I know a lot of people who prefer Amtrak to flying on the Portland to Seattle route. The big attraction is that the train gives you a 3 hour block of time in a comfortable seat with a table to get some work done,. while flying requires more unproductive time waiting in line.
But sure, if you live near the PDX airport, and your final destination in Seattle is closer to SEATAC than downtown, flying may be preferable.
intercst
I was thinking eminent domain, but yes, it will end up in the courts. Just another delay for the project that will never be finished. (I suspect Shafter is just poking a finger in the eye of the beast.)
DB2
Not sure, but probably not.
One of the many, many difficulties with infrastructure projects of this magnitude is the timing and cost of acquiring the necessary rights-of-way. You plot out a preferred route. You know you’re going to eventually need to acquire all the land under that route. But you don’t want to go out and take it all now, because a lot of it you won’t need for many many years. And it’s much cheaper if you can get the owners to sell it to you voluntarily, so you want to try that for a while.
So government will sometimes publish a right-of-way plan, without actually taking the right-of-way or an easement over the land now. The upside to that is they don’t have to stroke checks today. The downside is that the owners still own the land, unencumbered, and can do with it what they will - including taking steps to entitle it and possibly develop it with homes.
From what I’ve been able to gather, Lennar and the City aren’t doing anything wrong with this. They’re under no legal obligation to leave the site undeveloped just because the state (or the HSR Authority) might one day want to buy or seize the land.
Would Lennar be vulnerable to action by homeowners in the future should their properties by seized? As I mentioned, I would think they would have to disclose that potential jeopardy to homeowners (whom, if the sign, presumably take on the risks).
I would think it better for the state to get the land now, rather than have 1000 plaintiffs in the future.
I’ve taken that train a few times. It is good for the reasons you mention, but you still need a car when you get there and it is faster to drive. I think that was albaby1’s point.
Back before I wised up and realized it didn’t make sense to work for a living, I used to take Seaport Airlines for travel between Seattle to Portland. I’m not sure what the loophole is, but there is no TSA. You show up 10 minutes before your flight and clamber aboard. Departs from Boeing field which is closer than Seatac and free parking.
I will repeat what I have writ before: the routing of the project and the priority given to GOPed central valley were known by anyone who could light a cigar or tipple a cherried Manhattan to be A HUGE FRIGGIN BRIBE. Worst scandal of my California political lifetime. Now all manner of weasels are chiseling in.
Time for a true reformist revolution, but i stopped waiting on that two decades ago and now live in honestly corrupt Mexico.
I can’t imagine why. They won’t have done anything wrong. Again, they’re not obligated to keep their land vacant just because the state might want to seize it one day. Nor are they obligated to refrain from selling it to someone else. If the state wants the land, or wants the land to stay vacant, they can buy it or seize in in eminent domain. Unless and until they do, it’s Lennar’s land to do with what they will.
They can’t really have their cake and eat it to: force a landowner to keep the land clear for the state’s desired use, but decline to purchase it and just force the landowner to hold it for no use at all until they decide they want to pay them.
FAA rules don’t require aircraft with nine or fewer seats to go through the TSA check. Seaport primarily flies small single engine turboprops.
Seaport Airlines is going to rock when I can get a Robo-taxi at the foot of the airstairs at both ends of the flight. {{ LOL }}
intercst
Keep in mind in the U.S. railroads have always been built w private capital. As investments that expected to earn returns.
Airports and highways use govt funding. In other countries govt has always built and often owned and operated railroads.
The U.S. still has some lessons to learn. Maybe one day voters will figure out what they want and if they are willing to pay for it.
I’ll keep that in mind, if you keep in mind that the US government provided massive amounts of land and government-backed financing to spur development.
In the California case the voters did approve it (Proposition 1A back in 2008). However, what they voted on had little resemblance to reality concerning the promised costs, travel times, fares, etc.
DB2
The government offered over 175 million acres of government land to encourage railroads to build. While the land was not worth much at the time, railroads were granted wide swaths along the routes, often 20 to 50 miles wide, which became immensely valuable once the railroad was built, and which was often used as collateral to get the railroad built . This came in the form of direct sales, loan collateral, or bond issues.
This helped build more than half of the early railroad system in the US, not including the Transcontinental Railroad which was entirely financed by the US government through direct cash payments as well as land grants.
The railroads and the government had a mutually beneficial and symbiotic relationship, except that the government gave away - while the railroads “took”. But both benefited, as did the country.
I hope this clears up your misconception.
Here is an interesting take on why Europe has bullet trains and the US does not, scoped into a discussion of why the US rail system is so focused on freight, while the one in Europe is not.
It is misleadingly titled “Why Europes Trains are so Short”. I found it interesting:
