By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I understand it does not sound that sexy and the short term dangers are not so visible.
I have a hard time accepting the theory that the earth is in any kind of danger. Maybe mankind is in peril. Which is worse the threat of all out war starting with Iran and Israel or the ice melting and flooding low lying areas? I think there are issues in this World that trump the GW hysteria. The collapse of our economy is not a small issue for those of US in America. It will spread to all the World quickly. The last thing people that are starving are going to worry about is their carbon footprint. Everything I see proposed to cope with GW is just pushing the World closer to economic collapse. Which will create chaos that will lead to anarchy and dictators rising up to control the masses. At that point NO ONE will care that the global temperature is rising by 6/10ths of a degree over the next 100 years. Al Gore will be hiding in his mega mansion trying to find the ammunition his dad stashed in the attic for the revolution.
Yes a high speed train ride across America sounds intriguing. I don't see it happening in my life time. So I will just go ahead and drive my Sequoia or hopefully an efficient diesel SUV on my vacations around the country. I will keep an eye open when I am in the low lying areas.
Are you saying that planes offer better comfort, with the checking up queues, delays and all the mess with ridiculous luggage allowance ?
Did you ever board a high speed train in Europe ? To clear any possible misunderstanding, I don't consider the Acela express corridor train as a high speed train. 6 hour 36 minutes for 452 miles (Boston-Washington) is still a bit more than 3 hours for 540 miles (Paris -Marseilles).
I suggest to cut the stereotypes of train transport. Stereotypes by the way are contradictory with independant thinking.
>& prefer the intimate privacy of their own vehicles.
Well, how about road safety concerns? It is no secret that accidents per million passenger is maybe 1000X lower with trains than cars. Isn't staying alive priceless ?
I admit being in one own's vehicule may be a pleasant experience. If you prefer spending more time in gridlock /traffic congestion, I respect your choice, provided that you pay the real cost which is not met by current 4+ USD per gallon.
> Build more freeways, highways, & honor the automobile.
those roads are very real estate hungry and densely built-up areas can't accomodate 6-8 lanes highway.
the current automobile-only culture is really costing Americans a lot of money and much more than that.
You are right, I did not express myself correctly. What is in danger is the earth ability to support mankind (and many other life forms as well)
>Which is worse the threat of all out war starting with Iran and Israel or...
I do no wish to compare those two threats which are so different but regretfully real.
My views don't contradict addressing military threats. I am not sure that the second Iraqi war did anything to help in this respect though.
> I think there are issues in this World that trump the GW hysteria
I don't think there is as much hysteria as there is indifference or denial. Tackling GHG is also an incredible opportunity for economic development in the US. The first economy that will be the most oil independant will certainly take the lead in this century.
I don't support hysteria but I support a strong action plan
>The last thing people that are starving are going to worry about is their carbon footprint.
GW/CC is predicted to radically shift climate patterns, which in turn is likely to reduce the quality of arable land. Droughs, floods, record high temperatures,
Food prices are already increasing because of oil prices. Foul weather will really tip the balance. The coming up years are going to be very tough, and this will impact US too.
>Everything I see proposed to cope with GW is just pushing the World closer to economic collapse.
I suppose this includes my sustainable transportation /clean technology views. in this case I respectfully disagree.
>At that point NO ONE will care that the global temperature is rising by 6/10ths of a degree over the next 100 years.
This is very true, especially because 6/10ths may represent a very small fraction of the temperature increase.
You may know the SS Manhattan's voyage to Alaska through the North West passage in 1969. This modified Tanker, assisted by an icebreaker found herself blocked quite a few times by ice many meters thick, despite her 43000 HP.
Now, the North West passage is accessible with a one-manned pleasure boat for most of its length. Temperatures have indeed risen on the north ice cap, but 6/10ths may represent a yearly figure.
What changes GW/CC will bring about ? If we continue to go our current way, we may soon get the answer and I am afraid this is not going to be good news.
This is a very speculative statement. Some areas may become less useful while others become more useful. I do believe a case can be made for an overall rise in temperature. I do not think a good case can be made for man to change the climate. None of the countries that signed onto the original Kyoto have reached the goals set out in that treaty. The countries that will be contributing the most in the near future, China and India are not going to be tied to any restraints that slow economic growth. The USA is buried in debt trying to be the World policeman and cannot afford to finance these wild programs of cutting GHG. We are on the brink of economic collapse in the USA because of our personal debt and the high cost of energy.
Most alternatives to our energy problems, that may cut GHG, will add to our trade deficit. We are so environmentally regulated in this country we cannot even do positive things to alleviate the problems. Solar and wind projects are so bogged down by regulations that they are being canceled. So how will this be a plus for the USA? The very people preaching this GW hysteria are the ones blocking progress in that direction. So we are at an impasse. I say let the sea rise where it will. Buy on top of the mountain while ocean front property is still valuable.
Can high speed trains compete with air travel for distances up to 500 miles or more? If so they may be good solutions for heavily traveled corridors. We have deregulated the airlines to the point that 1000s of small communities in the USA are very hard to reach except by car. Our bus services like Greyhound are HORRIBLE at best. I have not heard anything good about that form of travel in recent years. It may or may not get you to your destination. For the foreseeable future the personal auto is the only logical choice for most of US. If batteries are invented that offer decent range they will be the wave of the future. We will need more roads and highways.
