U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-06-2014, 06:39 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,858,676 times
Reputation: 1439

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Yes.

1) Most of your facts are not in your link.

I'll use 2012 numbers since I can find those. They can be found here: http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...l_20121120.pdf

Fares collected was $549 million
Operating expenses were $1,273 million.
549/1,273. For 2012, CTA had a farebox recovery ratio of 43%.

While true state law requires the CTA to have an recovery ratio of at least 52%. Revenue that brings it up are

1. a Subsidy paid by the state for reduce fares for an total(in thousands) of $28,000

2. Revenue from advertising and Charters(if you need an EL for your movie the CTA will rent one for you at an cost): $22,802

3. Income from investments $867

4. Statuary contributions(the City of Chicago and the county pay a bit for the CTA): $5,000

5. Other revunes:$27,013

Which brings the total up to about 59% but yeah fares only covered 43% and other sources of funding covered the rest.

Also note the complex sources of public funding, the City, Cook County and the State all chip in.... However you can see how just a reduction in something like funding from the state for reduced fares or funding from the City or County can cause problems. In 2011 the Country threatened to cut funding which would have endangered access to some additional funds(if the city didn't make up the difference).

http://www.wbez.org/story/cook-count...-funding-93992

Funding for roads is much more clear cut.

Last edited by chirack; 08-06-2014 at 06:59 PM..

 
Old 08-07-2014, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Chicago
1,312 posts, read 1,582,316 times
Reputation: 1487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
...Which it would in the simplified example if the farebox recovery was 55% (your claim) and everyone paid the full fare. Of course, they don't. Everyone knows that. Most people who use transit regularly have passes.
I never brought in the farebox recovery rate. You did. You said 55%, so that's the number I went with. Third page, post #29. That's the first mention of farebox recovery on this thread, and it was YOU that brought it into play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Nope. I think 2.25/.55 is 4.09.
Why are you mixing prices and percentages? Even I know not to do that. You're taking the fare price then dividing it by the farebox recovery rate.

What you need to do is:

X/$2.25 = 55/100 … then figure out what X is, and X is the amount that is collected per ride. That number is $1.24 (average).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
No. It clearly operates with a farebox recovery ratio of less than 50%. Answering rhetorical questions, I know.
No? CTA Facts at a Glance

Quote:
Illinois state law requires the three RTA service boards— CTA, Metra (the suburban rail system) and Pace (the suburban bus system) — to recover collectively at least 50 percent of operating costs from farebox and other system revenues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Of course you wouldn't. You'd rather have someone else pay for you. Nothing new there.
Everyone knows taxes need to be raised. Just don't raise my taxes.
Wow! You know so much about me! It's like we've known each other for ages! You can say that I want other people to pay for the things I use, because you know me so well!

Disregard the part when I said I would gladly pay whatever was necessary to make the system break even, or turn a profit. Get rid of the subsidies and reduced transfers, the system pays for itself. I'm good with that.

Oh wait… apparently I'm not good with it because someone on the internet I've never met before tells me that I'm not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Uh.. your link just says that some voters approved a 3/4 sales tax to pay for roads and transit. So... uh, I guess they would. I'm pretty sure most people spend more than $1 on taxable goods and since most people voted to increase the tax... well, yeah. Looks like they would.
I thought I was bad at math and numbers!

59% of the people voted AGAINST a tax increase to pay for the roads and transportation.
41% of the people voted FOR a tax increase to pay for the roads and transportation.

Use your magical math powers and explain to me how 59% of people being against something is "most" people being in favor of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
I would have voted no since I think user fees should cover both.
I can think sasquatch is real. It doesn't make it true. You think user fees should cover both, but they don't.

A modern day Descartes, huh?

"I think I already paid enough for it, therefore I did."
 
Old 08-07-2014, 03:08 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,999 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
Quote:
Illinois state law requires the three RTA service boards— CTA, Metra (the suburban rail system) and Pace (the suburban bus system) — to recover collectively at least 50 percent of operating costs from farebox and other system revenues.
Do note the bold. Operating costs are not the same as building/maintenance costs. So maybe the average Illinoisan is paying half the cost of his/her ride, but s/he is not paying for half of the cost of the system.
 
