5 ms·

Sure, as long as people living in dense areas pay the true cost of living there. No more free or subsidized fares that only pay a fraction of the operating cost

Sure, as long as people living in dense areas pay the true cost of living there. No more free or subsidized fares that only pay a fraction of the operating costs and zero of the capital costs of transit. Be ready to pay carbon tax on the steel and concrete used to construct tall buildings that the wooden suburban house doesn't have to pay. Maybe move some jobs out of the city to the suburbs; it's not fair that suburban commuters subsidize city people's lifestyles with the goods they buy while there for work and the taxes their employers pay on the property they work in. You can't just make up "externalities" for something you dislike; I guarantee you, anything you like has lots of "externalities" as well that may cancel out whatever you're trying to charge someone else for things they like. Gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees pay far more of the total expenditure on roads than transit fares pay for their infrastructure and operating costs. Be careful what you wish for, you may not like what you get.

teclordphrack2 6y ago
Wow, that comment is not based in reality.
- quantumwannabe 6y ago
  Maybe you could counter my points so we can have a discussion instead of downvoting and dismissing me...
  - lmm 6y ago
    If you just flatly assert that received wisdom is false then of course you'll just be dismissed. Have you got anything to substantiate your claim that "Gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees pay far more of the total expenditure on roads than transit fares pay for their infrastructure and operating costs"?
    - quantumwannabe 6y ago
      Sure. Can you substantiate the claim that suburbs have infrastructure costs that they do not pay for and that cities do not? That assertion was equally unsourced, and it's not very polite to demand sources when you yourself don't provide any. 53.4% of US roads are paid for by user fees, user taxes, and tolls. [1] Transit comes nowhere close: In the US, 13.1% of capital expenses are paid for by transit agencies, and 33% of operating costs are covered by fares. [2] [1] https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ [2] https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/ntd/data-product/134401/2018-ntst_1.pdf https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/ntd... (Page 12)
      - fredophile 6y ago
        Lots of infrastructure in rural areas is subsidized. Remove the requirement for phone companies, ISPs, power companies, and USPS to provide service to unprofitable areas. It is much cheaper to wire up and provide those services in densely populated areas.
        quantumwannabe 6y ago
        I’m not talking about rural areas. I’m talking about low density cities and suburbs. They have population densities in the low thousands of people per square mile, more than enough for all services to be profitable.
      - lmm 6y ago
        That's ignoring the cost of land usage, which is the whole argument. If your only measure is direct costs then we should use dirt roads everywhere since the capital/maintenance costs of those are 0, so then they would be infinity% covered by user fees. (And note that the land taken by car-based systems is not just the space directly occupied by roads but also the hidden expropriation of setback requirements, parking minimums etc.) Since car ownership is much higher in the suburbs, all of the car-first laws amount to a hidden subsidy of the suburbs by the cities - parking minimums, exemption from usual transport safety standards (this can be a huge factor in the cost of transit systems), lax environmental standards, exemption from public service requirements that are applied to other transport systems. I'm all in favour of everyone bearing the actual costs of their lifestyle (and that would certainly include a carbon tax reflecting the energy costs of construction, though I'm very skeptical that that would end up being lower for a suburban home than an inner-city one). But the idea that subsidised transit fares are a subsidy to the city doesn't add up to me: rather they're a subsidy to the poor, who are forced to live in the city, because the suburban lifestyle is simply unaffordable to those who can't afford a car. (And ultimately everyone, including the suburbanites, depends on those people as service workers etc.). It's like saying homeless hostels are a subsidy to the city because the homeless are in the city - but the reason for that is that if they were homeless in the suburbs then they'd starve.
kmonsen 6y ago
Yeah that’s not even close to realistic. Almost all wealth in modern USA comes from services with are mostly in or close to the cities. Slightly suburban yes, what’s called suburban in the U.S. nope. Almost all wealth transfer is from cities to rural and coast states to inland.
- quantumwannabe 6y ago
  Why are you changing the topic to rural areas? We’re discussing whether suburban living (defined as car dependent urban design rather than literal suburb) is subsidized by people living in the denser, transit dependent areas or vice versa. Farm subsidies and military bases and whatever other rural subsidies you had in mind aren’t relevant for this discussion and suburban (and low density urban) people work in the services you claim almost all wealth in the modern USA is generated from.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    OK, It depends what you meant with suburban. If you mean the suburbs close to the big cities, sure they are part of the wealth generation. A large part of people living in those suburbs are using public transport to commute to work. The issue with cars is that it is impossible to build enough roads. The more you build the more convenient it becomes so more people drive etc. And of course the other externality of carbon pollution.
nayuki 6y ago
I think you're forgetting that house foundations are enormous slabs of concrete, especially on a per-resident basis.
- quantumwannabe 6y ago
  Not really, a 1000 sq ft apartment with concrete floors and ceilings has the same amount of concrete used as a two story 2000 sq ft house in an area that uses slab foundations. The house also has no steel and did not require extremely heavy equipment to build.

