Post by bennyp81 on Jun 15, 2005 14:04:02 GMT -8
John
User ID: 9510053 Jul 12th 12:01 PM
Wow, what an unsurprising---albeit exciting---article!: "Golden Gate Transit to cut servcice by 30% to reduce deficit," by Michael Cabanatuan, San Francisco Chronicle, July 12, 2003. (This article is accessible today via sfgate.com.)
Has Northern California, and especially the San Francisco and San Jose areas, become anti-transit?
I'm sure glad Los Angeles isn't trying to effect deep transit cuts!
Marty
User ID: 0798784 Jul 12th 12:27 PM
For the love of God, John. If you want anyone to listen your blabbering, can you at least post the article that you're referencing or at least provide a direct link? Nobody wants to waste their time searching for the Golden Gate Transit website and the article you're talking about. You seem to do this all the time, and on rare occaisons, I actually want to read the article.
John
User ID: 9510053 Jul 12th 1:33 PM
Oh! Hee HEE! Here in Los Angeles, a relatively pro-transit city, I think we'll have a Rapid Bus Line running on Fairfax LONG before there is ever an Expo LRT (if, indeed, there EVER is one; haha!), and it's so VERY easy to see WHY! Hahahaha! I LOVE it!
Robert
User ID: 2037954 Jul 12th 2:02 PM
John,
WHY THE 30% CUT? You can not even read the headline you posted. How do you run a transit system if you don't have the money? Yes, I guess your warp little brain translates a cut in service to Anti-transit. We are lucky here in Los Angeles, for now anyway, that the MTA borrowed against other funds to keep subsidizing your bus ride. This borrowing can happen only so long, if our country's financial problem doesn't turn around soon, then I hope you and Mike know how to roller skate or ride bikes, because we are going to see busses decaying and rail tracks, which I know you will love, rusting. Many projects have been delayed or cancelled to maintain the transit service we all enjoy.
What is the cause of our slump? 9-11 may be the catalyst, but the decline in tourist and that we are afraid of flying started the domino effect.
John, your remarks and your miss-quotes and your selfishness for others and your lack of common sense are why many people don't respect you because you have no respect for them. By you not responding to our posts does not hurt us at all, we know that you are acting like a 3-year old spoiled brat who has to have everything their own way. Just like you thinking that the world OWES JOHN A LIVING.
My joke in jest to you before about you being Psycho when I was agreeing with you instead of using the word Psychic may have been closer to the truth than I thought at that time.
"Oh! Hee HEE! Here in Los Angeles, a relatively pro-transit city..." San Francisco is more PRO-TRANSIT than Los Angeles is, and the Bay
Region is taking a 30% cut.
Hee HEE, Haa HAA, Hoo Hoo, You dumb ...
Bob
P.S. Many articles are only available for a short period of time on-line from the source, when referring to the article, the link is good, but copying the article and pasting it here helps us all. But what should we expect from John anyway who only cares about himself.
Very long articles and reports we know should not be posted, but they are normally available for a long period of time on the web. rl
John
User ID: 9510053 Jul 12th 2:24 PM\
ROFL! As I have said, it is SO easy to see why certain transit projects in the relatively pro-transit city of Los Angeles will likely be completed LONG before others are! And I certainly have to wonder whether there will EVER be an Expo LRT all the way to Santa Monica! Hahahahaha!
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1718124 Jul 13th 8:06 AM
To paraphrase "Stone Cold" Steve Austin: if you think we should revive the idea to turf John from the message board, give me a hell yeah!
Anyway, onto Golden Gate Transit. GGT's equivalent in L.A. would be Commuter Express. GGT's important routes end in "0" (i.e., 80) and these usually run all day, every day. However, the system has a peak-to-base ratio of something like 30. Almost all of the other routes (about 75) are single-direction peak hour routes. Some go into San Francisco, others are ferry shuttles. But unlike Commuter Express, GGT is a public agency that owns its own buses and operates service in-house.
