SB 51: the California politics thread

i have a 2010 civic. it is blue.

is that just raw output or are you taking into account mobilizing hundreds/thousands of people at a time vs hundreds/thousands of (at times stalled) cars on the road

rough calc based on some general assumptions I've seen elsewhere is that the emissions/miles travelled ratio is about twice for airplanes (0.61333) vs what it is for cars (0.646667). Going by that, 330 miles from San Jose to Burbank is 114.4 kg of CO2 in a car, and 202.4 kg in a plane.

and of course https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation

unlike with cars, idk how you build an all-electric airplane, or one that runs on, say, hydrogen

most of the current prototypes are built around batteries:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/this-startup-is-building-an-electric-airplane

huh interesting. no idea how that works from an engineering perspective, but hey go get em guys

a blue civic is far worse for the environment than any other color. who the fuck buys a blue car?

one of my old drummers once said about someone, derisively: "he drives a car like an Australian drives a blue car". I have no idea what that meant and it's still funny to me. Said drummer now lives in Australia.

Am with Shakey: I'm really excited about California High Speed Rail.

Also connecting communities that have been left behind in other ways (eg Stockton / Fresno / Bakersfield) is a "political reason" I can get behind.

Real question is whether we can find a way to do these types of projects with appropriate environmental/local checks without letting NIMBY's and the like obstruct them. Getting this line through Atherton, for example, is going to be a battle.

emissions/miles travelled ratio is about twice for airplanes (0.61333) vs what it is for cars (0.646667)

dunno what I did here but I obviously misentered a digit, the ratio should've been 0.346667 for cars

just for you math nerds out there

Isn’t part of the problem with air travel that emissions/mile is not linear because of the relative expense of take off? Like a 1000 mile flight does not release twice the emissions of a 500 mile flight.

that would make sense, tbh I haven't dug into it too much

There is the same factor in cars, in that starting and running a cold engine pollutes much more than cruising with a hot engine.

right but energy per person to get to "cruising" (e.g. 30 mph or 30,000ft) is much larger for the plane than the car because of gravity. i guess i should look into this.

I'm not sure on the precise models, but search "carbon travel calculator" is one resource.

And I don't think there's any non-hydrocarbon aircraft that can plausibly fly this route at scale on any roadmap today.

Trains are pretty efficient. That's why they're still in use.

Central Valley is flat as can be. That is exactly what works best for trains.

the other thing that works best for trains is direct routes to densely populated areas

another thing that works best for railroads is constructing them in sparsely populated areas, because the costs of construction and easements in densely populated ones could sink the project

bunch a amateur caltrans engineers on here

I would like to be able to take the train from Seattle to LA in less than two entire days so please do build that train

based on this week's charter school discussion, threads where everyone is an amateur are more "fun" than when there are posters that actually know shit

NB I'm not saying how to do it I'm just asking

i want this train to have a smoking car, like, if they don't have a smoking car, I kinda don't care as much

relevant:

https://medium.com/@parismarx/high-speed-rail-from-los-angeles-to-vancouver-f67c81ef9afd

I understand and agree with banning smoking on planes because you can't really isolate the smoke, but on a train, you totally can.

a train that starts operating in 2050-california will probably not have a smoking car

...but it might have a vaping car ;)

xpost It seems that some people hold the view that this project, or public-works projects in general, need to be economical in a closed-system sense. That is, when you open it up and set up a fare gate you should get your money back.

But that's not how a whole lot of public-works projects we rely on and consider successful work. I don't think this needs to meet that criteria.

It's not dumb to run the train through the route they're building on. It was a conscious decision. It may not meet goals a person agrees with, but that doesn't mean those goals are the only ones that matter.

I understand and agree with banning smoking on planes because you can't really isolate the smoke, but on a train, you totally can.

― sarahell, Friday, November 30, 2018 2:32 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

but people have to work on a train

worth reading about this project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2. obviously the politics are different but the political imperatives (people want the economic and social benefit of trains without the tracks and the trains) are the same.

i see the argument(s!) for going through the central valley (spread the wealth, simpler engineering problems), but infrastructure that encourages the urbanization of somewhere that is going to be 120+ °F on the reg is not necessarily a point in its favour.

basically i'm saying the train should go through the central valley but not stop there (half joking)

xpost It seems that some people hold the view that this project, or public-works projects in general, need to be economical in a closed-system sense. That is, when you open it up and set up a fare gate you should get your money back.

But that's not how a whole lot of public-works projects we rely on and consider successful work. I don't think this needs to meet that criteria.

It's not dumb to run the train through the route they're building on. It was a conscious decision. It may not meet goals a person agrees with, but that doesn't mean those goals are the only ones that matter.

I think you're conflating two criticisms here. public transit is rarely economical and shouldn't be, but projects in america also end up costing considerably more than they do in other countries and we shouldn't just gloss over that forever.

the path that its taking was a political price we probably had to pay. there are winners and losers from these choices.

i'll be dead by 2050 so really idgaf

^ smoker

projects in america also end up costing considerably more than they do in other countries and we shouldn't just gloss over that forever.

This is more expensive to build in CA than it would be elsewhere regardless of route. I think focusing on the route is a distraction from looking at other issues that cause this to be the case. If we can fix those, we have better hopes of having more public transit here.

SB 827 is back and it's now SB 50

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-transit-bill-20181204-story.html

Wiener made three major changes to the bill that aim to soften opposition from tenant groups and their allies that helped torpedo the prior effort. The legislation blocks developers from using the bill if they planned to knock down properties that renters had occupied within at least the previous seven years. It also allows communities facing pressures from gentrification and displacement to propose alternative plans to boost homebuilding instead of using the system outlined in the bill. And it loosens local zoning restrictions in communities with high median incomes, quality schools and short commutes to jobs, even if there isn’t access to transit nearby — an effort to push development into wealthier areas that might have previously resisted it.

Key details about the latter two provisions remain unresolved, as do rules about how much of the new development will be reserved for low-income residents.

amazing thread

This is literally the YIMBY-est year in the Legislature. Ho boy. I am reviewing all the bills that dropped today - join me. A thread. (1/x)

— Louis Mirante (@louismirante) December 4, 2018

some notable bills

AB 56!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Edwardo Garcia) would require a report on how to nationalize the energy industry for all residential customers.

— Louis Mirante (@louismirante) December 4, 2018

AB 68 (@PhilTing) is a MAJOR reform, allowing more casitas or accessory dwelling units. It allows more nice tiny homes in your backyard! Very cool.

— Louis Mirante (@louismirante) December 4, 2018

(already a big and surprisingly effective deal in LA county)

SB 50 has 11 co-authors, meaning the bill already has the support of fully ten percent of #caleg, and it is just day 1. Boy, this is gunna be a year.

— Louis Mirante (@louismirante) December 4, 2018

Oof. pic.twitter.com/FFC1Ltg9TI

— 🌹Revolutionary💥Clown🍉 (@RevClown) December 21, 2018

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Proposition-13-is-no-longer-off-limits-in-13492400.php

missing from this article: possible global recession right around the time we're asking people to vote for higher taxes on businesses.

Just as there's never a convenient time for an emergency, there's never a convenient time to raise taxes. It would be nice if governments around the globe all decided to shut down those off-shore shell companies used for tax evasion. That would raise a fair bit of pocket change.

Yeah and of course it's exactly because of recessions that CA needs to diversify its revenue beyond pro-cyclical income taxes...

this is a good article on one aspect of that cyclical revenue hazard

https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-next-california-economy/

good point:

SB 827 didn’t pass but it moved the window. Marin’s state senator feels compelled to offer a housing bill. https://t.co/fiAQbjJq7v

— 🎄 Dingnogitude! 🎄 (@VamonosLA) January 2, 2019

PG&E breakup looking increasingly likely

https://www.sfgate.com/california-wildfires/article/PG-E-considering-selling-its-natural-gas-division-13509622.php?t=f8e4a3e331

long thread of wonky stuff

New California Gov. @GavinNewsom is proposing a huge new investment in low-income housing and a host of new policies to boost housing production overall in his first budget

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) January 10, 2019

including this

Wow. Newsom now talking about housing. He says if cities and countries don’t meet their housing production goals, the state will take away gas tax money from them

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) January 10, 2019

Cannot underscore how big a deal this is. The new governor says if cities don’t meet their housing goals they will lose transportation funds. A huge stick. “If you’re not hitting your goals, I don’t know why you should be getting the money.”

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) January 10, 2019

it's all proposition 13

31,000 teachers are on strike in LA for smaller class sizes (and better pay), and the school district is pleading poverty—we shouldn't forget some of the reasons why California's largest public school district is perpetually underfunded:

— Sam Dean 🦅 (@SamAugustDean) January 14, 2019

so has everybody dumped their PG&E shares yet cuz boy are we in for a rollercoaster