Sam1I would argue that public transport in the city functions like a utility. It serves a broad segment of the population and should be funded like a public service. Many of the people who depend on it are relatively poor. But a taxpayer supported commuter rail system for relatively affluent suburbanites strikes me as a bit over the top.
Since New Jersey Transit began New Jersey State Government would agree with you in part and disagree in part.
Over all NJT has a 52.6 per cent recovery rate. (From NJT's Fast Facts for 2011) That means subsidy accounts for 47.4 per cent of costs. Well over one half of all passengers use local bus service but NJT does not publish recovery rates by mode of transport. Also not published is rider income levels. From time to time NJT has customer surveys so I suppose that information is available. However customer surveys are conducted by tossing questionnaires on bus and train seats. Whether or not those returned are a random sample I do not know.
From reading the newspapers there seems to be a consensus that bus riders tend to be low income and not high income people. At the same time some train riders have very high incomes. For example, Princeton is so expensive that there are reports members of the Princeton University Faculty cannot afford to buy a home there. And NJT serves communities such as Basking Ridge, NJ and Tuxedo Park, NY. When private railroads operated our commuter trains some affluent people formed clubs to rent parlor cars for their individual use at a far higher cost than a monthly commuter ticket. NJT does not offer this service but I imagine there are still the same number of people who could afford it were it offered.
The reason for subsidizing affluent and even wealthy commuters is that we are competing for these residents with other states that surround Manhattan. They pay high income taxes and high property taxes on expensive homes and at the same time tend to send their children to private schools lowering educational expenses. They could afford to drive to Manhattan if they choose but there is no way they could avoid the time traffic congestion at bridges and tunnels takes. The train offers them a faster and stress free commute. So to the extend that high income people ride our trains they benefit from NJ's generous subsidy.
But simply because many train riders have high incomes it does not mean that no low income people ride the train. Many train stations are close to hotels, hospitals and other places with low paying jobs that attract low income individuals. Over all fewer people ride all trains than ride all buses so no doubt fewer low income people ride trains but I don't know the numbers.
Finally, one identifiable group of low income people who ride our trains are domestic workers whose jobs are in affluent communities.
So back to one of my original points in another thread. I noted that only five (5) per cent of people in the U.S. use public transit, i.e. commuter rail, buses, light rail, etc. Pushing back was the claim that this was a national figure and did not reflect the usage in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Agreed! But even when the metro numbers are taken into consideration, only a minority of Americans use public transport, which includes not only commuter rail (an exception), but buses, light rail, etc.
A number of folks have noted that the emphasis on highways has contributed to urban sprawl. Agreed! At the same time many of these same folks argue for subsidized suburban commuter rail. It too contributes to urban sprawl.
I agree with taxpayer in-city transit. A significant percentage of it provides transportation to low income people. I have a problem having the taxpayers pick-up part of the commuter cost for a Wall Street Bank earning a half a million a year.
I would like to see some hard evidence that high paid persons would not live in suburbia if they did not have subsidized commuter train services. Highly paid persons have been gravitating to the suburbs since the end of WWII for a variety of lifestyle reasons. Mainline Philadelphia developed long before special interests decided to use public funds to support commuter rail. Requiring suburbanites to tote the note for commuter rail or buses would eliminate some of the marginal users, but I suspect the in-the-money crowd would pony up the money and continue to live in suburbia. At least until the kids are out of school.
Sam1 So back to one of my original points in another thread. I noted that only five (5) per cent of people in the U.S. use public transit, i.e. commuter rail, buses, light rail, etc. Pushing back was the claim that this was a national figure and did not reflect the usage in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Agreed! But even when the metro numbers are taken into consideration, only a minority of Americans use public transport, which includes not only commuter rail (an exception), but buses, light rail, etc. A number of folks have noted that the emphasis on highways has contributed to urban sprawl. Agreed! At the same time many of these same folks argue for subsidized suburban commuter rail. It too contributes to urban sprawl. I agree with taxpayer in-city transit. A significant percentage of it provides transportation to low income people. I have a problem having the taxpayers pick-up part of the commuter cost for a Wall Street Bank earning a half a million a year. I would like to see some hard evidence that high paid persons would not live in suburbia if they did not have subsidized commuter train services. Highly paid persons have been gravitating to the suburbs since the end of WWII for a variety of lifestyle reasons. Mainline Philadelphia developed long before special interests decided to use public funds to support commuter rail. Requiring suburbanites to tote the note for commuter rail or buses would eliminate some of the marginal users, but I suspect the in-the-money crowd would pony up the money and continue to live in suburbia. At least until the kids are out of school.
