 |
Re: Dumbarton History/Dumbarton Options and Navigation access issues....tunnel is looking better
Author: BOB2
Date: 12-22-2018 - 14:16
I saw somewhere, in the story of the Petaluma and Santa Rosa, that they used to say in Petaluma: "Dredge the River!" in a campaign for some of the first "federal" navigation funds under Roosevelt (Teddy that is...). So that Petaluma could have an alternative outlet for the eggs and lumber, as a "federal" waterway and "port", instead of being in the "clutches" of the "predatory" "evil" "trains"....
So from what I've seen, Federal navigation laws and regulations are even more "byzantine", than much of what we have to deal with FRA, FTA, or FHWA. And, there are whole other "universes" of actors and stakeholders who must be pacified and/or mollified, or present a process fraught with legal obstacles to progress and/or consensus, which can be both costly to taxpayers and/or politically damaging to projects like these.
I don't think we would be talking clearances or "access" at Dumbarton on the order of the new Long Beach "high bridge" replacement to clear the new "super sized" container ships.
But, a lift or swing bridge are out of the question for operational and safety issues with a modern rail bridge for a modern "high capacity/high frequency" electrified rail passenger line. This increases operating costs, reduces rail system reliability.
So any "new DT" "high" Dumbarton rail bridge would have to clear, whatever had to safely pass under it, and that would add significantly to impacts on the wetlands on the bridge approaches and bridge costs.
And thus, this is why a bored tunnel and/or tube option, safely "under" the deepest draft vessels, might well be a cheaper, less impactful, and potentially higher performing (lower gradient) Dumbarton rail connection alternative.
Congratulations however, every one of you has done very well on this really "difficult" "common sense" task of "scoping" a sensible range of options, to include in any properly done comprehensive alternatives analysis process.
Yeah, there's a lot of numbers of collect and crunch after that to compare "trade offs". "costs" and "benefits". But, as far as I'm concerned, every one of you is still way more qualified to work as "professional" "planners" on this project, than the sycophantic "promoters" who gave us this fiasco at the CHSRA.
It's been 10 years since the HSR bonds passed, how many "usable" components, segments, or projects have been completed so far....? It's was time for Plan B, about 6 or 7 years ago.
So from what I've seen, Federal navigation laws and regulations are even more "byzantine", than much of what we have to deal with FRA, FTA, or FHWA. And, there are whole other "universes" of actors and stakeholders who must be pacified and/or mollified, or present a process fraught with legal obstacles to progress and/or consensus, which can be both costly to taxpayers and/or politically damaging to projects like these.
I don't think we would be talking clearances or "access" at Dumbarton on the order of the new Long Beach "high bridge" replacement to clear the new "super sized" container ships.
But, a lift or swing bridge are out of the question for operational and safety issues with a modern rail bridge for a modern "high capacity/high frequency" electrified rail passenger line. This increases operating costs, reduces rail system reliability.
So any "new DT" "high" Dumbarton rail bridge would have to clear, whatever had to safely pass under it, and that would add significantly to impacts on the wetlands on the bridge approaches and bridge costs.
And thus, this is why a bored tunnel and/or tube option, safely "under" the deepest draft vessels, might well be a cheaper, less impactful, and potentially higher performing (lower gradient) Dumbarton rail connection alternative.
Congratulations however, every one of you has done very well on this really "difficult" "common sense" task of "scoping" a sensible range of options, to include in any properly done comprehensive alternatives analysis process.
Yeah, there's a lot of numbers of collect and crunch after that to compare "trade offs". "costs" and "benefits". But, as far as I'm concerned, every one of you is still way more qualified to work as "professional" "planners" on this project, than the sycophantic "promoters" who gave us this fiasco at the CHSRA.
It's been 10 years since the HSR bonds passed, how many "usable" components, segments, or projects have been completed so far....? It's was time for Plan B, about 6 or 7 years ago.
