Sacramento International Airport (SMF)

[TWAK]

I love HSR just as the next guy, but that is some serious debt from our state. We got to figure something out

[202_Cyclist]

innov8:

sure hope Gov. Brown kills HSR. The State is broke, expect many more layoffs and reduction in services as this State is over spending beyond it's
means.

The alternative to high speed rail isn't not spending anything and paying down debt. The alternative is spending tens of billions of dollars on status quo transportation modes that will increase our use of oil and create more emissions and sprawl. CA's population is currently 38M and is expected to increase to 60M by 2050, according to the CA Dept. of Finance.

Here are just some of the current projects in the state-- there will be many more of these without high sped rail to accommodate more autos/aircraft.

*LAX modernization $5B - $7B
*I-5 widening in San Diego Co $3B - $4B
*SMF modernization $1.2B
*New Santa Ana/John Wayne terminal $600M

I've seen estimates that to repair and expand Hwy 99 to interstate standards would cost $15B - $20B. San Diego International Airport is undergoing a multibillion modernization now but physical constraints will prevent it from adding appreciable capacity within a two decades.

[202_Cyclist]

The United States has 309M people, less than five percent of the world's total population but we consume 1/4 of the world's oil, approximately 22M barrels of oil per day. US passenger vehicles are responsible for half of that consumption or 1/8 of the entire world consumption of oil.

The real question is how can we afford not to build high speed rail. Here are some of the costs of the status quo:

*The 35,000 - 40,000 annual auto fatalities cost the US economy at least $150B per year. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK14104/)
*The cost of auto congestion cost the US economy $115B in 2009 (http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/media_i...ss_release.stm)
*Aviation congestion and delays cost the economy $33B in 2007 (http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2010/...flight_delays/)
*The Highway Trust Fund had to be bailed out by the general fund (i.e. subsidy) each of the past four years at a cost of $7B -$8B each year.
*Out of the FAA's annual budget, approximately 25 percent of it is paid from the general fund (i.e. subsidy).

High speed rail compares very favorably. Since the Shinkansen started operating in Japan, there have been zero fatalities, compared to the 35,000 - 40,000 auto fatalities each year in the US. The average delay is .2 minutes per train.

[202_Cyclist]

I love HSR just as the next guy, but that is some serious debt from our state. We got to figure something out.

Stop subsidizing the automobile (the Highway Trust Fund had to be bailed out with $7B - $8B each of the past four years) and end the trillion dollar-plus war in Iraq. Look at this chart-- aside from the massive tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent, healthcare, defense, and Social Security are the biggest contributors to our federal budget:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...1/0119-budget/

We're limited in controlling health care costs as long as we are dependent on cars. As noted above, auto fatalities each year cost the US economy $150B-- every single year. The health care cost for treating auto injuries is tens of billions of dollars more.

Irrespective of your views on global warming, it is pretty undeniable that autos lead to more localized air pollution. People living within 100 meters of freeways in Los Angeles are three times as likely to have hardening of the arteries: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb...on14-2010feb14. There are numerous studies showing that auto and truck emissions cause asthma and other respiratory illness. Additionally, the sedentary lifestyle and resulting obesity of auto-induced sprawl significantly raises the costs for heart disease, diabetes, and other obesity-related illness: http://www.ajpm-online.net/article/S...297-7/abstract.

[innov8]

202_Cyclist: I guess if you ignore the reality that our State is on the brink
of mass layoffs and fewer services for the poor and needy, then yes, building
a fast Choo Choo should be a top priority. Seriously, I think Gov. Brown
knows the difference between a need and a want, and HSR will soon
be categorized as want as the State crumbles before our eyes. I voted for
this dumb idea a few years ago because of slick marketing and nobody
wanted to talk about the future budget issues that were now dealing with.

