Comments and Perspectives on the Proposed
Perris Valley Line Boondoggle (Metrolink Rail Project)
July, 2008 Draft
The material in this document is based on the information available to us and the conclusions which we feel logically follow from that information. These comments and perspectives were developed in a good-faith attempt to make sense of the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project, which makes no sense as a passenger rail project. At this point, we make no accusations of corruption involving decision-makers for the PVL project. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) - understandably - does not provide the public with enough information to draw specific conclusions about potential conflicts of interest of its members and senior staff.
Throughout the remainder of this document, we will identify the PVL project by a more accurate and descriptive title: the PVL Boondoggle. (Anyone who objects to this title - despite its accuracy - can do a “global replace” of “Boondoggle” with a more neutral term such as “Rail Project.”) It’s probably unrealistic to hope that the RCTC will adopt this term as a more specific and accurate project title. However, the standard definition of boondoggle certainly accurately characterizes this project:
Boondoggle:
1. wasteful pursuit: an activity or project that is unnecessary and wasteful of time or money, especially one undertaken for personal or political gain
2. politically motivated government project: a government project of little practical value funded to gain political favor
---------------------------
Topic sentences:
The PVL Boondoggle has nothing to do with mitigation of vehicle traffic congestion.
The PVL Boondoggle is about freight traffic and property values - "Follow the money."
The PVL Boondoggle is a clear danger to schoolchildren.
The PVL Boondoggle is a clear danger from train exhaust.
The PVL Boondoggle will lower the quality of life of nearby residents.
The PVL Boondoggle is an open invitation for corruption.
The PVL Boondoggle is a taking of private property for private gain.
The PVL Boondoggle should require extensive mitigation measures.
The PVL Boondoggle may require cost-cutting measures that will make the project non-viable.
The PVL Boondoggle is based on specious data. Why should anyone believe data or numbers produced by the RCTC, or by consultants hired by the RCTC to produce the numbers the RCTC wants? A good question.
The PVL Boondoggle will misuse Measure A funds.
The PVL Boondoggle lacks safety oversight.
The PVL Boondoggle is an obsolete, costly, dangerous, and ineffective transportation model. Why does the RCTC regard its role to be demonstrating the truth of the old saying, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result"? And why can't the RCTC act on the old admonition: "When you find yourself trapped in a deep hole, stop digging."
---------------------------
1. The PVL Boondoggle has nothing to do with mitigation of vehicle traffic congestion.
The PVL Boondoggle has virtually nothing to do with the mitigation of vehicle traffic congestion in the I-215 corridor. Even the RCTC rosy-scenario estimates are that less than 1% of the I-215 vehicle traffic will be removed by the PVL Boondoggle. A reasonable estimate is that the amortized cost to the taxpayers will be about $20-$25 every time a rider steps on a PVL Metrolink train. The RCTC has - understandably - not released figures showing how or if vehicle traffic will be affected, or the per-rider cost of the project (amortized using standard accounting practices). The PVL Boondoggle is not about improving traffic flow.
There are many obvious ways that vehicle traffic flow could be significantly improved at much lower cost: a 21st-Century bus rapid transit system, improved utilization of carpool lanes, congestion pricing, etc. Compared with the PVL Boondoggle, it would be cheaper and more effective for the RCTC to pay ride-sharing cab fares for prospective PVL train commuters, or for the RCTC to give a bonus of $1,000 per year to bona fide carpoolers. In fact, using realistic ridership estimates, the per-rider cost to taxpayers might be close to $50, and it might even be cheaper to hire limousines to transport people who would otherwise use the PVL Metrolink trains! (Note that we do not advocate taxis or limousines as transit systems, even though they would be cheaper and more effective than the PVL Metrolink system; there are many other possible transit systems which would be even more effective and less costly. We note that an amusing picture would be of a fleet of limousines driving along I-215 as the "economy" alternative to the PVL Boondoggle!)
