gbear Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 The hard part with tolls is asking those who won't use a service to be the sole source funds of the expansion of the service. I would prefer a sales tax. At least then the users pay for some of the expansion. It's not that those who don't use Metro shouldn't pay anything for it because they do benefit from less crowded roads. It is just that they should not bear 100% of the tax. To make matter worse, the tolls slow them down and create added burden in terms of maintaining things like EZ-Pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Toll roads shouldn't exist. I'd never support one for any reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Why does it have to be profitable? Why are public works projects held to that standard and deemed a success or failure based on profitability? What is the measure of tolerable unprofitability? I would say that it lies on the cusp of efficiency. Metro isn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Full disclosure, I've been a transportation planner for almost 17 years now and I'll say this, as long as the majority of road funds come from gas taxes, the need for toll roads will exist. That's for several reasons. Joe Citizen too often won't approve sales tax increases to cover rail and bus projects. Heck, getting them to cover road infrastructure projects is hard enough. Selling them on a train..ha. Additionally, as mpg goes up (along with the emphasis on complete streets and high density housing), people are buying less gas and thus less taxes are collected. While maintenance is the priority of most state DOTs now, and despite the less funding (and theoretically less costs due to less projects being built from scratch), there is not enough to cover maintenance of the existing highways and build transit oriented projects. Btw, expecting a good (or positive) fare box recovery ratio on transit projects is uneasonable. Unless you have a closed system (turnstiles or dedicated area that requires paid fare to enter) and a moderately high demand for ridership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 At this point I hate metro and have lost all confidence in their ability to operate as should reasonably be expected, including in terms of safety, on a day to day basis. Long term projects, maintenance, and expansion? Hah, like I said, they can't operate on a day to day basis in any reasonable capacity. So hell no, I won't support any increased cost to me that goes to that pathetic disaster of a public transit system. If other people want to foot the bill because it's important to them, directly impacts them, or they think it can be saved that's fine. I wont approve any payment on my end though. I have to drive into DC and park now because I refuse to take my family on that deathtrap. If you have anyone with a disability you're completely screwed because it feels like every elevator and escalator is out of service. Screw that system and the people that were supposed to run it for the last 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 One other point (and not disputing how rapid transit is too often rancid transit) that I didn't make..you think Beltway traffic is bad now? Try adding another 100,000* cars to the system. *That's probably low. There are over 700,000 trips daily on Metro, making it the 2nd busiest rapid ransit system in the US (according to Wikipedia). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I'm fine with it, though I'm more fine with it because I live within the metro area and use it to get to work, whereas I'm rarely on toll roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Why does it have to be profitable? Why are public works projects held to that standard and deemed a success or failure based on profitability? IMO, any "profit" should be reinvested into the work either through current implementation improvements or through future plan improvements. Really it's about sustainability though. It should make enough money to sustain its current rate of ridership. The government shouldn't play a huge role in funding the Metro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 IMO, any "profit" should be reinvested into the work either through current implementation improvements or through future plan improvements. Really it's about sustainability though. It should make enough money to sustain its current rate of ridership. The government shouldn't play a huge role in funding the Metro. What about opportunity costs of, say, 5 billion tons of carbon saved by mass transit? I think we need to be careful how we define profitability within mass transit. The Republicans spent $1 trillion in Iraq and are now ****ing about the profitability of the metro apparently And for those that think the metro is not maintained well, I take it you're not an airline flyer. Planes are filthy, cramped, old, and in poor condition. And airlines are notoriously unprofitable without government subsidies and bailouts Mass transit is a public service and If we start looking at all "public services" through the lens of profitability then fine. Let's start with the military and then look at all of you tit-sucking DC area parasites. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I have the solution: bullet trains.bullet trains would lower unemployment, but that will never happen. Noise pollution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I have the option of either driving or metroing to work, I usually drive b/c it takes me 30 less minutes each way, and because well, the Metro is unreliable and occasionally kills people. Call me an optimist, but I think the Metro system could be transformed into one of the best transportation systems in the country, unfortunately it has been perhaps the single worst managed organization in the country for such a long period (other candidates being the NCAA and Enron, but Metro is right there). Metro's main issue is that there are too many stakeholders that want different things, and no dedicated source of funding. Metro should have any shortfalls from ridership (including ****ing upkeep) funded equally by 4 entities, DC, Virginia, Maryland and the federal government. There should not be "profit" since ridership makes up roughly 1/2 of its needed budget. Unfortunately, NoVa sends its tax dollars to Richmond never to be seen again and DC was an economic black hole for much of the past 30 years. The fact that state delegates in Richmond have a say over this thing is ridiculous, but its the way it is. All that being said, if Metro gets 30 years of maintenance done in short order (which looks to be the plan), Metro can be great. When it works like it's supposed to, its a good system. The newest cars are very nice and its been around long enough that the city is designed with the Metro in mind, which makes everything you need to get to pretty convenient. The problems stem from 1) **** breaks too often, and single tracking or closed lines make the