NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
In addition to my existing blog on riding bikes, I have started a new blog to promote train transportation. I was compelled to do this now, because there are two ballot measures that could significantly effect the future of rail in California, Prop 1A, for a SF to LA bullet train and Metro's Measure R for L.A. County. I feel cycling and train travel should be allies in the pursuit of reducing our oil dependence.
Trains can quickly and efficiently move people within the city for distances longer then most would bike, and bullet trains can move people between cities at comparable times to plane travel, but with far greater comfort, and running on electricity rather then burning epic amounts of jet fuel. Also consider that if you travel with a bike on a plane it's going to cost you a hefty oversize baggage surcharge, but on a train a bike is only a $5 charge. This is one of the reasons I took Amtrak to SF for ALC. Every train is a bike train!!
[ Trains Are Awesome Blog ] More updates on why trains are awesome will be posted as we close in on the November Election. I also plan to design some promotional materials to be released through the blog as well.
Good blog. Trains are the best. During the summer I parked my car for 2 months and commuted thru bike/train to Venice Blvd from my home (40 mile round trip daily) Thankyou for the information on the upcoming election. Great shots on the blog too, did you take those?
Thanks for reading, and yes the photos up on the blog are my own. The banner is from the El Cerrito Plaza BART station, and the image on the first post is also BART, while riding into SF. This was from my trip north for AIDS LifeCycle, and while I was up there a few days early I was able to get everywhere I needed to go by combination of train and bike.
Right now if i want to visit my mom, I have to do a 80-90 mile round trip bike ride, slog on public transit for about as long as it would take to ride a century, or drive, which would be faster then the other two, but full of stress in congested freeways, and burn a lot of gas.
If the subway to the sea and bullet train were completed tomorrow hypothetically, I could hop on the subway to Union station, take the bullet train to City of Industry, and bike a few miles.
Besides the local ballot initiatives, I think it is also worth mentioning that McCain hates trains. If it were up to him Amtrak probably would have been sold for scrap metal a long time ago despite rising ridership in recent years. He sees it as government waste to provide any subsidy to trains, although confusingly he sees nothing wrong with enormous government subsides for failing airlines and car infrastructure.
Obama has talked a little about promoting rail as part of energy independence plan, but it's still pretty low on the radar. His VP choice of Biden could be a boon to promoting rail transit though, since he championed the Acela train back east and is him self a train commuter.
I'm not necessarily saying I give a full endorsement of the Obama/Biden ticket, but anyone would be better for train travel in the U.S. then McCain who has voted against every bill aimed at reviving Amtrak. I find McCain's hatred for train travel especially odd considering he is so fond of train metaphors, like the straight talk express, and his tour bus is called the McCain train, and the song after his speech was full of train imagery. This has led me to wonder if he is a closeted train lover, who is expressing outward trainaphobia. Hmmm?
hehehe. well not to be rude to any of you possible republicans (or democrats) out here, but think about it.. the runners are only going to say what they think the people want to hear to get into office, regardless of the party. the two party system itself is extremely faulty and suggests a bit of a false dilemma, as there is a 3rd party that goes widely unrecognized. of course McCain is going to promote car and plane travel, its the norm and has been for 50 plus years now. we have got to get some of these critical mass rides more widely recognized, possibly ride to institute a ballot measure?
I take pictures of my bike at all the LA metro subway stations. I believe this one was taken either at the Vine and Hollywood metro station or the North Hollywood Metro station. I don't remember exactly which one.
That picture was taken at Hollywood & Vine. Note the yellow tiles in the background. Originially the random yellow tiles swirled throughout the station and came together to form the "Yellow Brick Road" on the upper deck of the Metro Station. (before the W Construction started)
Trains have been serving me quite well for the last 15 years. I see the Blue Line going outside my window every day. It's a sight everyone should have. It is possible.
----->> Prop 1A, for a SF to LA bullet train <<-----
OMG YES> WANT>
In July, I took a trip to SF and Portland, & two legs of it were on a train. Bike to DTLA, train to SF, plane to PDX, car to SF, train to LA. It was great -- so easy. But the train part was long!
Trains are awesome.
Bullet trains are better.
Bullet trains stocked with Bulleit bourbon: The Best.
At my hometown of San Diego, there's a rail convention next month, I think it's the APTA convention where there's two antcipations of my hometown's rail project expansions to occur:
1. Adding the Silver Line beyond the Downtown/Ballpark/Gaslamp loop to an another loop to Golden Hill. An another loop to the Airport. And an another loop to the San Diego Zoo.
