Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (595516)	12/12/2010 7:14:31 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 1583727

Roelof van Ark Lays Out SF-LA Rationale Dec 1st, 2010 \| Posted by Robert Cruickshank CHSRA CEO Roelof van Ark took to a right-of-center blog, Fox and Hounds Daily, to mount a strong defense of the proposal to begin building the SF-LA high speed rail line in the Central Valley. Van Ark pushed back hard against the argument that the Borden-Corcoran route was a “train to nowhere” by pointing out that it was merely the first construction site of a much longer route, and comparing it to other infrastructure projects whose first segments aren’t remembered but whose value is widely acknowledged: Do you know where construction began on our nation’s interstate system following the signing of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956?… Just like that stretch of Interstate 70 through St. Charles County, Missouri – the first construction to begin on the interstate highway building project in the ‘50s, ultimately, the first piece of high-speed rail infrastructure built in California will be but one piece of that statewide system. And the next generations of riders will not be concerned, as they speed from one part of our great state to another, with which few miles were the first to be built. This thinking makes a lot of sense, although there is one rather significant difference: the Interstate Highway Act fully funded the construction of that system, whereas so far the federal government has failed to fully fund construction of an HSR system. The uncertainty over future federal funding is driving the battle over which segment of the route should get built first – if there was more assurance regarding the funding, most of these problems, from the segment choice to the various arguments over vertical alignment, would be much more easily resolved. Van Ark also framed the decision-making on which segment should get funded as largely the dictate of the Federal Railroad Administration: Our partners at the FRA have narrowed this decision for us, telling California that we must use the entirety of the federal funding awarded thus far in a single stretch of track in the Central Valley – not in the Los Angeles of San Francisco areas. There are many reasons that this makes sense. Spreading the money throughout the state in a number of smaller projects would risk the funding being swallowed up into existing transportation systems such that we don’t see a substantial new benefit from the work. And of course, it is our Central Valley where California will experience true high-speed rail at 220 miles per hour on new tracks dedicated to the bullet trains alone. This too is a sensible way to frame the issue. Van Ark correctly notes that it wasn’t the Authority which chose the Central Valley, but he makes a very good defense of the location anyway. But our task at hand is not to build stretches of rail track. It is a misconception that the world’s fastest trains will ever run on a few miles of track or that we will ever operate service for paying passengers between points such as Los Angeles and Anaheim or Fresno and Bakersfield. Our task at hand is to build a statewide system. This is probably the best part of the op-ed, and likely the most important. Van Ark here is making a pre-emptive defense against the “train to nowhere” argument by pointing out that California is indeed connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles, two of the nation’s most prominent and important urban centers – and that the segment that the CHSRA board will approve tomorrow just happens to be the beginning of that overall system. Any claims of a “train to nowhere” are therefore deliberate smears that willfully ignore the fact of the overall system destinations. It’s a good defense of the current project rationale by CEO van Ark – and given the criticism the Borden-Corcoran construction site is getting in the Merced area ahead of tomorrow’s CHSRA board meeting, it’s a defense that is quite timely. I’m agnostic on exactly what segment the board votes to build first, primarily because I agree with van Ark – we’re in the business of building a statewide system, and as long as track is being laid and stations being built, I’m happy. cahsrblog.com