4 ms·

> The extremely boring answer to our transportation problems is to properly fund public transportation. We've known the solution for ages, but it's kept down by

> The extremely boring answer to our transportation problems is to properly fund public transportation. We've known the solution for ages, but it's kept down by the wealthy class who don't want to pay for public works that would benefit everyone. I'd say the middle class are the real problem. You see, the primary reason why transit costs so much in taxes is because few people ride it. Few people ride it because driving is heavily subsidized. Since transit is a step-fixed cost business, the marginal cost of a new rider is nearly zero. A bus running at 20% capacity might be 50% subsidized, but a bus running at 80% capacity might be making a 30% profit. If the cost drivers incurred matched the costs they impose on society, driving would be extremely expensive in comparison, and drivers would flock to transit in droves, completely changing the necessity for subsidizing transit...either reducing it, eliminating it, or even making it wildly profitable as the streetcar barons found out before driving was subsidized. However, if you propose raising gas taxes so that driving actually covers its costs, the concern trolls come out of the woodwork about taxes hurting the working poor, no doubt completely unconcerned about how much their comfortable middle class household would have to pay. But here's a proposal: raise the gas tax, but refund the increase in costs on a means-tested basis. Poof, there goes the concern trolling, but the middle class is still on the hook and they really don't like it, because it might mean that they have to make different decisions about their lifestyle and location and habits.

Tiktaalik 9y ago
Going further than this it would be better to implement a form of comprehensive road pricing, since as cars become more efficient and electric cars become more popular, the revenue generation ability of the gas tax weakens.
jimmaswell 9y ago
You'd be destroying a culture of independence in the US punishing car drivers so much, and I don't think it would be nearly worth it. I greatly appreciate being able to just go where I want without having to be beholden to public transit schedules and share the space with a bunch of strangers, and have my own temperature controls etc. The "cost" cars have to society and how "subsidized" they are is ridiculously overblown around here. I had to pay maybe $400 registering+inspecting my car in NY, transfering to NJ was a few more hundred dollars, I had to pay to take the permit test, insurance was $350/month in NY and it's $115/month in NJ, taxes used for roads benefit transit too obviously, and bad drivers pay their externalities in tickets and insurance settlements.
- darksaints 9y ago
  > You'd be destroying a culture of independence in the US punishing car drivers so much, and I don't think it would be nearly worth it. Is it really independence if you can't cover the costs you impose? Sounds an awful lot like the "oppression" felt by angsty teenagers without jobs when they're told they have to empty a dishwasher. > I greatly appreciate being able to just go where I want without having to be beholden to public transit schedules and share the space with a bunch of strangers, and have my own temperature controls etc. I'm sure you do. I'd greatly appreciate being able to fly private, for all of the same reasons, but unfortunately I can't afford it. If you want it, you should pay the cost to get it. And that cost is gonna be about $6/gallon in extra taxes. > The "cost" cars have to society and how "subsidized" they are is ridiculously overblown around here. [...] Still not enough. As long as cities, states, and the federal government are taking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the general fund to build and maintain roads, you aren't even close to covering your costs. And that would be before congestion charges, carbon taxes, appropriately priced bridge tolls, etc. What is overblown is the independence and financial responsibility of the average person who merely pays their bills for actions that are heavily subsidized.
  - jimmaswell 9y ago
    It's fine for things to be subsidized and taxes collected so that a way of life is more attainable, that's how societies work. In all likelihood I'm subsidizing the people around here who use NJ transit in place of driving - I hardly have my car on for more than 10 minutes a day and it's around 30mpg. It's just part of a larger give-and-take that we all participate in, I pay for trains I don't use today and they pay for state parks they don't use tomorrow. Are you opposed to all government subsidies? It's not tenable for everybody to pay the full cost of everything they do. A prime example is healthcare.
