2/24 so who here is up for giving FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS to
AC Transit so they can completely foul up east bay city traffic by
making bus only lanes up and down shattuck all the way down
International, closely mirroring BART (why? no clue), and
to give San Francisco 1.5 billion to 6 billion dollars to
build a 3 stop subway from Chinatown to the ballpark (they
claim it'll cost 1.5 billion, this thing is going to go under
the most densely populated spot on the entire west coast, yay
sure it'll only cost 1.5 billion.
\_ Roads are fucking expensive. Traffic costs a shitload of money
to deal with. That's why the "trains aren't efficient" idiots
don't have a leg to stand on.
\_ Trains can be efficient, but you keep trying to cram that
square peg into round holes. In *most* instances, trains are
poor solutions to transit problems. There are *some*
instances where they work, but they are few and far between.
\_ yes, those few and far between places are called "cities"
\_ Cities of a certain size and density that are also
built around a central core of which there aren't many.
\_ yeah, cities with downtowns are so rare. uh, not.
\_ How many factors did I cite? Cities that possess
all 3 are rare. For instance, LA and San Jose have
only 1 of the 3 (size). Many have downtowns but
not size or density. The concept of a downtown
is a turn of the century idea and the concept of
people commuting from suburbs to a downtown for
work is from maybe the 1930s and 1940s. It
hasn't been that way for a long time. How many
people out of the Bay Area population commute to
downtown SF for work? Not that many. Not even Tom.
Isn't it like 5%? (350K out of 7M) And that's
for a dense city with lots of high-paying jobs.
(Note: LA and SJ obviously have downtowns, but
these exist mostly in name only.)
\_ Seriously, I bet I could name hundreds. Do you
really want me to start? Anytime you have enough
density of population trains are the way to go.
\_ Just name 5 in CA.
\_ SF, LA, SD, Sacramento all could benefit
from significant rail infrastructure. Oh
no, that's only four in CA! You must be
right! -tom
\_ All of your cities are too big and lack
a real city center for a real train
system. Trains can supplement an auto
system but never replace one. The idea
is simply ridiculous.
\_ Oakland. There, that's five.
\_ Yay! What do we win? -tom
\_ Are you kidding? I didn't say to
just list names of cities in CA.
\_ Those are all cities in CA which
were built on rail transit. It's
absurd to suggest that rail transit
can't work in them. -tom
\_ Sacramento's farebox recovery
ratio is 20%. You call that
working?!
\_ Better than the 0% that the
roads bring in. Farebox
recovery is a red herring. -tom
\_ Roads are not 0%. Every
car on the road is
contributing through
fuel taxes and through
the purchase of the car
itself.
\_ If you count taxes,
the train system is
doing just fine, right?
Enough with the
irrelevanices. -tom
\_ That's a disingenuous
response. You know
damn well that fuel
taxes are equivalent to
train fares as a
'use tax'.
\_ And what percentage
of the total cost of
auto usage is
recovered by fuel
taxes?
\_ I dunno. Feel
free to calculate
and share.
\_ Oh, so *now* you come up with a new
requirement. Any city built before 1950
is probably going to be dense enough to
support rail. That does exclude most of
California's flash-in-the-plan unsustainable
California's flash-in-the-pan unsustainable
suburbs.
\_ $400M just for marking the lanes or paving new lanes? URL please?
\_ I'm not a big fan of the BRT proposal. I'm not sure about the
Chinatown proposal; it would be better if it went a little further
into North Beach. $1.5 billion is not that much money for a major
infrastructure project; the Bay Bridge east span is costing
four times that much (before they calculate the overruns). -tom
\_ $400M is also the ballpark for the Caldecott fourth bore and
the Devil's Slide tunnel. -tom
\_ It was stupid to build the caldecott with 3 tunnels and it
was stupid how much politics has gotten in the way and
increased the price of the 4th bore over the last few
decades everyone knew it was needed.
\_ Obviously the free market didn't think it was needed,
then or now. -tom
\_ Why should the free market provide what the gubmint
provides? You cannot compete with the government.
\_ The Caldecott was completed in 1937; the third
bore was added in 1964. The free market had 40
years to put in a tunnel there. Why didn't they?
The Bay Bridge could have been replaced, another
toll Bay crossing could be done privately. Why
aren't these things done? Because they're huge
money-losers.
\_ So if they are money-losers then why does
the government waste money on them? Sounds
like you are wising up.
\_ The purpose of government isn't to make money.
-tom
\_ Sign I saw today:
"Paved roads: yet another example of
government waste."
Maybe the government should consider what
makes financial sense before committing to
spend money that isn't theirs.
\_ If it's making investments on behalf of the
public, the investments should have some
real value to that public. Of course the
problem again is accurately quantifying the
benefit of such shared resources, who
receives that benefit, and who should pay.
And what other things might we use those
resources for?
Do I, living in the South Bay, really give
a shit about the Bay Bridge? I wouldn't
personally pay to use it. Would it stimulate
economic growth of the area? I don't know,
maybe it just screws with the natural
market-driven path of development in other
directions.
\_ There's no such thing as a "natural
market-driven path". It's a tautology.
Yes, the government should evaluate
different ways to invest public money
to "promote the general welfare"
(remember that bit?)
As I've already noted many times, the
cost/benefit equation is much better
for rail than for roads; the analysis
has been done. The only reason the
U.S. doesn't build more rail is
politics and the power of the
corporations. -tom
http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/winston/200605-aeijc.pdf
Every $1.00 spent on highway construction returns
11 cents in congestion reduction benefits. -tom
\_ No point in drilling an extra bore. New roads
become filled to capacity almost immediately
anyway, mostly with frivolous trips. There is
an almost unlimited appetite for "free" ways.
\_ I like the way you think. Since there's no
point in providing a service that will *gasp*
just get used(!!!) we should only provide
services people don't need or want. They won't
get used and we'll save a lot of money. Bravo!
\_ Why didn't they? Because government regulations
make it impossible for non-government to do such
a thing. Duh. You can't just build your own
bridge anywhere you damned well feel like it.
You're just trolling now, right? You can't
actually believe this stuff.
\_ Perhaps you could list all the proposals
private companies came up with for building
new tunnels and bridges in the Bay Area.
Surely there would be some interest in a
new Bay crossing, even if it required a toll.
And private industry is (ideologically) so
much more efficient than government, they
should be able to do it cheaper, right?
Why didn't they try to supply the demand?
-tom
\_ You are right, they should spend twice as much and run it all
the way to Fisherman's Wharf. Someday they will, I am sure. We
spend more then $1.5B in Iraq every week.
\_ Iraq? Yawn. Has nothing to do with anything. "We've spent
money on dumber things before!" is not a reason to spend money
on some other dumb thing, even a somewhat less dumb thing.
\_ Stop wasting all that money in Iraq and we will have money
for all kinds of useful things, like transit. |
http://csua.com/feed/