Re: MTA Ridership is WAY UP
Brent P
> KTLA's top story at 6:30 is the sharp increase in ridership on MTA
> trains. They attribute the increase to high gasoline prices, citing
> one commuter who takes the subway even though he just purchased a
> fuel-efficient car.
>
> "The times they are a-changin'..."
Time for a fare increase and service cuts. That's how it's done in
chicago.
D. Stussy
news:ZfKdnVp09cdTF7nV...@comcast.com...
Unfortunately, the MTA is still lame when it comes to certain commutes.
Now, I'm self-employed and work at home. However, before that, I was an
employee, so here's a comparison of the commute:
Direct driving: 45 minutes average (30 minutes best time).
Via MTA: Almost 3 hours. 30 Minute walk to nearest bus stop on westside.
1 hour commute per bus schedule into downtown LA. 1 more hour to downtown
Long Beach per the Blue Line. 10 minutes for 4-block walk to office from
transit mall. That's 2:40 without regard to waiting for bus and train - 4+
wasted hours per day over direct driving. Leaving my place at 5:30am
couldn't guarentee that I'd get to work by 8am, and leaving work at 5pm, I'd
get home at 8pm at the earliest.
If I were still making that commute, driving would be the choice regardless
of cost (even $10.00/g gasoline). It would be the only way I could get a
decent night's sleep + food between two work days.
The real change that is needed is that MTA needs to have service that match
people's commutes in a way where it's actually competitive to driving.
In the 70's when I was in school, the MTA (formerly RTD) did have lines that
worked for my commute, and even though I did have to change busses twice,
the wait was usually only 10 minutes between them. However, then, it was 90
minutes on the bus vs. 60 minutes driving. I'm ignoring the RTD strike in
1976.
Brent P
> Direct driving: 45 minutes average (30 minutes best time).
> Via MTA: Almost 3 hours.
Sounds about right. Nearly every time I looked into transit as
alternative it took 3 times as long or more.
> It would be the only way I could get a
> decent night's sleep + food between two work days.
Sleep isn't allowed in the people's paradise comrade ;)
> The real change that is needed is that MTA needs to have service that match
> people's commutes in a way where it's actually competitive to driving.
I've been saying that about transit for years. In the chicago area they
just keep cutting service and raising fares and raising taxes. The
chi.general theory is that the CTA aims to have one train ride a year
that costs several million dollars per passenger or something like that
;)
Brent P
> Yes, there are a lot of people in your situation. Transit in this
> country has been allowed to atrophe very severely, so it takes a
> little conscious effort to make the lifestyle choices that will permit
> you to use transit. Look for more and more people to start making
> those choices in the coming months.
A little conscious effort? Transit is a two-ended choice, the employers
must also choose to locate in areas served by transit. Then it has to be
served reliably and via a line that goes some place where one is willing
to live. It takes more that a little decision to narrow ones self to
what may be a few employers. It could also mean a serious pay cut, more
than any commuting savings could compensate for.
>>The real change that is needed is that MTA needs to have service that match
>>people's commutes in a way where it's actually competitive to driving.
> That change will come.
In general, no, transit will not. It's government run, it does not
respond to customers.
> As ridership increases, there will be more
> money available and more demand for additional routes and expanded
> service.
I can't see that happening except in isolated cases. The system thrives
on tax dollars, not fares. Transit advocates and its leaders spend their
time cooking up ways to blackmail more tax dollars and make driving suck
more (as many are simply anti-car at heart). Improved service doesn't
seem to be on the agenda in most cases.
> As the transit system expands, it becomes more useful to more
> people; ridership increases; more money becomes available and
> additional demand drives more expansion; etc. etc. etc.
Such money comes from general taxes and taxes on driving. As the economy
and driving slows the money for transit projects will dry up.
> Already Metrolink in Orange Cuonty has announced plans to run trains
> every 30 minutes, 18 hours per day. That's going to be HUGE!! When I
> first started riding Metrolink, they didn't even have service on
> weekends in The OC. They've come a long way in just a few short years.
In the chicago area we've been slapped with additional sales tax, fare
increases and reduced service despite people in mass spending the last
dozen years arranging themselves to use the star shaped transit system.
Harry K
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 12:46:43 -0700, "D. Stussy" <s...@bde-arc.ampr.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:ZfKdnVp09cdTF7nV...@comcast.com...
> >> On 2008-05-09, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > KTLA's top story at 6:30 is the sharp increase in ridership on MTA
> >> > trains. They attribute the increase to high gasoline prices, citing
> >> > one commuter who takes the subway even though he just purchased a
> >> > fuel-efficient car.
>
> >> > "The times they are a-changin'..."
>
> >> Time for a fare increase and service cuts. That's how it's done in
> >> chicago.
>
> >Unfortunately, the MTA is still lame when it comes to certain commutes.
>
> >Now, I'm self-employed and work at home. However, before that, I was an
> >employee, so here's a comparison of the commute:
>
> >Direct driving: 45 minutes average (30 minutes best time).
> >Via MTA: Almost 3 hours.
>
> country has been allowed to atrophe very severely, so it takes a
> little conscious effort to make the lifestyle choices that will permit
> you to use transit. Look for more and more people to start making
> those choices in the coming months.
>
Adding to the problem is the 'urban spread'. While public transit has
atrophied, design of the cities makes it almost impossible to do any
'one-stop' shopping. I go to Spokane and have to visit several
different areas of the city to hit the shops I need to see and those
shops as scattered miles apart.
> >The real change that is needed is that MTA needs to have service that match
> >people's commutes in a way where it's actually competitive to driving.
>
> That change will come. As ridership increases, there will be more
> money available and more demand for additional routes and expanded
> service. As the transit system expands, it becomes more useful to more
> people; ridership increases; more money becomes available and
> additional demand drives more expansion; etc. etc. etc. We're
> witnessing the beginnings of that process right now. People like me
> who make conscious choices are the engine that drove the initial
> go-'round. Now a few people who are lucky enough to live within
> striking distance of transit purely by chance are starting to take
> advantage of the system. That will fuel additional growth and start
> the next round.
>
> Already Metrolink in Orange Cuonty has announced plans to run trains
> every 30 minutes, 18 hours per day. That's going to be HUGE!! When I
> first started riding Metrolink, they didn't even have service on
> weekends in The OC. They've come a long way in just a few short years.
That sounds like a tremendous improvement. I don't ever expect to see
US public transit come any close to being as good as European.
I have noticed a _great_ decline in the amount of traffic on the
highways. Used to be I had to pick an openening to pull out onto the
highway here. For the past month, I could almost pull out without
looking. Gas at 3.73 today, up a nickel from yesterday.
Harry K
Jack May
"Scott in SoCal" <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:53l824hg0ct064j3j...@4ax.com...
> KTLA's top story at 6:30 is the sharp increase in ridership on MTA
> trains. They attribute the increase to high gasoline prices, citing
> one commuter who takes the subway even though he just purchased a
> fuel-efficient car.
>
> "The times they are a-changin'..."
What a total piece of crap. Scott makes a statement and does not have a
single number to tell what he means by way up.
The Congressional Business Office release a study of the effects of gas
price increases on user choices in January 2008.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8893/01-14-GasolinePrices.pdf
"CBO analyzed monthly ridership totals for the municipal light-rail systems
in Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego and for the subway systems in Los
Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. (In order to combine the data from
different-sized transit systems into the same analysis, CBO expressed each
system's ridership as a percentage of its average in a baseline period."
"Adjusting for long-term ridership trends on each system, seasonal effects,
and inertia (the tendency for ridership totals to persist from one month to
the next), CBO estimates that the same increase of 20 percent in gasoline
prices that affects freeway traffic volume is associated with an increase of
1.9 percent in average system ridership."
Since rail transit in the US is about 1% or less of total commuter traffic,
that mean a 1.9% increase means a 1% of all traffic increases to 1.019% for
a 20% increase in gas prices. Not a major increase in rail transit usage
for all commuter travel and certainly not worth the tens of billions thrown
down the transit black hole in the US.
Jack May
"Harry K" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10b5a863-49f1-47cf...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
That is called technology evolution to meet the needs of people in the real
world. What do you want? Technology to stand still so that your very
ignorant view of transportation will remain unchanged for all of time?
> >The real change that is needed is that MTA needs to have service that
> >match
> >people's commutes in a way where it's actually competitive to driving.
>
> That change will come. As ridership increases, there will be more
> money available and more demand for additional routes and expanded
> service. As the transit system expands, it becomes more useful to more
> people; ridership increases; more money becomes available and
> additional demand drives more expansion; etc. etc. etc. We're
> witnessing the beginnings of that process right now. People like me
> who make conscious choices are the engine that drove the initial
> go-'round. Now a few people who are lucky enough to live within
> striking distance of transit purely by chance are starting to take
> advantage of the system. That will fuel additional growth and start
> the next round.
>
> Already Metrolink in Orange Cuonty has announced plans to run trains
> every 30 minutes, 18 hours per day. That's going to be HUGE!! When I
> first started riding Metrolink, they didn't even have service on
> weekends in The OC. They've come a long way in just a few short years.
>That sounds like a tremendous improvement. I don't ever expect to see
US public transit come any close to being as good as European.
Europe travel in England for example is 5% rail, 6% bus, the other 89% or so
is car. What exactly are you talking about when you claim European transit
is sum a major part of travel over there? What just adding more mythology
and lies.
Merritt Mullen
"Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Scott in SoCal" <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:53l824hg0ct064j3j...@4ax.com...
> > KTLA's top story at 6:30 is the sharp increase in ridership on MTA
> > trains. They attribute the increase to high gasoline prices, citing
> > one commuter who takes the subway even though he just purchased a
> > fuel-efficient car.
> >
> > "The times they are a-changin'..."
>
> What a total piece of crap. Scott makes a statement and does not have a
> single number to tell what he means by way up.
What do they call people who are out of touch with reality? Oh yeah,
"crazy." Better take your pills, Jack.
Merrit
Eeyore
Scott in SoCal wrote:
> KTLA's top story at 6:30 is the sharp increase in ridership on MTA
> trains. They attribute the increase to high gasoline prices, citing
> one commuter who takes the subway even though he just purchased a
> fuel-efficient car.
>
> "The times they are a-changin'..."
How busy do your commuter trains get ? I doubt you guys would tolerate
the overcrowding we have here in the UK. At peak times unless you're
getting on wherever the train departs from, it's going to be a struggle
to find a seat.
I personally think it's a disgrace that so many people are standing on
trains that may be doing 90+ mph.
Graham
Eeyore
Brent P wrote:
Here in St Albans UK, some years ago, the trains to London were getting
so overcrowded from passengers joining trains here that they reduced the
ticket price from another station further out from London so as to
encourage people to drive a longer distance to catch trains there instead
with more seats available. So actually they were encouraging people to
use their cars.
Just how crazy is that ?
Graham
Brent P
Sounds like government at work to me.
Bolwerk
> On 2008-05-10, Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, there are a lot of people in your situation. Transit in this
>> country has been allowed to atrophe very severely, so it takes a
>> little conscious effort to make the lifestyle choices that will permit
>> you to use transit. Look for more and more people to start making
>> those choices in the coming months.
