Transit Funding Talk

[NorthSideSox72]

OK Busterites, we've discussed this topic before, but now we have a specific policy question that I think is worth discussing.

 

Congress is battling over the newest transportation bill. The current version being bounced around does, among other things, something significant with the way non-road transportation funding is handled. Previously, money for rail, mass transit and anything transportation-related that is NOT road/bridge construction/maintenance, was funded as a percentage of the total tax of federal gas tax. There was always argument how much that % should be.

 

But now, they want to decouple that entirely. They want a roads bill, pure and simple, and a second, seperate piece of legislation (or possible an amendment) that grants funding to mass transit and rail stuff, and specifically removes those areas from the gas tax revenue stream.

 

The current bill sits around $450B for roads, and the seperate transit bill would be around $40B, as it stands.

 

So, here are questions to answer...

 

1. Do you feel that funding for rail (passenger and/or freight) infrastructure, and/or mass transit use, should remain part of the gax tax receivers?

 

2. Do you think the federal goverment should be funding mass transit at all? How about rail, of any kind of specific?

 

3. Do you think the percentages make sense or are fair?

 

For me, it always amazes me that people who want to cut or remove funding for rail and mass transit, and freight rail for that matter, sometimes use the argument of "why should we be subsidizing rail/buses?". Really? Who pays for your roads?

 

I am a proponent of strong funding for mass transit and rail infrastructure. It is almost always going to create efficiencies for individuals and businesses, it reduces pollution, it reduces traffic and road wear, reduces accidents, and reduces blood pressure. So I am in favor of a chunk of the gas tax revenue going to that purpose.

 

But, I will say that urban mass transit is a dicey issue because it is only used in any big way in a few dozen large metro areas. People in Wyoming would ask, why am I paying for this? So there is an argument to be made there, that it should be state-run.

 

So, a final follow-up question:

 

4. Would it be a better model to allocate transportation monies as a block grant to states, perhaps based on population levels and/or total road/rail miles, for them to use as they see fit?

 

Let's hear it...

 

[Texsox]

I need to ponder this a while longer, but my first reaction was to decouple it. I'm interested to see what I think after thinking about it some more.

[iamshack]

But then someone in Carbondale can say "why am I paying for for mass transit in Chicago"?

 

I don't see it as being a problem if it is Federally funded. If you don't like it, move to Canada.

 

The thing that strikes me as odd is the people who are not using the mass transit system are being forced to fund it the most, if it does indeed come out of the gas tax, while the people riding the mass transit the most are funding the infrastructure the least.

 

Either way, I do agree that mass transit is a good thing and something that needs to be maintained and actually improved and developed more thoroughly.

[Texsox]

I generally do prefer user taxes where possible, but mass transit just doesn't seem like a good area for any sort of user taxes. It could be argued that mass transit reduces pollution, lowers medical costs by reducing car accidents, and probably a few more things. Those are really hard to sell to the public with isn't benefitting from the service.

 

But the main issue seems to be do we treat mass transit the same as roads. One pot or two. I'm trying to see which way would protect mass transit monies. Once I figure that out, I will have a better idea which way I would like to see it.

[NorthSideSox72]

But then someone in Carbondale can say "why am I paying for for mass transit in Chicago"?

 

I don't see it as being a problem if it is Federally funded. If you don't like it, move to Canada.

 

The thing that strikes me as odd is the people who are not using the mass transit system are being forced to fund it the most, if it does indeed come out of the gas tax, while the people riding the mass transit the most are funding the infrastructure the least.

 

Either way, I do agree that mass transit is a good thing and something that needs to be maintained and actually improved and developed more thoroughly.

 

That isn't really the case. Because you see, very few if any places have "free" mass transit. You pay fares for train or bus travel. Whereas with roads, aside from a tiny fraction of a % that are toll roads, everyone rides for "free", which is to say using tax money for those roads. So really, it is the users of roads that are using more tax money and paying less for travel.

