 |
Re: Coast Is a strong potential rail market and that argument is nonsense.....
Author: BOB2
Date: 01-27-2017 - 00:56
As I've apparently properly surmised, and is largely confirmed by this reply, you really don't know anything at all about disaggregate travel demand modeling, gravity modeling, or anything about the analysis of travel demand factors, right?
I also surmise that you have no experience in analyzing rail passenger corridors at all, have done no specific work of any kind on the mobility needs in the Coast line 101 corridor, and that you are basing your opinion about service levels and needs on the Coast line on your personal view that the dominant traffic base, in CA and on the Coast line, would be from LAX to SFO, for which the Valley would be better, right?
It is largely the failure to do ever properly do that kind of comprehensive alternatives analysis, and cost benefit analysis, (reuired of other Federally funded projects) which now has us taxpayers pi$$ing away billions on the fiasco we're building from Fresno to Chowchilla.
Thus, given your choice of analytical "methodology", your opinion of what might represent the best "bang for the buck" isn't really worth a warm bucket of spit. That is because, it would appear from your response, that this is based solely on your "best professional opinion" as to whether or not this is a political "done deal", bereft of any serious attempt to make a case based on the costs or travel benefits for users or taxpayers.
I'm dissing your arguments, including that other nonsense you threw in about global warming and sea level rise will be threatening the Coast line, because you're the type of so-called "planner" I've too often worked with in my long career, who seems to base your supposed "professional" opinion, on which way you think the political winds are blowing, rather than on sound technical analysis, using observation of the specific conditions, the travel demands, or measuring the trade off's to be found in a proper set of alternative cost/benefit calculations, using real math.
Did I miss anything?
I also surmise that you have no experience in analyzing rail passenger corridors at all, have done no specific work of any kind on the mobility needs in the Coast line 101 corridor, and that you are basing your opinion about service levels and needs on the Coast line on your personal view that the dominant traffic base, in CA and on the Coast line, would be from LAX to SFO, for which the Valley would be better, right?
It is largely the failure to do ever properly do that kind of comprehensive alternatives analysis, and cost benefit analysis, (reuired of other Federally funded projects) which now has us taxpayers pi$$ing away billions on the fiasco we're building from Fresno to Chowchilla.
Thus, given your choice of analytical "methodology", your opinion of what might represent the best "bang for the buck" isn't really worth a warm bucket of spit. That is because, it would appear from your response, that this is based solely on your "best professional opinion" as to whether or not this is a political "done deal", bereft of any serious attempt to make a case based on the costs or travel benefits for users or taxpayers.
I'm dissing your arguments, including that other nonsense you threw in about global warming and sea level rise will be threatening the Coast line, because you're the type of so-called "planner" I've too often worked with in my long career, who seems to base your supposed "professional" opinion, on which way you think the political winds are blowing, rather than on sound technical analysis, using observation of the specific conditions, the travel demands, or measuring the trade off's to be found in a proper set of alternative cost/benefit calculations, using real math.
Did I miss anything?
