| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Matt Casey
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:25 am Post subject: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
 |
|
California will become a car-free and aircraft-free state where all
travel is by
walking, biking, mass transit, airline travel will cease to exist,
and
the freeways and suburbs will be demolished and replaced with
farmland, open space, wilderness, orchards, and wildlife habitat.
Cities in the Bay Area are already doing TOD projects and
Berkeley is banning cars and replacing them with busses. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
gl4316@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:21 am Post subject: Re: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
|
|
In article
<b1b9958a-b69d-4f1b-a0e5-def655ec76d4@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Matt
Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | California will become a car-free and aircraft-free state where all
travel is by
walking, biking, mass transit, airline travel will cease to exist,
and
the freeways and suburbs will be demolished and replaced with
farmland, open space, wilderness, orchards, and wildlife habitat.
Cities in the Bay Area are already doing TOD projects and
Berkeley is banning cars and replacing them with busses.
|
Considering the horrible mismanagement these types of projects usually
have in the USA, we don't have much to look forward to. The average speed
of the Portland streetcar is only 6 mph, thanks to "transportation
experts" here, while in France such a line would be operating at nearly 3
times that speed.
--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jym Dyer
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:21 am Post subject: Re: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
|
|
Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> writes:
| Quote: | Cities in the Bay Area are already doing TOD projects and
Berkeley is banning cars and replacing them with busses.
|
=1= First of all, Berkeley is doing no such thing.
=2= Second, TOD (transit-oriented development) is supposed to
mean that live/work amenities are within walking distance of
transit stops, with car parking taking less priority. But in
the Bay Area everything labelled "TOD" is built the other way
around, with car accommodations getting top priority. Clearly
there is much room for improvement.
=v= Your vision is an appealing one, but it's not reality yet
by a long stretch. Perhaps you and Joey Jolley could go on an
envisioneering seminar.
<_Jym_> |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Miles Bader
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:21 am Post subject: Re: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
|
|
Jym Dyer <jym@econet.org> writes:
| Quote: | =v= Your vision is an appealing one, but it's not reality yet
by a long stretch. Perhaps you and Joey Jolley could go on an
envisioneering seminar.
|
Is that kind of like a Turkish Bath?
-Miles
--
Rational, adj. Devoid of all delusions save those of observation, experience
and reflection. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Calif Bill
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:20 am Post subject: Re: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
|
|
"Jym Dyer" <jym@econet.org> wrote in message
news:Jym.05Nov2008.49129f44@econet.org...
| Quote: | Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> writes:
Cities in the Bay Area are already doing TOD projects and
Berkeley is banning cars and replacing them with busses.
=1= First of all, Berkeley is doing no such thing.
=2= Second, TOD (transit-oriented development) is supposed to
mean that live/work amenities are within walking distance of
transit stops, with car parking taking less priority. But in
the Bay Area everything labelled "TOD" is built the other way
around, with car accommodations getting top priority. Clearly
there is much room for improvement.
=v= Your vision is an appealing one, but it's not reality yet
by a long stretch. Perhaps you and Joey Jolley could go on an
envisioneering seminar.
_Jym_
Stupid people of this state. We are bankrupt and they pass a $2 Billion |
bond issue for a train. They do not use Amtrak now, or buses. How do they
expect a high speed train to pay for itself? BART pays it's drivers and
station agents in excess of $80k a year. Good union that goes on strike
when they do not get the excess salaries they want. How much do you think a
ticket on the high speed rail will need to cost if it is to cover the $2
Billion plus operating costs? Probably more than the $80 airplane ticket.
And the airplane ticket is on a taxpaying entity. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Keith Keller
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:01 am Post subject: Re: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to ba.transportation.]
On 2008-11-06, Jym Dyer <jym@econet.org> wrote:
| Quote: | Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> writes:
Cities in the Bay Area are already doing TOD projects and
Berkeley is banning cars and replacing them with busses.
|
[snip]
| Quote: | =v= Your vision is an appealing one, but it's not reality yet
by a long stretch. Perhaps you and Joey Jolley could go on an
envisioneering seminar.
|
You do realize that ''Matt Casey'' is just another alias for ''Joey
Jolley'', and that he's just trolling, right?
