Transit users should stop relying on government subsidies and pay their full share.

That logic should also apply to all government services.

Welfare? Those people should get a job. Kids? Adoption/abortion!... If they can't afford to have kids, then they shouldn't!

Libraries? Users should pay the full costs of stocking it with books, magazines, videos, CD's. etc. If users aren't willing to pay the full costs, then we should get rid of it. How about privitizing the libraries? Then the government can tax that business.

Parks, Zoos, Aquariums? Same thing! Charge users the full costs of maintenance! Or even better... include a tax based upon the overall land area of the business; kind of like office space is charged by square footage. How about charging users to prevent selling the land off to private industry?

Using this method, we will finally see how commited everyone is to these wasteful government programs!

The Basic Guide Rule: "Government programs are required to break even! If they can't, then ash can it!"

-- Gene (gene@gene.com), January 18, 2000

Answers

I'll go for that!

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000.

Actually Gene, If you read the post:Transit user fares paid 17% of the cost of transit operations in Washington State (109,880,000 /631,248,000). Nationwide, transit user fares covered 39.6% (7076.641 Million/17.833.694 million). If you just look at the other 49 states, the AVERAGE farebox recovery is 40.5%. (6966.761 million/ 17202.446 million) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs98/tables/mt2b.pdf Farebox recovery is SO LOW in Washington it drags the national average for the other 49 states down almost a full percent. It's time for the Washington state transit riders to start paying their own way.

What I indicated was that the transit riders in Washington DO NOT PAY THEIR WAY RELATIVE TO THE TRANSIT RIDERS IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.

So I'll put the question to you:

Do you believe it is unreasonable to raise the fares of Washington State transit riders to the point that they match the average farebox revenue of transit riders in th OTHER 49 states? If not, why not?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 18, 2000.

but Gene "Government programs are required to break even! If they can't, then ash can it!" It's easy for government programs to break even.. they just get more money from the people

"Governor Locke we don't have enough money for your new program!!!"

"That's okay, just suck a little more blood out of the pigs."

We be the pigs.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000.

Wow, Washington pulls the national average down by almost 1%!! That may be significant if not for the fact that New York, the mother of all outliers inflates the average by almost 10%. NY takes up a full 41% of the farebox revenues in the entire country and 28% of the total expenditures. Illinois and New Jersey take up another 16% of the revenues and 13% of the total expenditures. Taking the total average does tend to give a SUBSTANTIAL weight to the larger transit districts, which, by no coincidence, happen to have farebox recovery rates of roughly 50%.

Remove the states in which the metro areas have large mass transit systems, and that average drops to where Washington's recovery rate ain't that bad.

Or.... Is there a moral to the fact that the states with the most massive investments in mass transit systems also have the highest farebox recovery rates?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 18, 2000.

"Remove the states in which the metro areas have large mass transit systems, and that average drops to where Washington's recovery rate ain't that bad.

Or.... Is there a moral to the fact that the states with the most massive investments in mass transit systems also have the highest farebox recovery rates? "

I'd agree that removing the states that have high population density makes transit less efficient. I've been saying that for 6 months now. But even that doesn't excuse Washington State. Metro KC is the 18th largest metro area in the US out of 405 areas. They still collect far less than average the REST of the areas smaller than Seattle. And they are the highest in the state.

The moral is that transit has a DEMAND in New York due to population density and doesn't have a DEMAND here. We do not have a capacity problem, we have a demand problem. We are trying to run it far outside of it's economic niche. We are bribing people with fares that are 17% of operating costs, 12% or so of total costs (including capital expenses) and the buses are still running at far under capacity.

Once again, Patrick, you are flaunting your ignorance. What you have shown is that we can hardly GIVE transit services away. Take an economics 100 course and ask the instructor the theoretical question of what they believe is the viability of a business, ANY BUSINESS, that can scarcely hold market share when giving away it's product for 12% of the cost.

Now you, and other transit advocates, must now start to face reality. Further expansions of transit aren't going to be helpful unless you can CREATE A DEMAND. How are you going to do that? How much will it cost? Who will pay that cost? Can this company be saved? Take the course, ask the questions, try to improve your knowledge a little.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 18, 2000.

"Once again, Patrick, you are flaunting your ignorance."

