[Terrell Brown] It should also be noted that the suburban systems only serve the cream routes, routes that on their own can be profitable. Unfortunately many of the suburbs prefer to rely on the central cities for jobs and culture but refuse to participate in any of the social costs.
[Wendy replies] I work from home, so I don't often ride the bus anymore, but I did ride the local service bus from Apple Valley to the MOA in the early afternoon not too long ago, and there were perhaps 10 or 12 people on the bus. Yes, the express bus generally fills up, and probably comes close to covering costs, but the suburbs do have routes that are not "cream routes" - perhaps fewer of them, but isn't that the point, to do transit cost-effectively and where it is most needed? I take exception to your statement that the suburbs do not participate in any of the societal costs - the suburbs bear a significant tax burden, in that they pay in for many of the state subsidies for jobs, culture and "societal costs" elsewhere, but get very little back from the state. For example, the Guthrie Theater received $25 million from the state last year. What sort of cultural subsidy did the suburbs get? Minneapolis gets $130 million from the state/feds each year for affordable housing, and gets another $90 million or so in LGA and MVHC. Lakeville was penalized $656,000 by the state last year - the city was forced to pay the Market Value Homestead Credit(MVHC) - a state property tax credit - out of city funds, because we didn't have much in the way of LGA for the state to take away, but we do have affordable housing. We continue to add affordable housing, in spite of the tax penalty - a tax penalty that Mpls does not face, as it received its full allotment of MVHC. For now, that penalty is set to expire in 2005, but I keep an eye on what the legislature is doing, because it has been identified as a possible target for continued cuts. [Scott Dier] Simply saying that transit users are being subsidized -- when they are paying many of the same taxes everyone else does -- is oversimplified. A large amount of funding from property and income taxes build and maintain roads -- far less goes to transit. [Wendy replies] Income taxes do not pay for roads or transit. Transit operating shortfalls are paid from the motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) - about 21% of MVET goes to transit. Another 32% goes to the highway fund, along with the gas tax and tab fees. The remainder of MVET goes to the general fund. Transit capital costs are paid by property taxes. Property taxes can also pay for highways, when state funding falls short- but there are wide variations throughout the state on how close state funding comes to meeting the need. Rural areas get their highways completely paid for, whereas in Dakota County, which pays in 7% of the contributions to the fund, and gets only 1% back, there is a shortfall, and the county makes cities (using property taxes) pay for 45% of the cost of right-of-way and construction of county highways. Local streets are generally paid for by the property owners - initial construction is at the expense of the property owner, and improvements are paid either by local property taxes or special assessments. There is a small amount of state aid (from the highway fund) to defray the costs of local streets - but it comes nowhere close to covering the costs in most cities. However, it is difficult to assign local street costs to either cars or the bus, because we all need street access to our homes, for not only cars, but also the bus, fire trucks, the mail carrier, ambulance, delivery trucks, etc. Bills were recently introduced in the state house and senate to take MVET money from the highway fund and use it to settle the bus strike. It is somewhat curious that they would go after the highway fund, instead of going after the part of MVET that goes to the general fund. I am not sure what purpose it serves to take money away from highways in order to increase the labor costs of transit, thereby making it that much more difficult to add new transit, because 1. it is then less cost-effective and 2. you are attacking the very people who are footing the bill (car owners), decreasing your chances of getting additional money in the future. If you look at the total cost of government, and the return on the tax dollar - if you are looking for transit riders who "subsidize" highways (in Minnesota) via property and income taxes, you won't find them. If you are going to argue that "that transit dependent get less for their tax dollar because of their chosen mode of transportation" please back up your argument with some numbers. The only "studies" that I have read that come close to suggesting such a subsidy are on a national scope, not taking into account the way MN does things specifically, and add a number of unproven or tangential costs such as global warming, private parking, and "health" costs, while ignoring other direct governmental costs like local government aid and state and federal housing subsidies. Wendy Wulff Lakeville _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Metropolitan Issues Forum http://www.e-democracy.org/tcmetro Rules: Sign posts with real name. You may not post more than twice a day.
