 |
Re: National HSR and Other HSR Fantasy Planning?
Author: BOB2
Date: 02-07-2013 - 21:33
The California State Rail Plan is to be released very shortly, so I have been reviewing the Federal requirements for such plans, for a client.
Lines on maps and speed graphs are interesting, but not anywhere near a sufficient basis to invest billions of public dollars for any system. Current State Rail Planning requirements, as currently written, are also not likely to be much of a basis, either....
What is really lacking in most of the current "high speed" planning, and in the current planning guidance, is any real need to define "purpose and need" for the proposed rail plans.
What are the demonstrable travel needs, and how does any plan propose to meet those demands, at what cost, to achieve what demonstrable transportation benefits?
A clear requirement to define the purported "purpose and need" must be met for planning and eventual funding of commuter rail systems, transit, or highway projects, but thisis a glaring omission in much of the current HSR and IC rail planning guidance.
"Build it and they will come", regardless of the costs or benefits, without even a realistic set of operating assumptions, seems to be just fine as a minimal level of planning the State appears to be cobbling together......and, unfortunately, currently the FRA does not require much more.
The State will ask folks do comment on a State Rail Plan that will not have an operational plan until sometime in May.... So how does this plan invest for what proposed operating scenario? Are the investments good and wise, or wasteful and foolish? What is the proposed travel demand to be served? How do the investments meet the travel demands and provide for the operational needs anticipated?
I do support effective passenger rail systems. We have many fine examples of well planned and well operated systems meeting real travel needs. But, neither fantasy maps, nor poor planning will really likely deliver cost effective services to meet real needs.
Lines on maps and speed graphs are interesting, but not anywhere near a sufficient basis to invest billions of public dollars for any system. Current State Rail Planning requirements, as currently written, are also not likely to be much of a basis, either....
What is really lacking in most of the current "high speed" planning, and in the current planning guidance, is any real need to define "purpose and need" for the proposed rail plans.
What are the demonstrable travel needs, and how does any plan propose to meet those demands, at what cost, to achieve what demonstrable transportation benefits?
A clear requirement to define the purported "purpose and need" must be met for planning and eventual funding of commuter rail systems, transit, or highway projects, but thisis a glaring omission in much of the current HSR and IC rail planning guidance.
"Build it and they will come", regardless of the costs or benefits, without even a realistic set of operating assumptions, seems to be just fine as a minimal level of planning the State appears to be cobbling together......and, unfortunately, currently the FRA does not require much more.
The State will ask folks do comment on a State Rail Plan that will not have an operational plan until sometime in May.... So how does this plan invest for what proposed operating scenario? Are the investments good and wise, or wasteful and foolish? What is the proposed travel demand to be served? How do the investments meet the travel demands and provide for the operational needs anticipated?
I do support effective passenger rail systems. We have many fine examples of well planned and well operated systems meeting real travel needs. But, neither fantasy maps, nor poor planning will really likely deliver cost effective services to meet real needs.
