Passenger Trains > Insanity or What?

Can we believe that MARC actually publicly gave as a reason for eliminating 10X passes and at least one train a day from WUS that auto travel is down and thus collections of gasoline taxes are reduced so they have to cut train service as a result?

Where did I ever get the silly idea that rail service was SUPPOSED to reduce automobile use?

Gosh....we just need to start driving more so the politicians can run our trains.

Bill

What are you talking about?

I don't know the background on this either, but if motor-fuel taxes are a significant revenue source for MARC, then it does stand to reason that reduced motor-fuel tax collections resulting from reduced fuel consumption would hurt their budget.

I interpret this to mean that since gasoline consumption is down, so is State revenue generated by gas taxes. Thus, since State budgets are hurt by this, they have less money to spend on rail support. So, in an ironic sort of way, more driving results in more trains, while less driving cuts State money available for trains, so cuts in rail service result.

toledopatch Wrote:
--------------- it does stand to reason that
> reduced motor-fuel tax collections resulting from
> reduced fuel consumption would hurt their budget.

"Reason" is the whole point. If you knew how to reason you wouldn't finance a device to change human behavior with another that encourages sustaining the behavior you're trying to change - Would you?

Bill

Chicagoboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> toledopatch Wrote:
> --------------- it does stand to reason that
> > reduced motor-fuel tax collections resulting
> from
> > reduced fuel consumption would hurt their
> budget.
>
> "Reason" is the whole point. If you knew how to
> reason you wouldn't finance a device to change
> human behavior with another that encourages
> sustaining the behavior you're trying to change -
> Would you?

If you have a better way to fund public transportation in Maryland, I suggest you contact your state legislator.

So is the reduction in gas tax revenue going to shelve any highway projects, whether they be new construction, or maintenance ?

toledopatch Wrote:

>
> If you have a better way to fund public
> transportation in Maryland, I suggest you contact
> your state legislator.

If you can't think of one, I suggest you contact your psychiatrist.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So is the reduction in gas tax revenue going to
> shelve any highway projects, whether they be new
> construction, or maintenance ?

Yes. See your local paper for details.

I could see Congress wanting to actively discourage mass transit ridership so that more people will need to buy cars, in order to boost the economy and the ailing auto industry.

It's a win-win for everyone.....fewer tax dollars need to be spent on rail and transit, and the economy gets a needed boost.

mstokinger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> toledopatch Wrote:
>
> >
> > If you have a better way to fund public
> > transportation in Maryland, I suggest you
> contact
> > your state legislator.
>
> If you can't think of one, I suggest you contact
> your psychiatrist.

How Maryland funds its transportation programs is none of my business.

My opinion is that the situation described is rational, whereas the OP'er described it as "insane". It is not necessarily optimal.

In any case, some on this list seem to think that money for government programs either (a) grows on trees or (b) should only be used for programs they like. GROW UP.

At least the road-use and fuel taxes on the right side of the country are being used as they were intended. Over here in the Peoples Republic of California, the state legislature customarily hijacks those supposedly earmarked funds and spends them on stuff totally unrelated. Just take a ride on any of our interstate or other major, heavily-traveled highways and you'll see what I mean.

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mstokinger Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > toledopatch Wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If you have a better way to fund public
> > > transportation in Maryland, I suggest you
> > contact
> > > your state legislator.
> >
> > If you can't think of one, I suggest you
> contact
> > your psychiatrist.
>
> How Maryland funds its transportation programs is
> none of my business.
>
> My opinion is that the situation described is
> rational, whereas the OP'er described it as
> "insane". It is not necessarily optimal.
>
> In any case, some on this list seem to think that
> money for government programs either (a) grows on
> trees or (b) should only be used for programs they
> like. GROW UP.

David, the issue in Maryland is that Gov. Martin O'Malley has been demagoguing on a promise of no "fee" increases (not taxes, but individual user prices for government services rendered). This means he has refused to call for MARC fare increases and has directed the MTA to only consider service cuts. However, according to MARC staff, the vast majority of public comments have said, "Please increase our fares!" MARC fares are among the lowest per-mile in the nation and have not increased in several years. The MARC Riders Advisory Council sent this letter to Gov. O'Malley pleading for fares to be indexed to inflation and to move to a modern, proof-of-payment fare system. The letter also decries the "painful sting of irony" of the current funding system that incentivizes driving.

In my capacity at NARP, I went to a MARC RAC meeting regarding the service proposal. It was sad and frustrating to see the MARC staff fairly powerless to consider RAC members' concerns. All the riders wanted to talk about were fare increases, but all the staff had on the table "at this time" were service cuts. Hopefully the Governor will consider what's best for the traveling public and not his bizarre pseudo-anti-tax stance, which really has nothing to do with taxes when the question is user fees, a most libertarian concept.

pacificparlour Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> David, the issue in Maryland is that Gov. Martin
> O'Malley has been demagoguing on a promise of no
> "fee" increases (not taxes, but individual user
> prices for government services rendered). This
> means he has refused to call for MARC fare
> increases and has directed the MTA to only
> consider service cuts. However, according to MARC
> staff, the vast majority of public comments have
> said, "Please increase our fares!" MARC fares are
> among the lowest per-mile in the nation and have
> not increased in several years. The MARC Riders
> Advisory Council sent this letter to Gov. O'Malley
> pleading for fares to be indexed to inflation and
> to move to a modern, proof-of-payment fare system.
> The letter also decries the "painful sting of
> irony" of the current funding system that
> incentivizes driving.
>
> In my capacity at NARP, I went to a MARC RAC
> meeting regarding the service proposal. It was
> sad and frustrating to see the MARC staff fairly
> powerless to consider RAC members' concerns. All
> the riders wanted to talk about were fare
> increases, but all the staff had on the table "at
> this time" were service cuts. Hopefully the
> Governor will consider what's best for the
> traveling public and not his bizarre
> pseudo-anti-tax stance, which really has nothing
> to do with taxes when the question is user fees, a
> most libertarian concept.


Thanks for putting it all in context.

You will see major transit, rail and bus service reduced, account lack of income from taxes to pay for the service.

The fare box comes now where near paying the cost. In General Rail return is better then bus.

Most are in the 10-30 percent return of cost. A few are higher.

mundo Wrote:
> The fare box comes now where near paying the cost.
> In General Rail return is better then bus.

On what basis do you make that claim? On some rail transit lines the percentage of operating expenses covered by fares is higher than for buses in the same transit system. On other transit systems, bus riders pay a greater perentage of operating expenses than rail users.

Whether transit systems use gasoline taxes or sales taxes, many (most?) are having a tough time due to current economic conditions. Even New York MTA is proposing major service cuts including closing two rail lines.

I haven't read all the responses so this may already be up there somewhere, but the Mass Transit Account, which partially funds many rail transit projects (but not Amtrak, at least not directly), gets 2.86 cents of the federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents/gallon.

The fewer gallons, the fewer dollars.

lowwater