For all that Democrats at the state and national level want to force adoption of them, electric cars are no panacea to solving the “climate change crisis” those same Democrats claim will kill us all.
Peter Zeihan explains why.
“A lot of major auto manufacturers are scaling down their plans to make electric vehicles. Ford and GM have both suspended, well, cancelled plans to build a couple new facilities for battery and EV assembly. No changes to their internal combustion engine vehicle plans.”
Tesla production is also slowing. “They’re going to suspend and maybe even cancel the plans for the gigafactory that they were going to be building in Mexico, although that’s very TBD.”
“From an environmental point of view most EVs are at best questionable.”
“The data that says they’re a slam dunk successes assumes that you’re building the EVs with a relatively clean energy mix and then recharging it with 100% green energy, and that happens exactly nowhere in the United States.”
“The cleanest state is California they are still 50% fossil fuel energy, and they lie about their statistics, because they say they don’t know what the mix is for the power that they’re importing from the rest of the country, which is something like a third of their total demand. And the stuff that comes, say, from the Phoenix area in Arizona to the LA Basin which is something like 10GW a day, which is more than most small countries, is 100% fossil fuel.”
“More importantly on the fabrication side, because there are so many more exotic materials and because energy processed to make those materials is so much more energy intensive, all of this work is done in China, and in most places it’s done with either soft coal or lignite.”
“You’re talking about an order of magnitude more carbon generated just to make these things in the first place compared to an IC [integrated circuit, AKA computer chips]. And that means that these things don’t break even on the carbon within a year. For most you’re talking about approaching 10 years or more.”
But Zeihan is leaving the most important variable out of this equation: The smug sense of satisfaction and moral superiority American leftists feel when driving these cars. Isn’t that worth all those extra coal plants?
Number 2: Materials. “These vehicles require an order of magnitude more stuff, more copper, more molybdenum, more lithium, obviously, more graphite. And the energy content required to put those in process is where most of the energy cost comes from.”
“If we’re going to convert the world’s vehicle fleets to these things, there’s just not enough of this stuff on the planet. I’m not saying that we can’t build on in time, but that time is measured in decades.”
“Supposedly we need 10x a much nickel on all the rest. So the stuff just isn’t there. So even if this was an environmental panacea, which it’s not, we would never be able to do it on a very short time frame. You’re talking a century.”
They’re also way more expensive. “This is not a vehicle that’s for most people.”
“And that’s before you consider little things like range anxiety. I’ve rented an EV. It’s real. There just aren’t enough charging stations.”
“EVs are building up on the lots and people just aren’t buying them without absolutely massive discounts and the discounts are now to the point that the whole industry is no longer profitable even with the subsidies that came in from the Inflation Reduction Act.”
“1% of the American vehicle Fleet to EVs, and it looks like we may be very close close to the peak.”
Not every one of his points hits home (there are, in fact, lots of overpriced gas powered cars and trucks sitting on dealers lots, as a lot of YouTube channels will show you), but he’s mostly correct.
Our conservative estimate is that the average EV accrues $48,698 in subsidies and $4,569 in extra charging and electricity costs over a 10-year period, for a total cost of $53,267, or $16.12 per equivalent gallon of gasoline. Without increased and sustained government favors, EVs will remain more expensive than ICEVs for
many years to come. Hence why, even with these subsidies, EVs have been challenging for dealers to sell and why basic economic realities indicate that the Biden administration’s dream of achieving 100% EVs by 2040 will never become a reality.
School board elections used to be pokey little things few people paid attention to. That all changed when the social justice set decided that schools would be ideal platforms from which to indoctrinate and groom your children. Now some school board elections are important enough that they can attract the attention of a sitting United States Senator.
Following several years of controversy over allegations of critical race theory embedded in curricula and age-inappropriate books in libraries, heightened interest in the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School district (CFISD) board elections has drawn a slew of new candidates and endorsements from elected officials who rarely weigh in on local races.
Cypress-Fairbanks (Cy-Fair) ISD is in the northwest of Harris County. It started out suburban, but the vast majority of it is now within the city limits of Houston.
“It is vital that our children and schools are led by those who advance educational opportunity,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in a statement explaining his endorsements. “These candidates will ensure that educational excellence is the standard in Cy-Fair ISD.”
Like municipal elections, school board races are non-partisan, meaning candidates do not officially declare party affiliation and there are no primaries. In recent years, however, CFISD has been among many across the state in which local and state political parties help to recruit and promote candidates.
