Isn't Free Parking a Subsidy for Car Drivers?

[gabe]

The anti-tax crowd is ferocious everywhere. In a way, I think this is a bad thing. It seems like this ties the government's hands for projects that would save us all a dime if we all paid a penny. In the same breath, it has some virtue, because it keeps politicians grounded. I shuder to think of the day when any time a politician wants to implement a new program, he says, oh we can do that, we will just raise taxes.

This aside and accepting your premise that no one likes taxes, I think city leadership recognize that an airport is absolutely essential to business development. Air is how business gets done. A city cannot attract a company like Boeing if its execs have to track to the city by mule. I don't think there are too many city leaders who see Amtrak as having the same business-attracting/keeping value. Thus, they don't care as much.

Gabe

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Fine. All that is good. But a Democratic Society takes care of minorities too. And the car-free non-flyer American Citizen deserves access to the entire country. That has been my point on the Amtrak Funding basis.

Regardless of the figures put forth by Mineta. Long distance auto travel is also subsidized and so should Amtrak

..but railroads don't serve the entire country, so how does the gov't provide access to the whole country?

We have been through this before the automobile subidizes the other modes of transportation, it is not subsidized.

The government provides access to the whole country by building roads on which auto, buses, and trucks operate. No other method can provide anywhere near as good and cost effective service to the majority of the people.

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

The anti-tax crowd is ferocious everywhere. In a way, I think this is a bad thing. It seems like this ties the government's hands for projects that would save us all a dime if we all paid a penny. In the same breath, it has some virtue, because it keeps politicians grounded. I shuder to think of the day when any time a politician wants to implement a new program, he says, oh we can do that, we will just raise taxes.

This aside and accepting your premise that no one likes taxes, I think city leadership recognize that an airport is absolutely essential to business development. Air is how business gets done. A city cannot attract a company like Boeing if its execs have to track to the city by mule. I don't think there are too many city leaders who see Amtrak as having the same business-attracting/keeping value. Thus, they don't care as much.

Gabe

They may recognize it, but their first goal is to get re-elected. But your right, an airport is probably an easier sell than Amtrak. However, in addition to the anti tax crowd, we have an anti growth crowd, part of their argument is that it overloads the roads - hmmm is there a connection here?

One unfortunate result is that we get a hodge podge of growth and development as the developers and anti growth and anti tax crowds fight everything through the courts and election campaigns. I suppose that contributes to the checks and balances, but it also means that there is no effective long range planning.
And I thnk that long term we will need some kind of passenger service. As the population density increases the airways/airports become filled and trains become an attractive option for short haul (< 500 miles). Not to mention rising fuel prices which I think have a greater impact on airplanes and ultimately airline ticket prices.

Enjoy
Paul

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER
Don't know, the locals here just defeated a tax increase to pay for badly needed road improvements. Town government defeated a tax to pay its share for the metro to run through it and out to Dulles Airport. If we had to vote taxes to pay for the airport now, I think it would be a cow pasture. The anti tax crowd is pretty ferocious here.

I'm well aware of this; I travel to Northern Va/Dulles 8-10 times a year (by air). What is ironic is several of the anti-tax folk are in fact dependent on federal taxes, as they work for some of the numerous government contractors in the area.

[daveklepper]

I still say in will be more cost effective in the long run to keep Amtrak even in its present mediocre funding and operating condition than killing it and starting something new. Also, killing and waiting for something new to start up is going to drastically reduce the quality of life for many people, yes a miniscule perecentage of the USA's population, but still a lot of people. So shutting it down now both hurts people and results in greater funds needed in the long run. As for the subsidy argument, I still say that people who don't own cars do subsidize those that do, and no argument has been presented addressing that fact. The arguments against me assume that everyone owns or uses cars, and that simply is not true.

[spbed]

Be patient if they are correct that oil will soon be hitting $80.00 per BRL the government will have to relook their policies towards passenger & commuter trains. [:o)]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I still say in will be more cost effective in the long run to keep Amtrak even in its present mediocre funding and operating condition than killing it and starting something new. Also, killing and waiting for something new to start up is going to drastically reduce the quality of life for many people, yes a miniscule perecentage of the USA's population, but still a lot of people. So shutting it down now both hurts people and results in greater funds needed in the long run. As for the subsidy argument, I still say that people who don't own cars do subsidize those that do, and no argument has been presented addressing that fact. The arguments against me assume that everyone owns or uses cars, and that simply is not true.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Fine. All that is good. But a Democratic Society takes care of minorities too. And the car-free non-flyer American Citizen deserves access to the entire country. That has been my point on the Amtrak Funding basis.