But what if you were to take into account the cost of those Wall Streeters now riding commuter trains who would be needing superhighways and parking spaces, adding to air pollution and causing traffic jams? Why should the little guy have to pay that? I am, of course, assuming that the long term cost and payback of a rail line being cheaper over that period than how many more lanes of traffic. I also disagree with the idea that only Wall Streeters use NJT for commuting. Where was it said once that a single railroad track can handle the equivalent of 6 highway lanes of traffic? With that statement in mind, then, there is no room alongside current NJ highways to add lanes nor room to add a half dozen or more 6 lane highways. Nor can the air take the pollution it would produce. And I don't think Bloomberg has any more parking spaces available nor are there garages to pack them in. No, it has been stated by highway officials, urban planners, politicians, and so many others, that NJ cannot take any more highways...no room on the ground, cannot withstand the additional pollution, plus Bloomberg has already threatened that south of 14th Street become a gated and tolled community or suffer the total absence of cars!. So, lets talk to what we know: NJT has to provide rail passenger services, NJT has to constantly improve it service products while maintaining what exists. And while I pick on NJT here, the same goes for LI and the LIRR and NY and CT served by MNRR. Unless one comes up with a single seat, non polluting, fold up and carry to your desk car, NJT, MNRR, and LIRR have to exist.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Oh, I am not advocating that the Wall Street bankers and Madison Avenue advertising executives drive to Manhattan. My argument is that they can afford to pay the full cost of transporting them on the train.
Commuter railroads should charge the full fare. If society wants to subsidize low income workers so that they can get to and from low paying jobs in the suburbs, it can underwrite their fares. And it could do it without anyone being the wiser.
Today food stamps are not food stamps. Rather the beneficiary gets a card that looks and acts like a credit card. He or she uses at the supper market to buy food. For the most part no one knows that the card is a food stamp vehicle. The same technique could be used for commuter rail.
As it is providing subsidies for everyone underwrites the commuting costs of high and upper middle income people who could afford to tote the note. Doesn't make sense to me.
Now I will add a political note, which I have not done or at least not directly but will make this exception. In a country where 20.7 per cent of the children don't have health insurance and in many instances lack an adequate diet, i.e. they don't get enough to eat, subsidizing wealthy commuters, as well as first class travelers on Amtrak, strikes me as obscene. The monies, which are limited, could be better spent helping people who really need help and not high income people riding on taxpayer supported railroads.
Most of the Metra commuters are not earning $500k annually. Many suburbanites who ride the trains to Chicago are solidly middle class. They can afford a car or two and probably a house or condo. Some rent. Most of the folks over 30 live in the suburbs because they have a family and prefer their kids attend the suburban schools, which are much better than in the city. Driving to the Loop is terrible because of traffic, long in duration, and very expensive for parking. The Metra train isn't cheap, either. And the fare is going up again soon.
You choose to conveniently ignore the information I posted from Metra. "Metra carries approximately 50% of the trips to downtown in each of the major expressway corridors. It would take 29 lanes of expressways to accommodate those Metra riders." And adding that many lanes to the expressways would not just be prohibitively expensive, it would be impossible.