One of the most efficient things Marin and Sonoma counties can do is to pass a tax to build a BART line. This will attract far more people to transit than the huge GGT bus network. (Instead of crossing the Golden Gate Bridge, the line should use existing track via Oakland and Richmond and backtrack to San Rafael. Also, I'm sure that BART would be a much quicker ride (presently, 2.5 hours is the norm between San Francisco and Santa Rosa).
In the short term, GGT should preserve the trunk routes and try converting more of the peak-hour bus lines to vanpools.
Bert G
User ID: 8841313 Jul 13th 6:04 PM
Marin has consisently voted AGAINST BART since its inception. The supposedly "liberal" culture of Marin rejects it for the same reasons as Beverly Hills, because it would bring the "wrong" people.
I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Roberto
User ID: 9161143 Jul 13th 6:38 PM
Just a clarification ... as far as I've been told, Beverly Hills is FOR the Red Line because they know the additional tourist and local foot traffic the Red Line would bring onto Wilshire.
Hancock Park is the community that stopped the Red Line cold in its tracks, and has not revisited its position since.
PForce
User ID: 1808544 Jul 13th 11:17 PM
Re: the NATIONWIDE recession:
Yes, the recession is nationwide. No, California didn't start it, neither did any of the other states. The Federal Reserve started raising interesting rates about 3 or 4 years ago. It usually takes about 1 to 2 years before the effects of those interest rate hikes (federal funds rate--the Fed's basic rate) are felt in the economy in the form of a decline in manufacturing and construction--i.e. all forms of activity that require major borrowing to start--that soon affects all sectors.
Once again, the effects of the rate increases take about one to two years before the ordinary worker starts to feel it, in the form of a pink slip or a cutback in hours.
I believe that the reason that we did not feel the effects of the Fed's rate rise sooner is that there was a huge bubble in computer manufacturing and software production because of the internet craze that seemed to happen overnight had created lots of jobs nationwide. When even Granny got her computer, that's about when the bubble burst.
So, we have the combined effects of the Fed's delayed recession coupled with the high-tech bust hitting all at once. (Of course, there was lots of corporate hanky-panky thrown in--such a the massive Enron scam-cum-collapse and such projects as Global Crossing going under and taking many thousands of jobs with them.) It is a nationwide phenomenon, and is directly attributable originally to the Fed and then to the internet mania that swept the country, and then played itself out, along with business failures caused by widespread corporate malfeasance and speculation. (And add onto all this the latest big tax cut for the higher-income bracket.)
I have discussed this ad nasauem in other posts, even showing some statistics to demonstrate this. It is not just California, New York, or even Montana. It's the whole country. Remember this. Even my old home town of Elmira, New York made the New York Times a month ago with a big story about the layoffs in this old manufacturing center that are slowly devastating the already slimmed-down city. (I will be there in August for a HS reunion. There wasn't much left to devastate as I recall. But that's another story.)
And, of course, this condition is playing havoc with LA's non-recovery and its plans for future job-creating infrastructure projects such as light rail. And our federal govt is apparently not planning to do anything serious about this situation in the immediate future.
Bert G
User ID: 8841313 Jul 14th 12:07 AM
Interest rates have been REDUCED incrementally for the past several years. Go to the Federal Reserve site at www.frbdiscountwindow.org and get the history of interest rates. The seasonal interest rate was at 5.45% in 1996, 6.55% in 2000, and stands now at 1.05%. The adjustment credit rate was at 5.00% in 1999 and stands at 0.75% now.
Even if, as you attest, the effect takes a few years to have an effect, the trends have been downward for longer than that. The rates are reduced to act as a stimulus to the economy, and increased to put the brakes on growth to prevent the economy from overheating. This is the legacy of Alan Greenspan.
It is also the reason why home loan rates are so low right now, and you see so many low financing offers. Savings accounts offer interest rates that are lower than the rate of inflation (and that should be a crime!). Credit is cheap at the moment.
I don't dispute that the economy is in recession all over the country, and it will probably be the single most important factor in the next presidential election, but I don't buy your interest rate analysis.