    - darksaints 9y ago
      It's not okay to subsidize things in general, and especially things with massive negative externalities (like cars), when the person using that subsidy can easily afford it. And let's face it, the middle class can easily afford $8/gallon. Nobody wants to pay that, but they can afford it. As a proof that people can afford it, we have dozens of first world counties with strong middle classes that correctly price their road taxes. They do just fine. I've never understood the idea that we should just cross subsidize every single thing we can. It's absurd. Prices affect decisions, and when artificially low prices induce people to collectively make decisions that are bad for society, we should stop fucking subsidizing it. Imagine how much better our government would be if we took all of the taxes we take in, and stopped spending it all on things that are bad for society on behalf of people that can afford it or don't need it, and started spending it all on things that are good for society on behalf of people that need it but can't afford it.
xraystyle 9y ago
> But here's a proposal: raise the gas tax, but refund the increase in costs on a means-tested basis. Poof, there goes the concern trolling, but the middle class is still on the hook and they really don't like it, because it might mean that they have to make different decisions about their lifestyle and location and habits The theory is sound, but the devil is in the implementation here. Some of the largest metropolitan areas in the US (and by extension the entire world) were built around the car, not public transit. The cost to implement effective transit in such suburban sprawls is exorbitant when compared with densely packed urban areas such as NYC or Vancouver for example. There's just too much pre-existing residential area to cover effectively. I don't think it can actually be done in such an area in a way that wouldn't be exponentially less convenient than a car. Additionally, due to the size of these cities and the number of people living in them, you're talking about completely upending the lives of quite literally tens of millions of people. If gas is $8 a gallon, should I move closer to where my office is? What if I get a different job? In Los Angeles for instance, there's not one central business district where I can generally expect to find work. The difference between Downtown and Santa Monica in Los Angeles is over an hour during rush hour. What about my spouse, if I have one? What if their job is in the opposite direction? Should we split the difference? What if there's no suitable housing in between the two locations? Are we going to move every time one of us changes jobs (every 3-5 years on average)? What if we have children? Do we put them in a different school every time we move? What if the schools in the area we're moving to are worse then where we are now? What about after-school activities? These are all very real issues for most lower to upper middle class Americans. And again, you need to multiply these problems by literally tens of millions of people. It's just not feasible to price people out of their own vehicles without giving them a reasonable alternative. The demographic we're discussing here usually votes, and there's no way they'd sit still for that. I know I wouldn't, simply because Los Angeles would become unlivable overnight.
lsh123 9y ago
"I'd say the middle class are the real problem." Do you suggest to destroy middle class? It was done before and didn't end well. The real issue with public transportation is convenience. The public transportation is trying to optimize for the most common transportation patterns. In reality, this doesn't work very well because 1) it turns out that there are more slices than we can efficiently support; 2) the patterns change faster than we can adjust the service (e.g. during the day). Carpool/ridesharing is trying to find the middle ground between 100 routes / 100 passengers each; and 10,000 routes / 1 passenger. Re "driving cost", the public transportation is usually heavily subsidized from taxes. The actual costs per transported passenger per mile are significantly hire than cars (in US). What you are describing as "driving cost" is a tax on drivers which also covers public transportation (partially). In reality, fully commercial public transportation is profitable in very few routes that doesn't cover the needs of all the people.

Tiktaalik 9y ago

Going further than this it would be better to implement a form of comprehensive road pricing, since as cars become more efficient and electric cars become more popular, the revenue generation ability of the gas tax weakens.

jimmaswell 9y ago

You'd be destroying a culture of independence in the US punishing car drivers so much, and I don't think it would be nearly worth it. I greatly appreciate being able to just go where I want without having to be beholden to public transit schedules and share the space with a bunch of strangers, and have my own temperature controls etc. The "cost" cars have to society and how "subsidized" they are is ridiculously overblown around here. I had to pay maybe $400 registering+inspecting my car in NY, transfering to NJ was a few more hundred dollars, I had to pay to take the permit test, insurance was $350/month in NY and it's $115/month in NJ, taxes used for roads benefit transit too obviously, and bad drivers pay their externalities in tickets and insurance settlements.

darksaints 9y ago
> You'd be destroying a culture of independence in the US punishing car drivers so much, and I don't think it would be nearly worth it. Is it really independence if you can't cover the costs you impose? Sounds an awful lot like the "oppression" felt by angsty teenagers without jobs when they're told they have to empty a dishwasher. > I greatly appreciate being able to just go where I want without having to be beholden to public transit schedules and share the space with a bunch of strangers, and have my own temperature controls etc. I'm sure you do. I'd greatly appreciate being able to fly private, for all of the same reasons, but unfortunately I can't afford it. If you want it, you should pay the cost to get it. And that cost is gonna be about $6/gallon in extra taxes. > The "cost" cars have to society and how "subsidized" they are is ridiculously overblown around here. [...] Still not enough. As long as cities, states, and the federal government are taking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the general fund to build and maintain roads, you aren't even close to covering your costs. And that would be before congestion charges, carbon taxes, appropriately priced bridge tolls, etc. What is overblown is the independence and financial responsibility of the average person who merely pays their bills for actions that are heavily subsidized.
- jimmaswell 9y ago
  It's fine for things to be subsidized and taxes collected so that a way of life is more attainable, that's how societies work. In all likelihood I'm subsidizing the people around here who use NJ transit in place of driving - I hardly have my car on for more than 10 minutes a day and it's around 30mpg. It's just part of a larger give-and-take that we all participate in, I pay for trains I don't use today and they pay for state parks they don't use tomorrow. Are you opposed to all government subsidies? It's not tenable for everybody to pay the full cost of everything they do. A prime example is healthcare.
  - darksaints 9y ago
    It's not okay to subsidize things in general, and especially things with massive negative externalities (like cars), when the person using that subsidy can easily afford it. And let's face it, the middle class can easily afford $8/gallon. Nobody wants to pay that, but they can afford it. As a proof that people can afford it, we have dozens of first world counties with strong middle classes that correctly price their road taxes. They do just fine. I've never understood the idea that we should just cross subsidize every single thing we can. It's absurd. Prices affect decisions, and when artificially low prices induce people to collectively make decisions that are bad for society, we should stop fucking subsidizing it. Imagine how much better our government would be if we took all of the taxes we take in, and stopped spending it all on things that are bad for society on behalf of people that can afford it or don't need it, and started spending it all on things that are good for society on behalf of people that need it but can't afford it.

xraystyle 9y ago

> But here's a proposal: raise the gas tax, but refund the increase in costs on a means-tested basis. Poof, there goes the concern trolling, but the middle class is still on the hook and they really don't like it, because it might mean that they have to make different decisions about their lifestyle and location and habits The theory is sound, but the devil is in the implementation here. Some of the largest metropolitan areas in the US (and by extension the entire world) were built around the car, not public transit. The cost to implement effective transit in such suburban sprawls is exorbitant when compared with densely packed urban areas such as NYC or Vancouver for example. There's just too much pre-existing residential area to cover effectively. I don't think it can actually be done in such an area in a way that wouldn't be exponentially less convenient than a car. Additionally, due to the size of these cities and the number of people living in them, you're talking about completely upending the lives of quite literally tens of millions of people. If gas is $8 a gallon, should I move closer to where my office is? What if I get a different job? In Los Angeles for instance, there's not one central business district where I can generally expect to find work. The difference between Downtown and Santa Monica in Los Angeles is over an hour during rush hour. What about my spouse, if I have one? What if their job is in the opposite direction? Should we split the difference? What if there's no suitable housing in between the two locations? Are we going to move every time one of us changes jobs (every 3-5 years on average)? What if we have children? Do we put them in a different school every time we move? What if the schools in the area we're moving to are worse then where we are now? What about after-school activities? These are all very real issues for most lower to upper middle class Americans. And again, you need to multiply these problems by literally tens of millions of people. It's just not feasible to price people out of their own vehicles without giving them a reasonable alternative. The demographic we're discussing here usually votes, and there's no way they'd sit still for that. I know I wouldn't, simply because Los Angeles would become unlivable overnight.

lsh123 9y ago

"I'd say the middle class are the real problem." Do you suggest to destroy middle class? It was done before and didn't end well. The real issue with public transportation is convenience. The public transportation is trying to optimize for the most common transportation patterns. In reality, this doesn't work very well because 1) it turns out that there are more slices than we can efficiently support; 2) the patterns change faster than we can adjust the service (e.g. during the day). Carpool/ridesharing is trying to find the middle ground between 100 routes / 100 passengers each; and 10,000 routes / 1 passenger. Re "driving cost", the public transportation is usually heavily subsidized from taxes. The actual costs per transported passenger per mile are significantly hire than cars (in US). What you are describing as "driving cost" is a tax on drivers which also covers public transportation (partially). In reality, fully commercial public transportation is profitable in very few routes that doesn't cover the needs of all the people.