Earlier this year, Republican precinct chairs in the northwestern Harris County district near Houston held a series of private forums to determine which candidates the Harris County Republican Party (HCRP) would endorse. Votes from the participating chairs landed on Todd LeCompte for Position 1, George Edwards for Position 2, Justin Ray for Position 3, and Christine Kalmbach for Position 4.
In addition to the HCRP, the Republican Party of Texas, state Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress), and Harris County Commissioner Tom Ramsey (R-Pct. 3) have stepped in to endorse the four candidates campaigning together. Cruz’s endorsement added heft to the Republican-sanctioned slate in a district that helped elect Republican Reps. Morgan Luttrell (R-TX-8) and Wesley Hunt (R-TX 38) to Congress.
Naturally the American Federation of Teachers has weighed in on the other side.
Early voting continues through Sunday, and election day is Tuesday, November 11.
As the population boom in Texas’ capital city has led to increased demands for improvements to its highway system, a recently approved expansion plan is set to be underway but is not without its detractors.
Austin — as well as Texas, the second most populous state in the country — has seen population growth at an explosive rate. Many of these new residents are younger and want to live in the most economically viable areas of the state.
In response to the growing demands of the booming population in Austin, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) approved the $4.5 billion Capital Express Central Project that plans to add four lanes to Interstate 35 in downtown Austin.
TxDOT contended that the I-35 improvements are necessary because the highway currently “does not adequately accommodate current and future travel demand and does not meet current federal and state design standards.” It goes on to say that “deficiencies” in the safety and operational management of I-35 “can impact crash rates and peak period travel times.”
Austin is known for having some of the worst traffic conditions in the state and a report from earlier this year found that the roads are getting more dangerous with an all-time high in fatalities due to traffic crashes, at least 125 in 2022. TxDOT expects traffic on the Austin section of I-35 to increase by “45 percent between 2019 and 2050.”
Everyone in the greater Austin area knows that I-35 traffic has been horrible essentially forever. In the 1980s, it was only bad at rush hour, but now it’s bad most days, evenings and weekends as well. The only time it didn’t suck was during the Flu Manchu lockdowns, and we all know how well those worked out.
So is Austin going to move forward to help the problem? Of course not.
Despite TxDOT’s plans to move forward with the I-35 expansion, the Austin City Council has been more skeptical about its prospects.
The council recently approved a resolution asking TxDOT to postpone their construction on I-35, claiming that the environmental impact statement (ESI) is insufficient in addressing “reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.”
“I believe TxDOT’s project design should not be finalized until the findings and recommendations from the regional plans can be taken into consideration,” said Mayor Pro Tem Paige Ellis. “While I-35 Central’s groundbreaking is inevitable, Austinites have shown strong support of efforts to reduce car-dependency and slow climate change, and it can’t be stressed enough how important it is to get this multigenerational project right.”
In the sense that they’re stupid enough to keep voting for radical leftwing Democrats who hate cars and the people that drive them, then yes. But I fail to see how having more cars idling on I-35 gridlock helps fight “climate change,” no matter how much Soros-stooge run Center for American Progress (also quoted in opposition) says so. I suspect most Austinites would just like to get somewhere on time for a change.
The request resolution passed by the Austin City Council would require two environmental plans to be finished before TxDOT begins construction, but Council Member Chito Vela told Community Impact that “the project is moving forward, and I’m not aware of any legal or political strategy that will stop it.”
Here’s a story I missed from September that takes on an even more sinister cast in retrospect.
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging multiple parts of California SB2, which unilaterally declares numerous locations as “sensitive places” where California will now ban the carry of firearms by licensed, law-abiding Californians. The complaint in Carralero v. Bonta can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.
“SB2 restricts where persons with licenses to carry a concealed weapon may legally exercise their constitutional right to wear, carry, or transport firearms. And it does so in ways that are fundamentally inconsistent with the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen,” argues the complaint. “The Second Amendment does not tolerate these restrictions. This Court should enter judgment enjoining their enforcement and declaring them unconstitutional.”
“With Gov. Newsom’s signing of SB2 today, California continues to exhibit its disdain for the rights of Californians, the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal, and FPC’s counsel. “Unfortunately for California, and contrary to Governor Newsom’s misguided statements, the state does not have the power to unilaterally overrule individual rights and constitutional protections. Fortunately, courts across the nation have already struck down laws just like SB2, and we expect the same result here.”
