 |
Re: LA SCAX expansion of AVL into Kern County-Stupid BOB2 We had to do it this way to pull the con job the voters.....
Author: BOB2
Date: 08-26-2018 - 18:50
"I bill double on weekends!
Here’s the thing: in a political and professional culture steeped in the heritage of diesel freight, where high speed rail might as well be an alien artifact (have you personally ever exceeded 180 mph on rails?), the 160-minute criterion was a necessary backstop against dissolving the available funding into a morass of incremental short-term improvements, each laudable but amounting in the long term to less than the sum of their parts. This erosion process is happening anyway...
You go on about extending rail service to the far reaches of the high desert while core links like Burbank to Anaheim go pathetically underdeveloped."
ry
This is really your response? Wow, we didn't do proper planning, and set a single performance criteria, so after we were done, with our con job on the voters, this money would never be able to use on things we actually need, but only on the "vison", regardless of cost or any real utility to those voters or taxpayers paying for this fiasco... Does that pretty well summarize what you just admitted to? And, this Cambridge analysis was done entirely after the fact to justify the decision already made?
Yes, it could even lead to a "culture" of people, in a democratic system, based on honesty and integrity, who might want to spend their hard earned tax dollars on stupid things, that would actually improve their actual lives with more cost effective and affordable mobility and access improvements, instead of a giant boondoggle and monument to this truly "visionary" monument to political incompetence. We certainly don't want a culture like that interfering with CHSRA's "vision", do we?
Thank you for pointing out how absurd that would be... Thank god we had "visionary" leadership that said hey. "we don't got to show no stinkin' analysis" (of any other alternatives or of any real needs) to design a cost effective HSR project. We'll just set a completely arbitrary performance goal,) without regard to needs (as you admit above ("the 160-minute criterion was a necessary backstop against dissolving the available funding into a morass of incremental short-term improvements, each laudable (and actually based on real needs?) but amounting in the long term to less than the sum of their parts."), so we can just tell the contractors to spend whatever they think they might need to do it....
And, I like that cheap shot you took at me in the last paragraph, that in making a case for high desert service, I am somehow being an obviously incompetent jerk for neglecting the needs of Burbank to Anaheim....which most folks on here no isn't true.
As I said< heckuva job...
I'm just glad to know it's on overtime and that the CHSRA is getting "our" money's worth out of the hacks and flacks they hire.
Here’s the thing: in a political and professional culture steeped in the heritage of diesel freight, where high speed rail might as well be an alien artifact (have you personally ever exceeded 180 mph on rails?), the 160-minute criterion was a necessary backstop against dissolving the available funding into a morass of incremental short-term improvements, each laudable but amounting in the long term to less than the sum of their parts. This erosion process is happening anyway...
You go on about extending rail service to the far reaches of the high desert while core links like Burbank to Anaheim go pathetically underdeveloped."
ry
This is really your response? Wow, we didn't do proper planning, and set a single performance criteria, so after we were done, with our con job on the voters, this money would never be able to use on things we actually need, but only on the "vison", regardless of cost or any real utility to those voters or taxpayers paying for this fiasco... Does that pretty well summarize what you just admitted to? And, this Cambridge analysis was done entirely after the fact to justify the decision already made?
Yes, it could even lead to a "culture" of people, in a democratic system, based on honesty and integrity, who might want to spend their hard earned tax dollars on stupid things, that would actually improve their actual lives with more cost effective and affordable mobility and access improvements, instead of a giant boondoggle and monument to this truly "visionary" monument to political incompetence. We certainly don't want a culture like that interfering with CHSRA's "vision", do we?
Thank you for pointing out how absurd that would be... Thank god we had "visionary" leadership that said hey. "we don't got to show no stinkin' analysis" (of any other alternatives or of any real needs) to design a cost effective HSR project. We'll just set a completely arbitrary performance goal,) without regard to needs (as you admit above ("the 160-minute criterion was a necessary backstop against dissolving the available funding into a morass of incremental short-term improvements, each laudable (and actually based on real needs?) but amounting in the long term to less than the sum of their parts."), so we can just tell the contractors to spend whatever they think they might need to do it....
And, I like that cheap shot you took at me in the last paragraph, that in making a case for high desert service, I am somehow being an obviously incompetent jerk for neglecting the needs of Burbank to Anaheim....which most folks on here no isn't true.
As I said< heckuva job...
I'm just glad to know it's on overtime and that the CHSRA is getting "our" money's worth out of the hacks and flacks they hire.
