Politics and Transit Talk

[klamedia]

edit

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by slipperydog

If we absolutely have to spend that kind of money, let's at least use it on interstate highways, where a billion dollars will go a lot further.

I wish that you and your ilk would get your ideologies to agree at least 50% of the time. Take for instance Henry Huntington's massive light rail system that spread out all across Los Angeles County and even into San Bernadino. Was that private or public? Private. What really killed the Red car? We can go on about some conspiracy between the oil and rubber companies but even if that were true it was only a result of the construction of the Interstate Highway System and upgraded road work for automobiles that was funded by whom? Yep, the gubment. So the government with the building of the nationwide highway system actually put private rail agencies like the Red Car out of business all around the country. So with your continued advocacy of more highway building whose side are you on again?

[slipperydog]

Originally Posted by klamedia

So with your continued advocacy of more highway building whose side are you on again?

I'm on the side of responsible government spending. You and Pelosi apparently are not. And as for 'my continued advocacy of highway building', I see one sentence in one post on the subject. Spin it how you like. I only said that if you're going to burn a billion dollars on transportation funding, at least use it to upgrade our crumbling interstate infrastructure (which a majority of our interstate commerce utilizes). But your problem is that you assume I'm ideological. I couldn't care less if it's private or public. Maybe HSR should be a private enterprise, like the line to Vegas or the Huntington red cars. That's not a bad idea. Now if you can show me some research that indicates HSR will be an economic boon and/or shrink the deficit (instead of increasing it), maybe we can reevaluate.

[klamedia]

But none of our transportation infrastructure pays for itself that goes for highways and air travel as well. Would we really have the air travel to the extent that we do in this country if the Feds weren't a key vital segment in building airports and subsidizing airlines, bailing some of them out even? Why pick on HSR?

[pesto]

The economics are complex, but it should be noted that US air travel is basically a free market (with significant regulation) and people can and do put billions or private money into it every year (and make billions or lose billions by making the right decisions as to flights, prices, services, etc.). An extremely dynamic market. Bankruptcies, acquistions, spin-offs are common as they should be when investors see opportunities. I haven't seen anyone talk about private equity going into passenger rail (unless you take the LV-Barstow line seriously, which I don't).

As a separate point, airports would need to be there for long-distance and international flights in any event. Operations could be somewhat reduced but why not use facilties that already exist?

And cargo rail is a necessity and should be treated as a national priority. The only thing being questioned is whether an additional high-speed passenger rail system is needed, when two excellent people moving systems (car and airplanes) already exist and so many other needs exist.

[slipperydog]

We're all up in arms about the GOP cutting spending in Washington, but radio silence at the news that a DEMOCRAT is about to eliminate all CRA's, which fund redevelopment programs that use diverted tax revenue from basic services to finance projects aimed at economic growth in California. Shocking double standard, but not surprising in the least when you are dealing with people who only see along party lines.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

oh i definitely agree that cutting the CRA's is a huge mistake. Lots of cities depend on those to fund a majority of their upgrades.

and i dont think there has been silence about it. the LA times had articles on it for a few days in a row.

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by pesto

As a separate point, airports would need to be there for long-distance and international flights in any event. Operations could be somewhat reduced but why not use facilties that already exist?

And cargo rail is a necessity and should be treated as a national priority. The only thing being questioned is whether an additional high-speed passenger rail system is needed, when two excellent people moving systems (car and airplanes) already exist and so many other needs exist.

