Greenville Transit

[gs3]

The same people who want better transit which requires more tax use are the same ones complaining about their taxes being used for transit services. I want more transit myself and I support a higher gas tax to help pay for it. Greenville and Gsupstate, seeing how you don't want your taxes going to transit services, how do you suggest we pay for expanded routes? Money doesn't grow on trees.

Citylife....please don't put words in my mouth.....I never said I don't want my taxes going to transit. What I said is that I want my taxes to be wisely used for a system that serves everyones needs? What is not clear about that?

I do want better transit, and better transit means a system focused on serving the needs of ALL in the metro. How about altering some current routes to serve more middle class areas. Raise the fare by 25 cents. Use the side of the buses to advertise the positives of taking transit. Instead of totally replacing the fleet, replace 75% of the fleet and use the other dollars for expanded routes. Get routes going that generate dollars. Partner with burbs.....partner with the airport authority......partner with frigin Michelin or other area corporations. There ARE ways to think out of the box.

If my tax dollars are being used wisely and they serve the needs of all, you'll hear no complaints from me. But if my tax dollars are being squandered on a system that only benefits a limited group of people, sorry, that doesn't cut it.

Edited July 14, 2009 by gsupstate

[vicupstate]

Greenville and gsupstate have made some good points, but consider these points:

* The city has only controlled the system for like one year give or take. Even so, there have been numerous improvements. Rome was not built in a day

* The City of Greenville can't justify providing MAULDIN and SIMPOSONVILLE with service. Those cities have to be on board financially. Fortunately, that seems to be in the works.

* Just as a business wants to add customers, it can't IGNORE it's current ones. The system can't dump old routes just to try untested new ones. Therefore, it can only ADD routes, not switch routes, without losing patronage. They may lose the old customers without gaining the hoped for new ones. Will city control still so new, that is a risk that can't be justified.

* New routes require not only new buses, but NEW DRIVERS. New drivers require salaries, benefits, SSN/Medicare matching, etc. That is expensive, and stimulus money is not available to spend on those items.

* Charleston, which has much higher bus transit usage, is doing essentially the same thing, using stimulus money to replace existing buses with high mileage. There reasons are probably very closely matched to Greenville's.

Getting new, cleaner, more efficient buses will be yet another big improvement in the system. This is a good thing. new routes and such will no doubt come in time. I applaud the city for stepping up to the plate to pick up what nearly everyone thought was a tar-baby. So far, it has gone well.

Edited July 15, 2009 by vicupstate

[GvilleSC]

Greenville and gsupstate have made some good points, but consider these points:

* The city has only controlled the system for like one year give or take. Even so, there have been numerous improvements. Rome was not built in a day

* The City of Greenville can't justify providing MAULDIN and SIMPOSONVILLE with service. Those cities have to be on board financially. Fortunately, that seems to be in the works.

* Just as a business wants to add customers, it can't IGNORE it's current ones. The system can't dump old routes just to try untested new ones. Therefore, it can only ADD routes, not switch routes, without losing patronage. They may lose the old customers without gaining the hoped for new ones. Will city control still so new, that is a risk that can't be justified.

* New routes require not only new buses, but NEW DRIVERS. New drivers require salaries, benefits, SSN/Medicare matching, etc. That is expensive, and stimulus money is not available to spend on those items.

* Charleston, which has much higher bus transit usage, is doing essentially the same thing, using stimulus money to replace existing buses with high mileage. There reasons are probably very closely matched to Greenville's.

Getting new, cleaner, more efficient buses will be yet another big improvement in the system. This is a good thing. new routes and such will no doubt come in time. I applaud the city for stepping up to the plate to pick up what nearly everyone thought was a tar-baby. So far, it has gone well.

I think that's pretty well said. That's the way I see it. These buses won't transform the system by themselves, but I do believe it's a step in the right direction. Couple this step with past upgrades, continuing initiatives, and future plans, and I think we're laying the framework for the expansion and transformation that we all want to see.

