Taxing Drivers By The Mile

"Robert Morien" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Robert Morien > wrote:
>> >
>> >The theory is to gradually make cars unattractive. In doing this new
>> >developments occur near the mass/rapid transit lines instead of hiway
>> >exits. I've also seen some theoretical developments that were more like
>> >mini-towns with most of the "necessities within walking distance of all
>> >housing AND a transit line either thru the middle or near the most dense
>> >population point connecting to the next development.
>>
>> Unfortunately, mathematics and economics severely limit the
>> scalability of this approach. There's only so much space within
>> walking distance of each station. Once that's filled up, everyone
>> else has to live and work elsewhere. And if that's the most desirable
>> space, it'll quickly become enormously expensive because it's both
>> desirable AND rare, meaning only the wealthiest people and companies
>> will locate there.
>>
>
> That just isn't true. Since that system can't happen overnight, over the
> generation or two it would take to change land use planning to this
> model, adaptations would create the same type of neighborhoods in
> existing neighborhoods. You don't have to build single family homes in
> these developments, three story condo/apts would work

Oh yeah, that's exactly what people want. The American Dream. A
three-story condo by the metro station. Where do I sign up?

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:23:05 -0600,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>The MOST-USED transit line in the SEPTA (Philadelphia-area) system
>>recovers 56% of operating costs in fares. Some of the least used are
>>around 16%. Real efficient.
>
> The average freeway recovers 0% of its construction and operating
> costs in fares. Even LESS efficient.

So not ONE CENT of my income tax, sales tax, gas tax or any other tax goes
back into construction and operating the "average freeway"? That's the most
ridiculous thing I've heard all day.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:53:07 -0500, "ParrotRob" >
wrote:

>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>news
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:23:05 -0600,
>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>The MOST-USED transit line in the SEPTA (Philadelphia-area) system
>>>recovers 56% of operating costs in fares. Some of the least used are
>>>around 16%. Real efficient.
>>
>> The average freeway recovers 0% of its construction and operating
>> costs in fares. Even LESS efficient.
>
>So not ONE CENT of my income tax, sales tax, gas tax or any other tax goes
>back into construction and operating the "average freeway"? That's the most
>ridiculous thing I've heard all day.
>

Perhaps, but how does it relate to the issue of recovery of
construction and operating costs through fares? Have you found some
sekrit formula thay keeps your tax dollars from being spent on roads
you don't use?

Jimmy wrote:
> "Ed Stasiak" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > http://tinyurl.com/6kuzj
>
> > But tax-by-mile advocates say it may be
> > the only way to ensure that fuel efficiency
> > doesn't prevent smooth sailing down the road.
>
> Wow, so now fuel efficiency is a bad thing? Leave it to
> government to find a way of accomplishing that.

My question is,where does the money go?
Surely it goes to helping to prevent runaway/
throwaway kids from resorting to whoring
themselves on the streets?

--
Modern America-a sick numbers game

For the subtopic of transit.

Most areas that operate transit have a dedicated reliable steady source
of income. The people that live near that transit have decided that is
what they want. They put their money where there mouth is. More power
to them. Different strokes for different folks.

I don't know of any public transit system that collects enough in the
fare box to pay for construction and operation. The highest recovery
might be in Chicago? Does anyone have numbers? Value to residents comes
in increased value of land and better use of time.

Private transit, such as Blue Vans, airport shuttles and the like may
come close to break even or profitability as a profit center without
external funds.

Some areas have jitney service operating below the radar. More power to
them. I think those areas could get rid of their public transit if they
made jitneys legal.

WMATA, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is an exception
to the reliable funding source. There is some dedicated real estate tax
in Farifax and Montgomery Counties. But not enough to cover the
shortfalls from the fare box. Being the seat of Federal Government,
people that live there have learned how to game the system to get
federal money to operate their transit.

Sadly, some WMATA money comes from federal gasoline fuel taxes and
other revenue streams which most people think are dedicated to some
particular use where the tax was collected.

The House Committee on Government Reform has requested GAO to study
WMATA funding by the federal government. Many states continue as donor
states long after it is their turn to get federal money.

