Henry Vilas wrote:I know Walker is anti-train but also pro pavement.
Bumpersticker worthy of you henry, but it's still a bit long.
California's bullet train will cost an estimated $98.5 billion to build over the next 22 years, a price nearly double any previous projection and one likely to trigger political sticker shock, according to a business plan scheduled to be unveiled Tuesday.
More importantly, the California High-Speed Rail Authority dramatically revamped its business plan, slashing as much as $30 billion from the price tag for building the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles system - from $98 billion to as little as $68 billion.
But none of those changes addressed what a panel of outside financial experts has styled "the elephant in the room" for California's proposed high-speed rail system - its extraordinarily low projected operating costs.
If the bullet train project is to pencil out, it must operate far more economically than any high-speed rail system in the world, according to the experts, who include former World Bank executive William Grindley.
Unless these extraordinary economies actually are achieved, the train will require alarmingly high annual operating subsidies "forever," as the experts wrote in a report last month. The annual operating deficit could top $2 billion, they wrote.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/3 ... 65669.html
Cooking the numbers henry? the leftist huffington post?
LOS ANGELES — The state budget shortfall in California has increased dramatically in the last six months, forcing state officials to assemble a series of new spending cuts that are likely to mean further reductions to schools, health care and other social programs already battered by nearly five years of budget retrenchment, state officials announced on Saturday.
“We are now facing a $16 billion hole, not the $9 billion we thought in January,” Mr. Brown said. “This means we will have to go much further and make cuts far greater than I asked for at the beginning of the year.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/us/hu ... udget.html
are they part of the same, mysterious plot against obscenely expensive trains that carry no one and, um, are in favor of pavement?
Henry, I'm trying to help ya'll here. You try to help me with my spellin, and I appreciate that, but please let me help you out too.
Maybe the two voted against it because of this:
The transportation bill also included a provision to help college students. It keeps the 3.4 percent interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans from doubling on Sunday.
Yup, it's clear that non leftist democrats hate children and want them not to get any education.
Typical pavement lovers!
BTW, what's the democrat party's bill that raises student loan interest rates doing in a fluking transportation bill?
We were just made aware that college students are having so much sex they cannot afford contraception, so we must pay for it for them--even lesbians need of it for some reason.
But now we must pay for their transportation too? I don't get it?
What the Fluke?