HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4501  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 6:06 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is online now
Trump for Treason.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: No Trump. No KKK. No racism in the USA.
Posts: 3,997
So, essentially, we should have faith in a 'president' who has lied about every single thing and has only gone out of his way to reward the wealthy?

https://newrepublic.com/article/146184/year-class-war
__________________
No Trump. No KKK. No racism in the USA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4502  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 11:22 PM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
That's difficult because the formal announcement of the plan hasn't been released yet. But that doesn't mean there is no plan....
Please read......
http://thehill.com/policy/transporta...t-month-report
However the plan is nothing more than a shell game of robbing from Peter to pay Paul. Destruct one structure of funding and funding incentives to pay for funding to increase the costs and reduce efficiency of the same structure just under Trump's name
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4503  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 12:25 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Exhale solutions.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spaceship Earth
Posts: 4,496
Aren't you so tired of all the "winning" ?
__________________
You slip me the cash and I'll slip you the wiener.

For me it can be reduced to this: For every personal freedom we gained from the automobile, we lost in social cohesion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4504  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 2:46 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
I think this is an important point to mention when considering Vermont corridor rail.

The existing Wilshire/Vermont station is not ideal for transfer so it will overwhelm the stacked station. Additionally, the platform and track alignment are also wrong for extending the Red line south. If we insist on a HRT extension south from Wilshire/Vermont, it will inevitably involve complete shut down of the station for rebuild and significant disruption to existing Purple and Red line operation.
Not if you build a separate platform to the south and link it to the existing station box.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4505  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 9:34 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
All these planned budget cuts will not be happening in a vacuum. There's a proposal for huge amounts of cash going to infrastructure projects in Trump's plans, more than enough to replace these budget cuts for transit.

While neither the expanded infrastructure funding nor budget cuts have passed by Congress yet, the overall plan is to do both. But that doesn't mean both will ever get done, at the same time or years apart.

But it is slightly unfair for the newspapers to concentrate discussions over budget cuts for certain programs while completely ignoring programs being expanded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
That's difficult because the formal announcement of the plan hasn't been released yet. But that doesn't mean there is no plan....
Please read......
http://thehill.com/policy/transporta...t-month-report
The budget plan is to eliminate $95 billion from the Highway Trust Fund over 20 years, $50 billion from the Department of Transportation over 20 years, $10 billion from TIGER, elimination of New Starts ($50 billion over 20 years), $12.6 billion for Amtrak, etc.

It doesn't seem like the proposal of $200 billion is more than enough to replace these cuts for transit, especially since it would only be for capital projects, while much of the cuts are non-capital expenditures.

Under New Starts, LA could compete for a matching grant from the federal government (50% federal funding). Under the proposed $200 billion program, the most LA could get for a program is 20% federal funding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4506  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 3:53 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,865
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
The budget plan is to eliminate $95 billion from the Highway Trust Fund over 20 years, $50 billion from the Department of Transportation over 20 years, $10 billion from TIGER, elimination of New Starts ($50 billion over 20 years), $12.6 billion for Amtrak, etc.

It doesn't seem like the proposal of $200 billion is more than enough to replace these cuts for transit, especially since it would only be for capital projects, while much of the cuts are non-capital expenditures.

Under New Starts, LA could compete for a matching grant from the federal government (50% federal funding). Under the proposed $200 billion program, the most LA could get for a program is 20% federal funding.
Let's do some math:
95 + 50 + 10 + 50 + 12 = 217
So 200 would be less by less than 8%.
That 8% over 20 years.

FY 2017 President's Budget request for the Department of Transportation was $98.1 billion. Some more math:
217/20 =10.85 per year
98.1 x 20 = 1962 over 20 years at least.

(200/1962) x 100 = 10.2%, where do you think the remaining 89.8% will be going to fund?
10.85 / 98.1 x 100 = 11%, what do you think the remaining 89% will be spent on?
17/1962 x 100 = 0.86%.
Do you really believe there will not be funding increases for the other 89% of the USDOT budget over 20 years?
At best, we're discussing cuts or alternate funding for the next 20 years for 11% of the total USDOT budget.
Worse yet, cuts that amount to just 0.86% of the total budget over 20 years.

Even a slight decrease in budget funding gets overblown into a massive cut, no wonder Federal spending and deficits creeps upward every year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4507  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 7:23 PM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Let's do some math:
95 + 50 + 10 + 50 + 12 = 217
So 200 would be less by less than 8%.
That 8% over 20 years.

