California’s high-speed rail project seems to be dead. At least, that’s the conclusion of a Washington DC writer commenting on a report that Governor Brown has given up on the idea of exempting high-speed rail from environmental reviews.
Without that exemption, the writer thinks, the state will never be able to build the line. However, In the spirit of former Egyptian President Mubarak, who was clinically dead though maybe still alive, perhaps California high-speed rail is only clinically dead. The latest word is that Brown is only delaying, not ending, his proposal exempt the project from environmental reviews.
Some other alternatives of Kamagra are http://www.learningworksca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/019-USC-Rossier-How-Can-Placement-Policy-Improve-Math-Rem-Outcomes.pdf pfizer viagra mastercard, Caverta, Silagra, Eriacta, Aurogra etc. Fact: All men that are over the age of 30 shall experience erectile issue samples of generic viagra at least once in their lives. On the basis of the specification, these problems are further subdivided into neurogenic, vasculogenic, and hormonal etiologies. viagra on line order The onset of pain is usually gradual and not associated with the typical symptoms of migraine, such as nausea, vomiting, or sensitivity to sildenafil españa sound or light.
The Antiplanner has said this before, but major transportation projects make sense mainly if they can generate new travel. Merely coaxing people from one form of transportation to another is not worth it, especially if the new form costs more than the old.
The 2008 business plan for the California rail project projects that only 6 percent of the riders of high-speed rail will be “induced,” that is, new travel. The rest will be diverted from flying, driving, or Amtrak. The fact that all of those modes cost less than high-speed rail indicates that there is no economic benefit to building it. So all taxpayers should hope that this project is well-and-truly dead and not just clinically dead.
Clinically dead and Dead-Dead. Hopefully California won’t use the federal defibrillator to resuscitate a vegetable. The fact that Amtrak costs less than HSR is nothing short of embarrassing. Meanwhile in recent news Governor Brown is posing for pictures in front of electric charging stations in Sacramento supporting his other pet project of electric car chargers in it’s cities, as if the trains don’t matter at all. I have no problem if private companies build charging stations, private companies built the gas stations.
http://vimeo.com/28442042
Bennett, it might be this…
http://youtu.be/Sh8mNjeuyV4
The Antiplanner has said this before, but major transportation projects make sense mainly if they can generate new travel. Merely coaxing people from one form of transportation to another is not worth it, especially if the new form costs more than the old.
The “Anti-Auto Vanguard” repeatedly asserts that travel demand “induced” by additions to the highway network is bad, bad, bad.
Japan – Massive expansion of HSR in the 1970-1980’s. Economic implosion in the 1990’s, massive write down of HSR debt.
Europe – Massive expansion of HSR in the 1990-2000’s. Economy imploding, who knows what’s coming.
Just some food for thought…
I don’t think Europe’s HSR is the principal contributor to Europe’s current problem. Like the death of a thousand cuts, it’s just one. The principal reason for Europe’s financial collapse is it’s branched obligations. The European financial crisis grips the PIIGS countries the hardest. Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain. These 5 nations should never have been allowed to join the European Union. They never had the financial stability or capacity to contribute to obligations on par with the larger economies like Germany and U.K. Germany is the largest economy in Europe even after being obliterated twice following both World Wars. They remained the largest, why? Because the Germans engage in financial behavior that for most of us would seem rather odd. It’s not to say they don’t have their own unique brands of socialism like dumping money in wind and solar provisions. Otherwise they’re frugal, financially disciplined, they don’t spend more than they earn, they keep more than they spend. Why is the rest of Europe not like Germany, well they never were to begin with. Germany of course does posess some defecits but not as much, say that of it’s European neighbors. They’ll be reducing theirs while France is asking for more time. Assume this thought experiment. Imagine you’re wealthy, with billions of dollars and you have relatives in every state with different financial assets from the highest earners to the lowest earners. And you decide to put all your income together. Your all gonna use the same bank, all contribute to pay the bills and all will have the same percentages of the money. If just oone of your relatives is always in debt, always you paying for their behavior, at some point they’re gonna become more of an burden than a asset. That system set for the family isn’t working (Socialism actually does work, on the family level; everyone in the family pitches in and they take care of each other. It’s when that communal model is expanded to include non-family or millions of people) because those who achieve are bearing most of the costs while providing most of the contributions. Meanwhile those that don’t contribute exhaust more and more of the proceeds. At some point you have to reevaluate. The PIIGS never belonged in the Euro and a few of these countries have taken portions of Americas toxic real estate assets so it’s just a real mess over there.