People here like Metra and taxpayers aren't up in arms about paying a sales tax for a service they seldom or never use. Perhaps that is because the notion of a shared providing of services as a community is widely accepted. Ditto with paying enormous amounts in property taxes that are primarily for schools here. Many folks pay a great deal even with no kids in school but we accept it for the greater good. You seem to want something akin to a need-based commuter ticket, which sounds loaded with administrative problems. Perhaps you favor services entirely paid for by user-fees. I have no idea. But don't knock publicly subsidized mass transit and commuter rail in places outside TX (such as those with a long history: Chicago, NY, Phil, Boston, and the new services in cities like LA, SF, denver, etc.) where the residents seem quite happy.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Providing rail services is not to give people cheap transportation, underwritten transportation, but to help DOT's budgets, environmentalist with clean air, and real estate agents with land for buildings instead of concrete parking lots stretched across miles.
schlimm Most of the Metra commuters are not earning $500k annually. Many suburbanites who ride the trains to Chicago are solidly middle class. They can afford a car or two and probably a house or condo. Some rent. Most of the folks over 30 live in the suburbs because they have a family and prefer their kids attend the suburban schools, which are much better than in the city. Driving to the Loop is terrible because of traffic, long in duration, and very expensive for parking. The Metra train isn't cheap, either. And the fare is going up again soon. You choose to conveniently ignore the information I posted from Metra. "Metra carries approximately 50% of the trips to downtown in each of the major expressway corridors. It would take 29 lanes of expressways to accommodate those Metra riders." And adding that many lanes to the expressways would not just be prohibitively expensive, it would be impossible. People here like Metra and taxpayers aren't up in arms about paying a sales tax for a service they seldom or never use. Perhaps that is because the notion of a shared providing of services as a community is widely accepted. Ditto with paying enormous amounts in property taxes that are primarily for schools here. Many folks pay a great deal even with no kids in school but we accept it for the greater good. You seem to want something akin to a need-based commuter ticket, which sounds loaded with administrative problems. Perhaps you favor services entirely paid for by user-fees. I have no idea. But don't knock publicly subsidized mass transit and commuter rail in places outside TX (such as those with a long history: Chicago, NY, Phil, Boston, and the new services in cities like LA, SF, denver, etc.) where the residents seem quite happy.
If they can afford a car or two, how come they could not afford to pay the cost of their commuter train ride to downtown Chicago or downtown USA.
For decades commuters from Long Island, Main Line Philadelphia, etc. rode on commuter trains hosted by private railroads. They were not subsidized by the people. That all changed in the 60s and 70s for a variety of reasons.
My point is simple. Even in large cities, such as Chicago, Philadelphia, etc., the majority of people do not use public transit. And the APTA numbers show it clearly.
I did not ignore your Metra information. I read the quick facts as well as the financial statements.
Commuter rail is different than intracity public transit. I accept the argument for it. But commuter rail is designed for a different population group. And I suspect many if not most of the users could cover the cost out of the fare box with subsidies for low income people if required.
As mentioned in a prior post, going to means-based subsidy of mass transit, be it either for city transit or suburban rail, would involve additional administrative expense and would also be a legal and political nightmare. It's difficult to envision middle-class suburbanites submitting paperwork similar to college financial-aid forms to determine the cost of the ride to work without complaining to their local politicians about invasion of privacy, too much government, etc.
There are many reasons why the 2010's are different from the 1960's besides 50 years difference. Subsidizing commuter rail for all, the daily rider or more casual user, is far cheaper than constructing many more lane of expressways. Every time when commuter fares were raised in the past by the private lines (CNW, IC, BN, MILW, RI, etc.) and by Metra now, many riders opted to put up with long auto commutes because the fare increase broke their budgets. sam1 seems to think only in terms of the immediate, obvious costs one can find in a financial statement. The issue is not that simplistic.
Sam1, in Trains frequently (it seems like about every other issue but I'm sure it's less) they talk about another new DART line or expansion. Does Dallas-FW now have a better handle on costs, or have they not learned their lesson, or is something else going on?
CSSHEGEWISCH As mentioned in a prior post, going to means-based subsidy of mass transit, be it either for city transit or suburban rail, would involve additional administrative expense and would also be a legal and political nightmare. It's difficult to envision middle-class suburbanites submitting paperwork similar to college financial-aid forms to determine the cost of the ride to work without complaining to their local politicians about invasion of privacy, too much government, etc.
