i dunno maybe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nice idea, but would require changing some laws.
>
> In transportation planning, you have a 20-year
> plan and a 5-year funding program that implements
> the upcoming parts of the plan. But even the
> funding program rarely provides for complete
> project funding in one go unless its a pretty
> small job; it gets split into phases that are
> individually funded as their time comes ... if the
> money is there. If the money gets yanked, the
> project is delayed, and if it's a big
> multi-construction-phase project you pretty much
> have to expect pauses in funding as time goes on.
> No politician is going to commit to a "framework"
> that limits their ability to change funding
> priorities at whim.
>
> Then there are the spending laws: in general, the
> funds are appropriated and must be obligated
> within one fiscal year. They must be spent (in
> California at least, which is similar to Federal
> law) during the year of appropriation and the
> following TWO. Not 20, not 50, TWO. With
> legislative and administrative approval, a
> contract that doesn't require additional funding
> can be extended, usually, by no more than one year
> beyond the original 3. Funds not spent by the end
> are permanently lost, reverting back to the fund
> source. So again, there are hard legal limits on
> individual expenditure packages that guarantee
> pauses in funding unless there's really firm
> political buy-in to annual fund infusions.
>
> HSR, whether or not the polls are correct about
> public opinion in favor, does not have the
> political buy-in required to maintain a steady
> flow of funds. Some "framework" will not change
> that. So it's a nice idea, but it needs a little
> more cooking.
>
> Really, it's always been that way. Past
> megaprojects like the big aqueducts took 5-10 or
> more years to build (even before CEQA!), and
> rarely had full funding up front. Life just
> doesn't work like that. The truthful ones told the
> public that they needed bonds for $X to start the
> project, and would be back for more, perhaps more
> than once, as construction proceeded and new
> issues came up. Hetch Hetchy was an example. There
> can certainly be an administrative framework for
> maintaining some kind of project continuity.
>
> But the public can't be outright lied to: they
> need to be told up front that the final cost can't
> be certain, except that it'll certainly be more
> than anybody can expect up front, when you're
> doing a one-off or the first of its type in the
> region. HSR did lie to people about both the
> likely (though not certain) cost and has continued
> to mess up and cover up, which doesn't leave even
> its supporters with much good feeling. A
> "framework" would be great, but has to be
> realistic even if not precise.
>
> Also, helps to design the framework so things can
> be built in individually useful chunks that can
> synergize as a whole. HSR reacted to fleeting
> funding blocks to do things in the most wasteful
> way possible, ignoring potential interim
> connections and uses, and it will probably take at
> least 10 years to recover from that and make
> progress toward a useful (not just Minimum Viable
> Product) system. They are not *entirely* to blame
> for that, due to highly political funding drops
> and clawbacks, but are only recently at least
> talking like they know what they're doing. Might
> be too late. Kopp and friends included a few
> poison pills in The Proposition, too, that haven't
> helped matters.
>
> At least they got Caltrain electrified, and it's
> working as desired (i.e. better, and with higher
> ridership). Now if only they could get a
> consistent operating funding scheme - they built
> it, the riders came, but now they don't have the
> money to keep running it (on the plus side, the
> power costs less than burning diesel did, so the
> end can be postponed a bit). Same with BART and
> others. And it will be the same with HSR if it
> ever gets beyond the test track stage: I think
> more people will use it than anybody expects, but
> it'll take 20-30 years to achieve an operating
> profit once most of the line is working (typical
> of other HSR lines in the world) and that's just
> politically unacceptable in an
> instant-gratification society (political and
> otherwise).

That is a good synopsis. And it does contribute to some of these problems. But a "simplified" process as proposed by self-serving paid lobbyists for the contractors is not the solution to make it easier to continue funding the CAHSRA fiasco will not fix the management, planning, or contracting deficiencies which have caused this costly bloated gold plated "clusterf##k" at the CAHSRA.

Yes, I am among the two thirds of Californian's who "support" a "high speed rail" system to help improve our mobility in CA. Now, ask how many think that the current CAHSRA project has been well managed, or is too expensive, or is taking too long due to poor planning, management, or oversight. The very cogent and factual arguments that the opponents make easily from the facts, as revealed, thus far. And watch that number come in at 55% killing any voter funding attempts.

It is less costly to build to Coachella and run Brightline service levels than adding the same trip capacity that would be needed on our freeways in today's dollars. And, I was amazed to see the huge number of folks immediately using the trains on the San Juan Cap camera, as soon as the work in San Clemente was complete. The I-5 from LA to SD is the most congested intercity corridor in the US, and we just spent $30 billion over thirty years for widening, to no effect on the 5-hour LA-SD peak and weekend trip times. The next lane added on i-5 will cost us as much a $60 billion. So, people do seem to understand this and want more trains by 2/3rd's majority, at least generically. But is America now just too corrupt and divided by stupidity to deliver on that desire?