2. Extending the San Diego Sprinter (it's brand new and nobody's ever heard of it surprisingly unless you live in North County) to Ramona from it's last stop at Escondido. The Sprinter is more suburban rail than light rail but It's a super good start there.
3. The LAMTA had better come up with funding to extend the purple line by 2015.
4. Converting the NCSD Coaster from a commuter rail to a suburban rail with more stops, routes and a tunnel to downtown by 2015.
Freight train company CSX says its trains can transport a ton of freight over 400 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel. With today's energy prices, there's been a shift from truck transport to train transport. Problem is, rail is like electric infrastructure in that it takes a long time to expand capacity and current lines are way oversubscribed.
for the record:
i love the train.. i take the blue line to long beach quite a bit. i always meet the most amazing ppl.
the last time i was on there on friday afternoon. blue line to 7th/metro center in dtla. an older black man got on the train and started to remove his eye balls from his head, he asked for money then continued to remove the eyes, then he starts to walk forward and runs directly into my bike says, "excuse me sir, im sorry for hitting your elbow!" while he was running into me and talking to my bike he dropped his eye on the floor and let me tell you what, while a man is on his hands and knees looking for an eye ball it is hard not to crack a smile, i found it and with a magazine i helped him grab it and then walk back and recieve a 20 dollar bill from a man in the back of the train..
For those curious about where the proposed bullet train would go, where the stops are, and what it would look like, here is a compilation of the visualization footage. The first phase is LA to SF, to Sacramento and San Diego would be second phase. LA to SF in 2.5 hours, all electric,with plenty of room for bikes.
damn that video is soo beautiful!!! haha naw but it would be awesome to have a train system like that in california. i would make more trips to sf and san diego more often.
I took Amtrack from L.A. to S.F. and back once. The trip North took 13 hours and on the way back we had to stop in Bakersfield and get on a bus to Union Station. I go to Oakland twice a month so I'm all for the bullet train and trains in general but Amtrack as it is now seems pretty useless.
I took AMTRACK up to Seattle last year and it was a beautiful ride but it sure took a long time. The video reminded me of the Eurostar I took a few years ago, it took a little over two hours to go from London to Paris, a little over 300 miles. I think we had to drop down to about 100 mph under the English Channel but I think we were probably doing 180 mph through the French country side.
I wish the California train could come to fruition in my lifetime, sad that if it did happen, it won't be running anywhere near where I live.
When I look at the progress of the Acela train along the Northeast corridor, I get a little pessimistic about the reality of high speed rail service in California. The Northeast corridor is the most heavily traveled section of the US and after all these years, they haven't been able to push for true high speed travel, i.e., over 200 km/h. It's been the high cost of improving the track bed to support high speed travel and the electifiction issues along the Boston to Washington, DC corridor. I still would like to see it happen though.
Right now in polling data most people who were aware of this project were supportive of it, realizing we need State transportation that is fast without the oil dependency. However only 20% of polled voters even know that such a project or ballot initiative exists. So the best thing we can do to make this a reality is get the word out to as many people as possible so voters can make an informed choice. It will obviously cost a lot of money to build this thing which is most opponents complaint, but they rarely acknowledge the alternative of costs of road and air infrastructure to support the same movement of people.
This has been a decade in the planning, but the past several election cycles this initiative had been shot down in the legislature before giving voters a chance to decide. I thought for sure after the last failure to make it to ballot the project was dead, but this year it has the best shot it's ever and probably ever will have. The longer we delay the harder it will be to secure the rights of way and land necessary to build it, then we will be stuck with aging Amtrak service, costly and unprofitable plane service propped up with subsidies (high speed rail the world over is posting record profits by the way, especially in France) and highway expansion projects.
Here are the links to additional information on the CA HSR project.
California High-Speed Rail Authority (Official website, includes route information, estimates of travel times and fare along route, FAQ and video presentations)
California High Speed Rail Blog (Features constantly updated content with information, endorsements, and rebuttals to detractors)
What the governator needs to do is dump is stupid idea of having a hydrogen freeway connecting the south and north of California, and get with the high speed train. Sadly that's never going to happen. Neither will the hydrogen freeway, but that doesn't stop them from dumping big $$$ into the idea.
