Posts Tagged ‘UCLA’

Seen on the Street: Owner of Expensive Lexus LS 460 Luxury Sedan Votes “SNOWDEN FOR PRESIDENT”

Tuesday, April 15th, 2014

Another UCLA Law alum for Snowie:

Click to expand

DPT SFPark Fail: Expensive Sensors “Bedeviled by Electromagnetic Interference from Overhead Trolley Lines” per NYT

Wednesday, December 26th, 2012

Instead of the SFMTA MUNI DPT SFPark happy talk what you’ve been getting from the San Francisco Examiner, why not check out what the New York Times has to say about San Francisco’s expensive SFPark new parking meter program.

“PLACE “smart” in front of a noun and you immediately have something that somehow sounds improved.”

Heh.

Click to expand

The SF Examiner Gets Lots of Ad Money from the SFMTA – The SF Examiner Now Hearts the SFMTA – Connection?

Thursday, December 20th, 2012

Never have I seen such a one-sided newspaper article having anything to do with the SFMTA / MUNI / DPT.

Check it:

SFpark hourly meters actually save motorists money

But actually, SFPark hourly meters cost motorists money.

Oh well.

Guess which side of this street has brand new parking meters and which side doesn’t. (Yeah, I know it looks like street cleaning day, but it’s not.)

Click to expand

Hey, doesn’t the Examiner run a bunch of ads from the SFMTA saying boosterish stuff like here comes the Central Subway?

Mmmm…

And hey UCLA professor Donald Shoup! Is this kind of thing what you call “responsible parking management?”

What the SFMTA likes to do is spend as much money as it possibly can.

Right?

Mmmm…

And didn’t “motorists” pay the vast vast bulk of the $20,000,000.00 or so that was spent to start SFPark and pay for its concomitant website filled with SFMTA spin?

Yes.

So how does that “save” motorists money?

Mmmm…

 

Unbiased Report Concludes That CA State Film Credit Program Benefits are Exaggerated – What About SF’s?

Tuesday, June 26th, 2012

Does the “Scene in San Francisco” program work? I’m sure it does for some people, but does it succeed overall, you know, for the Commonweal?

No.

It’s the same deal with the CA state film subsidy program, which was recently looked at by the CA State Legislative Analyst’s Office.

See below.

Did San Francisco subsidize the horrible NBC non-hit show Trauma? Yes. Should it have? No. 

Click to expand

All the deets:

Net Credit Benefit Likely Much Less Than Reported.

We have discussed five issues that could affect the results of the LAEDC and/or UCLA-IRLE studies:

 Unknown assumptions embedded in the LAEDC economic models and their failure to consider the benefits of alternative public or private uses of tax credit funds (which could result in the credit program having significantly less net benefit than shown in the studies).

 In-state film activity that would occur in California without any tax credit (which results in the credit program having less economic and tax net benefits than shown in the LAEDC study).

 In-state economic and employment activity resulting from out-of-state productions (which results in the credit program having less net benefit than shown in the studies).

 Crowding out effects (which result in the credit program having less net benefit than shown in the studies in at least some years).

 Effects of film-related tourism (which would likely not result in significant changes in net benefits in most years).

While the total effects of these issues are impossible to quantify, their combined effects are likely to be negative in any given fiscal year—that is, resulting in the net benefit of the credit program being less than shown in both the LAEDC and UCLA-IRLE studies.

Given the conclusion that the net benefit of the credit program is likely less than shown in the LAEDC study, the LAEDC’s finding that the output-to-credit ratio was about 20-to-1 is likely overstated, as is its estimate of job gains resulting from the credit program. Moreover, given that UCLA-IRLE adjusted downward to $1.04 the projected state and local tax revenue return from every credit dollar and given that we find that this also was overstated, we believe it is likely that the state and local tax revenue return would be under $1.00 for every tax credit dollar—perhaps well under $1.00 for every tax credit dollar in many years.

In any event, even if the combined state and local tax revenue return is right around $1.00 for every tax credit dollar, the state government’s tax revenue return would by definition be less than $1.00 for every tax credit dollar. The credit program, therefore, appears to result in a net decline in state revenues.”

Burn: New UCLA Study Concludes California High Speed Rail Offers No Net Economic Benefits – “Simply Moving Jobs Around”

Friday, June 22nd, 2012

Well this one is hot off the presses of the UCLA Anderson Forecast:

California High-Speed Rail and Economic Lessons from Japan

Jerry Nickelsburg
Senior Economist
UCLA Anderson Forecast

Saurabh Ahluwalia
Anderson School of Management
UCLA

June 2012

Here’s the start and the end – you’ll have to click above to read the whole thing.

“California High Speed Rail (CHSRL) is once
again in the news as the governor and state legislature
take up the issuance of construction bonds approved
by the voter passage of Proposition 1A of 2008.
Under “project vision and scope” on the CHRSL Authority
website are listed three categories of benefits:
economic, environmental and community.

In this article we focus on the economic benefits.
Specifically we look at economic growth and,
by implication, job creation. That is to say, we are
examining the benefit side of the equation and leaving
the cost side to other analysis.

Though CHSR Authority has developed and vetted a forecasting
model and has commissioned a number of economic
impact studies, these rely on relatively strong, though
perhaps plausible, assumptions. As an alternative,
we examine an actual case of high speed rail, one that
has been widely deemed a success, for evidence of
the magnitude of benefits measured by induced GDP
growth that one can expect from the building and
operation of CHSR over the next 40 years.
Our study of the Japanese Shinkansen system
from 1964 to present fails to provide evidence of
induced aggregate growth.

Rather, the evidence suggests high-speed
rail simply moves jobs around the
geography without creating significant new
employment or economic activity. That is not to say that
CHSR is not justified by population growth, pollution
abatement, or other factors. However, the evidence
from Japan is relatively clear. As an engine of
economic growth in and of itself, CHSR will have only a
marginal impact at best.

Governor Brown claims CHSR to be a visionary
project along the lines of the U.S. Interstate Highway
System, The California Central Water Project, and
the Panama and Suez Canals. As with these projects,
Governor Brown claims HSR will result in job
creation, economic development, particularly in the
Central Valley, the accommodation of population
growth and a cleaner environment.
The California High Speed Rail Authority
(CHSRA) has a set of studies demonstrating a sufficient
benefit cost analysis, a business plan that claims
operating costs will be covered by setting prices at
the currently charged airline prices for travel between
Los Angeles and the Bay Area.

The principal economic benefits cited by the CHSR Authority are the
creation of 100,000 construction jobs for the duration
of the project, operation and maintenance jobs for
the running of the trains, and the creation of 450,000
jobs and faster economic growth as a benefit of the
existence of the rail lines.

But, critics of the business plan abound. The
Board of Supervisors from both Tulare and Kern
Counties, counties who would presumably benefit
from the increased connectivity and economic growth
potential of CHSR voted their opposition to the program
as “currently constituted.

Moreover, questions have been raised about construction costs and timing,
environmental impact, operating costs and ridership
forecasts.

The State Legislative Analyst’s Office,
while not taking a position on the desirability of
CHSR, has critiqued the decision making process and
the quality of information available for legislators to
properly evaluate the issue.

 

 

Conclusions
In this study we have looked for, and failed to
find evidence of economic development that could
be clearly identified with the introduction or
operation of high-speed rail in Japan. This is surprising
because, at least for the Tokaido Line, conditions
were ripe for economic development. To be sure the
prefectures along the Tokaido Line grew. The late
60s and early 70s were a period of transformation and
growth throughout Japan. But the data don’t admit a
clear story that high-speed rail was in and of itself a
differentiating contributor.

Is it possible that absent high-speed rail Kanagawa
Prefecture would have grown more slowly? That
is an experiment that can never be performed. But
when we keep in mind that Japan’s growth in the 60s
and 70s were due to exports of goods and Kanagawa’s
main city, Yokahama, is a major port city for the
Tokyo area, it is easy to conclude that the economic
growth would have occurred with existing low speed
rail and truck transport.

The lessons for California are two-fold.

First, high-speed rail tends to create sprawl as it lowers
the cost for commuters and makes more far-flung
locations possible bedroom communities. This may
be considered a benefit by some and a detriment by
others.

Second, the claims that a multiplier effect (or
economic development effect) of 450,000 jobs as a
result of the introduction and operation of CHSR are
not likely to be realized. There may be good reasons
to invest in CHSR including the possibility that
CHSR is the optimal infrastructure investment for a
growing population; but the economic argument, the
jobs argument, does not seem to stand on very solid
ground.

Don’t Forget, the KRAFT Fight Hunger Bowl is Almost Here – Tickets Still Available for December 31st Game

Wednesday, December 28th, 2011

There’s was some news conference yesterday that nobody told me about so oh well.

But find out all about it after the jump.

Now, which squad do you think will win on Saturday? The Bruins…

…or the Illini?

 

It’s like $25 for a cheap seat – you can afford that, right?

See you there!

(more…)

Google Offers Offers KRAFT Fight Hunger Bowl Tickets for Just $36! UCLA Bruins vs. the Illinois Fighting Illini at the AT&T

Tuesday, December 20th, 2011

Google Offers San Francisco is a-offering this deal for the next few days:

All the deets, after the jump.

(more…)

UC President Mark Yudof Throws Down: Delivers “Baker’s Dozen Myths on Higher Ed” at Cal Chamber of Commerce in SF

Tuesday, December 6th, 2011

Let’s catch up with University of California President Mark Yudof:

“On Dec. 2, UC President Mark Yudof spoke to the California Chamber of Commerce Board in San Francisco regarding misconceptions about the University of California.”

(Well, that’s the belly of the beast, that’s the Fortress of Reaction right there. Mmmm.)

Anyway, here’s his myth #8, to get you started:

“#8: Only the wealthy can afford to attend UC.

Nothing belies this myth more than the incredible socioeconomic diversity of UC students.

About 40 percent of all UC undergraduates receive Pell grants. Pell grant recipients come from families with an annual household income of $50,000 or less.

To contextualize this percentage, consider this: Four of our campuses — Berkeley, Davis, UCLA and San Diego — each enroll more Pell grant recipients than the entire Ivy League combined.”

O.K. then.

Remembering the time when TIME Magazine caught Mr. Yudof rolling up his sleeves:

Here it is:

” President: ‘Baker’s Dozen Myths on Higher Ed’
  2011-12-05

On Dec. 2, UC President Mark Yudof spoke to the California Chamber of Commerce Board in San Francisco regarding misconceptions about the University of California. The following are his prepared remarks.

“A Baker’s Dozen Myths about Higher Education”

Thank you. It’s a pleasure for me to be here this morning, and to see so many familiar faces.

You know, Mark Twain once said, “Predictions are very hard to make — especially when they deal with the future.”

Unpredictability shapes the job of every university president. And as everyone here knows, much has happened at the University of California in the last few weeks. I’d be happy to answer any questions you have about recent events during our Q&A.

Now, with apologies to David Letterman, I’ve come here today with a list. Unfortunately, it’s not very funny.

It’s a list of 13 myths about higher education.

(I should add that because I’m a big fan of Wallace Stevens, I almost called this speech “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a University.” But in deference to the language of commerce, I settled on “A Baker’s Dozen Myths about Higher Education.”)

These are the myths driving the grand narrative about universities — the grand narrative that says students are being priced out of universities like UC, while funding instead goes to new facilities or administrator salaries. So today, I’m here to dispel these myths.

#1: The cost of producing UC degrees and credit hours has gone up over the last decade.

I hear this myth all the time. And it’s frustrating, because this cost has actually dropped by more than 15 percent, in constant dollars, since the 1990s.

This cost has dropped in part due to a broad range of systemwide efficiencies: common IT systems; reduced employee travel; thousands of unfilled faculty and staff positions; one-third fewer employees at the UC Office of the President; a higher student-faculty ratio, and so on.

What has gone up, however, is the student contribution, or co-pay, to these degrees. At the same time, the state’s contribution per student has plummeted — by 60 percent in the last two decades.

To put this see-saw in perspective, UC students now cover roughly 46 percent of general fund support. But 20 years ago, their share hovered around 12 percent.

Now, sometimes I hear a variation on this myth, in the form of #2:

See the rest after the jump\

(more…)

It’s Official: It’ll be the UCLA Bruins vs. the Illinois Fighting Illini at the “KRAFT Fight Hunger Bowl” Dec 31 at AT&T Park

Monday, December 5th, 2011

See? This is the news that came out last night:

Get all the deets after the jump, but before that, see me try to puzzle out who would play from five days back:

The annual Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl (that new name is starting to sound normal to me already) is a coming to the Phone Booth on Saturday, December 31st, 2011.

Where else will you watch an NCAA bowl game in NorCal?

Get your tickets now

Oh, what’s that, you want to know who’s playing this year? Well, let’s look to the past:

2010 — Nevada 20, Boston College 13
2009 — USC 24, Boston College 13
2008 — California 24, Miami 17
2007 — Oregon State 21, Maryland 14
2006 — Florida State 44, UCLA 27
2005 — Utah 38, Georgia Tech 10
2004 — Navy 34, New Mexico 19
2003 — Boston College 35, Colorado State 21
2002 — Virginia Tech 20, Air Force 13

As you can see, sort of, there’s gotta be a Pac-12 team on the field – that’s current rule.

Here’s one stab at it:

“Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl 
December 31, 2011 San Francisco, CA, 3:30 pm ESPN 
Payout: $1.675 million
Pac-12 No. 6 vs. Army (WAC if Army not available)”

But it looks like their prediction has recently changed, based on this:

“Scout’s 2011 bowl prediction for the Illini has them heading out San Francisco to participate in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl. There, Scout predicts, the Illini would take on the UCLA Bruins, who would be 6-7 on the season and also likely minus its coach as well. Two teams with a combined record of 12-13 and without head coaches doesn’t exactly sound like the most appetizing match up, but such is one of the downsides of the current bowl system.”

So, as recently as yesterday, some people were thinking it could be this squad…

Click to expand

…versus this one, the crew from Illinois. (You know, they’re looking for men, as always.)

All right, see you there!

All right, all the deets after the jump

(more…)

OMG, the NCAA’s “KRAFT Fight Hunger Bowl” is Coming Dec. 31, 2011: Who Will Play at AT&T Park – UCLA, Illinois?

Tuesday, November 29th, 2011

[UPDATE: Or UCLA vs. Western Michigan...]

The annual Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl (that new name is starting to sound normal to me already) is a coming to the Phone Booth on Saturday, December 31st, 2011.

Where else will you watch an NCAA bowl game in NorCal?

Get your tickets now

Oh, what’s that, you want to know who’s playing this year? Well, let’s look to the past:

2010 — Nevada 20, Boston College 13
2009 — USC 24, Boston College 13
2008 — California 24, Miami 17
2007 — Oregon State 21, Maryland 14
2006 — Florida State 44, UCLA 27
2005 — Utah 38, Georgia Tech 10
2004 — Navy 34, New Mexico 19
2003 — Boston College 35, Colorado State 21
2002 — Virginia Tech 20, Air Force 13

As you can see, sort of, there’s gotta be a Pac-12 team on the field – that’s current rule.

Here’s one stab at it:

“Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl 
December 31, 2011 San Francisco, CA, 3:30 pm ESPN 
Payout: $1.675 million
Pac-12 No. 6 vs. Army (WAC if Army not available)”

But it looks like their prediction has recently changed, based on this:

“Scout’s 2011 bowl prediction for the Illini has them heading out San Francisco to participate in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl. There, Scout predicts, the Illini would take on the UCLA Bruins, who would be 6-7 on the season and also likely minus its coach as well. Two teams with a combined record of 12-13 and without head coaches doesn’t exactly sound like the most appetizing match up, but such is one of the downsides of the current bowl system.”

So, as recently as yesterday, some people were thinking it could be this squad…

Click to expand

…versus this one, the crew from Illinois. (You know, they’re looking for men, as always.)

All right, see you there!