We would be better off as a society to abandon our big cities and spread out across this great land. Get an acre plant a garden, raise some chickens and live longer.
I usually see the big TARC(city) buses in Louisville with about 8 or 9 people in them, many times just 3 or 4. Seems like a waste to the taxpayer and the environment. I would guess a big bus like that would put out about 10 times the pollution a regular sized sedan would.
I understand from you position that you are convinced GW/CC is either not a big deal or not man induced.
It seems there is a consensus though that human activities do have a strong influence on climate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Human_influences_on_climate_change
It could be an endless debate because maybe you will require even more drastic climate changes for you to be convinced. (the disappearance of North pole ice cap is the phenomenon who got me understand) Time will tell anyway.
> None of the countries that signed onto the original Kyoto have reached the goals set out in that treaty.
If they signed, it means they recognized the issue and the need to tackle it. I heard that recently G.W Bush was open to the idea of measured GHG emissions objectives.
>The countries that will be contributing the most in the near future, China and India are not going to be tied to any restraints that slow economic growth.
Clean / oil less technologies are a factor of growth. China have understand that and is building Photovoltaics production facilities at brisk pace. China has already a wide offer on electric cars.
Reliance on oil is restraining economic growth. Clean technologies are an incredible opportunity for the US. All now is in the will to grab it.
>The USA is buried in debt trying to be the World policeman and cannot afford to finance these wild programs of cutting GHG.
1) it is all about priorities. Most of the money burnt is in Iraq. Financing of this should have been given to private venture only and not the taxpayer's money.
What will be left of all the money flared ?
2) All the programmes I proposed are 100% investment and no spending. As a result, we should get measurable assets under the form of infrastructures or key technical advance. We will get measurable improvements in life quality and transport speeds while saving money.
> Most alternatives to our energy problems, that may cut GHG, will add to our trade deficit.
Isn't oil one of the largest source of trade deficit ? how lowering oil consumption (hence imports) is going to increase trade deficit? Heavily investing in clean technologies in the US means developing domestic clean technologies. These are tomorrow's jobs. You prefer to abandon such jobs to China ?
>Can high speed trains compete with air travel for distances up to 500 miles or more?
it is considered that below 2 hours of train journey, air travel will disappear (this happened when Paris to Lyon TGV was opened in 1981 in just 2 hours. Up to 3 hours, train remain competitive and will grab up to 75% marketshare depending on tarrifs (Paris to Strasbourg, Paris to Marseille)
Over 3 hours, plane is increasingly taking advantage, taking the majority above 4 or 5 hours journey.
the 3 hour -journey time is a reference, because when taking the plane and unless departure and destination being close to airports, we generally add 2-3 hours for check-in, security, luggage pick-up, waiting, transit from and to airport on top of actual flying duration.
with new generation high speed trains with a cruise speed of 225mph (360 km/h) I see a real case for an atlantic line from Portland to Miami
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:High-Speed_Rail_Corridor_Designations.png
While we would not expect many people going end to end, there is enough population to keep this line busy.
A link between the NY area and the great lakes would make sense too.
A california high speed train has been in discussion for so long to the point it is ridiculous. There are enough key cities and population to grant a heavy load on this line.
High speed train (HST) are all electrics so no emission (unless factoring the power plants producing electricity) Steel on steel rolling means very little friction thus little lost power in comparison to any ground transport
HST success rely on the ability to offer competitive journey times in regard to air travel, but much more comfort and practical aspects. a Railway station is easy to integrate in a built-up environment. such can't be said for an airport.
In relation to cars, HST boast much much higher average speeds and much more safety against accidents. We can do other activities while on the train (reading, eating, playing). Many people do the same behind the wheel and no wonder there are so many deaths on the roads.
I will admit that I like the idea of train travel. Actually for me the speed is not as much a factor as comfort and flexibility. We currently have train service from Mexico to Canada. It is not heavily used and has frequent delays. You still need transportation at your destination. Does that bring the cost over just driving. Flying now has its own challenges. Of course delays are a way of life for as long as I have been flying. I have over 700,000 actual miles on Alaska Airlines because of my 3500+ mile commute every 3 weeks. I have just about decided the only place I will fly for vacation is Hawaii. The rest of the USA I will drive. I don't think I can justify the cost for a vacation to the EU.
Now back to HSTs. How do you propose that a daily commuter would get from his home in San Diego to a job in the San Fernando Valley if we have a HST from SD to LA? I am very practical and like practical solutions to problems.
I just talked to my wife about the fact that we can get a senior pass to ride all the bus and trolley lines for $16 per month. She asked why would we ever do that? I said we could go to Balboa Park and the ZOO. Then I did some checking. We could drive to the bus stop 2.8 miles from home and catch the 8:30 AM bus & trolley ride to Balboa Park and be let off about 1 mile from the Zoo. If we leave the Zoo and catch that bus at 2PM we will be back in Alpine at 4:31 PM. Our usual Zoo trip we leave home at 8:15 AM. We get to the Zoo and park about 50 feet from the entrance just before it opens at 9 AM. Walk briskly to the Polar Bear Plunge and watch their early morning antics until the masses make it impossible to see anything. We then stroll around some area of the park and usually leave by 10:30 AM. We are then home well before lunch. With Premium at Costco selling for $4.55 per gallon it costs us $16.87 to drive the Lexus on our 66 mile round trip. When you add buying lunch at the zoo it will end up costing us a lot more than our normal routine. When things get so bad that we have to take the bus and trolley we will probably just stay home.