Yeah the other measure on the ballot this November that will effect rail investment is Measure R. Measure R is a pretty big deal and encompasses all kinds of transportation improvements, but a really big chunk is for rail projects including starting the long mythical subway to the sea. It will fund rail, highway projects, some bus network service, and a a portion will be turned over to cities for local transportation improvements which includes repaving streets, street light improvements, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
Unfortunately the petition to have a set aside devoted exclusively to bikes and peds was not made part of the bill, so should it pass we will need to speak up in each city to make sure we get our fair share of bike improvements with the local funds each city will be given.
It would raise the LA sales tax by a half cent, and generate 40 billion over it's life span for these improvements, with a safeguard in place that it takes a year of political approval to make budget changes to any projects specified in the measure. The estimated cost per citizen comes out to about $25 a year.
As a freelance messenger I had to serve 3 people in Downey a few weeks back. on my first attempt I was successful at serving 1 of the three. thank god i didn't drive. i looked up the addy's 2 of the main address (all I needed to serve, the third was an alternate source in Commerce) were rail close. but rail close meaning they were "real close" to the "LAKEWOOD" Greenline station which we all know connects to the Blue and the Blue connects to the Red. I live in K-town, so the Red is real close and im "rail close" to the rail system. I had to do the same a few days later to an erroneous location in Commerce but nonetheless it was off slauson so i rode to dtla, then took the blue line (raced it on flower to the washington station, i decided to go an extra stop to have time to buy a ticket of course) I condone the use and promote the use of rail. I on the otherhand will not ride a bus if i could help it. riding the bus route is more fun than riding in the bus. for example wilshire westbound to bev. hills in a morning commute is a perfect example
I just wrote my blog post introducing and summarizing the rail improvements attached to the Measure R plan. I think this is important for cyclists not only because we are often also train users, but it will fund other road improvements and local projects that will impact cyclists more directly.
I'm all for this! this is what i have been dreaming about with LA...i love the rail systems in NY, SF and Chicago but i love LA too much to leave and had been hoping for public trans/rail systems to be improved like these other cities.
theres also a plan for a maglev train to be built from anaheim to las vegas unfortunately mag lev is much more expensive and is not compatible with other rails...if California does approve for the HSR plans then the mag lev plan will be scrapped and hopefully Nevada will jump in and go for a HSR plan as well. Disneyland has also proposed to fund the Anaheim hub for the HSR hub and the MagLev train but I'm sure they would love to just make it all an HSR system.
an HSR connecting SF, SD, LA, LasVegas, Sacramento, SLO and other big cities would be a big boost to our economy and tourism would jump up as well for the easy traveling/access.
I just had to throw in that the Sprinter in North County Sd is AMAZING. I can't believe that such a thing exists in the suburban wasteland i grew up in. I used to thing bike riding in my hometown was untenable, but with that train it becomes infinitely more viable...mostly because all the east-west roads in north county have 50 mph speed limits and very aggressive drivers not used to seeing bikes.
subway and bikes are awesome. i've seen many riders down there, some of them not even Ridazz - which is cool to experience down bicyclist conversation outside of our realm.
some dude was gettin on my case about being in the train with my bike to which i replied, "ride a bike." what's with people needing to justify themselves?! i like both, and i like to eat the cake too. i hate that fucking analogy...
I ride the train unfortunately very seldom since I live in Santa Monica, which is cut off from the network (for the love of god let the west side extension happen). However even in my very infrequent train use I have run into other ridazz quite a number of times, even our fearless figure head Roadblock. It's always nice to run into people by random chance like that.
Full size bikes are allowed on trains at not rush hour times but I do think we need to try and be accommodating with not blocking others with the bike. Hopefully we can push for rear cars with more standing room space to accommodate more bikes, strollers, wheel chairs, or anything else that doesn't fit in a normal seat like they have on public trains in Copenhagen.
It would be nice if LAMTA's Measure R would include the upgrade of the orange line and the harbor transitway line to light rail and the light rail cars used for those lines or in the blue, green and gold lines included the siemens trains that accomodate bike riders like us on the trains that are currently used on the Portland MAX lines or the San Diego Sprinter (although they limit 4 bikes per car, but it's spacious and holds bikes well). Just a nifty thought.
that would be awesome if this was like a social project.
i mean i bet you all of us could volunteer some of our time and sweat to do simple basic manual labor.
On the train blog I wrote out my last appeal to voters to consider voting yes on proposition 1A, and in my voting endorcements for transporation on my bike blog I also encourage a yes vote on Measure R, primarily due to it's rail expansion funding.
