Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
MTA Ridership is WAY UP
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'..."
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'..."
On 2008-05-09, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@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.
> 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.
"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:ZfKdnVp09cdTF7nVnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@comcast . com ...
> On 2008-05-09, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@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. 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.
news:ZfKdnVp09cdTF7nVnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@comcast . com ...
> On 2008-05-09, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@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. 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.
On 2008-05-09, D. Stussy <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> 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
;)
> 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
;)
On May 9, 4:15 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
On 2008-05-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn . com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn . com > wrote:
> On May 9, 4:15 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> 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.
What is your malfunction? I responded to someone's personal experience
that mine was similiar. How about taking a giant cup of STFU.
> On May 9, 4:15 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> 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.
What is your malfunction? I responded to someone's personal experience
that mine was similiar. How about taking a giant cup of STFU.
On Fri, 9 May 2008 12:46:43 -0700, "D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org>
wrote:
>"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo . com > wrote in message
>news:ZfKdnVp09cdTF7nVnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@comcast . com ...
>> On 2008-05-09, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@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.
>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.
--
"Dave's not here, man!"
- Tommy Chong
wrote:
>"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo . com > wrote in message
>news:ZfKdnVp09cdTF7nVnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@comcast . com ...
>> On 2008-05-09, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@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.
>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.
--
"Dave's not here, man!"
- Tommy Chong
On 2008-05-10, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@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.
> 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.
> 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.
Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-05-10, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@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.
>> 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.
>
>
> On 2008-05-10, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@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.
>> 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.
>
>
On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@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.
> 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.
>> 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.
Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@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.
> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@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.
On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@way.org2> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@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.
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@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.
Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@way.org2> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@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.
> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@way.org2> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@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.
On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@way.org2> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@way.org2> wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@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!
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.
>>> 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.
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 wrote:
>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@way.org2> wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@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!
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.
>>> 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.
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 wrote:
> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@way.org2> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@way.org2> wrote:
>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@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!
>
> 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.
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.
>>>> 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.
>
> 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.
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.
> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@way.org2> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@way.org2> wrote:
>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@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!
>
> 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.
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.
>>>> 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.
>
> 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.
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.
