|
|
| Re: Jerry Brown moves to shield CAHSR from environmental lawsuits (1160136) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Jerry Brown moves to shield CAHSR from environmental lawsuits |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 3 21:42:19 2012, in response to Re: Jerry Brown moves to shield CAHSR from environmental lawsuits, posted by brightonr68 on Sun Jun 3 21:09:32 2012. Conservatives hate over paying for services that may or may not be needed.You mean like the highways that are now financed to the tune of more than 52% from the general fund? Last I looked one could drive or fly between the two locations at a cost to taxpayers of $0 Sure, cause the FAA is 'profitable', the FHWA receives no government funding, and the time wasted while driving has no impact on the economy. No, wait, turns out the *exact* opposite is the case. You're using *more* government subsidy driving or flying between two cities within 300 miles of each other than if you'd ridden Amtrak. A profitable high speed rail line would only further reduce that government investment to the point where only the capital cost of the infrastructure is being financed by the government. Transportation should not be something that has to be subsidized when there are options that exist other wise. Great, then go back and undo the conservatives signing on to the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act because it was sheathed in a faint veneer of defense spending. That destroyed private, profitable industries and replaced them with socially financed mobility for a select subset of the population. Until you can do that, don't complain that the government is financing transportation alternatives to the government financed transportation services that are no longer economically sustainable. If it was really needed private concerns would put in money to make it happen at a price the public will pay for. Sure, just like those "private" toll roads we had to bail out when the cost of gas spiked, their revenues dropped, and they couldn't make their bond payments. The economic impact of truly profitable transportation, particularly within our current extremely inefficient modal setup, is ridiculously disproportionate. The *only* way to get profitable intercity transportation with our current technology is to achieve the energy and labor savings present in high speed rail lines. A perfect example is the NYC subway system. The system was financed through real estate sales along the line and there was a real need. Need is defined as enough customers who would ride the line to make it profitable. Except that the tax increment financing will more than likely not live up to its predictions because they neglected to provide access to the extension with additional stations, the up-zoning has largely failed, and the real estate market has slipped (to say the least). One need only look to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's failed bid to use TIF to finance his heavy rail alternative to the LRT based Transit City system to see the utter disaster that tax increment financing can create. The whole environmental review process has been set up as a liberal employment program. Lawyers writing and arguing over none sense for years driving up the cost of the project. The corrupt unions over charging for no show labor. Oh please. Your partisan inanity is completely and utterly baseless. The conservatives have just as much to gain from the environmental review process as anyone to the left. Surely you don't think those engineering companies are run by left wingers. The process exists to weed out lesser amounts of government spending on smaller projects and force spending on large, expensive projects that will guarantee greater profit margins for the engineering and legal firms. If the public agreed to fund this project, then Jerry Brown is correct in wanting to shield CAHSR from environmental lawsuits. Great, and the electorate did approve the project by a plurality. Your support for Governor Brown's defense of the CHSRA is noted. My only problem is that is this project is doomed as most of the Oboma-nomics boondogle high speed rail projects In other words you hate it because Obama supports it. So you're simply stating your opposition to high speed rail results from your Obama Derangement Syndrome. Never mind that the California High Speed Rail project will reduce the government subsidy provided to operate intercity trips between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Never mind that it will grow the economy of both the anchor cities and the cities of the San Joaquin Valley. You're not much of a conservative if you're willing to forego the principles of the ideology you purportedly subscribe to simply because you dislike the politics of someone espousing a method by which we can achieve those goals. |
|
|
|