Old 08-07-2014, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,062 posts, read 16,078,369 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Do note the bold. Operating costs are not the same as building/maintenance costs. So maybe the average Illinoisan is paying half the cost of his/her ride, but s/he is not paying for half of the cost of the system.
Also, if you look the budget stuff, there's lot of "system revenues."

Advertising, reduced transit offsets, moneys that Chicago or Illinois has statutory obligations to provide for one reason or another. In 2012, the farebox recovery was less than 50%. Unless the CTA stopped operating in 2012, it clearly can operate with less than 50% farebox recovery ratio.
 
Old 08-08-2014, 05:33 AM
 
4,189 posts, read 4,397,954 times
Reputation: 2228
Sure it's expensive to build and repair roads but does it need to be so expensive? Nope. Why is it so expensive? Government is inept, corrupt and just does not care about costs.
 
Old 08-08-2014, 07:17 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,999 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka View Post
Sure it's expensive to build and repair roads but does it need to be so expensive? Nope. Why is it so expensive? Government is inept, corrupt and just does not care about costs.
I'm not sure I agree with that 100%, but the same can be applied to public transit. Illinois has a history of corruption in road building, for sure!
 
Old 08-08-2014, 11:08 AM
 
116 posts, read 174,454 times
Reputation: 118
People somehow don't recognize transportation infrastructure as a utility that needs to be paid for. They have no issue paying for electricity, water, etc. by usage and are even willing to pay almost $200 a month for cell phone bills, but when it comes to roads - no way! Even though every time a car drives on the road it is damaging that road and causing wear and tear. This is why I support a road user charge.
 
Old 08-08-2014, 09:37 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,349,928 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanObservor View Post
People somehow don't recognize transportation infrastructure as a utility that needs to be paid for. They have no issue paying for electricity, water, etc. by usage and are even willing to pay almost $200 a month for cell phone bills, but when it comes to roads - no way! Even though every time a car drives on the road it is damaging that road and causing wear and tear. This is why I support a road user charge.
Transportation infrastructure is not a "utility". In any event, tere already is a "road user charge" for those that pay fuel taxes for fuel to drive on roads. As another poster pointed out something like 90% of households own cars and to the extent their property, income, and sales taxes are spent on roads the roads are being paid for by "users".

So are you also going to require cyclists and road-using public transit to pay as well?

How about school buses and all local government vehicles like city garbage trucks, etc.?

Will you somehow allocate this fee between city roads, county roads, state roads, and federal highways when collected - or do you intend for it to go into a slush fund to be allocated purely based upon political processes (i.e., no correlation to use or wear and not spent on roads)

Perhaps the problem is that users are already paying for roads and they are understandably resistant to paying more.
 
Old 08-09-2014, 10:03 AM
 
12,299 posts, read 15,194,052 times
Reputation: 8108
Actually, as a cyclist, I would support a small tax on bicycles and their tires. The revenue could be used to capture more taxpayer ( and borrowed) funds to build bikeways. One element missing from the discussion is roadway spending is inadequate. If we doubled the motor fuel tax (though I prefer a mileage tax) and a like amount were added from general revenues, we would have a good hiway system. Motorists would even save money in the long run: fewer shock absorbers, repair bills and accident damage.
 
Old 08-09-2014, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,330,919 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
Actually, as a cyclist, I would support a small tax on bicycles and their tires. The revenue could be used to capture more taxpayer ( and borrowed) funds to build bikeways. One element missing from the discussion is roadway spending is inadequate. If we doubled the motor fuel tax (though I prefer a mileage tax) and a like amount were added from general revenues, we would have a good hiway system. Motorists would even save money in the long run: fewer shock absorbers, repair bills and accident damage.
I'd sign on for that too, only if bicycle infrastructure was taken seriously. Damage done to a road by a bike is practically zero, but I'm all about funding safety improvements and bike-specific infrastructure.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top