# Mercury News editorial: High-speed rail project's safety ...



## DET63 (Jun 3, 2013)

> ... is the latest worry





> Take "The Little Engine That Could," remove the hero's underdog charm and the inevitability of a happy ending, and you've got the saga of the California bullet train as the project nears the scheduled start of construction next month.





> It thinks it can, it thinks it can. Planners think it can get over a mountain of legal, financial and procedural worries, the latest being a red flag about safety and quality in a major contractor's proposal. Gov. Jerry Brown and other supporters think it still can become the 21st-century jewel of the state's transportation system, carrying residents and tourists between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2 hours 40 minutes.
> Who else thinks so?
> 
> The high-speed rail project born of state voters' approval of Proposition 1A in 2008 now seems to be powered solely by the determination of proponents with reputations and jobs on the line. The only happy ending in sight may be one in which the project's problems stop it while there's still time to turn back. The whole idea would slam to a halt if Californians were allowed to vote again -- as, increasingly clearly, they should be.


More


----------



## Anderson (Jun 4, 2013)

Is there any information on these "concerns" that _isn't_ from an editorial (or editorial-like-sounding) piece?


----------



## George Harris (Jun 4, 2013)

This is one of these article that leaves one wondering what sort of response could be made to it. This is not because their reasoning and analysis is so solid, but because it is so completely irrational and nonsensical it is difficulty to decide whether any or what sort of response could be given that would be understood by those making these statements.

As to the "red flag about safety and quality in a major contractor's proposal": Could they please honor us with an example of this "red flag". Do they even know what is in this proposal? Is this "a major contractor" the contractor that it appears will get the job or some other contractor?


----------



## John Bredin (Jun 4, 2013)

The Mercury Poisoning News editor must be named Elmer 'cuz he's all about the FUD. :blink: :angry: :giggle:


----------



## jis (Jun 4, 2013)

Yup. It is the good ole' Merky afterall!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 4, 2013)

Just another worthless tabloid fluff piece from the king of tabloid fluff threads.


----------



## me_little_me (Jun 4, 2013)

"The whole idea would slam to a halt if Californians were allowed to vote again -- as, increasingly clearly, they should be."

Ah, yes. When the vote goes against one, they always come up with that whine. And if it is in their favor, they laud the vote and denigrate any thoughts of a revote by others. The same is true of Supreme Court decisions and congressional votes. When they vote like one believes, they are thoughtful, incisive and properly thinking justices or "statesmen". But if they vote against what that person believes, they are just political hacks bending to pressure groups or voting solely their wrong-headed, idiotic ideas.


----------



## leemell (Jun 4, 2013)

George Harris said:


> This is one of these article that leaves one wondering what sort of response could be made to it. This is not because their reasoning and analysis is so solid, but because it is so completely irrational and nonsensical it is difficulty to decide whether any or what sort of response could be given that would be understood by those making these statements.
> As to the "red flag about safety and quality in a major contractor's proposal": Could they please honor us with an example of this "red flag". Do they even know what is in this proposal? Is this "a major contractor" the contractor that it appears will get the job or some other contractor?


This is what I find with most articles and editorials about CAHSR in newspapers and on Radio/TV.


----------



## Aaron (Jun 4, 2013)

George Harris said:


> As to the "red flag about safety and quality in a major contractor's proposal": Could they please honor us with an example of this "red flag". Do they even know what is in this proposal? Is this "a major contractor" the contractor that it appears will get the job or some other contractor?


They gave the example later in the piece. The fact that the Tutor Perini bid was selected based on lowest cost despite it also having the lowest technical score _is _the "red flag about safety and quality".

That said, it's hard to follow arguments that say simultaneously that the HSR project costs too much and that it needs to cost more.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 4, 2013)

Aaron said:


> They gave the example later in the piece. The fact that the Tutor Perini bid was selected based on lowest cost despite it also having the lowest technical score _is _the "red flag about safety and quality".
> That said, it's hard to follow arguments that say simultaneously that the HSR project costs too much and that it needs to cost more.


OK.



> . . . it's the lowest of the five bidders (at $985 million), . . . . The High-Speed Rail Authority shifted its priorities to emphasize low cost, vaulting Sylmar-based Tutor Perini over two European firms.
> But there must be no scrimping on safety and quality for a 220-mph train. If the state has to sacrifice quality to make the bullet train affordable, that's another sign it's unaffordable.


And if the Authority had not gone for the lowest cost bidder there would have been screaming about that. It is no-win. There is also no real basis given for saying that there has been scrimping on safety and quality. Maybe Tutor just cut his margin a little finer. No way we can know from anything here. All we are getting in this "news" article is more running around in circles, waving arms, and screaming.


----------



## NW cannonball (Jun 5, 2013)

George Harris said:


> This is one of these article that leaves one wondering what sort of response could be made to it. This is not because their reasoning and analysis is so solid, but because it is so completely irrational and nonsensical it is difficulty to decide whether any or what sort of response could be given that would be understood by those making these statements.
> As to the "red flag about safety and quality in a major contractor's proposal": Could they please honor us with an example of this "red flag". Do they even know what is in this proposal? Is this "a major contractor" the contractor that it appears will get the job or some other contractor?


Yup. As the famous physicist said "this statement is so stupid - it isn't even wrong!"

Sometimes the "media" should just not write (post-whatever) when they have no clue. Getting to be too much like the e-mail spam on the early net that gave rise to the urban folklore discussion group long ago.


----------



## DET63 (Jun 6, 2013)

> That said, it's hard to follow arguments that say simultaneously that the HSR project costs too much and that it needs to cost more.


The writer(s) would probably say, "That's why we need to scrap it."


----------

