Post by ferryfast admin on Mar 15, 2012 11:07:06 GMT -5
On the Lighter Side: Why build this...
Opinion by Stuart Leavenworth, Editorial page editor
sleavenworth@sacbee.com
www.sacbee.com/2012/03/11/4326299/on-the-lighter-side-why-build.html
Published: Sunday, Mar. 11, 2012 - 2:00 am | Page 3E
Upon taking office, Gov. Jerry Brown inherited a pair of infrastructure lemons. Pursued separately, these projects will likely leave the governor with a sour taste in his mouth by the time he leaves office. But if he takes my advice, he could end up making lemonade out of lemons.
One project is a set of proposed water tunnels – bigger than the Panama Canal – that some genius engineers think can actually be dug under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to deliver water to Southern California. Just imagine. Tunnels under the Delta. Think of all the bodies they will unearth.
The other is the state's high-speed rail project, which – to keep costs down – will have a first leg starting in the San Joaquin Valley. Even so, the price tag keeps escalating. As our learned Forum contributor Steve Wiegand recently noted, "The project's costs are estimated at from $99 billion to $178 gazillion, depending on whether we opt for the seat warmers and faux leather trim."
If California were China – with a strong central government, cheap labor, no real environmental protections and a treasury stuffed with U.S. dollars – we could probably deliver both of these projects in two or three years.
But we are not China. We have become an economic colony of China, with Wal-Mart as our viceroy. So we need to manage our expectations.
So here is what I propose: Instead of building tunnels under the Delta, we build a simple, big, wide canal. And instead of building high-speed rail, we instead invest in high-speed ferries.
The ferries would run up and down the newly built canal, connecting Sacramento with the Clifton Court Forebay. There, in the south Delta, a set of high-speed locks will lift the ferries up and down, allowing them to continue their journeys along the existing California Aqueduct.
Under my proposal, we could save billions by avoiding the cost of laying track, building grade separations and constructing viaducts for the trains.
Instead, we'd use the water delivery canals as high-speed highways. And just to make sure that ferry customers were doing their part to replenish the water supply for Southern California, there would signs in the rest rooms urging passengers to "flush twice."
Don't get me wrong. I love high-speed trains. I've taken them in Japan, Norway, Germany and other countries. Just last October, I was sitting in a comfy reclining chair, eating olives and drinking beer, as a high-speed train in Spain whisked me from Seville to Madrid. It even had faux leather trim.
But for my money (whatever that is worth) ferries are more fun. At their best, they are rollicking pleasure cruises that last a mercifully short time. If you've ever taken the Vallejo ferry back from AT&T Park after a Giants victory, you know what I mean.
But wait, you say, my high-speed plan has potential flaws.
Let me address these one at a time.
The first problem is that ferries are slow – roughly four times slower than high-speed trains. The top speed, for instance, of the Benchijigua Express – a fast ferry that holds more than 1,200 passengers and links up the Canary Islands – is 48 miles per hour.
Yes, that is tortoise-like, but remember, we will live in a future where freeways will be overcrowded, airports will be jammed and high-speed rail will never happen, largely because of rich NIMBYs in Menlo Park and Burlingame. Given that reality, 48 mph might be considered fast in the future. And who knows? Maybe scientists at Cal Tech or some other campus will invent a hydrofoil that could top 65 mph.
The other problem is a certain mountain range. My plan, as outlined, would only help passengers get from Sacramento to south of Bakersfield. That's where the open waters of the California Aqueduct end and water is pumped over the Tehachapis.
No problem. Because we have saved so much money not building high-speed rail, there would be funds available to punch a ferry and water tunnel straight through the Tehachapis. The ferries could then stream right into the San Fernando Valley, the nation's porn capital. We could call it the "Tunnel of Love."
Gov. Jerry Brown visited our editorial board last week, so I pitched him my idea to switch his plans around and send high-speed ferries down a peripheral canal.
"Well, it may not be a peripheral canal. It may be peripheral tunnels," he said, acting like I was really serious with this suggestion.
I get the sense you don't think much of my idea, I responded.
"No, I like ferries. I really do," he said.
I will take that as affirmation my idea has some traction.
