patrick.net

“High speed rail is NOT for America.”

Also not for America - Wall street bankers that do not lend money to people with jobs or assets!

meant - "NO" jobs or assets

A bit off topic but funny-

My wife called me at work on Monday and said she came across a bike traffic jam a few blocks from home the likes of which she had never seen. Clearly there are more people using mass transit and riding bikes these days!

If it makes me a bad person or un Amerikan for saying so TOUGH!

High speed rail isn't for California. That is for sure. You would have gridlock trying to get to the train station and land prices prevent reasonable cost. The government subsidies would have to be so huge the net gain would be negative. Not to mention that they have to run hub to hub and every town would want a hub. Given the likelyhood that it wouldn't be able to stretch its legs, efficiency based on speed would be lost. I think that what is left is called BART. I love BART. BART kicks ass.

Funny Richmand,

When I arrived at the LA train station last fall, I was struck with how little was going on in the area in terms of traffic and property development!

I think in the end the debate will not matter as the reality will take over just like we are seeing in the mortgage market market!

Paul,

True enough. Things will happen when they have to happen. I just keep thinking about the 6 billion + bucks for half darn bridge over here and I can't imagine what hundreds of miles of track would cost. Heck, for six billion dollars I could drain the Bay and build a friggin road. Oh well. Time will tell.

Eh, so the trains have to run hub to hub. This is not a problem. It would be possible to have a handful of major hubs--those hubs could then serve the surrounding area via high speed or other public transit.

Yes, people would prefer to have the train come to their doors. But trains can't be everywhere. And a good network of public transit is quite possibly inevitable. Already, the buses around here are getting full. And just last year there were tumbleweeds rolling down the aisles.

The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill

... cribbed from a guy on greencarcongress.com commenting on GM shuttering SUV/truck plants and vowing to build more small cars.

BART was supposed to go to San Jose in the mid 1960's. I was a child then. I'm now old and retired and still no BART to San Jose, even though it's now the largest city in the Bay Area. I doubt BART will really make it to San Jose in the next 100 years. By that I mean REAL BART, not some cockamamie link to light rail/bus services. And it will have to come down the Peninsula, NOT the East Bay, to make it worth people's time.

I have been thinking about the article from yesterday 6/3/08.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-laquinta2-2008jun02,0,1250917.story?ref=patrick.net

At the very end it states that the Magsams kids are grown now and they can alwasy start again.

One of the best/worst kind of scams with housing has been equity withdrawal to finance college expenses. If you build up, say, $100k of debt to get a 4 year degree then can't find a job and decide to declare bankruptcy on your creedit cards - the college debt is not discharged. However, if a HELOC pays those college expneses and you bankrupt - voila - college for free.

Assuming the Magsams put 0 to 20% down on the first $140k home they may have financed two college degrees for as little as nothing or as much as $28k.

Of course, this is all a what-if scenario. I have no idea about any detals of the Magsams, but it is certainly plausible. Competing against these kids going forwards is every other family or kids who actually had to PAY for college. In an article where we are asked to feel sympathy I find myself feeling suspicious. Something has to change.

Can someone recomend a 401k safe haven? Bonds are bad, TIPS are worse, and the market itself is the worst.

Will Money market funds hold par?

Back when BART was on the drawing board and methods of finance were being worked out, it was decided that a 1/2 cent sales tax increase would fill the coffer. San Jose and County didn't want it. It was voted down. That is why there is no BART in San Jose. San Jose is only recently a wealthy area. At that time, it was still ag and industry for the most part. The population felt that there was no need for BART and at that time they were right. Had they only known.

Ed McMahon fighting foreclosure on his Beverly Hills home
2 hours ago

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Ed McMahon, who for decades appeared as Johnny Carson's sidekick on "The Tonight Show," is fighting to avoid foreclosure on his multimillion-dollar Beverly Hills home, according to published reports.

The former "Star Search" host was $644,000 behind on payments on $4.8 million in mortgage loans when a unit of Countrywide Financial Corp. filed a default notice Feb. 28 with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office, The Wall Street Journal first reported late Tuesday.

McMahon, 85, has been unable to work as a pitchman for various products since he broke his neck 18 months ago, said his spokesman, Howard Bragman.

"There are plenty of people affected by the weak economy, bad housing market or bad health," Bragman said.

McMahon has been in "very fruitful discussions" with the lender to resolve the situation, Bragman said. But it's unclear whether McMahon and his wife, Pamela, will remain in the home.

A spokesman for Countrywide declined comment to the Los Angeles Times.

The six-bedroom, five-bath house is in a hilltop gated community overlooking Mulholland Drive called The Summit and is listed for sale at $6.25 million. It has been on the market two years, according to real estate agent Alex Davis, who has the listing.

The house is near that of pop star Britney Spears, which doesn't always work in its favor.

"When we were trying to sell the house one time, there were about 100 paparazzi there," Davis said.

