Quote:
Originally Posted by Hipocrito Mejia
It would be a breath of fresh air, considering that this is the fourth time that this administration has announced such a plan. We all saw how much was done the other three times! 
So we should believe that the SD metro will generate more revenue from selling advertising and renting out space for shops? That's real funny! I guess that rental and ad rates are now higher in SD than NYC. |
Never said MORE, but in fact better suited from the offset to do just the same. In fact the SD Metro advertising revenue system was planned with the rail system itself, not as an add on to it for post benefit. That's where the 1000% better comes into play. Don't compare apples to oranges my friend...
Quote:
|
This constitutes an admission to the OP's point that the general population will end up subsidizing a large portion of the operational cost of the SD metro.
|
Mass transit is NEVER funded to be run apart from public coffers, tell me the country where this is done and will tip my hat to you in kind...
Subsidy of the electrical sector will end to 100%; the gov will produce the electricity that today it must overpay for when we refer to public street lighting, gov buildings, schools, etc... The subsidy only applies when the gov must pay for the goods or facilitator at market prices in order to lower the value of such services/goods.
The way the gov will support the Metro system of the DR is not subsidy but plain gov investment and support of PUBLIC infrastructure. Just as it's the job of gov to keep streets transit able, public safety and the like; such is equal the role of gov when mass transportation is allowed to flourish. Supporting a myriad of cartels to keep the city moving towards full development is the talk of fools and people with no transportation knowledge whatsoever.
[/quote]You mean the train cars, right? The entire SD metro system also includes the stations, rail lines, etc. I seriously doubt your assumption that no major maintenance will be needed for a long period of time, considering the usual lifespan of other major projects (roads, bridges) undertaken by the government.[/quote]
Let's see: Rails? Rails are rotated in a preset timely fashion according to usage and normal tear and wear. The need to replace worn rails after they served their full rotational cycle doesn't mean the worn rails will see the dumpster but recycling bin...
The stations of the SD Metro were constructed with the elemental structure set on reinforced concrete of the highest quality and serving in the role of 95% of the stations basic to moderated body. I effect, all you need to replace are tiles on the floors victims to tear and wear, paint, broken glass, non working lights, etc... Where exactly do you foresee this "Grand" major maintenance in the making? Cars? The fitting of a highly technical dept in the yards is to this end the #1 reason cars will be on operations regardless of mechanical/cosmetics/electronics/etc... problems.
The cars will have even a paint and cosmetics bay at the yards to keep the same way they were when first run in the system...
When you talk about the other things, like OMSA, you omit the essential that those buses serve beyond their capacity given what was budgeted since their inception into the public transport system. A bus fleet will operate at 95% of abilities when you buy the entire programme, not some buses and spares.
The DR's prior purchase orders for the public transportation needs, always faced the same dilemma, that once the administration in power left the next obliterated the prior programme to assure that only the "progress" they committed to, remained when the election cycle repeated for them.
The Metro system breaks away from this as the system was planned to be run separated from the public office in as much, that any gov interference of the system once placed in semi private/pubic hands will result in litigation on the international courts.
(52)
