  Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4570 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: Actually I refuted your point but whatever. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3636 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: It's in there. You're blind. St. Louis Metro – Total Costs & Passenger Mileage, 1996-2005 Capital Costs: Fixed Facilities Capital Costs: Rolling Stock O&M Cost Total Cost Passenger- Mileage Bus $64.0 $131.3 $1,045.5 $1,240.8 1,389.5 LRT $844.4 $124.2 $262.2 $1,231.2 1,047.7 [Source: Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, 1996-2005] quote: Yes, Mr. Know-it-All, it does. Each rail car is assigned a 4-digit number. The first Metro railcars have a "1" as the first digit, and were manufactured by Rohr (which no longer makes railcars). The newest railcars, currently going online, have a "6" as the first digit. All transit agencies keep exhaustive records on each railcar--manufacturer, date put into service, maintenance histories, date retired, etc. quote: DOT is an executive branch agency staffed by civil servants and run by political appointees. It would not be the first time an executive branch agency politicized reports to promote it's agenda (see EPA under Christie Whitman). Any good journalist knows you need two independent sources before you go to print. I questioned the validity of this information, as it conflicts EVERY SINGLE SOURCE available on the topic. You have not addressed my points. This is a specious source, at best. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3637 Registered: 10-2003 |
Since this thread is about developers and transit: quote: But, of course, Detroit doesn't need this kind of development. For the record, Arlington's population has since topped 200,000, in an area 2/3 the size of Troy. http://www.pecpa.org/_final_pe c/html/TOD_case_study_WMATA.ht m | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4574 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: The formatting of your copy and paste job is pretty bad so I guess I am not seeing it. Are those columns? It doesn't change the basic equation. Over a billion dollars for a system used by .2% of commuters that will need to be fed more tax money every year. quote: Yeah, THEY have the records, you don't. This byzantine nonsense about serial numbers is only clouding the issue. quote: Why not dispute it based on the facts? Most of the sources you have quoted are activists that are trying to promote light rail, hardly objective either. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W ashington_Metropolitan_Area_Tr ansit_Authority#Funding In 2004, the Brookings Institution released a report entitled "Deficits by Design" that found the agency's serious budgetary challenges owe in large part to its problematic revenue base.[12] Most notably, Brookings found that WMATA's extraordinary lack of dedicated funding sources has necessitated an over-reliance on annually appropriated support that makes the agency vulnerable to perennial financial crises. As a result, the region's political and business leaders created a committee to look at new ways to fund the system, including some type of dedicated tax. Another area where overall percentages indicate a decrease in transit use, the system is in fiscal crisis yet is touted as a success. Of course that doesn't stop LRT proponents from pushing the "Capital Beltway Corridor Rail" initiative that many residents don't even want. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 31, 2007) | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1417 Registered: 02-2006 |
quote: No you didn't. My point was that people who do not use the road system subsidize it. You even used the word subsidize, which I loved. My point basically is that since I subsidize your roads, and you subsidize my roads, user fees are not paying for the roads. Same as transit. But yet, your kind refuses to subsidize transit. You also ignored my point about air travel, which has even less wiggle room. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1560 Registered: 07-2004 |
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind ex.php?title=Brookings_Institu tion | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4578 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: I know that Air travel is a loser too. Taken in total from the beginning, the airline business has never made money. We can argue about semantics as to what subsidy means in this context. Bottom line, people using personal transportation have more than paid for the costs of providing the infrastructure for that mode of transport. LRT, Buses, Air, whatever, by design can never come close. That is not to say we shouldn't have all of them to one degree or another but the nonsense that funding highways is robbing communities of money that could be used on mass transit is nonsense. The exact opposite is true. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3638 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Where are your numbers from? YOU'RE MAKING SHIT UP. Unlike highways and aviation, the federal government doesn't subsidize operation of transit systems. quote: Any idiot--sorry, ALMOST any idiot--can look this up online, or phone/e-mail the agency. I don't know what's so cloudy about well-kept records. quote: I made my contentions very clear. Why don't you refute them? quote: Percentages don't mean SHIT in this case. Why, you ask? Because in sprawling, outlying areas, THERE IS NO METRO SERVICE. You're inappropriately using the entire Metropolitan Statistical Area population, when you should be using the Service Area population. This can be found on the NTD. STOP MANIPULATING STATISTICS. You are not familiar with the funding mechanism for WMATA (among other things). Considering you have a difficult time understanding simple concepts, we dare not explore the world of cross-jurisdictional transit-system funding. I suppose that since there are *only* 700,000+ daily subway riders, though, we discount the system in whole because it evolved a screwed up revenue system. By the way, that screwed-up system recovers 58% of its costs from fares--more than four times the rate of Detroit's bus-only system. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4581 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: I posted the source already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S t._Louis_MetroLink quote: How does that relate to overall cost? What are YOUR numbers? quote: Yeah, that is right up there by comparison. BUT: Funds come from the District’s highway trust fund. (parking meter fees, traffic fines, vehicle fees, restaurant and hotel taxes). Montgomery and Prince George’s share is paid by the state transportation trust fund which is fed primarily by state gas tax – but not dedicated. Only dedicated funding source in region is a 2% gas tax (13% of NoVa subsidy); state and federal sources (43.2%) and local general revenues (43.3%) provide the rest. So once again taxes from motorists are being diverted to fund mass transit. And we have this:  So a system that is carrying less passengers in an area where there has been explosive growth, once again the opposite of what you would expect given your assumptions. Fiscal viability is in question yet we have expansions of LRT in that area being proposed? Do facts not matter at all? (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 31, 2007) | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1418 Registered: 02-2006 |
2000 data is ridiculously out of date. I don't know where that data you posted came from, so I can't make direct comparisons, but I do know that raw ridership of the CTA in Chicago has gone up dramatically since 2000. 2000: 450.5 million rides 2006: 494.8 million rides And the reason this is likely still down from 1990 is because the CTA gutted their service in 1993. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4583 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: That was the latest data available. Once again your point ignores population growth but overall I agree ridership has increased there. Chicago is certainly an area where mass transit makes sense although we have this problem: The CTA is facing the elimination of 82 bus routes out of the present 154 due to a funding crisis. There is a shortfall of $226 million in the 2007 budget which the RTA and CTA had hoped would be addressed by the Illinois General Assembly.[3] A proposal last summer to increase the RTA's sale tax rate failed in the General Assembly last summer, while the state Senate is considering another compromise bill which would also address roads, schools and other infrastructure. Unless there is help forthcoming from the state, the CTA will be compelled under the present budget plan to eliminate 39 routes on November 4, 2007 and another 43 on January 1, 2008. Further about 2,420 employees of the CTA would be laid off, 22% of the workforce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C hicago_Transit_Authority | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3639 Registered: 10-2003 |
Hmmm, that's interesting, PG, considering that WMATA gave over 1.2 million rides yesterday (wmata.com): Metrorail service information for Tuesday, October 30, 2007 Metrorail:749,565 Metrobus: 464,000 quote: Diverted from what??? It's not like DC is going to build an Interstate highway through the city. New York MTA also takes bridge and tunnel tolls and uses them to fund the commuter rail, bus, and subway systems. Big deal. Should DC and New York aspire to look more like Detroit? I suppose 150,000 additional parking spaces in downtown DC is a better option than funding the stupid subway system, right? | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1419 Registered: 02-2006 |
PG, like you and Dan and the DC system, while you may be saying things that are facts, you miss the big picture because you're only looking at Wikipedia from afar. The reason the CTA is on the verge of collapse next week is because of the ridiculously childish Illinois legislature and our Democratic (imagine that...a lib vetoing taxes!) governor promising to veto any bill that comes across his desk that doesn't include expanded casino gambling. Thus, many vote "no" because they don't want their name on the record as voting for a tax bill that was ultimately vetoed anyway. It's politics, nothing more. Please, don't pretend to know the situation. (Message edited by focusonthed on October 31, 2007) | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4585 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: Diverted from taxes being payed by motorists who don't use the system in question for the most part. NYC is no comparison as we already discussed. quote: Sounds like my facts were pretty dead on. The CTA is headed for collapse. It seems that people are tired of subsidizing it and don't like tax increases. I guess that puts them in my camp. Funny that you would initially praise CTA and leave out this little detail hoping I wouldn't notice. Again, you guys saying that people are riding the trains does not mean they are cost efficient. The fact is that the riders use them because they are getting an artificial discount due to the subsidy. If people were charged the "real" fare nobody would use them. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 31, 2007) | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1420 Registered: 02-2006 |
PG, please. If you want to debate the minutae of that which you know nothing about, start another thread, and I'll be happy to discuss it. In the meantime, hear this: you're wrong. quote: Really? We're back here? I feel like this was covered already. Nobody pays the real cost for anything! Deal with it. I'll agree to let transit sink or swim on user fees alone if you do the same for roads. No gas taxes, no property taxes, no federal kickbacks for capital projects--only tolls. As Livernoisyard might say...go ahead put it to a vote. 100% tolls, including city streets. See what happens. (Message edited by focusonthed on October 31, 2007) | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4586 Registered: 03-2006 |
