California's Costly Propositions (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco: houses, employment, wages)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Light rail can reduce congestion in cities, HSR isn't going to do that. The point of building high speed rail system isn't really to reduce congestion.

I've been saying that the whole time, it is an alternative to congestion and will help congestion becoming worse in the future. Before you were complaining about how we shouldn't build it b/c it won't solve congestion but now recognize that is not the purpose of HSR?? You're running in circles here.

Comparing long distance travel with bus vs rail doesn't make much sense.

I wasn't, I was speaking of rail vs buses in cities.

Rails will only become cheaper when demand for a particular route becomes high enough. All three of the major cities have some sort of subway/rail system already for these high traffic routes.

It becomes more cost effective not cheaper, the longer you wait to build it the more expensive it gets. And our rail systems in our 3 major cities miss a lot of high traffic routes, especially in LA and SD.

Do you understand economics? Rail is not a magic alternative. If you build a rail system a new equilibrium will form. If the rail really is that much better than traveling by car then it will max out its capacity and space/tickets will become limited. At some put the speed of the rail will be offset by the time you have to wait around for an open train etc. At some people will start to drive again.

Once again, this isn't an all or nothing type of deal. It's about OPTIONS and ALTERNATIVES, which you still don't seem to understand. HSR will help absorb the increased demand for travel within the state. Not everyone is going to switch to rail to the point of maxing out the capacity of the system, if that was the case then there would be even more reason to build it. You're making some absurd assumption that HSR will become overloaded with passengers based on what??? The way you play little scenarios out in your head is nothing like what occurs in the real world.

You idea seems to based on the idea that a rail has infinite capacity and will be an "alternative" to congestion. It won't be such an alternative as within months to years of its creation an equilibrium will form where any new riders are likely to be better off driving or at least the rail will offer no advantage.

What are you talking about? Where did I ever say or indicated HSR has infinite capacity? I never said that or indicated that and you are just making that up to try to bolster your argument. I said it is better able to deal with increasing capacity when needed.

If there are so many people using HSR that it's better for some to drive or fly then that is GREAT!! That is what having OPTIONS and ALTERNATIVES is about. And if some people drive or fly then guess what? Your hypothetical situation of HSR being too crowded will now have space and continue to attract riders. It's not like everyone is going to switch from HSR to cars and there will be nobody riding the rails.

Firstly, you can't just randomly add more cars to a high speed rail and have all things be equal.

Yes you can add cars but of course only to a point where it's safe to operate. Why can't you add cars to a train set?

Adding cars will reduce speeds.

No it doesn't. Trains operate at the same speed no matter how many cars they have in a train set. BART operates at the same speed whether it's a 3 car train or a 10 car train.

The trains will road at whatever capacity is most efficient. Secondly, you can only run the trains so close. You seem to be pretending again that the capacity is infinite and it is not.

No I am not, you just make some absurd assumption b/c I stated you can run more trains then that means they are running dangerously close together. Yes I know you can only run trains so close and so do engineers, thanks for stating the obvious.

And you are completely avoiding the fact that trains can deal with demand by increasing or decreasing capacity better than freeways. But instead of admitting that you create some extreme hypothetical scenario of trying to cram too many trains on the tracks.

Rail is more rigid do to the safety considerations, they will limit capacity to below what is deemed safe. After that limit is reached not a single addition person can ride.

Again, what makes you think you will reach that limit? If building HSR would attract so many riders that it would reach it's limit or maximum capacity then there is even more reason to build it and it would have already been built by a private company.

Here is where it shows that you have little experience with public transit. In every city where I have traveled and lived there is a difference between using public transit (From buses in Los Angeles, to subways in NYC, to the Metro in Paris...) during peak hours and non-peak hours.

What is the difference? If you're going to claim there is a difference then EXPLAIN what it is.

And I grew up taking BART, lived within a 10 minute walk of it and took it to school everyday in high school. And the only difference between taking BART at rush hour is that there is more people and the trains run a lot more often. The trains still operate at the same speed and get you to the same stations in the same amount of time no matter what time of day it is, which cannot be said for many freeways.

This is again where your thinking is premised on the idea that a rail has infinite capacity. It doesn't.

I NEVER claimed that, stop twisting my words and making things up to try to bolster your argument. I said it is better able to deal with demand by increasing or decreasing capacity. I never claimed or remotely indicated that it is infinite. I know that it is not.

Although the actual trip is the same regardless of the time you ride the amount of time spent in the act of traveling is not. Congestion in public transit systems is caused by wait times, not usually by the time taken to travel in the transportation device. So what if the trip takes the same about of time if you have to wait 30 minutes to even get on a rail, subway etc.

If trains are running ever 10 minutes then you are waiting at most 10 minutes to board it. The time you wait is determined by how often the trains run and when you get there.

If there are a ton of people taking the train and it's gets so crowded you have to wait for the next one then yes that will add time. But that is not any different than delays from too much traffic caused by a lot of people driving.

Your claims about peak vs non-peak travel on public transit systems is just....weird and far from reality.

No it's not actually and pretty spot on. What is weird and far from reality?? Again you make an absurd statement and back it up with nothing, that alone is just showing how weak your arguments are here.

You obviously have limited experience actually riding on public transit (Perhaps that should be a prereq for people doing transportation planning...). That is really the only thing I can think of that would make you say something so inaccurate...

How do you know this? Again with the absurd assumptions. I grew up taking BART everyday during HS. I used to work in Downtown SD and either took the trolley or a bus there everyday. Do you have this much experience taking public transit everyday for years??

I am a transportation planner at a company who does work for various public transit agencies all around the country. So I know first hand what works, what doesn't, and how to fix it, or at least improve on it, given what you have.

The route is most important for the transportation of goods, not people.

