|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 18, 2016 14:12:36 GMT -8
I agree, the numbers simply don't add up. How can $42 billion pay for so little, especially when the original Measure R partially funds many of the projects? And what about using Prop A/C money to fund the LRT lines?
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 18, 2016 14:47:07 GMT -8
btw, 35% of the 120 billion would be for rail the same as measure R. Measure R raised 40 billion and 35% was allocated to rail, 14 billion. This is three times the size of Measure R, 42 billion for rail. In the first 15 years of Measure R, for one third the amount of money, we got 5 rail projects. In the first 15 years of this new measure, with three times the money, we get three rail projects: Gold Foothill 2, Van Nuys, and West Santa Ana. And a Busway rather than subway for Vermont. Have expenses really gone up that massively that we spend three times as much and get two thirds the result? They absolutely have not. Inflation is at an all time low and construction costs are relatively low given the contraction of the great recession. Completely awful, nothing but a play for 30 billion in graft. Downright Russian, all things considered. three times the money for two thirds the outcome. just infuriating. And as an additional insult, we're going to fleece tax payers of 120 billion to build lexus lanes and gift toll roads to private corporations. Build everything with public money and then only allow the wealthy to use our collective infrastructure. The sheer amount of P3 nonsense is vile in this measure. You are misunderstanding and making false assumptions. The reason why this is $120B is because the increase is for 45-50 years not 30 like Measure R and this extends Measure R by another 25-30 so it is not 3 times the amount of Measure R coming in the first 15 years. Rather it is the same amount. It is a 0.5% increase in sales tax just like Measure R. Why would you think it would be 3 times the money coming in? The recession ended years ago. Construction costs are not low anymore and even if they were you would have to plan for the next 45 years. CA unemployment is on the low end of its historical range. Also, we have essentially used pretty much all of our federal money for the next decade and the feds are likely to cut back on transit expenditures going forward anyway. As for the original Measure R, Expo I was funded by Prop A and Prop C not Measure R. Some Measure R was used for Phase II, although I think Prop A and C contributed to this as well. However, as I have said many times, these lines are very expensive to operate so the more you open the more money Metro has to spend each year operating the lines which each take tens of millions of dollars. All the Prop A and C money now is pretty much going to operating the system, so none is available like in the past for new construction. Anyway, I warned many on this board that they had far too inflated views of what could be funded by a sales tax given the realities. They didn't listen and are now seeing the light. |
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 18, 2016 15:24:12 GMT -8
Anyway, I warned many on this board that they had far too inflated views of what could be funded by a sales tax given the realities. They didn't listen and are now seeing the light. Where's the $40 billion going then? The proposed ordinance already allocates 20% of the projected revenue for transit operations. Measure J was to accelerate all the Measure R projects so that they would be done by 2030. This measure is basically J plus a more robust R. So how is it that we're getting longer timetables and very little new projects? Sorry, I'm unable to connect the dots. |
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 18, 2016 16:19:49 GMT -8
Just for reference, here's Measure R's expenditure plan:
Gold Line Eastside Extension ($1.3 billion)
Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor ($1.1 billion)*
Green Line Extension to South Bay ($200 million)
West Santa Ana Branch Corridor ($240 million)
Westside Subway Extension ($4.1 billion)**
*Includes SFV East North-South Rapidways
**Approximately $2.3 billion have been used up per the FFGAs for Sections 1 and 2, leaving $1.8 billion for Section 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 18, 2016 16:23:43 GMT -8
Anyway, I warned many on this board that they had far too inflated views of what could be funded by a sales tax given the realities. They didn't listen and are now seeing the light. Where's the $40 billion going then? The proposed ordinance already allocates 20% of the projected revenue for transit operations. Measure J was to accelerate all the Measure R projects so that they would be done by 2030. This measure is basically J plus a more robust R. So how is it that we're getting longer timetables and very little new projects? Sorry, I'm unable to connect the dots. Not sure you can say very little new projects. There are some very expensive projects in here. Light rail line from Artesia all the way to Union Station along the West Santa Ana Branch. Yes, Measure R had $240M for that, but you didn't really believe that was going to build anything. That was basically for studies and to get the ball rolling. This funds the whole thing all the way to Union Station. Same with the Sepulveda tunnel. Measure R had $1B, but that is no where enough to do anything like this project, which will be close to $10B. Green Line to Norwalk is only about 3 miles, but you are talking subway here so that is going to be expensive. Crenshaw Line to Hollywood is going to be unbelievably expensive. That is over 6 miles of underground rail so many billions of dollars right there. There is way more BRT here than in Measure R. You have Vermont BRT all the way to the Green Line from Hollywood, Lincoln Blvd. BRT and BRT between the Gold and Orange Lines. Basically, Measure R raised everyone's expectations so much that anything following it was going to be a disappointment to many people. The only real expensive project in Measure R that is going to get built is the Purple Line and the feds picked up half of that one. For the Regional Connector, Measure R funds almost nothing. The rest is picked up by the feds with the HSR Bond fund picking up a substantial portion from the state. The HSR Bond was a one time thing so you can't count on that again. The feds are pretty much maxed out so you won't get much of a benefit there especially until about 2025 or 2030 or when the Purple Line is done. |