Though you’re not against socialism when it comes to roads.
You couldn’t survive without roads, its how you get your basics to live off of… You’ll be just fine without high speed passenger train service. Roads would also be far better off and less “socialist” if the tax revenue generated through users wasn’t spent on mass transit which only benefits the inner city. A location in which very few own a car and therefore contribute little or nothing to the fuel tax base.
I didn’t mention HSR, besides roads don’t exist on a profit or loss basis and a mostly funded by property taxes, not motorists.
GIVE IT A REST!
On March 23rd, 2008, the highwayman said:
Just the aspect of that the street in front of your house is not being judged on a profit or loss basis is a priceless political entity onto it self.
On May 8th, 2008, the highwayman said: The street in front of your residence is not being judeged [sic] on a profit or loss basis.
On August 26th, 2008, the highwayman said: Though just the simple aspect that the street in front of your residence is not threatened with being closed because it’s doesn’t have enough traffic is kind of a hidden subsidy too.
On September 11th, 2008, the highwayman said:
Like I have said in the past we are not judging the road in fornt [sic] of your house on a profit or loss basis, the same should be for rail lines too.
On December 3rd, 2008, the highwayman said:
How much of a profit did the street in front of your home make last year?
On January 22nd, 2009, the highwayman said:
Though at the same time do you worry about the street in front of your house be closed, because it didn’t make a profit?
On February 6th, 2009, the highwayman said:
The street in front of my house(or your house for that matter), is not being operated on a profit or loss basis. Also even if there were no cars around, there would still be a need for the street as a commons.
On February 7th, 2009, the highwayman said:
So, the road in front of your home is a form “socialismâ€.
On February 14th, 2009, the highwayman said:
I’m not against the street in front of my house or your house, just as you don’t have be against transit or railroads.
On March 12th, 2009, the highwayman said:
The street in front of your house would still need to be there even if every one in your neighbor hood [sic] didn’t have a car.
On March 17th, 2009, the highwayman said:
There is no profit or loss basis for the street in front of you [sic] home.
On March 20th, 2009, the highwayman said:
The street in front of your home forms an important commons…
On March 26th, 2009, the highwayman said:
…though I’m not going to start some sort of jihad like Mr.Karlock [sic] against the street in front of my house.
On June 9th, 2009, the highwayman said:
BTW, I’m not waging a jihad against the street in front of my house.
On July 5th, 2009, the highwayman said:
LOL, I was just thinking about the doesn’t-have-to-pay-for-it-self-street in front of my house!
On July 8th, 2009, the highwayman said:
Also the road in front of your home serves an important value as a commons.
On August 24th, 2009, the highwayman said:
So LIMITED ACCESS roads can be public, but the street in front of your house should be private?
On September 22nd, 2009, the highwayman said:
So what if it’s subsidized, the street in front of your home is not being judged on a profit or loss basis for its existance.
On October 7th, 2009, the highwayman said: Well said WS, I don’t worry about the street infront [sic] of my house isn’t profitable and I don’t worry about my local transit system isn’t profitable either.
On October 21st, 2009, the highwayman said:
When rail lines are abandoned, it’s not for economic reasons, it’s for political reasons, if there’s a downturn in the economy, you’re not going to rip out the road from in front of your house.
On March 4th, 2010, the highwayman said:
You pay for the street in front of your residence by default through property taxes.
On November 5th, 2010, the highwayman said:
Also if you want to find a good example of socialism then look at the street in front of your house.
