Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus
I don't think it's the cost of the subway that makes or breaks these things. There are not going to be many voters who honestly think "Hm, this $7 billion proposal is too much to approve, but I'd totally vote for a $6 billion version." People base their votes on the big idea, not on the 17% cost difference between $6B & $7B.
Remember, a few years before Nashville voters rejected the big subway plan, they also rejected a cheap BRT starter corridor. It's not about the money, even if many of the people who would be opponents no matter what publicly cite the money as a reason for their opposition.
|
Why not start with a $1.9 billion plan and inform voters that close to 50% will be covered from the Federal government, which would then send the price tag down to millions and not billions.
That would likely pass with ease and then go from there. Otherwise, it becomes a little bit of an "all in" type situation. If voters reject it, then it'll take a few years to come back with a scaled down version anyways.
E] There probably aren't too many people that would vote NO because the plan is not big enough, but there are definitely many voters that would rally to vote against something that seems too big [with or without outside money funding the opposition -- especially if a tunnel is involved]. Los Angeles knows all about those evil tunnels.