Richmond,

The point is made in the video but maybe without specifics that the cost needs to be compared against building more runways at airports and adding lanes of traffic on the highways. If you compare all three you will find that the train is the least costly.

Public transportation is feasible only if it can be expected to make a profit on its own.

Just look at the light rail system in Santa Clara county. Few people are using it. Whose great idea was that?

America's airports has more runways than those of any other country. This is because we pioneered general aviation. Private plane ownership is the highest in the world.

America is the only country in which regular folks can realistically own and fly small planes wherever they want whenever they want. (Even my worker-bee co-worker has a plane, which costs less than an SUV when bought used.)

Back when BART was on the drawing board and methods of finance were being worked out, it was decided that a 1/2 cent sales tax increase would fill the coffer. San Jose and County didn’t want it. It was voted down.

Actually this is not correct. Santa Clara county DID approve the BART tax back in the 1960's, as did SF county. It was San Mateo county who pissed in the punchbowl and prevented BART going down the peninsula. Santa Clara county ended up spending the 1/2 cent sales tax on a bus line since they couldn't spend it on BART.

I hate 1/2 cent sales tax increases. Before long, it will become 19% like Paris!

I wonder why counties don't talk about sale tax cuts.

Then why didn't they shoot down the East Shore out of Alameda Co.? Hell, you can throw a rock from the Alameda County line to San Jose city center. It would look ridiculous on a map for a south bay commute until you look at todays commute times and population, then it doesn't look so bad.
Although, given the demographics of the day, busses were probably more economically viable.
I do appreciate the correction. I knew that some municipality had their BVD's in a bunch. I thought it was Santa Clara. Ooooops.

It would look ridiculous on a map for a south bay commute until you look at todays commute times and population, then it doesn’t look so bad.

But in a train, you are potentially stuck with criminals or other threatening individuals.

Unless there is a point-to-point mode of public transportation, I think driving still makes more sense for most people.

Peter,

Look where I live. Thugs on a train are a step up. :)

But, you are right. When I worked in downtown S.F., I could drive it in twenty five minutes where BART took forty five to fifty. However, BART was cheaper when I took into account fuel, parking and wear and tear.
It was about even with the wage offset for travel time unpaid.

Even with thugs, traveling by train is probably still statistically safer than driving.

America is the only country in which regular folks can realistically own and fly small planes wherever they want whenever they want. (Even my worker-bee co-worker has a plane, which costs less than an SUV when bought used.)

From 1956 - 1985, over 35,000 Cessna 172s were built. This was in addition to other small pison planes from Cessna, along with those from Piper, Beechcraft, Mooney, Rockwell, and others. These planes were affordable new, since some cost about the same as a good sports car.

That changed when Legalman reared his ugly head and and product liability suits from inept pilots killed the affordable General Aviation industry. Cessna stopped making piston planes completely in 1986. Not until after the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 did Cessna restart manufacture of small piston planes. Even so, $20,000 was added to the price of a new Cessna to cover liability suits. Of course, the higher price meant less sales and thus more expensive individual units. Today a new Cessna 172 is about $150,000. The Cessna 152 was discontinued, although last year Cessna introduced a new two seater entry level plane (still over $100,000).

Will Clinton run independent? :)

Small planes are very simple machines. I would say the average small plane has a lot fewer moving parts than the average small car.

Entry-level jets cost about the same as a Palo Alto McCraftsman, and they can fly infinitely faster.

But I thought aircrafts tend to appreciate in (nominal) value. :)

We really need to limit product liability suits. Caveat emptor. Why can't people learn to take responsibility of their own decisions?

The mismatch between California and rail transit is all about building patterns. Rail transit requires high-density (high-rise) residences along the transit corridor for economic/efficiency reasons, and dense enough housing elsewhere to support a high-utilization and therefore efficient feeder-bus system.

Until the people of CA get smart and make the right moves to build 20-story condo/apartment towers next to Caltrain, rail will have a limited impact. It is not technically impossible nor prohibitively expensive to build 20+ story buildings for an 8.0 earthquake, but we have to force it to happen.

Then we have to make the changes that will make people want to live there.

--oil taxes must increase
--gun control must be implemented
--overly concerned parents have to calm down about imagined and imaginary safety threats against their children
-zoning laws and practices must change to promote more mixed residential/commercial land use (e.g. residential high-rises with commercial space in the first floor and basements.
-don't forget underpasses and overpasses across Caltrain, the rail is going to be very busy

People want to live in safe, drug-free and gun-free communities. Much of the sprawl in California is driven by cheap oil combined with a desire to distance oneself both horizontally and vertically from ones fellow citizens, for "safety", privacy" rand "vanity" reasons.

This has to change, by stick and by carrot. I guess that means the school system has to change as well. Altogether a pretty tall order, but given the rise in energy prices the change will eventually take place, although many years and many dollars too late.

