But it might be kept alive by Leftist inconsistency and contempt for fair play.
However, according to the stimulus law, California must begin construction on the project before December 31, 2012 or they will not be eligible for any more high speed rail stimulus dollars.
If the B-Ho is re-elected, he can simply waive that part of the law. He has already set the precedent, to which Congress has acquiesced. Congress will have no ability to stop him without a supermajority Republican Senate (plus margin above the RINOs), and the likely only through removal by impeachment. If his disregard for the Constitution hasn’t been enough so far, why would it be in the future?
It’s later than you think…
To quote Tolkein:
Oft evil will shall evil mar.
Jim, Chris, or Bob-1 care to weigh in on this?
Seriously, let’s set the snark aside about this being a “failure for President Obama” or a “failure for Governor Brown” and discuss this from the standpoint of the engineering trades.
One one hand, the blocking or at least slowing down of major infrastructure projects through the courts is perhaps the signature achievement of Ralph Nader’s movement along with the broader environmental movement.
I mean, back in the day, if somebody, a Robert Moses wanted something done, it was done in the name of the public good, and forget about the neighborhood that was split in two for the benefit of an Interstate highway or the people displaced from their homes.
The whole Ralph Nader thing was to say, “Hey wait a minute, what about all of these other people with a stake in this decision?” Ever since, any major infrastructure project is all wrapped up in red tape. In one sense, this harms the social purpose and public good, but in another sense, it protects individual rights (to stay in one’s home, to breath clean air).
Snark aside about “slow speed rail”, the California High Speed Rail is a Big Infrastructure project, but it is a pro-environment project, no? The idea is that if a train is fast enough, it can substitute for cars, that the much-faster-than-being-stuck-on-I5 speed can substitute for the inconvenience of getting to and from the train station at each end? That the electric train can substitute for gas-consuming and CO2-emitting cars?
So how does one square the circle, that the very thing that is supposed to stimulate the economy with construction and later operation jobs, protect the environment by cutting CO2, that such a thing goes against the Ralph Nader principle of litigating environmental regs in the courts?
Do we cut the red tape on this thing and get ‘er done? Or is the process for using the courts to resolve these concerns a greater social value in the end, and maybe it is better to risk the California High-Speed Rail rather than push this through. If we don’t get this project going, that probably means high speed rail is going anywhere in the U.S. for another generation. If we push this through, what kind of precedent does this set.
Or maybe Edmund G Brown, Jr. is consciously making an economic calculation that this thing is not worth the money and is letting it die?
I want to believe that there are better options for inter-city transportation than the ones we have today, but this particular project seems doomed. There’s definitely a tension between great public works and the various veto points we’ve put into law to keep projects from running roughshod over local communities and the environment. I hate to see promising technology thwarted, but I also wouldn’t trade our laws for those of, say, China, or the 19th century U.S.
As for the bigger environmental picture, if we really want to cut CO2 we should put a price on emissions. That’s a fairer and more efficient means than subsidizing high speed rail.
Thanks for your reply. We may not agree on all matters, but I am not disposed to gloat over the difficulties of the high-speed train.
That “CO2 matters” is arguable, and if one is arguing for limiting on CO2, I could support your proposal of a more market-based approach of pricing emissions rather than a more central-planned approach of large public projects.
The problem with ‘putting a price on CO2 emissions’ (even if one believed that this was a good idea) is that it is not a market-based solution if the price is being set (as it will be) by government fiat. All you need to do is to look at the European experience with this sort of thing to see the problems inherent in this approach. Every lobbyist in the universe would be licking their chops as the special interests line up to carve out their exemption or slice of the pie. This is a rent-seekers dream….
the blocking or at least slowing down of major infrastructure projects through the courts is perhaps the signature achievement of Ralph Nader’s movement along with the broader environmental movement.
It’s also very enriching for these movements and costly for those wanting to progress. I know this is implied by the schedule delay, but there is often this pretense that these greenies are poor people doing these things for altruistic means.
I’m not against rail service. I’ve seen it work pretty well in London, which has many of the same geographical issues as Houston. The problem is complex. An issue of property rights, cost, aesthetics, and energy needs. The first two issues prevent movement by “the right” and the second two issues prevent movement by the “the left”. Then there is the whole crass cronism that goes on among the political elites, train equipment vendors, and real estate developers, which frustrates both sides of the aisle.
Alas, its pretty irrelevant at the moment. We’ve spent our money elsewhere and on needless things. We simply cannot afford programs that begin with years of legal battles.
It was pointed out here or elsewhere that a lot of political people have their connections with the real estate people, and this is even true for office holders on the liberal-Left. Yes, there is cronyism in politics. “Is this place honest? As the day is long!”
I was trying to remember the political slogan I came up with to describe this and now it comes back to me.
