Taken for a Ride

Here is a 20-minute news report on the California high-speed rail project in four parts. I can think of several lessons people should learn from this fiasco.

First, don’t vote to partly fund a project. The government agency in charge will spend all of the money even if there is no chance to get the rest of the money.

Mainly its used by men as it has been proven as effective and safe treatment for all age of individuals- If cialis uk you are thinking that the medicine works in the body and gets everything done positively. In a way, the blood vessels easily flow into this region & it leads for enhancement of the circulation of the blood vessels to repair the erectile dysfunction”. cialis 100mg Just imagine, what happened when daily work pressure takes toll on tadalafil buy india you? It is your persona life which bears the brunt of it. This stops the molecule PDE-5 from blocking the channels and obstructing mental viagra online australia functioning. Second, don’t vote for a high-capital cost project, especially when low-cost options are available already. The costs are certain to end up being far more than the original projections, but that won’t stop the from spending the money.

Third, don’t believe claims that taxpayers’ interests will be safeguarded by any checks and balances. Once they have the money, all promises will be forgotten.

Finally, it is a lot harder to stop a project once they have even partial approval than it is to simply deny that original approval. Unless it is going to be funded entirely out of user fees, if they have to ask, you can’t afford it.

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

12 Responses to Taken for a Ride

  1. Frank says:

    “First, don’t vote to partly fund a project. Second, don’t vote for a high-capital cost project”

    Third, just don’t vote. The results will often be ignored. Seattle voters said no to a tunnel replacement for the Viaduct in 2007. The state moved ahead, awarding contracts and scheduling groundbreaking for 2011, even before yet another vote on another tunnel proposal. The pro-tunnel crowd, financed by business, spent nearly five times as much as the opposition, and some voters felt that since hundreds of millions had already been spent, might as well go ahead and approve the project ex post facto.

    Meanwhile, Seattle taxpayers will pick up the tab for cost overruns.

  2. metrosucks says:

    We’re talking about California here. How can this possibly end well?

  3. Sandy Teal says:

    Can someone explain to me how they complied with NEPA in this project if they only funded part of it? Doesn’t that violate the NEPA prohibition against segmenting a project?

    • C. P. Zilliacus says:

      Sandy Teal, that is a good question. I don’t really understand how an improved segment of track between two small places (in terms of population) in the Central Valley of California has independent utility.

      The FHWA says the following (from this page) about segmentation:

      In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action evaluated in each environmental impact statement (EIS) or finding of no significant impact (FONSI) shall:

      1. Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope;

      2. Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and

      3. Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements.

      • Sandy Teal says:

        Yes, that is my point. Thank you for providing the citations.

        Under NEPA, you can’t justify building the easy/cheap part of a huge transportation system and then later say that the government already sunk money into the project so the rest should be funded or else it is a waste.

  4. Matt Young says:

    I didn’t listen to the reports, I know the results, I am from central California where this thing is happening. Frankly, my home town, Fresno, is going to make a mint in the litigation industry as a result of the farce. Lawyers are arriving by the bus load (no train needed).

    The whole farce resulted because someone in Chicago wanted a choo choo. DC cannot give Choo Choo to Chicago unless California pays for it. Hence, California has to get a fake choo choo so that our taxes can be sent to Chicago. Think of the Dem version of SDI, a waste which has no apperant purpose other than graft.

    Ultimately, this kind of nonsense results from the disparate voting right, California getting 1/5 of the Senate vote it deserves. Absent democracy (fair voting, remember that?) we get back room deals done by the national party oligarchs, an unfolding disaster.

    • Sandy Teal says:

      So California gets a huge amount of pork, and you use that to complain about California not having enough power in DC? Southern California has few US citizens than North Dakota.

      • Matt Young says:

        California pays a 25% premium on taxes relative to what we receive. The pork is almost always from California to DC.
        And yes, California does get just 1/5 of the average Senate vote, the main cause of our state being looted by the Fed. So, yes, a little appreciation of no taxation without representation, the bedrock of the nation, a moral authority higher than the Supreme court.

        • Sandy Teal says:

          California receives less federal Social Security money because old people move away when they retire to avoid all the high taxation rates.

          California is over represented in Congress because the House of Representatives counts illegal aliens in apportionment. If Congress just counted US citizens then California would have 6 fewer congressmen.

    • Scott says:

      Matt, What does inefficient, expensive HSR have to do with orbital defense against ICBMs (SDI)?

      • Matt Young says:

        I worked on SDI for seven years. In fact, my research resulted in the first successful test case of an ICBM shoot down with decoys. I know about which I speak. SDI has been nothing but a huge waste of money, a defense catastrophe started by the dumbest president of all time, Ronald the Communist.

        What is the problem with SDI? For every 10 billion you spend, I can spend .001 billion and outfit my ICBMs with mylar balloons and completely fool the defense in mid orbit. That is why the Chinese love SDI, it is a huge wasteful boondogle of gigantic proportions, and the more we spend on it the less we spen in useful weapons.

Leave a Reply