4 ms·

Public transit is a very visible part of government for people who live in cities that have it, and it's controversial because it's partially financed with taxp

by rchowe 10y ago

Public transit is a very visible part of government for people who live in cities that have it, and it's controversial because it's partially financed with taxpayer money whether you use it or not. I feel like especially in southern California, there are a lot of people in the suburbs who don't use public transit and who feel like the money spent on transit ("moving poor people around") should go to road projects instead which benefit them. I was recently in Miami, and my friend who lives there said to use Lyft instead of taking the bus or the metro, because "it's only used by poor people". I compare this to Boston, where people complain about MBTA crowds and management, but in general if you're near a subway stop you'll take the subway over Uber of Lyft (when it's running).

Aleman360 10y ago
You may be paying for it even if not using it, but you have to account for the environmental savings. But people care less about stuff that's harder to measure.
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Remember that every bus full of 'poor people' is 10 or 12 cards not on the road. It already benefits everybody. As public transportation increases, so do road conditions for all. This is an example of a win-win situation.
- auxym 10y ago
  Only 12? Maybe at off-peak hours. In my city at peak hours, an articulated bus can have as many as ~70 people in it. At an average private vehicle occupancy of 1.67 [2] that's over 40 cars less on the road. People also need to realize that before bitching about cyclists. Would you really rather have one more car contributing to the traffic jam you're stuck in? [1] https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects/New_Vehicles/Articulated_Buses/index.jsp https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects/New_Vehicles/Artic... [2]http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf
tajen 10y ago
Likewise, bike users are tired of paying for either 12 feet lanes, the war that petrol-dependent citizen make in Irak, or their contribution to global warming.
TulliusCicero 10y ago
> it's controversial because it's partially financed with taxpayer money whether you use it or not. This is true of every form of transportation. It's just that motorists are frequently unaware of how their preferred mode is subsidized by the government.
- rchowe 10y ago
  I would argue that when people read articles critical of transit, they aren't necessarily thinking of the environmental benefits or the fact that the transportation they use gets a subsidy. And newspaper articles on transit don't put it into context by saying "the interstate next to the railroad costs about as much". Controversial subjects get eyeballs, and that's what the papers want.
- twoodfin 10y ago
  Actual cash subsidies for roads are minimal relative to the economic benefit. This is another way to say that you could eliminate all subsidies on road construction/maintenance, make everyone pay a sufficient per-mile tax, and the system would continue successfully more-or-less as it exists today The same is not true of most public transit systems. Now you can start arguing about implicit and explicit subsidies for suburbanization over the decades, but in the here-and-now, public transit is directly subsidized in a way that roads are not.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    How can you seriously claim that roads are not subsidized? With the exception of a few toll roads, there is no fee to use them. Gas taxes are the only tax that can be connected to road use and those only cover about half of the cost of road construction and maintenance. In addition to the subsidy of half of the cost of the roads themselves, there is no tax to cover the cost of the environmental damage that cars cause. Added together, that is an enormous subsidy for car travel.
    - twoodfin 10y ago
      The important distinction is that gas taxes could pay for the whole thing: Federal, state, local... 3T miles driven a year, $90B in annual public spending. It works out to about a $0.60/gallon cost. Even adding in a surtax for CO2 and other emissions, it wouldn't represent a premium over gas prices of a few years ago that certainly didn't destroy the system. It's just easier to pay for local roads with local property taxes. Everyone uses them even if they don't have cars. But most public transit systems could never imagine charging full fare to their riders. They'd go into a death spiral. AFAIK, most can't even cover their maintenance costs, let alone capital expenditures.

by rchowe 10y ago

Aleman360 10y ago

You may be paying for it even if not using it, but you have to account for the environmental savings. But people care less about stuff that's harder to measure.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Remember that every bus full of 'poor people' is 10 or 12 cards not on the road. It already benefits everybody. As public transportation increases, so do road conditions for all. This is an example of a win-win situation.

auxym 10y ago
Only 12? Maybe at off-peak hours. In my city at peak hours, an articulated bus can have as many as ~70 people in it. At an average private vehicle occupancy of 1.67 [2] that's over 40 cars less on the road. People also need to realize that before bitching about cyclists. Would you really rather have one more car contributing to the traffic jam you're stuck in? [1] https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects/New_Vehicles/Articulated_Buses/index.jsp https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects/New_Vehicles/Artic... [2]http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf

tajen 10y ago

Likewise, bike users are tired of paying for either 12 feet lanes, the war that petrol-dependent citizen make in Irak, or their contribution to global warming.

TulliusCicero 10y ago

> it's controversial because it's partially financed with taxpayer money whether you use it or not. This is true of every form of transportation. It's just that motorists are frequently unaware of how their preferred mode is subsidized by the government.

rchowe 10y ago
I would argue that when people read articles critical of transit, they aren't necessarily thinking of the environmental benefits or the fact that the transportation they use gets a subsidy. And newspaper articles on transit don't put it into context by saying "the interstate next to the railroad costs about as much". Controversial subjects get eyeballs, and that's what the papers want.
twoodfin 10y ago
Actual cash subsidies for roads are minimal relative to the economic benefit. This is another way to say that you could eliminate all subsidies on road construction/maintenance, make everyone pay a sufficient per-mile tax, and the system would continue successfully more-or-less as it exists today The same is not true of most public transit systems. Now you can start arguing about implicit and explicit subsidies for suburbanization over the decades, but in the here-and-now, public transit is directly subsidized in a way that roads are not.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  How can you seriously claim that roads are not subsidized? With the exception of a few toll roads, there is no fee to use them. Gas taxes are the only tax that can be connected to road use and those only cover about half of the cost of road construction and maintenance. In addition to the subsidy of half of the cost of the roads themselves, there is no tax to cover the cost of the environmental damage that cars cause. Added together, that is an enormous subsidy for car travel.
  - twoodfin 10y ago
    The important distinction is that gas taxes could pay for the whole thing: Federal, state, local... 3T miles driven a year, $90B in annual public spending. It works out to about a $0.60/gallon cost. Even adding in a surtax for CO2 and other emissions, it wouldn't represent a premium over gas prices of a few years ago that certainly didn't destroy the system. It's just easier to pay for local roads with local property taxes. Everyone uses them even if they don't have cars. But most public transit systems could never imagine charging full fare to their riders. They'd go into a death spiral. AFAIK, most can't even cover their maintenance costs, let alone capital expenditures.