FY 2017 President's Budget request for the Department of Transportation was $98.1 billion. Some more math:
217/20 =10.85 per year
98.1 x 20 = 1962 over 20 years at least.

(200/1962) x 100 = 10.2%, where do you think the remaining 89.8% will be going to fund?
10.85 / 98.1 x 100 = 11%, what do you think the remaining 89% will be spent on?
17/1962 x 100 = 0.86%.
Do you really believe there will not be funding increases for the other 89% of the USDOT budget over 20 years?
At best, we're discussing cuts or alternate funding for the next 20 years for 11% of the total USDOT budget.
Worse yet, cuts that amount to just 0.86% of the total budget over 20 years.

Even a slight decrease in budget funding gets overblown into a massive cut, no wonder Federal spending and deficits creeps upward every year.
I did not list out every proposed cut. Your calculation focuses on the items I mentioned. Even under your generous calculation, your statement that there is “more than enough to replace these budget cuts for transit” is false. Moreover, there are proposed direct cuts to transit, and the proposed $200 billion is for “infrastructure”, which could mean anything from highways and bridges to airports.

There are more transportation items being cut in the blueprint, and the deficits triggered by the tax cuts could trigger sequestration, which would further increase cuts. The tax bill also proposes eliminating private activity bonds, which would decrease funding via PPPs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4508  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 8:23 PM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
I did not list out every proposed cut. Your calculation focuses on the items I mentioned. Even under your generous calculation, your statement that there is “more than enough to replace these budget cuts for transit” is false. Moreover, there are proposed direct cuts to transit, and the proposed $200 billion is for “infrastructure”, which could mean anything from highways and bridges to airports.

There are more transportation items being cut in the blueprint, and the deficits triggered by the tax cuts could trigger sequestration, which would further increase cuts. The tax bill also proposes eliminating private activity bonds, which would decrease funding via PPPs.
Exactly!

There has been Federal bills introduced already that for talk about modernizing the Air Traffic Control System and Airport Runway/Corridor capacity at Airports, Goods Movement corridor improvements and grade separations through deregulation, Toll Roads, etc. other than user fees which will go to the roof how most cities/regions are doing this key work is through leveraging private sector funding and streamlining.

That tax credit incentive is critical to make that happen without it most vital infrastructure projects will not pencil out or will be larger drain on already stretched State and local budgets.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4509  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 9:24 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,865
Lightbulb

If the GOP proposal didn’t propose cuts, they would be accused of not paying for their new infrastructure program. The fact there are cuts shouldn’t be surprising. Never-the-less, the amount of cuts compared to the entire DOT budget is minuscule.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4510  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 10:22 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Let's do some math:
95 + 50 + 10 + 50 + 12 = 217
So 200 would be less by less than 8%.
That 8% over 20 years.

FY 2017 President's Budget request for the Department of Transportation was $98.1 billion. Some more math:
217/20 =10.85 per year
98.1 x 20 = 1962 over 20 years at least.

(200/1962) x 100 = 10.2%, where do you think the remaining 89.8% will be going to fund?
10.85 / 98.1 x 100 = 11%, what do you think the remaining 89% will be spent on?
17/1962 x 100 = 0.86%.
Do you really believe there will not be funding increases for the other 89% of the USDOT budget over 20 years?
At best, we're discussing cuts or alternate funding for the next 20 years for 11% of the total USDOT budget.
Worse yet, cuts that amount to just 0.86% of the total budget over 20 years.

Even a slight decrease in budget funding gets overblown into a massive cut, no wonder Federal spending and deficits creeps upward every year.
Do you realize what kind of backlog we have for infrastructure needs in this county, let alone the country? A cut to transit, any cut, is absolutely not acceptable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4511  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 10:23 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
If the GOP proposal didn’t propose cuts, they would be accused of not paying for their new infrastructure program. The fact there are cuts shouldn’t be surprising. Never-the-less, the amount of cuts compared to the entire DOT budget is minuscule.
No its not. The mental gymnastics on display here are remarkable
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4512  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2017, 12:00 AM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
Not if you build a separate platform to the south and link it to the existing station box.
This was the design I proposed a while ago... However, it's not ideal for transfer. And since I created this, the Denny's parking lot where the Vermont line station may be located has been slated for a new building so there goes our last chance for an easy solution.