I'm the one who's flaunting MY ignorance? You're the one who wants us all to believe that the average farebox recovery rate in the country is 40%. For someone who is as versed in statistics as you are, you have a funny way of calculating one of the most basic equations in the field. Last I checked, when finding out the average of a group (say, the average farebox recovery by state) you add up the individual numbers and divide by the total number in the group. The way you did it you get a number that can be compared to other contries, but you CANNOT compare it to individual states. The REAL average farebox recovery rate by state is 26.4%, just SLIGHTLY lower than your 40% number.

Of course that still places Washington State below average, but not quite the vast difference that you'd like us all to believe. Can and should there be improvements in efficiency? Of course. But the idea that we should target something like 40% is a tad unrealistic. Only six states (actually five plus D.C.) have farebox recovery rates above that number (again, this was supposed to be the average?), and they all have subway systems to account for a lot of that.

But again, transit systems are SUPPOSED to be heavily subsidized. One of those things that I learned in my econ class was that there are services in which the public deems necessary, but the free market supply and demand curves don't allow for these services to exist without a subsidy. Survey after survey shows that the public WANTS public transportation even at the cost of a heavy subsidy. Why is this such a hard subject to grasp? It's obvious that public transit needs a subsidy to exist, and it's also quite obvious that the public is willing to accept this as necessary. Welcome to a democracy.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 19, 2000.

Are we holding transit to a higher standard here than cars and trucks? User fees pay only 31% of the cost of building, maintaining and servicing the roadway in the 4 county Puget Sound area according to a study by the Puget Sound Council of Governments. The rest of the money comes from payers of the property, sales and business tax and amounts to a subsidy of cars and trucks. Also the fact that sales tax is waived on gasoline and not on other consumer goods, like the products I sell for a living, amounts to another major subsidy of driving. (Gasoline is not now taxed in the sense that the "gas tax" is not a tax but a user fee.) I supported 695 because the MVET was the worst of the worst when it comes to taxes, it was regressive contrary to popular opinion, it was not a true user fee and it encouraged driving. But killing all transit subsidies in the context of a massive existing subsidy for cars and trucks and then increasing that money spigot to lay down a lot of concrete on this once-green state is the wrong way to go. Thanks for everybody's time.--Ed.

-- Ed Newbold (newboldwildlife@netscape.net), January 19, 2000.

"User fees pay only 31% of the cost of building, maintaining and servicing the roadway in the 4 county Puget Sound area according to a study by the Puget Sound Council of Governments" If you'll cite the study, I'll look it up. That certainly isn't what the federal figures show for the nation as a whole. Unless this includes one of these "social costs" analyses for which no consensus exists as to their vailidity or it includes owners costs as part of total costs without crediting them as user fees.... well, I don't think so. It is possible that the Puget Sound region is much more generous with the auto than the REST OF THE US, but since I've lived here since the early 60s I find that kind of hard to believe.

Even were it true that user fees only cover 31% of costs (and I won't concede that until I've verified the reference against the US DOT analyses), that would still be three times what transit riders cover from their farebox revenue.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 19, 2000.

""Once again, Patrick, you are flaunting your ignorance." I'm the one who's flaunting MY ignorance? You're the one who wants us all to believe that the average farebox recovery rate in the country is 40%. For someone who is as versed in statistics as you are, you have a funny way of calculating one of the most basic equations in the field. Last I checked, when finding out the average of a group (say, the average farebox recovery by state) you add up the individual numbers and divide by the total number in the group. The way you did it you get a number that can be compared to other contries (sic), but you CANNOT compare it to individual states. The REAL average farebox recovery rate by state is 26.4%, just SLIGHTLY lower than your 40% number."

Now youUre showing your ignorance SQUARED. I gave the reference and the method I used to arrive at the average amount at the start of the thread. Namely:

"Transit user fares paid 17% of the cost of transit operations in Washington State (109,880,000 /631,248,000). Nationwide, transit user fares covered 39.6% (7076.641 Million/17.833.694 million). If you just look at the other 49 states, the AVERAGE farebox recovery is 40.5%. (6966.761 million/ 17202.446 million) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs98/tables/mt2b.pdf"

This provides the total amount paid in fares divided by the total amount of operating expenses (giving transit a free ride on capital expenses) to generate that fare income. ThatUs how a mean is determined. When you are comparing different size states and different size transit organizations you need to go to the common denominator of fares and operating costs or you get a mean that is .. well, meaningless.

