Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Completed Insanity
A while ago I started a project to redraw the counties of California. This morning, for no reason I can discern, I suddenly had the urge to complete the project. And I did, at least as far as I'm willing to take it. And here's the final result: new maps of Northern, Central, and Southern California. I also made a few exports from the GIS program I used to determine where to place the boundaries.
In these images, the old borders and county names are in black, the new borders are in red, and the new names are in blue. In the background are major roads in light purple, and national parks in olive.
Gone are all the arbitrary lines laid down when the surveyors divided up the land. The new boundaries mostly follow either watershed divides or major water bodies. There are exceptions, but I tried to limit them as much as possible. The straight lines that you can see here exist because the boundaries I drew are approximations. If this exercise were ever to be repeated for real, almost all of them would go away.
I ended up creating 13 new counties (McCloud, Whiskeytown, Tahoe, Hayward, Livermore, Shaver, Santa Maria, San Fernando, Antelope, Mojave, Palo Verde, Coacella, and Escondido), eliminating 14 (Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Yuba, Nevada, Placer, Yolo, Amador, Calaveras, Alpine, Contra Costa, Madera, Kings, and Santa Barbara), and renaming 1 that had its signature feature removed (Eagle, from Lassen).
I significantly reshaped nearly every existing county. The two least changed were San Francisco and Orange.
This image shows some of the other layers I used for reference. Watershed outlines are in blue, and population density is represented by shading from light grey to black.
None of the resulting counties are ideal, and several have significant problems. Tulare County, for instance, is larger than I would like, but there is no non-arbitrary way to divide it. McCloud is probably underpopulated (though not any more so than neighboring Modoc). And so on. On the other hand, the most problematic counties have been resolved in one way or another. The minimally populated Alpine County has been eliminated, with the area mostly absorbed by Tahoe. The ridiculously large San Bernardino has been divided between five different counties (though Mojave is still bigger nine states). And Los Angeles is now entirely south of the San Gabriel and Santa Monica Mountains.
If there's a takeaway from this effort, it's that it is a good example of how poorly governed America currently is. There's no reason for the counties of California to exist as they do. They are artifacts of a situation where a literate, industrial culture invaded the lands of a number of pre-literate cultures that had been decimated by disease and warfare. If we were better governed, somebody would have identified obvious problems like the size of San Bernardino, and organized society to resolve them. But for many reasons, nobody has done so. That should be cause for all of us to worry a bit.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Southwest Groundlines
I've been picking at my regional high-speed rail map for the Southwest for a while, and I've decided enough is enough. Here it is. I'd like to think it is self-explanatory, but I've provided some commentary below.
The main point to note is that it is a fantasy map. I feel it's one that is fairly well grounded in reality, as several of the core routes are based on the current proposal by the California High Speed Rail Authority. I've also taken into account city population rankings and city pair air routes (see the second page on the map) for my new lines. But I've also made two major assumptions. One is that the Federal Railroad Administration will grant a full waiver for HSR trainsets to operate on mixed traffic (freight and passenger) lines. Currently, lightweight trainsets are prohibited from operating in mixed traffic due to the FRA's somewhat ridiculous safety requirements (which is a long discussion for another day). I've also assumed full cooperation from BNSF and UP. Currently the latter is fighting all efforts to have HSR lines anywhere near its property, let alone having frequent passenger operations on them. BNSF has been more cooperative, but it still would probably not want as much passenger traffic on its lines as I propose.
As I mentioned, several of the core lines, with track that enables high-speed trainsets to travel at up to 220mph, are based on the current CHSRA proposal. Those lines are San Franscisco-San-Jose-Chowchilla-Los Angeles, Sacramento-Chowchilla, Los Angeles-Irvine, and Los Angeles-Riverside-San Diego. With the exception of Chowchilla, which is just an interchange point, those cities are all ranked in the top 25 most populous in the country. I've added five more lines of similar capability: San Jose-Oakland, Mojave-Las Vegas, Riverside-Barstow, Riverside-Phoenix, Phoenix-Tuscon, and Quartzite-Las Vegas. Phoenix and Las Vegas are connected with dedicated track due to their size and the amount of air traffic between them and other cities in the network. The Oakland-San Jose line is important because of the difficulties of crossing the bay, and because over half of the population of the SF MSA lives east of the bay. The Phoenix-Tucson line doesn't compete with an air route because the two cities are too close, but they are both large and the connecting freeway is very busy. Finally, the Riverside-Barstow line provides more direct routes from San Francisco and Las Vegas to Riverside and San Diego. I think the importance of all of the high-speed lines is pretty clear.
