HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3721  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2012, 7:08 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Why should tolls be flat rate? That sort of runs counter to common sense and the laws of economics.

And why should we use people to collect tolls?

Very odd position...sort of a regressive populist flat tax mentality? Sounds very Ron Paul-ish. In other words, in makes the least sense possible on every count.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3722  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2012, 8:51 PM
bobg bobg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Why should tolls be flat rate? That sort of runs counter to common sense and the laws of economics.

And why should we use people to collect tolls?

Very odd position...sort of a regressive populist flat tax mentality? Sounds very Ron Paul-ish. In other words, in makes the least sense possible on every count.
Okay I know libertarianism runs counter to most people on this forums world view(particularly since almost all libertarians do not believe in urban planning), but they tend to favor variable rate congestion tolling. Some of them would even like to see variable tolling replace other taxes/fees so that people will begin to see the true cost of driving at the point of that decision being made. They also tend to agree that the elimination of parking minimums should lead to people making much more rational decisions on driving in urban areas. In those fights you would actually find libertarians and a lot of fiscal conservatives as allies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3723  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2012, 10:30 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Libertarians yes. Ron Paul supporters no. They are opposed to whatever the mainstream/government wants to do, whatever political philosophy that opposite may happen to align with at that given moment. They are like the 12-year old brat kid who opposes whatever mom and dad say, even if mom and dad are arguing in favor of gravity.

For the record, I was sort of joking. Congestion/variable pricing is a bipartisan thing, I think. Otherwise you end up with clogged and/or overpriced HOV lanes, which just makes no sense.

As for manning toll booths... well, it's a shame the Olympic uniforms are made in China too. But alas, that's progress.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3724  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 1:18 AM
Zmapper Zmapper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 210
Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters tend to favor road pricing, at least more than mainstream Republicans and Democrats.

It does a great deal of damage to the transit and livable communities to keep chanting about how Democrats and Obama are amazing and how Republicans and Mitt Romney/Paul/Santorm are pond scum. Not only is this patently false, as there are plenty of Republican supporters of transit (see Salt Lake), but plenty of Democrats oppose transit and streets projects (see New York).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3725  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 1:51 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Whoa whoa, I never said Romney or Santorum are pond scum. Who did? Now Ron Paul... I hear that we're close to being able to produce energy from both algae and hot air, so maybe. We'll see if Ron Paul gets a speaking slot at the convention. I'm guessing not. Nobody thinks he is pond scum more than Romney.

More to the point. You have no idea what you are talking about re: Republicans and transit. Individuals, sure, there are individuals of both parties supporting just about any conceivable policy. But there is no escaping the fact that the Republicans in Congress attempted just last week to completely defund transit nationally. Now you can have whatever opinion you want, but you cannot escape that fact.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3726  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 2:12 AM
Zmapper Zmapper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 210
I wasn't directly referring to you, I was referring to the common vibe I have noticed. Please don't take it personally.

Republicans did not vote to de-fund transit completely, they voted to eliminate federally funded transit. Big, big, big difference there.

Canada does not have much in the way for public transit funding at the national level; it is considered a province/state and city issue. Remind me, which country has an 11% transit mode share, and which country has a 2% mode share?

Last edited by Zmapper; Jul 16, 2012 at 2:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3727  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 2:51 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zmapper View Post
Republicans did not vote to de-fund transit completely, they voted to eliminate federally funded transit. Big, big, big difference there.
If you want to eliminate federal transportation funding entirely, reduce taxes accordingly, and push it back on the states to fund themselves, fine, that's a discussion I think would be worth having. (Especially since I happen to live in a relatively wealthy and low-tax state - we'd be fine. Whether that would be best for America overall might be a different question.)

But what the House did was maintain the existing federal funding scheme, but try to remove transit from it entirely. Which would have had the very real effect of diverting that money to highways, not back to states. You do not get to hide behind a bogus states rights argument - that is a blatant lie. It was a move at the federal level to take federal dollars and shift them to a different set of federal priorities. In this case, to defund transit and shift it to highways, period, end of story. To characterize it as anything else is a lie. Again, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you don't get to massage the facts.