The anticipated transfer volume will overwhelm either the existing station and likely a separate station design (like my idea) that involves long walk from one platform to another. That was the jest of Jared's post.

The only way to handle the likely transfer volume at the junction of red and purple line is likely a complete rebuild.

This point was discussed many times both here and in other transit message boards. It's not an easy problem to solve.

This is what I wrote in the Transit Coalition message board before:

Quote:
I first mentioned building the junction to the east by Westmoreland Ave in a different thread a few months ago... but the more I look at it, the more I think it may be easier to go west... The west side of Vermont just north of Wilshire is a bunch of parking lots and low rise buildings. It's a good place to site a second station that could be connected via a short tunnel to the existing station across the street. Much closer than Westmoreland.

The only thing I'm not sure about is the exiting tunnel geometry under 6th St that may preclude building the station between Vermont and New Hampshire, roughly where Denny's is located.

So more thoughts on the adjacent station.

I'm approaching this problem from the standpoint of what is the easiest way to make it work while keeping cost reasonable. And the conclusions I drew after thinking about this for a few weeks is that we have two options, both involve building a 2nd station -

Option A - Eastern approach: Build new Red line junction at 4th street and veer east towards Westmoreland Ave with new station between Shatto Place and Westmoreland Ave.

Option B - Western approach: Build new Red line junction at 4th street and veer west towards New Hampshire Ave with new station between Vermont Ave and New Hampshire Ave.

The Eastern approach has a longer detour but the new station location is on a Metro own property (bus layover yard). But the parcel is right on top of the path of the existing train tunnels so it is very challenging job.

The Western approach is more direct but will require Metro to acquire Denny's and maybe one other parcel. And if Metro's map is accurate, the proposed station site is south of the existing train tunnels so it won't be as difficult of a job.

Note: the Denny's parcel I referenced and the gas station next to it now have redevelopment plans attached to them and presumably no longer an acquisition candidate.

https://urbanize.la/post/mixed-use-c...vermont-avenue

https://urbanize.la/post/cvs-pharmac...nt-gas-station


Last edited by bzcat; Dec 12, 2017 at 12:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4513  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2017, 4:34 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Let's do some math:
95 + 50 + 10 + 50 + 12 = 217
So 200 would be less by less than 8%.
That 8% over 20 years.

FY 2017 President's Budget request for the Department of Transportation was $98.1 billion. Some more math:
217/20 =10.85 per year
98.1 x 20 = 1962 over 20 years at least.

(200/1962) x 100 = 10.2%, where do you think the remaining 89.8% will be going to fund?
10.85 / 98.1 x 100 = 11%, what do you think the remaining 89% will be spent on?
17/1962 x 100 = 0.86%.
Do you really believe there will not be funding increases for the other 89% of the USDOT budget over 20 years?
At best, we're discussing cuts or alternate funding for the next 20 years for 11% of the total USDOT budget.
Worse yet, cuts that amount to just 0.86% of the total budget over 20 years.

Even a slight decrease in budget funding gets overblown into a massive cut, no wonder Federal spending and deficits creeps upward every year.
By the way, your numbers are all false.

Obama's budget request for the Department of Transportation FY 2017 budget was 98.1 billion. The actual budget was $76.9 billion: https://appropriations.house.gov/new...umentID=394537

Trump's budget request for FY 2018 budget was a 12.7% cut to the Department of Transportation's discretionary spending:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whi...018/budget.pdf

Run your math again with the right numbers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4514  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2017, 6:23 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,865
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
By the way, your numbers are all false.

Obama's budget request for the Department of Transportation FY 2017 budget was 98.1 billion. The actual budget was $76.9 billion: https://appropriations.house.gov/new...umentID=394537

Trump's budget request for FY 2018 budget was a 12.7% cut to the Department of Transportation's discretionary spending:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whi...018/budget.pdf

Run your math again with the right numbers.
Okay, if we substituted $76.9 billion instead of $98.1 billion. we would know have $1538 billion instead of $1962 billion over the next 20 years I calculated earlier. The 0.86% cut now becomes a 1.1% cut, which is still very, very small. We moved the cuts just 0.24% with your correction.

As I wrote before, if Trump and the GOP came out with a major infrastrucutre spending plan that wasn't paid for by increased taxes or budget cuts to existing programs they would have been criticized for uncontrolled spending - just like they were with the proposed tax cuts. When they come out with a proposal that balances the books which pays for their new program, they're criticized for budget cuts. It's a Hobson's choice all governments; local, state, and federal face every year.