I guess if you 202_Cyclist want the poor of our state to suffer even further
beyond the deep social services cuts and the proposed 10 percent cut in
take-home pay for some state employees, then that’s a vary selfish view and
ignores the true magnitude of what’s going on here.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by innov8

202_Cyclist: I guess if you ignore the reality that our State is on the brink
of mass layoffs and fewer services for the poor and needy, then yes, building
a fast Choo Choo should be a top priority. Seriously, I think Gov. Brown
knows the difference between a need and a want, and HSR will soon
be categorized as want as the State crumbles before our eyes. I voted for
this dumb idea a few years ago because of slick marketing and nobody
wanted to talk about the future budget issues that were now dealing with.

I guess if you 202_Cyclist want the poor of our state to suffer even further
beyond the deep social services cuts and the proposed 10 percent cut in
take-home pay for some state employees, then that’s a vary selfish view and
ignores the true magnitude of what’s going on here.

California needs new infrastructure and needs new jobs. Giving up on HSR means giving up on billions in matching funds. Yes, it is "subsidized", so are the putt-put cars and zoom-zoom planes, as mentioned above. But new infrastructure in the form of HSR means tens of thousands of jobs (reducing welfare rolls in the process), in the sector where it is most needed (construction) and in the places it is most needed (starting in the great central valley where unemployment is at its highest.)

And yes, part of the reason why car and air travel are subsidized through highways and airports is because that money spurs development. But the kind of development that gets built is dependent on the transit network. If you really like horizontal sprawl-burbs, highways and airports are great for promoting that kind of development, and are largely why the Sacramento region looks the way it does. It was easy when California was a largely unpopulated state exploding with population and wealth, and gasoline was super cheap. Now we're living in a very different state, growing out has become more and more impractical--but we do have the option, in many places, of growing up.

If you like vertical development (and because you're posting on SkyscraperPage and not SuburbPage, I assume you do) then what is needed is the kind of transportation network that promotes vertical development--which tends to be fixed-rail transportation in all its forms, including streetcars, light rail, heavy rail, and high-speed rail. If you want to see American cities that more closely resemble European cities in urban form, or even early 20th century cities in density, we have to start modeling their transportation methods--and they have decades of lead time on us.

The car (and the highway) isn't going anywhere. The airplane (and the airport) isn't going anywhere. But they are both running into their practical limitations as forms of transportation in a state as enormously urbanized as we are. So instead of the increasingly low rates of return we get from subsidizing them, we can invest in a transportation system that will let us move forward--and upward.

[rampant_jwalker]

Originally Posted by innov8

202_Cyclist: I guess if you ignore the reality that our State is on the brink
of mass layoffs and fewer services for the poor and needy, then yes, building
a fast Choo Choo should be a top priority. Seriously, I think Gov. Brown
knows the difference between a need and a want, and HSR will soon
be categorized as want as the State crumbles before our eyes. I voted for
this dumb idea a few years ago because of slick marketing and nobody
wanted to talk about the future budget issues that were now dealing with.

I guess if you 202_Cyclist want the poor of our state to suffer even further
beyond the deep social services cuts and the proposed 10 percent cut in
take-home pay for some state employees, then that’s a vary selfish view and
ignores the true magnitude of what’s going on here.

And our state will have many more poor people in the future if we do not make the necessary infrastructure investments now to enable continued economic activity, job opportunities, and transportation efficiency...

You can opt out of life saving surgery to avoid paying the bill, but it will lead to a quick death. It would be wise to spend what little extra money you have on the surgery and save on other less important things like nights out partying, cable TV, and season tickets at Arco. That's the difference between a need and a want. In managing your personal life you have to include long term needs along with the short term needs of food, water, shelter and warmth, unless the situation becomes so dire that you are on the brink of homelessness.

The state government is in a bad financial situation and needs to cut a lot of spending, that's for sure. But we aren't at a point, in the richest state in the richest country in the world, where we need to cut spending to meet our most important needs, and thank god for that. I would say that HSR is a more important need for our state than any highway expansion project on the boards, and thank you 202_Cyclist for providing some good factual information to support that.