FPC is joined in this lawsuit by three individuals, Orange County Gun Owners, San Diego County Gun Owners, and California Gun Rights Foundation.
If Democrats actually revered the Supreme Court as much as they claim to, Bruen would have ended their attempts to pass Second Amendment infringing legislation. But the goal of disarming the civilian population is only slightly less sacred a Democratic Party cause than taxpayer-funded abortions. So they soldier on trying to thwart the Constitution.
This bill would remove those exemptions, except as specified. The bill would make it a crime to bring an unloaded firearm into, or upon the grounds of, any residence of the Governor, any other constitutional officer, or Member of the Legislature. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from carrying a firearm to specified locations, including, among other places, a building designated for a court proceeding and a place of worship, as defined, with specific exceptions. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Well, it’s not like any particular houses of worship are under particular threats from particular terrorist organizations, now is it?
Just four years ago on the last day of Passover, a man armed with a rifle burst into a synagogue in Poway, near San Diego, fatally shot one woman and injured three other congregants, including the synagogue’s rabbi.
A year before, an even more horrific attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue left 11 dead.
In the aftermath of the attack on Israel, many American Jews are arming themselves. But in California, not only will Jews and worshippers in other faiths be banned from protecting themselves in their houses of worship, but would-be killers will know that potential victims in “sensitive” areas will be unarmed.
Everywhere in the west, the radical left is protesting to support Hamas, despite (or perhaps because) of the latter’s calls to completely destroy the Jews. Meanwhile, Gavin Newsom and California Democrats are disarming law-abiding Jewish American citizens in their synagogues.
Commies ruin everything, including buildings. Here’s the story of a French suburb of Paris that went from failing to thriving after getting rid of their ugly commie architecture.
“This town did the impossible! It was able to transform itself from a gloomy dispirited town, dominated by decaying concrete flats into a thriving, friendly and beautiful community.”
“That town is Le Plessis-Robinson. This municipality is home to around 30,000 inhabitants. When you walk it’s center, you might not notice what is so special about this place. It looks like a perfectly ordinary, charming French town, until you learn that everything you see is recently built.”
“After World War II, the local Communist party wins the elections. and becomes the ruling party of Le Plessis-Robinson for over 40 years. During those years, the town is further expanded with a modernist urban scheme.” Translation: Lots of ugly, Brutalist concrete.
“There’s a lot of social housing, but the concentration of marginalized groups has its toll.” In the French context, I’m guessing “marginalized groups” means unassimilated Muslims from French North Africa.
“The town becomes more sinister, filled with rubbish, petty crime and poverty. At some point, 2/3rd of the buildings are in a bad state. They are energy inefficient, vandalised and badly maintained. Companies are closing down, and problems related to poverty are rising.”
“In 1989, Le Plessis-Robinson is about to become one of Paris’ problematic banlieues. Only a miracle can possibly prevent this town’s further slide into decay. And boy, does a miracle happen. The election of 1989 changes everything. Philippe Pemezec, a local politician belonging to the party “Les Républicains”, wins the election.
“He promptly sets out to regenerate the municipality. In doing so, he takes an unconventional method: To beautify the city, and to improve the town on all fronts. Instead of the harsh, brutal and grey blocks that dominate the city, Pemezec wants a type of architecture that people can connect with. Instead of grey concrete, there would be color.”
“The town would have a vibrant, mixed use center with lively streets, creating more jobs, by planning commercial spaces for local businesses, but also by offering the peace of beautiful parks, gardens and fountains. Le Plessis-Robinson would have a soul again.”
“François Spoerry [is the] main architect, who designs a masterplan. Spoerry is also the supervisor who tests all the designs made by other architects. In this case, only traditional and classical architects are attracted, which is rare.” In other woods, beautiful, classic designs, not ugly modern crap.
The revamp public (“social”) housing. Also: “Owner occupied homes are introduced as well, to achieve a greater, more natural mix in social- and income classes.” Funny how much better people treat things when they own it.
“A program is introduced to give social housing tenants the chance to become a homeowner, by offering them to buy a new home under favorable terms.” Shades of Jack Kemp!
“At that point, the housing supply of Le Plessis-Robinson consists of 72% social housing. These extremely high concentrations of social housing in one location are often not sustainable and have been linked to various social and economic problems.” You don’t say.