>
> A little conscious effort? Transit is a two-ended choice, the employers
> must also choose to locate in areas served by transit. Then it has to be
> served reliably and via a line that goes some place where one is willing
> to live. It takes more that a little decision to narrow ones self to
> what may be a few employers. It could also mean a serious pay cut, more
> than any commuting savings could compensate for.
>
>>> The real change that is needed is that MTA needs to have service that match
>>> people's commutes in a way where it's actually competitive to driving.
>
>> That change will come.
>
> In general, no, transit will not. It's government run, it does not
> respond to customers.
Other than rail freight and passenger airlines, the latter certainly
heavily subsidized, what transportation system isn't run partly or in
whole by the government?
>> As ridership increases, there will be more
>> money available and more demand for additional routes and expanded
>> service.
>
> I can't see that happening except in isolated cases. The system thrives
> on tax dollars, not fares. Transit advocates and its leaders spend their
> time cooking up ways to blackmail more tax dollars and make driving suck
> more (as many are simply anti-car at heart). Improved service doesn't
> seem to be on the agenda in most cases.
>
>> As the transit system expands, it becomes more useful to more
>> people; ridership increases; more money becomes available and
>> additional demand drives more expansion; etc. etc. etc.
>
> Such money comes from general taxes and taxes on driving. As the economy
> and driving slows the money for transit projects will dry up.
That's nonsense. Transit may sometimes be paid for by fees paid by
drivers (such as a toll at a specific point), but the road system isn't
anymore self-sufficient funding-wise than a typical transit system.
Bolwerk
Maybe that "rare disease" he mentioned having has an effect on his brain.
Brent P
>> In general, no, transit will not. It's government run, it does not
>> respond to customers.
> Other than rail freight and passenger airlines, the latter certainly
> heavily subsidized, what transportation system isn't run partly or in
> whole by the government?
Transit, is run all the way down to routes and times. All the government
does in roads is road building.
>> Such money comes from general taxes and taxes on driving. As the economy
>> and driving slows the money for transit projects will dry up.
> That's nonsense.
It's the absolute fucking truth. Here in c(r)ook county IL the sales tax
was increased to pay for transit. That's in addition to the funds they
get from general taxes from the state, county, and city of chicago.
> Transit may sometimes be paid for by fees paid by
> drivers (such as a toll at a specific point), but the road system isn't
> anymore self-sufficient funding-wise than a typical transit system.
Dead wrong. The road system's monies are used for other purposes
consistantly. Everything from transit and bike paths to police state
activities like checkpoints. Raiding the road funds is a time honored
practice in government. Yet, despite all the pilfering the roads haven't
completely turned to dust. This means the taxes paid for roads far
exceed what is actually spent on them.
Greg Gritton
>>
> Dead wrong. The road system's monies are used for other purposes
> consistantly. Everything from transit and bike paths to police state
> activities like checkpoints. Raiding the road funds is a time honored
> practice in government. Yet, despite all the pilfering the roads
> haven't completely turned to dust. This means the taxes paid for roads
> far exceed what is actually spent on them.
>
Yes, but roads are also supported by property taxes, generally
to a far greater extent that gasoline tax supports other uses.
So, the end resuult is that far less road taxes (gasoline taxes
and vehicle registration) are collected than the amount necessary
to fund the roads, even if no money were dirverted.
Highways alone sometimes run a profit, if you count all of
the road taxes as exclusively going to them, although gasoline
taxes have fallen so much in real terms that this isn't even true anymore.
Of course, once you start to start counting environmental
and political consequences of oil you are deeply down the drain.
Would we really be in Iraq if it wasn't for oil? There is a trillion
dollars right there.
Greg Gritton
Brent P
> Hello Brent,
>
>>>
>> Dead wrong. The road system's monies are used for other purposes
>> consistantly. Everything from transit and bike paths to police state
>> activities like checkpoints. Raiding the road funds is a time honored
>> practice in government. Yet, despite all the pilfering the roads
>> haven't completely turned to dust. This means the taxes paid for roads
>> far exceed what is actually spent on them.
>>
>
> Yes, but roads are also supported by property taxes, generally
> to a far greater extent that gasoline tax supports other uses.
Again, no. Gasoline taxes and their diversions are much more than the
property tax portion used for the localist of roads. One federally
funded checkpoint could bring more revenue to a town's PD than property
taxes paid for the road.
> So, the end resuult is that far less road taxes (gasoline taxes
> and vehicle registration) are collected than the amount necessary
> to fund the roads, even if no money were dirverted.
I'm sorry, that just doesn't add up. You'll need cites.
> Highways alone sometimes run a profit, if you count all of
> the road taxes as exclusively going to them, although gasoline
> taxes have fallen so much in real terms that this isn't even true anymore.
Um, that's why those taxes were past, for the roads.
> Of course, once you start to start counting environmental
> and political consequences of oil you are deeply down the drain.
> Would we really be in Iraq if it wasn't for oil? There is a trillion
> dollars right there.
The reason for meddling in Iraq is the same as it has been since before
gulf war one, to keep Iraq's oil off the market. The US government does
what is best for the corporations, special interests, and wealthy
individuals that fund those in office, not what is best for the nation.
Transit will not work in its present form in the US. Trying to get
people to use a broken system by making alternatives suck more has never
been a winning way to go about something. Transit advocates should root
out those who concentrate on penalizing driving and actually make
transit better. As it stands right now, I can make equal or better time
on my bicycle than by transit even if transit when where I needed it to
go. My bicycle is a lot more flexible. Hence, you could make gasoline a
$100,000 a gallon, it doesn't make transit usable.
Bolwerk
> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>
>>> In general, no, transit will not. It's government run, it does not
>>> respond to customers.
>
>> Other than rail freight and passenger airlines, the latter certainly
>> heavily subsidized, what transportation system isn't run partly or in
>> whole by the government?
>
> Transit, is run all the way down to routes and times. All the government
> does in roads is road building.
>
>>> Such money comes from general taxes and taxes on driving. As the economy
>>> and driving slows the money for transit projects will dry up.
>
>> That's nonsense.
>
> It's the absolute fucking truth. Here in c(r)ook county IL the sales tax
> was increased to pay for transit. That's in addition to the funds they
> get from general taxes from the state, county, and city of chicago.
That seems more sensible and stable than a general appropriation. At
least then there's a dedicated, consistent funding source. Of course, I
get the impression Chicago isn't exactly fiscally responsible with
*anything*.
>> Transit may sometimes be paid for by fees paid by
>> drivers (such as a toll at a specific point), but the road system isn't
>> anymore self-sufficient funding-wise than a typical transit system.
>
> Dead wrong. The road system's monies are used for other purposes
> consistantly. Everything from transit and bike paths to police state
> activities like checkpoints. Raiding the road funds is a time honored
> practice in government. Yet, despite all the pilfering the roads haven't
> completely turned to dust. This means the taxes paid for roads far
> exceed what is actually spent on them.
If politicians play games with money, wow, shocking. But that doesn't
mean the funds alone would cover the expenditure.
Maybe at one time gas tax revenue did cover the expenditure. Anyway,
that's simply not true anymore, if it ever was. Roads haven't turned to
dust because they are paid for out of some combination of general
appropriations, local sales taxes, local property taxes, tolls, and gas
taxes - obviously varying by state and route.
Eeyore
Scott in SoCal wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> >How busy do your commuter trains get ?
>
> Not standing-room-only, at least as far as I have seen.
Thank goodness for that.
> Although
> occasionally I have seen sardine-can conditions on the shuttle bus
> when there has been some sort of service disruption on the trains and
> two trains' worth of riders end up sharing a single shuttle, but
> that's rare.
>
> >I doubt you guys would tolerate
> >the overcrowding we have here in the UK. At peak times unless you're
> >getting on wherever the train departs from, it's going to be a struggle
> >to find a seat.
>
> So what's stopping them from adding more cars to each train and/or
> adding more trains?
Several things. Some of the stations don't have long enough platforms for
longer trains, there's a shortage of suitable rolling stock of the right
type and a busy junction on the line prevents more frequent services.
Point one is apparently not fixable because of the historic sites of these
stations but there's no real excuse for not having enough rolling stock,
aside from the fact that in a capitalist economy, whatever doesn't have a
suitably immediatly profitable economic return simply doesn't get done and
as for that junction (and bridge) it's apparently being dealt with but a
long time later than originally planned ( the scheme was orignally called
Thameslink 2000 !).
Graham
Brent P
> As I said, it's a process. It took us more than 75 years to construct
> the suburban sprawl congestion gridlocked nightmare that we currently
> inhabit; it's going to take some time to reverse all that damage, as
> well.
transit will not serve it. Things may become more walking and biking
friendly, but government will not build transit correctly except by dumb
luck as its demonstrated track record shows.
>>In general, no, transit will not.
> Always the pessimist. I gave you an example in my previous post where
> this positive change IS occurring.
Your exception to the rule seems to be a small gain. mostly you get
things like the DC street cars and various trains people don't ride.
>>I can't see that happening except in isolated cases. The system thrives
>>on tax dollars, not fares.
> It does that now because it has to. Yet there was a time in this
> country when passenger rail was profitable and took ZERO subsidies.
*was*
> The pendulum can swing back that way again; all it will take are the
> right conditions (such as high gasoline prices and endless, miserable
> gridlock on the roads).
Government owns transit now, private services will not be allowed,
government has that power and isn't likely to give it up. I suppose with
the right bribes, maybe a private company could get started.
>>> As the transit system expands, it becomes more useful to more
>>> people; ridership increases; more money becomes available and
>>> additional demand drives more expansion; etc. etc. etc.
>>Such money comes from general taxes and taxes on driving.
> So your assertion is that increased ridership will *not* generate
> increased farebox revenues?
Transit isn't motivated to increase farebox revenues with more
riders. It's far easier to use the political process. This is true about
a lot of things which is why the country is so f'd up in so many ways.
Brent P
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>>
>>>> In general, no, transit will not. It's government run, it does not
>>>> respond to customers.
>>
>>> Other than rail freight and passenger airlines, the latter certainly
>>> heavily subsidized, what transportation system isn't run partly or in
>>> whole by the government?
>>
>> Transit, is run all the way down to routes and times. All the government
>> does in roads is road building.
>>
>>>> Such money comes from general taxes and taxes on driving. As the economy
>>>> and driving slows the money for transit projects will dry up.
>>
>>> That's nonsense.
>>
>> It's the absolute fucking truth. Here in c(r)ook county IL the sales tax
>> was increased to pay for transit. That's in addition to the funds they
>> get from general taxes from the state, county, and city of chicago.
>
> That seems more sensible and stable than a general appropriation. At
> least then there's a dedicated, consistent funding source. Of course, I
> get the impression Chicago isn't exactly fiscally responsible with
> *anything*.
It's stealing plain and simple.
>>> Transit may sometimes be paid for by fees paid by
>>> drivers (such as a toll at a specific point), but the road system isn't
>>> anymore self-sufficient funding-wise than a typical transit system.
