City public transportation, at a very minimum, should be free. The NYC Subway should be free. The Tube in London should be free.
The standard American response is to object on the grounds that we're subsidizing something and it's a wasteful government expenditure. You know what else that applies to? Roads. We subsidize roads and everyone is OK with that.
Charging for public transport is just a regressive tax on what are typically the lowest paid workers.
Regional transportation is more interesting. I'm not sure how that'll work in practice but I'm open to it.
In my city a big deal is made about the public bus service requiring a 50 million subsidy and no one thinks twice about spending 250 million (plus maintenance) on a single overpass.
Public transportation drivers strongly, strongly disagreed in Seattle, which was one signal to get it banned. The very people who deliver the product were against it.
"Bus drivers have consistently supported eliminating the free-ride area, saying that letting people board without paying leads to more frequent fare evasion, as well as disrespect for Metro’s Code of Conduct, which forbids alcohol, harassment, litter, eating and reclining, said Paul Bachtel, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587."
Public transit is already heavily subsidized. The revenue generated by ticket sales isn’t nearly enough to cover overall expenses. That money has to come from somewhere, and unless you’re going to raise taxes that means taking away from other public services. It’s no wonder there aren’t many politicians in North America advocating free public transit
Not always true. TfL in London was (before COVID) famously unsubsidised, recovering its entire costs from ticket sales and adverts.
So the idea that you have to subsidise public transport is crap, the oldest, and one of the largest public transport systems in the worlds managed just fine without a subsidy for over half a decade, and is only struggling because government policy basically banned the use of public transport for a year.
Roads are way more subsidised than public transports. I suggest we make drivers feel their impact on cities.
Of course it won’t achieve anything, because it’s impossible to make people understand how bad the current system is, especially in the US. So far gone…
In the US, money from gas taxes is used to fund non-road-infrastructure, but conversely money from other taxes is also used on road infrastructure. It seems like on the whole gas taxes and toll do not cover roads (see eg [1]).
but even if not free (free should be the goal) heavily discounted prices would already be good enough, especially for regular users that typically are the lowest paid workers.
Also, the farther you travel, the higher the discount should be, to disincentivize the use of private transport.
Making regional transport free will make it easier for people to choose to go by train rather than drive. This will help to improve air quality and congestion for goods transport and deliveries.
> The MTA spends almost $19 billion per year. You want it to be free?
100%
> Go find $19 billion in the budget.
A combination of:
1. Taxing private vehicle ownership in NYC
2. Congestion charging, primarily in Manhattan
3. Charging for street parking below 110th Street; and
4. Increases in NY city and/or state income tax.
> Roads aren’t subsidized
Yes, they are [1]:
> The reason is simple math: The gasoline tax that bankrolls the federal Highway Trust Fund is politically untouchable, leading lawmakers and presidents of both parties to balk at raising it since 1993. But the money to pay for the nation’s growing needs for roads, bridges and transit has to come from somewhere — and the main answer has been to borrow it, adding it onto the yawning federal deficit.
Your evidence is lacking in evidence. NY isn’t Florida, and federal gas taxes have nothing to do with state roads within New York. New York roads are paid with New York gas taxes and New York road tolls.
As for the rest of your ideas they are trying to implement most of those just to cover other budget shortfalls. And they aren’t going to generate anywhere NEAR $19 billion per year.
Good luck convincing the highest taxed city in America to add $19 billion in additional taxes.
> ... federal gas taxes have nothing to do with state roads within New York
Yes and no. I mean Interstates run through the state of New York obviously. But the funding picture for state and local roads is complicated and is funded by a mix of property taxes (and possibly other taxes) as well as state and federal grants [1]. Obviously those grants come from somewhere. Property taxes are more direct.
We've decided to give road access away mostly for free (eg obviously there are toll roads and there really shouldn't be) as a political decision because of the collective benefit. I'm simply saying we can and should make that same decision for public transportation, which creates a lot of public good.
> Good luck convincing the highest taxed city in America to add $19 billion in additional taxes.
You realize New Yorkers are already paying $19 billion a year right? So, at worst, it's just changing how that $19 billion is generated. It's not additional tax. That's propaganda.
My point is that rather than charging a server who earns $2/hour plus tips and an investment banker the same $125/month to use the Subway, we should collect that $19 billion is a less regressive way.
That $125/month will make a substantial difference to the low paid workers who are absolutely essential for the city to function but that investment banker paying slightly higher taxes will have absolutely no impact.
You do know that the bridge and tunnel tolls in Manhattan are used to subsidize mass transit? Drivers subsidize transit users in NYC, not the other way around.
Not for highways. Those are paid for by gas taxes, and before you bring it up, the only reason the highway trust fund is insolvent is due to diversions to fund transit. Local roads are also funded with property tax money as well as gas tax/car registration money, but good luck having a functional city even if every person uses transit without roads, so its hard to argue that drivers are subsidized because of that. Buses, taxis, bikes, and delivery vehicles need roads too and heavy vehicles damage roads significantly more than cars do.
The fact is that parking taxes, gas taxes, tolls, registration fees, etc. are often diverted to fund transit, but transit fees are not diverted to fund auto infrastructure. Transit is subsidized at a much higher percentage basis than roads are; I'm more than happy to pay the true cost of roads (excluding arbitrary """externalities"""), but I doubt you would be willing to pay unsubsidized transit fares. As an example, only 24.44% of the MTA's operating expenses are paid for by fares [1], and NYC has a higher farebox recovery ratio than most cities. If you lived in New York, would you really be willing to pay $11.25 each way (so $22.50 round trip), instead of $2.75 ($5.50 round trip), for a subway ride? That's the equivalent of driving 19.2 miles one-way (38.5 mile round trip), including the cost of the car, gas, insurance, and taxes paid to fund the roads (using the IRS rate of 58.5 cents a mile, which in my experience is an over estimate on actual costs incurred). In the city I live in, which dense but not Manhattan level dense, the unsubsidized cost of a rail ticket is around $30 a trip, or $60 round-trip, which almost no one would be willing to pay (those numbers came directly from the agency's budget). None of the transit numbers include capital costs, so the real unsubsidized cost is even higher. Roads are not subsidized to the tune of 75+% of total cost.
The standard American response is to object on the grounds that we're subsidizing something and it's a wasteful government expenditure. You know what else that applies to? Roads. We subsidize roads and everyone is OK with that.
Charging for public transport is just a regressive tax on what are typically the lowest paid workers.
Regional transportation is more interesting. I'm not sure how that'll work in practice but I'm open to it.