Comment by techsupporter | Hacker News Reader

Comment by techsupporter | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Commuting from Everett to Seattle via single-occupant car has taken forever since the turn of the century. 405 and I5 simply don't have the space for all of those cars. That's what transit does: it provides an alternative--primarily through the use of HOV/HOT lanes--to slogging along in your own car.

Also, on those car tabs, voters approved them ourselves. Every single transit-related charge on your vehicle registration was approved by a measure put in front of voters. (Same for sales tax.) I disagree strongly with our legislature's predilection for punting hard tax issuers to voters but if you're gonna blame anybody, you've only the voting public to blame. (Full disclosure: I've voted "yes" on every single transit tax measure--except for the monorail--I've ever seen.)

Oh, and on farebox recovery: very, very few transit systems recover their cost of operation. In the United States, only the Las Vegas Monorail recovers 100% of its costs. The only widely-used system that comes close is San Francisco's BART at 71%. (All figures courtesy Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio)

It may come as a surprise to you, but vehicle owners don't directly pay the cost for the roads they drive upon, either. The motor vehicle fuel tax basically pays for the Washington State highway system (including part of the Washington State Ferries...which also has approximately a 70% farebox recovery ratio[0]). County and local general fund taxes pay for local roads, including basically every road you drive on inside a municipality.

This is the same for transit. County and city taxes pay for the bulk of the service and fares and grants cover the rest.

Oh, and public transit taxes in Washington State are almost universally put in front of the voters because the legislature won't let transit agencies impose taxes on their own authority. Road and fuel taxes? Pfft, those are somehow different and they get imposed by the legislature with no vote. I want the legislature and our representatives to handle taxation and spending; that's why we elect them. But this double standard of approval-required-for-transit-but-not-for-roads is galling.

0 - http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A72D0350-674E-4D50-8483...

At the turn of the century HOV lanes were rare (1 on I-5, 0 on 16) and Sound Transit was almost non-existent (sure they were there but they just quietly taxed us and nobody really saw them and no light rail around here. At the turn of the century I didn't dread going anywhere near downtown or the airport. At the turn of the century it took 30 minutes to go the 30 miles door to door from Tacoma to Auburn. By 2010 it took 45 minutes to try and meet somebody half way. That is why I quit meeting my friend to play tennis after work, which is why I got fat. Thanks mass transit for making me fat.

Only tolls really pay directly for the roads- and now more and more tolls are being charged, in addition to the other taxes and fees.

I agree we (not me) voted for $30 tabs, many times and never saw them. And yes we (not me) voted for the new Sound Transit. Since we did pass the last one I actually stand behind it, if we sold bonds based on the taxes we have to pay them now.

"I want the legislature and our representatives to handle taxation and spending; that's why we elect them." -Agree with you there!

I am perfectly fine having transit subsidized. The transit agencies love to adverties what a bargain it is and many of the comments mentioned how much they use the bus. My only point is transparency. If the true, unsubsidized fare were charged would people still ride? Would it still seem like a good deal? Would it still seem like the best plan?

I often don't care if it is left or right, red or blue- just if it works. Seattle seems to be a shade of blue that doesn't work well, at least in transportation. Something Seattle and King County are doing, or not doing, is failing miserably and keeps getting worse. We keep giving the transit agencies with more and more money and they keep delivering more and more congestion. This is the commonly accepted relationship we have with them, the cycle will only continue until something gives. I wouldn't be surprised if Seattle bans cars soon, except for the rich and government employees of course.

"My only point is transparency. If the true, unsubsidized fare were charged would people still ride? Would it still seem like a good deal? Would it still seem like the best plan?"

Do you pay tolls for all the roads you use? Do you pay to park at the store? Do you pay for other's care for their emphezama? Will you buy their flooded house? Do you pay for the funerals of dead walkers and cyclists? Will you pay for new habitat for the wildlife displaced by roads?

Nope, Single Occupancy Assholes, who make up sub-30% of Seattle Commuters and create nearly all the traffic are very entitled. They expect the rest of us taxpayers to fully subsidize the roads, provide free parking at most public buildings, parks and on most streets, and then have the gall to complain about minor point of use fees!

Lets cut the bullshit and bill drivers directly for every mile of wear they put on the road, and for the massive hidden (and unbilled) cost of car storage on public streets and at public facilities. Given a fully transparent market, single occupancy commuting would die a quick death!

Hell, even a minor $1 entrance fee into/out of downtown would shave SOV traffic down 15% to 20%, despite not passing through much of the cost.

> My only point is transparency. If the true, unsubsidized fare were charged would people still ride? Would it still seem like a good deal? Would it still seem like the best plan?

Says the guy who apparently has no fucking clue how expensive the unsubsidized cost of driving is and is complaining about mere hundred dollar car tabs. Get back to me when you’re paying the $6/gallon gas taxes and $20/day congestion charges and $10 bridge tolls and $8/hr parking costs, and we’ll see how many drivers are left.

The core reason why transit is so heavily subsidized is because we have so many buses running empty, and the reason so many buses run empty is because entitled assholes refuse to take any mode except their single occupancy vehicles and then lose their minds and beat down politicians’ doors any time we suggest raising taxes to pay for all their driving. Transit is literally subsidized because cars are subsidized. Make drivers pay their costs and transit will be way more sustainable.

> We keep giving the transit agencies with more and more money and they keep delivering more and more congestion.

Can you please clarify on how you've arrived on the idea that it's the transit agencies specifically that are causing this? I lived in the Seattle/Tacoma area for a few years back, and acted as both a driver and a transit rider; the traffic was horrible seemingly regardless of whichever you were. Much of I5 going between Tacoma and Seattle was just at capacity, especially heading to Seattle where you're on a raised roadway above the bay - I'm not really sure what you can do to improve this short of trying to find ways to lower the total number of vehicles on the road, which is really only possible if you're moving more people in less vehicles or providing outlet paths that get you to the same destination.

There are just tons of people driving I5, and the effect can be felt as far as Tacoma on the weekends; I'm not really sure that it's a failure of the transportation department or the fault of anything except excess wealth and urban sprawl putting more cars on the road. Even in sections where there isn't an HOV lane, one accident, slow driver, anything put traffic to a crawl. Tacoma doesn't have the HOV lanes (unless this has changed in the last 3 years) in the parts closest to the city and it's still a slog every single day from 0700-1000 and 1530-1730 on I5.

Like, I get in essence what you're saying to some degree - make the full unsubsidized cost transparent, which sure, I agree with that as long as the subsidies remain in place. Removing the transit isn't the solution here, because the overall traffic flow just seems to be inhospitable to the current traffic situation in the Greater Seattle area. More carpooling, proper rideshare solutions (Uber is not ridesharing), or more public transit use is pretty much your only option for reducing such traffic. The current path I5 takes was not chosen well as it doesn't allow for expansion at its choke points.

Traffic at the turn of the century in Seattle was shit, I remember how great it was to be able to check the traffic on a Treo before we'd slog it out on I-5! That was huge innovation, to know whether Aurora or I-5 was truly fucked up.

Now, I have significantly better bus service with dedicated lanes into downtown, and for last mile hops it is easy to grab a bike and go.

WRT Transparency, lets pass through all costs to the end user and let people decide! Do you want to pay $1 to cross the Ballard Bridge each way in a car? How about $4.50 for any mass transit mode? Or $1 for a bike for an hour?

Hiding the true cost of infrastructure, whether its through free parking, subsidized roads, or reduced fares is wrong, people should know what it costs and be able to choose freely!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com