6 ms·

> the T was only pulling in roughly a third of its operating expenses in revenue This is not a great argument, in that public transit is a public good and shou

by fader 3y ago

> the T was only pulling in roughly a third of its operating expenses in revenue This is not a great argument, in that public transit is a public good and should not be expected to fully pay for itself. Public transit enables other economic behavior. Similarly, we don't expect roads to pay for themselves -- they're a public utility that enables other revenue producing behavior. > people living in Worcester, Springfield, Pittsfield, and Chatham were contributing to a system they don't use I don't have children but I'm happy to pay taxes that support public schools because I reap the benefits of an educated populace. Boston produces the plurality of state revenue[0], far more than Worcester, Springfield, Pittsfield, or Chatham. The residents of those towns are happy to take revenue generated in and by Boston to pay for their services, but consistently vote against properly funding the T. Which is shortsighted, because cities with public transportation produce $1.5B more revenue per year[1], meaning those cities would have _lower_ taxes if they supported the T. [0]: http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/cb7ed639-177c-43f0-8f8f-a51fcddd62c0/ http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/cb7ed639-177c-43f0-... [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-14/public-transit-is-worth-way-more-to-a-city-than-you-might-think https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-14/public-tr...

landemva 3y ago
> we don't expect roads to pay for themselves Taxes are included in fuel price at the pump, and some States are finally beginning to charge EV owners for road usage. States around east coast collect ~50 cents per gallon. It's wasted funding and lack of accountability, not lack of funding that roads are not better maintained.
- fader 3y ago
  Gas taxes pay for less than half of what's required for road maintenance[0]. Again, we don't expect roads to make a profit, but somehow mass transit has to play by other rules. Cars are far, far more subsidized than public transit[1]. (Even these analyses tend to ignore externalities like "free" parking. In what other realm would you ever expect to permanently store your private property on public land without paying and have it protected by the police?) Driving is so incredibly heavily subsidized in the US that people genuinely _believe_ things like paying a miniscule tax at the pump covers the actual cost of driving. [0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/debunking-the-myth-that-because-of-the-gas-tax-only-drivers-pay-for-roads https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/debunking... [1]: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/17/in-transportation-costs-its-the-system-stupid https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/17/in-transportat...
  - landemva 3y ago
    The Blomberg link you provided was a useful read because it highlights how tax thinking is partisan. For example, "You might think both would pay the same sales tax ... while the driver would pay an additional gas tax, with that money going toward roads. In 37 states you'd be wrong—that's how many places have a fuel exemption for sales tax." No, I would not think fuel should have two sales taxes. The article concludes by advocating for fuel taxes to be added to the general fund instead of being siloed for roads. That sounds like a great way to take what is a specific use tax and spend it on everything, instead of the thing being used. If you propose raising the fuel tax, well maybe that is needed. Also, please help me understand where I have access to free parking on public land. Cettainly not at the airport or downtown streets in large cities.
    - fader 3y ago
      > Also, please help me understand where I have access to free parking on public land. Cettainly not at the airport or downtown streets in large cities. ... Are you seriously trying to claim that you've never seen free street parking anywhere? The vast majority of parking everywhere in the country is unmetered. That's tax money paying for car storage. Cherry picking an airport is absolutely disingenuous and a bad faith argument.
      - landemva 3y ago
        > disingenuous and a bad faith argument. Whoaaa assumptions! Picking the airport and downtown are the only places on government property I occasionally park, and I pay per use for those. I rarely park on small roads because I have nothing to do there. Roads can be private - owned by the person with the adjoining house. I live in a town in which the "roads" are private property with reciprocal easements to all other property owners in the town. It's awesome. There are no problems from people storing their RVs and trailers and junk on the street, because it gets towed for trespass. The town top budget item for our taxes is to hire companies to maintain what appear to be roads. This keeps the town answering to the people, because if they don't maintain the "roads" the people will reduce the taxes to about zero. I'm serious, on what government property do I park for free?
gottorf 3y ago
> I don't have children but I'm happy to pay taxes that support public schools because I reap the benefits of an educated populace. This is actually a pretty apt comparison, since the original article of the thread was about the dysfunction of the Green Line Extension. Suppose you lived in Baltimore, where zero students passed grade-level math proficiency in 40% of public schools, and yet the school system CEO is paid half a million dollars a year. Would you be as keen on paying those taxes? After all, you really aren't getting the benefits of an educated populace in that case. If the T cost a lot of money and provided great service, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's the fact that it costs a lot of money and is still bad, and the proposed solution is yet more public funding for it, which is generating the discussion.

