Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The biggest problem with the subsidies is the accompanying political influence. Septa might want to extend lines but even if it did it is pressured to overspend on places like Levittown, build unnecessary stations in lansdale, and overpriced parking in upper darby by the dame legislators that support them.
That's not going to go away though since SEPTA needs subsidies to survive. As far as politicians jacking up the costs of SEPTA that's no shocker since they represent people that want expanded services from SEPTA and are doing what they believe there constituents want in that matter. Of course at the end of the day it drives up the cost and causes those in the rest of the state that do not get any benefit from SEPTA to look at those raised costs and go "why the hell are more tax payer dollars supporting this?" But there is really nothing you can do about it in that regard unless you want to make SEPTA completely controlled by PennDot who would be under pressure to keep costs down but I don't know how well that would go over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pman
The discussion never centers on how best to measure septas success or what we want them to do.relieve traffic? Then we want better regional rail service which moves people off the road. Connect the poor to jobs? Better intercontinental bus service. Should we have such complex service standards or should we have a more general metric and give them the ability to meet targets how they see fit?
Shouldn't it do all the above? Economic success isn't going to happen for a variety reasons in something like SEPTA. I'd imagine wanting to get more people using public transportation and it running on schedule with great inter-connectivity should be the three real measures of success here. Obviously you don't want costs to sky rocket but at the same time SEPTA is going to end up losing money at the end of the day due to what is and nothing can really be done about that without severely restricting services.
Sorry not buying it. You say simply because political influence isn't going away we shouldn't try to address it? Don't agree. Penndot is also subject to influence but certainly it mihht make sense for harrisburg to exert more control since the majoruty of funds comes from them. Political influence also directs highway spending. It's not unique to septa but it doesn't mean we shouldn't counter it.
That was supposed to read intercounty not intercontinental.
It is simply a false hood that nothing can be done about how much septa loses or how many people it moves.
Sorry not buying it. You say simply because political influence isn't going away we shouldn't try to address it? Don't agree.
Not saying you shouldn't try and address it. What I'm saying isn't you'll never be fully rid of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pman
Penndot is also subject to influence but certainly it mihht make sense for harrisburg to exert more control since the majoruty of funds comes from them. Political influence also directs highway spending. It's not unique to septa but it doesn't mean we shouldn't counter it.
That was supposed to read intercounty not intercontinental. It is simply a false hood that nothing can be done about how much septa loses or how many people it moves.
Honestly I think it's false hood to ever assume SEPTA will be profitable is what I've been trying to get at on this topic. I'll use Amtrak as an example of what I'm getting at with SEPTA since I believe Amtrak actually does better then SEPTA at recovering it's losses. Even if all Amtrak did was run the Northeast Corridor which is it's most profitable service it will still require the government to stay operational since maintenance costs and improvements it wouldn't be able to pay for on it's own. People generally aren't realistic when it comes to public transportation. Even in Europe which most people in the United States look towards as how public transportation in the United States should be don't realize public transportation there is also subsidized as well. Your always going to incur losses with public transportation services like SEPTA. You can reduce the loses but you are going to have them at the end of the day.
Like I said it's a loser argument. SEPTA is not Norfolk Southern which makes billions every year in profit, does not require constant government subsidies to stay operational, SEPTA does not pay taxes like Norfolk Southern and SEPTA definitely does not maintain all of it's equipment and tracks because of the profits it makes unlike Norfolk Southern. That's why the economic argument is a loser argument because you compare something like SEPTA or Amtrak to Norfolk Southern it's beyond obvious what is profitable and what is not.
As far as as taking hundreds of thousands of cars off the road every year again that really is nothing to brag about either when talking about rail. Norfolk Southern in just it's two intermodal terminals in Harrisburg PA take about a million trucks off the road every single year. Considering that 18 wheelers do a hell of a lot more damage to roads due to there weight compared to cars Norfolk Southern is actually doing a lot more public good then SEPTA. If you look at it nationwide Norfolk Southern clearly beats Amtrak in this area as well. I could go on about how around 75% of all cars manufactured in the United States are moved by train across country as well by the freight rail roads but I think I already made my point in this regard.
