6 ms·

This is an amazing value, well done Germany! I think public transit has a marketing problem in the US. People don’t often realize how much more expensive the p

This is an amazing value, well done Germany! I think public transit has a marketing problem in the US. People don’t often realize how much more expensive the paradigm of “taxes pay for roads and individuals pay for vehicles, gas, and maintenance” can be than a paradigm of heavy public transit use. While this program for sure relies on taxpayer funding (just as road usage does, I might add), even if coupled with occasional car rentals or taxis, the all-in cost can be so much lower than having a car. The train system is one of my favorite parts of Germany and I really wish we had something comparable in the denser parts of the US.

r00fus 3y ago
Not to mention one of my most memorable travel meals was from a German rail station - just a sandwich of bread + meat but it was sooo good (note: I was living in France at the time). German rail travel was a great experience. Considering how most trains are electric/hybrid diesel it's clear the petroleum industry never allowed new (and even dismantled existing) rail networks. Just more profits for them.
- opportune 3y ago
  Most of the German train station food I’ve had was Panera Bread quality but I love that there’s typically good food options in walking distance. I personally have had better train station food in France, as in my limited exposure there were more small groceries, where I could get inexpensive high quality cheeses and bread.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    in my experience you get good food at train stations when it comes from regular chains or franchises because they provide the same products and quality as in their other shops.
rainsford 3y ago
In peoples' defense, I think the problem in the vast majority of the US is that public transit is legitimately terrible and most of the US has been built up so that good public transit is difficult to build. I agree that public transit can be a good alternative to car travel, but the problem of marketing it in the US is that the current version of the product being marketed is, to put it bluntly, completely garbage. What really needs to be sold to people is investing in making public transit better instead of just building more roads, but that's a more abstract sales pitch. I also think selling public transit as an alternative to having a car at all is perhaps too ambitious a target. But having to use a car less still has a lot of benefits for individuals and society as a whole without having to get public transit to the point where it can replace nearly all journeys.
_0ffh 3y ago
>just as road usage does That's not true, car taxes and taxes on mineral oil paid by car owners are more than enough to pay for the infrastructure they use.
- musicale 3y ago
  > car taxes and taxes on mineral oil paid by car owners are more than enough to pay for the infrastructure they use. The highest amount (71%) seems to be in Hawaii: https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ Gas tax revenue will likely continue to drop due to improvements in fuel efficiency and increased adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles.
  - _0ffh 3y ago
    This was about Germany, not the US. According to a study drivers pay ~200% of what they "consume" for normal roads and about ~400% for the "autobahn".
    - distances 3y ago
      What do you mean with this? Drivers don't pay separately for basic roads and autobahn so how can they be accounted separately?
      - _0ffh 3y ago
        Good question. The study by the DIW was broken by FT Germany and some quotes found their way to other news outlets, but I can't find the original study so I can't comment much on their methodology. What I can say is that at least there are different usage and resulting deterioration patterns for the different types of roads, for which statistics exist. Also, for the autobahn there exists an additional source of income, which is tolls for trucks above 7.5 tons.
    - musicale 3y ago
      Indeed. It's interesting how different it is in the US vs. Germany, isn't it?
lumb63 3y ago
Do you have any data on the difference in cost between the two paradigms you mention? I'd be curious. I think there are a few additional problems. One is an education problem that I discovered while writing this post. I was taught that tolls and taxes paid for road construction and maintenance. Seems fair to me; those who use the roads more pay more toward their maintenance - they will incur more tolls, and spend more on gas taxes (a little outdated, but still mostly holds). Apparently, that's not true [1]. Driver-related fees cover less than half the cost of road creation and maintenance. The rest is covered by general taxes. So, one big barrier to public transit is stopping the misconception that roads pay for themselves, since people then hold public transit to that standard. Or, public transit proponents could insist that the road system is held to the same standard they are: it must be net-neutral. I will say, though, roads cover much more of their own expenses than public transit do. At least in my own Massachusetts, the MBTA's fees cover only 10.6% of expense [2]. The other financial issue that public transit faces (and financials are what cause most people not to support public transit, IME) is, who pays for it? Again, using Massachusetts as an example, a lot of the general taxpayer revenue that supports the MBTA comes at the state level. The MBTA has lines that cover less than half the state. Why should someone who receives none of the benefit have to pay as much as someone who receives some benefit? If I lived in a rural area, I'd be very opposed to public transit, because I would get negligible benefit and pay the same as someone who gets substantial benefit. So, if urban areas want to have urban projects with taxpayer dollars, it should be their taxpayer dollars. It's unfair of folks to complain that others who would not benefit from their public transit plan don't want to pay for it. 1: https://pirg.org/massachusetts/resources/who-pays-for-roads/ https://pirg.org/massachusetts/resources/who-pays-for-roads/ 2: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/FY23%20Itemized%20Budget.pdf https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/FY23%20Item...
- opportune 3y ago
  I posted another comment that did some analysis on fuel taxes and road spending (in the US). One thing I’d like to point out is that a true comparison is very hard because heavy public vs private transit result in qualitatively different systemic outcomes that are hard to fully account for monetarily (one results in denser development with its own pros and cons vs dispersed development). And you definitely need to account for the personal costs of car ownership (the car, financing, depreciation, insurance, parking, gas) rather than just the government spending on roads when comparing against public transit. Private transit taxes in aggregate do pay for most private transit spending but to me that is not as big of a deal as some make out. For starters those taxes are disproportionately coming from things like freight. Considering private transit costs + government spending vs public transit fares + government spending I don’t think the proportion coming from taxes vs OOP changes much, it’s just a different cost structure where some people (freight, gas guzzler drivers vs heavy transit users and high income people) pay proportionately more. The payment problem is indeed a challenge. I think a big problem with public transit is that it’s really expensive and wasteful to halfass it; you’re better off in a lot of cases accepting a local optimum of little/no public transit than a small or medium amount that ends up being cost-ineffective. In a lot of countries like Germany, granted they are denser than the US (but comparable to Mass) even small towns have good rail or bus connections to transit hubs. That’d help a lot more than forcing someone in the boonies to pay for something they won’t benefit from (though I take issue with that framing as rural areas typically consume more spending than they receive unless they are wealthy suburbs (with wealth coming from the cities) vs urban areas, so if the project truly benefits the urban area economically, it will still help the rural folks).
secretsatan 3y ago
I tend to think that, if there’s no good public transport, car ownership is in itself a tax, in that you cannot escape it, sure you may choose who to pay your tax to, but it is a tax, and it has always been more expensive than public transport.
up2isomorphism 3y ago
The amount corruption involved in public transportation is making any such thing not viable in the US.

