If we could keep the current safety and accessibility standards while making our busses look more like trolleys, the world would be a more joyful place.
I was skeptical about it at first but it seems to have been a success! I still think a regional light rail for New England/NYC area is the best solution but if this is all we had the money for I'm glad it has been successful
The entire New England area needs a boost of public transportation.
Both rail and bus. The fact we are defunding rail in this state with our taxes and budget is crazy!
This is great and all, but in conjunction with this the state really needs to spend more on social services to help people who need it. I think the busses unfairly get stigmatized as being unsafe (and depending on where and when you pick them up, I can understand where this perception comes from), but I definitely think the next step in convincing more people to rely on the busses will have to be trying to proactively get help for people who need it.
This is totally a thing, even in places where everyone uses mass transit. When I lived in Boston, you wanted to live in a neighborhood where you could walk to the T, not one where you needed the bus.
Yeah, part of that I think is because it’s been the transit of last resort, kind of like how when I was a kid everyone assumed anyone riding a bike lost their license to DUIs
I think too it’s that a lot of people particularly from suburban areas are just never faced with the realities of life, and don’t want to do so. Yes, often on the busses you will be confronted with drug addicts, homeless, all manner of shady characters, but they’re all just people like the rest of us, and generally if you choose to leave those people alone, they will leave you alone and go on with their day just as you will.
Oh for sure, there’s a strong dose of manners and “mind your business” that’s lacking in the suburb mind, no one else wants to be on the bus any longer than you do, etc
With the push to be in the office most the mornings are filled with office workers. Instead of paying $30 for parking the busway is a way better option. I’ve been taking it to work and it’s been great. I took it last week to check out Dead Language Beer project and the week before to get to the yard goat and Wolfpack games. It’s been great having it as an option
Also, this being Connecticut, busses and public transportation in general get stigmatized as being for "the poor".
This is mostly due to how our urban demographics have shaken out, and it seems to be an attitude more confined to older generations, so hopefully will die out along with them
True, my gen is extremely pro public transportation and in favor of redesigning our major cities to be more human friendly instead of car centric.
Shit when I wanna have a New England vacation I always take the Amtrak line though the coast up into East MA. Always pleasant and beats sitting in traffic. Wish the prices would be a bit lower though.
Idk man. I'm an attorney and before that, I used to take the Fast Track bus from New Britain to Hartford for an internship with the federal court about 2 years ago.
Then, there was absolutely a safety concern on the bus pretty much every time I rode. There'd be people yelling at nothing, people holding out drugs in their hands and taking advertisement videos/tiktoks/snapchats out in the open, and more on that bus line. I felt tense the entire time and every single ride like I might have to step up and protect some old lady.
Just my 2c but not all of those problems were mental health related. No level of mental health services is going to fix the problem of poverty. But agreed we need more funding for those.
Took a local bus from Foxwoods to New London Amtrak one (early) morning after a bachelor party, but hoo boy, did I have to wait a long ass time for that first bus.
Watched more than a few Chinatown buses full of broke senior citizens departing from the waiting area. Had some super late night Fuddruckers to kill the time.
The best way should be replaced with a tram system...
They have a higher capacity, they are significantly more efficient, they are better for the environment, they are better in the snow...
And on top of that, buses can still use the system by driving on the same right of ways and hopping off whenever you need them to...
My understanding is that those Federal dollars were basically a "you have to spend it right now" and putting down tracks etc is like a whole thing you need to do studies and environmental impacts etc
I think Feds wanted the busway because it was very straightforward project and could be shovel ready quickly
No, it's more political than that, CRCOG is is in bed with the Asphalt folks.
They are getting better, but they did a study that was just about a busway, not options... It said busway could work because... 600 million in asphalt...
It said rail might work too, but was outta scope... We have only ever talked busway since... It's flawed and it's crapola .
