Bellevue thinks it would be really cool to have a light-rail train coming to it from Seattle. (Or vice versa; they are very sensitive about comparisons to Seattle.) But they want the ugly place to store the trains somewhere else. Indeed, they just can't imagine anyone would think of putting the storage yard where it belongs - in Bellevue!
Get it? When you are putting in a new line the best place to store the trains is way out on that new line, not in the central city. To the Bellevue City Council it came natural to pretend the trains would magically appear from no where - pretend for years.
Ah... At the end of the article is a guy who stumbled on a solution:
But Councilman John Stokes doesn't think the projects necessarily have to be combined -- especially if that would delay rail service. "I don't see why there would be any advantage to us delaying those things at this point unless you just don't want the light rail," he said.
No place to store the train then no train.
Posted by Ron Hebron at November 25, 2012 04:39 PM | Email ThisDuh.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on November 26, 2012 10:30 AMThe multiplier effect from building the light rail will more than make up for its cost.
Would you approve of a formula that charges private businesses for the increase in business that occurs from this public investment?
Posted by: red hiney monkey on November 26, 2012 11:05 AMThe link that I provided gives one reson why it does not.
Posted by: red hiney monkey on November 26, 2012 11:41 AMUntil proven otherwise, the idea of profit sharing is little more than smoke and mirrors. Sure, there will be more profit, but construction and O & M costs must also be added to the expenditures which severely tilt the scales. Before the libtards and wingnuts hoot and holler about profit sharing, there needs to be attention paid to how much this will actually cost - hint: the cost is staggering and the ridership demands are lofty to break even, including profit sharing. The population density is far too low in Seattle to make it profitable - perhaps in 200 years, if there is still a growing populous.
Only a select few rapid transit systems in the world are self-sustaining and don't require Government subsidizing and are not in the USA. For example, the Sounder requires $39/trip/passenger of Government subsidizing. Profit sharing is a minute portion of this and the calculations of profit sharing are fuzzy math from what I have seen.
Posted by: KDS on November 26, 2012 01:30 PMThe daring authors of the article that I provided a link to (but that you have apparently not looked at) states that the average multiplier effect for infrastucture projects such as light rail is +1.0 (100%).
Posted by: red hiney monkey on November 26, 2012 04:01 PMRefute this study:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28813060/Defining-Success-The-Case-against-Rail-Transit-Cato-Policy-Analysis-No-663
Every proponent of light rail in the US has failed to do so.
Posted by: Paddy on November 26, 2012 05:07 PMThe claim isn't about efficiency. It's about the multiplier effect -- which they amply document.
Your article is just a bunch of Cato Institute, Koch brothers funded blather that sets out with their conclusions already decided upon and carefully massaged numbers presented to support those conclusions.
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttttt...... FAIL!
Posted by: red hiney monkey on November 26, 2012 05:19 PMSurely that old chestnut of a book which the Republican 2012 candidate for VP and the House Republican intellectual beacon made his staff read can explain how to manage this train problem.
Why can't one of the many Bellevue Job Creatin Republicans invent a magic metal or train elevator? Sad.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 26, 2012 06:12 PMYou don't know what you're talking about as usual. Back up your bullcrap diatribe about Cato- they are a libertarian think tank - then you add the Koch Brothers the favorite boogeyman of the libtards. You didn't bother to read it, because you have no substance and your faux argument sucks !
One more thing - You also left the most significant part out - "Sure, there will be more profit, but construction and O & M costs must also be added to the expenditures which severely tilt the scales."
The article from @12 has more factual basis than the one from ENR. You have to show us some actual costs, besides a rough order of magnitude profit (+/- 50%- 80%) estimate from ENR to be considered a valid point.
As stated before - "Only a select few rapid transit systems in the world are self-sustaining and don't require Government subsidizing and are not in the USA."
Stop chasing your tail...
Posted by: KDS on November 26, 2012 06:14 PMYou're silly....
Posted by: red hiney monkey on November 26, 2012 06:30 PMWhy don't these grand ideas garner private support? Bain Capital, anyone?
Why do you avoid the question.
I know.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on November 26, 2012 06:34 PMWhen all else fails, bring up the libtards favorite boogeyman - the Koch Brothers. Cato started by the Koch Bros. - source please...
Really, I don't give a shit if they fund Cato- I know they are a reputable think tank - deal with it or don't, like the Brookings Institute, who has a liberal slant. It takes 5 Koch Brothers to equal a George Soros when it comes to funding.
re 16: Slow down, bro. You're about to have an aneurism.
Posted by red hiney monkey at November 26, 2012 06:33 PM
LMAO !! I'm laughing because I can't believe anyone can be so mind-numbed and such a libtard lemming. You haven't expressed an original thought with any semblance of facts yet because your soul is diseased...
if you should surprise and express an original thought with facts, we'll be vigilant and ready
Posted by: KDS on November 26, 2012 06:52 PMDog lame... No one here cares. Go post that bilge on HA.org...
Posted by: KDS on November 27, 2012 08:26 AMWith that attitude, they truly live up to the name of libtard !
Posted by: KDS on November 27, 2012 10:09 AM