I don’t agree with every point of the video, and there are lots of lefty planning buzzwords (“new urbanism,” “gentrification” etc.), but the video makes clear that the Le Plessis-Robinson of today is clearly much more beautiful and livable than the concrete commie slum Pemezec was faced with in 1989.
With Israel’s full-blown ground incursion into Gaza still looming, it’s time to go over The Palestine Myth again, i.e. just about everything your left-wing types spew about how Israel “dismembered Palestine” is wrong.
This is a map of the territory now known as the State of Israel, and many use it to support their argument that modern Israel has ‘stolen’ the lands of Palestinian Arabs.
But there was never a country called ‘Palestine’ to begin with. That name is for a territory, not an actual country.
So, the whole “Israel took land from a country” idea?
It’s not the full picture.
Let’s skip the ancient empires and zoom in on more recent history.
Specifically, to the Ottoman Empire that governed the territory in question for four centuries, from 1516 to 1917.
This is an essential context because, during their rule, the area we now refer to as Israel and Palestine was part of a much larger imperial jurisdiction, and not a sovereign state called ‘Palestine.’
The area had a relatively sparse population. Throughout their rule, the Ottomans encouraged Muslim migration to Palestine, primarily from Egypt and Sudan. This is, in fact, the origin of many of today’s Palestinians, as indicated by the surnames of major clans.
After WWI, starting in 1917, Britain took over the territory. They quickly issued the Balfour Declaration, which was the first nod to creating a Jewish homeland in Israel.
Pro-tip: If a lefty wants to debate you on the Middle East, bring up The Balfour Declaration. If they don’t know what that is, point out that they’re simply too ignorant of the most basic facts of the region to have an informed conversation and disengage. (There I go again, winning friends and influencing people…)
On Nov 29, 1947, the UN passed a partition plan dividing the territory of British Mandate Palestine between Jews and Arabs. It recognized both sides’ rights to establish a nation-state within agreed-upon borders, a move voted on and approved by UN member states.
The Jewish community fully embraced the UN’s partition plan, but the Arab population flatly rejected it.
Armed conflict against Jewish settlements started almost immediately, dubbed the War of Independence, even as British rule persisted.
On the last day of the British Mandate, May 14, 1948, a Jewish state was declared. The very next day, armies from Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt, with smaller forces from Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, invaded the territory, initiating the 2nd phase of the War of Independence.
After nearly a year of fighting, the young State of Israel successfully repelled invading foreign armies and internal Arab forces, capturing additional territories in the process.
The armistice lines of 1949 established that the West Bank would be under Jordanian control, and the Gaza Strip under Egyptian control. The remaining territories were incorporated into Israel. These borders held until the 1967 Six-Day War.
Which is when Israel captured the Sinai, the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights.
In 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat visited Israel, marking the beginning of a peace process between the two countries. As part of this, Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. Egypt, however, declined to retake control of the Gaza Strip, leaving it in Israeli hands.
The 1993 Oslo Accords led to a phased transfer of most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Palestinian control.
Fast forward to 2005, Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza Strip, evacuating all its settlements.
Since 2005, there’s been no Israeli presence—civilian or military—in Gaza. Since then, Hamas, a terror organization, effectively controlled the territory.
The last is not strictly true, since Operation Cast Lead (i.e., Israel reacting to the last time Hamas tried this bullshit) resulted in a short military presence in Gaza while the IDF thoroughly kicked Hamas’ ass.
His conclusion:
There has never been a sovereign state called Palestine. In fact, as of today, the territories belonging to the Palestinian Authority are the largest ever held by an entity defined as Palestinian.
The majority of Palestinians originated from migration from countries like Sudan and Egypt during the Ottoman Empire, with no proven historical connection to Israel.
Arabs residing in Israel before 1948 were offered the chance to establish their own nation-state but chose to go to war instead. They can’t blame anyone but themselves for the outcomes.
Regardless of history, millions of Palestinians currently live in Gaza and the West Bank, and a viable solution must be found for their peaceful coexistence.
It seems that Palestinians have been the ones sabotaging solutions so far.
A full scale ground war may or may not be developing in Gaza, the Biden recession claims bank branches, California declares itself a “child molesters across from schools” friendly zone, and lots of criminals making very poor decisions. It’s the Friday LinkSwarm!
