Posted on 04/16/2017 10:13:25 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Pages 18 & 19 seem to reveal that the bridge does eat up most of it’s fares.
I’m not sure if that’s Hollywood Movie Studio accounting, or straight business accounting.
Let’s recall that the bridge paid for itself and repaid the cost of the bridge prior to the initial bonds being paid off. If in those days the bridge was generating enough profit to pay for operating expenses and pay off the cost of those bonds, why can’t it show a larger profit today?
My suggestion is that the bus fleet is the reason. The bridge and various modes of transportation are lumped into the Golden Gate district.
Look at the transportation costs related to fairs.
Then you see government grants. Is that slight of hand moving funds around from the bridge?
I’m not nearly as convinced the bridge eats up it’s total revenues, as the creators of this report seems to be.
http://goldengate.org/organization/documents/fy12-13-adoptedbudget.pdf
More taxes fix everything! /Democrat logic
Austin has never met a budget increase it didn’t love.
I find the Texas toll solutions a little weird. They promised motorists that a non-toll alternative would be available that might have stoplights and take a little longer but get you to the same place for free. By doing so, they make the toll roads essentially an investments for the elites and special interests (like government employees).
Further, they put a sign on I-35 in Round Rock that explains how the toll roads take you there in *more* time and expense than just staying on I-35.
“Time to San Marcos via I-35: 41 minutes” (that’s the free road)
“Time to San Marcos via Toll Roads 45 and 130: 53 minutes” (that’s the one you pay for)
I keep thinking at some point TXDOT is going to tear that sign down.
Maybe better make that: 5252; probability is higher!
;)
I just read they are putting a steel net under the Golden Gate Bridge to save those trying to jump off and commit suicide. Cost $200 million. Maybe that money will pay for that.
“In the year 9995 . . .”
It’s impossible that the bridge eats up most of the funds, IMO. It is aging, but I still think that maintaining the thing should only cost a few tens of millions per year.
That would be my take as well.
Hey, I may be wrong, but it just doesn’t seem logical that they spend close to $154,000,000.00 dollars on it each year.
No way...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.