teclordphrack2 6y ago

Wow, that comment is not based in reality.

quantumwannabe 6y ago
Maybe you could counter my points so we can have a discussion instead of downvoting and dismissing me...
- lmm 6y ago
  If you just flatly assert that received wisdom is false then of course you'll just be dismissed. Have you got anything to substantiate your claim that "Gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees pay far more of the total expenditure on roads than transit fares pay for their infrastructure and operating costs"?
  - quantumwannabe 6y ago
    Sure. Can you substantiate the claim that suburbs have infrastructure costs that they do not pay for and that cities do not? That assertion was equally unsourced, and it's not very polite to demand sources when you yourself don't provide any. 53.4% of US roads are paid for by user fees, user taxes, and tolls. [1] Transit comes nowhere close: In the US, 13.1% of capital expenses are paid for by transit agencies, and 33% of operating costs are covered by fares. [2] [1] https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ [2] https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/ntd/data-product/134401/2018-ntst_1.pdf https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/ntd... (Page 12)
    - fredophile 6y ago
      Lots of infrastructure in rural areas is subsidized. Remove the requirement for phone companies, ISPs, power companies, and USPS to provide service to unprofitable areas. It is much cheaper to wire up and provide those services in densely populated areas.
      - quantumwannabe 6y ago
        I’m not talking about rural areas. I’m talking about low density cities and suburbs. They have population densities in the low thousands of people per square mile, more than enough for all services to be profitable.
    - lmm 6y ago
      That's ignoring the cost of land usage, which is the whole argument. If your only measure is direct costs then we should use dirt roads everywhere since the capital/maintenance costs of those are 0, so then they would be infinity% covered by user fees. (And note that the land taken by car-based systems is not just the space directly occupied by roads but also the hidden expropriation of setback requirements, parking minimums etc.) Since car ownership is much higher in the suburbs, all of the car-first laws amount to a hidden subsidy of the suburbs by the cities - parking minimums, exemption from usual transport safety standards (this can be a huge factor in the cost of transit systems), lax environmental standards, exemption from public service requirements that are applied to other transport systems. I'm all in favour of everyone bearing the actual costs of their lifestyle (and that would certainly include a carbon tax reflecting the energy costs of construction, though I'm very skeptical that that would end up being lower for a suburban home than an inner-city one). But the idea that subsidised transit fares are a subsidy to the city doesn't add up to me: rather they're a subsidy to the poor, who are forced to live in the city, because the suburban lifestyle is simply unaffordable to those who can't afford a car. (And ultimately everyone, including the suburbanites, depends on those people as service workers etc.). It's like saying homeless hostels are a subsidy to the city because the homeless are in the city - but the reason for that is that if they were homeless in the suburbs then they'd starve.

kmonsen 6y ago

Yeah that’s not even close to realistic. Almost all wealth in modern USA comes from services with are mostly in or close to the cities. Slightly suburban yes, what’s called suburban in the U.S. nope. Almost all wealth transfer is from cities to rural and coast states to inland.

quantumwannabe 6y ago
Why are you changing the topic to rural areas? We’re discussing whether suburban living (defined as car dependent urban design rather than literal suburb) is subsidized by people living in the denser, transit dependent areas or vice versa. Farm subsidies and military bases and whatever other rural subsidies you had in mind aren’t relevant for this discussion and suburban (and low density urban) people work in the services you claim almost all wealth in the modern USA is generated from.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  OK, It depends what you meant with suburban. If you mean the suburbs close to the big cities, sure they are part of the wealth generation. A large part of people living in those suburbs are using public transport to commute to work. The issue with cars is that it is impossible to build enough roads. The more you build the more convenient it becomes so more people drive etc. And of course the other externality of carbon pollution.

nayuki 6y ago

I think you're forgetting that house foundations are enormous slabs of concrete, especially on a per-resident basis.

quantumwannabe 6y ago
Not really, a 1000 sq ft apartment with concrete floors and ceilings has the same amount of concrete used as a two story 2000 sq ft house in an area that uses slab foundations. The house also has no steel and did not require extremely heavy equipment to build.