Taxing Drivers By The Mile 1751

To me, profit of transit is not the question.

The question is: Are the people getting their money's worth? Only the people that have public transit in their area can answer that. They don't even have to live near or ride transit. The benefit comes from those that do use it. If transit were not there, either business would go somewhere else (can you imagine New York City without a subway system or commuter trains to Connecticut and Long Island?) People not riding transit are "using" it in the sense that UPS-FEDEX has a relatively free flowing delivery road. Grocery stores have access to roads for food delivery. If transit wasn't there, would there be enough roads? Does transit improve quality of life for the people that live there?

Can you imagine Chicago without an elevated system?

Would rebuilding the infrastructure for more drive alones be cost prohibitive or cost effective? How much does a parking space cost anyway? In a city a parking space probably goes for about the same price as a luxury automobile. The land is more valuable for something other than cars.

Let the people that live there work out the details.

But please don't ask me to finance your transit.

The return on investment is not monetary. The return is an intangible such as more easily sold real estate. Or real estate with a higher value. Economists call these intangibles externalities. Why should someone in California fund transit in Cleveland?

Please add me as a complainer against mbutt transit, but not for the reason you gave. I don't hate mbutt transit because the books aren't balanced without an infusion of public money (tax).

There are places where transit works. Paris, London, New York. My complaint is that some places try to force fit a transit system that does not serve. Jitney service in Detroit is better than "public transit" in my opinion. But the people in Michigan make the decision of what they want.

WMATA is drawing down funds that were earmarked for state highway projects.

That's just two examples.

Transportation money can be spent more wisely. But not when a congressman on the other side of the continent decides that WMATA can use the money more wisely than CALTRANS or any state DOT. Or someone in Lansing decides that transit needs protection from jitneys.

Ends up with the state DOTs doing some fancy bookwork which borders on criminal activity. Anti-deficiency act? They thought they had the money. After all it was collected in the state. But then the ground rules changed and the state becomes a perpetual donor state.

Ends up with scofflaws or law enforcment looking the other way.

The relevance is that if there is not enough collected in the fare box, something else has to give. Taxes can be increased or other services can be cut to keep mbutt transit in operation. Let the local people make those decisions. Let the local people pay for their decisions.

But please don't take MY fuel tax money. Taking MY fuel tax money for mbutt transit isn't acting in good faith. Congress sets a collection on fuel tax. Tax supposedly in a trust fund earmarked for transportation. Congress appropriates those taxes for a new definition of transportation that does not serve my transportation needs. Instead the money is used to fund transportation that is in compebreastion with my needs.

It becomes cheaper to ship walnuts from China than grow them in California. Insurance rates go up due to poor and crowded roads. Shipping times increase.

Scott en Aztl‡n source is power the expected