 |
Re: Stop the madness, and have the legislature change the performance and planning requirements.
Author: Kalifornia Uber Alles!
Date: 03-09-2020 - 16:22
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Not gonna happen, Newscum needs his kick backs for more Cocaine and Hookers
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Not gonna happen, Newscum needs his kick backs for more Cocaine and Hookers
