Light Rail (Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe: vehicle registration, incomes, to live in)

[LocoAZnative]

I rode the light rail on Friday and it was so packed that people couldn't even get on since we were already packed like sardines.

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

What percentage do you think rides only one-way? Are they walking back? I'm guessing that 95%-99% ride round-trip.

95 - 99% would be a pretty safe assumption if you were talking about cars but when you take public transit you have no worries about getting your car back safe, and you are open to many other possibilities like a ride from a friend, a taxi, walking, etc..

Plus a lot of the rides may only be a ride home, like if someone drives to the bars, drinks too much, and then takes the train home. A friend of mine often rides his motorcycle out (bars) and then takes the train home.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by LocoAZnative

I rode the light rail on Friday and it was so packed that people couldn't even get on since we were already packed like sardines.

This often happens especially at busy stations like "Grand Central Station." Especially on Sundays when they sometimes run those one car trains!

[Ritchie_az]

Look, I'm just as glad as everyone else that ridership is above expected. I hope standing-room only is the norm. I hope ridership of the current phase qaudruples. That way, those of us who don't ride the light-rail (non-users) aren't on the hook for paying the operating costs (for the users). This would be especially helpful considering the budget woes found in our cities, counties and state governments.
So I'm hoping that actual ridership (not those phony ridership numbers) rise to about 100,000 for daily (M-F) averages. I'd be very happy about that. In fact, if that happens, I'd be willing to have some of my tax money pay for the next phase (even though I won't use it).




(However, my pessimistic side says that will never happen).

[homlish560]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

Look, I'm just as glad as everyone else that ridership is above expected. I hope standing-room only is the norm. I hope ridership of the current phase qaudruples. That way, those of us who don't ride the light-rail (non-users) aren't on the hook for paying the operating costs (for the users). This would be especially helpful considering the budget woes found in our cities, counties and state governments.
So I'm hoping that actual ridership (not those phony ridership numbers) rise to about 100,000 for daily (M-F) averages. I'd be very happy about that. In fact, if that happens, I'd be willing to have some of my tax money pay for the next phase (even though I won't use it).




(However, my pessimistic side says that will never happen).

Your Views about Light-rail are respected and you have a right to them; but it's your admitted pessimistic attitude that has a negative reaction here.

Debbie Downers and Pessimists are just negative people and a bummer to be around!!!!!

[Ritchie_az]

"Your Views about Light-rail are respected and you have a right to them; but it's your admitted pessimistic attitude that has a negative reaction here."

I'm only pessimistic about things I think are stupid or wrong. (In the case of the light-rail, I think it is both). (Also note: I said "I think"... in other words, these are my opinions, and it's ok if yours are different).

Normally, I'm a "glass is half full" person and (I think) I'm a pleasure to be around.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

Look, I'm just as glad as everyone else that ridership is above expected. I hope standing-room only is the norm. I hope ridership of the current phase qaudruples. That way, those of us who don't ride the light-rail (non-users) aren't on the hook for paying the operating costs (for the users). This would be especially helpful considering the budget woes found in our cities, counties and state governments.
So I'm hoping that actual ridership (not those phony ridership numbers) rise to about 100,000 for daily (M-F) averages. I'd be very happy about that. In fact, if that happens, I'd be willing to have some of my tax money pay for the next phase (even though I won't use it).




(However, my pessimistic side says that will never happen).

So how about you start paying for whatever freeway(s) you use so the rest of us aren't on the hook for their costs since absolute NO user fees are collected for them. The rail, which is paid and maintained for just like freeway and streets, has the differentiating aspect that 25% of light rail operations and their construction paid by user fees.

[Ritchie_az]

"So how about you start paying for whatever freeway(s) you use"

Do we really need to rehash this? Freeways are paid for entirely by freeway users and those who benefit from the use of freeways (e.g. trucks that bring supplies to stores use the freeways). The light-rail is paid for mostly by non-users (almost none of the initial cost and only about 25% of the operating cost were/are paid for by light-rail users). It's an old, broken down argument.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

Do we really need to rehash this? Freeways are paid for entirely by freeway users and those who benefit from the use of freeways (e.g. trucks that bring supplies to stores use the freeways). The light-rail is paid for mostly by non-users (almost none of the initial cost and only about 25% of the operating cost were/are paid for by light-rail users). It's an old, broken down argument.

The freeways are paid for by taxes that everyone pays and gas tax as well, whether or NOT one uses the freeways. I rarely use freeways and when I do it is primarily I-10. I don't remember being charged a user fee for getting on that freeway however.

I think your argument is the "old, broken down argument." The initial costs were paid by tax revenue (just like freeways) BUT half of it also paid by federal transportation dollars for public infrastructure. The city benefits from light rail, directly and indirectly (people as commerce, mobility), and anyone can use it.

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

"So how about you start paying for whatever freeway(s) you use"

Do we really need to rehash this? Freeways are paid for entirely by freeway users and those who benefit from the use of freeways (e.g. trucks that bring supplies to stores use the freeways). The light-rail is paid for mostly by non-users (almost none of the initial cost and only about 25% of the operating cost were/are paid for by light-rail users). It's an old, broken down argument.

Studies have consistently shown that roads are not paid for by the users, they are paid for out of the general tax fund. A study done in Texas showed that the gas tax paid for about 16% of the costs of freeways - considerably lower than the 25% paid for by transit users.

C'mon, the federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993 - where do you think this money is coming from?

For example, in Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes. That gives a tax gap ratio of .16, which means that the real gas tax rate people would need to pay on this segment of road to completely pay for it would be $2.22 per gallon.

Austin Contrarian: Do roads pay for themselves?

Vaporizing the Gas Tax Myth | Planetizen

Urban[ism] Legend: Gas Taxes and Fees Cover All Costs of Road Use | Market Urbanism

http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livab...ys-for-itself/

Even Fox has an article saying gas taxes need to be raised to cover the costs of roads:

"I'm not excited about a gas tax increase, but the reality is our current gas tax doesn't pay for upkeep of the system we have now," said Adrian Moore

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...-construction/