daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 18th, 2008, 03:38 PM   #341
sarbaze tabarestan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tehran
Posts: 1,690
Likes (Received): 64

u are spending 12 billion us dollars a month
this is unimagible!u are the richest country in the world but u have the infrastructure of a developing country!
sarbaze tabarestan no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 18th, 2008, 08:24 PM   #342
LosAngelesSportsFan
Moderator
 
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,968
Likes (Received): 860

dont rub it in. you dont think we know that? our government has neglected our cities and infrastructure for a long time, but that it changing in a big way.
LosAngelesSportsFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2008, 10:19 PM   #343
jarbury
Resident Planner
 
jarbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland
Posts: 3,795
Likes (Received): 24

Far out, $12 billion a month. You'd have funded a massive metro for LA in 3 months... 3 months!!!!!
__________________
All opinions are my own and not my employer's (or anyone else's).
jarbury no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2008, 10:25 PM   #344
Homer J. Simpson
Registered User
 
Homer J. Simpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sector 7-G
Posts: 2,465
Likes (Received): 18

^LOL no kidding.

We have a far reaching plan just like this one in the GTA that is set to cost something like $50 Billion CDN. With that amount of money we could have our 30 year plan financed in just 4 months! or 90 times faster than what we are going to at the best projections.


There is though a silver lining within this thread and that is the already serious investment in transit in LA. I am just a bit jealous actually.
Homer J. Simpson no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2008, 04:46 AM   #345
LosAngelesMetroBoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Baghdad/Miami/Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Likes (Received): 26

OK i have to give everyone homework. Read the constitution. The federal governments job is not to fund local tranist projects. Its to regulate interstate commerce, and the only thing that really means it gets to do is build rail between states and build the interstate system. Thats it. Local governements are supposed to build local projects.

Dont blame the feds, there helping you as a favor.

I will really start to celebrate when ground breaks on the purple line, red line extensions into the valley and ridership starts to rise.
LosAngelesMetroBoy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2008, 05:57 AM   #346
jarbury
Resident Planner
 
jarbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland
Posts: 3,795
Likes (Received): 24

I was just using that as an example of the crazy amount that is spent on military in the USA. And how a tiny fraction of the defence budget could be used to improve public transportation enormously.
__________________
All opinions are my own and not my employer's (or anyone else's).
jarbury no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2008, 06:24 AM   #347
LosAngelesMetroBoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Baghdad/Miami/Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Likes (Received): 26

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarbury View Post
I was just using that as an example of the crazy amount that is spent on military in the USA. And how a tiny fraction of the defence budget could be used to improve public transportation enormously.
The feds job is to maintain the military not maintian the roads (except the interstate system which i will admit there doing a crappy job on). But for those who like to crunch numbers, the defence budget consists of only 1/4th the national budget (nasa for some reason is included in the DOD cut... i dont get that one). over half the budget goes to social security, and that does not include payouts from the social security trust fund. So yeah.... maybe people like robert redford, or dick cheny, or john mccain can send their Soc Sec checks to the FTF, that way i can still keep ammo for my gun so haggi dont kill me and not have to sit with my car idling half the time trying to get from the beach to downtown or the valley.

I do wish there was enough cash to go around and get everything done. I just wish they would build a frikkin rail link over suplvida instead of some double decker death trap.... but thats a different subject all together.
LosAngelesMetroBoy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2008, 09:32 AM   #348
geoking66
Registered User
 
geoking66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London, New York
Posts: 3,265
Likes (Received): 7310

Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesMetroBoy View Post
The feds job is to maintain the military not maintian the roads (except the interstate system which i will admit there doing a crappy job on). But for those who like to crunch numbers, the defence budget consists of only 1/4th the national budget (nasa for some reason is included in the DOD cut... i dont get that one). over half the budget goes to social security, and that does not include payouts from the social security trust fund. So yeah.... maybe people like robert redford, or dick cheny, or john mccain can send their Soc Sec checks to the FTF, that way i can still keep ammo for my gun so haggi dont kill me and not have to sit with my car idling half the time trying to get from the beach to downtown or the valley.

I do wish there was enough cash to go around and get everything done. I just wish they would build a frikkin rail link over suplvida instead of some double decker death trap.... but thats a different subject all together.
Still, it's $439.3bn per annum. Would getting rid of 1% ($4.393bn) really make much of a difference? Think about how much that could help infrastructure.
geoking66 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2008, 06:40 PM   #349
urgel23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 247
Likes (Received): 16


http://www.cityrailtransit.com/timel...s_timeline.htm
urgel23 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2008, 03:50 AM   #350
LosAngelesMetroBoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Baghdad/Miami/Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Likes (Received): 26

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoking66 View Post
Still, it's $439.3bn per annum. Would getting rid of 1% ($4.393bn) really make much of a difference? Think about how much that could help infrastructure.
It could help infastructure a whole lot. But that money also goes to make sure i have body armor. I wish the military would streamline though, but if we could get the feds to streamline operations im willing to bet my pride that we could find a trillion dollars to reduce in taxes or invest in infastructure (as much as i dont think thats the feds job)
LosAngelesMetroBoy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2008, 10:24 PM   #351
jarbury
Resident Planner
 
jarbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland
Posts: 3,795
Likes (Received): 24

I think the point is that it SHOULD be the job of the feds. Generally central government does have the money, whilst regional and local governments scramble after every cent (especially as they can't borrow as easily as central govt). So it makes sense for their to be a subsidy of some sorts, particularly when interstates that run through cities (and therefore basically act like local roads) get subsidised.
__________________
All opinions are my own and not my employer's (or anyone else's).
jarbury no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2008, 12:02 AM   #352
matthewcs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 103
Likes (Received): 2

North America (Canada and US; sorry Mexico) is structured differently. In both countries, it's the local levels that collect most of the money. The Fed's are usually broke. Long list of reasons why it was done this way....

