 |
Re: I Agree with Quentin ... Not at All-What Are Our Real Transportation Needs?
Author: BOB2
Date: 03-29-2013 - 10:07
Quentin Kopp wrongly premised much of the planning justification for an "ultra-high speed rail" (225 mph) system on an anticipated lack of sufficient aviation capacity between the North and South. This was the conventional "wisdom" back in the 90's, before the flattening of aviation demand, and the huge increase in available aviation capacity from military base closures.
SCAG and some in the aviation sector still project ludicrous intrastate aviation demand growth, based on the post deregulation boom in Air travel, despite 20+ years of contradictory facts that such growth has been flat, and has actually fallen relative to population.
The real travel demands and need for rail improvements in California might just be to reduce the LAUPT to San Diego travel time of 165 minutes to under 120 minutes, instead of worrying about when we will get from LAUPT to SFO in 165 minutes?
Over and over again the data tell us this growth in congestion in short and middle distance intecity corridors is a far more pressing need. This demand has doubled, and will outpace intrastate long distance travl by almost twice the projected levels in the next twenty years. We need to be able to get from Palmdale to LAUPT in an hour, on intercity and commuter trains, not the present two hours on Metrolink?
The financially responsible phased HSR approach now evolving will at least try to meet some of those real transportation needs, with the blended approach. And, as a taxpayer and user of our congested freeways, I say thank goodness adults are finally trying to fix this mess. This is still a mess. There's still a long way to go to reform this to make cost benefit, not political games, at least part of the bases for project and segment development.
Yes, Quentin and Arnold promised us something extravagant and "visionary" to the voters, and now the train haters can point to either going forward with a boondoggle, or not having the super train we were "promised" (head I win-tails you lose polemics from the usual sources?). And, that is what I expect from that element. And yes, someday we may need to integrate an "ultra" high speed component, into our state rail system. But, right now it is irresponsible and unwarranted, and the money should be spent on our real transportation needs, like improved mobility choices and congestion reduction on our major overcrowded corridors freeway corridors.
That travel needs based/financially responsible blended/integrated approach passenger rail in California does not mean "no" high speed. It probably means improvements like high speed segments, capable of 125 and 170 operations, that cut travel times, improve reliability, and increase service levels, that is affordable and meets real travel needs.... A rail passenger system such as that would meet many more real California needs, and would no longer be a "cost is no object" political trough, saving taxpayers billions and reducing congestion we have now....?
And, wouldn't all of that be just awful?.
SCAG and some in the aviation sector still project ludicrous intrastate aviation demand growth, based on the post deregulation boom in Air travel, despite 20+ years of contradictory facts that such growth has been flat, and has actually fallen relative to population.
The real travel demands and need for rail improvements in California might just be to reduce the LAUPT to San Diego travel time of 165 minutes to under 120 minutes, instead of worrying about when we will get from LAUPT to SFO in 165 minutes?
Over and over again the data tell us this growth in congestion in short and middle distance intecity corridors is a far more pressing need. This demand has doubled, and will outpace intrastate long distance travl by almost twice the projected levels in the next twenty years. We need to be able to get from Palmdale to LAUPT in an hour, on intercity and commuter trains, not the present two hours on Metrolink?
The financially responsible phased HSR approach now evolving will at least try to meet some of those real transportation needs, with the blended approach. And, as a taxpayer and user of our congested freeways, I say thank goodness adults are finally trying to fix this mess. This is still a mess. There's still a long way to go to reform this to make cost benefit, not political games, at least part of the bases for project and segment development.
Yes, Quentin and Arnold promised us something extravagant and "visionary" to the voters, and now the train haters can point to either going forward with a boondoggle, or not having the super train we were "promised" (head I win-tails you lose polemics from the usual sources?). And, that is what I expect from that element. And yes, someday we may need to integrate an "ultra" high speed component, into our state rail system. But, right now it is irresponsible and unwarranted, and the money should be spent on our real transportation needs, like improved mobility choices and congestion reduction on our major overcrowded corridors freeway corridors.
That travel needs based/financially responsible blended/integrated approach passenger rail in California does not mean "no" high speed. It probably means improvements like high speed segments, capable of 125 and 170 operations, that cut travel times, improve reliability, and increase service levels, that is affordable and meets real travel needs.... A rail passenger system such as that would meet many more real California needs, and would no longer be a "cost is no object" political trough, saving taxpayers billions and reducing congestion we have now....?
And, wouldn't all of that be just awful?.
