patrick.net

Hi Bruce,

I went ahead and erased the duplicate posts.

Scott J.,

I'm really not sure where you were going with the 10:12:17 PM post - I'm pretty sure it was the French and English who let Israel happen. American support came later.

The Marshall plan did a lot more than fix up Japan. It fixed up a good part of Western Europe and got them to more or less work together for peace. It brought prosperity to Taiwan and ROK. US goofed plenty, but give credit where credit is due.

Not to say Bush II or anyone else in US today could pull it off. Especially Bush II - he has, as a sometime commentor/agitator here has recently posted elsewhere, fecal fingers.

Peter P,

Yuck, deep fried sea urchins! That sounds like an even worse idea than deep fried oysters. I prefer my sea urchin as fresh and raw as possible.

Can I bring out my old pet idea about the train/personal transport crossover again?

Yuck, deep fried sea urchins! That sounds like an even worse idea than deep fried oysters. I prefer my sea urchin as fresh and raw as possible.

I like it raw, steamed, deep-fried, in pasta, and in rice congee.

Can I bring out my old pet idea about the train/personal transport crossover again?

I love that idea!

SFWoman,

Sounds very interesting. Maybe I should plan for a trip to Europe next spring. $600 (after taxes) from CA would be even cheaper from DC. The flier miles will help fund that first-class ticket to New Zealand.

Here's the sob story of the week from CNN:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/11/real_estate/help_the_Williams/index.htm?postversion=2006121112

This couple's primary mistake was obviously to buy their new home before selling their first. Why on earth are people doing this? Since when did this become the norm? Growing up, it always seemed to be the case that you sell your home first, THEN buy the new one.

Growing up, it always seemed to be the case that you sell your home first, THEN buy the new one.

Depending on whether it is a buyer's market or a seller's market. One just cannot be delusional or emotional.

skibum,

Shame on you! Haven't you learnt that real estate always goes up and you'll always get multiple offers above listing when you sell? Even in Indiana!

When my parents sold their old home, one of my mom's best friends told her that she must buy a house before she sells.

And watch out, BA, because this lady is moving to South Bay in June 2007.

Oh thanks, astrid! You know how I love darkening pixels, but really.

Funny about the Marshall Plan. Our histories tend to overlook how poorly implimented it was - lot's of bad feelings in the early years of the program, though the honorable intent was well-understood. We rushed into foreign cultures ill-prepared, telling the French they must close their museums, etc., you can imagine the uproar.

Sound familiar? Well, it came out all right in the end. The Brits call it 'muddling through'.

"Since when did this become the norm?" (buying new before selling old)

I keep trying to figure that one out! What makes this particular SSOTW interesting though is that it takes place in East Jeebus, IN. If you read between the lines there really is a much broader story. These aren't your typical DINK specuvestors in a "hot market" (like Billings, MT!) They didn't flip on the 2 year anniversary and they genuinely need the extra room.

What the article says to me is; none of ya'll are safe! IN has one of the highest home ownership rates in the country and frequently homes are sold to relatives, co-workers or just plain old word of mouth. If they're not safe.......?

Btw, CNBC added a free scrolling ticker to the bottom of their home page. Pretty cool for a freebie huh?

Ideally, one should not have to sell his old houses ever. Just keep accumulating houses after they are paid off. Ideally...

Bruce, astrid,

The Marshall Plan worked pretty good if you were a 'former' enemy. Allies weren't treated quite as well. The Philippines were left in ruins and it's been a sore spot to this day.

On Topic:

They actually USE their LRT (light rail transit) and it passes right by Rojas Blvd. by the embassy. It's exhausting getting up the platform steps in that heat though!

Peter P,

Agreed. This was standard practice in the mid-west up until the late 70's early 80's. It also makes the payments on the "new" house a little easier too!

Just a quick comment about the Big Dig. The practical effect of this project is that the rest of the infrastructure in the state is ruined. You know the Longfellow Bridge (the one they show at the beginning of Ally McBeal)--it's falling apart, as are the rest of the bridges around the Charles River basin. The subway is billions in debt. Many terminals in Logan are still steaming piles of dung.

In twenty years once the rest of the state's infrastructure is fixed it may be worth it. I know I sure like getting from Beacon Hill to Logan in 10 minutes. But it's been painful along the way.

About rails and housing choice...

It seems to me that high-speed rail is supportive of concentrated, urban living, at least as it's done in Europe. It's a pretty good match for cities which became large before the advent of the automobile.

It’s a pretty good match for cities which became large before the advent of the automobile.

Agreed. SF is by no means large.

I rather have an electronic toll road system.

