My Word: Rail sounds cool, but could ...

My Word: Rail sounds cool, but could be a financial disaster

There are 87 comments on the Eureka Times Standard story from Dec 11, 2010, titled My Word: Rail sounds cool, but could be a financial disaster. In it, Eureka Times Standard reports that:

"California's High-Speed Rail System" sure sounds cool! But there is a question we should be asking.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Eureka Times Standard.

Dillinger

Eureka, CA

#61 Dec 15, 2010
ferndalian,

Here are a few reliable sites to educate you and any one else who thinks
we get the largest amount of oil from Saudi.

www.quoteoil.com/oil-imports.html

www.watthead.org/2006/03/where-does-your-oil-...

www.theoildrum.com/node/4663

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/...

There are a lot more.
ekarider

Redwood City, CA

#62 Dec 15, 2010
Don't go by national stats when it comes to California oil imports.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080...
Middle of the road

Rancho Cordova, CA

#63 Dec 15, 2010
ekarider wrote:
<quoted text>
I was waiting for this very question to be asked, here's an interesting article to read:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-27-why-a...
I followed your link and found it interesting/informative. Butt for the sake of argument: I want to be able to fly everywhere I go, should you the non -flyer be required to pay for all my airports. If something is a benefit to everyone, everyone should pay a portion of said items cost relative to their individual benefit.

I drive and use public transportation and I pay for them.

Even if I didn’t use public transportation (light -rail/buses) I benefit from their exsistance because it cuts down on traffic on the roadways.

Get my point. Bicyclists want me to pay for their “exclusive” infrastructure which I won’t directly or indirectly benefit from.
ekarider

United States

#64 Dec 15, 2010
Middle of the road wrote:
<quoted text>

Get my point. Bicyclists want me to pay for their “exclusive” infrastructure which I won’t directly or indirectly benefit from.
Those roads with potholes, road stress cracks, made bumpy from countless patchwork being done to it, I didn't cause, plus most non motorized infrastructure is not bicycle exclusive and is open to a variety of users.

The more opportunities that you give to people to get out of their cars, even for one or two days a week or month will benefit you directly and indirectly, better and longer lasting roads, slower speeds, quieter means of travel, etc.
Middle of the road

Rancho Cordova, CA

#65 Dec 15, 2010
ekarider wrote:
<quoted text>
Those roads with potholes, road stress cracks, made bumpy from countless patchwork being done to it, I didn't cause, plus most non motorized infrastructure is not bicycle exclusive and is open to a variety of users.
The more opportunities that you give to people to get out of their cars, even for one or two days a week or month will benefit you directly and indirectly, better and longer lasting roads, slower speeds, quieter means of travel, etc.
Cost effective is the ultimate question.

I'm all for bike trails as long as they are cost effective and those who use them pay for them. Multiple use, everyone should pay. Single use, user should pay.

The American River Bike trail for example carries over a thousand riders a day during the peak season and hundreds a day during the winter. That's cost effective. A bike trail from Eureka to Arcata may and I say MAY get a hundred riders a day when the weather is good and a couple a day during normal Humco weather. Not cost effective.
Dillinger

Eureka, CA

#66 Dec 15, 2010
If the bikers that support a new trail and claim it will benefit all of us and that many, many more will start using the trail, their numbers "will skyrocket."

Ok, so let's get it in the next ballot and let the people of Humco vote and then will see for certain if those numbers "will skyrocket."

It would seem obvious that if the vote comes out a majority that would indicate they are willing to let their taxes pay for the trail and that they will probably start using it.

No more for/against debate and opinions just a factual number.
How do the rest of you feel about this proposal?
ekarider

United States

#67 Dec 15, 2010
Middle of the road wrote:
<quoted text>
Cost effective is the ultimate question.
I'm all for bike trails as long as they are cost effective and those who use them pay for them. Multiple use, everyone should pay. Single use, user should pay.
The American River Bike trail for example carries over a thousand riders a day during the peak season and hundreds a day during the winter. That's cost effective. A bike trail from Eureka to Arcata may and I say MAY get a hundred riders a day when the weather is good and a couple a day during normal Humco weather. Not cost effective.
If one just went on the cost effective factor, you'd eliminate about half the roads and streets in the U.S.
Non motorized traffic needs a better option between Eureka and Arcata than whats currently in place, and a trail would also be less of a "mental barrier" to a lot more non motorized road users than the current 7 mile stretch of roadway that is now available.



ekarider

United States

#68 Dec 15, 2010
Dillinger wrote:

Ok, so let's get it in the next ballot and let the people of Humco vote and then will see for certain if those numbers "will skyrocket."
There's more to it than just putting it onto the ballot and letting the voters decide.

http://yournec.org/content/train-trail-or-bot...

