Wham Bam Killer Tram
By Thomas Anthony Gordon | 08/25/09 | 05:25 PM EDT | 2 Comments
The Santa Ana City Council is currently meeting in a "special" work study session regarding transit. (Claudia Alvarez was absent, despite it being a special meeting)
By know we all know the enthusiasm certain members of this council have for light rail, and the huge sums of government dollars attached to the "study" and potential implementation of it. Just recently, The Santa Ana City Council issued a contract worth nearly $ 5 million, despite serious questions about the award process and zero public discussion prior to awarding said contract.
But is light rail practical, feasible or realistic, and is it even safe?
Light rail in Los Angeles kills nine times as many people per passenger mile as buses. Houston's 7.5 mile light rail has had accidents an average of once every four days.
With more than 50,000 kids moving to and from school in Santa Ana daily, how long until one is struck and killed by light rail?
People who advocate for light rail and commuter rail should ask themselves: Do they really want to be responsible for the extra deaths, not to mention property damage that their expensive transit systems will cause? Ironically, the people who favor rail transit are often the same people who insist that life is sacred and priceless.
TAGS: Santa Ana, Light Rail, Santa Ana City Council, Safety, SAUSD
2 Comments | Related Topics »Orange County (CA)
RECOMMENDED SITES















Comments
I was present at this special meeting.
I was hoping that the nagging issue would be discussed of why Cordoba, the lower ranked company,
was awarded this job. In my opinion, this was the big elephant in the room, although
there were certainly other important issues being addressed.
- reply
|Light rail in such a spread out community is a very long term investment. The projected rider numbers will not pay for that investment, nor can it, without a huge increase in population density. While many like the idea of investing in fixed infrastructure, it's return on investment is very poor. It simply will not be profitable as planned and will become another black hole of expense that the "temporary tax" Measure M will be asked to pay, or the dwindling city coffers will be forced to subsidize it.
The investment of OUR money to pay for this at this time certainly seems to be another political payoff to friends, who I am very sure will help fund future political campaigns of our fine electees...
- reply
|Post new comment