I encourage everyone to give strong consideration to all those other bubbles on this years crowded ballot.
I was going to start a threat on the question I am going to ask. I also wanted to ask you this specifically when I saw you last Wed night, but it didn't work out.
I am a supporter of the project, but plan on voting no on 1A. The reason, there is no plan on getting the remaining $36 billion plus to complete the project. I would hate to have California go into debt $19.8 billion for a project that never happens. Please explain why you think this money is going to funded and by actually who is it going to be funded by? I'm open to changing my mind on this vote. I would actually like to vote for it, but the bond measure sounds foolish to me at this point.
FYI, I never vote for bond measures. Thats is how serious I'am about supporting these bond, if only the project can realistically get completely funded
Economics is a very valid concern these days and a good question. I'll try to alleviate some of those concerns as best I can.
First of all this is Prop1A and not just 1, due to an amendment by state assembly woman and accountant Fiona Ma, a big supporter of train who toured the French TGV system to get familiar with the concept. The A amendment added additional financial acountiblity and business planning.
The major component of this is that the funds provided by the CA tax payer bond will be dolled out in a slow and accelerating trickle over the course of project lifespan. This means if in the first couples years of development, sufficient numbers investors did not materialize and federal matching funds went bust, it would be possible to abandon ship with very little tax payer money on the table yet. Once the project picked up steam and completion was on track, the bond money feeding into the project would accelerate.
So who is paying for this, since CA bond only does part of it? The project, modeled after the French TGV system, will be payed for in a 3 way partnership between CA, private investors and the federal government. Some private investors are already lined up to support the project should the bond measure pass, and more will likely follow as has been the case in other countries. As for the feds, the likely hood of matching funds is looking good under the potential of an Obama/Biden white house and a democratic majority. Obama has spoken of HSR on the campaign trail as an alternative to oil dependance connecting our mid western cities. Biden is a regular train commuter himself and was one of the members of congress who pushed for better Amtrak funding and the semi high speed Acela train on the east cost. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Dianne Feinstein both recently announced their endorsement for Prop1A, and will be in a strong position to shape the federal transportation budget up for renewal in 2009.
Another factor to consider on this as far as economics, is that it will generate thousands of jobs that cannot be outsourced in the construction sector, which has been hit hard by high unemployment. More jobs will generate additional tax revenue that will offset at least a portion of the new expenses. It is also a worth while investment since once it's up it be able to run it self. Many don't realize that our air travel, especially shorter flights, is heavily subsidized to keep fares affordable. While many airlines faced with higher fuel costs have gone bankrupt, cut service or merged, the TGV train system in France has been posting record profits, with ambitious plans for expansion. In Spain, the new line there between Madrid and Barcelona (similar trip time as SF to LA), has already in 6 months taken 30% of the travel market share between those two cities.
Since this is an all electric system, it will reduce foreign oil dependence, another root cause of our economic woes. So all this being said, while some detractors say we cannot afford to build this train, I would argue we cannot afford not to. CA population growth by 2030 is estimated to reach 50 million people. If all these people are going to use airports and highways to get around the state, imagine the strain it will put on our current system. The cost of doing nothing is not zero.
So hopefully this answers some of the nagging economic questions in your head about the train project. If you have any other questions or concerns I will try to address them as best I can.
I am voting for both Measure R (Subway to the sea) and Prop 1A (High speed rail). Damn we are living in the 21st century, and most of America is falling back into the 19th century.
We need the high speed rail. We always seem to find the millions of dollars to maintain the freeways and streets. As long as we have no other transportation alternative, those aging freeways will cost more and more to repair.
The first four paragraphs make much sense. I admit, I have read the main voter guide throughly, but have not read the addendum of 1A. I will read that tonight and make a decision.
You did answer my concerns and I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
Respect, and In Solidarity, May all of us in this community make a better tomorrow for California.
Recently, i've taken a marginal approach to this than I once thought in the past about it. I'm not sold on prop 1a like I once used to. Economics can play a huge role but the key is that this is a bond that requires more borrowing and it will eventually lead to higher taxes if California's debt grows. Not to mention the lack of an oversight comittee to keep the budget in tact if it becomes mismanaged.
California faces a $15 billion deficit this year and a $10 billion bond budget this proposition calls for also accumulates interest that will eventually have to be paid in higher taxes.
