4 ms·

> Americans have a kneejerk aversion to any sort of taxes because they think they will never see the benefits. Close. It’s not that they think they will never

by xyzzyz 7y ago

> Americans have a kneejerk aversion to any sort of taxes because they think they will never see the benefits. Close. It’s not that they think they will never see the benefits, but rather they know it. Look, here is a good example of what you and the parent suggest. The ST3 passed in the Seattle ballot, which promises expansion of the public transit network. The project includes light rail to my neighborhood, in about 20 minutes of walking distance from my home. However, the planned date for delivery of the project is 2035. Knowing the realities of public projects in the US, I don’t expect it before 2040s. I’ll be long retired by then. At the same time, the ST3 involved a tax increase, which for me means about $10,000 (today’s dollars, more in inflated ones) I’ll pay in additional tax before the construction is complete. In addition to that, since the farebox recovery is only around 30%, the city subsidies covers 70% of operational costs of public transit, and the subsidies come from my taxes too. To put it in concrete terms: assuming I use public transit only for commuting, annual fare costs would be $2.75248 = $1320, and so the whole operational costs apportioned to me would be $1320/0.3 = $4400, so the subsidy would be around $3000 per rider. Fortunately, only 10% of people in Seattle commute via public transit, so it roughly translates to $300/person/year now, which I’m paying to support public transit that I don’t even use. This number is so low only because the driving majority subsidizes the public transit riding few. Thus, since operational costs grow roughly linearly with the number of riders, if majority of people were using transit for commuting, the cost per resident would have to rise significantly. This would make my public transit costs significantly higher than my driving costs, with greatly reduced convenience. So why would I want to support public transit? The big issue here isn’t that public transit is always a bad idea, it’s just it’s a bad idea in places where government cannot do large projects quickly and cheaply, and cheaply operate them, which in 2020 is the whole US.