--keith
--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Walter_Slipperman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:20 am Post subject: Re: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Stupid people of this state. We are bankrupt and they pass a $2 Billion
bond issue for a train. They do not use Amtrak now, or buses. How do
they expect a high speed train to pay for itself? BART pays it's drivers
and station agents in excess of $80k a year. Good union that goes on
strike when they do not get the excess salaries they want. How much do
you think a ticket on the high speed rail will need to cost if it is to
cover the $2 Billion plus operating costs? Probably more than the $80
airplane ticket. And the airplane ticket is on a taxpaying entity.
If you are pissed about $2 billion maybe we better not inform you about how |
far off your number is off. Let's just say $2B is chump change. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Calif Bill
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:53 am Post subject: Re: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
|
|
"Walter_Slipperman" <WalterS@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:suOQk.8382$Ws1.7527@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
| Quote: |
Stupid people of this state. We are bankrupt and they pass a $2 Billion
bond issue for a train. They do not use Amtrak now, or buses. How do
they expect a high speed train to pay for itself? BART pays it's drivers
and station agents in excess of $80k a year. Good union that goes on
strike when they do not get the excess salaries they want. How much do
you think a ticket on the high speed rail will need to cost if it is to
cover the $2 Billion plus operating costs? Probably more than the $80
airplane ticket. And the airplane ticket is on a taxpaying entity.
If you are pissed about $2 billion maybe we better not inform you about
how far off your number is off. Let's just say $2B is chump change.
|
I realise that is just a design drop in the bucket. Be cheaper to give free
airline tickets. Maybe if you could drive your car on to the train and go
to LA cheaper and quicker than driving, they might have something. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Stephen Sprunk
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject: Re: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
|
|
Calif Bill wrote:
| Quote: | Stupid people of this state. We are bankrupt and they pass a $2 Billion
bond issue for a train.
|
Actually, the bond election was for $9.95B.
| Quote: | They do not use Amtrak now, or buses.
|
They are, in record numbers.
| Quote: | How do they expect a high speed train to pay for itself?
|
The same way HSR service does everywhere else on the planet. Even the
relatively slow Amtrak Acela pays for operations and its share of the
infrastructure, and CAHSR would be significantly faster and thus able to
attract more riders at lower costs and higher fares.
| Quote: | BART pays it's drivers and station agents in excess of $80k a year.
Good union that goes on strike when they do not get the excess salaries
they want.
|
If you're unhappy with standard union activity in your state, pass Right
To Work legislation.
| Quote: | How much do you think a ticket on the high speed rail will need to cost
if it is to cover the $2 Billion plus operating costs?
|
First of all, it is not claimed that fares will cover the initial
infrastructure costs, just operations and maintenance plus a small profit.
Second, if you care so much about this, try reading the published
financial plan, which answers this specific question.
| Quote: | Probably more than the $80 airplane ticket.
|
No. See above.
| Quote: | And the airplane ticket is on a taxpaying entity.
|
Barely. The airline is losing money and they're operating from airports
and terminals that cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
S |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Stephen Sprunk
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: Re: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
|
|
Calif Bill wrote:
| Quote: | I realise that is just a design drop in the bucket. Be cheaper to give free
airline tickets.
|
Assuming you didn't have to spend the tens of billions of dollars needed
to expand (or even maintain) airports and highways to handle the same
volume of passengers.
Yes, CAHSR will be expensive. It's cheaper than the alternatives, though.
| Quote: | Maybe if you could drive your car on to the train and go
to LA cheaper and quicker than driving, they might have something.
|
Nobody in the world has ever built high-speed auto trains, nor are the
economics promising. Lots of places have profitable high-speed
passenger trains, though. Better to build what we _know_ works.
Are you going to suggest that the only way air service will be effective
is if people can drive their cars onto the plane? That is the primary
market that HSR competes with.
S |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jim Davis
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
|
|
"Jym Dyer" <jym@econet.org> wrote in message
news:Jym.05Nov2008.49129f44@econet.org...
| Quote: | Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> writes:
=v= Your vision is an appealing one, but it's not reality yet
by a long stretch. Perhaps you and Joey Jolley could go on an
envisioneering seminar.
