an analysis of bureaucratic policy

Generally people don't like change. They might entertain the word change (as witnessed by the past presidential election) but, everything virtually remains the same. Generally, people don't like to change anything.

Traditionally, over the past 80 years, all transportation infrastructure has been government orchestrated. The result of government involvement is like an intrusion to implement bloated dysfunction. An example is represented by the horrible condition of California roads. The economy is a disaster due to government intrusion. In addition to high taxes are additional specialized fees that are forced on businesses strictly for the purpose of collecting fees to support a regulatory body whose only function is to collect a fee. Those government offices are filled with government employees who know nothing about the businesses they regulate. The same is true with urban planning but, some of these policies are implemented by politics. Much of transportation has little to do with mobility but, is generally dictated by political favor.

mismanaged

The recent reports which suggest the HSRA be put under the direction of Caltrans provides another chance to play follow the money. Who gains with the shift in transferring responsibility from one government agency to another? The answer: the engineering consultants and no one else. What group has been at the forefront in receiving all of the money allocated so far in the HSR project? The answer: the engineering consultant companies. One might draw the conclusion that the engaged engineering consultant companies are politically connected.

To analytically look at what is going on with CA's HSR, take a look at what is taking place. There are law suits in play and other looming lawsuits which threaten timing of the current EIR procedure. The project has to be shovel ready in 2012 to receive designated federal dollars. The constant shift of alleged track alignments has diverted the release of an EIR. Any law suits could possibly further delay EIR entitlements with the fear of the State loosing HSR federal dollars.

What would an agency transfer of the proposed HSR project mean? Most likely it would mean that the engineering consultants receive new contracts from a different agency and continue receiving their income to continue their studies. It means politics as usual and maintains the status-quo.

other editorials

All is not rosy for the CA HSR marketing push. The LA Times doesn't appear to like the direction of the CA HSRA. The May 16th LA Times editorial doesn't give California's HSR much praise; now for the LA Times Editorial board to embrace private sector funding to build New Technology Transit.

May 2011 Legislative Analyst’s Office report

The Wednesday (May 11,2011) Sacramento Bee article by Dan Walters points out, the Legislature’s budget analyst finds more flaws in the faltered CA HSRA plan on Tuesday. On Wednesday a “peer review” committee is due to announce similar criticisms to a special State committee overlooking the project.

Meanwhile, the $millions spent on PR/marketing to the Fresno government and politically connected has convinced them that the HSR is a valid project as they work feverishly to move it forward at a desperate pace. The marketers successfully lead the un-knowledgeable that $5billion will buy Central California a statewide train. The Fresno government officials were never told by the PR firm the fundamentals of math. $5billion divided by $70million per mile equals 71.4 miles. Yes, the newest feasibility contract awarded to URS will find an at-grade electrified heavy rail track costs less than half of the $150million per mile elevated track. How many millions of dollars was spent in the new URS contract to figure this out, another $10million?

The important thing for the HSRA is to make sure as much as possible is spent quickly before the federal dollars might disappear. They should award contracts to study new routes, elevated options, at grade route and even sub grade options. At least the upper lever execs can justify nice bonuses and the share holders of URS can make a tidy profit to help contribute to the next election cycle. The citizens of CA are able to at least then feel important to have made a contribution to the circle of status-quo.

another change

Having followed the CA HSR (high speed rail) over the past 18 years, one finds a distinct pattern of taking a long time to make a decision about a route or related issue only to eventually abandon that decision. The rate at which the HSRA is changing routes or whatever else is appropriate to warrant a new consultant and engineering study to cost $millions is becoming noticeable that the HSR system proposal is already serving its purpose to benefit the people. The people being served are the few politically connected share holders of the consultant and engineering companies; one might conclude no one else (CA residents) matters.

HSR joke

Fiscal responsibility doesn't matter to the California legislators. Florida's decision to cancel plans to build a train that would cost them $3billion they don't have should be a hint to CA's blind obsession to have its HSR. In 2008, the voters were misled to say yes to build a proposed $43billion train but, the bond was for $9billion. There is a $34billion dollar gap that doesn't seem to matter. While Florida says no to a $3billion dollar debt, California seem eager to accept a 10-fold higher debt. And; that $43billion price tag, BTW, is estimated at half to one fifth of what other transportation experts cost analysis are.

CA HSR

Mid-February and the antiquated train momentum rolls through the Valley with a high dollar marketing sales pitch full of deception. In an article in the Fresno Bee (February 11, 2011) the City of Fresno enthusiastically embraces the incoherent plan.

In Washington the mood isn't as joyous. February 12th the Fresno Bee reports a darker look at the possibility of the antique train being implemented. Even still, CA's rep. Costa insisted that the billion dollar boondoggle is an "economic and quality of life game-changer". His statement fails to recognize that the subsidized project is inefficient economically. Money for the project is someone else' tax which lowers American's quality of life by over-taxation.

The only feasible solution is a privately funded project that recovers it's capital costs with ridership farebox by using new technology designed to conveniently take people directly where they need to go. A privately funded project does not present a burden to the general public.