Roads are generally funded from fuel taxes and parking lots are generally funded by the entities needing them, so both tend to break even. I'd agree that there are intangibles which could reasonably be counted. For instance, if the average rush hour car holds 1.5 people and nine hundred people ride during this peak period, then a separate loop mass transit system reduces the required road capacity by 450 cars or provides an equivalent gain in efficiency. If the area has two hours of parking lot traffic each peak period the gain in overall efficiency may be huge. Hard to determine and quantify those benefits though, just as it is hard to determine and quantify the negatives.
Those fuel taxes are just an abstract form of rider fees, though, and considering the state of America's roads and bridges, I would wager if you added up the actual maintenance costs as well as initial construction (as opposed to just letting them rot to be the next guy's problem and have a balanced budget this year), most state's roads would be firmly in the red just like Amtrack et al. There was just another thread about how fuel taxes aren't enough to refill the federal highway fund anyway. Then there's traffic cops to pay for, DMVs to staff, etc.
Yep. And people tend to evaluate the merit of each according to how useful they personally find the project, so that if someone will use the new highway but not the new MTS they find the taking of private property to be reasonable for the new highway but not for the new MTS.
That's true. Roads and bridges in general need higher fuel taxes. And as with mass transit, I have no problem with new roads and bridges coming out of capital expenditures and maintenance and replacement coming from direct fees such as fuel taxes.
Good points. Typically with mass transit, I think a reasonable compromise is for society to eat the initial capital expense and the system fees to cover operating expenses. With the understanding of course that some mass transit is based on need rather than economic factors. One simply cannot get enough automobiles into and out of New York City to handle the need.
User fees should pay for the bulk of the upkeep, but the riders aren't getting all of the benefit from ongoing operation and shouldn't pay all of the cost. For one example, if DC or SF had their mass transit go 24 hours, it would be nice for the riders, but it would be REALLY nice for the nightlife venues in those cities, who would bring in a lot more business, and thus taxes and jobs. They should pay their share, too.
I lived there a couple years, which was plenty to get frustrated. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/south_carolina/south-carolina-overview/ Not sure where that site's getting its data, but it fits with what I remember from reading the daily newspaper there:
That's a good point about other businesses benefiting, but one constant problem is the higher taxes in cities driving business out into the county or for really large cities to smaller surrounding towns and cities. Although for cities the size of D.C. or SF that might be academic in terms of night life, wouldn't be so to the other businesses who already face a tax disadvantage.
Virtually nothing is universally true, but this is a very common complaint.
Quite heavy handed, that's for sure.
Facebook
Twitter