Post by bennyp81 on Jun 22, 2005 10:55:54 GMT -8
Dennis Lytton
User ID: 0930774 Mar 10th 8:32 PM
The notion that Metro Rail was racist transit for white people was tenuous at best in 1996, when what existed of Metro Rail (the Blue and Green Lines and the Red Line to Mac. Park) passed through largely minority communities. Today one only has to take the train to realize that it is even more laughable.
The press release below seems to suggest that Metro may be willing to fight to get the albotros (sp?) of the consent decree of its back.
Dennis
***
March 10, 2004
CONTACT:
Ed Scannell/Marc Littman
METRO MEDIA RELATIONS
213.922.2703/922.2700
www.metro.net/press/pressroom
e-mail: mediarelations@metro.net
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Calls Interpretation Of Consent Decree Standee Target “Unachievable”
Transit Panel Says MTA Demonstrates “Exceptional Diligence” In Efforts To Improve Metro Bus Service
(Los Angeles) - A peer review panel led by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) says MTA has demonstrated “exceptional diligence” in its efforts to improve bus service to people dependent on public transit in Los Angeles County. In its March 3 report, the panel also concluded that 100 percent compliance with a consent decree’s standard for an acceptable maximum number of standees on buses is “unachievable.”
Signed in October 1996, the 10-year Consent Decree resolved legal action against MTA that sought to reduce the average number of standees on Metro Buses. In examining MTA’s efforts to meet the Consent Decree standard as interpreted by Special Master Donald Bliss, the panel also looked at the impacts of those efforts to the agency’s operations and the potential for improvements through other transit industry practices.
The panel acknowledged that since 1996 MTA has added 1,800 new buses to its fleet, reduced crowding, initiated new services such as Metro Rapid (“a national model for Bus Rapid Transit”) and decentralized its organization to better respond to community needs. “Overall,” the report states, “service enhancement has outpaced most, if not all, of the nation’s transit systems.”
The panel said that the number of standees on buses is “only one measure of service quality” and the Consent Decree goal for standees of eight per bus is “an extremely high standard.” Nevertheless, it concluded that MTA has achieved this standard by current common industry standards of measurement.
The report recognized the limit on MTA’s resources and noted that “the narrow focus” on compliance with the standee limit “can significantly hamper efforts to develop service for new markets” and targeting scarce resources to worst case scenarios “can lead to neglect in other aspects of the system which can result in the negative spiral of declining ridership.”
In calling into question any interpretation of the Consent Decree’s standee goal as an absolute limit, the report says “a broader appreciation of transit service performance…can result in greater service delivery benefits to all communities and ridership groups.”
The panel’s recommendations include focusing on a broader range of service quality issues, continuing to develop the Metro Rapid bus system, and focusing on “opportunities to modify service in line with growing and shrinking markets.”
The APTA panel was convened at the request of MTA CEO Roger Snoble and Deputy CEO John Catoe to assist MTA in reviewing its efforts to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree and to give industry guidance on how the agency can improve its performance. In addition to APTA staff advisor Greg Hull, panel members included Anne Herzenberg, CEO, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority; Wilson Johnson, deputy general manager of operations, San Francisco MUNI: and Michael Shiffer, vice president for planning and development, Chicago Transit Authority.
MTA-045
Dennis Lytton
User ID: 0930774 Mar 10th 8:37 PM
Remember the consent decree was entered into in order to settle a lawsuit without a trial. It is a settlement agreement. The trial would have been on the issue of whether the MTA violates the Civil Right Act of 1964 primarily.
Like I said above, the idea that the MTA is out to discriminate against minority riders (either with intent or without) is laughable. To the contrary, they do an extraordinary job of streatching limited transit dollars to serve as many people as possible.
Dennis
Jerard
User ID: 0889114 Mar 28th 11:04 AM
Another opportunity to nail these guys!
Los Angeles Daily News
MTA eyes another fare hike
Leaders discuss transportation shortfall
By Lisa Mascaro
Staff Writer
Friday, March 26, 2004 - By Lisa Mascaro , Staff Writer
Facing state budget cuts, the MTA announced Friday it may need to raise fares for the second time in two years in order to pay for new bus service required by a court order to relieve overcrowding.
MTA Chief Roger Snoble laid out the prospect of another fare hike as he and dozens of leaders testified about the state's proposed $1.7 billion cuts to transportation.
