Hacker News Reader

"This is an effective subsidy for "sprawl" and is a huge driver of why the US built environment looks the way it does."

To be fair, the subsidies are not mostly in highway building. Suburban feeder style streets (4-8 lanes with lights, turn lanes) get bigger subsidies and drive more sprawl. But even those are a smallish factor.

The big subsidy is free and cheap parking. Most American cities require that businesses and new homes provide enough parking for everyone who ever wants to come to park free. That's a subsidy equivalent to about $10-30k per car per year, depending on your local real estate costs. The outright majority of space in real estate development in the USA is devoted to satisfying this centralized Soviet style command-and-control mandate.

Countries with the most free market real estate development in the free world, like Japan, still build freeways. In fact, Japan has a silly amount of freeways because you don't even need or want a car usually. Those countries are different because they require a lot less parking.

So the induced demand and highway subsidy question is not the most central to the car dependence and sprawl question. Parking mandates are much more important to the way life is actually lived in America.

Just to be clear for all the readers, the alternative to falling into the induced demand trap by building more roads, is to improve public transportation infrastructure. Such improvement has been shown, perhaps counterintuitively, to have the biggest effect on road traffic.

The shorter your commute via public transportation, the less traffic on the road.

With respect to the subsidization effort, there is very little transportation infrastructure in developed countries that is not subsidized in some way - though I'd like to see a discussion of that.

I can think of mining towns, logging roads, private university campuses, Disney World...what else?

Suppose you want to build a railway from TownA to TownB. It's ten miles and you can prove in every conceivable way that it will be profitable for both you and the two towns.

You still can't, because in a society with strong property rights, all the land is owned by somebody, and unless you're out west where one person might own the vast majority of the requisite right-of-way, you have basically no chance of every acquiring all the rights at any reasonable price. Geometry is conspiring to incentivize people in the middle of any given path to hold out for more money by holding the prospect of failure over your head. Reality has even shown that many people irrationally overestimate how much they can squeeze from you, so you realistically face the prospect of many people believing they are the last holdout and trying to squeeze you for so much that it renders the entire project economical.

Thus, the only conceivably private public transport must run on the roads anyhow. Anything else is going to be created by some form of government action; in some sense calling it "subsidized" is almost misleading in that it's entirely created by the government in the first place, even if half-privatized after the fact.

All the instances you name are situations in which one singular entity owns all the land, and thus doesn't have the problem of having to coordinate with dozens of irrational people all trying to squeeze you for cash.

> "Reality has even shown that many people irrationally overestimate how much they can squeeze from you"

Please explain this further.

Consider 2 outcomes. One is that the project moves forward with the owner getting x+y for their land. The other is that the project doesn't move forward and they are able to sell it for roughly x.

There is at least a sense in which turning down y is irrational. Of course it doesn't have to be irrational, but if they believe they would be better off with y and are simply trying to get more, there is some degree of unreasonableness involved.

There are a ton of stories about people holding out for more money from developers trying to buy up swathes of land. Some of them hold out for so much (including the effective infinity of "simply will not sell") that it actually ends up more practical to build around them. This is the extreme, but here's some pictures of the results of that sort of thing: https://www.google.com/search?q=eminent+domain+holdouts

I'll say again those are the extremes, but it's a common local- or regional-interest story to read about someone holding out for more money because they're the last parcel needed for some development or something. Usually it's an easy "little guy sticking it to The Man" story for the local news human interest segments.

This is exactly what eminent domain is for. The state needs to build a railway, they give fair market for the property, and then take the property. This isn't a new problem and was solved 150 years ago. The Kelo case (wrongly I believe) cleared up some confusion on if the a government can take the land in order to give it to businesses who will use it in a way the government prefers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

That's not the real problem. If it were, then there's a time-honored mechanism for clearing the way, eminent domain. To employ it, you need a politician with enormous political capital.

The problem is generating that capital. Most Americans simply don't care enough about transit for a politician running on the "Moar railways" platform to get elected.

Most of our passenger rail mass transit systems got built before reliable auto transportation became cheap. Now that cars are ubiquitous, the political will isn't there anymore.

Compulsory purchase ("eminent domain") has been the solution to this since the development of the railways, when it required an Act of Parliament.

This is my reply to everybody suggesting that the "solution" is eminent domain: The topic under discussion is why you can't build private mass transport system. Once you've invoked eminent domain, you've got a government project, because as the entity with the power to say "yes", the government is in charge. Even if they are nominally using a private company to do the actual work. (Which is also appropriate anyhow since governments should not be bothering themselves with internally developing such capabilities.)

I'm sorry I didn't spell out what I thought was a common-knowledge topic.

None of this is criticism; for exactly the reasons I discussed I don't see any practical alternatives to collective action at the governmental level.

The topic under discussion is why you can't build private mass transport system.

Not quite - I think that's why you've got so many replies. The comment you were replying to said "subsidised" not "private", which are different things, so it looked like you were answering a question nobody had asked.