r00fus 3y ago

Not to mention one of my most memorable travel meals was from a German rail station - just a sandwich of bread + meat but it was sooo good (note: I was living in France at the time). German rail travel was a great experience. Considering how most trains are electric/hybrid diesel it's clear the petroleum industry never allowed new (and even dismantled existing) rail networks. Just more profits for them.

opportune 3y ago
Most of the German train station food I’ve had was Panera Bread quality but I love that there’s typically good food options in walking distance. I personally have had better train station food in France, as in my limited exposure there were more small groceries, where I could get inexpensive high quality cheeses and bread.
- em-bee 3y ago
  in my experience you get good food at train stations when it comes from regular chains or franchises because they provide the same products and quality as in their other shops.

rainsford 3y ago

In peoples' defense, I think the problem in the vast majority of the US is that public transit is legitimately terrible and most of the US has been built up so that good public transit is difficult to build. I agree that public transit can be a good alternative to car travel, but the problem of marketing it in the US is that the current version of the product being marketed is, to put it bluntly, completely garbage. What really needs to be sold to people is investing in making public transit better instead of just building more roads, but that's a more abstract sales pitch. I also think selling public transit as an alternative to having a car at all is perhaps too ambitious a target. But having to use a car less still has a lot of benefits for individuals and society as a whole without having to get public transit to the point where it can replace nearly all journeys.

