Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg
^The only real "fiasco" with CAHSR is how poorly managed the image of the project is. The public has no idea what is going and so opponents are able to shape it to their advantage. There is no face to the project.
Someone add to this list or correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty much the only other ways this thing could have played out by this point given available funding would have been:
1. Build SF/LA approaches first, which would only be usable by commuter rail until the major tunnels are built.a) Caltrains between Transbay and Gilroy
b) Metrolink between Burbank and Anaheim 2. Build Central Valley first, but along I-5, which would have no intermediate stations and terminal stations near Los Benos in the north and tiny Wheeler Ridge where I-5 levels out north of Grapevine. No future access to Las Vegas.
Obviously, had Clinton won the White House in 2016 things would be further along. We likely would have avoided Gavin's ambiguous "halt", at the very least. I think when you consider a HSR line paralleling I-5 but with zero intermediate stations and no entrance into either LA or SF you better understand the decision to serve the various small Central Valley cities, which all grew in a straight line along the old railroad. |
Starting to award design-build construction contracts with only 15% design completed, as opposed to 30% (some agencies now even do 60% for high risk sections) and awarding contracts before land acquisition was complete was a fiasco that did not involve a poorly managed image problem. A lot of the high spending for this project is paying contractors to be on standby because they were awarded the construction contract but the agency had not yet acquired the land for them to work on it.