You can have unsubsidised state mass transport and subsidised private mass transport. Although not having a subsidy is rare, there are a few state services which are required to run at operational breakeven.

Historically trains, and street cars were privately funded and operated in a lot of US cities. For example in the early 1900's Baltimore was one of the largest cities in the US and had a massive street car network that was privately operated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_MTA_Maryland#Baltim...

Transportation is a classic externality. The costs of building infrastructure are direct, while the benefits diffuse. You tend only to see that sort of behavior by monopolies, like the examples you mentioned applying to companies that own very large swaths of land. You can sometimes see this behavior in R&D, too. Bell spent a lot of money on research and development because they knew as the only major telephone company they would be the only ones to benefit.

>Every time one of these articles comes up on here there are lots of Bay Area folks saying "but I like to drive my own car". That is fine, but don't make everyone else subsidize it.

That cuts both ways. There are very few subway systems in the world that are self-sustaining. You can't just say to not subsidize one way of life while demanding people subsidize another.

Why? It's perfectly fine to beleive that one is more harmful in various ways than another.

The argument being used is pointing out that roads are only sustainable financially because everyone is subsidizing them. The same applies for many subway systems and other forms of public transit.

Transit is only not sustainable because too few people are using them.

Then why are the only two in the world that bring in more money than they take in Japan? Surely people in other countries heavily depend on them.

Firstly, there are more transit operators that are considered profitable outside of Japan (for example Hong Kong, Singapore).

Secondly, it depends a lot on accounting. Consider that in Europe, most infrastructure doesn't get built until it has a positive cost-benefit ratio. Since transit does get build, it's overall positive economic impact apparently outweighs the cost - so overall they do 'bring in' more money than they take.

Thirdly, if you require a strict sense of 'bringing in more money than they take' as a specific organization building the infrastructure then charging for the access, I have to tell you that there are relatively few roads that 'make money'. In fact it's basically only some highways, and bridges -- high capacity trunk lines, and lines across choke points. This ignores the cost of large feeder networks, which are generally paid for by taxes. In North America, municipal taxes. This gets interesting when people who don't have cars subsidize single occupancy drivers via municipal taxes.

If you ignore feeder networks for transit, for example ignoring the cost of bus feeders, and only considering the cost of major trunk lines relative to the income of the whole system, then I'd say many subway systems in the world 'bring in more money than they take'.

Sure, let's just bring public transit subsidies up to the same level as car subsidies, then.

Fine with me as long as none if it comes out of fuel taxes, license revenue or anything else specific to vehicles.

That stuff doesn't even suffice to pay for the roads, so there wouldn't be any surplus available to appropriate to other uses.

I didn't imply that it did. A shortcoming of tax revenue has never stopped people from allocating money from it though.

I guess the obvious argument would be that its worth subsidizing public transport as it has additional benefits, in terms of the environment and being open to the entire population not just those who are able and can afford to drive.

> You can't just say to not subsidize one way of life while demanding people subsidize another.

You absolutely can. And you absolutely should, if the one you say should not be subsidized has net social cost compared to the other.

Sprawl in the US, and the lack of public transport, is influenced by the legacy of racism. There are still plenty of people who will oppose public transport on this basis.

This is a huge issue IMHO. It's interesting to see comparisons of different transit solutions by how many people they get to switch modes. For example buses usually are very cheap but get few people to switch. Streetcars on the same route are much more expensive but get lots of people to switch.

> Streetcars on the same route are much more expensive but get lots of people to switch.

This is also observed in countries in Europe that don't have similar history in racism as the US. The perceived comfort is better in trams.

(Also me personally, I get motion sickness if I read in a bus, but in a tram I can read just fine.)

Yes, but a good public transportation system usually requires heavy government support and sponsorship. The subsidies to suburban, sprawling neighborhoods are much more difficult to see than the direct costs associated with building and maintaining public transportation. The perceived quality of public transportation also have a big impact. It's a very difficult thing to do politically, so I'm more surprised by the areas that have managed to create good transit than places that have failed to do so.

I've been saying this for years: federal interstates have contributed to sprawl by effectively subsidizing both land and driving. It creates all sorts of disincentives.

Sprawl isn't simply because of subsidies, a lot of it has to with people changing jobs and ending up further from work or having work relocate and doing the same. Throw in trying to live closer to work in many towns is impractical because of cost.

When it comes to mass transit in cities, quit blowing money on trains. For some odd reason politicians and many people are hung up on light rail and it has the worst cost structure of all mass transit options. It isn't flexible and its cost per mile is staggering let alone the cost of maintenance.

we have no hole dug on our dependence on cars. The only hole is that a lot of road building and maintenance is politically driven as does not fix a problem but instead buy votes in politically sensitive areas.

What's the alternative to light rail?

To substantially reduce road traffic, you need to offer people an alternative that is cheaper and/or faster and/or more convenient.