Means testing would not be an administrative nightmare; it might be a political nightmare. I have a senior pass on DART. It took about a minute to obtain it. I had to verify my age.
My Medicare Part B premiums are means tested. The Social Security Administration gets my MAGI from the IRS and uses it to calculate my Medicare Part B premium. I don't like paying a higher Medicare Part B premium for a variety of reasons, but an invasion of my privacy is not one of them. If invasion of privacy is a key concern, folks need to take on the entire tax system.
I am talking about means testing commuter rail. I am not talking about means testing in-town transit. Given the horsepower of today's computers, with linked data bases, verifying a person's income could be done in a flash.
How powerful are today's computers? The IRS has all the information it needs to complete 75 to 80 per cent of the personal income tax returns. It could, based on the information that it receives from employers, banks, investment houses, etc., complete the returns; mail them for verification or correction, and be done with it. Why don't they do it, especially in light of the fact that California is doing it on a limited basis. Primarily because the companies that peddle tax preparation software (Intuit, H&R Block, etc.) surely don't want it to happen for obvious reasons. And they have been successful in lobbying the Congress to prevent the IRS from leaping into the 21st Century.
schlimm There are many reasons why the 2010's are different from the 1960's besides 50 years difference. Subsidizing commuter rail for all, the daily rider or more casual user, is far cheaper than constructing many more lane of expressways. Every time when commuter fares were raised in the past by the private lines (CNW, IC, BN, MILW, RI, etc.) and by Metra now, many riders opted to put up with long auto commutes because the fare increase broke their budgets. sam1 seems to think only in terms of the immediate, obvious costs one can find in a financial statement. The issue is not that simplistic.
I am only talking about requiring those who use commuter rail to pay the note for the tote. For those people who must use commuter rail and cannot afford to pay for it, subsidies may be in order. As noted, they could be subsidized easily without anyone being the wiser.
Asking people who can afford the ride to pay for it, with subsidies for those who cannot afford it, does not bespeak of building more highways.
MidlandMike Sam1, in Trains frequently (it seems like about every other issue but I'm sure it's less) they talk about another new DART line or expansion. Does Dallas-FW now have a better handle on costs, or have they not learned their lesson, or is something else going on?
DART has extended the Blue Line, as well as developed the Orange and Green lines, since the initial lines were opened.
I don't know whether the management has a better handle on its costs, other than to say that according to an article in the Dallas Morning News about a year or so ago, the Orange line was more than $1 billion over budget.
Having worked on the budgets for several power plants, with estimated costs in the neighborhood of five to eight billion dollars, bringing the project in on time and under budget is a real challenge.
schlimm ...sam1 seems to think only in terms of the immediate, obvious costs one can find in a financial statement. The issue is not that simplistic.
I am aware of the many so-called externalities associated with public transit vs. autos, etc. The problem is how to measure them. It is usually done with statistical sampling and regression analysis that leads to a very broad range of potential outcomes.
The financials are a pretty good place to start. They are not everything, but they give a good picture of how an activity is performing from a financial perspective. In the case of a public entity, such as Metra, they provide valuable insight into how much the activity costs and who is paying for it.
According to Metra's 2010 audited financial statements, in that year Metra had operating revenues of $296.4 million, of which $239.4 million was passenger revenue and $57.0 million was other. It had operating expenses of $615.7 million before depreciation. Depreciation was $213.8 million, thereby bringing total expenses to $829.5 million. The agency received $590.9 million in external support, i.e. sales tax revenues, grants, etc.
The agency recovered 38.9 per cent of its operating expenses before depreciation from the fare box and 28.9 per cent after inclusion of depreciation. It recovered 48.1 per cent of expenses from total revenues before depreciation and 35.7 per cent after depreciation.
These numbers appear to be in line for those for the CTA. Metra's claim regarding operating expense recovery appears to overlook depreciation and other charges. These are real charges that must be covered by someone. As is the case with Amtrak, it is the taxpayers.
