SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News - Page 95

eltodesukane · #**1881** Posted **Oct 30, 2021, 6:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin

$9 billion is a lot...

We spent $2000 billion on useless Afghanistan Iraq war.
So $9 billion on something useful is wonderful!

Busy Bee · #**1882** Posted **Oct 30, 2021, 6:38 PM**

^
Per CBS News:

Quote:

Although the U.S. is trying to turn the page on two decades of war in the Middle East, American taxpayers can expect to pay for those conflicts for decades to come.

The ultimate cost of the nation's engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, on top of the incalculable personal toll on combatants and civilians, reflects a shift in how war has typically been financed. From the American Civil War through the Korean War, the U.S. government has mostly paid for its conflicts through taxes and war bonds. But in the post-September 11 era, U.S. military spending has been financed almost entirely through debt.

Since the September 11 attacks, the U.S. government has spent $2.2 trillion to finance the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to figures from Brown University's Costs of War Project. Yet that sum — which amounts to roughly 10% of the the country's total gross domestic product — only reflects upfront costs.

Including the cost of interest on those wars will add an additional $2.1 trillion by 2030. And through 2050, the interest alone is forecast to top $6.5 trillion — even if war spending had theoretically stopped in 2019...

k1052 · #**1883** Posted **Oct 30, 2021, 9:15 PM**

It is possible to be against the war expenditures and critical of America's extremely high transit construction costs that prevent us from delivering more out of a finite pot of dollars.

Pedestrian · #**1884** Posted **Oct 30, 2021, 9:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

From the American Civil War through the Korean War, the U.S. government has mostly paid for its conflicts through . . . war bonds. But in the post-September 11 era, U.S. military spending has been financed almost entirely through debt.

What the H*LL does CBS think "war bonds" are if not "debt"?

I do agree with the basic point that war is expensive way beyond the operational costs while it's underway. We will be paying for our wars in terms of "tail costs" for the war fighters for decades as we have been for those who fought WW II, the Korean War and Vietnam. The budget requested by the Dept. of Veterans' Affairs alone in 2022 is $269.9 billion. Most of this goes to various compensation and medical care of the war-fighters of past wars.

The difference between spending on war and spending on infrastructure like highways is a basic one taught in most introductory economics courses. Infrastructure spending adds to productivity and war spending is pure consumption which doesn't except sometimes secondarily (as when weapons research discovers something with civilian usefulness).

Busy Bee · #**1885** Posted **Oct 30, 2021, 11:14 PM**

I don't want to drag this thread sideways any further but an Atlantic article from about five years ago is a much more concise explanation on the topic.

SFBruin · #**1886** Posted **Oct 31, 2021, 12:42 AM**

That's true. I wish that infrastructure funding came with corresponding decreases in defense spending. Otherwise, we are just adding to the debt.

Pedestrian · #**1887** Posted **Oct 31, 2021, 1:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin

That's true. I wish that infrastructure funding came with corresponding decreases in defense spending. Otherwise, we are just adding to the debt.

I don't equate "defense spending" and war spending. We need defense. It's a nasty world out there and we have enemies. But we repeatedly have gotten into needless wars from Panama to Kosovo to Somalia to Iraq to (in part) Afghanistan. I say Afghanistan in part because we needed to wipe out Al Qaeda there. We didn't need to nation build. We didn't need a large military establishment there.

I'm a "fortress America" kind of person. I believe in maintaining a strong defense but using it very sparingly and only when necessary . . .for genuine defense. I think we could save money on a large standing army because it tempts our leaders to use it overseas--nobody's likely to invade North America. But the Navy, Air Force and nuclear deterrent are a different matter. We need those to be strong to protect ourselves and our interest around the world and I would NOT support large-scale cuts. The Navy in particular has already been cut too much--our Navy is now smaller than China's and cannot sustain the kinds of deployments we have been asking it to do.

homebucket · #**1888** Posted **Nov 13, 2021, 4:46 AM**

Sharing some random photos I came across.

Nice shot of one of the newer Muni Metro trains:

J Church at Dolores Park, San Francisco by Sergio Ruiz, on Flickr

Presidio Yard, San Francisco by Sergio Ruiz, on Flickr

New BART train sandwich:

MacArthur BART, Oakland by Sergio Ruiz, on Flickr

Civic Center BART, San Francisco by Sergio Ruiz, on Flickr

CharlesCO · #**1889** Posted **Nov 13, 2021, 5:23 AM**

Nice pics! I always love those views on the BART platforms at Macarthur and Rockridge.

