User talk:XavierItzm/Archives/2024/January

CAHSR

Hi, I undid your recent revision. In my undo note I cited some problems with the news article. Frankly, things are just too uncertain for 7-9 years out at this point. Timeline, budget, and revenue forecasts are particularly problematic, and changes in management practices are expected to have an impact on how well (and how quickly) things are being accomplished.

The Authority's figures are targets, and if everything works well are doable. The figures in the news article are possible, but more likely to be outliers. The article didn't state that. I've also no idea why the article omitted mention of the Merced to Madera segment , since this is being done in parallel with the Shafter to Bakersfield segment, and I see no separation of those processes in the Authority's documents.

This is a very complex and massive project, and it has had to navigate through the most stringent environmental laws in the country as well as many eminent domain proceedings and a great many lawsuits to acquire the 2000 parcels needed. In short, the project has done a lot, gotten on its feet, and is running OK, but is still underfunded -- which makes planning very difficult.

Just saying it's in trouble and implying it's being mismanaged isn't accurate. So, I fault this news article; its too short and doesn't give enough good data; it's also not really saying anything that hasn't been in the critic's refrain from years ago (so isn't new), and that data is also already cited in the Authority's documents. So, I think the article doesn't do a fair job of characterizing the whole project. It didn't even mention starting Track and Systems installation and the train order, which are on target for this year and essential to timely operation! As to the timeline and cost of the IOS, no one really has a good handle on those yet, except to say the faster it's done, the lower it's cost.

I think that in the first couple months of 2024 we'll be getting a clearer picture from the Authority where things stand, and then the timeline and cost data can be more accurately updated. The Authority is proceeding on course (using best practices) to get this done (witness the recent engineering oversight contract for the coming project steps). Robert92107 (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

CAHSR "stalled"?

NYTimes says CAHSR is stalled? Sorry, but this appears counter-factual, since by any reasonable definition of "stalled" that does not describe the current construction. I tried to see the article, but since I'm not a subscriber I wasn't able to. Please give the relevant text here. I see this is listed in the Economics section, but I suspect it is more of an opinion piece, and without good facts, it should be treated as such. In other words, I doubt this is "news" but rather one author's opinion.

Read https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Agenda-Item-2-Board-Memo-Expendature-Authorization-Request-20240118-A11Y.pdf. So, perhaps in the future (9 or 10 years?) it will be "stalled", but I see no evidence for that now. You also cite NO factual basis for this opinion.

I am doubting that this item even belongs here in the intro PPs. It looks like it should get moved to Opinions. Also, looking at that snippet of a quote you gave, it gives the impression that the writer knows nothing about the magnitude and complexity of the project, as well as the legal hurdles needed to be overcome.

Robert92107 (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, obviously if it were an opinion article I wouldn’t have used source The New York Times, because our policy clearly states opinion articles cannot be used to assert facts. So, no, not an opinion article. XavierItzm (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ll opine here: people’s definition of “stalled” may vary. You see someone stuck on the side of the road in the snow. His wheels are spinning! His engine is working! But no genuine progress towards his destination (call it, for example, “downtown L.A.”). One observer may call that person “stalled”, whereas someone else may say, no!, the person is not stalled, he is simply a few decades behind on his trip to “downtown L.A.” Potato, Potatoe. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I find this reply "non-responsive". I asked you for the facts stated in the article WHY the project is "stalled" as opposed to merely "taking longer than originally expected". You didn't give any. As to a car's wheels spinning in the mud, that is "functionally stalled" since even if the engine is running the car is not progressing. CAHSR is progressing by any definition of the word I know. So, I just don't see any factual evidence to the contrary. As for California not being able to complete the most complex civil engineering project in the country on its original expected timeline, this is more a reflection of a too simplistic ballot measure than the state's inability to complete it. (After all, without an examination in detail, who would have thought that 119 miles of roadbed would also require about 90 large concrete structures to be built across the "empty farmland" as well as shifting the path of a four-lane freeway?)

So, since the Authority is using money to continuously construct the project and progress towards a functional (albeit now truncated) operational system, I still fail to see the factual basis for saying it is stalled! As I said before, if funding runs out (in 9-10 years) THEN it might be accurately termed "stalled", but we're not at that point NOW!

If there is NO evidence stated in the article other than "it's taking too long", then that fact also needs to be presented along with the citation. Frankly, just because an article appears in a prestigious source does not automatically make it newsworthy or accurate. Robert92107 (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)