 |
Re: New CAHSR article in the LA Times-not a route problem....
Author: BOB2
Date: 01-17-2018 - 10:40
Where is there a likely demand for rail services, who will ride them, why? Is there a demonstrated current travel demand, between what urban centers, and where are they going?
You would choose routes based on land costs criteria for ROW, so how does that criteria actually meet the travel needs of real people traveling from place to place?
The CHSRA project is problematic not because of its route choice, but because it was never based on a documented or identifiable transportation/mobility "purpose and need".....and relieves or meets no real or observable transportation need or deficiency, that we drivers and taxpayers seem to face every day.
It appears, for the most part, that Kopp's "vision" for the CHSRA was and is based on a need to show that we have as fast of a train as China (a project justification which appears mostly to be based on the famous "my dick is bigger than your dick" Freudian "political" planning process ....).
The actual purported justification for the CHSRA (in addition to the need to spend billions on international political penis envy...) was the purported existence of a looming intrastate aviation capacity "crisis" back in the early nineties. Many planners knew, even back then, that this justification was based on complete bull$hit. Demand has been down and flat now for nearly 25 years since that nonsense was "predicted", and with the shut down of military bases, we have plenty of intrastate aviation capacity.
Since there is actual demand to and from the Valley to the Bay Area, going at least part of the way through centers lie Fresno, is the only sensible thing they've come up with. Not going via Merced, Modesto, and via Altamont, where the demand for travel to the Bay Area is even higher, as demonstrated by the levels of freeway congestion, is the mistake.
I warned folks of this "sucking sound" coming from the "runaway money train" months ago, and it has come to pass....... These cost overruns are now threatening the only worthwhile project of this entire fiasco, the commitment to phase 1 of the LA Union Station run-through tracks, and the completion of that project by the 2028 Olympics.
Just this "cost overrun", on only one segment of the CAHSRA fiasco, would pay for completion of all of the remaining DT projects on LOSSAN south, and almost all of the phase one improvement on LOSSAN north to Santa Barbara and SLO, where we daily have a "normal" 5 hour travel time today on I-5 between LA and SD......
What are we doing and why are we doing it? Those familiar with Dr. Demming will recognize that question as the first question which needs to be answered in the Total Quality Management process. Purpose and need requirements for new highway and transit projects at least try to answer that question, before we started wasting billions on those projects (is there demand, is there congestion, will the solution deal with those issues?)........ At CHSRA, they have a history of just make it up to justify the project, as they spend away.......
You would choose routes based on land costs criteria for ROW, so how does that criteria actually meet the travel needs of real people traveling from place to place?
The CHSRA project is problematic not because of its route choice, but because it was never based on a documented or identifiable transportation/mobility "purpose and need".....and relieves or meets no real or observable transportation need or deficiency, that we drivers and taxpayers seem to face every day.
It appears, for the most part, that Kopp's "vision" for the CHSRA was and is based on a need to show that we have as fast of a train as China (a project justification which appears mostly to be based on the famous "my dick is bigger than your dick" Freudian "political" planning process ....).
The actual purported justification for the CHSRA (in addition to the need to spend billions on international political penis envy...) was the purported existence of a looming intrastate aviation capacity "crisis" back in the early nineties. Many planners knew, even back then, that this justification was based on complete bull$hit. Demand has been down and flat now for nearly 25 years since that nonsense was "predicted", and with the shut down of military bases, we have plenty of intrastate aviation capacity.
Since there is actual demand to and from the Valley to the Bay Area, going at least part of the way through centers lie Fresno, is the only sensible thing they've come up with. Not going via Merced, Modesto, and via Altamont, where the demand for travel to the Bay Area is even higher, as demonstrated by the levels of freeway congestion, is the mistake.
I warned folks of this "sucking sound" coming from the "runaway money train" months ago, and it has come to pass....... These cost overruns are now threatening the only worthwhile project of this entire fiasco, the commitment to phase 1 of the LA Union Station run-through tracks, and the completion of that project by the 2028 Olympics.
Just this "cost overrun", on only one segment of the CAHSRA fiasco, would pay for completion of all of the remaining DT projects on LOSSAN south, and almost all of the phase one improvement on LOSSAN north to Santa Barbara and SLO, where we daily have a "normal" 5 hour travel time today on I-5 between LA and SD......
What are we doing and why are we doing it? Those familiar with Dr. Demming will recognize that question as the first question which needs to be answered in the Total Quality Management process. Purpose and need requirements for new highway and transit projects at least try to answer that question, before we started wasting billions on those projects (is there demand, is there congestion, will the solution deal with those issues?)........ At CHSRA, they have a history of just make it up to justify the project, as they spend away.......
