 |
Re: I must really float your boat..... LMAO....
Author: BOB2
Date: 07-24-2021 - 05:07
You have so many handles sweetpea, it's hard to keep track....
Are you Basic econ, too?
I seem to drive you quite nuts...
Don't forget to take your meds....
Tony the hustler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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!
>
> [storage.googleapis.com]
> e04ee3b93364b535a13c7405-800.jpg
>
>
>
> 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?
Are you Basic econ, too?
I seem to drive you quite nuts...
Don't forget to take your meds....
Tony the hustler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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!
>
> [storage.googleapis.com]
> e04ee3b93364b535a13c7405-800.jpg
>
>
>
> 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?