John
User ID: 9510053 Jul 14th 6:26 AM
This time around, I don't think there will BE a sustained recovery of the economy. Extremely negative conditions have been allowed to reach the breaking point, and so now the consequences of this almost incredible level of neglect will, I think, continue to unfold.
PForce
User ID: 1808544 Jul 15th 3:00 PM
Bert,
I don't think that we disagree on the fundamentals:
1. All interest rates--consumer loans, business loans, etc. are all tied directly to the level of the current Federal Funds Rate (the lowest possible interest rate). The Fed Funds is set by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), a group of quasi-governmental appointees that is controlled by NO ONE but themselves. In the early 1900s, the board was set up to be independent of control or influence by elected officials. (This was a terrible idea, and it has left economic policy in the hands of a few federal appointees who, in turn, answer to no one. Several administrations have fallen because of the freewheeling Open Market Committee which HAS THE POWER TO INDEPENDENTLY SET THE LEVEL OF INTREST RATES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF POLITICIANS OR VOTERS, either directly or indirectly.)
2. Research that I have done over the years shows that EVERY recession that we have had in the past 70 years (including the great depression) has been the result of interest-rate manipulation by the Federal Open Market Committee, usually at a time when the economy was most vulnerable, often as a result of over-speculation in the private sector. The economy usually reacts from 6 months to a year after the FOMC takes a vote to "adjust" the Fed Funds rate, depending on what else is going on, such as either budget cuts (like in these days) or expansionary fiscal policy which can include deliberate deficit spending.
3. Our manufacturing sector has been devastated by the rate-setting policies of the Fed over the past 30-to-40 years, completely remaking the industrial map of this country, causing increased off-shore production or factories’ moving to lower-cost sites (e.g., North to South or off shore), and severely disrupting and eliminating domestic heavy production in such sectors as steel and iron, ship-building, automobile production, and other such sectors requiring huge capital outlays financed through borrowing. Thus the famous "rust belt", which no one even discusses anymore.
4. These policies have helped to remake our once-industrialized centers into hollowed-out cores (viz. LA since the 70s) with block after block of empty factories and vacant lots. (I have seen the remains of these policies in the form of deserted buildings and warehouses in my old hometown in S. Central New York State, which used to be a thriving industrial area.)
5. Many administrations have either benefited from or been taken down by the Fed's independent decisions regarding the level of interest rates and their consequences. Big losers: Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush Sr., just to name the more obvious ones. Geo. Bush fils may yet find the current wretched economy his undoing, thanks to the antedeluvian Fed policies.
6. With regard to the current recession: As I said, the last bout of high rates started in the mid-90s, and these high rates lasted right up to the end of the decade. The basic Fed Funds rate went from 3% in Sept 93 to 6.5% by May 2000. Given the one-to-two-year lag time required for the higher rate to affect production, the subsequent nationwide downturn started, on cue, with layoffs in L.A. County (which was just recovering from a massive downturn in production during the late 80s and early 90s) which left the manufacturing sector with a loss of about 243,000 manufacturing jobs between 1986 and 1995.
7. Rates started to rise again in the second half of the 90s and into 2001, and we are still feeling the effects of those rate increases with the loss of nearly 111,000 jobs since early 2001, with 83,400 of those losses just in manufacturing, although some of those losses were the result of cuts in defense spending. (The same trend was happening nationwide.) The Fed, in desperation, began lowering rates sharply in early 2001, but this policy came too late to stop the job losses. The Fed Funds rate is now at its lowest rate in decades, and despite the tremendous military buildup that we have had in recent years, we are still losing jobs.
It is easy to find web sites that show the history of the Fed's interest rate policy through the FOMC. (The Federal Funds rate is key rate that is used by the Fed for its so-called monetary policy.)
Also, while Greenspan has raised and lowered rates frequently, the real villain of the past 50 years was Paul Volker, who caused most of the economic chaos and devastation that took place during the 70s and 80s. He eventually resigned when the rest of the FOMC failed to give him a "vote of confidence". The Fed has always cloaked its restrictive policies in the guise of a "fight against inflation". (Real soldierly talk.)
