Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not that they were only looking at one side, they weren't even focusing on waste. They were literally not acknowledging all of the projects RM1/RM2 has funded. Most seemed to be completely clueless to all the projects tolls have and continue to fund yet were so adamant that the revenue doesn't actually do anything. And they also seemed completely clueless to everything RM3 was going to help fund because they were complaining about problems RM3 addresses. Then when I would point that out likealady resorts to some condescending cop out "that's cute you think MTC will actually follow through" through despite the fact they did with RM1/2. Again refusing to acknowledge that as well when pointed out. You want to complain about waste go ahead but don't act like billions dollars worth of projects haven not been built and benefited the Bay Area and continues to do so.
I was simply pointing out what projects have been completed, or currently under construction, or planned in RM3. Not sure why that made you assume I don't think there isn't waste or that I was defending it.
You're welcome for being the only person here acklowdeging both sides, maybe the rest of you can finally admit that RM1/RM2 have greatly benefited the region with transportation projects that MTC DID follow through on. Unless they think the Bay ARea would be better off without a second Benicia bridge, wider San Mateo Bridge, BART to Antioch, 4th Caldecott Bore, etc...
I'm not sure what you mean by "It's not that they were only looking at one side, they weren't even focusing on waste". I was referring to you when I said "Your focus throughout this thread has only been to focus on the progress without focusing on the fact that there has indeed been a substantial amount of waste also". They were indeed focusing on government inefficiencies (i.e. waste) and you ignored all those comments until post #93 (10 pages into the thread) as stated. And yes, there was some sarcasm, but that doesn't change the fact that waste was addressed.
As for me, I never said billions of dollars worth of projects haven't been built. I did say billions had been wasted (and I'll stand by that claim). There's also no reason that we have 5x the administrative costs and 2.5x the national average on building roads. Labor and material costs are simply not that much out of whack. These are inefficiencies, pure and simple. We've had progress and we've had substantial waste. Both sides of the equation need to be focused on for this to be a winning formula.
Last edited by JJonesIII; 06-17-2018 at 04:38 AM..
I'm not sure what you mean by "It's not that they were only looking at one side, they weren't even focusing on waste". I was referring to you when I said "Your focus throughout this thread has only been to focus on the progress without focusing on the fact that there has indeed been a substantial amount of waste also". They were indeed focusing on government inefficiencies (i.e. waste) and you ignored all those comments until post #93 (10 pages into the thread) as stated. And yes, there was some sarcasm, but that doesn't change the fact that waste was addressed.
As for me, I never said billions of dollars worth of projects haven't been built. I did say billions had been wasted (and I'll stand by that claim). There's also no reason that we have 5x the administrative costs and 2.5x the national average on building roads. Labor and material costs are simply not that much out of whack. These are inefficiencies, pure and simple. We've had progress and we've had substantial waste. Both sides of the equation need to be focused on for this to be a winning formula.
Not really. They were denying any projects have been completed or complaining about certain issues aren;t being addressed in RM3 when they are. Likealady spent the first 8 pages pretending nothing had been completed or will be completed before they ever said anything about govt inefficiency.
"...but every single time they've raised bridge toll since I've moved here, it has done didly squat to make anything better. " - this coming from a transplant who didn't even live here when RM1 or RM2 passed and has no clue what it was like before that.
None of shooting4life's posts mention govt inefficiency and instead complains about how the projects haven't helped and won't help.
And those were most of the people I was responding to. They were not focusing on waste at all but just in complete denial of anything that has been completed and current projects still being funded with the money.
Not really. They were denying any projects have been completed or complaining about certain issues aren;t being addressed in RM3 when they are. Likealady spent the first 8 pages pretending nothing had been completed or will be completed before they ever said anything about govt inefficiency.
"...but every single time they've raised bridge toll since I've moved here, it has done didly squat to make anything better. " - this coming from a transplant who didn't even live here when RM1 or RM2 passed and has no clue what it was like before that.
None of shooting4life's posts mention govt inefficiency and instead complains about how the projects haven't helped and won't help.