PS
When the Arctic can no longer support the polar bears we will have some. Our two favorites are the orphans from Barrow Alaska.
Now I can agree with you that a high-speed train makes sense to replace some short-distance air travel, but a high-speed train is only moving a few hundred people at a time. Even if you have a train pulling in every 10 minutes at a station on a line, that only moves a few thousand people/hr.
And on a high-speed line, to hit high-speed you need to minimize the stops. Trains like these do NOTHING to help the individual in the U.S. commute, shop or do their other misc. travel.
In fact while in France, I noticed that despite the high gas-price, there was a lot of auto traffic, and very few people on bikes, scooters or walking. The main difference was the cars were small and mostly diesel.
I bet most people in france don't get onboard that high-speed train more than once a year. Probably if they're going on vacation they take that train.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Wonder what the diesels will score?
SACRAMENTO, California — The state of California will require all 2009 model and later cars to be labeled with stickers giving their global warming score, starting at the beginning of the year. The labels will rate vehicles on a scale of 1-10 — with 10 being the best and 5 an average number — based on direct emissions and emissions related to fuel production, and will let consumers make comparisons between models.
California vehicles already are given a Smog Score, in which new models are rated on a 1-10 scale for emissions. The labeling will be displayed side by side on new vehicles sold in the state. Consumers can also look up detailed information on the Drive Clean Web site.
New York can expect a similar sticker law for new models starting in 2010.
I am not very familiar with California Geography, but it seems the California HST authority has such plans
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
According to their site, LA to SD would need about 1 hour 18 minutes for 167 miles of track
I guess taking the car for the same distance would require about twice as much time. It looks like the ticket price would basically match the price of gas burnt, depending greatly on the car fuel efficiency.
Using the HST for commute would be possible if you have reasonable access to origin and destination stations. I guess that those will be planned with enough car accomodation , like airports, and I hope they will be complemented by some arterial rail / light rail network.
The French HST made possible daily commuting to Paris from cities up to 150 miles away. In turn, this boosted real estate values of those cities, previously seen as provincial.
> we can get a senior pass to ride all the bus and trolley lines for $16 per month
I think the trolley line/ light rail network in the L.A. area is patchy at best and can not reasonably and consistently bring you to the key spots in reasonable conditions.
I consider buses as the poor man's public transit as they combine both the disavantage of road transport (oil dependant, traffic dependant ) and those inherent to public transport (time tables, served areas, frequency, comfort, tarrif)
They could be of help if they were supported by a rail backbone, but will collapse (in terms or ridership) if let alone.
I may add that I am a car enthusiast myself. I vigorously support building HST /mass transit infrastructure because I want to be free to choose how I want to travel. It is good to have one other transport mode when the first one fails for whatever reasons. Moreover, more people taking the train means fewer cars on the roads and fewer planes in the sky. a real win-win situation
I am convinced there is no freedom if there is no choice. Currently, if I want to go to LA to SF, I only have the choice between burning gas or burning kerosene. I really think Californians deserve a third choice (2h38 minutes estimated by HST)
the highest seating capacity is currently when coupling two 2-level TGV together for a total of 1024 seats. One TGV set is made of 8 cars between 2 heads for about 200 meter long (656 feet). This limitation is necessary for older rail infrastructures (stations) to accomodate the TGV.
in the US where so many things are bigger, I would not be surprised to see much longer units for a total capacity of about 1500. this would represent nearly 4 B747
extract from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_train#Technology
A typical capacity is 15 trains per hour and 800 passengers per train (as for the Eurostar sets), which implies a capacity of 12,000 passengers per hour in each direction. By way of contrast, the Highway Capacity Manual gives a maximum capacity for a single lane of highway of 2,250 passenger cars per hour (excluding trucks or RVs). Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 1.57 people [24], a standard twin track railway has a typical capacity 13% greater than a 6-lane highway (3 lanes each way), while requiring only 40% of the land
If we add things up together, we easily have in excess of one million passenger per week capacity (say 15 hours service per day) or more than 50 million per year.
>Trains like these do NOTHING to help the individual in the U.S. commute, shop or do their other misc. travel.
I would not take the TGV myself to go grocery shopping. They must be complemented by local interest lines. I think vast areas like those of L.A. (the one I am a bit familiar with) would be suitable for light rail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T_Third_Islais.jpg
it is not as capital intensive as heavy rail, but offer much better average speeds than buses thanks to their own tracks.
All the strength of mass transit is in the network.
>In fact while in France, I noticed that despite the high gas-price, there was a lot of auto traffic, and very few people on bikes, scooters or walking.
I think that French mass transit system only cover 25-30% of potential needs. the lack of choice still put too many on the roads.