Aside from increased gridlock, Southern California stands to miss out on creating thousands of good-paying jobs -- fueling millions of dollars in annual tax revenues -- that would come from building roads, highways and public transit systems, they said.
"We could put jobs on the street very quickly," Snoble said, estimating every $1 billion spent on transportation creates 40,000 new jobs.
"A lot of good things have been happening; now, with the budget crisis in the state, a lot of that has come to a halt."
Dozens of transportation, business and labor leaders testified during the city/state Joint Oversight Hearing co-hosted by City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa, chairman of the city Transportation Committee; state Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Culver City, chairman of the senate Transportation Committee; and other elected officials.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed transferring transportation funds from the coming 2004-05 budget to shore up the state's deficit, delaying new construction for years.
The cuts come after the repeated raiding of transportation funds in recent years to shore up the state's general fund and record deficit.
"When people hear us talk about our concern about the devastating impacts of these cuts on transportation, what they don't realize is it will have a domino effect," said Villaraigosa.
Murray stressed that transportation's link to job creation was vital.
"Every dollar spent on transportation, there's someone out there pouring concrete, someone out there digging holes," Murray said.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, already planning widespread layoffs of mostly nonunion workers this summer, said it may be forced to raise fares.
Snoble said the agency has already taken out loans, slashed hundreds of projects and has few options left.
For the six-county Southern California region, the loss of state funds could trigger a further $8 billion suspension of federal and local funds if the region fails to provide improvements that meet smog-cutting goals.
"Many of our projects would come to a halt, as will the movement of goods and people," said Bev Perry, president of the Southern California Association of Governments. "I know I sound like Chicken Little ... but unfortunately it's real."
Mayor James Hahn said the city stands to lose $117 million that could create 4,500 new jobs.
"The loss of this funding ... not only makes the traffic situation worse but hurts us from an economic standpoint."
l=8s=8 Lisa Mascaro, (818) 713-3761 lisa.mascaro@dailynews.com
Jerard
User ID: 0889114 Mar 28th 11:32 AM
Here's my letter, maybe a little too sarcastic but c'est la vie.
"Thank you BRU"
I would like to offer a kind thank you to the Bus Riders Union for their aggresive shouting and whinning that the MTA purchase new buses not the extra operating hours and operators of these new services that are required when purchasing new buses. Yes, yet again- like this past strike- the very backs they claim to be supporting are be trampled over by the BRU in the face of another fare hike.
Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer and Mr. and Ms. Bus Rider let's all raise our fists and various fingers, oops I mean wineglasses to offer a toast to the BRU.
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 28th 11:34 AM
Wow! There are so many ways to raise funds for transit without even raising taxes on the middle class, yet Snoble and the MTA are talking about another fare increase! But then this is the same agency which is devoting funds to the construction of the little light rail lines with their cramped and uncomfortable (etc.) little light rail trains, and that presided over two long, crippling strikes over a period of just three years, so I guess no one should be surprised.
Jerard
User ID: 0889114 Mar 28th 11:56 AM
Well John, write a letter to Zev asking him to repeal Prop A ban on Subway Construction so that the big ROOMY subway can be built.
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 28th 12:09 PM
Uh, no thank you, Jerard. Yaroslavsky didn't pass that proposition: the car culturist Angeleno majority did.
Jerard
User ID: 0889114 Mar 28th 12:24 PM
But he was the head guy responsible for writing the bill.
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 28th 12:44 PM
Yes, he seems to very cognizant of the desires and wishes of his car culturist constituents, doesn't he? (Car culturists forming the vast majority of his constituents, of course.)
Ray D
User ID: 0673084 Mar 28th 8:10 PM
Fares are going up again John because of the BRU, it was on the radio yesterday.
Yes the people spoke, and they don't want you riding trains, they want you to stay on those slow smog producing busses.
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 28th 8:34 PM
It is Snoble and the MTA who are saying they might raise fares. I strongly agree with the BRU and Mr. Bliss that the MTA needs to add many more buses in order to relieve the extreme overcrowding that continues, unabated, on so many of the buses.
Ken Alpern
User ID: 8506593 Mar 29th 6:45 AM
Irrelevant debates and rantings aside, the MTA does not want to become financially insolvent--and Mr. Yaroslavsky is as much a proponent of financial solvency as any politician you'll ever find.
