http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mta-officials-portraying-proposal-charge-1-new-metrocard-evironmentally-friendly-initiative-agency-reap-20-million-article-1.1122859
Quote
Some people have an abiding respect for the functional beauty of their subway station. Most people don't.
In the name of Mother Earth — and with visions of cleaner subway stations — the MTA is considering tacking on a $1 "green fee" to the price of a new MetroCard.
Reducing the amount of plastic that gets tossed to the subway floor and then entombed in the ground for eternity is hardly a bad goal.
A MetroCard surcharge on top of yet another fare hike, however, stinks like the bottom of a subway stairwell after a Rangers game.
A Metropolitan Transportation Authority spokesman couldn't immediately say how many MetroCards wind up in landfills, but the agency prints about 160 million of the plastic travel passes a year. It's simply too much for the origami enthusiasts to take care of.
If the environment, and not raising money, is the concern then the MTA could just as easily program MetroCard vending machines to give a small discount for recycling a card and extending its useful life.
And if the MTA is really serious about improving its image, then this idea has to be trashed. Riders will just think the authority is trying to nickel and dime them.
Besides, the MetroCard's days supposedly are numbered anyway. The MTA has said for years it's moving to a system where riders will be able to tap debit or credit cards at turnstile sensors. If riders throw them on the floor, they won't stay there very long.
Not a fan of this initiative. I'm glad that they finally rolled out rechargeable unlimited cards but tacking on a fee for getting a new card? Seems shady given that all Metrocards have a final expiration date, after which you can reload them anymore.
Also, sounds like a tourist tax...though as a resident I guess I don't have a problem with that. :D
I approve of the implementation of said fee.
There's a £5 deposit on a Transport For London Oyster Card, but it's refundable if you return it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 10:19:26 AM
I approve of the implementation of said fee.
On what basis? It is clearly just a revenue generating mechanism outside of the allowed fare hikes. Don't see any evidence it'd be going to environmental charities or anything of the like.
I did see though this in another article though: "And the surcharge would not be imposed when a rider with an expired MetroCard is buying a new MetroCard, Lisberg said." which makes it mostly an non-issue for me then as I'm always just re-using cards. (Though through cards inherited from guests, I've 5 metrocards in my wallet. :D
Quote from: Brazen on July 27, 2012, 10:21:02 AM
There's a £5 deposit on a Transport For London Oyster Card, but it's refundable if you return it.
The equivalent there though would just be a surcharge on a typical tube ticket.
Increasing the cost of a ride ---> less usage and more cab rides ----> bad for environment
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 10:24:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 10:19:26 AM
I approve of the implementation of said fee.
On what basis? It is clearly just a revenue generating mechanism outside of the allowed fare hikes. Don't see any evidence it'd be going to environmental charities or anything of the like.
On the basis that it will force the ridership to do what they won't do themselves: protecting the environment from themselves. It doesn't have to go to environmental charities; it's going to improving the system itself.
So yeah, I once again shit upon your libertyness and freedomism.
Quote(Though through cards inherited from guests, I've 5 metrocards in my wallet. :D
See, now you're thinking.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2012, 10:29:49 AM
Increasing the cost of a ride ---> less usage and more cab rides ----> bad for environment
Balderdash. Poppycock.
Back in college, I used to be very bad about disposing of used Metrocards. When the Metrocard was used up, I would just keep it in the wallet, along with other used up Metrocards. Finally, when my right buttock was aching too much, I decided to clean out the stack of used Metrocards from my wallet. It was 38 cards in total.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 10:31:18 AM
On the basis that it will force the ridership to do what they won't do themselves: protecting the environment from themselves. It doesn't have to go to environmental charities; it's going to improving the system itself.
Will it though? Besides as the article pointed out - if this wasn't really about MTA revenue gain, they could always provide a discount to encourage this. And no need for the fare-jack to be a whole buck which is approximately 50% of the current metrocard cost.
Oh and Joan's right in that the higher it goes, the more reasonable it is to just take a cab. ;)
In communist Shanghai, one-trip tickets are on plastic cards that the turnstile keeps when you exit, and rechargable ones never expire. Same in Seoul - I used one metro card for the two years I was there. If I returned, it would still work.
