Bay Area voters opt to raise bridge tolls by $3 to reduce traffic (Fairfield: transfer, bus)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

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.

Again you only talk about one specific project, you haven't mentioned any other project besides the Bay Bridge. If so then what was it?

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).

So you don't recognize the difference in cost of living and labor between AZ and CA? Really? Is it that hard?

Then explain what "And no one said labor has to be local" means? If it's not local then where the hell is it from exactly? You don't think Californians should be hired to do work CA taxpayers are paying for?

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!

I didn't justify the cost of the Bay Bridge with expensive labor, what are you talking about? You literally are just making up stuff at this point to try to further your argument.

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).

Again what are you talking about? I NEVER said likealday was being sarcastic, I said CONDESCENDING. You know those don't mean the same thing right?

What are you doing besides arguing in this thread? And now you're literally making up stuff at this point now to keep arguing. And how have I been wrong when I was mostly just listing/naming projects?

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

No one said there wasn't a steady flow. Not sure what about the concept of "not keeping up with inflation" is so difficult for you and others to understand. You probably think you should still be paying only .65 cents to cross the Bay Bridge like it originally was, which btw is over $11 when adjusted for INFLATION. Yes INFLATION, you should look it up.

'm with you. I'm tired of talking to a wall.

Yes because you've been so open minded and have presented both sides of the argument here (that was sarcasm btw, not condescension). I'm literallty the only person that did that and when I did you just kept with your same arguments and still haven't mentioned a single other project besides the Bay Bridge. And now you're literally making stuff up about me to keep arguing.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

You said you don't commute, when you said that you didn't vote on this on the ballot. Then you said you work part time and commute part time. Now you're saying you work a lot. So, which is it? Your stories don't jibe.

No, I said I don't commute via the BAY BRIDGE because I don't anymore- I moved!

And yeah, I teach at multiple campuses (community colleges and public universities) throughout the Bay Area because I don't have a tenured position (yet). I typically teach 5-6 classes a semester, on top of summer school, while most full-time tenured faculty usually only teach four courses a semester, and many of them have TAs to grade papers and other assignments. Just so you know, it is entirely possible to work multiple part-time jobs (ones that add up to MORE than a full-time schedule) and make plenty of money to survive in the Bay Area.

You don't even work and you get government subsidized housing, so I don't know why I'm even bothering to explain my personal situation (one that's fairly typical of non-tenured community college/university faculty in the Bay Area) to you.

[basehead617]

Personally I couldn’t be happier that the new funds will finish off the 101 marin sonoma narrows widening, a project that is 30 years overdue (at minimum).

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by dtran103

For such a liberal area, it sure loves to FK over people who live in poorer areas over and over again under the guise of a “solution”

Do poor people contribute to the re-election campaign coffers?

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Liberal elites honestly could care less about the working class...

Liberal elites feel a great debt to their fellow man, which debt they will gladly repay with your money.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

So, apparently nobody here actually read the text of the proposition?

How could they? They're products of the California Public School System.

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Why do people expect these things to be available, but not expect to have to pay for them?

Because they're extreme progressives who expect someone "the rich" to pay for them?

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

How could they? They're products of the California Public School System.



Because they're extreme progressives who expect someone "the rich" to pay for them?

Although I know you're having some fun with the comment, it was clearly a straw man coming from a lack of comprehension. Pretty much across the board, people were saying they were bothered by gov't inefficiencies in how they used taxpayer money that they were already being funded with and/or that the distribution should come from everyone (not just those using the bridges), not that they didn't understand these things cost money. No one ever made the comment that the original poster stated in her claim. Some of the posters here make a history of mischaracterizing comments.

[abbash]

Its not going to help. Still going to be bad traffic there.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by brb going fishing

There are plenty of great mass transit options to get over the Bay and into the city and peninsula.

How does one get from, let's say Fairfield to Palo Alto, via public transit? And preferably in less than 3-4 hours each way? I'm curious to hear your answer...

And I thought of that specific point of origin, since it's become a common commute for blue-collar (in particular) workers. I discovered this recently when I was driving home from Oregon, which I chose to do overnight - thought traffic would be a breeze the whole way, but it was CRAZY busy between Fairfield and San Jose (using 80/680) at 5-6am! I was wondering who'd do that drive, let alone so early in the morning, until I noticed it was mostly large trucks with "xxx Construction" etc on the side. Ah, they're labor workers going to contract jobs on the Peninsula. So how do you suggest they get to work by 7am, especially when they need their truck + supplies? Hmmm.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

How does one get from, let's say Fairfield to Palo Alto, via public transit? And preferably in less than 3-4 hours each way? I'm curious to hear your answer...

And I thought of that specific point of origin, since it's become a common commute for blue-collar (in particular) workers. I discovered this recently when I was driving home from Oregon, which I chose to do overnight - thought traffic would be a breeze the whole way, but it was CRAZY busy between Fairfield and San Jose (using 80/680) at 5-6am! I was wondering who'd do that drive, let alone so early in the morning, until I noticed it was mostly large trucks with "xxx Construction" etc on the side. Ah, they're labor workers going to contract jobs on the Peninsula. So how do you suggest they get to work by 7am, especially when they need their truck + supplies? Hmmm.

Solano Express Bus to BART to Caltrain. Gets you there in less than 3 hours; 2 hours and 38 min to be exact which is probably competitive with driving. RM3 is increasing funding for better service for all three of those agencies too.