Read more here: www.sacbee.com/2012/03/11/4326299/on-the-lighter-side-why-build.html#storylink=cpy
Opinion by Stuart Leavenworth, Editorial page editor
sleavenworth@sacbee.com
www.sacbee.com/2012/03/11/4326299/on-the-lighter-side-why-build.html
Published: Sunday, Mar. 11, 2012 - 2:00 am | Page 3E
Upon taking office, Gov. Jerry Brown inherited a pair of infrastructure lemons. Pursued separately, these projects will likely leave the governor with a sour taste in his mouth by the time he leaves office. But if he takes my advice, he could end up making lemonade out of lemons.
One project is a set of proposed water tunnels – bigger than the Panama Canal – that some genius engineers think can actually be dug under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to deliver water to Southern California. Just imagine. Tunnels under the Delta. Think of all the bodies they will unearth.
The other is the state's high-speed rail project, which – to keep costs down – will have a first leg starting in the San Joaquin Valley. Even so, the price tag keeps escalating. As our learned Forum contributor Steve Wiegand recently noted, "The project's costs are estimated at from $99 billion to $178 gazillion, depending on whether we opt for the seat warmers and faux leather trim."
If California were China – with a strong central government, cheap labor, no real environmental protections and a treasury stuffed with U.S. dollars – we could probably deliver both of these projects in two or three years.
But we are not China. We have become an economic colony of China, with Wal-Mart as our viceroy. So we need to manage our expectations.
So here is what I propose: Instead of building tunnels under the Delta, we build a simple, big, wide canal. And instead of building high-speed rail, we instead invest in high-speed ferries.
The ferries would run up and down the newly built canal, connecting Sacramento with the Clifton Court Forebay. There, in the south Delta, a set of high-speed locks will lift the ferries up and down, allowing them to continue their journeys along the existing California Aqueduct.
Under my proposal, we could save billions by avoiding the cost of laying track, building grade separations and constructing viaducts for the trains.
Instead, we'd use the water delivery canals as high-speed highways. And just to make sure that ferry customers were doing their part to replenish the water supply for Southern California, there would signs in the rest rooms urging passengers to "flush twice."
Don't get me wrong. I love high-speed trains. I've taken them in Japan, Norway, Germany and other countries. Just last October, I was sitting in a comfy reclining chair, eating olives and drinking beer, as a high-speed train in Spain whisked me from Seville to Madrid. It even had faux leather trim.
But for my money (whatever that is worth) ferries are more fun. At their best, they are rollicking pleasure cruises that last a mercifully short time. If you've ever taken the Vallejo ferry back from AT&T Park after a Giants victory, you know what I mean.
But wait, you say, my high-speed plan has potential flaws.
Let me address these one at a time.
The first problem is that ferries are slow – roughly four times slower than high-speed trains. The top speed, for instance, of the Benchijigua Express – a fast ferry that holds more than 1,200 passengers and links up the Canary Islands – is 48 miles per hour.
Yes, that is tortoise-like, but remember, we will live in a future where freeways will be overcrowded, airports will be jammed and high-speed rail will never happen, largely because of rich NIMBYs in Menlo Park and Burlingame. Given that reality, 48 mph might be considered fast in the future. And who knows? Maybe scientists at Cal Tech or some other campus will invent a hydrofoil that could top 65 mph.
The other problem is a certain mountain range. My plan, as outlined, would only help passengers get from Sacramento to south of Bakersfield. That's where the open waters of the California Aqueduct end and water is pumped over the Tehachapis.
No problem. Because we have saved so much money not building high-speed rail, there would be funds available to punch a ferry and water tunnel straight through the Tehachapis. The ferries could then stream right into the San Fernando Valley, the nation's porn capital. We could call it the "Tunnel of Love."
Gov. Jerry Brown visited our editorial board last week, so I pitched him my idea to switch his plans around and send high-speed ferries down a peripheral canal.
"Well, it may not be a peripheral canal. It may be peripheral tunnels," he said, acting like I was really serious with this suggestion.
I get the sense you don't think much of my idea, I responded.
"No, I like ferries. I really do," he said.
I will take that as affirmation my idea has some traction.
Read more here: www.sacbee.com/2012/03/11/4326299/on-the-lighter-side-why-build.html#storylink=cpy