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 10:44:34 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 10:31:18 AM
On the basis that it will force the ridership to do what they won't do themselves: protecting the environment from themselves. It doesn't have to go to environmental charities; it's going to improving the system itself.
Will it though? Besides as the article pointed out - if this wasn't really about MTA revenue gain, they could always provide a discount to encourage this. And no need for the fare-jack to be a whole buck which is approximately 50% of the current metrocard cost.
I stand by my position of increasing revenue at a cost to consumers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 10:58:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 10:44:34 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 10:31:18 AM
On the basis that it will force the ridership to do what they won't do themselves: protecting the environment from themselves. It doesn't have to go to environmental charities; it's going to improving the system itself.
Will it though? Besides as the article pointed out - if this wasn't really about MTA revenue gain, they could always provide a discount to encourage this. And no need for the fare-jack to be a whole buck which is approximately 50% of the current metrocard cost.
I stand by my position of increasing revenue at a cost to consumers.
What's your stance on increasing shareholder value?
Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2012, 11:05:24 AM
What's your stance on increasing shareholder value?
Depends on which end of the M & A I'm on, smart guy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 10:58:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 10:44:34 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 10:31:18 AM
On the basis that it will force the ridership to do what they won't do themselves: protecting the environment from themselves. It doesn't have to go to environmental charities; it's going to improving the system itself.
Will it though? Besides as the article pointed out - if this wasn't really about MTA revenue gain, they could always provide a discount to encourage this. And no need for the fare-jack to be a whole buck which is approximately 50% of the current metrocard cost.
I stand by my position of increasing revenue at a cost to consumers.
Is this what is going to happen every time I call you out on something?
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 11:15:38 AM
Is this what is going to happen every time I call you out on something?
Probably, yeah.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 11:21:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 11:15:38 AM
Is this what is going to happen every time I call you out on something?
Probably, yeah.
Lame. :thumbsdown:
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 11:23:25 AM
Lame. :thumbsdown:
What's lame is insisting on using rechargeable plastic metrocards anyway; DC's Metro uses rechargeable paper passes. So, they're reusable AND biodegradable. Makes more sense.
And besides, arguable "green" initiative aside, who better to pay for the "MTA launching 5 bus routes, adding commuter rail runs and boosting other service in $29.5 million plan" than the users themselves, instead of taxpayers like Berkut, who doesn't use it at all? That's so much more libertarian, no?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 11:30:04 AM
What's lame is insisting on using rechargeable plastic metrocards anyway
Nothing. That's the most sensible solution, and so there's nothing wrong with financially punishing people who don't want to go along with it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 11:30:04 AM
What's lame is insisting on using rechargeable plastic metrocards anyway; DC's Metro uses rechargeable paper passes. So, they're reusable AND biodegradable. Makes more sense.
Paper cards are much more susceptible to wear and tear so it seems like they'd be much more susceptible to creating additional clutter than plastic.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 11:30:04 AM
And besides, arguable "green" initiative aside, who better to pay for the "MTA launching 5 bus routes, adding commuter rail runs and boosting other service in $29.5 million plan" than the users themselves, instead of taxpayers like Berkut, who doesn't use it at all? That's so much more libertarian, no?
The users do pay. The MTA hikes up its fares like every few seconds. That's what is so grating about this green initiative as it looks simply like an end-run around the typical ever-present fare hikes.
Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2012, 12:02:52 PM
there's nothing wrong with financially punishing people who don't want to go along with it.
Tourists don't really have a chance of "going along with it" as they probably aren't keep cards to bring with them on their next trip. :D
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 12:16:55 PM
Paper cards are much more susceptible to wear and tear so it seems like they'd be much more susceptible to creating additional clutter than plastic.
Biodegradable clutter is better than non-biodegradable clutter. Hell, even Baltimore's pseudo-subway's weekly and monthly passes are still paper.
QuoteThe users do pay. The MTA hikes up its fares like every few seconds. That's what is so grating about this green initiative as it looks simply like an end-run around the typical ever-present fare hikes.