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 18, 2016 17:22:24 GMT -8
I know we've discussed this before, but allocating 25% of the funds for transit operations seems excessive. I understand your side of the argument, but I think that it's worth cutting back on. For starters, it's the most politically viable option in terms of reapportioning the revenue stream because most people would never think about the actual logistics. But the crux of my argument is essentially that using such financial leverage to build a rail system that optimizes ridership and efficiency would in the long-run yield a ROI high enough to cover those operational costs. As our rail system becomes more and more usable, don't expect the base fare to remain $1.75.
For an extra $6 billion, you could extend the Red Line to the 105 Freeway and Whittier, assuming that they're both financially competitive on the federal level. Together they would likely yield a six-figure increase in the number of average weekday riders, more than all the planned LRT projects combined. It's quality over quantity for me. Two HRT extensions are better than twelve BRT lines, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 18, 2016 17:49:21 GMT -8
I know we've discussed this before, but allocating 25% of the funds for transit operations seems excessive. I understand your side of the argument, but I think that it's worth cutting back on. For starters, it's the most politically viable option in terms of reapportioning the revenue stream because most people would never think about the actual logistics. But the crux of my argument is essentially that using such financial leverage to build a rail system that optimizes ridership and efficiency would in the long-run yield a ROI high enough to cover those operational costs. As our rail system becomes more and more usable, don't expect the base fare to remain $1.75. For an extra $6 billion, you could extend the Red Line to the 105 Freeway and Whittier, assuming that they're both financially competitive on the federal level. Together they would likely yield a six-figure increase in the number of average weekday riders, more than all the planned LRT projects combined. It's quality over quantity for me. Two HRT extensions are better than twelve BRT lines, in my opinion. I don't disagree at all that a few likely heavy rail projects are better than some marginal light rail or BRT projects. We have gone too far in the direction that light rail is the answer for every area and situation. The problem is if one area gets heavy rail subway another area complains they are not. We saw this last time with Measure R and it nearly cost the election. Now the problem is much worse as subway is considered more viable. The dollars across regions have to be close to each other. As far as transit operations money, the system has to be maintained or you will have a lot of ill will. You can't shortchange this and have the system constantly breaking down, which has become a problem recently more and more. Also, politically it is almost impossible to raise fares. |
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 18, 2016 18:10:09 GMT -8
I just would like to find a way to divert some $10 billion away from one category (e.g. Local Return) and put it toward transit expansion. I would actually sleep better at night knowing that Metro had inspirational vision, swung for the fences, and ultimately failed in the end than it narrowly passing this lukewarm vanilla measure.
I mean, you can ask the voting public to pay more taxes only so many times. Let's say this thing passes. Then how will we ever get the "Yellow Line" built?
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 18, 2016 19:31:19 GMT -8
I will be rather surprised if this passes, it's like measure j which had no new projects, but this time we are paying a second time for measure r projects that have already been paid for.
As for the sepulveda tunnel, it's twice the length of the red line tunnel through the same terrain, yet some how the red line tunnel did not cost 5 Billion dollars to build. I say give up and go home there's too much corruption without villaraigosa at the helm of the measure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 18, 2016 19:49:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 19, 2016 6:46:38 GMT -8
My thoughts from the "Dream" thread:
Lots to process here!
Looking through the document, the plan is certainly ambitious. There are tons of projects earmarked all over L.A. County. Every area basically gets something; the issue being whether it's the right something, and of course, what the timetable looks like (though the timetables seem awfully contrived - the Downtown Streetcar, for example, which residents voted to tax themselves for and was originally set to open in 2015, is now apparently not coming until 2057!).