One of the public officials who is very knowledgeable about the PVL Boondoggle recently sent a letter in which the alternatives were addressed. Here is a paragraph from this letter:
"Even with exaggerated ridership projections, the project barely meets federal productivity standards for funding. Erroneous comparative information, claiming that alternative Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service was not possible on the 1-215 Freeway because of the lack of right-of-way for an added fast lane, was given to the local transportation commission to gain its approval of the train project. Afterwards it was found that there is room for a freeway BRT lane from Perris to Riverside and that investing in the improvement of this stretch of freeway is the most cost-effective transportation project in the entire county."
---------------------------
2. The PVL Boondoggle is about freight traffic and property values - "Follow the money."
The most important question about the PVL Boondoggle is: What is the real purpose of the PVL Boondoggle? It is not just a “rail line to nowhere,” planned only to enrich favored contractors who build it, although enriching favored contractors - and soliciting campaign contributions, jobs for family and friends, and other favors from those contractors - may be part of the purpose of the PVL Boondoggle. It is a rail line to the property and businesses along the I-215 corridor. The obvious, overriding purpose of the PVL Boondoggle is to use public funds to improve the rail lines, not to improve vehicle traffic, but to facilitate freight traffic through Riverside to and from the I-215 corridor. That is, the PVL Boondoggle is not a passenger rail project; it is a freight rail project.
And why is improving the rail lines for freight a desirable goal? The saying from Watergate was “Follow the money,” and we believe the saying applies to the PVL Boondoggle.
But first, and almost-incidentally, there is an arguable public purpose for improving the rail lines for freight traffic. Improving the rail lines will help create more semi-skilled jobs in warehousing and low-skills manufacturing along the I-215 corridor. It is generally, if only privately, admitted by public decision-makers that the Riverside/Moreno Valley/Perris area cannot attract skilled-labor, high-paying industries; and that the best the region can do is to serve as a center for semi-skilled, lower-middle-class industries such as warehousing and low-skills manufacturing. Attracting such industries can be regarded as a public good, even if we disagree with the premise that the area cannot attract high-skills, high-wage jobs. Indeed, we believe that a modern, effective transit system that addresses the needs of residents and commuters would increase the attractiveness of the region for high-skill, high-wage industries.
Returning to “follow the money,” the only conceivable real reason for the PVL Boondoggle is to enrich business owners and property owners in the I-215 corridor, by increasing the value of their businesses and properties through improved access to modern freight rail lines. These people who will be enriched by the PVL Boondoggle are likely to include the political supporters of RCTC decision-makers, and we find it logical that at least some RCTC decision-makers must have personal financial interests in these businesses and/or properties. If they (and/or their families and/or close associates) do not have such something to gain financially from the project, it is almost inconceivable that they would support such a high-cost project that will have essentially no effect on vehicle traffic congestion - some public “servants” may be that venal, but they’re not that stupid.
One of the public officials who is very knowledgeable about the PVL Boondoggle recently sent a letter in which the motivations for the project were addressed. Here is a paragraph from this letter:
"The project was pushed by Riverside County Transportation Commission Executive Director Eric Haley, who then left the agency and joined as Vice President one of the principal development firms promoting the industrial future of the 1-215 Corridor and the Perris Valley, Germania Corp. Germania is owned by Bob Wolf, who was one of the March Global Port investors who brought DHL here and is himself a former State Transportation Director."
If this statement is correct (at this point we do not have enough information to verify its accuracy), this is strong evidence that the PVL Boondoggle was advanced by Mr. Haley to advance the interests of his prospective future employer, including covering up the possibility of effective alternatives to the PVL Boondoggle. This statement is certainly consistent with what information is available to us at present, including reports of Mr. Haley's threat at an open meeting to retaliate against people who live close to the tracks and oppose the PVL Boondoggle. "Corruption" is the term that obviously would apply if this process for approval is what happened, and "accessory to corruption" would characterize the RCTC. When the first schoolchild is killed or injured as a result of the PVL Boondoggle (see point 3. below), it is likely that both Mr. Haley and the members of the RCTC who approved the PVL Boondoggle will be named defendants in criminal and civil actions as a result of their collusion.