Regardless of political affiliation or of political philosophy, Mr. Yaroslavsky and Mr. Snoble will ensure the MTA's solvency while doing anything possible to ensure their pet projects' construction.
Mr. Yaroslavsky put an end to subway construction because it was bankrupting the MTA's other rail efforts (like connecting the Green Line to LAX and to the Norwalk Metrolink Center) and threatening the entire MTA budget.
The county is now putting out the buses in a cost-efficient manner (unlike the more unrealistic BRU plan of throwing out expenditures the MTA doesn't have the money or even the need for), which is a good thing.
Furthermore, by 2006, much of the Red Line expenses will have been resolved. The Westside has spoken and it wants an Expo Line that is LRT; and the Eastside/SGV has spoken and it wants a Gold Line that is LRT;the Mid-City wants better rail connections in general.
With our traffic getting continuously worse, and with an economic environment that is hopefully better by 2006, I expect an enhanced rail construction in that year with the end of the Consent Decree.
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 29th 11:11 AM
I'm so glad there is no reason why the MTA should ever become insolvent, given that there are so very many ways to raise funding: and without raising fares, of course! Haha!
Ken Ruben
User ID: 9593383 Mar 30th 2:00 PM
I was at the hearing that Jerard refers to and I was one of three public speakers supporting transit (and Amtrak) funding. Most of this info was presented by Roger Snoble of MTA, Steve Cunningham of Culver City Bus and Stephanie Negriff of Big Blue Bus.
I represented RailPAC and Dana Gabbard, who followed me, represented Southern California Transit Advocates (http://socata.lerctr.org), of which I am also a member of.
The chair of the hearing was Senator Kevin Murray, D-Culver City, who is my state senator and who as it turned out is also Dana's state senator.
The "clean-up" speaker was John Walsh who many within this forum are familiar with as a "regular" at MTA Board Meetings and other transit hearings.
---"Ken Ruben"---
Director-at-Large (Culver City)
RailPAC (http://www.railpac.org)
Daniel Schwartz
User ID: 9488873 Mar 30th 10:38 PM
Gosh. Here I go...
John, please list some of these very many ways to raise funds without raising fares.
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 31st 9:58 AM
1) Raise gasoline taxes; 2) Raise registration fees on SUVs, monster trucks, motorcycles, and cars; 3) charge for parking everywhere, even on side streets at all hours, etc.; 4) raise parking meter fees, parking lot fees, etc.; 5) make all freeways and major streets and avenues tollways; 6) raise taxes on SUV, monster truck, motorcycle and car dealerships.
Robert
User ID: 2037954 Mar 31st 11:16 AM
1) Raise gasoline taxes
* We should raise taxes on gas; gas tax has not kept up even with inflation. It should be changed to a percent of the base price, not a cost per gallon.
2) Raise registration fees on SUVs, monster trucks, motorcycles, and cars
* Governor Davis did, voted out of office; new Governor's first act was to roll back registration fees to what they were before.
3) charge for parking everywhere, even on side streets at all hours, etc.
* On major streets, parking must be prohibitive at all hours. Today, on some side streets we do pay to park.
4) raise parking meter fees, parking lot fees, etc.
* This is always being done.
5) make all freeways and major streets and avenues tollways
* This would create nothing but gridlock, and your busses could not move either.
6) raise taxes on SUV, monster truck, motorcycle and car dealerships.
* This is the same as number two.
* Have transit riders pay a minimum of 50% of operation cost.
The problem with traffic today is reflected by John's statement, I don't want to pay, have someone else pay. John is not alone, many stakeholders don't want to pay to fix things either. As long as we don't want to pay to improve transportation and with politicians saying "No new tax" while promising more and better standard of living, we will continue to increase our gridlock traffic problems.
-=‡÷«±»÷‡=-
-=‡÷ßÔß÷‡=-
-=‡÷«†»÷‡=-
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 31st 12:04 PM
I will sure look forward to voting against the proposed 1/2 cent sales tax increase! Haha!
Dane
User ID: 1473814 Mar 31st 1:06 PM
Fee allocation is an important factor. Just because many cities currently charge meter and lot fees, they're not necessarily funneled to transportation. More often they just feed a municipal general fund.
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 31st 1:56 PM
I wouldn't doubt it. All the more reason why the MTA should be working to change such situations.
