MTA considering charging $1 "Green Fee"

[DGuller]

It's not a verbalization problem, it's an imagination problem.  I can't imagine how anyone can fail to see the logical thread leading to that post with an ossum point, so I don't know where to proceed.  If I knew where in the logical chain you have comprehension difficulties, I would at least know where to focus while trying to state it in a way you could understand.

We are talking about a subway system that already exists, and the question before us is whether taxpayers, including those who don't use the subway, should stump up more taxes so that riders can ride this existing subway without charge.  The propostion that building a subway where one does not exist creates large positive externalities does not help to explain the further externalities that would be generated by abolishing fares.

That is the source of my comprehension difficulty.

Your logic assumes that the current tax/fare structure adequately reflects the balance between externalities and rider benefit, and thus any further changes should be balanced for the sake of fairness.  I've made no such assumptions, hence I'm arguing from absolute rather than incremental standpoint.

[Tonitrus]

Cross-subsidization is the whole point of government. 

People without kids paying for schools for those that do, etc. ad nauseam etc....

I suppose the Libertarian paradise would have user fees for everything (or privatized) from police calls to sidewalk access, but then things start to get silly.

[Admiral Yi]

Your logic assumes that the current tax/fare structure adequately reflects the balance between externalities and rider benefit, and thus any further changes should be balanced for the sake of fairness.  I've made no such assumptions, hence I'm arguing from absolute rather than incremental standpoint.

What??

[Admiral Yi]

Cross-subsidization is the whole point of government. 

People without kids paying for schools for those that do, etc. ad nauseam etc....

I suppose the Libertarian paradise would have user fees for everything (or privatized) from police calls to sidewalk access, but then things start to get silly.

Disagree.  Positive externalities and free riding are the whole point of government.

[DGuller]

Your logic assumes that the current tax/fare structure adequately reflects the balance between externalities and rider benefit, and thus any further changes should be balanced for the sake of fairness.  I've made no such assumptions, hence I'm arguing from absolute rather than incremental standpoint.

What??

Your logic assumes that the current tax/fare structure adequately reflects the balance between externalities and rider benefit, and thus any further changes should be balanced for the sake of fairness.  I've made no such assumptions, hence I'm arguing from absolute rather than incremental standpoint.

[Admiral Yi]

Your logic assumes that the current tax/fare structure adequately reflects the balance between externalities and rider benefit, and thus any further changes should be balanced for the sake of fairness.  I've made no such assumptions, hence I'm arguing from absolute rather than incremental standpoint.

OK, I think I've deciphered it: you're saying that the externality of the subway system as a whole is so gigantic that there is no way the existing cross subsidy is capturing it.  And that therefore the cross subsidy should be increased by abolishing fares.

All without assuming anything of course.

[DGuller]

Your logic assumes that the current tax/fare structure adequately reflects the balance between externalities and rider benefit, and thus any further changes should be balanced for the sake of fairness.  I've made no such assumptions, hence I'm arguing from absolute rather than incremental standpoint.

OK, I think I've deciphered it: you're saying that the externality of the subway system as a whole is so gigantic that there is no way the existing cross subsidy is capturing it.  And that therefore the cross subsidy should be increased by abolishing fares.

All without assuming anything of course.

[Neil]

I don't get the sarcasm.

I don't understand how emphasizing the externality advances the argument that non-riders should pay a cross-subsidy so that riders can ride free.

Because riders are morally superior to non-riders.

[Neil]

Yes, of course it would increase the cross-subsidy.  However, mass transit is one of those infrastructure things that bring about massive positive externalities.  Anyone living in the city is benefiting from it being used.  Even if you drive everywhere inside the city, the fact that lots of other potential drivers are instead taking the subway benefits you.

Of course.  But unless you're going to argue that the positive externalities are equal to or greater than the increased taxes that would be needed to do away with subway fares, you're still left with a car owner, or a walker, or a biker, or a shut-in paying someone else to ride the subway.

Can you imagine what NYC would be like if tomorrow it didn't have a subway?  Property values would plummet at least by a factor of 2, if not much more.  That's a pretty big externality.

They'd increase even more because of the need for parking.

[DGuller]

They'd increase even more because of the need for parking.

There would be plenty of parking lots.  Every single road would be one.

[garbon]

Found a CNN article from 2007 that's says 55% of New York workers take the subway or bus as part of their commute.

[dps]

Sounds like roads again.

The problem with charging for roads is technological and logistical, not philosophical.

It's legal, actually.  Interstate highways by law cannot charge tolls, if their states want to get highway funding.

You might want to do some fact-checking there.  I know for certain that the West Virginia Turnpike is both a toll road and an interstate highway (it's part of I-77) and I'm pretty sure that there are toll road near both Richmond and Cleveland that are interstate highway, but I'm not sure of those without looking them up.  And there are probably others.

[DGuller]

Sounds like roads again.

The problem with charging for roads is technological and logistical, not philosophical.

It's legal, actually.  Interstate highways by law cannot charge tolls, if their states want to get highway funding.

You might want to do some fact-checking there.  I know for certain that the West Virginia Turnpike is both a toll road and an interstate highway (it's part of I-77) and I'm pretty sure that there are toll road near both Richmond and Cleveland that are interstate highway, but I'm not sure of those without looking them up.  And there are probably others.

You may want to do some research yourself, starting with my post.

[Tonitrus]

Sounds like roads again.

The problem with charging for roads is technological and logistical, not philosophical.

It's legal, actually.  Interstate highways by law cannot charge tolls, if their states want to get highway funding.

You might want to do some fact-checking there.  I know for certain that the West Virginia Turnpike is both a toll road and an interstate highway (it's part of I-77) and I'm pretty sure that there are toll road near both Richmond and Cleveland that are interstate highway, but I'm not sure of those without looking them up.  And there are probably others.

You may want to do some research yourself, starting with my post.

I was curious, so I looked it up (granted, just what Wiki had to say)...

The states wouldn't receive federal funding for that particular tolled highway, not altogether, which is how I would have understood your post.  And it seems some tolled highways were grandfathered into the system.

[DGuller]

Being grandfathered meant that you could keep the tolls at the expense of highway funding.  It doesn't meant that you can keep your tolls AND highway funding.  If you're not grandfathered, then you actually don't even have an option of adding tolls, unless the federal government allows you to.