Conquer Club

Here in Washington State the Bus service is failing due to declining revenue.

I renewed my car tabs, which are a flat rate $30 or something, and found a $75 charge for Public Transportation. Why am I, a person with a car, paying for public transportation? Wouldn't it be more fair for everybody that DOESN'T register a car gets charged the $75 and everybody that does register a car doesn't pay it? IE the people that use the service pay for the service.

I heard the bus system is failing, yet greyhound still runs fine. I hear the bus system is failing, yet taxi cabs still run just fine. I think the problem is the riders of the public transportation systems pay about 15% of the actual costs, and go to the taxpayers for the other 85%. With greyhound and taxi cabs though, the riders pay the entire portion of the fare, and a little bit extra so the company can turn a profit.

The problem here isn't declining tax revenues, or a failing economy. The problem is the inefficiencies of public transportation. I am all for public transportation, I just think the costs to the rider should reflect the actual costs.

The short answer is no. The long answer is that you are subsidizing a more sustainable transportation option, but I don't want to write why that's good policy, and you're probably not going to read it.

On a more logical note, how would cutting funding make the bus system better? That's generally not how it works.

spurgistan wrote:The short answer is no. The long answer is that you are subsidizing a more sustainable transportation option, but I don't want to write why that's good policy, and you're probably not going to read it.

On a more logical note, how would cutting funding make the bus system better? That's generally not how it works.

I don't think cutting funding would make it better. I think they should increase funding. By charging the people that use the service a fee that more accurately reflects the costs associated with the service.

The problem is that our roads have been traditionally supported and well funded, even though they are really the least cost-effective method of transport. Rails, etc have been left to decline.

Also, we in the U.S. allow people to build whereever they wish and the expect taxpayers to simply fund properly built roads to those locations. Therefore we have a lot of diverse and spread out communities, people going in so many different directions that often public transportation is just inefficient and poor, etc.

Our system was built to sell cars and trucks, not transport people

Our system was built to allow people the freedom of mobility, and the train system does not give people that flexibility. You can't just hop on a train to go to work, head to dinner, then pick up groceries. Even subways and such can't make all the stops a person needs to make. Trains can be good for traveling from large city to large city, but it's impractical for daily use. That's why they aren't widespread.


In my city, there is a proposal for 3 years of utility rate increases. One opponent of the increases asked why our bills are subsidizing the city bus system. The people who use these services should be the ones to pay more, not the people just living in their homes.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem is that our roads have been traditionally supported and well funded, even though they are really the least cost-effective method of transport. Rails, etc have been left to decline.

Interesting take on it. You consider roads to be the least cost-effective method of transportation? What do you consider to be the most? If I could take "public transportation" from my house to work, then from work to clients, to the next clients, back to work, and then home, for less than it costs me to drive, while taking less time, and allowing me to haul more computers etc, then I'd be all for it and would actually use it and probably not own a car. Unfortunately it appears to me that roads/cars are the most cost-effective method of transport for the above situation.

Now if you are talking about a fast train that connects 2 cities, or using an airplane to fly between continents, obviously cars aren't that cost effective. I can't imagine the costs associated with driving on water. And the costs related to time with driving vs flying for long distances is huge.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, we in the U.S. allow people to build whereever they wish and the expect taxpayers to simply fund properly built roads to those locations. Therefore we have a lot of diverse and spread out communities, people going in so many different directions that often public transportation is just inefficient and poor, etc.

Why send a bus to pick up 1 person?

PLAYER57832 wrote:Our system was built to sell cars and trucks, not transport people

Can you expand on this? It's a great statement but I'm not sure if I understand it.

I own a car but also take public transportation twice a day every weekday.

Public transportation in Philadelphia and New Jersey is actually pretty good. The only downside involves the costs. I can't remember when, but a study was done of SEPTA and the waste was pretty ridiculous (not to mention the outrageous demands of SEPTA workers).

That being said, I don't take public transportation (although I work in Philadelphia). I drive to work every day simply because I have to go to clients who may or may not be in Philadelphia; there is no public transportation that will take me from my office in Philadelphia to my client's door in Suburb X. If there was, I'd take it. Because paying for parking sucks a whole lot more than paying for public transportation.

bedub1 wrote:it appears to me that roads/cars are the most cost-effective method of transport

Right. Due to the government built, and maintained road system. If that wasn't so heavily subsidized, you'd be paying a whole lot more.

thegreekdog wrote:Because paying for parking sucks a whole lot more than paying for public transportation.