User ID: 0930774 Mar 10th 8:32 PM
The notion that Metro Rail was racist transit for white people was tenuous at best in 1996, when what existed of Metro Rail (the Blue and Green Lines and the Red Line to Mac. Park) passed through largely minority communities. Today one only has to take the train to realize that it is even more laughable.
The press release below seems to suggest that Metro may be willing to fight to get the albotros (sp?) of the consent decree of its back.
Dennis
***
March 10, 2004
CONTACT:
Ed Scannell/Marc Littman
METRO MEDIA RELATIONS
213.922.2703/922.2700
www.metro.net/press/pressroom
e-mail: mediarelations@metro.net
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Calls Interpretation Of Consent Decree Standee Target “Unachievable”
Transit Panel Says MTA Demonstrates “Exceptional Diligence” In Efforts To Improve Metro Bus Service
(Los Angeles) - A peer review panel led by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) says MTA has demonstrated “exceptional diligence” in its efforts to improve bus service to people dependent on public transit in Los Angeles County. In its March 3 report, the panel also concluded that 100 percent compliance with a consent decree’s standard for an acceptable maximum number of standees on buses is “unachievable.”
Signed in October 1996, the 10-year Consent Decree resolved legal action against MTA that sought to reduce the average number of standees on Metro Buses. In examining MTA’s efforts to meet the Consent Decree standard as interpreted by Special Master Donald Bliss, the panel also looked at the impacts of those efforts to the agency’s operations and the potential for improvements through other transit industry practices.
The panel acknowledged that since 1996 MTA has added 1,800 new buses to its fleet, reduced crowding, initiated new services such as Metro Rapid (“a national model for Bus Rapid Transit”) and decentralized its organization to better respond to community needs. “Overall,” the report states, “service enhancement has outpaced most, if not all, of the nation’s transit systems.”
The panel said that the number of standees on buses is “only one measure of service quality” and the Consent Decree goal for standees of eight per bus is “an extremely high standard.” Nevertheless, it concluded that MTA has achieved this standard by current common industry standards of measurement.
The report recognized the limit on MTA’s resources and noted that “the narrow focus” on compliance with the standee limit “can significantly hamper efforts to develop service for new markets” and targeting scarce resources to worst case scenarios “can lead to neglect in other aspects of the system which can result in the negative spiral of declining ridership.”
In calling into question any interpretation of the Consent Decree’s standee goal as an absolute limit, the report says “a broader appreciation of transit service performance…can result in greater service delivery benefits to all communities and ridership groups.”
The panel’s recommendations include focusing on a broader range of service quality issues, continuing to develop the Metro Rapid bus system, and focusing on “opportunities to modify service in line with growing and shrinking markets.”
The APTA panel was convened at the request of MTA CEO Roger Snoble and Deputy CEO John Catoe to assist MTA in reviewing its efforts to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree and to give industry guidance on how the agency can improve its performance. In addition to APTA staff advisor Greg Hull, panel members included Anne Herzenberg, CEO, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority; Wilson Johnson, deputy general manager of operations, San Francisco MUNI: and Michael Shiffer, vice president for planning and development, Chicago Transit Authority.
MTA-045
Dennis Lytton
User ID: 0930774 Mar 10th 8:37 PM
Remember the consent decree was entered into in order to settle a lawsuit without a trial. It is a settlement agreement. The trial would have been on the issue of whether the MTA violates the Civil Right Act of 1964 primarily.
Like I said above, the idea that the MTA is out to discriminate against minority riders (either with intent or without) is laughable. To the contrary, they do an extraordinary job of streatching limited transit dollars to serve as many people as possible.
Dennis
Jerard
User ID: 0889114 Mar 28th 11:04 AM
Another opportunity to nail these guys!
Los Angeles Daily News
MTA eyes another fare hike
Leaders discuss transportation shortfall
By Lisa Mascaro
Staff Writer
Friday, March 26, 2004 - By Lisa Mascaro , Staff Writer
Facing state budget cuts, the MTA announced Friday it may need to raise fares for the second time in two years in order to pay for new bus service required by a court order to relieve overcrowding.
MTA Chief Roger Snoble laid out the prospect of another fare hike as he and dozens of leaders testified about the state's proposed $1.7 billion cuts to transportation.
Aside from increased gridlock, Southern California stands to miss out on creating thousands of good-paying jobs -- fueling millions of dollars in annual tax revenues -- that would come from building roads, highways and public transit systems, they said.
