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

Mon Sep 10 13:19:25 EDT 2007

Good ... opinion added.

On Sep 10, 2007, at 1:09 PM, Edward H. Lybarger wrote:

> I've never espoused the abandonment of cities.  What I have said is  
> that I
> personally prefer the suburbs over American cities.  I've also  
> speculated
> that American cities are doomed if they can't attract an adequate  
> tax base.
> Cities will make it hard for a property owner to tear down three  
> adjacent
> residential properties and build one large house because they say  
> they want
> to maintain population density.  Never mind that the assessed  
> valuation of
> the new one might be five, seven or ten times that of the old.  So  
> less
> becomes more.
>
> The other thing that cities don't have are the school systems of the
> suburbs, and that keeps people away in droves.  It also means that  
> city
> parents who can will send the kids to private schools...not an  
> option to
> most.
>
> If I wanted to live in a city, it would be London.  But I can't  
> afford that,
> either!  And I don't think it's up to us -- or anyone else -- to  
> tell people
> where they HAVE to live.
>
> Ed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of  
> Fred
> Schneider
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 11:37 AM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Pittsburgh - think tank blasts possible new  
> transit
> taxes
>
>
> 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/
>>
>
>
>
>
>