That and the complete lack of parking spots is why I take the shuttle my apartment complex provides to campus 3-4 days a week. However, since I have to work later than the shuttle 2 or 3 nights a week, my wife has to come pick me up.

Timminz wrote:

bedub1 wrote:it appears to me that roads/cars are the most cost-effective method of transport

Right. Due to the government built, and maintained road system. If that wasn't so heavily subsidized, you'd be paying a whole lot more.

Which is something we've already established as one of the proper roles of government.

Night Strike wrote:

Timminz wrote:

bedub1 wrote:it appears to me that roads/cars are the most cost-effective method of transport

Right. Due to the government built, and maintained road system. If that wasn't so heavily subsidized, you'd be paying a whole lot more.

Which is something we've already established as one of the proper roles of government.

What is? Creating infrastructure that provides freedom of mobility, but only to people with enough money to purchase, maintain, and insure a motor vehicle?

PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem is that our roads have been traditionally supported and well funded, even though they are really the least cost-effective method of transport. Rails, etc have been left to decline.

This is true, but on the other hand private railroad freight still continues in spite of all the money the Federal government is spending to help out the trucking industry. Passinger rail has never been a major money maker, as opposed to freight rail.

As the automobile developed the major "public" transportation systems, trolleys, were dismantled because the cars crowded them out on the streets. At one time every little rinky dink city had them, even Key West, Florida. The old tracks are still seen in many cities, like Philly, where they are more of an annoyance than anything functional.

Long distance rail is financially unsound. I remember pricing various ways to get to Indy from NYC and it was literally cheeper to fly than it was to take the train. Their problem is not the highways, but the skyways.

Short distance rail doesn't fare better. The Long Island Rail Road, currently under the MTA, has a very bloated structure. This makes innovation difficult and keeps costs up. The result is a combination of declining ridership, decaying infrastructure, and increasingly poorer serivce. This causes less people to use the system and the result is we are now in a death spiral. Major routes to the ends of the island are being shut down, when they should be encouraged.

Suburban rail (SUBWAY) is more sound but still far from perfect. Never the less, I have to say, and I will say it with pride, I LOVE THE NEW YORK CITY SUBWAY SYSTEM! I'd still rather take the LIRR to Penn Station, and then the 2 Train to Lincoln Center than drive. (Although I'm torn with taking the train/subway to Yankee Stadium or driving, only because it is a right angled triangle thing (west on the LIRR and north on the subway) and I can drive almost diagonally to Yankee Stadium. (I'll probably drive there when I go in November because I'm promising to take my Mom to NYY Steak for her birthday.)

Long Island has a bus service (ha ha) (ha ha ha) (ha ha ha ha) but because it's so damn long coverage is sparse and travel times long. Only the desperate use it.

And yet in spite of the lack of public transportation people on the ends of the island including those areas where the LIRR is severely limiting their train serivce (to twice daily, "you got to be kidding me" and "are you nuts") they have to pay an MTA tax to pay for the service they don't get.

Timminz wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Timminz wrote:

bedub1 wrote:it appears to me that roads/cars are the most cost-effective method of transport

Right. Due to the government built, and maintained road system. If that wasn't so heavily subsidized, you'd be paying a whole lot more.

Which is something we've already established as one of the proper roles of government.

What is? Creating infrastructure that provides freedom of mobility, but only to people with enough money to purchase, maintain, and insure a motor vehicle?

Roads also provide greater economic access for individuals and companies which in turn employees more people who will then earn enough to purchase their own vehicles and ones for their family.

Riding a bike in my city is awesome.

Benefits?
1) Gas costs near zero, no traffic tickets, no parking fees
2) Can park bike right near door of place I need to be
2) Soon to have a trailer to move stuff
3) Awesome exercise, healthier life, can eat more good food, longer life expectancy, more physical attractiveness
4) Freedom to stop wherever and whenever to check out something cool, or talk to people
5) More in tune with the environment
6) And my all-time favorite: Laugh at people in traffic jams
7) Decrease of risk in getting in car accident (since I don't drive a car, and I'm not on highways or can avoid high-potential areas for car accidents).
8] "Carbon footprint" is almost zero, and decreases with further use of bike.
9) Reliable bikes are very cheap (~$50), easy and to cheap to maintain

Costs?
1) Small risk in injury (because I'm skilled, ride safe, stay aware, and the city in which I reside isn't full of too many dumbasses)
2) Slight increase in cost of food (oh, darn)
3) Takes longer to get to places if the distance is past 3-5 miles.
4) Somewhat steep learning curve to minimize costs and increase benefits

bedub1 wrote:Here in Washington State the Bus service is failing due to declining revenue.

