Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by quantumwannabe 1912 days ago
Sure, as long as people living in dense areas pay the true cost of living there. No more free or subsidized fares that only pay a fraction of the operating costs and zero of the capital costs of transit. Be ready to pay carbon tax on the steel and concrete used to construct tall buildings that the wooden suburban house doesn't have to pay. Maybe move some jobs out of the city to the suburbs; it's not fair that suburban commuters subsidize city people's lifestyles with the goods they buy while there for work and the taxes their employers pay on the property they work in.

You can't just make up "externalities" for something you dislike; I guarantee you, anything you like has lots of "externalities" as well that may cancel out whatever you're trying to charge someone else for things they like.

Gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees pay far more of the total expenditure on roads than transit fares pay for their infrastructure and operating costs. Be careful what you wish for, you may not like what you get.

2 comments

Yeah that’s not even close to realistic. Almost all wealth in modern USA comes from services with are mostly in or close to the cities. Slightly suburban yes, what’s called suburban in the U.S. nope. Almost all wealth transfer is from cities to rural and coast states to inland.
Why are you changing the topic to rural areas? We’re discussing whether suburban living (defined as car dependent urban design rather than literal suburb) is subsidized by people living in the denser, transit dependent areas or vice versa. Farm subsidies and military bases and whatever other rural subsidies you had in mind aren’t relevant for this discussion and suburban (and low density urban) people work in the services you claim almost all wealth in the modern USA is generated from.
OK, It depends what you meant with suburban. If you mean the suburbs close to the big cities, sure they are part of the wealth generation. A large part of people living in those suburbs are using public transport to commute to work.

The issue with cars is that it is impossible to build enough roads. The more you build the more convenient it becomes so more people drive etc. And of course the other externality of carbon pollution.

I think you're forgetting that house foundations are enormous slabs of concrete, especially on a per-resident basis.
Not really, a 1000 sq ft apartment with concrete floors and ceilings has the same amount of concrete used as a two story 2000 sq ft house in an area that uses slab foundations. The house also has no steel and did not require extremely heavy equipment to build.