Is this a trick question or have you been watching the Sarah Palin reality show? Cars and especially airplanes are major polluters into our environment and currently run on an unsustainable source of energy. Also I think that Obama and even Bush Jr announced a lesser reliance on foreign oil over the next 20-30 years. Also since we are moving into more and more of an urbanized era HSR works well for short jaunts that take too long in a car but are too short for air travel, the distance that we both agreed upon being approx. 200-300 miles. As our urbanized areas continue to grow we need to find alternatives to car travel and traffic and without reinventing the wheel fixed high speed rail travel works well in other countries and we believe that it can work well in specific regions of this country connecting major and minor urbanized areas. Since HSR connects directly into the city center and is compatible with dense surrounding development we also begin to work on our other goal of smarter growth. Dense, walkable and mixed use development surrounding HSR is a harbinger for a more healthy way of living and can reduce low dense sprawl. More than ever as our resources continue to dry up we need to act in tangent with one another and the environment so that the generations that come after us are not stuck with completely depleted resources due to a sprawled out landscape that will only be more difficult to repair then than now. It's really about planning for the future if we were to put this all in a nutshell. And the price for not planning for the future is far more expensive than the upfront cost that is needed to plan now.
I hope this clarifies for you in the most simplest of explanations why we need some other form of travel not excluding but besides car and air travel.

[hoosier]

Originally Posted by pesto

The economics are complex, but it should be noted that US air travel is basically a free market (with significant regulation) and people can and do put billions or private money into it every year (and make billions or lose billions by making the right decisions as to flights, prices, services, etc.). An extremely dynamic market. Bankruptcies, acquistions, spin-offs are common as they should be when investors see opportunities. I haven't seen anyone talk about private equity going into passenger rail (unless you take the LV-Barstow line seriously, which I don't).

You conveniently left out the federal bail out of the airlines after 9/11 or the fact that the federal government pays for security and air traffic control at all airports. How much is the FAA's annual budget? Would air travel be so cheap if that cost had to be absorbed by the airlines?

How much do you think it cost the taxpayer to build all of those access roads to the airport?

The Japan Bank for International Cooperation offered to pay for half the construction costs of CAHSR- clearly the Japanese government thinks HSR is a worthwhile investment.

Originally Posted by pesto

And cargo rail is a necessity and should be treated as a national priority. The only thing being questioned is whether an additional high-speed passenger rail system is needed, when two excellent people moving systems (car and airplanes) already exist and so many other needs exist.

So you are arguing now in favor of public investment in cargo rail, but passenger rail is a bad idea? Do you know that freight rail in this country is entirely privatized?

Air travel in this country is inefficient and uncomfortable. Highways cost as much to build and maintain as high speed rail but pollute the environment, consume more land, and cannot transport as many people.

[hoosier]

Originally Posted by slipperydog

I'm on the side of responsible government spending. You and Pelosi apparently are not. And as for 'my continued advocacy of highway building', I see one sentence in one post on the subject. Spin it how you like. I only said that if you're going to burn a billion dollars on transportation funding, at least use it to upgrade our crumbling interstate infrastructure (which a majority of our interstate commerce utilizes). But your problem is that you assume I'm ideological. I couldn't care less if it's private or public. Maybe HSR should be a private enterprise, like the line to Vegas or the Huntington red cars. That's not a bad idea. Now if you can show me some research that indicates HSR will be an economic boon and/or shrink the deficit (instead of increasing it), maybe we can reevaluate.

You're on the side of "responsible" government spending, like the multi-TRILLION dollar Iraq War boondoggle or the TRILLIONS in tax cuts for the rich Bush pushed through Congress?

But a few billion for HSR is irresponsible?

Do you have any evidence that highway spending reduced federal budget deficits or increased surpluses?

Why should we spend money to upgrade crumbling interstate infrastructure? Shouldn't the highways pay for themselves?

[slipperydog]

Originally Posted by hoosier

You're on the side of "responsible" government spending, like the multi-TRILLION dollar Iraq War boondoggle or the TRILLIONS in tax cuts for the rich Bush pushed through Congress?