I renewed my car tabs, which are a flat rate $30 or something, and found a $75 charge for Public Transportation. Why am I, a person with a car, paying for public transportation? Wouldn't it be more fair for everybody that DOESN'T register a car gets charged the $75 and everybody that does register a car doesn't pay it? IE the people that use the service pay for the service.

I heard the bus system is failing, yet greyhound still runs fine. I hear the bus system is failing, yet taxi cabs still run just fine. I think the problem is the riders of the public transportation systems pay about 15% of the actual costs, and go to the taxpayers for the other 85%. With greyhound and taxi cabs though, the riders pay the entire portion of the fare, and a little bit extra so the company can turn a profit.

The problem here isn't declining tax revenues, or a failing economy. The problem is the inefficiencies of public transportation. I am all for public transportation, I just think the costs to the rider should reflect the actual costs.

I feel your pain, and I will share what happened to me and any other Minnesota resident who gets a seatbelt ticket....25$ for the ticket, 92$ for a "library fee". if you dont want it on your record, pay an extra 70$ for the "filing fee"

bedub1 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem is that our roads have been traditionally supported and well funded, even though they are really the least cost-effective method of transport. Rails, etc have been left to decline.

Interesting take on it. You consider roads to be the least cost-effective method of transportation? What do you consider to be the most?

Boats are probably the most efficient (barges and sail, not necessarily oil-driven boats and such), but limited. Trains are usually cited as next.

bedub1 wrote: If I could take "public transportation" from my house to work, then from work to clients, to the next clients, back to work, and then home, for less than it costs me to drive, while taking less time, and allowing me to haul more computers etc, then I'd be all for it and would actually use it and probably not own a car. Unfortunately it appears to me that roads/cars are the most cost-effective method of transport for the above situation.

No, it just proves my point. Try doing that in Europe and the picture is quite different. Outside of maybe New York, a couple other places (perhaps) the US has ignored or outright destroyed (in CA) public transportation, ensured it would be non-viable or only barely viable. You cannot have a spotty mass transit system and have it work, it has to all be tied together, as it pretty much is in Europe.

bedub1 wrote:Now if you are talking about a fast train that connects 2 cities, or using an airplane to fly between continents, obviously cars aren't that cost effective. I can't imagine the costs associated with driving on water. And the costs related to time with driving vs flying for long distances is huge.

But flying is far less efficient than train travel. A bit slower, but far less efficient in other ways.

bedub1 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, we in the U.S. allow people to build whereever they wish and the expect taxpayers to simply fund properly built roads to those locations. Therefore we have a lot of diverse and spread out communities, people going in so many different directions that often public transportation is just inefficient and poor, etc.

Why send a bus to pick up 1 person?

Exactly. But, by the same token, why allow one person or a developer to ruin prime farmland for the next 200 years. In this, I have no viable solutions. I don't want people dictating where I can live. Howeve, we need some balance. The idea that a developer, with millions behind him, has the right to build on prime farm land simply because he wants to, can make money doing it.. is not, in the end really in the best interest of our country. I have seen too much of it in California, seen the result. Many of those same properties that were so eagerly built are not the crime-ridden forclosed communities. Someone should have stopped it before the farmland was ruined. And I don't mean just any farmland, I mean some of the best farmland in the world.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Our system was built to sell cars and trucks, not transport people

Can you expand on this? It's a great statement but I'm not sure if I understand it.[/quote]
Well... the best example would be to study California, GM, the subway system. Its pretty well known, ought to be on the the net, but I don't have the time to get into it right now. I cannot remember all the details, but the basics are that GM destroyed the subway system in LA (there was talk of earthquakes and such, but that was just smoke) because they wanted to sell cars. Probably was not just GM, but anyway.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Our system was built to sell cars and trucks, not transport people

Can you expand on this? It's a great statement but I'm not sure if I understand it.

Well... the best example would be to study California, GM, the subway system. Its pretty well known, ought to be on the the net, but I don't have the time to get into it right now. I cannot remember all the details, but the basics are that GM destroyed the subway system in LA (there was talk of earthquakes and such, but that was just smoke) because they wanted to sell cars. Probably was not just GM, but anyway.