There was also a screening today for reporters of footage of the atrocities carried out by the organization so many college lefties are cheering for.
I joined about 20 other journalists in a 14th-floor Manhattan conference room to watch the horrific video, which includes footage and images from a range of sources — such as cameras that Hamas attackers wore, dash cams, traffic cameras, and the phones of terrorists, their victims, and first responders — providing evidence of the crimes that Hamas carried out in Israel this month. The footage shows gagged and bound civilians burnt to an unidentifiable crisp; the casual and summary execution of people, including children, cowering under desks in the dark as they hide from terrorists wearing headlamps; the grisly decapitation of a Thai worker already bleeding from the stomach by a terrorist using a garden hoe; and other horrors.
In Gaza, by contrast, there are no visible military facilities, while Hamas fighters can shed their fashionable black outfits and dress like civilians. This will not, however, frustrate the Israeli offensive, which still has fixed, immovable targets. These are the deep tunnels — too deep for aerial bombing — that Hamas has been excavating and lining in concrete for more than 10 years, using construction equipment and vast quantities of cement donated by different governments and international organisations “to house refugees”. As a result, Gaza’s refugee “camps” do not contain a single tent. Instead, they are home to a forest of high-rise apartments, which is undoubtedly a good thing, except for the fact that both machines and cement were also diverted for tunnelling on the largest scale.
These tunnels house relatively sophisticated rocket-assembly lines, motor-assembly works, sheet metal and explosives’ stores, and warhead-fabrication workshops. More tunnels house Hamas command posts and its ordnance stores of small arms, mortars and rockets. Even deeper tunnels house its leaders’ lodgings and headquarters. Finally, there are the exfiltration tunnels, though there is no sign that they were used in the October 7 attacks, perhaps because their exits had been detected and blocked long before.
When Israel’s forces enter Gaza, they will engage any enemies who resist them, but they will not go looking for them. Their task is to escort combat engineers to their job sites — the camouflaged places from which tunnels can be accessed. How do they know where these entry points are? While Israel’s aerostats with cameras, satellite photography and the pictures generated by radar returns cannot reveal tunnels, they have been used to monitor where cement-mixer trucks have stopped over the years. They cannot pinpoint tunnel entrances by doing so, but they can at least identify places worth exploring with low-frequency, earth-penetrating radars or simple probes.
The obvious danger here is that, even before the escorting troops and combat engineers descend underground to fight off Hamas’s guards and place their demolition charges, they will keep losing casualties to snipers and mortar bombs on their way to the sites.
To minimise the danger, however, the Israeli army can rely on the most heavily protected armoured vehicle ever developed: the Namer infantry combat vehicle. As well as having significantly more armour than any other combat vehicle anywhere in the world, it uses an active defence weapon to intercept incoming anti-tank missiles and rockets, and also has machine guns to fight off infantry attackers. In urban combat, tank crews firing machine guns from the top of their turrets are desperately vulnerable, but the Namer’s crew remains “buttoned up” inside the vehicle, relying on TV screens to see the outside world and operate their weapons remotely. In 2014, the last time Israeli troops fought in Gaza, most were riding thinly armoured M.113s, which were easily penetrated by RPG anti-tank rockets, with some 60 soldiers killed and hundreds wounded. Not this time.
After they reach the suspected tunnel sites, the Namers will line up to form a perimeter — an improvised fortress — to protect the combat engineers as they go about their task. It is very likely that there will still be skirmishing before, during and after each de-tunnelling operation, with Hamas mortar teams in action, as well as snipers hidden in ruins. Fortunately, the Israelis will have their 70-ton Namers, as well as their post-2014 street-fighting training, to protect them.
And they will need that protection, as dismantling Hamas’s tunnel network will take time: the one certainty in all this is that the planting of demolition charges cannot be done quickly without suffering many fatalities. This means there will be at least two weeks of war in the Gaza strip — and even this optimistically assumes that the entire tunnel system in the evacuated northern part can be cleared in a week, allowing the Israelis to do the same in the southern sector, after evacuating the southerners and sending home the northerners. The Government’s vow to persist until the destruction of Hamas will be tested every day.
During the first week of October alone, U.S. banks closed a whopping 54 local branches…
Major US banks are continuing to close branches across the US, leaving an increasing number of Americans without access to basic financial services.
Bank of America axed 21 branches in the first week of October, according to a bulletin published by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) on Friday.