As long as non-discretionary spending continues to rise unabated, then discretionary programs will be facing budget cuts in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4515  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2017, 6:47 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Okay, if we substituted $76.9 billion instead of $98.1 billion. we would know have $1538 billion instead of $1962 billion over the next 20 years I calculated earlier. The 0.86% cut now becomes a 1.1% cut, which is still very, very small. We moved the cuts just 0.24% with your correction.

As I wrote before, if Trump and the GOP came out with a major infrastrucutre spending plan that wasn't paid for by increased taxes or budget cuts to existing programs they would have been criticized for uncontrolled spending - just like they were with the proposed tax cuts. When they come out with a proposal that balances the books which pays for their new program, they're criticized for budget cuts. It's a Hobson's choice all governments; local, state, and federal face every year.

As long as non-discretionary spending continues to rise unabated, then discretionary programs will be facing budget cuts in the future.
I can't supply all the numbers for you to do the calculations, when you are the one purporting to do the numbers. You still don't have all the proposed cuts, and you are extrapolating from the FY17 budget.

The FY18 budget is smaller than the FY17 budget, for instance, so extrapolating from the FY17 budget makes no sense. You continue to ignore the cuts proposed elsewhere.

Do you at least agree that your statement that there is "more than enough to replace these budget cuts for transit” is incorrect?

I think a proposal to "increase funding for infrastructure" by actually decreasing funding in infrastructure would see more criticism than an actual infrastructure spending plan that involves some amount of deficit that is justified by the economic benefits of increased infrastructure investment. The two least controversial items that both parties agree on spending for is infrastructure and military.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4516  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2017, 8:48 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,865
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
I can't supply all the numbers for you to do the calculations, when you are the one purporting to do the numbers. You still don't have all the proposed cuts, and you are extrapolating from the FY17 budget.

The FY18 budget is smaller than the FY17 budget, for instance, so extrapolating from the FY17 budget makes no sense. You continue to ignore the cuts proposed elsewhere.

Do you at least agree that your statement that there is "more than enough to replace these budget cuts for transit” is incorrect?

I think a proposal to "increase funding for infrastructure" by actually decreasing funding in infrastructure would see more criticism than an actual infrastructure spending plan that involves some amount of deficit that is justified by the economic benefits of increased infrastructure investment. The two least controversial items that both parties agree on spending for is infrastructure and military.
No, I don't agree. You forgot to look at the sizes of the various pots. You would rather have around $10 billion in transit spending spread out over $20 billion of infrastructure projects with a 50% match, vs having the same $10 billion spread out over $50 billion of infrastructure projects with a 20% match. What the country needs is $50 billion, if not more, of infrastructure projects worked on, not the tiny $20 billion relatively.
The present programs will not do enough, the GOP plan should certainly get more done - with the same amount of federal funds. That's assuming additional sources of private and local funding can be raised. I still think that the Federal budget will be spending as much money as before, just over more projects - not just new starts but also replacing and repairing existing structures.
I also think you're not recognizing the ability of local agencies and DOTs to raise additional money if they have to. Sure, the matching funding for individual projects will see cuts percentage wise, but now many more projects will qualify for Federal funds, and more individual projects will get done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4517  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2017, 11:03 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
No, I don't agree. You forgot to look at the sizes of the various pots. You would rather have around $10 billion in transit spending spread out over $20 billion of infrastructure projects with a 50% match, vs having the same $10 billion spread out over $50 billion of infrastructure projects with a 20% match. What the country needs is $50 billion, if not more, of infrastructure projects worked on, not the tiny $20 billion relatively.
The present programs will not do enough, the GOP plan should certainly get more done - with the same amount of federal funds. That's assuming additional sources of private and local funding can be raised. I still think that the Federal budget will be spending as much money as before, just over more projects - not just new starts but also replacing and repairing existing structures.
I also think you're not recognizing the ability of local agencies and DOTs to raise additional money if they have to. Sure, the matching funding for individual projects will see cuts percentage wise, but now many more projects will qualify for Federal funds, and more individual projects will get done.
You talked about cuts in transit funding being made up in the infrastructure bill. Can you explain where it says this infrastructure bill will replace transit cuts? For all we know, the infrastructure bill can pay for highways, bridges and airports, and not focus on transit funding, which is usually concentrated in "blue" locales. There is no indication that transit projects are favored when their programs are targeted more than others in terms of cuts: https://www.skadden.com/insights/pub...rint-takeaways

