 |
Re: Notification and coordination plans bad?
Author: BOB2
Date: 10-10-2014 - 15:51
Bob R.
I was just being a bit facetious on some of that. I've done this way too long to expect perfect, lots of things require compromise, and the pursuit of perfection, at the expense of the doable and practical, is a fools errand.
I don't think this is that bad of an idea because most of the kind of information that is needed for planning, improving notification, and response is already in place. Packaging it, and establishing relationships, processes, and procedures for notification is very doable. And, the goal of better planning and coordination of response just isn't that onerous a requirement, considering the range of best to worst case incidents, and the potential consequences and risks.
This is hardly jack booted thugs....more like something from George Deukmejian-basic public safety. Some exceptionally catastrophic accidents and real concerns over the level of preparedness for the significant increase in volumes of oil coming into CA are legitimate. This is far less "feel good" and duplicative than the PUC's bridge efforts.
As someone who has participated in other transportation related disaster response and recovery planning, I found the relationships and procedures developed were among the most important outcomes. You at least will know who to call and what they can do to help.
Bob, you've done a lot more mission planning than this to bomb the ruskies, it doesn't necessarily have to be perfect, just so it is effective enough to achieve the objective.
It's Friday, past 3 pm, so it's time to test some of those Lodi Cabs.....
BTW, the new guy at TRAC seems to be on the ball.
Bob2
I was just being a bit facetious on some of that. I've done this way too long to expect perfect, lots of things require compromise, and the pursuit of perfection, at the expense of the doable and practical, is a fools errand.
I don't think this is that bad of an idea because most of the kind of information that is needed for planning, improving notification, and response is already in place. Packaging it, and establishing relationships, processes, and procedures for notification is very doable. And, the goal of better planning and coordination of response just isn't that onerous a requirement, considering the range of best to worst case incidents, and the potential consequences and risks.
This is hardly jack booted thugs....more like something from George Deukmejian-basic public safety. Some exceptionally catastrophic accidents and real concerns over the level of preparedness for the significant increase in volumes of oil coming into CA are legitimate. This is far less "feel good" and duplicative than the PUC's bridge efforts.
As someone who has participated in other transportation related disaster response and recovery planning, I found the relationships and procedures developed were among the most important outcomes. You at least will know who to call and what they can do to help.
Bob, you've done a lot more mission planning than this to bomb the ruskies, it doesn't necessarily have to be perfect, just so it is effective enough to achieve the objective.
It's Friday, past 3 pm, so it's time to test some of those Lodi Cabs.....
BTW, the new guy at TRAC seems to be on the ball.
Bob2