Obviously, the business interests who use the freight lines could pay to upgrade the lines on their own, or could seek public money not targeted toward transit to upgrade the lines for freight traffic. But why do that, if they can avoid dipping into their own pockets and get public money for what they want under the guise of saying the funds will be spent for passenger lines?
Continuing to “follow the money,” Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), the operator of the freight rail line on this track, will be a major beneficiary of the upgraded rail lines. It has been noted in news media that BNSF is a major contributor to political campaigns. It clearly would be a good investment by BNSF to spend tens of thousands of dollars to “influence” RCTC decision-makers in return for tens of millions of dollars in upgraded freight rail lines. And it is reasonable to believe that RCTC decision-makers would drool at the possibility of what would be to them a major source of campaign funds (in addition to the possibility of jobs for friends and family, other favors, etc.).
--------------------------------
3. The PVL Boondoggle is a clear danger to schoolchildren.
The PVL Boondoggle is a threat to schoolchildren walking across the tracks on their way to and from schools. One reasonable estimate is that there are on the order of 30,000 crossings of the tracks in the University area by schoolchildren on foot or bicycle on their way to and from schools each year (children cross the rail lines on their way to and from nearby elementary, middle, and high schools). In addition to the added rail traffic from Metrolink trains, upgrading the tracks will allow more and faster freight train traffic, greatly increasing the danger to pedestrians crossing the tracks, especially schoolchildren.
We have absolutely no confidence that the RCTC will be willing or able to take the measures needed to ensure the safety of schoolchildren crossing the tracks. We know of no estimates by the RCTC of the risk of the project to schoolchildren, which in itself indicates that the RCTC contemptibly attempted to sweep this danger under the rug - they certainly were aware of this obvious potential danger and failed to address it. We believe it is inevitable that schoolchildren will be killed or seriously injured as a result of the PVL Boondoggle, either by Metrolink trains or by freight trains. (The RCTC often asserts that it has absolutely no influence or control over the operation of the freight trains.) These inevitable tragedies raise several issues:
a. The RCTC must include in its budget provisions for legal settlements for children killed or injured as a result of the PVL Boondoggle, as well as for attorney fees, etc. Since the RCTC had advance notice of the inevitability of such injuries and deaths, it is likely that punitive damages will also be assessed after each injury or death. Each such incident could result in a total cost to the RCTC and/or its parent agencies of, say, approximately $10 million.
b. If it is determined that approval of the PVL Boondoggle was the result of a corrupt political process involving enrichment of RCTC decision-makers and/or their associates, RCTC decision-makers must be prepared to face individual criminal and civil liability. In case of such action, it is quite likely they will receive neither normal governmental immunity nor free legal representation. This document and supporting material will be provided both to (i) the attorneys for children killed or injured by passenger or freight trains on the PVL and (ii) the U.S. Attorney and the California Attorney General (the Riverside County District Attorney will have an obvious conflict of interest in such an investigation).
c. We also believe it the clear responsibility of the Riverside Unified School District (RUSD) to oppose the PVL Boondoggle as an imminent danger to children under its care on their way to and from school. We believe that failure of RUSD to oppose this project will make RUSD administrators and Board members both financially and morally responsible for such deaths and injuries to schoolchildren on their way to and from school.
We have noted that a recent RCTC brochure has at least a window-dressing statement about safety issues:
"The PVL project will consider a comprehensive strategy using appropriate safety measures that will systematically reduce the opportunity for accidents at grade crossings. Possible enhancements include median separators or raised islands, driveway closures, full crossing protection, and Operation Lifesaver education in local schools." [emphases added]
Terms like "consider" and "possible" certainly give no confidence that there is any commitment to do anything of substance - the track record of the RCTC is certainly clear. Also, in the modern "teach and test" education climate, Operation Lifesaver programs will be given short shrift in school programs. Finally, we doubt there is any evidence that such programs have any effect on children's behavior - trains and train tracks have always been an attractive nuisance for children.
