Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope he is raising the fares so the users of that service will come closer to covering the actual cost of the resource they are using. There is still a subsidy so those of us who don't use mass transit are still paying for those who do.
Everbody wants everything but they want someone else to pay for it. The free ride is over in NJ.....
And when will automobile drivers be asked to come closer to covering the actual cost of the resources they are using?
And not pointing at shorebaby here, but in response to what seems to be the general consensus here in the NJ forum...
I fail to see how raising transit fares is generally considered "good" and "necessary," while a gas tax hike or new tolls are unfathomable.
And when will automobile drivers be asked to come closer to covering the actual cost of the resources they are using?
And not pointing at shorebaby here, but in response to what seems to be the general consensus here in the NJ forum...
I fail to see how raising transit fares is generally considered "good" and "necessary," while a gas tax hike or new tolls are unfathomable.
I agree. As someone who uses both (I use transit while at school in North Jersey and drive my car everywhere in South Jersey due to the lack of transit) I think we need to spread things out a little more between the two.
And when will automobile drivers be asked to come closer to covering the actual cost of the resources they are using?
And not pointing at shorebaby here, but in response to what seems to be the general consensus here in the NJ forum...
I fail to see how raising transit fares is generally considered "good" and "necessary," while a gas tax hike or new tolls are unfathomable.
I have asked repeatedly how anyone can come to the conclusion that mototrists are not covering the cost of using the roads. I believe they are. If you can somehow demonstrate they are not I would be happy to read all about it.
The subsidy for mass transit is over $200 million and is easily quantified and everyone knows it. Please point to a similar source for road subsidies and please let us know who is providing that subsidy. Surely it isn't the folks using mass transit.
I have asked repeatedly how anyone can come to the conclusion that mototrists are not covering the cost of using the roads. I believe they are. If you can somehow demonstrate they are not I would be happy to read all about it.
The subsidy for mass transit is over $200 million and is easily quantified and everyone knows it. Please point to a similar source for road subsidies and please let us know who is providing that subsidy. Surely it isn't the folks using mass transit.
This website has a calculation for highways, which indicates a subsidy of 16% of costs (25 billion) or 48 billion (28%) depending on how you do the calculation. The author is not a mass transit advocate (should be apparent from the name of the website).
This article does not address the fact that the towns also spend money on roads (for example, they have to plow the road in winter). These services are funded by property taxes, not fees. So whatever this costs, it is a subsidy.
As for who is "providing" the subsidy -- that would primarily be the federal and local governments.
This website has a calculation for highways, which indicates a subsidy of 16% of costs (25 billion) or 48 billion (28%) depending on how you do the calculation. The author is not a mass transit advocate (should be apparent from the name of the website).
This article does not address the fact that the towns also spend money on roads (for example, they have to plow the road in winter). These services are funded by property taxes, not fees. So whatever this costs, it is a subsidy.
As for who is "providing" the subsidy -- that would primarily be the federal and local governments.
That is a incredibly misleading characterizationof the data. The author admits it is virtually impossible to put a number on the direct user fees and how much come from other taxes but everyone beneifits from the use of the roads. So it really isn't a subsidy. Not everyone benefits from the use of mass transit so every penny that the actual user doesn't pony up to cover the cost of their use has to come from someone who doesn't use mass transit. The same cannot be said for roads. Everyone benefits from them and uses them.
BTW - Randal O'Toole and Wendell Cox (antiplanner) are highway lobby hacks who write anti-transit tomes and push the supremacy of highways, cars and auto-oriented development. Them admitting that highway users don't cover the costs of building and maintaining them is like the NRA admitting that guns kill people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Nope he is raising the fares so the users of that service will come closer to covering the actual cost of the resource they are using.
Right. So just put a tollbooth up everywhere. For everything. Paying for public services is paying for public services. When you're paying for a state transit system, highways, police, libraries - resources that are available to everyone at all times - it's taxation. Increasing fares or tolls is taxation by another name.
I'm not opposed to raising fares to keep up with inflation or with a growing system. I'm saying that your premise, that you never use NJT or the PATH (yet you live in Hoboken?), therefore you shouldn't have to pay for it (because it doesn't benefit you) is specious.
One lane of an expressway can carry about 2000 cars per hour in the best scenarios. If you have 4 lanes that's 8000 cars per hour. Average people per car during rush hour is 1.2. Taking 300,000 drivers off the road and putting them on a train or bus means that you get to work . . . well, you do the math.
Transit benefits everyone regardless of whether or not you use it. Raising fares hurts ridership. Cutting service hurts ridership. People simply go back to their cars and/or stop making the trip.
