Well let’s see…we paid for the road already, we pay tax on the gas and we pay tax on the vehicle every year just for owning it.

Now onto the train…we didn’t pay for the track in most cases and we don’t pay property tax as we don’t own the vehicle.

It’s not that we’re overly car-centric. It’s that we’ve already been charged at least three ways to drive on that road and now they want to add another.

Maybe consider that a car is just an expensive thing to own? Why should costs stop at cost-of-ownership when cars affect the lives of more than just their owners?

Did you read the comment you replied to? There are already a bunch of taxes in place on it, and this is adding another tax. They aren't saying there should be no taxes at all. As far as cost-of-ownership, the trains are actually the thing being subsidized here, not cars.

I hate cars in the city, and I think the argument that cars are a negative externality and that for car owners to pay the true cost requires some taxation, but let's be honest about what we're arguing for.

but strawman arguments don't help anybody.

Gas tax doesn't even begin to cover the externalities of burning that gas. Vehicle taxes go entirely towards the administrative costs of vehicles (i.e. DMV) and also don't cover externalities. Sure the road is already built but it was funded by all tax payers, not all of which drive cars. And roads require maintenance, also tax payer funded. Society at large subsidizes cars and drivers, giving them huge chunks of land while making most cities inhospitable to pedestrians, causing almost as many deaths as guns in the US. A giant, heavy, extremely dangerous machine is just about the worst way to transport people. Maybe we should stop subsidizing it entirely and taxing it to lower use like we did with cigarettes?

> As far as cost-of-ownership, the trains are actually the thing being subsidized here, not cars.

Exactly. In fact, if you try to find a single example of passenger rail that is financially sustainable you will likely fail. The only reason passenger rail exists is because it is massively subsidised. It is inherently flawed as a mode of transport.

You should pay more because cars make me feel bad :((

You should pay more because you aren't covering the actual costs.

Yes this exactly. If I'm not allowed to talk about the health effects of car infrastructure (because apparently that's "feelings") then let's just talk about money.

Cars are horrendously over-subsidized and are FAR more expensive to maintain infrastructure for in exchange for moving way fewer people. Trains might not cover their costs with fare but they move a hell of a lot more people while simultaneously being underinvested in, in the US.

A big difference is that many taxes for using roads are paid regardless of road use, whereas a train ticket is obviously priced for the usage. (Yes, gas tax can indirectly be this, but different vehicles have vastly different fuel economies, and people also buy some amount of gas for non-road use; of course toll roads are by-usage, but most roads are not toll roads.)

> we didn’t pay for the track in most cases

Could you elaborate?

> now they want to add another

There are plenty of existing toll roads, bridges, and tunnels. It’s not really a new idea.

>> we didn’t pay for the track in most cases

> Could you elaborate?

I presume this is a reference to the fact that over 70% of the track used by Amtrak is owned by freight companies.

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...

Yes that's correct.

The last federal gas tax increase was 31 years ago (1993). Most states have similarly stalled gas taxation. Both are also facing the issue of electric cars entirely dodging this tax revenue. It's such a large problem that the Highway Trust Fund is projected to bankrupt in 2028.

In other words, we haven't paid for that road.

They have not increased the tax but still collect it.

We’ve definitely paid for the road. We pay every time we fill our tank.

You're confusing tax collection and tax increases.

According to your logic we should be at a tax rate on gas close to 99%.

You are incorrect: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/texas-news/what-do-texans-....

> There is also a federal tax of $18.4 cents per gallon.

Federal gas tax is not a percentage

I believe taxes paid by drivers do not in fact tend to fund roads in their entirety.

Maintenance costs more than the initial buildout

And the collected tax on gas and a vehicle do not pay for the externalities of that gas and that vehicle in NYC. So we levy and additional tax/fee for that. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand.

I don't think this has as much to do with "paying for externalities" as it does with simply reducing demand by increasing price and netting some extra money for infrastructure as a side effect. Indeed, a large amount of the money is going to subway improvements.

Excess demand that degrades service (traffic) is an externality.

Applying any level of systems thinking or lifecycle analysis to the problem will reveal that nearly none of the costs to the environment or society are paid by whatever cursory fee you pay at the pump. Most of those taxes are paid by everyone regardless of car ownership anyway.

I would encourage you to consider the entire system when applying the “systems thinking” that you are so clearly adept at. I’m curious - do you believe that cars have greater costs than benefits to the economy and society?

Hang on - preparing a great post where I explain the totality of the economy, society, and ecology to you. watch this space.

I’m assuming you completely avoided the question because you lack an informed opinion, which is likely why you feel insecure enough about your intelligence that you attempted to insult mine with your first reply to me. Makes sense.

