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

[Dave Snyder]

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deeptrouble.com/pipermail/social-deeptrouble.com/attachments/20081021/818e74ff/attachment-0002.htm>