Originally Posted By SpokkerJones California gets $2.25b for HSR and a little bit more for other non-HSR rail improvements. <a href="http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1799691.html" target="_blank">http://www.fresnobee.com/local...691.html</a> Florida's allocation is being announced tomorrow. $8 billion total will be given to states for rail improvements. The breakdowns are right here. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/brie...releases</a> Here's the fact sheet for California: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-high-speed-intercity-passenger-rail-program-california" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-...lifornia</a> Texas only got $4 million, haha.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt This is great news. I wonder if San Francisco received or will receive the $400 million in stimulus cash for the new Transbay Transit Center as expected.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Transbay got a federal loan to build the train box underneath the Transbay Terminal. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/26/MNAK1BNOJD.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...NOJD.DTL</a>
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Right, but that's a loan. I'm talking about the $400 million stimulus money it is expected to receive as mentioned in the first paragraph of the article in the link above. I assume that this money is part of the cash that was in your original post.
Originally Posted By DAR Wisconsin is getting about 800 million for a train to go from Milwaukee to Madison. The Madison stop lets you off at the airport. The only problem with that is your at least 5 to 10 miles where everyone usually goes in Madison which is the capital, the University of Wisconsin, or to games at either Camp Randall or the Kohl Center. So you still have to find your own transporation to get to these places.
Originally Posted By ecdc That's just it: These things are long-term projects. They're for the future of our country even after we're gone - hard as that is for self-involved Americans to grasp. When Salt Lake debuted it's light rail ten years ago, there's was all this grumbling because the line just went north and south through the valley. People said it wasn't convenient. Of course, that was middle and upper class people with cars, used to getting door-to-door service. I mean, god forbid you actually walk a quarter mile. But it was a huge hit with people already using public transportation. So then they built a spur to the University and students packed it daily. Now there's a half-dozen more spurs being built. The point is, Americans are going to have to get used to public transportation. We need to build clean, efficient trains. We do need to make them more convenient but people need to be willing to walk every once in a while.
Originally Posted By DAR I have no problem walking a mile or two but this is up to ten miles depending on where you want to go. The ideal thing would be to have two stops in Madison. One near the capital which is fairly close to the University or Lake Mendota, Camp Randall and then drop people off at the airport.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ Have you ever taken the bus? And, having been to Madison a time or two, I think it would be incredibly difficult to wedge another rail line onto the isthmus -- it's pretty much fully developed already. A high speed rail line is particularly challenging because you have to eliminate crossings and other traffic impediments for the routes. I don't see that happening in Madison. Also, I pulled up the map -- the airport is 4 miles from downtown Madison and 6 miles from the stadium, so hardly the 5-10 miles you suggest. It would be an easy trip by bus.
Originally Posted By DAR If people want to use public transporation that's fine. Personally my car gets me around just fine and is just as convienent.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Have you ever taken the bus?>> Sure a few times in high school but usually I was picked up. I had soccer in the fall so I was either getting picked up after practice or a game. In the winter I'd stay after school to either run or lift weights to get ready for track season in the spring. And I think I tried to take the Park and Ride we have here to work which was kind of useless because I'm closer to the freeway than I was to the Park and Ride.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ You exaggerated the higher end to try and make something seem more burdensome than it would otherwise be. I've been to Madison. You have, too. You know why it would be impossible to have a high speed rail corridor through that city, yet you suggest that would be a better option. Then you exaggerate the distances from the airport to downtown. I know you're not a proponent of mass transit, but try to make your arguments with facts and reality-based logic instead of exaggerations and distortions to try and support your own personal preference? My personal preference? Subsidize rail to the same extent that we subsidize highways and airports and let each form of transportation operate on a level playing field.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<That's just it: These things are long-term projects. They're for the future of our country even after we're gone - hard as that is for self-involved Americans to grasp. When Salt Lake debuted it's light rail ten years ago, there's was all this grumbling because the line just went north and south through the valley. People said it wasn't convenient. Of course, that was middle and upper class people with cars, used to getting door-to-door service. I mean, god forbid you actually walk a quarter mile. But it was a huge hit with people already using public transportation. So then they built a spur to the University and students packed it daily. Now there's a half-dozen more spurs being built. The point is, Americans are going to have to get used to public transportation. We need to build clean, efficient trains. We do need to make them more convenient but people need to be willing to walk every once in a while.>> As long as you pay for it ecdc, I am okay with this. But I have a hunch I would be paying a lot more for this e-ticket ride than you. And I don't wanna. While I think the whole concept is "cool" and it would "fun" to ride, I think it is EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE for the government to commit tens of billions of dollars to a project that has no hope of ever being "deficit neutral". But thankfully, this train to nowehere will never be built. But still, I find it very interesting how little economic responsibility there is out there. It's easy to see why California is in the mess that it's in.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << While I think the whole concept is "cool" and it would "fun" to ride, I think it is EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE for the government to commit tens of billions of dollars to a project that has no hope of ever being "deficit neutral". >> Do you feel the same way about our highway system and airports? They are both heavily subsidized and certainly not deficit neutral. Maybe if we get people out of cars and reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, we'll not have run up massive deficits trying to protect our oil wells in Saudi Arabia? That would be a good deficit reduction scheme -- but you have to build a mass transit infrastructure first.
Originally Posted By DAR I realize every city is different. In NY, LA, DC, Chicago, where road traffic is a nightmare I would take public transportation. Milwaukee while still a large city is fairly easy to get around by car. Unless there's a huge snow storm your never stuck in traffic during rush hour for more than thirty minutes.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Well it looks like San Francisco's fancy new Transit Center did get the $400 million as part of this package as anticipated: <a href="http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2010/01/29/states_highspeed_rail_stimulus_has_400m_for_transbay_center.php" target="_blank">http://sf.curbed.com/archives/...nter.php</a>
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Do you feel the same way about our highway system and airports? They are both heavily subsidized and certainly not deficit neutral.>> No I don't. Our economy depends on cars and trucks and airplanes and trains (cargo trains, that is) and people and cargo being shipped back and forth. Plus airports are revenue generators and are therefore great investments for cities. <<Maybe if we get people out of cars and reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, we'll not have run up massive deficits trying to protect our oil wells in Saudi Arabia?>> Sure, but how many commuters will actually be reduced by building a train between San Francisco to Los Angeles? My guess: not very many. You might get fewer people flying Southwest to and fro, but all that does is take money from the private sector and give it to the public.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Sure, but how many commuters will actually be reduced by building a train between San Francisco to Los Angeles?" You really don't get it. This isn't being built to reduce commute traffic. The reason why this project is even being considered, let alone financed, is because the airports and highways are at capacity. The only way to address the forecast increase in future transportation demand, particularly in growing parts of the state like the Central Valley, is to build alternative modes of transport like high speed rail.