whole thing crumble; and 2) the line-level workers are nasty folks. I really applaud the new GM for doing what is necessary to fix both of these things, even though the many stakeholders are still being assholes about it. What about opportunity costs of, say, 5 billion tons of carbon saved by mass transit? Or the opportunity cost of 1 million cars not being on the inadequate roads every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I just looked it up. Metro is showing about a 62% farebox recovery ratio. To put that in perspective, there are only 3 other major lines in the US with a higher ratio. Amtrak BART PATCO (Philly/Jersey). That's not bad and from the can of "it could be worse", imagine Metro having to find funding for another 10-20% to operate. That's where most US major transit systems are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I just looked it up. Metro is showing about a 62% farebox recovery ratio. To put that in perspective, there are only 3 other major lines in the US with a higher ratio. Amtrak BART PATCO (Philly/Jersey). That's not bad and from the can of "it could be worse", imagine Metro having to find funding for another 10-20% to operate. That's where most US major transit systems are. Where did you find that? I am seeing % in the low 50s. Edit: In any event, that is also a percentage based on a operating budget that DOES NOT INCLUDE MAINTENANCE. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 PB, it was from wikipedia. Edit..it's also 2010 data, so it could easily have slipped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 ...... and then look at all of you tit-sucking DC area parasites. LOL that sounds much better than the reality..... i need my personal gubbermint tit to be better packaged than its currently incarnation... i want a literal money tit; or, ideally, a pair of 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Out here in Seattle we just adore our new fast toll lanes! WOOOO!!!!!!! I can't wait to buy the even-faster-deluxe fastrack device which gives free access to all fast toll lanes if I'm driving with 10 special-needs children and an endangered animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 And for those that think the metro is not maintained well, I take it you're not an airline flyer. I hate planes and I hate flying. Unfortunately sometimes I have to fly instead of drive. The only reason to take metro is convenience and when death is a regular issue it becomes more convenient to drive. edit: I should also say that when not being able to get to where you're trying to be, on time (when factoring in leaving earlier enough) is also an issue, driving becomes more convenient. Or if you have someone with a disability/handicap... it's a crap shoot which escalators and elevators will work in metro. The system is unreliable and unsafe. The people managing it should be charged for putting the people forced to take metro in danger on a daily basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I hate planes and I hate flying. Unfortunately sometimes I have to fly instead of drive. The only reason to take metro is convenience and when death is a regular issue it becomes more convenient to drive. edit: I should also say that when not being able to get to where you're trying to be, on time (when factoring in leaving earlier enough) is also an issue, driving becomes more convenient. Or if you have someone with a disability/handicap... it's a crap shoot which escalators and elevators will work in metro. The system is unreliable and unsafe. The people managing it should be charged for putting the people forced to take metro in danger on a daily basis. except...of course.. you are 15-times more likely (per mile traveled) to die driving versus passenger rail ..... http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/pdfs/20110610_deathrates11.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 except...of course.. you are 15-times more likely (per mile traveled) to die driving versus passenger rail ..... http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/pdfs/20110610_deathrates11.pdf Wait, you're comparing the average driver to the average rail passenger? No, no, no, no. Let's compare me (or you) to the likelihood DC Metro ****s up. I watch the news. They're in it damn near every day. If it's not the poorly maintained rail system that kills you, it might be the people that use it. I don't really have problems driving. Especially now that I drive slower since I have my kid in the car... If you want to live your life by the averages, have at it. I see the flaws in it, and don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Sheep lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Most light rail doesn't do this that I am aware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 So, yet another reason to hate toll lanes. I drove on th Dulles Greenway on Sunday. Used my EZ Pass. So this morning, I get an email on behalf of EZ Pass advertising the Dulles Greenway Festival. What the ACTUAL ****? Advertisements for driving on a ****ing road! **** this ****. Absolute bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 So, yet another reason to hate toll lanes. I drove on th Dulles Greenway on Sunday. Used my EZ Pass. So this morning, I get an email on behalf of EZ Pass advertising the Dulles Greenway Festival. What the ACTUAL ****? Advertisements for driving on a ****ing road! **** this ****. Absolute bull****. I got that same advertisement! I actually have no problem with toll roads at all, the higher the better so long as there is reliable/safe metro access. I'd rather have people taking public transportation then clogging up roads. The current system is a debacle in the DC region so I don't blame anyone NOT wanting to further bleed their wallet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 So i guess raising fare rates isn't an option for this? Expansion should be funded with bonds, maintenance and upkeep with an adjustment to fare rates. I guess its not that easy or it would already be this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 So i guess raising fare rates isn't an option for this? Expansion should be funded with bonds, maintenance and upkeep with an adjustment to fare rates. I guess its not that easy or it would already be this way. I don't think fares can ever pay for Metro themselves. Fares have already risen like 50% in the past 6 years. As fares rise, ridership falls, and i don't think there is a point that Metro can pay for itself through fares because of that fall in ridership. I think everyone needs to take a more holistic view of DC-area transportation. The various governments should want a safe and relatively cost-effective (for the riders) Metro, because it keeps so many people off of the roads, which has a ton of advantages (less traffic, less pollution, less upkeep on the roads, less roads needing to be built, less police needed, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.