Since most of the cost of a car is sunk costs (you have to pay your insurance & depreciation on your car whether you use it to commute or not), if there's free parking at work the car is going to be the cheapest option for most people.

So either you have to substantially increase the cost of driving (aka tolls), or you have to give them an option that's faster and/or more convenient. A bus using the same roads as cars can never be faster or more convenient.

Bus rapid transit (buses on dedicated roadways) may be an option, but a good BRT (aka one without traffic lights) isn't substantially cheaper than LRT.

> For some odd reason politicians and many people are hung up on light rail and it has the worst cost structure of all mass transit options.

For many people, Light Rail (or trains / subways) are the only decent mass transit they have ever experienced in the US.

Every single major and minor city has a bus system. Most of them are nearly useless, often intentionally so by design. It's natural for people to demand something useful, and light rail is nearly universally more useful than busing (including BRT) in any given market.

> It isn't flexible and its cost per mile is staggering let alone the cost of maintenance.

Those are benefits of light rail, not drawbacks. The higher costs and inflexibility of light rail represents an authentic long-term commitment to good useful transit in that area.

To replicate that value with a Bus system requires you to build grade separated, dedicated right of way. Which is where 90% of Light Rail's cost comes from. So if your going to spend that money, you might as well put in real Light Rail and get all of the benefit.

Are you really saying that given the choice between a train system that costs X and an identical one that costs 2X, the 2X one is better?

No, I'm saying there is no such thing as "two identical systems where one costs X, and the other costs 2X".

The "X cost system" is worse than the "2X system". That's why it's cheaper.

The "X" system is slower or carries less passengers or runs less often or goes to less places, or gets stuck in traffic, or is less reliable, or changes it's routes.

--

It's like comparing a WalMart Netbook to a MacBook Pro and saying "they're both 'identical' computers, why are we spending 2X on the MacBook Pro?".

We spend the extra cash because they aren't identical, the 2X one is better.

You said the cost itself was a benefit. What you're describing here is when the extra cost allows for other features which are benefits.

With your notebook computer analogy, the extra cost of a MacBook Pro is not a benefit. The benefits are all the various things that are better about it, with the extra cost being worth it to have those benefits. The only way you'd say the extra cost of a MacBook Pro was itself a benefit would be if you wanted to show off how rich you are or something equally silly.

The context of calling the cost a benefit was in picking between reasonable and competitively-priced options. You're not arguing against the point that it's a commitment to better transit, you're trying to pull a cheap gotcha.

I'm not trying to pull a gotcha anything. I'm legitimately trying to understand the point that was being made. The point looked to me to be that spending more money is by itself a benefit because it represents a greater commitment. I then verified that I was understanding correctly, and was told that this was not in fact what was intended.

No, the comment is saying that front-loading a large cost is good, because once you make that right of way you'll have good service that's much safer from budget issues.

> Every single major and minor city has a bus system. Most of them are nearly useless, often intentionally so by design.

European here. Why would someone intentionally design a useless bus system?

In a lot of US cities, (particularly the mid-size and smaller cities that don't have Trains/Subways/Light Rail) busing isn't treated as transportation, it's treated like a welfare program, similar to Food Stamps / EBT or Section 8 / subsidized housing.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-s...

This is compounded by the fact that in most of these types of cities, most of the jobs and/or the "best" jobs (highest paying, most stable, best health insurance benefits, etc) are located in the suburbs, where transit is least available. Often these places can "opt-out" of transit altogether.

http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/stephen-hender... (subheading: "Designed for failure")

What's the solution, if not more trains or more frequent train service? Take a commute to the South Bay from my neighborhood: a little over 50 miles on three interstate highways (I-580, I-680, I-880), which takes 2+ hours during rush hours, due entirely to road congestion. How do you fix this? Bike lanes?

Increase cost of "sprawl" and car ownership - increase price of parking, add tolls, increase property tax for "sprawl". Decrease price of more dense, transit oriented (ie development where walking or taking the bus is just as convenient as driving a car) - get rid of parking minimums, make FHA loans available on condos, add bike lanes, add transit.

So, essentially, make my life and home even more expensive, pushing me further and further out into a cheaper area, making my (still car-centric) commute even longer?

I'd love it if you could wave a magic wand and simply "make" bikeable-to-work housing in the Bay Area more affordable, but good luck with that.

Yes, exactly, increase cost of sprawl.

BUT also decrease cost of density... pretty hard considering the momentum behind sprawl. Sprawl looks less attractive when it's more expensive. Density looks more attractive when it's cheaper.

I'd love it if I could wave a magic wand too. This is going to be a generation long effort. But it's taken a generation long effort to build car land.

> It isn't flexible

That part may be a feature. A bus stop next to your apartment building might be gone next week, but a light rail station is staying put and developers can more confidently build "transit-oriented" neighborhoods (denser, less parking, etc.).