 

But in any case, that was why I brought up the block grant possibility. You build a formula of cents or dollars per mile of road (at different levels for interstate, state road, county road or municipal perhaps), and per mile of rail... And possibly build population numbers into the formula as well, as a rate per head... then fund each state accordingly.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Also, I think people (especially in urban areas) sometimes forget how much mass transit benefits them even if they don't use it. Think about this... if you took the 1.5 million people who use mass transit of some form in Chicago every day, ended all of that, and suddenly dumped them onto the roads... what do you think traffic would be like? Highways would be parking lots. No one would get anywhere. Parking prices would skyrocket. It would be an epic disaster.

 

[Balta1701]

It's also worth noting that the gas tax has not been increased since the early 90's and thus no longer is sufficient to fund highway maintenance and construction on its own, leading to inputs of highway funding from the general fund.

 

Edit: Oh, and of course, that is just highway funding...not to mention all the other dollars that go into upkeep of local/state level streets, or other laws such as mandated parking requirements which hurt the ability of developers to build other things, etc.

[southsider2k5]

That isn't really the case. Because you see, very few if any places have "free" mass transit. You pay fares for train or bus travel. Whereas with roads, aside from a tiny fraction of a % that are toll roads, everyone rides for "free", which is to say using tax money for those roads. So really, it is the users of roads that are using more tax money and paying less for travel.

 

But in any case, that was why I brought up the block grant possibility. You build a formula of cents or dollars per mile of road (at different levels for interstate, state road, county road or municipal perhaps), and per mile of rail... And possibly build population numbers into the formula as well, as a rate per head... then fund each state accordingly.

 

Unless you are operating a vehicle that doesn't take gasoline, you aren't riding for "free". Toll payers are just paying for the roads twice.

 

Mass Transit ride payments usually equal half or less of the funding necessary to fund and operate a particular line.

[NorthSideSox72]

Unless you are operating a vehicle that doesn't take gasoline, you aren't riding for "free". Toll payers are just paying for the roads twice.

 

Mass Transit ride payments usually equal half or less of the funding necessary to fund and operate a particular line.

Half or less is probably accurate for some, not for others.

 

Metra, for example, most years is able to fund its operations purely with their own revenue from fares, ads, etc. The last few very lean years they have been just a bit shy, but their operating budget is typically funded internally at 90-110%. Their taxpayer support is only on capital projects for the most part.

 

CTA on the other hand, doesn't even get to half, I think they are more like a third.

 

Amtrak, last I saw a number, was like 60%.

 

So it depends a lot on the agency in question.

 

No one truly does either for "free" of course.

 

[StrangeSox]

So what? They are public services, not for-profit corporations.

[southsider2k5]

Half or less is probably accurate for some, not for others.

 

Metra, for example, most years is able to fund its operations purely with their own revenue from fares, ads, etc. The last few very lean years they have been just a bit shy, but their operating budget is typically funded internally at 90-110%. Their taxpayer support is only on capital projects for the most part.

 

CTA on the other hand, doesn't even get to half, I think they are more like a third.

 

Amtrak, last I saw a number, was like 60%.

 

So it depends a lot on the agency in question.

 

No one truly does either for "free" of course.

 

Metra claims a recovery of 53% in their 2012 budget.

[NorthSideSox72]

Metra claims a recovery of 53% in their 2012 budget.

Right - complete budget. Operations are only a part of that, in fact capital projects are a big chunk.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

So what? They are public services, not for-profit corporations.

What are you saying "so what" to?

 

[StrangeSox]

What are you saying "so what" to?

The idea that mass transit isn't fully independently funded. It was a cross-post with your post.

 

Plenty of public services aren't self-funded and theres nothing inherently wrong with that.

[southsider2k5]

Right - complete budget. Operations are only a part of that, in fact capital projects are a big chunk.

