Transportation funding bill 1 year later...thoughts, observations? (property taxes, live in)

[pman]

Originally Posted by Wells5

Gasoline taxes should be spent on road and bridge maintenance and construction not on subsidizing wealthy "mainliners" who commute to work by SEPTA (and buy their gasoline in Delaware or New Jersey) and subway riders in the city of brotherly love. The "transportation" funding act was a travesty foisted on the residents of the state by a devious political class in thrall to special interests. Corbett signed the legislation and Corbett was thrown out of office.

Rendell wanted to set up toll booths on I-80 to fund SEPTA. That scheme was defeated but what has taken its place is far worse. SEPTA's operating subsidies must be paid by the residents of the area served by them and not by Joe Sixpack from Punxsutawney.

By the way, what is a "pike parasite?" Those of us who live in the boonies are eager to know.

Since you live in the boonies it is likely you are taking money from wealthy main liners not the other way around. Your post is an amazing piece of illogic. People who take the train to work and are rich are going to drive to de or nj just to buy gas? Makes no sense whatsoever. The reality is that most of the state's taxpayers live in metro areas and every year that passes that statement becomes more true. It is very expensive to add rush hour capacity (almost as expensive as rural road capacity). Far more effective then to put people on dedicated right of way, high capacity service which septa runs. As for 80, I don't see why the suckerfish in northern pa should get off scot free. While I never agreed with using i80 tolls as the sole answer to transportation problems it absolutely should be part of the solution. It was planned as a toll road and should have been built as one. As it turned out state transportation was funded by turnpike debt which is paid largely by people needing to traverse the states major cities. Act 89 eventually relieves the turnpike from this unsustainable debt which is a vast improvement. Septa receives 300 million per year from this new law. I'd argue that rather than some extremist anti transit position that the rural posters insist makes sense that septa be held to metrics that ensure the money is invested in more effectively than the same 300 million per year on road projects. One thing that cannot be argued is that rural areas suppress the majority of taxpayers, sorry. As for corbett, education and his inability to address either pension obligations or state employment growth ultimately sunk him.

[fisheye]

Originally Posted by pman

About five or six years ago restoration of rail service was estimated at 500 million. I believe that proposal had too many stations which would have led to an inflated project price. Still if the alternative is in the billions it probably is cost effective. Keep in mind that even if a right of way becomes overgrown it can be restored as long as the rights are retained. How long is the drive to newark?

Newark is about fifty miles as the crow flies from our State line. The driving time depends on the traffic, road construction and accidents. Rush hour can turn that into a long drive. At 2:00 in the morning; it can be a quick drive. At 7:00 in the morning traffic crawls.

As much as some like to think of us as Joe Sixpack counties; I-80 is a busy corridor. Not only that but my County is one of the fastest growing counties in the State. Just for the interstate commerce alone; it is worth expanding 80. At current growth rates it is possible that some time in the future (with great planning) that we could overtake some of our major cities. Besides; we don't want our beer held up for any reason!

PS I don't drink!

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by BPP1999

After all, the PA Legislature held up the City of Philadelphia's attempt to enact a cigarette tax to fund schools for months.

Dumb tax, NYC has seen revenue decline each and every year since they enacted their cigarette tax. The revenue has halved since 2003.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by pman

Since you live in the boonies it is likely you are taking money from wealthy main liners not the other way around. Your post is an amazing piece of illogic. People who take the train to work and are rich are going to drive to de or nj just to buy gas? Makes no sense whatsoever. The reality is that most of the state's taxpayers live in metro areas and every year that passes that statement becomes more true. It is very expensive to add rush hour capacity (almost as expensive as rural road capacity). Far more effective then to put people on dedicated right of way, high capacity service which septa runs. As for 80, I don't see why the suckerfish in northern pa should get off scot free. While I never agreed with using i80 tolls as the sole answer to transportation problems it absolutely should be part of the solution. It was planned as a toll road and should have been built as one. As it turned out state transportation was funded by turnpike debt which is paid largely by people needing to traverse the states major cities. Act 89 eventually relieves the turnpike from this unsustainable debt which is a vast improvement. Septa receives 300 million per year from this new law. I'd argue that rather than some extremist anti transit position that the rural posters insist makes sense that septa be held to metrics that ensure the money is invested in more effectively than the same 300 million per year on road projects. One thing that cannot be argued is that rural areas suppress the majority of taxpayers, sorry. As for corbett, education and his inability to address either pension obligations or state employment growth ultimately sunk him.

Well said. It really defies logic that people would be against the most basic of public investments. The fact of the matter is when our infrastructure was created, it was never meant to be sustained without significant investments in the future.

