Clausewitz.

This will be my last protestation blog before the Executive Council vote on item #75 on Wednesday.

I'm thinking about making one last phone call to Executive Councilor Ray Burton who has said he "is leaning in favor of voting for this." Some $3.86 million for consultant's fees which leads to over $350 million dollars in new spending which New Hampshire does not have.

But before I make my last argument I was hoping in the realm of politics and the "art of the possible" that Executive Councilor Colin Van Ostern being an MBA graduate from Dartmouth might take some time to consider the sheer financial impact of this whole flawed idea and his office then becomes the swing vote and New Hampshire could be (lack of better words) saved for another day.

It isn't to be the case.

Councilor Van Ostern is a cheerleader for this massive spending program I don't believe Lying Lozeau could even better his public relations skills in this area.

Let's move on.

I'm going to try to tell Councilor Burton that Vermont and Maine face the similar situation as does New Hampshire except there're doing it correctly. Building a railroad infastructure around the profitable movement of freight and then advancing passenger rail once this is completed.

Build the freight first and the rest will come.

And here is the interesting point. What Vermont and Maine are doing isn't raking the taxpayers over the coals the way New Hampshire is. Acually it isn't affecting the taxbase at all. These states are working in concert with both the users and potential users of rail and then picking small infastructure improvements: $5-$10 million dollar range and advancing jobs and policy from there.

And it's working.

The New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority, Lying Lozeau and Political Peter don't want to do it the way Vermont and Maine are doing it.

They want to do it their way.

Executive Council Item #75.

Executive Council Item #75.

And here it is.

Scheduled for the Governor and Executive Council meeting for February 6th, 2013 at the NH Statehouse.

#75 Authorize the Bureau of Rail and Transit to enter into an agreement with URS Corporation, Salem, NH, and San Francisco, CA, to undertake a study of the Boston MA to Concord NH rail corridor, to analyze transit options in the corridor including the viability of establishing passenger rail service on this line, for an amount not to exceed $3,655,752. The two-part study will include an Alternatives Analysis for rail and transit in the Lowell-Nashua-Manchester portion of the corridor and a service development plan for intercity passenger rail in the corridor between Boston and Concord. Effective upon G&C approval through December 31, 2014. 88.75% Federal, 11.25% General Funds.

$3.6 million dollars to study some 39 miles of railroad line to see if there is a feasibility of moving passengers on it.

This goes beyond "business as usual" in the political context. This is the wholesale slaughter of the NH taxpayer by the very individuals that are elected as advocates for these same taxpayers.

I've asked you before and I'm asking you again please contact your Executive Councilor and ask them to vote NO on item #75.

Persistance Doesn't Pay.

This is an interesting article that originally appeared in the Foster's Daily Democrat about the same subject I've been prattling on about.

Consider how this reads.

No means no.

Yet they still plow forward unabated. I especially liked the comments by owner of the rail line in question: "Let's get our house in order then see where we are."

I don't think Lying Lozeau and Political Peter would even listen to this.

I hope that the Executive Council does. 

New Hampshire high-speed rail plan derailed; DOT blames Pan Am Railways (The following story by Robert M. Cook appeared on Foster’s Daily Democrat website on October 1, 2009.) CONCORD, N.H. — Plans to create a high-speed rail corridor from Nashua to Concord were derailed Wednesday after state Department of Transportation officials said they would not apply for $300 million in federal economic stimulus funds. DOT Commissioner George Campbell laid the blame squarely on the shoulders of Pam Am Railways for refusing to participate in talks with the state to create the 39-mile "Capital Corridor" project. "By walking away from this unique and exiting initiative, Pan Am has effectively closed the window on strengthening New Hampshire's economy. Our citizens and businesses along this corridor deserve better transportation choices than they have today," said Campbell in a prepared statement. Pam Am Railways was an important player in the process because it is the host railroad along the corridor, Campbell explained. The deadline for "Track 2 corridor service development and improvements" program applications is Friday. Campbell said the state is discussing with Amtrak its interest in operating passenger rail along the "NH Capital Corridor." Currently, Amtrak's Downeaster train serves riders with five daily round trips between Portland, Maine, and Boston. State officials and rail advocates said the proposed "NH Capital Corridor" project would run on 78 miles of upgraded track between Boston and Concord, connecting Concord, Manchester-Boston Regional Airport and Nashua with Boston's North Station. Campbell said the state has applied for $1.4 million in planning funds for the Capital Corridor project as part of the $8 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Mark Richardson, a spokesman for the New Hampshire Railroad Revitalization Association in Weare, said in May the proposed rail corridor could serve up to 600,000 riders per year, who would generate economic development for downtown businesses along the route. "It reinvigorates the downtown areas and makes them livable and workable areas," Richardson said in May. On Wednesday, he said, "Obviously, this is a setback." He said until the state can work something out with Pam Am Railways to negotiate the use of the rail line, it will continue to be difficult to obtain any federal funding. He also said that if a high-speed corridor train is created between Montreal and Boston and it ends up traveling through Vermont instead of New Hampshire, that would be a big loss for the state. Chris Clement, deputy director of the state DOT, described the setback as "a blip" that will force the state to go down a different path. He said DOT officials have already had good conversations with Amtrak officials and Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman told Clement he is interested in the project. Clement said the state can also apply for federal funds next year when the federal government is expected to make another $8.5 billion available for high-speed rail projects. If the state can reach an agreement with Amtrak, Clement said they can then apply for the federal funds next year. Given the needs of the state and the fact that it will continue to have an aging population, Clement, who lives in Durham, believes it is still a good idea to pursue the Capital Corridor project. David Fink, president of Pam Am Railways in North Billerica, Mass., said he would be willing to negotiate with Amtrak if Amtrak approached him about using the rail line between Concord and Nashua for passenger rail. "I do business with Amtrak every day," Fink said. "They run the Downeaster for me every day. They're business partners." But Fink said during such difficult economic times the state should not be wasting its time on high-speed rail. "It just doesn't make any sense," Fink said. "Let's straighten our house out and then look at what we have." When asked if his decision to walk away from negotiations with the state in June was his way of getting back at the state for not allowing him to bid on a separate rail line, Fink would not comment. "I don't want to sit down across the table from dishonest people," Fink said. Fink walked away from negotiations with the state DOT on June 30 after he alleged his company was precluded from bidding on a rail line owned by state Rep. Peter Leishman, D-Peterborough. In June, the Executive Council voted to have the Attorney General's Office investigate Fink's accusations that the state DOT was poised to renew a 10-year contract with Milford-Bennington Railroad owned by Leishman without adhering to renewal guidelines. The council voted to extend the rail company's pact by only six months, thereby ensuring no interruption to freight delivery to the southwestern part of the state and to give the Attorney General's Office ample time to investigate Fink's claims. Fink alleged in June that Leishman's contract required his company to notify the state in July 2008 of its intention for renewal and Leishman did not do that. Fink also said a new contract had to be approved by Feb. 1, 2009, which also did not happen. Fink alleged that instead of the DOT opening the bid process, the contract was put on a fast track because Leishman is a member of one of the House Finance Committee's panels and the DOT was concerned not approving the contract could affect ongoing budget negotiations. Thursday, October 01, 2009 © 1997-2013 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