Politics in America — like Microsoft, it is all about “Developers, developers, developers, developers!”
But it might be kept alive by Leftist inconsistency and contempt for fair play.
If the B-Ho is re-elected, he can simply waive that part of the law. He has already set the precedent, to which Congress has acquiesced. Congress will have no ability to stop him without a supermajority Republican Senate (plus margin above the RINOs), and the likely only through removal by impeachment. If his disregard for the Constitution hasn’t been enough so far, why would it be in the future?
It’s later than you think…
To quote Tolkein:
Oft evil will shall evil mar.
Jim, Chris, or Bob-1 care to weigh in on this?
Seriously, let’s set the snark aside about this being a “failure for President Obama” or a “failure for Governor Brown” and discuss this from the standpoint of the engineering trades.
One one hand, the blocking or at least slowing down of major infrastructure projects through the courts is perhaps the signature achievement of Ralph Nader’s movement along with the broader environmental movement.
I mean, back in the day, if somebody, a Robert Moses wanted something done, it was done in the name of the public good, and forget about the neighborhood that was split in two for the benefit of an Interstate highway or the people displaced from their homes.
The whole Ralph Nader thing was to say, “Hey wait a minute, what about all of these other people with a stake in this decision?” Ever since, any major infrastructure project is all wrapped up in red tape. In one sense, this harms the social purpose and public good, but in another sense, it protects individual rights (to stay in one’s home, to breath clean air).
Snark aside about “slow speed rail”, the California High Speed Rail is a Big Infrastructure project, but it is a pro-environment project, no? The idea is that if a train is fast enough, it can substitute for cars, that the much-faster-than-being-stuck-on-I5 speed can substitute for the inconvenience of getting to and from the train station at each end? That the electric train can substitute for gas-consuming and CO2-emitting cars?
So how does one square the circle, that the very thing that is supposed to stimulate the economy with construction and later operation jobs, protect the environment by cutting CO2, that such a thing goes against the Ralph Nader principle of litigating environmental regs in the courts?
Do we cut the red tape on this thing and get ‘er done? Or is the process for using the courts to resolve these concerns a greater social value in the end, and maybe it is better to risk the California High-Speed Rail rather than push this through. If we don’t get this project going, that probably means high speed rail is going anywhere in the U.S. for another generation. If we push this through, what kind of precedent does this set.
Or maybe Edmund G Brown, Jr. is consciously making an economic calculation that this thing is not worth the money and is letting it die?
I want to believe that there are better options for inter-city transportation than the ones we have today, but this particular project seems doomed. There’s definitely a tension between great public works and the various veto points we’ve put into law to keep projects from running roughshod over local communities and the environment. I hate to see promising technology thwarted, but I also wouldn’t trade our laws for those of, say, China, or the 19th century U.S.
As for the bigger environmental picture, if we really want to cut CO2 we should put a price on emissions. That’s a fairer and more efficient means than subsidizing high speed rail.
Thanks for your reply. We may not agree on all matters, but I am not disposed to gloat over the difficulties of the high-speed train.
That “CO2 matters” is arguable, and if one is arguing for limiting on CO2, I could support your proposal of a more market-based approach of pricing emissions rather than a more central-planned approach of large public projects.
The problem with ‘putting a price on CO2 emissions’ (even if one believed that this was a good idea) is that it is not a market-based solution if the price is being set (as it will be) by government fiat. All you need to do is to look at the European experience with this sort of thing to see the problems inherent in this approach. Every lobbyist in the universe would be licking their chops as the special interests line up to carve out their exemption or slice of the pie. This is a rent-seekers dream….
the blocking or at least slowing down of major infrastructure projects through the courts is perhaps the signature achievement of Ralph Nader’s movement along with the broader environmental movement.
It’s also very enriching for these movements and costly for those wanting to progress. I know this is implied by the schedule delay, but there is often this pretense that these greenies are poor people doing these things for altruistic means.
I’m not against rail service. I’ve seen it work pretty well in London, which has many of the same geographical issues as Houston. The problem is complex. An issue of property rights, cost, aesthetics, and energy needs. The first two issues prevent movement by “the right” and the second two issues prevent movement by the “the left”. Then there is the whole crass cronism that goes on among the political elites, train equipment vendors, and real estate developers, which frustrates both sides of the aisle.
Alas, its pretty irrelevant at the moment. We’ve spent our money elsewhere and on needless things. We simply cannot afford programs that begin with years of legal battles.
It was pointed out here or elsewhere that a lot of political people have their connections with the real estate people, and this is even true for office holders on the liberal-Left. Yes, there is cronyism in politics. “Is this place honest? As the day is long!”
I was trying to remember the political slogan I came up with to describe this and now it comes back to me.
Politics in America — like Microsoft, it is all about “Developers, developers, developers, developers!”