|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 15, 2012 10:49:52 GMT -8
Folks,
Let's talk here about our dream of what a Measure R+ would ideally fund for transit. Here's my list
- Green Line extension to Norwalk Metrolink station - Crenshaw Line northern extension to Hollywood/Highland via West Hollywood - Gold Line Foothill extension to Ontario airport pending funding approval from San Bernandino county - Orange Line extension to Burbank Airport - Purple Line extension to Santa Monica - Additional funding for the SFV transit corridor ($1 billion is not going to be enough, a couple more billion will do wonders) - Green Line extension from Lakewood to Long Beach Transit Mall station
Thoughts? Other ideas? I really feel a Vermont Corridor line, though popular on this board, will not be proposed as part of Measure R+.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 15, 2012 11:12:35 GMT -8
Most of these make sense, but I'd rather not see Green Line trains on the Blue Line. I'd prefer to avoid having two lines on one track as much as possible.
Bringing trains from Lakewood to Long Beach on a separate route might be worthwhile, but the Vermont Corridor would be much more valuable.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 15, 2012 12:08:39 GMT -8
Most of these make sense, but I'd rather not see Green Line trains on the Blue Line. I'd prefer to avoid having two lines on one track as much as possible. Bringing trains from Lakewood to Long Beach on a separate route might be worthwhile, but the Vermont Corridor would be much more valuable. My vision was that the Green Line would extend from Lakewood and terminate at Transit Mall station in Blue Line (maybe via San Pedro?). There would no Blue Line and Green Line trains sharing the same track.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 15, 2012 12:55:12 GMT -8
Folks, Let's talk here about our dream of what a Measure R+ would ideally fund for transit. Here's my list - Green Line extension to Norwalk Metrolink station - Crenshaw Line northern extension to Hollywood/Highland via West Hollywood - Gold Line Foothill extension to Ontario airport pending funding approval from San Bernandino county - Orange Line extension to Burbank Airport - Purple Line extension to Santa Monica - Additional funding for the SFV transit corridor ($1 billion is not going to be enough, a couple more billion will do wonders) - Green Line extension from Lakewood to Long Beach Transit Mall station Thoughts? Other ideas? I really feel a Vermont Corridor line, though popular on this board, will not be proposed as part of Measure R+. I like your list for the most part, although not sure it is regionally proportional, which could actually appease everyone. Here is what I would edit: Purple Line to Bundy instead of SM (that is about the best you'd get here) Not sure about your Green Line Extension to Long Beach. I'd be happy with the extension to Norwalk Metrolink. Gold Line to Claremont only. LA County taxpayers should never fund anything in another county. SB will have to come up with their own tax to get to Ontario. Santa Ana Row extension to maybe get up to Downtown Small extension of the Green Line in Torrance.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jun 15, 2012 14:47:17 GMT -8
Great list, few changes:
I'm with the Mayor that the Red Line should go to Burbank Airport, which is only like a couple miles from its current terminal station
Green Line to Torrance will be a game changer for the South Bay and the Green Line, er, Crenshaw Line
Crenshaw Line should continue north to Hollywood via West Hollywood. When the Crenshaw Line connects to the trunk of the Green Line it'll be a game changer for the Westside to Mid City to LAX to Torrance!
A rail transit connection under the Sepulveda Pass could be LA County's second Red Line for riders
I'm not too concerned for the Gold Line reaching Ontario airport, if San Bernandino can swing, sure
I think Metro will have to sink some money into it's Regional Rail operations that maintain tracks for Metrolink in LA County: Antelope Valley Line needs a lot of work straightening, grade separating, and double tracking Orange County Line in LA County needs some additional grade separations San Bernandino Line in LA County needs a lot of work on double tracking with some moderate land taking
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Jun 15, 2012 15:39:55 GMT -8
For the SFV I would like to
Red Line to Bob Hope, its only a few miles and perhaps they might be able to do it elevated to save on cost.