It's not just LA, this also happened in the East Bay of San Francisco know for sure. During the early decade the Key System and other trains were running their streetcar services and doing a very good job of it. That is until GM wanted to sell more cars and made false companies to buy parts of the Key System and make horrible changes that just ran it into the ground. Then when they successfully killed everything that made the Key System great, which probably got a lot of people to buy cars, they made a horrible bus system that is still laughed at to this day. Oh GM how much I hate you.

Night Strike wrote:Our system was built to allow people the freedom of mobility, and the train system does not give people that flexibility. You can't just hop on a train to go to work, head to dinner, then pick up groceries. Even subways and such can't make all the stops a person needs to make. Trains can be good for traveling from large city to large city, but it's impractical for daily use. That's why they aren't widespread.


In my city, there is a proposal for 3 years of utility rate increases. One opponent of the increases asked why our bills are subsidizing the city bus system. The people who use these services should be the ones to pay more, not the people just living in their homes.

That is because your city is built with cars in mind. If there were fewer cars ect you would see more local grocers rather than the large box style variety.

tzor wrote:...but on the other hand private railroad freight still continues in spite of all the money the Federal government is spending to help out the trucking industry...

LOL. The feds are ass-raping the owner-operator and bailing out the trucking unions. I wouldn't call it help.

bedub1 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem is that our roads have been traditionally supported and well funded, even though they are really the least cost-effective method of transport. Rails, etc have been left to decline.

Interesting take on it. You consider roads to be the least cost-effective method of transportation? What do you consider to be the most? If I could take "public transportation" from my house to work, then from work to clients, to the next clients, back to work, and then home, for less than it costs me to drive, while taking less time, and allowing me to haul more computers etc, then I'd be all for it and would actually use it and probably not own a car...

If you stop and think like a liberal for a sec, the solution is clear - eliminate your job.

HapSmo19 wrote:

tzor wrote:...but on the other hand private railroad freight still continues in spite of all the money the Federal government is spending to help out the trucking industry...

LOL. The feds are ass-raping the owner-operator and bailing out the trucking unions. I wouldn't call it help.

You do make a good point. I just assume that everyone understands what the word "help" means. President Reagan once said that the ten most scary words in the English language are "I am from the Government and I'm here to help." Never the less, the post WWII trucking industry would have never got to where it is today without the development of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. They would not be where they are today without the additional regulations that permitted double trailers on the interstate system. The fact is that currently, under the Democratic administration, unions trumps owner operators, but that could easily change with a change in parties.

The fact that trucks can use a public infrastructure and trains have to maintain a private infrastructure is a major factor in the balance between truck and train, even though trains are far more fuel efficient than trucks. Every car driver in the United States who has to use the common highway system is helping put trains out of business.

HapSmo19 wrote:

tzor wrote:...but on the other hand private railroad freight still continues in spite of all the money the Federal government is spending to help out the trucking industry...

LOL. The feds are ass-raping the owner-operator and bailing out the trucking unions. I wouldn't call it help.

bedub1 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem is that our roads have been traditionally supported and well funded, even though they are really the least cost-effective method of transport. Rails, etc have been left to decline.

Interesting take on it. You consider roads to be the least cost-effective method of transportation? What do you consider to be the most? If I could take "public transportation" from my house to work, then from work to clients, to the next clients, back to work, and then home, for less than it costs me to drive, while taking less time, and allowing me to haul more computers etc, then I'd be all for it and would actually use it and probably not own a car...

If you stop and think like a liberal for a sec, the solution is clear - eliminate your job.

Keep posting, you do more to show how idiotic your views are than your silence ever could.

bedub1 wrote: Wouldn't it be more fair for everybody that DOESN'T register a car gets charged the $75 and everybody that does register a car doesn't pay it? IE the people that use the service pay for the service.

Only if your definition of "fair" is very limited in scope. Indirectly you benefit immensely from having good public transportation even if you don't use it.

Snorri1234 wrote:

bedub1 wrote: Wouldn't it be more fair for everybody that DOESN'T register a car gets charged the $75 and everybody that does register a car doesn't pay it? IE the people that use the service pay for the service.

Only if your definition of "fair" is very limited in scope. Indirectly you benefit immensely from having good public transportation even if you don't use it.

Also, the issue is that right now, we DO pay. Its just we pay only for the most inefficient parts now.