Then what are all those people in cars doing? Moving goods in there trunks? There are just as many cars on that road as big rigs, probably more.

The only time I've used the I-5 is when I'm going up to the Sacramento area. If you are driving from LA to SF the 101 is a much nicer drive and only a bit longer. I don't know anybody that takes the I-5 to get to the bay area. The drive is horribly boring.

And I really don't know the exact nature of the traffic on the I-5. I would bet that a relatively small part of it is people going from LA/SD to SF though.

Now you are showing you don't have that much experience driving I-5 and are making all of these assumptions about it. Amazing that you try to claim I don't have experience taking PT, which I do, when you seem to have little experience taking I-5 yet make all of these assumptions about it.

Almost everyone I knows that travels between NorCal and SoCal takes I-5. Only people in Santa Barbara or the Central Coast take 101 or people that are on vacation and not trying to get to NorCal or SoCal ASAP. Yes the drive is boring but when you're trying to get somewhere that doesn't really matter, most people don't have time to sightsee when they are trying to get somewhere.

The vast majority of cars you see on I-5 are going between SF and LA/SD. If you are going to a city in the central valley south of Modesto then you take 99. I see the same cars for that entire stretch from I-580 to the Grapevine.

I do this drive several times a year and have been doing it for 7 years now.

The state has a whole may be just as dense as France as a whole one day, but so what? French cities are much more dense than cities in California, in fact Paris is one of the most dense cities in the developed world.

What do the cities densities have to due with intrastate travel?? Say you have two dense cities 200 miles apart then two less dense cities 200 miles apart. Traveling between them is not any different, once you get in them then its different but not the travel between them.

France is more like say Pennsylvania where there are 2 major areas (Pittsburgh, Philly) and a few smaller but decent sized areas (Erie, Harrisburg) and then rural in the middle.

How is that different from CA when you have two major areas (Bay Area, SoCal) and a few smaller but decent sized areas (Sacramento, Fresno, and Bakersfield)?? Sacramento you could consider major too since it's over 2 million now.

California on the other hand spreads out its population more. Southern California is basically lightly dense development from San Diego up to Ventura.

LA and the Bay Area are two of the densest metropolitan regions in the nation. The LA Metro area is the DENSEST metropolitan area in the nation, denser than NYC's metro.

I'll let you in on a secret. Most electricity is created with fossil fuels. So, a high speed rail is currently just depended on fossil fuels at the moment as anything else.

I let you in on some FACTS:

2005 Energy Production Composition:
California:
Coal: 1%
Natural Gas: 36%
Petroleum: 3%
Nuclear: 19%
Hydroelectric: 20%
Renewables: 20%

United States:
Coal: 50%
Natural Gas: 15%
Petroleum: 6%
Nuclear: 20%
Hydroelectric: 6%
Renewables: 2%

EERE State Activities and Partnerships: Electric Power and Renewable Energy in California

I really wouldn't consider 40% "most" now would you?? And the trend, or actually mandate, is to produce more energy from renewable sources.

Also pretty interesting how you avoided the last question in my previous post for the 2nd time.

If you don't support this b/c you just don't want to pay for it then fine just say that. But don't try to argue that there is no rational basis for building one and try to refute anything I say just for the sake of arguing, which is kind of what you've been doing this whole time.

The state is in a horrible financial mess right now and yes it would make sense to wait. But I feel the longer we wait the more expensive it will get to build, the longer we have to wait for it, and the fact that it might not ever get built at all if you don't act soon. I just think 30 years down the road that we will be grateful that we built it when we did considering it will only cost more in the future. The Bay Area built BART for $1.6 billion, now it would take almost 10x that to build it. LA is kicking itself for not extending the Red Line to Santa Monica and now is looking to build it for about double what it would have cost back when they were originally building it. I look at this in the same light essentially, build it now and you'll be grateful later on down the road you did.

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by sav858

Once again, this isn't an all or nothing type of deal. It's about OPTIONS and ALTERNATIVES, which you still don't seem to understand. HSR will help absorb the increased demand for travel within the state.

"Options" and "Alternatives" don't solve problems. If the high speed rail doesn't solve a problem why build it exactly? So some people can have "options" and "alternatives"? That makes little sense.

Originally Posted by sav858

I said it is better able to deal with increasing capacity when needed.

Yeah you did, but it can only deal with increased capacity if it is operating below capacity. Your comments here make little sense and the same can be same of roadways.

Originally Posted by sav858

No it doesn't. Trains operate at the same speed no matter how many cars they have in a train set. BART operates at the same speed whether it's a 3 car train or a 10 car train.

Yes, trains violate the laws of physics! Additional cars add weight and drag. If you add to many cars the train won't even be able to get started as its gearing won't handle it. Stopping speed is also effected by the number of cars (You know...that thing called momentum). The drag will reduce the speed of the rail.

Adding cars will force the engine to operate at lower speeds as it will require the engine to run on lower gears to pull the load. Of course an engine will have a particular capacity it can pull at such and such speed. Obviously, the BART system was created to be able to pull more than 3 cars. That doesn't mean it can pull 50.

Ever wonder why freight trains go so slow....could it be all those cars??

Seriously, this comment is pretty absurd. Its hard to take you seriously when you say things that any kid with a train set can demonstrate is false.

Originally Posted by sav858

If there are a ton of people taking the train and it's gets so crowded you have to wait for the next one then yes that will add time. But that is not any different than delays from too much traffic caused by a lot of people driving.

Oh you're catching on!

Originally Posted by sav858

No it's not actually and pretty spot on. What is weird and far from reality?? Again you make an absurd statement and back it up with nothing, that alone is just showing how weak your arguments are here.

No its not spot on, its not even spot on in many places in California. If you said it to an European they would laugh you out of the building.

