 |
Re: Seattle Waterfront tunnel proposal
Author: SP_RedElectric
Date: 01-14-2009 - 21:49
FedUP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 6) Would $20B pay for high speed trains between
> Seattle and Vancouver BC and Portland, OR?
I'm sure $20B would pay for something, somewhere else, that does something completely different, and helps some other people, than the problem that we're trying to fix today.
Just like folks in Portland that say that instead of spending the $3-4B to fix the Interstate Bridge that we ought to just build a light rail line somewhere. Problem is, the problem is one thing, and the proposed solution has nothing (or very little) to do with the problem.
So the question is whether the problem really a problem, because if it's a problem shouldn't we worry about the problem instead of making a wish list of things we want to do with the money that have nothing to do with the problem to begin with?
It's like saying I have $500...but I have to hire a plumber and fix my water heater that'll cost...$1,000 (I could be way off, never had to do it before). So I'm going to say "Wow, wouldn't it be nice if we took the $1,000 and bought a hot tub (that'll likely end up costing $2,000 for the hot tub itself, then having to pay for a contractor to install a reinforced concrete pad and an electrician to upgrade the breaker box and install an outlet...) instead?
Meanwhile, we have no hot water in the bathroom or the kitchen.......
And if it's not a problem, then why not just barricade the viaduct right now and issue bids to demolish it? Oh, wait, I guess it IS a problem...
-------------------------------------------------------
> 6) Would $20B pay for high speed trains between
> Seattle and Vancouver BC and Portland, OR?
I'm sure $20B would pay for something, somewhere else, that does something completely different, and helps some other people, than the problem that we're trying to fix today.
Just like folks in Portland that say that instead of spending the $3-4B to fix the Interstate Bridge that we ought to just build a light rail line somewhere. Problem is, the problem is one thing, and the proposed solution has nothing (or very little) to do with the problem.
So the question is whether the problem really a problem, because if it's a problem shouldn't we worry about the problem instead of making a wish list of things we want to do with the money that have nothing to do with the problem to begin with?
It's like saying I have $500...but I have to hire a plumber and fix my water heater that'll cost...$1,000 (I could be way off, never had to do it before). So I'm going to say "Wow, wouldn't it be nice if we took the $1,000 and bought a hot tub (that'll likely end up costing $2,000 for the hot tub itself, then having to pay for a contractor to install a reinforced concrete pad and an electrician to upgrade the breaker box and install an outlet...) instead?
Meanwhile, we have no hot water in the bathroom or the kitchen.......
And if it's not a problem, then why not just barricade the viaduct right now and issue bids to demolish it? Oh, wait, I guess it IS a problem...
