Post by pithecanthropus on Apr 26, 2011 13:15:49 GMT -8
I'm surprised it hasn't come up here yet, but according to well-known anti-rail James Moore II, professor of civil engineering at USC, the new budget compromise essentially kills California's HSR project. Well that was a nice dream while it lasted, but I wasn't holding out much hope.
However, in his opinion piece in last Sunday's paper, he goes on to do his general harangue against steel rails and steel wheels--but why should that surprise us? We already know he doesn't hold with any transit that doesn't burn fossil fuel or run on rubber tires. (Even airliners do run on rubber when they take off and land).
His overall position seems to be that air transport and private cars have such a lock on the intercity travel market that an improved rail system would never be viable. Because, you see, air travel is so inexpensive today and must, therefore, remain so. And we're blessed with such cheap gasoline in comparison to all the other industrialized nations--and that, too, will presumably remain so.
I scratch my head at Dr. Moore's assertion that, aside from those who decide to grit their teeth and drive, the airlines have a lock on the short to intermediate haul intercity market. I have to ask when he last flew from LAX to SFO. The days when we could walk up to a PSA* ticket counter at LAX, and get a seat on the next plane to SFO, all in less than one hour, have gone the way of PSA itself.
Typically, he cites our low population density in comparison to Europe's. I see two major flaws here. First, our relatively sparse population is not evenly distributed. Los Angeles County, for example, is a densely populated as a small European country. Secondly, population density as such is based on where you sleep at night. It says nothing about what demands you might conceivably place on a transit system, or for that matter a road. If a given passenger or driver wants to go from point A to point B, the load on the system depends on how far A and B are from each other. A population that is sparse overall but still mostly concentrated into relatively few dense population centers means that the stress on roads and transit systems is likely to be greater than the sparse overall population figures would suggest. Southern California's population growth has slowed considerably, but traffic just seems to be getting worse. The only possible cause of this, in my view, is longer commutes and other trips.
*PSA, much beloved and missed intrastate airline, Pacific Southwest Airlines. I don't think they have anything to do with today's Soutwest Airlines.
However, in his opinion piece in last Sunday's paper, he goes on to do his general harangue against steel rails and steel wheels--but why should that surprise us? We already know he doesn't hold with any transit that doesn't burn fossil fuel or run on rubber tires. (Even airliners do run on rubber when they take off and land).
His overall position seems to be that air transport and private cars have such a lock on the intercity travel market that an improved rail system would never be viable. Because, you see, air travel is so inexpensive today and must, therefore, remain so. And we're blessed with such cheap gasoline in comparison to all the other industrialized nations--and that, too, will presumably remain so.
I scratch my head at Dr. Moore's assertion that, aside from those who decide to grit their teeth and drive, the airlines have a lock on the short to intermediate haul intercity market. I have to ask when he last flew from LAX to SFO. The days when we could walk up to a PSA* ticket counter at LAX, and get a seat on the next plane to SFO, all in less than one hour, have gone the way of PSA itself.
Typically, he cites our low population density in comparison to Europe's. I see two major flaws here. First, our relatively sparse population is not evenly distributed. Los Angeles County, for example, is a densely populated as a small European country. Secondly, population density as such is based on where you sleep at night. It says nothing about what demands you might conceivably place on a transit system, or for that matter a road. If a given passenger or driver wants to go from point A to point B, the load on the system depends on how far A and B are from each other. A population that is sparse overall but still mostly concentrated into relatively few dense population centers means that the stress on roads and transit systems is likely to be greater than the sparse overall population figures would suggest. Southern California's population growth has slowed considerably, but traffic just seems to be getting worse. The only possible cause of this, in my view, is longer commutes and other trips.
*PSA, much beloved and missed intrastate airline, Pacific Southwest Airlines. I don't think they have anything to do with today's Soutwest Airlines.
, with a 4 week moving average 4-day advance of $328! The HSR detractors can take their "But I can fly to SF on Southwest for $39" and kiss it goodbye forever. The airlines also seem to have finally figured out that they are not in business to simply lose money and go bankrupt.