Regardless of the figures put forth by Mineta. Long distance auto travel is also subsidized and so should Amtrak

..but railroads don't serve the entire country, so how does the gov't provide access to the whole country?

We have been through this before the automobile subidizes the other modes of transportation, it is not subsidized.

The government provides access to the whole country by building roads on which auto, buses, and trucks operate. No other method can provide anywhere near as good and cost effective service to the majority of the people.

Agree. I was trying to get Dave to say it himself.....[;)]

[garr]

Dave,

I am getting into this a little late, but I believe your initial arguement is flawed. Change the parking analogy to bathrooms. Every time I go to a grocery store, gas station, mall, movie, ball game, office or any other business, I do not use the bathroom at the facility. By your logic, I and other customers who do not use the bathroom are paying a subsidy for the bathrooms at these places. That is not a subsidy, it is the cost of doing business. As is a parking space provided by a business.

Jay

[daveklepper]

But everybody HAS to use bathrooms sometimes. Are you saying the GM, the Highway - Oil lobby were correct in forcing a civilization on America that forces people to use cars? I say force because of the whole National City Lines business and GM buying New York Railways in 1926 with the intention of a bus conversion as soon as they could develop a decent transit bus, took about eight years. Socioligist have told me the Watts Riots would never had occured if the Red Car Long Beach - LA line had continued to run, and now it has been reincarnated as the Blue Light Rail Line. Tast and cheap transportation to places of employment for the less skilled.

I' still concerned about elderly and infirm people have decent access all (at least nearly all) of the USA.

[dwRavenstar]

"As for the subsidy argument, I still say that people who don't own cars do subsidize those that do, and no argument has been presented addressing that fact."

OK, folks who don't own cars subsidize those of us who do. Much in the same way my taxes subsidize the wheelchair ramps, special hardware in public restrooms and handicapped parking stalls though I; thank the stars; have yet to need them.

My daughters, now both in college, attended a high school that had provisions for a number of "special needs" students neither of them had a need of nor access to (meaning those programs and provisions, not the students).

I don't often carry weapons in any fashion; certainly not in any public forum, yet in some miniscule way I subsidize the inclusion of metal detectors and screeners at the airports and other public buildings.

These shared costs are paid without my thinking about them through payroll deductions. The method of remembering on which side of the street to park is taught through the citations issued when the lesson is forgotten or ignored. A much more dramatic and noticable expense.

Dave (dwRavenstar)

[garr]

Dave,

Why don't we go back further and blame it on Henry Ford and his mass production of the automobile. As long as there is a profit motive, private enterprise is going to keep finding a better way to do things. Once cars improved and became more affordable for the masses thru the use of the assembly line, it was only natural for the road system in America to improve.

The improvement in automobiles and highways really started in the 1920's for all practical purposes. As each improved, surburbanization was able to begin. Historians seem to always point to Levitown, shortly aftter WWII, as the beginning of this sea change in peoples behavior.

To keep this short, regardless of the conspiracy theories, the evolution of the highway and automobile as our dominate means of transportation was going to happen. Whether GM/oil made this happen sooner we will never know. But one thing is for sure, once people got used to going at there own pace instead of having to wait on scheduled transportation, the die was cast and mass transit was going to lose.

Jay

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Based on the Mineta-Bush Philosophy, shouldn't free parking anywhere be illegal?

I walk to my neighborhood supermarket and buy things. The supermarket owns and pays taxes on a huge parking lot occupied by most customers, and the taxes and upkeep of the parking lot are paid by the supermarket and reflected in the prices of what I buy. Is this fair for me? I don't use the parking lot!

You speak of a shopping mall. Free parking is part of the seller’s fixed-cost structure, not yours, so you’re not paying for it. The seller recovers the cost of parking through his overall revenues. If he raises his prices too aggressively, the customer exercises his decision through price alone by shopping elsewhere – he’s indifferent to the cause of the raised prices. Even more complicated is when a store rents space in the mall. The store has no way of knowing what part of the rent pays for parking so it can’t base prices on it. Nor should they care.

Most mall parking lots in the U.S.A. are usually underutilized (have empty spaces), so the cost savings to the mall realized by pedestrians is minimal. In fact, one could argue that pedestrians represent an increased insurance liability since they are more exposed to traffic and hence are more prone to being hit on company premises.

