You're answering your own question. Drivers pay 50% of their costs while transit users only pay 10%-15% of their costs (depending on the funding formula/budget for each transit property).
Andy, agree with the sentiments expressed here. I think it would benefit from a more express statement that transit users, bikers, and walkers do subsidize roads and, if measurable, the extent to which they do so. Seems to follow that the other 50%, paid by general government revenues, would be that amount, of which some portion are paid by persons who rarely make use of it. Point being, it’s not just that drivers subsidize what they don’t, or don’t frequently, use. It’s also that non-drivers also subsidize what they don’t, or don’t frequently, use. You did note same through your rhetorical questions at the end but could be more express.
In addition to all inclusive resorts and soda at restaurants, cable packages would be another example.
I'm sure you've heard of the incomprehensible nonsense going on in Toronto at the moment. To briefly explain, on some streets in Toronto, where bike lanes already exist, the premier of Ontario has decided to interfere in municipal affairs and demand that the bike lanes be removed. At a cost of $48m. To do so, he has had to push through a bill to enable his actions. Even more egregiously, he added in to that bill a clause stating that no one can sue the provincial government for any injuries or deaths caused by said removal.
This is yet another example of a politician stoking division and anger, in order to rile up their base and, as usual, being very loose with the truth.
Most larger cities are at capacity for vehicular traffic. That's it, end of story. It does not matter how many lanes we build, at best all we can achieve is to move the congestion further down the road.
For the future, we will have to build public transit and alternative forms of transport, BUT, we must build it concurrently with things like tolls and congestion pricing. In London UK when they brought in congestion pricing, they doubled the number of buses to accommodate the increase in users. Those who still need to use a vehicle will have less traffic to deal with, emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles will travel more freely. Those who wish to pay to use their private vehicle are paying for the privilege of clear, un-congested roads, not paying for, or subsidising public transit.
And of course there's the cost question. The truth is that drivers are massively subsidised by the rest of the population, by far the bulk of municipal roads are paid for through property taxes, provincial roads through provincial taxes and there are huge subsidies for fossil fuels. If we were to pay for roads, based on the wear and tear vehicles cause, the construction costs, along with the maintenance required and the true cost of fuel, driving personal vehicles would then become the purview of the very wealthy only.
Public transit should be such a reasonable price and so efficient, that it would seem silly to travel any other way. The costs would be vastly outweighed by the reduction in continuous construction and reconstruction as we again fail to accommodate more vehicles.
Your discussion may be NYC specific, and may be valid there. In many other locations working class folks, young parents, etc. may be disproportionately impacted by fees, where public transit infrastructure is inadequate or impossible. Late shifts, infrequent bus routes, child care pickup dropoff, changing job sites, harsh seasonal conditions can all make individual cars necessary not a luxury.
There are always going to be exceptions but over time many of these could be addressed- if there is no public transport build some, for instance. Or develop more community transport services for the poor and disabled. Build more local child care. More hire /share car places…
Re: all inclusive resorts -- I would never want to stay in an all-inclusive resort with "all-you-can-drink" local beer and liquor, because then I'd be drinking two beers a day and subsidizing other guests who have a constant stream of rum and cokes on order all day.
For congestion pricing, what are your thoughts on adding more nuances, such as: 1) doing it by vehicle wright, to nudge people to have smaller cars and business to have smaller trucks, and 2) having fees be higher at peak hours (7 am to 7 pm), to shift some driving to non-peak times.
Thanks. In 2025, with street cameras and AI-powered identification of features, a city could probably have an automated system to identify vehicle plates, pull the make and model from DMV (to get vehicle weight), and count passengers. More vehicle weight boosts toll; more passengers reduces toll.
Thanks Andy. What do you think is a reasonable percentage for user fees to cover either type of transport? I support user fees in general and would like to get to the point where user fees for roads and other modes of transport cover their mode costs (both capital and operating) 100 percent. I do wonder, however, as user fees get so high that they cut down users extensively, whether that would become an issue at some point.
It's hard for people to imagine privatized transportation systems, so working under the assumption that local/regional public agencies continue to be the owner/operators, I think the goal should be 100% of a transportation system is funded by users. Technology opens up all sorts of opportunities for this that weren't available even 10 years ago.
You're answering your own question. Drivers pay 50% of their costs while transit users only pay 10%-15% of their costs (depending on the funding formula/budget for each transit property).
It's quite a bargain for us car owners to only pay 50% of the costs considering the burden placed on a transportation system.
