Oh oh

What's this?  Today a headline from the LA Times, December 9,2015 says the CA HSR is loosing its support.  Well that's not a difficult prospect when there is no foundation or financial funding source.  At least Fresno will get a 17 mile infrastructure to Madera for the $3.2billion spent.

What would it take for a Fresno politician to wake up and realize this is how to engage the $100million Measure C rail consolidation project?

Slippery Slope

With the proposed HSR route going south of Palmdale, the terrain is preparing itself.  Since it's next to Magic Mountain, this section's EIR can include a roll-a-coaster segment.  Governor Jerry Brown can announce this as the "Fun Part" of the journey and hire amusement park engineers to design this section. 

City of Santa Clarita Government

https://www.facebook.com/cityofsantaclarita/photos/pb.207318357788.-2207520000.1448121842./10153673749612789/?type=3&theater   

A Californian Deception

In a May 10 2015 LA Times article, the writers evaluate the fares of California's proposed high speed rail project to the projected operations and maintenance expenses.  The fares fluctuate, depending on who forecasts the potential ridership models.  It is a good article to read but, no where does the article mention the cost of payback for current bonds or future funds needed for the system's infrastructure capital costs.  With the potential maximum ridership forecasts of $2billion per year and a zero cost for annual maintenance, a zero percent bond would take 34 years to payback at the unrealistic and exaggerated infrastructure expense rate.  Add a few percentage points and add a few more years to the bonds payout costs.  The annual O and M (operations and maintenance) costs are forecast at $700million.

So, at an estimated infrastructure capital costs payback of $1.3billion annually, it would take 52 years with zero interest bonds.

In a related CA HSR story, the February 24,2015 LA Times article writes about the negative impacts which intensify urban sprawl.

There are two types of real estate development that foster urban growth: automobile centric and transit oriented design.  Transit Oriented growth stimulates concentrated economic development.  Automobile centric designs stimulate urban sprawl.

California's proposed high speed rail line does not accommodate the most important aspect to transit oriented development which necessitates transit oriented urban growth.  The proposed system lacks an ability of passenger connectivity except possibly San Francisco which is a transit oriented designed city.  

Transit Oriented Development

Popularity of progressive etymologically declares the phrase New Urbanism as freestyle life, yet, it’s a euphemism for confined social derogation to the not so progressive populous.   Nonetheless, the importance of sustainable urban growth surpasses political and religious agendas of ideology.  The pretzel based logic of progressivism has twisted itself into a confinement of politically bias morals wanting value.  The objective to sustainable urban growth requires so much more than requirements to confined living space.

In the modern world; if a product can be consumed more easily from a store, nature is too slow.  So goes life in the fast pace of our car culture, in too big of a hurry to watch grass grows.  For urban growth; any residential dwelling deprived of a sky view and an eatable garden, strips elements of harmony from one’s quality of life.

Value judgments are a necessity to personal increase but, are made by an individual’s choice.  A minor value judgment is whether a resident will choose to grow one’s own food or go to the store or restaurant.  Striped of an option to grow one’s own garden foods adds to an unsustainable life environment.

Growing a portion of an individual’s food impacts an area’s economy.  When a garden can produce harvests that are marketable to neighbors the economic effect is greater.  When small gardens are abundant, the result can be measurably accounted for economically by a healthier community.

The challenge to New Urbanism is the tentacles of trends.  When planners and designers meet the repetitiveness of bureaucracy; creativity is stifled and efficiency vanishes.  Government agencies mandating design opinions based on popular trends or adhering to the terminology of a particular political viewpoint produce failed policy.  Ideas that began with rooftop garden innovation for the purpose of sustainability have expanded to the modern greening popularity.  Any policy which lacks the importance of mineral nutrition is given over to mineral deprived hydroponics, herbicides, and genetically modified organisms that have the nutritional value of waxed faux food.

Government has a pattern of foisting failed policies.  The task of bureaucratic procedure is to ensure its existence and is the nemesis to innovation and independent thought.  Staff policy is set by the opinion of properly trained and conditioned management to enhance department budgeting.  The importance of sustainable urban growth has to be cognizant of these government flaws.   It must be recognized that the living space restrictions in Government legislation is vulnerable to decisions made by the popularity of terminology from a correct political viewpoint lacking a coherent root understanding of what sustainable urban growth entails.  The inanity of this is that politics is misplaced for value and lacks personal increase to citizens.

Failed government policies that force groups of people into the confinement of high density residential projects cause disastrous negative social reaction.  Basic laws of physics reveal an explosion is more violent when wrapped in a tight container.

The foundation of urban growth, that is; the most important and fundamental core of all sustainable urban growth is its transportation.  In the popularity of nearly all New Urbanism conversation is its lack of recognition to what is at the core of urban growth: sustainable transportation.  There is much excitement and fanfare for electric cars and even automated cars.  A freeway full of electric or automated-vehicle traffic is still subjected to overload when the number of vehicles exceeds its designed capacity.  In other words; the electric and automated cars are still in the classification of unsustainable transportation with their automobile centric land-use road design.

New Urbanism practice which expounds on transit oriented development generally acknowledges the unsustainable automobile centric designs.  The exercise of transit oriented development with street car implementation was a practical approach to urban growth in the 19^th century.  Today’s social temperature is in desperate need of new and appropriate transit options, however, street cars were designed as a mode of transportation in the 1800s.  Today’s societal needs require more diversified transit system load and delivery options.

This again says New Technology Transit with Transit Oriented Development is the only way to attain sustainable urban growth.  The point of this post is pointing out that eatable gardens must be implemented in the residential component of development design. 

