 |
Fringe nutters versus fringe nutter.s.. ? Tweedle dumb versus Tweedly dumber....? "Evil" cars versus "Evil trains...?
Author: BOB2
Date: 10-10-2023 - 11:53
The demand from the Sou Cal market to Las Vegas needs both expansion of I-15 and high speed rail. I recommended I-15 as a "congestion" "toll" finance interstate "privitization" "franchise" opportunity to the head of NDOT in 2006 at a CEO's meeting on tolling opportunities that I was invited to at ITS America. A lane and additonal truck climbing lanes paid for with demand based toll rates (very low for a truck at 2 am on Tuesday, very high for a trip at 5 pm on Friday) pencils out very well.
This also applies to an added "rural" lane addition on I-5, with many more miles of added truck climbing lanes, and making I-5 an "all weather" interstate with ITS operational safety systems improvements (no more shut downs due to Tule fog..). This also could easily be paid for with automated tolling. These kinds of "rural" interstate improvements are very cost effective for both safety and productivity and could be paid for with toll financed bonding (either public or private).
The costs of the $3 billion widening of I-15 in the urbanized corridors around Salt Lake are not cost effective and will do little to improve operations for the dollars spent. I am not anti highway or anti rail, this false dichotomy is very popular with the fringes these days as they drive to the "freeway protest" or show up like those same 20 Nimby sheep to oppose the double track project in San Clemente. Costs are what killed Caltrans ultimate LSD induce visions in the late 70's (no Beverly Hills Freeway, no nuking the Beach communities for the Pacific Coast Freeway, no Richard Nixon Freeway from Marina Del Rey to Yorba Lind), and it is costs and poor performing likely resulting marginal outcomes that are making urban projects like I-15 in Salt Lake so controversial.
But, I support rail, too. I would have no problem spending the $2 to $3 billion to do LA-Coachella "right", with very high frequency Brightline levels of service overlayed with Metrolink commute services, because the cost per seat mile is way less than spending $10-15 billion on the added capacity needed on I-10 and "downstream" to provide the same number of trip miles, much less huge added costs for vehicle operations and added parking costs.
I have no problem with the 10 billion in fully grade separating LOSSAN and building the San Clemente, Del Mar, and "Jim Mills" tunnel bypasses. Since we have already spent twice that on I-5, and would have to double that to get even another lane out of this corridor, to get LOSSAN south to a "Zurich-Basel" level of service with an under 2 hour schedule. The cost per seat mile is just so much cheaper in corridors like I-5 from LA to San Diego.
It's the math that should matter...
MATH=Make America Think Harder....
This also applies to an added "rural" lane addition on I-5, with many more miles of added truck climbing lanes, and making I-5 an "all weather" interstate with ITS operational safety systems improvements (no more shut downs due to Tule fog..). This also could easily be paid for with automated tolling. These kinds of "rural" interstate improvements are very cost effective for both safety and productivity and could be paid for with toll financed bonding (either public or private).
The costs of the $3 billion widening of I-15 in the urbanized corridors around Salt Lake are not cost effective and will do little to improve operations for the dollars spent. I am not anti highway or anti rail, this false dichotomy is very popular with the fringes these days as they drive to the "freeway protest" or show up like those same 20 Nimby sheep to oppose the double track project in San Clemente. Costs are what killed Caltrans ultimate LSD induce visions in the late 70's (no Beverly Hills Freeway, no nuking the Beach communities for the Pacific Coast Freeway, no Richard Nixon Freeway from Marina Del Rey to Yorba Lind), and it is costs and poor performing likely resulting marginal outcomes that are making urban projects like I-15 in Salt Lake so controversial.
But, I support rail, too. I would have no problem spending the $2 to $3 billion to do LA-Coachella "right", with very high frequency Brightline levels of service overlayed with Metrolink commute services, because the cost per seat mile is way less than spending $10-15 billion on the added capacity needed on I-10 and "downstream" to provide the same number of trip miles, much less huge added costs for vehicle operations and added parking costs.
I have no problem with the 10 billion in fully grade separating LOSSAN and building the San Clemente, Del Mar, and "Jim Mills" tunnel bypasses. Since we have already spent twice that on I-5, and would have to double that to get even another lane out of this corridor, to get LOSSAN south to a "Zurich-Basel" level of service with an under 2 hour schedule. The cost per seat mile is just so much cheaper in corridors like I-5 from LA to San Diego.
It's the math that should matter...
MATH=Make America Think Harder....