>> Dead wrong. The road system's monies are used for other purposes
>> consistantly. Everything from transit and bike paths to police state
>> activities like checkpoints. Raiding the road funds is a time honored
>> practice in government. Yet, despite all the pilfering the roads haven't
>> completely turned to dust. This means the taxes paid for roads far
>> exceed what is actually spent on them.
> If politicians play games with money, wow, shocking. But that doesn't
> mean the funds alone would cover the expenditure.
Well, then dig out a cite, because the road funds always have money to
take for other purposes.
> Maybe at one time gas tax revenue did cover the expenditure. Anyway,
> that's simply not true anymore, if it ever was. Roads haven't turned to
> dust because they are paid for out of some combination of general
> appropriations, local sales taxes, local property taxes, tolls, and gas
> taxes - obviously varying by state and route.
It's simple math. There is X tax money collected for roads. A
portion of X is used for other things, call this Y. X-Y is what is spent
on the roads. No other funds are diverted to roads, the taxes collected
explictly for roads are used on roads and a whole host of other things.
The game works like this... people expect roads, so the government
diverts the road money to the things it wants. Then it goes to the
people and says 'there is no money for the roads we need to increase the
taxes'. That's how it works. Money from other funds does not go to road
building, only those taxes specific to the roads. Some are to the
drivers, some are more general like on property taxes, but each is set
for road use like the sales tax increase here in c(r)ook county is set
for transit use.
Bolwerk
> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In general, no, transit will not. It's government run, it does not
>>>>> respond to customers.
>>>> Other than rail freight and passenger airlines, the latter certainly
>>>> heavily subsidized, what transportation system isn't run partly or in
>>>> whole by the government?
>>> Transit, is run all the way down to routes and times. All the government
>>> does in roads is road building.
>>>
>>>>> Such money comes from general taxes and taxes on driving. As the economy
>>>>> and driving slows the money for transit projects will dry up.
>>>> That's nonsense.
>>> It's the absolute fucking truth. Here in c(r)ook county IL the sales tax
>>> was increased to pay for transit. That's in addition to the funds they
>>> get from general taxes from the state, county, and city of chicago.
>> That seems more sensible and stable than a general appropriation. At
>> least then there's a dedicated, consistent funding source. Of course, I
>> get the impression Chicago isn't exactly fiscally responsible with
>> *anything*.
>
> It's stealing plain and simple.
Then so is highway funding. Or, uh, any taxes.
Okay, I can go with that!
>>>> Transit may sometimes be paid for by fees paid by
>>>> drivers (such as a toll at a specific point), but the road system isn't
>>>> anymore self-sufficient funding-wise than a typical transit system.
>
>>> Dead wrong. The road system's monies are used for other purposes
>>> consistantly. Everything from transit and bike paths to police state
>>> activities like checkpoints. Raiding the road funds is a time honored
>>> practice in government. Yet, despite all the pilfering the roads haven't
>>> completely turned to dust. This means the taxes paid for roads far
>>> exceed what is actually spent on them.
>
>> If politicians play games with money, wow, shocking. But that doesn't
>> mean the funds alone would cover the expenditure.
>
> Well, then dig out a cite, because the road funds always have money to
> take for other purposes.
>
>> Maybe at one time gas tax revenue did cover the expenditure. Anyway,
>> that's simply not true anymore, if it ever was. Roads haven't turned to
>> dust because they are paid for out of some combination of general
>> appropriations, local sales taxes, local property taxes, tolls, and gas
>> taxes - obviously varying by state and route.
>
> It's simple math. There is X tax money collected for roads. A
> portion of X is used for other things, call this Y. X-Y is what is spent
> on the roads. No other funds are diverted to roads, the taxes collected
> explictly for roads are used on roads and a whole host of other things.
Yes, very simple math.
> The game works like this... people expect roads, so the government
> diverts the road money to the things it wants. Then it goes to the
> people and says 'there is no money for the roads we need to increase the
> taxes'. That's how it works. Money from other funds does not go to road
> building, only those taxes specific to the roads. Some are to the
> drivers, some are more general like on property taxes, but each is set
> for road use like the sales tax increase here in c(r)ook county is set
> for transit use.
Okay, that theory is easy to test.
In 2003, $9.1 billion of federal/state/local road taxes went to
"general" purposes. An additional $11.8 billion was spent on transit.
That's out of $103.4 billion (that's X above) in combined federal,
state, and local tolls, gas taxes, and vehicle taxes.
Even if 100% of that were used on the road system, that wouldn't cover
the $139.2 billion expenditure (that's Y above) on highways for that
year. So, factor in the difference, the best you can argue is roads
were subsidized to a tune of $35.8 billion in 2003.
So, in 2003, X - Y ~= -$35.8 billion
If no other funds are diverted to roads, the highway transportation
system must have one hell of a piggy bank.
James Robinson
>
> Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>>
>> Transit may sometimes be paid for by fees paid by
>> drivers (such as a toll at a specific point), but the road system
>> isn't anymore self-sufficient funding-wise than a typical transit
>> system.
>
> Dead wrong. The road system's monies are used for other purposes
> consistantly. Everything from transit and bike paths to police state
> activities like checkpoints. Raiding the road funds is a time honored
> practice in government. Yet, despite all the pilfering the roads
> haven't completely turned to dust. This means the taxes paid for roads
> far exceed what is actually spent on them.
Dead wrong. It's a shell game with the money, with money flowing in many
directions both into and out of road funds. When it all settles out, the
road user fees only pay less than 2/3 of the cost, with the rest made up
from the general fund and other sources.
Here is a link to a summary of the sources and expenditures of road-
related funds:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hf10a.htm
Missing from the above analysis is the fact that the total money in the
Highway Trust Fund, which is used for capital investment, is shrinking,
meaning that there is a shortfall in the fund that will eventually have
to be made up by either significantly raising user fees, or pulling more
money from other accounts. Politicians who promise no increases in taxes
are only making the problem worse by passing it on to their successors.
Stephen Sprunk
news:SJ-dnU6rwqQ5MLjV...@comcast.com...
> On 2008-05-10, Greg Gritton <grittonNO...@AMcomcast.net> wrote:
>> Yes, but roads are also supported by property taxes, generally
>> to a far greater extent that gasoline tax supports other uses.
>
> Again, no. Gasoline taxes and their diversions are much more than the
> property tax portion used for the localist of roads. One federally
> funded checkpoint could bring more revenue to a town's PD than property
> taxes paid for the road.
"Much more"? Gas taxes and tolls fund only 55% of road spending nationwide
according to the FHWA; the other 45% comes from other sources, e.g.
property, sales, and income taxes. A 10% difference is not "much more".
There are transit systems that manage to get better than 55% fare recovery.
Heck, even Amtrak manages to do better than that...
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Brent P
In this case it is directly stealing. People are taxed, stolen from
using government as the weapon to provide for other people. At least
with roads, the taxation scheme means that what taxes not paid by
drivers are for the localist of roads, the ones that non-drivers also
benefit from. Even if you do not drive, it's handy to have a road near
your property.
> Yes, very simple math.
It's real nice when you can pull numbers out of your ass and use
creative interpetations. Not to mention not citing anything so that your
little hocus-pocus cannot be revealed.
Anyway.... Here's where you probably went wrong, on purpose:
1) You included various most local road costs but did not include the
revenues on the most local roads from property taxes. It is a typical
thing to only include per gallon gasoline taxes (usually fuel taxes
are layered with different names) and maybe registration.
2) Toll road costs were included but not toll revenues.
3) Bond issues were counted as spending all in the year of the project.
Basically your 'math' lowers the revenues and increases the costs.
The fact of the matter is, if roads sucked money from the general fund
instead of being sucked from, the government would just spend the
general funds on transit, bike trails, police checkpoints, and other
nonsense because the general funds don't require jumping through the
hoops to spend on whatever they want to spend them on. The road taxes
require new legislation to divert. It's a higher resistance path. They
have to work to unlock a specifically set up pile of money. If more was
spent on roads that what was collected for them, there would be no pile
of money to unlock. Therefore, the only reason roads could look like
they are taking from general fund is by a creative presentation.
Brent P
> Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>>>
>>> Transit may sometimes be paid for by fees paid by
>>> drivers (such as a toll at a specific point), but the road system
>>> isn't anymore self-sufficient funding-wise than a typical transit
>>> system.
>>
>> Dead wrong. The road system's monies are used for other purposes
>> consistantly. Everything from transit and bike paths to police state
>> activities like checkpoints. Raiding the road funds is a time honored
>> practice in government. Yet, despite all the pilfering the roads
>> haven't completely turned to dust. This means the taxes paid for roads
>> far exceed what is actually spent on them.
> Dead wrong. It's a shell game with the money, with money flowing in many
> directions both into and out of road funds. When it all settles out, the
> road user fees only pay less than 2/3 of the cost, with the rest made up
> from the general fund and other sources.
And there you expose your creative and dishonest presentation. You limit
income to 'user fees'. Which is not what I was arguing. For instance,
the portion of property taxes that goes for the local roads is not a
'user fee'. Nice slight of hand, but that's all your argument is, slight
of hand. The fact remains, the road taxes would not be sucked from for
transit if all that meant was replacing those funds or more from the
general fund. It's even too idiotic for government because government
has more freedom with the general funds.
> Here is a link to a summary of the sources and expenditures of road-
> related funds:
> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hf10a.htm
As I expected, when citing something your slight of hand is exposed. On
the local level, property taxes make up the vast bulk of the general
fund. You'll note that the vast majority (as in nearly all of it) of
general fund expenses are on the local level. Local governments do it
this way for flexibility. Subtract the $16 billion in local government
general funds and you have a net sucking, thing is that $16 billion was
always for the roads anyway. For snow removal, pot hole repair, police,
fire, etc and so forth. The 'property tax and assements' line is
apparently for taxes for specific projects as some areas do. If they
redo the road on your street, everyone on that street gets taxed for it,
but not the next street over.
Also, the giant sucking of funds for transit, police state, etc is on
the federal and state level from the 'user fees', which then forces the
local governments to come up with more money than they otherwise would
have had to.
Your cite proves my point. The roads are big pot of money that gets
diverted with the local roads being paid for with property tax revenue.
> Missing from the above analysis is the fact that the total money in the
> Highway Trust Fund, which is used for capital investment, is shrinking,
> meaning that there is a shortfall in the fund that will eventually have
> to be made up by either significantly raising user fees, or pulling more
> money from other accounts. Politicians who promise no increases in taxes
> are only making the problem worse by passing it on to their successors.
The welfare-warfare state will be bankrupt from entitlement programs and
war spending LONG before that problem rises beyond being a small blip.
Brent P
> "Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:SJ-dnU6rwqQ5MLjV...@comcast.com...
>> On 2008-05-10, Greg Gritton <grittonNO...@AMcomcast.net> wrote:
>>> Yes, but roads are also supported by property taxes, generally
>>> to a far greater extent that gasoline tax supports other uses.
>> Again, no. Gasoline taxes and their diversions are much more than the
>> property tax portion used for the localist of roads. One federally
>> funded checkpoint could bring more revenue to a town's PD than property
>> taxes paid for the road.
> "Much more"? Gas taxes and tolls fund only 55% of road spending nationwide
> according to the FHWA; the other 45% comes from other sources, e.g.