You pay for the wine, but you don't pay for something more important for you, air. I guess we have to really think a little bit before pushing agenda like this. BTW, there are only 1/5 of people in Manhattan has a car, which not really can be called "car centric".

> BTW, there are only 1/5 of people in

The argument isn't that Manhattan is car-centric qua its people, the argument is that Manhattan is car-centric qua its infrastructure.

It's $15 a day: $300 if you commute 20 days a month. That's not a small price change.

I find that tolls are a good idea, but suspect that we'd have significant complaints situation if the MTA decided to raise the prices of the 30 day pass by, say $300 a month in one sitting. People made decisions based on existing prices, and a change this big. Going around the price changes by moving or parking further out and then paying for a train is a significant lifestyle change. People get really mad when rent goes up by this much too. So all in all, we don't need any car dependence exceptionalism to expect a lot of push back.

I haven’t lived in NYC for a few years now but wasn’t the toll to cross the bridge already between $12-15? How is this a significant change?

$15 for bridge/tunnel + $15 for congestion. doubling the cost sounds significant to me.

Oh interesting. This isn’t just a bridge toll, this is a surcharge on top of that. This is going to kill traffic in Manhattan. The PATH is about to get really crowded (more than it is already).

You can't afford 300 bucks a month you can't afford to own a car in NYC. Take the bus, it's cheaper

Many people who are unhappy with this tax are people who live in NJ where cost of living is significantly lower and it is much more affordable to own a car. Many people who live in NJ work in the city.

There are commuter rails that go from NJ to NYC

This is not really a fair comparison - even without a congestion toll, people have to pay to drive on a road. They need to buy the car, pay for its maintenance, fill it with gas, pay for insurance, pay annual registration fees to help maintain the roads. Presumably some of the money from buying a train ticket goes into doing the equivalent things: purchasing and maintaining the trains, etc.

Not saying the implicit subsidies/taxes on each mode of transport is equal, but it doesn't seem to be as simple as 'one is paid and the other is free'.

Most of the things you mentioned only benefit the car owner, and they can choose to adjust them based on their need and budget.

This is about the cost to other people for your choices: if you buy an SUV, you get the positive effect of feeling more macho but the people whose health is at greater risk as a direct consequence of that decision aren’t consulted. This kind of thing allows those communities to provide the negative feedback required to keep a system stable.

You're clearly not arguing in good faith when you suggest the only reason people buy an SUV is to feel macho. You know women own them too?

Yes, for the same reasons – the desire to feel strong and powerful isn’t exclusive to men! That product class has a higher profit margin so car companies have been running a marketing campaign for decades promoting them as powerful, safe, etc. to get buyers to pay extra.

This is much more expensive than the equivalent trip on a train.

That rather depends how you define expensive doesn't it?

The toll is per vehicle and not per person. The price paid per vehicle is massively higher for the train.

Which makes sense, because a train is much more efficient per-person than a car.

Except, you own your car and have to pay to maintain it already. A better comparison would be taxis, which we do pay for per-use, like with a train.

That’s far from universally true and for the median household it’s a significant expense forced on them by past generations’ planning decisions.

That also doesn’t address the reasoning behind this decision: cars are a major health risk and entail significant quality of life reduction. Taxing negative externalities is a textbook way to shrink them, and your sunk cost in car ownership doesn’t have any effect of the costs to the communities you drive through.

I thought this site was for intelligent comments?

You're paying to ride a train because 1) train lines are magnitudes more expensive to build than roads, as in billions of dollars per mile for underground tunnels (also that cost is not borne by riders) 2) you do not own the expensive prime movers and rolling stock you ride in 3) there are substantial operations overheads to running a train service (electricity, personnel etc.) that need to be recovered.

> I thought this site was for intelligent comments?

Comments like this add nothing of value toHN discourse, somewhat ironically.

The ability to travel down roads and paths has been a major part of life for centuries whether by foot, horse, car or whatever. The land you travel over was there before humans evolved. Blocking that is always going to be a bit controversial. Trains on the other hand don't exist unless someone pays to build them.

As opposed to roads, which exist in nature when there is no one paid to build them.

I own the car and pay taxes that are partially used to build/maintain highway infrastructure.

I do not own the train. I guess it's true that my taxes were partially used to subsidize the tracks without my consent, though.

The taxes go to the administrative costs of driving.

The multiple billions of dollars per year that each state spends maintaining road infrastructure comes from everyone, regardless of participation.

Pay per usage seams fair, but its usually a regressive tax.

Joe Schmoe who needs to drive for his work or small business shelling out 15 bucks per day hits different than Joe Apple not even noticing this expense while driving from the jewelry too the theater.