It's also nice to see BART slowly pick up steam again. I just wish they could iron out the rest of the schedule. I took BART from the city back to Berkeley after 9pm on a weeknight last week, and I had to wait 15 minutes at 19th Street for a Richmond train. So much for a timed transfer.

Also, I don't really understand the changes they made to the red line in the new schedule. If you're trying to get to SFO, the yellow line train will always get there sooner than the red line and will take less travel time. I think last configuration they had with the purple line SFO-Millbrae shuttle was probably one of the better solutions for everyone involved.

SFBruin · #**1890** Posted **Nov 14, 2021, 12:49 PM**

The best possible solution is probably to split service between Millbrae and SFO, with maybe a shuttle from Millbrae to SFO if ridership is high enough.

ardecila · #**1891** Posted **Nov 15, 2021, 2:39 AM**

In an ideal world they would demote Millbrae to a local Caltrain station only and build a new BART subway station at downtown San Bruno.

Failing that, I think the next best option is to split BART service to Millbrae and SFO, with an extension of SFO Airtrain to Millbrae rather than a BART shuttle.

But neither of these will happen, so

Busy Bee · #**1892** Posted **Nov 15, 2021, 3:19 AM**

bart should go to San Mateo and terminate at or near CA-92.

Pedestrian · #**1893** Posted **Nov 15, 2021, 11:32 PM**

Typical SF Muni ride:

• Video Link

TWAK · #**1894** Posted **Nov 16, 2021, 2:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

bart should go to San Mateo and terminate at or near CA-92.

All the way to Diridon or an alignment along 280/85 since caltrain will be like BART in frequency.

CharlesCO · #**1895** Posted **Nov 25, 2021, 5:08 AM**

Out of curiosity, I decided to ride the red line train to SFO today. I’m even more confused as to why the line is scheduled this way.

I was on a new train, and the screens and automated announcements still treat the service as if it terminates at Millbrae and doesn’t serve SFO. A slide flashes on the screen at San Bruno telling people to transfer there for a yellow line train. I saw a confused tourist get off, give a puzzled look up at the platform screen, and then decide to wait for the yellow line train.

The train then crawled from San Bruno to Millbrae, and the onboard announcement warned that Millbrae was the terminus. Another confused passenger got off, looked up at the platform screen, and then decided to get back on. Once we got to SFO, I could tell that the yellow line train behind us must have already beaten us by several minutes.

Again, I don’t understand how this is better for anyone.

Busy Bee · #**1896** Posted **Nov 25, 2021, 6:12 AM**

It doesn't sound like any way to run a railroad that's for sure.

Pedestrian · #**1897** Posted **Dec 3, 2021, 9:53 PM**

They are now raising the tolls on Bay Area bridges and reducing the fines for not paying them. Smart. Soon it will feel as stupid to pay the toll as it already does to pay bus fare on Muni.

AndrewK · #**1898** Posted **Dec 6, 2021, 7:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

They are now raising the tolls on Bay Area bridges and reducing the fines for not paying them. Smart. Soon it will feel as stupid to pay the toll as it already does to pay bus fare on Muni.

On the Bay Bridge at least, it isn’t really a “fine” anymore, either you pay with FasTrak account or they mail you the toll. You only get fined if you don’t pay the mailed toll by the due date, so unlike choosing not to pay when you get on the bus or a train, everyone who drives through the toll plaza pays at some point.

JManc · #**1899** Posted **Dec 6, 2021, 7:49 PM**

is there ever a time when the Bay Bridge isn't a parking lot suspended above water?

Pedestrian · #**1900** Posted **Dec 6, 2021, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewK

On the Bay Bridge at least, it isn’t really a “fine” anymore, either you pay with FasTrak account or they mail you the toll. You only get fined if you don’t pay the mailed toll by the due date, so unlike choosing not to pay when you get on the bus or a train, everyone who drives through the toll plaza pays at some point.

Unless they ignore the bill mailed to them and if the bill is high but the fine for ignoring it is negligible (or not much more), I bet a lot of people will, like a lot of people ignore parking fines.