As a related issue, we have noted in recent months a trend to more and faster train traffic on the rail line, presumably in part related to the explicit policy of the RCTC to encourage use of the rail lines for freight traffic (although, as pointed out in point 10. below, the primary use of the PVL tracks by BNSF is as a parking lot for rail cars). We believe it is the moral and legal responsibility of both the RCTC and the RUSD to assess on a regular basis the danger to pedestrians due to increased and faster rail traffic, and to take whatever actions are required to ensure the safety of schoolchildren who cross the tracks.
------------------------------------
4. The PVL Boondoggle is a clear danger from train exhaust.
Exhaust from train engines includes substantial quantities of carcinogens, and the particulates from diesel exhaust are damaging to lungs. There is a relatively low level of exposure when a train is moving at a steady pace, and there is only a fraction of a second of exhaust emitted at any one point. However, when a train stops, for example at a station, it emits exhaust for several minutes to which nearby people are exposed, a completely different level of exposure and danger. Indeed, when current freight trains stop for a few minutes close to homes, residents notice acrid diesel exhaust fumes in their back yards and even in their homes - fortunately, this currently happens only infrequently. In addition, such exhaust particles can collect on surfaces and thereby expose nearby residents, especially children, to even more toxic matter.
In the case of the PVL Boondoggle, it would be unconscionable if the RCTC did not assess the probable exposure and risk due to carcinogens and diesel particulates to residents living close to the proposed stations. Stations for diesel trains obviously are not normally sited close to residences.
It is likely that the threat to residents living close to the proposed stations in terms of cancer and lung damage will require the RCTC to use eminent domain authority to purchase and demolish houses within a reasonable distance of the proposed stations. We have no idea whether the “toxic radius” is 50 feet or 50 yards or 500 yards or some other distance, but a simple study should come up with a number for the toxic radius within which there should be no residences. The RCTC must include in its budget funds for such acquisitions, which are likely to be in the millions of dollars.
The playground for Highland Elementary School and a public park frequented by children are located approximately 50 feet from the PVL tracks. In addition, the UCR Child Development Center (day-care center) is located about 100 feet from the tracks, and may also be within the "toxic radius" of the proposed UCR station. It would be unconscionable if the RCTC did not assess the dangers of train emissions - including particulates which collect on surfaces - to such young and sensitive children. In carrying out this assessment, we hope - but are not confident - that the RCTC will use honest data, including modern, conservative risk assessments and realistic values for train frequencies, idling times, and speeds.
It appears to us possible that the PVL Boondoggle will require relocation of both Highland School and the UCR Child Development Center to less dangerous locations. If this is the case, the budget for the PVL Boondoggle should include funding for these relocations, which are likely to be in the millions of dollars.
We note that RCTC proposes using new-generation diesel locomotives for the proposed Metrolink trains, which they say will emit 50% fewer pollutants. Touting a decrease of 50% in emission of carcinogens is, of course, laughable; a decrease of 99.9% may well be what is required to make the cancer danger to nearby residents negligible.
------------------------------------
5. The PVL Boondoggle will lower the quality of life of nearby residents.
(The RCTC has recently removed the Spruce Street station from its list of proposed stations. We will leave in the discussion of this station because it is possible the station will be reinstated later, and because the issues about this station are also relevant to other potential stations in residential neighborhoods - the RCTC certainly has no qualms about siting stations adjacent to single-family residences.)