> property, sales, and income taxes. A 10% difference is not "much more".
> There are transit systems that manage to get better than 55% fare recovery.
> Heck, even Amtrak manages to do better than that...
It would be nice if you people wouldn't keep trying to change my
argument into what you want it to be. As per the cite given, 22 billion
dollars was diverted to transit and other uses while property taxes
specifically for roads was 7 billion. If you include the general fund
expenses on the local level, mostly property taxes anyway, it makes up
for the diversions of the 'user fees' on the state and federal level.
Again, if roads were sucking from the general fund, on the state and
federal level where the diversions are made, there wouldn't be the
diversions. It's difficult to do the diversions, laws have to be passed,
there is debate, etc. If the roads were a net suck, they would just
spend the general funds on transit, police state, bike trails, etc. It's
the path of least resistance. Obviously the general fund is depleted
which makes diversions from the road 'user fees' the path of least
resistance.
Simply put, if roads were sucking in other taxes like a black hole as
transit advocates like to make it seem, there would be no need to divert
gasoline taxes etc to transit. All it would take would be a general fund
appropiation and the roads could use their own user fees. Least
resistance.
Greg Gritton
> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote ...
I think there are two arguments that can and are being made,
both oppsite, but both true:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Roads do not pay their way in user fees
This is an economic argument that basically says that roads
are subsidized, and is true. For example, gasoline tax and registration
are generally considered user fees to use the roads. The gasoline
tax is the best, as the amount of tax you pay is roughly in proportion
to the amount you use and damage the roads. (Yes, it isn't
perfectly proportional, but isn't too bad.) Registration isn't proportional
to usage, but at least pays, directly, for the privledge of driving.
The total collected in gasoline tax and registration fees is significantly
less than the amount spent directly spent on road construction and
maintenance. The difference widens if you consider the fraction
of public services (the time of the police and fire departments, etc.)
that are indirectly devoted to roads. It widens further when you
consider the environmental costs of driving and the political costs
of oil consumption.
Thus, economically, driving is sigificantly underpriced, and is therefore
overused compared to what would be economically ideal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Road funding is diverted to other uses
This is a transparency argument. One expects that gasoline tax and
vehicle registration is spent on roads. Some areas have property taxes
designated to roads. One expects them to be spent on roads. Finally,
many areas have bond measures that are advertised as improving roads
and traffic.
But, the reality is that a good amount of the gasoline taxes, the money
spent on vehicle registration, the property taxes designated to roads,
and money from bond measures is spent on transit instead, and
some is even spent on non-transportation items. Thus, less is spent
on roads than people expect.
Finally, even when things are clear, there isn't always a choice.
For example, bond measures for transportation usually contain
funding for both roads and transit, making it impossible for one
to vote to fund roads [or transit] only.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, I think you are arguing past each other. Both arguments are true,
one says that roads don't pay their way, and the other says that not
as much money is spent on roads as the revenue that is collected for them.
But, the arguments are totally different, one is economic, while the other
is about honesty and transparency.
Sinerly,
Greg Gritton
Brent P
> This is an economic argument that basically says that roads
> are subsidized, and is true. For example, gasoline tax and registration
> are generally considered user fees to use the roads. The gasoline
> tax is the best, as the amount of tax you pay is roughly in proportion
> to the amount you use and damage the roads. (Yes, it isn't
> perfectly proportional, but isn't too bad.) Registration isn't proportional
> to usage, but at least pays, directly, for the privledge of driving.
> The total collected in gasoline tax and registration fees is significantly
> less than the amount spent directly spent on road construction and
> maintenance.
I have written exactly that, however, the 'gap' is in the most local of
roads. Which are the miles of winding light trafficed residential
streets and some arterials. These are largely covered in property taxes
just like the sidewalks. To say a person who doesn't drive does not
benefit from having a road near his property is just silly.
> The difference widens if you consider the fraction
> of public services (the time of the police and fire departments, etc.)
> that are indirectly devoted to roads.
Police departments pay for their road "services" by road side theft in
form of fines, tickets, property seizures, etc. Motorists are all
potentional victims of the police 'gang' in this respect. Then
there are the parking tickets and other fines that drivers face.
Even non-drivers can be fined for merely storing a car in their own
driveway. These revenues, in some small towns the main source of revenue
are not counted as 'user fees' but they are paid entirely by drivers.
> It widens further when you
> consider the environmental costs of driving and the political costs
> of oil consumption.
The 'costs' are only in taxes because of the US government's political
system that rewards those who can pay off the office holders. Remove the
government foreign policy and military subsidizes to big oil and let the
free market resume and these 'costs' will simply vanish. These 'costs'
are simply a transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to big oil.
If the US government would adopt the constitutional non-inteventionist
foreign policy and stopped using the military for big oil, the political
instability of the middle east would make that oil cost more to big oil.
We, the people, already pay the cost of the instability at the pump, but
the oil companies can pocket it because tax money is spent to
'stablize' the region. People are getting hit twice, from the taxman
and at the pump. Without the US government's actions big oil would just
have to use harder to extract oil in the americas and we would simply
just pay at the pump and probably less than we pay now as the free
market would break big oil's ability to manipulate supply like debeers
and dimonds.
> Thus, economically, driving is sigificantly underpriced, and is therefore
> overused compared to what would be economically ideal.
No it is not underpriced, some costs are hidden to drivers, and there is
an outright theft of wealth that is spread out to everyone if they drive
or not with 'oil' as the excuse. The hidden ones they don't realize they
are paying them until they quit driving. The others? Well that is the
political system we have now and it is the same for just about
everything. Oil, sugar, corn, banking, etc.... even the money itself are
all part of this theft game through government.
Bolwerk
Well, that's certainly very abundant with highway transportation
funds...used for highways in states where the money didn't come from.
But it's also no doubt at least as handy to have a transit line near
your property, whether you drive or not.
Anyway, since I don't really drive anymore, I guess I'm being robbed
pretty blind having to pay for roads other people use.
It's even nicer when the numbers I pulled out my ass are the numbers the
government pulled out of its ass, and my creativity is only as deep as
the government's accounting department on this. If you have better
numbers, I'd love to see them.
And, BTW, I'm really dealing with highway routes only it seems (though I
don't know how those are delineated from other road routes exactly).
But if you want to include the entire road system, be my guest. That
makes the whole thing even more subsidized.
> Anyway.... Here's where you probably went wrong, on purpose:
>
> 1) You included various most local road costs but did not include the
> revenues on the most local roads from property taxes. It is a typical
> thing to only include per gallon gasoline taxes (usually fuel taxes
> are layered with different names) and maybe registration.
I told you want I counted. Revenues from tolls, gasoline taxes, and
vehicle registration taxes - the FHA calls these highway user revenues.
Property taxes are a subsidy in addition to that (and yes, property
taxes are spent on the highway transportation system).
> 2) Toll road costs were included but not toll revenues.
Quite the opposite. Toll revenues were included, but I ignored the
administrative aspects of running a toll road (presumably, those would
be the same no matter where the money is going). Same for other
revenue sources. Apparently it costs billions of dollars to collect
these taxes/fees, which I ignored. But that doesn't help your argument
one bit.
You're confusing the number for funding source receipts with
expenditure. The point is expenditure on roads alone exceeds user
revenues.
> 3) Bond issues were counted as spending all in the year of the project.
That's sort of the point here, no? You count what it costs (Y), not
where the fund to pay the costs come from (X, in your jargon).
> Basically your 'math' lowers the revenues and increases the costs.
>
> The fact of the matter is, if roads sucked money from the general fund
> instead of being sucked from, the government would just spend the
> general funds on transit, bike trails, police checkpoints, and other
> nonsense because the general funds don't require jumping through the
> hoops to spend on whatever they want to spend them on. The road taxes
> require new legislation to divert. It's a higher resistance path. They
> have to work to unlock a specifically set up pile of money. If more was
> spent on roads that what was collected for them, there would be no pile
> of money to unlock. Therefore, the only reason roads could look like
> they are taking from general fund is by a creative presentation.
Now *that's* a creative presentation.
I don't necessarily agree with them, but there are all kinds of reasons
to use road money for non-road purposes that may even be kind of benign.
The availability of funding is a pretty good reason. Excess funds
available now can be used immediately, which could be cheaper than
issuing a bond and taking on additional debt. When the general revenue
comes in, the money can be paid back (or not).
Personally, I think funding mechanisms for this or that should be out in
the open, and generally as close to the source of the need as possible.
For instance, whatever can't be paid for with user taxes/fees on
highways should either be handled with upfront appropriation or
dedicated tax of some sort.
Matthew T. Russotto
Harry K <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Adding to the problem is the 'urban spread'. While public transit has
>atrophied, design of the cities makes it almost impossible to do any
>'one-stop' shopping. I go to Spokane and have to visit several
>different areas of the city to hit the shops I need to see and those
>shops as scattered miles apart.
Even if you have one-stop shopping, it doesn't help much because
you're limited to what you can lug onto the bus.
>I have noticed a _great_ decline in the amount of traffic on the
>highways. Used to be I had to pick an openening to pull out onto the
>highway here. For the past month, I could almost pull out without
>looking. Gas at 3.73 today, up a nickel from yesterday.
No change here (Philadelphia area). But then, this area didn't boom
quite as much, and isn't busting quite as hard.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Sounds about right. Nearly every time I looked into transit as
> alternative it took 3 times as long or more.
So you're saying your own personal experience is applicable to
everyone else?
I certainly hope not.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
What a total piece of crap.
As we expect from Jack May. Total crap.
Or are you gonna pull your Gausian Power Curve plagarism on us again?
(To those unfamilar, Mr. May tried to pawn off some technical study to
bolster one of his rants. It was clearly shown that all he did was
cut and paste some abstract, he was totally unable to explain the
abstract or relate it to the subject at hand. It turned out the
abstract had nothing to do with the subject, further, Mr. May knew
nothing about the subject either. Unless of course you believe in
cars that get 1,000 miles per gallon, which Mr. May tells us are just
around the corner.)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> Transit, is run all the way down to routes and times. All the government
> does in roads is road building.
Really? Who decides how long traffic light cycles are to be? The man
in the house at the corner? Who shovles snow off the roads and lights
them at night? Who is collecting the tolls?
Matthew T. Russotto
Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>Brent P wrote:
>>
>> In general, no, transit will not. It's government run, it does not
>> respond to customers.
>
>Other than rail freight and passenger airlines, the latter certainly
>heavily subsidized, what transportation system isn't run partly or in
>whole by the government?
The roads. They are built by the government, but nearly all the
rolling stock is privately operated. And no matter how stupid you
think drivers are, a central planning committee is even stupider.
>That's nonsense. Transit may sometimes be paid for by fees paid by
>drivers (such as a toll at a specific point), but the road system isn't
>anymore self-sufficient funding-wise than a typical transit system.
The road system is far more self sufficient funding-wise than a
transit system. Road related taxes (and fines) pay for the lion's share of
government road expenses. Politicos do like to shift money around,
diverting gas taxes for transit, sales taxes for roads, tolls for
education, etc, but that's all just a shell game.