What might not be as obvious is the inclusion of lower speed lines. To explain them, let me first describe the two models for HSR systems around the world. One is a closed system, as used in Japan and Spain. In those systems, HSR trainsets operate only on dedicated lines, much like a subway does. Dedicated lines make for less complicated trains, but have a downside, which is that passengers must transfer between trains if their destination is not on a dedicated line. While a transfer between two trains is usually much less frustrating than a transfer between two planes, it still is a disincentive to taking a train. An open system, as in France and Germany, allows for "one-seat rides" between a greater number of destinations by utilizing parts of the existing railroad network. In France, in fact, most locations served by HSR trainsets are not on dedicated lines. Now, the US does not have an existing passenger rail system anything like what European countries have. Nonetheless, it still has an extensive rail network that could be exploited to people. Utilizing the track would require significant upgrades and extensive cooperation between the freight railroad companies and the CHSRA, but it could be done. I think the low speed lines I propose (marked in green and purple) are logical if one accepts the premise that one-seat rides are important. A few might be marginal if for some reason the cost of driving doesn't rise significantly. I expect costs to rise a lot - soonish if Americans come to their senses, or later and more dramatically if they doesn't. The track on the low speed lines would be upgraded to either 79mph or 110mph, based on a combination of cost and traffic potential.
The Stockton-Fremont-Redwood City low speed line merits a specific comment. One of the hotter points of debate about the CHSRA system proposal is the choice of route into the Bay Area. CHSRA has selected Pacheo Pass (Los Banos-Gilroy) over Altamont Pass (Tracy-Fremont) several times. I think doing so makes sense because going through Pacheo Pass would allow a single train to serve both SF and SJ once the initial segment is constructed. This would increase the probability that the initial segment is successful, which is very important. The Altamont Pass route has the advantage of reducing the SF-Sacto distance significantly once the second segment is constructed (which most people seem to think would extend the network to Sacramento). However, that route would mean the frequency of arrivals and departures from SF and SJ would be about half as often as they would be if Pacheo Pass was selected. More frequent departures make a transportation system more convenient, which boosts its use. That's the main reason why I decided to keep the Pacheo Pass route. However the circuitous route from SF to Sacto via Pacheo Pass would definitely reduce the number of people taking the train between the two cities. So a shorter route would be needed. I've included two, actually; one through Altamont Pass and across the southern SF Bay on a new bridge, and one through the Carquinez Strait. Both routes include existing UP track that would be upgraded.
Another thing that I should expand on is the three types of stations I propose. The first, a full-service HSR station, would be one where nearly every train would stop. Obviously every train has to stop in a station at the end of the line, but there is no point in bypassing a major intermediate station like SJ, Fresno, or LA. The time savings from skipping any one stop is minimal, and there will be demand at all times of the day from passengers in big cities. Full-service stations would open early and close late, would provide services like checked baggage, and would have various businesses located inside the facility. A limited-service HSR station would be an intermediate station where not every train would stop. A few, like Blythe or Elk Grove, might have only have two or three arrivals in each direction per day. Others, like Palo Alto, Burbank, or Escondido, might see every other train stopping. Most of these stations would not have other services co-located on the property, but some might. Finally, a low-speed station would be a location on a low-speed line where a HSR trainset stops. These locations would see several HSR trains a day, but also might see other electrified trains, conventional diesel-hauled trains, or both. Once again most would not have services co-located, with exceptions.
Some minor points
The main point to note is that it is a fantasy map. I feel it's one that is fairly well grounded in reality, as several of the core routes are based on the current proposal by the California High Speed Rail Authority. I've also taken into account city population rankings and city pair air routes (see the second page on the map) for my new lines. But I've also made two major assumptions. One is that the Federal Railroad Administration will grant a full waiver for HSR trainsets to operate on mixed traffic (freight and passenger) lines. Currently, lightweight trainsets are prohibited from operating in mixed traffic due to the FRA's somewhat ridiculous safety requirements (which is a long discussion for another day). I've also assumed full cooperation from BNSF and UP. Currently the latter is fighting all efforts to have HSR lines anywhere near its property, let alone having frequent passenger operations on them. BNSF has been more cooperative, but it still would probably not want as much passenger traffic on its lines as I propose.