The RCTC has proposed that two Metrolink stations in the University area be sited adjacent to single-family residences. Such stations would be, of course, sources of light and noise pollution which would adversely affect the quality of life of residents of these homes.
a. Glare from lights in the parking lot of the proposed Spruce Street station would be invasive to nearby residents.
b. Station lights and noise from loudspeakers, cars, malfunctioning car alarms, etc. would be harmful to the quality of life of residents close to both stations.
c. Although the RCTC has proposed that no parking be available at the proposed UCR station, it is inevitable that Metrolink passengers would attempt to park their cars on nearby streets, adding to the burden on these streets already congested by UCR employees and students. The RCTC must present a realistic plan for dealing with this burden.
d. The parking lot for the proposed Spruce Street station would be a magnet for UCR employees and students, who could park in the lot and take a nearby free shuttle bus to and from UCR. The proposed parking lot will have to be rigorously patrolled.
Such light and noise pollution from the proposed UCR and Spruce Street stations would violate current zoning standards for these areas, and must require a zoning variance in order to proceed with construction of the stations. Further, the noise and light pollution of these proposed stations would clearly amount to a legal “taking” of the property of nearby residents. These residents must be appropriately compensated for their losses, and the damage mitigated to the greatest extent possible.
------------------------------------
6. The PVL Boondoggle is an open invitation for corruption.
The RCTC conflict of interest policy posted on their web site is at best laughable, and at worst an open invitation to corruption. There is no prohibition on RCTC policy-makers acting in the financial interests of themselves, their families, their close personal friends, and/or their political supporters rather than for the public good. As just one example, RCTC decision-makers could have financial interests in property or businesses along the I-215 corridor, the major beneficiaries of the PVL Boondoggle. Also, RCTC decision-makers are free to solicit campaign contributions, jobs for family and friends, and other favors from BNSF. And, of course, there is the report that the former Executive Director pushed through the PVL Boondoggle, then went through the revolving door to go work for one of the beneficiaries of the PVL Boondoggle.
If the PVL Boondoggle is approved by the RCTC, we will call upon the U.S. Attorney and the California Attorney General to investigate the finances and holdings of RCTC decision-makers (RCTC members and high-level staff members), their families, and their close personal associates to determine to what degree the approval process was corrupt. We believe that approval of the wasteful, ineffective PVL Boondoggle by the RCTC would in itself constitute prima facie evidence of corruption. We also call on lower-level RCTC staff to act as anonymous whistle-blowers to alert us to conflicts of interest of RCTC decision-makers.
------------------------------------------
7. The PVL Boondoggle is a taking of private property for private gain.
The PVL Boondoggle, an action taken by a semi-public agency for the private gain of businesses and property owners in the I-215 corridor at the expense of residents close to the train tracks, is clearly a “taking” of private property. Consequently, the RCTC will eventually be compelled to compensate residents for loss of quality of life. The RCTC has under(??)estimated that approximately 250 properties will be adversely affected by the PVL Boondoggle. If one assumes an average compensation of, say $100,000 per property, including litigation costs, the total cost to the RCTC for compensation will be approximately $25 million. This figure must be included in budgeting for the PVL Boondoggle.
---------------------------------------------
8. The PVL Boondoggle should require extensive mitigation measures.
There are many actions the RCTC should include in project planning to mitigate the negative effects of the PVL Boondoggle. Primary among these is establishing quiet zones (no sounding of train horns except in emergency situations) where the trains are close to residential properties. Such mitigations will be an absolutely necessary part of the PVL Boondoggle.
In fact, quiet zones should rightfully already have been established in residential areas along the current rail lines as the RCTC explicitly encourages increased use of the tracks for freight use - the increased use encouraged by the RCTC should not be at the expense of the residents who live close to the tracks. The fact that the RCTC has not undertaken establishment of quiet zones in the University area indicates where their priorities lie.
In fact, at a public meeting in June, 2008, a RCTC representative said that the RCTC would not include quiet zones in their budgeting for the PVL Boondoggle, and that the RCTC expected the City of Riverside to pay for quiet zones if there are to be quiet zones. At this point, one can question whether planned RCTC mitigation measures include anything more than providing gas masks to people who live within the toxic radius of the UCR station.