Orange Line to Burbank Metrolink using the Chandler ROW east of North Hollywood. Their still appears to be space to get from the current terminus to the ROW though some station parking would need to be sacrificed.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 15, 2012 16:49:48 GMT -8
Here is my priority list for R+ funding Section A - strategic projects (must fund) 1. Purple line to Santa Monica (as far west as we can go) 2. Crenshaw line northern extension (aka Pink line) from Expo to Red line North Hollywood 3. 405 Corridor southern extension from Westwood to LAX 4. Orange line SFV-SGV "cross-town line" extension (I'm ok with this being BRT but don't mind LRT conversion) from North Hollywood to Pasadena via Chandler and Colorado Blvd 5. North-South B-G-V line (Burbank-Glendale-Vermont Ave) 6. Santa Ana Branch extension from Green line to Downtown LA 7. Green line extension to Norwalk Metrolink Section B - Long term projects (should be included if on pending funds availability basis) 8. Red line extension to Burbank Airport 9. Green line extension to Santa Monica from LAX 10. Crenshaw line south extension from Torrance to Long Beach airport via Sepulveda and Willow St 11. North-South SGV/Long Beach line from Acadia to CSULB via Rosemead and Lakewood Blvd 12. East-West Westwide/SGV line from Venice Beach to SGV via Venice Blvd, Soto St, and Valley Blvd (serves different areas than the existing Expo-Gold line) Maps (because everyone loves maps!): goo.gl/maps/aWSD
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 15, 2012 22:02:36 GMT -8
This is too much like being a kid in a candy shop so I'll try to not over-indulge. So in no particular order:
--Florence HRT line from LAX to Atlantic Av. in Bell (the ridership is there, just because most of the clients are undocumented and unable to vote, doesn't mean they're invisible!) --Old "Silver Line" concept as an extension of the Santa Ana Branch. From DTLA along Sunset Bl. then along Santa Monica Bl. to the I-405 (aerial structure over Beverly Hills) --Crenshaw Line north along Highland Av. to Hollywood Bl. --Pasadena to Glendale to Burbank (from Memorial Park in Pasadena onto Colorado Bl. to Brand Bl. to Glenoaks Bl. to Vanowen St. to Burbank Airport) --Gold Line extension north onto Atlantic Av., east onto Garvey Bl., north on Santa Anita Av. to east on Ramona Bl. to north on Tyler Av. to El Monte Metrolink Station --Purple Line extension under Whittier Bl. from DTLA to Whitwood Center --Lynwood to El Monte (north on Long Beach Bl./Pacific Bl. to east on Slauson Av. to north on Soto St. to northeast on Huntington Dr. to northeast on Main St./Las Tunas Dr. to south on Santa Anita Av./Tyler Av. to El Monte Metrolink Station --HRT SGV Line from DTLA to El Monte Bus Station along Valley Bl.
Yes, I'm eastside centric and none of these lines stand a snowballs chance in Hades. But someone has to make mention of them. It might as well be me.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 16, 2012 11:53:36 GMT -8
The problem with having proposals in Measure "R+" is that the measure is an "indefinite" extension. How far into the future is the county going to be willing to borrow? Shouldn't borrowing more in a shorter period of time in the form of a Measure "R2" be better?
Anyway, this is gonna be fun. I'll break them up into phases, listed in (IMO) highest priority (if Measure R+ is permanent):
-- 405 SFV Corridor: from Orange Line to Purple Line via Van Nuys Blvd, rail tunnel, and Westwood Blvd
-- Purple Line Phase IV extension to Santa Monica: from VA Hospital to Bundy via Wilshire
-- Crenshaw Corridor North extension: from Expo Line to Hollywood/Highland station via WeHo
-- Purple Line Whittier Extension: from the Arts District (?) to Montebello via Whittier Blvd
-- Vermont HRT Corridor (new color?): from Wilshire/Vermont (with separate platform) to Slauson Ave via Vermont Ave
-- Red Line SGV Extension: from Union Station ("wye" structure?) to Garfield via El Monte Busway and Garvey Ave or Valley Blvd
-- Green Line Santa Monica extension: from LAX to Santa Monica via Pacific Coast Hwy/Lincoln Blvd
-- Red Line Burbank airport extension: from NoHo to Burbank Airport
-- Silver Line: from Santa Monica/Vermont to Union Station via Santa Monica Blvd, Sunset Blvd, and Cesar Chavez Ave
-- Santa Ana Branch Corridor: from Little Tokyo station to Green Line
-- Pasadena-Burbank LRT: from Gold Line to Orange Line via Chandler and Colorado
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 16, 2012 20:41:36 GMT -8
-- Red Line SGV Extension: from Union Station ("wye" structure?) to Garfield via El Monte Busway and Garvey Ave or Valley Blvd A wye already exists east of Union Station. It was built along with MOS-1 of the subway in anticipation of an Eastside subway that would eventually reach Norwalk or OC. Trains already head to the yard on one track, and a brief stub-end tunnel goes the other way.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 17, 2012 18:52:04 GMT -8
A wye already exists east of Union Station. It was built along with MOS-1 of the subway in anticipation of an Eastside subway that would eventually reach Norwalk or OC. Trains already head to the yard on one track, and a brief stub-end tunnel goes the other way. Huh... thanks for the info.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 18, 2012 7:53:58 GMT -8
For the SFV I would like to Red Line to Bob Hope, its only a few miles and perhaps they might be able to do it elevated to save on cost. Orange Line to Burbank Metrolink using the Chandler ROW east of North Hollywood. Their still appears to be space to get from the current terminus to the ROW though some station parking would need to be sacrificed. Isnt' that Burbank Station also conceived of as a High Speed Raid stop between Union Station and Palmdale? If so, reaching there with the Orange Line takes on new importance.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 18, 2012 9:51:28 GMT -8
--Red Line: extension northward to Sylmar via Lankershim or Laurel Canyon.
--Crenshaw Line: extension to Wilshire (anything beyond is decades from reality, but this would be feasible)
--Orange Line: extension to Downtown Burbank Metrolink station (the ROW on Chandler is too perfect not to be used for this) and perhaps beyond to the Gold Line in Pasadena
--Gold Line: extension to Ontario Airport
--Green Line: extension to Norwalk Metrolink Station
--Purple Line: extension to Santa Monica (4th/Wilshire or 4th/Colorado)
--I-405 Line: extension to LAX (feasible)
I still don’t like the idea of the Red or Orange lines going to Bob Hope Airport; if the Orange line goes there, it misses the perfect ROW on Chandler to Downtown Burbank; if the Red Line goes there, it misses all the destinations/ridership north of North Hollywood.
All the other ideas mentioned in this thread are great, though I don’t see a lot of them being feasible until the far future (the Silver Line, I-405 to Long Beach, Crenshaw to Hollywood, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Jun 18, 2012 10:18:14 GMT -8
For the SFV I would like to Red Line to Bob Hope, its only a few miles and perhaps they might be able to do it elevated to save on cost. Orange Line to Burbank Metrolink using the Chandler ROW east of North Hollywood. Their still appears to be space to get from the current terminus to the ROW though some station parking would need to be sacrificed. Isnt' that Burbank Station also conceived of as a High Speed Raid stop between Union Station and Palmdale? If so, reaching there with the Orange Line takes on new importance. Not to get off topic here but Let be honest here the more and more the high speed rail fiasco pans out the less likely it looks its going to get built. if any high speed rail get built its going to be a LA to vegas Train which seems more likely
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Jun 18, 2012 11:14:00 GMT -8
Here is my list
General Improvements
Greenline improvements -Fully Covered Freeway Stations decorated with green LEDS on the ouitside. Same applies for under street stations basically create box like stations. -Add Paid Bathrooms Where Possible and Vendors.
Silver Line Improvements -Fully Covered Box Stations Same as Green Line Improvements --Sidewalk Box Style Stations Ala Trans Milenio for the Downtown Section with proper Metro Signage and Time displays and own right of way in downtown. - Substations at Harbor gateway and 105 110 station for CHP and Sherrif. -Paid Bathrooms on whatever stations possible - Greyhound station at the Harbor Gateway Station Similar to El Monte.
Blue Line Improvements -Grade Separate Long beach terminus into L remaining loop could be used for Long Beach Street Car Project) -third track for Express Service During Rush hour -Sherrif Substation at Rosa Parks Stations -Box like Station for Blue line Platform to Match Green Line Station.
Dream Lines
-Glendale (Americana at Brand) Vermont LRT/Subway to Wilmington Via Cal State Dominguez Hills/ Home Depot Center. ill draw up the route later.
-Green Line extensions to Norwalk Metrolink & Torrance new Transit Center
-Crenshaw Extension to Hollywood Highland (ie Pink line route)
-405 corridor HRT from LAX to Orange Line Sepulveda Station
--Metrolink to Long Beach and Santa Ana Using PE row y junction in Paramouint.
Finally for my own selfish reasons
removal of Metrolink station in commerce near telegraph and Garfield and rebuild new station in Pico Rivera Between Passons and and Serapis on the south side of the tracks
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 18, 2012 12:11:44 GMT -8
Isnt' that Burbank Station also conceived of as a High Speed Raid stop between Union Station and Palmdale? If so, reaching there with the Orange Line takes on new importance. Not to get off topic here but Let be honest here the more and more the high speed rail fiasco pans out the less likely it looks its going to get built. if any high speed rail get built its going to be a LA to vegas Train which seems more likely If Cal HSR gets built, it ought to stop at Burbank. If Xpress to Vegas gets built, it also ought to stop at Burbank. Remember, they're making plans to extend from Victorville to Palmdale, with Metrolink taking over from there. At the very least, the Metrolink route to Antelope Valley should be electrified, which would include Burbank. = Anyways, I would also vote for including Green Line to Torrance, since that Green Line extension is already under discussion, with its own Metro web page and Twitter account.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 18, 2012 12:56:31 GMT -8
Not to get off topic here but Let be honest here the more and more the high speed rail fiasco pans out the less likely it looks its going to get built. if any high speed rail get built its going to be a LA to vegas Train which seems more likely If Cal HSR gets built, it ought to stop at Burbank. If Xpress to Vegas gets built, it also ought to stop at Burbank. Remember, they're making plans to extend from Victorville to Palmdale, with Metrolink taking over from there. At the very least, the Metrolink route to Antelope Valley should be electrified, which would include Burbank. = Anyways, I would also vote for including Green Line to Torrance, since that Green Line extension is already under discussion, with its own Metro web page and Twitter account. This is my whole problem with committing transportation dollars to projects 35-40 years into the future and having to list out those projects right now. Maybe with HSR a connection to Burbank Metrolink/train station is very important, but since right now we don't really know if HSR will be built, it doesn't make much sense to plan a connection there with certainty. I know everyone has to see a list of projects to get excited enough to vote on things like this, but I think a general project list is better than specific items. Otherwise, we risk getting pigeonholed into some projects that make sense now, but leave out others that really make sense 35 years from now.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 18, 2012 18:49:31 GMT -8
I would include with R+ the Regional Connector 2, separating (somehow) the Expo/Blue lines form the Washington Junction to Flower/7th & Metro.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 18, 2012 19:15:54 GMT -8
Measure R+ seems like a really bad idea. It's one thing to institute a tax to raise revenue for projects built during the life of the tax, but to institute a tax so that you can borrow money from a future generation of taxpayer that has no say seems not only inherently unfair, but fiscally irresponsible.
|
|
|
Post by WhiteCity on Jun 18, 2012 19:32:58 GMT -8
Measure R+ seems like a really bad idea. It's one thing to institute a tax to raise revenue for projects built during the life of the tax, but to institute a tax so that you can borrow money from a future generation of taxpayer that has no say seems not only inherently unfair, but fiscally irresponsible. I couldn't agree more. I'd be totally for an R+ that increased the CURRENT tax, but creating a future tax to borrow against now isn't the right approach.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 18, 2012 22:36:23 GMT -8
Measure R+ seems like a really bad idea. It's one thing to institute a tax to raise revenue for projects built during the life of the tax, but to institute a tax so that you can borrow money from a future generation of taxpayer that has no say seems not only inherently unfair, but fiscally irresponsible. I couldn't agree more. I'd be totally for an R+ that increased the CURRENT tax, but creating a future tax to borrow against now isn't the right approach. While, I have my problems with listing out projects so far in the future that this tax will be expected to pay, I think Measure R+ is a little more nuanced than you make it out to be. My understanding of the reason why it allows for a 30/10 is not so much that we'd have to use Measure R+ dollars to pay back the loans necessary to do 30/10, but rather as a backstop in case Measure R revenues come up short after 30 years. Really the federal government was supposed to provide this backstop and to me that is the ultimate solution and we can vote on a Measure R+ 20 years from now when it is more appropriate. One aspect of 30/10 that is a problem is that there are not enough revenues to operate these projects. Fares will have to be raised most likely to cover this
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 19, 2012 9:07:15 GMT -8
Measure R+ seems like a really bad idea. It's one thing to institute a tax to raise revenue for projects built during the life of the tax, but to institute a tax so that you can borrow money from a future generation of taxpayer that has no say seems not only inherently unfair, but fiscally irresponsible. You are confusing Measure R with America Fast Forward. Measure R or R+ has no provision for borrowing any money. It is a tax. 30/10 or America Fast Forward is a loan guarantee from the Federal Govt, which didn't happen anyway because Republicans in the House torpedo the Transportation Bill so there is nothing to talk about really.