Despite it all…I can't help but feel a bit underwhelmed. Transit-wise, this is for all intents and purposes a far more scaled-down version of what the 2009 LRTP had in mind for L.A. - several areas originally getting rail are now set for BRT decades in the future (Vermont and Lincoln, which is puzzling considering that rail extensions, though more expensive, make far more sense for a long range plan). Other projects, like the Silver Line LRT and the Burbank/Glendale LRT, have disappeared.
Also as I feared, there is focus on expediting current projects already guaranteed by Measure R. While I certainly support this, it's going to be a really tough sell for the voters who think they already voted to get these projects - the Purple Line to Westwood and the Santa Ana line being the biggest culprits (the Santa Ana line is shadily changed to the 'Artesia' line, with a proposed 'second phase' that would eventually go to Downtown L.A.).
Furthermore, the plan promises extensions of extensions we haven't even gotten yet - what is a voter supposed to think of a 405 line that goes from Expo to LAX when the initial phase of the 405 Line barely even exists as a paper concept? Metro certainly has their work cut out for them if they don't want a repeat of Measure J this November.
We're also looking at some embarrassing holes in the system for some time - the Green Line extension to Norwalk won't be until 2057; there is *no* plan to get the Purple Line to the beach (it is mentioned later on, but without a timetable and would only go to Bundy); no South Bay extension of the Green Line beyond Torrence.
But credit where credit is due: the Gold Line Foothill extension is included (albeit with a weird timetable of 2025 - perhaps the longest ever for a "shovel ready" project), the Orange Line gets its extension to Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena (though the routing is unknown), a phase of the Santa Ana line will be built (but has been bumped from 2024 to 2029) and it looks like we *might* see rail on Van Nuys (the project's definition is still nebulous, even though rail is the obvious alternative).
In the end, it's still just a plan and it can change, but I thought Measure R and the 2009 LRTP promised a far better system than this.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Mar 19, 2016 12:41:45 GMT -8
(posting in this thread too since there's essentially two threads running on the same thing)
After looking through this more, I think some of the main concerns are as follows:
1. I think it's a HUGE problem that people are, in essence, voting to fund things that Measure R already ostensibly funded, and then placing those projects behind new projects. I think those facts erode trust in Metro, and make people dubious that the already lengthy timetable won't be adhered to. (And I'll point out that most of the general public isn't cognizant of the nuance that Measure R didn't FULLY fund most of its projects, and learning that is more likely to erode that trust further.)
2. That timetable. We're essentially asking people to vote to pay for things that many will not be alive to see. That is an enormous ask. Sure, planning for future generations may be the right thing to do, but let's be realistic on how people will react to this.
3. One effect of the timetable being so lengthy is that it essentially assures us that certain hoped-for projects will NEVER see the light of day -- like you said, Philip, the yellow and silver lines. And for me personally, I feel the yellow line would be a slam dunk.
4. Some of the more transit-dependent neighborhoods (GLEE) are being told to wait behind less transit-dependent ones (foothill), who have ALREADY had an extension before them. And the original GLEE was part of Measure R! It looks like a nakedly-political move that takes advantage of the fact that transit-dependent communities will probably vote for this no matter what, whereas the less-transit dependent communities will have to be catered to a bit.
So how can Metro address these deficiencies in the final version of this ballot measure? Here's some ideas:
1. Make a crystal-clear distinction that this ballot measure contains 2 parts that are as follows -- first, an extension of Measure R (Measure J, essentially) that accelerates Measure R projects, and have ALL of those projects first on the timetable; and second, a new half-cent sales tax that, while also helping accelerate further the Measure R projects, gives us new projects.
2. This may sound crazy, but find a way to make this a 20-year plan. Even if it means taking into account rosy assumptions about matching federal funds. Which would mean pulling a Measure-R and not fully-funding some projects from the tax. Be transparent about what is and isn't fully-funded, and outline possible avenues to cover those shortfalls that will not include a further tax, but rather possible federal or state sources of funding. One possibly-sticky, but possibly-effective approach to this is to fund studies on a wider number of new projects immediately, setting aside partial funds to meet them, and commit to covering a certain percentage of those projects no matter what, and covering all of them if matching funds can be located through non-tax means. This would mean some of the later projects MIGHT not happen at all, but it gives people a chance to continue fighting for their projects, and a hope that they may happen.