Price to pay for maintaining necessary infrastructure.
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 12:19:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2012, 12:02:52 PM
there's nothing wrong with financially punishing people who don't want to go along with it.
Tourists don't really have a chance of "going along with it" as they probably aren't keep cards to bring with them on their next trip. :D
They're too busy getting raped by the cabbies by substantially more than $1, anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 12:20:34 PM
Biodegradable clutter is better than non-biodegradable clutter. Hell, even Baltimore's pseudo-subway's weekly and monthly passes are still paper.
I don't know there is some intersection between the more limited non-biodegradable vs more biodegradable clutter where it no longer make sense to opt for the latter.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 12:20:34 PM
Price to pay for maintaining necessary infrastructure.
Price to pay for maintaining a unionized workforce. Hidden fees repackaged as a green initiative is a see-through PR attempt. I will happily note though that the MTA is taking the union to task over pay increases. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 12:21:49 PM
They're too busy getting raped by the cabbies by substantially more than $1, anyway.
Cabs aren't bad. For about 8 bucks (without tip), I can get from 42nd to Houston on the westside during non-rush hour times. That's more than the $3.25 one is looking at with this new initiative...but has the added perks of being much quicker and one doesn't have to spend time in the furnace-like subway stations. ;)
I'm almost glad the Cincinnati subway was never completed. It'd be cool and all, but they'd probably try to do some similar "green fee" bullshit.
Oh well, at least we have an expensive streetcar project that will probably fall way short of expectations.
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 12:28:02 PM
Cabs aren't bad. For about 8 bucks (without tip), I can get from 42nd to Houston on the westside during non-rush hour times. That's more than the $3.25 one is looking at with this new initiative...but has the added perks of being much quicker and one doesn't have to spend time in the furnace-like subway stations. ;)
New York doesn't have AC in the subway?
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 12:28:02 PM
Cabs aren't bad. For about 8 bucks (without tip), I can get from 42nd to Houston on the westside during non-rush hour times. That's more than the $3.25 one is looking at with this new initiative...but has the added perks of being much quicker and one doesn't have to spend time in the furnace-like subway stations. ;)
You don't look like you have a "HELLO MY NAME IS FROM OUT OF TOWN" on you. The cabbies know who their marks are.
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2012, 12:44:36 PM
I'm almost glad the Cincinnati subway was never completed. It'd be cool and all, but they'd probably try to do some similar "green fee" bullshit.
Oh well, at least we have an expensive streetcar project that will probably fall way short of expectations.
:lol: Yes, the presence of "green fees" is a deciding factor in questions like this.
Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2012, 12:51:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 12:28:02 PM
Cabs aren't bad. For about 8 bucks (without tip), I can get from 42nd to Houston on the westside during non-rush hour times. That's more than the $3.25 one is looking at with this new initiative...but has the added perks of being much quicker and one doesn't have to spend time in the furnace-like subway stations. ;)
New York doesn't have AC in the subway?
In trains - yes, stations - no.
An article on this: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/08/does_the_new_york_subway_syste.html
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 12:57:57 PM
In trains - yes, stations - no.
There are some AC units in stations but they aren't big enough to cool off the whole platform.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2012, 02:10:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 12:57:57 PM
In trains - yes, stations - no.
There are some AC units in stations but they aren't big enough to cool off the whole platform.
New York mag article I linked to said that a few of the stations have "chiller units" that sound like water coolers.
I hear the MTA has huge budget deficits I guess this is one of their solutions. You put 'green' in front of something and people will pay.
Quote from: Valmy on July 27, 2012, 02:45:56 PM
You put 'green' in front of something and people will pay.
This is New York. I don't think they are going to trick anyone with that move. ;)
And note - I'm not saying New Yorkers are unusually bright, they just tend to be a very skeptical bunch.
Quote from: Brazen on July 27, 2012, 10:21:02 AM
There's a £5 deposit on a Transport For London Oyster Card, but it's refundable if you return it.
I actually still have a couple of oyster cards. Can I redeem them by mail? :P
Why is it called Oyster Card?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 03:58:38 PM
Why is it called Oyster Card?
