 |
Re: CA HSR Update-Half assed justtifications from the ususal suspects
Author: BOB2
Date: 08-21-2018 - 08:40
Just over 1 hour with 125 service between Freson and BAK, at an operating cost permille of less than half of 220 mph HSR, and thus, a ticket price that would easily be less than half of 220 mph HSR ticket, on an HSR line that would cost 1/3 of the cost per mile of a 220 mph, and would sure suck, wouldn't it?
Real "manly" men should only build the fastest, most costly, and least affordable to ride "real" "manly" "super speed" HSR "cost be damned" taxpayer supported slop trough so our politicians can show how "big" our HSR "dick size" is compared to, wherothers?
What demand trade offs did we test, of different travel time savings, at different ticket costs, with what set of alternative system costs, like operating costs, maintenance costs, and different levels of construction costs to determine that 220 mph. at whatever it costs, to achieve the most "cost effective" service and investment, to serve the travel needs of the expected ridership?
Oh Bob, do you mean to say that this "build it and they will come" "runaway money train" started life without ever being required to do any of the rigorous real alternative analysis planning that other public transportation investments are "required" to do? And Bob, are you saying that they still can't show you the analysis of this cost trade off, even for the 220 mph. ((most costly to build and operate, and thus, the highest ticket price) that we are currently we are now building...?
So, you two are saying that the "runaway money train" is not a boondoggle, since it will get us from BAK to Fresno in a half and hour at 2 to 2 times the cost, or using 125 to get us there in a few minutes over an hour? So then it's okay with you two, that this "runaway money train" was planned and is now being built without any analysis of any of our actual observed CA travel needs, nor any use of observed travel "market" (cost versus propensity to travel by that mode?) behavior, in CA.....?
Oh well....
Real "manly" men should only build the fastest, most costly, and least affordable to ride "real" "manly" "super speed" HSR "cost be damned" taxpayer supported slop trough so our politicians can show how "big" our HSR "dick size" is compared to, wherothers?
What demand trade offs did we test, of different travel time savings, at different ticket costs, with what set of alternative system costs, like operating costs, maintenance costs, and different levels of construction costs to determine that 220 mph. at whatever it costs, to achieve the most "cost effective" service and investment, to serve the travel needs of the expected ridership?
Oh Bob, do you mean to say that this "build it and they will come" "runaway money train" started life without ever being required to do any of the rigorous real alternative analysis planning that other public transportation investments are "required" to do? And Bob, are you saying that they still can't show you the analysis of this cost trade off, even for the 220 mph. ((most costly to build and operate, and thus, the highest ticket price) that we are currently we are now building...?
So, you two are saying that the "runaway money train" is not a boondoggle, since it will get us from BAK to Fresno in a half and hour at 2 to 2 times the cost, or using 125 to get us there in a few minutes over an hour? So then it's okay with you two, that this "runaway money train" was planned and is now being built without any analysis of any of our actual observed CA travel needs, nor any use of observed travel "market" (cost versus propensity to travel by that mode?) behavior, in CA.....?
Oh well....
