  Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3609 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Sure, the data may be historical, but the manipulation of it is courtesy of the Bush White House. First of all, the report ignores exactly how much money comes from the gas tax. It intentionally obscures sources of revenue, and even states as much when it claims that "This report only looks at total revenues in and total expenditures." The data set is a piece of shit--it just throws a bunch of numbers out there, not explaining how they were derived. The report also admits that "there may be other factors" that weren't considered. Then, the report counts a tax credit for Amtrak as a subsidy. Roads and airports do not pay taxes, so this highly distorts the data, and produces a spike for rail. And most disingenuously, the report takes a standard transportation statistic--Vehicle Miles Traveled--and completely misapplies it. People who live in automobile-dependent areas naturally travel more vehicle miles than someone who rides transit. Likewise, people who fly naturally travel further on average than people who take a train. So, it goes without saying that dividing by a higher number is going to skew the results. This ignores that highly subsidized modes promote travel over greater distances, despite requiring vastly greater subsidy. This is an improper use of a normalization technique, again, performed intentionally. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4516 Registered: 03-2006 |
The other problem with your "subsidy" argument is you ignore the fact that non-transit users have higher incomes on average thus pay more taxes. As there are also more of them, the pool the revenue comes from is greater as well. Consider Detroit and the suburbs. The average income in Detroit is about $30,000 per year. In Novi for example, average income is about $74,000 per year. Are you getting the picture? The folks in the suburbs are paying more taxes across the board. So again, NO SUBSIDY. The people who use the roads are also paying for them. Think of it this way, there are millions of people driving in and around SE Michigan on a given day. All paying gas taxes and the majority paying higher income taxes than residents in the city. Then we have mass transit users, which are predominantly lower income and are also in smaller numbers. So they are paying less in taxes in terms of rates and also total numbers. They pay no gas tax at all directly. It isn't surprising that this would be a heavily subsidized form of transit. I am not saying that it should be eliminated, but it is more akin to a social program than anything else. You can argue against sprawl and all of that nonsense, but to do so based on some imagined "subsidy" for auto travel does not hold water. | ||
Miss_cleo Member Username: Miss_cleo Post Number: 938 Registered: 05-2005 |
Shoot, when we lived in Clinton Twp, we had septic and well. Developer came through, building houses on the block over. Going door to door trying to get neighbors to agree to city water. We told him no, our septic was only 4-5 years old at that time....why would I want a water bill? Turns out, more wanted it than not and through came the water pipes. Just remember, not everyone living in the sticks had intrest in your city water and sewer, we sure didnt want it, we were just fine with out it. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3610 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Would you like to stack that up against transit users in New York, DC, Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco--who constitute the majority of transit users in the nation? Betcha there's a guy who rides the 6 train to work that could buy you 10 times over without blinking. Again--YOU'RE GUESSING. Stop making excuses, and start making counterarguments. I've noted that you have yet to refute any of the points made against your Just so you know, I've been put in touch with an analyst at U.S. DOT who is more than happy to discuss your fudged report. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4519 Registered: 03-2006 |
I don't guess:  quote: OOOOHH! Scary! Make sure he scans his ID and uploads it to the forum first. First of all, it is not MY report and it is not fudged. The Highway Fund has been in surplus for years although there may be a shortfall looming in 2009, mostly due to the fund being raided. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 30, 2007) | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2035 Registered: 04-2006 |
New York County (Manhattan) has the highest per capita income of any county in the country. The majority of Manhattan residents use some type of public transportation to get to work. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3611 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: The address the points I made against it. quote: Raided? For what? Show numbers. You didn't even read any of the links I posted, because they discuss this point precisely. It's that God damned liberal Associated Press, isn't it? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3612 Registered: 10-2003 |
