Nothing like some good old Roosevelt economics to get us a new railway!Californians are a bit cautious about authorizing bonds during these economic times but that's actually a stronger argument FOR the proposal. We built dams and bridges, including the Golden Gate, with bonds during the Depression. Surely we can build this now - the bonds are repaid over 40 years and the annual service cost will be offset by the tax revenue generated by the construction work.
Here is an article against the idea...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122368038058324729.htmlNothing like some good old Roosevelt economics to get us a new railway!Californians are a bit cautious about authorizing bonds during these economic times but that's actually a stronger argument FOR the proposal. We built dams and bridges, including the Golden Gate, with bonds during the Depression. Surely we can build this now - the bonds are repaid over 40 years and the annual service cost will be offset by the tax revenue generated by the construction work.
I don't know the numbers but I'd venture to guess there are more than 12 carriers that fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco. If not those airports, then surely if you throw in the nearby ones like Burbank, Orange County and Ontario in the south and Oakland and San Jose near San Francisco. I would imagine there are over a hundred flights a day between the two areas. Just a guess there.The rail market between Los Angeles and San Fransisco being at present pretty negligible - for the sake of argument, we'll say 10%. I gather from a quick flight search that about twelve flights per day ply the route from Los Angeles to San Fransisco; there may well be more that don't show up on that search. So, if high speed rail increases the market share from 10% to 65% of journeys from Los Angeles to San Fransisco, that's the emissions 7-8 flights per day, around 2,700 flights per year, saved!
I did it the other way - flew from Manchester (UK) to Chicago then took the train to the east coastBearing in mind that many flights from the North of England to London are in order to make connections with long haul flights, rail's share of end to end journeys will be even greater. (I hate domestic flights, so I personally train it to London when I'm flying to the states).
That is quite simply insane. I like it! Sadly, you don't quite beat me, for this summer's return from Montreal:I did it the other way - flew from Manchester (UK) to Chicago then took the train to the east coast
Transportation options that don't depend on imported energy hardly strike me as a luxury. Building such transportation infrastructure will probably give us a stronger dollar than we would otherwise have.I just looked up the record of bonds passing in California when compared to the state of the economy. California is a couple of years ahead of the country as a whole with a slow economy. When things are looking up here, bonds pass at a rate of 68%. When the economy is poor it backs off to 23% passing. A lot of people may see the high speed rail as a luxury and vote it down. The argument can be made that in a slow economy, a project like this is a shot in the arm for increased jobs and even increased taxes.
I agree. Shortsighted people may not see it that way. I plan on voting for it, and a local Sonoma and Marin counties light rail measure.Transportation options that don't depend on imported energy hardly strike me as a luxury. Building such transportation infrastructure will probably give us a stronger dollar than we would otherwise have.I just looked up the record of bonds passing in California when compared to the state of the economy. California is a couple of years ahead of the country as a whole with a slow economy. When things are looking up here, bonds pass at a rate of 68%. When the economy is poor it backs off to 23% passing. A lot of people may see the high speed rail as a luxury and vote it down. The argument can be made that in a slow economy, a project like this is a shot in the arm for increased jobs and even increased taxes.
Given your tomesque rants in other threads about high speed rail, Joel, I am surprised I haven't seen more of you in here.Transportation options that don't depend on imported energy hardly strike me as a luxury. Building such transportation infrastructure will probably give us a stronger dollar than we would otherwise have.I just looked up the record of bonds passing in California when compared to the state of the economy. California is a couple of years ahead of the country as a whole with a slow economy. When things are looking up here, bonds pass at a rate of 68%. When the economy is poor it backs off to 23% passing. A lot of people may see the high speed rail as a luxury and vote it down. The argument can be made that in a slow economy, a project like this is a shot in the arm for increased jobs and even increased taxes.
I haven't actually taken the time to read the text of the proposed California legislation yet, and I'm reluctant to actually say that it's a good idea without reading it first. There is such a thing as a mass transit proposal that I conclude is a bad idea (the MBTA's Silver Line Phase III bus tunnel comes to mind). Then again, everything I know about the California high speed rail project seems like it's generally a good idea, and best can be the enemy of good.Given your tomesque rants in other threads about high speed rail, Joel, I am surprised I haven't seen more of you in here.
What you are missing is that there are three airports with significant commercial serivce on each end.I gather from a quick flight search that about twelve flights per day ply the route from Los Angeles to San Fransisco; there may well be more that don't show up on that search. So, if high speed rail increases the market share from 10% to 65% of journeys from Los Angeles to San Fransisco, that's the emissions 7-8 flights per day, around 2,700 flights per year, saved!
