By: John Keitel
UPDATE: MAYOR DALEY RANTS THE CITY COUNCIL FOR MORE MONEY FOR THE CITIES MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM. VIDEO POSTED BELOW! Not even the liberals want to pay more for failed plans.
The Denver mass transit system has increased ridership 10% in the last year. This places ridership at capacity but is not able to sustain itself. The system still relies on city sales tax dollars in order to operate. The mass transit authorities are saying there will be an at least $18 Million short fall this year. This is after raising fares from $1.50 to $1.75.
If any mass transit system is not able to sustain itself while having near capacity ridership it is not a good deal for the riders or tax payers. There is certainly no reason that it should take nearly $20 Million extra tax dollars each year to operate.
This means that the riders are actually paying more for their ride in city taxes. Also citizens that do not ride the system pay for it in their taxes. It cost enough for me to get around and I sure do not want to pay for someone else to get around.
Governor Ritter just announced $10 Million a year to be spread across the State to help with green initiatives. This would barely cover half of the mass transits short fall. The only green I see is the green lining the unions pockets.
Filed under: Colorado, Global Warming, media bias | Tagged: bill, Colorado, denver, global, governor, green, mass, ritter, tax, taxes, taxpayer, transit, warming
So what? The taxes are the price we pay for conservation. And if you read the TTI report you will see that transit does help in that arena.
Also if the day the driver truely pays the costs of all damages is the day he/she contributes to the hospital bills of people with asthma and bronchitis. Mass transit doesn’t have to support itself. The fact is that most systems were approved by voters. Majority rule.
I would support something Krauthammer wrote. Many are advocating higher taxes on consumption and less on income. I would be for higher motor fuel taxes as well as a system where you can earn fuel tax breaks based on the number of trips you take on transit. You could have a transit card and a central information computer.
Our national infrastructure sucks and is crumbling. There is a growing demand for alternatives to driving and voters are approving these new systems in many cities. That’s fair that they get to decide on it.
We need to keep an open mind on the issue of energy and transportation.
How much more should we pay in fuel taxes? The Governments tax revenue from fuel already accounts for almost three times the profits of all of the oil companies yearly profits.
And the Democrats want to tax the oil companies “windfall profits.” What would you call the amount of profits the Government makes?
Krauthammer is not for higher taxes on fuel!
Your liberal mass transit systems are barley usable in the cities around America. The cities are a very small percentage of where people live. Most commute to cites for work from places without these transit systems. Even if they tried to build them, and they have, they are BLOCKED by Liberals.
And since the transit systems even at full capacity cannot support themselves and require tax payers that don’t even use them to pay more, YOU say let them pay more taxes out in the form of “fuel tax breaks”. TAXES ON TOP OF TAXES is your answer.
You obviously have not been on the road outside of this country or you would know what crumbling infrastructure is.
The only open minds are on the conservative side of this issue. The Liberal/Democrat/enviromarxists are the one that have blocked alternative energy and every turn!!!! Not a single refinery or nuclear power plant has been built in 30 years because they have tied them up in the courts!!!
Why can’t California build the solar power plant in the Mojave Desert? Liberals demand it them block it and them blame it on the Republicans.
If mass transit was a liberal issue then it would have no support in Utah.
Dallas, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, just to name a few places are where the voters had a say in the issue.
What I am advocating is punishing pollution and rewarding conservation for the sake of the air we breathe. A lot of people including Neal Boortz and John Linder have advocated more taxes on consumption and less on income, well here you have it.
And if you don’t believe me about Krauthammer then read it for yourself.
http://www.ajc.com/printedition/content/printedition/2008/06/06/krauthammered.html
I would also like to see where you got that figure on the government raking in revenue three times the oil companies annual profits combined.
Barely usable? Then why are they growing in ridership? The TTI report confirms that they save us in wasted fuel and wasted time by 13%. That number is without a doubt higher than 13% in cities like Chicago and New York.