Public transit systems have congestion just like roadways get traffic, its just a bit different in nature. If the public transit system really saved that much time everyone would use it and it would no longer save time over the "alternatives".

Originally Posted by sav858

How do you know this? Again with the absurd assumptions. I grew up taking BART everyday during HS. I used to work in Downtown SD and either took the trolley or a bus there everyday. Do you have this much experience taking public transit everyday for years??

Right, you have experience with BART and the bus/trolleys in San Diego. Both of which are in a state that doesn't rely heavily on public transit. This is why you make claims that are absurd to people that have lived else where.

Originally Posted by sav858

I am a transportation planner at a company who does work for various public transit agencies all around the country. So I know first hand what works, what doesn't, and how to fix it, or at least improve on it, given what you have.

Thats nice, but again I don't care what you do.

Originally Posted by sav858

Then what are all those people in cars doing? Moving goods in there trunks? There are just as many cars on that road as big rigs, probably more.
Now you are showing you don't have that much experience driving I-5 and are making all of these assumptions about it.

I transport goods in a car all the time. And really I don't know what all those cars are doing. Do you? Where is the study? Looking at the type of vehicles isn't going to be particularly telling.

Originally Posted by sav858

Yes the drive is boring but when you're trying to get somewhere that doesn't really matter, most people don't have time to sightsee when they are trying to get somewhere.

Well, the people I know do the opposite. Perhaps the people I know like to enjoy life more = )

There is a difference of 15~20 miles from taking the 101 or the 5 from Los Angeles. If you are in west Los Angeles then there really isn't much different at all. So, if you are having troubles with the I-5 why don't you try your "alternatives" and "options".

Originally Posted by sav858

What do the cities densities have to due with intrastate travel??

They don't and that isn't what I said. Rather, the fact that the population is mostly in particular dense areas does though. In this case high speed rails work decently as they take people to and from the handful of dense cities.

Now take a high speed rail to Los Angeles. Where is it going to go? Union station. But since Los Angeles isn't dense it could take you an additional 40+ minutes on a bus, Metolink, etc to get where you need to be.

Originally Posted by sav858

How is that different from CA when you have two major areas (Bay Area, SoCal) and a few smaller but decent sized areas (Sacramento, Fresno, and Bakersfield)?? Sacramento you could consider major too since it's over 2 million now.

Because the major areas aren't dense.

Originally Posted by sav858

LA and the Bay Area are two of the densest metropolitan regions in the nation. The LA Metro area is the DENSEST metropolitan area in the nation, denser than NYC's metro.

You are making things up. Seriously, this is a waste of time. You're just making things up at this point. Here are the density figures:

Los Angeles .........8,205 sq mi
New York City...... 27,147 sq mi
San Francisco.........16,380 sq mi

Los Angeles has perhaps the LOWEST density of the major cities, rather the opposite of your claim.

Originally Posted by sav858

I let you in on some FACTS:

Not all energy used in California is generated in California. Regardless, whether its 40% or 51% doesn't change the fact that energy generation uses fossil fuels and is tied to such sources.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

"Options" and "Alternatives" don't solve problems. If the high speed rail doesn't solve a problem why build it exactly? So some people can have "options" and "alternatives"? That makes little sense.

So for you it makes sense to do nothing and let congestion get worse and not give anyone any options or alternatives to avoid congestion. Nothing you offered "solved" anything either, all you do is talk about how you are against HSR but offering NOTHING that "solves" anything or gives anyone any other options. great do nothing mentality there...

HSR is cheaper to build than both the highway and airport expansion that would be needed to handle future population growth. So what sense does it make to go with the more expensive option that still forces us to be reliant on cars and planes?

Yeah you did, but it can only deal with increased capacity if it is operating below capacity. Your comments here make little sense and the same can be same of roadways.

And the system will be operating at below MAXIMUM capacity.

"High speed railways have by far the highest capacity per unit land they use. A high speed rail needs just a double track railway, one rail for trains in each direction. These have a capacity for 16 trains per hour, each train with a capacity of 800 passengers. This means a high speed rail has a maximum capacity of 12,800 passengers per hour, which clearly is enough to satisfy the highest of demand, only one railway line is needed. This is unlike motorways which take up a very large amount of space and often cannot satisfy demand fully at peak times."

Do you really think 13,000 people per hour are going to be trying get between LA and SF on HSR?? Why do you keep making the assumption that it will be overloaded with passengers? Based on what? This is why you don't make any sense b/c you just create unrealistic BS scenarios to try to bolster your argument.

Adding cars will force the engine to operate at lower speeds as it will require the engine to run on lower gears to pull the load. Of course an engine will have a particular capacity it can pull at such and such speed. Obviously, the BART system was created to be able to pull more than 3 cars. That doesn't mean it can pull 50.

And that is what I was talking about, they aren't going to add too many cars to the point that it slows the entire system down. Of course you can't add cars to a train set forever, I figured that was obvious and didn't need to be stated. So yes they can keep adding cars until it presents operational issues such as safety and speed.

Each BART car has an engine that moves it, it's not being pulled or pushed by a locomotive. And I never said it could pull 50 cars or indicated that, I know that maximum is 10 b/c that's the longest a station can even fit. So stop twisting my words to make it sound like I am suggesting scenarios that aren't even possible,

Seriously, this comment is pretty absurd. Its hard to take you seriously when you say things that any kid with a train set can demonstrate is false.

It's only absurd b/c you twist my comment around into some extreme example. I wasn't saying HSR can add a 100 cars to a train and have it move at maximum operating speed or that BART is running 50 car long trainsets. I guess since I am speaking with someone that has little transportation knowledge I should be very specific.

No its not spot on, its not even spot on in many places in California. If you said it to an European they would laugh you out of the building.