Of course," a lot" of traffic is always a relative thing. Coming back from China, I find Paris traffic looking like that of a small provicial city...
Now to the meat of the issue. Proposition ONE that is on our November ballot is asking to float a bond for $9.95 BILLION to get the ball rolling. It is hoping for Federal funds and additional funds that I would expect to come from the general fund. We are in the middle of massive budget cuts in CA. They are laying teachers off in school districts all over the state.
If passed, the ballot measure would provide $9 billion for the construction of the core segment between San Francisco and Los Angeles/Anaheim and an additional $950 million for improvements on local railroad systems, which would serve as feeder systems for high-speed rail mainline. However, the project would still depend on federal matching funds, since a $9.95 billion bond issue would cover at most half of the estimated cost of the initial core segment.According to a 2004 estimate, the complete system from Sacramento to San Diego would likely have a cost of more than $30 billion, with 2007 estimates of the cost being $40 billion. The California High-Speed Rail Authority plans to use the projected operating profit from the initial San Francisco-Los Angeles line to finance further extensions to Sacramento and San Diego.
My inclination is to Vote "NO" on the proposition. If the last governor had not pissed away our $39 billion surplus we could have this HST. That money ended up lost in the Enron scandal. Our governor and legislature cannot budget the $100s of billions they now extract from our pockets. This would be an additional tax for those of us that pay taxes. About half the CA residents pay little or nothing. Those are the ones that would benefit from mass transit.
If some fat cat like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett want to build a HST and operate it as a private enterprise I would say great. I just do not see it as a good substitute for an efficient vehicle. If I want to ride on one I can take a vacation to France :shades:
An often ignored greenhouse gas makes predicting climate even more uncertain.
When most people think of climate change they envision billowing smokestacks, and diesel engines responsible for releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But they’re over looking a far more inconspicuous culprit – methane– emissions of which may be slowing down.
Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas, behind only carbon dioxide, according to the new report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere had risen to 1732 parts per billion in the 1990’s from 715 parts per billion a century before. Since the 1990’s the methane level has only climbed to 1774 parts per billion, indicating that the rate of methane emissions are slowing.
Much man-made methane comes from a surprising low-tech source: “It’s cows burping,” said Elaine Matthews, a methane expert at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, explaining that cud-chewing animals like cows and sheep, along with other agricultural animals and processes, release enough methane to double the natural concentration in the atmosphere.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I propose that all GW advocates volunteer to go out to the farms all across the country with thousands of large corks. They could plug up this methane problem once and for all.
Me, I would help but I'm busy draining swamps.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
WASHINGTON — While others criticized the Bush administration's inaction on greenhouse gases, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe warned Friday that it has put in place a scenario that will bankrupt the U.S. economy.
A key player in the years-long debate over climate change, the Oklahoma Republican agreed that using the Clean Air Act to put new regulations in place would be an unprecedented expansion of the Environmental Protection Agency's authority that would impact every household.
"Obviously the concept of regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act is flawed and the act must be amended by Congress," Inhofe said.
"Today's notice should concern all lawmakers; no one should want the EPA to exercise the kind of power and authority that the career staff at EPA contemplates."
Last month, he said, the Senate rejected a "cap-and-trade" proposal that would allow companies to buy or sell allowances depending on their level of pollution.
"It is ironic that the EPA has proposed an even more economically destructive scheme this close to that bill's demise," Inhofe said.
"If Congress does not act, then the resulting regulations could be the largest regulatory intrusion into Americans' personal lives, a nightmare scenario.
"Big Brother is alive and well in the career ranks at the EPA."
Inhofe's strong comments came after the administration's decision that it would not regulate greenhouse gases despite a Supreme Court ruling that the government was authorized to do so under the Clean Air Act.
What specifically drew Inhofe's concern was the EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking soliciting public input.
Key Democrats also criticized the administration but for not moving forward with a plan.
"The Bush administration decision today to effectively reject regulation of global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act creates a clear and present danger to the American people," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said.
"Despite the Supreme Court's finding that EPA was ducking its responsibility under the law to control global warming emissions, the Bush administration continues to block all action."
Boxer is chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Inhofe serves as that panel's top Republican.
The concept of buying one's way out of responsibility with "Carbon Credits" is the Devil in the Global Warming Cult. It is designed to allow the wealthy to keep their status quo and the little guy will have to sacrifice his meager lifestyle to satisfy the enviro gods.
Meaning that it is crap in reality right ? Frankly I don't know of any HST line that was built and which appeared as a failure afterwards. You may prefer the traffic jams and the 65mph SL of California but some others may not.
The largest HST failure I ever came across was in the US. The very first mistake about it is that it is absent.
>What that means to the person getting on the HST anywhere along the line is the need to have someone drop them off on one end and someone to pick them up on the other
There is no way to have 100% end to end mass transit transport for everyone in California. The car keeps its overall flexibility advantage.
I see however a potential for mix car+mass transit transport. pure or partial mass transit could represent 30% of all transport in california, that would be 20-30% less of a massive amount of CO2 in the air.
>y inclination is to Vote "NO" on the proposition. If the last governor had not pissed away our $39 billion surplus we could have this HST.
In other words, you are telling me the HST should pay for the Enron scandal -or whatever scandal that burned this massive amount.