For those still paying attention, the thread is supposed to be about developers, and how they are attracted to investment in transit. I'm sorry that I allowed PG to continue on with his distraction from the issue. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4520 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: Address the fact that you claim the report was manipulated by the Bush White House even though you have no evidence of that? Kinda hard to do. Prove that you were not the gunmen on the grassy knoll. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 30, 2007) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3613 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Do you READ at all, or are you only programmed to spew bullshit? I stated why I believe the report was manipulated. You haven't assuaged any of those points. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4521 Registered: 03-2006 |
http://www.nemw.org/HWtrustfun d.htm Like other federal trust funds, the HTF is a financing mechanism established by law to account for tax receipts that are collected by the federal government and are dedicated or "earmarked" for expenditure on special purposes. Originally, the HTF focused solely on highways, but later Congress determined that a portion of the revenues from highway-user taxes dedicated to the HTF should be used to fund transit needs, resulting in a 5 cent increase in the gas tax (to 9 cents), of which 1 cent would go towards transit, to help fund the new account. As a result, the Mass Transit Account was created within the HTF effective April 1, 1983. Although never formally described and named, the portion of the Highway Trust Fund outside the Mass Transit Account has come to be called the Highway Account and receives all HTF receipts not specifically designated for the Mass Transit Account. So now we have the smoking gun that revenues from the Highway Trust Fund are being spent on transit. So gas taxes from commuters is being diverted. How is the HTF funded? Tax revenues directed to the HTF are derived from excise taxes on highway motor fuel and truck-related taxes on truck tires, sales of trucks and trailers, and heavy vehicle use. The Mass Transit Account receives a portion of the motor fuel taxes, usually 2.86 cents per gallon, as does the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, usually 0.1 cent per gallon. The General Fund receives 2.5 cents per gallon of the tax on gasohol and some other alcohol fuels plus an additional 0.6 cent per gallon for fuels that are at least 10 percent ethanol. The Highway Account receives the remaining portion of the fuel tax proceeds. Now we see that the revenue for the fund is derived from taxes on motor vehicle users, and some of that is diverted to transit AND the general fund. Your argument is in a shambles Dan. It is really simple math. There are almost 200 million licensed drivers in this country buying massive amounts of fuel and being taxed on every gallon. They are also paying a bulk of the income taxes in terms of sheer numbers and many of them are paying higher rates as well. Of course some of these drivers also use transit, but that does not change the equation much. In the end, there is no way that a few million riders of transit that are paying a fare that doesn't cover the cost of the system is going to be anything but a net loser. But whatever, people want it or need it in large cities and that is fine. If folks in Michigan want it bad enough it will come here too. But the assertion that somehow transit riders or city residents are subsidizing highways is pure nonsense. As you clearly have some sort of emotional investment in your argument, your mind is made up and you will dispute any facts I present. So, I will end my involvement in this thread as it is becoming a waste of time. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 30, 2007) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3614 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: And yet roads STILL don't pay for themselves! Amazing! | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 215 Registered: 07-2007 |
PG - why did you ignore my point that gas taxes don't cover the cost to maintain local roads. I think my Novi example made the point. Local taxpayer are paying a significant amount in property taxes above and beyond what they pay in gas taxes to just maintain what is already there with some incremental upgrades. That's a significant subsidy that you keep ignoring. | ||
Thecarl Member Username: Thecarl Post Number: 1096 Registered: 04-2005 |
quote: questions: 1. what was the locale originally intended to be serviced by detroit's people mover system? 2. what was the original budget? 3. where did the money come from? 4. what was the "final" cost 5. was it projected that the people mover would bring revenue? 6. was said revenue to be used for self-sufficiency, and possibly, expansion? i think taking a good look at these questions and answers will tell us why we (don't) have what we have. (edited to remove stray characters!) (Message edited by thecarl on October 30, 2007) | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 897 Registered: 12-2006 |
I can only answer two: the People Mover was meant to be built exactly where it is built. There was to be a rail transit system on Woodward feeding into it, but that never was built, partly because the exact extent of that was never agreed to. There was never any fantasy that it would make enough money to cover the cost of its own operation, as no public transit system does so. However, ridership was projected as a great multiple of what actually happened, partly because the feeder system was never built. Questions 2-4 I do not have the answers to. | ||
