In the UK where we do not have net subsidies for ICE cars (because of taxes on car ownership and fuel) and we do not have minimum parking requirements (AFAIK - there are certainly newish city centre blocks of flats with no parking at all) this does not seem to happen. We have a lot of policies and a rise in the expense of owning a car, but we have not had the required rise in investment in public transport (we need a lot more of it, and cheaper).
The authorities seem to be quite happy with an outcome that means poor people will just have to travel a lot less. Do you think this will be greatly different in the US?
My experience of the UK (resident) and the US (tourist use of public transit in both central California and the Newark-Boston strip), is that the UK system is wildly better than the USA system.
I needed to show a passport (perhaps any photo ID would have worked, but still WTF?) to get the train from Davis to Sacramento, the trains were not particularly frequent, and that's the equivalent distance of Petersfield to Portsmouth & Southsea:
The lack of parking leads to more demand for on street parking, which is delivered via the ballot box. Majority of housing developments have minimum parking stipulations, although in practice those aren’t really practically met (a garage is claimed as a space for example, or a drive which only fits one behind another), which leads to on road parking.
With public transport there are two elements. The capital expenditure and the operational expenditure. Why do you think someone who walks and bike everywhere should pay increased taxes to subsidise empty buses running around the place?
> Why do you think someone who walks and bike everywhere should pay increased taxes to subsidise empty buses running around the place?
Because the cost of living in a society is helping to drive that society forward, even though you personally aren't benefiting from every dollar spent. Would that same person balk at paying emergency services, even if they aren't the ones riding an ambulance or getting help from a cop?
But even more importantly, the whole issue of cost is misplaced, imo. It's all based on millage, which ends up meaning public transport costs less than $20/year to maintain. There's no reason I'm ever going to complain about $20/year to keep buses running, and I look very questioningly at people who do complain about it. It's so small, I feel like they're making proxy arguments, or don't understand how millage works.
> Why do you think someone who walks and bike everywhere should pay increased taxes to subsidise empty buses running around the place?
Because putting people on the bus who would otherwise park their cars where the bike lane is or the sidewalk, is a good deal for you!
Also because the people on the bus pay taxes for your bike lanes & sidewalks. (If only bikers paid for the bike lanes, your taxes would probably be much higher than what you pay to subsidize buses.)
Also because the majority of people don’t bike & walk everywhere.
Then you must apply the same logic to public infrastructure for cars. Why would someone who only walks or bikes have to pay for the gigantic and expensive infrastructure needed for cars? Why would they have to have their immediate surrounding sacrificed to make room for all these cars?
> Why do you think someone who walks and bike everywhere should pay increased taxes to subsidise empty buses running around the place?
This is a question that can be applied to a lot of things, with deleterious results. Why would a person with no kids pay increased taxes to subsidize schools? Never sick but subsidizing hospitals? Not retired but subsidizing someone else's pension? Any kind of spending that you don't benefit from explicitly, directly, and instantly deserves the same question, right?
You're living in a society, the well being of the society reflects on your well being. People being more educated or healthier makes society better for you too. People having the option to take public transport to work because it's more efficient, cleaner, and cheaper (so for some it's the only option) and thus keep that job also makes society better for you.
If your logic is "pay only for what you use" then the one day when you need to use any of that "subsidized" infrastructure of services it might just cost more than you'll ever afford.
That road you ride/walk on, the park that gives you some fresh air, or the electricity that keeps your computer running were brought to you by someone who probably received subsidized education, healthcare, and public transport to get to work.
P.S. All those big fans of Thatcher's "[socialist governments] always run out of other people's money" aren't actually against subsidies, only against the ones that don't predominantly benefit them. Subsidy for the parking spot I need is good, subsidy for the public transport I don't need is bad.
No, this is not a democratic process. People are not voting on these things. A vocal minority with the time and ability to involve themselves in the process ruin things for everyone. It's readily apparent when it comes to things like building housing, and in this case funding transit.
And more generally, everyone voting only in their narrow self-interest is not "democracy working correctly". As numerous people have pointed out above, we live in a society and not everything that society needs to function well will benefit each and every person. Democracy working correctly does not mean everyone saying "I oppose any public spending that does not directly accrue a benefit to me personally". That's a recipe for a broken society with a great deal of deal being left behind.
>No, this is not a democratic process. People are not voting on these things. A vocal minority with the time and ability to involve themselves in the process ruin things for everyone.
Have you actually talked to American voters? No, mass transit isn't directly on the ballot, but in most places, it's not a popular thing. Americans, by and large, like their cars, and really don't like public transit. The more liberal ones might give it some lip service, but they generally avoid it if they can afford to. More importantly, Americans don't want the changes needed to make it more feasible, namely higher density and a lack of free parking everywhere.
If you don't believe me about American voters, just read the other comments in this discussion.
>It's readily apparent when it comes to things like building housing
Again, people say they want more housing built, but they don't actually want to make the changes needed for this to be done. They don't want to remove zoning restrictions that prevent housing from being built in places where it's really needed to make cities more walkable and make transit work better.
>And more generally, everyone voting only in their narrow self-interest is not "democracy working correctly".
This is absolutely wrong. Democracy isn't some magical thing that produces the best possible result when done the best way. It's a product of the voters and their whims and demands, no matter how stupid or ignorant they may be.
>we live in a society and not everything that society needs to function well will benefit each and every person
If you want a society where people vote outside their narrow self-interest, you need voters who understand this and vote accordingly. If you're assuming most humans are like this, you're sadly mistaken.
>Democracy working correctly does not mean everyone saying "I oppose any public spending that does not directly accrue a benefit to me personally".
Yes, it does, if you have a population of voters who think exactly this way.
That's how it is with everything. Running a government involves taxing, and directing funds from one place to another; something is always going to be subsidized at the expense of something else (or debt). America's voters prefer to subsidize roads and highways for their personal cars.
> Why do you think someone who walks and bike everywhere should pay increased taxes to subsidise empty buses running around the place?
Also, I assume that for consistency you would say someone who never cycles should not pay increased taxes to pay for things like cycle lanes? Do you think we should make no provision for cycling, or introduce a road tax on bicycles to pay for it?
The authorities seem to be quite happy with an outcome that means poor people will just have to travel a lot less. Do you think this will be greatly different in the US?