3 ms·

Transit is completely feasible without subsidies if the transit company owns the land near the stations, which generate generous rents. Of course if the land i

by klipt 3y ago

Transit is completely feasible without subsidies if the transit company owns the land near the stations, which generate generous rents. Of course if the land is owned by other people, the increase in value provided by transit should be recaptured through a Land Value Tax which is then used to fund the transit.

cyberax 3y ago
> Transit is completely feasible without subsidies if the transit company owns the land near the stations, which generate generous rents. So basically, you want to subsidize transit by making the transport authority be a slumlord. Got it. There are no unsubsidized urban transit services in the US. Even operating costs are not paid from fares. And new transit construction is COMPLETELY subsidized. I live in Seattle and I will have paid around $20k in car tab fees alone by the time the choo-choo subway train expansion here is done. It won't go anywhere near me and it will make my life worse, by inducing even more traffic.
- nimbleplum40 3y ago
  There are also no unsubsidized fire departments, police departments, public schools, public parks, etc. Analyzing only the first order costs/benefits is really not a good way of analyzing any infrastructure project.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > There are also no unsubsidized fire departments, police departments, public schools, public parks, etc. My fire department, police, and parks are certainly not subsidized. I pay for them from my taxes.
    - nimbleplum40 3y ago
      That’s what a subsidy is my dude. The money obviously has to come from _somewhere_. Are you saying that if taxes pay for transit then transit isn’t subsidized?
      - cyberax 3y ago
        > That’s what a subsidy is my dude. Dictionary definition: "a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive." What I have is NOT a subsidy. I use the resources, and I pay for them. I don't have people from New York paying for my fire department in Seattle. > Are you saying that if taxes pay for transit then transit isn’t subsidized? I use fire protection, and I pay for it. My neighbors receive equal fire protection. There are no subsidies, we all pay our equal share (based on the house value). However, I won't benefit from transit that is being built (heck, it will make my life WORSE). Yet I have to pay for it, thus I subsidize it. Clear?
        nimbleplum40 3y ago
        Do your taxes go towards the fire department even if you never have a fire? (Subsidy) Do your taxes go towards the public parks even if you don’t use them? (Subsidy) Do your taxes go towards public schools even if you don’t have kids? (Subsidy)
        cyberax 3y ago
        > Do your taxes go towards the fire department even if you never have a fire? Fire departments provide protection from fire. I absolutely do use and depend on it. > Do your taxes go towards the public parks even if you don’t use them? This is indeed a subsidy. A pay-per-use system would allow to remove the subsidy. However, it's so small around here that it's inconsequential in the face of massive transit subsidies. > Do your taxes go towards public schools even if you don’t have kids? Nope. I will eventually have kids who will need schools. So not a subsidy.
        nimbleplum40 3y ago
        You said you’re in Seattle? If so, you have quite the parks department… It’s certainly not inconsequential. https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/FinanceDepartment/21proposedbudget/SPR.pdf https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/FinanceDepartm... Also, if your public schools receive funding from people who do not currently have kids in school (no kids, kids already graduated, kids in private school, etc.) it’s subsidized. To claim otherwise is to redefine words.
    - predictabl3 3y ago
      Wow, just wow.
- trinovantes 3y ago
  > So basically, you want to subsidize transit by making the transport authority be a slumlord. Got it. Yes, it's better to have transit company use that money to fund operations than some numbered corp generating profit for wall street investors Tokyo transit is highly profitable and don't require tax-payer subsidies because they own the land around stations
- klipt 3y ago
  > So basically, you want to subsidize transit by making the transport authority be a slumlord Is everyone who owns land a "slumlord" now? It's well studied that transit generates huge economic value, but that value mostly manifests as increased land value near the stations. So why shouldn't that value - created by transit - be credited to the transit that created it?

by klipt 3y ago

cyberax 3y ago

> Transit is completely feasible without subsidies if the transit company owns the land near the stations, which generate generous rents. So basically, you want to subsidize transit by making the transport authority be a slumlord. Got it. There are no unsubsidized urban transit services in the US. Even operating costs are not paid from fares. And new transit construction is COMPLETELY subsidized. I live in Seattle and I will have paid around $20k in car tab fees alone by the time the choo-choo subway train expansion here is done. It won't go anywhere near me and it will make my life worse, by inducing even more traffic.

nimbleplum40 3y ago
There are also no unsubsidized fire departments, police departments, public schools, public parks, etc. Analyzing only the first order costs/benefits is really not a good way of analyzing any infrastructure project.
- cyberax 3y ago
  > There are also no unsubsidized fire departments, police departments, public schools, public parks, etc. My fire department, police, and parks are certainly not subsidized. I pay for them from my taxes.
  - nimbleplum40 3y ago
    That’s what a subsidy is my dude. The money obviously has to come from _somewhere_. Are you saying that if taxes pay for transit then transit isn’t subsidized?
    - cyberax 3y ago
      > That’s what a subsidy is my dude. Dictionary definition: "a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive." What I have is NOT a subsidy. I use the resources, and I pay for them. I don't have people from New York paying for my fire department in Seattle. > Are you saying that if taxes pay for transit then transit isn’t subsidized? I use fire protection, and I pay for it. My neighbors receive equal fire protection. There are no subsidies, we all pay our equal share (based on the house value). However, I won't benefit from transit that is being built (heck, it will make my life WORSE). Yet I have to pay for it, thus I subsidize it. Clear?
      - nimbleplum40 3y ago
        Do your taxes go towards the fire department even if you never have a fire? (Subsidy) Do your taxes go towards the public parks even if you don’t use them? (Subsidy) Do your taxes go towards public schools even if you don’t have kids? (Subsidy)
        cyberax 3y ago
        > Do your taxes go towards the fire department even if you never have a fire? Fire departments provide protection from fire. I absolutely do use and depend on it. > Do your taxes go towards the public parks even if you don’t use them? This is indeed a subsidy. A pay-per-use system would allow to remove the subsidy. However, it's so small around here that it's inconsequential in the face of massive transit subsidies. > Do your taxes go towards public schools even if you don’t have kids? Nope. I will eventually have kids who will need schools. So not a subsidy.
        nimbleplum40 3y ago
        You said you’re in Seattle? If so, you have quite the parks department… It’s certainly not inconsequential. https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/FinanceDepartment/21proposedbudget/SPR.pdf https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/FinanceDepartm... Also, if your public schools receive funding from people who do not currently have kids in school (no kids, kids already graduated, kids in private school, etc.) it’s subsidized. To claim otherwise is to redefine words.
  - predictabl3 3y ago
    Wow, just wow.
trinovantes 3y ago
> So basically, you want to subsidize transit by making the transport authority be a slumlord. Got it. Yes, it's better to have transit company use that money to fund operations than some numbered corp generating profit for wall street investors Tokyo transit is highly profitable and don't require tax-payer subsidies because they own the land around stations
klipt 3y ago
> So basically, you want to subsidize transit by making the transport authority be a slumlord Is everyone who owns land a "slumlord" now? It's well studied that transit generates huge economic value, but that value mostly manifests as increased land value near the stations. So why shouldn't that value - created by transit - be credited to the transit that created it?