User ID: 9510053 Jul 12th 12:01 PM
Wow, what an unsurprising---albeit exciting---article!: "Golden Gate Transit to cut servcice by 30% to reduce deficit," by Michael Cabanatuan, San Francisco Chronicle, July 12, 2003. (This article is accessible today via sfgate.com.)
Has Northern California, and especially the San Francisco and San Jose areas, become anti-transit?
I'm sure glad Los Angeles isn't trying to effect deep transit cuts!
Marty
User ID: 0798784 Jul 12th 12:27 PM
For the love of God, John. If you want anyone to listen your blabbering, can you at least post the article that you're referencing or at least provide a direct link? Nobody wants to waste their time searching for the Golden Gate Transit website and the article you're talking about. You seem to do this all the time, and on rare occaisons, I actually want to read the article.
John
User ID: 9510053 Jul 12th 1:33 PM
Oh! Hee HEE! Here in Los Angeles, a relatively pro-transit city, I think we'll have a Rapid Bus Line running on Fairfax LONG before there is ever an Expo LRT (if, indeed, there EVER is one; haha!), and it's so VERY easy to see WHY! Hahahaha! I LOVE it!
Robert
User ID: 2037954 Jul 12th 2:02 PM
John,
WHY THE 30% CUT? You can not even read the headline you posted. How do you run a transit system if you don't have the money? Yes, I guess your warp little brain translates a cut in service to Anti-transit. We are lucky here in Los Angeles, for now anyway, that the MTA borrowed against other funds to keep subsidizing your bus ride. This borrowing can happen only so long, if our country's financial problem doesn't turn around soon, then I hope you and Mike know how to roller skate or ride bikes, because we are going to see busses decaying and rail tracks, which I know you will love, rusting. Many projects have been delayed or cancelled to maintain the transit service we all enjoy.
What is the cause of our slump? 9-11 may be the catalyst, but the decline in tourist and that we are afraid of flying started the domino effect.
John, your remarks and your miss-quotes and your selfishness for others and your lack of common sense are why many people don't respect you because you have no respect for them. By you not responding to our posts does not hurt us at all, we know that you are acting like a 3-year old spoiled brat who has to have everything their own way. Just like you thinking that the world OWES JOHN A LIVING.
My joke in jest to you before about you being Psycho when I was agreeing with you instead of using the word Psychic may have been closer to the truth than I thought at that time.
"Oh! Hee HEE! Here in Los Angeles, a relatively pro-transit city..." San Francisco is more PRO-TRANSIT than Los Angeles is, and the Bay
Region is taking a 30% cut.
Hee HEE, Haa HAA, Hoo Hoo, You dumb ...
Bob
P.S. Many articles are only available for a short period of time on-line from the source, when referring to the article, the link is good, but copying the article and pasting it here helps us all. But what should we expect from John anyway who only cares about himself.
Very long articles and reports we know should not be posted, but they are normally available for a long period of time on the web. rl
John
User ID: 9510053 Jul 12th 2:24 PM\
ROFL! As I have said, it is SO easy to see why certain transit projects in the relatively pro-transit city of Los Angeles will likely be completed LONG before others are! And I certainly have to wonder whether there will EVER be an Expo LRT all the way to Santa Monica! Hahahahaha!
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1718124 Jul 13th 8:06 AM
To paraphrase "Stone Cold" Steve Austin: if you think we should revive the idea to turf John from the message board, give me a hell yeah!
Anyway, onto Golden Gate Transit. GGT's equivalent in L.A. would be Commuter Express. GGT's important routes end in "0" (i.e., 80) and these usually run all day, every day. However, the system has a peak-to-base ratio of something like 30. Almost all of the other routes (about 75) are single-direction peak hour routes. Some go into San Francisco, others are ferry shuttles. But unlike Commuter Express, GGT is a public agency that owns its own buses and operates service in-house.
