But the current state of a lot of public transport being money losing entities indicates their costs are out of control. Public services shouldn't just help themselves to endless taxpayer money rather than put their house in order and provide value.
It's routine for transit systems to run at a loss in the sense that the ticket prices don't pay 100% of the costs.
The idea is that transit has benefits beyond what it gives to the riders. If a bus takes 20 cars off the street that's a huge boon to the other cars.
In Ithaca, for instance, Cornell doesn't have a lot of space for parking, if you do get a parking space it is probably far enough away that you'll ride the bus in anyway. Employees get a free bus pass and even though it means I have to fit my schedule to the bus, it drops me off right by the door of a building that's connected to my building so it's as convenient as can be.
Every second reply here is "yes, congestion pricing is bad but it could be compensated by X"
The problem with every one of these posts is the same: IS it compensated by X? No. Why not? Because X is not happening, and the city is certainly not paying for it with the extra income.
You talk about a free bus pass, but you might as well talk about free use of a Star Trek transporter. I would argue that'd be more honest, because if you talk about a nonexistent transporter technology at least it's clear that it's not happening. Also: this is New York. The bus service would need to be improved as well. That too is not happening. Nobody would be complaining in the first place if there was cheap (you even say "free"), fast and good public transport. There isn't.
What problems are they admitting that congestion pricing causes? I don’t know if there’s just like a lot of subtext in these threads, or I’m just misunderstanding what people are saying.
That public transport costs too much, and therefore it's cost should be shouldered by the state more. The implication is that the state should simply provide free bus passes like Cornell does in Ithaca.
Between the lines you read that congestion pricing makes cars more expensive, and that would/should be compensated by making public transport cheaper.
And my remark to that is that the state ISN'T making public transport cheaper (in fact the opposite), on top of that the state is disregarding the other problems with public transport, like safety, maintenance and coverage. And further savings on public transport are being implemented in New York. So, to make it very general, this congestion charge is punitive. It's making the situation better for some (people who pay the congestion charge) by making the situation worse for everyone else. It's making the situation better for rich people, who have a far easier time living more comfortably outside of New York, who can now buy easy access to New York far cheaper.
> That public transport costs too much, and therefore it's cost should be shouldered by the state more. The implication is that the state should simply provide free bus passes like Cornell does in Ithaca.
How is public transport costing too much a problem caused by congestion charges? It may be true, but I don’t think causality works like that.
Oh, I totally agree with this, but I think the largest cause is unfortunately simpler (especially in the US) than people think: Middlemen. Subcontracting has made every project a boondoggle since now you don't need to coordinate internal teams, you need to coordinate a ton of external teams, which is way more difficult, and it costs more. Building more in-house talent where possible would save a lot of money, especially in the NYC area. (NJTransit and the MTA both overuse contractors and spend money like crazy, SEPTA uses significantly more in-house talent and they spend their money much more effectively)
Obviously, there are more causes than just this, including sabotage because the US dislikes public transit in general, but contracting is a massive cost that kills in-house talent and wastes money on every project. And of course I don't expect them to do zero contracting either - I don't expect them to start manufacturing their own trains, for example. Right now, however, the balance leans far too much on the side of "too much contracting".
> Public services like public transport shouldn't be seen as for-profit entities.
This is fine, but it's a question of how much/little useful service should they provide for the money provided. Is $1 billion per mile of subway OK? Is $2 billion?
My radical idea would be to turn the subway right-of-way over to licensed or automated electric shuttle on-demand shuttle vans. There would be challenges for sure, but it's hard to do worse than the efficiencies some of these systems are operating at.
Arguably the best transportation system in the world is in Japan. It's made from ~100 private and mostly private companies. For some reason, tax and spenders never seem to understand that.
Set up the incentives right as demonstrated it can work. Coversely, public transporation will always have funding issues because there is no way to setup the insentives.
Not really. The Japanese public transportation system is analogous to employer sponsored healthcare in the US. The employers and employees get significant tax incentives to get employee commuter passes.
Ths US tax system makes capital intensive business difficult to operate in the private market. It’s one of the larger distorting influences in our economy. Most public transit is operated by authorities, which are public corporations with their own books and tax exempt bonding authority.
Based on your saying “tax and spend”, I assume you identify as a modern conservative. The tax and spend aspect is really the road system - one of the ways that Nixon tried to prop up the flailing economy was to invest billions into highway aid and projects. Roads = lots of oneshot construction jobs and local patronage.
Rural, exurban and suburban towns didn’t have broad paved highways until those programs took off, as states didn’t have the will or the dollars to fund them. Drive around upstate New York and you’ll see lots of “old state route XX” — all of those roads were built in the last 50 years, all paid for by external federal dollars. (And narrower than the ridiculous wide streets in subdivisions today)
Is really. The majority of systems, especially the larger ones, get no subsidies. Mostly the smaller rural ones get subsidies.
> I assume you identify as a modern conservative
you'd be wrong.
But I still bristle every time someone says we need public transporation when my favorite system I've used for decades is not public and is designed to be positive feedback loop. No public system can do that AFAICT because there's no way to set up the incentives. It's just an expense with indirect benefits, to easy to cut funding on and make it just a "for poor people who can't afford a car" system
It’s pathetic how bad America has become at managing capitalism. Being able to profit is a privilege not some god given right. We as a society, instead of making all these silly little taxes and regulations, should simple make broad and curt decisions on when profiting is and isn't allowed. The two big problems are using public funds to fuel profits, and profiting off of conflicts of interest (healthcare).
The issue is that they consistently lose money and people who will never make use of them have to subsidize it.
A great example is Pennsylvania where they privatized the turnpike but as part of that deal, the turnpike had to pay half a billion a year for 20 years to fund public transit in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. So tolls I paid that should have gone to improve the turnpike were instead used as a form of price controls to keep people happy in the cities.
>The issue is that they consistently lose money and people who will never make use of them have to subsidize it.
It's doubtful that congestion pricing is going to lose money given that the roads already exist.
>A great example is Pennsylvania where they privatized the turnpike but as part of that deal, the turnpike had to pay half a billion a year for 20 years to fund public transit in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. So tolls I paid that should have gone to improve the turnpike were instead used as a form of price controls to keep people happy in the cities.
A mandatory payment enforced by the government is a "tax", not "price control".
People without cars subsidize street parking and parking minimum mandates by forcing all other uses for land to be more expensive.
People without children subsidize public schools. Healthy people subsidize sick people's insurance. Part of living in communities involve subsidizing services you don't use, that it occurs is not a problem, you need to argue that it should not be subsidized in the first place, and moving people by bus is better than moving people by car in a variety of ways.
The part you're missing: All the people whose public transit you funded aren't driving! It reduced traffic! You benefitted from it, whether you realize it or not. People in the cities pay lots of car and gas-related taxes, despite not owning a car - same thing. That street goes both ways. They fund streets and highways and infrastructure in your area just like you fund public transit in theirs. It's mutually beneficial, even though both parties are funding stuff they may not use.
You see all of those roads in Pennsylvania that you have never driven on? You're paying for them in your taxes. Those people who never drive the roads you use are also helping pay for them. Thats how the system works (as designed).
