Your claim was absurd and I'm the one that "lacks knowledge".

Yes they are better to deal with increased demand than freeways. The number of trains you can move is NOT that rigid. You can add cars to train sets and run them closer together, which better technology is allowing for trains running even closer together. If you're running trains 10 minutes apart you can double capacity by running them 5 minutes apart, how is that "rigid"? Take a look at how long it takes to drive to a certain place during rush hour compared to non-rush hour. Then take a look at how long a train takes travel to a certain place during rush hour vs non rush hour. If you are driving it takes longer during rush hour than during off peak times. If you are taking the train during rush hour vs off peak times it takes the SAME amount of time.

I grew up 25 miles from SF, a BART ride was always 35 minutes whether it was 730am, 12pm, 4pm, or 11pm. It was 35 minutes whether 50 people, 100 people, or 500 people were on the train. Unlike if you drove it could take as little as 25-30 minutes and as much as 60-90 minutes. Rail lines don't slow down during rush hour, freeways do. Travel times on trains are constant unlike on freeways.

During special events like concerts or sports events, transit agencies add rail cars and increase the number trains running to accommodate increased usage. Can you add freeway lanes like that during special events to handle the increased demand??

So how are freeways better able to deal with demand when they can't even maintain travel times during rush hour vs non rush hour? If you are going to make a claim like that then at least explain it somewhat like I did. PLEASE ANSWER this question b/c I am curious to see how you try to spin this one.

No offense but you really do lack some transportation knowledge. I am a transportation planner, you are not so it is quite amazing how you feel you know more than me on this subject. Do you even do anything related to urban or transportation planning at all?

I'll say it again, not all traffic on the highways in question are from traffic going between Southern and Northern California. I don't know why you keep saying this. Should we also pretend like everyone going on the 405 is going from SD to SF? So, its unlikely to reduce much of the demand you are talking about, but this is by no means the only demand. It will instead reduce demand for more local travel. The kid in Bakersfield may not go see a show up in Fresno etc.

And how much local travel do you think is occurring on I-5 considering how far away it is from cities and towns? There is NOTHING along I-5, most of the population is centered around 99. I see many of the same cars for the entire 300+ miles between the Bay Area and LA. I-5 is mainly there to move people from NorCal to SoCal and not within the valley b/c it is located far from anything. Bakersfield is over 20 miles AWAY from I-5. Fresno is over 50 miles AWAY from I-5. There is very little local travel on I-5 b/c there is little popualation along it. Have you ever even driven up I-5?

France doesn't have the same geography and it also has twice the population. The population in the cities is far more dense too. Have you been there?

What is do different about it's geography that doesn't make HSR viable here?? It doesn't have twice the population either. And when the HSR was first built it had about the same people as CA will have at the time HSR is suppose to be operating here if its built. CA will actually be more dense than France soon.

Perhaps you should read about alternative fuel automobiles? Electric and natural gas automobiles already exist, they don't cost much more than standard cars either. Honda has a fuel cell vehicle it is selling in limited numbers:

Honda Worldwide | Fuel Cell

The alternatives exist and are already being used. The high speed rail is not going to reduce are dependence on fossil fuels (most energy is created with them). Furthermore, the energy problem is going to need to be fixed before the rail is even working.

That is great, but that doesn't adress the problem of too many cars on the road. When you have people using a form of transportation that uses electricity instead of gasoline or jet fuel,how does that not reduce the use of fossil fuels?


Also I'm going to ask this again since I am really curious to know more about how this relates to the energy crisis and what transportation projects were failures, like you claimed:

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Every 2-3 years these is a new idea. The high speed rail isn't a new idea, its come up before. Another recent example is the California energy crisis which was caused largely by dumb ideas.

You mean deregulation? What about the energy crisis was a "dumb idea" and what does it have to due with large infrastructure project like this? If anything the energy crises shows what happens when you don't have enough infrastructure to support a population, such as power plants.

You still didn't provide one TRANSPORTATION example or really any at all.

Was CA's Aqueduct system a bad idea? The Bridges that cross the Bay Area?

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by sav858

How can LR reduce congestion but a HSR line can't? One of the biggest arguments against LR is that is doesn't reduce congestion.

Light rail can reduce congestion in cities, HSR isn't going to do that. The point of building high speed rail system isn't really to reduce congestion. Furthermore, I stated that buses would be a better way to increase public transportation.

A fully developed rail system isn't cheaper than a bus system. Comparing long distance travel with bus vs rail doesn't make much sense. You don't use buses for long distance travel rather local travel. Building a good subway/light rail system in California cities will cost more than increasing bus routes. Rails will only become cheaper when demand for a particular route becomes high enough. All three of the major cities have some sort of subway/rail system already for these high traffic routes.

Originally Posted by sav858

Do you understand the difference between an alternative and a solution? There is still congestion b/c rail is NOT a solution to congestion but an alternative.

Do you understand economics? Rail is not a magic alternative. If you build a rail system a new equilibrium will form. If the rail really is that much better than traveling by car then it will max out its capacity and space/tickets will become limited. At some put the speed of the rail will be offset by the time you have to wait around for an open train etc. At some people will start to drive again.

You idea seems to based on the idea that a rail has infinite capacity and will be an "alternative" to congestion. It won't be such an alternative as within months to years of its creation an equilibrium will form where any new riders are likely to be better off driving or at least the rail will offer no advantage. Money isn't going to stay on the table for long.