As I mentioned, several of the core lines, with track that enables high-speed trainsets to travel at up to 220mph, are based on the current CHSRA proposal. Those lines are San Franscisco-San-Jose-Chowchilla-Los Angeles, Sacramento-Chowchilla, Los Angeles-Irvine, and Los Angeles-Riverside-San Diego. With the exception of Chowchilla, which is just an interchange point, those cities are all ranked in the top 25 most populous in the country. I've added five more lines of similar capability: San Jose-Oakland, Mojave-Las Vegas, Riverside-Barstow, Riverside-Phoenix, Phoenix-Tuscon, and Quartzite-Las Vegas. Phoenix and Las Vegas are connected with dedicated track due to their size and the amount of air traffic between them and other cities in the network. The Oakland-San Jose line is important because of the difficulties of crossing the bay, and because over half of the population of the SF MSA lives east of the bay. The Phoenix-Tucson line doesn't compete with an air route because the two cities are too close, but they are both large and the connecting freeway is very busy. Finally, the Riverside-Barstow line provides more direct routes from San Francisco and Las Vegas to Riverside and San Diego. I think the importance of all of the high-speed lines is pretty clear.
What might not be as obvious is the inclusion of lower speed lines. To explain them, let me first describe the two models for HSR systems around the world. One is a closed system, as used in Japan and Spain. In those systems, HSR trainsets operate only on dedicated lines, much like a subway does. Dedicated lines make for less complicated trains, but have a downside, which is that passengers must transfer between trains if their destination is not on a dedicated line. While a transfer between two trains is usually much less frustrating than a transfer between two planes, it still is a disincentive to taking a train. An open system, as in France and Germany, allows for "one-seat rides" between a greater number of destinations by utilizing parts of the existing railroad network. In France, in fact, most locations served by HSR trainsets are not on dedicated lines. Now, the US does not have an existing passenger rail system anything like what European countries have. Nonetheless, it still has an extensive rail network that could be exploited to people. Utilizing the track would require significant upgrades and extensive cooperation between the freight railroad companies and the CHSRA, but it could be done. I think the low speed lines I propose (marked in green and purple) are logical if one accepts the premise that one-seat rides are important. A few might be marginal if for some reason the cost of driving doesn't rise significantly. I expect costs to rise a lot - soonish if Americans come to their senses, or later and more dramatically if they doesn't. The track on the low speed lines would be upgraded to either 79mph or 110mph, based on a combination of cost and traffic potential.
The Stockton-Fremont-Redwood City low speed line merits a specific comment. One of the hotter points of debate about the CHSRA system proposal is the choice of route into the Bay Area. CHSRA has selected Pacheo Pass (Los Banos-Gilroy) over Altamont Pass (Tracy-Fremont) several times. I think doing so makes sense because going through Pacheo Pass would allow a single train to serve both SF and SJ once the initial segment is constructed. This would increase the probability that the initial segment is successful, which is very important. The Altamont Pass route has the advantage of reducing the SF-Sacto distance significantly once the second segment is constructed (which most people seem to think would extend the network to Sacramento). However, that route would mean the frequency of arrivals and departures from SF and SJ would be about half as often as they would be if Pacheo Pass was selected. More frequent departures make a transportation system more convenient, which boosts its use. That's the main reason why I decided to keep the Pacheo Pass route. However the circuitous route from SF to Sacto via Pacheo Pass would definitely reduce the number of people taking the train between the two cities. So a shorter route would be needed. I've included two, actually; one through Altamont Pass and across the southern SF Bay on a new bridge, and one through the Carquinez Strait. Both routes include existing UP track that would be upgraded.