Transit fees, on the other hand, pay for about half of transit's
operating expenses and zero, none, nothing, of its capital expenses.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> Yes, but roads are also supported by property taxes, generally
> to a far greater extent that gasoline tax supports other uses.
> So, the end resuult is that far less road taxes (gasoline taxes
> and vehicle registration) are collected than the amount necessary
> to fund the roads, even if no money were dirverted.
Hello Greg,
In my state, fuel taxes and turnpike tolls are restricted to road
use. However, my property taxes pay a significant amount of public
safety costs for Interstate drivers. In the end, I pay in my
_general_ (non fuel) taxes far more to support roads and airways than
I did transit.
In a neighboring state their gas taxes are lower, but their property
taxes support a county road network. Those people are clearly
subsidizing roads; that is, their road users are getting a free ride.
It has often been reported on the roads newsgroup that highway user
fees pay only 90% of highway costs. Considering how massive the
highway network, that 10% balance is a very substantial amount of
money.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> Again, no. Gasoline taxes and their diversions are much more than the
> property tax portion used for the localist of roads. One federally
> funded checkpoint could bring more revenue to a town's PD than property
> taxes paid for the road.
Cites, please.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> Your exception to the rule seems to be a small gain. mostly you get
> things like the DC street cars and various trains people don't ride.
"DC Street cars"???
Trains people don't ride? The trains I rode today (Saturday), serving
a wealthy _suburban_ area, were full.
> Government owns transit now, private services will not be allowed,
Cite, please.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> the local level, property taxes make up the vast bulk of the general
> fund.
Speaking of property taxes, major road expansion in my area has taken
up a lot of land used for homes, industry, commerce, and agriculture.
Naturally after acquisition that property was taken off the tax
rolls. Well, someone has to make up for that loss and that is me. My
property taxes have to go up to pay for those lost to road expansion.
Roads and turnpikes do not pay property taxes.
Indeed, the other taxes paid by industry and commerce is lost as
well. Turnpikes pay no income taxes. Their investors don't have to
pay taxes on the turnpike bond interest.
Years ago, the road world made sure this would work out this way. See
'Empire on the Hudson".
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> To say a person who doesn't drive does not
> benefit from having a road near his property is just silly.
To say a person who doesn't use transit does not benefit from having
transit near his property is equally is silly.
I don't know about your assertion, but being near a train station
raises one's property value due to the convenience.
I also know that the cost of maintaining local streets for modern
automobile and heavy truck traffic is much more than people think.
Matthew T. Russotto
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>As I said, it's a process. It took us more than 75 years to construct
>the suburban sprawl congestion gridlocked nightmare that we currently
>inhabit; it's going to take some time to reverse all that damage, as
>well.
It took millions of years for the Colorado River to carve the Grand
Canyon. Know how long it will take for said river to fill it in?
(right: it ain't going to happen)
>The pendulum can swing back that way again; all it will take are the
>right conditions (such as high gasoline prices and endless, miserable
>gridlock on the roads).
No, it won't. Because transit will always manage to be worse.
>So your assertion is that increased ridership will *not* generate
>increased farebox revenues?
It may increase farebox revenues, but if it becomes significant it
will increase transit losses as well. If transit systems start having
to run later hours, more railcars and/or buses, or (worst of all) build
additional rail lines, they will experience greater costs which will
more than make up for additional farebox revenues. If they don't do
those things, then any increase in ridership is self-limiting.
When you're losing money on every passenger, you can't make it up by
gaining more passengers. It's not that simple for transit because
the costs are quantized -- the marginal cost of serving an additional
passenger is small, until they reach the point that additional service
must be added -- but over the long haul it's the same problem.
Matthew T. Russotto
>adding more trains?
Money. Headway requirements.
Matthew T. Russotto
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>"Much more"? Gas taxes and tolls fund only 55% of road spending nationwide
>according to the FHWA;
72.29%. And under road spending that's including highway law
enforcement... but not including fine revenue as "highway user revenue".
>There are transit systems that manage to get better than 55% fare recovery.
>Heck, even Amtrak manages to do better than that...
Only on operating expenses. On capital expenses they recover a big
fat zero.
Matthew T. Russotto
Greg Gritton <grittonNO...@AMcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>1. Roads do not pay their way in user fees
>
>The total collected in gasoline tax and registration fees is significantly
>less than the amount spent directly spent on road construction and
>maintenance. The difference widens if you consider the fraction
>of public services (the time of the police and fire departments, etc.)
>that are indirectly devoted to roads.
Whoa, penalty on the play.
1) The first statement is false. Total receipts from highway user
fees in 2006, $116,425 million. Total outlay for road constuction and
maintenance, $119,102 million. That's only 2% less. Personally I'm
in favor of increasing gas taxes to cover the shortfall, but only if
diversions to transit and other non-road sources are frozen or reduced.
2) Adding in public services without considering revenues from said
"public services" is stacking the deck.
3) Adding in indirect expenses without adding indirect revenues is
further stacking the deck.
>It widens further when you
>consider the environmental costs of driving and the political costs
>of oil consumption.
Yeah, adding a number which can only be determined by plucking out of
thin air (or one's nether regions) helps a lot.
Brent P
> But it's also no doubt at least as handy to have a transit line near
> your property, whether you drive or not.
Trying to steer this into 'us' vs 'them' I see, anyway... a rail line or
a bus line going buy doesn't do any good unless it STOPS nearby. But, if
a transit line STOPS near everyone it becomes uselessly SLOW.
> Anyway, since I don't really drive anymore, I guess I'm being robbed
> pretty blind having to pay for roads other people use.
You don't bike, take the bus, or walk? You live next door to the train
you take everywhere?
>> It's real nice when you can pull numbers out of your ass and use
>> creative interpetations. Not to mention not citing anything so that your
>> little hocus-pocus cannot be revealed.
> It's even nicer when the numbers I pulled out my ass are the numbers the
> government pulled out of its ass, and my creativity is only as deep as
> the government's accounting department on this. If you have better
> numbers, I'd love to see them.
That's not a cite.
> And, BTW, I'm really dealing with highway routes only it seems (though I
> don't know how those are delineated from other road routes exactly).
> But if you want to include the entire road system, be my guest. That
> makes the whole thing even more subsidized.
Like I said, you're being creative.
> I don't necessarily agree with them, but there are all kinds of reasons
> to use road money for non-road purposes that may even be kind of benign.
It's ok because you agree with it.... but not ok when you don't. got
it.
Basically you have no problem with the transit system taking money from
people who don't or even can't use it but you don't even want to pay tax
for the road in front of your house because while you do use that public
way, you 'don't drive'. Gotcha.
Brent P
What is your malfunction? I responded to someone's personal experience
that mine was similiar. How about taking a giant cup of STFU.
Brent P
> Well, that's certainly very abundant with highway transportation
> funds...used for highways in states where the money didn't come from.
Welcome to having a large central government. Would you like to discuss
all the *OTHER* areas where this is done? I don't like it for roads any
more than any other topic, however I'll wager your distain for it is
limited to driving.
Brent P
I see you're just one of these nit pickers.... Of course building the
roads includes the fucking signals and then the following maintaince.
Do you want short usenet posts or books?
Why don't you read up on how yellows are short(ened) for revenue
purposes.
Brent P
> wrote:
>
>> Your exception to the rule seems to be a small gain. mostly you get
>> things like the DC street cars and various trains people don't ride.
> "DC Street cars"???
> Trains people don't ride? The trains I rode today (Saturday), serving
> a wealthy _suburban_ area, were full.
Why don't you do a google search first? DC bought some street cars but
they've been sitting in europe for 3 years because they didn't build any
track.
>> Government owns transit now, private services will not be allowed,
> Cite, please.
Why should I cite what is clearly opinion? Government doesn't allow a
private company to compete with it. What government does is sell off
/lease public infastructure to connected companies and then still
restricts competition.
Brent P
> wrote:
>
>> the local level, property taxes make up the vast bulk of the general
>> fund.
>
> Speaking of property taxes, major road expansion in my area has taken
> up a lot of land used for homes, industry, commerce, and agriculture.
> Naturally after acquisition that property was taken off the tax
> rolls. Well, someone has to make up for that loss and that is me. My
> property taxes have to go up to pay for those lost to road expansion.
> Roads and turnpikes do not pay property taxes.
No, what has happened is the people served by those roads are getting
tax breaks so it's made up by taxing you. But oh wait... what you are
seeing was the federal reserve's housing bubble, and that I'll wager is
the bulk of your property tax increase.
> Indeed, the other taxes paid by industry and commerce is lost as
> well. Turnpikes pay no income taxes. Their investors don't have to
> pay taxes on the turnpike bond interest.
> Years ago, the road world made sure this would work out this way. See
> 'Empire on the Hudson".
Favored corporations get massive tax breaks all the time. But the way
the political structure works in the USA it's the D-vs-R dynamic where
one takes a side of who should be favored. Preach doing away with the
process entirely and you get called a 'kook'. So basically I find your
selective objection to roads to be irrelevant.
Brent P
diversions were cited by someone else in this thread as a link, I put
the numbers in a post. Do try to keep the fuck up. Checkpoint costs,
I've posted numerous articles on federally funded checkpoint programs..
a small town could easily find the 6 figure funding for a checkpoint
program from the feds to be more than what they collect in property
taxes that is supposed to go for roads.
Brent P
> wrote:
>
>> To say a person who doesn't drive does not
>> benefit from having a road near his property is just silly.
>
> To say a person who doesn't use transit does not benefit from having
> transit near his property is equally is silly.
Transit has to STOP near one's property and GO where the person NEEDS it
to go for it to be useful. The road does not have these political
conditions on it.
> I don't know about your assertion, but being near a train station
> raises one's property value due to the convenience.
But not everyone can be near the trainstation, but everyone has to pay
for it. If you put train stations near everyone a long the line it would
be uselessly slow.
> I also know that the cost of maintaining local streets for modern
> automobile and heavy truck traffic is much more than people think.
So they have that perception... wooptie do da day.
Brent P
> That's BS. How many BILLIONS did capitalists invest in satellite
> companies like Iridium, Sirius, and XM, even though they are YEARS
> from profitability (in the case of Iridium, the original company that
> launched the birds went belly-up and never achieved profitability)?
Motorola hasn't gone belly up .... yet.
William R. Cousert
"Scott in SoCal" <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fimc24pbvhbf5sphe...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:30:49 +0100, Eeyore
> <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Somebody over there's gonna have to bite the bullet and start spending
> some money. :)
Why not a new sales tax measure for all of Southern California? Say .1 to
.25%, but with ALL of the money going to rail transit?
Perhaps we could have 24/7 service on Metrolink, as often as every ten
minutes during peak periods, and maybe a few new lines as well.
.
Bolwerk
So your gambling talents are as crappy as your understanding of highway
appropriations?
Bolwerk
> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>
>> But it's also no doubt at least as handy to have a transit line near
>> your property, whether you drive or not.
>
> Trying to steer this into 'us' vs 'them' I see, anyway... a rail line or
> a bus line going buy doesn't do any good unless it STOPS nearby. But, if
> a transit line STOPS near everyone it becomes uselessly SLOW.