Since: Dec 07

Eureka, Ca

#69 Dec 15, 2010
The True Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I dunno.... If I were still living in Petaluma, I'd be extremely annoyed (assuming the information provided in the Opinion Piece "P" cited is accurate).
There is a limit to patience; I smell lawsuits, especially from Marin County.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20101215...

Looks like downtown San Rafael, and the trains are to be bought.

Not sure what you mean about Petaluma. It isn't mentioned in the article you cited, nor will it be without service in any of the proposals. How come you fail to mention, that Mike Arnold the author has never wanted the train.

“I don't know who I am”

Since: Dec 07

Fortuna

#70 Dec 15, 2010
capdiamont wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20101215...
Looks like downtown San Rafael, and the trains are to be bought.
Not sure what you mean about Petaluma. It isn't mentioned in the article you cited, nor will it be without service in any of the proposals. How come you fail to mention, that Mike Arnold the author has never wanted the train.
Huh?

I lived in Petaluma, which is in Sonoma County. And if I had voted on this measure (which was after my time) I would have been very annoyed with their changing the plan after I had agreed to it as a voter.

I did not mention Mike Arnold (the author of the piece in question) because I did not bring him into the discussion to begin with. I don't know who he is. I was commenting on the article as provided by another poster. And I did say, "Assuming the information provided in the Opinion Piece "P" cited is accurate."

I have not, nor do I endorse the article (which was the Press Democrat's equivalent of a My Word piece).

What are you on about? Of all things I have said on this subject in this thread, why pick this out of all things?
Dillinger

Eureka, CA

#71 Dec 16, 2010
ekarider wrote:
<quoted text>
There's more to it than just putting it onto the ballot and letting the voters decide.
http://yournec.org/content/train-trail-or-bot...
I realize there is a lot more but it's not necessarily difficult for local measures to be voted upon. They can be placed as an "inquiry" more or less without going through all the other stuff.
Local areas do this often.
They also get knocked down in court but they make their point in how the local populous feels about the subject.
It's been done here often on other issues and some are still in the courts even though voters made it known what they wanted, yea or nay.

I suspect the bikers would fight not to have it go to a vote. But that's just an opinion.
I would still like to see it happen.

Since: Dec 07

Eureka, Ca

#72 Dec 16, 2010
The True Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
I lived in Petaluma, which is in Sonoma County. And if I had voted on this measure (which was after my time) I would have been very annoyed with their changing the plan after I had agreed to it as a voter.
I did not mention Mike Arnold (the author of the piece in question) because I did not bring him into the discussion to begin with. I don't know who he is. I was commenting on the article as provided by another poster. And I did say, "Assuming the information provided in the Opinion Piece "P" cited is accurate."
I have not, nor do I endorse the article (which was the Press Democrat's equivalent of a My Word piece).
What are you on about? Of all things I have said on this subject in this thread, why pick this out of all things?
My apologies. It would be nicer to have the full length as presented, but a downturn in economy, put the brakes on doing it as one phase.
Wild Bill

Arcata, CA

#73 Dec 16, 2010
ekarider wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be a boon to non motorized road users if there was another option between Eureka and Arcata other than what is currently available.
Have you ridden your bike on Old Arcata Road since they spent 10 million to widen the with bike lanes? I have, and to ride from Fieldbrook to the fairgrounds in Eureka takes about an hour. It is a pleasant ride.
Middle of the road

Rancho Cordova, CA

#74 Dec 16, 2010
Wild Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ridden your bike on Old Arcata Road since they spent 10 million to widen the with bike lanes? I have, and to ride from Fieldbrook to the fairgrounds in Eureka takes about an hour. It is a pleasant ride.
How many people per day would you estimate use the bike lanes on Old Arcata Road?
Wild Bill

Arcata, CA

#75 Dec 17, 2010
Middle of the road wrote:
<quoted text>
How many people per day would you estimate use the bike lanes on Old Arcata Road?
I would estimate 35 to 50, but it is a better alternative to riding on 101 or Somoa road with the frequent headwinds.
Middle of the road

Rancho Cordova, CA

#76 Dec 17, 2010
Wild Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
I would estimate 35 to 50, but it is a better alternative to riding on 101 or Somoa road with the frequent headwinds.
So 35 to 50 people are wanting to build a bike trail that will cost everyone tens of millions of dollars.