Another thing that I should expand on is the three types of stations I propose. The first, a full-service HSR station, would be one where nearly every train would stop. Obviously every train has to stop in a station at the end of the line, but there is no point in bypassing a major intermediate station like SJ, Fresno, or LA. The time savings from skipping any one stop is minimal, and there will be demand at all times of the day from passengers in big cities. Full-service stations would open early and close late, would provide services like checked baggage, and would have various businesses located inside the facility. A limited-service HSR station would be an intermediate station where not every train would stop. A few, like Blythe or Elk Grove, might have only have two or three arrivals in each direction per day. Others, like Palo Alto, Burbank, or Escondido, might see every other train stopping. Most of these stations would not have other services co-located on the property, but some might. Finally, a low-speed station would be a location on a low-speed line where a HSR trainset stops. These locations would see several HSR trains a day, but also might see other electrified trains, conventional diesel-hauled trains, or both. Once again most would not have services co-located, with exceptions.
Some minor points
- The map is diagrammatic. I've laid the lines out in some detail so the distances would be fairly accurate. But they should not be interpreted too far beyond that.
- The map shows only lines served by HSR trainsets. Lines not shown include those that host commuter trains or regional services. Note that some of those lines are immediately adjacent to dedicated HSR tracks. (Actually, other passenger lines are on page 2 of the map. Remember when looking at them that non-HSR trains can operate on lines marked in green, purple, and brown.)
- Even though the lines are presented together, obviously they can't all be built at once. And with the exception of the Stockton-Fremont-Redwood City line, there's no point in upgrading existing lines for use by HSR trainsets until all of the dedicated lines are built.
- Since I have attempted to make a fairly realistic map, I have not included new SF Bay crossings. For instance, a new SF-Oakland tunnel capable of supporting HSR trainsets would be a nice addition to the system. But it would also be terribly expensive, and the money spent on it could be better used extending the reach of the rail system. The same could be said about a Richmond-San Rafael crossing.
- There are a three areas with top 300 metropolitan areas that are not served: the North Bay, the Central Coast, and Northern Arizona. All three areas have difficult geography that would make any lines to the area both circuitous and expensive.
- There are two major air routes that are not duplicated by an HSR line: San Diego-Phoenix, and and San Francisco-Phoenix. The first route would has difficult geography and little population between the destinations. The second is too long of a journey for HSR to be effective, even if a direct route could be built.
- All electrification would supply 25kV AC at 60Hz. 25kV is the de facto global standard, and 60Hz is the national standard.
- All dedicated lines would be double-tracked with in-cab signaling.
- Upgraded lines would be electrified, and double-tracked where necessary if they aren't already.
- While HSR trainsets can operate on upgraded lines, non-HSR trains can't operate on dedicated HSR tracks.
- San Francisco to San Jose - (CHSRA, 220mph, Phase 1) Bay Area governments already own this ROW
- San Jose to Chowchilla - (CHSRA, 220mph, Phase 1) parallel to UP in the Santa Clara Valley, then a new ROW with significant tunnelling to Chowchilla
- Chowchilla to Mojave - (CHSRA, 220mph, Phase 1) parallel to UP to Frenso, then BNSF to Bakersfield, and then a new ROW with major tunneling to Mojave
- Mohave to Los Angeles - (CHSRA, 220mph, Phase 1) parallel to UP in the Antelope Valley, then a new ROW through Soledad Canyon, and parallel to Metrolink in the San Fernando Valley
- Sacramento to Chowchilla - (CHSRA, 220mph, Phase 2) parallel to UP
- Stockton to Redwood City - (under study by CHSRA for ... something, 110mph, Phase 2) parallel to UP, with a new bridge from Newark to East Palo Alto
- Los Angeles to Riverside - (CHSRA, 220mph, Phase 3) parallel to UP
- Riverside to San Diego - (CHSRA, 220mph, Phase 3) parallel to BNSF, then a new ROW from Perris to La Jolla, then parallel to the Surf line into San Diego