Peter P,

San Francisco proper is a bit larger than Hausmann's Paris of 1840-1914 but, even with the broad boulevards, 'etoiles', parks and squares, they made space for a national government, two major universities, businesses, retail, and pretty-decent-to-luxurous digs for about 3.1MM gesticulating French.

The Baron Hausmann's my hero, urban genius division.

It seems to me that high-speed rail is supportive of concentrated, urban living, at least as it’s done in Europe. It’s a pretty good match for cities which became large before the advent of the automobile.

Exactly. These are what Robert Cote would term "obsolete pre-automotive cities" (OPACs). Retro-fitting existing cities that are currently w/o much rail infrastructure is prohibitively expensive, mainly due to the exorbitant costs of excavating/building around existing homes, businesses and infrastructure. L.A.'s Metrorail has proved this many times over. And I agree that the biggest limitation to HSR here is poor local transportation and how car-centric the whole west coast is.

BTW, where is Robert when we have a topic tailor-made for him?

Also, subway trains here do not look safe. There are too many weird people walking around.

This is probably going to be the transportation of the future (if they can ever get FAA approval):

http://www.moller.com/newm.htm

It even gets decent mileage (est. 20 MPG) which will no doubt improve over time. And since you will not be stuck for hours in gridlock, it will save gas over any ground-based car, even today's most efficient hybrid.

And since you will not be stuck for hours in gridlock

With enough flying cars, there will be gridlocks in the sky.

With enough flying cars, there will be gridlocks in the sky.

Not likely anytime soon. Flying is three-dimensional, while driving restricts you to a 2-dimensional plane. As a result, the amount of open "lane" space available to air traffic is geometrically larger.

Of course, they aren't making anymore sky ;-).

John H,

Interstates don't make any direct revenues either, but their impact economically is great. It just depends upon where the public elects to apply their funding.

From a speed, footprint, efficiency, ROI standpoint, rail's not a bad option for future planning, but it's made equivocal by choices we made long ago.

Interstates don’t make any direct revenues either, but their impact economically is great. It just depends upon where the public elects to apply their funding.

All roads should be tolled according to speed, distance, and vehicle weight.

With enough flying cars, there will be gridlocks in the sky.

But think of the FREEDOM.

Here's a relevant article... the guy who helped plan BART and then became critical of it, died today:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/12/BAGMTMTT0G1.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

"If BART has achieved any sort of unquestionable success, it was as a public-relations exercise,'' he said. "As a result, it may be that BART's most successful outcomes have been felt outside the Bay Area. BART has been heralded as a pace-setter for transit systems throughout the world.''

He placed much of the blame on BART's decision to build a system to lure suburbanites "from the luxury of their cars" with "a luxury rail system" with cushioned seats, carpeted floors and a modernistic design instead of creating a system that focused on faster, more frequent service.

It's true. Every time I'm on BART, I wonder why it's so "70's futuristic" and impractical (carpet??) - unlike the proven NYC subway system.

So now it's a "substantial cooling" not a HOUSING CRASH? (Fed notes)

Kind of like saying Elton John is...... fashion conscious?

High speed rail is a great concept. London to Paris in 2 hours very soon right? It will do wonders for their economies. But in the US? Inconceivable. We lack the brain power. Crack addists and drunks run the current system. This combined with unprincipled unions and quotas make this an impossibility in the US. Furthermore, the current public transportation in the US was devastated when the civil rights attorneys no longer allowed law enforcement to properly police public spaces. Apart from sepcific areas in Manhattan, would you take your family on public transportation at all hours? Until law enforcement guarantees our safety with the current system you can forget about investing billions i this new one. Could this be the next "big dig"?

Furthermore, the current public transportation in the US was devastated when the civil rights attorneys no longer allowed law enforcement to properly police public spaces.

Really? This is sad. Why?

hmm, all interesting ideas, doc1.

the technocratic country that put a man on the moon and split the atom did it thru crack addicts and drunks?

I can't say that I feel too safe on the Paris Metro at night either -- that's why they have big red 'duress' buttons on the platforms...

and civil rights attorneys are to blame for everything?

compared with paris or london, sydney is a mixture of car and train cultures. Rail lines were put up through the expensive 'north shore' and throughout the western areas, and suburbs full of commuters grew up around them. although american-style suburban sprawl also took hold from the 1920s with the advent of the affordable motor car. the roads are generally overstressed and narrow coming into the inner ring suburbs and the city -- the further in you go, the more narrow and Victorian the streets. Someone decided to convert the CBD from charming 5-storey Victorian buildings into 40 storey skyscrapers with the same narrow streets and consequently without rail links it would be impossible to get people in an out.

