4 ms·
> We paid for it with our tax money. I hate this argument so much. It comes up all of the time when chronically underfunded national and state parks say they n
by seattle_spring 8y ago
> We paid for it with our tax money.
I hate this argument so much. It comes up all of the time when chronically underfunded national and state parks say they need to raise prices. "buT muH taX doLLarS alReaDy PaY for MAH PARKS!!" Doubly true for places that add quotas and lotteries to curb overcrowding delicate areas.
This is the exact same situation: Your tax dollars paid for part of it, sure, but not close to enough to support what is needed. Therefore you either need to pay more to either increase capacity or reduce impact.
- e1ven 8y agoSure, personally I think it's worth increasing taxes nearly any amount to keep public roads freely available to everyone. Rather than charging everyone and giving some people waivers, increase the taxes with a progressive tax rate, where low-wage people pay less. If you want to take them out and force everyone to use public transportation that's one thing - But if they exist they ought to be subsidized to ensure everyone can use them. We need more economic equality, not less, particularly when to comes to such important things as basic infrastructure.
- paulgb 8y agoWe could have all the money in the world for infrastructure and not fix the congestion problem. There's a hard limit to how many cars can physically fit on the roads at a time, and the number of people who want to use the road at rush hour exceeds that limit. Given the cost of driving in NYC, using congestion pricing to pay for transit would almost certainly be a move that increases, not reduces, equality.
- e1ven 8y agoI'm all for reducing the traffic, but I think having the streets be only for the wealthy is among the worst ways to solve that problem. In a way it's analogous to any other resource allocation problem. There are lots of approaches other than "richest wins"
- paulgb 8y agoThe congestion in NYC makes it dangerous to bike and slows down busses. Allowing cars to own the roads is precisely a "richest wins" approach, at least in Manhattan.
- CalRobert 8y ago"but I think having the streets be only for the wealthy" but that's basically what they are now, in as much as they are catering for the most expensive form of transport (aircraft and tanks notwithstanding). Having the streets for everyone means having them be for walking, cycling, scooters, bikes, buses, etc. Hell, donkeys while we're at it.
- e1ven 8y agoYes, but why should the debate be framed in terms of only looking at fees or living with congestion? There are other approaches to what is essentially distributing limited resources.
- CalRobert 8y agowell, there's pricing, or rationing, or some combination (e.g. Pricing, with exceptions for those where we want to accept the externalities as a society for a greater good, like not charging ambulances). Which do you prefer?
- adrianmonk 8y agoI think you are reading more into the argument than is there. It's not an argument that the current system is good or that the new system is bad. It's an argument that the premise that we thought they were free is a bullshit premise. Debating which tax policy is better is a perfectly fine thing to do. But it's not fine to begin that debate by mischaracterizing the status quo. The new system might be wonderful, but that doesn't exist hyperbolic, inaccurate journalism.
- adrianmonk 8y agoCorrection to my comment above (too late to edit): "exist" should be "excuse".