Quote:
Everbody wants everything but they want someone else to pay for it. The free ride is over in NJ.....
that's interesting, and ironic.
The days where the fire department only came to your house if you paid them weren't good for anyone in cities built of wood. We decided that it was probably best to put out the fire before it had a chance to wipe out a neighborhood so we paid for fire service. After cholera outbreaks took too many lives we decided it would be a good idea that everyone had fresh water and a sanitary sewer.
We left the Gilded Age behind because they only worked for the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, etc. I can't understand why anyone would want to revisit those days.
BTW - Randal O'Toole and Wendell Cox (antiplanner) are highway lobby hacks who write anti-transit tomes and push the supremacy of highways, cars and auto-oriented development. Them admitting that highway users don't cover the costs of building and maintaining them is like the NRA admitting that guns kill people.
Right. So just put a tollbooth up everywhere. For everything. Paying for public services is paying for public services. When you're paying for a state transit system, highways, police, libraries - resources that are available to everyone at all times - it's taxation. Increasing fares or tolls is taxation by another name.
I'm not opposed to raising fares to keep up with inflation or with a growing system. I'm saying that your premise, that you never use NJT or the PATH (yet you live in Hoboken?), therefore you shouldn't have to pay for it (because it doesn't benefit you) is specious.
One lane of an expressway can carry about 2000 cars per hour in the best scenarios. If you have 4 lanes that's 8000 cars per hour. Average people per car during rush hour is 1.2. Taking 300,000 drivers off the road and putting them on a train or bus means that you get to work . . . well, you do the math.
Transit benefits everyone regardless of whether or not you use it. Raising fares hurts ridership. Cutting service hurts ridership. People simply go back to their cars and/or stop making the trip.
that's interesting, and ironic.
The days where the fire department only came to your house if you paid them weren't good for anyone in cities built of wood. We decided that it was probably best to put out the fire before it had a chance to wipe out a neighborhood so we paid for fire service. After cholera outbreaks took too many lives we decided it would be a good idea that everyone had fresh water and a sanitary sewer.
We left the Gilded Age behind because they only worked for the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, etc. I can't understand why anyone would want to revisit those days.
That link is relevent to nothing. How roads are paid for (fees, tolls, taxes etc.) is irrelevent since everyone benefits equally from it like the fire department, police, military etc. The same cannot be said of mass transit.
I do not use the PATH I do not commute into the city for work, on the occcasions I do go into the city I drive or take the ferry. I pay my way, no one subsidizes either mode of transport.
Talk about specious arguments. It is highly unlikely that people will be abandoning public transport and rush to cars becaiuse of a 25% increase in the cost of mass transit. Using a car is far more expensive. Due to tolls, fees, purchasing a car, paying taxes and insurance.
That is a incredibly misleading characterizationof the data. The author admits it is virtually impossible to put a number on the direct user fees and how much come from other taxes but everyone beneifits from the use of the roads. So it really isn't a subsidy.
Whether or not "everyone benefits" is not the criterion for determining whether or not it's a subsidy. The portion that isn't funded by user fees results in changes to the supply and demand curves, so regardless of whether "everyone benefits", the economic impact is the same as it is for any other subsidy.
It is indeed difficult to put an exact number on the extent of the subsidy (for example, is the gas tax a "user fee" or is it a consumption tax like sales tax on other goods and services ?) but every source I've read on this (including those who are very pro-automobile, pro-highway such as the one I cited) agree that there is some subsidy. The only thing that's really up for debate is the extent of the subsidy.
Whether or not "everyone benefits" is not the criterion for determining whether or not it's a subsidy. The portion that isn't funded by user fees results in changes to the supply and demand curves, so regardless of whether "everyone benefits", the economic impact is the same as it is for any other subsidy.
It is indeed difficult to put an exact number on the extent of the subsidy (for example, is the gas tax a "user fee" or is it a consumption tax like sales tax on other goods and services ?) but every source I've read on this (including those who are very pro-automobile, pro-highway such as the one I cited) agree that there is some subsidy. The only thing that's really up for debate is the extent of the subsidy.
Well yeah it is important if everyone benefits because even if user fees do not cover the entire costs taxes will. All it is is shifitng which pocket the money is coming from. Raise fuel taxes commodity costs go up. Don't raise fuel taxes the costs are made up from other taxes. The piper gets paid one way or the other. The same cannot be said of mass transit. If fares do not go up people who do not use it are forced to come up with the difference.
Perhaps reviewing the definition of a subsidy would help.
This state does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.
Your crying about this cut wait till Tuesday, I'm behind the Gov, it's about time!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