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Jun 19, 2012 9:27:28 GMT -8
Measure R+ seems like a really bad idea. It's one thing to institute a tax to raise revenue for projects built during the life of the tax, but to institute a tax so that you can borrow money from a future generation of taxpayer that has no say seems not only inherently unfair, but fiscally irresponsible. and when that money runs out then a measure R++ gets put on the ballot keeping the cycle going even though i have dream lines and improvements at the end of the day im taxed out money is tight as it is i cant see myself supporting an additional tax
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 19, 2012 9:55:24 GMT -8
and when that money runs out then a measure R++ gets put on the ballot keeping the cycle going even though i have dream lines and improvements at the end of the day im taxed out money is tight as it is i cant see myself supporting an additional tax Wouldn't you rather spend an extra $25 in taxes so we can build more transit lines which would save you $11K/year in car ownership? Or, in a more practical manner, wouldn't you rather spend $25/year in taxes so that you can save thousands of dollars a year in gas, parking, tickets and fines? Measure R only costs you $25/year based on normal purchases. Don't go Tea Party crazy and think every tax is the "devil". There are good taxes and bad ones. If people want a significant transit expansion, they need to pay up. A half cent sales tax calculated that you only pay $25/year additional in taxes. I'm sure $25 is not a "make or break". Plus, in the end, you put in $25 and you probably save a few thousand dollars a year. So, doesn't that make sense? Calculation of the $25/year (http://www.metro.net/projects/measurer/)
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 19, 2012 10:35:30 GMT -8
Measure R+ seems like a really bad idea. It's one thing to institute a tax to raise revenue for projects built during the life of the tax, but to institute a tax so that you can borrow money from a future generation of taxpayer that has no say seems not only inherently unfair, but fiscally irresponsible. and when that money runs out then a measure R++ gets put on the ballot keeping the cycle going even though i have dream lines and improvements at the end of the day im taxed out money is tight as it is i cant see myself supporting an additional tax Can't really say this is an additional tax. It is really an extension or to put it another way it is a measure to avoid a future tax cut.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 19, 2012 12:50:22 GMT -8
Measure R+ seems like a really bad idea. It's one thing to institute a tax to raise revenue for projects built during the life of the tax, but to institute a tax so that you can borrow money from a future generation of taxpayer that has no say seems not only inherently unfair, but fiscally irresponsible. You are confusing Measure R with America Fast Forward. Measure R or R+ has no provision for borrowing any money. It is a tax. 30/10 or America Fast Forward is a loan guarantee from the Federal Govt, which didn't happen anyway because Republicans in the House torpedo the Transportation Bill so there is nothing to talk about really. That's completely false. The entire idea behind Measure R+ is to speed up current Measure R projects in a 30/10 format by taking advantage of a longer term loan that the current Measure R does not qualify for. Here's a link to the Source article and the metro staff report. Advocates want us to build projects over the next 10 or so years by committing funds to be earned over 30 years from now. It's crazy.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 19, 2012 13:02:45 GMT -8
Measure R+ seems like a really bad idea. It's one thing to institute a tax to raise revenue for projects built during the life of the tax, but to institute a tax so that you can borrow money from a future generation of taxpayer that has no say seems not only inherently unfair, but fiscally irresponsible. and when that money runs out then a measure R++ gets put on the ballot keeping the cycle going even though i have dream lines and improvements at the end of the day im taxed out money is tight as it is i cant see myself supporting an additional tax I'm not saying that I wouldn't support an additional tax, because I might. I just can't support a tax on my grandchildren to avoid paying for what I want today. I see that as both unfair and irresponsible.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Jun 19, 2012 13:52:38 GMT -8
Measure R costs the average Los Angeles County resident $20 a year. Condemning our city's future because we balked at a tax of $20 a year is unfair and irresponsible.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jun 19, 2012 13:54:08 GMT -8
