Posted on 12/24/2002 11:42:12 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
"I find this hard to believe. First of all, a new freeway does not produce vehilce registration revenue. That's not necessarily so. New freeways can and do help the construction of new subdivisions, which in turn draw new residents who, as a result of a move, may be inclined to purchase a new automobile to suit their mobility needs. That aside, the vehicular registration alone, whether it increases or remains constant, provides a solid revenue-generating device that applies to users of roadways, which in turn generates a large ammount of regained roadway funding. Nor do new FREEways produce toll revenue. Again, that is not necessarily so. What are to be freeways are often constructed by issuing municipal revenue bonds to be repaid by user fees in the early years of their existence. To collect those fees they put in toll booths, which operate until the bond is paid off, and then the road enters into operation as a freeway. In the end you're left with a self-financed freeway construction project. How many vehicles per day are going down each mile of freeway? 100,000? 200,000? Each 100,000 vehicles per roadway mile @ 20 mpg average @$0.40 tax per gallon is just $2000 per day in revenue, or $730,000 per year. At a 20 year roadway life, that produces a total $14.6 million dollars of gas tax revenue. Now that's an interesting little financial game you're playing. Too bad it doesn't add up in reality. Why don't you try looking at the real numbers, as in the actual gas revenues collected and actual expenditures on freeway construction? Here are the 2000 figures. Total revenues raised by taxes, licensing, and user fees totalled $101.5 billion. Maintenance and administration cost $59 billion while about $65 billion was spent as new construction capital. That leaves you with about $22 billion in net shortfalls, or less than a cent losses per passenger mile travelled on highways. By comparison, $1.8 billion was spent on light rail in the same year with revenue returns of only $200 million on that. That translates into $1.23 in losses for every passenger mile travelled on rail. To this must be added the annual maintenance and police costs for the road (grass cutting, pothole repair, restripping, plowing, salting, appurtenance repair, signage updates, etc.) Yeah, and by 2000's figures, annual administative costs were barely half the regained revenue from taxes, licensing, and user fees. Absent new construction, there would have been a $40 billion surplus. the lost property taxes This is just a guess on my part, but I would venture to say that the loss in property taxes caused when a new roadway takes up a small strip of right of way or frontage area are negligable when compared to the gain in revenue from the property value increases along that new roadway. Freeways make new land easily accessable, which leads to development. When land is developed, evaluations go up and the property tax base increases. Assuming $1 million per year for maintenance and police, we've got annual revenue of around $750,000 to 1.5 million vs. costs of $3.4 million or $5.4 million with opportunity costs. That's a lot of assuming on your part, but as I just demonstrated, there's a big difference between your assumptions and the figures as they actually happened in 2000. These roads do not include the complex interchanges most freeways do have at major intersections. Really? Cause the toll road network in my city has some of the most developed interchanges of any road in our highway network. And it operates on budget without difficulty. Once again, you assume a lot of stuff that simply doesn't happen in reality. The freeway system is built upon the backs of people who do not drive on it Nonsense. Most drivers in an urban area use a freeway at some time or another on a frequent basis, even if not daily. While it is true that there are some costs associated with road construction, they are minimal in comparison to the alternative. In 2000 it was less than a cent in net costs per passenger mile travelled on freeways. Compare that to light rail, which is truly a system built upon the backs of people who do not ride it - our taxes paid $1.23 per passenger mile of rail use in 2000 for a portion of the population that is so small it can be considered negligable in transportation measures. Urban personal transportation has never been a paying proposition. Much to the contrary. Between the 1880's and 1915 many cities across the nation had financially successful private transit companies with city franchises. Ours in Houston operated on budget for most of this period, save some business dispute-induced shortfalls in some years. From about 1915 to the 1930's they continued operating streetcars on a budget that was either met or fell slightly short. In the 30's and 40's finances on rail dropped, so they switched to busses which continued as a financially viable enterprise until about 1970. The first subways and trolleys were generally not successfull financial enterprises Again, that was not the case at all in Houston. Save business dispute shortfalls, the first big financial hits did not occur until 1915 when taxi cabs became a competitor. The city responded by regulating the taxis into non-existence, and rail continued on or near budget for another 15 years. Try again. which is why the City's were involved from the beginning. Houston got rail in 1874. Aside from the city giving the rail company a franchise to build on its streets, no real government assistance came until 1915, over 40 years later. Try again. That said, the question is really how is public money best raised and spent on this endeavor? Fair enough of a question. And as I have noted, highways are statistically preferable to rail in practically every case. My additional position is that this could be improved upon by permitting private and quasi-public highway projects when and where it is viable (i.e. toll roads, auction of certain right of ways for private fee-based roadways etc.)"
In other words, more excuse making.
(I think you're losing you mind. When I said you exhibited signs of obsessive-compulsive behaviour, I didn't realize how right I was and now instead of the Civil War, you've directed it at me. I've become the focus of your life.)