Sam1The agency recovered 38.9 per cent of its operating expenses before depreciation from the fare box and 28.9 per cent after inclusion of depreciation. It recovered 48.1 per cent of expenses from total revenues before depreciation and 35.7 per cent after depreciation.
Your "numbers" do not agree with Metra's even if depreciation is not counted, which by state law is not.
http://metrarail.com/content/dam/metra/documents/Board_Information/July_2011_FinanceComte.pdf
A comparison of 2009 (above) vs 2010 reveals "Certain 2009 amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2010 presentation."
http://metrarail.com/content/dam/metra/documents/2010%20Metra%20Financial%20Statements.pdf
schlimm Sam1The agency recovered 38.9 per cent of its operating expenses before depreciation from the fare box and 28.9 per cent after inclusion of depreciation. It recovered 48.1 per cent of expenses from total revenues before depreciation and 35.7 per cent after depreciation. Your "numbers" do not agree with Metra's even if depreciation is not counted, which by state law is not. http://metrarail.com/content/dam/metra/documents/Board_Information/July_2011_FinanceComte.pdf A comparison of 2009 (above) vs 2010 reveals "Certain 2009 amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2010 presentation." http://metrarail.com/content/dam/metra/documents/2010%20Metra%20Financial%20Statements.pdf
I suggest you read the 2010 and 2009 audited financial statements. Do the calculations. My calculations included only fare box and other operating revenues, i.e. the recover of all expenses through the fare box.
Depreciation is a real expense. It must be recovered from someone.
The slides are for the 2011 budget. The numbers that count are the actual audited financial statement numbers. The latest numbers presented on Metra's website are for 2010.
"Operating expenses exclude depreciation, payments with respect to public transportation facilities, costs for passenger security. Operating expenses also exclude payments of interest and principal on bonds and payments on other financial agreements." This is laughable for a business person or any one with strong background in accounting and finance.
In 2010 Metra received state operating subsidies of $3.4 million and federal operating subsidies of $29.8 million, which appear to have been left out of the slides. The agency also received $229.5 million in capital grants from the state and federal governments.
At the end of 2009 Metra had capital assets of $5.4 billion. Of this amount, $2.7 billion was provided by the federal government, $509 million by the Illinois Department of Transportation, $1.4 billion from the Regional Transportation Authority, and $6.4 million from Indiana. Metra riders contributed $853 million or 15.7 per cent of the total capital for Metra.
The system is heavily dependent on the federal government for its capital funds. Even Amtrak does not try to eliminate the amortization of capital from its financials.
Sam1 schlimm There are many reasons why the 2010's are different from the 1960's besides 50 years difference. Subsidizing commuter rail for all, the daily rider or more casual user, is far cheaper than constructing many more lane of expressways. Every time when commuter fares were raised in the past by the private lines (CNW, IC, BN, MILW, RI, etc.) and by Metra now, many riders opted to put up with long auto commutes because the fare increase broke their budgets. sam1 seems to think only in terms of the immediate, obvious costs one can find in a financial statement. The issue is not that simplistic. I am only talking about requiring those who use commuter rail to pay the note for the tote. For those people who must use commuter rail and cannot afford to pay for it, subsidies may be in order. As noted, they could be subsidized easily without anyone being the wiser. Asking people who can afford the ride to pay for it, with subsidies for those who cannot afford it, does not bespeak of building more highways.
So then, you'd be in favor of only those who use the roads pay their full share whether they drive to the corner store, 50 miles to work or from ocean to ocean? And the same with air traffic..flyers would pay full cost of airports used plus air traffic control, and other costs? I don't think the US is ready for undertaking such a burden...that's why government is empowered to collect taxes and build and provide.
Sam1I noted that only five (5) per cent of people in the U.S. use public transit, i.e. commuter rail, buses, light rail, etc. Pushing back was the claim that this was a national figure and did not reflect the usage in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Agreed! But even when the metro numbers are taken into consideration, only a minority of Americans use public transport, which includes not only commuter rail (an exception), but buses, light rail, etc.
