What a train accident. The Los Angeles Times touts how California’s high-speed rail project is “training workers and providing thousands of jobs in the Central Valley.”
you read that correctly. They finally admitted it was just a union jobs program. Since 2010, when California politicians made it clear they were desperate to build part of the California high-speed rail system in order to get $3.5 billion in federal stimulus money, we has been saying this, I reported. . “Still, the plan looks like a game of whack-a-mole. But every time a hole is plugged, every time a detail is relaxed or tweaked, every time a cost estimate is changed, bigger problems arise. “The cover-up is worse than the original crime.”
“It’s important to remember that high-speed rail doesn’t actually deliver an attractive, world-class mode of transportation intended to move serious people; it’s just a conduit for a big money grab. That was in 2012. Because the project’s intentions were unjust, the mole could be kicked out for good, and California taxpayers would have to pay for it.
The most recent version of the plan, in 2012, was cut from $98.6 billion to $68 billion by expanding the 130-mile line from Fresno to Bakersfield and Merced to the San Fernando Valley to 300 miles.
We’ve been talking about the Merced to Bakersfield railroad for over 12 years, starting in 2012.
And the original bond requirement had already been changed illegally.
HSR officials had talked about electrifying only a portion of the track and using existing Amtrak rail. “Instead of building expensive new viaducts or underground tunnels, high-speed rail would run as much as possible on existing tracks, such as Caltrain’s Peninsula Infrastructure,” the San Francisco Examiner reported in 2012. However, the existing tracks cannot handle speeds of 200 mph. The revised business plan makes it just a train, not a high-speed rail line as called for in Proposition 1A, the 2008 ballot initiative authorizing the train.
Officials and politicians caused an even bigger problem than growing voter dissent. They are in breach of important obligations under the 2008 law, and they could have abolished the high-speed rail service or at least reduced the amount owed. Article 15 of the California Constitution gives the Legislature the power to do either.
Proposition 1A, a $9 billion bond for high-speed rail, included numerous obligations, none of which could be legally avoided on the way to building a massive rail system.
At the top of the list is that the rail system must be fast. “An electric train capable of maintaining maximum profitability at an operating speed of 200 miles per hour or more,” the law states. However, much of the first leg between Fresno and Bakersfield is not fast. Also, high speeds cannot be achieved in dense cities.
However, then-Railway Board Chairman Dan Richard said at a legislative hearing that the Railroad “never intended to operate a high-speed rail system solely in the Central Valley, and our business plans did not. No,” he said.
But his statements contradicted Proposition 1A.
What voters approved in 2008
* Prop. 1A sets out 11 requirements that must be met before funding is committed to constructing a “corridor” or “usable segment.” Specifically, these requirements include actual high-speed rail service, ridership, revenue projections, and planned passenger service.
*“High-speed rail systems must be planned and constructed in a way that minimizes urban sprawl and impacts on the natural environment,” the law states. However, the influence of the rail system can actually lead to the formation of suburban communities around train stations within a reasonable distance of urban centers and employment areas.
This rail system would also pose problems for both urban and rural communities and would also lead to serious violations of the ‘natural environment’. The trains not only pass through densely populated cities, but also through sensitive agricultural and natural areas in the state.
* The success of a legitimate transportation system must be based on connectivity. “For each corridor described in paragraph (b), passengers shall be able to travel from any station on that corridor to any other station on that corridor without the need to transfer.” The law stipulates. “Stations must be located in areas with good access to local mass transit and other transportation options.” This is because high-speed rail destinations already have large-scale connecting rail systems in place. This means that taxi companies, limousine services, and rental car companies will have to line up to rent space at the station, unless they are. The existing plan would eliminate the train and bus systems commuters need to transfer.
* The California High-Speed Rail Authority must have all funding in place in advance before beginning construction on a new section.
* High-speed rail systems must be completely autonomous and profitable. This means operating at a profit, with the caveat that there are no government subsidies. The plan relies heavily on a prediction of 100 million users by 2030, which is ridiculous because it was made with manipulated data.
Although voters were fooled by the outline and wording of the ballot, overall projects will always lack the private, public, and debt funding to complete even the smallest business segments. I did.
“Jobs, jobs, jobs” was Jerry Brown’s campaign cry when he ran for governor in 2010, pledging support for high-speed rail. He was a big supporter of the project, giving it the nickname “Browndogle.”
Despite the High Speed Rail Administration’s claims that the project would create 20,000 jobs, Brown continued to blindly support the rail project. But a January 2012 report by the Congressional Republican Caucus found evidence that railroad officials had overstated job creation by nearly 50 percent. According to the caucus report, “Even using the optimistic job creation estimates for Phase 1 of the HSRA, investment in California would be approximately $1.96 million per job created, or per direct job created. It will be valued at $5.8 million.”
The railway authorities must have used new mathematics to calculate the work. HSRA maintains that employment is calculated in “years of employment.” One year of full employment equals one year of employment. Therefore, using this new calculation, one person employed for 20 years counts as 20 “jobs.”
It’s worth noting that Jerry Brown was the attorney general who wrote misleading and dishonest ballot language, and then the governor who tried to impose high-speed rail.
The law also requires the submission of a certified environmental impact report for each segment of the system.
Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and Gov. Gavin Newsom, along with the Democratic supermajority in the California Legislature, have allowed the High Speed Rail Authority to violate the obligations of the 2008 Proposition 1A law.
Newsom vowed to eliminate high-speed rail in his first State of the State address in 2019, but he clearly caved to unions and continued to authorize all spending on this ridiculous project. This was a typical Democratic response that prioritizes labor over labor. people.
And now the Los Angeles Times is recruiting high-speed rail as a “jobs” program.
If California’s two recently ousted Democratic governors took a backseat to high-speed rail and instead spent $100 billion to improve and update the state’s highways, roads, and bridges for motor vehicle traffic… Imagine the issues voters actually want.
Representative Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) announced that he will introduce legislation to end the failed California high-speed rail project once and for all. My bill would make this project ineligible for federal funding and redirect transportation dollars to roads and other real infrastructure needs. ”
There’s still time to stop this runaway train.