Originally Posted by sav858

Yes they are better to deal with increased demand than freeways. The number of trains you can move is NOT that rigid. You can add cars to train sets and run them closer together, which better technology is allowing for trains running even closer together. If you're running trains 10 minutes apart you can double capacity by running them 5 minutes apart, how is that "rigid"?

Firstly, you can't just randomly add more cars to a high speed rail and have all things be equal. Adding cars will reduce speeds. The trains will road at whatever capacity is most efficient. Secondly, you can only run the trains so close. You seem to be pretending again that the capacity is infinite and it is not. Rail is more rigid do to the safety considerations, they will limit capacity to below what is deemed safe. After that limit is reached not a single addition person can ride. Where as traffic on a road is allowed to build up and find its own equilibrium.

Originally Posted by sav858

If you are taking the train during rush hour vs off peak times it takes the SAME amount of time.

Here is where it shows that you have little experience with public transit. In every city where I have traveled and lived there is a difference between using public transit (From buses in Los Angeles, to subways in NYC, to the Metro in Paris...) during peak hours and non-peak hours. This is again where your thinking is premised on the idea that a rail has infinite capacity. It doesn't.

Although the actual trip is the same regardless of the time you ride the amount of time spent in the act of traveling is not. Congestion in public transit systems is caused by wait times, not usually by the time taken to travel in the transportation device. So what if the trip takes the same about of time if you have to wait 30 minutes to even get on a rail, subway etc.

Originally Posted by sav858

PLEASE ANSWER this question b/c I am curious to see how you try to spin this one.

I did above, your own line of reasoning has nothing to do with reality. Public transit systems have their own form of congestion, its just not directly analogous.

Originally Posted by sav858

No offense but you really do lack some transportation knowledge. I am a transportation planner, you are not so it is quite amazing how you feel you know more than me on this subject. Do you even do anything related to urban or transportation planning at all?

I don't care what you do where you went to school or anything of that nature. I care about what you are typing, and in particular in this post. You've stated some pretty ridiculous things. Your claims about peak vs non-peak travel on public transit systems is just....weird and far from reality. You obviously have limited experience actually riding on public transit (Perhaps that should be a prereq for people doing transportation planning...). That is really the only thing I can think of that would make you say something so inaccurate...

Originally Posted by sav858

I-5 is mainly there to move people from NorCal to SoCal and not within the valley b/c it is located far from anything.

The route is most important for the transportation of goods, not people. The only time I've used the I-5 is when I'm going up to the Sacramento area. If you are driving from LA to SF the 101 is a much nicer drive and only a bit longer. I don't know anybody that takes the I-5 to get to the bay area. The drive is horribly boring.

And I really don't know the exact nature of the traffic on the I-5. I would bet that a relatively small part of it is people going from LA/SD to SF though.

Originally Posted by sav858

CA will actually be more dense than France soon.

The state has a whole may be just as dense as France as a whole one day, but so what? French cities are much more dense than cities in California, in fact Paris is one of the most dense cities in the developed world. France is more like say Pennsylvania where there are 2 major areas (Pittsburgh, Philly) and a few smaller but decent sized areas (Erie, Harrisburg) and then rural in the middle.

California on the other hand spreads out its population more. Southern California is basically lightly dense development from San Diego up to Ventura.

Originally Posted by sav858

When you have people using a form of transportation that uses electricity instead of gasoline or jet fuel,how does that not reduce the use of fossil fuels?

I'll let you in on a secret. Most electricity is created with fossil fuels. So, a high speed rail is currently just depended on fossil fuels at the moment as anything else. Of course, crude oil isn't used much for electricity production rather other fossil fuels.

[Humanoid]

Anyhow, I just want to add once again. All this discuss is largely pointless. The state is not going to have the money for it anytime soon.

My primary reason for rejecting it is fiscal. There simply is no money for this project. My secondary reason for rejecting is that I think the money if it was there in the first place could be put to better use in other ways. I'm not trying to claim that the high speed rail would be completely pointless.

The only way a big ticket transportation item is going to get funded is by the federal government who can pull money out of their rear end. Without such federal aid the state is going to have to focus on smaller projects that can be funded out of tax revenue.

[mommabear2]

I think 1A is the worst proposition of them all. It's idealistic but not based in reality. This state has the biggest budget deficit in the nation (last I heard it was around 15 billion) w/ New York being a distant second. In fact, we've had a budget deficit for the past 10 years. Why, oh, why, do people insist on spending money we don't have - approve bonds for pet projects? I've lived in California most of my life and I can make a reasonable assumption that Californians can live a mile from the beach and never go there and there can be a hst that we'd use once in a while but that's it. The hst will be nothing but a feel good drain on our resources as there won't be the riders to sustain it's on going operating cost - Amtrak anyone? or how about megabus... (granted, the ride is longer but the tickets were cheap)...

Megabus may end bargain bus service from Los Angeles - Travel - LATimes.com

I'll be voting with a big fat NO on 1A (and most of the bond measures). Californians need to come to grips with the fact that we can't have everything we dream about... it takes money, lots of it. Why throw billions of dollars at a train when we have other forms of mass transportation (that's not even utilized to capacity - Megabus cancelled their L.A./San Fran trips btw, read the article). We have other, very serious problems that need to be dealt with FIRST... schools, unemployment, etc. If we are going to spend money we don't have... then we need to be spending it on jobs and the education of California's future - our schools systems crank out some of the lowest test scores in the nation.... but let's go build a high speed train. Yeah, great idea... no wonder people call California the land of fruits and nuts... the priorities are seriously screwed up.