QuoteThe Oyster brand name was agreed after a lengthy period of research managed by TranSys, the company contracted to deliver the ticketing system, and agreed by TfL. Several names were considered, and Oyster was chosen as a fresh approach that was not directly linked to transport, ticketing or London. According to Andrew McCrum, now of Appella brand name consultants, who was brought in to find a name by Saatchi and Saatchi Design (in turn contracted by TranSys), Oyster was conceived and promoted because of the metaphorical implications of security and value in the component meanings of the hard bivalve shell and the concealed pearl; the association of London and the River Thames with oysters, and the well-known travel-related idiom "the world is your oyster".
Branding agency.
:bleeding:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 27, 2012, 03:56:58 PM
Quote from: Brazen on July 27, 2012, 10:21:02 AM
There's a £5 deposit on a Transport For London Oyster Card, but it's refundable if you return it.
I actually still have a couple of oyster cards. Can I redeem them by mail? :P
I returned my Oyster card for the refund and ..... it's the only time my credit card number was ever stolen, it happened within days on a hardly used card.
Oh and for some reason they crook only used it on London station train fares, co-incidence ? :hmm:
edit: I presume this is the case as whilst they have online payment via CCs and debit cards, the refund procedure seems to be entirely manual/clerical, so I'm guessing whoever processed the paper work for a cheque to be posted, had the opportunity to see full details of the original transaction.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 11:30:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 11:23:25 AM
Lame. :thumbsdown:
What's lame is insisting on using rechargeable plastic metrocards anyway; DC's Metro uses rechargeable paper passes. So, they're reusable AND biodegradable. Makes more sense.
The obvious solution is to implant commuters with rechargeable microchips.
Or make public transport free. After all, roads are free.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 27, 2012, 06:20:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 11:30:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 11:23:25 AM
Lame. :thumbsdown:
What's lame is insisting on using rechargeable plastic metrocards anyway; DC's Metro uses rechargeable paper passes. So, they're reusable AND biodegradable. Makes more sense.
The obvious solution is to implant commuters with rechargeable microchips.
Or make public transport free. After all, roads are free.
In theory at least, I wouldn't mind if local taxes were raised slightly to cover making public transportation actually free to the public. In practice, since I very rarely used public transportation even when we lived in Charleston (where the local public bus service was actually pretty decent), I don't care for the idea. Here in Goldsboro, there really isn't any public transportation to speak of anyway. Well, there is a bus authority, but it's pretty much a joke.
Actually, that's an interesting question. Why should mass transit have fares? It's subsidized heavily anyway, why not subsidize it entirely? Usually the answer to such questions is that you don't want over-utilization, but is anyone really going to over-utilize mass transit?
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 07:03:10 PM
Actually, that's an interesting question. Why should mass transit have fares? It's subsidized heavily anyway, why not subsidize it entirely? Usually the answer to such questions is that you don't want over-utilization, but is anyone really going to over-utilize mass transit?
I suppose you could argue that bums would go round-and-round the city and offend the working masses that must endure mass transit, instead of just taking up sidewalk space.
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 07:03:10 PM
Actually, that's an interesting question. Why should mass transit have fares? It's subsidized heavily anyway, why not subsidize it entirely? Usually the answer to such questions is that you don't want over-utilization, but is anyone really going to over-utilize mass transit?
That would increase the cross-subsidy from people who don't ride mass transit and create a free rider issue because of riders who don't live in the taxing jurisdiction. Like you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 07:32:12 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 07:03:10 PM
Actually, that's an interesting question. Why should mass transit have fares? It's subsidized heavily anyway, why not subsidize it entirely? Usually the answer to such questions is that you don't want over-utilization, but is anyone really going to over-utilize mass transit?
That would increase the cross-subsidy from people who don't ride mass transit and create a free rider issue because of riders who don't live in the taxing jurisdiction. Like you.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 07:32:12 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 07:03:10 PM
Actually, that's an interesting question. Why should mass transit have fares? It's subsidized heavily anyway, why not subsidize it entirely? Usually the answer to such questions is that you don't want over-utilization, but is anyone really going to over-utilize mass transit?