Not cost effective. Light rail would serve more people and actually get enough people off the highway to make an improvement in traffic.
Save the Humans

Bethel Island, CA

#77 Dec 17, 2010
Middle of the road wrote:
<quoted text>
So 35 to 50 people are wanting to build a bike trail that will cost everyone tens of millions of dollars.
Not cost effective. Light rail would serve more people and actually get enough people off the highway to make an improvement in traffic.
Aren't we talking about a rail system nowhere near here? The rail mentioned in the article are about SF to LA. We are a LONG way from a train system here. We can't even get the bus to run all the time. If the people want a bike trail system they will keep hounding the public officials. If you don't like it, go to the meetings. However, I would guess, like myself, that you don't attend many of the public meetings.
Middle of the road

Rancho Cordova, CA

#78 Dec 17, 2010
Save the Humans wrote:
<quoted text>Aren't we talking about a rail system nowhere near here? The rail mentioned in the article are about SF to LA. We are a LONG way from a train system here. We can't even get the bus to run all the time. If the people want a bike trail system they will keep hounding the public officials. If you don't like it, go to the meetings. However, I would guess, like myself, that you don't attend many of the public meetings.
Yes it's about public transportation butt yes it's morphed into more local conversations about local transportation issues.
Wild Bill

Arcata, CA

#79 Dec 17, 2010
Save the Humans wrote:
<quoted text>Aren't we talking about a rail system nowhere near here? The rail mentioned in the article are about SF to LA. We are a LONG way from a train system here. We can't even get the bus to run all the time. If the people want a bike trail system they will keep hounding the public officials. If you don't like it, go to the meetings. However, I would guess, like myself, that you don't attend many of the public meetings.
You are correct, this thread has been hijacked and is becoming about bike trails. Just an fyi, there is 50 million in federal funds that was to be used by NCRA that was to get the railroad back that is now being distributed to alternative multimodal transportation as grant money. Use it or lose it.

Since: Feb 08

Hana, HI

#80 Dec 17, 2010
Wild Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct, this thread has been hijacked and is becoming about bike trails. Just an fyi, there is 50 million in federal funds that was to be used by NCRA that was to get the railroad back that is now being distributed to alternative multimodal transportation as grant money. Use it or lose it.
I realize the thread has been derailed, but about the NCRA, is it no longer the NCRA now that it won't be going up to the North Coast ?
The did spend 50 million on fighting lawsuits and rebuilding some of the old tracks down in Sonoma county and the north bay (Novato). But now they need to rebuild the bridges over the Santa Rosa and Petaluma rivers if they want to run their trains any faster than 49 mph.
The freight trains were supposed to be rattling through Novato by September of 2009, but they have had one problem after another and keep on saying to the media that they should be running in a month. But that was 2 years ago.
So what is happening now up in the north coast with the Goldman-Sachs Chinese car container port and cleaning up the mess along the Eel River so they can run their freight line up to Eureka ? They won't talk about it now in the media, it's as if it does not exist.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Eureka Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
the owner of eureka ebt office has fired all hi... Mon lady 2
Samoan Bloods vs samoan crips (Oct '14) Nov 30 Anonymous 2
News L.A., Glendale seek injunction against Toonervi... (Nov '08) Nov 29 SSCV 131
Armenian Gangs in Altadena/Pasadena. (Jan '10) Nov 28 DogFartian 91
News How to File A Complaint About DIRECTV (Jul '08) Nov 22 brisen66 253
Stranded Nov 16 Bellekerry 1
News City, county working with Eureka senior home on... (Oct '10) Nov 11 Tenant at Silverc... 10

Eureka Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Eureka Mortgages