Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Makid]

Even though diesel is still between $3 and $3.50, that does put their costs down about 25% currently and it should still drop further. At a 25% drop, that is still approximately $12 Million a year in unplanned excess funds.

That value would grow as diesel continues its drop as well.

Also, UTA does purchase orders for diesel every 3 to 6 months. This means that it could lock in lower costs over a longer period based on the current cost trends. When fuel was going up, UTA would lock in the lower price for a longer duration. With it going down, they may be able to get a split difference and save again by basing current cost and projected cost at the end of the deal.

In total, the savings will be about the same for diesel as it is for unleaded.

Also, UTA has been purchasing more CNG buses. This will help keep their fuel costs down as more enter the fleet.

Lastly, while not strictly UTA, there is at least 1 U of U campus shuttle that has been changed over to all electric with wireless charging (charging at shuttle stops). I remember reading that UTA was watching it closely as it could further reduce their fuel costs if it was successful.

The technology for the shuttle charging was developed locally if I recall.

[jubguy3]

The oil prices are not temporary. They may fluctuate back up within the near future because of the ISIS price wars and the action Saudi Arabia and the U.S. is taking. I wouldn't get too excited about this, because the can't really plan a 10 year fleet purchase off of very recent events.

[H4vok]

It looks like UTA updated their website (www.rideuta.com). Looks better IMO. Unfortunately, they did not update their transit map along with it. boo

[SLC Projects]

Obviously our lawmakers don't understand economics.
Gas taxes are assessed PER GALLON.
Lower priced (per gallon) gasoline will encourage people to use MORE gasoline.
More gallons sold means MORE tax revenue at the current tax rate.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to raise the tax rate.
Also lower taxes means more money in our pockets, hench, we the people have more to spend that would support businesses that would better help the economy. But typical big greedy government comes in and wants to pinch us even more so once we finally get a break at the pumps. Paying under $2.00 at the pumps? We can't have that.
Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

More gallons sold means MORE tax revenue at the current tax rate.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to raise the tax rate.

The rate isn't a percentage. It's a flat "cents per gallon" that hasn't reflected any inflation since 1996.

Lawmakers propose:

(a) Changing it to a percentage

(b) OR raising it to meet 1996 cents per gallon buying power and setting it to automatically increase a new pennies each year to offset inflation

[Makid]

I am very encouraged that the legislature is looking to raise the Gas Tax and make it scale with cost and inflation as well as encouraged about the ability to raise sales taxes for transit.

We need to get real about transit. We need better service frequency and route coverage (times and locations).

With the increase we can see better frequencies, BRT and later hours. It is also possible that the Black Line go 24/7 to better service the airport and downtown.

I do hope that these 2 taxes pass (gas tax and county transit tax) as well as a possible third tax. This Tax would be a possible tax increase on a city level to support increased transit options within a given city.

This would could be levied as a property tax or a sales tax within the city. This would allow Salt Lake City to build the desired streetcars and extensions, city branded bus service, upgrade roads to complete streets, trax loops and so forth.

It would also allow Sandy to build a streetcar system connecting Trax and Frontrunner through their new and planned higher density housing. The same for Draper building rail to the future prison redevelopment area.

[downtownslcresident]

According to Twitter, UTA says they will have a new system map design on the website this quarter.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Makid

This Tax would be a possible tax increase on a city level to support increased transit options within a given city.

Provo recently added a $5 per hour per month fee (which I believe increases with inflation) to city utility bills (garbage, power, water). It pays for road maintenance and local road expansion. There's also a transportation fee for non-residential property which includes churches, too, that varies depending on square footage and/or power use.

Not the only way it could be done, but I'd love to see every city do something similar, just so we have sustainable revenue.

[SLC Projects]

So we should just tax everybody dry then with new/higher taxes? How is this good for the middle or lower class who can just barely get by from paycheck to paycheck as is? Maybe UTA and our local government needs to learn how to BETTER BUDGET and quit wasting millions of dollars each year.

[Hatman]

There is that point of view that governments keep adding more taxes just to fund politician's pet projects, and sometimes this may be very much the truth. There is also the other side, though, that infrastructure gets paid for by people who don't benefit from it - specifically roads get subsidized by people who do not have a driver's licence, or how transit gets funded through sales taxes even though many of the people who are buying things (everybody buys things) will never actually use any transit.

Question: Why is transit funded through sales taxes? I know Utah isn't the only place where this happens, but sales taxes? It seems rather arbitrary to me.

I'm not in favor of new taxes, but I am in favor of people paying for what they use. Car drivers are notoriously subsidized. Depending on your sources, the gas taxes (state and local) pay for between 50-75% of the cost of road maintenance. Construction of new roads is an entirely different matter. The Highway Trust Fund (where federal gas taxes are collected) has been bailed out to the tune of several BILLION dollars in recent years, and it only seems to be getting worse. Car drivers sucking up far more than their fair share of tax dollars, and they don't even know it. I say it's time to at least attempt to do something about it. No one should get a free ride. Everyone should have to pay for the consequences of their travel habits.

(And if you try to argue that transit riders are subsidized just as much as car drivers, be prepared to argue about True Costs, including social and environmental costs. Those are real things too, even if no one has quite figured out how to turn a profit on them.)

So while I don't like having new taxes forced on me or people who are struggling financially, I do like that people are even talking about adjusting the taxes to a sustainable level.

[brankrom]

Every time I read people bitching about taxes I wonder where they think the money goes? It's not like rolls of Benjamin's are being thrown into a furnace in the basement to heat the evil guvmint buildings. Taxes go to pay for infrastructure (parks, roads, transit), salaries, studies, incentives and every dime that comes in goes out again back into the economy. The issue is not taxes its the regressive tax structure that has come about over the last 30+ years of trickle down. The poor and middle class have been paying a consistent level of taxes forever. The change that has happened is that the wealthiest people are paying a far lower percentage that what it was historically. The tax rate for the wealthiest used to be 70% and somehow there were still the Sinclairs, Hughes, Carnegies, Bushes and Romneys. The wealthy have somehow convince the dopey electorate that lowering the taxes on the wealthy trickles down meanwhile our infrastructure is crumbling and no one wants to pay to repair it.

We don't have a spending issue we have a revenue issue. There's still a ton of projects that need to be done that lack funding.

With all that said this gas tax increase proposal is going to go nowhere. No way in hell the tea bag legislature will invest in our future.

[tygr]

Originally Posted by brankrom

The wealthy have somehow convince the dopey electorate that lowering the taxes on the wealthy trickles down...

Have you seen how diverse our new congress is?

99% of the 114th Congress ARE in the 1%.

This is why our taxation is misaligned. They have no incentive to change that.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by brankrom

Every time I read people bitching about taxes I wonder where they think the money goes? It's not like rolls of Benjamin's are being thrown into a furnace in the basement to heat the evil guvmint buildings. Taxes go to pay for infrastructure (parks, roads, transit), salaries, studies, incentives and every dime that comes in goes out again back into the economy. The issue is not taxes its the regressive tax structure that has come about over the last 30+ years of trickle down. The poor and middle class have been paying a consistent level of taxes forever. The change that has happened is that the wealthiest people are paying a far lower percentage that what it was historically. The tax rate for the wealthiest used to be 70% and somehow there were still the Sinclairs, Hughes, Carnegies, Bushes and Romneys. The wealthy have somehow convince the dopey electorate that lowering the taxes on the wealthy trickles down meanwhile our infrastructure is crumbling and no one wants to pay to repair it.

We don't have a spending issue we have a revenue issue. There's still a ton of projects that need to be done that lack funding.

With all that said this gas tax increase proposal is going to go nowhere. No way in hell the tea bag legislature will invest in our future.

We "🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵" ( way to use such a shallow word ) because, we are tired of seeing more and more of our hard earn money getting thrown away towards higher or new taxes. I don't bust my 🞵🞵🞵 of 80+ hours every two weeks to earn a paycheck just to help pay for these guys to go fly first class, spend a night-week at a four diamond hotel and eat out at Ruth Chris all on our dime every night at a visiting city so these guys can do a over priced "study" for example.
You are living some kind of a fantasy if you truly believe that "every dime" of our taxes goes to pay for infrastructure (parks, roads, transit), salaries, studies, incentives and back into the economy. Sorry, but that's just not true. Plenty of that money goes to waste.
They can keep raising taxes all they like and STILL be in the hole if they can't budget it.
Well, you know, I have plenty of "projects" around the house that needs "funding" so maybe instead of learning to budget, I'll just go ask my boss for more money. And before anybody brings up my home being private vs pubic, my home is very much so pubic since we host a lot of events that the home gets plenty of wear and tear. But that's beside the point, the main point is, most of us have to learn to budget, why can't our government?

[RC14]

I don't for one second believe the government needs more revenue. The government awarded a grant for $300,000 to build a robot squirrel for the purpose of studying how snakes would react to it. The state department spent $400,000 building a statue of a camel looking at the eye of a needle for the embassy in Pakistan. That is just one example and $400k is not much money for the government but that is part of the problem. How long would you have to work before you have paid $400,00 in taxes? All that money you have paid over your entire life and thought was going to parks and schools and roads was spent on a plastic camel without much of a thought.
Now think about how every government building gets a budget for art. I like art but do you have $400,000 to spend on art in your home? Why should government buildings get that much of your money for art? Especially when you realize the government is only going to pay for art that communicates a message those in charge agree with.

The average American pays 50% of their income in taxes when they are all added together. Giving 10% of my money to the government should be more than enough to pay for roads and bridges and transit and all of that. The problem is that so much of the money is given to company's who scratch the backs of politicians. Many of these government funded projects aren't really about the public good but about putting money in the pockets of lobbyists and campaign donors. For example, I heard about a congressman back east who wanted to get Greek yogurt in schools. Why? The owner of a company that produces Greek yogurt donated money to his campaign.
Our politicians would have you believe that lowering taxes supports the rich but it is the opposite. Our tax money is not taken from the rich to give to the poor. It is taken from everyone but since the rich and powerful have the ability to lobby and bribe our politicians they are the ones who end up with the money in the end.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by RC14

I don't for one second believe the government needs more revenue. The government awarded a grant for $300,000 to build a robot squirrel for the purpose of studying how snakes would react to it. The state department spent $400,000 building a statue of a camel looking at the eye of a needle for the embassy in Pakistan. That is just one example and $400k is not much money for the government but that is part of the problem. How long would you have to work before you have paid $400,00 in taxes? All that money you have paid over your entire life and thought was going to parks and schools and roads was spent on a plastic camel without much of a thought.
Now think about how every government building gets a budget for art. I like art but do you have $400,000 to spend on art in your home? Why should government buildings get that much of your money for art? Especially when you realize the government is only going to pay for art that communicates a message those in charge agree with.


The average American pays 50% of their income in taxes when they are all added together. Giving 10% of my money to the government should be more than enough to pay for roads and bridges and transit and all of that. The problem is that so much of the money is given to company's who scratch the backs of politicians. Many of these government funded projects aren't really about the public good but about putting money in the pockets of lobbyists and campaign donors. For example, I heard about a congressman back east who wanted to get Greek yogurt in schools. Why? The owner of a company that produces Greek yogurt donated money to his campaign.
Our politicians would have you believe that lowering taxes supports the rich but it is the opposite. Our tax money is not taken from the rich to give to the poor. It is taken from everyone but since the rich and powerful have the ability to lobby and bribe our politicians they are the ones who end up with the money in the end.

And our defense budget isnt the problem? We could build 1,625,000 of those statues if we eliminated the defense bugdet.

[airhero]

If we eliminated the defense budget, we'd have a whole slew of other problems going on in the world.

[jubguy3]

We can't eliminate it, but we can reduce unnecessary expenses

[AllOutOfBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

We can't eliminate it, but we can reduce unnecessary expenses

We can down size welfare too, but what's that going to solve. John Oliver on HBO nailed this whole "how Gov. spends money" with the Lottery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA

[brankrom]

My point was that the middle class (which I'll assume most of us are) have consistently paid taxes and maintained a similar tax rate, the wealthy have had their tax burden lessen over the ensuing decades. The revenue issue is an issue because the wealthy have not kept up with their end of their taxation responsibility. I've never had issues paying taxes and I've never resented paying them because I like the nice things I have living in a civilized society. Do I like everything my taxes go for? Of course not, but if there is a proposal like a gas tax increase that will fund transit and push the true cost of driving then I'm for it and quite frankly wish the taxes reflected the damage to our environment. Not that Utah has any desire to make drivers pay the true cost of driving, but I wish they did.

I didn't say that all tax money goes to infrastructure and schools, but what I did say is that every dime taken in gets put back into the economy, probably with the exception of corporate welfare which largely ends up in a bank account somewhere.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

We can't eliminate it, but we can reduce unnecessary expenses

That we can all agree. And no welfare program comes anywhere close to defense spending. The only exception is Social Security, but that is nearly self-sustaining, since it relies on payroll taxes (people are, in essence, getting their own money back), which makes it totally different than welfare programs (medicaid, food stamps, etc.)