Unfortunately, there was a loophole left in that allowed the legislature to declare an emergency and seize the funds for whatever new entitlement scheme they thought would keep them in power. And wouldn’t you just know it? We’ve had an emergency every year since that ballot initiative passed.

tom

I pay gas taxes and tolls, and know for a fact that in DC/MD/VA that all the money I put toward highways doesn’t go to highways, it’s a coffer for other gov’t projects. Including the DC Metro.

Money collected through taxes is fungible; once it gets into the government’s bank account, you can’t tell one dollar from any other dollar nor can you tell where any particular dollar came from. A dollar sent to the federal government to pay self employment taxes is indistinguishable from a dollar collected at the gas pump to pay federal gas taxes. User fees, such as tolls, seem to me to be different, but I’m not sure whether that’s just my prejudice.

Your analogy is 100% spot on correct! Why is it that gov’t officials and journalists don’t recognize the absurdity of all of this? Heck, I think there are plenty of MBAs in the commercial sector who don’t even understand this.

In what ways does your Manhattan bicyclist pay for highways that he doesn’t use?

I pay gas taxes and tolls, and know for a fact that in DC/MD/VA that all the money I put toward highways doesn’t go to highways, it’s a coffer for other gov’t projects. Including the DC Metro.

Your costs for the French taking a trip are not impressive, as I’d bet that rail would be as much or more. Furthermore, if the trip had 4-5 riders in the car, it would cost less/person. That’s not true w/ rail.

The DC Metro BTW, does not make money, even with some parking locations charging high daily rates. When ridership soared last year, one might expect that the system would come close to break even, since fixed costs remained nearly constant. That wasn’t the case, the heavier loads meant the rail cars wore out more quickly, so the system was always guaranteed to lose money.

Furthermore, the DC metro wants to expand, and it’s taking $900M from the rest of the country to pay for part of that (that’s assuming no overruns). So what does the guy from Lima, Ohio get for his money? His traffic isn’t bad, in fact, he’d be glad for a few offices to spring up, and to have MORE traffic as people go to work.

In other words, these subsidies perpetuate the very problems hey claim to solve!

Here’s a better idea. Let the costs and frustration of driving in cities be borne by the people who live/work there. Then it will be a driving force to find a different location for companies: lower taxes, better commute times, less frustration…and the Lima Ohios of the country will benefit too.

My biggest problem with light rail is, that it is not very comfortable. Even outside of the inner city, light rails usually travel around 60-90 km/h (about 50-65 miles per hour)which is ridiculously slow for a rail-based transportation unit. Plus, because they are designed for inner-city usage, they have only very limited space for climate units, leaving them to be a packed space in hell during summer time.
The third problem is riding with strangers and noise which can be hilarious or a stink ride through dante’s inferno….

Take it from an ex-railroad guy, trains are a great way to move a kabillion tons of inanimate objects from one coast to another, but you don’t want to depend on ‘em for your daily running around.

The second problem has several facets. They stem from the ego. One delusion leads to twenty years of designing and redesigning. And funding numerous social studies about how the community will be affected. Another always leads to the conclusion that endless minute adjustments will produce a flawless product.

i.e. the outcome must be flawless because the politicians and planners in charge are so smart.

And the commonly heard and obviously false assertions: The estimates are accurate, the ridership will be enormous, it will gradually pay off capital costs, and “we will all someday be proud to live in such a place.”

Besides, there is a limited amount of subsidization/welfare/transfer payment money available. The economy can’t afford to provide every slacker (and I’m not suggesting that the writer is a slacker) with every economic benefit that the slackers desire. When someone with economically viable alternatives maintains a lifestyle which depends upon the charity of strangers, it unnecessarily limits the amount of resources which may be made available for those with unmet needs not within their power to ameliorate. To one extent or another, that’s immoral. Perhaps not much more immoral than overtime parking, but at least as immoral as waterboarding mass murderers.