Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

California

In reply to the discussion: Gas taxes redirected [View all]

Midnightwalk

(3,131 posts)
6. 61 million goes to rail?
Mon Oct 7, 2019, 07:12 PM
Oct 2019
The report also states some $61-million in uncommitted funds will be held in reserve for priority rail projects and other priorities aligned with Executive Order N-19-19.


Can’t find what else is being proposed but you say rail is infrastructure and ok. Is there something else?

I don’t know one way or the other how effective the rail projects will be in reducing road traffic. If they are effective that makes them a good infrastructure investment if for no other reason they would make road projects less urgent. If they aren’t it’s a waste of money. I don’t know.

I get that they are using climate change as a justification and that makes it seem like bait and switch, but if rail projects are ok I don’t see the issue.

Personally if the projects really do decrease emissions and they showed how I’d be ok with using infrastructure money. I’d wonder if there was a wiser way of using the money though. How about you?

Did I miss something in the article?

Gas taxes redirected [View all] The Mouth Oct 2019 OP
he is using it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions lapfog_1 Oct 2019 #1
Because when we voted for these taxes and to keep them in place SoCalNative Oct 2019 #2
These taxes were, and are very specifically The Mouth Oct 2019 #3
Damn straight! sdfernando Oct 2019 #4
that is the truth! CountAllVotes Oct 2019 #5
61 million goes to rail? Midnightwalk Oct 2019 #6
If it was just for rail The Mouth Oct 2019 #7
Latest Discussions»Region Forums»California»Gas taxes redirected»Reply #6