 |
Re: Calif. High-speed rail on track for debacle
Author: mook
Date: 07-17-2011 - 14:29
Did it say WHEN the 2:40 schedule would happen?
Unless $40B or so is available NOW (which it isn't) the system cannot physically be built to a standard that will allow that at a time certain. In Real Life, there's no alternative to using conventional tracks for terminal access and probably in a few other areas for quite some time. Even accepting the wildly optimistic financial and ridership projections and the starter line as required by Federal funds currently allocated, you can't realistically have the "promised" timing for at least 20 years -- say 2030-2040ish. I really don't see anything wrong with that as long as the interim pieces (in the Central Valley if we do what the Feds tell us to for their money) are usable for SOMETHING (Amtrak, maybe even some freight) while the rest of the system works itself out or if the rest of the system just never happens. Face it, the funding available right now would hardly be enough to even start one of the big tunnels out of the Bay Area or LA, regardless of what route is used, but could probably build a substantial chunk of the Central Valley line (they're now talking about Merced to Bakersfield, not just Fresno?).
What the HSRA needs to do at this point (should have done it a couple of years ago), IMNSHO, is to hire somebody from Caltrans with a good knowledge of project delivery and a little interest in rail to run the implementation side. A similar person from one of the big railroads wouldn't be a bad candidate either. The complaints by the farmers near Hanford, for instance, happen whenever a new line (road, rail, pipe, power, etc.) will split somebody's land. Look at I-5; you see over- and undercrossings (not just interchanges) at least every few miles, which are mostly there because the farmers need to cross. No reason HSRA couldn't do that; they just haven't talked to anybody about it. Of course, the noise from the farmers could also be a negotiating ploy for land price - which is legitimate if it doesn't get out of hand. That's the kind of detail that has to be worked out at the environmental document stage if not before to minimize legal and PR issues, and it does affect the project cost so ignoring it isn't smart. It's the kind of attention to detail you need in management to turn magic marker lines on a map into a buildable project, and to properly manage the consultants who should by now be delivering product not guiding the process.
Unless $40B or so is available NOW (which it isn't) the system cannot physically be built to a standard that will allow that at a time certain. In Real Life, there's no alternative to using conventional tracks for terminal access and probably in a few other areas for quite some time. Even accepting the wildly optimistic financial and ridership projections and the starter line as required by Federal funds currently allocated, you can't realistically have the "promised" timing for at least 20 years -- say 2030-2040ish. I really don't see anything wrong with that as long as the interim pieces (in the Central Valley if we do what the Feds tell us to for their money) are usable for SOMETHING (Amtrak, maybe even some freight) while the rest of the system works itself out or if the rest of the system just never happens. Face it, the funding available right now would hardly be enough to even start one of the big tunnels out of the Bay Area or LA, regardless of what route is used, but could probably build a substantial chunk of the Central Valley line (they're now talking about Merced to Bakersfield, not just Fresno?).
What the HSRA needs to do at this point (should have done it a couple of years ago), IMNSHO, is to hire somebody from Caltrans with a good knowledge of project delivery and a little interest in rail to run the implementation side. A similar person from one of the big railroads wouldn't be a bad candidate either. The complaints by the farmers near Hanford, for instance, happen whenever a new line (road, rail, pipe, power, etc.) will split somebody's land. Look at I-5; you see over- and undercrossings (not just interchanges) at least every few miles, which are mostly there because the farmers need to cross. No reason HSRA couldn't do that; they just haven't talked to anybody about it. Of course, the noise from the farmers could also be a negotiating ploy for land price - which is legitimate if it doesn't get out of hand. That's the kind of detail that has to be worked out at the environmental document stage if not before to minimize legal and PR issues, and it does affect the project cost so ignoring it isn't smart. It's the kind of attention to detail you need in management to turn magic marker lines on a map into a buildable project, and to properly manage the consultants who should by now be delivering product not guiding the process.
