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.
that's not really accurate. sure, it's true that bus ridership is high in Hudson and Essex but not everyone riding the bus is poor . . . and most of those "poor people" riding the bus are doing it to get to their low-wage jobs at suburban shopping malls and fast food shops or as part of a security or cleaning detail in some downtown high rise. In that scenario it's a subsidy for the employers, not the employees. If transit wasn't available the employers would have to move closer to their employees or pay higher wages.
But the scenario of transit as the dominion of the poor and urban is inaccurate and outdated. Most people riding NJT are middle-class or above and/or live in the suburbs.
You have all of these suburban shuttles and jitney's that ferry people to suburban train stations that don't have a lot of parking. You also have a huge number of people riding those buses that stack up every morning outside of the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels full of people waiting to get to their jobs in Manhattan. Some of the buses say "NJT" on the side and some are private carriers whose routes are subsidized by NJT. Those buses come from far and wide every morning - from Park & Rides in Toms River, Willingboro and Allentown, PA.
Personally, I don't think "who rides the bus or train" really matters. I don't think a lot of people in NJ would say that it would be a good idea if an extra 400,000 cars hit the road every morning. If you can make cuts that make sense then do it and in the meantime, raise fares 5%, then add another penny to the gas tax. Next year you can reevaluate.
thank you! Moderator removed - there is no need for this comment about intelligence (compared to others, etc). beautifully said.. beautiful....
Last edited by atlantagreg30127; 03-14-2010 at 08:52 PM..
The free ride is folks who use mass transit not paying what it actually costs to run the system. Mass transit requires a $200 million bailout each year from the tax payers many of whom do not use it. Again I would love for you to pay part of my car payment, PM me and I will let you know where to send the check.
Last edited by atlantagreg30127; 03-14-2010 at 08:53 PM..
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.
Look, if your costs of driving each mile are X cents, and the government are covering 25% of those costs, then they are subsidizing you. The fact that they are also covering 25% of the costs of a freight truck that provides goods to those who don't drive doesn't alter the fact that they are subsidizing the cost of your commute.
In particular, you could drive an extra 10 miles for the price of 8. The other 2 are on the tax payer. That encourages people to drive more (demand curve shift) which is precisely the effect of a subsidy.
Quote:
Perhaps reviewing the definition of a subsidy would help.
The free ride is folks who use mass transit not paying what it actually costs to run the system. Mass transit requires a $200 million bailout each year from the tax payers many of whom do not use it. Again I would love for you to pay part of my car payment, PM me and I will let you know where to send the check.
Why would anyone pay your car payment ? No-one else benefits from you driving. All externalities are negative (emissions, traffic). If all those mass transit users stopped using mass transit and started driving, you'd want to pay to have them off the road.
Look, if your costs of driving each mile are X cents, and the government are covering 25% of those costs, then they are subsidizing you. The fact that they are also covering 25% of the costs of a freight truck that provides goods to those who don't drive doesn't alter the fact that they are subsidizing the cost of your commute.
In particular, you could drive an extra 10 miles for the price of 8. The other 2 are on the tax payer. That encourages people to drive more (demand curve shift) which is precisely the effect of a subsidy.
It's (c). The grantee is whoever constructs or maintains the road.
You act as if the government is something apart from me, it isn't. It is you and me and everyone who pays taxes. Look at the definition of subsidy again. It is an impossibility for me to subsidize myself.
What you are getting confused is user fees. You think that some how it is possible to apportion to each individual their share of the use of a highway there isn't. And even if it were it would not accurately charge folks who receive a benefit from use of the roads, see store delivery example. But dealing with the matter at hand it is possible to apportion to each individual who uses mass transit and it needs to be done.
And of course it isn't C since no grant is involved, if 10,000 or 100,000 cars use the Turnpike there is no significant cost difference of maintenance per mile.
Last edited by shorebaby; 03-14-2010 at 09:20 PM..
Why would anyone pay your car payment ? No-one else benefits from you driving. All externalities are negative (emissions, traffic). If all those mass transit users stopped using mass transit and started driving, you'd want to pay to have them off the road.
Exactly and I do not benefit from anyone taking mass transit why should I pay for it? Of course others benefit from me driving due to the nature of my job. Nah I would not want to pay $200 million to keep them off the road.
LOL... the funny part about this entire argument is Governor Christie has done absolutely nothing regarding the fares on NJT... NJT is not a part of the NJ Government... Governor Christie has absolutely no control over what they do with their fares. The authorities at NJT have made a decision to raise fares by 25%. If you want to make some sort of backwards logical argument that the 25% fare hike is in response to the $33M subsidy that the state of NJ (ala Gov Christie) is no longer providing to NJT, you can try... but you'll have a heck of a time showing how a 25% increase = $33M... what you'll likely find is complete fiscal irresponsibility at NJT leading to a huge short fall in cash leading to a major fare hike that they're all trying to hide behind what is a relatively small subsidy reduction by the state.
If you have a problem with the cost of NJT... then talk to NJT about it! The Governor is not involved! Goodness gracious...
You act as if the government is something apart from me, it isn't. It is you and me and everyone who pays taxes.
Right, so when you go for a drive, you and I pay for your drive (25% of the road costs), but you are using the road, not "you and me and everyone who pays taxes".
Quote:
What you are getting confused is user fees. You think that some how it is possible to apportion to each individual their share of the use of a highway there isn't.
Sure there is. Increase user fees (tolls and gas tax) until it covers 100% of the costs, instead of whatever it costs now.
Quote:
And even if it were it would not accurately charge folks who receive a benefit from use of the roads, see store delivery example.
Sure it would. The store would deliver goods in the most efficient way possible, and that charge would be incorporated into the price paid. These third parties who benefit from the roads aren't free riders -- they pay indirectly.
Quote:
And of course it isn't C since no grant is involved, if 10,000 or 100,000 cars use the Turnpike there is no significant cost difference of maintenance per mile.
The grant is money transferred from the general fund to highway construction. It fits the definition. Your point about marginal costs is a red herring (and incorrect -- if there is more traffic, it reduces the utility of the road to highway users). BTW, the marginal cost of adding a single subway rider is much less than the average cost per user. So to argue that users should only pay their marginal costs is to make the case for mass transit subsidies.
Everyone benefits from mass transit. If it weren't for mass transit imagine how many more cars there would be clogging up your commute? I can easily image this, because I live in South Jersey where there is almost no mass transit and HATE the amount of traffic I have to deal with. If Mass Transit got the same kind of benifits that air traffic and vehicular traffic get (not having to pay property taxes, not having to pay for security/policing, bailouts (airlines get bailouts every so often), and maintenance nearly paid for entirely)
also, the more cars that use a road the more it costs to maintain it and Chris Christie's cutting of the NJT subsidy is causing them to need to increase the fares.
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.