3. I'm a little confused about the Sepulveda tunnel project -- my understanding is that they're pursuing it as a P3 combined highway/rail project to bring Metro's cost burden down, but it looks to me (I may be wrong) that the assumption in the expenditure plan is that Metro is pursuing both the highway and metro tunnel AND covering the whole cost. Either subtract the assumed savings a P3 would give you from the plan to move the project up in the timeline, or eliminate the highway aspect of the tunnel. Considering the nightmare that the highway tunnel terminal construction would unleash on the Westside, I honestly think many people would probably still be happy with the Sepulveda rail project if the toll tunnel was left out.
4. Build phases one and two -- van nuys and the pass tunnel -- of the sepulveda line simultaneously, and put shovels in the ground for both as soon as humanly possible.
5. In summation, I think the project breakdown should be as follows:
A. Measure R projects that will absolutely get built first: Accelerate the purple line to VA, full sepulveda line (van nuys-LAX, all rail), airport connector, whittier GLEE alignment, WSAB union-artesia, green line to torrance. These were promised in 2008, and for Metro to seem trustworthy, they have to come first.
B. New projects with guaranteed full funding: Gold line foothill 2B (guaranteed because yes, we need their votes), Crenshaw north to hollywood (massive positive impact for system circulation overall, plus serving dense communities), AT LEAST BRT from NoHo to Pasadena (rail option below), AT LEAST BRT on Vermont (same), AT LEAST BRT on Lincoln (same).
C. Projects guaranteed to be studied, with a portion guaranteed to be built based on competitiveness, with all being built if matching funds can be secured: LRT NoHo-Pasadena, LRT Vermont, LRT Lincoln, Orange line LRT conversion, Yellow line LRT, Purple line to the sea, green line to Norwalk metrolink, green line to long beach, and maaaaaaybe LRT slauson.
Obviously, it would take a LOT of outside funding for ALL of C to get funded, but by promising at least an unstated portion of those will get funded, and that all will be studied, and that Metro will fight for ALL to get funded, I think you bring more people into the fold. Essentially, you're promising certain things in the short term but keeping long-term looser, which, in my mind, is definitely the way to go, because whenever you prognosticate forty years into the future and set concrete plans, let's be honest, those plans will change. What you think will work best in forty years NOW will not actually be ideal when that time arrives. So by leaving the door cracked further open on what those longer-term projects are, it brings more people into the fold, gives them more hope that their projects will be built, and appears more realistic, and thus, more trustworthy.
Granted, I haven't run the numbers, so I don't know how realistic the project breakdowns in columns A/B/C are (B/C might have to shift a little bit), but I do think going further in this direction will help metro get people on board with the plan.
Or maybe I'm totally wrong. I dunno. You tell me!
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 19, 2016 19:57:52 GMT -8
Yes, I agree metro built up a lot of good will with the measure r successes, but this new measure makes me not trust them one bit. It is just naked greed and ugly graft as they try to grab horrendous piles of cash while telling us to pay for projects twice. I don't think this measure will pass though, measure r had a lot of desperately needed freeway projects that voters very much wanted, none of the freeway projects in the new measure seem as high need and several are nothing more than vanity projects, like rebuilding the 105 405 interchange for direct carpool connectors, I don't think inflicting years of increased traffic congestion on drivers and inflicting drivers with eight years of suffering and misery just to built vanity carpool lane connectors is remotely a worthwhile project. Honestly, if there were a ballot measure to ban all future non maintenance construction activity on the 405 I would vote for it in a heartbeat. The decades of construction has caused far more congestion on the freeway than the traffic ever did on its own. It's the main reason I don't want a highway tunnel built, because the entry and egress point construction projects would cause more congestion than would ever be relieved by the tunnels, that and highway toll tunnels have never been profitable anywhere in the world any time they've been tried. Let's not forget the most important mass transit system in Los Angeles is the freeway system, transit used by the masses.  |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 20, 2016 7:15:10 GMT -8
One of the biggest mistakes I think was once again neglecting the Green Line Norwalk Metrolink connection to the 2050s.