I would like to have the real states' rights argument though - why do we rely on federal grants at all? Of course, Colorado is a state that sends more to Washington than we get back, so we're generally comfortable having that argument. If you actually have any care for America at all, though (you know, America the country, not the slogan), you don't play those Germany-versus-Greece cards here. That's not what we're about.

Those of us in the real world work with the system we have, not the one we wish we had. Axe the federal tax and shift it to the state level - in Colorado, we'd probably benefit from that. But that's not what the House proposed now, is it? I'm happy to change the system, or at least discuss it. But I am not going to misrepresent it in order to push an agenda. Maybe some people are dumb enough to buy that crap, but you won't find many of us on here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3728  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 3:38 AM
Zmapper Zmapper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 210
The project I am most familiar with, and which prompted me to look at the Federal funding situation in greater detail, is my cities $90 million Mason Corridor project. ( If you are reading this from outside Colorado, the Mason Corridor, or MAX, is a busway to be built one block west of the main street of Fort Collins. )

Sure, it all sounds fine and dandy that we are getting a BRT system, but here is the real kicker; Transfort has pretty much forgotten about the other routes! We are building a $90 million busway while all of the routes of our 34 bus agency shut down at 7 pm, and exactly zero operate on Sunday. Most routes are hourly, and the system doesn't service new developments very well. In short, we have a transit agency and city that prioritizes fancy fluff over basic and useful improvements.

How much additional bus service could you buy with the $90 million? If we had a decentralized funding situation, about 20 or so new buses. But because we have Congressman from Alabama and New York determining what our needs are for the bus system, we can purchase and operate exactly zero additional buses.

Likewise, our federal funding situation has brought us boondoggles like I-25 in Wyoming, where barely 5000 vehicles daily travel it. A two lane road would have been enough, but because Wyoming gets reimbursed 90% by the Federal government (with our tax money, by the way), it tips the scale in favor of waste.

The federal gas tax has changed from a weakly defensible "Money for the Interstate System, and that only" to an indefensible "Money for anything which uses asphalt". A while back the USDOT was trumpeting the fact that gas tax money was being used to rebuild sidewalks in Kansas City. Don't get me wrong, I am fully in favor of rebuilding sidewalks, but the fact that you have to go to Congress to rebuild a 4' wide Sidewalk shows a sickening circus seal/welfare attitude amongst Transportation Departments.

Federal funding tends to increase project scope and costs. Suppose that you are capable of spending $200,000 on a house. If someone promised to pay 80% of the costs of your new house, wouldn't you be tempted to try to buy more house than you would otherwise buy? For you, it changes the cost from $40,000 to $50,000, but the other person now has to pay $40,000 more than they would have originally spent.

You see this where a light rail project becomes a light rail/bike lanes/repaving/fancy streetlights/modernize the utilities project, of which most will be funded by the Federal Government. Sure, you could rip up just 20' in the center and slap down two tracks, but when you get "free money" the motivation to increase the scope deepens.

With that said, Fort Collins does need to contribute more to transit, even though the Federal Government still meddles in local transportation issues. Transit in Fort Collins is very underfunded, and my hat is off to the people at Transfort trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Because a branch of the discussion about Ron Paul is the reason this conversation happened, I thought that his unedited views should be made clear. His prediction of what America would look like with no federal funding would be that we would have "Less fancy highways and more mass transit."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3Tu8L7fV9g
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3729  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 5:10 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
You can't blame the federal government for Fort Collins' lack of good busing. The money for the Mason corridor came from the federal New Starts program, which is a relatively small amount of money ($1.9 billion per year out of $54 billion in annual transportation spending) that is set aside specifically to help cities build new rapid transit lines. That money is not forced on anybody. Cities that want to use it have to apply for it. The feds did not storm into Fort Collins and tell them to build a BRT line. Fort Collins decided to build a BRT line on its own and then asked the feds to help.

It is not Washington's fault that Fort Collins decided to prioritize a rapid transit line over its regular bus routes. Boulder manages to have a better local bus system than Fort Collins despite not getting any federal New Starts money for it all.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3730  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 5:14 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
I don't particularly think a BRT lane has to be exclusive to work. I think HOT would work just fine -if it's getting too crowded, you simply adjust the pricing.
In principle I agree, however it really depends on whether you're managing your HOT lanes for maximum speed or for maximum profit.

If you managing them to maximize profit, then you're going to adjust your tolls to get a speed that's just marginally faster than the main lanes. You might accept enough cars to slow the HOT lanes down to 30 or 40 mph, if the main lanes are stop-and-go. In that scenario, the HOT lanes are definitely screwing transit.

On the other hand, if you're really dedicated to keeping the HOT lanes moving at 65-70 mph, then transit isn't losing anything.

I don't know what it's like in Denver, but out here (where our HOT lanes are managed by a private company that's primarily concerned with profit), they are definitely inferior to true bus lanes.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3731  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 7:42 PM
Zmapper Zmapper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 210
Cirrus, I though the same once. But then I realized that federal money is our money!

Do note, I am not blaming the feds directly for the project, I am blaming them for why the city was inclined to build a BRT system and let the local bus routes go to crap. Fort Collins can get "free money" (our money) to go build BRT; they do not have access to the same funds to improve the local bus system.

I don't want Fort Collins to be a repeat of San Jose, where they built a "toonerville trolley" with "free money", then only to cut bus service by 35% percent. When you don't have much service to start with, it gets to be a rather challenging issue.

The best hope would be to be like Boulder or Ames and increase local funding for local bus routes, albeit you would have a harder time due to the fact that the money that is supposed to be going to our bus routes is instead going to build yet another subway for New York or yet another 20 lane highway for Houston.

How long until some outsider makes a comment that "Fort Collins has better transit than Boulder because we have a BRT system while they only have buses?" Obviously such a statement is false, but I wouldn't be surprised, based on how the FTA values capital projects more than local transit projects.

Part of the problem is our own corrupt government. Despite being voted down TWICE, the city has insisted on ramming the Mason Corridor down our throats. Transfort has wrecked the local bus service so they can come "save the day" with the Mason Corridor, even though they are the problem to begin with. The 6 is a reliable 20 minutes behind schedule, and the 1 takes 10 more minutes to complete the loop because they relocated the Mall transfer center 1/2 mile east.

The GM of Transfort left last year to go pursue a career in her "lifelong passion", real estate. She has used Transfort and the TIF process in order to drive development to the Mason Corridor. Now I am all for redeveloping the Mason Corridor (though I don't care for the TIF part), but the conflict of interest is too obvious to overlook.

My predictions are simple: Transfort will claim that the Mason Corridor is a massive success due to an increase in ridership, even though ridership has been steadily increasing without the Mason Corridor. The head people at Transfort will be given cushy FTA or State jobs, and new people unfamiliar to Fort Collins will have to be brought in. In an attempt to keep the Mason route alive, service on the other routes will have to be cut.

Do I want these predictions to occur? Absolutely not! Will the occur if nothing changes? Absolutely! Unless and until the city administration decides to service customers instead serving their own egos, transit in Fort Collins will continue to spiral down the hole of despair.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3732  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 8:17 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Cirrus, it's time to let Eeyore back in, seriously. I miss the days when the arguing was harmless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3733  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 8:24 PM
Zmapper Zmapper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 210
So I have a differing opinion, and immediately I am called a troll. Unbelievable.

Let me try to make wrong right and move this discussion in a positive direction. Cirrus, what would you do you to make Fort Collins have a functioning transportation system. Pretend for a moment that finances are out of the picture, and you can do pretty much anything.

I would be very much interested in listening what you would suggest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3734  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 8:33 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zmapper View Post
So I have a differing opinion, and immediately I am called a troll. Unbelievable.
Equating you with Eeyore, which Bunt's not even doing, isn't calling you a troll. Hell, Eeyore isn't a troll, he's just a sad, sad man with an unhealthy amount of civic pride and a tenuous grip on reality.

You're just a libertarian in the belly of the beast. But, I'll respectfully stay away from the whole Paul-bot thing. Though I do have tons of jokes ready and waiting.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3735  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 8:34 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Who said anything about troll? I really liked Eeyore. If he gets banned just for being dense... well, I have very little patience for big bad government rhetoric. Neither political party buys into the crap you're selling. Eeyore was just... a different sort of fellow. I consider people like you to be dangerous. Eeyore is frustrating, but your nonsense must be stopped. (And fortunately, that's a bipartisan position.) I've seen anarchy, and it's not as sexy as you would have Americans believe.

It's "our" money? No kidding, brilliant deduction. And you don't get get to vote for a Congressperson, do you? Big bad Washington doesn't represent you at all?
Corrupt? Really? So when an elected representative disagrees with you, they are "corrupt?"

I also don't buy into this forbidden fruit nonsense. If only big bad Washington wasn't dangling money in front of the good people of Fort Collins, then they wouldn't be led down the path of temptation? It couldn't have anything to do with your local leaders just having different priorities from you, could it?

You're not trolling, you're whining.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3736  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 8:40 PM
Zmapper Zmapper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 210
I personally think it is best if we all take a 24 hour break from this discussion. I'll admit, everyone, including me, has became too charged to logically and rationally reply to the other side.

See ya tomorrow after a good nights sleep, everyone!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3737  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 8:44 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
There is no rational response to libertarians. Try Somalia, let me know what you think, that's my rational response.

We were playing a game at home last night... the significant other was trying to come up with a hypothetical presidential ticket that I wouldn't support over Ron Paul. No luck. Palin-Bachmann, with Santorum at Health & Human Services, John Bolton as Secretary of State, and Mittens at Treasury... gets my vote, no question, over Ron Paul being allowed anywhere within 10 stopped hearts of the White House.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3738  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 9:00 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,143
we should invite warren back - seriously, that man had vision.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3739  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 9:41 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zmapper View Post
I am blaming them for why the city was inclined to build a BRT system and let the local bus routes go to crap. Fort Collins can get "free money" (our money) to go build BRT; they do not have access to the same funds to improve the local bus system.
They do not have access to those SAME funds because those funds are there specifically to help cities build rapid transit. However, there is ALSO lots of federal money available in OTHER funds that can be used for regular buses. If Fort Collins isn't getting any of those other funds, that is Fort Collins' fault. New Starts only makes up a portion of federal capital assistance for transit, which itself only makes up a portion of federal transportation spending.

Washington's job is not to plan for locals. Washington's job is to let locals plan for themselves, and then to occasionally help them fund things they can't do on their own. If you are asking Washington to get out of the New Starts business and only fund local buses, then you are essentially saying that Washington should stop letting locals plan for themselves, and should instead force one answer down on everybody. That's a profoundly anti-libertarian position.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3740  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 9:43 PM
bobg bobg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post

For the record, I was sort of joking. Congestion/variable pricing is a bipartisan thing, I think. Otherwise you end up with clogged and/or overpriced HOV lanes, which just makes no sense.
Congestion/variable pricing may be a bipartisan thing but it doesn't seem to have majority bipartisan support. If it did I would think that the prohibition on tolling existing interstate highways would have been repealed by now (especially in light of the rapidly increasing inadequacy of the gasoline tax). Sure FHWA allows a few exceptions here and there, but they are on the whole inadequate.

My understanding of it is that the support for congestion pricing is on the fringes (environmentally minded/urban liberals, and true fiscal conservatives), and in this circumstance we kind of are held hostage to the political pragmatism of the centrists. I think eventually reality will set in and something will have to give (taxes or tolls), but we could avoid a lot more ridiculous standoffs like they just had over funding if they just figured it out now. Of course that's expecting a lot of politicians.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:19 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.