5 ms·

It's good to simplify transit fares as a way to reduce friction, and make it easier to get a ticket. Pittsburgh Regional Transit has done a very good job with t

It's good to simplify transit fares as a way to reduce friction, and make it easier to get a ticket. Pittsburgh Regional Transit has done a very good job with these recently. I just think, from a realpolitik perspective, your average car user (who you definitely need to persuade in order to get their representative to support transit funding) already perceives transit as unprofitable (rightly, for basically anywhere other than NYC) and would therefore find it not just unfeasible, but deeply unfair. If they're right, then it's a dead end. If not, then it's a persuasion problem, and I don't think people who have advocated for free transit have made the case very well.

madsbuch 3y ago
> your average car user already perceives transit as unprofitable and would therefore find it not just unfeasible, but deeply unfair. The average car user probably need to adjust their sentiments on this. Car users are being heavily invested in not only by the infrastructure they get, but also the opportunity costs of the land the roads occupy. Even in Denmark where cars are taxed at an additional 150% (on top of a 25% VAT) I am quite sure that the regular tax payer subsidizes the car user. I would love to see actual profitability analysis of these technologies. I am not ure the car users would benefit however.
- Brendinooo 3y ago
  > Car users are being heavily invested in not only by the infrastructure they get, but also the opportunity costs of the land the roads occupy. Sure, but they also have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to buy into the ecosystem, insure their vehicle, and keep it fueled and maintained. Your normie car driver is gonna say "I have to pay $xxx a month to go anywhere, why should others get to go somewhere for free?" To be clear, I'm all in favor of whatever policy encourages more mass transit. I'm just trying to be pragmatic here. > The average car user probably need to adjust their sentiments on this That's why I said what I said. If it's a persuasion problem, then a better case needs to be made.
fnimick 3y ago
I pay every day for roads, infrastructure, pollution, traffic deaths, etc. even though I don't drive. How is that fair?
- eppp 3y ago
  You also receive goods that are subsidized by the use of those roads.
  - madsbuch 3y ago
    not by the car users.
- GenerocUsername 3y ago
  Oh so you buy gas and pay the crazy gas taxes even though you don't have a car?
  - fnimick 3y ago
    "crazy gas taxes" - you mean the taxes that don't even come close to paying for roads, let alone all the other negative externalities of driving? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbEuaCCV-zg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbEuaCCV-zg
- Brendinooo 3y ago
  Yup! And PA Turnpike drivers pay every day for buses in Philadelphia (or Pittsburgh, whichever is more distant to make the point) that they'll never ride. But at least we have a status quo where both systems are subsidized, and both systems require you to buy in to use them. Why let one group go for free?
  - fnimick 3y ago
    > PA Turnpike drivers pay every day for buses They do? The tolls on the pike don't even cover the maintenance on the road. It's the general tax fund, paid into as well by non-drivers, that makes up the difference.
r00fus 3y ago
Flip the argument - for the non car driver, road maintenance is highly unprofitable and is an unfair tax. The oil/car lobby has spent billions in advertising and popular media selling us car culture.
- Brendinooo 3y ago
  > road maintenance is highly unprofitable I think there could be success in making an argument like this, and pitching consumption taxes could help make that math more apparent without requiring any rhetoric. > selling us car culture I think this is a dead end, though. That's why I mentioned realpolitik - something like 92% of Americans have access to a car. A big chunk of these people like car culture, plenty don't particularly care but have built their lives around the status quo, and the ones who don't but participate anyways do so because they're priced out of communities that are walkable/have good transit. You need ways to gradually make transit better and make people less dependent on cars. I'm an example; work from home allowed me to get rid of our family's second car five years ago. You could argue that free transit can help with that. I don't; I'd rather see transit extract value from those who are able to pay and be more reliant on operating income, and I don't think "it's too expensive" is the primary reason why most people don't switch to transit. But regardless of what I think, if even 6 out of 10 of that 92% think it's unfair, then it's a political non-starter.

madsbuch 3y ago

> your average car user already perceives transit as unprofitable and would therefore find it not just unfeasible, but deeply unfair. The average car user probably need to adjust their sentiments on this. Car users are being heavily invested in not only by the infrastructure they get, but also the opportunity costs of the land the roads occupy. Even in Denmark where cars are taxed at an additional 150% (on top of a 25% VAT) I am quite sure that the regular tax payer subsidizes the car user. I would love to see actual profitability analysis of these technologies. I am not ure the car users would benefit however.

Brendinooo 3y ago
> Car users are being heavily invested in not only by the infrastructure they get, but also the opportunity costs of the land the roads occupy. Sure, but they also have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to buy into the ecosystem, insure their vehicle, and keep it fueled and maintained. Your normie car driver is gonna say "I have to pay $xxx a month to go anywhere, why should others get to go somewhere for free?" To be clear, I'm all in favor of whatever policy encourages more mass transit. I'm just trying to be pragmatic here. > The average car user probably need to adjust their sentiments on this That's why I said what I said. If it's a persuasion problem, then a better case needs to be made.

fnimick 3y ago

I pay every day for roads, infrastructure, pollution, traffic deaths, etc. even though I don't drive. How is that fair?

eppp 3y ago
You also receive goods that are subsidized by the use of those roads.
- madsbuch 3y ago
  not by the car users.
GenerocUsername 3y ago
Oh so you buy gas and pay the crazy gas taxes even though you don't have a car?
- fnimick 3y ago
  "crazy gas taxes" - you mean the taxes that don't even come close to paying for roads, let alone all the other negative externalities of driving? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbEuaCCV-zg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbEuaCCV-zg
Brendinooo 3y ago
Yup! And PA Turnpike drivers pay every day for buses in Philadelphia (or Pittsburgh, whichever is more distant to make the point) that they'll never ride. But at least we have a status quo where both systems are subsidized, and both systems require you to buy in to use them. Why let one group go for free?
- fnimick 3y ago
  > PA Turnpike drivers pay every day for buses They do? The tolls on the pike don't even cover the maintenance on the road. It's the general tax fund, paid into as well by non-drivers, that makes up the difference.

r00fus 3y ago

Flip the argument - for the non car driver, road maintenance is highly unprofitable and is an unfair tax. The oil/car lobby has spent billions in advertising and popular media selling us car culture.

Brendinooo 3y ago
> road maintenance is highly unprofitable I think there could be success in making an argument like this, and pitching consumption taxes could help make that math more apparent without requiring any rhetoric. > selling us car culture I think this is a dead end, though. That's why I mentioned realpolitik - something like 92% of Americans have access to a car. A big chunk of these people like car culture, plenty don't particularly care but have built their lives around the status quo, and the ones who don't but participate anyways do so because they're priced out of communities that are walkable/have good transit. You need ways to gradually make transit better and make people less dependent on cars. I'm an example; work from home allowed me to get rid of our family's second car five years ago. You could argue that free transit can help with that. I don't; I'd rather see transit extract value from those who are able to pay and be more reliant on operating income, and I don't think "it's too expensive" is the primary reason why most people don't switch to transit. But regardless of what I think, if even 6 out of 10 of that 92% think it's unfair, then it's a political non-starter.