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 reason the gases are higher in Europe is that the gas tax in Europe is used to pay for things other than transportation. They use the gas tax the way we use the income tax. Its a general tax used to pay for just about everything. Their gas taxes make up about 3/4 the cost of gasoline.
The issue with transit is the magnitude of the subsidies and the incredible poor cost effectiveness of those subsidies. RT has a fare box recovery rate of about 20%. In terms of operating expenses, fares are only recovering about 20% of the cost of the service, the rest of the operating shortfall is primarily made up by Measure A, the half cent sales tax used to fund transportation projects in the region. Under measure A, 1/3 of the Measure A funds go to subsidize transit and 2/3 gets spent on other transportation enhancements.
Remember in Sacramento 3.8% of all trips are by transit but it consuming 1/3 of the measure A transportation tax. In short transit is being subsidized almost ten times more than everything else.
You have people on this forum saying that light rail is least expensive form of transit in this region. Let's assume they are right. Furthermore let us assume that transit planners at RT are professionals and the new south side line is the most cost effective new line that RT could create in this region.
We know that RT is spending $55,000 to attract each new rider on this light rail line. If buses are indeed more expensive to provide service than light rail, than the cost of RT acquiring a new transit rider on its bus lines is logically more than $55,000 needed to acquire a light rail rider. Additionally, if this was the the most cost effective transit line RT could come up with, that means future light rail lines are going to have even higher costs of acquiring new riders. This is on top of the fact that fare boxes are recovering only 20% of the operating expenses of transit.
Now remember transit advocates like wburg want to get rid of cost effectiveness requirements to build transit where it is "needed", not where its cheapest to do so. So again presumably the cost of acquiring new riders is going to be even more expensive than the $55,000 per new rider for the south line.
Which brings up the issue if public transit costs so much to operate and expand it, and people like wburg have no problem with increasing these costs, how does the region actually pay for costs associated with operating and expanding the service to more people? How does the region scale up service when the cost of providing the current level of service is so high? Remember, people want government to provide schools for the children, it looks like we are going to use government to expand health care access to a lot more people, we spend a tremendous amount of money on transfer payments for the poor and elderly (welfare, sec 8, social security), then there are the costs of sending people to prison, subsidizing college access, etc.
Honestly, what is a better use of tax payer money, 55,000 per rider to build new light rail trains or subsiding the cost of sending poor people to college or medical school? 55,000 is a lot of money. Its more than double the $25,725 per capita income for the City of Sacramento.
If you are spending 55,000 per new rider and these new riders are only paying 1/5 of the operating cost of providing the service (the 20% farebox recovery rate) how much can the region ever afford to actually expand the share of people using the service? I mean maybe $55,000 per new rider might seem justified if you are trying mainly to provide access to the disabled, the elderly and the very poor. But the region can afford to spend that much when its only providing service to a very small portion of the community.
Sacramento's transit subsidy is 1/6 of a cent. San Francisco's is 1/2 of a cent. Los Angeles' is 1 cent. Is it any wonder why our transit system isn't doing well, with a fraction of the operating budget of other California cities? A 20-30% farebox recovery rate is pretty typical for transit agencies--but you can't increase recovery rates by cutting routes and service frequencies. That makes things worse. You increase ridership percentages (and farebox recovery percentages) by offering more frequent service, more routes into more neighborhoods, and express lines. But those cost money.
And remember, it's not just local sales tax, there is also state transit funding--funding that has been cut off, which is why we're in this transit crisis.
As to other costs, having public transit facilitates the other expenses you mention: transit allows students to get to school, people in subsidized housing who can't afford cars to get to the store or to work, lets people without cars get to their medical appointments.
Finally, remember that what you're talking about is mostly a sunk cost: money that has already been spent. We can't just trade in our existing light rail system for the value of its construction if we decide to stop using it--if we stop using it, that rather large investment will simply be wasted. If your concern is fiscal responsibility, why simply throw that enormous public investment in the garbage now that the money is spent?
Interesting, with people's attitude towards public transist in Sacramento it would be impossible get our subsidy to 1 cent (or more) with any kind of vote. KJ needs to work on raising taxes for public transit without a vote similar to what hes doing for the Arena.