The $55 fee for a one-way route from San Francisco with five stops at 3 hours to Los Angeles. Sounds great, but I remembered paying $350 round trip on the acela express from DC to NYC. The ticket price will have to rise and the reality of the length of the train from SFO to LA on an average speed of 165mph or less would take me to LA in 4 to 5 hours so the $55 fee seems like a smokescreen to sell proposition 1a to pass.
This proposition outside of LA/SF has the perception of the train as a gift to LA and San Francisco residents. Many of my friends and family from SD are against it because they feel like they'll be the last ones to benefit out of a high speed rail if LA and SF get it first which they will. There's voters in Monterey and Santa Barbara who will reject it because it doesn't reach their cities.
Finally, This seems like a bad idea to introduce if we're facing a shitty economy now. It also seems like the plans proposed in this proposition are overstated and may not hit budget targets as it should be over time. It's a good proposition on the surface, but it seems more bureaucratic inside if it passes.
I like high speed rail. I really do. I use it all the time in Europe on the ICE or the X2 trains.
Yet I'm not sold nor confident to think proposition 1a will be the answer because it's not balanced for all of California's transportation problems given today's gloomy economic climate. I'd like to see more commuter rails in the south bay, or subways not just to the sea but to Long Beach Airport, more light rail or suburban rails to San Pedro. Things that would make Measure R with steroids. I'd like to be confident but this proposition seems more like a boondoggle than a benefit.
I respect your opinion but disagree with your points.
Concerning the fare, comparing it to Acela is not accurate, since the Acela is basically outdated tech running at it's limits, which is far slower and less efficient than a true HSR system as exists elsewhere in the world. The CA HSR fare estimate does not take into consideration variable pricing, which like airlines will mean higher fares during higher traffic times. However it will be substantially cheaper then equivalent air fare without being subject to oil price conditions. As for cyclists, I think it's important to consider bike box on a train is $5 fee or on trains with bike racks it is free as a carry on, but bike on a plane is a $100 fee. Increasingly due to weight and fuel concerns, some planes are even starting to charge for all luggage, not just extra bags.
I also think it is unfair to point out every place it doesn't go as an example of why it shouldn't happen. It can't be everywhere first. SD will be a later part of the phase, and some cities won't be connected, but that alone isn't a reason to vote it down. If it started in SD first, then SF would be upset. The economics of HSR travel, it just doesn't make sense to hit every city and town, that would bog it down. Would be like a subway with stops every 3 blocks, what would be the point, could just take the bus. We need to connect the core cities of California with the population and ridership to support it, and prove the model before we think about other connections.
We do need better transit options within our cities, but that doesn't change the fact that we have a lot of traffic between our cities, mostly air and automobile, that will continue to get heavier and heavier as the states population booms.
If we wait to do anything until everything is rosy, our state and our country will slip further behind in efficient and sustainable transportation. More and more places in the world are waking up to the benefits of a high-speed rail network. Russia just announced it's intention to start building high speed rail, and they want Spain to model their system. China has been hit by the ripples of economic recession too, and that isn't stopping them from actually increasing their rail investment, as a response to a slumping economy, by investing 200 billion dollars for rail in the coming year.
I heard this mentioned on the radio the other day, one of the first times I've heard something I thought about politically coming out of a radio... anyway, does anyone remember how/why our freeway system was built, or why the LA River was paved rather than turned into a massive system of parks (which would have been the better option), or how the Hoover dam got built? Or the Tennessee Valle Authority's system of dams?
Oh yeah, they were built as economic stimuli.
Those projects, while necessary, were given the funding and the green light go ahead because they meant one thing, JOBS, in a time of joblessness.
Those projects (and WWII) helped bring America out of the Great Depression. Major building projects tend to happen under times of "Economic Stress", they provide jobs, and act as a symbol that the government is willing to spend money, which in turn helps re-invigorate the private market.
At least that's the historical side of things.
It's a bit of an amazingly thin system when all it takes to cause major problems in it is to convince people its not a good time to spend money...
gary you wrote ......... The major component of this is that the funds provided by the CA tax payer bond will be dolled out in a slow and accelerating trickle over the course of project lifespan. This means if in the first couples years of development, sufficient numbers investors did not materialize and federal matching funds went bust, it would be possible to abandon ship with very little tax payer money on the table yet. Once the project picked up steam and completion was on track, the bond money feeding into the project would accelerate.