A true embarrassment since California High-Speed Rail will reach the station in 2029.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 20, 2016 8:35:27 GMT -8
One of the biggest mistakes I think was once again neglecting the Green Line Norwalk Metrolink connection to the 2050s. A true embarrassment since California High-Speed Rail will reach the station in 2029. And HSR also stops at burbank airport, but we're not connecting the metro system to there either. Considering HSR will end at burbank and will not go to union station and will instead have a twice a day metrolink diesel train bridge to union station for the convenience of hsr passengers, connecting the red line to the burbank airport is the only way to bring hsr into the system. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 23, 2016 5:54:03 GMT -8
What's even more frustrating is that Metro could have also included far shorter and far less expensive projects, as well as new lines that would still be a huge boon to the system. I'll name just a few off the bat:
--Purple Line Extension to Arts District: serves the rapidly growing area. Could probably be done for $100-200 million (depending on if there's one station or two).
--Red Line Extension to Valley Plaza: extends the Red Line one stop northwest in the valley to Laurel Canyon/Oxnard. Benefits: large shopping destination, huge parking lot with great park-and-ride/TOD potential that would relieve the congestion at North Hollywood. Could also be built mostly elevated. Cost would probably be around $250-$300 million.
--Venice Blvd. Line: extends from the Culver City station to Venice. Could be built mostly at-grade/elevated when necessary. Would require 6-8 stations. Would probably cost just over $1 billion.
These seem far more realistic. Maybe not as attractive as a 405 line, but far more reasonable. Metro has several short extensions like these in their plans, but most have been either banished to the mid-century (Norwalk Metrolink, Torrence) or lumped in with larger projects (Crenshaw to Wilshire is now Crenshaw to Hollywood, Van Nuys to Sylmar is now Sylmar to LAX).
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Mar 23, 2016 9:33:09 GMT -8
I will say I think the Arts District station will end up being built out of the existing purple line allocation. I got the impression awhile ago that that was always the plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 23, 2016 19:53:47 GMT -8
What's even more frustrating is that Metro could have also included far shorter and far less expensive projects, as well as new lines that would still be a huge boon to the system. I'll name just a few off the bat: -- Purple Line Extension to Arts District: serves the rapidly growing area. Could probably be done for $100-200 million (depending on if there's one station or two). -- Red Line Extension to Valley Plaza: extends the Red Line one stop northwest in the valley to Laurel Canyon/Oxnard. Benefits: large shopping destination, huge parking lot with great park-and-ride/TOD potential that would relieve the congestion at North Hollywood. Could also be built mostly elevated. Cost would probably be around $250-$300 million. -- Venice Blvd. Line: extends from the Culver City station to Venice. Could be built mostly at-grade/elevated when necessary. Would require 6-8 stations. Would probably cost just over $1 billion. These seem far more realistic. Maybe not as attractive as a 405 line, but far more reasonable. Metro has several short extensions like these in their plans, but most have been either banished to the mid-century (Norwalk Metrolink, Torrence) or lumped in with larger projects (Crenshaw to Wilshire is now Crenshaw to Hollywood, Van Nuys to Sylmar is now Sylmar to LAX). 1. Agreed 2. Elevated heavy rail will never happen anywhere in Los Angeles. Subway station boxes cost 250 million alone. 3. Venice blvd has heavy utility trunk lines under the median, construction atop or below it would be extremely problematic and very expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 24, 2016 4:49:14 GMT -8
2. Elevated heavy rail will never happen anywhere in Los Angeles. That's a pretty bold statement. Why? Laurel Canyon is wide and as mentioned, the area around the 170/Oxnard is huge and open. What sense would it make to tunnel there when you can just run the train along the eastern shoulder of the 170? |
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Mar 24, 2016 9:16:24 GMT -8
The eastern shoulder of the 170 is extremely wide because they built a box culvert for one of the branches of the Tujunga Wash there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 24, 2016 11:32:03 GMT -8
Should I hold any shame in saying that I would vote NO on this measure if this is the final version? Just thinking about it instantly puts me in a bad mood. It's that awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 24, 2016 16:26:38 GMT -8
Should I hold any shame in saying that I would vote NO on this measure if this is the final version? Just thinking about it instantly puts me in a bad mood. It's that awful. no, I'm voting against it in this format because we already have enough funding in measure r to construct 90% of the same projects given the federal matching funds those projects will receive. the only thing I feel bad about is purple line acceleration, but we are up for being the trial project for a new federal project to accelerate projects and we will probably get it accelerated without this new measure. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 1, 2016 13:27:05 GMT -8
I wonder what the future will look like if this measure does not pass.