One of the most efficient things Marin and Sonoma counties can do is to pass a tax to build a BART line. This will attract far more people to transit than the huge GGT bus network. (Instead of crossing the Golden Gate Bridge, the line should use existing track via Oakland and Richmond and backtrack to San Rafael. Also, I'm sure that BART would be a much quicker ride (presently, 2.5 hours is the norm between San Francisco and Santa Rosa).
In the short term, GGT should preserve the trunk routes and try converting more of the peak-hour bus lines to vanpools.
Bert G
User ID: 8841313 Jul 13th 6:04 PM
Marin has consisently voted AGAINST BART since its inception. The supposedly "liberal" culture of Marin rejects it for the same reasons as Beverly Hills, because it would bring the "wrong" people.
I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Roberto
User ID: 9161143 Jul 13th 6:38 PM
Just a clarification ... as far as I've been told, Beverly Hills is FOR the Red Line because they know the additional tourist and local foot traffic the Red Line would bring onto Wilshire.
Hancock Park is the community that stopped the Red Line cold in its tracks, and has not revisited its position since.
PForce
User ID: 1808544 Jul 13th 11:17 PM
Re: the NATIONWIDE recession:
Yes, the recession is nationwide. No, California didn't start it, neither did any of the other states. The Federal Reserve started raising interesting rates about 3 or 4 years ago. It usually takes about 1 to 2 years before the effects of those interest rate hikes (federal funds rate--the Fed's basic rate) are felt in the economy in the form of a decline in manufacturing and construction--i.e. all forms of activity that require major borrowing to start--that soon affects all sectors.
Once again, the effects of the rate increases take about one to two years before the ordinary worker starts to feel it, in the form of a pink slip or a cutback in hours.
I believe that the reason that we did not feel the effects of the Fed's rate rise sooner is that there was a huge bubble in computer manufacturing and software production because of the internet craze that seemed to happen overnight had created lots of jobs nationwide. When even Granny got her computer, that's about when the bubble burst.
So, we have the combined effects of the Fed's delayed recession coupled with the high-tech bust hitting all at once. (Of course, there was lots of corporate hanky-panky thrown in--such a the massive Enron scam-cum-collapse and such projects as Global Crossing going under and taking many thousands of jobs with them.) It is a nationwide phenomenon, and is directly attributable originally to the Fed and then to the internet mania that swept the country, and then played itself out, along with business failures caused by widespread corporate malfeasance and speculation. (And add onto all this the latest big tax cut for the higher-income bracket.)
I have discussed this ad nasauem in other posts, even showing some statistics to demonstrate this. It is not just California, New York, or even Montana. It's the whole country. Remember this. Even my old home town of Elmira, New York made the New York Times a month ago with a big story about the layoffs in this old manufacturing center that are slowly devastating the already slimmed-down city. (I will be there in August for a HS reunion. There wasn't much left to devastate as I recall. But that's another story.)
And, of course, this condition is playing havoc with LA's non-recovery and its plans for future job-creating infrastructure projects such as light rail. And our federal govt is apparently not planning to do anything serious about this situation in the immediate future.
Bert G
User ID: 8841313 Jul 14th 12:07 AM
Interest rates have been REDUCED incrementally for the past several years. Go to the Federal Reserve site at www.frbdiscountwindow.org and get the history of interest rates. The seasonal interest rate was at 5.45% in 1996, 6.55% in 2000, and stands now at 1.05%. The adjustment credit rate was at 5.00% in 1999 and stands at 0.75% now.
Even if, as you attest, the effect takes a few years to have an effect, the trends have been downward for longer than that. The rates are reduced to act as a stimulus to the economy, and increased to put the brakes on growth to prevent the economy from overheating. This is the legacy of Alan Greenspan.
It is also the reason why home loan rates are so low right now, and you see so many low financing offers. Savings accounts offer interest rates that are lower than the rate of inflation (and that should be a crime!). Credit is cheap at the moment.
I don't dispute that the economy is in recession all over the country, and it will probably be the single most important factor in the next presidential election, but I don't buy your interest rate analysis.
