 |
Back to earth, Blue Origin has returned.
Author: LES
Date: 07-27-2021 - 14:33
LMFAO
> The State Legislature could change all of the
> requirements currently in the Bond measure, half
> of which are alreay mute from the earliest legal
> challenges, whenever they can find the votes.
What fantasy world do you live in.
> Brightline's decisions to go via the High Desert
> corridor will be even cheaper than the Victorville
> to Vegas segment.
Captain obvious never ceases to amaze.
This would allow for true privately funded
> "public-private" partnerships, not as it is
> practised at CAHSRA, as a more sophisticated form
> of "contract steering".
I think the true "public-private" partnership option is also a
> solution that can be used for the "locally
Wrong again. Brightline has substantially beefed up their anticipated pot to a total of 8+ billion up from 5 billion because of Victorville extensions with more to come; so much for a government partnership. I guess a private-public partnership in this case will be Brightline paying heavy easement and usage fees to access CAHSR tunnels, I15 corridor and HDC.
AS if a private company could afford the capitol required for CAHSR tunneling.
Too funny.
Reality check, Brightline East owned the lines in Florida so not the headache experienced that TCR or CAHSR have encountered. They could have put in a maglev line and still not encountered 1/2 the headache or resistance TC or CAHSR have encountered.
Why you continue to make this false comparison of 67 mph rail with HSR is a true wonder of nature.
> California needs to introduce and pass major
> reform legislation to salvage what is left of the
> "runaway money train" fiasco.
Earth to Bob......Blue Origin has returned.
> FUD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're basically correct about the cost
> structure
> > of the Brightline/Vegas project, at least for
> > phase 1. I'll be interested to see what they
> come
> > up with for getting "over the hill" to Rancho
> > Cucamonga, which is necessary but seems likely
> to
> > cost a LOT. Though I think they eventually will
> > want both routes into LA. It's still
> qualitatively
> > different from the FL line, though; for good
> > reason, but different.
> >
> > As for CAHSR, yes, it should have had, and
> still
> > should have, a real business plan.
> Unfortunately,
> > being a political creation in its present form,
> > any such plan wouldn't be worth the paper it's
> > printed on (or even the electrons wasted on
> > reading it on a display). If such a business
> plan
> > were, for instance, to suggest that 2:30
> between
> > SF and LA really doesn't serve a need, that
> > 125-maybe 150 mph is enough to provide good
> access
> > between the Bay Area, Central Valley, and LA,
> and
> > that the money spent on anything more than,
> say,
> > Acela speed would be better spent on some more
> > improvements elsewhere (like the Coast and
> > LOSSAN), that would be interesting but
> following
> > such a plan would violate the initiative that
> set
> > the whole thing up. So CAHSR is kind of in a
> > political corner: it truly does make little
> sense
> > to continue the way they're going, but if they
> > stop and rethink the whole thing they 1) lose
> any
> > remaining bond funds; 2) lose any remaining fed
> > funds and might have to pay back what's already
> > spent; and 3) might end up with a bunch of
> > structures that will never be used, because the
> > initiative probably won't let them run Amtrak
> on
> > it (even though they should, along with maybe
> some
> > Z trains). Arguably, somebody might be fired or
> > even go to jail for not carrying out the
> > initiative's mandate.
> >
> > IMO, the work going on now should be completed.
> > Wasco to Chowchilla, tying back into BNSF. Even
> > the French HSR lines started out in the country
> > and slowly moved into town as money became
> > available. Then, spend the next increment of
> > funding, whenever and wherever it appears, on
> > dealing with the Tehachapis in some way; that's
> > megaproject enough. We should have some kind of
> > independent body investigate what has been done
> so
> > far with an eye toward correcting the more
> obvious
> > corruption - and there almost certainly is
> some.
> > We then need to run some kind of ballot measure
> to
> > restructure the whole mess (for which Mr. Kopp
> has
> > to bear a certain amount of responsibility)
> > allowing more realistic business and other
> > planning. We owe that to our grandchildren, who
> > will be the first ones to ride it, unless a
> > restructured program can be made attractive to
> > Brightline. Then get busy on really useful
> (sorry,
> > Thomas) trains for the state.
