4 ms·

This is an absolutely terrible idea, and really hurts the lower class, especially in sprawled out places like the US. Often times, housing that low-income peopl

This is an absolutely terrible idea, and really hurts the lower class, especially in sprawled out places like the US. Often times, housing that low-income people can afford are not near their jobs or places of business. Sometimes, owning a personal use automobile is the only reasonable way to get across town to their jobs, or back to their home in time for an evening with their kids. Raising the cost of driving artificially directly impacts the lower income groups at a far more impactful rate than the higher income groups. Long story short, a flat toll is an incredibly regressive tax and directly damages lower income communities.

Zarath 8y ago
Isn't it a stereotype that poor people are the ones taking the bus/train?
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Depends on the city. You can't really do it in Atlanta unless you can afford to live near a stop.
- gowld 8y ago
  Rich and poor do both. Poor people have longer trips on BOTH transit and cars.
- maxander 8y ago
  It’s the stereotype, not the reality. Check out the housing prices near frequently-served bus stops in your local city.
germinalphrase 8y ago
If it is automated, there is no reason the fee couldn’t be progressive.
- unicornporn 8y ago
  In Stockholm it's done by cameras that read the license plate (automated payment once a month can be set up). So no, progressive taxing would not at all be impossible (but perhaps unpopular in the US).
ska 8y ago
But the opposite is also true - cities have sprawled out to the degree that they have in part because driving is subsidized. You are quite right that addressing this too quickly can hurt a lot of people with limited means, but maintaining artificially low cost of driving isn't doing anyone any favors either.
- Spivak 8y ago
  > driving is subsidized This seems like such a weird commend given that the top of this thread is advocating making drivers subsidize public transportation to encourage people to use it. When ~90% of adults in the US drive it's hard to argue that driving is being subsidized by anyone other than people who drive. And that's before we account for the forms of tax revenue used for these subsidies that are paid for exclusively by drivers -- like gas and registration.
  - gowld 8y ago
    Drivers and Parkers get a huge free real estate subsidy. People who don't drive are subsidizing drivers by not joining traffic.
    - Spivak 8y ago
      From who? Parking is expensive, or paid for by business owners who want customers, or paid through the tax dollars of mostly drivers. And if we're talking about subsidies let's take NYC public transportation as an example: They get $6.2B in fares and $8.2B in subsidies from: - General fund (state & local). - Gas taxes. - Taxes on homeowners. - Property taxes. - Payroll taxes. - Tolls. So if you want to be gung-ho about killing subsidies you'll be taking most public transportation down with it.
      - s0rce 8y ago
        Per mile traveled are the tax dollars going to roads and parking really less than public transit?
      - 8y ago
yongjik 8y ago
Imagine the flip side: a city with functional public transit, where most poor people take subways and buses to get to work. Now someone proposes cutting down on public transit because you can always buy a car and that gives you more freedom. Imagine how much burden it would be for a poor family to suddenly have to buy a car. That's the cost America is passing on to poor families. It just doesn't look like much because it's been thoroughly normalized. * That said, of course with change of policy some people will be hit and some poor people will be hit the hardest, so there should be mitigating measure.
- pm90 8y ago
  > That said, of course with change of policy some people will be hit and some poor people will be hit the hardest, so there should be mitigating measure. No it won't hit poor people at all if you fund it with progressive taxes and ticket sales. Car ownership on the other hand is not only expensive and unreliable (if you can't afford to buy decent cars), its ridiculously dangerous, increases stress and decreases well being. A well designed public transport assists the poor by making it much safer, cheaper and faster to come into the denser areas (typically with better/higher paying jobs) for work while living in lower COL suburbs. I sincerely believe that impediments to more public transportation in the US is not chiefly financial; I believe its mostly due to what was before racism, and now is just NIMBYism. People don't want a bus stop or train station in their neighborhood, which will attract the homeless/poor/lower classes etc.
  - cozzyd 8y ago
    It's still partially racist. Just look at Atlanta and Detroit's lack of regional transit.
- tomjohnneill 8y ago
  This is a really good point. My life living in London would be hugely more expensive if I had to buy a car to get around - not to mention a lot worse since cycling is so much better for me and everyone else.

Zarath 8y ago

Isn't it a stereotype that poor people are the ones taking the bus/train?

creaghpatr 8y ago
Depends on the city. You can't really do it in Atlanta unless you can afford to live near a stop.
gowld 8y ago
Rich and poor do both. Poor people have longer trips on BOTH transit and cars.
maxander 8y ago
It’s the stereotype, not the reality. Check out the housing prices near frequently-served bus stops in your local city.

germinalphrase 8y ago

If it is automated, there is no reason the fee couldn’t be progressive.

unicornporn 8y ago
In Stockholm it's done by cameras that read the license plate (automated payment once a month can be set up). So no, progressive taxing would not at all be impossible (but perhaps unpopular in the US).

ska 8y ago

But the opposite is also true - cities have sprawled out to the degree that they have in part because driving is subsidized. You are quite right that addressing this too quickly can hurt a lot of people with limited means, but maintaining artificially low cost of driving isn't doing anyone any favors either.

Spivak 8y ago
> driving is subsidized This seems like such a weird commend given that the top of this thread is advocating making drivers subsidize public transportation to encourage people to use it. When ~90% of adults in the US drive it's hard to argue that driving is being subsidized by anyone other than people who drive. And that's before we account for the forms of tax revenue used for these subsidies that are paid for exclusively by drivers -- like gas and registration.
- gowld 8y ago
  Drivers and Parkers get a huge free real estate subsidy. People who don't drive are subsidizing drivers by not joining traffic.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    From who? Parking is expensive, or paid for by business owners who want customers, or paid through the tax dollars of mostly drivers. And if we're talking about subsidies let's take NYC public transportation as an example: They get $6.2B in fares and $8.2B in subsidies from: - General fund (state & local). - Gas taxes. - Taxes on homeowners. - Property taxes. - Payroll taxes. - Tolls. So if you want to be gung-ho about killing subsidies you'll be taking most public transportation down with it.
    - s0rce 8y ago
      Per mile traveled are the tax dollars going to roads and parking really less than public transit?
    - 8y ago

yongjik 8y ago

Imagine the flip side: a city with functional public transit, where most poor people take subways and buses to get to work. Now someone proposes cutting down on public transit because you can always buy a car and that gives you more freedom. Imagine how much burden it would be for a poor family to suddenly have to buy a car. That's the cost America is passing on to poor families. It just doesn't look like much because it's been thoroughly normalized. * That said, of course with change of policy some people will be hit and some poor people will be hit the hardest, so there should be mitigating measure.

pm90 8y ago
> That said, of course with change of policy some people will be hit and some poor people will be hit the hardest, so there should be mitigating measure. No it won't hit poor people at all if you fund it with progressive taxes and ticket sales. Car ownership on the other hand is not only expensive and unreliable (if you can't afford to buy decent cars), its ridiculously dangerous, increases stress and decreases well being. A well designed public transport assists the poor by making it much safer, cheaper and faster to come into the denser areas (typically with better/higher paying jobs) for work while living in lower COL suburbs. I sincerely believe that impediments to more public transportation in the US is not chiefly financial; I believe its mostly due to what was before racism, and now is just NIMBYism. People don't want a bus stop or train station in their neighborhood, which will attract the homeless/poor/lower classes etc.
- cozzyd 8y ago
  It's still partially racist. Just look at Atlanta and Detroit's lack of regional transit.
tomjohnneill 8y ago
This is a really good point. My life living in London would be hugely more expensive if I had to buy a car to get around - not to mention a lot worse since cycling is so much better for me and everyone else.