[PRCo] Re: Pittsburgh - think tank blasts possible new transit taxes

Mon Sep 10 11:37:10 EDT 2007

But there are conflicting view points, Bill:

If I were to listen to my long time close friend Ed Lybarger, and  
perhaps his views might change over time, he would probably say that  
we should simply abandon our cities because that is what the general  
public has shown by their feet that they want to do. Quit building  
parking garages.   Refrain from trying to preserve the infrastructure  
that is an inviting target.   Quit spending our taxes to try to  
preserve the cities that we have shown we don't want.   I've heard  
him tell me that.   Spread out over the landscape the way the public  
seems to want to live.   Use your cars.   Enjoy the suburban  
lifestyle.   Most Americans live in metropolitan statistical areas  
today ... that's a given.   But within those areas, most people live  
in suburbs.   A smaller number are actually in tightly compacted  
homes and condominiums within the cities.   (Canada as a North  
American exception.)

The other point of view, and it is Fred Schneider's point of view  
(you didn't expect this did you?).  Gasoline prices today really have  
not risen enough beyond normal inflation YET to cause the typical  
American to forsake his suburban lifestyle.   Gasoline was about 25  
cents a gallon in the late 1950s and that equates roughly with  
inflation to $2.50 today.   In my area, it's running $2.60.   No big  
deal.   We can still drive gas hogs.   And most of us are driving  
much more fuel efficient cars and getting 25 mpg instead of the 15  
mpg we got in the 1950s.   We're not hurting with $2.50 or $3.00 a  
gallon gasoline.   However, we have on the horizon a 1 billion  
Chinese and 1.3 billion Indians who want automobiles compared to 0.3  
billion of us.   The supply of petroleum is finite.   So you want to  
use corn and distill it into alcohol?   Well, you still need  
petroleum for the fertilizer to grow the corn.   If you use corn to  
make alcohol, the price of beef is going to go up.   No matter how  
you slice the pie, our living costs are going to sky rocket in  
time ... everything we use from plastic to fertilizer to  
transportation and on and on and on is based on petroleum.   If  
you're worried now, you haven't seen anything yet.   Fred's point of  
view is that we, as a nation, have spent the best part of the last  
century spreading out over the landscape thanks to cheap fuel and  
motor cars and that in the next century we are going to find  
ourselves forced to recompress into smaller homes, smaller cars and  
urban settings.   I don't see this happening in Lancaster or  
Washington PA or Marietta Ohio or Harrisburg, PA or San Jose or  
Glenwood Springs, Colorado but I do see the initial changes happening  
in some of our biggest cities.

A good example is New York's West Shore ... over in New Jersey where  
all the railroad yards and ferry terminals used to be has turned from  
a nondescript and even slum area into some pretty posh living with  
the Hudson Bergen Light Rail line running right down through the  
spine of the community from West New York NJ through Weehawken,  
Hoboken, Pavonia, and on to Bayonne.   Last week New York's city bus  
authority extended a Staten Island bus service connection to the  
light rail line in Bayonne.   Where the Erie's Pavonia Yards used to  
be is one heck of an upscale mall served by a trolley today, complete  
to a Macy's Department Store.   If you need to get into Manhattan,  
you can take the PATH subway from Hoboken or the revived ferry from  
Weehawken.   It's really upscale.   Some great restaurants too.    
West New York ... the volcanic flow that created a mountain behind  
the flatlands along the river ... used to be a working class town.    
Town it's almost all Spanish speaking but very strongly middle  
class.   You want a true Mexican dinner and not just Tex Mex, that's  
where you go.

Parts of Philadelphia, Washington DC, Portland, OR and Chicago are  
also good examples.  I saw some new development along the T-line in  
San Francisco and along San Jose's Winchester light rail line.

But these few cities are hardly representative of the actions of a  
nation as whole.   Not yet.   I have hope.   I would like to hope  
that society will wake up.

At any rate, we have two points of view.   The suburbs will probably  
last for a while for those who want them.  The real estate promoters  
will continue to make new suburban developments in areas where they  
know they can sell them because they like to make money.   Eventually  
the real estate guys will wake up and find out it's going to be  
easier to sell condos and apartments in cities, then they'll mass  
produce them.   Most of us on the list might be looking down from  
above when that happens....