Yes there is growing poverty in our state right now because of the economic depression we're in, but we all know the saying "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he has food for life"... we have to think of long term ways to reduce poverty as well as short term ways to provide necessities to the poor. What will HSR presence do for economically depressed regions of the Central Valley? I think that it will do a lot to tie cities like Fresno and Bakersfield into the bustling economic activity of the larger cities in CA, which will create jobs there, increase investment, and reduce poverty. Or we could just keep sending food stamps to those cities and wait for them to magically create their own economic growth in relative isolation from the rest of the state.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by innov8

202_Cyclist: I guess if you ignore the reality that our State is on the brink
of mass layoffs and fewer services for the poor and needy, then yes, building
a fast Choo Choo should be a top priority....

from the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA) forum:

Originally Posted by bnk

Any one that uses the phrase cho-cho is just re vomiting right wing talking points and anyone that puts the word choo-choo or their likeness should be excluded from rational dialog in this page. Let them learn their talking points and talk with FR, Sumdge, etc. The rest of us are more mature and more intelligent to be talked down upon by calling transit Choo Choos. Talking points that are years old and years behind the times. Centuries behind the times really...

[202_Cyclist]

I guess if you ignore the reality that our State is on the brink
of mass layoffs and fewer services for the poor and needy, then yes, building
a fast Choo Choo should be a top priority.

This is another reason high speed rail should be built. Unemployment in CA is 12.5% statewide and 18 - 20 percent in many Central Valley counties. High speed rail will be one of the largest infrastructure investments in California and US history. It will create perhaps more than the tens of thousands of jobs stated above, perhaps hundreds of thousands. Just the maintenance facility alone proposed for Bakersfield would create 1,500 permanent jobs (http://www.bakersfield.com/news/loca...nance-facility).

Regarding California's budget, I'm not an accountant but you have to look at revenues, not just expenses. This project will create tens of thousand (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of good engineering and construction jobs at a time when they're desparately needed. All of these people will be paying income, sales, and property taxes back to the state and local governments. High speed rail will also increase land values and proprerty taxes in the areas around the station. In the article mentioned above about the proposed maintenance facility in Bakersfield, a private company has offered to donate the land required, not because they're French socialists who can't wait to ride the train but because creating 1,500 new permanent jobs in Bakersfield will increase the value of their real estate.

Similarly, there is billions of dollars in new infill development planned for downtown Fresno (http://fresnodowntownplans.com/media...ts_reduced.pdf). The new property taxes this generates will greatly benefit financially struggling municipalities. The extension of the Orange Line through Arlington County, VA, has resulted in $10B in increased development in that corridor (http://www.dullescorridorrail.com/pd...each_ArlCo.pdf). Similarly, there has been $3B - $5B along Portland's streetcar route. CA high speed rail, if done correctly, will encourage similar development next to the proposed stations. Citeis will capture the new sales and property taxes from this new development.

[snfenoc]

Just wondering if the gas taxes (if saved and invested) are still not enough to pay for automobile infrastructure. I ask because isn't it possible that money intended for autos gets redirected to other purposes? Therefore, auto transportation has to be bailed out?

I now live in the Inland Empire, but I visit Sacramento monthly. The drive up is ridiculous (so is the drive back down ). Flying sucks because I'm scared of it; plus, I am offended by the TSA and the partial strip search I get when I try to board a plane. It would be nice to have a fast rail alternative (Amtrak is a joke). However, I don't buy the numbers - haven't they changed for the worse since the original report in 2008. Plus, I doubt fares will ever be as low as advertised. I think this thing will be a boondoggle. Even if it does get built, it'll probably never head up to Sacramento. So screw HSR.

I would rather the money go to improve local transportation; however, the last thing this state needs to do is spend more money. This Keynesian notion that you can spend your way into a better economy is nonsense.

[202_Cyclist]

@snfenoc--

According to Pew, “in 2007, 51 percent of the nation's $193 billion set asidefor highway construction and maintenance was generated through user fees—downfrom 10 years earlier when user fees made up 61 percent of total spending onroads. The rest came from other sources, including revenue generated by income,sales and property taxes, as well as bond issues.”http://subsidyscope.org/transportati...hways/funding/

[202_Cyclist]

Snfenoc "This Keynesian notion that you can spend your way into a better economy is nonsense"

What else do you propose then? More tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent, who will just save that money? The savings rate has been the highest it's ever been in decades and businesses have been hoarding record amounts of cash. Surely, spending $300B on foreign oil every single year isn't the path for sustainable economic growth either. High speed rail offers an alternative to this.

