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.