Major infrastructures projects should receive less money while money spending/wasting should go ahead first? I also support more money for education. I already hinted at some measures that imho could save money.
>About half the CA residents pay little or nothing. Those are the ones that would benefit from mass transit.
I am not sure about the rationale behind this thinking.
Do you view mass/rail transit as a sorry transport meant for the most economically challenged only ? You know, I am supporting transport sytems that both decrease A to B transit time and burnt oil while increasing comfort. While wouldn't everyone benefit from this ?
>if some fat cat like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett want to build a HST and operate it as a private enterprise I would say great.
How about the Interstate highway systems. Was it built using private only funds ?
while it is certainly recognized as a major engineering project in the 50s, one could arguably say that at that time it did not benefit but to a few ?
It is all about the US stepping into oil-free transportation systems. This is a huge opportunity for America.
Saving money is not what American politics is all about. HST is no small project. The sad part is every year the projected cost of building a mass transit system goes up by an enormous figure. Lets look at that. Going from a possible $30 billion to $40 billion in one year. What cost 25% more? Wages have not gone up more than 3% at best. We are dealing with a nest of corrupt officials in the USA. So tell me again. WHY SHOULD I VOTE TO INCREASE MY TAXES? This is an open ended project with no real cost attached. The last project like this in the USA was a total disaster. The BIG DIG in Boston. Seattle voted down just such a project by 70%. The US citizens are getting tired of paying big bucks for failed public projects. About all big cities seem capable of doing are sports stadiums. Which I have always voted against.
Now let's look at this project. Where is the heavy traffic we are going to relieve? It is mostly around LA and SF. Not when you get out on Interstate 5 between the two. That is relatively light traffic. It would be nice to get to SF from LA in a shorter time than driving. We could open the speed limit on those sections of the Interstate to autobahn speeds and that would speed up the time from SD to LA to SF or Sacramento. With HST you still have to get around once you are there. I do not see as much need as there is within the metro area where the real congestion exists. If I am going North and have to pass through LA. I go at 2 AM when traffic is light.
Did I mention Ahnold is cutting education spending. So where would the extra money come from for HST? I can hear it now. We ran out of HST funds just outside of Fresno. It would be the "train to nowhere". Sort of like the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.
The Interstate highway system was supposed to cost US $25 billion over 12 years. It ended up $114 billion over 35 years. That is $425 billion in 2006 dollars. It was a result of the Big 3 lobby money well spent. It killed travel by rail for all practical purposes.
Last but not the last word. We do not build any HSTrains in the USA. So would we buy from another country and further erode our balance of trade? We are plane & car people and the transition to train travel may not make it here.
Yes if that is any indication it costs about $1 billion/mile to run tunnels or bridges in an urban area. If you keep the HST train ending in the suburbs that would be cheaper construction costs. Maybe $25million/mile? But then you're not connecting to the subways.
But the other thing is that Congress would never agree to select just 2 cities in 1 state. The argument would be why not connect Houston and Dallas, or Chicago and NYC ... Every state's congressmen would want a piece of the action - some other form of spending in their state, for voting for a bill like that.
And again a HST only moves thousands of people a day to 2 specific points. This is a miniscule, miniscule can I say it enough - solution to transport in this country. We need to move several hundred million people to many million different locations each day!
That would be a 33 1/3 % increase in my math.
>So would we buy from another country and further erode our balance of trade?
But it would look like politicians are actually _doing_ something if they can get it through. And that's so much more glamorous to the green crowd than fixing education lack of funding or fixing the no school-up-to-par act or fixing the waste of money in almost every governmental layer from Washington down to the local city.
I'm becoming convinced that all the furor over global disaster due to warming to to distract voters from analyzing what the politicans are actually planning to do in the run for P\president or analyzing what congress is not doing to reduce our trillions of debt (in the teens?) now that we are thoroughly bankrupt. Let's worry about global warming, a nonproven item that it's not PC to question, and we can throw all sorts of money at it to benefit certain politicians.
I note the green party has McKinney running for president.
"Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?" No.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
mmm, I would first say that waiting one more year was not a good choice. Projects tend to get more expensive in time and delays are one big source of cost increases.
I am not familiar enough to say. I guess the US legal environment is challenging in that any groundbreaking project is going to meet resistance in the form of expensive lawsuits.
We need to consider land value. it may increase quite a lot in a short time, depending on market conditions
Then the USD has lost quite some value. As a first project would initially incorporate more European technology, I speculate that there is an influence as well.
>WHY SHOULD I VOTE TO INCREASE MY TAXES?
2000 billions USD were thrown in Iraq so far, right ? Let us not talk about petty amounts.
> About all big cities seem capable of doing are sports stadiums.
You are too clever to draw any comparison/parallel between money spent for entertainment and amounts invested in infrastructure.
> Where is the heavy traffic we are going to relieve?
Are you telling me current traffic in california is a breeze ? I did not remember it being so. Let us imagine it is anyway.
The HST will simply relieve air and car traffic from the corresponding routes. Let us say current passenger flow between LA and SF is 60% car 40% plane.