1. If the population of the US were equally distributed over the land area the 5 per cent argument would have some validity. However, the population is not equally distributed over the land area.
2. Here you are self contradictory. If the majority of the population use a service you argue that it should not be provided by government because the majority can well afford to provide for themselves. If only a minority use a service you argue that it should not be provided by government because a majority do not use it.
Sam1A number of folks have noted that the emphasis on highways has contributed to urban sprawl. Agreed! At the same time many of these same folks argue for subsidized suburban commuter rail. It too contributes to urban sprawl.
Do you have any evidence to support this counter intuitive assertion? Conventional wisdom is that communities have developed around commuter rail stations in a fairly tight "pearls on a string" pattern.
henry6 Sam1 schlimm There are many reasons why the 2010's are different from the 1960's besides 50 years difference. Subsidizing commuter rail for all, the daily rider or more casual user, is far cheaper than constructing many more lane of expressways. Every time when commuter fares were raised in the past by the private lines (CNW, IC, BN, MILW, RI, etc.) and by Metra now, many riders opted to put up with long auto commutes because the fare increase broke their budgets. sam1 seems to think only in terms of the immediate, obvious costs one can find in a financial statement. The issue is not that simplistic. I am only talking about requiring those who use commuter rail to pay the note for the tote. For those people who must use commuter rail and cannot afford to pay for it, subsidies may be in order. As noted, they could be subsidized easily without anyone being the wiser. Asking people who can afford the ride to pay for it, with subsidies for those who cannot afford it, does not bespeak of building more highways. So then, you'd be in favor of only those who use the roads pay their full share whether they drive to the corner store, 50 miles to work or from ocean to ocean? And the same with air traffic..flyers would pay full cost of airports used plus air traffic control, and other costs? I don't think the US is ready for undertaking such a burden...that's why government is empowered to collect taxes and build and provide.
Sam1I agree with taxpayer in-city transit. A significant percentage of it provides transportation to low income people. I have a problem having the taxpayers pick-up part of the commuter cost for a Wall Street Bank earning a half a million a year.
Commuter trains serve people of all income levels from the highest to the lowest. Once a commuter train is in operation conventional wisdom is that the commuter authority should try to get a maximum number of riders. To institute a means test so that people above a certain income level would be prohibited from riding the train is, again, counter intuitive.
John WR Sam1A number of folks have noted that the emphasis on highways has contributed to urban sprawl. Agreed! At the same time many of these same folks argue for subsidized suburban commuter rail. It too contributes to urban sprawl. Do you have any evidence to support this counter intuitive assertion? Conventional wisdom is that communities have developed around commuter rail stations in a fairly tight "pearls on a string" pattern.
So the development that occurred on Long Island following WWII was not facilitated in part by the Long Island Railroad? I supposed it depends on your definition of urban sprawl. I lived in New York City for eight years. I am reasonably familiar with the area. I also lived in Melbourne, Australia for more than five years. It did not take a lot of intuition to know that commuter rail helped spawn urban sprawl in both areas.
The Trinity Railway Express in Dallas has contributed to the growth of Irving, Arlington, etc. One of the factors is the fact that the fares on the TRE are subsidized heavily.
Sam1I would like to see some hard evidence that high paid persons would not live in suburbia if they did not have subsidized commuter train services. Highly paid persons have been gravitating to the suburbs since the end of WWII for a variety of lifestyle reasons.
Well, yes, but which state's suburbia? Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania all compete to provide suburban homes for the most highly paid people. One factor in that competition is public transit.
John WR Sam1I agree with taxpayer in-city transit. A significant percentage of it provides transportation to low income people. I have a problem having the taxpayers pick-up part of the commuter cost for a Wall Street Bank earning a half a million a year. Commuter trains serve people of all income levels from the highest to the lowest. Once a commuter train is in operation conventional wisdom is that the commuter authority should try to get a maximum number of riders. To institute a means test so that people above a certain income level would be prohibited from riding the train is, again, counter intuitive.