'Us' vs 'them'? My, you're paranoid. I just don't get the double
standards. If you think it's okay to subsidize roads, I don't care. If
you want to subsidize planes, I don't care. I don't care if you want to
subsidize trains, boats, the mail, water, or free dolls for girls and
action figures for boys. At the end of the day, most of those things
are going end up being subsidized to some extent no matter what happens.
But to pretend that roads aren't subsidized heavily because it's
convenient to your ideology is just the height of silly.
>> Anyway, since I don't really drive anymore, I guess I'm being robbed
>> pretty blind having to pay for roads other people use.
>
> You don't bike, take the bus, or walk? You live next door to the train
> you take everywhere?
I walk or take the train. So I'm forced to compete with drivers who
aren't even paying to support the local street system.
>>> It's real nice when you can pull numbers out of your ass and use
>>> creative interpetations. Not to mention not citing anything so that your
>>> little hocus-pocus cannot be revealed.
>
>> It's even nicer when the numbers I pulled out my ass are the numbers the
>> government pulled out of its ass, and my creativity is only as deep as
>> the government's accounting department on this. If you have better
>> numbers, I'd love to see them.
>
> That's not a cite.
You didn't ask for one. Would you like some? They're pretty generic
HTS data. Nothing fancy.
>> And, BTW, I'm really dealing with highway routes only it seems (though I
>> don't know how those are delineated from other road routes exactly).
>> But if you want to include the entire road system, be my guest. That
>> makes the whole thing even more subsidized.
>
> Like I said, you're being creative.
Since you haven't shown me how, I can only assume you're making things
up to suit your whims. Again.
>> I don't necessarily agree with them, but there are all kinds of reasons
>> to use road money for non-road purposes that may even be kind of benign.
>
> It's ok because you agree with it.... but not ok when you don't. got
> it.
What *are* you talking about? Is your reading comprehension that bad?
> Basically you have no problem with the transit system taking money from
> people who don't or even can't use it but you don't even want to pay tax
> for the road in front of your house because while you do use that public
> way, you 'don't drive'. Gotcha.
That's simply the reciprocal of your view on the matter. I don't
subscribe to it. Of course, you snipped the context for that remark
(real creative) about being "robbed." Either way, I and most of my
neighbors could live quite happily with limited traffic, allowing for
deliveries.
Anyway, our local rail transit system is mostly covered by fares -
probably at a significantly higher rate than the road system. The bus
system is a much bigger loser, of course.
Brent P
I don't see you complaining about taxes in one state paying for transit
in another. I don't live in chicago but I am taxed for its transit.
Brent P
>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>>
>>> But it's also no doubt at least as handy to have a transit line near
>>> your property, whether you drive or not.
>>
>> Trying to steer this into 'us' vs 'them' I see, anyway... a rail line or
>> a bus line going buy doesn't do any good unless it STOPS nearby. But, if
>> a transit line STOPS near everyone it becomes uselessly SLOW.
>
> 'Us' vs 'them'? My, you're paranoid. I just don't get the double
> standards. If you think it's okay to subsidize roads, I don't care. If
> you want to subsidize planes, I don't care. I don't care if you want to
> subsidize trains, boats, the mail, water, or free dolls for girls and
> action figures for boys. At the end of the day, most of those things
> are going end up being subsidized to some extent no matter what happens.
> But to pretend that roads aren't subsidized heavily because it's
> convenient to your ideology is just the height of silly.
If you don't care, then why are you participating in this thread? For
a troll's pleasure?
>>> Anyway, since I don't really drive anymore, I guess I'm being robbed
>>> pretty blind having to pay for roads other people use.
>>
>> You don't bike, take the bus, or walk? You live next door to the train
>> you take everywhere?
>
> I walk or take the train. So I'm forced to compete with drivers who
> aren't even paying to support the local street system.
They are all homeless people running their cars on free energy machines?
>>>> It's real nice when you can pull numbers out of your ass and use
>>>> creative interpetations. Not to mention not citing anything so that your
>>>> little hocus-pocus cannot be revealed.
>>
>>> It's even nicer when the numbers I pulled out my ass are the numbers the
>>> government pulled out of its ass, and my creativity is only as deep as
>>> the government's accounting department on this. If you have better
>>> numbers, I'd love to see them.
>>
>> That's not a cite.
> You didn't ask for one. Would you like some? They're pretty generic
> HTS data. Nothing fancy.
I did before. try to keep up.
>>> And, BTW, I'm really dealing with highway routes only it seems (though I
>>> don't know how those are delineated from other road routes exactly).
>>> But if you want to include the entire road system, be my guest. That
>>> makes the whole thing even more subsidized.
>>
>> Like I said, you're being creative.
> Since you haven't shown me how, I can only assume you're making things
> up to suit your whims. Again.
See the posts where the guy made a cite and then I pointed out how the
cite supports my argument.
>>> I don't necessarily agree with them, but there are all kinds of reasons
>>> to use road money for non-road purposes that may even be kind of benign.
>> It's ok because you agree with it.... but not ok when you don't. got
>> it.
> What *are* you talking about? Is your reading comprehension that bad?
It's not my fault you don't understand what you wrote.
>> Basically you have no problem with the transit system taking money from
>> people who don't or even can't use it but you don't even want to pay tax
>> for the road in front of your house because while you do use that public
>> way, you 'don't drive'. Gotcha.
> That's simply the reciprocal of your view on the matter.
Wrong. I have just dealt with the facts of the matter. I would fund
roads differently, but that would also mean transit users paying for
their full share.
> Anyway, our local rail transit system is mostly covered by fares -
> probably at a significantly higher rate than the road system. The bus
> system is a much bigger loser, of course.
And it uses the roads.
Studemania
wrote:
> On 2008-05-09, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > KTLA's top story at 6:30 is the sharp increase in ridership on MTA
> > trains. They attribute the increase to high gasoline prices, citing
> > one commuter who takes the subway even though he just purchased a
> > fuel-efficient car.
>
> > "The times they are a-changin'..."
>
> Time for a fare increase and service cuts. That's how it's done in
> chicago.
It al depends on the weather, where you live in relation to transit
system, where you're going and many mor fators.
I grew up where I could walk 1/4 mile to the trolley and get off at
Braves Field, Kenmore Square (for the Red Sox) or continue on to
downtown Boston for just a few cents. Later, I could get to work in
Cambridge with just two connections to make. Then I got a car. but
still took public trnsit depending on the circumstances.
Well worth considering - plus you can catch up on your reading.
Studemania
> On May 9, 7:00 pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 9 May 2008 12:46:43 -0700, "D. Stussy" <s...@bde-arc.ampr.org>
> > wrote:
>
> > >"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:ZfKdnVp09cdTF7nV...@comcast.com...
> > >> On 2008-05-09, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> > KTLA's top story at 6:30 is the sharp increase in ridership on MTA
> > >> > trains. They attribute the increase to high gasoline prices, citing
> > >> > one commuter who takes the subway even though he just purchased a
> > >> > fuel-efficient car.
>
> > >> > "The times they are a-changin'..."
>
> > >> Time for a fare increase and service cuts. That's how it's done in
> > >> chicago.
>
>
> > >Now, I'm self-employed and work at home. However, before that, I was an
> > >employee, so here's a comparison of the commute:
>
> > >Direct driving: 45 minutes average (30 minutes best time).
> > >Via MTA: Almost 3 hours.
>
> > Yes, there are a lot of people in your situation. Transit in this
> > country has been allowed to atrophe very severely, so it takes a
> > little conscious effort to make the lifestyle choices that will permit
> > you to use transit. Look for more and more people to start making
> > those choices in the coming months.
>
> Adding to the problem is the 'urban spread'. While public transit has
> atrophied, design of the cities makes it almost impossible to do any
> 'one-stop' shopping. I go to Spokane and have to visit several
> different areas of the city to hit the shops I need to see and those
> shops as scattered miles apart.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >The real change that is needed is that MTA needs to have service that match
> > >people's commutes in a way where it's actually competitive to driving.
>
> > That change will come. As ridership increases, there will be more
> > money available and more demand for additional routes and expanded
> > service. As the transit system expands, it becomes more useful to more
> > people; ridership increases; more money becomes available and
> > additional demand drives more expansion; etc. etc. etc. We're
> > witnessing the beginnings of that process right now. People like me
> > who make conscious choices are the engine that drove the initial
> > go-'round. Now a few people who are lucky enough to live within
> > striking distance of transit purely by chance are starting to take
> > advantage of the system. That will fuel additional growth and start
> > the next round.
>
> > Already Metrolink in Orange Cuonty has announced plans to run trains
> > every 30 minutes, 18 hours per day. That's going to be HUGE!! When I
> > first started riding Metrolink, they didn't even have service on
> > weekends in The OC. They've come a long way in just a few short years.
>
> That sounds like a tremendous improvement. I don't ever expect to see
> US public transit come any close to being as good as European.
>
> I have noticed a _great_ decline in the amount of traffic on the
> highways. Used to be I had to pick an openening to pull out onto the
> highway here. For the past month, I could almost pull out without
> looking. Gas at 3.73 today, up a nickel from yesterday.
>
> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
In Britain, anyone can buy a bus pass, as you can here. For retired
folks, bus transit is free outside of commute time, thus removing the
OAPs from the rush-hour traffic. I expect that this is a financial
plus for the city as a whole.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> It may increase farebox revenues, but if it becomes significant it
> will increase transit losses as well. If transit systems start having
> to run later hours, more railcars and/or buses, or (worst of all) build
> additional rail lines, they will experience greater costs which will
> more than make up for additional farebox revenues. If they don't do
> those things, then any increase in ridership is self-limiting.
The big source of discrestionary ridership for transit is offpeak
traffic. If shoppers and entertainment switches to transit during off
peak hours, the incremental cost is very low since the fleet and staff
are already available.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> In article <5eff918a14d078ca80c68d3ea...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Greg Gritton <grittonNO.famil...@AMcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >1. Roads do not pay their way in user fees
> [...]
>
> >The total collected in gasoline tax and registration fees is significantly
> >less than the amount spent directly spent on road construction and
> >maintenance. The difference widens if you consider the fraction
> >of public services (the time of the police and fire departments, etc.)
> >that are indirectly devoted to roads.
>
> Whoa, penalty on the play.
>
> 1) The first statement is false. Total receipts from highway user
> fees in 2006, $116,425 million. Total outlay for road constuction and
> maintenance, $119,102 million. That's only 2% less. Personally I'm
> in favor of increasing gas taxes to cover the shortfall, but only if
> diversions to transit and other non-road sources are frozen or reduced.
>
> 2) Adding in public services without considering revenues from said
> "public services" is stacking the deck.
>
> 3) Adding in indirect expenses without adding indirect revenues is
> further stacking the deck.
What revenues? My property taxes pay for unreimbursed fire/rescue
services on the Interstate. is that being counted?
By the way, that cost is higher than our contribution to the regional
transit network, which gets nothing from gas taxes.
Also, when highways expand, privately owned land is removed from the
tax rolls. Further, the taxes on businesses shut down is gone as
well. I as a taxpayer have to make that up. Is that counted
anywhere?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> That's not a cite.
Um, Brent, unless I missed it, you haven't provided any cites at all
for your assertions.
Brent P
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:37:56 -0700 (PDT), Studemania
><mid...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>In Britain, anyone can buy a bus pass, as you can here. For retired
>>folks, bus transit is free outside of commute time, thus removing the
>>OAPs from the rush-hour traffic. I expect that this is a financial
>>plus for the city as a whole.
>
> to a transit funding bill and lots of people complained.
Free rides 24/7 for seniors. All the old people in chicago will keep
voting for the 'free pony'.
Matthew T. Russotto
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Several things. Some of the stations don't have long enough platforms for
>>longer trains
>
>So what's stopping the longer trains from stopping twice? Stop so that
>the first half of the train can access the platforms, then pull
>forward and let the back half alight. Sure, it would increase dwell
>times, but if you have no other choice...
The control systems likely aren't built for this. Plus, of course, it
would increase dwell times. And result in passenger confusion.
>So buy some more! If so many people are using the trains that it's
>standing-room-only, they should be able to afford a few more cars.
Nope. Even a line which often has full trains is unlikely to cover
operating costs with fare revenues. There's nothing left for capital
costs.
Matthew T. Russotto
They spun off the actual subsidiary which made the network, Iridium
LLC, though. The constellation was purchased by "Iridium Satellite,
LLC", a "privately" held corporation. (scare quotes because I suspect
the ultimate actual owner is the US Government).
Matthew T. Russotto
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On May 10, 9:41=A0pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>>
>>
>>
>> >1. Roads do not pay their way in user fees
>> [...]
>>
>y
>> >less than the amount spent directly spent on road construction and
>> >of public services (the time of the police and fire departments, etc.)
>> >that are indirectly devoted to roads.
>>
>>
>> 1) The first statement is false. =A0Total receipts from highway user
>> fees in 2006, $116,425 million. =A0Total outlay for road constuction and
>> maintenance, $119,102 million. =A0That's only 2% less. =A0Personally I'm
>> in favor of increasing gas taxes to cover the shortfall, but only if
>> diversions to transit and other non-road sources are frozen or reduced.
>>
>> 2) Adding in public services without considering revenues from said
>> "public services" is stacking the deck.
>>
>> 3) Adding in indirect expenses without adding indirect revenues is
>> further stacking the deck.
>
>What revenues?
Traffic fines and fees -- police who write tickets for said fines and
fees, of course, being the majority of the "public services" counted
as a road expense.
>Also, when highways expand, privately owned land is removed from the
>tax rolls. Further, the taxes on businesses shut down is gone as
>well. I as a taxpayer have to make that up. Is that counted
>anywhere?
Right along with the increased tax revenues from the new businesses
served by the expanded highways.
Bolwerk
I'm not aware of any instances of that happening. Most states with
sizable transit systems are tax donors though. Other than Pennsylvania,
I'm actually not aware of one that isn't. And I simply don't know
enough about transit appropriations there to comment.
Other instances of such horse trading are OT in the group I'm in.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> >What revenues?
>
> Traffic fines and fees -- police who write tickets for said fines and
> fees, of course, being the majority of the "public services" counted
> as a road expense.
I didn't know fire trucks and ambulances wrote tickets.
When there's a crash on a major highway, multiple police cars are
deployed to investigate the crash and reroute traffic. Someone I
doubt the revenue from one ticket, presuming a ticket was even issued,
would come close to paying the cost of the cops and their vehicles
servicing the crash.
> >Also, when highways expand, privately owned land is removed from the
> >tax rolls. Further, the taxes on businesses shut down is gone as
> >well. I as a taxpayer have to make that up. Is that counted
> >anywhere?
>
> Right along with the increased tax revenues from the new businesses
> served by the expanded highways.
What new businesses? It's a net LOSS of business.
In any event, we're talking about costs, not revenues. If you want to
talk about revenues, you can also discuss the businesses that locate
in and near transit stations to serve their riders, but nobody counts
that.
Clark F Morris
Actually people advocating TOD do and trumpet it LOUDLY. The Portland
streetcar is a case in point. I also vaguely recall a study on this
related to the Washington Metro>
Brent P
> On May 12, 2:32 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> wrote:
>> >What revenues?
>>
>> Traffic fines and fees -- police who write tickets for said fines and
>> fees, of course, being the majority of the "public services" counted
>> as a road expense.
>
> I didn't know fire trucks and ambulances wrote tickets.
>
> When there's a crash on a major highway, multiple police cars are
> deployed to investigate the crash and reroute traffic. Someone I
> doubt the revenue from one ticket, presuming a ticket was even issued,
> would come close to paying the cost of the cops and their vehicles
> servicing the crash.
Lol. more creative accounting. The vast majority of traffic tickets go
to safe drivers who caused no hazard what-so-ever. The traffic tickets
are so profitable it's how police officers are judged for their job
performance. Even small towns can make millions of dollars on traffic
tickets.
Bolwerk
> On 2008-05-11, Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But it's also no doubt at least as handy to have a transit line near
>>>> your property, whether you drive or not.
>>> Trying to steer this into 'us' vs 'them' I see, anyway... a rail line or
>>> a bus line going buy doesn't do any good unless it STOPS nearby. But, if
>>> a transit line STOPS near everyone it becomes uselessly SLOW.
>> 'Us' vs 'them'? My, you're paranoid. I just don't get the double
>> standards. If you think it's okay to subsidize roads, I don't care. If
>> you want to subsidize planes, I don't care. I don't care if you want to
>> subsidize trains, boats, the mail, water, or free dolls for girls and
>> action figures for boys. At the end of the day, most of those things
>> are going end up being subsidized to some extent no matter what happens.
>> But to pretend that roads aren't subsidized heavily because it's
>> convenient to your ideology is just the height of silly.
>
> If you don't care, then why are you participating in this thread? For
> a troll's pleasure?
I simply noted that the road system is heavily subsidized. I didn't
make a value judgment about that. Not recognizing that fact leads to
immensely stupid conclusions, or skewed beliefs about the costs and
benefits of different modes.
If you have some ideological hangup regarding subsidies, fine. But if
forcing everyone to pay for roads is okay, then forcing everyone to pay
for transit is too.
>>>> Anyway, since I don't really drive anymore, I guess I'm being robbed
>>>> pretty blind having to pay for roads other people use.
>>> You don't bike, take the bus, or walk? You live next door to the train
>>> you take everywhere?
>> I walk or take the train. So I'm forced to compete with drivers who
>> aren't even paying to support the local street system.
>
> They are all homeless people running their cars on free energy machines?
Wow. That was a non-sequitur if I ever saw one.
>>>>> It's real nice when you can pull numbers out of your ass and use
>>>>> creative interpetations. Not to mention not citing anything so that your
>>>>> little hocus-pocus cannot be revealed.
>>>> It's even nicer when the numbers I pulled out my ass are the numbers the
>>>> government pulled out of its ass, and my creativity is only as deep as
>>>> the government's accounting department on this. If you have better
>>>> numbers, I'd love to see them.
>>> That's not a cite.
>
>> You didn't ask for one. Would you like some? They're pretty generic
>> HTS data. Nothing fancy.
>
> I did before. try to keep up.
You didn't ask me. You asked hancock or someone.
>>>> And, BTW, I'm really dealing with highway routes only it seems (though I
>>>> don't know how those are delineated from other road routes exactly).
>>>> But if you want to include the entire road system, be my guest. That
>>>> makes the whole thing even more subsidized.
>>> Like I said, you're being creative.
>
>> Since you haven't shown me how, I can only assume you're making things
>> up to suit your whims. Again.
>
> See the posts where the guy made a cite and then I pointed out how the
> cite supports my argument.
Take a look at that book where the guy wrote something to the effect of
agreeing with something I vaguely said. Is that what you mean when you
ask for a cite?
>>>> I don't necessarily agree with them, but there are all kinds of reasons
>>>> to use road money for non-road purposes that may even be kind of benign.
>
>>> It's ok because you agree with it.... but not ok when you don't. got
>>> it.
>
>> What *are* you talking about? Is your reading comprehension that bad?
>
> It's not my fault you don't understand what you wrote.
It's you who apparently doesn't understand what I wrote, considering
that mangled sentence you recited to attempt to interpret it.
It's quite simple: just because I don't wouldn't do something a certain
way doesn't mean others can't. If an administrator in Idaho uses the
local gas tax revenue to infuse some cash into a project, why should it
matter to an east coaster like me? What the said administrator maybe
isn't ideal as far as accounting is concerned, but unless it's my tax
money, it's not important to me.
>>> Basically you have no problem with the transit system taking money from
>>> people who don't or even can't use it but you don't even want to pay tax
>>> for the road in front of your house because while you do use that public
>>> way, you 'don't drive'. Gotcha.
>
>> That's simply the reciprocal of your view on the matter.
>
> Wrong. I have just dealt with the facts of the matter. I would fund
> roads differently, but that would also mean transit users paying for
> their full share.
Hey, I don't see any reason why transit systems can't at least break
even (at least after an initial capital investment) other than bad
administration. Roads maybe could too, perhaps with tolls to cover
shortfalls. But the "facts of the matter" is that neither mode - or any
mode, really - is exactly a profitable cash cow by itself.
>> Anyway, our local rail transit system is mostly covered by fares -
>> probably at a significantly higher rate than the road system. The bus
>> system is a much bigger loser, of course.
>
> And it uses the roads.
I'm not clear what's wrong with that.
Bolwerk
Not to say ticket writing isn't abused (especially in southern states, I
find), but "safe drivers" aren't zero risk. Driving is, by itself, is
something of a risk. And the odds of an accident go up based on various
factors, such as speeding, iPod fumbling, driver smoking, cell phone
usage, messing with the radio, etc. Some idiots manage to do many of
those things at once.
A single accident can back up a moderately busy artery for hours,
causing thousands of man hours of lost labor and possibly thousands of
dollars in wasted fuel. The economics of minimizing the risk of
accidents are probably pretty compelling to a locality.
Arif Khokar
> Not to say ticket writing isn't abused (especially in southern states, I
> find), but "safe drivers" aren't zero risk. Driving is, by itself, is
> something of a risk. And the odds of an accident go up based on various
> factors, such as speeding, iPod fumbling, driver smoking, cell phone
> usage, messing with the radio, etc.
The problem is that police almost exclusively focus on speeding. Since
speeding is defined by a limit that is, for all practical purposes,
universally ignored (many urban interstates that have 70 mph traffic
flow with a posted limit of 55 mph), it really has no correlation with
risk (unlike some of the other factors you mentioned).
So, enforcement of such a limit only serves to bring in more revenue for
the locality without addressing any of the underlying safety issues
(distracted driving).
Brent P
> Not to say ticket writing isn't abused (especially in southern states, I
> find), but "safe drivers" aren't zero risk. Driving is, by itself, is
> something of a risk. And the odds of an accident go up based on various
> factors, such as speeding, iPod fumbling, driver smoking, cell phone
> usage, messing with the radio, etc. Some idiots manage to do many of
> those things at once.