Quote:
Transit funding appears to be the biggest loser in the Blueprint, in that future funding for the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Program (also called the “New Starts” program) would be limited to projects that as of now already have an executed Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) in place.
...
The Blueprint also proposes to eliminate the popular Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grant program.
The FY2018 budget request specifically singles out Los Angeles as not needing federal funding for transit infrastructure because it has raised money on its own.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whi...y2018/msar.pdf

Quote:
Future investments in new transit projects would be funded by the localities that use and benefit from these localized projects. Several major metropolitan regions have recently passed multi-billion dollar revenue measures to fund transit projects, and the Administration believes that is the most appropriate way to fund transit expansion and maintenance efforts.
Quote:
“The Budget proposes reduced funding for this program, which provides Federal funding for local transit projects that should be funded by State and localities that benefit from their use. Localities are better equipped to scale and design infrastructure investment needed for their communities. Several major metropolitan areas, including Denver, Los Angeles, and Seattle, have already begun to move in this direction by asking residents to approve multi-billion dollar bond measures to speed the delivery of highway and transit investments. These regions realize waiting for Federal grant funding is not the most efficient way to meet their local transportation needs. Federal resources should be focused on making targeted investments that can leverage private sector investment and incentivize the creation of revenue streams where possible.”
You are in the Los Angeles transportation thread. Los Angeles has already raised its sales tax 4 times to fund transit, and the state has just raised the gas tax to fund transit. The 50% match has yielded $3.1 billion for 3 projects currently under construction. A TIGER grant supports a 4th project. Its unlikely that LA and California will raise more transit taxes, so they would be much more interested in a 50% match for transit funding than a 20% match on "infrastructure" that does not look likely to favor transit. The cuts in other areas also will make things worse. They have said as much:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-me-...129-story.html
Quote:
LAX officials plan to use private activity bonds to fund key aspects of a $14-billion airport expansion and renovation, including a new concourse and a rail connection to the central terminal area that officials say must be finished before the 2028 Summer Olympics.

Without the deduction, the airport overhaul could cost at least $500 million more in interest payments, Los Angeles World Airports officials said. The higher cost could force the city of Los Angeles to reduce the project’s scope, Garcetti said, adding: “We’re not going to be able to afford to do as much.”

The same bonding strategy would play an “essential” role in a plan Metro and Garcetti announced this week to accelerate the construction of major infrastructure projects in time for the Olympics, said Raffi Hamparian, Metro’s director of federal affairs.

By 2028, Metro hopes to finish a transit tunnel through the Sepulveda Pass, which would otherwise open in the mid-2030s, and a rapid transit route between downtown and Artesia slated to open in 2041.

The lines are partially funded through Measure M, the half-cent sales tax Los Angeles County voters approved last year, but the tax does not provide enough funding to finish the line in time for the Olympics without outside investment.

Transportation officials say they hope private companies could pay for some construction costs, in exchange for something — most likely, a cut of the revenue from the projects. Private activity bonds would be essential to making the partnership attractive, Metro said.

The House and Senate bills would also bar agencies from repaying bonds ahead of schedule. In the last five fiscal years, Metro has paid back more than $300 million in debt early, saving more than $40 million in interest payments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4518  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2017, 10:21 PM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
No, I don't agree. You forgot to look at the sizes of the various pots. You would rather have around $10 billion in transit spending spread out over $20 billion of infrastructure projects with a 50% match, vs having the same $10 billion spread out over $50 billion of infrastructure projects with a 20% match. What the country needs is $50 billion, if not more, of infrastructure projects worked on, not the tiny $20 billion relatively...
I also think you're not recognizing the ability of local agencies and DOTs to raise additional money if they have to. Sure, the matching funding for individual projects will see cuts percentage wise, but now many more projects will qualify for Federal funds, and more individual projects will get done.
Without policy incentives and partnerships with the private sector this will significantly hamper the delivery of key infrastructures. There is one policy out of many currently on the table that will eliminate tax credits for Private interests to help fund and deliver and public infrastructure project.

That policy if eliminated will affect DC ability to take that $200B in seed money to actually follow through on a $1T infrastructure package. That is where my alarm and concern is coming from because I agree with you that with each new administration there is this dance with the monies however policies in the work that flies in the face of how to deliver and execute this package is the concern.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:47 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.