Another article from The Fresno Bee, July 11,2012, explains one of the on-going lawsuits. It states: "The Legislature cannot approve a project that violates the law passed by the voters." According to what voters approved, the proposed HSR project would cost $43 billion.
After much controversy, in 2011 the HSRA reevaluated its costs to an extremely conservative amount of $98 billion. Due to that unpopular amount, it became politically advantageous to lower the cost, so Governor Brown made a political declaration and changed the cost projection to a lower amount.
The 'blended' track has always been a contention to the proposed HSR system since the mid 90s. The original intent of the High Speed Rail Commission was to analyze magnetic levitation technology along with steel wheel on rail. Their conclusion was that the steel wheeled technology would cost $23 billion and the maglev technology system would cost $27 billion.
The Commission sunsetted in the late 90s and the Authority was formed. The political effort excluded maglev technology and began arguing about routes from LA to SF. It has since been revealed that the realistic costs of steel wheel on rail is $70 million per mile.
The 'blended' system utilizes existing electrified track with trains traveling a maximum of 70mph. Many of these existing train track rights-of-ways were built in the late 1800s and early 1900s. While Governor Brown is correct to suggest California needs a statewide train system, this blended technology has nothing to do with what the voters approved with HSR.
There is merit to the lawsuits.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Consequences
Less than a week after CA's Legislators voted to shift the meaning of the 1A bonds, The Fresno Bee, July 11, 2012 explains one of the first consequences of Fresno's support for the proposed project. All the businesses being ripped out to provide rights-of-ways to the proposed HSR currently provide $2.8 million in tax revenue to the city. In a time of tight budgets, where else is the city of Fresno going to receive nearly $3million of revenue. A comical statement says the revenue loss is temporary; is that saying the businesses are going to be rebuilt, where: certainly not in the existing rights-of-ways pathway of the proposed HSR which is creating the losses.
WIn-win projects are beneficial for all parties. The current version of the proposed HSR is a win for the involved consultants, engineering organizations, contractors and labor force; unfortunately everyone else looses.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Legislative vote
CA legislature passed in the Assembly and July 6th in the State Senate with a 21 - 16 vote to approve using the 1A bond funds to be used for the proposed HSR.
Let the lawsuits begin.
Let the lawsuits begin.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
An article in June 27th Fresno Bee says California's legislation has a Plan B for the proposed HSR. In having followed the HRS project, it is clear that the legislators know nothing about the project. There is no realistic Plan B. At best this is a motion to tell the other legislators that the current Plan A is completely dysfunctional. San Francisco was anticipating completion of the HSR and have already begun building their multibillion dollar transit station; they need a long distance passenger link for their station. LA is a traffic nightmare and always will be; diverting up to 10,000 people a day (in the HRS dream figures) to ride on the proposed HSR won't put a dent into LA's traffic problems. To put an extra $1.5 billion into redesigning LA's Union Station for hundreds of Metrolink passengers is quite a stack of bandaids but, lacks the point of addressing a cure to traffic.
The technology chosen by CA's HSRA (High Speed Rail Authority) is the problem instead of a legitimate transportation solution. To choose an updated version of a 150 year old technology is ludicrous. The massive weight of heavy rail is unnecessarily expensive, inefficient and intrusive. Overall the antique causes more troubles than solutions, the train was built for society in the early 1900s; this is 2012.
The proposed Plan B only serves to identify two problems: LA and San Francisco need a modern day transportation solution. The antiquated technology is comparable to pedaling a bicycle instead of a rocket to get to the moon. The point being; the 18,000 mph speed needed to break Earth's gravitational pull can not be attained by pedaling a bicycle. The concern of political process is to maintain the status quo.
The article quotes Dan Richard, chairman of the HSRA, to say the Plan B can't be done.
"There are no legal, practical or contractual ways to move the money out of the Central Valley," he wrote. "The Authority's revised plan already makes major investments to rail across the state."
It's the political process in action. The players are already in place and collecting profits.
The only question is: will the legislation vote to go ahead and fraudulently (an editorialized choice of wording) spend the 1A tax bond money within the next two weeks. Or, will the legislators use this Plan B as rational to justify that the proposed Plan A is inadequate.
The solution is building a modern transportation system using new transit technology instead of the political version of a train technology that became obsolete in the 1930s.
The technology chosen by CA's HSRA (High Speed Rail Authority) is the problem instead of a legitimate transportation solution. To choose an updated version of a 150 year old technology is ludicrous. The massive weight of heavy rail is unnecessarily expensive, inefficient and intrusive. Overall the antique causes more troubles than solutions, the train was built for society in the early 1900s; this is 2012.
The proposed Plan B only serves to identify two problems: LA and San Francisco need a modern day transportation solution. The antiquated technology is comparable to pedaling a bicycle instead of a rocket to get to the moon. The point being; the 18,000 mph speed needed to break Earth's gravitational pull can not be attained by pedaling a bicycle. The concern of political process is to maintain the status quo.
The article quotes Dan Richard, chairman of the HSRA, to say the Plan B can't be done.
"There are no legal, practical or contractual ways to move the money out of the Central Valley," he wrote. "The Authority's revised plan already makes major investments to rail across the state."
It's the political process in action. The players are already in place and collecting profits.
The only question is: will the legislation vote to go ahead and fraudulently (an editorialized choice of wording) spend the 1A tax bond money within the next two weeks. Or, will the legislators use this Plan B as rational to justify that the proposed Plan A is inadequate.
The solution is building a modern transportation system using new transit technology instead of the political version of a train technology that became obsolete in the 1930s.
Friday, June 22, 2012
A Bold Newspaper Headline
A bold headline from the Washington Examiner June 22, 2012. The close of the article says: "Either way, there is simply no way California will be able to break ground on the project before the federal deadline."
The question becomes very curious as to whether California's proposed HSR can go forward.
The question becomes very curious as to whether California's proposed HSR can go forward.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
The HSR and Blum
In a newspaper article, June 13, 2012, The Fresno Bee reports that Tutor Perini/Zachry/Parsons is the prime contractor selected for the proposed HSR project.
An unrelated article at The AVA.com from 2010 shows a bit of history from one of the strongest participants behind the scenes of California's proposed HSR.
An unrelated article at The AVA.com from 2010 shows a bit of history from one of the strongest participants behind the scenes of California's proposed HSR.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
In Conflict
In highlighting events that took place at the rail meeting in the Bay Area last week, the Examiner featured an article in its May 27, 2012 edition. It states: "There are no agreements with Union Pacific (UP) or Burlington Northern,
Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) to operate in close proximity. These agreements
have to be in place before any construction can begin. This is a
federal statutory requirement. Senator DeSaulnier said he wanted to know
if the Authority would have these agreements finalized before the
legislature had to vote on the funding. Authority Chairman Richard said
it was a goal but he couldn’t be sure."
The vote by the legislature is due July 1 regarding its allocation of the $3billion start-up money.
The railroad operators are exempt from being mandated allocating their property eminent domain rights-of-ways access to any government entity.
The vote by the legislature is due July 1 regarding its allocation of the $3billion start-up money.
The railroad operators are exempt from being mandated allocating their property eminent domain rights-of-ways access to any government entity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