Example: I quoted a mean of 17% farebox recovery in Washington state. That number is driven by the relatively high farebox recovery of Metro. Were I to take an UNWEIGHTED average of farebox recovery in Washington State as you are saying to do at the national level I would find something like this:

Metro 22% Pierce Transit 17%

Bellingham 6% Bremerton-Kitsap 11%

Yakima 9% Richland-BF 10%

Olympia-Intercity 11% C-tran 10%

Gee, thatUs (22+17+6+11+9+10+11+10)/8 = 12%

Does 12% really represent the farebox recovery in this area? Heck no. No more than the monorail does (farebox recovery of 100%, but not enough miles to matter).

So IUm afraid it is YOU who need to go back to basic statistics. Washington State farebox recovery is 17%. The rest of the country is 40.5%. WeUre

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 19, 2000.

"Survey after survey shows that the public WANTS public transportation even at the cost of a heavy subsidy." Survey after survey shows that the public wants OTHER PEOPLE to use transit so they can drive their cars in less traffic. But we built it and they didn't come, and the effect on traffic at current levels of useage is negligible. So unless you are going to hold a GUN to people's head (Welcome to the totalitarian state) andforce them to use transit, it's time to admit that trnsit can't solve congestion, retain an appropriate sized capacity for the transit dependent, and build roads.

Because if you really DID take that economics course, you know that once the fare increases engendered by I-695 happen, ridership will fall, and take fare revenue with it. This will cause more contraction of revenues forcing more contraction of service, forcing....., a death spiral. You'll end up with either a very much reduced service, or an appeal for local sales or other taxes to cover transit shortfalls. If the Pungent Sound region desires to tax itself unmercifully to maintain a system that doesn't greatly affect congestion, that's a lot better than the state as a whole paying for it. My guess, however, is that you'll wind up with a pretty minimal system outside the city. It just doesn't have that much value to relatively low density places like Federal Way. If they get included in the RTA, the vote will lose.

Want to make any bets?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 19, 2000.

To Craig: You're overstating the lack of demand. The express bus routes operated by Sound Transit had a very high demand. Unfortunately, Sound Transit made a decision to go with articulated buses, which I would assume are very distasteful to the consumers (although I cannot cite any studies or links on the web). So, we may see capacity begin to outstrip demand.

Likewise,as you point out, any fare increases may result in a slowing of the demand. However, if Sound Transit would abandon the articulated buses, and adjust their routes in accordance with their customers' wishes, then they may be able to pass on the higher fares without significantly dampening demand.

Don't forget that many of the families depending on Sound Transit are now hundreds of dollars richer as a result of I-695. So, they can easily afford the higher fares.

Based on discussions we've had in the past, the proper approach for Sound Transit would be to recruit its customers into vanpool vans, which probably have higher customer satisfaction and require lower subsidies. This way, Sound Transit can keep its fleet of buses as small as the possible, minimizing the subsidies you perceive as flagrantly wasteful.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 19, 2000.

Demand response or subscription service would likely meet the needs better Matt. Demand has steadily increased for this type of service in the disabled/elderly categories, and I think you could fully expect it to work AND require lower subsidies for commuters. It eliminates the need for park and ride lots and has many advantages over vanpooling.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

Hate to disagree with you Marsha but demand response for Metro is currently about $22 per trip in operating expenses. That's about 8-9 times the cost per trip of bus or trolley.

Don't think we can afford to commute many people this way, even assuming some economies of scale would occur (although for transti, they usually don't).

The Craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 19, 2000.

Craig,

Cool, we disagree for once. This is one area I have an advantage in.

True, it would not pay for itself if the ridership wasn't there. If the demand is there, it most certainly could work.

The economies of scale may be greater than you anticipate. There is a huge difference between the demand response systems. You chose one of the worst. Metro doesn't even try to pretend to do this well. This is one time that figures may not tell the whole story. Let us take Yakima for example.