It's amazing how people can't make the economic development/growth connection with infrastructure--I guess some people would prefer the state lurch towards a downward spiral, with loss of business and jobs to other states where investing in infrastructure is a top priority. Thankfully, as inept as the legislature is, at least they understood how crucial this issue is.

I will add that, compared to my experiences in PA from a couple of years ago, the roads--including local roads and highways--seem to really be in generally good shape. Of course, there is much work to do, but the progress is definitely noticeable, and the state will be much better off in the long-term.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Dumb tax, NYC has seen revenue decline each and every year since they enacted their cigarette tax. The revenue has halved since 2003.

That's the point. It's a disincentive to smoke, which burdens our society with other infinite health-related costs. But that's another conversation entirely.

NYC is not hurting for revenue.

[Wells5]

Originally Posted by Duderino

Not to mention, as BPP noted, public transit in major metro areas supports the commercial activity (i.e., raising tax revenue) that funds other areas of the state. If you don't like this system, then I suggest you leave the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Your reactionary statement above reminds me of the Vietnam War era, when cars sported bumper stickers saying:" America, Love It or Leave It." And my suggestion for the folks who live in Philly and the 4 counties surrounding it: If you feel that your taxes are unfairly subsidizing the rest of the state, then secede. The residents in the PA hinterlands can get along very well without the financial support of the southeast.

[Wells5]

Originally Posted by pman

One thing that cannot be argued is that rural areas suppress the majority of taxpayers, sorry. As for corbett, education and his inability to address either pension obligations or state employment growth ultimately sunk him.

As a self proclaimed logician, perhaps you can enlighten us on how "rural areas" suppress their residents? Certain entities can be vectors of suppression like government, employers and such but can rural acreage be an agent of "suppression?"

Corbett tried to hold down spending and taxes against union demands (especially the teachers unions) for more and more money to be thrown at the educational establishment and current and retired government employees. You and your fellow travellers are ecstatic that our incoming governor, Dr. Thomas Westerman Wolf, has pledged to double the state income tax rate to please his union and education supporters in their never ending campaign to filch more and more money from the pockets of the taxpayers.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by Wells5

Your reactionary statement above reminds me of the Vietnam War era, when cars sported bumper stickers saying:" America, Love It or Leave It." And my suggestion for the folks who live in Philly and the 4 counties surrounding it: If you feel that your taxes are unfairly subsidizing the rest of the state, then secede. The residents in the PA hinterlands can get along very well without the financial support of the southeast.

I wasn't trying to be reactionary, nor am I at all suggesting that tax dollars shouldn't be collected and distributed statewide, but this inane argument that the cities are being subsidized by the rest of the state is getting extremely old and is just plain wrong.

On the contrary, I think it's wonderful that Pennsylvania has a diversity in its landscape from big cities to quaint small towns, but the state was founded on being a "Commonwealth"--which again means that a revenue distribution system is in place so that municipalities across the state support one another.

Driving a wedge between urban and rural does everyone a disservice.

[pman]

Originally Posted by fisheye

Newark is about fifty miles as the crow flies from our State line. The driving time depends on the traffic, road construction and accidents. Rush hour can turn that into a long drive. At 2:00 in the morning; it can be a quick drive. At 7:00 in the morning traffic crawls.

As much as some like to think of us as Joe Sixpack counties; I-80 is a busy corridor. Not only that but my County is one of the fastest growing counties in the State. Just for the interstate commerce alone; it is worth expanding 80. At current growth rates it is possible that some time in the future (with great planning) that we could overtake some of our major cities. Besides; we don't want our beer held up for any reason!

PS I don't drink!

You've done the opposite for me, perhaps the train idea is a relative bargain; after all were really only interested in total capacity. It would be much more effective if we could have a trip time competitive extension of njt to Stroudsburg than expanding 80 since road capacity will not solve issues in the ny area...if they build the new Hudson tunnels it is conceivable trains could continue on to penn station itself. NJ transit is highly capable of moving large numbers of people, each double decker train carries 1400 people.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Duderino

Compete double standard, not to mention illogical. Do highways and local roads support themselves? Absolutely not. The federal government heavily contributes to state highways, a fund to which all taxpayers contribute.

That's from the federal road tax (fuel tax) which is about 18 cents a gallon. About 40% of that also goes to mass transit.

We absolutely have to get past this nonsense of wanting to separate funding for different transit modes.

The road tax is a user fee very much like a fare. When you buy gas you are paying to use the road. If you collect a user fee it should be used for what you are collecting it from.