8 ms·

The main advantage of pay lanes is that they're fast, and can handle a lot of traffic. With a price, supply and demand can meet where traffic isn't jammed into

The main advantage of pay lanes is that they're fast, and can handle a lot of traffic. With a price, supply and demand can meet where traffic isn't jammed into standstill, and everyone is better off. Sure, it would make sense for the money to go to road maintenance, but to me that's a minor issue.

kelnos 5y ago
I don't see why we have these pay lanes at all. If you choose to drive rather than finding an alternative (our admittedly not-great transit system, moving so you live closer to work, etc.[0]), why should you be allowed to pay for the ability to externalize that choice? It just ends up being a regressive tax, and the people who can't afford it end up paying with their time. Just designate one or two lanes as un-tolled HOV3 to encourage carpooling and leave it at that. Direct the funds for road-widening and toll schemes toward improving public transit. Personal travel around the bay area (regardless of whether it's by car, bus, train, or boat) is abysmally embarrassing. Everything done since I moved here 18 years ago have been ineffectual band-aids. [0] Yes, I know these options aren't available to everyone, at least not without significant personal or financial sacrifice, but I bet enough people to make a difference could actually make some useful changes.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  This is the most interesting thing I disagree about: > It just ends up being a regressive tax I don't think it's useful to think of paying for goods or services as taxes, just because they're sold by a government entity. I don't think of buying a Bart ticket or sending a package through USPS as a tax. They're not that different from buying a bus ticket from Greyhound or sending a package through FedEx.
  - akira2501 5y ago
    > just because they're sold by a government entity. I think it depends. Is the government holding a monopoly on the market? If so, it's a tax.
    - BurningFrog 5y ago
      I understand the sentiment, but I think government monopolies are a separate form of coercive government power than taxes. It's good to have a vocabulary!

kelnos 5y ago

I don't see why we have these pay lanes at all. If you choose to drive rather than finding an alternative (our admittedly not-great transit system, moving so you live closer to work, etc.[0]), why should you be allowed to pay for the ability to externalize that choice? It just ends up being a regressive tax, and the people who can't afford it end up paying with their time. Just designate one or two lanes as un-tolled HOV3 to encourage carpooling and leave it at that. Direct the funds for road-widening and toll schemes toward improving public transit. Personal travel around the bay area (regardless of whether it's by car, bus, train, or boat) is abysmally embarrassing. Everything done since I moved here 18 years ago have been ineffectual band-aids. [0] Yes, I know these options aren't available to everyone, at least not without significant personal or financial sacrifice, but I bet enough people to make a difference could actually make some useful changes.

BurningFrog 5y ago
This is the most interesting thing I disagree about: > It just ends up being a regressive tax I don't think it's useful to think of paying for goods or services as taxes, just because they're sold by a government entity. I don't think of buying a Bart ticket or sending a package through USPS as a tax. They're not that different from buying a bus ticket from Greyhound or sending a package through FedEx.
- akira2501 5y ago
  > just because they're sold by a government entity. I think it depends. Is the government holding a monopoly on the market? If so, it's a tax.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    I understand the sentiment, but I think government monopolies are a separate form of coercive government power than taxes. It's good to have a vocabulary!