It is likely to become 30% car 20% plane 50% HST
If you drive from LA to SF, wouldn't you be happy to meet 50% fewer cars doing the same trip as you? This is that fewer accidents on the road.
>We could open the speed limit on those sections of the Interstate to autobahn speeds
I would support this initiative, but even at high German speeds on the highway, it is very unlikely to beat any modern HST. I am sure we would see sometimes people in a Veyron or whatever super car try to beat it. Adding 3 or 4 USD in infrastructure tax per gallon would certainly have people behave.
>With HST you still have to get around once you are there.
This is no different than when you get off the plane.
As mentioned earlier, a network of light rail should cope for a measurable % of the local transport needs, but it is not about banning the car in california.
>So where would the extra money come from for HST?
As suggested, more tax on gas, fewer military spendings, tighter control budget and a legal environment less defavorable to railways.
>We do not build any HSTrains in the USA. So would we buy from another country and further erode our balance of trade?
Not sure how you consider Canada, but Bombardier is a pretty prominent train manufacturer and has HST up their sleeve.
Directly replying to your question, most large projects of this kind have technology transfer agreements. For many Alstom projects (Korean TGV, Spanish AVE)
the lead units were made in France but the bulk were locally made.
I trust any US project would be the same, with a subsidiary of the manufacturer being established in the US and local work done there. It is not like currently buying a Prius.
>We are plane & car people and the transition to train travel may not make it here.
I see the dependance upon oil burning technology a major threat to the US.
-an economical threat because it will draw more and more money out of US
-a political threat as US is likely to wage other wars to secure its oil supply, with all the good image that comes along.
-an environmental threat ... Oh, I forgot global warming is not a big issue and if it was, it can't be man-made can it.
If the US don't start any soft transition now (giving people choice with incentives for the clean solutions) Reality may strike very hard and later transition may prove brutal.
Our pinhead governor just made his bid to be Obama's energy czar. I am just so glad that he cannot be President. He will bankrupt CA with his lack of gray matter before this term is up. He came in with some good ideas and when they did not fly through our TOTALLY corrupt legislature he decided to become one of them. I do not believe I have ever seen a worse transition in a politician. He is not what he seems in the movies. NO strength of character at all. He has no idea how he will cut GHG back to 1990 levels. It is just a buzz word he picked up from his flaky friends in Hollywood. They will spend billions trying to buy their way out of global warming. No other country has done it. Does he think he can just shut us down? :sick:
Denver voters passed a $4.7 billion light rail expansion project back in '04 - they voted to raise their taxes to fund it. Light rail stokes development and jobs (the cluster effect).
As far as building with local tech, a Boise outfit builds and refurbishes locomotives and cars, so you don't have to go to France. Although the French built rubber tired subway cars in Mexico City are terrific - or would be if they weren't so packed.
That is always the argument used to justify additional spending. That money is spent. Or should I say tacked onto the National debt. We should be looking for ways to spend less money not more. We should be paying down that debt not adding to it. As far as taxing gas like they do in the EU. That will not fly. We are near revolt over the current gas prices. Those kind of jolts to a society have to come slowly. If gas doubled over 5 years it would be accepted much better than one year doubling. We have politicians trying to save their jobs by cutting the measly 18 cents a gallon we now pay in Federal highway tax. Why do people think that we should tax automobile drivers to finance mass transit? why not tack an additional tax on air travel. Why not limit CO2 from air travel over land? Last I read a cross country flight dumps as much CO2 per passenger seat as a small car in one year (about 5 tons). Each person is allowed 10 tons per year PERIOD. No buying carbon credits for the rich. We all get to dump the same amount of GHG. Do you think all the twinkies in Hollywood would back up AHNOLD if that is what he proposed?
I see the dependance upon oil burning technology a major threat to the US.
That could be for the whole World. I am thinking we will all have electric cars soon. Then What do we need mass transit for?
Highways Don't Pay for Themselves (Streetsblog)
No matter when a project is started it will go grossly overbudget. So one year means nicht.
>I forgot global warming is not a big issue and if it was, it can't be man-made can it.
Now you're seeing the light. The homeostases involved are far beyond a Hollywood actor's or tired old corrupt senator/presidential candidate loser's having figured out the balances and how one item can upset them. Don't forget water vapor as GHG more effective than CO2.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think the CA HST plan will be long on promises and short of cash.
If it is all built in the USA it would be good for our economy. If all we get to do is lay track that kind of sounds like the original railroads. Who would we get to do that work? Any volunteers?
Andy Grove of Intel was quoted over the weekend about new tech and early adopters - we can laugh at solar, wind, fusion, whatever, but 20 years ago all personal computers were good for was for BASIC games. They were expensive suckers too!
As far as your article, it leaves out a big factor of all the roads we have already paid for that continue to generate revenue. Which should be spent on maintenance and future roads. A very biased poorly thought out article. Put all the gas tax out there for roads and we will see how much more it takes. Then up the tax accordingly.
Here's the Texas link:
Do Roads Pay for Themselves?
and about three-quarters of which goes to the state’s highway fund, where it is spent on transportation uses and some non-transportation functions of government.
