|
quote:If folks are curious, I can write more later about transit in Liberia. One thing I really wish I'd debriefed folk on for a paper, or recorded for YouTube, is that people flag down private taxis, "shared cars" via hand signs. I'd definitely be interested in hearing more! I'm very interested in non-governmental/informal transit systems like those. The New Yorker did a really awesome and in-depth story on the NYC dollar buses that's a must read IMHO.
|
# ? Nov 7, 2016 20:03 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 17:14 |
|
Badger of Basra posted:California's insane 66% requirement is so stupid. I imagine they can pass easily, but does anyone think they'll be able to get 66%? LA voted on extending a previous sales tax by 30 years in 2012... And it failed after getting a mere 65% of the vote in support. Opposition was pretty strong in parts of LA which don't have any plans to get mass transit service, like San Pedro and the South Bay cities. The funniest thing, unquestionably, about the LACMTA expansion is the massive number of reasons opponents of the Purple Line (heavy rail subway) have come up with to oppose it. Like the idea that ISIS will use it to blow up OUR CHILDREN.
|
# ? Nov 7, 2016 20:04 |
|
a patagonian cavy posted:LA voted on extending a previous sales tax by 30 years in 2012... And it failed after getting a mere 65% of the vote in support. Opposition was pretty strong in parts of LA which don't have any plans to get mass transit service, like San Pedro and the South Bay cities. Combed Thunderclap posted:I'd definitely be interested in hearing more! I'm very interested in non-governmental/informal transit systems like those. "The licensed vans operate under highly restrictive rules, which forbid them from picking up along New York City’s innumerable bus routes and require all pick-ups to be prearranged and documented in a passenger manifest." that's not how these minivan taxis are supposed to work you silly taxi and limousine commission!
|
# ? Nov 7, 2016 20:40 |
|
The post-mortem from Election Day is in, and it's a winner for transit! A total of over $187 billion in transit funding got approved thanks to voters in the following cities: Los Angeles - VICTORY Measure M Required vote percentage to pass: 66% Vote percentage: 69.82% Seattle - VICTORY Sound Transit 3 Required vote percentage to pass: 50% Vote percentage: 55.04% Atlanta - VICTORY Vote percentage: ??? - Approved Required vote percentage to pass: 50% Raleigh - VICTORY Vote percentage: 52.7% Required vote percentage to pass: 50% San Francisco - VICTORY Vote percentage: 70% Required vote percentage to pass: 66% Indianapolis - VICTORY Vote percentage: 57.8% (preliminary but definitive) Required vote percentage to pass: 50%
|
# ? Nov 9, 2016 16:55 |
|
a patagonian cavy posted:LA voted on extending a previous sales tax by 30 years in 2012... And it failed after getting a mere 65% of the vote in support. Opposition was pretty strong in parts of LA which don't have any plans to get mass transit service, like San Pedro and the South Bay cities. Sacramento had one of those this year. Measure B had like 64.5+% yes voters. hosed. Anyone wanna go piss on Howard Jarvis's grave with me?
|
# ? Nov 9, 2016 17:36 |
|
nm posted:Sacramento had one of those this year. Measure B had like 64.5+% yes voters. hosed. Ugh, I'm sorry I didn't realize Sacramento was having a referendum this year I will join you at Jarvis's grave and dump leaflets for Measure M and RR all over it with you, at least.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2016 00:59 |
|
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2016/11/rta_proposal_results.html The Metro Detroit/Southeast Michigan transit proposal failed. Detroit's home county of Wayne voted in favor of it, and my home county of Washtenaw voted for it, but Oakland County, to Detroit's north, barely voted no and Macomb County to the south very much voted no. poo poo sucks, I've been yearning for a good commuter service for ages.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:50 |
|
LA is going to be utterly transformed when those changes go in.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2016 05:04 |
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:The post-mortem from Election Day is in, and it's a winner for transit! A total of over $187 billion in transit funding got approved thanks to voters in the following cities: Yuuuuuge gains that Trump hopefully won't destroy bigly?
|
# ? Nov 10, 2016 11:16 |
|
Measure B in Santa Clara County (south sf bay area) also passed. While it also included money for freeways/expressways, it had more money for transit, and a good chunk for bike/walk improvments. http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/11/09/measure-b--winning-measure-a-just-squeaking-by
|
# ? Nov 10, 2016 11:57 |
|
blowfish posted:Yuuuuuge gains that Trump hopefully won't destroy bigly? these are all state/local level referendums, the federal government can't do anything about it. this is why it's so slow to implement good mass transit in the US, the feds have traditionally been extremely averse to funding any kind of local mass transit because it's firmly in conflict with the 10th amendment - unless transportation has something to do with interstate or international commerce, it's none of the fed's business. so in the absence of consistent federal funding, most mass transit is left up to the locality, with widely divergent effects. portland, oregon enjoys broad state level support for both urban planning and transportation authority, and so has a very muscular transit system for its size. atlanta, georgia is traditionally poo poo upon by the state government and so faces a number of disadvantages, long headways and high fares, but they manage to keep the system running in decent repair despite a hostile state government and NO state funding the department of transportation can provide grants to individual projects (expect those to disappear) but if the city of atlanta wants to vote for extra taxes to fund transit, there's nothing the feds can do to stop them
|
# ? Nov 10, 2016 18:51 |
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Are there any cities in the world with an extensive subway system that's totally free for the riders? I can't imagine it happening in the US since the massive screaming about unfairness from non-riders would drown it out. On a weird level, I could see DC being vaguely able to argue it since their ridership is spread out over multiple states even for "locals" plus huge numbers of temporary riders for gov/biz/tourism. DC clearly can't afford it alone, but it could be allotws funds in a way similar to how DC gets a federal disbursement for all the tax-free federal land it has that it has to indirectly support and can't raise revenue from. none are 100% free that I know of, but as of the last time I checked the price of riding the Minsk Metro is about $0.22. That's an unlimited journey, across as many trains as you want until you leave the system. If you get a monthly pass then it's so cheap the price means nothing. This is of course remnant of the soviet planned economy so you can never reproduce something like this.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2016 23:05 |
|
HorseLord posted:none are 100% free that I know of, but as of the last time I checked the price of riding the Minsk Metro is about $0.22. That's an unlimited journey, across as many trains as you want until you leave the system. If you get a monthly pass then it's so cheap the price means nothing. This is of course remnant of the soviet planned economy so you can never reproduce something like this.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2016 02:05 |
|
boner confessor posted:these are all state/local level referendums, the federal government can't do anything about it. USDOT does fund some transit through grants or low interest loans. If they pull a bunch of that money it won't derail (haha) these projects but it could make them a lot smaller.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2016 04:07 |
|
Debate & Discussion: voted facho › Transit Politics: The Little Engines That Couldnt Get Federal Funding DoT grants to help urbanism, sustainability, walkability, all that fun stuff are completely dead for the time being. It's unfortunate, because I know my city's weak-rear end new BRT line is relying on some federal grants; I sincerely hope that stuff is all allocated and can't be revoked by the new administration. New projects will have to rely on state and local funding at best. maybe we can convince Republicans that transit systems are actually militarily useful?
|
# ? Nov 11, 2016 04:25 |
|
Badger of Basra posted:USDOT does fund some transit through grants or low interest loans. If they pull a bunch of that money it won't derail (haha) these projects but it could make them a lot smaller. yeah i said that in my post Quorum posted:DoT grants to help urbanism, sustainability, walkability, all that fun stuff are completely dead for the time being. It's unfortunate, because I know my city's weak-rear end new BRT line is relying on some federal grants; I sincerely hope that stuff is all allocated and can't be revoked by the new administration. New projects will have to rely on state and local funding at best. not a whole lot has changed though - while dot transit grants will certainly dry up it's not like there was a deep pool of them to begin with what with the federal government dysfunction and aversion to funding useful things
|
# ? Nov 11, 2016 07:44 |
|
Quorum posted:Debate & Discussion: voted facho › Transit Politics: The Little Engines That Couldnt Get Federal Funding Sadly federal grants to improve air quality are also used to help fund mass transit, particularly express bus lines. If the EPA gets gutted i imagine the funding goes away as well for those lines, leaving them to either eat the difference or discontinue /reduce lines.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2016 20:00 |
|
boner confessor posted:yeah i said that in my post All I know is that on my local level there were a bunch of federal grants involved. Virginia was supposed to be a model for transit and rail, since it's a) close to DC b) had a number of projects ready to go and c) had a cooperative state government. And all those projects are at risk now.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 00:25 |
|
axeil posted:Oh my god we have a transit thread? Bring it!
|
# ? Nov 15, 2016 19:14 |
|
http://denver.streetsblog.org/2016/11/15/some-streets-will-get-a-guerrilla-safety-makeover-with-the-citys-blessing/ The city is going to let residents modify some streets in safer, more pedestrian/bike friendly routes. Hopefully this helps show that the improvements we need aren't crackpot expensive things and just smart minor changes. They're not going to pay for any of it, though. Edit: ignore the dead link. I'm hoping it's still true as I know of some areas on my bike commute that could use some guerrilla action its no big deal fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Nov 16, 2016 |
# ? Nov 16, 2016 01:36 |
|
Link's dead, looks like they may have removed the post
|
# ? Nov 16, 2016 01:38 |
|
here is the cached version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...n&ct=clnk&gl=us
|
# ? Nov 16, 2016 05:17 |
|
There we go, thanks. That sounds pretty cool, as I'm all in favor of whatever makes this city more pedestrian- and bike-friendly. However, there's a part of the article that mentions the projects won't actually receive any funds from the city, just help in navigating regulations and whatnot; That stuck out to me because Denver's City Council approved the 2017 city budget on Monday, and one of the biggest missing elements was funds for sidewalk repair. Apparently we have a sidewalk problem "valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars across the city". http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/14/denver-city-council-budget-vote/ The Denver Post posted:The 2017 operating budget, unveiled by Hancock in September and approved 12-0 on Monday, will pay for four dozen new police officers and an expanded affordable housing program. It also sets aside $2.5 million for new or fixed sidewalks on city-owned property, such as parks and golf courses.
|
# ? Nov 16, 2016 07:42 |
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:There we go, thanks. Yup, they're putting the onus and cost directly on residents, which seems there modus operandi. On the part of Colfax near the Bluebird, the sidewalk has a bunch of ash trees that need to be treated against a type of bug (I think). The city is requiring that the store owners with trees in their boundaries either treat them or remove them. This is even the case despite the store owners not putting the trees in. I'm hazy on details, as I've only heard snippets from my boss. There seems to be a trend of "analyze city problems, outsource solutions without paying for them" going on here.
|
# ? Nov 16, 2016 07:51 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 17:14 |
|
I'm going to one of the city's General Obligation Bond meetings on Thursday. I don't know what I hope to learn or say, but I at least want to start getting involved in making things better here. Maybe I'll run for RTD's board of directors someday!
|
# ? Nov 16, 2016 09:26 |