_Jym_
|
FYI - Matt Casey IS Joey Jolley. He's baaaaaaaaaaacccccck. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David Nebenzahl
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:14 am Post subject: Re: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
|
|
On 11/5/2008 11:39 PM Jym Dyer spake thus:
| Quote: | Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> writes:
Cities in the Bay Area are already doing TOD projects and
Berkeley is banning cars and replacing them with busses.
=1= First of all, Berkeley is doing no such thing.
=2= Second, TOD (transit-oriented development) is supposed to
mean that live/work amenities are within walking distance of
transit stops, with car parking taking less priority. But in
the Bay Area everything labelled "TOD" is built the other way
around, with car accommodations getting top priority. Clearly
there is much room for improvement.
|
Uh, =Jym=, do you realize who you're talking back to here? Do you also
attempt to carry on serious conversations with crank callers?
Anyone who responds to this idiot is an idiot as well.
--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.
- Paulo Freire |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
sechumlib
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:33 am Post subject: Re: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
|
|
On Nov 5, 11:25 pm, Matt Casey <mattcaseym...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | California will become a car-free and aircraft-free state where all
travel is by
walking, biking, mass transit, airline travel will cease to exist,
and
the freeways and suburbs will be demolished and replaced with
farmland, open space, wilderness, orchards, and wildlife habitat.
Cities in the Bay Area are already doing TOD projects and
Berkeley is banning cars and replacing them with busses.
|
Hi, Joey! You've assumed a new name. Congratulations! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Calif Bill
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:53 am Post subject: Re: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
|
|
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:arYQk.6598$ZP4.2526@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
| Quote: | Calif Bill wrote:
Stupid people of this state. We are bankrupt and they pass a $2 Billion
bond issue for a train.
Actually, the bond election was for $9.95B.
They do not use Amtrak now, or buses.
They are, in record numbers.
How do they expect a high speed train to pay for itself?
The same way HSR service does everywhere else on the planet. Even the
relatively slow Amtrak Acela pays for operations and its share of the
infrastructure, and CAHSR would be significantly faster and thus able to
attract more riders at lower costs and higher fares.
BART pays it's drivers and station agents in excess of $80k a year. Good
union that goes on strike when they do not get the excess salaries
they want.
If you're unhappy with standard union activity in your state, pass Right
To Work legislation.
How much do you think a ticket on the high speed rail will need to cost
if it is to cover the $2 Billion plus operating costs?
First of all, it is not claimed that fares will cover the initial
infrastructure costs, just operations and maintenance plus a small profit.
Second, if you care so much about this, try reading the published
financial plan, which answers this specific question.
Probably more than the $80 airplane ticket.
No. See above.
And the airplane ticket is on a taxpaying entity.
Barely. The airline is losing money and they're operating from airports
and terminals that cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
S
|
Airports are paid for by fees on airplanes that the fed's collect. Unions
are OK until they over reach. And that is what the "Public Service" unions
do. Private company unions have to base their demands on what the company
can pay and stay in business. "Public Service" unions just force the
highest wages possible. $80 for a station attendant or driver. GED
education required. Maybe we should pay them the same as teachers aids.
Most of the highspeed trains are in areas with lots of people and not real
far distances. Europe is not real big, and the TGV from Avignon is still
3.5 hours and there is good public transport on the other end. How much is
Amtraks subsidy a year? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Calif Bill
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:53 am Post subject: Re: With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail.... |
|
|
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:ouYQk.6599$ZP4.4259@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
| Quote: | Calif Bill wrote:
I realise that is just a design drop in the bucket. Be cheaper to give
free airline tickets.
Assuming you didn't have to spend the tens of billions of dollars needed
to expand (or even maintain) airports and highways to handle the same
volume of passengers.
Yes, CAHSR will be expensive. It's cheaper than the alternatives, though.
Maybe if you could drive your car on to the train and go to LA cheaper
and quicker than driving, they might have something.
Nobody in the world has ever built high-speed auto trains, nor are the
economics promising. Lots of places have profitable high-speed passenger
trains, though. Better to build what we _know_ works.
Are you going to suggest that the only way air service will be effective
is if people can drive their cars onto the plane? That is the primary
market that HSR competes with.
S
|
Other places have compact, public transit friendly destinations. If you
could load the car on the train and then have you vehicle available, would
be a big selling point. 4 hours and you are there and can sit and read or
relax and not spend the time driving. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