Look if your going to argue public transportation trying to make an economic argument is a losing argument right off the bat because a government is always going to kick in more money then will ever be recovered by the public transportation services. SEPTA doesn't subsidize jack **** in Harrisburg or anywhere else in this state for that matter except for in Philadelphia metro area. Let's get that nonsense out of the way right now. Essentially the argument you want to make is it increases the mobility of the citizens in the area where public transportation is offered which in terms is a benefit to society overall since it offers people more means of getting around which could be more efficient then traveling by car or plane.
Now with all that said I would actually like public transportation to be increased in the United States. I would love it if Amtrak built two lines from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh and had them electrified so we can have full higher speed rail and maybe one day high speed rail across this state connecting Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philly, and a lot of places in between together efficiently. Last study that was done on the matter said it would cost around 14 billion to do. I would fully support that because it would pave the way for increasing public transportation options across the United States (the Keystone corridor could actually one day be the corridor used to travel to Chicago by higher speed if not high speed rail) and bringing people closer together making everything become shorter. Baltimore and Harrisburg also would likely become connected by higher speed rail as well which is something I would like to see as well. So before you or someone else reading this goes into some tirade about me hating on public transportation I'm not. I just get tired of hearing bonehead arguments for it that I know will get ripped to shreds by anyone with half a brain. You can't argue that it makes money because that's BS your argument is essentially that is for the "greater good" as cheesy as that sounds because that is the only argument that has merit at the end of the day.
I can't even begin to describe how wrong this is. No, SEPTA doesn't make money for itself, but it enables private companies to make a lot of money. Let's get something straight - Philadelphia metro subsidizes the rest of Pennsylvania. It's literally a fact. We generate more taxes for the state than the state gives to the area. Unfortunately I don't have the link to that information, but I've seen it several times, I know that it's true. SEPTA enables this to happen because private corporations don't lose on productivity from longer commutes and congestion. It's better for the environment as well. A better SEPTA means a better Philly, and a better Philly means a better Pennsylvania.
I can't even begin to describe how wrong this is. No, SEPTA doesn't make money for itself, but it enables private companies to make a lot of money.
How exactly? It's a transportation service that moves people not products. It give residents in the areas covered by SEPTA to be able to get around without being totally reliant on a car. It doesn't generate economic activity itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyPhan95
Let's get something straight - Philadelphia metro subsidizes the rest of Pennsylvania. It's literally a fact.
It was stated on here that SEPTA somehow subsidizes the rest of Pennsylvania when that is complete BS which is what I stated and apparently you didn't comprehend that. Next time pay better attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyPhan95
SEPTA enables this to happen because private corporations don't lose on productivity from longer commutes and congestion.
You realize that most people who use public transportation tend to be poor right? The middle class and wealthy generate more economic activity then the poor do so this one seriously weak argument. As far as the private sector goes if you can show up for work on time ever you will eventually get fired. Companies tend not to care what your reasons are if you can never show up on time. Private companies outside of the transportation industry aren't that effected by people having longer commutes and more congestion. If that were so NYC and the whole I-95 corridor for that matter would be economic dead zone decades ago. This argument has no merit at the end of the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyPhan95
It's better for the environment as well. A better SEPTA means a better Philly, and a better Philly means a better Pennsylvania.
I don't seem to recall myself on here stating that SEPTA should be done away with or that it's funding should be cut. What I stated is that trying to make an economic argument for SEPTA is BS because it's always going to make less money then what it needs to stay operational. The reasons to keep SEPTA around is for mobility of the people living in areas served by SEPTA and not definitely about money which it will always end up losing.
You realize that most people who use public transportation tend to be poor right? The middle class and wealthy generate more economic activity then the poor do so this one seriously weak argument.