by fader 3y ago

landemva 3y ago

> we don't expect roads to pay for themselves Taxes are included in fuel price at the pump, and some States are finally beginning to charge EV owners for road usage. States around east coast collect ~50 cents per gallon. It's wasted funding and lack of accountability, not lack of funding that roads are not better maintained.

fader 3y ago
Gas taxes pay for less than half of what's required for road maintenance[0]. Again, we don't expect roads to make a profit, but somehow mass transit has to play by other rules. Cars are far, far more subsidized than public transit[1]. (Even these analyses tend to ignore externalities like "free" parking. In what other realm would you ever expect to permanently store your private property on public land without paying and have it protected by the police?) Driving is so incredibly heavily subsidized in the US that people genuinely _believe_ things like paying a miniscule tax at the pump covers the actual cost of driving. [0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/debunking-the-myth-that-because-of-the-gas-tax-only-drivers-pay-for-roads https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/debunking... [1]: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/17/in-transportation-costs-its-the-system-stupid https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/17/in-transportat...
- landemva 3y ago
  The Blomberg link you provided was a useful read because it highlights how tax thinking is partisan. For example, "You might think both would pay the same sales tax ... while the driver would pay an additional gas tax, with that money going toward roads. In 37 states you'd be wrong—that's how many places have a fuel exemption for sales tax." No, I would not think fuel should have two sales taxes. The article concludes by advocating for fuel taxes to be added to the general fund instead of being siloed for roads. That sounds like a great way to take what is a specific use tax and spend it on everything, instead of the thing being used. If you propose raising the fuel tax, well maybe that is needed. Also, please help me understand where I have access to free parking on public land. Cettainly not at the airport or downtown streets in large cities.
  - fader 3y ago
    > Also, please help me understand where I have access to free parking on public land. Cettainly not at the airport or downtown streets in large cities. ... Are you seriously trying to claim that you've never seen free street parking anywhere? The vast majority of parking everywhere in the country is unmetered. That's tax money paying for car storage. Cherry picking an airport is absolutely disingenuous and a bad faith argument.
    - landemva 3y ago
      > disingenuous and a bad faith argument. Whoaaa assumptions! Picking the airport and downtown are the only places on government property I occasionally park, and I pay per use for those. I rarely park on small roads because I have nothing to do there. Roads can be private - owned by the person with the adjoining house. I live in a town in which the "roads" are private property with reciprocal easements to all other property owners in the town. It's awesome. There are no problems from people storing their RVs and trailers and junk on the street, because it gets towed for trespass. The town top budget item for our taxes is to hire companies to maintain what appear to be roads. This keeps the town answering to the people, because if they don't maintain the "roads" the people will reduce the taxes to about zero. I'm serious, on what government property do I park for free?

gottorf 3y ago

> I don't have children but I'm happy to pay taxes that support public schools because I reap the benefits of an educated populace. This is actually a pretty apt comparison, since the original article of the thread was about the dysfunction of the Green Line Extension. Suppose you lived in Baltimore, where zero students passed grade-level math proficiency in 40% of public schools, and yet the school system CEO is paid half a million dollars a year. Would you be as keen on paying those taxes? After all, you really aren't getting the benefits of an educated populace in that case. If the T cost a lot of money and provided great service, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's the fact that it costs a lot of money and is still bad, and the proposed solution is yet more public funding for it, which is generating the discussion.