Wells Fargo shuttered 15, while US Bank and Chase reported closing nine and three respectively.
In total, some 54 locations had either closed or were scheduled to close between October 1 and October 7.
That is just one week!
Of course bank branches have been closing at a frightening pace for quite some time now.
Last year, U.S. banks shut down about 2,000 more branches than they opened.
I do wonder how many of those closed-branches are in crime-happy Soros-backed-DA zones…
Scenes from the decline of law and order in California: “Dude is a sex offender with a loophole that allows him to be near a school and he can set up the ‘free fentanyl’ sign because he doesn’t actually have the drugs on him.” Social Justice Warriors seem to love pedophiles almost as much as radical Muslim terrorists…
“NewsGuard, a company which claims to rate media outlets’ level of ‘trustworthiness’ and therefore has a meaningful influence over ad revenue, has been sued along with the Biden administration by Consortium News, which also named the Pentagon’s Cyber Command for “contracting with NewsGuard to identify, report and abridge the speech of American media organizations that dissent from U.S. official positions on foreign policy.”
Sometimes you start working on a story, only to find out there are too many unknowns to fairly approach it from a blogging angle, or because you run the risk of looking like a complete jackass. Such is the case with this story of APD Chief Data Officer Jonathan Kringen being charged with domestic violence. Kringen is married to Anne Kringen, who seems to have been brought into APD to wage social justice against it in the wake of the “rimagining Austin police” lunacy. “I think it’s fundamentally important to involve the community voice into policing in all spheres, including the academy, and I’ll work to foster a culture of inclusivity that reflects the needs of a city as diverse and exciting as Austin.” “Provide insight into institutionalized racism and explores the underlying causes of inequality as well as tools to address these causes.” No one should be the victim of domestic abuse, but it appears that neither Kringen should be employed by APD.
Trump’s gag order is so extreme that even the ACLU agrees his free speech rights are being infringed.
The truth about Postcolonialism: “We started with Frantz Fanon calling for violent revolution, and ended with Gayatari Spivak trying to use postmodern philosophy to attack western ideas of knowledge…Decolonization for Fanon was replacing all the colonizers with colonized people, using violence (or threats of violence) in order to free colonized people from the shackles of western influence…Decolonization is the systematic destruction of any and all western influence anywhere and everywhere by any means necessary.”
“On Thursday, 32-year-old veteran NYPD Officer Grace Rose Baez was arrested along with 42-year-old Casar Martinez and charged with conspiracy to distribute narcotics and the distribution of narcotics after they allegedly tried to sell large quantities of drugs to a federal informant between Oct. 9 and 29.” Even NYPD frowns on such shenanigans as setting up your own fentanyl distribution network while on duty…
And they say retail workers aren’t ambitious these days: “California Home Depot Employee Arrested For Allegedly Embezzling $1.2 Million.” “She was basically just manipulating the books on how much she was depositing” and would walk away with spare cash. I know theft in California is bad, but I’m pretty sure Home Depot has all those sales computerized, and is going to catch on when you keep coming up short…
Robber: “Stop! Hammertime!” Gun store owner: “Nope!” BLAM!
I’ve long documented the failures of California’s still unbuilt high speed rail, and now a video from Simon Whistler (yeah, him) covers a similar doomed British high speed rail project:
“Even in a country used to paying absurd prices for everything from houses to a pint of beer, it was still a pretty eye-watering figure. After initially being projected to cost under £40 billion in 2012, Britain’s second high-speed rail project, HS2, was recently calculated to be facing a price tag closer to £100 billion.”
“Just the first phase alone the 34 miles connecting London and Birmingham is in danger of becoming one of the most expensive railways ever built.”
It was originally supposed to pay for itself by offering high speed connections between London and three English industrial cities in the north: Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield. But ballooning costs forced the cancellation of those two line extensions.
“All rationale for HS2 vanished, leaving the UK with a multi-billion pound bill just to slightly reduce travel time between London and Birmingham.”
HS1 was the 62 mile high speed rail line from London to the channel tunnel. It only cost three times the estimated price.
One reason it was considered a success: “It had added significant extra capacity to commuter lines running into London from Kent, as much as 40% extra in peak times.”
In the dying days Gordon Brown’s Labor government in 2010, Transport Secretary and rail freak Lord Adonis published a white paper outlining his Utopian high speed rail vision for Britain. Unfortunately, incoming conservative George Osborne had a soft spot for flashy infrastructure projects.