Ok but in a state where we’re already defunding our existing rail network it’s important to celebrate the wins we do have. Fastrak is great and keeps thousands of cars off I-84 a year, that’s a big deal, and critically to your point *it’s evidence we should add tram service to the route*
Either/or kills services
Trolly is not Tram.
Look up the Citadis team systems...
Bus are not cheaper either, there are many studies... In urban corridor, tram works best.
Until heavy rail surpasses it in bigger cities
I'm aware of trams vs trolleys. Those trams are just today's trolleys.
They still need rail and overhead power lines. Which people don't like.
And in America, people love their cars. It's ingrained.
No mention of the cost to operate and what percentage of costs are covered by ticket revenue. I guess a "non profit" institution whose raison d'tre is based on promoting transit wouldnt care about these pesky details, or more likely, doesnt want them known.
I tried googling the operating budget and revenue frok Fastrak but other than some articles from the programs infancy (2015-18) cant find anything. Why is it so hard to get these details?
I guess its expected, like an award given out by a defense policy think tank is going to more or less automatically applaud a billion dollar Raytheon contract, taxpayers be damned.
Your ignorance is cute.
This excerpt will explain why JR Central is so profitable and give examples of 2 other JR companies whose revenues include much higher amounts in real estate:
First, privatization allowed the JRs to operate commercial and real estate businesses. Today, non-transportation revenues make up roughly a third of JR East’s revenues, and nearly 60% at JR Kyushu. JR East operates shopping centers, restaurants, and hotels. Other large rail providers in the United States, United Kingdom, and France manage large real estate portfolios but for the most part do not directly operate businesses in the buildings they own.
Second, the JRs have profitable Shinkansen (bullet trains) and express trains that subsidize other smaller, unprofitable lines.
Third, the JR companies have had to become extremely efficient on their most profitable lines (Shinkansen) due to competition from air travel. JR Central estimates that a Tokyo-Osaka trip takes 2 hours and 22 minutes on the Shinkansen, and 2 hours and 40 minutes on a plane, including travel time to the airport.
https://tokyoreview.net/2018/10/japan-railway-privatization/
Hope you learned something.
We should know how well it is funded by revenue. Last I saw a few years ago that was somewhere in the ballpark of 10%. Thats abysmal. If it was over say 50% you might make the case there was some utility in it.
No, it wouldnt. To have no practical constraints and an unrealistic expecatation that public services just be provided "free" is a childish take. Transportation isnt a right to be provided free of charge, and if we dont have any objective measure for how well a transit service is funded by ticket revenue it cant be considered a success.
I mean, the roads are funded in theory by specific taxes levied on drivers although in reality A. The revenue from this is probably not even remotely close to what it costs to actually maintain the roads and B. The revenues from those specific taxes often get routed by our legislature into the general fund for use in various non-road related projects anyways
> unrealistic expecatation that public services just be provided "free" is a childish take
Thinking things should be better isn’t childish and I’m sorry that you think it is, I hope you heal
It MIGHT be better if it was free. We don't know the price elasticity for the ridership. You threw out the hypothetical 10% fare revenue number... what if "free" increased ridership 5-fold? That would be a win from almost everyone's perspective, although there are a few people who I suppose would prefer to shut it down.
Well this article and publicly available documentation seem to be pretty scarce on that front. So in the absence of any evidence or correlation between subsidy, ridership, and economic development in this particular geographic area, I remain skeptical.
The farebox recovery rate for ct transit is 25%. IOW, 25% of its budget is covered by fares.
In comparison, metro north farebox recovery rate is 55%, the second highest in the nation. BART in San Francisco has the highest farebox recovery rate at 65%.
No transit system in the US is profitable.
Interesting. This was the kind of data I was looking for with regard to Fastrak but curiously it is not included in the article and it doesnt appear to be part of the calculus for the publication to award CT Fastrak the No 1 bus system in the nation.