So how much goes for Roads and maintenance? It is the same crap they pull in CA and probably most other states. Put it in the general fund and then it gets all mixed up so they can make whatever claims they would like. Gas tax is now and has been a money maker for the states. They are not interested in cutting the mileage because the more gas you burn the more bucks they get to spend.
Now take the Federal money. TX only gets back 70% of what they send to Washington DC out of the gas tax collected. Where does the other 30% go? So maybe TX should only build those roads that will pay for themselves. So what if one 15 mile section of highway does not pay for itself. What about the thousands of miles that make them a fortune? You don't see that because they are playing games with our gas tax money. What a bunch of hooey :sick:
If I wasn't so cheap I would go drive my SUV up and down the road spewing GHG. Hope it chokes Ahnold the pinhead.
The other 30% goes to Alaska btw for all those bridges to nowhere.
Time to send the GW doom and gloomers to Denver for a get together. I hope they freeze their butts.
Compare the economy and taxes generated of an area with a lot of roads (LA?) to any area in the U.S. with nothing more than a dirt road.
And don't forget that the railroads deserve equal time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
A subway, bus, or HST is almost solely designed to move passengers; not moving military equipment, supplies, or general commerce goods.
Consumers are taxpayers usually. It's fairly hard to make $ w/o the tax-man collecting some.
I think trains used to haul bulk-cargo (coal, wheat, corn ...) are great and should be encouraged.
I think systems should be paid for by those who use the system.
More freight moved by trains and barges could mean fewer trucks, and maybe fewer emissions (to touch on the topic a little).
I consider education, project engineering (dam building, power plant building) Transport infrastructure building, R&D as investment. Any amount invested in those should improve human, economic or environmental benefit.
I consider gulf war, welfare spending, infrastructure upkeep as spendings.
I am advocating less spending and more investment. Some spendings are necessary, but others could be cut.
>That money is spent.
Do you mean there is no way to stop the counter anymore ?
The national debt is a serious issues and maybe tackling it from the root would prove effective. I suspect HST and mass transit investments were not the reason.
>we are near revolt over the current gas prices.
mm, not sure if the mindset of cheap gas being a right as equal as free speech is a healthy one. US prices are still half of European prices, so US motorists should be happy.
>Why do people think that we should tax automobile drivers to finance mass transit?
Because the polluter should be the payer. Gas is not only rejecting CO2 but also many other dangerous gas. Gas is deepening US trade deficit, gas is inherently unsustainable. Current gas prices don't reflect that.
>why not tack an additional tax on air travel.
That is also a good idea, provided that money be also used to offer alternatives. The problem is that I don't see alternatives for overseas flights.
>Last I read a cross country flight dumps as much CO2 per passenger seat as a small car in one year (about 5 tons)
I think a cross country high speed line would allow the same trip overnight. This would be a great project. It is true aircraft CO2 release is a true problem and HST bring solutions to that, albeit not 100% perfect.
>No buying carbon credits for the rich.
Carbon trading is a key environmental development opportunity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit#How_buying_carbon_credits_can_reduce_- emissions
We are still in the early stages, so not perfect yet. This is not a reason to throw it away.
> I am thinking we will all have electric cars soon. Then What do we need mass transit for?
because congestion won't be tackled by individual cars and railways are the best answer to that. Some people want to have the choice in their transportation mix.
The problem is that the project is still not started : building has not commenced yet and it looks like it is set to slip by another year. The project is dating back from 1998 where gas was cheap. I can't imagine how it would like if it was operational already.
>Now you're seeing the light
Depends how one understand it. I meant it in a humorous way. Water vapor accounts for the majority of current GH effect. in fact we need green house effect, otherwise there would be no life on earth.
However, the increase in man made GHG (CO2, Methane, NOx, CFC..) is upsetting the balance. Unprecedented levels of GHG are strongly influencing the climate and every month, there are new studies supporting that.
With the permafrost melting in Siberia, we can expect a massive amount of methane release in the air. It may become an uncontrollable chain reaction.
I am not throwing stones. I don't need because the environment will do it in my place. I just think we had plenty of warning signals and it is not good just doing nothing (or drilling more)
it is currently 200 mph =320 km/h on the LGV-Est (Paris to Strasbourg)
Alstom unveiled their new 225 mph HST unit which claims same electricity consumption as older units going 187mph.
>I think the CA HST plan will be long on promises and short of cash.
There must be a strong political will for it. Currently, it is not the case.
>If all we get to do is lay track that kind of sounds like the original railroads.
it is a major engineering project, with many planning, mapping, digging, bridges, tunnels, roadside development, signalling, overhead wires... track laying is rather at the final stage of it
How do you know that as a fact? Studies are popularity contest for Al Gore. The earth's ecosystem is too big to be affected thus.
>CO2, Methane, NOx, CFC..) is upsetting the balance.
The tenet of the green folk is that CO2 causes the problem. Yet the atmosphere of Mars has 80 times the CO2 of earth and it's not superhot. So much for greenhouse effect of CO2.
I'm always curious how people know that the one item is the single item in the controlled experiment that causes something or other re the multiplicity of homeostases in the earth's systems. How do you know that? I can answer! You don't, but it makes feel good talk.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Well it seems now highways' main purpose is personal transportation.
HST is a passenger train, but the same railways could be used for goods transport as well.