Your operating costs per revenue hour are $40.45. Your unlinked passenger trips per hour are 4.26. Giving you a cost of $9.50 per trip. Double the passenger count per hour, and the economies of scale start to kick in. If you have 10 riders in that same hour, the cost then becomes $4.00. And there is a huge variable in operating costs per revenue hour between the systems. Best case scenario in my mind, is that you should be able to keep operating costs between $30 and $35 dollars per hour, because so many of your trips are repeaters, not requiring alot of personnel for scheduling.

What makes this feasible, is that with computer aided scheduling, you CAN get those economies of scale. Right now, the bus runs, and is paid for, whether there is a demand or not. With demand response, you can concentrate service only where there is a need. The big difference is when you do it for shopping and medical trips, you have as many destinations, as you do pick up points. With commuters, you can combine passengers going to the same employer. In addtion, you have the flexibility of having several small busses meet, and transfer people going to the same destination.

What makes it work is computer scheduling. No riders? No bus, no cost. Riders that do schedule, are clustered as closely as possible. You provide service only in those areas that have ridership on a daily basis.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

To Marsha: Sounds good to me. If subscription service is cheaper for the society and has higher customer satisfaction than vanpooling, then it sounds like a no-brainer. How do I get it started in my community?

When the new Narrows Bridge is completed, the demand for ridesharing will increase. But, as more people rideshare, the toll will have to climb ever higher. And, thus, the demand for ridesharing will increase even more.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 19, 2000.

In fact, at $57.53 operating expense per vehicle revenue hour, I would say Metro is guilty of some pretty bad management. They don't compare favorably with most major Metropolitan demand response systems, let alone the smaller ones.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

Matt,

The system for demand response is already in your area. I believe much of the service is by contract at the present time, and only available to disabled/elderly. Put pressure on your local Transit Board, to at least examine the possibility of changing your service. Do you think commuters would pay a bit more for door to door service? Would it serve your needs better? As far as I know, it has never been done on a large enough scale to judge it's appeal.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

Marsha, Matt and all concerned. Demand response is available almost everywhere. It is called taxi service. And before anybody blows a gasket let me explain something. I used to be a cab driver. Not in this state. There was a subsidy program that worked with taxis. It was called share-fare. It used an existing PRIVATE TRANSPORT SYSTEM. The passenger was issued share-fare tickets. Each ticket had a value of $2.40 and for that ticket the driver would take you where you needed to go. Now drivers HATED share-fare tickets when there was just ONE fare but there was gravy available. Sure, many trips would have brought bucks if run on the meter and a lousy $2.40 sucked. But you could pick two or three loads of people going to the same place and then pick them up and take them back..Each one paid with a ticket.

Sure, this was a subsidy. But there was no exhorbitant expenditure of vehicle and driver because the service was privately provided. We actually made money, the people got service and the public didn't get screwed as badly.

So SCREW ANY THOUGHT OF DEMAND RESPONSE TRANSIT WITH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND VEHICLES. Of course Washington state would never consider a program like this because it couldn't gouge the public enough.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

Maddjak,

Shame on you. I never said we should do this with government employees or vehicles. There are many private companies right now who do this work on a contract basis.

The demand response I am familiar with did also use Taxi service. Trouble is, it became unreliable during times of demand. Seems the Taxi drivers were not willing to transport for Transit, if they had a cash (meter) paying fare, who would also tip.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

Well Patrick-

Do you STILL think the average farebox recovery in King County is 61%. ((22% for Metro (half a billion annual passenger miles)and 100% for the monorail(2.4 million annual passenger miles))/2)

And do you intend to lecture ME further about being "versed" in statistics?

Do you really care about presenting information in a clearly defined and comparable fashion, or would you rather obfuscate the obvious as much as it takes to attempt to defend your preconceived opinions, facts notwithstanding?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 19, 2000.

Hey PEOPLE! Keep to the Original Question!

"If the government can't at least break even doing it, then they shouldn't do it!"

Government should only provide DEMAND RESPONSE if it doesn't lose money doing it. If people can't afford it, what makes you think that the government can? And why should I allow my tax dollars to be spent subsidizing something that I don't use myself!

-- Gene (gene@gene.com), January 19, 2000.

Marsha: I guess I don't understand what you're talking about, because people tend to live fairly far apart (i.e., several miles). So, it would take a hell of a long time for the "taxi" to pick up everyone.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 19, 2000.