We've been there already. We are discussing the merits of HSR. Try to keep it somewhat on topic. I generally think myself pretty objective when debating the merits and shortcomings of a particular political issue or project and tend not to be blinded by party (of which I belong to none) homerism. It's ridiculous that some people treat political parties like baseball teams, in which anyone that plays for their 'team' can do no wrong, and will defend their side to an almost indefensible point. The world is not black and white, and as a center-right individual, there is plenty in which I disagreed with the Bush administration.

In lieu of getting too off-topic though, I will answer it this way. Given the intelligence at the time, I thought the Iraq War was a good idea. When WMDs were not found, I found myself seriously doubting the validity of that war. However, given that Hussein also had the capacity to develop WMDs (FYI he had also used them in the past), while not necessarily embracing the war, I was able to come to terms with it. Once we were committed, though, it would have been nearly impossible not to spend those trillions you speak of. However, although we are out of Iraq, we still need to keep the full press on in Afghanistan.

With regards to the Bush tax cuts, marginal tax rates for the highest incomes have always been too high. At some point tax reform was going to have to happen, but doing so during during a war as expensive as Iraq was not the best timing.

But a few billion for HSR is irresponsible?

Given the damage the Democrats have done (i.e. tripling the federal deficit on bailouts and failed stimulus), I would say a MILLION for any project that is not absolutely critical would qualify as irresponsible. In my opinion, high-speed rail qualifies (at this juncture). Now I do think HSR has a lot of merit when done the right way, so I would be happy to revisit the subject after the next few years with Obama play out.

Do you have any evidence that highway spending reduced federal budget deficits or increased surpluses?

That was never my contention.

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by slipperydog

I'm on the side of responsible government spending. You and Pelosi apparently are not.

Originally Posted by slipperydog

I generally think myself pretty objective when debating the merits and shortcomings of a particular political issue or project and tend not to be blinded by party (of which I belong to none) homerism. It's ridiculous that some people treat political parties like baseball teams, in which anyone that plays for their 'team' can do no wrong, and will defend their side to an almost indefensible point. The world is not black and white

SURE. You're real objective. Adjoining me with Nancy Pelosi. How very typical.

Originally Posted by slipperydog

I thought the Iraq War was a good idea. When WMDs were not found, I found myself seriously doubting the validity of that war.

Weren't you keeping up??? Ever heard of Hans Blix who was commissioned by the UN IAEA to find WMD's in Iraq and found none? This was way before Powell stated the known lie that Hussein had them and they were capable of being launched against his neighbors. Didn't you see the massive protests around the world just about on every continent BEFORE the war even started against this illegal action? And yet you and good number of Americans who sit around watching CNN and Fox News that are controlled by the big corporate guys some being in oil went along with the lie that the rest of the world (excluding Australia of course) never believed. That's not being an objective individual that you purport yourself to be, that's just being downright naive and gullible.

[pesto]

I agree that govt. subsidies (and taxes) on the auto, air and rail industries should be dropped unless they have a rational connection to a govt. service provided or received.

Rail cargo gets private funds; air passenger and cargo gets private funds; passenger cars (gas and now electric) get private funds; cargo by road gets private funds. Trillions and trillions of private funds. People make smart decisions and make money; bad decisions and they go broke. There is vigor and competition in these markets, innovative services and technology is constantly changing.

I don't see that kind of money for operating HSR. Don't you find it odd that the Japanese and Europeans construction people have specifically asked for federal guarantees that they will be paid if they commit to selling product or services to CA HSR?

And is it really needed? I mean is it REALLY needed? HSR expects to get 85 percent of their ridership from cars and these will be overwhelmingly electric in 20 years, when HSR is expected to be done. Estimates of costs are highly speculative, but $.10/mile are typical. Four people LA-Bay for $35. And no need to rent a car when you get there.

[klamedia]

Well if you're going to project that far into the future when most cars on the road will be electirc then by that time LA's 30/10 plan should be finished as well. Still no need to rent a car.

[slipperydog]

Originally Posted by klamedia

SURE. You're real objective. Adjoining me with Nancy Pelosi. How very typical.