Like what? What did I say that is not true? You still haven't given me a single example. You think you know what you're talking about here but you do not at all, you don't have as much knowledge and EXPERIENCE with transportation as I do and it's pretty obvious from the things you say.

Public transit systems have congestion just like roadways get traffic, its just a bit different in nature. If the public transit system really saved that much time everyone would use it and it would no longer save time over the "alternatives".

Never said they didn't have congestion now did I? If everyone used it then it would be become overloaded. Just like how everyone uses the freeway at rush hour and it becomes overloaded. But NOT everyone is using it and not everyone will use it. Some will drive and some with take the train and that is the point, so people have options and alternatives instead of everyone overloading the freeways or the trains. It's not about everyone switching to just trains. Do you even get what I am saying here?

If you have 100K commuters that use the freeway at rush hour to work it will become gridlocked with congestion. If you have 100K try to use a single rail line at rush hour it will become congested and max out capacity. But if you have 50k drive and 50k take the train then you have less congestion on both parts b/c some are CHOOSING to use one or the other.Do you get the idea and point behind ALTERNATIVES yet?

Right, you have experience with BART and the bus/trolleys in San Diego. Both of which are in a state that doesn't rely heavily on public transit. This is why you make claims that are absurd to people that have lived else where.

And do you have any experience taking public transit aside from vacations and business trips? Answer this please. Where have you lived with rail systems that you took on a regular basis?? The Bay Area has some of the highest public transit usage in the nation.

So first you said I don't have experience taking PT but now that you realize I do you dismiss my experience!?!? All you are doing is refuting anything I say just for the sake of arguing.

How is it absurd? How is taking BART any different than the DC Metro, NYC Subway, Chicago El?? What is the fundamental difference between how they operate? If you are going to make some claim then EXPLAIN it, by not giving any explanation to your absurd comments all you are doing is showing you don't know what you're talking about and are just arguing just to argue.

Thats nice, but again I don't care what you do.

Well my education, experience, and job makes me a hell of a lot more qualified and informed to speak on the subject than you. What do you do for a living by the way that makes you such an expert on transportation issues? I doubt you'll actually answer this since you pick and choose what to answer, always ignoring the questions you don't have an answer for or can't make up one.

I transport goods in a car all the time. And really I don't know what all those cars are doing. Do you? Where is the study? Looking at the type of vehicles isn't going to be particularly telling.

So what do you do freelance work for FedEx or UPS or something?

All those cars are traveling between NorCal and SoCal for a variety of reasons; family, work, vacation, etc.. doesn't really make a difference but they are all doing the same thing, traveling up and down I-5 to get somewhere.

There is a difference of 15~20 miles from taking the 101 or the 5 from Los Angeles. If you are in west Los Angeles then there really isn't much different at all. So, if you are having troubles with the I-5 why don't you try your "alternatives" and "options".

There are about 16 million other Southern Californians that don't live in West LA in case you didn't realize.

Because that 101 option is STILL LONGER than I-5, so why would I take it??

Now take a high speed rail to Los Angeles. Where is it going to go? Union station. But since Los Angeles isn't dense it could take you an additional 40+ minutes on a bus, Metolink, etc to get where you need to be.

And how is that any different than flying?? At least in Union Station you are at the center of LA's public transit network and that gives far more options and is more central than LAX. Same thing with SF and SD, it will drop you off in downtown where the public transit system is centered, offering more travel options than airports. There will be more stations than airports as well, so instead of everyone in SD having to use Lindberg Field to fly, people can use 1 of 3 stations planned in San Diego. People will be located closer to the train stations than the airports since there will be more of them, therefor making HSR more convenient and possibly even faster than flying when you factor in all the additional time it takes to get to and through the airport.

$1 billion dollars of the HSR rail bond is devoted to help improve the connecting transit systems in our metropolitan areas in addition to all of the expansions they already have planned. HSR will help motivate cities to improve their rail systems, which is something you said you wanted.

Because the major areas aren't dense.

What are you talking about?? LA and the Bay Area are both denser than the Philly and Pittsburg Metro areas. And all of the smaller cities in CA are just as dense as the ones in PA. Show me how Philly and Pittsburg metro areas are denser than LA and the Bay Area? Back up your claim with facts. And I am talking about METROPOLITAN area and NOT just city limits.

You are making things up. Seriously, this is a waste of time. You're just making things up at this point. Here are the density figures:

Los Angeles .........8,205 sq mi
New York City...... 27,147 sq mi
San Francisco.........16,380 sq mi

Los Angeles has perhaps the LOWEST density of the major cities, rather the opposite of your claim.

Once again, you are showing you complete lack of knowledge with anything related to planning, development, and transportation here. I guess this is what I should expect with someone that doesn't have an education, background, or experience with the subject matter at hand.

Do you know the difference between a METROPOLITAN AREA and a CITY?
Those figures are just for CITY LIMITS and not the metropolitan area as a whole. I said it was the DENSEST METROPOLITAN AREA and not CITY. Do you get it now????

LA-Long Beach - Santa Ana METROPOLITAN AREA...........7,068/sq mile
San Francisco - Oakland METROPOLITAN AREA................7,004/sq mile
NY-Newark-CT METROPOLITAN AREA.............................5,309/sq mile
Philadephia, PA-NJ-DE METROPOLITAN AREA....................2,861/sq mile
Pittsburg, PA METROPOLITAN AREA................................2,057/sq mile

USA Urbanized Areas Over 500,000: 2000 Rankings

Please go educate yourself on this subject before to pretend to know what you're talking about b/c it just keeps showing your lack of knowledge with this. I can't believe you don't even know the difference between a city and metropolitan area, that's something they teach you in middle school.

Not all energy used in California is generated in California. Regardless, whether its 40% or 51% doesn't change the fact that energy generation uses fossil fuels and is tied to such sources.

