MTA considering charging $1 "Green Fee"

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[DGuller]

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.

[Tonitrus]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

Sounds like roads again.

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

[DGuller]

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.

[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.

[Admiral Yi]

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? 

[Admiral Yi]

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.

But there are roads that are not interstate highways, and car owners do in fact pay a series of de facto user fees.

[DGuller]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[DGuller]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[DGuller]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.