Jim – this is in response to your recent post.
I’m running for Mayor – like it or not – primarily because this is the best
available way to put the Transit Revolution on the ballot. As a Republican, my
chances of being elected to the Legislature in Minneapolis… let’s just say I’m
pretty sure it’s illegal, or will be soon.
But, I have good relationships with many in the leadership of both parties at
the Legislature. My perception is that for the next decade, we may be heading
for system where the second (even year) session of the Legislature becomes a
“bonding and transit” session. The upcoming session will certainly be a
transit session – the approach was “lights on” for this session, with the
biggest exception being a significant amount to keep the Southwest Light Rail
moving forward.
You write: “You seem determined to spend a lot more money with the only
financing option being higher property or sales taxes.”
I’ve already provided quite a bit of preliminary information regarding costs
and financing for the system I’m proposing. Going forward, I’ll be fleshing
these out, and developing additional options. In addition to the property and
sales tax sources you identify, I’m including variations on the Go card,
including subsidies for card users. I’m also advocating viewingTransit as a
utility. In Minneapolis, we are currently required to buy water and solid
waste removal services. A Transit utility fee of $20/mo for adults, $10/mo for
seniors, can go a long way towards covering the total cost of the Transit
system I’m proposing. Transit rate payers will of course receive a Go Card,
with the unlimited ride and stored value features to be determined.
Whether I’m elected this year or not, I plan to be at the Legislature
advocating for the Transit Revolution, and for a significant state role in
paying for it over the first five years. However, as part of this, I believe I
can show that when economies of scale have really kicked in, the primary users
– people inside the 494-694 beltway – can and should be paying for most of the
total cost, up to a range of 50% to 75%. People outside the beltway will
benefit significantly, and should pay accordingly.
Right now, here are some of the main parameters I’m working with.
The U.S. average cost per vehicle hour for bus service is about $129. The plan
I’m promoting has an average cost per vehicle hour in the range of about $40.
Part of this comes from the extraordinarily high cost of busses compared to
vans. Another part comes from the relatively lower total labor cost I’m
advocating for drivers -- $18 per hour fully loaded, including benefits. What
I have in mind is a system that will provide thousands of part time jobs,
mostly for young people, and for people who want flexible schedules. My
understanding is that the current top end for MTC drivers is about $27/hr, and
of course all benefits are added on top of that. Here’s the bottom line: the
Transit Revolution is a jobs program – and in today’s economy, $18/hr is good
compensation. So… similar to what the auto companies did at one time, there
will be a lower tier for Transit Revolution drivers that are driving city
street routes, and not on freeways.
I’m using $1/mi as the fully loaded total vehicle cost, including depreciation.
This is significantly higher than the rate the IRS allows, about $.58 per mile.
Maintenance will be outsourced, the vans will just be sent to local garages.
Let’s help small businesses by certifying local shops to do the maintenance
work.
Here’s some additional data reality to mull over:
The U.S. average vehicle cost per year for every man, woman and child is
$2,746.
The current MTC pass for unlimited rides at $1.75 is $59/mo, or $708/yr.
Of course, the MTC budget includes about 1/3 from fares, and about 2/3 from
“subsidies.” Don’t get me wrong: I’m IN FAVOR of the subsidies – the savings
in less fuel burned per passenger mile, less pollution, less congestion more
than offsets the subsidy amount. But having said that, if a way can be found
to drastically lower the cost per vehicle hour, I’m strongly in favor of that,
and I think I’ve found it.
What I call the “Transit Time Tax” is the biggest piece of this puzzle. Below
is a typical “Transit Time Tax” schedule – the data is from a Harvard study.
The “Transit Time Tax” – tax rates in minutes:
Car travel: Fixed = 5.6 minutes, per mile = 1.6 minutes
Bus travel: Fixed = 22.2 minutes, per mile = 3.0 minutes
Subway: Fixed = 18.4 minutes, per mile = 3.3 minutes
Here’s my question: for Transit users, is the “Transit Time Tax” more of a flat
tax, or more of a progressive tax? I think it’s clearly a flat tax – there is
a high fixed time cost for everyone. This “Transit Time Tax” system is highly
regressive – it hits poor and low income people hard, and (by reducing
congestion) lowers the “Transit Time Tax” for people with more money.
When you compare cars and Transit, the marginal cost of using a car is pretty
low, and the marginal time cost compared to Transit is very low. In order to
give people incentives to switch in large numbers from cars to Transit it is
absolutely essentially that we slash the Transit Time Tax for everyone. At
least when we’re starting out, it is also crucial to reduce the marginal cost
of Transit as much as possible. Doing these things will encourage a large
number of people to take a really close look at the very high fixed cost of
owning a vehicle. When people see it’s practical to own one less vehicle, or
no vehicle, we can expect to see a huge change in the household budgets of
everyone who makes the switch. That’s what this is all about.
My plan for 5 minute service is designed to dramatically slash the Transit Time
Tax – for everybody. The additional time people spend waiting, and moving
slower than cars, is the biggest barrier preventing large numbers of people
switching to transit as a major or primary way the use to get around.
I’m in favor of reducing the overall cost of transit. I’m also strongly in
favor of a system that is much more equitable. For poor and low income people
this means: faster service, low cost, and access to a much bigger geographic
area of the job market.
Bob Carney Jr.
“candidate-journalist”; Candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis
East Lake Harriet Farmstead