And those were most of the people I was responding to. They were not focusing on waste at all but just in complete denial of anything that has been completed and current projects still being funded with the money.
Agree, she expressed it on page 8. Both road warrior and spoon man also addressed it prior to that. All focusing on waste. You addressed both road warrior and spoon man, but conveniently ignored the "waste" portion of their comment.
What I find strange in your logic is that you continue to laud what's been completed as though it's some big deal. Why should it be? They were given more than enough money to complete it and wasted a ton more. It's like saying I went out and bought a car that retailed for $20k and paid $40k. Why would anyone be impressed that I overpaid for something?
And as far as the "cutting off the nose to spite the face" comment, that's been used for years and could conveniently be used forever. At some point, yes, you do need to say "no" and please go back to the drawing board and figure out a more efficient way of doing a job. One that doesn't require 5x the administrative costs and 2 1/2x the cost to build a road. Sorry, but I don't think it's asking too much. And if as you said, 70% of the voters said "yes" to this, all that tells me is the majority of people living in CA don't care about accountability or waste, and have no problem encouraging bad behavior (as spoonman stated)
Last edited by JJonesIII; 06-18-2018 at 12:20 PM..
Agree, she expressed it on page 8. Both road warrior and spoon man also addressed it prior to that. All focusing on waste. You addressed both road warrior and spoon man, but conveniently ignored the "waste" portion of their comment.
What I find strange in your logic is that you continue to laud what's been completed as though it's some big deal. Why should it be? They were given more than enough money to complete it and wasted a ton more. It's like saying I went out and bought a car that retailed for $20k and paid $40k. Why would anyone be impressed that I overpaid for something?
And as far as the "cutting off the nose to spite the face" comment, that's been used for years and could conveniently be used forever. At some point, yes, you do need to say "no" and please go back to the drawing board and figure out a more efficient way of doing a job. One that doesn't require 5x the administrative costs and 2 1/2x the cost to build a road. Sorry, but I don't think it's asking too much.
I addressed Road Warriors comment regarding waste actually. They claimed the gas tax hasn't done anything suggesting that was waste and I pointed out it just passed and the money has barely even started flowing. And pointed out that it's a completely separate thing than RM 3 too. And Spoonman's comment made absolutely no sense, yes he/she thinks there is waste because they don't understand how higher ridership leads to higher costs not lower costs. So am I supposed to be the only one focusing on both sides? All you've done is focus on waste. Why is for other posters to completely deny all the projects that have been completed and all the projects in the pipeline and planned addresses specific issues they are complaining about yet you're getting on my case? Talk about a double standard.
Where did I say it's a big deal? Just because I pointed the projects out, which nobody else did or even wanted to acknowledge? So is that your angle now, I'm "making a big deal" of these projects? Should I not mention them and let you guys have a field day pretending nothing ever gets built? The only thing you even talked about was the Bay Bridge which wasn't even funded with RM1 or RM2. And some of these projects have come in on or under budget. You just assume everything has a ton of waste associated with it without actually knowing.
I addressed Road Warriors comment regarding waste actually. They claimed the gas tax hasn't done anything suggesting that was waste and I pointed out it just passed and the money has barely even started flowing. And pointed out that it's a completely separate thing than RM 3 too. And Spoonman's comment made absolutely no sense, yes he/she thinks there is waste because they don't understand how higher ridership leads to higher costs not lower costs. So am I supposed to be the only one focusing on both sides? All you've done is focus on waste. Why is for other posters to completely deny all the projects that have been completed and all the projects in the pipeline and planned addresses specific issues they are complaining about yet you're getting on my case? Talk about a double standard.
Where did I say it's a big deal? Just because I pointed the projects out, which nobody else did or even wanted to acknowledge? So is that your angle now, I'm "making a big deal" of these projects? Should I not mention them and let you guys have a field day pretending nothing ever gets built? The only thing you even talked about was the Bay Bridge which wasn't even funded with RM1 or RM2. And some of these projects have come in on or under budget. You just assume everything has a ton of waste associated with it without actually knowing.