Both statements are true. However, you don't use SEPTA's Regional Rail system to get to a job that pays $25,000 per year. There are about 130,000 weekday riders on SEPTA's railroad division. This number alone is more than the populations of about 25 or 30 of Pennsylvania's counties. Then, factor in what the average train rider earns in a year (let's say $75k/year, which is probably low), and that's an enormous amount of economic activity. In fact, at 3.07%, that's about $300 million of PA tax revenue from wages alone. Let's not forget that these riders are paying to use the trains, and paying to park. This is all somewhat esoteric, but SEPTA is a lot more than another form of welfare (as Daryl Metcalfe would say).
Not saying you shouldn't try and address it. What I'm saying isn't you'll never be fully rid of it.
Honestly I think it's false hood to ever assume SEPTA will be profitable is what I've been trying to get at on this topic. I'll use Amtrak as an example of what I'm getting at with SEPTA since I believe Amtrak actually does better then SEPTA at recovering it's losses. Even if all Amtrak did was run the Northeast Corridor which is it's most profitable service it will still require the government to stay operational since maintenance costs and improvements it wouldn't be able to pay for on it's own. People generally aren't realistic when it comes to public transportation. Even in Europe which most people in the United States look towards as how public transportation in the United States should be don't realize public transportation there is also subsidized as well. Your always going to incur losses with public transportation services like SEPTA. You can reduce the loses but you are going to have them at the end of the day.
Read more slowly and quote where I said septa would be profitable. People are rarely realistic when it comes to transportation. People want roads to pay for themselves. They don't want gas taxes or tolls. The reality is septa services vary in how much they lose and how many people hey move. Regional rail has dedicated right if way and the potential to move many more people but requires capital. Buses require less capital and vary widely in farebox ratio. Typically the worst performing buses are in suburban counties because fewer people use them both due to demographic reasons and the density reasons (ccs Hugh density means parking isn't free or possible for everyone but most strip malls are the opposite). Anyway point being we should demand a return for our investment and if more people sells better than saying philadelphia subsidizes the state then let's direct septa to me more people instead of building pet political projects.
While we're at it, how about penndot pony up to replace logan square instead of one little piece. Highways shoukd be mandated to mitigate their impact where possible
They would have done that long ago, but rural interests in Harrisburg purposely underfunded SEPTA for years and it therefor fell into a state of disrepair. Even with its big funding increase, it is still woefully underfunded. All that new money is mostly going toward infrastructure repairs that should have been done decades ago.
Time for the obligatory History Lesson.
Actually, this is not an accurate description of how the transit funding game has been played in Harrisburg for a while now.
While it is true that many rural Pennsylvanians think every transit dollar in the Commonwealth goes to prop up SEPTA, many legislators know otherwise. SEPTA does carry two of every three mass transit users in the state, but the folks who run agencies like the Area Transportation Authority (of North Central Pennsylvania), the state's smallest mass transit agency, which operates in a largely rural part of the state centered on Crawford County, let their legislators know they need the spare change too. SEPTA just yells the loudest because it has the greatest amount of infrastructure; others, like the second-biggest agency in the state, Pittsburgh's Port Authority of Allegheny County, have opened new subway extensions while implementing Doomsday Service Plans that drastically cut existing service.
But I digress. The General Assembly spent most of the late 1980s and early 1990s trying to find ways to establish a dedicated revenue stream for public transit statewide that would pass state Constitutional muster (IOW, no gas taxes, as those can only be used on highways). They thought they came up with one ca. 1991; it added taxes on car rentals, a sales tax on magazines, and new taxes on auto parts and supplies to produce some of the revenue.
But most of it came from a new tax on electric utilities. This tax the state Supreme Court threw out during Tom Ridge's term in office as unconstitutional.
So it was back to the drawing board. Upon taking office, Gov. Ed Rendell proposed doing something the City of Chicago and the State of Indiana had done a year or two prior to much praise: leasing the Pennsylvania Turnpike system to a private concessionaire and using the lease payments to fund the statewide transportation program (roads and transit).
This went over like a lead balloon in the legislature, whose members realized that once the concessionaire took over operations, they would no longer have a place to stash their friends and supporters who couldn't do real work for the state.