------------------------------------------
9. The PVL Boondoggle may require cost-cutting measures that will make the project non-viable.
We have noted newspaper reports that federal agencies are encouraging the RCTC to carry out the PVL Boondoggle “on the cheap,” presumably with lowered costs reflecting federal cognizance that the PVL Boondoggle is essentially worthless in terms of alleviating vehicle traffic congestion. The obvious first instinct of the RCTC will be to lower costs by lowering mitigation measures, in other words to increase the costs to residents but not to decrease the financial gains by business interests and property owners in the I-215 corridor. We will find such attempts to cut back on mitigation measures to be both unconscionable and the subject of our active opposition. If the PVL Boondoggle goes ahead, we believe it should either be done right or not be done at all.
------------------------------------------
10. The PVL Boondoggle is based on specious data. Why should anyone believe data or numbers produced by the RCTC, or by consultants hired by the RCTC to produce the numbers the RCTC wants? A good question.
The initial environmental impact statement omitted many of the important impacts of the PVL Boondoggle (dangers to schoolchildren, carcinogens, etc.). These omissions were, in our opinion, unconscionable.
In addition, this statement clearly included specious data. As just one example, noise readings were taken at locations that were not representative of the areas affected by the project. Noise readings were taken at locations that are especially noisy already, presumably so the RCTC could assert that only minimal mitigation is required. It is a sad commentary on the integrity of the RCTC and their consultants that they attempted to cook the data in such a fashion, and failed to include obvious negative environmental effects - dangers to schoolchildren, carcinogens, etc. - of the PVL Boondoggle. We hope their subsequent impact statements will not be similarly deceptive and/or dishonest.
The RCTC reported (March 20, 2008) that the current freight volume on the Perris Valley Line amounts to about 118 carloads per week. This number, less than 20 carloads per day, is almost trivial and would be non-objectionable. What they failed to include in their report is the use of the PVL tracks by BNSF as a parking lot for freight trains and rail cars, most of which appear to be empty or to contain material that has no relationship to businesses along the PVL tracks (e.g., tanker-type rail cars containing high-fructose corn syrup). Our guesstimate is that upwards of 1,000 carloads per week use the PVL tracks in this fashion. Trains of more than 50 cars go back and forth on the tracks, often in the middle of the night or in the early morning. One can frequently drive along I-215 and see 100 or so rail cars parked on the tracks, sometimes double-parked on both the main and a spur line. We do not have information from BNSF about why they use the PVL tracks in this fashion; our hypothesis is that parking excess cars on the PVL tracks allows easier movement on their main lines and in freight yards.
One wonders whether such a non-productive use of the PVL tracks is a violation of the operating agreement between RCTC and BNSF - it's one thing to move freight, it's another to use the tracks as a parking lot. We hope that RCTC will obtain and use non-deceptive data in their planning and in their public statements, and non simply instruct their consultants to provide them with the numbers they want. It is unfortunate that the RCTC chose to underestimate by about 90% the number of rail cars currently using the PVL tracks.
Parenthetically, the current use of the PVL by BNSF raises a question about whether the PVL tracks will even be available for use by Metrolink trains. As noted above, the RCTC often asserts that it has no influence or control over the operation of the freight trains. If BNSF chooses - as is apparently its right - to use the PVL tracks as a parking lot for its rail cars, Metrolink trains would be unable to use the rail lines when BNSF rail cars are parked on the tracks. It will be interesting to see what quid pro quo BNSF will demand from the RCTC in order to give up using the PVL tracks as a parking lot. Or perhaps the RCTC has more control over the use of the tracks by BNSF than the RCTC wants to admit - except when it fits their purposes.
To summarize with a question: Why should anyone believe data or numbers produced by the RCTC, or by consultants hired by the RCTC to produce the numbers the RCTC wants? A good question.