throwaheyy 7y ago
You're ragging on public transit because you feel you have to pay for something you don't use. What about my taxes that go to paying for roads I don't drive on? There's no way the $~200 car registration is covering all the costs involved in maintaining an extensive road network. On top of that, while we’re counting up taxes I pay for which I do not receive a direct benefit: on the odd chance I did drive in my own neighborhood, why should I be paying taxes to subsidize all the roads in every other neighborhood. The point I’m making is: you can get as petty as you want in comparing what you pay with what you get, but in the long term, do you really want to live in a society that can’t have nice things because there’s one person who might just benefit slightly more from them than you can? Are Americans already so far down the road of considering public transit beneath them, that the only people who use it must not be able to afford cars, so it's not reducing car usage so it's OK to hate on?
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  My complaint is not that I am paying for transit I don’t use. It’s not even that I’m paying for transit I can’t even use. Rather, it’s that in the alternative universe where hardly anybody is driving and almost everyone is using public transit, which as I gather is the goal, my transportation costs will go significantly up, while the convenience will go significantly down. Really, what would be the benefit for me? Why would I ever want to move to that place? The analogy about transit riders complaining at paying for roads they don’t use is wrong, and for more fundamental reason than the simple fact that the transit does in fact use roads. The biggest difference is that since overwhelming majority people drive instead of using public transit, so majority of the costs of roads is covered by drivers. Look, I’d love to move to system where you are charged for road use in proportion to your use of it. However, it would then only be fair to do the same with public transit. If public transit was actually paid for by the riders, instead of being subsidized by non-riders, bus fares would be pretty much as high as Uber fares on the same routes. Again, the issue is not that public transit is universally bad idea, it’s just most US cities simply aren’t able to build and operate them cheaply enough for it to make sense.
  - throwaheyy 7y ago
    > transit does in fact use roads No - If I take the train, I’m not using the road. If I take a bus, I’m using the bus lane and I’m not using the other lanes. In fact, I can’t use them because my bus is already using the bus lane, so why should I pay for them? To apply your logic, I’m being over-taxed by 3x too because the road is 4 lanes wide but I can only drive in one lane at a time. See how silly this complaint is?
    - xyzzyz 7y ago
      Can you respond to the rest of the comment, instead of cherry picking a part of a sentence? The rest of the sentence you’re quoting from makes it pretty clear that this is not the biggest problem with the argument, and in fact addresses your response.
greglindahl 7y ago
> Fortunately, only 10% of people in Seattle commute via public transit, And the other 90% are mostly in cars, which occupy finite road space that can't be expanded very much. Which is a roundabout way of saying that that's the biggest benefit to pitch at die-hard solo drivers.
Pfhreak 7y ago
Except Sound Transit has come in under budget and ahead of schedule on other recent light rail projects. Or, at the very least they've come in on schedule. ST3 costs you 0.5% sales tax, 0.8% motor vehicle excise tax, and a property tax of 25 cents per $1,000 in assessed value over 25 years. If you have a million dollar home, you'll pay $6,250 in additional property taxes. With a hundred thousand dollar car you'd still need to be spending hundreds of thousands a year on taxable stuff. So yeah, you are wealthy and are being asked to put in more than some others. But you'll still see benefits -- light rail stations increase local business, remove vehicles from the road, pollute less, and you'll help leave a legacy for your children and your community. > This number is so low only because the driving majority subsidizes the public transit riding few. Fortunately, only 10% of people in Seattle commute via public transit... Have a source for that? Because from what I've read 25% of commuters use a single occupancy vehicle (car or motorcycle), 10% use a rideshare (car/vanpool), 49% uses transit, and 10% use walking or biking. [1] And the number of transit commuters is on the rise overall. [1] https://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/seattle-using-public-transit-more-ever https://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/seattle-using-public-tran...
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  > If you have a million dollar home, you'll pay $6,250 in additional property taxes. With a hundred thousand dollar car you'd still need to be spending hundreds of thousands a year on taxable stuff. Sorry, looks like I'm bad at mental math. I'll edit my comment. > Have a source for that? See [1], page 14. It's probably something like 14-15% now. Your link only talks about people who commute to downtown area. [1] - https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/transportation/metro/accountability/reports/2017/metro-2017-strategic-plan-progress-report.pdf https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/transportation/metro/ac...
manacit 7y ago
I'm guessing you live in Ballard, which I do think ST3 hasn't prioritized getting done quickly enough. I would love to see Seattle kick more money into getting Ballard <> Downtown done sooner than 2035, that is a perfectly valid complaint. With that said, I also think you're not being fair to ST3 - it's a regional program, and it's paid by everyone in the ST region. Long before 2035 there will be a host of improvements[1], including more BRT and other deliverables: Link to Redmond, West Seattle, etc. Sound Transit has consistently delivered projects on-time, and outside of an increased land acquisition cost, has been relatively on-budget[2]. I don't want to debate on a fact-by-fact basis, but I'll say that you're off on the percentage of Seattle that takes transit to work: it's north of 20%[3] (from what I can see), and bucking a nationwide trend of that falling in other cities. Seattle is, IMO, doing the right thing to work through the massive influx of population it's gotten. I only wish it was started 20 years ago (or more!) and could be done faster. Personally, I am more than happy to pay the increased vehicle registration tax, sales tax and property tax. I purchased a house close to the light rail explicitly because I wanted to have convenient transit access, and I see the benefit of how these tax dollars were spent every day. Even if you don't directly ride the Link, it's taking traffic off the road and making commutes easier. I think transit _options_ are an extremely important quality of life item that creates a more dynamic and healthier city. They're just that though - options. I own a car, and I use it for trips that don't make sense to do any other way (e.g. going Skiing). That doesn't mean I want a world where nobody drives, but a world where people have multiple choices for personal mobility. [1]: https://st32.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Document%20Library%20Featured/June_2016/2016_0610_Factsheet_project%20phasing.pdf https://st32.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Document%20... [2]: https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/article/12171636/ahead-of-schedule-under-budget-sound-transit-expansion https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/article/12171636/ahead-o... [3]: https://seattletransitblog.com/2019/09/28/census-reports-steady-growth-in-local-transit-use-walking/ https://seattletransitblog.com/2019/09/28/census-reports-ste...)
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  I would love to see Seattle kick more money into getting Ballard <> Downtown done sooner than 2035, that is a perfectly valid complaint. This is only the symptom of the real problem, which is way too high cost of building. Light rail construction costs are planned to be around ~$500M/mile. In comparison, whole subway line in my home town of Warsaw, finished in 2014, built 6 miles of underground subway for ~$200M/mile. Considering that subway typically costs 5-8 times more than light rail per mile, $500M/mile is simply insane. The cost, and not construction schedule, is the real problem. The construction schedule is so slow precisely because money is scarce. If we could build light rail for $50M/mile instead of $500M/mile, the project would make way more sense, and would also most likely be more than halfway done by now. On the other hand, since the money is scarce, not only we know that we won't get the project finished by 2035, but it also means that won't get anything more than ST3 by 2035. I think transit _options_ are an extremely important quality of life item that creates a more dynamic and healthier city. They're just that though - options. I own a car, and I use it for trips that don't make sense to do any other way (e.g. going Skiing). That doesn't mean I want a world where nobody drives, but a world where people have multiple choices for personal mobility. I agree. At the same time, I'd like everyone to internalize the cost of the options they choose. That means charging the costs of transit to transit users, and at the same time, charging drivers for congestion they cause.