That would increase the cross-subsidy from people who don't ride mass transit and create a free rider issue because of riders who don't live in the taxing jurisdiction. Like you.
Sounds like roads again.
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 07:39:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 27, 2012, 07:39:20 PM
Sounds like roads again.
The problem with charging for roads is technological and logistical, not philosophical.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 07:56:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 07:39:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 07:57:32 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 27, 2012, 07:39:20 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 07:58:33 PM
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.
That's an ossum point! Now do you have any interest in discussing abolishing fares? :)
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:00:09 PM
It's legal, actually. Interstate highways by law cannot charge tolls, if their states want to get highway funding.
That's a much better point. :weep:
But there are roads that are not interstate highways, and car owners do in fact pay a series of de facto user fees.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 08:00:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 07:58:33 PM
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.
That's an ossum point! Now do you have any interest in discussing abolishing fares? :)
I don't get the sarcasm.
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:03:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 08:05:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:03:09 PM
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.
And I don't understand how you don't understand that, so I'm not even sure how I can elaborate on that point. It appears that we're at impasse here.
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:06:49 PM
And I don't understand how you don't understand that, so I'm not even sure how I can elaborate on that point. It appears that we're at impasse here.
When someone is incapable of verbalizing a point they are trying to make impasse is not the first word that pops into my head to describe the situation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 08:09:23 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:06:49 PM
And I don't understand how you don't understand that, so I'm not even sure how I can elaborate on that point. It appears that we're at impasse here.
When someone is incapable of verbalizing a point they are trying to make impasse is not the first word that pops into my head to describe the situation.
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.
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:13:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 08:19:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:13:54 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:23:59 PM
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??
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 27, 2012, 08:26:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 08:31:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:23:59 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:33:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 08:48:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:33:25 PM
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.
:yes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 08:05:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:03:09 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 07:58:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 07:56:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 07:39:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2012, 09:26:48 PM
They'd increase even more because of the need for parking.
There would be plenty of parking lots. Every single road would be one.
Found a CNN article from 2007 that's says 55% of New York workers take the subway or bus as part of their commute.
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 07:57:32 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 27, 2012, 07:39:20 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on July 28, 2012, 08:57:23 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 07:57:32 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 27, 2012, 07:39:20 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on July 28, 2012, 11:01:25 PM
Quote from: dps on July 28, 2012, 08:57:23 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 07:57:32 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 27, 2012, 07:39:20 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: DGuller on July 28, 2012, 11:13:22 PM
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.
Ok, but there's a big difference between what Tonitrus posted (a state can't get federal funding for a particular interstate highway if it's tolled) and what you posted, which implied that a state can't get any federal highway money at all if it has a tolled interstate.
Quote from: dps on July 28, 2012, 11:22:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 28, 2012, 11:13:22 PM
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.
Ok, but there's a big difference between what Tonitrus posted (a state can't get federal funding for a particular interstate highway if it's tolled) and what you posted, which implied that a state can't get any federal highway money at all if it has a tolled interstate.
Bad wording on my part then.
So I didn't realize it but the MTA has changed it so that starting in March there will be this additional $1 fee for new cards. <_<
:lol:
OWS is getting pissy about fare hike.
http://nofarehikes.net/pdfs/swipebackflyer.pdf
QuoteAre you upset about endless fare
hikes every two years?
Yeah, us too. We want to stop those hikes, and make
the city find other ways to fund the subway, like for
instance renegotiating the derivatives contracts that
Wall St suckered them into.
We've tried to talk to them. But they won't listen. So
we have to protest. We would boycott the subway, if
we could. But since it's an essential public service, we
need it, to get to our jobs and live our lives. So instead
of boycotting, we find ways to express our protest, like
this: If you use your unlimited card to swipe someone
else in, then you're effectively helping them boycott
the fare hike, sort of like boycotting it forward. You're
also helping fellow New Yorkers who can't afford transit
that's funded like a regressive tax.
Since you're giving the swipe away, not selling it, this is
perfectly legal. Even better, it's an easy, effective way
to tell the MTA to "take a hike".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 07:56:20 PM
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.
Is that a bad thing?