CA is now mandating that the buyer it buys from elsewhere come from renewable and non polluting sources, so our power we buy from other states will become only cleaner in the future.

Again it has to be some "all or nothing" type situation with you. Having 60% or 49% of electricity come from non polluting sources is better than have 10% or none at all.

Also if you respond then EXPLAIN any claims that you make. Try to provide FACTS and SOURCES for anything you list, like I did. You have pretty much nothing to back up most of what you say.

[ImRandy]

Originally Posted by sav858

I let you in on some FACTS:

2005 Energy Production Composition:
California:
Coal: 1%
Natural Gas: 36%
Petroleum: 3%
Nuclear: 19%
Hydroelectric: 20%
Renewables: 20%

That appears to be just the electricity produced in California and not the energy we use in California. We don't generate 100% of the electricity we use in state. It comes from outside sources on the grid as well. Here are the 2007 figures published by the state. The numbers are a little different and more accurate as to where the power will be coming from.

Coal: 16.6%
Large Hydro: 11.7%
Natural Gas: 45.2%
Nuclear: 14.8%
Renewables: 11.8%

I'd consider 62% most.

[Roaddog]

Just a little something about energy in Ca.
Energy in Ca. can come from any supplier except coal. Coal fired plants inside Ca. can not sell their electricity to Ca. but this doesn't stop them from producing and selling their electricity from Ca. so in reality they are still polluting the same within the state, buying from outside the state doesn't change that. The good news is that many Coal plants are trying to convert to biomass but then agian it still pollutes more than natural gas. A few problems with renewable energy is it is very unreliable if it depends on wind or sun to power it and it takes up a lot of room to generate what one small gas fired plant will produce. Wind and solar energy is great but it can only supplement how we generate our electricity because of the reliability factor. Regulations now require Ca. utilities to generate enough power within the state to supply Ca. in case of a national emergancy, they can still import from outside but must show they can handle the state if needed.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by ImRandy

That appears to be just the electricity produced in California and not the energy we use in California. We don't generate 100% of the electricity we use in state. It comes from outside sources on the grid as well. Here are the 2007 figures published by the state. The numbers are a little different and more accurate as to where the power will be coming from.

Coal: 16.6%
Large Hydro: 11.7%
Natural Gas: 45.2%
Nuclear: 14.8%
Renewables: 11.8%

I'd consider 62% most.

Yes I realize that and recognized that fact with my last post. With CA's new mandates for cleaner energy it will require the energy it buys out of state to be clean or it will have to produce it's own clean energy. Either way the energy CA uses in the future will be less polluting than what we have today. And Natural Gas is one of the cleanest fossil fuel energy sources, so I can live with that.

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by sav858

So for you it makes sense to do nothing and let congestion get worse and not give anyone any options or alternatives to avoid congestion.

Alternatives don't exist in the way they think they do. If a rail is truly much faster than driving it will become congested.

Originally Posted by sav858

And the system will be operating at below MAXIMUM capacity.

Again my point is that the rail has a maximum capacity just like a roadway. Its no better at dealing with increases in demand than a roadway. If both are operating at below capacity, you can add more. These are just tautologies.

Originally Posted by sav858

It's only absurd b/c you twist my comment around into some extreme example. I wasn't saying HSR can add a 100 cars to a train and have it move at maximum operating speed or that BART is running 50 car long trainsets.

You said "Trains operate at the same speed no matter how many cars they have in a train set.". I didn't twist anything, this is what you said "no matter how many cars they have".

Originally Posted by sav858

Like what? What did I say that is not true?

For example your comment about using public transit during peak vs non-peak hours. There is a big difference, namely, in the time you are required to wait for available space. Not to mention the difference in crowding.

Originally Posted by sav858

And do you have any experience taking public transit aside from vacations and business trips? Answer this please.

Yes in numerous cities.

Originally Posted by sav858

So first you said I don't have experience taking PT but now that you realize I do you dismiss my experience!?!?

Your experience is with California and public transit in California is half baked at best. California is just much different than other areas for a number of reasons.

The high speed rail is just another example of how bad California is with public transit. They want to build a rail between major cities instead of fixing travel within the cities and metro areas. Without the latter the rail becomes fairly useless.

Originally Posted by sav858

Well my education, experience, and job makes me a hell of a lot more qualified and informed to speak on the subject than you. What do you do for a living by the way that makes you such an expert on transportation issues?

Again, I don't care about your education or your job. I can about your claims. You want to fallaciously imply you are correct because your job and I simply don't care about your appeals to authority.

What do I do? I'm a basket weaver. Got my Ph.D from the international basket weaving institute.

Originally Posted by sav858

All those cars are traveling between NorCal and SoCal for a variety of reasons; family, work, vacation, etc.. doesn't really make a difference but they are all doing the same thing, traveling up and down I-5 to get somewhere.

Wow, they are traveling for a "variety of reasons". Who would've thought? You are a "transportation planner" but you think the demographics of the traffic doesn't really make a different? Are you serious? So, you don't know the nature of the traffic either, beyond knowing that there are "a lot of cars".

Originally Posted by sav858

Because that 101 option is STILL LONGER than I-5, so why would I take it??

Again you serious? If there is congestion on the I-5 as you claim, then the 101 would be faster despite being around 15 miles longer. Of course the parts of the 101 going throw Los Angeles and parts of Ventura County have congestion during peak hours, but there is no congestion "in the middle of no where" as you claim there is on the I-5.

Also, even if both lacked congestion the 101 is just a much much much nicer drive. Try it one day, its well worth the extra 15~20 minutes.

Originally Posted by sav858

What are you talking about?? LA and the Bay Area are both denser than the Philly and Pittsburg Metro areas.

