 |
National HSR: Don't send a Graphic Designer to do a Civil Engineer's Job!
Author: That Guy With The Genset
Date: 02-08-2013 - 10:31
Stupid, stupid, STHOOO-PIHD! They're in no position to be route-cutting in the first place, they need to come up with demand forecasts before they set anything in stone!
...although this was probably whipped up by some graphic designer who wanted a pretty little picture to plaster all over everyone's websites, and not some expert who has postulated all the demand forecasts and whatnot. It's not "if you build it, they will come", it's "they will come, they will see, and they will congest what we have, so we must build it".
Plus, with BP--the Arco-Killer--and the oil giants (yes, not "big Government", but instead a lassiez-faire oligopoly) making gas prices as volatile / high as they are, HSR probably would be much more viable. Heck, even Amtrak's ticket price of 164 bucks LA to the Bay Area is cheaper than driving my 1991 Honda (which gets about 23 miles to the gallon and is equipped with a 17-gallon tank) along the same route.
Sure, the way CA's going about HSR isn't right, and their proposal for instantaneous 220-mph service will obviously lead to more overruns and more ridiculous detours, and therefore an inferior product. If it was my opinion, I'd bite the bullet and build a slower-speed, lower-cost ROW over Tejon. That being said: is it more efficient to travel along the hypotenuse of a triangle at a slightly-reduced speed, or along the legs of a triangle at higher speeds?
I'm all for a national HSR network, but as long as it is a professional demand forecaster drawing the maps and not some graphic designer. Civil Engineering with a specialty in transportation exists for a reason.
...although this was probably whipped up by some graphic designer who wanted a pretty little picture to plaster all over everyone's websites, and not some expert who has postulated all the demand forecasts and whatnot. It's not "if you build it, they will come", it's "they will come, they will see, and they will congest what we have, so we must build it".
Plus, with BP--the Arco-Killer--and the oil giants (yes, not "big Government", but instead a lassiez-faire oligopoly) making gas prices as volatile / high as they are, HSR probably would be much more viable. Heck, even Amtrak's ticket price of 164 bucks LA to the Bay Area is cheaper than driving my 1991 Honda (which gets about 23 miles to the gallon and is equipped with a 17-gallon tank) along the same route.
Sure, the way CA's going about HSR isn't right, and their proposal for instantaneous 220-mph service will obviously lead to more overruns and more ridiculous detours, and therefore an inferior product. If it was my opinion, I'd bite the bullet and build a slower-speed, lower-cost ROW over Tejon. That being said: is it more efficient to travel along the hypotenuse of a triangle at a slightly-reduced speed, or along the legs of a triangle at higher speeds?
I'm all for a national HSR network, but as long as it is a professional demand forecaster drawing the maps and not some graphic designer. Civil Engineering with a specialty in transportation exists for a reason.