>I think systems should be paid for by those who use the system.
This is a logical thinking but how to do for the HST (or any future R&D or transportation project) ?
There is none existing and the bulk of the investment must be done years before the line enters into service.
it is the current loophole. Nobody wants to pay for a non-existing train, and this is the reason the biggest failure of HST is in America.
I think the US government is using double standards, as they paid the many billions for the Interstate system, considering it would benefit the country in a whole, but can't extend that thinking to HST, even though benefits are easily proven in the face of environment, service quality and expensive oil.
First it is debatable if any of that is legal from a Constitutional standpoint. I know our government has done a lot of those things under the very shaky grounds of "Common Good". You will get arguments right here on Edmund's concerning hydro dams being environmentally sound. We will probably not see any more in the USA. I personally feel all those things are best done by private enterprise with making a profit as incentive. No profit poor idea. That includes mass transit. Now if a city or state decides to build mass transit such as HST and the PEOPLE vote to borrow the money I cannot say anything but, OH Well.....
US motorists should be happy.
Trust me they are anything but happy. I think it will be reflected in the 2008 election. Personally I hope they vote every stinking incumbent running out of Congress.
Carbon trading is a key environmental development opportunity.
When this idea hit the airwaves it all came clear to me. The whole Global Warming scam is designed to make money. Buying your way out of GW responsibility STINKS of elitism to the max. You cannot jet set around the globe and plant a few Mango trees in Africa and be cleansed of your part in "GW". Either EVERYONE sacrifices or it is a SCAM for the wealthy to further push the middle class into the ranks of the POOR. When you state that it is not perfect that would be an understatement for sure. Planting mango trees where they do not get enough water. Handing out CFL bulbs as compensation for big GW concerts all smell to high heaven. The high priest of GW Al Gore has made $100,000,000+ in 7 short years with this scam. Calling GW or climate change anything but a charade is beyond my realm of belief. There is a better chance that the Heaven's Gate wackos ended up on a space ship behind Hale Bopp Comet, than all the catastrophic occurences Al Gore claims will come to pass. Many of the so called 2000 scientists are bailing out because the UN distorted their findings and politicized the whole report. Why, To make money. Extract money from the rich countries. The UN lost their oil for money scam when we got rid of Saddam. They need a new scam and GW was ripe for the picking.
because congestion won't be tackled by individual cars and railways are the best answer to that.
I agree with you that congestion is only going to get worse in this country. Will people buy into riding the train after having the freedom of personal transportation? I just do not think they will. Riding the train in the EU is something everyone there was raised with and accept. Most people here have never been on a train. I have put my wife on the Coaster a few times to go see her grandkids the other side of LA. It is better for one person traveling. It beats fighting the LA traffic. Maybe if the cost of gas gets so high that people have no choice. I think our economy will fold before that happens. We may be on the brink right now.
If we do come up with alternatives to fossil fuel such as algae for diesel or cheap batteries for cars or even hydrogen fuel cells that are inexpensive. How are you going to convince some one that has an electric car that only costs pennies a day to operate that he should get on a stinking bus or even a high speed train?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Natural_and_anthropogenic
There are quite a few studies mentioned in the article footnote. On the other hand, I find little or no evidence showed by the GW/CC deniers.
>The earth's ecosystem is too big to be affected thus.
Not sure where you found such information. You may need to wait a cataclysm to accept there is a problem. I guess the North pole ice sheet melting would just make you shrug
>Yet the atmosphere of Mars has 80 times the CO2 of earth and it's not superhot
I still find the ability for Mars to support human life pretty challenging.
Have you considered that Mars is 230 million km away from the sun, whereas the earth is 150 million km ? How about taking into account the difference in atmosphere density. Mars has only 1% of the Earth atmosphere density.
>How do you know that? I can answer! You don't, but it makes feel good talk.
Not sure about what you mean. sorry for my poor English. I just learned somehow that laws of physics can not be changed and that one property of CO2 is to trap heat.
That was done under a different era. It was done by a military man thinking of moving men and equipment easily around the USA. It was also lobbied for by GM, Ford and Chrysler as a way to stimulate CAR sales. It pretty much destroyed the passenger railroad business in the USA. Keep in mind the Interstate system ended up costing US $114 billion and 23 years later than planned to complete.
Zip forward to 2008. CA has this HST plan that has been tossed around for 10 or more years. No price tag just more money to study and think about it. If it costs the projected $40 billion for JUST the SF to LA segment or 432 miles. What would it cost for a Nation wide system. LA to NY what $350 billion. Seattle to Chicago $300 billion. To cover the USA that is 3000 miles by 1500 miles would cost TRILLIONS of dollars Today. We are looking at Presidential candidates that want to bankrupt US with universal health care. There ain't no money for trains. That is too far in the future. Even that little 432 mile run from SF to LA would probably not be done for 10 years if it gets voted in this year. This is a knee jerk society. Gas goes up people buy Prius. Gas goes down they buy the biggest SUV. We do not think 10 years ahead. So for US to vote on spending money over the next 10 years to maybe have this fast train that serves only the people in LA and SF will have a tough go at the polls. Why would anyone in San Diego or Redding vote to help out those in LA and SF. We don't even like them... :shades: