Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Mass transit doesn't have to remain a distant hope

Re: A penny per gallon, Dec. 6.

Your editorial in support of a penny increase in the Pinellas gas tax for installation of "smart" traffic signals mentioned that "a better mass transit system is still a distant hope."

A better transit system does not have to be a "distant hope." It is really a simple matter of ongoing improvements in service: start earlier, end later, run more often, add bus shelters, integrate with road improvements, sidewalks and bike lanes and add new services like bus rapid transit.

Like better roads, this costs money. However, improved mass transit also results in cleaner air, less crowded roads, provides people with choices and saves people thousands of dollars per year by allowing them to own fewer cars per family.

Every improvement in PSTA service in recent years has resulted in significant increases in ridership. This includes the beach trolley, which provides more than 650,000 rides per year; the bikes on buses program, which should top 200,000 rides this year; the increase in the looper service in St. Petersburg, which resulted in a 100 percent increase in ridership; and increased service on several existing transit routes, which resulted in an increase in ridership in fiscal year 2005 of more than 800,000 riders.

This summer seven routes will see increased service, and next fiscal year will see similar increases in service. In 2008, we will get our first BRT (bus rapid transit) line along the Central Avenue corridor.

Great cities have great mass transit services. Citizens need to speak up and let their elected officials know that we are willing to invest in continuing improvements to mass transportation. You may contact the board of directors of PSTA at www.PSTA.net
-- Karl Nurse, member, board of directors, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, St. Petersburg

It's time to say no

Re: A penny per gallon, editorial.

Here we go again: After constant failures with something as simple as regulating traffic control devices, the county wants more tax revenue! I want to know where the massive tax revenue increase from reassessing recent home sales has gone. We are talking millions here and they want to raise another tax. It is time to stop believing the hype and say no.

A bargain, if done right

Re: A penny per gallon.

A penny a gallon, even somewhat more, would be a bargain if it led to significant reduction in traffic congestion in Pinellas County - providing there were sound assurance that the pennies would not be diverted to other uses, or used to replace funds from other sources intended to improve circulation on the roads.

A better investment would be to make public transportation sufficiently attractive to induce people to leave their cars at home or to give them up.

Current taxes are outrageous

The current taxes on gas of 44.7 cents per gallon are an outrage! In my opinion a gas tax cut, not an increase, is in order.

That's almost 50 cents on the gallon going for taxes, and now our elected officials want an increase. Pinellas County has more than enough revenues. It's a matter of priorities. Start cutting wasteful spending out of the budget before you even look at a gas tax increase.

It's a good beginning

By all means, I hope that the 1-cent gas tax increase goes through in Pinellas. What a small price to pay for better traffic flow. When one of the present gas taxes expires in 2007, it would be very wise to renew it and modify it and support increased mass transit in the area, particularly in regard to establishing a trolley along Central Avenue from the Tampa Bay to the gulf.

And while you're at it, Pinellas County, we need a public relations campaign to get people to use their turn signals around here. Transportation has become one of the major issues in our area and in our state. The new traffic light system is a start - don't stop there!

Taxing authorities already rake it in

Re: Pinellas seeks penny gas tax hike, Dec. 2.

Every time there is an opportunity to capitalize on a commodity and raise a tax, our local government jumps on it. A couple of weeks ago when the price of gasoline was much higher than today, our esteemed leaders wouldn't have thought about piling on another penny because they would have received the same anger that the major oil companies have been feeling. However, now that the price of gasoline is coming back down, here is an opportunity to pump up the tax. And for what?

I would like to know what they are doing with the tax revenue they already take in. According to your article, the total gas tax including state, local and federal, on each gallon of gas comes to 44.7 cents. That is nearly 25 percent of the total cost of a gallon, and it's much more profit to the taxing authorities than to the major oil companies who have been threatened with a windfall profits tax.

Tax enough to curb driving

Re: Pinellas seeks penny increase on gas tax.

The Pinellas County Commission's idea to impose a tax on gasoline to help reduce congestion is a step in the right direction. However, the amount - just a penny on the gallon - is but the first step in a journey of a thousand miles.

The bigger problem is that there are just too many cars for the roads to handle. The naive reaction is to increase the capacity of the road network. But experience teaches us that this only leads to more traffic to fill the new lanes.

The real solution is to get people to drive less. Congestion imposes costs in the form of wasted time and pollution. Since the driving of cars causes congestion, why shouldn't drivers be responsible for their consequent burden on society? A gas tax is an appropriate and effective mechanism to achieve this goal, but only in amounts big enough to actually affect people's decisions. Instead of paying an extra penny for a gallon of gas, we should be looking at a few dollars.

Citizen rights should come first

Re: DUI test device's validity at issue, Dec. 3.

Florida residents should be alarmed by the statements made by Laura Barfield, the manager of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's alcohol testing program. When a member of the Law Enforcement community compares "source code" for a machine that is used to decide a person's innocence or guilt in a court of law with that of a business software program, shows little knowledge of "due process" and the "right to a fair and impartial hearing."

People should be held accountable for their actions and DUI is properly a priority within the law enforcement community. That is why there should not be any questions concerning these machines that quite literally hold the futures of those tested in its results.

I also don't believe that the officials at CMI Inc. can hide behind a wall of "no comment" if they want to continue to do business with local and state law enforcement agencies. The company should be forced to support its products as a matter of course for doing business in the state.

[Last modified December 8, 2005, 08:55:06]