November 25, 2012
Bellevue wants a train, but not the ugly place to store it
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 This
1. "No place to store the train then no train." Alright then, have it your way, NO TRAIN. Oh and no ST funding either. It sounds like we have agreement and solved another problem.
2. @1 - Wish it was that easy but unfortunately its not. ST has their legal team ready to roll if there is any hint of a breach in the contract. The ultimate winner will be the team with the biggest and baddest lawyers...
3. @3 - is unrelated to the topic, which is spam. Please delete.
Liberalism getting what they want: unintended consequences. Let them have it. They have to grow up sometime:
(wanting a fancy train): CONSEQUENCES
(responsibility for fancy train).
5. Obama constituents love expensive new items that they can finance with more debt. Every Obama bureaucrat ought to be forced to attend a Dave Ramsey seminar so they can learn to live within the means of their tax base.
The 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?
7. You cannot have Profit-sharing when there will be no profit. However the one thing ST and the Stae are very good at is Deficit Sharing. Show us a ST line that is operating without a Subsidy.
re 8: The point is that you all are expecting a government budget to operate in the same manner as a household budget -- but it doesn't work that way.
The link that I provided gives one reson why it does not.
Does any proponent of Light Rail dare put some numbers to the so-called profit sharing to provide an estimate of how much profit the added Light Rail will occur ? Nope, haven't seen any such projections. That editorial dealt with the theoretical world.
Until 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.
re 10: "Does any proponent of Light Rail dare put some numbers to the so-called profit sharing to provide an estimate of how much profit the added Light Rail will occur ?"
The 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%).
#11: your claim about the efficiency of light rail systems is unfounded rubbish.
Refute this study:
Every proponent of light rail in the US has failed to do so.
re 12 -- "#11: your claim about the efficiency of light rail systems is unfounded rubbish."
The 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.
What ever happened to good 'ole Atlas Shat
Surely 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.
@13 (Brain is up your hiney) - I'm glad I didn't bother to look at it - it's fuzzy math from ENR back in 2008. You aren't smart enough to think about substance - show us where are the documented cases, which are absent ?
You 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...
15. Why won't PRIVATE industry support the boondoggle. Oh that's right, they're profiteers too smart to throw good money after proven losers. It's the same reason PRIVATE investors can't be lured to support stem cell research, green energy, vulgar "art"... buy a clue loud lefty's - or are you waiting for a government subsidy to do so?
re 15: The Koch brothers started the Cato Institute -- and they still support it with funds.
17. re 16: Slow down, bro. You're about to have an aneurism.
Why don't these grand ideas garner private support? Bain Capital, anyone?
Why do you avoid the question.
Brain up his hiney always avoids the question - he is a hater in an empty vessel.
When 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
21. Re13: When you can't respond to the message, smear the messenger. You are a loser.
Dog lame... No one here cares. Go post that bilge on HA.org...
The joke is on you. The math for handing out free pensions to public employees has never worked. There is not enough free government money to continue the charade forever. But these facts are lost on cultists who vote for vacuous bromides like Hope and Change.
@24 In one ear and out the other. The liberal progressives that post here are irresponsible and apathetic to deny this salient fact, not one of them has come forward to express this concern.
With that attitude, they truly live up to the name of libtard !
26. Spam started arriving and it's been five days. Closing comments.