Andy, agree with the sentiments expressed here. I think it would benefit from a more express statement that transit users, bikers, and walkers do subsidize roads and, if measurable, the extent to which they do so. Seems to follow that the other 50%, paid by general government revenues, would be that amount, of which some portion are paid by persons who rarely make use of it. Point being, it’s not just that drivers subsidize what they don’t, or don’t frequently, use. It’s also that non-drivers also subsidize what they don’t, or don’t frequently, use. You did note same through your rhetorical questions at the end but could be more express.
In addition to all inclusive resorts and soda at restaurants, cable packages would be another example.
Thanks!
Good points!
I'm sure you've heard of the incomprehensible nonsense going on in Toronto at the moment. To briefly explain, on some streets in Toronto, where bike lanes already exist, the premier of Ontario has decided to interfere in municipal affairs and demand that the bike lanes be removed. At a cost of $48m. To do so, he has had to push through a bill to enable his actions. Even more egregiously, he added in to that bill a clause stating that no one can sue the provincial government for any injuries or deaths caused by said removal.
This is yet another example of a politician stoking division and anger, in order to rile up their base and, as usual, being very loose with the truth.
Most larger cities are at capacity for vehicular traffic. That's it, end of story. It does not matter how many lanes we build, at best all we can achieve is to move the congestion further down the road.
For the future, we will have to build public transit and alternative forms of transport, BUT, we must build it concurrently with things like tolls and congestion pricing. In London UK when they brought in congestion pricing, they doubled the number of buses to accommodate the increase in users. Those who still need to use a vehicle will have less traffic to deal with, emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles will travel more freely. Those who wish to pay to use their private vehicle are paying for the privilege of clear, un-congested roads, not paying for, or subsidising public transit.
And of course there's the cost question. The truth is that drivers are massively subsidised by the rest of the population, by far the bulk of municipal roads are paid for through property taxes, provincial roads through provincial taxes and there are huge subsidies for fossil fuels. If we were to pay for roads, based on the wear and tear vehicles cause, the construction costs, along with the maintenance required and the true cost of fuel, driving personal vehicles would then become the purview of the very wealthy only.
Public transit should be such a reasonable price and so efficient, that it would seem silly to travel any other way. The costs would be vastly outweighed by the reduction in continuous construction and reconstruction as we again fail to accommodate more vehicles.
Yeah, I've been posting about that nonsense on X. It's funny-not-funny.
Your discussion may be NYC specific, and may be valid there. In many other locations working class folks, young parents, etc. may be disproportionately impacted by fees, where public transit infrastructure is inadequate or impossible. Late shifts, infrequent bus routes, child care pickup dropoff, changing job sites, harsh seasonal conditions can all make individual cars necessary not a luxury.
There are always going to be exceptions but over time many of these could be addressed- if there is no public transport build some, for instance. Or develop more community transport services for the poor and disabled. Build more local child care. More hire /share car places…
Addendum to point #7 -- Why are cars viewed as "freedom" while other modes of transportation are not?
Re: all inclusive resorts -- I would never want to stay in an all-inclusive resort with "all-you-can-drink" local beer and liquor, because then I'd be drinking two beers a day and subsidizing other guests who have a constant stream of rum and cokes on order all day.
For congestion pricing, what are your thoughts on adding more nuances, such as: 1) doing it by vehicle wright, to nudge people to have smaller cars and business to have smaller trucks, and 2) having fees be higher at peak hours (7 am to 7 pm), to shift some driving to non-peak times.
I think the more flexible the better. Weight of vehicle, time of day, number of passengers... It makes sense to adapt.
Thanks. In 2025, with street cameras and AI-powered identification of features, a city could probably have an automated system to identify vehicle plates, pull the make and model from DMV (to get vehicle weight), and count passengers. More vehicle weight boosts toll; more passengers reduces toll.
picture shows a tram in Berlin, the city where I designed passenger information after 1990 and made all buses, trams and trains yellow
It's such a great design choice! I love the clean and cheerful pop of yellow.
Thanks Andy. What do you think is a reasonable percentage for user fees to cover either type of transport? I support user fees in general and would like to get to the point where user fees for roads and other modes of transport cover their mode costs (both capital and operating) 100 percent. I do wonder, however, as user fees get so high that they cut down users extensively, whether that would become an issue at some point.
I've never stayed in an all inclusive 😕.
It's hard for people to imagine privatized transportation systems, so working under the assumption that local/regional public agencies continue to be the owner/operators, I think the goal should be 100% of a transportation system is funded by users. Technology opens up all sorts of opportunities for this that weren't available even 10 years ago.