Firstly, in both cases Pittsburgh and Philly have a dense urbane core. The city limits don't really represent what you'd actually think of as the city as both cities annexed new areas later in their history. Secondly, your not getting the issue. PA has a few dense areas and then basically nothing in the middle. California on the other hand spreads out its population and its cities are not very dense.

Originally Posted by sav858

Do you know the difference between a METROPOLITAN AREA and a CITY?

Sure and I mistakenly thought you were talking about cities. Metropolitan areas are only vaguely defined.

Originally Posted by sav858

LA-Long Beach - Santa Ana METROPOLITAN AREA...........7,068/sq mile
San Francisco - Oakland METROPOLITAN AREA................7,004/sq mile
NY-Newark-CT METROPOLITAN AREA.............................5,309/sq mile
Philadephia, PA-NJ-DE METROPOLITAN AREA....................2,861/sq mile
Pittsburg, PA METROPOLITAN AREA................................2,057/sq mile

This shows my point actually. The Los Angeles Metro Area is huge and its density isn't much different from the density of the city. Yet, look at the huge difference between the density of NYC and the NYC metro area.

As I said previously from San Diego to Ventura you have a lightly dense population, there is no real urban core nor are the cities much more dense than their surrounding areas.

Being a transportation planner and all, I think you'd understand the issue. But when you have a city with an actual core the the public transit systems look like a wheel where the core is the hub and the spokes are the routes. California cities don't really have such a core and businesses are spread out all over the place. As a result the transportation needs are much different.
Rails work best in environments where you have an actual business core etc.

Using Europe as a model for California makes no sense at all.

Originally Posted by sav858

Try to provide FACTS and SOURCES for anything you list, like I did. You have pretty much nothing to back up most of what you say.

This is funny, because despite being the "transportation planner" and all you've cited no sources. The whole "Go educate yourself" line is very amusing though, did you just graduate from college?

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by bigdave01

I would vote no on all of them except 1A. I really want the high speed rail.

Ditto! We do need the transit as the price of gas is so high. We are so behind when it comes to public transportation compared to other states and countries.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Alternatives don't exist in the way they think they do. If a rail is truly much faster than driving it will become congested.

You keep making this absurd assumption that everyone will take one OR the other. You just don't get it, it's about some using the train and some driving. If it becomes congested then people will drive and an equilibrium is reached. For the millionth time, it's not an ALL or NOTHING situation here. And there are many other factors that will keep everyone from taking the train such as costs, time, and whether or not they want their car for travel within cities.

Again my point is that the rail has a maximum capacity just like a roadway. Its no better at dealing with increases in demand than a roadway. If both are operating at below capacity, you can add more. These are just tautologies.

I post this again so hopefully you'll actually comprehend it this time:

"High speed railways have by far the highest capacity per unit land they use. A high speed rail needs just a double track railway, one rail for trains in each direction. These have a capacity for 16 trains per hour, each train with a capacity of 800 passengers. This means a high speed rail has a maximum capacity of 12,800 passengers per hour, which clearly is enough to satisfy the highest of demand, only one railway line is needed. This is unlike motorways which take up a very large amount of space and often cannot satisfy demand fully at peak times."

^please take note at the red bold text

You said "Trains operate at the same speed no matter how many cars they have in a train set.". I didn't twist anything, this is what you said "no matter how many cars they have".

You're right there, from the way I worded it I can see how it came off that way but that is not what I literally meant.

For example your comment about using public transit during peak vs non-peak hours. There is a big difference, namely, in the time you are required to wait for available space. Not to mention the difference in crowding.

It is not often that trains are so crowded during rush hour that you are spending a ton of time waiting, especially when you have trains running 3 minutes apart. I took BART during rush hour and everyone that was waiting for a train got on it.

And the crowding has NOTHING to do with operational issues like speed and travel time. Yes it's more crowded during rush hour but that doesn't cause the trip to take longer, unlike on freeways now does it?

Yes in numerous cities.

So what cities have you lived in where you have taken PT on a regular basis?

Your experience is with California and public transit in California is half baked at best. California is just much different than other areas for a number of reasons.

HOW??? EXPLAIN??? What is the different between taking BART or Metro in LA to taking the Chicago El, NYC Subway, DC Metro, etc.. WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE??

The high speed rail is just another example of how bad California is with public transit. They want to build a rail between major cities instead of fixing travel within the cities and metro areas. Without the latter the rail becomes fairly useless.

That's because this is an issue about INTRAstate travel and not urban area travel. Two different subjects here. So should we ignore intrastate travel completely to focus just on cities?? And we already have rail systems in our major metro areas to expand on, which the HSR bond addresses and provides funds for. I already stated that too!

There are tons of projects in the works and in the planning and developments stage for expanded urban rail projects in SF, LA, SD, and Sacramento. So they are taking care of the latter right now.

Again, I don't care about your education or your job. I can about your claims. You want to fallaciously imply you are correct because your job and I simply don't care about your appeals to authority.

What do I do? I'm a basket weaver. Got my Ph.D from the international basket weaving institute.

Amazing how you think you're an expert on this. The problem here is you don't fully understand or cannot comprehend what I am trying to say b/c you lack the knowledge and experience that I have and that is the problem here. You keep insisting you're right when you don't even know what you're talking about. I am more qualified to speak on the issue that you whether you choose to accept that simple fact or not, but you're types never do.

Again you serious? If there is congestion on the I-5 as you claim, then the 101 would be faster despite being around 15 miles longer. Of course the parts of the 101 going throw Los Angeles and parts of Ventura County have congestion during peak hours, but there is no congestion "in the middle of no where" as you claim there is on the I-5.

Also, even if both lacked congestion the 101 is just a much much much nicer drive. Try it one day, its well worth the extra 15~20 minutes.