there was a funny irony in that they completed a grand 'central station' in the early 20th century at the height of the age of rail, only to find that the CBD drifted north to the harbour away from it, and across the harbour via the new bridge, and suddenly there were motorcars and sprawling suburbia -- the motorcar created suburbia in its bungalow form...

interestingly, the mayor of the city is a keen advocate for extending a light rail link passing through said central station and through the middle of the city, running north-south right through the elongated CBD. it's currently set up almost like a 'toy' where it originally ran mainly from central straight to the casino and 'exhibition centre' and little else, hmm. they then extended it to a couple of suburbs beyond to wring some usefulness from it. the state govt however is not convinced that a single rail line is going to be useful or flexible enough to cover the needs of CBD travellers vs the bus network -- they see it as just another expensive 'solution' and fixed rail line on top of the underground loop, a near-useless monorail, and an existing bus system. it's a tough call... melbourne still operates a terrific grid of trams, but then they have the layout to do it...

doc1 Says:

"High speed rail is a great concept. London to Paris in 2 hours very soon right? It will do wonders for their economies"

There's been a high-speed Eurostar rail link London-Paris, London-Brussels, London-Amsterdam for over a decade. Having been out of the UK for almost 7 years now, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised to find that other European capital cities have been added.

speedingpullet, eburbed was being wry before with his 'freedom' comment...

Published Saturday, December 9, 2006, by the San Mateo Daily Journal
By Keith Kreitman

When Judge Quentin L. Kopp tells me at age 78, as the newly
elected chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority
, he has finally reached the
apex of his career, I sit up and listen...

From San Francisco to Los Angeles, alone, he tells me, with stops
along the way, it will be only two-and-a-half hours at 50 bucks one
way, with guaranteed reserved seats. (Where were you, Judge Kopp,
when I languished for nine to 11 hours on Amtrak for the same trip
at even more money?

The total cost for the project is expected to be $33 billion, one of
the most expensive in world history. Yet, even though the original
funding will be from 30-year general obligation bonds, the first of
which will hit the ballots in 2008, the rail line will be privately
operated and without any government subsidies. Based on the
experiences of other nations with such lines, Kopp anticipates
enough running profits to pay off these bonds in 10 years.

Things are already in motion, he tells me, with 14.3 million in the
works to begin engineering and to set up right-of-way acquisition
procedures (except on our Peninsula) and 199 millions for newly
awarded (through June 30 2013) project managers Parson Brinckerhoff
Quade and Douglas. The state budget for 2007-8 is expected to bring
in 103 millions to actually begin buying rights of way. And 2008,
hopefully, brings the votes for a $9.95 billion bond starter for
construction.

random user Says:

> As to a high speed train, I’d love to see one from
> SF to LA. But I don’t know if it’s practical or not.

Let’s say 400 miles of track with a right of way ¼ mile wide. That is 100 square miles or 64,000 acres. If you figure an average price of $200K an acre it will cost about $12 Billion for the land plus another few Billion for legal costs to take the land through eminent domain. Lets call it $15 Billion for the land.

The new 5.4 mile 3rd St. light rail in SF is about a quarter Billion over budget and will probably come in at just under $200mm per mile. It is my guess that with economy of scale that the state could build the high speed rail for half the cost of SF or $40 Billion.

If we add in cost overruns and inflation it will probably cost about $70 Billion for a high speed rail from SF to LA (or about $2,000 from every man, woman and child in the state). Since rail will not pay for itself we will have to subsidize it for years to come…

>>Rail is is amazingly efficient at transporting bulk, time insensitive material. People are neither. Rail transit is stupid. Rail transport is efficient and necessary.

It's been argued that there are no profitable models in the business of transporting people from anywhere to anywhere.

-Cruise ships don't count because they're not really transporting people, rather providing them with an entertainment experience.

-Airlines as an industry has done nothing but lost enormous amounts of shareholder capital.

“If a capitalist had been present at Kittyhawk back in the early 1900s, he should have shot Orville Wright. He would have saved his progeny money. But seriously, the airline business has been extraordinary. It has eaten up capital over the past century like almost no other business because people seem to keep coming back to it and putting fresh money in. - Warren B

Cars are the only profitable means of transportation - at the cost of everyone via time and money. It works because it's so inefficient.

Furthermore, the current public transportation in the US was devastated when the civil rights attorneys no longer allowed law enforcement to properly police public spaces.

Yeah that's why the subways are empty in NY. Oh wait.

Anyone considered the possibility for the government to ship in massive foreign labor to do major infrastructure construction? Laborers can be housed in temporary tents/domes on the construction site.

Since much of the inflation-sensitive cost is lobor, this can be a real solution.

What is "profit" anyway?

In a zero sum game of life, where do profits come from?