- Mojave to Las Vegas - (mine, 220mph, Phase 4) parallel to BNSF from Mojave to near Barstow, then parallel to I-15 to Enterprise, then parallel to UP into Las Vegas
- Riverside to Phoenix - (mine, 220mph, Phase 4) parallel to UP to Indio, then parallel to I-10 to Goodyear, then parallel to UP
- Phoenix to Tuscon - (mine, 220mph, Phase 5) parallel to up
- Los Angeles to Irvine - (CHSRA, 220mph, Phase 5) parallel to BNSF and Metrolink
- Los Angeles to LAX - (110mph, Phase 5) on UP and Metrolink
- Quartzite to Las Vegas - (mine, 220mph, Phase 5) entirely new alignment
- Barstow to Riverside - (mine, 220mph, when needed)
- Redding to Sacramento - (mine, 110mph, Phase 6) on UP
- Sacramento to Oakland - (mine, 110mph, Phase 6) on UP
- Gilroy to Salinas - (mine, 110mph, Phase 6) on UP
- Burbank to Goleta - (mine, 110mph, Phase 6) on Metrolink and UP
- San Diego to San Ysidro - (mine, 110mph, Phase 6) on SDIY
- Indio to Calexico - (mine, 110mph, Phase 6) on UP
- Tuscon to Nogales - (mine, 110mph, Phase 6) on UP
- Sacramento to Reno - (mine, 79mph, Phase 7) on UP
- Fullerton to Riverside - (mine, 79mph, Phase 7) on BNSF
- Placienta to Orange - (mine, 79mph, Phase 7) on BNSF
- Irvine to La Jolla - (79mph, Phase 7) on Metrolink and Coaster
- Tempe to Coolidge - (79mph, Phase 7) on UP
- Anaheim - (CHSRA, full-service, suburban, new) very close to Disneyland
- Auburn - (mine, low-speed, suburban, existing) in the foothills northeast of Sacramento
- Avondale - (mine, limited-service, greenfield, new) western suburbs of Phoenix
- Bakersfield - (CHSRA, full-service, downtown, new)
- Barstow - (mine, limited-service, greenfield, new) outside of city because of space considerations
- Berkeley - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- Blythe - (mine, limited-service, greenfield, new) only station on the 230 mile stretch between Indio and Avondale
- Burbank - (CHSRA, limited-service, downtown, new)
- Calexico - (mine, low-speed, downtown, new) close to the border crossing to Mexicali
- Calipatria - (mine, low-speed, downtown, new) northernmost station in Imperial Valley
- Casa Grande - (mine, limited-service, greenfield, new) largest city between Phoenix and Tuscon
- Chico - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing) close to Cal State Chico
- Chula Vista - (mine, low-speed, suburban, new) south of downtown San Diego
- Colton - (mine, full-service, greenfield, new) station at the junction of several lines to allow transfers
- Coolidge - (mine, low-speed, downtown, new)
- Corona - (mine, low-speed, suburban, existing)
- Davis - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing) close to UC Davis
- Driftwood Ranch - (mine, limited-service, greenfield, new) southern suburbs of Phoenix
- East Sacramento - (mine, limited-service, downtown, new) adjacent to Cal State Sacramento
- El Centro - (mine, low-speed, downtown, new) largest city in Imperial Valley
- Elk Grove - (mine, limited-service, suburban, new) southern suburbs of Sacramento
- Encinitas - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- Escondido - (CHSRA, limited-service, downtown, new)
- Fairfield - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- Fremont - (mine, full-service, suburban, new)
- Gilroy - (CHSRA, limited-service, downtown, new)
- Goleta - (mine, low-speed, suburban, existing) near UC Santa Barbara campus
- Green Valley - (mine, low-speed, suburban, new)
- Hayward - (mine, limited-service, downtown, new)
- Hanford-Visalia - (mine, limited-service, greenfield, new)
- Henderson - (mine, limited-service, suburban, new) southeastern suburbs of Las Vegas
- Higly - (mine, low-speed, suburban, new) in suburban Phoenix
- Indio - (mine, low-speed, suburban, new) last station in Coacella Valley
- Irvine - (CHSRA, full-service, suburban, new) at end of high-speed segment
- La Jolla - (CHSRA, limited-service, downtown, new) near UC San Diego
- La Puente - (CHSRA, limited-service, suburban, new)
- Lancaster - (mine, limited-service, downtown, new) downtown is more dense than the one in Palmdale
- Las Vegas - (mine, full-service, downtown, new)
- LAX - (mine, low-speed, airport, new) provides direct airplane-train transfers
- Livermore - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- Los Angeles - (CHSRA, full-service, downtown, new)
- Madera - (mine, limited-service, downtown, new)
- Martinez - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- Mesa - (mine, low-speed, suburban, new)