I've taken 101 before it is a lot longer than 15-20 minutes. And there is congestion on 101 too, obviously you must not drive it that much if you have never gotten stuck in traffic on 101. Are kidding me?? All the traffic between Ventura and SB is ridiculous. I've tried 101 as an alternative and it is NOT faster b/c when I-5 is gridlocked during peak travel times so is 101.

Firstly, in both cases Pittsburgh and Philly have a dense urbane core. The city limits don't really represent what you'd actually think of as the city as both cities annexed new areas later in their history. Secondly, your not getting the issue. PA has a few dense areas and then basically nothing in the middle. California on the other hand spreads out its population and its cities are not very dense.

PA has plenty of small to medium sized cities in the middle. Look at a map of population density distribution in PA and CA and you will find CA with a lot more empty and less dense areas than PA.

Who cares about "city limits" what matters is METROPOLITAN areas. And again, the metro areas are all denser than anything PA has. And in addition in goes through the Central Valley passing Bakersfield and Fresno, which are relatively large cities. And that will only help increase ridership as opposed to going through empty farmland the entire length from LA to SF.

You really don't know what you're talking about here at all. This is where your lack of knowledge on the subject shows.

Sure and I mistakenly thought you were talking about cities. Metropolitan areas are only vaguely defined.

Really, b/c in the quote you responded to I didn't mention the word "city" once and mention "metropolitan" or "metro" 4 different times in a sentence.

"LA and the Bay Area are two of the densest metropolitan regions in the nation. The LA Metro area is the DENSEST metropolitan area in the nation, denser than NYC's metro."

Actually they are NOT vaguely defined, go to the Census bureau website if you need definitions. Or even Wikipedia will help your lack of knowledge on that subject.

This shows my point actually. The Los Angeles Metro Area is huge and its density isn't much different from the density of the city. Yet, look at the huge difference between the density of NYC and the NYC metro area.

As I said previously from San Diego to Ventura you have a lightly dense population, there is no real urban core nor are the cities much more dense than their surrounding areas.

Being a transportation planner and all, I think you'd understand the issue. But when you have a city with an actual core the the public transit systems look like a wheel where the core is the hub and the spokes are the routes. California cities don't really have such a core and businesses are spread out all over the place. As a result the transportation needs are much different.
Rails work best in environments where you have an actual business core etc.

I see what you're saying here but this really only matters for travel within a metro area and not travel between them. SF also has a much denser core than the rest of the Bay Area. Also LA and SD's density figures are brought down by all the suburban areas they annexed. If you took out the San Fernando Valley from LA city limits, you'd probably have over 10,000/sq mile. Same deal with SD, if you took out Rancho Bernardo, Mira Mesa, Scripps Ranch, and other suburban areas it's density would increase. SD's core is somewhat dense as is LA's. Parts of LA, like Koreatown, have over 40,000 people per sq mile.

Also look at a transit map of LA and tell me what it looks like. All of the rail lines, except the Green Line, converge downtown. Look at SF, most of the rail lines converge downtown, in SD the same situation.

And HSR will only help strengthen the cores of our cities. HSR will spur BILLION of dollars of economic development around the stations. CA's cities are younger but they only grow denser each year. LA's downtown is improving and SD's already is great and only getting better. Sacramento has some huge development projects in the works for their downtown too.

HSR is about moving people in between metro areas, not within them. It's not that different than flying in this sense.

And I already addressed this in my previous post and asked you a question about it, which you ignored AGAIN. We keep going in circles here b/c you keep repeating the same crap over and over b/c you don't answer my initial question or comment that mentions this. So I'll do it again:

Now take a high speed rail to Los Angeles. Where is it going to go? Union station. But since Los Angeles isn't dense it could take you an additional 40+ minutes on a bus, Metolink, etc to get where you need to be.

And how is that any different than flying?? At least in Union Station you are at the center of LA's public transit network and that gives far more options and is more central than LAX. Same thing with SF and SD, it will drop you off in downtown where the public transit system is centered, offering more travel options than airports. There will be more stations than airports as well, so instead of everyone in SD having to use Lindberg Field to fly, people can use 1 of 3 stations planned in San Diego. People will be located closer to the train stations than the airports since there will be more of them, therefor making HSR more convenient and possibly even faster than flying when you factor in all the additional time it takes to get to and through the airport.

$1 billion dollars of the HSR rail bond is devoted to help improve the connecting transit systems in our metropolitan areas in addition to all of the expansions they already have planned. HSR will help motivate cities to improve their rail systems, which is something you said you wanted.

This is funny, because despite being the "transportation planner" and all you've cited no sources. The whole "Go educate yourself" line is very amusing though, did you just graduate from college?

You know those things that are highlighted blue, they are called "links" and if you click on them they take you to a webpage that shows where my info came from.

What is even more amusing is someone who doesn't understand transportation planning, cities, and urban planning that picks and chooses what they respond to and never explains what they are talking about unless asked 2 or 3 times.

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by sav858

"High speed railways have by far the highest capacity per unit land they use. A high speed rail needs just a double track railway, one rail for trains in each direction. These have a capacity for 16 trains per hour, each train with a capacity of 800 passengers. This means a high speed rail has a maximum capacity of 12,800 passengers per hour[/b],[b] which clearly is enough to satisfy the highest of demand, only one railway line is needed. This is unlike motorways which take up a very large amount of space and often cannot satisfy demand fully at peak times."

We weren't taking about capacity in terms of per unit land they use. You made the claim that they can deal with increases in demand better and they in fact cannot. When they reach capacity they reach capacity just like a roadway, in fact if anything roadways are more dynamic. If the rail is operating near capacity during off-peak times then during peak-times its going to be congested, just like roadways.

Originally Posted by sav858

It is not often that trains are so crowded during rush hour that you are spending a ton of time waiting, especially when you have trains running 3 minutes apart. I took BART during rush hour and everyone that was waiting for a train got on it.