Packed trains at rush hour and full parking lots says nothing of a system's success. Some of the worst and most heavily subsidized systems in the nation meet both of those criteria.
and ridership has exceeded projections.
Only because DART INTENTIONALLY underestimated those projections so they wouldn't look bad when the stats came out.
For Dallas it was a wise investment.
Okay then - tell me. How much does it bring in from ticket sales annually? How much does it cost to operate annually? If the latter exceeds the former, which I suspect to be the case, then it is a government-subsidized wasteful money hole.
You're drinking too deeply from someone's cup.
Are you denying the existence of municipal budgets for streets and county roads paid for by your property taxes? Do you believe the land taken up by interstates was always exempt from property taxes? Do you refuse to accept that many states (not all) subsidize their roads out of income and sales taxes, as is clearly detailed in their state budgets?
Packed trains at rush hour are a good thing. Most cities with rail systems would need to double or more their freeway lane-miles to get the same throughput.
What's cheaper and more aestehtically pleasing? 20+ new lanes of expressway into a city (with a concomittant increase in parking lots and automobile servicing businesses), or a basic rail system to handle the peak load?
Depends on licensing fee collections and various vehicle-related taxes. In the 2000, for example, total revenues from user fees, licensing, vehicle related taxes, and, where the roads are tollways, toll collections totalled $101.5 billion. Total construction and maintanence costs spent on them were $124 billion. Made up about 82% of its costs in various fees.
By comparison, light rail brought in $0.2 billion in fares and user fees but cost $1.8 billion, or 9 times as much, to operate. Rail made back only 11% of its costs.
Packed trains at rush hour are a good thing.
Not necessarily, and I say that having lived in cities with trains and used them frequently. They do carry volume, but at high costs - the cost of tax subsidy for their operation and the cost of the space the above-ground ones occupy, which often consumes space that could easily and more effectively be turned into two or more freeway lanes.
Most cities with rail systems would need to double or more their freeway lane-miles to get the same throughput.
Do you have statistical evidence of this? The numbers I have seen indicate that freeways are significantly more efficient uses of space.
What's cheaper and more aestehtically pleasing? 20+ new lanes of expressway into a city (with a concomittant increase in parking lots and automobile servicing businesses), or a basic rail system to handle the peak load?
I don't know about you, but I'll vote for the freeway any day over a dirty grafitti-covered train car. Educate them of the cost inefficiency of rail, and most people would probably agree with me.
That's a fallacious argument. When roads are built, the land along side them gets developed. That land would likely not have developed as quickly without a road to get to it. Developed land pays out more in property taxes than undeveloped fields do.
Source? Those figures are bogus, whoever compiled them has done some artful data manipulation. My guess is that they are mixing in capital and operating costs. Given that some rail systems have been running for 130+ years, will operate for another century(if it is so outdated, why is ridership on those lines at all time highs?)those 2 should not be combined. Yeah, you might be able to depreciate track and equipment over a set # of years, but its the ROW that is ultimately most valuable and it is misleading to apply that cost over any set period of time.
I don't know about you, but I'll vote for the freeway any day over a dirty grafitti-covered train car.
I absolutely hate this type of argument, regardless whether it comes from pro or anti transit groups. Naw, a freeway is never dirty, never noisy, never built with a huge eminent domain landgrab(< / sarcasm >) And why do you assume that building rail is done in place of building a freeway? What freeway was canceled to build any of the DART light-rail lines? Answer, none. My opinion is that freeways should be built first, arterials maximized, and then build transit(if the project and system make sense). There are some corridors where freeway expansion is just too prohibitive. Right now TX DOT is looking at tunneling for much of the length of I-635 on the north side of Dallas. That gets into Big Dig dollars. I am not yet advocating transit in that corridor(haven't studied it), but that is one example of where a freeway expansion may end up being cost/politically prohibitive. I-610 on the westside in Houston is another example of a nightmare of ROW issues. Again, not yet advocating rail transit in Houston, but I can see where a well-planned system would be a popular and well-utilized alternative to the roads. The operative word is 'well-planned', which given Brown and METRO's politics, I have my doubts about and likely will actively oppose their Nov. rail referendum. But each case is different, and these blanket condemnations of transit is the kind of silly tactics I expect from the left.
Yeah, and the same thing often happens along rail lines, at least around stations.
How funny! You don't even know where I got my argument, yet you presume to be attacking it by calling another source names.
How ridiculous to claim that high ridership and packed rush hour trains are not component measures of success.
Without hard stats of rider usage it is about as ridiculous to claim them as component measures as is framing a 2 foot wide window on your house on the estimate of your arm's length. As I said, practically every rail system around the country "looks" full at rush hour, yet most of them are fiscal disasters.
