Skip to main content

View Diary: Close vote in California denied a recount (138 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The TDA fund (0+ / 0-)

    is something that VTA always gets (1/4 cent statewide sales tax) to fund bus service today, in addition to a 1/2 cent local sales tax and portion of another 1/2 cent sales tax passed in 2000. It was a mistake in 2001 to allocate TDA as a source for operating funds if the line opens. Why should an agency use the money that's already dedicated to bus service to fund a train when there's not enough money for buses?

    That's why the fed has been declining to commit funds. Measure B fails to sufficiently fund the operating subsidy for BART, and fails to address the increasing capital costs.

    •  It's a moot point (0+ / 0-)

      if the feds deny the funds because the extension won't get built without them. At any rate Measure B takes away all but supposedly $15M in liability against the TDA funds. I suspect there are some VTA bus routes that do not have enough ridership to justify their existence. Yes their elimination would hurt the few people who do use them, but I don't think that should hold up the benefit to the greater community.

      I still don't think we should hold up the implementation of high speed mass transit just because the plan isn't perfect.

      So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

      by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:30:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The same rationalization (0+ / 0-)

        that some routes deserve to get cut so someone else can ride better trains.

        We don't accept that in health care, or in education. But somehow it is okay to mobility for the transit dependent.

        What do you think about cutting school lunch program to pay for school computers?

        What do you think about cutting children's healthcare to fund cancer research?

        Arnold has already proposing cutting state transit funds to balance the state budget. That means further funding cuts to VTA.

        •  False equivalency (0+ / 0-)

          You're using the fallacy of false equivalency.

          To be honest as much as I'd like to see a BART extension into San Jose, I doubt very seriously I'll ever see it in my lifetime. It's not going to get built unless the feds take it over because the state doesn't have the money, and opponents are claiming terms of the deal with BART make it ineligible for federal funding.

          You're arguing in circles here because you're saying on one hand if it gets built bus service will suffer but on the other hand it won't qualify for federal funding so it can't get built.

          In other words no matter what the opponents of the BART extension to San Jose have won because it's not a possibility. Why are you continuing the argue?

          So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

          by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 12:10:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The problem is that (0+ / 0-)

            it allows VTA to lie and pretend it can still pay for it. It prevents other VTA projects from moving forward. It also prevents essential dialogue from taking place of how to proceed with various projects given the funding limitation and the high cost.

            Actually I think the feds will pay. The state has already promised it would pay (the tax only require a promise from both entities to start, not receiving actual payment). VTA would only build a portion of the project. It would happen regardless of the tax because VTA already has the money to do it, but insisted not to build it first because it wants a tax for the less popular subway portion.

            •  You're contradicting yourself (0+ / 0-)

              First you say the project doesn't qualify for federal funding then you turn around and say the feds will probably fund it.

              Which is it?

              You're arguing in circles here and you keep moving the logical goalposts around. Either the project qualifies for federal and state funding and it will proceed or it doesn't and it won't. Seems to me that if it's implemented VTA will get a larger share of the state sales tax money to help pay for it since it's an expansion of services.

              I don't think VTA will wontonly slash bus service. It makes no sense. Reducing bus service means fewer people will get to the trains, which need the ridership in order to remain solvent since the trans run regardless of whether they're full or empty.

              So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

              by Cali Techie on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 04:00:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The project won't be able to qualify (0+ / 0-)

                for federal funds when VTA wanted to build the project at once rather than in two phases, which was the plan for the last 8 years.

                The only way they could qualify is to commit to a shorter project, which they could do all along without a new tax. Also, you have to understand that there will be a new president and a new spending priorities.

                I can understand that you may not be familiar with VTA or the details of this project, but don't say someone arguing in circles.

                VTA could slash bus service because operating funds have always been harder to get than capital funds. The federal government for instance doesn't subsidize operation. VTA could get money from the feds, but reduction on other funds could still mean more bus cuts.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site