[wburg]

Considering that recessions are defined as periods when there is not enough spending, yes, spending our way into a better economy is literally exactly what we should be doing. That's how we got out of our last depression, after all: by spending a whole lot of taxpayer money creating infrastructure for brand-new systems of transportation (including highways and airports.) This created a huge number of jobs, created new industries, and reshaped the landscape of American cities (into the current, sprawl-tastic variety.)

Snefnoc would be right to point out that this spending bankrupted a large, privately-run industry (streetcar companies) and nearly destroyed another (railroads) but that government spending is what allowed American automobile and airplane companies to become major industries in the first place. Now, the auto and aircraft industries are dependent on government support, and we have the opportunity to jumpstart our transportation network into the current century. Where we go from here is largely up to us.

[innov8]

I love it, not one of you addressed my main point which is that the poor of
our state will suffer deep social services cuts along with 10 percent cut in
take-home pay for some state employees. How do any of you rationalize
taking from these people to pay for HSR?

I agree with all the benefits of having HSR, but you have to pay for it and
the ONLY way California can do that right now is to take from others who
receive state social services.

Northbay, I guess if bnk says something it must be true right? I actually
heard that term several years ago who knows where… thanks for setting
me straight.

Also, Snfenoc nailed it with Keynesian notion. Did anyone see Californians
finances that I posted above? If not here you go again. Our current debt is
about equal to what it would cost to build HSR… that’s only if it doubles in
cost and not higher like many have projected because major infrastructure
projects never come in as projected. Chances are the Chinese would be the
ones who both finance, build and run California HSR because those are the
terms they would be willing to loan CA the money to build it… read about it
here. They would run the whole project from beginning to end, it that what
you guys want? Remember, they are the ONLY ones willing to bankroll this project.

Originally Posted by innov8

According to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission
(CDIAC), California had total state and local debt of just under $81 billion
dollars as of November 30th, 2009.

Of this debt, $61.2 billion was long-term debt, while $19.7 billion was in the
form of short-term debt.

California's decline in their credit rating over the past 20-25 years is quite
remarkable too, and should be a clear indicator of the mess that the state
currently finds itself in...there is no state that has a WORSE credit rating
than California.

No wburg, you mean barrow and spend our way out of a recession right?
It’s not like all these monies are just sitting around… you’re talking about barrowing
future tax money that has not yet been collected adding additional billions
to the $81 billion the state already owes.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by innov8

I love it, not one of you addressed my main point which is that the poor of
our state will suffer deep social services cuts along with 10 percent cut in
take-home pay for some state employees. How do any of you rationalize
taking from these people to pay for HSR?

I agree with all the benefits of having HSR, but you have to pay for it and
the ONLY way California can do that right now is to take from others who
receive state social services.

Northbay, I guess if bnk says something it must be true right? I actually
heard that term several years ago who knows where… thanks for setting
me straight.

Also, Snfenoc nailed it with Keynesian notion. Did anyone see Californians
finances that I posted above? If not here you go again. Our current debt is
about equal to what it would cost to build HSR… that’s only if it doubles in
cost and not higher like many have projected because major infrastructure
projects never come in as projected. Chances are the Chinese would be the
ones who both finance, build and run California HSR because those are the
terms they would be willing to loan CA the money to build it… read about it
here. They would run the whole project from beginning to end, it that what
you guys want? Remember, they are the ONLY ones willing to bankroll this project.




No wburg, you mean barrow and spend our way out of a recession right?
It’s not like all these monies are just sitting around… you’re talking about barrowing
future tax money that has not yet been collected adding additional billions
to the $81 billion the state already owes.

