SOCIAL: [Party_Car] DETAILS: 'Deep Slate November 2008: VOTE TUESDAY NOVEMBER 4TH

[Peter Bradshaw]

Some interesting and well thought points from you all...

I'd like to add wooooooooosh...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUVD1rSFpEA




On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Dave Snyder <dave at livablecity.org> wrote:
> I have to weigh in. As one who likes decentralization, and therefore
> supports local travel over long-distance travel, and who doesn't care to
> spend public money making it easier for business people to get back and
> forth between Los Angeles and San Francisco, I agree with the sentiment
> expressed here. But not the conclusion.
> The fact is that most of the benefit from this bond and the whole project
> will be in local and regional rail, particularly in the Los Angeles basin
> and Bay Area. The money from this project will allow the four-tracking of
> Caltrain and additional tracks in the East Bay and the Altamont Pass. It
> will allow express trains throughout the Los Angeles basin. The profit from
> this system is definitely the long-haul trip, because business travelers
> will pay a premium to ride a comfortable train in under three hours from SF
> to LA compared to the alternatives. But the benefit is in local and regional
> trips.
> I can't speak for the mayor of Menlo Park, but I know that Atherton and
> Menlo Park filed a lawsuit against the chosen alignment of high speed rail
> because the alternative, the Altamont Pass, would have bypassed their towns
> and a few multi-million dollar homes whose owners aren't happy about the
> expansin of the rail next to their houses. It's fueled by the private
> interests of a handful of super-rich homeowners. (There are other reasons to
> have opposed the Pacheco Pass alignment; I'm not going into those.)
> Yes it will require expensive trenching, tunneling, and right-of-way
> expansion on the Peninsula, but it's well worth it.
> And I've never heard that about BART, unless you're talking just about the
> airport expansion. Is that a fact about the whole system?
> Dave
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2008, at 2:20 PM, jennie day wrote:
>
> I like the New-Dealiness of it – if we are heading into a depression (eek!),
> then imagine the jobs that will come out of this – assuming the funding is
> secured ahead of the economic decline (not likely).  Other than that, tho, I
> agree with Aaron on a lot of points. And then there's the carbon question.
> I haven't seen a carbon analysis of the project, but it's very possible – as
> happened with BART – that there could be more carbon emitted in the
> construction than the system will ever save in its operations (over air
> travel).
>
> And bear in mind: ridership projections are ALWAYS waaaaay overblown,
> usually to justify the project costs.  The riders on this system prolly
> won't even amount to half of the projected riders.
>
> Also, I'm waiting until the land-use studies from the Central Valley cities
> are in before I pass judgement.
> Jennie D
>
> Jennifer Day
> Doctoral Candidate
> Department of City and Regional Planning
> University of California, Berkeley
> 415 613 4969 (mobile)
>
> From: social-bounces at lists.deeptrouble.com [mailto:social-bounces at lists.deeptrouble.com] On
> Behalf Of Eric Arons
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:52 PM
> To: Amandeep Jawa
> Cc: Social; partycar
> Subject: Re: SOCIAL: [Party_Car] DETAILS: 'Deep Slate November 2008: VOTE
> TUESDAY NOVEMBER 4TH
>
> I do feel like I need to comment on (at least, and at this point, no more
> than) one of these recommendations.
> High Speed Rail.  I've had a lot of conversations down here with a co-worker
> and vice-mayor of Menlo Park, and we're not so sure high speed rail makes
> much sense in its current incarnation (beyond the sexiness of it).  It will
> be ridiculously expensive, and ultimately it does exactly what Deep says,
> gives people a convenient way to get from here to LA and back.  It requires
> major rework of the infrastructure (grade separation all the way up and down
> the peninsula), and integration of current use of the rail (Caltrain and
> freight) with this new use.  Do we need this long distance transit solution
> for lots of money?  Or would that money be much better spent for regional
> transit planning that would allow us to get around the Bay Area more
> easily?  Would a better plan be to stop the train in SJ and then let it
> connect to better local service, saving billions?  A large part of the cost
> will be in revamping the current rail line.  Yes, I know that money is not
> immediately transferable from project to project, but there is a massive
> budget shortfall right now.  And there are some real concerns about the
> particular plan for this potential boondoggle.  Anyway, I'm not necessarily
> opposed to it, and we were actually hoping to have a debate on it here at
> SRI, but it's worth looking into more carefully.  Maybe this isn't the right
> plan.
>
> A few relevant links (some from people actually supporting the prop, but not
> the current plan):
> http://service.govdelivery.com/docs/CAMENLO/CAMENLO_1/CAMENLO_1_20080925_en.pdf
> http://www.transdef.org/HSR/HSR.html
> http://www.bayrailalliance.org/statement_on_high_speed_rail_and_lawsuit_against_hsra
>
> And a debate on the issue on the radio Wednesday:
>
> http://www.kalw.org/listen.html
>
>
>
> KALW Radio, 91.7 FM, on Wednesday, Oct. 22, debating Quentin Kopp, the Chair
> of the CA High-Speed Rail
>
>
>
> Authority.  Please call in with questions and comments during the second
> half of the show.
>
> The number is 415-841-4134.
>
>
>
> State Initiatives:
> 1A: YES  - HIGH SPEED RAIL
> This much delayed bond measure will start the funding for California to
> build a new High Speed Rail system connecting SF to LA but eventually
> Sacramento to SF to LA to San Diego.  If I didn't love it because it was a
> great way to get people out of cars, or love it because it would represent a
> hugh Green House Gas emissions win (it will reduce instate plane flights
> DRAMATICALLY as well as reduce car trips), or love it because it represents
> a big investment in CAs decaying infrastructure & will dramatically improve
> service on our very own CalTrain, I'd vote for it because it will get me to
> LA in 2 & a 1/2 hours door to door (4 by air? 8 by car?) & I'll probably be
> able to bring my bike :-) YES YES YES
>
>
>
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.8/1547 - Release Date: 7/11/2008
> 6:05 PM
>
> _______________________________________________
> Social mailing list
> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Social mailing list
> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>
>