I think it says a lot about how our society is so hugely car centric that the idea of charging people to drive on a road is hugely controversial, but the idea of making people pay to travel on a train is accepted without a thought.
Now onto the train…we didn’t pay for the track in most cases and we don’t pay property tax as we don’t own the vehicle.
It’s not that we’re overly car-centric. It’s that we’ve already been charged at least three ways to drive on that road and now they want to add another.
In other words, we haven't paid for that road.
According to your logic we should be at a tax rate on gas close to 99%.
> There is also a federal tax of $18.4 cents per gallon.
We’ve definitely paid for the road. We pay every time we fill our tank.
> we didn’t pay for the track in most cases
Could you elaborate?
> now they want to add another
There are plenty of existing toll roads, bridges, and tunnels. It’s not really a new idea.
> Could you elaborate?
I presume this is a reference to the fact that over 70% of the track used by Amtrak is owned by freight companies.
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...
I hate cars in the city, and I think the argument that cars are a negative externality and that for car owners to pay the true cost requires some taxation, but let's be honest about what we're arguing for.
but strawman arguments don't help anybody.
Exactly. In fact, if you try to find a single example of passenger rail that is financially sustainable you will likely fail. The only reason passenger rail exists is because it is massively subsidised. It is inherently flawed as a mode of transport.
The toll is per vehicle and not per person. The price paid per vehicle is massively higher for the train.
Not saying the implicit subsidies/taxes on each mode of transport is equal, but it doesn't seem to be as simple as 'one is paid and the other is free'.
This is about the cost to other people for your choices: if you buy an SUV, you get the positive effect of feeling more macho but the people whose health is at greater risk as a direct consequence of that decision aren’t consulted. This kind of thing allows those communities to provide the negative feedback required to keep a system stable.
Joe Schmoe who needs to drive for his work or small business shelling out 15 bucks per day hits different than Joe Apple not even noticing this expense while driving from the jewelry too the theater.
I do not own the train. I guess it's true that my taxes were partially used to subsidize the tracks without my consent, though.
The multiple billions of dollars per year that each state spends maintaining road infrastructure comes from everyone, regardless of participation.
That also doesn’t address the reasoning behind this decision: cars are a major health risk and entail significant quality of life reduction. Taxing negative externalities is a textbook way to shrink them, and your sunk cost in car ownership doesn’t have any effect of the costs to the communities you drive through.
The argument isn't that Manhattan is car-centric qua its people, the argument is that Manhattan is car-centric qua its infrastructure.
I find that tolls are a good idea, but suspect that we'd have significant complaints situation if the MTA decided to raise the prices of the 30 day pass by, say $300 a month in one sitting. People made decisions based on existing prices, and a change this big. Going around the price changes by moving or parking further out and then paying for a train is a significant lifestyle change. People get really mad when rent goes up by this much too. So all in all, we don't need any car dependence exceptionalism to expect a lot of push back.