 |
Re: Facebook Dumbarton-Evil Thomas Must Be Stopped!
Author: BOB2
Date: 03-09-2019 - 13:24
There was never enough money to effectively rebuild or replace the Dumbarton Bridge in the amounts that had been previously identified (vast "evil" BART conspiracy or no vast "evil" BART conspiracy...). So, no, given what I seen of its current condition, there is no way that it would have happened by now.
Under the law, when we use Federal Highway or Federal Transit funds, we are required do what is called alternatives analysis to identify the "preferred project alternative". This is specified by law, to be done in a "transparent" and "public" scoping and environmental process, which is "iterative" and where the alternatives are presented to the public and the elected officials we voted for, to review what is being proposed, and to provide public and policy maker input. Which is then, often used, to refine and/or modify the preferred project. Which is ultimately adopted in our legally required planning processes, and becomes eligible for funding.
A properly conducted alternatives analysis, for a Dumbarton passenger rail connection would probably look a restoring service with rehab/upgrade of the current bridge and approaches, a new single or double track bridge, a tunnel and/or tube, double or single, which would be evaluated as to capacity, costs, benefits, travel demand, operating parameters, environmental and community impacts, which identify the various trade offs and mitigation needs.
This was the process that was never properly done for a real analysis of our failed runaway money train, since only a pulled straight out of their butts LAX-SFO travel time, on a single pre-determined specified route, regardless of construction or operating costs. This was a process conducted which failed to clearly identify any actual transportation "purpose or need" (travel demand scenarios) against which to measure alternatives for impacts, costs, and/or likely public benefits.
So, plan B, to recoup some plausible public benefit from the taxpayer dollars that we will have already pissed away is already, going to have to take a very significant relook at the business plan to develop a set of more realistic, useful, and less costly alternatives, like going via Altamont/Dumbarton, and how that would serve the demand from what we have constructed, the proposed AC connection, and direct services via a proposed Dumbarton connection
The past has happened, we can't change it. We can't do much to change what we are doing right now, especially if we just keep on doing the same thing. So, that only leaves the future, which we can only hope to change, by getting off of our asses and doing what is needed to change it...
Under the law, when we use Federal Highway or Federal Transit funds, we are required do what is called alternatives analysis to identify the "preferred project alternative". This is specified by law, to be done in a "transparent" and "public" scoping and environmental process, which is "iterative" and where the alternatives are presented to the public and the elected officials we voted for, to review what is being proposed, and to provide public and policy maker input. Which is then, often used, to refine and/or modify the preferred project. Which is ultimately adopted in our legally required planning processes, and becomes eligible for funding.
A properly conducted alternatives analysis, for a Dumbarton passenger rail connection would probably look a restoring service with rehab/upgrade of the current bridge and approaches, a new single or double track bridge, a tunnel and/or tube, double or single, which would be evaluated as to capacity, costs, benefits, travel demand, operating parameters, environmental and community impacts, which identify the various trade offs and mitigation needs.
This was the process that was never properly done for a real analysis of our failed runaway money train, since only a pulled straight out of their butts LAX-SFO travel time, on a single pre-determined specified route, regardless of construction or operating costs. This was a process conducted which failed to clearly identify any actual transportation "purpose or need" (travel demand scenarios) against which to measure alternatives for impacts, costs, and/or likely public benefits.
So, plan B, to recoup some plausible public benefit from the taxpayer dollars that we will have already pissed away is already, going to have to take a very significant relook at the business plan to develop a set of more realistic, useful, and less costly alternatives, like going via Altamont/Dumbarton, and how that would serve the demand from what we have constructed, the proposed AC connection, and direct services via a proposed Dumbarton connection
The past has happened, we can't change it. We can't do much to change what we are doing right now, especially if we just keep on doing the same thing. So, that only leaves the future, which we can only hope to change, by getting off of our asses and doing what is needed to change it...