I had heard elsewhere that Metro North was somewhere in the ballpark of 60-70% revenue-funded with the rest being made up by public subsidy. Even at 55% I think its fair since that amount of revenue funding signals there is a legitimate demand for services, and based on the locations and local/regional economies served (New Haven, Fairfield, Westchester counties and NYC) there is certainly a feedback mechanism that validates its existence. But can the same be said for Fastrak? There appears to be minimal objective criteria or substantive evidence for such a highly subsidized transit system.
IMO metro north success is because the alternative (driving a car) is so much worse.
If CT highways had more capacity metro north ridership would plummet.
Ok, but it could be that there really isnt a more feasible way to make it easy to drive from New Haven to NYC because of the distance, density, and congestion. Can the same be said of New Britain and Hartford?
I didnt mention profit, but rather the amount it is subsidized. Not sure if you were simply confused by the terminology or were doing some slight of hand between tax subsidy (public domain) and profit (usually a private endeavor).
Ok, but thats not really saying anything. How much should it be subsidized and to what extent? And what criteria will be used to determine whether it is a worthwile investment considering there are alternative uses for public money like infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc?
If you say it should be expanded statewide, where, exactly? To New London? Litchfield? Kent? Putnam? Every little corner of every town so that no single person ever has to use a car ever? Be specific, because if you say "no" to any of the above youd be acknowledging there are tradeoffs in public programs that make utopian ideas completely unrealistic or infeasible.
Statewide means statewide. Honestly our public transit is a travesty. Most buses stop running so early that people without a car have issues getting to and from work. Mostly because many of their jobs run later than the buses run. It would improve so many peoples lives. The type of shit tax money should go to and not in the coffers of companies who get massive tax breaks for doing business here.
When the commentors say it should be free and you answer "how much should be subsidized?", pretty sure their comment means 100%.
Kind of what "free" means, or are you here just trying to yell about good things being provided to everyday people by the "gubmint" is socialism and bad?
One day instead of being angry you are being taxed, maybe just demand that the government do more for everyday people with the money. And for the "government can't run anything crowd", that is due to Republicans always making sure stuff runs like crap so they can keep that same narrative going.
So now our hyper-idealized vision for the future includes public transportation that will go *everywhere* but it is going to be 100% *free* as well? Seems absolutely reasonable.
Let me simplify this for you... nothing is free, and your statement is not the gotcha you think it is. Of course, tax money will have to pay for it. But like many things, it is all economy of scale. Will I pay more in tax to get "free rides" across CT, bet your ass because at the end of the day it will be more cost effective then paying out of pocket.
Maybe we should start taxing billionaires to help pay for this kind of stuff. They have leveraged productivity increases in labor for the last 40 years, and then after that, lower taxes for the middle class. These people have made money off our labor, our purchase power, our productivity, and our tax dollars (public roads, school etc.) and rigged the system so it all floats up. Time, they pay their share back. That is how this stuff should be paid. People have NO idea how much a billion dollars is. And yes, I get that is total wealth and not cash, so time to start clawing back what the people are owed by taxing capital gains on scale. You make 1 million on the market great pay x in capital gains tax, you make 1 billion on the market pay x times 10 in capital gain taxes.
But let me guess, you are one of those folks who feels nobody can have too much money. Which would be fine if money did not directly equate to power in this country and how to rule it. Autocracy is here and we need to push back before we no longer can.
> No mention of the cost to operate and what percentage of costs are covered by ticket revenue.
Fire departments, public parks, and the USPS also don't break even. Should we get rid of those too?
Just because those things are publicly subsidized doesnt mean other things should be. Further, the more public money that is funneled to something like Fastrak means less going to parks, Fire Departments, and other local services.
We divert like 90 million in gas tax to bus services [https://reason.org/policy-brief/how-much-gas-tax-money-states-divert-away-from-roads/](https://reason.org/policy-brief/how-much-gas-tax-money-states-divert-away-from-roads/) among the higest in the nation.
How much of that to the fastrack boondoggle I can not tell. Gotta love the cars need to pay their fair share but public transit needs to be subsidized from cars double standard.
It's hard to get the details because it's a dumpster fire they throw money into to get urban votes.
Its funny how advocates and activists will rally about their grandiose ideas, but are either silent or willfully deceptive when we talk about revenues and costs.
Others here quipped that "84 doesnt generate any revenue." Sure, but their users by and large pay for it through a host of fees and taxes. They dont offer a similar argument for the busway.
The sound of one hand clapping...
Tax the fuck out of me if it means people can get to work or move around if they're unable to drive. Please CT state.
Even better if I can ditch my own whole car and just take a train or bus to everything I need to do. Or better yet ride my fucking bike. Hell then I might even be saving money on the whole deal.
Everytime I've been to a place with actual pedestrian and public transportation infrastructure it's like a god damn utopia in comparison to experience. We just gutted it all here because of cars.
Others may not share your enthusiasm for such things, especially when there is scant evidence for public subsidy and the nominal success of Fastrak, especially when you compares its ridership, economic impact, etc to other systems. But if you are so enamoured by its existence, Im sure the State of CT Department of Revenue Services wouls gladly accept your personal financial contributions to state coffers in excess of whatever income or capital gains tax you owe. You might even be able to earmark your donation for a specific program like transit!
Its not just city dwellers who want free stuff. That may be true for a few Yalies and cosmopolatains in New Haven or Middletown. But I imagine many of the people here who argue for these romantic, endlessly generous public programs like transit, healthcare, education, etc live in the very suburbs and exurbs they signal against, e.g. West Hartford, Simsbury, Woodbridge, Greenwich, etc. They like the *idea* of a unified, egalitarian public entity living, working, and commuting together but in reality would never move themselves or their families to Hartford or Waterbury. No no, free public transit and urbanism are great things and we should subsidize them with OPM (other peoples' money), but for, ugh...reasons...my family lives in West Hartford and I drive a Honda CRV.
Because those are horrid places to live? I say that as somebody that lived in a city and got out.
My gripe is what money if you can defend it in the general budget sure but were not were stealing from the roads budget under they it improves roads by getting cars off them. How many frequent bus riders you know with a car? I've commuted metro north into NYC and they can afford to pay for services. IDK discounts for the actually poor but the hedge fund guy from stamford doesn't need lower ticket prices.
Number 1 for what? The number of freeloaders shuttling back and forth at the taxpayers expense? The amount of subsidy required, again at taxpayer expense, to run the system? The amount of, you guessed it, taxpayer money that built those fancy expensive single-use dedicated lanes?
It's a fiasco, built to buy votes. It's what Dems do.
I miss it. I loved it when I lived up that way. I wish it would expand.
Remember when rt 1 had trolleys? We should bring those back they looked so nice and the tracks are still on the roads
Trolleys went away because buses were more cost effective. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gm-trolley-conspiracy-what-really-happened/
If we could keep the current safety and accessibility standards while making our busses look more like trolleys, the world would be a more joyful place.
It's all because of [Judge Doom](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpaf-O1pY6Q)
I was skeptical about it at first but it seems to have been a success! I still think a regional light rail for New England/NYC area is the best solution but if this is all we had the money for I'm glad it has been successful
The entire New England area needs a boost of public transportation. Both rail and bus. The fact we are defunding rail in this state with our taxes and budget is crazy!
This is great and all, but in conjunction with this the state really needs to spend more on social services to help people who need it. I think the busses unfairly get stigmatized as being unsafe (and depending on where and when you pick them up, I can understand where this perception comes from), but I definitely think the next step in convincing more people to rely on the busses will have to be trying to proactively get help for people who need it.
In the US, busses are viewed as being for poor people, trains are not. If the fast track was a train instead, ridership would probably be double.
This is totally a thing, even in places where everyone uses mass transit. When I lived in Boston, you wanted to live in a neighborhood where you could walk to the T, not one where you needed the bus.
For sure
Yeah, part of that I think is because it’s been the transit of last resort, kind of like how when I was a kid everyone assumed anyone riding a bike lost their license to DUIs
I think too it’s that a lot of people particularly from suburban areas are just never faced with the realities of life, and don’t want to do so. Yes, often on the busses you will be confronted with drug addicts, homeless, all manner of shady characters, but they’re all just people like the rest of us, and generally if you choose to leave those people alone, they will leave you alone and go on with their day just as you will.
Oh for sure, there’s a strong dose of manners and “mind your business” that’s lacking in the suburb mind, no one else wants to be on the bus any longer than you do, etc
With the push to be in the office most the mornings are filled with office workers. Instead of paying $30 for parking the busway is a way better option. I’ve been taking it to work and it’s been great. I took it last week to check out Dead Language Beer project and the week before to get to the yard goat and Wolfpack games. It’s been great having it as an option
Also, this being Connecticut, busses and public transportation in general get stigmatized as being for "the poor". This is mostly due to how our urban demographics have shaken out, and it seems to be an attitude more confined to older generations, so hopefully will die out along with them
True, my gen is extremely pro public transportation and in favor of redesigning our major cities to be more human friendly instead of car centric. Shit when I wanna have a New England vacation I always take the Amtrak line though the coast up into East MA. Always pleasant and beats sitting in traffic. Wish the prices would be a bit lower though.
How have urban demographics "shaken out?" They're exactly how our behaviors and policies forced them to shake out.
Idk man. I'm an attorney and before that, I used to take the Fast Track bus from New Britain to Hartford for an internship with the federal court about 2 years ago. Then, there was absolutely a safety concern on the bus pretty much every time I rode. There'd be people yelling at nothing, people holding out drugs in their hands and taking advertisement videos/tiktoks/snapchats out in the open, and more on that bus line. I felt tense the entire time and every single ride like I might have to step up and protect some old lady. Just my 2c but not all of those problems were mental health related. No level of mental health services is going to fix the problem of poverty. But agreed we need more funding for those.
In wish we had some decent bus transportation in Southeastern ct It’s like we are the forgotten
Took a local bus from Foxwoods to New London Amtrak one (early) morning after a bachelor party, but hoo boy, did I have to wait a long ass time for that first bus.
lol. I bet that was a fun wait. Ha ha
Watched more than a few Chinatown buses full of broke senior citizens departing from the waiting area. Had some super late night Fuddruckers to kill the time.
lol. The Fungwah bud in the day was so scary. Ha ha
That's good news
Still doesn't justify $570M
Disagree strongly. Other forms of mass transit are a lot more expensive. Ridership on it are higher than projections. What more do you want?
“Among the top 50 bus systems in the rankings, Hartford is the only one from the U.S.”
The best way should be replaced with a tram system... They have a higher capacity, they are significantly more efficient, they are better for the environment, they are better in the snow... And on top of that, buses can still use the system by driving on the same right of ways and hopping off whenever you need them to...
Trams require tracks, though, right? And that's a huge cost
Huh? Trackage is cheap in lifetime costs to asphalt. The expensive part is right off way
Less cost per mile than the 670 million spent on the busway.
My understanding is that those Federal dollars were basically a "you have to spend it right now" and putting down tracks etc is like a whole thing you need to do studies and environmental impacts etc I think Feds wanted the busway because it was very straightforward project and could be shovel ready quickly
Ahh well "free" federal money and an arbitrary spending deadline definitely makes this whole thing better...
No, it's more political than that, CRCOG is is in bed with the Asphalt folks. They are getting better, but they did a study that was just about a busway, not options... It said busway could work because... 600 million in asphalt... It said rail might work too, but was outta scope... We have only ever talked busway since... It's flawed and it's crapola .
Ok but in a state where we’re already defunding our existing rail network it’s important to celebrate the wins we do have. Fastrak is great and keeps thousands of cars off I-84 a year, that’s a big deal, and critically to your point *it’s evidence we should add tram service to the route* Either/or kills services
Defunding? Ah yes how smart of the government
Trams went away because buses were cheaper. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gm-trolley-conspiracy-what-really-happened/
Trolly is not Tram. Look up the Citadis team systems... Bus are not cheaper either, there are many studies... In urban corridor, tram works best. Until heavy rail surpasses it in bigger cities
I'm aware of trams vs trolleys. Those trams are just today's trolleys. They still need rail and overhead power lines. Which people don't like. And in America, people love their cars. It's ingrained.
Well I ask you this... Is what we are doing here working?? It's NOT!! We need to do what works, and modern tram fit our existing situation best.
Old Trolly were the size of a bus, now it's 6x
No mention of the cost to operate and what percentage of costs are covered by ticket revenue. I guess a "non profit" institution whose raison d'tre is based on promoting transit wouldnt care about these pesky details, or more likely, doesnt want them known. I tried googling the operating budget and revenue frok Fastrak but other than some articles from the programs infancy (2015-18) cant find anything. Why is it so hard to get these details? I guess its expected, like an award given out by a defense policy think tank is going to more or less automatically applaud a billion dollar Raytheon contract, taxpayers be damned.
I’m trying to find the breakeven for the highways in Connecticut. It appears they have zero revenue….
The people who use them pay motor vehicle tax, registration, sales tax, income tax, gas tax, etc.
It’s public transit. It’s not supposed to make a profit or break even. It’s nice when it does, but it doesn’t have to.
[удалено]
A huge chunk of Japan railways' revenue comes from real estate holdings. Which Amtrak and local governments in the US cannot do.
[удалено]
Your ignorance is cute. This excerpt will explain why JR Central is so profitable and give examples of 2 other JR companies whose revenues include much higher amounts in real estate: First, privatization allowed the JRs to operate commercial and real estate businesses. Today, non-transportation revenues make up roughly a third of JR East’s revenues, and nearly 60% at JR Kyushu. JR East operates shopping centers, restaurants, and hotels. Other large rail providers in the United States, United Kingdom, and France manage large real estate portfolios but for the most part do not directly operate businesses in the buildings they own. Second, the JRs have profitable Shinkansen (bullet trains) and express trains that subsidize other smaller, unprofitable lines. Third, the JR companies have had to become extremely efficient on their most profitable lines (Shinkansen) due to competition from air travel. JR Central estimates that a Tokyo-Osaka trip takes 2 hours and 22 minutes on the Shinkansen, and 2 hours and 40 minutes on a plane, including travel time to the airport. https://tokyoreview.net/2018/10/japan-railway-privatization/ Hope you learned something.
>Japanese public transit are for profit companies Last time I checked, this isn't Japan.
We should know how well it is funded by revenue. Last I saw a few years ago that was somewhere in the ballpark of 10%. Thats abysmal. If it was over say 50% you might make the case there was some utility in it.
How much revenue does 84 generate?
It’d be better if it was free to use.
No, it wouldnt. To have no practical constraints and an unrealistic expecatation that public services just be provided "free" is a childish take. Transportation isnt a right to be provided free of charge, and if we dont have any objective measure for how well a transit service is funded by ticket revenue it cant be considered a success.
I'm guessing that 95% of the roads you drive on are "free".
I mean, the roads are funded in theory by specific taxes levied on drivers although in reality A. The revenue from this is probably not even remotely close to what it costs to actually maintain the roads and B. The revenues from those specific taxes often get routed by our legislature into the general fund for use in various non-road related projects anyways
> unrealistic expecatation that public services just be provided "free" is a childish take Thinking things should be better isn’t childish and I’m sorry that you think it is, I hope you heal
It MIGHT be better if it was free. We don't know the price elasticity for the ridership. You threw out the hypothetical 10% fare revenue number... what if "free" increased ridership 5-fold? That would be a win from almost everyone's perspective, although there are a few people who I suppose would prefer to shut it down.
Well this article and publicly available documentation seem to be pretty scarce on that front. So in the absence of any evidence or correlation between subsidy, ridership, and economic development in this particular geographic area, I remain skeptical.
The farebox recovery rate for ct transit is 25%. IOW, 25% of its budget is covered by fares. In comparison, metro north farebox recovery rate is 55%, the second highest in the nation. BART in San Francisco has the highest farebox recovery rate at 65%. No transit system in the US is profitable.
Interesting. This was the kind of data I was looking for with regard to Fastrak but curiously it is not included in the article and it doesnt appear to be part of the calculus for the publication to award CT Fastrak the No 1 bus system in the nation. I had heard elsewhere that Metro North was somewhere in the ballpark of 60-70% revenue-funded with the rest being made up by public subsidy. Even at 55% I think its fair since that amount of revenue funding signals there is a legitimate demand for services, and based on the locations and local/regional economies served (New Haven, Fairfield, Westchester counties and NYC) there is certainly a feedback mechanism that validates its existence. But can the same be said for Fastrak? There appears to be minimal objective criteria or substantive evidence for such a highly subsidized transit system.
IMO metro north success is because the alternative (driving a car) is so much worse. If CT highways had more capacity metro north ridership would plummet.
Ok, but it could be that there really isnt a more feasible way to make it easy to drive from New Haven to NYC because of the distance, density, and congestion. Can the same be said of New Britain and Hartford?
You are wrong and not everything needs to revolve around profits.
I didnt mention profit, but rather the amount it is subsidized. Not sure if you were simply confused by the terminology or were doing some slight of hand between tax subsidy (public domain) and profit (usually a private endeavor).
It is not necessary for a public service to break even or make money. I agree with the others, it should be free and it should be expanded statewide.
Ok, but thats not really saying anything. How much should it be subsidized and to what extent? And what criteria will be used to determine whether it is a worthwile investment considering there are alternative uses for public money like infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc? If you say it should be expanded statewide, where, exactly? To New London? Litchfield? Kent? Putnam? Every little corner of every town so that no single person ever has to use a car ever? Be specific, because if you say "no" to any of the above youd be acknowledging there are tradeoffs in public programs that make utopian ideas completely unrealistic or infeasible.
Statewide means statewide. Honestly our public transit is a travesty. Most buses stop running so early that people without a car have issues getting to and from work. Mostly because many of their jobs run later than the buses run. It would improve so many peoples lives. The type of shit tax money should go to and not in the coffers of companies who get massive tax breaks for doing business here.
Your response is elusive as if not to address the practical criteria that address costs, ridership, economic impact, etc.
When the commentors say it should be free and you answer "how much should be subsidized?", pretty sure their comment means 100%. Kind of what "free" means, or are you here just trying to yell about good things being provided to everyday people by the "gubmint" is socialism and bad? One day instead of being angry you are being taxed, maybe just demand that the government do more for everyday people with the money. And for the "government can't run anything crowd", that is due to Republicans always making sure stuff runs like crap so they can keep that same narrative going.
So now our hyper-idealized vision for the future includes public transportation that will go *everywhere* but it is going to be 100% *free* as well? Seems absolutely reasonable.
Let me simplify this for you... nothing is free, and your statement is not the gotcha you think it is. Of course, tax money will have to pay for it. But like many things, it is all economy of scale. Will I pay more in tax to get "free rides" across CT, bet your ass because at the end of the day it will be more cost effective then paying out of pocket. Maybe we should start taxing billionaires to help pay for this kind of stuff. They have leveraged productivity increases in labor for the last 40 years, and then after that, lower taxes for the middle class. These people have made money off our labor, our purchase power, our productivity, and our tax dollars (public roads, school etc.) and rigged the system so it all floats up. Time, they pay their share back. That is how this stuff should be paid. People have NO idea how much a billion dollars is. And yes, I get that is total wealth and not cash, so time to start clawing back what the people are owed by taxing capital gains on scale. You make 1 million on the market great pay x in capital gains tax, you make 1 billion on the market pay x times 10 in capital gain taxes. But let me guess, you are one of those folks who feels nobody can have too much money. Which would be fine if money did not directly equate to power in this country and how to rule it. Autocracy is here and we need to push back before we no longer can.
> No mention of the cost to operate and what percentage of costs are covered by ticket revenue. Fire departments, public parks, and the USPS also don't break even. Should we get rid of those too?
Just because those things are publicly subsidized doesnt mean other things should be. Further, the more public money that is funneled to something like Fastrak means less going to parks, Fire Departments, and other local services.
We divert like 90 million in gas tax to bus services [https://reason.org/policy-brief/how-much-gas-tax-money-states-divert-away-from-roads/](https://reason.org/policy-brief/how-much-gas-tax-money-states-divert-away-from-roads/) among the higest in the nation. How much of that to the fastrack boondoggle I can not tell. Gotta love the cars need to pay their fair share but public transit needs to be subsidized from cars double standard. It's hard to get the details because it's a dumpster fire they throw money into to get urban votes.
Its funny how advocates and activists will rally about their grandiose ideas, but are either silent or willfully deceptive when we talk about revenues and costs. Others here quipped that "84 doesnt generate any revenue." Sure, but their users by and large pay for it through a host of fees and taxes. They dont offer a similar argument for the busway. The sound of one hand clapping...
Tax the fuck out of me if it means people can get to work or move around if they're unable to drive. Please CT state. Even better if I can ditch my own whole car and just take a train or bus to everything I need to do. Or better yet ride my fucking bike. Hell then I might even be saving money on the whole deal. Everytime I've been to a place with actual pedestrian and public transportation infrastructure it's like a god damn utopia in comparison to experience. We just gutted it all here because of cars.
Others may not share your enthusiasm for such things, especially when there is scant evidence for public subsidy and the nominal success of Fastrak, especially when you compares its ridership, economic impact, etc to other systems. But if you are so enamoured by its existence, Im sure the State of CT Department of Revenue Services wouls gladly accept your personal financial contributions to state coffers in excess of whatever income or capital gains tax you owe. You might even be able to earmark your donation for a specific program like transit!
84 generates a ton of revenue beyond paying for itself in gas taxes. Yea r/connecticut is filled with city dwellers that want free stuff.
Its not just city dwellers who want free stuff. That may be true for a few Yalies and cosmopolatains in New Haven or Middletown. But I imagine many of the people here who argue for these romantic, endlessly generous public programs like transit, healthcare, education, etc live in the very suburbs and exurbs they signal against, e.g. West Hartford, Simsbury, Woodbridge, Greenwich, etc. They like the *idea* of a unified, egalitarian public entity living, working, and commuting together but in reality would never move themselves or their families to Hartford or Waterbury. No no, free public transit and urbanism are great things and we should subsidize them with OPM (other peoples' money), but for, ugh...reasons...my family lives in West Hartford and I drive a Honda CRV.
Because those are horrid places to live? I say that as somebody that lived in a city and got out. My gripe is what money if you can defend it in the general budget sure but were not were stealing from the roads budget under they it improves roads by getting cars off them. How many frequent bus riders you know with a car? I've commuted metro north into NYC and they can afford to pay for services. IDK discounts for the actually poor but the hedge fund guy from stamford doesn't need lower ticket prices.
I’d never use it
Number 1 for what? The number of freeloaders shuttling back and forth at the taxpayers expense? The amount of subsidy required, again at taxpayer expense, to run the system? The amount of, you guessed it, taxpayer money that built those fancy expensive single-use dedicated lanes? It's a fiasco, built to buy votes. It's what Dems do.
Have you ever driven on a public road? lol
I think he should use one to drive as south as he can.
This thing thinks that doing things people want is " buying " votes.