Sunday, January 30, 2011
>:( GTA: GO Scam, yourself!
The Metrolinx / GO decision to electrify the corridor is wrong.
I will publicly debate my assertion with any expert, in any forum, at any time, from any country, but there is a catch, all questions must be answered using science based arguments, not bullshit, politics or opinions.
I am using math and the total energy method. Just so you know: "Gas-Bags" save your breath, I will not engage with non-scientists.
I find that the Metrolinx is another example of finding the “best-most-expensive but poor-performance-and-cost-decision” possible.
When they call this Green, then I swing into action! This is so far from green, but, we can all learn more about green. This project has the correct intent: help the environment.
So, lets do that and show Metrolinx that their report has a big carbon footprint as well: what a waste of time! Can I back-charge these clowns for my time? Nah! I am a volunteer! ;)
Why deliver quality solutions to the taxpayer when you can hide the "greenwash under some green icing on the happy-green-tax-cake"?
For those that bought into this huge “green” decision: you were screwed, please excuse my candour.
The decision to spend ~$10 Billion dollars to put a third electrified rail on the corridor represents a “well oiled tax wasting" process: slick. An apathetic public sold another "old and well used tax Trojan”.
What has changed? Well, this is 2011! Lets innovate and create jobs! $10 Billion in debt? No thanks!
If you think I am not qualified to issue such an assertion, lets just say I personally know one of the designers that worked with electrified rail systems for a big train company: Amtrak. Years ago we had this same discussion. His opinion was the same as mine, but, that did not stop him from working on the “big fat budgeted tax gravy train”. He said “I am smart, not stupid, you want a third rail? What color (he is an American) and when?”.
This entire process of converting the existing infrastructure is a construction company wet dream! Also, the lawyers have something to look forward to. I wonder how many new yachts will appear in the Toronto marinas this spring? Will one of the Yachts have "Amtrak" on the back? I jest.
It is interesting to look at this study and how it was performed. Why is it flawed from the start? The best way to choose the “one you want” is to not include the better solution on the list of choices. Simple.
This is "planning for profits 101" for any massive capital intensive project. Everyone lines up at the trough and the taxpayer gets the shaft.
Put some green lipstick on this pig and presto: lets stimulate the economy! Maybe it can be a new, ethical model and/or CPC platform: screw the taxpayer and call it environmentally friendly. I digressed fully.
I have a better solution: innovation. It is cheaper in cost ( both monetary and environmental costs ). It saves more energy both in transition/conversion plus operation cost and the maintenance costs. It also has less security risks (national security and operational security). It requires very little modification to existing infrastructure. But, most importantly: it reduces emissions not increases them, as the Metrolinx decision does.
This open talk must be "horrible discussion" for the Metrolinx group.
I hope the Ontario Minister of Transportation will act accordingly and decline this project and choose a solution that models my solution.
All the folks waving their “Dirty Diesel” signs is noble, but, if they saw the energy math, they will question this Metrolinx decision process. Good! Their solution is not Green, in fact, it creates more emissions and is more energy expensive. That is math folks.
The decision of Metrolinx represents the old system: “legalized tax theft”?
Being an active citizen, I must respond to this for many reasons, I will share three. My premise for these reasons: the energy rules have changed (the free market solutions for the environment do not work).
No longer can we choose "old ideas" that use more energy. Period.
Here are my "top 3" reasons:
1.) This project is trying to provide greener results and it fails that test, on paper, using math. This project is greenwash, and I can prove it.
2.) Second, this project will cost-overrun. You can take that to the bank now, before we even start. Just a feeling I have about private industry cost overruns.
3.) The construction related time delays, alone are huge! Plus, the non-value added work will cost billions (not to mention the tax subsidized energy required to execute the plan). Did I mentioning GO passengers wasted time? Did I even start talking about all the trucks hauling equipment and stuff. A full math analysis would find this plan guilty of energy incompetence.
I can go on, but, lets keep this one short, for now.
P.S. - Sorry if I seem emotional, but, this is not green and I like to expose Greenwash. My green dream is to provide Toronto Jobs and an exportable technology revenue product for Canada. Oh ya, it will cost less in taxes. Win - Win - Win - Win ( the first win is the environment ;)
All information and concepts on my blog is property of me, Graham Chivers.
Retweeting is highly recommended!
This information may not be used, in any publications, without direct prior consent from Graham Chivers @ http://deepgreendesign.blogspot.com/. My Blog is not to be within or, on any entities that have advertising. Sounds weird? Well, that is my choice. Freedom of speech and freedom of access, without any capitalism, by companies, that I do not find green enough. I assert that my Blogs will deliver my blog with NO ADVERTISING! As such, If you wish to rebroadcast my content, ask for permission. If your publication has absolutely no advertising, anywhere, I will be happy let you use my content, on the condition that I verify the publication for content, first. I dreaded the day that my blog would be beside advertising for laptops or other non-green thingies, but, it did. Support Ad-Free knowledge! If you see this blog beside advertising, please, let them know to respect my authority as a citizen. Thank you! I assert the right to assert my opinion on each blog, I blog. I assert that I am not a “domestic terrorist”. I assert that I am an individual, not a marketing scam. I collect no data from my Blog. All the products use to manufacture this product are “free” on the Internet. I use no marketing software for data collection. I feel that anyone should be able to read my blog with only knowledge being the product for free.
If you do not agree with any above content, prove it first. If you can teach me something, I will thank you in a manner warranted. If you are intending to “limit my internet access” or Freedom of Speech or my Human Rights: please go away!