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.
And no, public transit should not receive 50% of all transportation funds because there are things to pay for other than subways and commuter rail.
Bike infrastructure is also cheap compared to highways (which our economy actually needs). "Equity" isn't necessarily dedicating 10% of transportation funds to bike infrastructure simply because 10% of a city's residents bike to work. It's providing funding sufficient to ensure a quality level of transportation for each mode (whatever the public considers that to be). A city doesn't need a billion dollars to have adequate bike infrastructure.
When we subsidize transportation by personal automobile, we are encouraging drivers to contribute to air pollution and emit excess greenhouse gases, neither of which are directly paid for by those drivers. Personal automobiles also are involved in traffic accidents, which are paid for by drivers through a collective insurance pool, but which represent a loss of value and/or productive capacity. Public transportation reduces congestion and air pollution.
All of our transportation spending allocations are policy choices. We can choose to contribute more to personal automobiles, more to bikes, more to public transit, or more to pedestrians. The choices we make will help and hurt various of those categories.
I think grants for bike lanes would be better expenditures than grants for most light rail projects. You could build 40 miles of bike lane for less than $4 million. Even if you splurged and went Copenhagen, I don't see that as a big deal. That's a reasonable investment. It's also a greener investment.
It's difficult to make transit work in most American cities. Transportation planners seek to entice "choice" riders with all types of bells and whistles (i.e., streetcars), but the bottom line is that you're not going to ride transit if it doesn't take you where you need to go. In a lot of metros, it's a very difficult to task to connect all of the scattered employment nodes in the region by rapid transit. And most cities still have inexpensive parking, which encourages driving.
An example of the last paragraph would be DC. When the DC Metro system was designed it brought riders to DC. From design to completion jobs moved to the suburbs out of the City. Not to mention the explosion of Beltway Bandit consulting and service firms in the suburbs or going north up I270 into Montgomery and, now, Frederick Counties.
Basically you can't get there from here.
In SoMD where I people will get on an MTA at a Park and Ride which takes them Downtown and then get on a bus or train to the VA suburbs. It's even worse for the MD suburbs where you basically go in then come back out.
That's one reason why cars, most with only one occupant, continue to be the overwhelming choice of commuters.
Ad to that the move to the far suburbs, which my County is one of, and you have the makings of a system which serves damn few out of the many.
And 50% of the tax payers (give or take) use it... the non-users surely benefit as well, since it reduces congestion.
.....
Quote:
Bike infrastructure is also cheap compared to highways (which our economy actually needs). "Equity" isn't necessarily dedicating 10% of transportation funds to bike infrastructure simply because 10% of a city's residents bike to work. It's providing funding sufficient to ensure a quality level of transportation for each mode (whatever the public considers that to be). A city doesn't need a billion dollars to have adequate bike infrastructure.
What exactly is the way to set that priority. There was a recent cost accounting of poor transit performance on the SF (the city only) economy: $50 million a year. It was interesting to say the least: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancis...nt?oid=2349894
$50M would cover a lot of the projects that have a funding gap right now, and could have a big impact on the users.....
And 50% of the tax payers (give or take) use it... the non-users surely benefit as well, since it reduces congestion.
You skipped the second part of my post, which was the most important. What happens when New York doesn't spend money on bridges, tunnels, highways and other roads that the public transit system actually uses? Money has to be spent on those things too. I think the assumption is that money is being thrown into roads unnecessarily, which may be true to some extent, but the fact is is that roads, bridges and tunnels must be paid for? And they are expensive. Period. It's not like the roads here are in such great shape anyway.
It doesn't make any sense to give away 50% of transportation dollars for public transit because transit can only do one thing: move people. It can't move military equipment and personnel. It can't move cargo. And it can't be used to evacuate the metropolitan area in case a hurricane brushes up the East Coast (fat chance, right?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
What exactly is the way to set that priority. There was a recent cost accounting of poor transit performance on the SF (the city only) economy: $50 million a year. It was interesting to say the least: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancis...nt?oid=2349894
$50M would cover a lot of the projects that have a funding gap right now, and could have a big impact on the users.....
I don't see what that has to do with your "if 10% of commuters bike than 10% of transportation funds should be spent on bike infrastructure" point.
When we subsidize transportation by personal automobile, we are encouraging drivers to contribute to air pollution and emit excess greenhouse gases, neither of which are directly paid for by those drivers. Personal automobiles also are involved in traffic accidents, which are paid for by drivers through a collective insurance pool, but which represent a loss of value and/or productive capacity. Public transportation reduces congestion and air pollution.
All of our transportation spending allocations are policy choices. We can choose to contribute more to personal automobiles, more to bikes, more to public transit, or more to pedestrians. The choices we make will help and hurt various of those categories.
So do you have any policy proposals? I mean, proposals other than "simply give 50% of transportation funds to mass transit."
You skipped the second part of my post, which was the most important. What happens when New York doesn't spend money on bridges, tunnels, highways and other roads that the public transit system actually uses? Money has to be spent on those things too. I think the assumption is that money is being thrown into roads unnecessarily, which may be true to some extent, but the fact is is that roads, bridges and tunnels must be paid for? And they are expensive. Period. It's not like the roads here are in such great shape anyway.
It doesn't make any sense to give away 50% of transportation dollars for public transit because transit can only do one thing: move people. It can't move military equipment and personnel. It can't move cargo. And it can't be used to evacuate the metropolitan area in case a hurricane brushes up the East Coast (fat chance, right?).
How do you define what constitute "public transit" spend? Does that include road usage/wear and tear? Capital expenses? Operational costs? Bus shelters? Bus stop signs.....there is no easy line at all. The question is, why don't we just lump in transit with general infrastructure costs (which we "subsidize"), is it not just part of the city infrastructure?
You skipped the second part of my post, which was the most important. What happens when New York doesn't spend money on bridges, tunnels, highways and other roads that the public transit system actually uses? Money has to be spent on those things too. I think the assumption is that money is being thrown into roads unnecessarily, which may be true to some extent, but the fact is is that roads, bridges and tunnels must be paid for? And they are expensive. Period. It's not like the roads here are in such great shape anyway.
It doesn't make any sense to give away 50% of transportation dollars for public transit because transit can only do one thing: move people. It can't move military equipment and personnel. It can't move cargo. And it can't be used to evacuate the metropolitan area in case a hurricane brushes up the East Coast (fat chance, right?).
I don't see what that has to do with your "if 10% of commuters bike than 10% of transportation funds should be spent on bike infrastructure" point.
How about we expand the pool of transportation dollars with parking taxes and congestion fees for automobiles entering city limits?
How do you define what constitute "public transit" spend? Does that include road usage/wear and tear? Capital expenses? Operational costs? Bus shelters? Bus stop signs.....there is no easy line at all. The question is, why don't we just lump in transit with general infrastructure costs (which we "subsidize"), is it not just part of the city infrastructure?
That still doesn't answer the question. How much money should be devoted to mass transit for any reason (whether that's for O&M or capital costs)? When I say "mass transit," I'm excluding highways, roads and tunnels and bridges (the ones that carry cars). I'm talking strictly about rail, buses, etc.
A tax on parking that goes towards transportation spending. You could implement it in multiple ways. Perhaps you have a local tax on the total revenue of every parking garage operator, for example. You could also require businesses that offer parking to pay a fee for the number of spaces they make available.
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.