"We could put jobs on the street very quickly," Snoble said, estimating every $1 billion spent on transportation creates 40,000 new jobs.
"A lot of good things have been happening; now, with the budget crisis in the state, a lot of that has come to a halt."
Dozens of transportation, business and labor leaders testified during the city/state Joint Oversight Hearing co-hosted by City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa, chairman of the city Transportation Committee; state Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Culver City, chairman of the senate Transportation Committee; and other elected officials.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed transferring transportation funds from the coming 2004-05 budget to shore up the state's deficit, delaying new construction for years.
The cuts come after the repeated raiding of transportation funds in recent years to shore up the state's general fund and record deficit.
"When people hear us talk about our concern about the devastating impacts of these cuts on transportation, what they don't realize is it will have a domino effect," said Villaraigosa.
Murray stressed that transportation's link to job creation was vital.
"Every dollar spent on transportation, there's someone out there pouring concrete, someone out there digging holes," Murray said.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, already planning widespread layoffs of mostly nonunion workers this summer, said it may be forced to raise fares.
Snoble said the agency has already taken out loans, slashed hundreds of projects and has few options left.
For the six-county Southern California region, the loss of state funds could trigger a further $8 billion suspension of federal and local funds if the region fails to provide improvements that meet smog-cutting goals.
"Many of our projects would come to a halt, as will the movement of goods and people," said Bev Perry, president of the Southern California Association of Governments. "I know I sound like Chicken Little ... but unfortunately it's real."
Mayor James Hahn said the city stands to lose $117 million that could create 4,500 new jobs.
"The loss of this funding ... not only makes the traffic situation worse but hurts us from an economic standpoint."
l=8s=8 Lisa Mascaro, (818) 713-3761 lisa.mascaro@dailynews.com
Jerard
User ID: 0889114 Mar 28th 11:32 AM
Here's my letter, maybe a little too sarcastic but c'est la vie.
"Thank you BRU"
I would like to offer a kind thank you to the Bus Riders Union for their aggresive shouting and whinning that the MTA purchase new buses not the extra operating hours and operators of these new services that are required when purchasing new buses. Yes, yet again- like this past strike- the very backs they claim to be supporting are be trampled over by the BRU in the face of another fare hike.
Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer and Mr. and Ms. Bus Rider let's all raise our fists and various fingers, oops I mean wineglasses to offer a toast to the BRU.
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 28th 11:34 AM
Wow! There are so many ways to raise funds for transit without even raising taxes on the middle class, yet Snoble and the MTA are talking about another fare increase! But then this is the same agency which is devoting funds to the construction of the little light rail lines with their cramped and uncomfortable (etc.) little light rail trains, and that presided over two long, crippling strikes over a period of just three years, so I guess no one should be surprised.
Jerard
User ID: 0889114 Mar 28th 11:56 AM
Well John, write a letter to Zev asking him to repeal Prop A ban on Subway Construction so that the big ROOMY subway can be built.
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 28th 12:09 PM
Uh, no thank you, Jerard. Yaroslavsky didn't pass that proposition: the car culturist Angeleno majority did.
Jerard
User ID: 0889114 Mar 28th 12:24 PM
But he was the head guy responsible for writing the bill.
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 28th 12:44 PM
Yes, he seems to very cognizant of the desires and wishes of his car culturist constituents, doesn't he? (Car culturists forming the vast majority of his constituents, of course.)
Ray D
User ID: 0673084 Mar 28th 8:10 PM
Fares are going up again John because of the BRU, it was on the radio yesterday.
Yes the people spoke, and they don't want you riding trains, they want you to stay on those slow smog producing busses.
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 28th 8:34 PM
It is Snoble and the MTA who are saying they might raise fares. I strongly agree with the BRU and Mr. Bliss that the MTA needs to add many more buses in order to relieve the extreme overcrowding that continues, unabated, on so many of the buses.
Ken Alpern
User ID: 8506593 Mar 29th 6:45 AM
Irrelevant debates and rantings aside, the MTA does not want to become financially insolvent--and Mr. Yaroslavsky is as much a proponent of financial solvency as any politician you'll ever find.
Regardless of political affiliation or of political philosophy, Mr. Yaroslavsky and Mr. Snoble will ensure the MTA's solvency while doing anything possible to ensure their pet projects' construction.
Mr. Yaroslavsky put an end to subway construction because it was bankrupting the MTA's other rail efforts (like connecting the Green Line to LAX and to the Norwalk Metrolink Center) and threatening the entire MTA budget.
The county is now putting out the buses in a cost-efficient manner (unlike the more unrealistic BRU plan of throwing out expenditures the MTA doesn't have the money or even the need for), which is a good thing.
Furthermore, by 2006, much of the Red Line expenses will have been resolved. The Westside has spoken and it wants an Expo Line that is LRT; and the Eastside/SGV has spoken and it wants a Gold Line that is LRT;the Mid-City wants better rail connections in general.
With our traffic getting continuously worse, and with an economic environment that is hopefully better by 2006, I expect an enhanced rail construction in that year with the end of the Consent Decree.
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 29th 11:11 AM
I'm so glad there is no reason why the MTA should ever become insolvent, given that there are so very many ways to raise funding: and without raising fares, of course! Haha!
Ken Ruben
User ID: 9593383 Mar 30th 2:00 PM
I was at the hearing that Jerard refers to and I was one of three public speakers supporting transit (and Amtrak) funding. Most of this info was presented by Roger Snoble of MTA, Steve Cunningham of Culver City Bus and Stephanie Negriff of Big Blue Bus.
I represented RailPAC and Dana Gabbard, who followed me, represented Southern California Transit Advocates (http://socata.lerctr.org), of which I am also a member of.
The chair of the hearing was Senator Kevin Murray, D-Culver City, who is my state senator and who as it turned out is also Dana's state senator.
The "clean-up" speaker was John Walsh who many within this forum are familiar with as a "regular" at MTA Board Meetings and other transit hearings.
---"Ken Ruben"---
Director-at-Large (Culver City)
RailPAC (http://www.railpac.org)
Daniel Schwartz
User ID: 9488873 Mar 30th 10:38 PM
Gosh. Here I go...
John, please list some of these very many ways to raise funds without raising fares.
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 31st 9:58 AM
Gosh. Here I go...
John, please list some of these very many ways to raise funds without raising fares.
John, please list some of these very many ways to raise funds without raising fares.
1) Raise gasoline taxes; 2) Raise registration fees on SUVs, monster trucks, motorcycles, and cars; 3) charge for parking everywhere, even on side streets at all hours, etc.; 4) raise parking meter fees, parking lot fees, etc.; 5) make all freeways and major streets and avenues tollways; 6) raise taxes on SUV, monster truck, motorcycle and car dealerships.
Robert
User ID: 2037954 Mar 31st 11:16 AM
1) Raise gasoline taxes
* We should raise taxes on gas; gas tax has not kept up even with inflation. It should be changed to a percent of the base price, not a cost per gallon.
2) Raise registration fees on SUVs, monster trucks, motorcycles, and cars
* Governor Davis did, voted out of office; new Governor's first act was to roll back registration fees to what they were before.
3) charge for parking everywhere, even on side streets at all hours, etc.
* On major streets, parking must be prohibitive at all hours. Today, on some side streets we do pay to park.
4) raise parking meter fees, parking lot fees, etc.
* This is always being done.
5) make all freeways and major streets and avenues tollways
* This would create nothing but gridlock, and your busses could not move either.
6) raise taxes on SUV, monster truck, motorcycle and car dealerships.
* This is the same as number two.
* Have transit riders pay a minimum of 50% of operation cost.
The problem with traffic today is reflected by John's statement, I don't want to pay, have someone else pay. John is not alone, many stakeholders don't want to pay to fix things either. As long as we don't want to pay to improve transportation and with politicians saying "No new tax" while promising more and better standard of living, we will continue to increase our gridlock traffic problems.
-=‡÷«±»÷‡=-
-=‡÷ßÔß÷‡=-
-=‡÷«†»÷‡=-
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 31st 12:04 PM
I will sure look forward to voting against the proposed 1/2 cent sales tax increase! Haha!
Dane
User ID: 1473814 Mar 31st 1:06 PM
Fee allocation is an important factor. Just because many cities currently charge meter and lot fees, they're not necessarily funneled to transportation. More often they just feed a municipal general fund.
John
User ID: 9510053 Mar 31st 1:56 PM
Fee allocation is an important factor. Just because many cities currently charge meter and lot fees, they're not necessarily funneled to transportation. More often they just feed a municipal general fund.
I wouldn't doubt it. All the more reason why the MTA should be working to change such situations.
}»÷‡†=-