Technically, free parking would be called an incentive or convenience. A subsidy is a cash or monetary incentive.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

But everybody HAS to use bathrooms sometimes. Are you saying the GM, the Highway - Oil lobby were correct in forcing a civilization on America that forces people to use cars? I say force because of the whole National City Lines business and GM buying New York Railways in 1926 with the intention of a bus conversion as soon as they could develop a decent transit bus, took about eight years. Socioligist have told me the Watts Riots would never had occured if the Red Car Long Beach - LA line had continued to run, and now it has been reincarnated as the Blue Light Rail Line. Tast and cheap transportation to places of employment for the less skilled.

I' still concerned about elderly and infirm people have decent access all (at least nearly all) of the USA.

People took to the automobile because it provided better transportation service to them than any conseivable public transit could. In the early 1900's the majority of the people lived on small family farms and were often not able to get to town even once a week, let alone the cities. Even the the cities the mayority of the peoples world was normally limited to only as far as they could reasonably walk.

The same inventions that led to the automobile also resulted in fewer people to grow more food than ever before in history and improved transportation provided by motor vehicles on roads allowed its movement to railroads for delivery to the cities or direct to the cities. This freed labor to work in the factories and offices in the cities. By doing so it also enabled them to aquire more individual wealth than was previously possible. Near subsistance level farming (which was the lot of most people) was brutal work. The work in the city was easier and paid much better.

Many people are not happy packed into cities. The first Suburbs were created had street cars not the automobile as the primary mode of access to the city. Many of the street car lines only operated until all the lots were sold. Others were subsidized for years by other businesses who perceived a benefit from them. Still others developed freight traffic which subsidized the passenger operations. When he operators of the rail lines realized they could not make money, they gave up the business.

While the claim of a conspiracy has a grain of truth it cannot be blamed for the demise of the passenger rail systems.

National City Lines was in the transportation business. They bought failing transportation systems and tried to make a profit running them. Because of the cost of equipment, infrastructure, and franchise requirements (for instance in many cities the street car company was required to maintain the streets on which they ran, not just their track and roadbed) rail was very expensive. Buses were, and still are, less expensive than train except on a few very heavily used corridors. Buses were already replacing trains, or being seriously considered, on most of the systems before National City bought them.

There is some merit to the argument that loss of good rail service was a factor in the Watts riots. However, this service was not ended by National City Lines. It was ended by the transportation district (government) which took over from them.

The book From Railway to Freeway : The Motor Coach in Southern California describes the demise of pasenger rail transportation in Los Angeles. It was published by Interurban Press.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0916374610/qid=1110413029/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6047511-6238225?v=glance&s=books

[Anonymous]

I wanted to wade into this the other day, but didn't. Thought I'd lurk a while and see where this really interesting and important thread goes.

This is the third time I've posted this phrase...

'I can get on I-10 a mile and a half from my house and go anywhere in North America that I want to go. Even though the tracks run a block and a half from my house, I can't take the train, because it doesn't stop here."

Here's a for instance for you...I had to go to a teacher workshop in Houston all day today (boy that was some fun...). As I was leaving the house at 6 a.m. there was an intermodal heading east. So that was neat, I got to do a little railfanning first thing trhis morning! Anyway, when we broke for lunch, we had to wait at a crossing three blocks down from where we were having our workshop for an intermodal. Now, I can't say whether or not that those two intermodals were the same trains, but what if they were? The train was going where I wanted to go, but I couldn't ride on it. Dave, that's why I don't understand the old or infirm argument. If you live in rural America, no one cares if you take the train or not. It probably won't stop in your town, and even if it did, it might not stop in the town you're going to. So you'd end up having to offload and rent a car or take a bus anyway. If I ride the train to see my brother in Wichita, I have to drive to Fort Worth and take the train to OKC (I think), and then rent a car to drive on into Wichita. So where's the convenience of railtravel in that? I can see how important passenger service is to you guys back east, but for a lot of us, it just won't work, even if we want it to.

And I'll bet each and every one of us has a car.

mike

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mehrlich
...And I'll bet each and every one of us has a car.
mike

Alas, I wish I could. Very few people in Manhattan (my guess is 10%) actually own cars. The garage in my building charges about $600/month, which is about average for the neighborhood--you can forget about street parking. When I moved to New York from Chicago I had to sell my 427 'Vette. Do I miss it.