You sound just like her. Grand ideas and first-class posturing, but no money to pay for them. But let's move past that.

Weren't you keeping up??? Ever heard of Hans Blix who was commissioned by the UN IAEA to find WMD's in Iraq and found none? This was way before Powell stated the known lie that Hussein had them and they were capable of being launched against his neighbors. Didn't you see the massive protests around the world just about on every continent BEFORE the war even started against this illegal action? And yet you and good number of Americans who sit around watching CNN and Fox News that are controlled by the big corporate guys some being in oil went along with the lie that the rest of the world (excluding Australia of course) never believed. That's not being an objective individual that you purport yourself to be, that's just being downright naive and gullible.

Wow, where to start. For some strange reason, Hussein repeatedly dismissed UN sanctions, and was highly uncooperative with UN inspectors. So of course Hans Blix found no WMDs, the amount of access during those 'inspections' was barely sufficient, and the assertion that followed of 'no weapons ever existed' is hardly conclusive. Towards the beginning of the push for military action in Iraq, suddenly Hussein became more cooperative. No one will ever be able to 'prove' it, but all signs point to the steady movement of stockpiles to Syria. Irregardless, his stated intention was to develop both nuclear and biological weapons, which could have had unimaginable consequences, and both of which merited strong consideration for removal of Hussein. So my general support for the Iraq war has little to do with my opposition to billions of federal subsidies for a questionable investment, still for which no one has produced a sound argument for.

Here's your problem. Your mindset mirrors what many on the left have suffered from the past few years, which is a virtual complete disregard for the state of the national debt and federal deficit, and the still precarious position of the economy. Thus far, your only solution has been: get out of Afghanistan. And any individual with half of brain knows how incredibly irresponsible and flat-out stupid that would be. So while you bash the GOP's laundry list of spending cuts, give me something more than 'Why should I? It's all Bush's fault because of tax cuts and Iraq.'

Let's cut wasteful spending at the Pentagon, I'm right with you there. That's a good start. What next? How about the Department of Commerce? Would America really shut down if we didn't have a commerce department tomorrow? The list is endless. Let's actually fix this major problem instead of playing political games and assigning blame. I am encouraged that here at home, Jerry Brown actually seems to be committed to a course of austerity after decades of leftist, anti-business policy in this state that has left us bankrupt and jobless. Now if HSR is such a great idea and would make such a difference in the quality of life for Californians, maybe we can tax ourselves again to help make up the difference.

[klamedia]

But you're still arguing from a point of ideology and not ideas. Jerry Brown is still a radical leftist who is interested in some fiscal restraint. That's not a contradiction, that's his approach. This is the man as Attorney General who sued the city of Pleasanton for not coming up with a way to accommodate affordable housing and density in their general plan. I feel much more comfortable with the spending cuts that Jerry Brown is proposing because I am assured by his past actions that he "gets it", that he is approaching this comprehensively. He is even doing this in the face of criticism from his very base! And when has a "conservative" ever done that? Cutting spending or rather shuffling spending around but still making provisions to accommodate our continued growth in this state and still pushing for a progressive California. I feel very uncomfortable with decision making individuals who are shouting about spending cuts that are only approved by their constituents who btw are in overalls waving the Confederate flag and yelling that Obama is Muslim Socialist neo-Fascist.
And about the Iraq thing, WMD's have still not been found and that's the bottom line. Just as the IAEA said that there weren't any, speculation be damned.

[klamedia]

What Value for Empirical Claims in the Development of a National Rail Network?

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...-rail-network/

» America 2050 releases a report comparing potential rail investments across the country. But political leadership, not scientific analysis, will be what advances the construction of new infrastructure in the United States.

There is something very appealing about the idea that governmental authorities could go about establishing strict, empirically defined guidelines based on “objectives” or “targets” and thereafter identify and fund the right investments in transportation. The argument made by many reformers is that such a system could allow federal, state, and local governments in the United States to use “objective” measures to compare and contrast potential investments and then fund only those that meet the highest standards.