John
User ID: 9510053 Jul 14th 6:26 AM
This time around, I don't think there will BE a sustained recovery of the economy. Extremely negative conditions have been allowed to reach the breaking point, and so now the consequences of this almost incredible level of neglect will, I think, continue to unfold.
PForce
User ID: 1808544 Jul 15th 3:00 PM
Bert,
I don't think that we disagree on the fundamentals:
1. All interest rates--consumer loans, business loans, etc. are all tied directly to the level of the current Federal Funds Rate (the lowest possible interest rate). The Fed Funds is set by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), a group of quasi-governmental appointees that is controlled by NO ONE but themselves. In the early 1900s, the board was set up to be independent of control or influence by elected officials. (This was a terrible idea, and it has left economic policy in the hands of a few federal appointees who, in turn, answer to no one. Several administrations have fallen because of the freewheeling Open Market Committee which HAS THE POWER TO INDEPENDENTLY SET THE LEVEL OF INTREST RATES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF POLITICIANS OR VOTERS, either directly or indirectly.)
2. Research that I have done over the years shows that EVERY recession that we have had in the past 70 years (including the great depression) has been the result of interest-rate manipulation by the Federal Open Market Committee, usually at a time when the economy was most vulnerable, often as a result of over-speculation in the private sector. The economy usually reacts from 6 months to a year after the FOMC takes a vote to "adjust" the Fed Funds rate, depending on what else is going on, such as either budget cuts (like in these days) or expansionary fiscal policy which can include deliberate deficit spending.
3. Our manufacturing sector has been devastated by the rate-setting policies of the Fed over the past 30-to-40 years, completely remaking the industrial map of this country, causing increased off-shore production or factories’ moving to lower-cost sites (e.g., North to South or off shore), and severely disrupting and eliminating domestic heavy production in such sectors as steel and iron, ship-building, automobile production, and other such sectors requiring huge capital outlays financed through borrowing. Thus the famous "rust belt", which no one even discusses anymore.
4. These policies have helped to remake our once-industrialized centers into hollowed-out cores (viz. LA since the 70s) with block after block of empty factories and vacant lots. (I have seen the remains of these policies in the form of deserted buildings and warehouses in my old hometown in S. Central New York State, which used to be a thriving industrial area.)
5. Many administrations have either benefited from or been taken down by the Fed's independent decisions regarding the level of interest rates and their consequences. Big losers: Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush Sr., just to name the more obvious ones. Geo. Bush fils may yet find the current wretched economy his undoing, thanks to the antedeluvian Fed policies.
6. With regard to the current recession: As I said, the last bout of high rates started in the mid-90s, and these high rates lasted right up to the end of the decade. The basic Fed Funds rate went from 3% in Sept 93 to 6.5% by May 2000. Given the one-to-two-year lag time required for the higher rate to affect production, the subsequent nationwide downturn started, on cue, with layoffs in L.A. County (which was just recovering from a massive downturn in production during the late 80s and early 90s) which left the manufacturing sector with a loss of about 243,000 manufacturing jobs between 1986 and 1995.
7. Rates started to rise again in the second half of the 90s and into 2001, and we are still feeling the effects of those rate increases with the loss of nearly 111,000 jobs since early 2001, with 83,400 of those losses just in manufacturing, although some of those losses were the result of cuts in defense spending. (The same trend was happening nationwide.) The Fed, in desperation, began lowering rates sharply in early 2001, but this policy came too late to stop the job losses. The Fed Funds rate is now at its lowest rate in decades, and despite the tremendous military buildup that we have had in recent years, we are still losing jobs.
It is easy to find web sites that show the history of the Fed's interest rate policy through the FOMC. (The Federal Funds rate is key rate that is used by the Fed for its so-called monetary policy.)
Also, while Greenspan has raised and lowered rates frequently, the real villain of the past 50 years was Paul Volker, who caused most of the economic chaos and devastation that took place during the 70s and 80s. He eventually resigned when the rest of the FOMC failed to give him a "vote of confidence". The Fed has always cloaked its restrictive policies in the guise of a "fight against inflation". (Real soldierly talk.)