Wow find myself agreeing with Majin. I do agree that sacs cow town/ cow pattie mentality is part of the reason big things will never be done in sac. I'm not going to address some of the earlier posts, as they are just the racist/classist rants of the "usual suspects". Not worth it to even go there, no matter how hard they try to be offensive.
It just tickles me when they say "gangbangers, fair jumpers, and poor colored folks, oh my!"
But these people never seem to be bothered by the fair jumpers who predominate midtown and downtown. We all know the type. Sly guy in a suit, gets on, gets off two stops later, no one cares.
No one seems to care when the boatloads of white and asian tourists in SF hop on muni and ride for free.
I actually had a tourist say, "Wow you guys have great public transit, I can't believe this is free!" No one ever seems to be bothered by these people, the folks who actually have money, but when a colored kid does it, its "call the national guard this is outta control"
Fair jumping is a really easy issue to tackle. You do it the same way they did in new york in the 90's, what daley did 10 years ago in Chicago, what SF has figured out in the last 5 years:
You simply put a couple of cops or security at the stations where it is an epidemic, arrest all offenders and fine them about 100 bucks which certianly is much more than they have stolen, and the problem will stop. Hell the last time I got off Muni to go to the Balboa bart station we had to show our transfer passes.
Makes me wonder if these people would last 10 minutes (they clearly would not) on nyc transit, cta (chicago), bart or muni, or la's metra. Oh the things I have seen. Last time I was out in SF getting my season tickets, I saw a kid hop the fence at the Bay Fair station, and on muni I had to sit next a chinese lady with, I kid you not, a diaper in her purse. It was SOOOO gnarly.
I also agree with Wburg. The issue is not that RT should be done away with, they should have expanded when they had the chance. They should have built the blue line beyond meadowview, all the way to the Florin-Elk Grove border. Elk grove wants no part of it, fine, put the station on the border and lure commuters that way-the same way the bay point station on bart sits on the pittsburg border. Should have built a line all the way out to natomas and to the airport. And they should have figured out a way to get the rail from beyond the watt station to antelope or from folsom to north folsom at the Granite Bay-Folsom border. To pick up the slack that Amtrack has left.
The damn thing should have been expanded as much as possible, but Sacramento voters, the people who run rt, and state and national politicians, are simply too lame-brained to understand something like foresight.
We got all this money going into this moronic light rail, yet LAs's rail simply doesnt cover a good part of the city, bart cant even get enough money to expand 2 or three miles down the free way into livermore, and rt is a mess. Its just stupid really, plain and simple. **** poor urban planning that will for ever plaque california.
This really sucks. I like the idea of RT expasnion. Heck Id be willing to pay more to use it. If it cost a little more and they expanded hours even better. Nothing can get done in Sac nothing.
Maybe Sacramento should think about why they cant bring more money into the city. You want more money attract more companies to bring in professional jobs not just state jobs.
One point about the fare-jumper thing: Paying cops to bust fare-jumpers costs money, and the generated funds do not go to the transit agency but to the criminal justice system. If the cost of paying people to write tickets is more than the difference in paid fares, then fare inspection beyond a certain point becomes more expensive than letting the occasional fare jumper hop on. I don't mind showing my ticket and wouldn't mind seeing it more either--but would it be worth it to you if the end result was that the operating costs were higher?
Some cities have "free zones" on public transit, where you literally don't have to pay, you can just hop on and hop off, in downtown Portland and I think downtown Denver. People really like it because it's convenient and free, and fare-jumping becomes a total non-issue. 0% farebox recovery, sure, but it is quite popular. It's kind of like the free samples of summer sausage in the mall; it gives you a free taste and lets you try it out, but the good feelings thus generated encourage you to come back as a paying customer.
One point about the fare-jumper thing: Paying cops to bust fare-jumpers costs money, and the generated funds do not go to the transit agency but to the criminal justice system. If the cost of paying people to write tickets is more than the difference in paid fares, then fare inspection beyond a certain point becomes more expensive than letting the occasional fare jumper hop on. I don't mind showing my ticket and wouldn't mind seeing it more either--but would it be worth it to you if the end result was that the operating costs were higher?
