 |
Re: Stop the madness, and have the legislature change the performance and planning requirements.
Author: BOB2
Date: 03-09-2020 - 15:38
I like your new handle Mouse...
What CA really needs is an affordable (to build, operate, maintain, and thus affordable to ride) fast and frequent rail service that connects large and mid sized City pairs to each other, and into and out of our congested end point major hubs in CA based on real demand analysis.
So, I just don't know (but based in my "experience" would seriously doubt) that Coalinga would really generate that many trips to LAUPT or SFO by running in your favorite I-5 corridor, as would be likely to come from Merced, Modesto, Fresno, or Bakersfield.
I would stop the madness. I would as responsibly as possible, start salvaging as much from this dung pile, as can be salvaged. That would probably mean starting with firing yet another team of useless self promoting court eunuchs and management drones.
I'd go back to the legislature, and ask them to change the performance and planning requirements, and require that all future work for all rail funding expenditures is based on competent planning and solid cost benefit requirements, for any subsequent project or new segments. Which was never done right in the first place, back when this incompetently planned taxpayer funded "cluster-f##k" and contractor feeding "trough" was sold to the traffic weary voters.
What CA really needs is an affordable (to build, operate, maintain, and thus affordable to ride) fast and frequent rail service that connects large and mid sized City pairs to each other, and into and out of our congested end point major hubs in CA based on real demand analysis.
So, I just don't know (but based in my "experience" would seriously doubt) that Coalinga would really generate that many trips to LAUPT or SFO by running in your favorite I-5 corridor, as would be likely to come from Merced, Modesto, Fresno, or Bakersfield.
I would stop the madness. I would as responsibly as possible, start salvaging as much from this dung pile, as can be salvaged. That would probably mean starting with firing yet another team of useless self promoting court eunuchs and management drones.
I'd go back to the legislature, and ask them to change the performance and planning requirements, and require that all future work for all rail funding expenditures is based on competent planning and solid cost benefit requirements, for any subsequent project or new segments. Which was never done right in the first place, back when this incompetently planned taxpayer funded "cluster-f##k" and contractor feeding "trough" was sold to the traffic weary voters.