> The State Legislature could change all of the
> requirements currently in the Bond measure, half
> of which are alreay mute from the earliest legal
> challenges, whenever they can find the votes.
What fantasy world do you live in.
> Brightline's decisions to go via the High Desert
> corridor will be even cheaper than the Victorville
> to Vegas segment.
Captain obvious never ceases to amaze.
This would allow for true privately funded
> "public-private" partnerships, not as it is
> practised at CAHSRA, as a more sophisticated form
> of "contract steering".
I think the true "public-private" partnership option is also a
> solution that can be used for the "locally
Wrong again. Brightline has substantially beefed up their anticipated pot to a total of 8+ billion up from 5 billion because of Victorville extensions with more to come; so much for a government partnership. I guess a private-public partnership in this case will be Brightline paying heavy easement and usage fees to access CAHSR tunnels, I15 corridor and HDC.
AS if a private company could afford the capitol required for CAHSR tunneling.
Too funny.
Reality check, Brightline East owned the lines in Florida so not the headache experienced that TCR or CAHSR have encountered. They could have put in a maglev line and still not encountered 1/2 the headache or resistance TC or CAHSR have encountered.
Why you continue to make this false comparison of 67 mph rail with HSR is a true wonder of nature.
> California needs to introduce and pass major
> reform legislation to salvage what is left of the
> "runaway money train" fiasco.
Earth to Bob......Blue Origin has returned.
> FUD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're basically correct about the cost
> structure
> > of the Brightline/Vegas project, at least for
> > phase 1. I'll be interested to see what they
> come
> > up with for getting "over the hill" to Rancho
> > Cucamonga, which is necessary but seems likely
> to
> > cost a LOT. Though I think they eventually will
> > want both routes into LA. It's still
> qualitatively
> > different from the FL line, though; for good
> > reason, but different.
> >
> > As for CAHSR, yes, it should have had, and
> still
> > should have, a real business plan.
> Unfortunately,
> > being a political creation in its present form,
> > any such plan wouldn't be worth the paper it's
> > printed on (or even the electrons wasted on
> > reading it on a display). If such a business
> plan
> > were, for instance, to suggest that 2:30
> between
> > SF and LA really doesn't serve a need, that
> > 125-maybe 150 mph is enough to provide good
> access
> > between the Bay Area, Central Valley, and LA,
> and
> > that the money spent on anything more than,
> say,
> > Acela speed would be better spent on some more
> > improvements elsewhere (like the Coast and
> > LOSSAN), that would be interesting but
> following
> > such a plan would violate the initiative that
> set
> > the whole thing up. So CAHSR is kind of in a
> > political corner: it truly does make little
> sense
> > to continue the way they're going, but if they
> > stop and rethink the whole thing they 1) lose
> any
> > remaining bond funds; 2) lose any remaining fed
> > funds and might have to pay back what's already
> > spent; and 3) might end up with a bunch of
> > structures that will never be used, because the
> > initiative probably won't let them run Amtrak
> on
> > it (even though they should, along with maybe
> some
> > Z trains). Arguably, somebody might be fired or
> > even go to jail for not carrying out the
> > initiative's mandate.
> >
> > IMO, the work going on now should be completed.
> > Wasco to Chowchilla, tying back into BNSF. Even
> > the French HSR lines started out in the country
> > and slowly moved into town as money became
> > available. Then, spend the next increment of
> > funding, whenever and wherever it appears, on
> > dealing with the Tehachapis in some way; that's
> > megaproject enough. We should have some kind of
> > independent body investigate what has been done
> so
> > far with an eye toward correcting the more
> obvious
> > corruption - and there almost certainly is
> some.
> > We then need to run some kind of ballot measure
> to
> > restructure the whole mess (for which Mr. Kopp
> has
> > to bear a certain amount of responsibility)
> > allowing more realistic business and other
> > planning. We owe that to our grandchildren, who
> > will be the first ones to ride it, unless a
> > restructured program can be made attractive to
> > Brightline. Then get busy on really useful
> (sorry,
> > Thomas) trains for the state.
