Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by unnamed76ri 350 days ago
The issue is that they consistently lose money and people who will never make use of them have to subsidize it.

A great example is Pennsylvania where they privatized the turnpike but as part of that deal, the turnpike had to pay half a billion a year for 20 years to fund public transit in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. So tolls I paid that should have gone to improve the turnpike were instead used as a form of price controls to keep people happy in the cities.

6 comments

>The issue is that they consistently lose money and people who will never make use of them have to subsidize it.

It's doubtful that congestion pricing is going to lose money given that the roads already exist.

>A great example is Pennsylvania where they privatized the turnpike but as part of that deal, the turnpike had to pay half a billion a year for 20 years to fund public transit in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. So tolls I paid that should have gone to improve the turnpike were instead used as a form of price controls to keep people happy in the cities.

A mandatory payment enforced by the government is a "tax", not "price control".

People without cars subsidize street parking and parking minimum mandates by forcing all other uses for land to be more expensive.

People without children subsidize public schools. Healthy people subsidize sick people's insurance. Part of living in communities involve subsidizing services you don't use, that it occurs is not a problem, you need to argue that it should not be subsidized in the first place, and moving people by bus is better than moving people by car in a variety of ways.

>people who will never make use of them have to subsidize it.

That is the cost of living in world class cities with services.

I don't use every single suburban street of the state or every single interstate freeway. I still must pay taxes for it so that society functions.

If you are really so opposed to a functional society, you should really consider moving to rural villages with no services, and no taxes for them.

The part you're missing: All the people whose public transit you funded aren't driving! It reduced traffic! You benefitted from it, whether you realize it or not. People in the cities pay lots of car and gas-related taxes, despite not owning a car - same thing. That street goes both ways. They fund streets and highways and infrastructure in your area just like you fund public transit in theirs. It's mutually beneficial, even though both parties are funding stuff they may not use.
You see all of those roads in Pennsylvania that you have never driven on? You're paying for them in your taxes. Those people who never drive the roads you use are also helping pay for them. Thats how the system works (as designed).
I don't have kids and I'm paying for other kids public education, that's the point of public services