This, in some ways, is what America 2050 is attempting to do in its most recent publication, High-Speed Rail in America. By analyzing several thousand corridors crisscrossing the nation in respect to such factors as population, employment, connectivity, congestion, and job types, the organization strives to show which corridors would be best for rail investment. The results — which rank highly such connections as Washington-New York, Los Angeles-San Diego, and Chicago-Milwaukee — are reassuring to those who have already identified those corridors as priorities. The report’s conclusion implies that the next step is simply to move forward, funding the links that would be most effective.*

If only it were so simple.

Why are California, Florida, and Illinois investing billions of dollars in rail upgrades today while other states, like New York and Pennsylvania, doing almost nothing? Not because the projects in the former states were more rational investments according to federal government grant-givers; indeed, the America 2050 report gives much higher marks to lines between Philadelphia and Harrisburg and New York and Albany than those between Chicago and St. Louis or Tampa and Orlando, for instance.

Rather, leadership in some states has been lacking; state officials in places like New York have been unwilling to commit the local funds or rights-of-way to their respective rail projects, so they have not received real backing from Washington. Perhaps this would be a problem in a perfect world, but we live in a society in which politics matter. If Florida eventually commits to a high-speed rail line, it will be because previous leadership in the form of Governor Charlie Crist made the deals to make it possible and current Governor Rick Scott agreed.

These are ultimately decisions founded on local support for a project: No matter what a scientific approach may suggest, the only way high-speed rail can advance in this country is by having charismatic leaders promote good projects that appeal to the citizenry. If that sometimes means building projects that are less cost-effective than others, then so be it.

In the American federal system, Washington cannot easily come down from high-up and inform rural states and non-urban jurisdictions that they simply do not qualify for intercity rail funds. Such an approach, like it or not, would not fly in a Congress that is dominated by politicians from rural states and suburban districts. Nor can the government simply announce that it wants to fund one or two lines, like a link between Washington and Boston, because doing so would fly in the face of the idea of a national network, essential for any federal investment. So releasing a report like America 2050′s is inconceivable for the national Department of Transportation unless it wants to have its funding eliminated by the legislature.

There are several conceivable ways to avoid this problem: One, assuming the federal government continues its commitment to the high-speed rail mode, it could simply draw a map of thousands of miles of lines connecting the country and agree to fund every one. This, more or less, was how the Interstate Highway System was conceived and built — and it had nothing to do with the “objective” guidelines that underlie the America 2050 report but everything to do with ensuring that every state in the union got its share.

Two, Washington could fund nothing at all, giving up in face of the insurmountable difficulty of trying to convince legislators from Oklahoma to fund rail projects in Oregon. This could encourage states or groups of states to go about funding projects themselves, a perfectly reasonable possibility, but one that may be difficult in an era in which the idea of state-level government entrepreneurship is absent from the discussion.

Or, finally, the federal government could continue awarding grants to the states that are most enthusiastic about their respective rail projects and hope that members of Congress don’t get too upset about the fact that their states aren’t getting anything. This seems to be the most likely path forward, but it will not likely result in major funding increases for a high-speed rail network since the national consensus in favor of it has yet to be cultivated.

No matter what, the road forward on establishing high-speed rail strategy in the United States is likely to be a bumpy one. While reports like America 2050′s may add to the momentum, helping to demonstrate some of the mode’s advantages, they do not provide the basis for a nationwide system by which to judge and then fund new lines. That will only come from leadership, both in Washington and in the state capitals.

* The High-Speed Rail in America report has its flaws. The report’s authors note the following:

“Instead of evaluating and comparing precise ridership estimates from the states (e.g. X riders in California versus Y riders in Texas) based on inadequate data and varying assumptions, we propose an alternative assessment framework that considers the various factors or parameters that influence ridership without attempting to pinpoint ridership explicitly.”

