Re: Here's a "reality check"? They told a lot of people a lot of lies.... Young Pole Burner? LMAO.... Yep......
BOB "hard classes" 2 that pimped Prop 1a harder than he blue pills his hustler.
Yes, you are the greatest transportation planner in the world who supported a bogus general obligation bond measure that any fool could see plain as day in the ballot description.
Tell us all how great you are again!
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re: Support/Opposition for High Speed Rail
>
> Author: BOB2
>
> Re: Support/Opposition for High Speed Rail
>
> Author: BOB2
>
> Date: 09-21-2008 - 11:37
>
>
> "Also, due to lots of work by the rail advocacy
> community, the enabling legislation for
> Proposition 1A, known as AB 3034 was substantially
> rewritten before final adoption to include
> oversight.
>
> This includes mechanisms to make sure that there
> was technical and regional oversight to the
> project development. In effect, that it is vetted
> by those regional stakeholders, as a reality
> check.
>
> This will help assure the projects built are not
> just useless segments that would indeed be
> boondoggles, but are part of a strategy that
> integrates with and is mutually supportive of
> local rail improvements and systems."
> [/i
>
> Ask the local Sou Cal Agencies about that....
>
> Yep, the rail advocacy community was lied to, just
> like the voters.... Which is why I have no
> loyalty to defend the indefensible... Unlike an
> obsessive troll with mental problems who can only
> obsess over me...
>
> While the CAHSRA put in these window dressing
> provisons. And, the peer review process finally
> doing actual passenger modeling of alternative
> routes and stations, has finally unmasked the
> sheer stupidy of Pacheco, the "runaway money
> train" still needs to be restructured and the
> parameters changed to stop the bleeding...
>
> One reason for that decision at some of the rail
> organizations, thinking that an obsessive mentally
> disturbed obsessive troll wouldn't likely
> understand, is that with any normal Federal
> funding portion (expected even then to be part of
> this project) would have normally triggered a
> number of checks, which the FRA never required,
> unlike FTA and FHWA.... And, someone like you,
> who's never done a days work on anything like
> this, who's an obsessive mental case, doesn;t
> really care, do you sweetpea?
>
> We know for sure that you're not Old Pole
> Burner.... Since you're the troll of many names,
> isn't that right sweetpea?