...get smart and make the right moves to build 20-story condo/apartment towers next to Caltrain... ...but we have to force it to happen.

Shaking my head...

Yes, it is all about pattern. If we want to accelerate our downfall, that is not a bad idea.

People want to live in safe, drug-free and gun-free communities.

Let's un-invent guns. If we cannot do that, let's allow every non-criminal to carry guns.

This has to change, by stick and by carrot. I guess that means the school system has to change as well.

The worst possible motivation for changes is smug. Some group in Germany tried that a few decades ago. History be the judge.

I posted about this celebrity flipper last year. Here's an update. Evidently experiencing some downward pricing pressure.

-- Real-estate-savvy Frankie Muniz, the Emmy-nominated star of the hit TV series "Malcolm in the Middle," has relisted his five-bedroom, four-bathroom Hollywood Hills home for $3,695,000, down from $3,875,000 last fall. Muniz, 22, purchased it in January 2006 for about $3.5 million. The 4,000-square-foot, two-story house, built in 1941 and completely remodeled in 2005, has hardwood floors, three fireplaces and an entertainment patio area with an outdoor fireplace and a pool. Muniz has been dabbling in Los Angeles real estate for a few years. When he was 19, he owned two houses on Los Angeles' Westside - one with a nifty fingerprint-recognition front door.

Justme,

I understand that your theory is that high gas prices will cause people to reconsider high density living, perhaps finding solutions to the real or imagined dangers of clustered residences.

We may see some other effects of high fuel prices, such as increased telecommuting, 4 day/10 hour work weeks, staggared shifts, and organized ride sharing. The irregular-route transit industry has already perfected algorithims for running dynamic routes (pickup adresses, dropoffs and times vary with each run). Maybe we will see a new service where a commuter, on his turn to drive, will download into his Garmin-like device the addresses and times of his pickups. This, along with other possible ride-share database methods would cut down on number of cars on the road as well as costs.

Justme,

You hit it right on the head. The pattern of thinking in California caters to the support of sprawl. That has come to a head in terms of dollar cost and time spent getting somewhere. Vertical infill is a great place to start. From a planning standpoint, you need high density population to make rail and other forms of public transit work properly. Low to medium density residential is not very efficient on so many levels. However, I must admit, I love my wasteful lawn and garden. Old habits will be hard to break.

We may see some other effects of high fuel prices, such as increased telecommuting, 4 day/10 hour work weeks, staggared shifts, and organized ride sharing.

I agree. Free Market can always find the best solutions.

I still think public transportation turns people into lemmings.

London has medium density in many areas yet they have a sprawling (pun intended) subway system. However, people don't look happy there. They drink and they puke everywhere. Happy people don't resort to alcoholism.

Something about living in a city and being able to survive without a car sounds very appealing to me, something that I would like to try for a while. Maybe not forever, but for a while.

With regards to the puking everywhere: what do you expect, the beer is warm.:)

About 36% of the people who tried to trade in a large SUV in May owed more on the truck than it was worth, according to data from the Power Information Network. That's up from just under 33% a year ago. (It's worse for large pickups. Recent PIN data suggests 40% of large pickups traded during May fetched less than the loan balance.)

A three-year-old large SUV today is worth about $2,000 to $3,000 less at trade-in than a three-year-old large SUV would have been in 2007, before gas prices began to soar, according to Marc Cannon of Inc., the largest U.S. auto retailer. A three-year-old Chevy Tahoe that might have fetched $19,700 in September 2007, he says. Today, a three-year-old Tahoe might be worth $16,400 at trade-in.

In other words, folks who bought a big SUV in 2005 are discovering that they were making a bet that oil prices would remain stable. They were wagering $30,000 to $40,000, not the billions certain U.S. auto makers stand to lose from making a similar wager. But the pain of losing that bet is still real. There hasn't been such a significant collapse in demand for a class of vehicles since the oil embargoes and inflation of the 1970s slaughtered muscle cars.

For the past several weeks, I have passed an increasingly common sign of the times: a Hummer H2 parked at the front of the owner's driveway with a "For Sale" sign in the window. I don't know the seller's motives, but it's doubtful they'll get what they want for the truck, given that Hummer dealers have a glut of unsold new vehicles that will probably leave their lots at fire-sale prices.

Within the past few days, a number of experts in the used-car market have recommended that owners of large SUVs should probably just hang on to their rigs rather than sell into the current collapse.

"If you've got one two- to three-years-old and you're working on a five-year loan, you will be upside down," says Jack Nerad of Kelley Blue Book/KBB.Com. "That's exacerbated by the fact the dealer doesn't want that vehicle right now. It's going to be an ugly scene."

Something about living in a city and being able to survive without a car sounds very appealing to me, something that I would like to try for a while.

You can. Millions of New Yorkers and DC residents have embraced the car-free lifestyle for years.

Perhaps it is time to get a used Land Cruiser. :)