If you want to attack something just because it is subsidized then maybe you should take aim at our public university systems which have educated millions of people.
Calling me a liberal? I find it very rude for you to jump to conclusions. You do NOT know me. But here is a little about me.
I am a 2nd amendment supporter. Banning guns won’t keep them off the black market. But I also support the ban on automatic weapons because they are extremely dangerous and not necessary for self defense. I support any law that says that you cannot fire a gun in the city unless in self defense.
On abortion I consider it to be a sperm cell and an egg cell until it has a heartbeat which begins at around 18 days.
On crime I am for tougher penalties and I support the death penalty but also believe that it should be fast and painless. If we inflict suffering then we are just sinking to their level.
On education I am all for charter schools and school vouchers.
On immigration I am all for tighter border security as well as removing the safety net we have been giving the Mexican Government.
I see terrorism as more of a military than an FBI issue.
So as I said. Don’t judge who you don’t know please.
Your right he did say this and has for awhile.
“Want to wean us off oil? Be honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes.”
I like Krauthammer, but he is wrong headed on this. If you take a tax here and give it back there then it is called a wash! That is if the Government would give it back, they prefer to tell us how it should be spent.
Oil companies make about 8.5c/gallon profit. The Federal Government makes 18c, then the state, cities, and counties get their cut adding at least 6c/gallon. Just look at your receipts.
Mass transit is the liberal idea to fix transportation problems that has not helped. And yes they should support themselves otherwise why bother with the books.
Barely usable by those in the city that have to get across town in these than 2 hours or by those out side the city where it is not provided where a lot of city workers come from.
USA has the most liberal abortion laws in the world. In Ireland its against the law and why they voted to stay out of the EU. Even the British do not allow abortions after 11 weeks or there about.
The Death penalty does not have to be painless, decided just recently.
I agree on education, immigration, and terrorism.
Conservative can have liberal views as well, ask John McCain.
Does that mean you also want the public university system to support itself?
If you don’t think it helps, read the Texas Transportation Institutes’s Urban Mobility Report of 2007.
I think the universities are sitting on huge endowment funds that they do not offer to students. Harvard has more than $1 BILLION. So, why is it every time pell grants are raised the price raises also.
The mobility benefits for puplic transportation section is just as flawed as the TTI’s 2005 report that had to be recalculated.
http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/report/
In the table it gives an 85 area total and the total percent of base delay as 14.2%. Wrong calculation the average is 8.2%
This agency cannot gather meaningful data or report true outcomes.
How do you know that the average is 8.2%?
There are 4 totals in the Percent of Base Delay; 18.1,7.4,4.4, and 2.9 the total they have is 14.2.
That is not the total or the average. The average is 8.2. A total of the 4 percentages would be a meaningless calculation.
But then again the TTI admits that its number up through 2005 are flawed. So why should these be trusted?
Where do they admit this?
“All of the statistics have been recalculated with the new method to provide a consistent picture of the congestion challenge. As with previous methodology improvements, readers, writers and analysts are cautioned against using congestion data from the 2005 Report.”
Source; http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/
Well this is not the 2005 report this is the 2007 report.
If the 2005 report was flawed but not corrected until now, in 2009 will they revise the 2007 report to fit their needs? Is the 2005 report really correct now?
Trust is earned and only time will flush out their numbers.
Are you saying that you only see what you want to see?
I do know this, out of all the studies I have seen with the 10 worst commutes in the US, New York City is not in the top 10, and they are the nation’s largest city.
Just responding to the number you throw out as trustworthy.
And that any mass transit system should be able to stand on its own merits and not the taxpayers dollars.
You could say the same thing about the public university system or the public roads system but I sure don’t hear you saying it.
OK, the University system spews out an ongoing anti-American socialist agenda with Federal and State assistance. While they carry mulit-hundreds of millions in their endowment funds.
The have professors that don’t know the first thing about translating knowledge into real world use.
The States have no excuses when the Federal system matches $4 to every $1 spent on the roads and bridges.