Here is a way for the commuter transit authority to maximize ridership. Make it free! That's what Austin tried a few years ago with its bus system. In addition to nearly wrecking the city's finances, the buses attracted heaps of street people, who in turn drove away the few middle class riders who used the bus.
Sam1Mainline Philadelphia developed long before special interests decided to use public funds to support commuter rail.
The Philadelphia Main Line was developed by and for executives in the Pennsylvania Railroad, one of the wealthiest special interest groups in the history of our country.
Sam1Requiring suburbanites to tote the note for commuter rail or buses would eliminate some of the marginal users, but I suspect the in-the-money crowd would pony up the money and continue to live in suburbia. At least until the kids are out of school.
What does this mean? People at the highest income levels send their children to private schools so that is not a factor in their decision.
Sam1 In a country where 20.7 per cent of the children don't have health insurance and in many instances lack an adequate diet, i.e. they don't get enough to eat, subsidizing wealthy commuters, as well as first class travelers on Amtrak, strikes me as obscene.
I've never considered that when I get on board a commuter train I am committing an "obscene" act. While we do have people without adequate food, housing and medical care I don't see that their problems would be reduced were I to drive my car instead of boarding that train. But you see my train ride as "obscene."
The notion that if those of us who ride trains were forced to drive our cars instead then the problems of the poor would be reduced strikes me as a bit of a stretch.
John WR Sam1 In a country where 20.7 per cent of the children don't have health insurance and in many instances lack an adequate diet, i.e. they don't get enough to eat, subsidizing wealthy commuters, as well as first class travelers on Amtrak, strikes me as obscene. I've never considered that when I get on board a commuter train I am committing an "obscene" act. While we do have people without adequate food, housing and medical care I don't see that their problems would be reduced were I to drive my car instead of boarding that train. But you see my train ride as "obscene." The notion that if those of us who ride trains were forced to drive our cars instead then the problems of the poor would be reduced strikes me as a bit of a stretch.
If the people who ride on Amtrak, as well as those affluent riders on the nation's commuter rail system paid the full cost of their transportation, the nation would have additional resources to help the poor.
In the case of Amtrak it would be more than $1.5 billion per year. I don't know how much it would be in the case of commuter rail, but it would be substantial. Amtrak's accumulated loses, all of which have been covered by the taxpayers, is more than $28 billion. That would buy a lot of school lunches.
On an earlier posting I noted that Chicago' Metra has received 85 per cent of its capital costs from the federal and state governments. That too would buy a lot of school lunches.
I am not talking about you or other commuter rail passengers driving. I am talking about people who can afford the note to tote it. Based on my experience in and around New York City, as well as several other major metropolitan areas, a significant percentage of the commuter rail passengers could afford to pay all of the cost of the commute. They should do so. And that would free up money for more worthwhile activities. Like helping poor people get enough to eat.
In fact we do have the resources to help the poor. We just don't have a political consensus to use those resources to help the poor.
But if Amtrak and commuter rail is "obscene" how can it be that users of those services are not also "obscene?"
Sam1 I have been over who pays for the roads in this country. You apparently are convinced that motorists, almost all of whom pay income taxes, fuel taxes, license fees, real estate and sales taxes, etc., are not paying for the nation's roadways. The money must be coming from the tooth fairy. There is nothing that I can say to convince you otherwise.
But you double speak....yes we all pay for the roads, even those who don't use them, the guy who flies or takes the train or walks pays for roads. But I don't use I80 west of Pocono Summit, PA nor I5 in California...so why should I pay for them? You are being selective. I am also paying for airplanes to be guided to Alaska and tugs and barges on the Mississippi. What I am saying is that we, as the population of a state or the United States, have empowered those governments to provide roads and transportation infrastructure in the best possible manner for the location. I pay for the LA Freeway the same way an Angelo pays for I78 across PA and NJ. And the air traffic controllers all across the country and the Army Corps of Engineers' waterways come out of my same taxes, too. Either you want the user to pay or you don't want the user to pay, Concrete and asphalt, river and canal, air and tarmac, railroad and trolley line. What's the difference between modes and users and payers?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.