3 ms·
Yes. You're working from an overly reductive perspective. Transportation, government subsidy, and population density are way too complex to cover with a simple
by davemp 9y ago
Yes. You're working from an overly reductive perspective. Transportation, government subsidy, and population density are way too complex to cover with a simple "I don't use it, so why should I pay for it" argument.
- mikeash 9y agoI understand that with transportation in general. For example, roads are difficult to charge for and it's hard to draw a direct line between use and costs, so it often makes sense to subsidize those. Public transportation is worth subsidizing to free up space on the (subsidized) roads, help poor people get around, and other such things. But parking at home? There's a straight line connection between the car owner who uses the space and the cost of the space. I shouldn't expect the government to pay for my parking any more than I should expect the government to pay for my house. In fact, paying for people's houses would be a lot more reasonable, since people need housing, but don't need parking.