4 ms·

Most public transit is subsidized by taxes too.

• pkulak 4y ago
  And so are schools, and lighthouses, and all kinds of other things that benefit society. Subsidizing polluting nomads who eat up highway capacity and free parking isn't an intentional policy that we've all decided to do because we like the result. EDIT: which is to say that cities can exist as the tax-generating powerhouses that they are _because_ they subsidize public transportation. That subsidized city transit is why we can afford to maintain the highway system.
  • skyyler 4y ago
    >That subsidized city transit is why we can afford to maintain the highway system. I don't think this follows... Cities that don't have good public transit still generate tax revenue.
    • pkulak 4y ago
      Yeah, but not on the level of NYC, Chicago, SF, and LA (which actually has decent public transport (for the US), despite the reputation). Yes, then there are cities like Houston, but they are paying for 16-lane urban freeways, which have to at least cancel out any cost savings from not having much public transport.
      • skyyler 4y ago
        Do you have any data on this? It seems like a chicken-and-egg problem. Spending on public transit means there's budget for infrastructure. Highways being built means there's budget for infrastructure. Budget for infrastructure means infrastructure gets built. It seems almost... Tautological.
        • pkulak 4y ago
          Yeah, my head hurts. May have lost the thread here.