[gs3]

Greenville and gsupstate have made some good points, but consider these points:

* The city has only controlled the system for like one year give or take. Even so, there have been numerous improvements. Rome was not built in a day

* The City of Greenville can't justify providing MAULDIN and SIMPOSONVILLE with service. Those cities have to be on board financially. Fortunately, that seems to be in the works.

* Just as a business wants to add customers, it can't IGNORE it's current ones. The system can't dump old routes just to try untested new ones. Therefore, it can only ADD routes, not switch routes, without losing patronage. They may lose the old customers without gaining the hoped for new ones. Will city control still so new, that is a risk that can't be justified.

* New routes require not only new buses, but NEW DRIVERS. New drivers require salaries, benefits, SSN/Medicare matching, etc. That is expensive, and stimulus money is not available to spend on those items.

* Charleston, which has much higher bus transit usage, is doing essentially the same thing, using stimulus money to replace existing buses with high mileage. There reasons are probably very closely matched to Greenville's.

Getting new, cleaner, more efficient buses will be yet another big improvement in the system. This is a good thing. new routes and such will no doubt come in time. I applaud the city for stepping up to the plate to pick up what nearly everyone thought was a tar-baby. So far, it has gone well.

I agree with many of your points as well. I'm still not big on spending the money on new buses (my tax dollars) and not getting any use in return. I think I have a right for the system to serve my need if my taxes help pay for it. That is fair isn't it? I mean, I could be a big a-hole and say I shouldn't pay taxes for schools, since as a gay man I don't have children......I know several people that hold that belief......I'm not one of them though.

[vicupstate]

It is NOT logical nor reasonable to expect that every expenditure of government should benefit you personally.

We ALL have our taxes spent on things that don't benefit us personally. Likewise, there are many people that have THEIR taxes spent on things that I DO benefit from, that THEY do NOT benefit from. That's just the way it is.

I patronize the library a great deal, so I get my tax money's worth on that. However I never participate in a city recreation league or visit a senior or community center, or use many other city, county, state or federal services.

I have never called the fire department, so why should I pay taxes for that? See how stupid that sounds?

The next time some idiot tells you that they shouldn't pay taxes for schools because they aren't a parent, ask them these two questions:

1) Did you attend public schools? If you said yes, do you think someone without kids paid for YOUR education?

2) Do you ever go to the doctor? If you said yes, do you want that doctor to be educated?

[gs3]

I have never called the fire department, so why should I pay taxes for that? See how stupid that sounds?

Bravo! You brought up an EXCELLENT point. You've never used the fire department, but if you needed them, would they come to your house OR would they say they only go to certain poor areas of town? See how stupid that sounds?

Why should transit be any different. If it is to be a citywide service, that our tax dollars pay for, it should serve all areas and all needs, right? The fire department serves all areas, police serve all areas, roads go everywhere, the airport serves everyone, etc, etc. Why is transit different?

We can debate transit, but it is not some silly expectation if I want transit to serve me. I help pay for it. I work 70 hour plus weeks to be successful, make money and have a good life. I pay a huge amount of tax. Most people riding the bus probably pay little or no tax. Since I'm helping fund the system, it is only logical I get a return. That's not some far fetched idea.

[Spartan]

I see where you're going vic, but what if the argument were shifted somewhat. The question should be this:

Do you drive?

If so, do you use roads?

If so, do you want to be able to continue to use them (eg: usable condition, managed congestion)?

If so, would you be willing to support a tax increase to pay for more and better roads to spread traffic around?

If so, would you be willing to support a tax increase to pay for a way for a more efficient way to move people around the city that could decrease the amount of traffic on roads?

IMO, in the Upstate, it has to be addressed in a way that drivers can see a benefit. We don't have the population density or employment density to support a major transit system- though downtown Greenville is getting there. The fact is that we don't have a comprehensive transportation plan for the Upstate as a whole, and as a result the haphazard development patterns we have will continue to make transit ineffective. The counties need to start making more sustainable land use decisions that will result in a more viable population for which transit can be provided.

[Greenville]

It is NOT logical nor reasonable to expect that every expenditure of government should benefit you personally.

I don't expect to benefit personally, but I DO expect for those programs to be geared toward as large a segment of the public as possible. As I said earlier, nobody is suggesting that the current routes (which primarily serve lower income citizens) be cut. But it seems a bit irresponsible for all of the new buses to be used on those same routes when there is a market for new routes which serve other segments of society. That is ESPECIALLY true since the new routes would serve that segment of society which is contributing most of the tax dollars to begin with. Why is that hard to understand? It isn't the government's job to play Robin Hood and steal from one group and give to another.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Greenville

[Greenville]

Bravo! You brought up an EXCELLENT point. You've never used the fire department, but if you needed them, would they come to your house OR would they say they only go to certain poor areas of town? See how stupid that sounds?

Why should transit be any different. If it is to be a citywide service, that our tax dollars pay for, it should serve all areas and all needs, right? The fire department serves all areas, police serve all areas, roads go everywhere, the airport serves everyone, etc, etc. Why is transit different?

We can debate transit, but it is not some silly expectation if I want transit to serve me. I help pay for it. I work 70 hour plus weeks to be successful, make money and have a good life. I pay a huge amount of tax. Most people riding the bus probably pay little or no tax. Since I'm helping fund the system, it is only logical I get a return. That's not some far fetched idea.

Spot on, gsupstate!

[vicupstate]

Greenlink Route Map

The map of routes shows pretty broad coverage to me. Remember this is the CITY of Greenville's system. Despite that, Taylors and many other unincorporated areas are covered too. The routes are intended to serve the demand, not assure curb service to every resident. I'm sorry that a bus doesn't drive by your front door, but that doesn't mean transit is not worthy of public support.

The poor pay for highways and airports that they don't use in proportion to the middle and upper class, so spare me that argument.

I assure you, the driver is not going to ask you how much taxes you paid before allowing you to board. You are free to use the system anytime you choose.

The poor pay ss taxes, sales taxes, alcohol, cigarette and just about all other types of taxes except income. They pay property taxes either directly or indirectly through rent. They pay the same sales tax on an old junk car as someone buying a Lexus.

There is NO money to hire additional drivers !!!!!!!! That is why they cannot add new routes without dropping existing ones !!!!!!!!!!!!

[gs3]

Greenlink Route Map

The map of routes shows pretty broad coverage to me. Remember this is the CITY of Greenville's system. Despite that, Taylors and many other unincorporated areas are covered too. The routes are intended to serve the demand, not assure curb service to every resident. I'm sorry that a bus doesn't drive by your front door, but that doesn't mean transit is not worthy of public support.

The poor pay for highways and airports that they don't use in proportion to the middle and upper class, so spare me that argument.

I assure you, the driver is not going to ask you how much taxes you paid before allowing you to board. You are free to use the system anytime you choose.

The poor pay ss taxes, sales taxes, alcohol, cigarette and just about all other types of taxes except income. They pay property taxes either directly or indirectly through rent. They pay the same sales tax on an old junk car as someone buying a Lexus.

There is NO money to hire additional drivers !!!!!!!! That is why they cannot add new routes without dropping existing ones !!!!!!!!!!!!

You aren't getting my point and please don't put "words in my mouth". I do NOT expect curb service. What I do expect is a sytem that completely serves the "public" and serves the citizens that pay for it. It is called "public" transit. With the current model and the current routes, only a vey small section of the public benefits (mostly the people who do not contribute taxes). If it is truely "public" transit, it should serve the major portion of the public, the middle class....it should give the middle class reasons to leave their cars. That is just smart business and smart for the environment. As it is, in current form, don't call it "public" transit, call it "charity" transit.

To be very clear, I am for public transit, I believe in public transit and want public transit....I just want it for all people, not a small portion of the population.

Edited July 17, 2009 by gsupstate

[Spartan]

Just an observation here, but I think y'all are arguing the same point.

The system needs money in order for it to be an equitable service. Period. Right now its just a bare-bones operation that services the areas where people are the most transit dependent.

[gman430]

It appears as though stimulus funds have been approved for bus shelters and vehicles to start Mauldin and Simpsonville service. Look at GPATS on page 15 here: http://www.scdot.org/inside/pdfs/ARRA-1511Certification.pdf But I thought some people on this forum said the stimulus was a waste of money.

[GvilleSC]

That's exciting news! I hope the proposed routes will be truly viable for commuters.

[Greenville]

But I thought some people on this forum said the stimulus was a waste of money.

Nobody said that stimulus funds couldn't be used in the short-term for some good things. The concern many people have is that the stimulus funds will have to be paid back with money which currently is not there. It's not free money, as some people believe. You should understand that, seeing as how you have taken an economics class.

[GvilleSC]

You should understand that, seeing as how you have taken an economics class.

I had forgotten about the theories of identity...

[gman430]

Nobody said that stimulus funds couldn't be used in the short-term for some good things. The concern many people have is that the stimulus funds will have to be paid back with money which currently is not there. It's not free money, as some people believe. You should understand that, seeing as how you have taken an economics class.

We spent money to get out of the Great Depression. We should do the same here even if it means adding to the deficit. You can say adding to the deficit is a bad thing but doing nothing would be even worse. The federal government has responsibilities and one of those is to make sure this country doesn't sink into a depression again.

Edited July 20, 2009 by citylife

[BookEnder]

We spent money to get out of the Great Depression.

I hesitate to enter this discussion and am certain that this is off-topic but the moderator seems to be letting this discussion stand so

[motonenterprises]

I hesitate to enter this discussion and am certain that this is off-topic but the moderator seems to be letting this discussion stand so

[vicupstate]

When FDR took office in 1933, unemployment was 25% and it has NEVER met or exceed that level since. There was a significant reduction in unemployment from '33 until about '38, when many New Deal programs were cut back or eliminated. The rate began to rise again, but never was close to the '33 level. Eventually, the biggest government spending program of all, WWII, began and eliminated unemployment.

Refusing to spend money at the federal level and insisting on a balanced budget (in addition to tightening of the money supply)is what created a Depression from a Recession in the first place.

Right wing revisionist history doesn't change the facts.

[Greenville]

Getting us back on topic...

If you guys could choose one new bus route to be added, what would it be? I have several options I am still deciding between, and am curious to hear what everyone else thinks.

[GvilleSC]

Getting us back on topic...

If you guys could choose one new bus route to be added, what would it be? I have several options I am still deciding between, and am curious to hear what everyone else thinks.

When you say "one", are you thinking about a route to anywhere, or a route that will serve the new Golden Strip area?

[Greenville]

When you say "one", are you thinking about a route to anywhere, or a route that will serve the new Golden Strip area?

It can go anywhere you want it to, and does not have to include the Golden Strip area. It should be a logical route though.

[GvilleSC]

I still kind of wish that Greenlink ran a solid downtown route. This past Sunday, the trolley was continually full as it would passed me. Think of the increased rider numbers that could support our case for other forms of transit, if these patrons were included in Greenlink's count. Plus, a bus would hold more people than the trolley, and probably be more comfortable. A downtown route could be offered free to the public and be supported by downtown business associations, etc.

Seattle, as do several cities, offer free bus transportation in their downtown. If you ride outside the boundary, then you have to pay the fare.

[gs3]

It appears as though stimulus funds have been approved for bus shelters and vehicles to start Mauldin and Simpsonville service. Look at GPATS on page 15 here: http://www.scdot.org/inside/pdfs/ARRA-1511Certification.pdf But I thought some people on this forum said the stimulus was a waste of money.

G-man, err, I mean citylife, there is a difference in spending money on projects and wasteful spending. When not one single member of congress or senate fully reads a "stimulus" plan before it is pushed through, you can be sure there is waste.

Hey, funny thing, only something 11% of this "stimulus" has even been spent, most doesn't kick in until just before re-election time. Very funny. Why if we are in an economic crisis NOW, did the current admin decide to wait until just before re-election time for funds to be spent? Shouldn't the money be spent now? The "stimulus" should be called the "politiculus".

I think the money for these expanded routes down the Golden Strip is a good thing. The system will finally serve the middle class that pay the majority of the taxes for the system to operate.