Not true. You merely addressed the portion you wanted to address, not the entire statement (bolded). I also pointed out more than the Bay Bridge with the 2nd link next to the Bay Bridge story. I also acknowledged the progress to you (please stop already). I acknowledged "waste" as accounted for by the watchdog groups that I linked to you (so apparently you think they know nothing). Is the fact checker also incorrect with their claim of 5x the admin costs and 2 1/2x on roads?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadwarrior101
I'm all for paying extra taxes to support infrastructure build out if I actually thought things would get done. When they do, they are never on time nor on budget (the Bay Bridge was a good example).
I travel a lot for work, and I have to say that states like Arizona and Texas take much better care of their highways than we do here in California. This is despite being MUCH more fiscally conservative than we are here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonman1
I think you have it backwards, NoMoreSnoflake. Transportation should cost less because of high ridership, not more. I guess you’ve come to the logical conclusion that your taxes are being wasted and not funding transportation projects. The issue is that these new taxes are like paying twice for the infrastructure that should already be covered. This rewards bad behavior and is no guarantee that the money won’t be misused or that the project won’t be severely over budget. You are very trusting of your politicians.
Not true. You merely addressed the portion you wanted to address, not the entire statement (bolded). I also pointed out more than the Bay Bridge with the 2nd link next to the Bay Bridge story. I also acknowledged the progress to you (please stop already). I acknowledged "waste" as accounted for by the watchdog groups that I linked to you.
Maybe you should read the rest of my response to Roadwarriors:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
FYI Caldecott Tunnel 4th bore was under budget and on time. Berryessa Bart extension expects to finish under budget too.
Clearly addressed their comment there.
Yes I was only addressing one part of Spoonman's comment there and bolded that part, since it was completely off base and was correcting that. Great got me there I guess...
The Bay Bridge is the only transportation project specifically talked about in that link. This thread is about bridge tolls and the regional transportation projects it funds. You have not mentioned any other transportation project besides that one.
Yeah you acknowledge the progress to me yet then try to negate it with this "making a big deal" of them angle now. I was simply showing people the projects that have been funded and are going to be funded because no one actually seemed aware of them based on what they were saying.
And one thing that stands out about your Reason Foundation report, which they acknowledge as well, is the states with the highest costs tend to be the most urban and expensive areas. Probably not a coincidence.
Maybe you should read the rest of my response to Roadwarriors:
Clearly addressed their comment there.
Yes I was only addressing one part of Spoonman's comment there and bolded that part, since it was completely off base and was correcting that. Great got me there I guess...
The Bay Bridge is the only transportation project specifically talked about in that link. This thread is about bridge tolls and the regional transportation projects it funds. You have not mentioned any other transportation project besides that one.
Yeah you acknowledge the progress to me yet then try to negate it with this "making a big deal" of them angle now. I was simply showing people the projects that have been funded and are going to be funded because no one actually seemed aware of them based on what they were saying.
And one thing that stands out about your Reason Foundation report, which they acknowledge as well, is the states with the highest costs tend to be the most urban and expensive areas. Probably not a coincidence.
Again, very strange logic. So because we're in an expensive area, material should be 2 1/2 times the cost? Interesting, why is that? This has nothing to do with location, location, location. Steel is steel. And no one said labor has to be local (is that more political BS and giving jobs to the contractors in cohoots with the politicians or just union labor?).
I'll be happy to reply to the rest later.
Last edited by JJonesIII; 06-18-2018 at 01:26 PM..
Again, very strange logic. So because we're in an expensive area, material should be 2 1/2 times the cost? Interesting, why is that? This has nothing to do with location, location, location. Steel is steel. And no one said labor has to be local (is that more political BS and giving jobs to the contractors in cohoots with the politicians or just union labor?).
I'll be happy to reply to the rest later.
Usually yes labor does affect the price of materials. You think people involved in the supply chain here don't get paid more. Either way it's not just materials, you know you need workers to actually build and maintain the roads right? And they get paid more, those aren't "administrative costs" FYI. Did you want to import workers from 3rd world countries or something and pay them poverty wages to do the work? And yes many times labor does have to be local, many funding sources require it just like they have a "Buy America" clause.
Did you not read your own link on how the tight labor market increased the cost of the Bay Bridge? Just like any major project started now is going to be affected by a tight labor market, increased demand (aka higher prices) for materials, etc...
The thing is if you imported cheap labor and bought cheap foreign materials you would complain about your tax dollars being used on that. The common theme here is complaining no matter what.
I'm unsure of where page 8 starts because my settings have been adjusted to show the max replies per page, but in my 3rd comment when I was addressing how long it took to get the new BART cars etc, that right there was supposed to be a jab at inefficiency. I'm assuming people are smart enough here to read between the lines.
If you remember they designed their cars, which ended up being too heavy, thus creating a delay. Laying down the wrong steel for months, something that should have never happened if they were inspecting these things before they got put into motion, also caused delays on another transit project. I'm not saying these projects are never completed but they could be done so much more efficiently.
And because I only ever ride the trains going into SF (which they only recently started running those new cars on), that was why my info was wrong. I had never seen or ridden one- and still haven't but I also don't use BART to commute everyday anymore.
Maybe you should read the rest of my response to Roadwarriors:
Clearly addressed their comment there.
Yes I was only addressing one part of Spoonman's comment there and bolded that part, since it was completely off base and was correcting that. Great got me there I guess...
The Bay Bridge is the only transportation project specifically talked about in that link. This thread is about bridge tolls and the regional transportation projects it funds. You have not mentioned any other transportation project besides that one.
Yeah you acknowledge the progress to me yet then try to negate it with this "making a big deal" of them angle now. I was simply showing people the projects that have been funded and are going to be funded because no one actually seemed aware of them based on what they were saying.
And one thing that stands out about your Reason Foundation report, which they acknowledge as well, is the states with the highest costs tend to be the most urban and expensive areas. Probably not a coincidence.
So back to my response since I was pushed for time earlier.
No, the sacbee had $4.03 billion in waste. It allocated $3.2 billion to the Bay Bridge and that was extremely generous. That leave $800 million that was still wasted. I don't care if it's a specific project or not...it's waste and the taxpayers paid for that waste.
I don't buy for a second that our neighbor in Arizona can spend half as much as CA to build a road (also noted by the Reason Foundation Report). Please knock off your nonsense about 3rd world countries (do you really have to resort to stupid assumptions like that?...I never said anything of the sort).
Then you sit there and still try to justify the cost of the Bay Bridge by talking about expensive labor and somehow thinks that's some rationale for the overage. I'm wondering if you even read the entire article. The total estimate is not even the $6.5 billion, it's actually $13 billion!
And then it's ironic that you complain about Likealady using sarcasm, but then when you get caught in a lie, you use that same sarcasm back ("great got me there I guess). Yeah, got ya. You were wrong as you've been throughout this thread. But I have to hand it to you. You dance well (and it's more than clear that all you want to do is argue).
Summarizing:
*A reasonable and logical person would question should question misuse of funds when the government gives and estimate of $250 million and the final cost is somewhere in the $13 billion range. But looking at the $6.5 billion that is quoted we have the following:
With the dally 270,000 cars crossing and the $6,500,000,000 as a one time payment by those using it, it comes out to $24,074/vehicle. Users Pay approach.
Or we can slap a bill in the mail to the each person in the populations of Oakland and San Fran that is shown as about 1,300,000 for $5000 each.
Or pay for it in 20 years at $6.5B or $3,250,000 per year / 1,300,000 or $250/person/yr for $20 years
F-ing brilliant!
*CA administration costs are 5x the average and the cost of their roads are 2 1/2x the national average
*CA ranks 42nd in the nation in Cost Effectiveness for roads. Our neighbors in Arizona and Nevada are 24th and 22nd respectively
*CA brings in approximately $57 billion in revenue yearly from state and property tax. There is no state in the nation that brings in more.
*CA gas tax is currently at 58.3 cents per gallon
But yeah, there's no steady flow of funds for transportation
Quote:
Originally Posted by likealady
I'm peacing out of this thread at this point.
I'm with you. I'm tired of talking to a wall.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