Again your experience with a single rail system.

Originally Posted by sav858

And the crowding has NOTHING to do with operational issues like speed and travel time.

It is relevant in terms of whether people will actually use the system. People don't like crowding and will avoid it.

Originally Posted by sav858

WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE??

That the transit systems in other cities are maxing out their capacity and have congestion. This is usually the case, because as I've said many times once you've maxed out your capacity on a rail there isn't anything you can do to deal with increased demand. Rail systems, bus systems etc all get congested for the same reason roadways do.

Originally Posted by sav858

That's because this is an issue about INTRAstate travel and not urban area travel. Two different subjects here. So should we ignore intrastate travel completely to focus just on cities??

The high speed rail will not be effective without good public transit in the cities due to the way California cities are structured (i.e., they aren't dense).

Originally Posted by sav858

Amazing how you think you're an expert on this. The problem here is you don't fully understand or cannot comprehend what I am trying to say b/c you lack the knowledge and experience that I have and that is the problem here. You keep insisting you're right when you don't even know what you're talking about. I am more qualified to speak on the issue that you whether you choose to accept that simple fact or not, but you're types never do.

I never claimed to be an expert, you see I don't try to support my positions appealing to my "authority' in a field. And once again, I don't care about your supposed qualifications. Can you make a post without making petty fallacies? Perhaps you need to read this:

Appeal to authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know, when people are in college or just graduate with their fancy bachelors they get big heads. But stick to logic.

Originally Posted by sav858

I've taken 101 before it is a lot longer than 15-20 minutes. And there is congestion on 101 too, obviously you must not drive it that much if you have never gotten stuck in traffic on 101. Are kidding me?? All the traffic between Ventura and SB is ridiculous. I've tried 101 as an alternative and it is NOT faster b/c when I-5 is gridlocked during peak travel times so is 101.

I've timed it, its no more than around 20 minutes longer or so. Also, I mentioned the traffic during peak hours, I said there is no traffic "in the middle of no where". And there isn't. Also, in terms of north of Los Angeles most of the traffic on the 101 is in Oxnard and Ventura, not in the middle of Ventura and Santa Barbara.

If you are traveling from SD to SF during peak hours, you're going to experience far more traffic on the I-5 than you would the 101. The obvious thing to do is not to travel during peak hours.

Originally Posted by sav858

PA has plenty of small to medium sized cities in the middle. Look at a map of population density distribution in PA and CA and you will find CA with a lot more empty and less dense areas than PA.

PA doesn't have plenty of small to medium sized cities, you obviously haven't been to the state. Outside of the major cities, you don't have cities at all in fact. You see, there isn't enough people to form cities. They have townships and things of that nature. Its completely different than California, especially Southern California. The only area of California that resembles at all the areas between major cities in Pennsylvania is Northern California (above the Bay area).

Perhaps you didn't know the difference in geography, but the empty areas of California (in particular in the south land) are those areas where people can't easily live. You know those crazy Mountains, deserts etc.

I seriously recommend that you get outside of California some day.

Originally Posted by sav858

Who cares about "city limits" what matters is METROPOLITAN areas. And again, the metro areas are all denser than anything PA has.

No, what matters isn't metropolitan areas. I've already noted the difference between Los Angeles which is spread out and a city with a dense urban core like NYC though.

Anyhow, you can beat the fact that I misread your initial comments all you want. But it isn't going to improve your argument.

Originally Posted by sav858

Actually they are NOT vaguely defined, go to the Census bureau website if you need definitions. Or even Wikipedia will help your lack of knowledge on that subject.

They are vaguely defined in that they are fairly arbitrary. I can draw lines around an area and call it the "metro area", but that doesn't mean what I did makes much sense at all. Cities on the other hard tend to be defined in a more meaningful matter, because for example its under one government etc.
The Los Angeles metro area includes areas that aren't really part of Los Angeles in any meaningful way. Likewise for many other metro areas.

Originally Posted by sav858

Also look at a transit map of LA and tell me what it looks like. All of the rail lines, except the Green Line, converge downtown. Look at SF, most of the rail lines converge downtown, in SD the same situation.

Right, which is why public transit doesn't work well in these cities. They are built using models from other cities despite major differences. Just as the high speed rail may work fine in other areas, but in California isn't not going to help much at all. Los Angeles has numerous business districts and they are spread out.

Originally Posted by sav858

And HSR will only help strengthen the cores of our cities. HSR will spur BILLION of dollars of economic development around the stations. CA's cities are younger but they only grow denser each year. LA's downtown is improving and SD's already is great and only getting better. Sacramento has some huge development projects in the works for their downtown too.

I don't care about making California cities denser.

Originally Posted by sav858

And how is that any different than flying?? At least in Union Station you are at the center of LA's public transit network and that gives far more options and is more central than LAX.

It isn't much different than flying, but so what? We already have a solution for this sort of travel and that is just the point. This was suppose to be your big knock question?

Originally Posted by sav858

You know those things that are highlighted blue, they are called "links" and if you click on them they take you to a webpage that shows where my info came from.

Oh yes, I just looked you linked to 4 things. I actually linked to more "sources" than you. So, you can claim you're the expert but you aren't speaking like one and you certainly aren't justifying your opinion with data and outside sources. So don't pretend like you are.

You should think about letting some air out of your head, its looking a little big from here. Did you just graduate from college?

Originally Posted by sav858

What is even more amusing is someone who doesn't understand transportation planning, cities, and urban planning that picks and chooses what they respond to and never explains what they are talking about unless asked 2 or 3 times.

What is more amusing is that you spend more time trying to insult the people you are debating with than justifying your view. And you are again the one that is supposedly a "transportation planner", I would expect you to speak with knowledge and justify your positions rather than speak like a freshman in College with a big head.