You are confusing Measure R with America Fast Forward. Measure R or R+ has no provision for borrowing any money. It is a tax. 30/10 or America Fast Forward is a loan guarantee from the Federal Govt, which didn't happen anyway because Republicans in the House torpedo the Transportation Bill so there is nothing to talk about really. That's completely false. The entire idea behind Measure R+ is to speed up current Measure R projects in a 30/10 format by taking advantage of a longer term loan that the current Measure R does not qualify for. Here's a link to the Source article and the metro staff report. Advocates want us to build projects over the next 10 or so years by committing funds to be earned over 30 years from now. It's crazy. I don't know that what bzcat said was "completely false". I just read through the 34 page attachment, and to say that it is confusing is an understatement. I'll state what I believe is correct, and if someone finds an error please point it out. Measure R: The 0.5% sales tax increase passed in 2008, is in effect for 30 years. www.metro.net/measurer/images/ordinance.pdfThe Measure R proposition itself has several sections that refer to using the Measure R proceeds to "pay off bonds" that presumably would be sold in an effort to get the money "up front". See pages 9 and 12. So the intent was already there from the beginning to borrow against future Measure R proceeds. Measure R+: This extends the 0.5% sales tax indefinitely into the future. The actual text says that it will remain in effect until such time as it is voted down. The intent again here, is that this will also allow for borrowing against. The TIFIA loans that they plan on using have a 35 year payback time, and the Measure R funds wouldn't be available past 2039, so without Measure R+, they could only commit to paying back all loans by 2039, and not be able to take advantage of longer term financing. 30/10 and America Fast Forward: These were both federal programs that would have allowed for the borrowing to be done from the Federal Government under specific programs, neither of which were actually passed. There are other federal programs that do lend money (TIFIA), so it isn't like Metro will be unable to borrow funds, perhaps not in the amounts they would like or at the lowest possible interest rates. Concerning the craziness of using funds that will be collected from over 30+ years in the future for current projects... In some cases this is a bad idea, sometimes not. My main problem is that future revenue estimates, especially that far into the future, are pretty questionable. A bad example of this kind of borrowing would be the kind that states did with their "tobacco suit" proceeds a few years ago. The tobacco companies lost a suit that required them to pay $X per year for Y years to each of the states. No sooner than the ink dried, the states arranged for 3rd parties to get the revenue stream over time, so they could get as much "up front" money as possible. Which they then simply socked right into their general funds to cover current expenses. Very dumb. The bond proceeds in the Measure R and Measure R+ cases will be used to construct transit and road projects that will be usable for well over 30+ years in most cases. So, someone not even born today who will be paying this tax in 2040 could very well be taking advantage of all the transit projects that will be built with that money. Thats the difference between a "good" use of the funds and the "bad" use example that I gave earlier. If someone had the sense to do this say 20 years ago to build an HSR system, we would have the entire thing built today, with a minimal tax burden being shared by everyone in the state. Which would have been paid off in another 10 years, assuming a 30-year initial loan. Having said all that, I would rather the focus be on paying for things up front versus by long term financing. For example, I would rather have paid a 1.5% tax for 10 years than a 0.5% tax for 30 years, but most people wouldn't go for that. You then avoid all the borrowing costs. And with construction costs being rather low now with the recession, you would have more bang for the buck too. On the other side, interest rates are very low now historically, so that swings back in borrowings favor. There are many ways to look at it. RT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jun 19, 2012 14:03:26 GMT -8
bluelineshawn, If I asked you the question from the opposite perspective, what would your answer be...
Why should I have to pay for the entire transit project X (insert project name here) over only 5 or 10 years, when people will be using it for the next 50 years? It's not fair that I should be paying for something that they are going to get to use when they don't have to pay anything...
RT
|
|