On January 22nd, 2011, the highwayman said:Any ways, I’d still paying for street in front of my house through property taxes even if there were no automobiles.
On June 24th, 2011, the highwayman said:
You’re not even being honest about the road in front of your residence!
On July 31st, 2011, the highwayman said:
Roads don’t pay for them selves, the street in front of your residence doesn’t exist on a profit or loss basis & would still be there even if there were no automobiles.
On November 5th, 2011, the highwayman said:
You’re not even honest about the big government socialsim [sic] in front of your houses called a street!
On December 7th, 2011, the highwayman said:
metrosucks, again, the road in front of your house doesn’t make money!
On January 14th, 2012, the highwayman said:It doesn’t matter if 50 cars or 5000 cars drive past your house a day, the street is there by default!
On January 25th, 2012, the highwayman said:
You’re always conveniently over looking the road in front of your home.
the highwayman Reply:
February 19th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Where is the need for a lobbyist for the street in front of your house?
February 28th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Again that still doesn’t mean that the street in front of your home is a for profit entity.
the highwayman Reply:
March 18th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
The street in front of your home doesn’t exist on a profit or loss basis!
the highwayman Reply:
May 14th, 2012 at 10:40 am
Lazy, do you worry about the street in front your home not making money?
On May 18th, 2012, the highwayman said:
Roads don’t exist on a profit or loss basis, so why should it be any different for railroads?
the highwayman Reply:
June 6th, 2012 at 11:14 am
Frank are so ignorant that you can’t even see the road in front of your house?
On July 20th, 2011, the highwayman saidThe road in front of your home doesn’t exist on a profit or loss basis for it’s [sic] continued existance [sic].
On June 30th, 2011, the highwayman said: Also the road in front of your home is paid for by property taxes!
On May 16th, 2009, the highwayman said:
Bullshit, the road in front of your home is not being operated on a profit or loss basis.
Like IcedBorscht, I must conclude that “Highwayman a retarded chatbot stuck on autospeak”. Please ban the chatbot!
Frank you’re a hypocrite!
Even O’Toole has said that roads are there regardless of economic conditions.
You want double standards for railroads and roads, I don’t!
Fine. I’m a hypocrite.
What I want is for you to give it a rest. WE GET IT. You have said the same thing over and over hundreds of times.
POINT TAKEN.
Now give it a rest.
Though first you, O’Toole and others need to stop constantly senselessly attacking railroads.
Till then I see no reason to stop constantly pointing out your hypocrisy!
Please point out one instance where I have senselessly attacked railroads. Just one. If you can’t, time for you to STFU.
On May 24th, 2011, Frank said:
It’s true. I do have an ax to grind. It’s quite large and useful for splitting campfire wood. I’ll be doing a lot of ax grinding and splitting this summer as I drive in my Jeep to at least four national parks within a day’s drive. Only one of those parks are accessible by train, and it’s the ONLY western NP that has a train station. Then there’s all the National Forest land within a day’s drive. Millions and millions of acres to crawl through with my Jeep, searching for seclusion and a beautiful place to squat for a couple of weeks. I just can’t wait!
Please explain how this is a senseless attack on railroads.
The problem with your argument (other than the fact that it’s nothing but recycled talking points) is that the ones paying for roads through their property taxes are those who live in the suburbs. Don’t let reality beat you down apartment dweller.
I don’t live in apartment, I live in a house.
You whine that rail lines don’t make money, but roads don’t have to make money. The political deck loaded and what you call “free market” is a myth!
Renting a House or Apartment. Same thing.
I’m an owner, not a renter, though you never stop paying for a house either. You have to maintain it and pay property taxes.
ROT, can we please ban highwayman now, esp after his recent string of senseless comments on at least nine articles from 2009? Seriously. If a fool came to my private dinner party, I’d send him home. After four plus years at the dinner party, it’s time to add an ignore feature or kick the fool to the curb. I’m sure all will sign a petition.
They are not senseless comments, Frank you’re just not honest!
Fail.
Oh what irony!