Thecarl Member Username: Thecarl Post Number: 1099 Registered: 04-2005 |
thank you, professors. you raised another question implicity - or redefined question #1 - regarding the service area. if there were feeder lines intended, there's an impact on the project's efficacy by not having these lines completed. perhaps someone can explain the "feeder line" aspect of this project? a deconstruction of the people mover project has much to say about our present state of affairs. | ||
Parkguy Member Username: Parkguy Post Number: 134 Registered: 04-2007 |
OK, look. Here are a couple of headlines and links to today's (10/30) Seattle P-I. "Seattle-area home-price appreciation leads nation again" http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/ local/337376_housing31.html "Streetcar test: It's time to learn to share the road again" http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/ local/337362_streetcar30.html [Funny story here-- the South Lake Union Trolly had its name changed to South Lake Union Streetcar. The original name was already showing up as an acronym on t-shirts.] First, don't get all over me because I make frequent references to Seattle. I'm familiar with the city and I take an interest in what they do. The point is this-- and it was the point of the original post-- successful cities ALL have transit options. Not transit dictatorships-- options. Developers are attracted to fixed transit routes, and in cities with these systems, billions of dollars of development and redevelopment have been built near the routes. NO CITY IS TOO SPRAWLED TO BUILD A SYSTEM. Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and Atlanta (sprawl capital of the universe) have all made the investment in recent years, along with many other cities. Die-hards pay attention: none of these cities have banned cars, nor have the majority of people given up their autos. Every transportation system is subsidized. That includes highways (every inch of road, even toll roads-- gas taxes do not come close to paying the costs of construction and operation), it includes railroads, it includes air transportation (airports, obviously, but the air traffic controllers are FEDERAL EMPLOYEES). It even includes bike paths. Seattle has been fighting (yes, fighting) about transit for years. They voted in an expanded monorail system, then voted it out. They are currently building rapid light rail, and are already planning extensions. At the same time, they built this streetcar system. And they already have a good system of bus transit, including diesel and electric. OPTIONS. All of this is going on while their economy booms and their housing prices rise while the entire country looks at falling values and tight sales markets. We have to move away from fighting about whether transit will work-- it will work here, even if it just works a little. We just have to make a start. Why can't the discussion be about ways to build an intelligent system as a beginning? Thanks to everyone who posted civil ideas in this thread. | ||
Number1 Member Username: Number1 Post Number: 25 Registered: 07-2007 |
What can light rail do that buses can't do at a lower cost? | ||
Thecarl Member Username: Thecarl Post Number: 1103 Registered: 04-2005 |
quote: quote: two points. "expansion" is a condition where suburbs absorb the growth of a city center, while "sprawl" is the condition where suburbs are an escape from the city center - for whatever reasons. now, what do you suppose is the level of trust and accountability in seattle's government? how do you suppose that compares with detroit's politicians? and how are the private sector contracts managed? please see my earlier post regarding questions concerning the people mover. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4540 Registered: 03-2006 |
Fun fact about Seattle commuter train: Sound Transit's light rail plan will carry fewer than 1 percent of all commuters but cost more than $30 billion. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/ opinion/334331_noroads5.html | ||
Thecarl Member Username: Thecarl Post Number: 1104 Registered: 04-2005 |
perfectg, do you have any such stats on ddot/smart regarding ridership and expense? it would be interesting to do a comparison on demographics/cost and see how that might scale into a more sophisticated mass-transit system. | ||
Billpdx Member Username: Billpdx Post Number: 50 Registered: 05-2006 |
Great. Thanks for supplying us with an opinion piece written by a member of a right wing think tank. That 'fact' is a ton of help. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4541 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: More people walk to work than ride light rail in Portland at least as of 2000. The rate is .5%. So 99.5% of all commuters in Portland are not using the rail system. Impressive. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 717 Registered: 07-2004 |
Perfectgentleman I am sorry but that last post makes no sense at all. These anti transit right wing reporters always site stupid things like only 1% of the populatio uses a rail line, etc. That is not true. And if you were to count ridership like that, then people could say only 1% of the population uses a particular highway each day. No matter what the %, it is a lot of people who use LRT, and our highways. Portland's Light Rail moves over 100,000 people a day. Is that maybe only 1% of the entire population of Greater Portland? Yes it is. But that is not how you measure how many people use a LRT system, or a highway for that matter. Because if you did that stat for a highway, it would come out the same with something like 0.5% of people using a given highway. How about this fact that you probably did not know. Portland's MAX light rail moves 26% of the commuters in the Banfield and Sunset Freeway corridors during peak periods. Not bad huh???? You can make stats speak what you want them to speak. Toronto's long distance commuter train network only carries 10% of all regional commuters. But you know what, that 10% equals almost 200,000 people a day. Thats a hell of a lot of car trips off the roads. And for your information, 12% of Portland residents use transit on a regular basis to commute to work. And something like 44% of all Metropolitan Portland residents use public transit atleast twice a month. Does Portland have room to improve? Sure they do. But they are not doing to bad there. By the way. Incase you are wondering why a small sum of what $50 bucks a year on your taxes for transit is so important. Here is why. The following quote is from Tri-Met. ---- Public transit is a safety net for thousands of residents and workers who cannot drive due to disabilities, age or income. It contributes to a healthy economy and quality of life for all residents. It increases the independence of mobility challenged population groups, which will only grow as the median age increases in the years ahead. --- Just a note, that Portland's ridership is mostly choice riders. But it is the ones mentioned in that quot that we have a duty to make sure they have access to all the region offers. (Message edited by miketoronto on October 31, 2007) (Message edited by miketoronto on October 31, 2007) | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 899 Registered: 12-2006 |
Actually, unless you live on a major highway, less than 0.01% of the regional population drives on the street you live on. So we ought to close your street and tear up the pavement and plant grass. That way we will no longer have to maintain the street, which will save us money, and 99.99% of the population won't be affected. It's a no-brainer! That ridiculous paragraph is meant to explain why arguments about "only such and such percent of people use this or that transit line" are not meaningful. Apply the same arguments to a road and see where you end up. Detroit has chosen not to invest in transit, and we are getting the results you can see every day. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4542 Registered: 03-2006 |
About 86% of people in Portland drive to work compared to .5% who ride the light rail. The light rail line you all adore could be destroyed and the vast majority of people in the area wouldn't even notice. So, when allocating dollars for transportation infrastructure, these facts need to be kept in mind. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/j tw/jtw4.htm According to US Census figures, 90% of jobs are *not* located in large cities, hence the need for highways. In a place like NYC, mass transit is essential because the density is there and due to the sheer numbers of people that need to get around the city every day. In fact the NYC area accounts for 1/3 of the total mass transit riders in the US. However, to claim that a light rail line in a place like Portland that is only being used by a tiny fraction of the population is one the main reasons that city is flourishing is preposterous. Again, we are talking 1/2 of 1 percent here folks! | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 4504 Registered: 10-2004 |
quote: Is misspelling a particular Canadian malady? One thing for sure in SE Michigan is that less than 2% of its workers in the four/five Detroit counties use any form of public transit for getting to/from work. And I rarely hear or read anything about a groundswell of support for rail transit in addition to the mass transit already in place. | ||
Billpdx Member Username: Billpdx Post Number: 51 Registered: 05-2006 |
I am amused by anyone who claims that the Portland train is barely used by the people there. Obviously, you've never ridden on it. Good luck finding standing room at rush hour, let alone a seat. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1920 Registered: 10-2006 |
"Sound Transit's light rail plan will carry fewer than 1 percent of all commuters but cost more than $30 billion." Whatever happened to this thread being about the impact of transit on development? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3621 Registered: 10-2003 |
PG, you need to lay off the Randal O'Toole. You're not even being rational, and considering the rebuttals presented to you. You are entitled to your opinion, but frankly, I can't show respect to anyone who is willfully ignorant enough to spew misleading statements while ignoring evidence to the contrary. Number 1, to put it succinctly, the advantages of light rail over buses are as follows: 1. Smoother, more comfortable ride 2. Faster acceleration/deceleration 3. Less maintenance, due to less moving parts 4. Lower operating costs, which lead to lower long-term costs than bus-only systems. 5. Ability to move greater number of passengers 6. Permanency of system creates attractive sites for development. |