The fundamental problem with the report is that it has no context: The study lays down a number of parameters for comparison, such as regional population, transit connectivity, and the like, but it does not have any empirical data to show the relatively importance of these criteria in real-world high-speed rail networks. In other words, the authors have set about comparing corridors in a manner that may — or, just as likely, may not — have anything to do with actual ridership. (This is a mistake I’ve made in the past, I admit.)

In the future, such a study should be backed by evidence about the importance of each of these criteria based on ridership on other countries’ systems. It would also be beneficial to include cost evaluations — for instance, if a New York-Boston line would attract twice as many riders per mile as one between Tampa and Orlando, the America 2050 report implies that the former is a better deal than the latter. But what if the Florida line cost less than half as much per mile as the Northeastern one?

[klamedia]

From President Barack Hussein Obama's State Of The Union Speech:

The third step in winning the future is rebuilding America. To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information – from high-speed rail to high-speed internet.

Our infrastructure used to be the best – but our lead has slipped. South Korean homes now have greater internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports. Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation’s infrastructure, they gave us a “D.”

We have to do better. America is the nation that built the transcontinental railroad, brought electricity to rural communities, and constructed the interstate highway system. The jobs created by these projects didn’t just come from laying down tracks or pavement. They came from businesses that opened near a town’s new train station or the new off-ramp.

Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. Tonight, I’m proposing that we redouble these efforts.

Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying – without the pat-down. As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.

[slipperydog]

Originally Posted by klamedia

From President Barack Hussein Obama's State Of The Union Speech:

Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. Tonight, I’m proposing that we redouble these efforts.

Oh goodie, exactly what we needed. More 'stimulus.' The vast majority of construction jobs have always been created by private investment. This is where our focus should continue to be.

Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car.

Not a very realistic time-frame. Connecting every urban area in America in FIFTY years would be a tremendous achievement in itself. Not to mention that a nationwide map of high speed rail would be prohibitively expensive and extremely redundant when you consider how well-developed our air transport and highway systems are.


Something to keep in mind here. High speed rail first developed in countries without a well-developed airport network like we have in the US. Obviously, we have always had the most extensive network and highest volume of flight traffic due to our population and the vast geographic size of the country. Once commercial jets became a more efficient and economical means of transportation, air travel became the standard mode of long-distance travel in the US, thus rendering the train obsolete.

We did not see a similar shift overseas. Following WWII reconstruction and decolonization, Asian and European countries were still heavily dependent on their rail networks, and hence the natural transition to high speed rail development in these regions. Now as countries have become less insular and national economies more globalized, European and Asian countries have essentially been forced to upgrade their air capacities to mirror what we have in the United States. In order to keep up with the demands of the new global economy, it made absolute economic sense for governments to subsidize their air transportation systems.

Now with the onset of high speed rail development in the US, we are seeing an exact inverse of that process, except this time without the clear economic benefits that warrant federal subsidies. So that said, there does not seem to be a very strong case for going in that direction right now.

[klamedia]

Just so that we are all on the same page, I believe what Obama is calling for are HSR jaunts that are more regional and not necessarily national in airline flight fashion. To get from LA to NYC would be much more feasible to fly and you are correct HSR would be redundant and would lose. I think Obama gets that. But for travel distances like the BoWash corridor or south Florida or SaFLA (San Fran-LA) HSR makes alot of sense. There's a reason why bus and train travel is so popular as opposed to flying from NYC to DC. And yes, their are flights heading out on that route every hour. Developed fixed rail mass transit systems on either end? Aren't we working on that? Haven't noticed all of the noise surrounding 30/10?
When I visited Texas a week ago it was glaringly obvious that a HSR route from Austin to SA is terribly needed. Unfortunately neither Austin nor SA have developed mass transit systems so perhaps a Dallas to Houston would be more feasible.