“Neither Adonis nor Osborne nor anybody else could have envisaged a budget that would soon balloon wildly out of control.” Actually, I suspect anyone familiar with the many failures of high speed rail projects in the U.S. could indeed have envisaged it.
By 2015 it was up to £55 billion.
By 2019 it was £71 billion, or over £22,000 for every UK household.
After 2020 and Flu Manchu, it was over £100 billion, and PM Rishi Sunak pulled the plug on everything but the London to Birmingham stretch, which was still going to cost £53 billion, or £396 million per mile.
“The fast train from Euston Station to Birmingham New Street takes around 1 hour and 40 minutes. All H2 will do will shave 25 to 35 minutes off that.”
All infrastructure projects in the UK cost more than their equivalents in continental Europe. “The insane costs associated with planning applications in the UK, something that you could see in the proposed London Themes Crossing, which recently spent £267 million just on planning paperwork.”
There’s a ton of NIMBYism along the route, forcing them to spend billions building rail tunnels despite it being perfectly feasible to build it overland.
Between London and Birmingham lies the sort of gentile English landscape that people who’ve never visited the UK believe the whole country looks like, a green swath of rolling hills, country lanes and posh blokes wearing tweed. Unfortunately, it turns out that the sort of people who live in this landscape hate the idea of London politicians plonking a fancy new train line right in the middle of it.
“Some countries like Japan can do tunneling at a reasonable cost. The UK is not among that group.”
Then there’s the well-paid army of white collar consultants, which will be familiar to any observer of California’s high speed rail project. “Among them were 40 employees paid more than £150,000 a year, and chief executives with higher salaries than any other public official in Britain.” Nice work if you can get it.
“In July of 20123 the government’s own infrastructure watchdog branded HS2 as unachievable saying it could not be delivered in its current form.”
The kicker: HS2 may never make it to central London, as building there is too expensive. “Rather than terminating at Euston Station in central London, HS2 would now end at Old Oak Common,” a suburban station, where they’re expected to catch local connections. “The new line will cost of tens of billions get you from Birmingham to central London less quickly than you can do it at the moment.”
But they’ve already spent £40 million for two top-of-the-line boring machines from Germany to dig the Old Oak Common to Euston segment. Current plans are to bury them in hope they might be used later.
“Hearing about stuff like this, it is tempting to wonder if, just maybe, the UK shouldn’t have listened to the results of the 2006 independent review into high speed rail written by Rod Edington before HS1 was even finished it concluded that highspeed rail simply isn’t worth it in Britain.”
“The money would be better spent on less sexy improvements, like line electrification and improving local bus services.”
And we all know why they’d never go that route: There simply aren’t enough opportunities for bureaucratic empire building and graft…
Representative Mike Johnson (R., La.), the fourth House Republican to be nominated for the speakership this month, secured the necessary 217 votes to be elected to the post on Wednesday afternoon, ending weeks of uncertainty within the caucus.
In a Wednesday afternoon election against Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.), whom Democrats unanimously rallied behind, Johnson garnered 220 votes compared to his competitor’s 209 votes.
The Republican speaker nominee became the fourth contestant in the running against Jeffries hours after Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R., Minn.) dropped his bid Tuesday afternoon. House Judiciary chairman Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) and Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R., La.), the two previous nominees for the presiding-officer role, also failed to secure enough support from their party.
Since Representative Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) was removed from the speakership over three weeks ago, the GOP conference repeatedly struggled to unite behind a candidate that could meet or surpass the 217-vote threshold. There are only 221 Republicans in the lower chamber, meaning each candidate couldn’t afford to lose more than four votes. Johnson only lost one.
And that one wasn’t against him, it was because Rep. Derrick Van Orden was absent.
Compared to some, Johnson is pretty low profile, and I didn’t already have a tag for him. He has a 90% Heritage Action rating, which isn’t too bad (though he did vote for the debt limit raise this year). Johnson is also a Trump supporter, which no doubt will irk National Review to no end. At 51, he’s relatively young for a speaker (though Paul Ryan was 45).
So says Kanal13, citing Ukrainian official sources:
There were mutterings of Ukrainian attacks on Sevastopol earlier today, but this is the first mention I’ve seen of naval drones being used. It will be interesting to find out how they got past the elaborate defensive netting system, if the attack is inside Sevastopol harbor itself.
