 |
Re: Yes Margaret it does include those airports ......and more
Author: BOB2
Date: 08-18-2017 - 07:20
I said unused excess intrastate regional airport capacity didn't I?
The CHSRA came out of something called Project California that assumed there would be an
"aviation" capacity crisis in CA which was sheer nonsense, that failed to look at reality to justify the HSR project. Intrastate travel had expanded greatly between deregulation under Carter and 1993, with an influx of low cost services like Alaska and Southwest. There was no real basis for this to continue after air prices stabilized and began to rise again in the early 90's.
Since the mid nineties, when the "looming" intrastate "aviation crisis" was used to justify the "need" and "demand" for LAX-SFO HSR, intrastate air travel had actually been flat and actually declined by as much as 15 percent as recently as the late 2000's, due to higher prices, longer post 9/11 security adding to travel time and cost, the great recession, and cut back in travel by companies, state, and local government, due to innovations like skype and other virtual meeting technology making such travel unnecessary and unproductive.
I used to fly up to UC Davis and waste an entire day, to teach FHWA classes. Now, retired, I go on-line and attend those same classes, without wasting an entire day, paying for air fare, renting a car, saving my employer hundreds of dollars in travel expense and lost productivity. This is how an why such intrastate business travel is down in these markets.
International air travel has continued to expand, but more slowly at LAX and SFO, and interstate air travel has bounced up and down, but is now back up and growing, also at a much slower pace. Larger aircraft has been part of that growth, which doesn't require as much growth in terminal and airport capacity (except on the "land side" primarily to and from LAX and SFO).
Regional airports which handle a very significant share of CA intrastate air traffic between the Bay Area, LA, Sac, and San Diego. These would include Bob Hope, John Wayne, Long Beach, Ontario, Oakland, San Jose, and only a few have shown significant growth or rebounds in intrastate demand over this period. Also military base closures have resulted in even more potential capacity at San Bernardino and March potentially being added to serve potential future growth in air travel demands.
Unlike you I support a well planned "high speed", high frequency, high quality, reliable passenger rail system in CA in some form. Unlike you, I question the focus on LAX SFO as the most important or deficient travel market where such a need might really exist.
What I really question is the need for spending the additional tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in infrastructure and operating costs to achieve HSR speeds of 200 mph or more to serve a market that has no travel deficiency while right now, millions of Californian's are stuck in traffic. This is in many shorter intrastate and regional corridors, where our travel needs and demand are clearly demonstrated by the congestion and delays we face, just so our politicians can show how "cool" and "bitchen" we are, with "our" taxpayer money. That's sheer folly and even madness, not responsible transportation planning, accountable to our citizens and taxpayers.
I am more interested in spending our very limited transportation and rail passenger dollars in getting folks from LA to SD in two hours, on a really "lame" but much more affordable (to build, operate, maintain, and for consumers to afford to use) 110 mph HSR system, offering high frequency, high capacity, high quality rail service, where right this minute the trip is almost 5 hours on the I-5, than I am in spending $13 billion in taxpayer dollars to get from Chowchilla to Wasco, to alleviate an imaginary intrastate aviation crisis that is not "looming".
Yesterday, the Train News even had to be annulled because of traffic in Redding........
The CHSRA came out of something called Project California that assumed there would be an
"aviation" capacity crisis in CA which was sheer nonsense, that failed to look at reality to justify the HSR project. Intrastate travel had expanded greatly between deregulation under Carter and 1993, with an influx of low cost services like Alaska and Southwest. There was no real basis for this to continue after air prices stabilized and began to rise again in the early 90's.
Since the mid nineties, when the "looming" intrastate "aviation crisis" was used to justify the "need" and "demand" for LAX-SFO HSR, intrastate air travel had actually been flat and actually declined by as much as 15 percent as recently as the late 2000's, due to higher prices, longer post 9/11 security adding to travel time and cost, the great recession, and cut back in travel by companies, state, and local government, due to innovations like skype and other virtual meeting technology making such travel unnecessary and unproductive.
I used to fly up to UC Davis and waste an entire day, to teach FHWA classes. Now, retired, I go on-line and attend those same classes, without wasting an entire day, paying for air fare, renting a car, saving my employer hundreds of dollars in travel expense and lost productivity. This is how an why such intrastate business travel is down in these markets.
International air travel has continued to expand, but more slowly at LAX and SFO, and interstate air travel has bounced up and down, but is now back up and growing, also at a much slower pace. Larger aircraft has been part of that growth, which doesn't require as much growth in terminal and airport capacity (except on the "land side" primarily to and from LAX and SFO).
Regional airports which handle a very significant share of CA intrastate air traffic between the Bay Area, LA, Sac, and San Diego. These would include Bob Hope, John Wayne, Long Beach, Ontario, Oakland, San Jose, and only a few have shown significant growth or rebounds in intrastate demand over this period. Also military base closures have resulted in even more potential capacity at San Bernardino and March potentially being added to serve potential future growth in air travel demands.
Unlike you I support a well planned "high speed", high frequency, high quality, reliable passenger rail system in CA in some form. Unlike you, I question the focus on LAX SFO as the most important or deficient travel market where such a need might really exist.
What I really question is the need for spending the additional tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in infrastructure and operating costs to achieve HSR speeds of 200 mph or more to serve a market that has no travel deficiency while right now, millions of Californian's are stuck in traffic. This is in many shorter intrastate and regional corridors, where our travel needs and demand are clearly demonstrated by the congestion and delays we face, just so our politicians can show how "cool" and "bitchen" we are, with "our" taxpayer money. That's sheer folly and even madness, not responsible transportation planning, accountable to our citizens and taxpayers.
I am more interested in spending our very limited transportation and rail passenger dollars in getting folks from LA to SD in two hours, on a really "lame" but much more affordable (to build, operate, maintain, and for consumers to afford to use) 110 mph HSR system, offering high frequency, high capacity, high quality rail service, where right this minute the trip is almost 5 hours on the I-5, than I am in spending $13 billion in taxpayer dollars to get from Chowchilla to Wasco, to alleviate an imaginary intrastate aviation crisis that is not "looming".
Yesterday, the Train News even had to be annulled because of traffic in Redding........