Hear this: I'm right. You keep saying I am wrong yet you don't articulate what I am wrong about or refute my assertions with any evidence. I said the CTA is failing financially and you agreed. quote: No need for tolls. If we put 100% of the gas tax towards what it was intended for we are in positive territory. Motorists are the only commuters who ARE paying the real costs. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3640 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: As my high school algebra teacher used to say, "Show your work." | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4587 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: Already did.  Quote: The net federal subsidy to highway passenger transportation shows negative values for the entire period, indicating excess user charge payments (e.g., fuel taxes) by highway users over their allocated cost. Users of the highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs in 1994-2000. This was a result of the increase in the deficit reduction motor fuel tax rates between October 1993 and September 1997, and the increase in Highway Trust Fund fuel tax rates starting in October 1997. In discussing highways, it should be borne in mind that the Highway Trust Fund is governed by the Byrd amendment, which mandates a long term zero balance in the fund (i.e. that any unfunded authorizations at the end of a fiscal year must be less than the revenues anticipated to be earned in the following 24 months). This means that, apart from the funds transferred from the Highway Trust Fund to mass transit, any positive or negative subsidies for the highway mode should be short term, primarily reflecting fluctuations in revenue patterns to which expenditures adjust only after a time lag. You know what else is irksome about WMATA? 47% of the riders are federal employees. Let those incompetent morons pay their own way to work! (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 31, 2007) | ||
Eric_c Member Username: Eric_c Post Number: 1078 Registered: 11-2003 |
Thank God you guys are figuring it all out so we don't have to! When do you suppose I should check back to see if we're getting streetcars or not? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4590 Registered: 03-2006 |
Well, Detroit cannot afford to build a system, so that means they need to go to other sources of revenue. The federal govt, or perhaps a state ballot initiative with some sort of mass transit tax, so I wouldn't be holding your breath. Clearly private money will not come into play because the line will be a money loser from day 1. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 4506 Registered: 10-2004 |
Except for two or three posters in this thread, there's no way that anybody else would waste their time debating this beating-a-dead-horse of a Detroit topic. Even if there were merit for rapid transit (of any type) in Metro Detroit, it just ain't gonna happen. There's no practicable manner to fund it. Remember the hassles over the zoos, the former aquarium, and trash pickup? All of those hotly contested issues are but chump change compared to rapid transit. There's no reasonable prospects with coming up with its capital costs and annual operating expenses, year after year. Even a prosperous part of the US like Charlotte NC is rethinking whether they should proceed with its own expensive, cost-overridden rendition of rapid transit. So, we'll see how their voters decide that boondoggle. The only way that a rapid-transit boondoggle could be implemented in Detroit would be for the socialists here to get their camels' noses under the tents and try to sneak in a small demonstration project and hopefully expand from there. Still, where's the groundswell of popular local support here for it? Why is it that the noise on this subject is from out-of-town extreme infrastructure-based socialists who have virtually no idea about how things are or work around here? If any rapid-transit demands exist on behalf of the locals who would have to pay for it, it's got to be the best-kept secret in Michigan. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4597 Registered: 03-2006 |
Yeah, the NC system sounds like an abject failure. From the article "Breach of Faith: Light Rail and Smart Growth in Charlotte" http://www.publicpurpose.com/c harlotte.htm The New Starts Report and MIS indicates that the cost per new one-way ride would be $10.76. The recent escalation of capital costs to $315 million as discussed above would raise the cost per new one-way ride to $12.39. The annual cost per new commuter (person using transit to and from work every day) would thus be $5,575. This is not a one-time cost. It is a cost that would be incurred every year for every new commuter. The same amount of money could lease each new commuter a Ford Taurus or similar car in perpetuity. Light rail is often promoted as a mechanism of urban development. The expectation is that light rail will concentrate development, thereby reshaping the city into spatial patterns that reduce automobile dependency, while generating more favorable traffic and access. For example the Portland’s planners anticipated that light rail would result in a “reurbanization” of the corridor, causing a rapid conversion to high density uses in the light rail corridor, a reduction in the growth rate outside the corridor, a reduction in automobile use and ownership, among other impacts. In fact, nothing of the sort has occurred. Light rail development has been heavily subsidized, growth continues to be focused in outlying areas, not along the light rail corridor, and automobile usage has continued to increase at a far greater rate than transit use. Light rail has generally not produced development, much less reshaped cities. The majority of development cited by light rail promoters has been either government projects or tax subsidized. Portland and St. Louis have built publicly financed sports facilities (stadiums) and convention centers (as have cities without light rail, such as Detroit, Charlotte, Seattle and Minneapolis). Portland’s transit oriented residential developments have received tax subsidies and tax abatements. And, the city of Portland now grants 10 years of property tax abatement for developments within walking distance of light rail stations. Tax and subsidy policy, not light rail, is the driver of such development. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3641 Registered: 10-2003 |
Oh, good work, PG. Show a line graph with no data, explanation, or methodology. It must be a piece of cake to live in your world. Now how about answering the questions I posed regarding this graph? Should be a walk in the park for you, since you have the answers to everything else. The small percentage of Highway Trust Fund money that gets diverted to transit cannot possibly account for the rapid depletion of the Fund. Care to prove otherwise? quote: You've stated before that you run a business. How do your employees get to work? Those people *choose* to let their tax dollars support the subway system, so they don't have to drive. And I resent that you've ignorantly labeled a good deal of intelligent and hard-working people as "incompetent morons". Kinda shows where your head is at, no? quote: How do other cities do it, then? Are they all flush with cash? Maybe this is something the DTOGS study is looking at. You think? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3642 Registered: 10-2003 |
PG, Wendell Cox is bought and paid for by the highway lobby, as well as right-wing libertarian groups like Reason Public Policy Institute and Heritage Foundation. Through distortion, misleading statements, and outright lies, he is highly incredible regarding transit, and his math doesn't add up. The link below is a short paper concerning Cox's propaganda, written by an employee of professional transportation planning and design firm PB (formerly Parsons Brinckerhoff). http://www.cfte.org/images/res ponse_cox.pdf | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4600 Registered: 03-2006 |
Sorry you are having trouble reading a simple graph. To spell it out for you, any line below "0" is a surplus. quote: There is no rapid depletion, there is a POTENTIAL shortfall that could occur in 2009 unless steps are taken, like an increase in the gasoline tax or by simply using the existing funds for their intended purpose, which is highways. Funds have been diverted for other reasons besides mass transit. quote: Well, I was being sarcastic to a point but I don't think most people would consider many government bureaucrats intelligent or hard working. quote: They do it with a combination of taxes and fares, but usually more taxes than fares. And the people that are taxed go well beyond the small percentage who actually use these systems. Clearly many cities are having difficulty keeping these systems sound financially. In Detroit, there seems to be no major groundswell of support, frankly the DTOGS website does not instill confidence, not much happening there either. If there were support, the money is not available locally from what I can tell so federal funding would have to be a major component. The money could be better put to use to hire more cops. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4601 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: The article was well footnoted and sourced, you don't agree with him so you accuse him of being a shill which is typical. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3643 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: An objective analysis clearly states its assumptions, and how its data is derived. This report does neither, and in fact, by using vague statements in the text, introduces more ambiguity, not less. Admit it--you have no idea where these numbers come from, because NOBODY knows where these numbers come from. quote: Then you should have no problem showing the numbers. You're merely repeating your previous claim here. quote: Kind of like how Michigan doesn't have enough money to fix its roads, right? quote: Follow the money: quote: quote: Objective, my ass. Of course, you'll believe this idiot over a professional, simply because he panders to your myopia. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 721 Registered: 07-2004 |
PG, you keep going on how drivers pay through taxes for transit they don't use. You make it sound like drivers don't get anything out of this. Well drivers do get something out of transit. Drivers get reduced road congestion, less air pollution, and easier parking. What would Washington D.C. be like if the over 1 million transit riders switched to driving? Current drivers would probably be paying double for parking, be sitting in even more traffic, etc. Actually when a transit strikes happens drivers see just how much transit effects them. When Denver had a transit strike, it took people over one hour to get downtown by car or to other parts of the city, that normally take a half hour or less. And that is in Denver where transit ridership is not that high. Transit benefits drivers more then you think. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 722 Registered: 07-2004 |
By the way PG, I just found this stat on the Interstate Highway system. It seems the Interstate Highway system is not much better then most transit systems in how much user fees cover operation. ------- Interstate Highways About 56% of the construction and maintenance costs are funded through user fees, primarily gasoline taxes, collected by states and the federal government, and tolls collected on toll roads and bridges. The rest of the costs are borne by the federal budget. -------- | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4602 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: For about the fourth time, the numbers are from the Dept. of Transportation. I have linked to the source document a number of times already that would answer any questions you may have. quote: Again, he backs up all of his claims with sources, so any reasonable person would see that he not an idiot or a liar. As Cox is a former transportation commissioner in LA he is certainly not an anti-transit zealot and is clearly more expert in these matters than both of us combined. |
