Another article came out in the Fresno Bee Sunday, October 7 2012. The story has an interesting closing line quote from rail authority CEO Jeffrey Morales: "Everything about this project is going to be aggressive," he said, "but we believe it's do-able."
Oh really? The HSR project began in the early 90s and the time line has been shoved back so many times and the Authority (a different agency than the origination entity) has changed the intent of why the project was proposed. It was originally proposed as a high speed train to serve the public but, the project has become just another tool in the political process to benefit a few politically connected individuals who are receiving tremendous personal profit. This is merely a statement of the way things are; unintended as a negative attack.
The point of this post is to question the statement made by the HSRA CEO. What does the definition of the word: 'aggressive' equate to? The proposed project has been completely changed since its inception but, what does aggressive mean: over complicated? Dysfunctional? What does aggressive say? That there is a demand for it to begin because there is no funding available to complete the proposal within the faulty business plan? Does it mean the proposed project needs to be aggressive to figure out where the funding will come from? Does it mean that the proposed project should have rights-of-ways as to where it is proposed to be located? Perhaps aggressive is defined as suggesting that no one is smarter than the government workers who act as instructed to take what they want and do as they please: damn to the voters who are too stupid to know what they want. Some might even go as far as interpreting this 'aggressive' stance as abusive. Others could claim this aggressive stance is ignorance.
In civil cases the law finds little justification to force one's own desire upon others. Clearly, the HSRA CEO did not intend the term aggressive to be synonymous of abusive but, look at the available synonyms of the word 'aggressive': violent, hostile, destructive, belligerent, antagonistic, forceful and insistent.
So then, who can question the stance of the HSRA regarding this proposed project?
Monday, October 8, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Hearing date in November
It doesn't require a prophet to forecast the inevitable demise of California's incredible waste of taxpayer dollars for its proposed HSR. On the first part of July in this blog, a post told about the legislature passing approval which allows the 1A bond money to be spent in a manner that clearly was unintended by the voters for the proposed CA HSR project. That post ended with a prediction that new lawsuits would begin.
In today's Fresno Bee (September 26, 2012) is the latest update to the ongoing saga called California's proposed high speed rail. A judge will consider a motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the case with the hearing on November 16th.
There has been no train horn ordered yet for California's proposed HSR.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Fancy new name change
With the government paying as much attention to what they do; and would put as much effort into the work they are supposed to be doing as they do coming up with cleaver names for their projects, there could be some worthwhile things being accomplished by the overlords of bureaucracy. In the September 20, 2012 Fresno Bee article, the current Washington administration has found a snappy title to call its political push for California's technologically antiquated heavy-rail train project: "We Can't Wait". There is truth to that statement; it should have been built 100 years ago instead of today. There have been many advances in transportation technology over the past 100 years. How is it that the overlords haven't discovered less expensive technology that is much more efficient both in speed and cost?
Today's society has to have a new form of transportation to meet its economic and social demands. Building a train with 150 year old technology is extremely foolish and irresponsible.
Today's society has to have a new form of transportation to meet its economic and social demands. Building a train with 150 year old technology is extremely foolish and irresponsible.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
More Articles Today About HSR
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
