Governor Corbett set to announce plan for transportation funding (Philadelphia: income, income tax)

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by pman

sure it is and it's backed up by Penndot

He says:

“We actually subsidize rural roads at a much higher rate than we subsidize mass transit. If you think about a two lane road – if it doesn’t carry at least 10,000 vehicles a day, it’s being subsidized.”

And my point remains that a rural road with 2000 cars a day is going to require far less repair and repaving than a road with 10K vehicles. I know of roads that haven't been paved in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken. If the road with 10k vehicles is costing 5X as much to maintain over a 50 year period there isn't any subsidy is there?

[pman]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

He says:
And my point remains that a rural road with 2000 cars a day is going to require far less repair and repaving than a road with 10K vehicles. I know of roads that haven't been paved in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken. If the road with 10k vehicles is costing 5X as much to maintain over a 50 year period there isn't any subsidy is there?

no offense but all you've said is what shoch said, 10k vehicles is the breakeven point. you've also justified not spending money on rural roads. the reality is, of course, there is a subsidy and many urban roads carry well in excess of 10k vehicles per day. If you want to demand that no money be used for SEPTA, who takes people off the road, then you should be equally willing to admit that more money doesn't need to be spent on rural roads.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by pman

no offense but all you've said is what shoch said, 10k vehicles is the breakeven point. you've also justified not spending money on rural roads. the reality is, of course, there is a subsidy

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. A road in rural area is going to cost less to build, no curbing, no lights, etc. The road that is carrying 5X the traffic is going to have to be repaved many more times. If over a 50 year period it costs 5X time as much to maintain the road carrying 10K vehicles as the one carrying 2K they have cost the same amount of money per mle of vehicle travel.

[mancat100]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. A road in rural area is going to cost less to build, no curbing, no lights, etc. The road that is carrying 5X the traffic is going to have to be repaved many more times. If over a 50 year period it costs 5X time as much to maintain the road carrying 10K vehicles as the one carrying 2K they have cost the same amount of money per mle of vehicle travel.

It would cost even less if we completely stopped paving lightly traveled rural roads.

[pman]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. A road in rural area is going to cost less to build, no curbing, no lights, etc. The road that is carrying 5X the traffic is going to have to be repaved many more times. If over a 50 year period it costs 5X time as much to maintain the road carrying 10K vehicles as the one carrying 2K they have cost the same amount of money per mle of vehicle travel.

it's not hard to understand, it's just that you have no proof. Mr. schoch specifically said that rural roads need (and many suburban roads are two lanes as well) 10k vehicles. the fact is that a road with five times the volume doesn't necessarily have five times the cost, evidence suggests otherwise. I don't know why it's so hard to understand, rural areas live off metro areas when it comes to infrastructure so to have them complain that transit is funded when they themselves aren't paying for it is irksome. if you stick to things most people like, like having better standards for what gets funded, improving managemet at PennDOT, etc I think you'll get broader support. I support transit, but I don't think that all transit projects that local politicians dream up are worthwhile.
note: the largest public project in state history isn't a transportation project, it's the convention center expansion in Philadelphia. that's wrong.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by mancat100

It would cost even less if we completely stopped paving lightly traveled rural roads.

I'm paying taxes to have those roads paved.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by pman

it's not hard to understand, it's just that you have no proof. Mr. schoch specifically said that rural roads need

I don't take what bureaucrats or politicians say at face value. I have no proof but I do have a logical argument. A rural road is going to cost less to build and maintain over an extended period of time and that's just a fact. The only thing that is questionable is what the difference is.

[pman]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

I don't take what bureaucrats or politicians say at face value. I have no proof but I do have a logical argument. A rural road is going to cost less to build and maintain over an extended period of time and that's just a fact. The only thing that is questionable is what the difference is.

He has data we dont. Infrstructure is cheaper when its used. Railroads charge more for dedicated lines...they also build cheaper, lower speed lines where traffic is low. Rural roads are often as nice or.nicer than suburban ones in my limited experience. Urban areas generate the.majority of the states tax revenue.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by pman

He has data we dont.

And until I see what the data is with own eyes and how it's being used what he has to say has no relevance as far as I'm concerned, e.g. the LCB returns 500 million in profit to PA.

[pman]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

And until I see what the data is with own eyes and how it's being used what he has to say has no relevance as far as I'm concerned, e.g. the LCB returns 500 million in profit to PA.

The plcb doesnt return 500 million in profit. 400 million in taxes from alcohol and 100 million in profit. You may not beleive but i dont beleive your self serving bias either. Truth is rural residents are sucking the blood from suburban areas.youre willing to not fund transportation just so transit gets no money? from my perspective it's perfectly reasonable to ask that SEPTA, for example, reform its (fully funded) pension system if its found to be too generous (and I do think that SEPTA has too generous healthcare packages) but I don't thin kit's reasonable to ask that transit not be funded. a deal similar to PAT's for SEPTA (when PAT's union and management gave concessions in exchange for funding) is in order even if SEPTa has been more responsibly run. of course, if you give capital money to SEPTA it will still force them to get concessions since that money comes from operating.