I just read prop 1A over twice. I might not have the proper reading comprehension. Where in the text of the law does it state what you wrote above. . Please point out the text.
I think this might be the text you are referring to
In 2704.08 of the proposed law section
(g), the authority shall have approved and concurrently submitted to the director of Finance and the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee the : (1) a detailed funding plan for that corridor or usable segment thereof that (A) identified the corridor or usable segment thereof, and the estimated full cost constructing the corridor or usable segment thereof, (B)identifies the source of all funds to be used and anticipates time of receipt thereof based on offered of all funds to be used and anticipates time of receipt thereof based on offered commitments by private parties, and authorizations, allocations , or other assurance received from governmental agencies (C) includes a projected asssurances received from governmental agencies, goes on to talk about ridiership and cost and over runs etc
then it concludes by saying
(i) No Failure to comply with the section shall affect the validity of the bonds issued under this chapter
doesn't that say, you have to do this but if you don't it won't affect the funding? Please Clarify
Do you think that the $9billion could be used just to complete the LA to SF line and then the search for other funding must happen. Is there only a certain percentage of that $9billion that can be dedicated to that line? I know the text reads only 7.5% for Environmental related planing, and 2.5% for administration cost.
2704.08 starts by saying (a) Proceeds bonds described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04 shall not be used for more than 50 percent of the total cost of construction of each corridor or usable segment thereof of the high speed train system, except for bond proceeds used for th purposes of subdivision (g). which talks about the 7.5 percent that I talked about above.
does mean only 50% of the cost of construction can only come from the $9billion bond fund that this law will provide?
even if that's the case, I'm sure there's many counties, retailers, merchants, sports affiliates etc etc that will be happy to connect LA & SF and will help pay(ve) the way
The wording is pretty dense, but how I understand it from the reading I've done on it, is that the project will not proceed unless funding is secured in addition to the bond measure, to make sure we don't end up starting construction on something we don't have the money to finish. During the final planning and environmental reviews before ground breaking, the high speed rail authority will be in the process of securing that additional funding.
LA to SF is the first phase, starting in orange county, so the first usable stretch of track will connect OC to Downtown in less than a half hour. Once that line is built out, a fork to Sacramento and an extension to San Diego would be part of the second phase. The OC to LA stretch should be ready for operation in the first few years of the construction.
Who will be running the trains? Will the state benefit from any revenues gained from fairs or will it be privatized to allow a private company or corporation to make all the profit off of a train system that has been built with a percentage of public funds?
The train will be operated by a new transit authority, but will operate as a private business. It won't feed money back into the government directly, however it will have indirect benefits to tax revenue, much the same way all our existing subsidized transit does. The government subsidies air travel because the commerce and hence taxes generated by trips that are in and of them self not profitable reap other indirect gains. The difference here is that HSR systems are actually profitable on their own, so they can cover their operating expenses. If the train pays off it's debts and continues to take in profit, it is possible that it may be able to fund it's own expansion later, such as the TGV system which was made possible by initial government investment.
By taking market share from inefficient and subsidized short hop flights, the train also has the potential to reap tax payer gains there while also allowing airlines to operate at a more profitable level. Some of our existing flights exist because the government tells them to, it's not really a free market. HSR trains on the other hand are ideal for the kind of distances too short to be very efficient for a plane. An effective transit system should be diverse and use the strengths of each other. Planes are efficient for things like LA to New York, but distances like LA to SF not so much.
Obama and Biden are in the white house, both having expressed interest in rail expansion, unlike Mr. Straight Talk Express. Prop 1A has passed, and Measure R have passed!! High-Speed Rail and West Side Subway extension (among other important projects) here we come!! Good day for trains. However this enthusiasm is tempered by the truly sad news that prop 8 has passed. WTF!!! We can overcome racism to elect an African American man by a land slide, we can acknowledge the need for better treatment of our animals, but no equal rights for gay people. ARRRRG WTF WTF!!!
Gary, you convinced me to vote for 1A. It took about ten minutes after your last response to come to my conclusion. That meant that my girl and her kid voted for it to. 3 votes thanks to your lobbying.
As for R. I'm pissed. Now I'm going to pay 9cents for every dollar I spend. I'm a low income person.
I hate Regressive taxation!
Don't tell me it going to benefit me. After a year, MTA is still going to raise the rates through the roof and cut service. Watch and see.
I hope I'm wrong. The future will tell for sure
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