Thus was born Plan B: Turn I-80 into the extension of the Turnpike system it was going to be before the Interstate Highway Act passed. Apply to the Feds for one of the demonstration waivers that would allow tolls on a road built with Interstate money. Set up the ticketless tolling system so it socked mainly the traffic passing through Pennsylvania headed between New York and points west of Youngstown. Spend the revenues from it and all the rest of the Turnpike system on the statewide transportation program by issuing bonds backed by Turnpike revenues. The pols kept their patronage haven and got out-of-staters to pay for mass transit, bridges and road repairs.
Now, the folks in northern Pennsylvania did protest loudly over the plan; even though the tolling system was set up so that Pennsylvanians who used I-80 for local travel within their regions would pay no toll at all, and even though the revenues were to both supplement the gas tax and pay for mass transit operations statewide, they still complained that they would have to "pay tolls for SEPTA."
That didn't faze the lawmakers. Nor did the Feds' rejection of their application on the grounds that the numbers made no sense. "You're raising all this revenue, but only spending this much to maintain I-80?" said the Federal Highway Administration. That wasn't cool, for the law authorizing up to four pilot projects for tolling Interstates stipulated that the money raised could only go towards maintenance or expansion of the highway.
Harrisburg issued the bonds anyway, and the state applied to the Feds again and got the same skeptical answer. Then, after the 2008 election, it tried one more time. I asked a member of the SEPTA board after a budget meeting why Harrisburg was doing this when the Feds told them no twice, and the answer I got should tell you how bright they are there: "They figured that with a change of administration they'd get a more favorable hearing."
They didn't. The Turnpike Commission had to cut in half the amount of money it turned over to PennDOT under Act 44, and its debt took a hit from the rating agencies. The users took a hit too in the form of stiff toll hikes. SEPTA, on the other hand, did learn something from the days when it routinely said to Harrisburg, "Fund us or the riders get it" (in the form of drastic service cuts); this time, SEPTA held service harmless and put all but the most urgent maintenance on the shelf. That set the stage for SEPTA's Slow, Painful Death of the System presentation, which had the advantage of being true this time. The tax hikes Corbett finally got through four years after his own handpicked study commission told him he'd have to raise taxes put an end to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984
Like I said it's a loser argument. SEPTA is not Norfolk Southern which makes billions every year in profit, does not require constant government subsidies to stay operational, SEPTA does not pay taxes like Norfolk Southern and SEPTA definitely does not maintain all of it's equipment and tracks because of the profits it makes unlike Norfolk Southern. That's why the economic argument is a loser argument because you compare something like SEPTA or Amtrak to Norfolk Southern it's beyond obvious what is profitable and what is not.
As far as as taking hundreds of thousands of cars off the road every year again that really is nothing to brag about either when talking about rail. Norfolk Southern in just it's two intermodal terminals in Harrisburg PA take about a million trucks off the road every single year. Considering that 18 wheelers do a hell of a lot more damage to roads due to there weight compared to cars Norfolk Southern is actually doing a lot more public good then SEPTA. If you look at it nationwide Norfolk Southern clearly beats Amtrak in this area as well. I could go on about how around 75% of all cars manufactured in the United States are moved by train across country as well by the freight rail roads but I think I already made my point in this regard.
Look if your going to argue public transportation trying to make an economic argument is a losing argument right off the bat because a government is always going to kick in more money then will ever be recovered by the public transportation services. SEPTA doesn't subsidize jack **** in Harrisburg or anywhere else in this state for that matter except for in Philadelphia metro area. Let's get that nonsense out of the way right now. Essentially the argument you want to make is it increases the mobility of the citizens in the area where public transportation is offered which in terms is a benefit to society overall since it offers people more means of getting around which could be more efficient then traveling by car or plane.