Paying cops does not always cost money, especially if a cop is assigned to that beat. Private security another story.
And operating costs are not always higher. The premise that the fares gained by people more inclined to pay not covering the cost of private security/ police is not always accurate.
And even if it were higher, is that not the price you pay for quality of life issues? Everyone seems to have this issue with people jumping fares(love my typos, how the hell do you get spell check to work on this?) and what not, but when some one says hey lets pay some one to stop this, than you get even more people raising a fuss. Can't win in this cow town. I swear some people want this town to be Livingston. No taxes, no infastructure, no problem- seems to be a very established dogma here.
Quote:
Some cities have "free zones" on public transit, where you literally don't have to pay, you can just hop on and hop off, in downtown Portland and I think downtown Denver. People really like it because it's convenient and free, and fare-jumping becomes a total non-issue. 0% farebox recovery, sure, but it is quite popular. It's kind of like the free samples of summer sausage in the mall; it gives you a free taste and lets you try it out, but the good feelings thus generated encourage you to come back as a paying customer.
Honestly the region isn't trying enough. $55,000 to acquire a new rider is completely obscene. When government is this cavalier about spending public funds, its no wonder that that taxpayers are skeptical about transit agencies. They are right to be skeptical.
There are steps that the region could take right now that would dramatically lower the cost of acquiring a new rider, that would increase density and raise property taxes for the region even without raising property tax assessment rates.
The first step is parking reform. The region is completely over parked. When I walk through parking lots, I look at how many parking spots have oil stains on them and how many parking spots have no oil stains on them. The parking spots with no oil stains on them, have no oil stains on them, because they are rarely used. The only reason so many of these excess parking spots are provided is that one of the local governments set up a minimum parking requirement, that has nothing to do with how much parking the business actually needs. If you just get rid of the minimum parking requirements, you will drop the cost of acquiring a new rider dramatically.
First, that would allow land owners to legally add additional buildings to there lots. Maybe they add office space, maybe they add housing, maybe they add more retail. In any case, getting rid of minimum parking requirements makes the region denser. Second, it makes the existing property owners wealthier (which means the policy is more likely to get approved), it also boosts property tax rolls (new construction triggers a reassessment under prop 13). The higher density makes the area a better transit destination (more things closer together the easier to reach them walking from transit stop) lastly if the existing land owners get greedy and don't provide enough off street parking, you can meter the off street parking (and use revenue to subsidize - transit or better yet bike infrastructure) and lack of free parking means its much more likely that people will use transit to get to their destination.
Second the region needs to relax/get rid of most zoning regulations. Land use is way too overdetermined. Maybe you set up special zoning rules for very noxious land uses like slaughtering houses, but for the most part retail, office and housing are no longer really incompatible land uses. If someone wants to open up there law office in there house, why is the local government stopping them from doing so?
Additionally, why all of the set backs and minimum clearances between buildings? Why special residential zoning density rules. If someone want to convert there home from a single family home to a duplex, triplex or a fourplex, why not let them do it?
Politically if its a non-starter to do it everywhere, then why not just set up a special overlaying (relaxed zoning code area) in the distressed neighborhoods. It would be a way to get a lot of new investment into a neighborhood like Del Paso Heights, Meadowview, Oak Park or North Highlands.
Again if there stops being enough parking in a neighborhood, meter it.
But these steps would increase density, increase property tax revenues, reduce free parking and make car alternative a lot more viable of a proposition.
The biggest reason that transit isn't viable here (and at $55,000 to acquire a new rider it isn't viable) is that the region is too spread out for it work in most of the region. But a big reason the region isn't very dense is that under current zoning rules its technically illegal to increase the density of most of these neighborhoods. While technically its theoretically possible to seek variances under the current regime, the process is both time and money intensive. The huge transaction costs involved mean that few people bother to do so.
Now there are some other things you can do to lower the cost of rider acquisition like making the transit stops more accessible to bikes, adding secure bike parking spots at transit locations. But the best solution is probably what the dutch did, rely on bikes for most trips and provide transit sparingly because its just too expensive.