Or maybe there will be another Boubonic-style plague or the Arabs  
will win the war in the end and reduce the world population to the  
point where we can all live spread out over the planet a little  
longer on the water and petroleum resources we have.   After all,  
society has a long history of diseases and wars.

Fred

On Sep 10, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Bill Robb wrote:

> Bill Robb wrote:
>> What you fail to realize is that subsidies did not exist before  
>> the early 70s.
> So what?  Cities weren't heavily dependent on cars once, either.
> The mere fact that it was once possible for urban transit to have  
> operational
> self-sufficiency (a phrase from a slightly different context...) is  
> no reason
> to demand that it do so today.
> ------
> Subsidies were orginally given to transit when cities became  
> alarmed at the loss of property tax in their downtown areas.   
> Downtown was once the heart of the property tax base and there was  
> genuine reason to fear the loss of the base in late 50s and 60s.   
> But over the last 50 years commercial real estate has dispersed and  
> downtowns have largely hollowed out and have loss there economic  
> domination. Most commercial real estate now is entirely auto oriented.
>
> Transit was self-sufficient when people worked six days a week. As  
> soon as the six day work week (really 5 1/2 days) ended downtown  
> went into a long decline and transit service started to slowly  
> decline.  We are moving into a time when there will a large  
> percentage of retired people, 40% in Japan, 33% in Canada and 25%  
> in the US. The babies born after WWII are now on the verge of  
> retirement.  Retired people are a poor market for most local  
> transportation services.
> ------
>
> Really, why should urban mass transit make money?  Should we  
> require that police
> departments break even (operationally)?  Should they charge user fees?
> ----------
> I did not say transit should make money.  I said it should recover  
> all its operating costs and not be a drain on the taxpayer.  You  
> really cannot rationalize or set priorities.  Police, fire and  
> ambulance are an essential service. There is no alternative to  
> having effective emergency services. There are alternatives to  
> transit.  Walking, driving a car or taking a taxi.  Conducting your  
> affairs so not as much travel is needed. Or paying  the full cost  
> for a transportation service.
> -----
>> Subsidized transit service is
>> not available to the majority only an (largely) urban minority.
>
> Looks like a pretty big minority.  Pennsylvania has 12 million  
> people.  The SEPTA
> region has 3.8 million people.  Allegheny County (PAT goes outside  
> the county a
> bit, but not enough to matter) has 1.3 million people.  That's  
> close to half
> already and I haven't started in on Harrisburg, Altoona, etc.
> -----
> What's the percentage of users?  Normally its about 3% of trips,  
> that means 97% are non-users. A pretty big majority of non-users.
>
> ------
> [...]
>> The concept of service to
>>  all within a community is now close to be dropped by several  
>> places, notably San Jose
>>  and Toronto.
>
> I knew the TTC was going through a budget snafu, but I didn't know  
> they
> were going through an existential crisis.  The "Transit City" plans  
> don't
> look like an existential crisis to me.
>
> -----------------------
> http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/myttc.html#serviceatrisk
>
> You are badly uninformed. Because of a vote (orchestrated by a real  
> estate lobby) to defer a land transfer tax mechanism (which would  
> be new tax) by city council  the TTC faces huge service cuts this  
> year and next year or a fare increase of 25% this year to maintain  
> service. All east-west service between Bloor and St. Clair will  be  
> eliminated. Large blocks of the system would be hollowed out  
> including between St. Clair, Bathurst. Bayview and Lawrence.
>
> http://www.stevemunro.ca/?p=547#more-547
>
> The city faces a huge deficit over which it has little control.   
> Uncutable spending is imposed by the provinical government without  
> funding. The city can borrow for capital projects, but operations  
> by law must be funded by taxes and the city cannot borrow for daily  
> operations. Arenas will close (killing hockey leagues), snow will  
> not be plowed until it reaches 6" in depth and the TTC faces huge  
> cuts among other  by the citycuts.  The TTC is not being singled  
> out.  The transit subsidy is one of the largest expenditure  
> categories for the city. The deficit next year is in the hundreds  
> of millions of dollars and this time it looks like little can be  
> done to avoid the cuts.  The motion that defered the new taxes  
> called for a review in October, but the new taxing powers require  
> setting up a mechanism to collect the land transfer taxes.
>
> Even adovcates are saying there is no point in building Transit  
> City if there is no funding to operate it.
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______________
> Need a vacation? Get great deals
> to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
> http://travel.yahoo.com/
>