 |
Re: Dumbarton History/Dumbarton Options and Navigation access issues....tunnel is looking better
Author: Craig Tambo
Date: 12-22-2018 - 16:43
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
The "keep Petaluma River navigable" campaign was backed by the Petaluma & Santa Rosa RR, who operated steamboats to San Francisco, allowing quicker movement of cargo off their trains to the consumers in the city. So the benefits to the city also benefited the "evil" railroad. Actually, it worked quite well for all parties concerned.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
The "keep Petaluma River navigable" campaign was backed by the Petaluma & Santa Rosa RR, who operated steamboats to San Francisco, allowing quicker movement of cargo off their trains to the consumers in the city. So the benefits to the city also benefited the "evil" railroad. Actually, it worked quite well for all parties concerned.