Safety Task Force Hotline 800-306-5414 Decertification Helpline 800-393-2716 DAILY HEADLINES • Get the latest updates in the War on Workers • Unions, ACLU file suit to invalidate Michigan 'right to work' law • Senate passes debt ceiling, no-budget no-pay bill • New York's Grand Central Station celebrates 100th anniversary with spectacular photographs • Teamsters Canada MOW Division ratifies new contract at CP Rail • SEPTA's trains all wrapped up, ready to roll • NJ Transit trains record best on-time performance in 2012 • AAR: Intermodal up 1.6 percent over 2012 for week ending January 26 • Vermont governor seeks more Amtrak service • Exposed: How Whole Foods and the biggest organic foods distributor are screwing workers • Ray LaHood to step down as U.S. transportation secretary: Plans to stay until successor is confirmed • Popular Science: How to prevent America's next train crash • Railroad Retirement Board customer service plan More Headlines   Enter your e-mail address to receive BLET news updates. Subscribe Unsubscribe

Status Update: Rail. Waiting For The Gauntlet.

So I checked the agenda items for the Executive Council today. The last Governor and Council meeting was on January 16^th and nothing has been stated or updated for the two Governor and Council meetings scheduled for February which are the 6^th and the 20^th.

It’s February 1^st. No agenda items listed for a meeting five days away.

I’m now wondering if the Nashua politicians including Lying Lozeau have signed purchase and sales agreement(s) for the real estate they want for this expensive politically connected rail service into Boston.

This whole thing is surrounded by questionable issues and actions and yet it still seems to be as Fergus Cullen puts it: on track to passage.

And it will change New Hampshire forever.

Little Entente Politicians.

Politics and Truth often move in opposite directions. This is true in New Hampshire.I’ve long been fascinated with and a student of World War II history. More specifically, the military and geopolitical action(s) on the eastern front basically from 1941-1945.

This whole field gets more and more interesting as the former Soviet Union is releasing more and more information about what happened from their perspective especially some of the documents related to Hungary, Romania and Slovakia and some of the Balkan and Caucuses regions like Azerbaijan.

Politics and truth often move in opposite directions…

Similar to world history the same is true if not more here in New Hampshire. Recently, I found this UTUBE video with footage that I haven’t ever seen before. So I thought I’d share it:

The first part is straightforward showing the surrender of France and then it moves to what I believe is the signing of the 'Little Entente' agreement showing Ion Antonesceau of Romania. It was in my mind almost as impressive as the Bretton Woods Monetary Conference in Bretton Woods, N.H.

I’ll leave it to you to decide which one of these events featured more lies, deception, manipulation and the outcome of politics.

Politics and truth often move in opposite directions…

I think facts are now showing that after the signing of the Little Entente agreement that a nervous Czechlovakia tried every form of ethical based politics and diplomacy to save its own self centered view of the world especially so with its negotiations (I say ex-parte) with Poland, Soviet Union and ultimately England. All this lead into the later Munich Agreement and politicians like the Neville Chamberlain practice of global based form of diplomacy, don’t get too close but stay far enough away.  This practice continues to this very day.

May history and the truth march on.