If you want to disincentivize usage of certain things, money is generally the most effective option. Yes, some rich folks won't be bothered, but even fairly low amounts make most people think twice. Too many cars are a problem in many parts of the world, for a number of reasons (noise, smog, traffic jams, or parking space in cities), so nudging people towards alternative usage patterns is worthwhile in my opinion.
Alternatives are the most effective option. Tolls just make laws the rich don't have to obey and conditions they don't have to experience. Aggregate suffering isn't lowered, just shifted to the poor.
If you want cars off the road, you tax rich people and build trains and bike lanes, and shut down cynical RTO. Full stop.
It’s not that simple. For trains to be a complete solution you need walkable cities, and high density transport-oriented residential construction near stations.
This is almost diametrically opposite to parking-oriented cities and sprawling suburbia.
The best time for a city to invest in making their city walkable and public-transportation-able is decades ago. The second best time for a city to invest in making their city walkable and public-transportation-able is now.
Not everyone wants walkable. I'd much rather a remote first economy and cars. One of my hobbies is riding motorcycles on race tracks, I need a garage to store them, and a vehicle to tow them there. This is practically impossible in "walkable" cities.
90% of Japanese residents live in, essentially, a walkable megacity, and plenty of them ride motorcycles on the country's many tracks (which you would expect, since Japan houses several of the top motorcycle manufacturers). They don't have any issues participating in their hobby, and you wouldn't either.
Note that this holds without even having to mention that holding the ability for millions of people to be independent and mobile without needing to purchase and maintain a vehicle against a niche and expensive hobby is ridiculous. But there's no need to bring that up because we can have both.
Localities large and small have been moving towards higher density, walkable and transit oriented development for years now. It's happening, and it works.
Every time I attempt to read it, halfway through my brain flips into the mode that is normally reserved for when people start telling me that Ivermectin is a COVID remedy, or something equally farcical.
The comment you're replying to is not OK and I've replied to them to convey that. But the escalation and gudelines-breaking conduct in the thread began with you and was extreme. We need you to stop this style of commenting on HN and make an effort to observe the guidelines if you want to keep participating here. You've been warned before, and after enough warnings we have to ban accounts that keep commenting like this.
Please take a moment to remind yourself of the guidelines and make an effort to follow them in future.
I know many people who would always prefer their cars over trains or bikes, simply because that's what they know, and they would not leave their comfort zone unless there's something nudging/pushing them.
my wife and I lived a block walk from a metro stop. my wife’s work was on the same metro line, also one block walk. 20 minute metro ride, at least 45 minute drive plus parking. my wife has not taken a metro once in 4.5 years.
> If you want cars off the road, you tax rich people and build trains and bike lanes, and shut down cynical RTO. Full stop.
The first two smell like communism, the last massively harms the rich people and their playthings (REITs - real estate investment trusts). Won't happen, not in countries where Big Money is pulling the strings (i.e. the US, Germany and UK).
If levying taxes and using those tax receipts to build infrastructure is enough to smell like communism to you, I have unfortunate news to tell you about how every single government on the planet operates
Should have added a /s. My point was that this is precisely what way too many people think, and this is why good things either do not happen at all or get massively impeded until they are finally done.
My apologies for not picking up on the sardonic tone, and I appreciate that you don't rely on the crutch of /s to make up for others lack of reading comprehension.
Weird how you can have different prices for different seats at the ball game, or different fare classes on the airplane, or member access lines at museum, or valet parking, or different restaurants, or different clothing stores... But introduce price segmentation on highways and people just can't believe it.
Highways are almost always publicly owned monopolies. We, the public, choose to build them because they enrich all of us.
If you want to raise the money to buy land and build a private highway, price segment away. If you want to price segment a publicly owned and operate commons, it needs to be in the public interest.
It's anything but clear although I think a self-appointed group assures us they know what's best despite tolls being wildly unpopular when real people are asked.
No pretty much all real-world evidence points to them being positive [0]. Feel free to share evidence otherwise, if you have any.
You can argue about popularity if you want, the topic is actually about whether they're "in the public interest" though. Those are distinct things, and "I don't like them because they're unpopular" is pretty hilariously circular logic -- not the type of thinking I'd want my name attached to, that's for sure!
>The problem is that the model no longer works. Over the decades, the cost of maintaining roads and highways has risen, even as cars have become more fuel-efficient. And raising gas taxes, even just in line with inflation, is generally considered to be political suicide. The last time Congress did it was in 1993. The result is a giant deficit. In fiscal 2024, the federal government spent $27bn more on maintaining roads than it collected in tax. At the state and local levels, fuel taxes covered barely a quarter of road spending.
So apparently that's how the owner intends to raise the money and build. Beyond that, "who should pay for government spending" is of course the perennial discussion, and exactly what we are debating right now.
Planes, sports, restaurants, stores, etc are all privately-owned or publicly-traded businesses. In the social contract, it's expected that businesses offer services depending on what you're willing to pay.
Driving and public transport is not a business, it is a civil service.
Should we begin to offer tiered plans for EMS as well?
My sports stadium was built with my taxpayer dollars. I can't even watch the team on tv though.
We do sort of have tiered EMS with insurance and ambulance costs. When my buddy came to the US from India, he was told, "unless you're blessing out, call an Uber to the ER."
Do you have an issue with paying for electricity or water by use? Or to ride public transit that you pay for a ticket?
It seems like a good property that someone who uses something the most pays the most.
If something has positive externalities such as vaccines or education then I’m fine subsidizing or making it free, but traffic has negative externalities.
The government has had a flat cost model for so long that people would lose their minds if it ever changed. It's the only institution that is free for the poorest and ungodly expensive for the richest, while providing the same product to everyone.
Getting better government services logically follows from paying more for them, but the idea is so sacrilegious and alien that people would probably riot.
Well in my state you can add electricity and natural gas to the list. National parks also have additional fees (and privately-owned, price-segmented lodgings and restaurants) despite being a commons already subsidized by taxes.
Anyway, the point is not about the precedent but whether it is sensible. And that's not to imply that I love the country being sold off to billionaires and corporations right now. For medical care I go the other direction - we need the government funded base offering.
Certainly, but in many states, at least on the west coast (not to imply anything about elsewhere, just no experience or knowledge) they are privatized but rates and metering are still regulated.
> Anyway, the point is not about the precedent but whether it is sensible. And that's not to imply that I love the country being sold off to billionaires and corporations right now. For medical care I go the other direction - we need the government funded base offering.
And I 100% agree here. I have a fairly unique (or at least uncommon) set of experiences: was born in Scotland under the NHS, grew up in Australia under Medicare (the public health system), and have been in the US for 15+ years now, and worked for a good portion of that at least part time or full time in EMS and seen every day the consequences of lack of access to healthcare or access in a way that is focused on acute care versus solid proactive and routine care.
> Yes, some rich folks won't be bothered, but even fairly low amounts make most people think twice.
We saw this very clearly recently with the Manhattan congestion road tax. $9 paid no more than once per day to drive into Lower Manhattan is close to nothing by NYC standards, yet traffic still dropped substantially and stayed suppressed.
Additional to your point, one of the benefits of high user pays is to allow opt-in progressive taxation. (The rich who want to use it can, at their own cost, the rich who do not feel it's fair can sit in the traffic with everyone else and avoid the taxation)...
idea: Maximize the income of the toll lane and use the money to subsidize new free lanes or other forms of mass transit.