Changing Transportation Options

It’s been stated on this blog before and is worth repeating.  How can people improve their environment with the continuation of unsustainable patterns? 

Studying transportation aspects of urban development in Western society provides an explanation as to how we’ve reached such a level of societal chaos, to skeptics; the study offers an explanation that at least contribute to behavior patterns in Western Society.  In studying the past, one recognizes every urban development must accommodate a standard form of transportation.  Anthropological studies of civil increase prior to the industrial revolution entails research into an individual’s needs and group actions with municipal development, however, for the topic of this writing: concern is the problematic nature of unsustainable urban growth as it relates to transportation, specifically Western society beginning in the 19^th Century.

The current status of modern Western society began with a race from automobile manufacturers and the oil industry to produce as much profitability as could be obtained.  Prior to the arrival of automobiles in the 20^th Century, societal expansion of urban growth was provided for by 19^th Century train technology and development. 

In original Western society urban development used privately funded train systems as the base of its growth.   Automobile centric urban development is funded through government hands of ever increasing taxation. 

How does one change the method of transportation when our culture, beginning in the 20^th Century, was based on and is completely dependent on the automobile?  Useable modes of transportations are restricted to what is available.  Land-use design coincides with an area’s available transportation mode.  The question then becomes: what form of transportation is available?  In the automobile centric society a transportation mode requires an integrated technique to accommodate individualized destinations.   Street cars and passenger trains carry large groups to travel routes of pre-determined destinations; this type of transportation is compulsory to transit oriented land-use and inadequate for automobile centric land-use.

Traditionally, change of governmental procedure doesn’t happen by hope.  Political incest and a superfluity of public policy force the bureaucracy of governmental agencies into regimented compliance which proliferate unsustainable urban growth.  As an attempt to thwart tradition that perpetuates urban sprawl, California Legislators in 2006, provided a bill to grasp environmentally sustainable urban growth.  AB32 set greenhouse gas target values of 1990 air quality by 2020. Two years later SB375 legislation mandated Metropolitan Planning Agencies to create a sustainable community strategy for achieving AB32 goals.

Originally SB375 had a strict mandate which was later softened to pacify the incoherent pleads from the MPOs (metropolitan planning organizations - who are tasked with the responsibility to design urban growth) due to their inability to figure out a way to comply.  This is a loud statement ratifying automobile centric urban growth is unsustainable and bureaucracy perpetuates unsustainable practices.    

The potential which provided opportunity for modern modes of sustainable transportation systems was squelched by the atrocity of selective ignorance.  This dilemma is resolved by embracing sustainable transportation infrastructure development with private sector investment.

In psychology basics, humans possess an inherent hostile attitude against the unknown of disruptive technology.  Government policies require staff cling tightly to the rigid procedure of maintaining status-quo.  Again, a transition to advanced transit system technology requires private sector implementation prior to New Technology Transit becoming a mode of valid transportation alternative.

Available New Technology Transit systems can be implemented and intergraded into a format that meets an area’s modern transportation demands.  Most of these technology systems, however, are in development phase; lacking system wide implementation.  The advantage of these developing systems is their use of existing off the shelf technology to provide sustainable alternatives from the automobile.

In the tradition of publicly available transportation, the complication to implementing these sustainable transportation solutions is cost. 

There is an existing model which shows financial success with private sector involvement into large scale transportation infrastructure.  The example illustrates that sustainable urban growth requires private sector enterprise and can be without political ties of intrusive government subsidies.  Sustainability is measured in financial value with environmental justice and holds to the merits of social standards.  

The Political Process of CA's HSR Land Acquisition

There was a recent article (Feb 16, 2015) that provides an explanation of the land acquisition process for California's proposed antique technology high speed heavy rail electric train project.  

Related to the story was another article about Gov. Brown's ceremonial performance when the official shovel hit the dirt to begin the proposed HSR process.  He disrespectfully attacked his opponents calling them: "pusillanimous".  So, according to him: anyone with a brain to recognize 150 year old technology; is lacking courage and resolution: marked by contemptible timidity?  Meanwhile engaged politicians filch profiteering by being married to project contractors and the silenced public is called stupid.  So engrained with cataleptic rhetoric and insensate lifestyles, liars and thieves accuse their opposition of wrong.  

California High Speed Rail

A recent CA HSR op-ed article in the Fresno Bee, January 8, 2015, drew heavy criticism in its comment section.  As an observer following the HSR project over the past 22 years, the project has taken a turn and now has reached critical political vitriol and no longer has anything to do with transportation or the environment.  It has now gained political correctness status that dictates the mantra of hysteria.  If you now disagree at all with the proposed project its supporters validate opposition with name calling and categorize all such people to a derogatory manner.

The facts, however, still holds the proposed project without funding.  The proposed project still remains in court as a deception to the California voters.  The display of excitement when the two opposing sides stage a victory is like watching the crowd at a ball game.  In reality, the politicians are very aware that there is a billion dollars’ worth of government waste to be immediately distributed.  Local politicians are crying that Fresno “needs” the money and are positioned in a euphoric state surrounding the proposed project with jealous rage.

Politicians and their loyal following are a predictable lot.  When a project such as this is embroiled in a fight which requires only emotional reaction, it verifies a deceptive premise.  While it is true that California has to revamp its transportation system, new innovation is absolutely required.

In 2013 Elon Musk proposed his Hyperloop concept.  Many months later he was introduced to the ET3 technology.  California has the legitimate option of building a transportation system that travels 20 times faster than the antiquated heavy rail electric train and build it for one tenth the cost.  This system uses off the shelf technologies and is ready to be built.  Testing is done for any system that is built.  Here is a particularly interesting you tube clip of  ET3: