Study: Does Transit Work? A Conservative Reappraisal"Read (This Study) and I Think You'll See Why Even Conservative State Governors Want More and Better Public Transit, Not Less." Tommy G. Thompson This is a great study. It addresses some of the common arguments against the efficacy of public transit and shows that such arguments are often based on the wrong question, particularly ridership as a share of total trips. Transit's overall percentage of  "Total trips" is not a useful measurement, assert the authors, since the measurement of "total trips" does not consider whether transit is even available. In other words, of course transit cannot compete with a car on a trip to the Oregon Coast- it does not exist as an option! But, the authors show, when transit is actually available for the trip in question and represents a realistic alternative to the automobile, transit efficacy fares much better. Indeed, the more extensive the public transit system becomes, the higher the ridership. The authors point out the cost effectiveness of transit as well - whereas highways in urban areas often cost up to $100 million per mile, rail transit usually costs a fraction of that. Further, if you take a hard look at something this study didn't -how much highway automobile congestion hurts the economic health of cities (especially trade-dependent cities like Portland, which depend on high-value-added freight trips, and for which there are often no alternatives to highway travel), getting people off the roads and onto transit seems like a smart move.  And when you take maintenance costs into account, the case for transit becomes even clearer. To policy makers, who are faced with ever-increasingly-congested roadways and only so much land to expand them, the real-world choice is straight forward. It plainly makes sense to move more people more densely - think about how much of demand one person places on the fixed supply of public right-of-way (ROW) space when they drive alone in a large car, versus the amount of that limited supply of ROW someone uses (demands) when they are sitting on a bus or lightrail... Transit simply represents the most efficient use of the public's limited ROW. Take a look at this study and see what you think about it. -Roland
"Does Transit Work? A Conservative Reappraisal" by Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind Foreword   by Tommy Thompson One of the challenges that comes with being a governor is that you have to make things work. The decision you make today is likely to have real world consequences starting tomorrow. I like to think that makes governors more practical and less ideological. As a fellow governor, Lamar Alexander, likes to say, "How do liberal dog catchers and conservative dog catchers catch dogs? The same way." I found it refreshing when two solid conservatives, Paul Weyrich and Bill Lind, decided to take a fresh look at mass transit. Their previous study, Conservatives and Mass Transit: Is It Time for a New Look?, proved to be the hit of the transit world when it was released a couple of years ago. And with good reason - it said something new. It said that there are sound, conservative reasons to support public transit, when public transit is done right. As a governor, I know that mass transit is important for a variety of reasons to many people in my state. And I know that rail transit, including intercity rail, could and should play a much larger role than it currently does in serving the people of Wisconsin and the entire nation. That is why, when I was offered a position on the Amtrak board of directors, I took it. As a conservative, I am sometimes troubled by the studies released by some conservative think tanks that attack public transit. Why do academic conservatives seem to believe that all transit is bad, when as a real world conservative, I know it isn't? In this new study, Does Transit Work? A Conservative Reappraisal, Weyrich and Lind answer that question. They do so by pointing out something I had sensed but never quite put my finger on: the anti-transit conservative studies ask the wrong question. They base their anti-transit conclusions on the question: what percentage of total trips does transit carry? That number is relatively small. But it is an academic, not a real world number. In the real world, roughly half of all Americans have any transit available to them and a still smaller number have the high quality transit available that would be utilized versus an automobile. If we look at how transit competes among that group of people, it performs vastly better than the anti-transit studies suggest. As governor of Wisconsin, that reflects transit reality in my state. Like many officials at the state level, I encourage those in Washington and in various think tanks around the country to go into the field and witness for themselves just how viable rail transit can be and how important it is to working people. The American people need a dependable and affordable means to get to work and back each day. Think about it - the average price of a new car is now over $20,000. Good public transit can help working families keep a portion of that money in the bank instead of spending it at the gas pump. To them, and us, that's important. So is this study. Read it, and I think you'll see why even conservative state governors want more and better public transit, not less. Executive Summary One of the principal arguments against mass transit is the "one percent argument" -- the assertion that transit carries only about one percent of total trips. This argument is relied upon heavily by many conservative and libertarian critics of public transit. In fact, the real figure appears to be somewhat higher. But this paper argues that the central problem is not the answer but the question. Total trips is a poor yardstick with which to measure the effectiveness of public transit. Instead, the authors propose a new measurement: transit competitive trips. If we ask what percentage transit carries of the trips for which it can compete, we get a very different picture, one that accords much more closely with the real importance of mass transit in urban areas. The study goes on to apply this new measurement to three transit systems, each of which represents high quality transit: Chicago's Metra commuter rail system and the Light Rail systems in San Diego and St. Louis. In each case, the system does far better than the transit critics suggest. Taken together, the three case studies establish beyond question that when we measure transit with the correct yardstick, transit competitive trips, transit works. Like the authors' previous study, Conservatives and Mass Transit: Is It Time for a New Look?, this study then goes on to suggest ways in which transit can compete more effectively. If transit authorities are willing to act imaginatively to improve transit quality, America could see another "transit era," a second coming of public transit. Does Transit Work? A Conservative Reappraisal A Study Prepared by the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation The first recorded example of mass transportation was the movement of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. At that time 100% of the human population was moved at once in a single trip, a record never equaled since. 1 In fact, according to most conservative studies of mass transit, it has gone straight down hill. Today, they argue, despite billions of dollars of investment, transit carries a pathetically small number of riders: about one percent of total trips. Does transit work? If that is all the people it carries, the answer would appear to be clear: no. In our earlier study, Conservatives and Mass Transit: Is It Time for a New Look?, we surveyed three common conservative objections to public transportation: it is a government creation that would quickly disappear in a free market; no conservative constituencies actually ride transit; and transit does not serve any important conservative goals. We noted that each of these perceptions is true in some situations. But there are other situations in which each is not true. In fact, the dominance of automobiles and highways is a product of massive government intervention in the marketplace, intervention stretching back to World War I. In countries such as Switzerland where government policy has been less one-sided, transit holds a far larger market share. While few people who can get around any other way will take a bus on a traffic-clogged street, many are willing to take a train. High quality rail systems such as Chicago's Metra carry large numbers of middle and upper-income commuters, people whose demographics indicate they vote conservative. Conservative politicians who disdain any mass transit are neglecting part of their base. And transit demonstrably does serve some important conservative goals, including economic development, which can be both spurred and shaped by rail transit systems; helping the poor move off welfare and into jobs (which they have to get to somehow); and strengthening the bonds of community, which is important to cultural conservatives. Does Transit Work? Well and good, some conservatives (and other transit skeptics) have replied. But in the end, the most important conservative question about anything is, does it work? Welfare did not work, and the country is finally moving to get rid of it (we happily join in the cheers for that!). The National Endowment for the Arts does not work (sorry, but poop is poop, not art), and with any luck we will be rid of it soon too. Why should we keep transit around, when it only carries one percent of total trips? That number seems to make it clear: transit just doesn't work! The "one percent argument" isn't the only conservative argument against transit. For example, some conservative studies claim that new Light Rail systems all carry fewer riders than projected and cost much more than planned. In response, it is easy enough to point out a contrary fact: two of the country's newest Light Rail lines, those in St. Louis and Dallas, both came in on budget and carry more riders than projected. But the one percent argument is tougher. And, with variations, it turns up in most critiques of mass transit. A publication of the Road Information Program, A Mobility Comparison of Investments in Highways and Mass Transit, notes that Despite a 148.8 percent increase in operating subsidies between 1980 and 1990, mass transit was unable to increase its share of the nation's PMT. In fact, between 1980 and 1990, mass transit's share of the nation's passenger miles of non-marine, surface transportation decreased from 1.43 percent to 1.27 percent...total PMT provided by mass transit exceeded 1 percent of total transportation in only 10 states in 1990.2 A regional conservative periodical, K.C. Jones Monthly, based in Kansas, argued in a skeptical article, "Public Transit: A Worthwhile Investment?," that Public transit is clearly a declining industry. Ridership peaked during the World War II period at roughly 23 billion trips per year.... As World War II came to an end and life returned to a more normal mode, public transit lost most of its market advantages. Ridership declined by about two-thirds, from 23 billion annual trips to around 8 billion in recent years. Public transit's share of urban passenger miles fell from over 30% in 1945 to barely 2% in 1995.3 The libertarian Reason Foundation's paper, Myths and Facts of Nation's Transit Policy, states that "Early results from the 1990 NPTS (Nationwide Personal Transportation Study) show that public transit accounted for 2.5% of all person-trips in 1990 vs. 2.3% in 1983." The figures are for total trips nationwide, not just in metropolitan areas.4 A 2.2% figure for total trips (in 1980) is given in False Dreams and Broken Promises: The Wasteful Federal Investment in Urban Mass Transit, published by another libertarian think-tank, the CATO Institute.5 The numbers rise, but only slightly, when the same studies look at commuting to work on transit in urban areas. The CATO study says "just over 5 percent of work trips were provided by transit,"6 the Reason Foundation says 5.86%,7 and an article in The Wall Street Journal, "Despite Huge Outlays, Transit Systems Fail to Lure Back Riders," gives a figure of 5.3% in 1990, down from 6.4% in 1980. 8 Are the numbers in these anti-transit studies correct? With minor variations, yes. An official U.S. Department of Transportation study, Journey-To-Work Trends in the United States and its Major Metropolitan Areas 1960-1990, says that in 1990 5.12% of commuters used public transit, down from 6.22% in 1980. 9 Another USDOT study, New Perspectives in Commuting, states that from 1980 to 1990 "the transit share declined from about 6.4% percent to about 5.3% of work travel."10 The Federal Highway Administration's National Personal Transportation Survey, Summary of Travel Trends, dated March, 1992, shows the distribution of work trips for transit as 8.4% in 1969, 4.7% in 1977, 5.8% in 1983, and 5.5% in 1990. The increase from 1977 to 1990 is one of the few shown in any study of transit use. 11 The Eno Transportation Foundation's highly detailed study, Commuting in America II, shows a more interesting variation: while stating that "transit's share of commuters declined from 6.3% to 5.1%" from 1980 to 1990, it also notes that "although bus service, the major mode used in transit, lost riders, other transit modes, specifically subways and commuter railroads, gained riders." The Eno study shows a gain in subway and elevated rail of 14.86% and in commuter rail of 3.61% over the decade.12 As we will see below, the distinction between the performance of bus and rail is important. And what of the magical one percent, the figure so often cited for transit's share of total trips? The actual number seems closer to 2%, but that's still beggarly enough. If transit only carries 2% of total trips, or around 5% of commuters in urban areas, how can continued funding for transit be justified? Aren't the critics right? Don't the numbers tell us - and we know numbers cannot mislead - that we should just park the buses, scrap the trains and be done with it? Reality vs. Theory Well, perhaps not. The rest of this paper will show why these numbers can mislead. But some philosophy may be helpful at the outset. An old trait of conservatives is their insistence that reality is local and concrete, not airy and abstract. One fine day in the 18th century, that great Ur-conservative talker and man of letters, Dr. Samuel Johnson, went for a walk with his long-time companion, Mr. Boswell, around the Channel port of Harwich. Boswell, ever the quiz, asked Dr. Johnson what he thought of the theories of Bishop Berkeley, who opined that we cannot really know the existence of anything. "I observed," wrote Boswell, "that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it." "I refute it thus," Dr. Johnson growled, kicking a large stone.13 The stone we would kick is the hard fact that, if transit suddenly ceased operating in any large American city, commuting would become almost impossible. Rush-hour traffic is already horrendous, to the point where in places like Los Angeles and Washington, drivers are shooting each other. The rush hour itself has become rush many-hours, even "permanent rush hour." In urban areas, there isn't any place to put more highways, never mind the fact that bisecting, trisecting and dissecting cities with limited access freeways makes them die. If all the people now on trains, subways, Light Rail lines and buses suddenly joined the rush hour drive (and most can: in 1990 only 11% of American households had no vehicle, and 59% of those already lived in the center city),14 getting to work might take as much time as the job itself.15 So we appear to have a contradiction. Common sense and experience, those two great conservative tests, tell us transit is important. The statistics that count total trips, even total urban commuting trips, tell us it isn't. What gives? What has to give is the unit of measurement. The seeming contradiction stems from the fact that counting total trips (or total commuting trips) does not effectively measure the present impact or potential of public transit. The anti-transit studies are applying the wrong yardstick. They are, in effect, trying to measure flour with a ruler, or count inches with a spoon. Their numbers are correct, but the meaning they draw from them isn't. To measure transit's current worth or future potential, we need a different measurement. What might that measurement be? Read the rest of this study here: http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/weyrich2new2.cfm This study of public transportation by the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation was underwritten by the private sector Business Members of the American Public Transit Association. The views expressed are those of the authors. May 1999  Washington, DC Posted Mon, 08/21/2006 - 4:22pm.
What the majority wants?Submitted by Jim Labbe on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 2:22pm.
Your assumption that what the "majority" wants is represented by what the majority is currently doing (driving) is deeply flawed. If that was the basis for transportation planning, we would have never sunk millions of tax dollars in to roads and the highways in the first place because most people were riding horses or walking. We invested with roads for some good and for some ill. That was then. This is now: More roads and cars as a solution to our transportation challenges is going to give the majority more traffic, more polluted air and water, and more public health problems. (In the City of Portland, for example, streets and highways have a major effect on stormwater runoff, contributing 66 percent of the total discharge quantity (from both pervious and impervious surfaces) and 77 percent of pollutants in the discharge.) What we need is a more diverse transportation system. That means relatively fewer cars and roads and more space for bikes, pedestrians, busses and trains integrated into more diverse communities that require less commuting in the first place. That means more transporation choices and a healthier communities and watersheds. Jim » reply
And who pays to clean up?Submitted by Jason McHuff on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 11:32am.
In the City of Portland, for example, streets and highways have a major effect on stormwater runoff And lets remember just who is paying to take care of that. As has been posted here (thank you Sam and crew) it is paid not by auto users but by sewer rate payers. The bottom line is that what really needs to be looked at is how much the government has encouraged private auto use, including things like the first Persian Gulf "war for oil", the Interstate system and low density development (is free parking really the best use of land and money?). » reply
Priorities and Mass TransitSubmitted by Steve on Mon, 08/21/2006 - 7:39pm.
OK, first off, I am not against mass transit. My issue is the relative amount of money and development $ that go into mass transit when other things (schools, jails, parks outside the Pearl/SoWa districts) never seem to get funded. Mass transit is an easy fix, talk the right people into throwing money at it and we keep busy building tracks all over the place (a la downtown where trolleys and light rail run within a few blocks of each other.) Fun and exciting, so much more interesting than funding schools, parks and jail space. Sorry, coming up with a new statistic when the current one doesn't reflect the way you think things should be doesn't work. I really think an honest re-appraisal of our priorities should be undertaken. PDX population is shrinking while families move to areas like Tualatin, LkOs, West Linn, Beaverton south of MAX and Vancouver - all growing faster than PDX proper. Businesses go to these areas and new shopping gets built there. I don't think mass transit is drawing this growth. » reply
Steve said: "PDX populationSubmitted by Isaac on Mon, 08/21/2006 - 10:16pm.
Steve said: "PDX population is shrinking" Excuse me? How do you figure that? » reply
So far, Portland populationSubmitted by Matt Picio on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 11:29am.
So far, Portland population is not shrinking, at least not officially. The official census 2000 results show Portland still growing, at last count 529,121 people. Census population ESTIMATES show an increase to 538,800 by 2003, falling to 532,888 in 2004 and rising again to 533,427 in 2005. Those are estimates, however, and aren't accurate nor necessarily representative. As for spending on mass transit, the city has allocated $168 million to the transportation office this year. The majority of that funding is used to maintain roads, streetlights, curbs, and signals. Road repair and replacement is dependent on the weight (ground pressure) and frequency of the vehicles using them. A bus carries 50 people during peak hours, and typically 5-20 people in non-peak hours. Every dollar we spend on mass transit infrastructure is roughly equivalent to saving $5-$20. (This is a gross oversimplication, but the principle remains true) The transportation office already is underfunded and cannot meet all of its obligations with the budget it has - should we not fund street repair? How much good are parks, schools and jails going to be if no one can get to them? Remember, most of the funding for mass transit comes from state and federal funds specifically earmarked for that purpose. If you want that money to go to these other projects that "never seem to get funded", then get activist at the state and federal level and push for changes. » reply
I've been saying this for aSubmitted by Isaac on Mon, 08/21/2006 - 10:31pm.
I've been saying this for a long time. It is ridiculous when so many of these "think tanks" like Cascade Policy and talk show hosts like Lars say things like 1% or 5%. The people making these arguments keep forgetting that any system that is just starting only serves a small portion of the people. The first sewer only served a few percent of the population. The first high-speed internet connection served only a few. The first airport only served a few. The first highway only served a slight percent of the population. With any network, the larger it grows the number of people using it grows exponentially. This is no different with light rail or streetcar. To all these people who continue to use this nonsensical argument, first answer this question: Should we have stopped building when the region's first freeway was built, since the freeway network only carried X% of all regional trips (I guarantee you it was less than 5%)? » reply
Just starting???Submitted by mmmarvel on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 5:00am.
Just starting what???? It's obvious you haven't studied the system. Mass transit in Portland started way back in 1872 with mule drawn trolleys but let's not go quite that far back. Mass transit was run by private companies up till 1969 when government took it over; oh, and I might add, the private companies NEVER ran in the red and without public subsidies. The real joke is how Tri-Met has tried to spin the numbers, if you look when light rail has taken over for bus routes, the numbers on those lines dropped. Yes, they rose over time and with population increase but that would have happened with buses too. It drops because overall, switching to light rail is slower and more inefficent and more inconvient than buses. It's a complete manipulation by government, before light rail we ran bus lines according to where people lived. If the population moved, we switched where the buses were routed. Since government take over, they now try to make the population move to the transit line (obviously because light rail CAN'T move). It's one of the dumbest moves EVER. It's government telling the people where to live, rather than free choice by the people. Oh, we still have that free choice (to some degree) but if we disagree with government then they make it more difficult by limiting things like mass transit availability. And don't even get me started with the fareless square nonsense. » reply
Aside from the firstSubmitted by Isaac on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 6:37am.
Aside from the first sentence I don't see how this is a response to anything I or anyone else has said. » reply
Response?Submitted by mmmarvel on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 5:36am.
How is it a response? Your post seems to indicate that mass transit is just getting started, that we should 'give it a chance', that it will catch on. My reply was to show that no, mass transit has been around for a long time, that it really started to go downhill once government took it over and it's been heading the wrong direction ever since. Light rail is more expensive than any other kind of mass transit and MUCH more inflexible. Nice vortex that city hall and Tri-Met has taken us down. » reply
well...Submitted by Roland Chlapowski on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 10:10am.
Mass transit has been around a long time, until much of it was dismantled by auto companies decades ago. We are still nowhere close to having the sort of rail connectivity and density that we once had. And, when you subsidize something (the car), you get more use of it. So I am not sure that you can say much without taking that into account. Also, that "inflexibilty" of rail (as you call it) is what developers call "certainty" - an important ingredient in any economy and for any major market decision. By giving certainty to developers, you spur investment and smart growth - something bus lines just don't do. Mmmarvel, I invite you to join the vortex with me. C'mon! It's fun... not at all as bad as you think!!! » reply
Mass TransitSubmitted by mmmarvel on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 5:33pm.
No, car companies didn't kill mass transit, Americans love of freedom did. I'd rather do things on my schedule than have to deal with mass transit schedule. Car companies had a stake in mass transit, GM made LOTS of buses. With your statement regarding "rail connectivity" and "density" - I'm confused. Are you harkening back to the days when rail was KING, as in the days of Diamond Jim Brady (an interesting character if ever there was one)? You mean before the average American could afford a car and before the nation was smart enough to lay out a system of roads? By the way, wasn't the density back then ALOT less than we have now? Like my grandmother who lived on Powell two blocks up from 52nd. The 'city' stopped at 52 and my grandmother's nearest neighbors for almost 20 years were over a mile away - you mean THAT density? Nice try with that 'certainty' line, sorry, I've neither drank the Kool-Aid nor had the lobotomy so I'm still immune to the vortex. I know that the ONLY reason developers develop around light rail is because the government heavily subsidizes them - remember, I work construction and I'm very much in touch with builders and developers. Thanks but I'll keep watching the vortex swallow up the city, some of us need to try to warn others that they are about to fall off a cliff; it doesn't always work, but at least I'm trying. » reply
Roland Chlapowski: MassSubmitted by jim karlock on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 4:16am.
Roland Chlapowski: Mass transit has been around a long time, until much of it was dismantled by auto companies decades ago. Stop and think. Did GM buy Portland’s streetcars or Rose City Transit? ....... NO. So how did the car companies shut down Portland’s streetcars? The simple fact is that Portland had a private transit system until the city council refused to grant a fare increase, resulting in Rose City Transit going out of business. I am amazed that “Roger Rabbit” still remains the primary historical reference for the history of the streetcar. Here is a link to a well written report on the matter (choose either PDF ro HTM versions): http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf The only way that the auto companies dismantled Portland’s mass transit was by providing a product that people liked better. It is called freedom, a concept often forgotten in that planners paradise, Portland. Roland Chlapowski: We are still nowhere close to having the sort of rail connectivity and density that we once had. Thanks » reply
karlock: The simple fact isSubmitted by peter on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 1:15pm.
karlock: The simple fact is that Portland had a private transit system until the city council refused to grant a fare increase, resulting in Rose City Transit going out of business... Yes, and in general streetcars were required to accept a flat fee for trips of any distance. The only reason automobiles and buses were even able to compete with streetcars in the first place was due to the public financing for the building and improvment of roads. As desirable a method of transportation as the car is, the fact remains that neither automobile companies nor automobile drivers have ever had to pay for more than a fraction of the infrastructure required to reorganize society around their use. They did not pay for improved roads. Before roads were improved (mostly from dirt and cobblestone) an auto trip was very uncomfortable, and unreliable with drivers often having to replace several tires in one trip. The did not pay for extending of municipal services such as sewer, electricity and water into the new automobile suburbs. This was funded by the taxpayers, the majority of whom were not car owners, and stayed in the city and along the streetcar lines. They did not pay for traffic signal installation, and they did not pay for increased need for police officers, etc. They also do not pay for their dominance of the right of way (ROW). The ROW is either public property, or an easement over privtate-property. It was either bought from a private party, taken through eminent domain, dedication and acceptance, or from a town's "allowance land". In any case, this land that constitutes the ROW, that is used to the near exlusion of pedestrians, by the risk of bicyclists (at the inconvenience of cars), and a small percentage by rail, was never paid for by automobile companies or drivers. This is not to mention the vast amount of land that is devoted to cars in the form of parking spaces. In fact, there are 98 million acres of developed land in the US (in 1997); which is 4.3% of the US's total area, 1.7% of the total land is dedicated to cars (or 2.5% per capita)--1.7% cars, 2.6% everything else. This represents a huge opportunity cost. Now, even after nearly a century of subsidization, drivers pay just over half of the price for all of the required maintenance and elective building of new roads. Now I don't think it would be difficult to argue that at some point it became a general public concensus that the automobile was the way of the future, and the the public should pay for that infrastructure. But it would be impossible to argue that the public didn't pay for it, and that it wasn't a massive redistribution of wealth, and property values. karlock: The only way that the auto companies dismantled Portland’s mass transit was by providing a product that people liked better. It is called freedom, a concept often forgotten in that planners paradise, Portland. what is freedom? being able to own an automobile and drive wherever you like, and not having to pay the full costs? That is fine for you, and it works well for me too. freedom for others is not having to own a car, not having to drive, and also not having to pay the full costs. » reply
peter The only reasonSubmitted by jim karlock on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 2:26pm.
peter The only reason automobiles and buses were even able to compete with streetcars in the first place was due to the public financing for the building and improvment of roads. peter karlock: The only way that the auto companies dismantled Portland’s mass transit was by providing a product that people liked better. It is called freedom, a concept often forgotten in that planners paradise, Portland. what is freedom? being able to own an automobile and drive wherever you like, and not having to pay the full costs? That is fine for you, and it works well for me too. peter freedom for others is not having to own a car, not having to drive, and also not having to pay the full costs. 100% of the people subsidizing something so popular that 90% (approx) use it; or Gimme a break » reply
why do you assumeSubmitted by peter on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 8:32pm.
that i get my information from environmental literature? i got my information from the non-partisan Brookings institute. on average gas taxes, and other "user fees" contribute only ~60% of infrastructure costs (pdf -- Fueling Transportation Finance: A Primer on the Gas Tax, page 4): Gas Tax 34.8% Subtotal 58.9% Though only tolls are technically user fees. for example, i use a lot of gas driving on unimproved roads, meaning i am paying extra gas tax for road development, and maintenance of roads i do not use. Here is the rest of the breakdown: Property Taxes 4.8% Subtotal 41.1% you have repeated your numbers about transportation in the state of Oregon a million times, but you ignore the national numbers, and the fact that the federal government funds roads in our state, too. i don't get your stance at all. you have done some really good research about the ridiculous subsidies and property tax discounts going to those million dollar condos in the pearl, yet you are completely unwilling to admit that the automobile infrastructure in this country has been subsidized since its inception. like i have said before, this is a culture war: people who love their cars and want society to continue subsidizing the only cars vs. people who want the subsidies to fund a more balanced transit system. » reply
peter i got my informationSubmitted by jim karlock on Sat, 08/26/2006 - 1:53pm.
peter i got my information from the non-partisan Brookings institute. JK: We are discussing Oregon / Portland issues here, other states fund roads differently. That is not our problem. As to federal highways, they are almost entirely paid by user fees WHICH DO INCLUDE GAS TAXES etc.. BTW some is siphoned off to fund mass transit. peter i don't get your stance at all. you have done some really good research about the ridiculous subsidies and property tax discounts going to those million dollar condos in the pearl, yet you are completely unwilling to admit that the automobile infrastructure in this country has been subsidized since its inception. peter like i have said before, this is a culture war: people who love their cars and want society to continue subsidizing the only cars vs. people who want the subsidies to fund a more balanced transit system. A “balanced system” is just New Speak to Did you happen to notice that you used another loaded term: “people who love their cars”. Most people do not love their cars, any more than they love their TV set or washing machine. They just find them incredibly useful. Actually it is deeper than that: Cars give us freedom to travel far beyond anything that came before. Thanks » reply
How much transit, Jim?Submitted by Keith on Sat, 08/26/2006 - 3:46pm.
You blogs are always transit- and bike-hating in nature. So, I call the questions on you: how much should go to transit and how much for bikes. Don't waffle like a politician, from each road dollar, how much? » reply
well, people do love their carsSubmitted by peter on Tue, 08/29/2006 - 11:53am.
but i'll digress; "people who want society to subsidize only cars vs. people who want the subsidies to fund a public transit system as well as cars". it is true that in oregon about 90% of road building and maintenance for state/federal highways is paid for by excise taxes, and vehicles fees. but these fees do not pay for other services such as highway patrol, nor do they pay for the associated environmental costs, such as run off, and pollution. and yes some of that money is used for other transit modes, but not as much as the share of general fund revenue and bond proceeds that go towards these same roads. the problem is that only looking at the current funding model without considering historical factors is very misleading. there is no denying that local, state and federal roads were initially built out with massive subsidies. much of the related infrastructure costs for this surburban build out such as water, and sewage have also been funded with massive subsidies. when these subsidies began, these new roads and associated services were only being used by a very small percentage of the people paying for them. i cannot take seriously the financial arguments you provide via the CPI, and American Dream Coalition, because when you calculate the cost of public transit, you include the initial capital investment, yet when you calculate the cost of automobile transit, you leave out the initial (80+ years of) capital investment. you hold public transit to a different standard than the automobile. am i to believe that had you been around in the early 1900's when the auto build out began, you would have been decrying how automobile related infrastructure spending was causing a rapid increase in taxes ("A commission under President Hoover concluded that the automobile was the 'most potent influence' on the rise of local taxes between 1913 and 1930")? i have a hard time believing that. this is a vulgar form of libertarianism, it is "libertarianism, starting.... now!". you say that "a blanced transit system" is "New Speak"; an attempt to hide the actual costs, i disagree. there is a general public concensus for this in the portland region. if there were not, it could not be happening. i used to be a libertarian, now i am a liberal. i understand that public investment is meant to be spent in a way that the benefit is more than the initial cost. i would say that until the late 70s this had basically been the case (though it took us a while to get a handle on some of the polution). since then i would say that we have been running in place, the network is complete, additional build-out is only exacerbating our problems and it is time for a public reassessment of where we want our transportation dollars to go. » reply
I am tired of your argumentsSubmitted by Jason McHuff on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 9:29pm.
If you really believe that the city was acting in bad faith, that the disired fare increase was normal and that Rosy was in good health to coninue on, PLEASE provide evidence. From all that I've seen, transit companies including Rosy were going downhill and the city saw the writing on the wall. In addition, you claim that "Trimet gets under 20% of its revenue from users. If users had to pay their real cost that $1.95 all zone ticket would cost $9.75" What about all of the monthly pass, discounted fare, Fareless Square, etc. use that greatly lowers the avg. revenue/ride? How do you know that $1.95 really represents 20% of the revenue? » reply
Jason McHuff If you reallySubmitted by jim karlock on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 8:10pm.
Jason McHuff If you really believe that the city was acting in bad faith, that the disired fare increase was normal and that Rosy was in good health to coninue on, PLEASE provide evidence. Jason McHuff From all that I've seen, transit companies including Rosy were going downhill and the city saw the writing on the wall. In addition, you claim that "Trimet gets under 20% of its revenue from users. If users had to pay their real cost that $1.95 all zone ticket would cost $9.75" What about all of the monthly pass, discounted fare, Fareless Square, etc. use that greatly lowers the avg. revenue/ride? Jason McHuff How do you know that $1.95 really represents 20% of the revenue? BTW 20% (I rounded this from 19 something) is the number that TriMet gave to the TSCC, a local government watchdog agency. See: http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/orgs/tscc/ Thanks » reply
Public vs. private isSubmitted by Matthew Picio on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 11:34am.
Public vs. private is somewhat of a red herring - the private companies were in the red, also, in the 1960s. It didn't start in 1969, is started in 1952 when General Motors deliberately started undermining the streetcar system, and continued in 1957 with the creation of the Interstate Highway system, which made personal autos more convenient than busses. The subsequent increase in sales, and then production started a cycle of declining automobile costs until literally EVERYONE could afford a car. As the user car market has grown, so mass transit has declined, in all markets - not just Portland. I agree that busses make more sense than light rail, for the reasons that you describe. They'd make even more sense if we electrified the bus lines, since the cost of liquid fuels isn't going down soon, if ever. » reply
It has been debunkedSubmitted by Adrian Moore on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 2:41pm.
Peter Gordon at USC thoroughly debunked the Weyrich/Lind paper. Read it at http://www.rppi.org/transportation/ftebrief101.html. Some exceprts: "Is transit less and less widely available because it is little used? Or, is it little used because it is less and less widely available? Inevitably, both are true to some extent. Yet, which matters most? W&L emphasize the latter in spite of the fact that most of us are glad to live in a world of consumer sovereignty where resource allocation and use is shaped by demand rather than the reverse." "The three preconditions that W&L insist on are declining precisely because transit competes so poorly. Population and employment densities are falling in most places, and most people and jobs are choosing not to locate near transit stations because collective transportation is inconvenient and expensive in terms of what really counts, people’s precious time. In low-density settings where origins and destinations are dispersed, transit that best serves high-volume corridors competes poorly. High-capacity rail systems are, thus, inevitably underutilized, ever more expensive and ever more difficult to provide more of." » reply
Poor arguments!Submitted by Roland Chlapowski on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 9:53am.
Wow. Some of the statements are shockers! First, it's shocking to point out that housing and employment densities are falling and then use it as a testament to the popularity of the car... It is only because of cars, the subsidization of their fuel, of their infrastructure and their societal/environmental impacts, as well as the subsidization of development (through home mortgage tax deductions) that the density of communities is falling. Without these huge subsidies, dense development (and the reduced transporation costs for each individual associated with it) would have been favored in the market; look at Europe for an illustration of this (as it developed largely before the invention, and subsequent subsidization, of the automobile). And what is especially perverse about all this is that it creates a amplified feedback effect that furthur promotes low density development. The decreasing density caused by policies that promote the automobile make cars even more necessary for people to move around! And this all gets at one underlying issue: demand in an economy is structured by a lot of external considerations and the choices afforded to consumers - things outside of that individual decision maker's personal sphere of influence. True "consumer sovereignty" can never really exist in the real world because of the fact that people make choices from a set of options that they have no control over and because my choices as a consumer affect others in ways that I do not have to pay for (aka negative externalities). Without having a true choice of transportation options-or by not accurately reflecting the costs of those choices, as happens with the automobile- you cannot say anything meaningful about people's true preferences. The fact that one mode of transportation is demanded a lot, when it is the transportation mode that modern development was modeled around and that tax and economic policy hugely subsidized and continues to subsidize, does not mean a hell of a lot. What people demand is shaped by the context in which they make those decisions, and that context is often determined by historical situations/decisions or policy choices outside of their control. I find it funny that conservatives, supply-siders in nearly all other economic debates, on this issue like to talk demand instead of supply. True to form, conservatives HATE government intervention and subsidies, unless they are subsidies and interventions that they like and (usually) personally benefit from - a la auto subsidies, corporate welfare, Halliburton contracts, stopping boys from kissing and Terry Schiavo. » reply
Roland Chlapowski Wow. SomeSubmitted by jim karlock on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 5:18am.
Roland Chlapowski Wow. Some of the statements are shockers! First, it's shocking to point out that housing and employment densities are falling and then use it as a testament to the popularity of the car... It is only because of cars, the subsidization of their fuel Roland Chlapowski of their infrastructure and their societal/environmental impacts, as well as the subsidization of development (through home mortgage tax deductions) Roland Chlapowski that the density of communities is falling. Roland Chlapowski Without these huge subsidies, dense development (and the reduced transporation costs for each individual associated with it) would have been favored in the market; Roland Chlapowski look at Europe for an illustration of this (as it developed largely before the invention, and subsequent subsidization, of the automobile). Why do you want to emulate Europe? With one or two exceptions, they have a lower standard of living than we do. Are you trying to emulate that too? Roland Chlapowski And what is especially perverse about all this is that it creates a amplified feedback effect that furthur promotes low density development. The decreasing density caused by policies that promote the automobile make cars even more necessary for people to move around! We are not a third world country - we can pay extra for comfort and convince. We willing pay extra to NOT wait in the cold rain next to a drug deal for a ride, standing up, to work. Why do Portland’s planners have trouble understanding this. Roland Chlapowski Without having a true choice of transportation options-or by not accurately reflecting the costs of those choices, as happens with the automobile- you cannot say anything meaningful about people's true preferences. Roland Chlapowski True to form, conservatives HATE government intervention and subsidies, unless they are subsidies and interventions that they like and (usually) personally benefit from - a la auto subsidies, corporate welfare, Halliburton contracts, stopping boys from kissing and Terry Schiavo. What does Terry Schiavo or boys kissing have to do with transportation? Why should either even be mentioned on a government policy blog? The true conservative position is that these subjects should not be of any concern to government. BTW that is the position of both Cascade Policy and the Libertarian party. I suggest you take a look at both. Thanks » reply
conservatives don't like subsidies?Submitted by peter on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 1:38pm.
karlock: The conservatives that I know dislike subsidies to any one (except the truly needy), including corporate welfare... which country are you living in? Is it the one I am living in where conservative Republicans control all three branches of the federal government, and have increased the budget even more than LBJ? Or is it some internet based fantasy land where the "true" conservatives would rule differently? Sure they would... » reply
ResponseSubmitted by Roland Chlapowski on Fri, 08/25/2006 - 3:04pm.
"the subsidization of their fuel" JK: Can you explain how that works? I thought that we paid the world commodity price for oil. RC: First of all, if you are seriously trying to imply that oil is traded on some sort of free global market, then I have little hope of walking you through it all. Have you ever heard of OPEC or oil oligarchies? The reality is this: Geopolitics, monopilization, and non-market forces have driven the oil markets since their inception. Think OPEC. Think nationalized oil. Think about how colonialism really started it all - BP British Petroleum was NOT drilling for oil in Britain, of course. Secondly, take a look at the most recent energy bill in Congress and all of the "incentives" they give for drilling. Like allowing private companies to drill and sell oil from PUBLIC lands for basically nothing - in more places than just ANWR, I might at. Really, though, perhaps the biggest subsidy to oil production (and therefore to lower prices, via simple supply and demand) comes from the tax code in the form of the oil depletion (or depreciation) allowance. The oil depletion allowance was first introduced in 1913 and allowed producers to basically drill without any risk. It wouldn't matter whether or not they actually hit oil because any losses from their speculation were covered by a tax break - not a real free market system. If that isn't non-market enough for you, the depletion allowance also allowed people to basically write off the profits they earned every tax season. Here is how it works, as Robert Bryce describes it in his book with an admittedly slanted title- "Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate" - (regardless, though, the explanation is pretty good). Bryce gives an example in his book how the oil depreciation allowance works. "An oilman drills a well that costs $100,000. He finds a reservoir containing $10,000,000 worth of oil. The well produces $1 million worth of oil per year for ten years. In the very first year, thanks to the depletion allowance, the oilman could deduct 27.5 per cent, or $275,000, of that $1 million in income from his taxable income. Thus, in just one year, he's deducted nearly three times his initial investment. But the depletion allowance continues to pay off. For each of the next nine years, he gets to continue taking the $275,000 depletion deduction. By the end of the tenth year, the oilman has deducted $2.75 million from his taxable income, even though his initial investment was only $100,000." And the costs of buying oil-dry land can get written off, too. These are just a handful of the most notable subsidies to oil. And while I know you don't believe in global warming, all actual climate scientists with any respectability DO, so I am going to take their word for it over yours. Global warming and the consequences of CO2 pollution are basically a subsidy being paid by future generations for our fossil fuel use today. Enough on that, though. Yes, the oil used by transit is subsidized, too. That doesn't change anything or prove any point, however. JK: What does Terry Schiavo or boys kissing have to do with transportation? Why should either even be mentioned on a government policy blog? RC: Hey- it is people on YOUR side of the aisle that brought these items up in Congress, not us. So don't tell ME that they shouldn't be brought up in a political debate. And how does it relate to transportation? It relates in as much as transportation is a policy issue and because you guys are all too willing to use policy to intervein into the "sovereign choices" of other people while trumpeting your "right to (insert something harmful society at large here)." It is hypocritical and I am tired of it. » reply
"RC: Hey- it is people onSubmitted by Joe Citizen on Fri, 08/25/2006 - 5:58pm.
"RC: Hey- it is people on YOUR side of the aisle that brought these items up in Congress, not us. So don't tell ME that they shouldn't be brought up in a political debate. And how does it relate to transportation? It relates in as much as transportation is a policy issue and because you guys are all too willing to use policy to intervein into the "sovereign choices" of other people while trumpeting your "right to (insert something harmful society at large here)." It is hypocritical and I am tired of it." WORD!!! YOU, AND YOUR SIDE, HAVE BEEN SERVED BY THE ROLAND!!! Roland is in charge of this elected office up in here!!! Seriously though... » reply
JK: Rolland, I just locatedSubmitted by jim karlock on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 10:08pm.
JK: Rolland, I just located the Science version of Lassen’s work: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991). I recommend you at least see fig. 2, 100 year temperature vs. Sun. And Fig 3 Sea Ice around Iceland from 1740 to 1970 and the sun. Note the extreme variability of arctic ice, when you read of recent disappearing ice. Isn’t it far more rational to suspect the sun as a cause of warming than a gas (CO2) that increases from 0.025% to 0.030% of the atmosphere? Thanks » reply
Roland Chlapowski JK: CanSubmitted by jim karlock on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 9:24pm.
Roland Chlapowski JK: Can you explain how that works? I thought that we paid the world commodity price for oil. RC: First of all, if you are seriously trying to imply that oil is traded on some sort of free global market, then I have little hope of walking you through it all. Have you ever heard of OPEC or oil oligarchies? Roland Chlapowski Secondly, take a look at the most recent energy bill in Congress and all of the "incentives" they give for drilling. Like allowing private companies to drill and sell oil from PUBLIC lands for basically nothing - in more places than just ANWR.... Roland Chlapowski And while I know you don't believe in global warming, Since you seem to be well informed, tell me what you think of these papers: Living with a Variable Sun, Judith Lean, Physics Today, June 05 Solar Irradaince since 1874 Revisited, Solanki & Fligge, Geophysical Review Letter, Feb 1, 1998 The Sun’s Role in Climate Variation, Science, Vol 296, Apr 2002 Solar Activity and terrestrial climate: An analysis of some purported correlations., Laut, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (in prepeint as of Feb 2003) Long-Term Variations in Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on the Earth’s Climate., Lassen, Danish Meteorological Institute. Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance, McIntyre, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 32, LXXXXX (This one pretty much breaks the famous “hockey stick” temperature chart touted by Gore, Burkholder etal.. See the NAS report on climate change for verification of all of the major points in this paper) A second NAS report attacks the statistical methods used to produce the “hockey stick”: Roland Chlapowski all actual climate scientists with any respectability DO Roland Chlapowski JK: What does Terry Schiavo or boys kissing have to do with transportation? Why should either even be mentioned on a government policy blog? RC: Hey- it is people on YOUR side of the aisle that brought these items up in Congress, not us. Roland Chlapowski So don't tell ME that they shouldn't be brought up in a political debate. Roland Chlapowski And how does it relate to transportation? It relates in as much as transportation is a policy issue and because you guys Roland Chlapowski are all too willing to use policy to intervein into the "sovereign choices" of other people while trumpeting your "right to (insert something harmful society at large here)." Roland Chlapowski It is hypocritical and I am tired of it. Thanks » reply
It's thoroughly debunked ifSubmitted by Matthew Picio on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 11:41am.
It's thoroughly debunked if you live in 1995. Fuel costs are rising, and if the trend continues, then mass transit becomes more popular and more prevalent. The advantage of mass transit is low cost. The advantage of the personal auto is convenience - you travel where you want whenever you want, not at someone else's schedule. As long as the cost of a car (in terms of gas, repairs and insurance) wasn't too much higher than mass transit, convenience wins out. In today's environment, fuel costs are pushing the pendulum back in the other direction. Since fuel costs have steadily risen only in the last 3 years, the trend has not yet become fully apparent. The other option that no one seems to consider or talk about is the bicycle - low cost and ultimately convenient, but people don't flock to it because they don't like to sweat and they don't like to deal with rain, cold or heat. » reply
"Steve said: "PDX populationSubmitted by Steve on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 3:56pm.
"Steve said: "PDX population is shrinking"" I apologize, it was not right. I meant to say Portland is effectively shrinking with respect to surrounding communities without MT. According to the census Portland grew abuot 1.5% 2000-2003, while almost every surrounding community has grown 3-5 times as much. » reply
Another Bias StudySubmitted by Terry Parker on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 6:53pm.
In the words of Ronald Regan: “ Here we go again!” Another spin on manipulating the numbers to disguise the inconvenient costly truth that transit has on a community when it attempts to compete against the automobile. Anybody that suggests realigning the numbers or that people do not make the personal choice to drive have a deeply flawed sense of direction. The complete set of numbers do not lie. What this study attempts to do is take an apple to apple comparison and call some of those apples bananas or oranges with attempts to throw out that data to make transit look more favorable. Another way of putting it is that x number of motor vehicles use for example I-5 between down town and the Columbia River Crossing during specific time period, but because some of those motor vehicles appear un-apple like, they should not be part of the total trip counts. This is just another ploy by transit advocates to disinvest in roads. Along that same line of thinking, tourists just sightseeing on Max, the Streetcar or on TriMet busses should not be counted as passengers either because they are not regular transit riders. The bottom line is this is just another bias report and must be taken in that context. It is no different than calling motor fuels taxation a consumption tax rather than a highway user fee. (If it was a consumption tax, the same rate would be applied to fuels for farm and home heating use) » reply
What Apples?Submitted by Roland Chlapowski on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 9:04am.
"It is no different than calling motor fuels taxation a consumption tax rather than a highway user fee. (If it was a consumption tax, the same rate would be applied to fuels for farm and home heating use)" Terry, please explain how a *motor fuels consumption tax* needs to be applied to home heating oils to be called a consumption tax... that seems to go against the simple definition of what a motor fuel tax is. Also, I have to express how chagrined I am over tje way you picked up and then twisted the metaphor that Republican Gov. Thompson used in the study foreward. The former Bush administration official used the quote to get across the exact opposite of your assertion, saying that conservatives who get riled up about transit refuse to look at apples-to-apples comparisons (which is what this study attempts to do) in their analyses. He then goes on to explain why this is true. » reply
Response to ApplesSubmitted by Terry Parker on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 10:37am.
“Terry, please explain how a *motor fuels consumption tax* needs to be applied to home heating oils to be called a consumption tax... that seems to go against the simple definition of what a motor fuel tax is.” The point I was making is that the gasoline tax and taxes applied to other motor fuels such as diesel and propane when used in motor vehicles for highway use is a highway user fee, not a consumption tax. The tax is applied for motorists to pay for based on their usage of the roads, not the fuel. The consumption of fuel is only the mechanism used as a way to calculate how much motorist should be charged for road use, the more you drive the more in total taxes you pay. However, because there is now so much variation in the consumption of motor fuels between different vehicles and engines, ODOT has been looking at other ways to equalize the user fees. High mileage vehicles like hybrids currently and unfairly do not pay their share of road use as compared to other motor vehicles. This is why a higher registration fee for them might be in order to compensate for the loss in gas tax revenues. The reason I brought it up is because bicyclists and transit advocates continually misrepresent the gasoline tax as a consumption tax in their attempt to poach the funds for other than road and highway uses. If there was a true consumption tax of fuel oil products, the same tax used to fund highways would apply to all fuel oil products consumed including gasoline and diesel used for farm use, home heating oils, propane used in forklifts, motor homes, camping products and for home heating, jet fuel and the fuel used by railroads and steamship companies, etc. The gasoline tax is a highway user fee that is assessed on gasoline, not a consumption tax of the fuel oil product itself. As for counting the number of total trips, that is exactly what should be counted without any manipulation of the numbers as to their destinations or lack there of. A trip is a trip is a trip. If there are x number of motor vehicle trips on the Sunset Highway and x number of passenger trips made on Westside Max, that is exactly what should be counted. Bicyclists continually want to count their recreational rides as trips. Transit advocates want to count sightseeing trips on Max, streetcar and by bus along with short hops in Fareless Square. Any trip by motor vehicle must also be counted as a trip. » reply
Ummm...Submitted by Roland Chlapowski on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 11:36am.
"If there are x number of motor vehicle trips on the Sunset Highway and x number of passenger trips made on Westside Max, that is exactly what should be counted." Well, yeah- that is exactly what the study is advocating. It points out that unlike your statement above, it does NOT make sense to say, "100% of the trips on I-5 to Salem are in cars, therefore transit is not wanted by the majority" or "therefore transit is inefficient" BECAUSE, there is no MAX that goes to Salem on I-5!!! What do you disagree with in that statement? It uses exactly the same argument that you posed above. Did you read the study? Also, on another topic- the gas tax is still a consumption tax regardless of whether or not there is a consumption tax applied to home heating oil. They are two different products, so you can have a consumption tax on one and not the other - like we do currently. "Highway user fee" is a term employed for pretty obvious reasons- so you can argue that gas tax revenue can only be used for one purpose (highway and road maintenance/expansion) and not others (other transportation priorities). But it is also circular logic. 1. "Gas tax revenue (based on gasoline consumption) should be used exclusively for auto-oriented street repair" 2. "If gas tax revenue goes exclusivelhy to street repair, then it is a user fee" 3. "Since gas tax money is a user fee, it should go exclusively to road maintenance." You have LONG made the argument that gas tax revenues should only be used for car-oriented projects. To say it again with a slightly different dressing is sort of like calling "creationism" "intelligent design." The problem? 1. The gas tax IS a consumption tax. 2. The gas tax revenue is used for many important public projects. 3. It has been this way for a long, long time (if not from the inception of the gas consumption tax). » reply
Ummm- Again the Twisted Bicycle OratorySubmitted by Terry Parker on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 11:19pm.
Roland, It is nothing but more twisted bicycle babble rhetoric to claim that the gasoline tax is a consumption tax. It is from inception and always has been a highway user fee based on the easiest payment plan which just happens to be the use of motor fuels. If you believe truly believe the gas tax is a consumption tax, then you also must believe Al Gore invented the internet and SUVs are responsible for the disappearance of the ice age. Your logic simply fails when you consider the fact that gasoline, diesel fuel and propane consumed for non-highway uses does not carry the same tax burden as when it is used in motor vehicles traveling on public roads. It is despicably obvious that bicyclists will go to any length of deception and distortion of the truth to poach road and highway funds so they can continue their freeloading method of paying for bicycle infrastructure. As for your I-5 comment, It is almost as if you are again attempting to confuse the issue. Kind of like if a person counted only the transit trips made on SW Broadway, the conclusion would there is no reason for transit to go downtown. Count the trips made on all the streets downtown and the conclusion would be different. Therefore, if you are counting trips in the I-5 corridor made from say the Portland city center area southbound, all motor vehicle trips in the corridor (not just on I-5) would be counted to where ever the cut off point is; be it Wilsonville, Tualatin or someplace closer in. All transit in the corridor would also be counted in the manner. As I interpreted the study, it was saying trips that extended past the cut off point should not be counted. I disagree with that premise. A trip that extends past the cut off point is still is using infrastructure within the study area, and therefore must be counted as a trip. » reply
gas consumption taxSubmitted by peter on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 1:25pm.
Terry, if the majority of my automobile use is on the unimproved streets in my neighborhood which i drive as i take short trips to and from the grocery store, movies, gas station, etc., and the city will not improve the road until 75% of property owners on my street agree to pony up the costs, how is my gas tax a "user fee"? it is a consumption tax which i would pay even if i spent all my time driving in circles around the wal-mart parking lot--the benefit is going to those who use major roads, and newly constructed roads/intechanges. p.s. - sorry bicyclists, i realize that this is "an elective trip within 5 miles of home", but i can't ride. » reply
You are forgetting about auto subsidiesSubmitted by Jason McHuff on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 12:48pm.
apples vs bananas From what I can tell, the study is comparing only where comparisons make sense. It's just like if you were to compare computer makers and take away all of the compaines that make only personal computers if you're wanting a server. I don't see how its fair to compare transit-vs.-autos for going to places where transit doesn't exist. (Oh, and Roland, there is service from Portland to Tillamook County). tourists just sightseeing on Max, the Streetcar or on TriMet busses should not be counted as passengers either because they are not regular transit riders Couldn't they just as well be doing their sightseeing by car? The bottom line for transit is that the consumers who use the system should pay for the system. But what about all of the free (100% subsidised) parking, the Big Pipes to clean their runoff and all of the other incentives that motorists get? That would mean each ride would cost approximately $10.00 just to cover the costs of providing service While $2.00 (single fare) is 20% (approx % of costs paid by fares) of $10.00, you are not considering the following factors:
Overall, while there are some trips that do cost more than $10/boarding (see the Transit Investment plan, they often don't last. For some real numbers, see the Ridership Statistics. » reply
The subsidies go to transit!!!Submitted by Terry Parker on Tue, 08/29/2006 - 12:06pm.
“But what about all of the free (100% subsidized) parking” Since motorists pay road taxes on motor fuels that pay for the roads, parking a motor vehicle on the street is anything but free. Busses use the roads too, but transit fares only pay for 20% of operational costs without paying for road use. Metered parking downtown directly contributes funds towards free rides on the streetcar. Parking a motor vehicle on the street only appears to be free to those who don't drive. The majority of transportation subsidies go to transit and bicyclists. » reply
opportunity costsSubmitted by peter on Tue, 08/29/2006 - 3:32pm.
there is an additional cost to public parking, whether it is free or not: opportunity costs. every square foot that is used for a parking space is a square foot that is not used for something else, say... a tree lawn with a bench? of course, there are huge opportunity costs in dedicating 90% of the right-of-way (ROW) to automobile use, too, but i am not seriously advocating we turn our streets into parks. what do you suppose all that land that is used for parking and roads is worth? and who decided its best use would be to dedicate it to automobiles? it was planners and bureaucrats many decades ago. the public ROW used to be shared more evenly between many modes of transportation. Terry:Parking a motor vehicle on the street only appears to be free to those who don't drive. no. i am a driver--no bike or bus, rarely max/streetcar--and i gladly acknowledge that parking is mostly free. » reply
Wal-Mart Pays for their parking lots?!Submitted by Adron on Tue, 08/29/2006 - 7:31pm.
...strange isn't it. Wal-Mart pays for theirs? So that means it isn't 100% subsidized, if for any other reason than the simple fact that Wal-Mart has paid for theirs, pays taxes on the land, AND has a seperate subsidairy to control the lots since people are so damn sue happy. ...the twisted irony of that eh. :o » reply
Transit ConnectionsSubmitted by Bryan H. Ackler on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 6:30am.
And now tht the streetcar line is extended into the South waterfront, when will we connect it up to the rail rightaway to Lake Oswego? » reply
Another conservative reassessment of sprawlSubmitted by peter on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 12:19pm.
by Michael Lewyn, a law professor from John Marshall, whoi made an influential speach titled Why Sprawl is a Conservative Issue, where he details step-by-step the government subsidies, and discriminatory policies that lead to the rapid redevelopment of our infrastructure around the automobile. And Austin Bramwell, a leading young conservative intellectual, and a new trustee at the National Review, has introduced fighting sprawl as an attack on traditional communities. Then there is Republicans for Environmental Protection And the Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit. And Rod Dreher who coined the term "Crunchy Con" who fights sprawl as a product of the same forces of "efficiency" that created the drab communist housing in Eastern Europe. Auto-centric development vs. development balanced between cars and mass transit is mostly a cultural battle. » reply
"Auto-centric developmentSubmitted by Adron on Tue, 08/29/2006 - 7:35pm.
"Auto-centric development vs. development balanced between cars and mass transit is mostly a cultural battle." Strangely enough, at the end of the day and the subsidies and the out of pocket costs and all of that crap, it really does boil down to culteral. I live in the Urban areas of Portland, wouldn't move if I was paid. But I despise the fact that transit is subsidized in this day and age. It really makes the US and our markets that we created look confused, pathetic, and backwards in comparison to the power we created during the guilded age (the age when Streetcars and technology expanded cities into suburbs). » reply
road runoff - at the sourceSubmitted by Justin on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 12:58pm.
Part of the problem with oil runoff from leaky automobiles might be solved by simply not allow any automobiles that fail a stringent environmental quality & smogging test, like they do in Europe and Japan. Instead, old cars in the US are simply allowed to stay on the road and keep polluting! Perhaps all cars over 5 years, unless they are in perfect condition (no leaks, keeps up with CURRENT emissions tests, etc) should be banned. Period. Any takers? For automobile enthusiasts, it sure would help decrease the 'externalities' arguments of the so-called anti-car left. » reply
Justin, the problem withSubmitted by nathan on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 4:47pm.
Justin, the problem with your argument re: the banning of poorly performing autos is that it targets the poor. Right now we need legislation that will penalize volunatary/SOV auto use... maybe, as Peter says, transportation is a cultural issue. If so, Portland shouldnt be afraid to fully support multi-mode transit.... after all, this isnt exactly a conserative place! I hope elected city officials like sam adams continue to evolutionize portland through its transport system. This country needs a city that thinks twice about sprawl and transit. Great job sam.... keep defending the people of portland! » reply
poor people get a free rideSubmitted by Justin on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 12:46am.
Okay, so its ok for poor people to destroy the environment, but not wealthy people? I'm poor and I don't even drive - I have, along with approximately 30% of the people I know, decided to go without an automobile in PDX because of the costs associated with them. Is it fair for other poor people to be destroying my river, my air simply because they are poor and cannot afford proper maintenance of their vehicle? I do not believe old crappy cars should be exempt from modern safety and pollution control issues. » reply
Justin: I'm poor and I don'tSubmitted by jim karlock on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 5:27am.
Justin: I'm poor and I don't even drive - I have, along with approximately 30% of the people I know, decided to go without an automobile in PDX because of the costs associated with them. Thanks » reply
JK: It was replaced bySubmitted by Stephen on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 5:29pm.
JK: It was replaced by something better: the auto oriented city which gives people more freedom. JK: We are not a third world country - we can pay extra for comfort and convince [sic]. We willing [sic] pay extra to NOT wait in the cold rain next to a drug deal for a ride, standing up, to work. Why do Portland’s planners have trouble understanding this. [sic] JK: The conservatives that I know dislike subsidies to any one (except the truly needy)... JK: Do you know that you are sponging off of other Portlanders for 80% of your transportation costs? If you had to pay your real cost that $1.95 bus ticket would cost $9.75. Stephen: Unbelievable. So, let's recap: you expound on the wonderful freedom of choice available to those who want to drive an auto because they can afford it, and even border on bragging about the collective ability of society to enjoy said luxury. You then say that conservatives (of which I presume you are one) are okay with subsidies to the needy (of which I presume you are not). But then, here's where it all goes haywire: you go on to accuse the guy who is only paying $1.95 for his bus ticket (because he can't afford a car) of "sponging off of other Portlanders", when he (presumably) is in NEED of some sort of transportation, and he has no other option! So which is it? Do you embrace choice in transportation options - auto or otherwise - or do you want to limit the freedom of our poorest citizens to fulfill their need to get around our City? I don't blame Portland's planners - I'd have trouble understanding your double-speak logic, too. » reply
Stephen Unbelievable. So,Submitted by jim karlock on Fri, 08/25/2006 - 2:51am.
Stephen Unbelievable. So, let's recap: you expound on the wonderful freedom of choice available to those who want to drive an auto because they can afford it, and even border on bragging about the collective ability of society to enjoy said luxury. Stephen you go on to accuse the guy who is only paying $1.95 for his bus ticket (because he can't afford a car) of "sponging off of other Portlanders", when he (presumably) is in NEED of some sort of transportation, and he has no other option! ...or do you want to limit the freedom of our poorest citizens to fulfill their need to get around our City? Anyone who is genuinely in need and not just lazy, should receive help from society. The problem is when a few people needing help provides an excuse for a big government giveaway to everyone including millionaires. You don’t what to subsidize millionaires do you? Thanks » reply
the power of mythSubmitted by Clay Fouts on Fri, 08/25/2006 - 7:07am.
turning an empty country into a place with one of the highest standards of living in the world Uh, huh. Sure thing. Just an empty land waiting to shepherd our hard-working European ancestors into their glorious future. Nope, not a land filled with millions of people arranged in a panoply of civilizations. Not built through a territorialization process fueled with the blood of slaves. Just a big, beautiful bubble of a birthright, waiting for us. I'm beginning to see where you're coming from, Jim. » reply
Clay Fouts (quotingSubmitted by jim karlock on Fri, 08/25/2006 - 2:10pm.
Clay Fouts (quoting jk)turning an empty country into a place with one of the highest standards of living in the world Western mankind figured out how nature works and created machines to work for us instead of slaves. So you can quit that noble savage crap. They were just primitive people - some good and some not so good. Clay Fouts I'm beginning to see where you're coming from, Jim. Thanks » reply
Property rights are theSubmitted by Clay Fouts on Fri, 08/25/2006 - 2:50pm.
Property rights are the foundation of freedom!* *unless I think you're just some primitive savage, in which case plundering your resources, driving you from your lands, and eventually engaging in systematic genocide of your people is acceptable. You can say "oh, that was in the past" all you want, and to a certain extent I agree. But don't wax all nostalgic with some utterly fanciful narrative about some unoccupied Eden giving birth of our culture and us being saddled with The White Man's Burden. The success of our nation comes from exploitation, slavery and murder just as surely as from courage and innovation. » reply
Raping the Ideals.Submitted by Adron on Fri, 08/25/2006 - 3:40pm.
"success of our nation comes from exploitation, slavery and murder just as surely as from courage and innovation" Bullshit. Most of the wars against the Indians and this "genocide" where started by a minority caused panic started by some Christians out of what is now Denver & that other gold mine of open mindedness, Salt Lake City. Even President Lincoln at the time was staunchly against Indian wars, and saw no reason to run them from their land. It was the minority Christian Settlers that caused a discriminatory uproar and fear mongering among the population, all the rest was inflamed by harsh retaliations by Indians and the rest is history. That was the majority of Indian wars. The lessor of Indian wars where valid manuevers to defend people against tribes that where violent, horrid, backwards people who unfortunately couldn't deal with someone living 20 miles away on open ground farming food. So they killed them. Western Europeans don't take well to killins so they killed some of their own. It was a tit |
Home |
Sam's Calendar |
Sam's Priorities |
Sam's Portfolio |
I Want To... |
Your Neighborhood |
Archives
PRINT
Unfortunately, none of these
Unfortunately, none of these studies matter.
Regardless of the price or effectiveness of transit vs. personal automobile, the vast majority still chooses to drive.
Shouldn’t it be your job to accommodate the majority (since they are the ones who are footing the bill)even if you disagree with their choice to drive?