by xyzzyz 7y ago

throwaheyy 7y ago

You're ragging on public transit because you feel you have to pay for something you don't use. What about my taxes that go to paying for roads I don't drive on? There's no way the $~200 car registration is covering all the costs involved in maintaining an extensive road network. On top of that, while we’re counting up taxes I pay for which I do not receive a direct benefit: on the odd chance I did drive in my own neighborhood, why should I be paying taxes to subsidize all the roads in every other neighborhood. The point I’m making is: you can get as petty as you want in comparing what you pay with what you get, but in the long term, do you really want to live in a society that can’t have nice things because there’s one person who might just benefit slightly more from them than you can? Are Americans already so far down the road of considering public transit beneath them, that the only people who use it must not be able to afford cars, so it's not reducing car usage so it's OK to hate on?

xyzzyz 7y ago
My complaint is not that I am paying for transit I don’t use. It’s not even that I’m paying for transit I can’t even use. Rather, it’s that in the alternative universe where hardly anybody is driving and almost everyone is using public transit, which as I gather is the goal, my transportation costs will go significantly up, while the convenience will go significantly down. Really, what would be the benefit for me? Why would I ever want to move to that place? The analogy about transit riders complaining at paying for roads they don’t use is wrong, and for more fundamental reason than the simple fact that the transit does in fact use roads. The biggest difference is that since overwhelming majority people drive instead of using public transit, so majority of the costs of roads is covered by drivers. Look, I’d love to move to system where you are charged for road use in proportion to your use of it. However, it would then only be fair to do the same with public transit. If public transit was actually paid for by the riders, instead of being subsidized by non-riders, bus fares would be pretty much as high as Uber fares on the same routes. Again, the issue is not that public transit is universally bad idea, it’s just most US cities simply aren’t able to build and operate them cheaply enough for it to make sense.
- throwaheyy 7y ago
  > transit does in fact use roads No - If I take the train, I’m not using the road. If I take a bus, I’m using the bus lane and I’m not using the other lanes. In fact, I can’t use them because my bus is already using the bus lane, so why should I pay for them? To apply your logic, I’m being over-taxed by 3x too because the road is 4 lanes wide but I can only drive in one lane at a time. See how silly this complaint is?
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    Can you respond to the rest of the comment, instead of cherry picking a part of a sentence? The rest of the sentence you’re quoting from makes it pretty clear that this is not the biggest problem with the argument, and in fact addresses your response.

greglindahl 7y ago

> Fortunately, only 10% of people in Seattle commute via public transit, And the other 90% are mostly in cars, which occupy finite road space that can't be expanded very much. Which is a roundabout way of saying that that's the biggest benefit to pitch at die-hard solo drivers.

Pfhreak 7y ago

Except Sound Transit has come in under budget and ahead of schedule on other recent light rail projects. Or, at the very least they've come in on schedule. ST3 costs you 0.5% sales tax, 0.8% motor vehicle excise tax, and a property tax of 25 cents per $1,000 in assessed value over 25 years. If you have a million dollar home, you'll pay $6,250 in additional property taxes. With a hundred thousand dollar car you'd still need to be spending hundreds of thousands a year on taxable stuff. So yeah, you are wealthy and are being asked to put in more than some others. But you'll still see benefits -- light rail stations increase local business, remove vehicles from the road, pollute less, and you'll help leave a legacy for your children and your community. > This number is so low only because the driving majority subsidizes the public transit riding few. Fortunately, only 10% of people in Seattle commute via public transit... Have a source for that? Because from what I've read 25% of commuters use a single occupancy vehicle (car or motorcycle), 10% use a rideshare (car/vanpool), 49% uses transit, and 10% use walking or biking. [1] And the number of transit commuters is on the rise overall. [1] https://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/seattle-using-public-transit-more-ever https://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/seattle-using-public-tran...

xyzzyz 7y ago
> If you have a million dollar home, you'll pay $6,250 in additional property taxes. With a hundred thousand dollar car you'd still need to be spending hundreds of thousands a year on taxable stuff. Sorry, looks like I'm bad at mental math. I'll edit my comment. > Have a source for that? See [1], page 14. It's probably something like 14-15% now. Your link only talks about people who commute to downtown area. [1] - https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/transportation/metro/accountability/reports/2017/metro-2017-strategic-plan-progress-report.pdf https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/transportation/metro/ac...

manacit 7y ago

I'm guessing you live in Ballard, which I do think ST3 hasn't prioritized getting done quickly enough. I would love to see Seattle kick more money into getting Ballard <> Downtown done sooner than 2035, that is a perfectly valid complaint. With that said, I also think you're not being fair to ST3 - it's a regional program, and it's paid by everyone in the ST region. Long before 2035 there will be a host of improvements[1], including more BRT and other deliverables: Link to Redmond, West Seattle, etc. Sound Transit has consistently delivered projects on-time, and outside of an increased land acquisition cost, has been relatively on-budget[2]. I don't want to debate on a fact-by-fact basis, but I'll say that you're off on the percentage of Seattle that takes transit to work: it's north of 20%[3] (from what I can see), and bucking a nationwide trend of that falling in other cities. Seattle is, IMO, doing the right thing to work through the massive influx of population it's gotten. I only wish it was started 20 years ago (or more!) and could be done faster. Personally, I am more than happy to pay the increased vehicle registration tax, sales tax and property tax. I purchased a house close to the light rail explicitly because I wanted to have convenient transit access, and I see the benefit of how these tax dollars were spent every day. Even if you don't directly ride the Link, it's taking traffic off the road and making commutes easier. I think transit _options_ are an extremely important quality of life item that creates a more dynamic and healthier city. They're just that though - options. I own a car, and I use it for trips that don't make sense to do any other way (e.g. going Skiing). That doesn't mean I want a world where nobody drives, but a world where people have multiple choices for personal mobility. [1]: https://st32.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Document%20Library%20Featured/June_2016/2016_0610_Factsheet_project%20phasing.pdf https://st32.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Document%20... [2]: https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/article/12171636/ahead-of-schedule-under-budget-sound-transit-expansion https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/article/12171636/ahead-o... [3]: https://seattletransitblog.com/2019/09/28/census-reports-steady-growth-in-local-transit-use-walking/ https://seattletransitblog.com/2019/09/28/census-reports-ste...)

xyzzyz 7y ago
I would love to see Seattle kick more money into getting Ballard <> Downtown done sooner than 2035, that is a perfectly valid complaint. This is only the symptom of the real problem, which is way too high cost of building. Light rail construction costs are planned to be around ~$500M/mile. In comparison, whole subway line in my home town of Warsaw, finished in 2014, built 6 miles of underground subway for ~$200M/mile. Considering that subway typically costs 5-8 times more than light rail per mile, $500M/mile is simply insane. The cost, and not construction schedule, is the real problem. The construction schedule is so slow precisely because money is scarce. If we could build light rail for $50M/mile instead of $500M/mile, the project would make way more sense, and would also most likely be more than halfway done by now. On the other hand, since the money is scarce, not only we know that we won't get the project finished by 2035, but it also means that won't get anything more than ST3 by 2035. I think transit _options_ are an extremely important quality of life item that creates a more dynamic and healthier city. They're just that though - options. I own a car, and I use it for trips that don't make sense to do any other way (e.g. going Skiing). That doesn't mean I want a world where nobody drives, but a world where people have multiple choices for personal mobility. I agree. At the same time, I'd like everyone to internalize the cost of the options they choose. That means charging the costs of transit to transit users, and at the same time, charging drivers for congestion they cause.