Nice anti-car blather there. Nothing is zero risk. Buses and trains are
not zero risk either. The metra and CTA here in chicago kill a goodly
number of people every year. Although a fair number are due to their
stupidity, but since you include the stupid darwinizing themselves in
the auto total so should they be included in the transit total. Now if
Amtrak and freight are considered rail wise there are disasters that no
auto collision can come close to.
> A single accident can back up a moderately busy artery for hours,
> causing thousands of man hours of lost labor and possibly thousands of
> dollars in wasted fuel. The economics of minimizing the risk of
> accidents are probably pretty compelling to a locality.
And yet known engineering best practices are ignored in favor of profit
making practices.
Bolwerk
> Bolwerk wrote:
>
>> Not to say ticket writing isn't abused (especially in southern states,
>> I find), but "safe drivers" aren't zero risk. Driving is, by itself,
>> is something of a risk. And the odds of an accident go up based on
>> various factors, such as speeding, iPod fumbling, driver smoking, cell
>> phone usage, messing with the radio, etc.
>
> The problem is that police almost exclusively focus on speeding. Since
> speeding is defined by a limit that is, for all practical purposes,
> universally ignored (many urban interstates that have 70 mph traffic
> flow with a posted limit of 55 mph), it really has no correlation with
> risk (unlike some of the other factors you mentioned).
It still correlates to risk. Higher speed means higher risk, whether
speed limits are enforced or not.
> So, enforcement of such a limit only serves to bring in more revenue for
> the locality without addressing any of the underlying safety issues
> (distracted driving).
I don't disagree. It's about the only thing they can focus on,
unfortunately.
(Though I know some people who get caught not wearing seatbelts.
Usually they're chronic offenders who refuse to follow that law.)
Bolwerk
> On 2008-05-12, Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>
>> Not to say ticket writing isn't abused (especially in southern states, I
>> find), but "safe drivers" aren't zero risk. Driving is, by itself, is
>> something of a risk. And the odds of an accident go up based on various
>> factors, such as speeding, iPod fumbling, driver smoking, cell phone
>> usage, messing with the radio, etc. Some idiots manage to do many of
>> those things at once.
>
> Nice anti-car blather there. Nothing is zero risk. Buses and trains are
> not zero risk either. The metra and CTA here in chicago kill a goodly
> number of people every year. Although a fair number are due to their
> stupidity, but since you include the stupid darwinizing themselves in
> the auto total so should they be included in the transit total. Now if
> Amtrak and freight are considered rail wise there are disasters that no
> auto collision can come close to.
Was that anti-transit blather? Of course buses and trains aren't zero
risk. Blather aside, they're considerably lower risk because they're
operated by professionals.
>> A single accident can back up a moderately busy artery for hours,
>> causing thousands of man hours of lost labor and possibly thousands of
>> dollars in wasted fuel. The economics of minimizing the risk of
>> accidents are probably pretty compelling to a locality.
>
> And yet known engineering best practices are ignored in favor of profit
> making practices.
Is this anti-officialdom blather?
Arif Khokar
> Arif Khokar wrote:
>> The problem is that police almost exclusively focus on speeding.
>> Since speeding is defined by a limit that is, for all practical
>> purposes, universally ignored (many urban interstates that have 70 mph
>> traffic flow with a posted limit of 55 mph), it really has no
>> correlation with risk (unlike some of the other factors you mentioned).
> It still correlates to risk. Higher speed means higher risk, whether
> speed limits are enforced or not.
It doesn't. When speed limits were increased from 55 to 65 mph on rural
interstates for several years after 1987, crash and fatality rates
declined. They continued to decline after the NMSL was repealed in 1995
and states increased their limits from 65 mph.
Also, out of all the crash and fatality rate statistics I've gone
through over the years, I haven't been able to establish a positive
correlation with increased enforcement and reduced crash and fatality rates.
Michael Ejercito
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 12:46:43 -0700, "D. Stussy" <s...@bde-arc.ampr.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:ZfKdnVp09cdTF7nV...@comcast.com...
> >> On 2008-05-09, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > KTLA's top story at 6:30 is the sharp increase in ridership on MTA
> >> > trains. They attribute the increase to high gasoline prices, citing
> >> > one commuter who takes the subway even though he just purchased a
> >> > fuel-efficient car.
>
> >> > "The times they are a-changin'..."
>
> >> Time for a fare increase and service cuts. That's how it's done in
> >> chicago.
>
> >Unfortunately, the MTA is still lame when it comes to certain commutes.
>
> >Now, I'm self-employed and work at home. However, before that, I was an
> >employee, so here's a comparison of the commute:
>
> >Direct driving: 45 minutes average (30 minutes best time).
> >Via MTA: Almost 3 hours.
>
> Yes, there are a lot of people in your situation. Transit in this
> country has been allowed to atrophe very severely, so it takes a
> little conscious effort to make the lifestyle choices that will permit
> you to use transit. Look for more and more people to start making
> those choices in the coming months.
compete with the MTA (as well as personal driving)?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 05:50:25 +0100, Eeyore
>
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >How busy do your commuter trains get ?
>
> Not standing-room-only, at least as far as I have seen. Although
> occasionally I have seen sardine-can conditions on the shuttle bus
> when there has been some sort of service disruption on the trains and
> two trains' worth of riders end up sharing a single shuttle, but
> that's rare.
>
> >I doubt you guys would tolerate
> >the overcrowding we have here in the UK. At peak times unless you're
> >getting on wherever the train departs from, it's going to be a struggle
> >to find a seat.
>
> So what's stopping them from adding more cars to each train and/or
> adding more trains?
What are the motives of the management?
Are they in it to make an extra buck?
Michael
Harry K
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 19:00:27 -0700, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >That change will come. As ridership increases, there will be more
> >money available and more demand for additional routes and expanded
> >service. As the transit system expands, it becomes more useful to more
> >people; ridership increases; more money becomes available and
> >additional demand drives more expansion; etc. etc. etc. We're
> >witnessing the beginnings of that process right now. People like me
> >who make conscious choices are the engine that drove the initial
> >go-'round. Now a few people who are lucky enough to live within
> >striking distance of transit purely by chance are starting to take
> >advantage of the system. That will fuel additional growth and start
> >the next round.
>
> ridership ever.. but their farebox recovery is down in the 20-30% range.. with
> rail needing roughly a $10 per trip subsidy from the tax payers.. and busses
> needing an immense subsidy (they are asking for a 30 cent fare increase for
> the second time this year..) - A average bus ride costs CATS $5+, but they are
> only collecting $1.30. If ridership goes up, they have to hire more drivers,
> and buy more busses... The losses simply increase. The power company
> announced that because of increases in coal and natural gas, they are boosting
> their rates significantly this year, so the basic costs for the rail will go
> up. (And they are already starting to hit maintenance issues. They want to
> buy 4 additional cars, then spend another billion or two to run a line up to
> 485 on the north end of the city where the University is... which will mean
> another 20 cars...and a new maintenance facility (they didn't build the
> current one BIG enough... sheesh.)
True. Spokane, Wa is currently pushing for an increased levy.
Citizens in uproar as they have quite a capital fund built up. It was
pointed out _again_ that the bus system runs under a susidy (read
taxes) and does not come close to being a "for profit" operation.
Harry K
Harry K
wrote:
But it is not enough to pay the cost of the "service". It does cut
down on the amount of taxes that would be required without them
though.
Harry K
Brent P
> It still correlates to risk. Higher speed means higher risk, whether
> speed limits are enforced or not.
False. Demonstrated false by about 60 years of data.
Brent P
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-05-12, Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>>
>>> Not to say ticket writing isn't abused (especially in southern states, I
>>> find), but "safe drivers" aren't zero risk. Driving is, by itself, is
>>> something of a risk. And the odds of an accident go up based on various
>>> factors, such as speeding, iPod fumbling, driver smoking, cell phone
>>> usage, messing with the radio, etc. Some idiots manage to do many of
>>> those things at once.
>>
>> Nice anti-car blather there. Nothing is zero risk. Buses and trains are
>> not zero risk either. The metra and CTA here in chicago kill a goodly
>> number of people every year. Although a fair number are due to their
>> stupidity, but since you include the stupid darwinizing themselves in
>> the auto total so should they be included in the transit total. Now if
>> Amtrak and freight are considered rail wise there are disasters that no
>> auto collision can come close to.
>
> Was that anti-transit blather? Of course buses and trains aren't zero
> risk. Blather aside, they're considerably lower risk because they're
> operated by professionals.
No it wasn't. Your cars-are-dangerous routine however.... And as far as
'professionals' go, I'm sorry you have to have your faith in
authorities.
>>> A single accident can back up a moderately busy artery for hours,
>>> causing thousands of man hours of lost labor and possibly thousands of
>>> dollars in wasted fuel. The economics of minimizing the risk of
>>> accidents are probably pretty compelling to a locality.
>> And yet known engineering best practices are ignored in favor of profit
>> making practices.
> Is this anti-officialdom blather?
Only through your centralized control glasses.
Brent P
Huh? It makes the police department a profit center.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> Lol. more creative accounting. The vast majority of traffic tickets go
> to safe drivers who caused no hazard what-so-ever. The traffic tickets
> are so profitable it's how police officers are judged for their job
> performance. Even small towns can make millions of dollars on traffic
> tickets.
Citation, please.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> No it wasn't. Your cars-are-dangerous routine however.... And as far as
> 'professionals' go, I'm sorry you have to have your faith in
> authorities.
Cars are ten times as dangerous as other modes.
Brent P
You must be kidding... do you live in a cave?
googled "small town ticket revenue"
First match:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2305.asp
"Louisiana: Proposal Bans Speed Traps, Limits Cameras
Louisiana proposal would limit speed trap revenue to between 10 and 35
percent of a municipal budget. Speed cameras limited to high profit
locations."
<...>
" Towns like Baskin, Georgetown, Lillie and Robeline made more than 85
percent of their general budget revenue from traffic citations. Baskin
was the top speed trap with $1719 in per capita speeding ticket revenue"
<...>
"Downs' would accomplish its goal by prohibiting any small town from
earning more than 35 percent of its budget from traffic tickets. The
state would pocket any excess funds generated by exceeding this cap.
Larger towns with between one and three thousand residents could earn
twenty percent of their revenue from ticketing. For municipalities with
more than 3000 population, only ten percent of revenue can come from
traffic cops."
-------------------------------------------------
You know the scam is bad when another government steps in and says it's
too much or demands a cut.
And now from a cop website.... an AP story:
http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/Oklahoma-Cities-May-Get-Caught-in-Their-Own-Speed-Traps/1$21874
"OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- The state Department of Public Safety is
investigating up to five alleged ''speed-trap'' communities across
Oklahoma, but so far none of them has lost the right to write traffic
tickets along highways, authorities said.
New legislation approved by the legislature last year allows the
department to investigate communities that gain 50 percent or more of
their operating revenue from writing tickets on state highways or
interstates."
<...>
"The Tulsa World looked at Roland's ticket-writing practices more than
two years ago. The Tulsa World's analysis discovered that Roland police
officers wrote tickets on 3,099 stops in 2002, generating more than $1
million in revenue."
---------------------
You can further google 'the sky is blue' on your own time.
Brent P
Pulled out the ass of the same person who thinks the massive revenue
collection of small towns by issuing traffic tickets needed a cite.