- Merced - (CHSRA, limited-service, downtown, new)
- Millbrae - (CHSRA, full-service, suburban, existing) provides (almost) direct airplane-train transfers
- Modesto - (CHSRA, limited-service, downtown, new)
- Murrieta - (CHSRA, limited-service, downtown, new)
- Needles-Bullhead - (mine, limited-service, greenfield, new
- Nogales - (mine, low-speed, downtown, new) close to border crossing to Heroica Nogales
- Northridge - (mine, low-speed, suburban, existing)
- Oakland - (mine, full-service, downtown, new) probably underground
- Oceanside - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- Ontario - (CHSRA, full-service, suburban, new) adjacent to airport
- Oxnard - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- Palm Springs - (mine, limited-service, greenfield, new)
- Palmdale - (CHSRA, limited-service, suburban, new)
- Palo Alto - (mine, limited-service, downtown, new) one option for the CHSRA "mid-peninsula" station
- Phoenix - (mine, full-service, downtown, new)
- Pleasanton - (mine, low-speed, suburban, existing)
- Red Bluff - (mine, low-speed, downtown, new)
- Redding - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- Redwood City - (mine, limited-service, downtown, new) one option for the CHSRA "mid-peninsula" station
- Reno - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- Richmond - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- Riverside - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- Roseville - (mine, low-speed, suburban, existing)
- Sacramento - (CHSRA, full-service, downtown, new)
- Salinas - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- San Diego - (CHSRA, full-service, downtown, new)
- San Fernando - (CHSRA, limited-service, suburban, new)
- San Francisco - (CHSRA, full-service, downtown, new) end of the line, underground
- San Jose - (CHSRA, full-service, downtown, new) close to downtown
- San Juan Capistrano - (mine, low-speed, suburban, existing)
- San Ysidro - (mine, low-speed, greenfield, new) adjacent to border crossing to Tijuana
- Santa Barbara - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- Simi Valley - (mine, low-speed, suburban, existing)
- Sky Harbor - (mine, full-service, airport, new) in airport terminal
- Stockton - (CHSRA, limited-service, downtown, new)
- Strip-UNLV - (mine, full-service, suburban, new) towards the southern end of the Strip
- Sunnyvale - (mine, limited-service, downtown, new)
- Tempe - (mine, limited-service, downtown, new) adjacent to ASU
- Tracy - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- Truckee - (mine, low-speed, suburban, existing)
- Tuscon - (mine, full-service, downtown, new) close to UA
- University - (CHSRA, limited-service, suburban, new) adjacent to UC Riverside
- Ventura - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
- Victorville - (mine, limited-service, suburban, ?)
- Watsonville - (mine, low-speed, greenfield, existing)
- Whittier - (CHSRA, limited-service, suburban, new)
- Yorba Linda - (mine, low-speed, suburban, existing)
- Yuba - (mine, low-speed, downtown, existing)
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Golden State Spikes
I've been wasting a lot of time with GMaps, and the latest product is this map of railroads in California. It's definitely the most extensive map online, and I hope people will find it informative.
A few comments are in order:
A few comments are in order:
- The map is comprehensive but not complete.
- I've included the interurban lines of several systems, but not their local streetcar lines. Additionally, no strictly urban streetcar systems are included. This might seem like an arbitrary division, but interurbans often hauled freight (in small amounts) whereas streetcar systems almost never did. Thus, the distinction.
- No modern transit systems are included. Right-of-ways abandoned by their original operator and reused later by a transit system are shown as abandoned.
- Freight spurs are not included, unless they are a remnant of a longer line.
- Temporary logging spurs are not included.
- A number of abandoned lines are submerged in various reservoirs around the state. I've drawn lines through the water, but they are not at all accurate.
- A few abandoned lines around Sacramento were torn up before 1880, and no drawings of their locations exist.
- Colors are as follows: green = BNSF; brown = UP; blue = everybody else; purple = operating narrow gauge; red = abandoned standard gauge; orange = abandoned narrow gauge.
- Because of the limitations of GMaps, the content is split over several pages. I've arranged the lines from north to south, but I have no control over where the breaks occur. If an area you would like to look at is on two different pages, try flipping back and forth. The page breaks aren't fixed, so all of the lines you want to see may (or may not) end up on the same page.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Bordering on Insanity
Following up on this post, I've made two new maps of proposals to redraw the county borders in Arizona and California. (Update 2010-09-21: I've split California into three maps: North, Central, and South.) It's unlikely to happen in either state, but I think it should be given serious consideration.
When drawing the new borders, I tried to consider (as much as possible given the limited resources I have at my disposal) factors such as physical geography (keeping watersheds intact as much as possible), size, population (at both extremes), and economic interconnections. (In Arizona I also made a few counties that coincide with major reservations so as to eliminate jurisdictional issues.) For instance, in the case of Los Angeles County, it is huge (larger than both RI and DE), heavily populated (it would be the 9th most populous state), and geographically divided (the San Gabriel Mountains range up to 10,000 feet high). I trimmed it down to a more manageable 1,000 sq miles (down from 4,700) and 4,000,000 people (guestimate, down from 10,000,000), all of which are south of the San Gabriel and Santa Monica Mountains.
Because of my limited resources, these maps are diagrammatic. But I think they would be a good starting point for the discussion in each state.
When drawing the new borders, I tried to consider (as much as possible given the limited resources I have at my disposal) factors such as physical geography (keeping watersheds intact as much as possible), size, population (at both extremes), and economic interconnections. (In Arizona I also made a few counties that coincide with major reservations so as to eliminate jurisdictional issues.) For instance, in the case of Los Angeles County, it is huge (larger than both RI and DE), heavily populated (it would be the 9th most populous state), and geographically divided (the San Gabriel Mountains range up to 10,000 feet high). I trimmed it down to a more manageable 1,000 sq miles (down from 4,700) and 4,000,000 people (guestimate, down from 10,000,000), all of which are south of the San Gabriel and Santa Monica Mountains.
Because of my limited resources, these maps are diagrammatic. But I think they would be a good starting point for the discussion in each state.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Get Me Rewrite
According to this article, calling a constitutional convention in California has a broad base of support already. But this diary at Calitics shows that the concept of a clean constitution hasn't been widely adopted. Despite the post's title, the author lists a number of changes that are quite closely tied to the existing framework. Now, IANAL, so I don't know if a clean constitution is possible. An entirely new constitution may invalidate a huge number of existing laws, leaving governmental processes in limbo until the code can be re-passed with proper grounding in the new constitution. But we're bloviating on the intertoobs here, so arguendo is more or less a given.
What would I like to see in Cali's new constitution? Here are some of the elements:
A closely related issue is redrawing counties. This would be even more controversial than a constitutional convention. But, really, a lot of California counties make no sense. San Bernardino and Riverside are just far too large, extending all the way from L.A.'s outer suburbs to the Arizona line. Others like Alpine and Sierra are ridiculously underpopulated. Yet another group are ones like Placer and Kern that range across geographically distinct and not well connected areas. Los Angeles County manages to be overly large, geographically disconnected, and over-populated. A neutral commission should be appointed to redraw the counties based on population, size, and geography. For instance, Riverside might be split into 3 parts - one west of San Gorgonio pass, one at the north end of the Coachella Valley, and one east of the Chuckwalla Mountains in the Colorado River valley (this piece would need to be merged with parts of Imperial and San Bernardino). Alpine should be merged with the western parts of Eldorado, Placer, and Nevada counties to form a new county. And so on. One can easily imagine how contentious the process could be. Communities or neighborhoods near borders might want to be in the other county; the residents might or might not want them. Residents of small counties accustomed to their independence (real or imagined) would object to being merged; other areas would want to break free of a entity perceived as too large or otherwise undesirable. This is why the reallocation would have to be done by a neutral commission operating on clear principles.
Update: Rough Senate allocation: LA region - 48, Bay Area - 20, San Diego - 8, Sacto - 6, everybody else - 18.
What would I like to see in Cali's new constitution? Here are some of the elements:
- A 2/3 requirement for constitutional amendments. Either voters or the legislature could put items on the ballot. No other referendums.
- Same day voter registration.
- Instant runoff voting.
- Voting on paper and tallied using publicly available software and hardware mechanisms. Automatic recounts at 0.5% margin of victory.
- A House with 2 year terms elected from districts of about 125,000 people. This would result in about 300 representatives now, and about 400 when the population reaches 50 million. Representatives would be limited to 8 full or partial terms. All legislation would start in the House. Bills rejected by the Senate could be passed with a 3/4 majority in the House alone.
- A Senate with two overlapping classes of senators each with 4 year terms elected from regional multi-member districts. Each district would have a minimum of 2 senators, and the districts would have a minimum population of 750,000. Senators would be limited to 4 full or partial terms. The House majority leader would break ties in the Senate. (Acceptable alternative: two member districts consisting of 6 representative districts)
- Majority voting in each chamber, with a typical veto override clause. No line item vetos. No omnibus bills.
- A redistricting process similar to that used in Iowa. The regions for the Senate would follow Census Bureau definitions where they greater than 750,000.
- State-wide elections for Governor, Lt. Governor, Atty. General, Treasurer, and Sec. of State. Terms would be for 4 years. Officials would be limited to 2 terms in each office and 5 terms total.
- Appointment of top executive branch officials with approval by the Senate.
- Appointment of all judges with approval by the Senate. Judges at the highest level would be limited to 1 full or partial term calculated as the number of justices times 2 (9 justices = 18 year terms). Replacements would serve until the next scheduled appointment of that seat.
- The Senate could remove any statewide official or state judge with a 2/3 vote for any reason. No recall process.
- Strong counties and weak municipalities. Counties would have a county-manager style of government.
- Explicit reservation of all water issues to the state.
- K-12 education would be funded by the state and administered by counties. Counties could further delegate operations. No funding levels or methods specified.
- The state would fund and administer a system of higher education. Each level could develop endowments as appropriate. No funding levels or methods specified.
A closely related issue is redrawing counties. This would be even more controversial than a constitutional convention. But, really, a lot of California counties make no sense. San Bernardino and Riverside are just far too large, extending all the way from L.A.'s outer suburbs to the Arizona line. Others like Alpine and Sierra are ridiculously underpopulated. Yet another group are ones like Placer and Kern that range across geographically distinct and not well connected areas. Los Angeles County manages to be overly large, geographically disconnected, and over-populated. A neutral commission should be appointed to redraw the counties based on population, size, and geography. For instance, Riverside might be split into 3 parts - one west of San Gorgonio pass, one at the north end of the Coachella Valley, and one east of the Chuckwalla Mountains in the Colorado River valley (this piece would need to be merged with parts of Imperial and San Bernardino). Alpine should be merged with the western parts of Eldorado, Placer, and Nevada counties to form a new county. And so on. One can easily imagine how contentious the process could be. Communities or neighborhoods near borders might want to be in the other county; the residents might or might not want them. Residents of small counties accustomed to their independence (real or imagined) would object to being merged; other areas would want to break free of a entity perceived as too large or otherwise undesirable. This is why the reallocation would have to be done by a neutral commission operating on clear principles.
Update: Rough Senate allocation: LA region - 48, Bay Area - 20, San Diego - 8, Sacto - 6, everybody else - 18.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Gullyvornia
Most of what needs to be said about the hole California has dug for itself can be found at Calitics. I have two brief additions.
The first is that in terms of gross state product the $26B dollar deficit is quite manageable. Using 2007 numbers, it amounts to 1.45% of GSP. That works out to about $716 per person. My guestimate of how many people could afford to cough up extra money is 20%, so the bite would be a more significant $3600 per person for the more narrow group. But if half of the deficit is closed by cutting spending, only 10% of the population would have to cough up extra dough. The main point is that the crisis is essentially political, not financial.
The second is that a constitution shouldn't contain policies. The text should be limited to rights and procedures. Requiring certain levels of education spending or limiting how much taxes can increase just should not be included. (The one policy added to the federal constitution - Prohibition - was an abject failure.) California's initiative process has allowed voters to put inflexible policies into the constitution without consideration of the effects on current or future budgets. This needs to be changed. While there is the danger that bad current policies will once again be included, I think California has no choice but to call a constitutional convention. The state is clearly ungovernable.
Update: Compare and contrast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)