I love the LA Metro, even if it doesn't go where I need...
matthewcs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2008, 03:44 PM   #353
Homer J. Simpson
Registered User
 
Homer J. Simpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sector 7-G
Posts: 2,465
Likes (Received): 18

^Um in Canada until just recently the Federal Government ran huge surpluses and municipal governments have been dead broke for more than a decade.
Homer J. Simpson no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2008, 12:43 AM   #354
jarbury
Resident Planner
 
jarbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland
Posts: 3,795
Likes (Received): 24

Furthermore, central government can borrow way easier than local governments. You don't see US states with a $10 trillion debt.
__________________
All opinions are my own and not my employer's (or anyone else's).
jarbury no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2008, 04:58 AM   #355
LosAngelesMetroBoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Baghdad/Miami/Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Likes (Received): 26

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarbury View Post
Furthermore, central government can borrow way easier than local governments. You don't see US states with a $10 trillion debt.
you sure you live in california?
LosAngelesMetroBoy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2008, 05:48 AM   #356
jarbury
Resident Planner
 
jarbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland
Posts: 3,795
Likes (Received): 24

I don't live in California, I live in New Zealand. I know California has racked up big debts before, but it hasn't got away with it as much as the Federal Government has.
__________________
All opinions are my own and not my employer's (or anyone else's).
jarbury no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2008, 07:25 AM   #357
LosAngelesMetroBoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Baghdad/Miami/Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Likes (Received): 26

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarbury View Post
I don't live in California, I live in New Zealand. I know California has racked up big debts before, but it hasn't got away with it as much as the Federal Government has.
the federal government has more leverage AKA THE FUTURES OF EVERY AMERICAN EVER. The states dont have nearly that kind of bargianing power because they require that we pay off the feds first. Thats why things like measure R pass for transit, so more local funds can be made available. Thats the idea behind federalism (even our bastardised version of federalism we have now)>

Also the reason the feds pay for interstates was at the time of the inception of the interstate system (and this is still the case today) interstate highways MUST be able to handle a 4 mile long military convoy, and the feds can say whatever time and distance they want on federal interstates. Thats why the feds fund them even though they become local thruways. The feds cant carry soldiers on the subway (although that would be interesting to charge in front of congress since thats one of the many reasons the feds chip in for the DC metro).

now yall got me thinking.

Write your congressman. CONNECT LA RAIL TO MILITARY BASES SO EVEN CONSERVATIVES HAVE NO REASON TO DERAIL IT.

HAHA.

Ok.... long shift tonight... sleepy time for the soldier.

May the next time im LA i not need a car, amen.
LosAngelesMetroBoy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2008, 01:04 AM   #358
matthewcs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 103
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer J. Simpson View Post
^Um in Canada until just recently the Federal Government ran huge surpluses and municipal governments have been dead broke for more than a decade.
Sorry, I tried to draw to firm a parallel btw Canada and the US that did not exist. I did not mean municipal govts, but rather provincial ones. I don't know the legal status of muni's in the US (I suspect it varies state-to-state).

Anyways, states and provinces bare most of the fiscal burden, both in expenses and income.

Off topic.
matthewcs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2008, 08:23 PM   #359
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,450
Likes (Received): 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesMetroBoy View Post
It could help infastructure a whole lot. But that money also goes to make sure i have body armor. I wish the military would streamline though, but if we could get the feds to streamline operations im willing to bet my pride that we could find a trillion dollars to reduce in taxes or invest in infastructure (as much as i dont think thats the feds job)
If we hadn;t invaded Iraq you wouldn't need body armor, which the government didn't even provide to soldiers initially. Families had to hold ******* bake sales to raise enough money to buy armor!!

Tons of federal money is wasted on useless fancy weapons systems and no bid contracts.

SOcial secuirty has a separate, dedicated funding source. It's trust fund has been raided by presidents several times to avoid having to raise taxes.

If you want infrastructure to be a state/local issue, prepare to have your taxes SKYROCKET, because those governments don't have near enough money to maintain it.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2008, 08:40 PM   #360
Homer J. Simpson
Registered User
 
Homer J. Simpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sector 7-G
Posts: 2,465
Likes (Received): 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by matthewcs View Post
Sorry, I tried to draw to firm a parallel btw Canada and the US that did not exist. I did not mean municipal govts, but rather provincial ones. I don't know the legal status of muni's in the US (I suspect it varies state-to-state).

Anyways, states and provinces bare most of the fiscal burden, both in expenses and income.

Off topic.
It is not entirely off topic.

Well what happened in Canada was that the Federal government offloaded a lot of costs onto Provincial governments in order to engineer surpluses. In Ontario's case, they then did the same thing in response to the downloading and put social welfare costs down to municipalities. So what happened in effect was that the upper levels of government were not interested in paying for programs so they forced them on towns and cities and halted spending on transit that was becoming increasingly needed.

It appears that at least California is recognizing that they need to push forward with progress on this front and are actually doing something.
Homer J. Simpson no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
los angeles

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium