3 ms·

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

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.

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.