This NYT article on the failure of CA’s high speed rail reminds me of the chapter “The Moratorium on Brains” from Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged

Drop Dead Fred

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2020
1,070
2,344
1,928
This New York Times article on the failure of California’s high speed rail reminds me of the chapter “The Moratorium on Brains” from Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged.

In that chapter from the fictional book, everyone on a passenger train died because the train was controlled by politics instead of common sense.

This new article from the New York Times explains how the real world train’s ridiculous, absurd, irrational route was chosen based on politics instead of on common sense.

The New York Times article states:

“… the design for the nation’s most ambitious infrastructure project was never based on the easiest or most direct route. Instead, the train’s path out of Los Angeles was diverted across a second mountain range to the rapidly growing suburbs of the Mojave Desert – a route whose most salient advantage appeared to be that it ran through the district of a powerful Los Angeles county supervisor.”

Wow. That’s just dumb.

The article then goes on to state many different reasons why the project is so far behind schedule, and so far over budget. These blunders are the result of decisions being made based on politics instead of on logic.

By comparison, look at the very successful high speed rail in other parts of the world, such as Japan and Western Europe. They designed and built their high speed rail systems based on logic and rational thinking, not politics.

You can read Rand’s entire novel for free at this link. The chapter that I mentioned begins on page 523.

https://antilogicalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/atlas-shrugged.pdf

Here’s the New York Times article:

How California’s Bullet Train Went Off the Rails
 
CA doesn't have enough power now, let alone converting to EVs or adding a new bullet train.

I remember when they wanted to add a solar plant in the Mojave, and Feinstein killed it. CA is too "green" to do anything.

1665352524072.png
 
CA~California isn't the only one engaging such folly.

In the last few years an organization, ostensibly an NGO = NonGovernment Organization, yet has participation of three governors and one provincial administrator, among other governmental agencies and assests, seeks to expand on this sort of boondoggle.

Calls itself the "Cascadia Innovation Corridor" and has grand schemes for creating a "mega-region" of co-operation between state and province governments, private industries, and private financial entities, running from California through Oregon, Washington and into Canada-British Columbia. With little to no input or approval by the citizens, voters, taxpayers of those states/province.


One potential challenge here is that Article One, Section Ten of USA Constitution prohibits States from entering into separate agreements outside of Federal involvement.
Article. I. , Section. 10. (Excerpt:)
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;"
 
The legal "agreement";
September 13, 2022
Sustainable Cascadia Statement


The not quite legal weasel around (at bottom of second page);

"
This document shall have no legal effect; impose no legally binding obligation enforceable in any court of law or other tribunal of any sort, nor create any funding expectation; nor shall the jurisdictions of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California be responsible for the
actions of third parties or associates. This document does not change, influence, or create new legal relationships among British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California."
 
I believe you mean ELECTRICAL power. Without taking from some other State or Region.
Yes.
I also remember when CA declared electricity a "commodity" thinking that providers would rush to sell electricity there.

What actually happened was that transmission losses were too expensive. Electricity needs to be generated locally, which CA fails to understand. CA doesn't build powerplants, they prefer to shut them down, which is why they have brownouts.

There are a lot of very smart people in CA, one would think that one of them would look at power-supply vs power-demand projections.
 
Yes.
I also remember when CA declared electricity a "commodity" thinking that providers would rush to sell electricity there.

What actually happened was that transmission losses were too expensive. Electricity needs to be generated locally, which CA fails to understand. CA doesn't build powerplants, they prefer to shut them down, which is why they have brownouts.

There are a lot of very smart people in CA, one would think that one of them would look at power-supply vs power-demand projections.
Unfortunately it seems none of the "smart people" are involved in politics or positions to set energy policies that apply common sense.
 
The legal "agreement";
September 13, 2022
Sustainable Cascadia Statement


The not quite legal weasel around (at bottom of second page);

"
This document shall have no legal effect; impose no legally binding obligation enforceable in any court of law or other tribunal of any sort, nor create any funding expectation; nor shall the jurisdictions of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California be responsible for the
actions of third parties or associates. This document does not change, influence, or create new legal relationships among British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California."
This may be unConstitutional. Per Article. I., Section. 10. ;
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;" ~ with another Nation.

 

Forum List

Back
Top