Matthew,

No, it's obvious you don't. I wouldn't expect you to. You can't possible know how many people who live within a quarter of a mile from you and may be traveling in the same direction, at nearly the same time, or how many may be willing to use door to door service. (Or curb to curb,) Most effective Demand response Systems rely on software programs to sort trips via time and location. You would not be able to dictate a pickup time to the minute, but it is possible to get it scheduled into a fifteen minute window. Not only does this system work Matthew, it works well. Several different Software programs have been available for years and Paratransit Services has been able to post pretty high passengers per hour figures just for the low income medical coupon passengers they carry using their own system. If they had a large ridership to draw from, I would not be suprised to see a 12 passengers per hour figure achieved.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

Gene,

I AM sticking to the topic in the thread. It IS possible to provide a service requiring little or no subsidy. Is it likely? Heck no, but it COULD be done, if we got rid of Transit, and let a private company provide the service.

I don't see very many Airporter shuttles going out of business. They are willing to haul me 70 miles for $16-$17 dollars. It IS POSSIBLE to provide the service and make it affordable for the user. You would have fight Transit AND Labor interests every step of the way. The reason cost effective alternatives like this are not being offered, is because of those same interests. It isn't because it would cost too much. It is because no private company would EVER pay those salaries and benefits they those interests currently receive. Which is why I think it wouldn't happen.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

"And do you intend to lecture ME further about being "versed" in statistics?"

Well if you continue to cook the statistics, then yes.

As I think I made it quite clear, the way you performed your calculations the 40% recovery rate is the average total of the WHOLE country. That average is comparable to farebox recovery rates in OTHER countries, but not comparable to individual state statistics. Why you choose to do this is rather obvious, the states with the largest expenditures also have the largest farebox recovery rate. They throw the entire average off simply because they earn and spend more money, NOT because they have a higher recovery rate. I highly doubt that you'd be using this method if New York had a 12% recovery rate, which would probably drop the total average down into the teens.

I KNOW that you know how much you're trying to fudge the numbers, so this is for the studio audience. The question is how does Washington's transit systems compare to the other transit systems in the country. To do that, you actually have to compare it with the other systems in the country, NOT with the country as a whole. The way you do it, you're treating it as if the entire country was one big transit district. It does NOT take into account the various sizes of the transit systems by state.

Let's use your example to show how you're using the wrong calculation. When comparing the average farebox recovery rate PER PERSON with Metro and the Monorail (for simplicity sake we'll ignore the other transit agencies) that rate would be almost identical to Metro's rate since a sizably larger number of people ride Metro compared to the Monorail. BUT, if one wanted to compare the efficiency BETWEEN the agencies, the average would be 61%.

See what I'm saying here people? The average person using transit in America pays about 40% of the total costs. HOWEVER, the average transit agency in the country averages a 26% recovery rate. So the question becomes what are you trying to discuss here. Unless I'm mistaken, you're trying to show how inefficient the transit agencies in Washington State are compared to other states. If that is indeed what you're trying to do, then the average BETWEEN states is the one you need to use. The average person recovery number means squat in this discussion.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 19, 2000.

Matthew "Marsha: I guess I don't understand what you're talking about, because people tend to live fairly far apart (i.e., several miles). So, it would take a hell of a long time for the "taxi" to pick up everyone." Wrong-o. People who LEGITIMATELY require such services many times live in a community of other people JUST LIKE THEM. And the trips are not always for the doctor. In my experience (and I did this for a couple of years)the MAJORITY of the trips were to community get togethers for large groups of people. Very seldom did I get all the people living together but with just a smidgen of brains they could be routed out.

God. It would take a taxi a lot longer to go from place to place than it would take for a bus!!!!!

Marsha, I see the demand response vehicles here in Seattle all the time and the are mini-Metro van/buses. I could have used them myself for medical reasons but I chose NOT to.

The reason (and the method) that was used to guarantee taxi participation was signing a guarantee that we would pick up ALL share- fares in exchange for getting the gravy routes too. We also did normal fares so share-fare single rides got service just as prompt as full fee trips. The gravy routes were a daily JOB that were run exclusively of NORMAL fares. Group routes were scheduled in advance but single trips were just phoned in like anybody else..

