...at transportation matters. This time we’d like to take a look from the standpoint of needed versus nice, and which should be subsidized versus pay-as-you go.
From our perspective, "needed" is represented by an intra-city bus system which would enable all citizens to be able to make ordinary trips about the city - to work, shopping, entertainment or family visits for instance.
"Nice" is represented by a system which provides special treatment for those who choose to live in suburbia but who do not wish to pay the cost - or at least the full cost - of the inconvenient travel this choice requires. (As one old enough to remember the term "urban sprawl" being the equivalent of "sacrilegious" among planners, we would issue at least a partial caveat of the use of the word "nice" here.)
A part of our concern is geography. A map published on December 13 shows 8 transit routes of various kinds crossing into Hamilton County or being located along the Marion/Hamilton county line. We can only wonder how ridership on public transit will be affected by the eventual completion of the billions of dollars worth of highway improvement and expansion currently under way or in the planning stages for that same area.
We’ve seen figures telling us that rider fares usually generate only about 25% of operating revenues for public transit. As we have previously noted, this means that every time a rider spends $50 for fares, the taxpayers will have to come up with $150. With a total annual operating cost for all types of bus estimated at $110.7 million, that puts the local taxpayer on the hook for about $83 million a year from the start.
One bit of irony occurs to us. The city of Indianapolis has used taxpayer subsidy to try to encourage downtown living. Now we’re going to shovel out more huge stacks of taxpayer bucks to make it more convenient for the suburban resident to get back and forth.
Would it be too much to ask public officials to make up their d....d minds before loading on new taxes?
Comments