My fear is that the politicians will recognize that no one outside the
beltway is complaining about the diveresion of federal tax dollars to
WMATA and will continue with business as usual. Funding a local transit
system with federal funds.

For the GAO testimony: www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-358T

Dick Boyd wrote:

> For the subtopic of transit.
>
> Most areas that operate transit have a dedicated reliable steady source
> of income. The people that live near that transit have decided that is
> what they want. They put their money where there mouth is. More power
> to them. Different strokes for different folks.
>
> I don't know of any public transit system that collects enough in the
> fare box to pay for construction and operation. The highest recovery
> might be in Chicago? Does anyone have numbers? Value to residents comes
> in increased value of land and better use of time.
>
> Private transit, such as Blue Vans, airport shuttles and the like may
> come close to break even or profitability as a profit center without
> external funds.
>
> Some areas have jitney service operating below the radar. More power to
> them. I think those areas could get rid of their public transit if they
> made jitneys legal.
>
> WMATA, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is an exception
> to the reliable funding source. There is some dedicated real estate tax
> in Farifax and Montgomery Counties. But not enough to cover the
> shortfalls from the fare box. Being the seat of Federal Government,
> people that live there have learned how to game the system to get
> federal money to operate their transit.
>
> Sadly, some WMATA money comes from federal gasoline fuel taxes and
> other revenue streams which most people think are dedicated to some
> particular use where the tax was collected.
>
> The House Committee on Government Reform has requested GAO to study
> WMATA funding by the federal government. Many states continue as donor
> states long after it is their turn to get federal money.
>
> My fear is that the politicians will recognize that no one outside the
> beltway is complaining about the diveresion of federal tax dollars to
> WMATA and will continue with business as usual. Funding a local transit
> system with federal funds.
>
> For the GAO testimony: www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-358T
>

The problem with a lot of the WMATA services is they aren't really
useful, unless you live and work near a Metro station. It takes too
long to make multiple transfers bus to Metro and back again.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

To me, profit of transit is not the question.

The question is: Are the people getting their money's worth? Only the
people that have public transit in their area can answer that. They
don't even have to live near or ride transit. The benefit comes from
those that do use it. If transit were not there, either business would
go somewhere else (can you imagine New York City without a subway
system or commuter trains to Connecticut and Long Island?) People not
riding transit are "using" it in the sense that UPS/FEDEX has a
relatively free flowing delivery road. Grocery stores have access to
roads for food delivery. If transit wasn't there, would there be enough
roads? Does transit improve quality of life for the people that live
there?

Can you imagine Chicago without an elevated system?

Would rebuilding the infrastructure for more drive alones be cost
prohibitive or cost effective? How much does a parking space cost
anyway? In a city a parking space probably goes for about the same
price as a luxury automobile. The land is more valuable for something
other than cars.

Let the people that live there work out the details.

But please don't ask me to finance your transit.

The return on investment is not monetary. The return is an intangible
such as more easily sold real estate. Or real estate with a higher
value. Economists call these intangibles externalities. Why should
someone in California fund transit in Cleveland?

Please add me as a complainer against mass transit, but not for the
reason you gave. I don't hate mass transit because the books aren't
balanced without an infusion of public money (tax).

There are places where transit works. Paris, London, New York. My
complaint is that some places try to force fit a transit system that
does not serve. Jitney service in Detroit is better than "public
transit" in my opinion. But the people in Michigan make the decision of
what they want.

WMATA is drawing down funds that were earmarked for state highway
projects.

That's just two examples.

Transportation money can be spent more wisely. But not when a
congressman on the other side of the continent decides that WMATA can
use the money more wisely than CALTRANS or any state DOT. Or someone in
Lansing decides that transit needs protection from jitneys.

Ends up with the state DOTs doing some fancy bookwork which borders on
criminal activity. Anti-deficiency act? They thought they had the
money. After all it was collected in the state. But then the ground
rules changed and the state becomes a perpetual donor state.

Ends up with scofflaws or law enforcment looking the other way.

The relevance is that if there is not enough collected in the fare box,
something else has to give. Taxes can be increased or other services
can be cut to keep mass transit in operation. Let the local people make
those decisions. Let the local people pay for their decisions.

But please don't take MY fuel tax money. Taking MY fuel tax money for
mass transit isn't acting in good faith. Congress sets a collection on
fuel tax. Tax supposedly in a trust fund earmarked for transportation.
Congress appropriates those taxes for a new definition of
transportation that does not serve my transportation needs. Instead the
money is used to fund transportation that is in competition with my
needs.

It becomes cheaper to ship walnuts from China than grow them in
California. Insurance rates go up due to poor and crowded roads.
Shipping times increase.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2005 16:08:08 -0800, "Dick Boyd" > wrote:
>
> >For the subtopic of transit.
> >
> >Most areas that operate transit have a dedicated reliable steady
source
> >of income. The people that live near that transit have decided that
is
> >what they want. They put their money where there mouth is. More
power
> >to them. Different strokes for different folks.
> >
> >I don't know of any public transit system that collects enough in
the
> >fare box to pay for construction and operation.
>
> Irrelevant. Transit, like roads, is a public good, and is not
expected
> to turn a profit. If transporation infrastructure were intended to be
> a for-profit operation, every road would be a toll road.
>
> The only people who bitch about mass transit not being profitable are
> the people who hate mass transit.
>

Scott en Aztlán > wrote:

> On 20 Feb 2005 16:08:08 -0800, "Dick Boyd" > wrote:
>
> >For the subtopic of transit.
> >
> >Most areas that operate transit have a dedicated reliable steady source
> >of income. The people that live near that transit have decided that is
> >what they want. They put their money where there mouth is. More power
> >to them. Different strokes for different folks.
> >
> >I don't know of any public transit system that collects enough in the
> >fare box to pay for construction and operation.
>
> Irrelevant. Transit, like roads, is a public good, and is not expected
> to turn a profit.

So *all* transit is a good thing, no matter what it costs?

--
RJ

In article >,
"ParrotRob" > wrote:

> "Robert Morien" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> Robert Morien > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >The theory is to gradually make cars unattractive. In doing this new
> >> >developments occur near the mass/rapid transit lines instead of hiway
> >> >exits. I've also seen some theoretical developments that were more like
> >> >mini-towns with most of the "necessities within walking distance of all
> >> >housing AND a transit line either thru the middle or near the most dense
> >> >population point connecting to the next development.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, mathematics and economics severely limit the
> >> scalability of this approach. There's only so much space within
> >> walking distance of each station. Once that's filled up, everyone
> >> else has to live and work elsewhere. And if that's the most desirable
> >> space, it'll quickly become enormously expensive because it's both
> >> desirable AND rare, meaning only the wealthiest people and companies
> >> will locate there.
> >>
> >
> > That just isn't true. Since that system can't happen overnight, over the
> > generation or two it would take to change land use planning to this
> > model, adaptations would create the same type of neighborhoods in
> > existing neighborhoods. You don't have to build single family homes in
> > these developments, three story condo/apts would work
>
> Oh yeah, that's exactly what people want. The American Dream. A
> three-story condo by the metro station. Where do I sign up?
>
>

The history of people waiting in line to buy new housing is easy to find.

Ever noticed that there is no shortage of housing next to freeways or
the exits/on-ramps? why should being next to a metro station be any
different

RJ wrote:
>
> Scott en Aztlán > wrote:
>
> > On 20 Feb 2005 16:08:08 -0800, "Dick Boyd" > wrote:
> >
> > >For the subtopic of transit.
> > >
> > >Most areas that operate transit have a dedicated reliable steady source
> > >of income. The people that live near that transit have decided that is
> > >what they want. They put their money where there mouth is. More power
> > >to them. Different strokes for different folks.
> > >
> > >I don't know of any public transit system that collects enough in the
> > >fare box to pay for construction and operation.
> >
> > Irrelevant. Transit, like roads, is a public good, and is not expected
> > to turn a profit.
>
> So *all* transit is a good thing, no matter what it costs?

I don't know about "good" but unless you want to stay on the exact spot
where you were born it's pretty much essential.

--
Cheers,
Bev
=============================================
If you are going to try cross-country skiing,
start with a small country.