Posted on 05/29/2015 6:16:02 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
While Metro Transit's Green Line isn't exactly paying for itself through passenger fares, it's doing a better job than most other Minnesota public transit options. Passengers boarding the state's second light-rail line from its debut in June through the end of 2014 paid $6.21 million into the fare box, or about 35.8 percent of what it costs to operate the 11-mile route. "I think 35 percent is a really good percentage," said St. Paul City Council member Dave Thune. "I love it. I think it has been a success. The kind of traffic it's seeing, going from one end of the city to the other, is excellent -- and it's great for doing something special, like hopping on downtown and going to University Avenue for dinner."
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
He should open up an auto dealership and sell cars at 35% of his cost.
Welcome to the La La land of Minnesota politics. It's proof of the adage: "Socialism is great, until you run out of other people's money
So 64.2% of the overhead is paid with other people’s money and Mr. Thune thinks that’s just great. This idiot couldn’t operate a lemonade stand.
These type of stories are why newspapers disable user comments.
That user fee ratio seems comparable to what the whole state of MN has for all roads; 41.9%
Excellent !
Morons. Gallactically stupid morons.
they can’t point to ONE thing where their consumables magically appear and claim that it got to their local evil money grubbing merchant via light rail.
The Somali Trolly runs into the same problem as MAX in Portland.
It is impossible to make it pay for itself.
Portland omitted that key point when it convinced Minneapolis to invest in it.
Is that the purpose of light rail?
No . it’s purpose is to buy votes for leftist democrats in large metropolitan areas.
The latter is a reason worth criticizing. The former is a strawman.
When you compare road funding to light rail funding and try to compare percentages of government funding to percentage of the population that benefits from said funding, no, it’s not a ‘straw man’.
Everyone benefits from roads, whether you have a car or not.
People traveling by cars and also benefit from lighter demand on roads.
If only the transportation of goods on roads help everyone should we limit public road use to only commercial trucks?
I don’t have the numbers handy but IIRC commercial trucks do pay near full price (perhaps more) for their road use in highway use tax and other fees. It is largely the personal vehicles which are subsidized.
How does one figger this out? By miles traveled? Long-haul truckers get hit by each state through which they travel. No doubt the trucking fees are high. But if on a per-mile basis, I wonder, compared to the gas taxes paid by personal vehicle travel, which would likely be far less. (FWIW, trucks do far more damage to roads then cars, whether long-haul, regional, or local.)
I agree they do more damage due to weight. I thought it was info based on a per mile basis, which seems the best metric to use, but I don’t recall specifically. If I have time later I’ll try to look it up or hopefully a FReeper in the industry can provide better info.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.