_0ffh 3y ago

>just as road usage does That's not true, car taxes and taxes on mineral oil paid by car owners are more than enough to pay for the infrastructure they use.

musicale 3y ago
> car taxes and taxes on mineral oil paid by car owners are more than enough to pay for the infrastructure they use. The highest amount (71%) seems to be in Hawaii: https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ Gas tax revenue will likely continue to drop due to improvements in fuel efficiency and increased adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles.
- _0ffh 3y ago
  This was about Germany, not the US. According to a study drivers pay ~200% of what they "consume" for normal roads and about ~400% for the "autobahn".
  - distances 3y ago
    What do you mean with this? Drivers don't pay separately for basic roads and autobahn so how can they be accounted separately?
    - _0ffh 3y ago
      Good question. The study by the DIW was broken by FT Germany and some quotes found their way to other news outlets, but I can't find the original study so I can't comment much on their methodology. What I can say is that at least there are different usage and resulting deterioration patterns for the different types of roads, for which statistics exist. Also, for the autobahn there exists an additional source of income, which is tolls for trucks above 7.5 tons.
  - musicale 3y ago
    Indeed. It's interesting how different it is in the US vs. Germany, isn't it?

lumb63 3y ago

Do you have any data on the difference in cost between the two paradigms you mention? I'd be curious. I think there are a few additional problems. One is an education problem that I discovered while writing this post. I was taught that tolls and taxes paid for road construction and maintenance. Seems fair to me; those who use the roads more pay more toward their maintenance - they will incur more tolls, and spend more on gas taxes (a little outdated, but still mostly holds). Apparently, that's not true [1]. Driver-related fees cover less than half the cost of road creation and maintenance. The rest is covered by general taxes. So, one big barrier to public transit is stopping the misconception that roads pay for themselves, since people then hold public transit to that standard. Or, public transit proponents could insist that the road system is held to the same standard they are: it must be net-neutral. I will say, though, roads cover much more of their own expenses than public transit do. At least in my own Massachusetts, the MBTA's fees cover only 10.6% of expense [2]. The other financial issue that public transit faces (and financials are what cause most people not to support public transit, IME) is, who pays for it? Again, using Massachusetts as an example, a lot of the general taxpayer revenue that supports the MBTA comes at the state level. The MBTA has lines that cover less than half the state. Why should someone who receives none of the benefit have to pay as much as someone who receives some benefit? If I lived in a rural area, I'd be very opposed to public transit, because I would get negligible benefit and pay the same as someone who gets substantial benefit. So, if urban areas want to have urban projects with taxpayer dollars, it should be their taxpayer dollars. It's unfair of folks to complain that others who would not benefit from their public transit plan don't want to pay for it. 1: https://pirg.org/massachusetts/resources/who-pays-for-roads/ https://pirg.org/massachusetts/resources/who-pays-for-roads/ 2: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/FY23%20Itemized%20Budget.pdf https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/FY23%20Item...

opportune 3y ago
I posted another comment that did some analysis on fuel taxes and road spending (in the US). One thing I’d like to point out is that a true comparison is very hard because heavy public vs private transit result in qualitatively different systemic outcomes that are hard to fully account for monetarily (one results in denser development with its own pros and cons vs dispersed development). And you definitely need to account for the personal costs of car ownership (the car, financing, depreciation, insurance, parking, gas) rather than just the government spending on roads when comparing against public transit. Private transit taxes in aggregate do pay for most private transit spending but to me that is not as big of a deal as some make out. For starters those taxes are disproportionately coming from things like freight. Considering private transit costs + government spending vs public transit fares + government spending I don’t think the proportion coming from taxes vs OOP changes much, it’s just a different cost structure where some people (freight, gas guzzler drivers vs heavy transit users and high income people) pay proportionately more. The payment problem is indeed a challenge. I think a big problem with public transit is that it’s really expensive and wasteful to halfass it; you’re better off in a lot of cases accepting a local optimum of little/no public transit than a small or medium amount that ends up being cost-ineffective. In a lot of countries like Germany, granted they are denser than the US (but comparable to Mass) even small towns have good rail or bus connections to transit hubs. That’d help a lot more than forcing someone in the boonies to pay for something they won’t benefit from (though I take issue with that framing as rural areas typically consume more spending than they receive unless they are wealthy suburbs (with wealth coming from the cities) vs urban areas, so if the project truly benefits the urban area economically, it will still help the rural folks).

secretsatan 3y ago

I tend to think that, if there’s no good public transport, car ownership is in itself a tax, in that you cannot escape it, sure you may choose who to pay your tax to, but it is a tax, and it has always been more expensive than public transport.

up2isomorphism 3y ago

The amount corruption involved in public transportation is making any such thing not viable in the US.