Rental tax would fund upgrades to Tri-Rail

[bmartin]

why would you tax the people that dont even use the Tri rail.....they are renting cars.....tax the people that use it...

[Dyathink]

bmartin wrote:

why would you tax the people that dont even use the Tri rail.....they are renting cars.....tax the people that use it...

Nah, the voters would never go for it. If it makes too much sense, then there's GOT to be something wrong with it, right? Wrong? Oh crap, now I'm confused.

[Its all about the chops]

Concerned One.....

All your friends on the forum are going to chip in and buy you an automobile.

Enjoy.

[Dyathink]

Its all about the chops wrote:

Concerned One.....
All your friends on the forum are going to chip in and buy you an automobile.
Enjoy.

Hey, where can I get one of those $1.98 automobiles?

[miffed]

Steve in Wellington wrote:

What about raising the fares? Typical government, throw money at a losing business.

Because if they raise the fares, ridership drops. If they raised fares to pay is cost It would take most of your paycheck

[Steve in Wellington]

miffed wrote:

<quoted text>Because if they raise the fares, ridership drops. If they raised fares to pay is cost It would take most of your paycheck

so you like the social welfare of throwing good money after a worthless project?

Ridership dropping? It's non existent now, how can it drop further?

[miffed]

Steve in Wellington wrote:

<quoted text>
so you like the social welfare of throwing good money after a worthless project?
Ridership dropping? It's non existent now, how can it drop further?

Me? I am complaining that these rides are subsidized by taxpayers at rates many times the amount paid as fares. No public transportation should exist if it is not fully funded by the fares.

[miffed]

Steve in Wellington wrote:

<quoted text>
so you like the social welfare of throwing good money after a worthless project?
Ridership dropping? It's non existent now, how can it drop further?

it looks like you misunderstood my post. I was not saying that they shouldn't raise the fares to cover the costs, I was saying they couldn't do so. If they charged fares that actually covered the costs they would be so high that there wouldn't be enough people riding to cover the costs. I wan not implying that taxpayers should subsidize the fares, I was trying to say that the system is not economically viable to run. The total budget for Tri rail for 2007 was about $85 Million providing about 3.5 million rides for that year for about $4 per ride. The cost for that ride comes to $24.20 per ride leaving ovr $20 for the taxpayers to pick up.

[Woody]

Many of those 3.5 million rides result in people receiving paychecks that allows them to spend. The resulting income from sales tax goes into the states coffers.
A fare increase graduated according to distance would not be unreasonable, considering the cost of gas and accompanying costs related to using a car.
An additional $2.00 should be added to fares ending up at, and departing from, FLL airport to cover the shuttle ride to & from the terminal area. Airport employees would be exempt from the $2.00 charge.

[concerned one]

I like to lay down on the Tri Rail tracks and PLAY CHICKEN with the trains. It gives me a RUSH.
.
.
.
I win EVERY TIME.

[miffed]

Woody wrote:

Many of those 3.5 million rides result in people receiving paychecks that allows them to spend. The resulting income from sales tax goes into the states coffers.
A fare increase graduated according to distance would not be unreasonable, considering the cost of gas and accompanying costs related to using a car.
An additional $2.00 should be added to fares ending up at, and departing from, FLL airport to cover the shuttle ride to & from the terminal area. Airport employees would be exempt from the $2.00 charge.

well lets see..taxpayers on the hook for $20 a ride, and ten rides a week that is $200/week to offset that from sales taxes that rider would need to spend over $2,300 per week on taxable goods, he would need at least a $3,000 a week job to do that. If he makes that much he will drive his Lexus all the way to work and not park at the tri rail station. People made it to work just fine before we had tri-rail, and people will still get to work if tri rail was shut down

[miffed]

yoohoo wrote:

The Tri-Rail currently goes only in a north/south direction, and that is the reason for the few passengers. Its true that if the fares are increased, there will be less ridership. The cost is too high already, about $3 per ride? Wow, thats a lot!
At least the taxes are to fund something positive. With high gas prices and increased traffic, this could only be an improvement. Besides, a decent mass-transit system should be required in every large city.

people are losing their homes because taxes are so high from funding services that cost many Times what they are worth.

[concerned one]

We simply must get rid of AUTO VEHICLES and replace them with flying cars.

[Woody]

miffed wrote:

<quoted text>well lets see..taxpayers on the hook for $20 a ride, and ten rides a week that is $200/week to offset that from sales taxes that rider would need to spend over $2,300 per week on taxable goods, he would need at least a $3,000 a week job to do that. If he makes that much he will drive his Lexus all the way to work and not park at the tri rail station. People made it to work just fine before we had tri-rail, and people will still get to work if tri rail was shut down

Your numbers are ridiculous. I suggested a graduated fare only, based upon distance traveled. The greater the distance, the higher the fare.
Example: From Deerfield Beach to FLL is about 20 miles and the fare is $4, including shuttle. That would equate to about $3.50 in gas plus parking fees. A fare of $7, including shuttle, would still be advantageous.
As I indicated previously, airport employees would be relieved of the $2 shuttle fee and discounted fares for daily commuters are already available.
A fare slightly higher than the cost of driving still allows one to avoid the traffic, along with the inherent delays and risks, and wear & tear on one's vehicle.
Try working with REAL numbers instead of Fantasy Land prices.

[miffed]

The only numbers that make sense is if the average cost of a ride is about $22 if there are 3 million riders more if ridership drops. A fare based on distance would be more fair than a single priced fare, but how do you insure that someone pays the right fare instead of buying a shorter fare and taking a longer ride. It could be done, but the fares still need to average $22. A Short rider may pay only $5 but a long rider might pay $40. Your $4 and $7 don't even come close to paying for the ride. You idea that the extra sales tax raised is bogus. Besides Commuters will still find a way to get to work even without tri rail so we will see whatever sales tax revenue they will generate without paying for their ride to work.

[miffed]

concerned one wrote:

We simply must get rid of AUTO VEHICLES and replace them with flying cars.

they are working on it, but t does come with a new set of problems.

http://www.moller.com/

[Rat]

miffed wrote:

<quoted text>people are losing their homes because taxes are so high from funding services that cost many Times what they are worth.

Including welfare.

[miffed]

Rat wrote:

<quoted text>
Including welfare.

Yup, It costs at least $10 to run welfare programs for every $1 paid in benefits.When things are run by governments they get bogged down in bureaucracy.