Skip to main content

View Diary: Close vote in California denied a recount (138 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  TRANSDEF (0+ / 0-)

    may not be an average green/progressive group, but it does support good projects (trains in the North Bay) and oppose highway widenings.

    •  TRANSDEF (7+ / 0-)

      Also sued to block high speed rail.

      They have no credibility when it comes to these issues. They spend their time fighting the kind of sustainable transportation and green jobs we desperately need.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
      Neither is California High Speed Rail

      by eugene on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:07:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  TRANSDEF (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        is only suing on a segment of the high speed rail. The rest of the plan is just fine.

        I helped host a high speed rail forum a few years ago when few knew about the project. That forum was attended by Jim Costa who is now a HSR advocate in Washington.

        •  How very "my way or the highway" (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mogolori, eugene, shayera, Cali Techie

          quite literally.

          •  Lawsuit on that was the last resort (0+ / 0-)

            I don't think it is fair to assume it is wrong to sue. Details of massive public works projects are often determined by consultants (may be the same companies that got defense contracts) and can be based on political considerations. I dealt with those for years.

            •  It was their first resort (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wu ming, Pd, Cali Techie

              And a move they had been planning for months if not years.

              You should not be insinuating that the California high speed rail routing is being influenced by defense contractors or other political factors without some evidence.

              Then again, given this diary and your initial desire to slam Debra Bowen as a Kathleen Harris, evidence doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

              I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
              Neither is California High Speed Rail

              by eugene on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:43:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  As much as I support HSR (0+ / 0-)

                I cannot support every decision the HSRA makes. You should not make this issue black and white. I support transit but I can't support every transit projects on the books.

                There are bad decisions and bad projects. A lot of advocates support most of them already.

                  •  Bad (0+ / 0-)

                    because these projects are not cost effective or just simply don't work.

                    There's opportunity cost for each project. Money to fund the bad ones could fund many good ones.

                    For example, an Altamont HSR alignment would serve a larger population in the East Bay, and takes passengers from the East Bay to the South Bay fast. The Pacheco alignment doesn't do that.

                    I am somewhat more moderate on the alignment issue personally, but I don't support an agency using flaw data to back up their claims.

                    •  And the Pacheco Pass route (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MrPlow, Pd

                      Serves even more routed through the South Bay and up the peninsula. The Altamont Pass route would follow the I-580 corridor, something already well served by BART. Its route would take it from Tracy (where it wouldn't stop) to Castro Valley, up through San Leandro into Oakland or down either the I-880 or I-680 corridors to San Jose (not stopping anywhere else in the east bay, bypassing Livermore, Pleasanton, and Fremont). It would probably do both, which judging by the map would be less efficient than going up the peninsula not to mention it would require another bridge across the bay, which of course isn't required going up the peninsula. It would also be less efficient energy wise because trains to and from San Jose would have to go out of the way to get through the Altamont Pass, lessening the energy efficiency and adding to travel time.

                      Pacheco Pass is the better route for all of these reasons.

                      The combination of the BART extension to San Jose and the HSR route through Pacheco Pass serves the ENTIRE Bay area, not just the east bay. East bay riders can either BART into SF or San Jose to catch the HSR to LA, while those in the South Bay and the Peninsula can catch the HSR directly or Caltrain up into SF or down into San Jose.

                      That's why I voted YES on both measures. We need to get cars off of the road. Yes there are environmental impacts with the HSR and BART, however the population in the Bay Area continues to grow and we either have to get more and better rapid mass transit or we need to start widening highways. Better and faster mass transit will have a lower overall environmental impact.

                      Or we can do like Atlanta did... MARTA doesn't go into Cobb County, where a great many people who work in downtown Atlanta live. Why? The NIMBY folks who felt MARTA would bring crime into Cobb County. As a result there are HUGE traffic jams in and out of Cobb County and rush hour lasts 4 hours with literally millions of gallons of gasoline being burned for little to no benefit causing Atlanta to have smog levels approaching that of Los Angeles.

                      So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

                      by Cali Techie on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:03:34 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Again I am more neutral (0+ / 0-)

                        HSR on Altamont has its purpose regardless. At least it would provide East Bay direct access to the system and offer additional BART connections.

                        Since I don't think VTA has enough money with the tax, it won't be able to connect with HSR anyhow.

                        •  I take it you live in the East Bay (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          which would explain why you like the Altamont Pass route better. The thing is the only east bay direct access would be Oakland since the train would not stop in any other east by community so it's no help to them at all except to save them a bridge crossing into SF, where the entire peninsula (not counting San Jose, which would get it either way) with a larger and underserved population of over a million would have to travel to San Francisco or San Jose to access the HSR.

                          I'm sorry but from a natural resource, population serving, and environmental impact standpoint the Pacheco Pass route is better. Going over Altamont Pass would be a poor use of the money because of the lower numbers of people it could directly serve.

                          Of course the other obvious option would be to do both and form a "loop" of sorts around the greater Bay Area. Have the Pacheco Pass route exactly as planned, and do the Altamont Pass route going directly into Oakland and SF with no east bay track going south to San Jose. That way if either pass is closed the HSR could still operate over the other pass. Of course that would almost double the cost of the project.

                          So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

                          by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 12:38:07 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

        •  Nonsense (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wu ming, Cali Techie

          It is a frivolous lawsuit that is unnecessary, without merit, and designed to sabotage the entire project.

          I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
          Neither is California High Speed Rail

          by eugene on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:41:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site