Now with all that said I would actually like public transportation to be increased in the United States. I would love it if Amtrak built two lines from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh and had them electrified so we can have full higher speed rail and maybe one day high speed rail across this state connecting Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philly, and a lot of places in between together efficiently. Last study that was done on the matter said it would cost around 14 billion to do. I would fully support that because it would pave the way for increasing public transportation options across the United States (the Keystone corridor could actually one day be the corridor used to travel to Chicago by higher speed if not high speed rail) and bringing people closer together making everything become shorter. Baltimore and Harrisburg also would likely become connected by higher speed rail as well which is something I would like to see as well. So before you or someone else reading this goes into some tirade about me hating on public transportation I'm not. I just get tired of hearing bonehead arguments for it that I know will get ripped to shreds by anyone with half a brain. You can't argue that it makes money because that's BS your argument is essentially that is for the "greater good" as cheesy as that sounds because that is the only argument that has merit at the end of the day.
Um, most of the people SEPTA and the state's 36 other mass transit agencies move around their regions are headed to or from their jobs. And without reliable mass transit, a good chunk of those people, especially those further down the income scale, wouldn't be able to keep those jobs.
Those working folk pay taxes to the Commonwealth. And when they can keep their jobs, turnover goes down, saving employers money they'd otherwise have to spend on hiring and training replacements.
That's the main economic benefit of mass transit - not the number of cars it removes from the highways or the profits it (doesn't) make. Especially in our older, larger cities - yes, Pittsburgh too - it is crucial to keeping many people from becoming a burden on the state treasury, and it saves employers money by not having to replace employees so often, another benefit.
HSR won't do squat about this.
That said, your point about profitability holds; the reason the freight railroads wanted out of the passenger transport business is that they were all losing money on it. The Nixon Administration set up the National Railroad Passenger Corporation in such a way that (the boys in the White House figured) the continuing losses would lead Congress to eventually put it out of its misery, but too many Congressfolk (and their constituents), and the employees, wanted the trains to keep running.
Going back to local public transit, there is a way that rail transit could carry more of its weight.
As of now, only one subway system anywhere covers all of its costs (capital and operating) out of revenue it generates itself: Hong Kong's Mass Transit Railway. It does so by leasing land over its storage yards and atop its stations and pocketing the rent. We've never allowed US mass transit agencies to do this. The closest we've gotten is something called "value capture," and it works like this: Rail transit does provide a tangible benefit to the owners of land along the line, which usually becomes much more valuable than land further away thanks to the improved access to it. "Value capture" dedicates the increased property taxes generated by the much more valuable land to the operations of the subway. Like advertising, this is a way to generate "farebox" revenue without raising the fares themselves.
By the way, I don't know whether this was you or not, but whoever it was couldn't care less about the arguments the defenders of SEPTA make. I'm a stickler for proper use of this term.
You realize that most people who use public transportation tend to be poor right? The middle class and wealthy generate more economic activity then the poor do so this one seriously weak argument.
Most Regional Rail riders, like most riders of "commuter" trains everywhere, skew upward on the income scale.
Your statement is true for public transportation in the aggregate, but we're talking SEPTA here. It has a non-trivial number of non-poor riders thanks to Regional Rail.
Not to mention that closer to the urban core, you will find enough people using the local buses to get places they'd rather not walk to to make this assumption weaker as well. Mass transit and urban density play well together; freeways and urban density do not.
You realize that most people who use public transportation tend to be poor right? The middle class and wealthy generate more economic activity then the poor do so this one seriously weak argument.
Having spent a good chunk of adolescence without transit, I can't imagine ever living in a place without a real transit system again.
1/3rd of Philadelphia household's don't have a car. And while some of that is based on poverty, some of it isn't - including my wife and I, and people like us. I could afford a car if I wanted to. I don't. I take transit most anywhere - elsewhere I walk.
Also a conversation that barely exists on the topic of car ownership, aside from the massive misallocation of resources it runs on, is that most of the private money put into car ownership exits the local economy (it's pretty impossible for most cities and towns to have a local supply chain for automobiles and gasoline, yet this is where a significant percentage of peoples income goes due to citizens being forced to own cars and drive everywhere in most of the United States). And what the impact of that is at thousands of dollars per year times every person forced into car dependency - dollars that at one point would have been spent or invested locally. I don't even want to know the numbers - but it's a massive shift of capital.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