[Anonymous]

Ooh, having to sell your vette. Ouch

m

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mehrlich


Now, I can't say whether or not that those two intermodals were the same trains, but what if they were? The train was going where I wanted to go, but I couldn't ride on it. Dave, that's why I don't understand the old or infirm argument. If you live in rural America, no one cares if you take the train or not. It probably won't stop in your town, and even if it did, it might not stop in the town you're going to. So you'd end up having to offload and rent a car or take a bus anyway.

Hmmm...so if we design a bogie / hitch apparatus, we could have wheelchair roadrailers tacked to the rear of intermodals, solving this issue.

[daveklepper]

I think all these arguments are valid. Regarding National City Lines, what you say about it being run as a business is true to a point. But in Philadelphia and Baltimore and St. Lous they did convert lines to buses that would have made more money as streetcars and still would today. They did things like hiding modern PCC's in the back of carbarns and running old noisy stuff. And in th eTwin Cities and Providence Iwith trackless trolleys in Providence) GM did work out deals with people who were later sentenced of illegal chicanary on cashing in the value of the copper in the air and other assets as profits and leasing buses with the lease payments being operating costs. GM didn't do anything illegal in these deals, but they made it possible for others. The English magazine Tramways and Urban Transit (formerly The Modern Tramway) had a thorough article on the Twin Citiies situation (including annoying by calling the criminals a "Jewish Mafia") and my very good friend an teacher on installing and repairing trolley wire, the late Richard Wonson, was a trolleybus driver and then bus driver and recounts the Providence situation in his book on the property.

But I just believe that any fair person who rides the long distance Amtrak trains and talks to the passenger would come to the same conclusion that I did. That is they are a necessity for a large number of people and it is wrong to scrap them or downgrade them until something really better is in place to replace them.

And I don't believe this needs a massive shift away from the independence of personal automobile transportation. Although I would like to see that shift to eveyone driving a hybrid! And the urban question is being resolved as tracks are being put down on streets that had them 40, 50, and 60 years go.

[DSchmitt]

A number of cities would have better transportation systems today if their street car and interurban systems had been retained.

This link lists the cities where National City Lines operated.
http://hometown.aol.com/chirailfan/holdbun.html

I agree that the compiracy existed and resulted in the removal of some rail lines the should have remained, but while I have no knowledge of the transportation history of most of the cities on the list, I doub't that the rail operations were viable in most of them where National City instituted "bustitution" Note that National City is "blamed" for buses in less than half of them.

One of the interurban lines that should have survived was the PE line serving Watts. National City did not replace it with buses, the Southern California Regional District that took over from them did.

[StillGrande]

Isn't free parking a perk (to get me to work somewhere rather than taking my skills somewhere else) from businesses or an incentive to do something I could just as easily do somewhere else if I had to pay for it? That's why there is pay parking at stadiums and special event complexes. The only choice you have is going to the event or not.

mehrlich is right when he says the train probably will not either start or end where you want to go, so it is not even an aid to the general public in emergencies. It doesn't go where you want and it doesn't get there as fast or as cheap as you can get there through several other means. Heck, even for me to take mass transit to work in DC would require a stroll to the bus, (wait), bus to train (with lots of stops), train to DC (more stops), change trains (more stops), walk to office ( waiting for a bus to the building is slower than walking). 2 hours after leaving home, I am at work. Or I can drive, and even if traffic is really bad, I can be here in 60 minutes (usually 35 minutes, including major construction on the beltway for the new bridges).



The best phrase so far in this thread the question of whether Amtrack gives enough bang for the buck. I think more Americans, at this point in history, would say no. That is why it ends up on the block every year. Can't argue it was needed in the past. No one lives in the past (well, not really). Can't argue future need. You have to prove future need, and that the technology you are proposing is really going to fit that need in the future.
As far as the bathrooms, they are a health issue, not a perk. Technically, you could go in the aisle and solve your problem. Health laws and community norms guide you to the can.

[daveklepper]

But poles say most Americans say lolng distanced trains should be subsidized.

[garr]

I know in Cobb County (an Atlanta suburb) parking capacity for businesses, offices, etc. is in the zoning regulations. I imagine it is the same in many other areas around the country.

Jay

[Overmod]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

But poles say most Americans say lolng distanced trains should be subsidized.

That's just because they want to pay by czech, isn't it dharmon?...