For starters, we are certain to see fare increases as Metro has already stated that fares must rise without a new tax measure. The question is how much and how fast, but I think we can expect them to be pretty substantial over the next 5-10 years. Do they go to distanced based fares sooner rather than later, especially with the connector opening?
Most certainly, we would not see another try in 4 years as these cost too much political capital to keep failing every 4 years and I doubt Garcetti would try again in 2020.
My guess is we would see an increase in Express Lanes across the region, although these cost money to implement too, so there would be little financial benefit up front, but it could help a little down the line. The 105 and 405 would probably be the first conversions.
I suppose somehow they would try to find money to put in the airport connector station on the Crenshaw Line. However, the West Santa Ana Branch would be toast as $240M isn't going to get anything done there. Same for the East San Fernando Valley Line. Those would have to be bus projects if anything at all. Probably the same for the Sepulveda Pass unless somehow they could toll the entire 405, between the Valley and the City.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Apr 2, 2016 9:25:51 GMT -8
Should I hold any shame in saying that I would vote NO on this measure if this is the final version? Just thinking about it instantly puts me in a bad mood. It's that awful. ... we already have enough funding in measure r to construct 90% of the same projects given the federal matching funds those projects will receive.... It doesn't look to me like we have anywhere near 90%... if this measure doesn't pass, here's what it looks like to me, and these are just my highlights from the complete list: Insufficient funding or no funding at all for Sepulveda pass, Crenshaw northern extension, Gold Line Foothill to Claremont, one of the Gold Line East side extensions, West Santa Ana light rail, Orange Line conversion to light rail, Norwalk Green Line extension, Purple Line construction acceleration, or Van Nuys light rail. In other words, the LRTP would be largely unfunded, as it is now. Also, there would be a funding dropoff when Measure R expires. Even being optimistic with Fed funding, there just won't be enough money for Metro's wish list. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 3, 2016 9:26:38 GMT -8
True enough, I overreacted to the initial proposal and forgot the stimulus and Democrat congress of 2007-2011 provided a lot of money for transit.
It is weird that Clinton is proposing 250 billion in new infrastructure spending nationally and LA County is proposing 120 billion of partially funded projects, doesn't seem like the two correspond and that LA is wildly overpaying.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Apr 3, 2016 11:04:13 GMT -8
Uh, Hillary's plan is over 5 years, this would be over 40. So (120/40)/(250/50) = 6% of the spending per year, when we have 3% of the country's population. This also ignores inflation, so that $120B is much less in current dollars. So we're spending more than the feds per person, but not by much.
|
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Apr 4, 2016 13:26:50 GMT -8
For what it's worth, Hillary's $250 billion proposal came out after Bernie released his $1 trillion infrastructure plan, which he later detailed in S.268. Of particular interest: In short, right off the bat there's $15bn earmarked over 5 years for HSR and local rail grants. |
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Apr 4, 2016 20:58:34 GMT -8
Either I'm reading the legalese wrong or it actually says $15B per year for a total of $75B. That's a quarter of the total! Given how much we've spent on highways and air travel since WWII, it makes sense to play catch up.
|
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Apr 5, 2016 12:36:38 GMT -8
Either I'm reading the legalese wrong or it actually says $15B per year for a total of $75B. That's a quarter of the total! Given how much we've spent on highways and air travel since WWII, it makes sense to play catch up. D'oh! Good catch. $75 billion over the next 5 years for rail projects alone would be a massive improvement. $250 billion doesn't even come close to scratching the surface of our infrastructure backlog, when it's spread across everything that needs fixing. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 5, 2016 20:21:07 GMT -8
Either I'm reading the legalese wrong or it actually says $15B per year for a total of $75B. That's a quarter of the total! Given how much we've spent on highways and air travel since WWII, it makes sense to play catch up. D'oh! Good catch. $75 billion over the next 5 years for rail projects alone would be a massive improvement. $250 billion doesn't even come close to scratching the surface of our infrastructure backlog, when it's spread across everything that needs fixing. Based on the proposed Los Angeles ballot measure math, 75 billion partially funds about a dozen rail projects, so it isnt as much as it sounds like. |
|
