We're a bunch of wimps. Why is investing in infrastructure a luxury when people go out and spend so much money on their cars. A commenter (btw, please stop posting as anon. I don't care if you want to be anon, but make up a name so I can tell between commenters) in the post below called High Speed Rail a luxury we can't afford and wanted the money spent on local transit. Why the hell isn't anyone logical out there? Why are we pitting a long distance mode that will decrease airplane trips, the most dirty climate change inducing trips out there, versus a short distance mode that everyone knows is needed?
This isn't about one or the other, it's about both. Stop pitting HSR against the budget. Stop pitting HSR against schools. And stop pitting HSR versus better local transit. If we didn't pass this bond, it's not like the state will toss up $10 billion for a local transit bond. They have already stolen $3 frakin billion!!! in the last 3 years.
Then I started thinking about it. If the County of San Francisco asked me for an extra $100 a year for better transit, I would give it in a hearbeat. Heck I would give $500. Because it would make my life and everyone else's life in the city so much better. Think about it. If every citizen in the city gave $500 a year, this would be $41 per month. That's ~$383 million per year. Over 30 years, that is ~$11.5 billion. What could we do with $11.5 billion here? Well we could build 46 miles of subways at $250 million per mile. That is 4 north South Subway lines and 3 east west subway lines. We'd have a real freakin metro here! $41 per month is all it takes. That is one tank of gas per month. What could we get? Something like this:
Who would want anything like that? That's just a luxury.