How many of these three Los Angeles and three San Francisco airports' areas are directly served by the initial phase of the high speed rail proposal?San Francisco Bay area end: SFO, OAK, SJC, that is San Fran Int'l, Oakland, and San Jose.
Los angeles: LAX, LGB, SNA, that is Los Angeles Int'l, Long Beach, and John Wayne-Orange County
Take each of these on one end and check for flights to all three on the other end and you will find there are a lot more than 12 flights per day. Then there are the intermediate points of Fresno and Bakersfield, each with their own commerical airport. Add in the extensions of the HSR system to Stockton - Sacramento on the north end and San Diego on the south end, and you throw in their airports as well.
I really don't understand your "directly served" question. Unless you live at either an airport or a railroad station, you will be traveling to them by some means or other. Obviously, airports are never in a downtown area, and for the most part, if not always, the railroad stations will be. If you are in the Oakland / San Francisco area, you can get to either SFO or OAK by BART for the one and BART/bus for the other, or a $40 taxi ride. Which airport you use depends on who you are flying with and where you are going. For the Rail: The plan is that the north end of the high speed rail will be at the Transbay Terminal, about a block off Market near First street. This is close to a BART station and probably more like a $5 to $10 taxi ride if you are in the city. San Jose will be a stop on the high speed, so for people in that area or other South Bay locations, the access will be the same or easier than the SJC airport. I leave the LA end to someone more familiar with that area.How many of these four Los Angeles and three San Francisco airports' areas are directly served by the initial phase of the high speed rail proposal?San Francisco Bay area end: SFO, OAK, SJC, that is San Fran Int'l, Oakland, and San Jose.
Los angeles: LAX, LGB, SNA, BUR that is Los Angeles Int'l, Long Beach, John Wayne-Orange County, and Burbank
Take each of these on one end and check for flights to all three on the other end and you will find there are a lot more than 12 flights per day. Then there are the intermediate points of Fresno and Bakersfield, each with their own commerical airport. Add in the extensions of the HSR system to Stockton - Sacramento on the north end and San Diego on the south end, and you throw in their airports as well.
You've never been to SJC, have you George?Obviously, airports are never in a downtown area, and for the most part, if not always, the railroad stations will be.
I believe Ontario airport sometimes is listed and calls itself LA/Ontario airport. It's about 40 miles east of downtown LA, just off of Interstate 10, almost exactly the same distance John Wayne (Orange County) airport is from downtown LA.George,
While it's a bit further out than the other ones that you've mentioned, most people that I know also consider Ontario to be a LA airport too.
And if LA ever follows through with the dream, one day the Gold line will stop at Ontario. Already I believe that one can get to Ontario by Metrolink commuter trains, but the schedule on that line is very light and largely rush hour direction only.
That's incorrect. The Metrolink Riverside Line stops at East Ontario station which is located on the southeast side of airport. Unfortunately, there's no access to the terminal. You'll have to call the taxi to pick you up.Metrolink doesn't stop in Ontario. The San Bernardino line stops in Upland, which looks to be about 4 miles from the airport. However, there are some freight tracks that are just north of the airport that perhaps could be utilized to provide service to the airport. I don't know a thing about them.
That is correct. Thanks Greg.That's incorrect. The Metrolink Riverside Line stops at East Ontario station which is located on the southeast side of airport. Unfortunately, there's no access to the terminal. You'll have to call the taxi to pick you up.Metrolink doesn't stop in Ontario. The San Bernardino line stops in Upland, which looks to be about 4 miles from the airport. However, there are some freight tracks that are just north of the airport that perhaps could be utilized to provide service to the airport. I don't know a thing about them.
Upland is a little too far, use Rancho Cucamonga station. There's an Omnitran bus (one transfer) will take you there, but it's not convenient.
I don't think I quite had a sufficient grasp of the geography to express my question clearly.I really don't understand your "directly served" question. Unless you live at either an airport or a railroad station, you will be traveling to them by some means or other. Obviously, airports are never in a downtown area, and for the most part, if not always, the railroad stations will be. If you are in the Oakland / San Francisco area, you can get to either SFO or OAK by BART for the one and BART/bus for the other, or a $40 taxi ride. Which airport you use depends on who you are flying with and where you are going. For the Rail: The plan is that the north end of the high speed rail will be at the Transbay Terminal, about a block off Market near First street. This is close to a BART station and probably more like a $5 to $10 taxi ride if you are in the city. San Jose will be a stop on the high speed, so for people in that area or other South Bay locations, the access will be the same or easier than the SJC airport. I leave the LA end to someone more familiar with that area.
Enter your email address to join: