 |
Re: Dumbarton corridor study
Author: BOB2
Date: 08-10-2017 - 11:56
No time to read it all right now.
But, quickly per your information on net ridership, at around a billion for 1/2 of 23,000 (I am assuming "each way" an not round trips) riders arriving without their cars, there would be no need for up to $700,000,000 in additional urban parking structure costs, if they drove.....? These trips would also tend to be much longer than "average", auto trip lengths, which could free up a lot more vehicle space, per lane miles, currently on the existing network, and in the future.
Or, how does that compare to say the estimated "high end" cost for the UP/West Santa Ana Branch, proposed 2nd best performing LRT corridor in LA County at around $3 billion for an additional 89,000 riders daily?
Or, approximately 1 billion for the next phase of the Gold Line to Montclair, which may only add as few as 12,000 new daily riders?
Or how does that compare with $1.04 billion to add two I-405 HOV lanes through the Sepulveda Pass for about 40,000 new vehicle trip capacity added both directions, at 2.2 persons per vehicle, but still requiring up to as much as 1.5 billion in parking spaces for those vehicles at there destination.
Just like there is no such thing as a free lunch, there is no such thing as free parking, someone is paying for that land, construction, maintenance, and operation, just not the motorist making the mode choice. It's passed on in economic "rents', and passed on to consumers in higher prices for the goods and services from the firms paying that higher economic "rental" cost.
So if that number to construct for that number of trips, is what it said in the report, that may not be too bad at today's inflated costs....
I've seen much worse investments, I watch what they piss away everyday in Fresno on a lot less....?
But, quickly per your information on net ridership, at around a billion for 1/2 of 23,000 (I am assuming "each way" an not round trips) riders arriving without their cars, there would be no need for up to $700,000,000 in additional urban parking structure costs, if they drove.....? These trips would also tend to be much longer than "average", auto trip lengths, which could free up a lot more vehicle space, per lane miles, currently on the existing network, and in the future.
Or, how does that compare to say the estimated "high end" cost for the UP/West Santa Ana Branch, proposed 2nd best performing LRT corridor in LA County at around $3 billion for an additional 89,000 riders daily?
Or, approximately 1 billion for the next phase of the Gold Line to Montclair, which may only add as few as 12,000 new daily riders?
Or how does that compare with $1.04 billion to add two I-405 HOV lanes through the Sepulveda Pass for about 40,000 new vehicle trip capacity added both directions, at 2.2 persons per vehicle, but still requiring up to as much as 1.5 billion in parking spaces for those vehicles at there destination.
Just like there is no such thing as a free lunch, there is no such thing as free parking, someone is paying for that land, construction, maintenance, and operation, just not the motorist making the mode choice. It's passed on in economic "rents', and passed on to consumers in higher prices for the goods and services from the firms paying that higher economic "rental" cost.
So if that number to construct for that number of trips, is what it said in the report, that may not be too bad at today's inflated costs....
I've seen much worse investments, I watch what they piss away everyday in Fresno on a lot less....?