Compare Groningen Rail with RT to see what is possible. Groningen is a city that is roughly the same size as Reno.
Kim, for the first time I 100% agree with your post.
Most of the zoning in Sacramento is bull****. Why to parking minimums exist at all? Let the developers decide if they REALLY need that much parking. If anything, we should have parking MAXIMUMS, not minimums.
Also, the entire zoning of Sacramento needs to be redone. Infact, anything within city limits should be at minium high density mixed used. Even existing low density neighborhoods.
Euclidean zoning was a reaction to an era when industrialists thought nothing of putting a rendering plant or coal-fired boiler upwind of a residential neighborhood. The original intent was to make cities more livable not merely in an aesthetic sense but in a physical sense: mid-19th century American cities had a negative birth rate, because disease and pollution killed more people than were born in cities. Zoning and building regulations started out as a way to ensure that the most noxious uses were somewhat separated from residential areas, ensure some sense of hygiene with things like sewers and running water, or prevent loss of life due to fires or catastrophic collapse through building codes.
By the early 20th century, there was a very sophisticated language of zoning, neighborhood design, and building regulation. In many ways, these rules were developed through observation of how cities operated, trying to incorporate the best of what worked and eliminate what didn't work.
At some point, things got taken too far. The tendency to declare uses incompatible extended to factors like economic class and race of residents--racially-based "redlining" is an element of the move towards zoning. And the advent of the automobile suburb, with its enormous space requirements, multiplied the space required for many things. The urban planners who envisioned, busy, bustling but healthy cities were replaced by ideas like Frank Lloyd Wright's "Usonian" ideal (which gave us the snout house and the residential-only subdivision) and Le Corbusier's modernist cityscapes (high towers surrounded by parking lots and parks, connected by automobile freeways--he wanted to level Paris entirely and replace them with concrete high-rises, creating the model in some ways for post-WWII "urban renewal.")
Kim racer, the rather sophisticated techniques of bicycle path design you referenced in another thread is nothing but an application of zoning, with bicycles in mind. Zoning in American suburbs looks as crappy as it does because it is automobile-based zoning. Zoning based on public transit, bicycles and pedestrians looks very different--more like what you have in mind.
Fortunately, none of this has to be created from whole cloth. The urban planners of the early 20th century left plenty of guides on how to plan cities this way--for them, the auto was one of many transit choices, not the only choice, and they planned accordingly. We can very easily take their documents, getting rid of their mistakes (like that nonsense about dividing neighborhoods by race) but making use of their sometimes excellent ideas.
Without any thought to zoning, there is no central plan, and things like transit paths (whether based on bikes, cars, buses or streetcars) become impossible to predict. Some folks like Majin believe that skyscrapers will magically appear like Jack's beanstalk if we simply remove all regulation, but that is utter nonsense--likewise, your bicycle-based city requires careful planning, but with vastly different methodology.
The local evidence is right here in midtown Sacramento. The biggest "urban planning" failures in the central city are places that were supposed to take advantage of the new auto-centric city, like downtown, which demolished the vast majority of the old city infrastructure (like supermarkets and residential units) and replaced them with a mockery of suburban infrastructure in an urban shell.
Midtown, on the other hand, contains multiple uses in short spaces. There are blocks that are exclusively residential, but they generally contain both single-family homes, duplexes, and apartment buildings. Few places on the grid are more than a couple blocks from commercial uses, including retail stores, offices, and the ubiquitous corner stores. Most are located along commercial corridors that, almost without exception, were originally streetcar lines. While the streetcars are gone, the major bus routes still mimic streetcar lines taken out of service 65 years ago. And even on those commercial corridors, people live in apartments above or behind the commercial units. Parking is on the street or in the alley, and generally limited (either time-limited, residential-preferred, customer-only, or metered.)
The end result is a neighborhood that is getting national attention as Sacramento's urban bright spot. Property values are high, crime is moderate (it's not low, but the highest-crime neighborhoods in Sacramento are residential suburbs, not the urban core) and it is a very nice place to walk or bike. It should be a model for development--not a target for demolition.
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.
