5 ms·
California would find a much more expensive solution that worked far less well. The Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing cost an estimated $115M--a total waste of
by diogenescynic 3mo ago
California would find a much more expensive solution that worked far less well. The Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing cost an estimated $115M--a total waste of tax payer funds. Bravo to this practical and effective solution.
- tokai 3mo agoThis is a solution specifically for arboreal animals, while the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing is explicitly for mountain lions.
- asdff 3mo agoI think the idea of more opportunities to cross is good but the pricetag is absurd still. After all, they are terraforming a hillside. I think it is a little misplaced though. We assume animals need this to cross but it seems they can take a regular old bridge just fine. You can probably build a cheap "animal only" overpass, e.g. maybe a light load mesh metal or plank bridge or somesuch, for a fraction the cost and offer many fold more crossing opportunities across more of the freeway vs just one big budget spectacle. I'm sure the contractor was connected in some way. A sort of storm drain like underpass design would probably also be cheap if done during routine freeway work.
- tokai 3mo agoInstead of guessing you could look into the research literature on animal road crossings. Its a surprisingly large area of study because it is hard to get animals to use these constructions. Maybe they did a bad and expensive job, but you have nothing to base that on at all.
- asdff 3mo agoI base it on the mountain lions in question already urbanized enough to walk on sidewalks in los angeles. I mean there were people seriously claiming the griffith park mountain lion was somehow isolated to griffith park, and yet it was showing up on people's ring cameras miles away from the park. I think a lot of people assume that animals are only found in "nature" and don't know what to do in an unnatural setting. They can figure it out. Look at your housecat figuring out your entire home, and realize this is basically a smaller brained mountain lion.
- bix6 3mo agoDo you know how much accidents cost? $100M is nothing in comparison over the long term. Plus this was a 10 lane overpass and a unique build during a high inflation period. That is not simple terraforming amigo.
- asdff 3mo agoSo build more bridges and fencing along the highway for less money then if that is about the accident rate?
- oatmeal1 3mo agoDunning Kruger effect at work.
- asdff 3mo agoWhy discuss anything if there could be a chesterson's fence right?
- megaloblasto 3mo agoWhoa that's awesome. I didn't know California had one of those. Keeps animals, humans, and cars safe and looks beautiful too.
- diogenescynic 3mo agoAt the cost of $115M we could have built a new public university or added more light rail somewhere it's desperately needed like Orange County or San Diego. I am not against land crossings for animals, but the way the government just blows tax money with no accountability on projects the public has almost no direct benefit from is quite extraordinary.
- rootusrootus 3mo ago> new public university I assume you meant to say building, yes? > added more light rail somewhere it's desperately needed like Orange County or San Diego In San Diego, 115M would get you what, half a mile of light rail?
- diogenescynic 3mo agoYou're making my argument for me. Infrastructure costs in California are outrageously more expensive than any other developed country--for no reason other than grift.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- bix6 3mo agohttps://transitcosts.com/transit-costs-study-final-report/ https://transitcosts.com/transit-costs-study-final-report/ Wow look New York is expensive too! It’s almost like it’s the entire country and there are other reasons besides grift.
- diogenescynic 3mo ago
- bix6 3mo agoOk what’s your solution? I’m seeing more and more wild life bridges and tunnels so clearly the engineers think they work.
- diogenescynic 3mo agoOr maybe it's just a good project for lawyers and lobbyists to get kickbacks...
- bix6 3mo agoWhat are you even on about dude…
- diogenescynic 3mo agoYou think $115M is a reasonable price to build a 200 foot bridge that doesn't have to support any real heavy weight? You wouldn't rather have that money spent on you know... humans? The money is skimmed off the top by the people who pay for the politicians to get elected who sign off on these projects. It's all about money and political patronage.
- kitd 3mo agoNot exactly apples to oranges though, is it?
- diogenescynic 3mo agoSure, but that's not the point. My point is that infrastructure costs are like 20-50x more in California than in other developed countries for no apparent reason. We spend a million dollars of tax payer funds to build one single public bathroom in LA or even more in SF. There's something fundamentally broken... I appreciate seeing cost effective solutions that actually works. In California, it seems like most government 'solutions' are a complete scam to divert tax dollars into someone's pet project and create a funnel for their own income/profit.
- rootusrootus 3mo ago> infrastructure costs are like 20-50x more in California than in other developed countries Is that really true? For a simple example, it looks like a simple surface light rail line in the US typically runs about 100M/mi. That's pretty much the same as what it costs in the UK.
- diogenescynic 3mo agoI may be exaggerating the exact number, but it's a well known fact that infrastructure costs more in California. The subway in San Francisco's Chinatown was more expensive than most modern airports... we're being scammed.
- bix6 3mo agoYou’re exaggerating well known facts? Bro get some facts in here instead of just spewing anti California rhetoric.
- diogenescynic 3mo agoGoogle it yourself. I've lived in California my entire life and will never leave. I'm allowed to criticize it. I want it to work harder and more effectively and stop wasting resources. Unfortunately there's zero accountability to voters because we're a one party state and the party nominee practically always wins. You can let an entire neighborhood burn down while out of the country at a party and the voters will still defend you. There's no reason we pay such high taxes and have so little to show for it. I get tired of the endless excuses. Every other country--even the more expensive ones like Switzerland--have more effective infrastructure projects. I honestly don't even think this is debatable. Go look at how poorly maintained practically everything in the state is--schools, roads, bridges... It doesn't make sense when we're paying such high taxes and have all the big tech companies here... I don't know why people are so comfortable with that cognitive dissonance.