> >While I'm on the topic, let me ask why we need
> >subsidized transit? I think a transit system is a
> >good idea, and a metro wide system is a better idea.
> >But why subsidize people who would use a good system
> >at the cost of running it? Wouldn't it be better to
> >offer low cost passes to those who need it?
> >
> >Rich Chandler - Ward 9
As far as I know, pretty much ALL transit in this country is heavily
subsidized. It's just that some subsidies are more indirect & hidden than
others. And almost all of these subsidies are provided to all users, rich
or poor, regardless of their income or ability to pay.
_______________________________________
- BUSES -- pretty direct subsidy, in that the Met Council uses tax money to
pay the difference between operating costs and actual income. And of
course, they operate on the highways & streets that were paid for with tax
money.
- PLANES -- heavily subsidized, since the government tax money provides the
airports they operate from (they rent space, but at a below-market rate)
and pays for the air traffic control system. Also most of the technology
for the planes they fly was developed via taxpayer-supported research
(military spin-offs, mostly). And of course, they use the public skys
without paying anything for them, and they pay only a small portion of the
costs of attempting to deal with the noise pollution they cause.
- TRAINS -- indirectly subsidized, often many years ago: their tracks run
on land that was mostly given to them for free by the government, often
large amounts of land (like 5 miles on either side of the tracks!). They
were allowed to sell this land and keep the money. Plus they have special
laws allowing the government to step in and stop strikes by railroad
workers, thus holding down their labor costs. And they have been able to
add new things on their right-of-way to make money -- for example, Southern
Pacific Railroad Internal Telegraph (SPRINT), a spun-off communications
company that's probably now worth more than the original parent company.
- CARS -- probably the most heavily subsidized of all, but many of the
subsidies are indirect and unnoticed. Besides the tax money used to build
& maintain roads, freeways, streets, alleys, etc. there is the cost of law
enforcement (highway patrol, plus a large portion of local police
efforts). Probably the biggest subsidy is the government policies to keep
the cost of gasoline artificially low in the US -- about 1/3 to 1/5 of the
cost in other countries. And all this is provided equally to all car
owners, rich or poor. (It used to be somewhat related -- you used to have
to pay more for license plates if you had a new, expensive car -- but Jesse
Ventura changed that. Note: Jesse owns mainly newer, expensive
cars.] Then the whole industry of auto insurance and automobile
accidents. Besides the hundreds of repair shops dependent on this
business, it's also the source of a large portion of the customers for
hospital emergency rooms (which mostly operate at a loss, thus another
subsidy). Plus many businesses offer subsidized parking for employees, and
for customers. (Daytons in downtown Minneapolis, for example, pays out
$2700/day in parking vouchers.) And all the Target, Cub Foods, Wal-Mart
stores, and every mall is surrounded by acres of parking lots -- all free
to their customers (subsidized) by them (and then deducted as an operating
expense from their taxes, so effectively subsidized by other
taxpayers). Finally, cars pay almost nothing toward covering the pollution
cost that they cause. Most of the pollution costs are in health problems
that are paid for by the health system, except for lead poisoning of young
children, which is paid in the special education budget of the schools
system. And global warming, mostly caused by cars? In the end, we'll ALL
pay for that -- or our descendents will.
- MOTORCYCLES -- pretty much all the same subsidies as cars, plus an
additional one: we taxpayers support a whole hospital at the Brainerd State
Hospital filled with motorcyclists who were not wearing helmets, and were
uninsured or underinsured, and so we will pay for the care of their TBI
(Traumatic Brain Injury) for as long as they live (if laying in a bed in a
coma is called living).
- TAXIS -- same subsidies as cars, plus a whole lot of free parking places
provided by the city. Also, I'm not sure that the cab license fees cover
the costs of the paperwork, the taxi inspectors, the training & testing
system, etc. -- if not, the loss is no doubt covered from other city
funds. [Plus the way the city issues taxi licenses and outlaws jitneys
ensures that a few large companies (Yellow, Suburban, etc.) dominate the
Minneapolis taxi business; and eliminate any free enterprise price
competition.]
- METRO MOBILITY -- vastly subsidized -- the system operates at a heavy
loss, which is covered by taxes, mostly coming from people who do not use
the system.
- BICYCLES -- also subsidized, but rather indirectly. First, despite legal
requirements, most are not ever licensed; and for those that do, the
license fee does not cover the costs involved. How much police time is
spent dealing with stolen & lost bicycles, etc., with no income to cover
this cost? Then they mostly ride on streets & highways, but do not pay
into the gas tax that pays for these streets. [Cars actually subsidize
bicycles -- Yea!] Plus we spend a lot on stop signs & red lights,
apparently for the entertainment of bicyclists -- I have never, ever seen a
bicyclist actually stop for a stop sign!
- PEDESTRIANS -- yes, even this transit "system" is subsidized. We have a
whole system of sidewalks paid for by other taxpayers (except for when
walking on the sidewalk in front of your house). And we spend extra money
(about $14,000, I'd estimate) at every stop light to provide walk/don't
walk signals for pedestrians. I believe these are paid for from the
streets money, which comes from the gas tax. [So cars subsidize
pedestrians, too -- Yea again!] Then there are very expensive pedestrian
bridges over freeways, highway 55, Cedar Avenue, etc. (all very rarely
used, I think) -- again paid out of highway money, coming from the gas tax,
not from pedestrians.
_________________________________
Note that I am not saying that it is wrong that transit systems are
subsidized.
I think that transit systems is a proper function of government,
and that it's appropriate to have some subsidies in the system. Like other
things that are proper government functions (police, fire dept, etc.),
it works better to have us all pay taxes for the whole system, rather than
supporting it from user fees. (Otherwise, the fire department won't put
out your burning house until they see if you've been paying into the fire
department fee. Some people may remember this situation in rural areas of
Minnesota years ago.)
But I do think we should be aware of the various subsidies, and
should recognize what transit systems we are favoring by our subsidies. In
my personal opinion, we are over-subsidizing cars; thus encouraging traffic
jams, pollution, and suburban sprawl.
Tim Bonham
Ward 12
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