And again I say...It won't happen here because they create problems so they can convince us that they can solve them

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

"Unless I'm mistaken, you're trying to show how inefficient the transit agencies in Washington State are compared to other states."

You are OF COURSE (and again) mistaken. I have posted the original statement (twice) that carries with it the EMBEDDED figures from which my farebox recoveries were derived. It compares the farebox recovery rate for the sum of all transit riders in Washington versus both the farebox recovery rate for the country as a WHOLE, and all transit users NOT in the state of Washington. The respective rates are 17% (Washington),39.6% (whole country), and 40.5% (whole country excepting Evergreen State).

This has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH INEFFICIENCY. Efficiency would be measured by service provided per dollar. In fact, several of the systems with larger farebox recovery have larger cost per passenger mile and MUCH larger fares per passenger mile. Why are people willing to pay a premium to use them? Because the DEMAND is there. Why? Because they've got the population density to support it. I have repeatedly said that the people in the downtown area riding the trolleybus are probably coming pretty close to paying their way. Although the trolley costs more to operate than the bus ($.84/mile versus $.46 per mile in 1997), people only ride the trolley about 1.6 miles. The farebox recovery for trolley alone probably exceeds the national average.

But outside the downtown area, there isn't adequate DEMAND. Although the passenger-mile costs are cheaper (and the seat-mile costs are MUCH cheaper), because the total trip costs go up relative the downtown trips ($2.97 per trip for bus versus $1.47 for trolley), the net effect is for the downtown people to have a much higher farebox recovery and in essence they subsidize the suburbs. That is what you are seeing in your big transit versus little transit issue. Transit organizations being operated in their economic niche versus transit systems that someone is trying to make operate in areas without sufficient density. As a side note, this is why a judge stopped expansion of the Red Line in LA. Heavy rail (targeting rich white commuters) was draining the operating funds away from the downtown area that could be efficiently served. And as bad as the comparison is for operating expenses it was even WORSE for the capital funding drain, which is disproportionately drawn off to the long distance service.

The issue is DEMAND. Transit does not have a capacity problem. It has a DEMAND problem, and the demand problem exists because we are trying to make it work outside it's market niche.

So Patrick, outside of not understanding how to calcualte means, not understanding what the question was, and being wrong in the interpretation of your own facts, what additional part or parts of this issue don't you understand?

The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 19, 2000.

Hi All, Well Craig, you win Im going to have to yell uncle when it comes to the source of my 31% quote. I went back to look up the source--some studies the Puget Sound Council of Governments did on transportation funding, and they actually never specifically came up with a number. The 31% was something other than what I stated it to be, a case of wishful remembering on my part.

Its interesting to me how hard it is to find out the answer to the simple question, How much are we subsidizing automobiles and trucks? Take the amount of money paid by the car and truck using public in true user fees, mainly the gas tax, and divide by the total cost of the roadway. This would include the cost of building and maintaining roads and traffic lights and then throw in the cost of police (the percentage devoted to patrolling roads), medic one and medical costs of auto accidents that get shoved onto the public sector (anything else?) and put that in the denominator.. Stanley Hart did this in Pasadena in 1985 and got 25%, which appeared in this book The Elephant in the Bedroom. (Craig, you mentioned National DoT material on this subject. Is that easy to find? Its obvious youve researched these issues pretty well).

Additionally we are subsidizing cars by waiving the sales tax on gas on the pretext that gas is already taxed, when it isnt if you realize that the gas tax is only a user fee. Adding sales tax to gas would make a big difference to the consumer weighing the relative attractiveness of taking a car vs. taking transit.

I would add that the owners of the roadway infrastructure are giving it away without demanding a return on their investment, which private owners would never do. Taxpayer Joe should be getting dividend payments from Driver Joe. Taxpayers should also be getting returns from the Port of Seattle infrastructure and dredging and irrigation water but thats an off-topic digression.

I hate the property tax because it is a market distorting, completely unfair tax to begin with. But as long as everyone is being forced to pay it, why are users of highways exempt? Roads are nothing if not wasteful of land, and in a pure private market system this would result in extra costs for useres, but in the socialized system we have that cost is passed on to non users. Private railroads have to pay property tax on their roadbed, so why should government treat automobiles and trucks more favorably?

