3 ms·

So that's not cheaper for someone who works 5 days a week and gets to their place of work with a single ride.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
estebank 2y ago
But it makes it free to use public transport on top of that: it encourages people to use it for more than commutes (improving traffic in turn), which makes sense because commutes are peak utilisation time, the rolling stock is under utilized at every other time.
- 7speter 2y ago
  Have you tried using the subway during rush hour to get home in NYC? If you’re going in the same general direction as everyone else, it was already packed long before congestion pricing. The MTA is 50 billion+ in debt, and it will cost billions more to add capacity over decades.
yo_ean 2y ago
The subway fare includes the cost of energy to get there and parking.
- ty6853 2y ago
  That seems doubtful but possible since fares of public transit tend to run at a loss. Most public transit just offloaded the cost on poor who must drive to less accessible and less wealthy unserviced areas as collected tax expenditures from their checks.
  - stouset 2y ago
    Your mind is going to be blown when you find out how much it costs to own and operate a car, not to mention how much it costs in terms of time to commute back and forth.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      Sure, you have to pay for public road parasitism by pedestrian, public transit on roads funded partially by fuel taxes, and heavy road destroying vehicles. Not that I blame them, they're taking advantage of incentives offered. Who wouldn't want to bike on a road funded by car owners and then buy goods transported by 18 wheelers that end up destroying the road disproportionately to the point it is small passenger cars that get the biggest squeeze. It's not dumb to not want to be the sucker, the urban yuppies on transit routes are great at squeezing the working class that way.
      - stouset 2y ago
        Roads are overwhelmingly funded by property taxes. Try again.
        ty6853 2y ago
        Property taxes are regressive tax, analogous but not equal to the way sales tax is, try again.
        stouset 2y ago
        Whether or not they're regressive, they are the primary means of funding the roads. Drivers don't fund roads, everyone does.
        ty6853 2y ago
        Which means again it's an offloading from poor working class who tend to live in shittier transit access areas where a car (and its road taxes) is more necessary, regressively upwards. Public transit as implemented in US is a regressive middle class welfare program.
        stouset 2y ago
        Which has precisely fuck-all to do with the point you were originally trying to make. If you want to now start arguing that that roads themselves are a regressive tax on the poor, then you should be triply in favor of public transportation options. > shittier transit access areas Public transit advocates literally want to expand public transit to cover more and more of these areas. We also want to build more housing in dense areas, so it is effectively cheaper to live there. The answer is not throwing our hands up in the air and forcing the poor to live further and further away from their jobs and economic centers, foisting upon them the exorbitant expense of roads, cars, fuel, and time spent commuting.
casta 2y ago
I work 5 days a week and get to work on a single ride. I do take multiple other rides a day and in the weekend though, so I hit 12 rides pretty quickly, probably in around 4 days.
rsoto2 2y ago
The benefit is not just "cheaper" it's more safety, faster commutes, better infrastructure investments and tax revenue.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

But it makes it free to use public transport on top of that: it encourages people to use it for more than commutes (improving traffic in turn), which makes sense because commutes are peak utilisation time, the rolling stock is under utilized at every other time.

7speter 2y ago
Have you tried using the subway during rush hour to get home in NYC? If you’re going in the same general direction as everyone else, it was already packed long before congestion pricing. The MTA is 50 billion+ in debt, and it will cost billions more to add capacity over decades.

yo_ean 2y ago

The subway fare includes the cost of energy to get there and parking.

ty6853 2y ago
That seems doubtful but possible since fares of public transit tend to run at a loss. Most public transit just offloaded the cost on poor who must drive to less accessible and less wealthy unserviced areas as collected tax expenditures from their checks.
- stouset 2y ago
  Your mind is going to be blown when you find out how much it costs to own and operate a car, not to mention how much it costs in terms of time to commute back and forth.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Sure, you have to pay for public road parasitism by pedestrian, public transit on roads funded partially by fuel taxes, and heavy road destroying vehicles. Not that I blame them, they're taking advantage of incentives offered. Who wouldn't want to bike on a road funded by car owners and then buy goods transported by 18 wheelers that end up destroying the road disproportionately to the point it is small passenger cars that get the biggest squeeze. It's not dumb to not want to be the sucker, the urban yuppies on transit routes are great at squeezing the working class that way.
    - stouset 2y ago
      Roads are overwhelmingly funded by property taxes. Try again.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        Property taxes are regressive tax, analogous but not equal to the way sales tax is, try again.
        stouset 2y ago
        Whether or not they're regressive, they are the primary means of funding the roads. Drivers don't fund roads, everyone does.
        ty6853 2y ago
        Which means again it's an offloading from poor working class who tend to live in shittier transit access areas where a car (and its road taxes) is more necessary, regressively upwards. Public transit as implemented in US is a regressive middle class welfare program.
        stouset 2y ago
        Which has precisely fuck-all to do with the point you were originally trying to make. If you want to now start arguing that that roads themselves are a regressive tax on the poor, then you should be triply in favor of public transportation options. > shittier transit access areas Public transit advocates literally want to expand public transit to cover more and more of these areas. We also want to build more housing in dense areas, so it is effectively cheaper to live there. The answer is not throwing our hands up in the air and forcing the poor to live further and further away from their jobs and economic centers, foisting upon them the exorbitant expense of roads, cars, fuel, and time spent commuting.

casta 2y ago

I work 5 days a week and get to work on a single ride. I do take multiple other rides a day and in the weekend though, so I hit 12 rides pretty quickly, probably in around 4 days.

rsoto2 2y ago

The benefit is not just "cheaper" it's more safety, faster commutes, better infrastructure investments and tax revenue.