Legislative Questions

For people following CA’s HSR (high speed rail) there is another newspaper article April 6, 2016 in the LA Times.  The article is titled: “Senators share their doubts about bullet train financing with rail officials” and includes details of conversations with train project members. 

The first 29 mile section has begun construction.  So far there are more than 300 change orders, the price tag is an additional $100million.  Regarding government work, change orders often exceed the original bid price; that is, double or triple the original cost.  For a government project these change orders, just a few months into the project are minuscule in comparison to what this project has in store.  In the article, rail authority Chairman Dan Richard emphasized the agency does not necessarily have to pay them.  Then goes on to acknowledge that the state’s failure to deliver parcels on time to the contractor gives them “the right to charge for delays.”

One of the State Senators asked about the authority’s response to not adopt a higher cost estimate.  The story goes on to explain that declaring the mischaracterization is not in the public interest.

Still the most astonishing aspect of CA’s train has to do with the recent judicial decision.  How could the State attorney build its defense by stating no one can make the assertion that the CA HSRA isn’t able to adhere to voter demands because they don’t have project plans?  That’s exactly the same thing as building a skyscraper without blueprints. 

Some people who closely follow this project are knowledgeable about the construction industry and related costs.  This post shows rising interest into the financial concerns that CA’s HSR project does not have the necessary funding to accomplish its directive.  Prior to the 2008 vote which initiated the $9.9billion bond, a Stanford peer group study was put together by industry and knowledgeable leaders.  Their financial estimate for the project is $212billion.  The state says it will cost $64billion.  Already, just barely getting started on the first 29 miles and only a few months into it, the 300 change orders come with the $100million addition.     

The Battle Continues

February 12, 2016 has another article in The Fresno Bee about California’s proposed High Speed Rail project.

It’s a case of the State of CA, represented by Deputy Attorney General Sharon O’Grady against citizens of CA, represented by an attorney paid by two farmers near Bakersfield.  The argument is distorted by twisting of facts.  The state has manipulated its project from a boondoggle to a devastating failure of promises.

According to the article, the private attorney argues that the people voted to have a train with its own separate track and a specific time trip time of two hours, forty minutes from San Francisco to LA.  The “blended track” concept was enacted by legislative procedure in 2012 and totally eliminates the possibility of such a trip time.  The private attorney also maintains the voters chose to have a financially viable train which covers its operating and maintenance costs once it is built and running.  He asks how the government is going to be able to operate it at a profit when they can’t even figure out how to find the money to build it?

In the State’s argument, its claims are contradictory, or at best: confused.  The State claims there is a difference in interpretation of the law’s requirement (“All (the opponents) are doing is disagreeing with the authority’s experts,”).  The State; in its argument, commented as its defense that the system has not been fully designed.  This raises a question.  Since this project hasn’t even been designed, how is it that it was even begun?  This is equal to the State building a tall building without a set of blueprints.

So it continues.  The contractor hired to begin the Fresno to Madera segment attacked Downtown Fresno and has successfully decimated Chinatown.   There is a position to gentrification which has justification in that the leveling of all structures in a certain area are replaced with structures of higher value.  This position maintains that the newer structures provide a better economic condition and thus a higher standard of living which allows a greater value of life.  What the CAHSRA is doing to Chinatown and Downtown Fresno is merely demolishing everything and not rebuilding any structures to which allow economic opportunity.

 

The major political push for the HSR in Fresno was to capture the HSR Maintenance Yard.  This would greatly benefit the land developer who is so deeply hidden that no one knows the name: Geil.  The vote on the Maintenance Yard is scheduled in May.

On the re-gentrification of Chinatown, what does Fresno’s interest on the HSRA board have slated on his drawing board?  Can Chinatown find economic success with an Amtrak station in ten years if the politics in Washington DC change and the flow of Federal gravy train dollars stop?    

A Statement From Voltaire

An article found at arstechnica.com headlines the US Department of Transportation endorsement of self-driving cars.  The January 15,2016 story states: “At this week's North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced that "in 2016, we are going to do everything we can to promote safe, smart, and sustainable vehicles. We are bullish on automated vehicles."

January 14, 2016 AP  hosts a related story: link: US government developing policies for self-driving cars

This post is to state that bureaucracy is a product of its academia training.  Voltaire sums it up nicely with his quote: “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”  The point here is only saying that the product of human conditioning when conformity is the dictate, people are deprived of ingenuity. 

This blog constantly makes the point that the automobile is NOT sustainable.  Our society is called the Car Culture.  For the top transportation official in the US Government to make such harshly untrue statement is symptomatic as to why freeways are crowded.  When all cars are electrically powered and fully automated, is Foxx saying there will be no more crowded freeways, poor economic condition and an improved social condition?  That is the ignoramus statement he is suggesting when he allocates $3.9billion towards the development of driverless automobiles into a situation that has based the unsustainable land-use problem to a further endorsement which proliferates the source of the un-sustainability.  The automobile IS the source of un-sustainability but, sustainability is a land-use issue.  Whether an automobile is electrically powered or driverless is irrelevant to its UN-SUSTAINABILITY.

Voltaire is correct.  How does change take place to encourage sustainable urban growth?

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.