Most roadways are underutilized except during rush hour, no different than with transit.
Not so. Empty roads just sit there making themselves automatically available for the next car. Transit, in off-hours, still operates whether there are riders or not and, by operating, incurs operating expenses.
Of course your assumption that the trains are empty off-peak is completely wrong
Unless you have rider statistics for DART that contradict those that I have seen and studied, you have no basis by which to make that claim. Simply seeing a train and concluding "it looks full to me" doesn't cut it.
And I'll repeat that I am talking about Dallas only
Fine with me. My own opinion of DART when I saw it was not as high as yours. I also believe my opinion of DART to have been justified in its operating expenses and methods. You have yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary to support your claim, and since saying "it looks full to me" doesn't cut it, I am not inclined to accept your evaluation.
Though residents of many other cities judge their transit a success, judging by their votes for expansion and the taxes or bonds to pay for it.)
Think about what you are saying for a moment. There are some populations in this country that think welfare is a success, use welfare, and would vote for it at any given opportunity. Does that make it so? There are many who think affirmative action is a success, use affirmative action, and vote for it at any given opportunity. Does that make it so? If your answer is "no," then why should it be any different for those who think light rail is a success, use it, and would vote for it at any given opportunity?
Other measures of success are the degree and type of development that transit stimulates(just like with roads)
That it is. Do you have evidence that light rail has boosted development more than roads would have?
how many riders are taken off the already congested roads(speeding it up for the remaining drivers)
In most cities, the degree of this is effect negligable and generally accounts for less than 0.6% of trips daily. I'll have to look it up, but if I recall correctly the stats were similar for DART. Do you have anything that indicates otherwise?
and the convenience/personal utility it offers to riders and commuters.
...but inconvenience for drivers who find the roadways shared, blocked, and impeded by a train system running across it.
Trains are packed for sporting events/concerts/etc.(more than 100 nights per year in Dallas),
So in other words, the "it looks full to me" argument.
Bottom line, it is no different than a city/county/regional coalition deciding to invest in roads, utilities, landscaping, zoning, police, firefighters, etc.
Beyond each being a public finance project, that is simply not so. Light rail is one of the most inefficient and costly forms of transit. Whereas roads recoop much of their costs in fees, rail does not and tends to run huge publicly subsidized deficits.
You don't like transit, and that's fine. However it seems that what really burns you & others up, is that citizens are showing their approval of transit by voting to pay for it.
And why shouldn't I? It's my taxes that go to fund the thing, just as it's my taxes that subsidize the lifestyle of lazy drug addicted welfare queens. When other people vote for a project that I don't want and when that project is nothing more than a wasteful money hole that increases government spending and, in turn, the urge for government to collect more taxes from me, I am going to object.
While it is true that the Feds usually pay a portion of the construction, no Fed funds are allowed to pay for operational costs.
No, they normally yank that out of us in sales taxes and/or property taxes depending on the city.
Now that DART light-rail is a success,
Wait a moment there. Beyond the "it looks full to me" argument you have repeatedly offered, you have provided nothing to establish that DART is a success at anything. You could easily do so if it were indeed a success by providing rider stats and government subsidy costs, but so far you have not - only the "it looks full to me" argument. As I noted previously, that argument is simply insufficient.
The 2000 budget combined with FTA statistics. The same study has been put out by the Heritage Institute, Heartland etc.
Those figures are bogus,
Do you have any evidence of that? Simply declaring it so is no more a valid argument than declaring "it looks full to me" with regards to the trains.
whoever compiled them has done some artful data manipulation.
Demonstrate it then.
Given that some rail systems have been running for 130+ years
...and have required constant track maintanence and upgrading for that entire period. And for the records, its a lot cheaper to fix a few potholes than it is to perpetually buy new cars and replace their tracks. Thats why all the streetcar systems declined. (Streetcars, since their electrification in the 1880's, use a technology that is virtually identical to most light rail, BTW)
will operate for another century
...with more costs, upgrades, replacements, and subsidies.
(if it is so outdated, why is ridership on those lines at all time highs?)
Population growth.
I absolutely hate this type of argument
Then why do you use one as your basis by simply declaring "it looks full to me" as justification for DART's alleged success?
Naw, a freeway is never dirty, never noisy, never built with a huge eminent domain landgrab
Whoever said they weren't? My point is that rail is often all those things plus a cost inefficiency often 10 times as bad as the worst road project.
And why do you assume that building rail is done in place of building a freeway?
Cause rail lines are often right up the middle of the two freeway lanes.
What freeway was canceled to build any of the DART light-rail lines? Answer, none.
What roads were crossed over and built on top of to accomodate DART? Answer, roads all over the place including that big stretch that runs through downtown.
There are some corridors where freeway expansion is just too prohibitive.
In theory that is possible, but as a justification for 99.9% of the rail systems, it is simply not the case.
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.