Is LAUPT obsolete? And, does article really make that case?

I guess that if you want to boost the cost of the CHSRA fiasco by another 3 or 4 billion dollars, it is definitely a great idea.

So what does turning the intercity HSR or "some' commuter trains into a third "cross town"3 to 4 billion dollar tunnel to duplicate the subway and downtown LRT connector do for ridership, farebox return, or operating costs?

Have any of these transit "advocates" for this idea done any real "analysis" of "costs" to be paid by all of us other taxpayers, or in any way quantified or "valued" the purported "benefits" from this proposal? Do we have any credible analysis which would allow us to see if the "benefits" to all of us and/or even to those using it, would offset the very high costs of such a project, so see if it is "worth" doing?

I was at a meeting last night where the "complete streets" "advocates" (cult?) were recommending spending millions in scarce local LA County taxpayer money for "road diets' and "roundabouts" with no input from local residents, no analysis of traffic impacts, no analysis of emission increases, no analysis of accident or safety impacts, and an "accidental" analysis of travel time delay, and traffic diversion into adjacent neighborhoods that show significant residential traffic diversion, and costly travel time increases for road users, which the City staff ignored.

In the latest round of "analysis" these so-called "road diet" proposals are all now being rated for "effectiveness" and "prioritized" for implementation using non quantifiable "subjective" criteria, like "complete streets", "pedestrian friendly", "creates jobs" (not how many...or at what pay...too much math required), and other such "touchy feely" rating "criteria".

So given this "new" style of analyzing how we should spend my (and your) scarce tax monies on transportation "investments", where you kind of just make up subjective "ratings" based on a non-quantifiable "touchy feely" evaluation criteria, this run-through proposal is likely to be a "sure winner", regardless of its cost...

After all, San Francisco is "doing it", and ain't that reason enough right there?