(All these changes Im suggesting should be revenue neutral. There are always two separate issueshow much people are taxed and what is taxed. If a tax creates hidden subsidies it will create problems for society and a constituency will develop to redress the problems with more tax money and programs. This is what has happened in the transportation sector with the subsidy of cars leading to a political demand for a subsidy for transit).

I assume that errors in the way government refs the market are the only reason we dont have fairly good transit that doesnt need a subsidy. When government is entirely out of the picture, like in Disneyland, or has control of a lot of land like at Seatac, transit works fine. Already, the monorail makes a profit. These systems being discussed by Marsha could probably make a transit even now.

Without transit, not only poor people but elderly people and people that the system is trying to expel from the system, those who have had their licenses revoked, are more or less forced to keep driving just to survivethere is no alternative to driving. Its painful to watch your mom and dad revise their own attitudes about whether or not they should drive and when, by the way.

Well I hope this wasnt too long and rambling. Have a good day everybody.--Ed

-- Ed Newbold (newboldwildlife@netscape.net), January 20, 2000.

To Marsha: I 've been thinking about your concept, and I like it. A person who owned a minivan could pick up an easy $20-30 giving people who lived nearby a ride to work. And, the money would be tax-free, since you could depreciate the miles you put on your vehicle.

It doesn't require government involvement at all. Although, no doubt they would want to stick in their noses and require various licenses and fees.

I'd like to see a web site where drivers could register, verifying that they are accident free and insured, and potential passengers would "bid" for rides.

I like it. Earning an extra $500-$1000/mo. isn't bad.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 20, 2000.

Matthew,

Actually, your take on the idea can work with a modification. If you are willing to commit yourself to being available to do the work, AM and PM, and would be willing to pay a percentage to a company who would schedule the trips and fax you AM and PM manifests, it COULD work. Very little government involvement would be neccessary.

Online registration is good as well. Keeps costs down. But what about those who don't have access? Phone calls need to be added to the process. That is why a company to perform scheduling and routing duties would be neccessary.

What's the difference between this and Vanpooling? Ridership base includes anyone requiring a ride in your direction, at near the same time, which could change daily. Vanpools/carpools are more rigid than a fixed route. If you ride a vanpool, you don't have the flexibility to go in two hours late.

Let's take it one step further and incorporate gaurenteed rides home if a passenger must work late. The Company pages the nearest driver to the pickup point, (GPS technology at work) who then calls in to verify location/time.

All your drivers can be independant contractors, part time or full time.

All we need now is some capital and a few bucks to buy some Politicians with. Now that Bill has some time on his hands, and money to invest....we could call the company Gatesway....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 20, 2000.

"Craig, you mentioned National DoT material on this subject. Is that easy to find? Its obvious youve researched these issues pretty well" The problem with the so-called social costs is that there is no consensus and the various estimates are all over the map. Most transportation economists agree that user fees charged to motor vehicle operators pretty near pay for the direct economic costs of motor vehicle operations, but the "social costs" are where the controversy is, and when you read how various authors have calculated them, you'll understand why. The best review article that I'm aware of is :A Review of the Literature on the Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Use in the United States JAMES J. MURPHY Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California, Davis MARK A. DELUCCHI Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Davis

It's available on the US DOT website: http://www.bts.gov/programs/jts/murphy.pdf

It's about 25 pages as I recall, but worth reading if you are really interested.

For a truly ridiculous, self serving assessment of social costs, read the economic analysis that our own WA DOT uses to try to justify continuing to support intercity rail service between Oregon and Vancouver BC in this article: http://ntl.bts.gov/ntl/data/pacnwrail3.pdf

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 20, 2000.

Here's another assessment that you might find interesting:

http://www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/hcas/final/three.htm

It also indicates that your numbers are strongly associated with the assumptions.

-- (craigcar@crosswind.net), January 20, 2000.

Patrick-

FWIW. Here's another list of fare ratios:

http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-97usfarepc.htm

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 20, 2000.

Craig I'm reading that stuff and just wanted to thank you for posting them. -Ed

-- Ed Newbold (newboldwildlife@netscape.net), January 22, 2000.