-------------------------------------------------
11. The PVL Boondoggle will misuse Measure A funds.
The RCTC proposes to use approximately $50 million in funding from Measure A for the PVL Boondoggle. However, the stated purpose of Measure A was:
“To relieve traffic congestion, improve safety and air quality....”
The PVL Boondoggle will not relieve traffic congestion, will decrease - not improve - the safety of many residents (especially children), and will decrease - not improve - air quality for many residents. That is, the results of the PVL Boondoggle will be contrary to the stated purposes of Measure A. Consequently, we believe that citizens are empowered to oppose such a flagrant misuse of Measure A funds for a freight rail system to enrich property and business owners. It can be anticipated that an organization of citizens who - unlike the RCTC - are concerned about “traffic congestion, safety and air quality” will seek an injunction against misuse of Measure A funds for the PVL Boondoggle freight rail project whose only significant purpose is to enrich business and property owners.
We have noted that the arguments for Measure A included funding for Metrolink-type systems. However, we believe the voters, in voting for Measure A, did not intend to approve funding freight rail systems under the guise of ineffective Metrolink extensions.
-------------------------------------------------
12. The PVL Boondoggle lacks safety oversight.
We have raised a number of issues related to the dangers of the PVL Boondoggle, and have called for regular studies of these dangers and the need for ongoing mitigation measures. However, Metrolink has asserted in a recent case (a car-train crash in Los Angeles, with the crash due to a criminal driver and the deaths of 11 Metrolink passengers and injuries to more than 180 resulting directly from the Metrolink practice of having engines push rather than pull trains in violation of best safety practices) that state and local officials have absolutely no say in safety issues on rail lines - that only the federal government has the authority to regulate and control rail safety. That is, the attitude of Metrolink is clearly, “If it’s not forbidden by the feds, we can do it, no matter how unsafe it is.“ We find such an attitude to be frightening.
The RCTC must make it clear how or if it will oversee the safety of the PVL. If the response is, “We’ll pass the buck to the feds,” there should be no confidence that the RCTC or the PVL Boondoggle will have as a significant priority safety of passengers, people who cross the tracks, or people who live close to the tracks.
------------------------------------------------
13. The PVL Boondoggle is an obsolete, costly, dangerous, and ineffective transportation model. Why does the RCTC regard its role to be demonstrating the truth of the saying, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result"? And why can't the RCTC act on the old admonition: "When you find yourself trapped in a deep hole, stop digging."
The Metrolink transportation model is a stereotypical 20th-Century pork-barrel boondoggle. The Metrolink transportation model is profitable for property and business owners close to the rail lines, construction companies, and political beneficiaries of those who profit from the lines, and is convenient for the few passengers who use it - and who pay only a small fraction of the actual costs - but is generally regarded as an outdated, dangerous, and expensive mode of mass transit. The costs are high; accident rates with both vehicles and pedestrians are unacceptably high; relatively few people are served; and the system has virtually no effect on traffic congestion. All four of these characteristics certainly will come to characterize the PVL Boondoggle if it proceeds in spite of its ineffectiveness, costs, and dangers.
The region for which the RCTC is responsible for transportation policy has had among the worst traffic congestion in the entire United States for a number of years - a clear indictment of the incompetence and lack of vision of the RCTC. The RCTC states - curiously, their tone is almost one of pride rather than embarrassment - that “Riverside County... residents have the longest commutes in the nation.” It is truly sad that the RCTC refuses to look to the 21st Century, rather than to the failed models of the mid-20th Century, to develop innovative mass transit systems which would improve traffic flow. The RCTC could become a leader in transportation issues if it abandoned the PVL Boondoggle and regarded its mission as meeting the transportation needs of its constituent citizens rather than (a) enriching influential business and property owners and (b) breeding cash cows for its members, and (c) enhancing the future employment prospects of its officials.
-----------------------------------
That's all for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment