“If we massively subsidize roads made of concrete and asphalt for people who drive cars and trucks, there’s nothing wrong with a comparable subsidy for roads made of steel rails for people who ride trains.”

These are the concluding words of a op-ed by David R. Riemer, director of the Community Advocates Public Policy Institute at Community Advocates Inc. You know those roads? They’re heavily subsidized (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 3, 2010)

The following graphs were built from Riemer’s Excel spreadsheet and from Wisconsin Department of Transportation data: State Transportation Data

SOURCE

The source of Road funds – by percentage:

58.2% of Road funds come from the use of motorized vehicles: Fuel, Registration, Title, Fees.

41.4% of Road funds come from your Income, Property, and Sales taxes.

EXPENSE

How are Road funds spent?

92% of State transportation revenues are spent on roads.

Mass Transit receives 4.42 %

Railroads, Harbors, Airports receive 3.36%

The proposed Milwaukee to Madison Rail line would get 0.21% of State Transportation Funds..

In dollars:

For every $10 WisDOT spends on roads:

$9.20 goes to roads

44 cents goes to Mass Transit operations

34 cents goes to Rail, Harbors and Airport

2 cents would go to the operation of the Madison-Milwaukee high speed rail.

THE ROAD USER

We all use roads.

Car and truck drivers pay for roads with gasoline taxes and fees.

When a product is delivered the price includes the fuel and registration fees of the truck, and those fees are paid by you and me, the buyer.

And so everyone uses and pays for roads. While drivers pay per mile through gasoline taxes, their ride is subsidized by the rest of us.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR CHANGE

Consider other common services: water, sewer, gas, telephone, and electricity. For these we charge closer to cost because we have meters in each house to calculate real usage.

As Riemer points out: “For the most part … we don’t sock it to the taxpayers to subsidize the users of these equally essential services. Rather, the users of those services pay, more-or-less, for 100% of the cost.”

All transportation is subsidized. From the sidewalk to the airport, an effective government will provide the infrastructure that serves all citizens. An effective government will remove barriers to accessing jobs, schools, hospitals, recreation, and commerce.

To serve taxpayers who should not drive do not drive, cannot drive, or do not want to drive, we need transportation policy that brings the benefits of mobility to all citizens.

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation itself says the interchange would harm efforts to redevelop older commercial areas of Milwaukee.

Not a single peep in protest from Milwaukee Dems.

More here.

The committee also approved a new authority and a $16 per car rental car fee, which will automatically  rise with inflation, to fund the expansion of the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee commuter line. The KRM is a much needed development, but having it run by a non-elected body using automoatically increasing taxes is far, far from ideal.

The Milwaukee County proposal would allow a 1% sales tax to support Milwaukee County transit. That’s good news for transit (if not for sales tax payers) and bad news for transit. It’s good because it would get some desperately-needed money to the Milwaukee County Transit System. It’s bad because it would get money only to the Milwaukee County Transit System and would seem to pretty much gut chances that suburban counties will extend transit within their borders.

On the other hand, if this measure holds, a more developed transit system in Milwaukee County could prompt business leaders to look more favorably at locating in Milwaukee city or county, rather than in places where workers don’t have a good way to get to their jobs.

There is a lot of room for mischief and funding diversion in the measure, though. As Wispolitics.com reports, “The motion also specifies that revenues from the RTA’s sales and use tax can be used to fund transit, parks, cultural, and emergecy medical service programs in Milwaukee Co. Milwaukee Co. will be the fiscal agent for the RTA.” Fifteen percent of the revenue will be earmarked for the city of Milwaukee.

Doyle wanted to make it harder and more expensive for property owners to appeal WisDOT low-ball offers for private property the agency wanted to take over to make way for transportation projects. The proposal would have limited lawyer’s fees for property owners who take their cases to court and win, thus leaving property owners hugely wronged by WisDOT with the prospect of large lawyer bills for taking on the state.

Doyle accepted a WisDOT budget request to limit legal fees a court can award to lawyers who represent property owners who successfully claim that WisDOT shortchanged them in the amounts the agency offered for property. The governor  is proposing that attorney’s fees in litigated compensation cases be limited to one−third of the difference between WisDOT’s offer and the court-awarded purchase price, except that if one−third of that difference is less than $5,000, the amount of attorney fees included in litigation expenses may not exceed $5,000.

The limits would apply when the court-awarded sales price exceeds the the WisDOT offer by at least $700 and at least 15 percent.

WisDOT made it clear, in its original budget request, that its intent was to discourage lawyers from representing property owners.

“Litigating land purchases consumes more time and resources within the Department compared to negotiating directly with landowners,” the department said. “It could adversely affect the timeline of highway construction projects. Securing land can be a first step in a project and any delays can impact final completion and overall project cost.”

Doyle’s budget also would strip residents legal protections from residents who challenge government land grabs. Under current law, the Daprtment of Commerce can investigate  when the state tries to condemn and take property to make sure the state is obeying the law. If there are violations, Commerce can take the state to court. The governor wants to end the department’s ability to help the land owner.

Doyle also would kill the right of a person who loses their property to appeal to Commerce for review of his or her complaint. Under current law, Commerce can try to negotiate an acceptable solution with the agency that condemned the property. Commerce would not be able to do that under Doyle’s budget.

Finally, Doyle’s budget would kill a law that  the attorney general, at the request of Commerce, to prosecute all necessary actions or proceedings for the enforcement of the laws relating to relocation benefits.

More here.