Actually, there are quite a few billion in federal monies just sitting around--and with Florida and Wisconsin in essence returning federal transportation funds, California has already expressed an interest in using those funds. We already authorized HSR bonds for this--yes,bonds mean borrowing, but I'm willing to wager that if you are a homeowner you borrowed money to buy your house. Borrowing money for a long-term investment can pay dividends, and if you have outside funds (like those billions in federal HSR dollars) it's an acceptable risk.

As to your "main point," please point me to the legislation that will require specific deductions to specific funds. Or maybe not, because I'm pretty certain you pulled that idea directly from where the sun don't shine.

We'll see who is willing to bankroll it when the bids come in--and apparently they only started looking for interested parties last week.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/RFEI.aspx

I'm surprised, innov8, usually you're the one calling for bold measures and ambitious plans. Here we have a chance to lead the nation and show the world what America (and California) can do, by building the first high-speed rail line on the continent. The last time we took on such projects was during a little stretch called the Great Depression when things were pretty much as rough as they are now. They created jobs, built national pride, and gave us infrastructure and institutions that were of great use to the country for another half-century. Hiding under the rug hoping the Scary Recession Monster will ignore you won't help much--kickstarting the economy with infrastructure is, in the long run, a much better policy. Even if it means a certain amount of debt.

[cozmoose]

This thread is to talk about Sac International (SMF).

If you guys want to talk about HSR or CA budget or whatever, start a new topic thread.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by wburg

As to your "main point," please point me to the legislation that will require specific deductions to specific funds. Or maybe not, because I'm pretty certain you pulled that idea directly from where the sun don't shine.

I’m going to sum this up right here wburg. I already said I support HSR but
not at this time because the enormous amount of debt that the state will
carry on top of the $81 billion the state already owes. The state has now
started making principal and interest payments from the state’s General Fund
for the next 30 years. If the bonds are sold at an average interest rate of
5 percent, the cost would be about $19.4 billion to pay off both principal
($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion). The average repayment for principal
and interest would be about $647 million per year.

Where do you think that $647 million comes from every year to pay the
annual principal and interest payments? The General Fund which is also
where California social services all so get there funding. I think I laid this
out pretty clear for you and everyone to connect the dots backing up all
my previous statements. There is a finite amount of money in the state budget,
the state is over extended and will continue to be for at least the next two
years with more budget cuts to come. Spin it any way you want but
these HSR Bonds are just pilling onto an already bleak situation.
Advocates are eager to break ground and commit the state
to the project before the states deficiencies become toxic.

[wburg]

Or, we could get rid of a lot of corporate-welfare spending, spend less on highways and airports than we currently do, start taxing oil companies for offshore drilling (the way other coastal states do) and otherwise start shifting our priorities.

As to Chinese involvement, why not simply say, from the outset, AMERICAN COMPANIES ONLY NEED APPLY? American infrastructure projects should benefit American workers, American construction companies, American suppliers, and American banks. That's the whole point, after all, and if American companies aren't in the shape to do it, that is part of the problem we are trying to solve.

But we'd better move this whole thing to a HSR thread before someone gets angry for not talking about airports.

[202_Cyclist]

People movers installed at Sacramento International Airport

By Tony Bizjak
Modesto Bee
3/17/2011


"In what Sacramento International Airport officials called a milestone moment, crews hoisted the first of two automated people mover vehicles onto an elevated guideway Thursday morning as part of the airport's $1 billion expansion program.


Sacramento International Airport official hoisted the first automated people mover vehicle onto the guideway for testing as part of the $1 billion expansion program. (Image courtesy of the Sacramento Bee)

The vehicles will carry passengers from a new central terminal building to a jet concourse building, both now under construction.

The new buildings and $30 million people mover system are expected to open this fall, replacing the outdated Terminal B complex. Officials said the electric vehicles will travel at 22 miles per hour on a curving track that runs about the length of three football fields. The 50-second trip will take passengers to the federal security checkpoints in the concourse building..."

http://www.modbee.com/2011/03/17/160...acramento.html

[Pistola916]

Wow. in Kings colors?? Really? *sigh*