 

Which is the issue. That isn't nearly all of their budget. It is like saying I am completely self-sustaining if I don't include half of my bills.

[NorthSideSox72]

The idea that mass transit isn't fully independently funded. It was a cross-post with your post.

 

Plenty of public services aren't self-funded and theres nothing inherently wrong with that.

OK, I see now. I sort of agree. I think it is reasonable to push transit agencies for efficiency, and being able to handle day-to-day operations with fares (and other internal revenue) is not a bad goal to have. But yeah, no one expects the roads to pay for themselves, or even for a tiny part of them. So the expectations on transit are, to me, sort of ridiculous at times.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Which is the issue. That isn't nearly all of their budget. It is like saying I am completely self-sustaining if I don't include half of my bills.

So you must really hate the fact that the roads only get a fraction of a percent paid for organically.

 

[southsider2k5]

So you must really hate the fact that the roads only get a fraction of a percent paid for organically.

 

Organically? Are you claiming the gas tax isn't set up to be paying for roads?

[NorthSideSox72]

Organically? Are you claiming the gas tax isn't set up to be paying for roads?

The gas tax has been 30 years of purposed for TRANSPORTATION, which has included transit all along, potentially until now. If we are counting that for both, then they both cover just fine. If you take the tax money out of it, transit (as you stated) brings in some significant portion of the revenue on their own, while the roads do not.

 

[StrangeSox]

Fire departments aren't self-sustaining; abolish them.

 

Gas taxes do not adequately fund roads.

[NorthSideSox72]

Fire departments aren't self-sustaining; abolish them.

 

Gas taxes do not adequately fund roads.

The silly examples don't help the discussion. FD's are not federally funded, in fact aren't usually even state funded. They are almost entirely funded locally.

 

[StrangeSox]

OK, I see now. I sort of agree. I think it is reasonable to push transit agencies for efficiency, and being able to handle day-to-day operations with fares (and other internal revenue) is not a bad goal to have. But yeah, no one expects the roads to pay for themselves, or even for a tiny part of them. So the expectations on transit are, to me, sort of ridiculous at times.

I don't oppose nominal fares, but attacking a public service for not being revenue neutral begs the question by assuming that such a service should be revenue neutral. That isn't something I would concede, so if someone rails on Amtrak because it isn't self-funding, I'll shrug my shoulders.

 

On the topic in general I think both what you and shack have said is good.

[StrangeSox]

The silly examples don't help the discussion. FD's are not federally funded, in fact aren't usually even state funded. They are almost entirely funded locally.

I don't think the fed/state divide is important for the more philosophical issue of whether government, at any level, should fund mass transit with tax revenues.

 

That said, you can pick any number of federal programs such as usps, nasa, dod.

[southsider2k5]

The gas tax has been 30 years of purposed for TRANSPORTATION, which has included transit all along, potentially until now. If we are counting that for both, then they both cover just fine. If you take the tax money out of it, transit (as you stated) brings in some significant portion of the revenue on their own, while the roads do not.

 

People driving, and paying gasoline taxes to do it, is supposed to be paying for roads. Without violating even more rights than the government already does, there isn't a simpler way to do it. Its not like you can put a toll booth on the end of every driveway. If we could keep track of mileage and tax usage that way as to pay for road usage without the government tracking people's personal movements that would be ideal. Then again, I am sure the money for roads would just be cannibalized like it ended up being now.

[Jenksismyhero]

Not sure what I think of the tax, but I would absolutely abolish the department of transportation and most of the "chicago traffic authority." Create a small office for full, state-wide and state-to-state transit (i'd even possibly accept regional boards to coordinate services), but privatize the rest -- road building, repair, maintenance, etc. Think of the hundreds of millions we'd save.

 

Also, I could be wrong, but isn't Illinois one of the states where the "gas tax" can be used for other things besides transit? Maybe I'm wrong and thinking of something different.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Jenksismybitch