http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/02/07/san-fernando-valley-service-cuts-hearing-report/ Covering Los Angeles's livable streets movement Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:23:58 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/02/07/san-fernando-valley-service-cuts-hearing-report/comment-page-1/#comment-134 Kymberleigh Richards Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:22:00 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/02/07/san-fernando-valley-service-cuts-hearing-report/#comment-134 Of course, what most people who believe service could be preserved if construction projects were halted don't know (because the BRU has done such a great job at blurring reality) is that money used for capital projects, such as rail construction, are a <b>separate</b> "pot" of money than that used to operate service.<br/><br/>And capital funds <b>cannot</b> be used to operate service. There are legal restrictions on both the state and federal level which prevents the Metro Board of Directors from doing so.<br/><br/>While I agree that the rail gating proposal is a bad idea, the money that would be used to install those gates would be capital funds. (The fact that there would be an annual operating cost, which would come from funds that could run bus service, is a different matter that doesn't enter into the present discussion on bus service reductions.)<br/><br/>So calling for a halt to capital projects as a "solution" to the service cuts is not going to find an audience at the Metro Board, because they already know it isn't legally an option. In fact, every time the BRU insists that, they lose a little more credibility before the Board. Of course, what most people who believe service could be preserved if construction projects were halted don't know (because the BRU has done such a great job at blurring reality) is that money used for capital projects, such as rail construction, are a separate "pot" of money than that used to operate service.

And capital funds cannot be used to operate service. There are legal restrictions on both the state and federal level which prevents the Metro Board of Directors from doing so.

While I agree that the rail gating proposal is a bad idea, the money that would be used to install those gates would be capital funds. (The fact that there would be an annual operating cost, which would come from funds that could run bus service, is a different matter that doesn't enter into the present discussion on bus service reductions.)

So calling for a halt to capital projects as a "solution" to the service cuts is not going to find an audience at the Metro Board, because they already know it isn't legally an option. In fact, every time the BRU insists that, they lose a little more credibility before the Board.

]]>