Saturday, August 19, 2017

PART ONE: “IT’S ALL ABOUT RISK”!


The blog post following this one is PART TWO: REMEMBER! “IT’S ALL ABOUT RISK”! (Do you remember where you put your gasmask?)

From Post reporter Jennifer Sorentrue about “Brightline foes’ new twist”.

About halfway through reading this article checked the date to make sure it wasn’t April 1st. Would guess Jennifer Sorentrue wasn’t the least surprised to hear:
Brightline officials on Wednesday declined to comment on the attorneys’ letter.

Another excerpt from the news story:

In a 6-page letter sent to federal transportation officials on Monday, attorneys for Martin and Indian River counties and the anti-rail group CARE FL argue a loan from the Federal Railroad Administration to help pay for the Brightline project would create “unique financial concerns” for the [President] Trump administration.

Let’s take a stroll down memory lane!

“It’s All About Risk”

Below is a blog post from November 2015.

How far along is All Aboard Florida [AAF; now Brightline]? When they’re ordering seats for the trains that’s a good indication how far. Only three months ago when the anti-AAF fever was at its highest pitch this full-page ad appeared in The Palm Beach Post [August 2015], last page of the ‘B’ section:

Part of full-page ad in image below,
“. . . wrecks like this one in Philadelphia.”
Everyone knows, “It’s All About Risk”!

The Guardians of Martin County tried to make the intellectual argument that AAF is too risky because there was a train wreck in Philadelphia.

Profound.

Planes and cars crash, ships sink, and satellite launches fail. . . are all those to be abandoned due to risk? Surely Henry Flagler was informed of the risks and he decided to go ahead anyway with his railway project into the “backwater swamp”.

The Guardians in the ad went on with a laundry list of risks from AAF: Financial RISK, Ridership RISK, and the Funding RISK

What the Guardians didn’t do was provide any solutions for the future of Florida. Are we to presume they want more lanes and more cars using I-95 and the Turnpike?

How wide does I-95 have to be in the future? 6 lanes each way? Or maybe just make it 8?

Or maybe study once again the “fundamental rule”?
Learn more about the fundamental rule” of traffic: Building new lanes for cars and trucks just creates more traffic.

No comments: