Here's a story out of Colorado -- Republican state legislature candidate wants to build a monorail while his Democratic opponent "said mountain rail is secondary to basic road upkeep at this point." A Republican on the transit side of the angels? Apparently so.
« Troubled Times | Main | The Trouble With Sanctions »
My Kind of Republican
02 Jun 2008 05:36 pm
Comments (45)
It's hard to tell from the article, but it looks like the Republican wants to pay for the rail with budget ponies (that's the "privatized municipal bonds" line), while the Democrat is not falling for that con game. More reporting is needed.
I'm sure the Republicans in Ogdenville, Brockway and North Haverbrook were all in favor of monorails too.
I wouldn't be so sure. It sounds like the Democrat is saying that due to neglect and probably lack of sufficient funds, the roads are falling apart. I think rail is a great idea, and I take the train to work every day (different kind of rail, I know), but I kinda like fixing current problems before creating new ones.
And while I appreciate this guy's attempt to push rail, I'd be curious to know who his big donors are.
Oh man the should really check out Springfield's and North Haverbrook's systems first.
I mean seriously, wasn't the plot of the Simpsons episode that Marge wanted to fix up the dilapidated Main Street? This has to be a clever ruse.
Looking at the district, the Republican stands no chance at winning. Kerry won the three counties in the district 59-49, 55-45, and 53-47.
In a vacuum, you're totally right. But in practice, Colorado is still trying to get out from behind the TABOR eight ball, and the Democrat is kind of right on the "how do we pay for it" question. TABOR basically fucked their budget sideways, which was the whole point.
Colorado's roads budget has been deeply eroded by TABOR and Amendment 23 over time, and that budget continues to ratchet downward (though more slowly than before a 2005 referendum). So when you roll out the initial public transit expenses, you either have to cut something pretty big or else pass a public referendum on the tax increase to pay for it. Find me the thing you want to eliminate from the Colorado or local budget, and maybe you have a point, but every expense in that state (except education) is stretched a long way at this point. In the long run, yeah, cut road expenses, but you can't feasibly cut them before the transit is built to replace them.
Now, the Republican proposes local bonds and taxes to pay for it, which is a decent idea since no statewide tax hike for this primarily local benefit would ever pass, but that's got to face referendum, too. Again, the guy's not necessarily wrong, but it's not as simple as all that.
I'm sure the Republicans in Ogdenville, Brockway and North Haverbrook were all in favor of monorails too.
Damn. Beat me to it.
Monorails attract a certain kind of fanatic independent of political leaning. There's often an undercurrent (or explicit statement in some cases) of monorails being suppressed in favor of traditional rail as the result of some dark conspiracy. It's odd.
Before you start cutting him checks give these two links a read.
http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5167
http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5545
jhupp hits on the relevant issues of the colorado budget. We are basically FUBAR at this point. We have constitutional amendment (TABOR) that restrict spending severely and another constitutional amendment (A 23) that require funding increases for specific areas (education) all the while we have another constitutional amendment that is constantly monkeying with the amount of property tax that can be charged in relation to personal property and business property (Gallagher). We're staring down a very serious crisis thanks to these conflicting amendments. Remember too that these are constitutional provisions and not mere statutes so any fix has to come through another state wide vote on an amendment to clean that up. Oh but ballot measures can only be about a single subject, so you're actually talking about passing multiple amendments in a single election. Not exactly an easy proposition when you're dealing with very confusing and complex issues.
For more on our budget etc. this is a decent website,
http://www.coloradobudget.com/
Anyone who lives near the I-70 mountain corridor from Denver until Dillon and Vail, realizes that sooner or later there needs to be some sort of mass transit option. Driving up I-70 to the mountain towns and resorts is one big traffic jam on the weekends, both in the winter for skiing, and the summer for tourism / hiking and such. If people in this region want to continue to use I-70 as a means to get to the Rockies, there needs to be a mass transit option.
And no a monorail is not the only proposal, there are numerous rail options being suggested. All of them extremely expensive, of course, but too many people want to continue to do nothing or just widen the highway which in itself will take 10-20 years and billions of dollars.
Of course, if you don't live here, you can feel free to make your monorail jokes. But this is one area that needs mass transit. Even a designated bus lane and buses would be great.
Without further information my wild guess is the Republican has interests in monorail building?
This Republican is my kind of scum - ruthless and inventive.
Does the plan pertain to MOUNTAIN rail (as the direct quote and the article URL indicate) or MONORAIL as MY's text states?
Seriously man, proofread your posts just a *little* bit.
Oh, uh, clicking on the link would reveal that the plan involves "a mountain monorail"
my bad, sorry.
Quoting directly from the candidate in the article: "If elected I will introduce a bill to get a monorail built ..."
MYSA, if you're only going to read the headline behind the link, please STFU.
Okay, and now that you've corrected yourself, I feel like an prick. Next time, if you're going to be wrong, be wrong unapologetically!
Lyle Lanley: Y'know, a town with money is like a mule with a spinning wheel. No one knows how he got it and danged if he knows how to use it!
TABOR: Actually, you don't have a choice.
Lyle Lanley: Y'right, my bad.
Will the monorail connect Main Street USA to Tomorrowland?
I'm sure the Republicans in Ogdenville, Brockway and North Haverbrook were all in favor of monorails too.
Q: Is there a chance the track could bend?
A: Not on your life, my Hindu Muslim friend
was the republican's name Lyle Lanley?
What about us brain-dead slobs?
What about us brain-dead slobs?
You'll all be given cushy jobs!
You can be sure that any Republican in favour of a monorail or any other mass transit system does not support it because it is good policy, but in service of some private interest (including, perhaps, his own).
for similar reasons, this liberal is supporting pat mccrory for NC governor. check out what he brought to charlotte.
Simpsons jokes aside, does this really count as rail friendly? Isn't this kind of like saying a Republican is 'cycle friendly because he's proposing to install more unicycle lanes?
I recall that the public forced Seattle to build a monorail through referendum. THe city didn't want to do it becasue monorails are way more expensive than just regular trains. At least that's what the city said.
Matt's kind of Republican wants to build monorails to ski resorts?
Hmmm. Maybe there is a trust fund after all.
The easiest, quickest, cheapest, and probably best solution is to have an express bus lane.
The buses would be far cheaper than any rail -heavy, light, or mono- and would be far more flexible.
The buses would be faster than light or mono.
However, it will never get done because it won't have the necessary backing.
Some people think rail is so great and never pay attention to the costs.
Other people think that all mass transit sucks and doesn't want to pay to support it.
I am willing to bet that 95% of the people reading this post will disagree.
However, logic SHOULD dictate that something that is cheaper, more flexible, faster, and easiest should, at least, be considered.
Rail is expensive.
Monorails - which can't use existing rail infrastructure and require costly passenger cars - is Disneyland-expensive.
There aren't too many places in Colorado where rail is a better idea than expanding bus access and incentivizing purchase of hybrids and more efficient used cars.
Also: it snows in Colorado. There are hills, some of them quite steep. More people will drive cars with bigger engines and four wheel drive. If you want to penalize drivers in the mountain west for buying vehicles appropriate to where they live perhaps you should think about penalizing the northeast for properly heating their homes in the winter; doing so produces more pollution and C02 than people in Colorado.
You know who wants the monorail? Ski resorts.
Because they don't want the people who want to ski their snowy mountains to actually have to drive up, you know, snowy mountains.
Okay, I knew we were living in some kind of alternate universe ever since the 2000. Actually, I started to suspect it back when the Soviet Union fell apart, which according to my entire Sci Fi collection at the time was never supposed to happen. So okay.
But I was hoping for Bizzaro World. Not The Simpsons. Dear god, did it have to be The Simpsons? I guess we can hope to be rescued by donuts (is there anything they can't do?).
The cosmic dance... goes on!
The boys over at Commuter Outrage beg to differ.
http://www.commuteroutrage.com/2008/05/30/colorado-cdot-to-expand-i-70/
They beat up on CDOT for not listening to the citizens of Colorado, who rejected this measure.
They make some good points ...
Neil Wilson,
The express bus thing is also extremely expensive because this stretch of I-70 winds through a pretty tight canyon. Widening the road is not as simple as putting down another lane. It will take billions and probably 10 years just to widen by 1 lane.
That's why rail is so attractive here. It will also take forever to build and be expensive, but it will be much more effecient. But go ahead and make your stupid Simpsons jokes.
It's not like putting an express bus lane in a normal town.
Arrrggh, all this monorail to the ski slopes reminds me er the time ol' one eye tried skiin. I didn't really want to go but I convinced meself that snow were just frozen water, an pirates are born to be on the water, right? Of course that were nothin but rationalization, on the account er there were this woman I were seein at the time, who was sayin that our relationship were gettin stale and we never did anythin new, an I was always hangin out with me mates, instead er doin crap with her.... Ye all have heard it before. It's basically they sound er the cargo shiftin signalin the close approach er the capsizin er the relationship. Anyway, she wanted me to take her skiin at Alta.
Well, to make a long story short, they didn't have a boot to fit me peg so I had to go mono a mono with that there mountain and ski one-legged. I emerged victorious, as a feller w/ the experience er hardship and the sand to endure it always will. But the effort I had to put out on that there "vacation" clarified my mind towards me situation, and I put that woman on a bus fer home and spend the next two weeks drinkin and whorin in Salt Lake CIty, just to cleanse me pallet so to speak.
What ye all need to take from this tale is this: love er a phisological condition, a condition that the right circumstances can cure ye of in an afternoon. Rmember that the next time yer blubberin over some tragic heartbreak, thinkin ye'll never love agian.
Here's a story out of Colorado -- Republican state legislature candidate wants to build a monorail while his Democratic opponent "said mountain rail is secondary to basic road upkeep at this point." A Republican on the transit side of the angels? Apparently so.
I think installing rail at the expense of "basic road upkeep" is a disastrous political strategy and bad policy to boot.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that policy should generally favor more rail (not monorail . . . which is a pretty goofy and mildly dangerous technology . . . but good ol' trains). Nevertheless, find the money by cutting subsidies for suburban developers, postponing the construction of new roads, revenue from a cap and trade system , whatever, not from the maintenance of existing roads.
Build your train networks, but make sure the roads people are using in the meantime don't go to shit. That's just common sense.
There is no such thing as a good republican. Period. It's the whole picture, including his vote for parliamentary leaders, that matters.
Hasan is, indeed, a colorful character. For instance, check out this video of him campaigning in Eagle County: http://current.com/items/88938923_muslim_republican
BRief trivia: They originally wanted George Takei for the episode, but he demurred because he thought that Marge vs. the Monorail made fun of rapid transit, and he was on the BART (?) Board at the time. So they had to settle for Leonard "The Cosmic Ballet Goes On" Nimoy.
I'm trying to figure out who they imagine riding this thing. Once you get to Idaho Springs you basically need a car to do anything. So you're going to ride the train to Dillon or Vail or somewhere, then what? Have everyone lug ski equipment and luggage around on city buses? Rent a car? And will it go into Denver for commuters? My guess is there are more that live along 285 than I-70. This thing sounds like a total boondoggle. Think harder Homer.
need more info. is there money to do it? is it an area where its feasible and practical? just because someone wants to build a train somewhere its not automatically a good idea. and if the Dem's claim is true, that basic road upkeep - in the mountains - is more of a pressing concern right now, to the degree that other investments are impractical by definition until the roads are repaired, then I would say its better to wait on the train until the roads are safe, as more people will still be driving than taking the train even if there were money for both, that would have to be the priority.
Although I'm a Michigander, I spent my childhood summers in Georgetown (just west of Idaho Springs on I-70) and have vacationed there many times since. Brad asks a very good question about how rail users going to get around in Silverthorne or Dillon or Vail once they get there. Unless this rail system is an actual commuter train into Denver, then this system would have as much practical use as the Seattle monorail and the Detroit People Mover.
Cols714 also mentions something that makes me skeptical; Clear Creek Canyon (through which I-70 winds for much of the way) is a beautiful but extremely narrow space, and adding two bus lanes or adequate room for a rail line is going to require a huge amount of blasting and filling. I'm old enough to remember Georgetown as it was prior to the construction of I-70, and a decent chunk of town disappeared to make room for it. Widening I-70 for either bus lanes and/or trains is likely going to take even more of the town, as it probably would Idaho Springs back east.
It's all moot anyhow, as Balboni and jhupp have detailed the difficulty in financing a train using only Colorado revenue. The only way money is going to be found is through massive federal funding, and that's far from likely in today's fiscal environment that the Bush Administration has managed so well.
more Simpsons-related posts, please
I call the big one, "Bitey."
I call the big one, "Bitey."
Comments closed June 16, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The Republican is named "Muhammad Ali Hasan"? Really? (*checks to see if the link is to The Onion*)
But of course this is a classic government situation. Should we spend money on X or on Y? Solution: spend it on both X and Y.
Posted by Al | June 2, 2008 5:48 PM