Re:Company built its own rail terminal in NYC to avoid relyi...
by sokoloff on Thursday May 01, 2025 @06:25AM
(#43855823)
Isn’t the new bike parking facility next to Centraal in Amsterdam a massive counterexample? That clearly supports mixed-mode commuting, right?
Re:Company built its own rail terminal in NYC to avoid relyi...
by withinboredom on Thursday May 01, 2025 @06:55AM
(#43856040)
You can do it because it’s easy, but when you file your taxes, you have to choose one to count as a tax break. In 2024, driving gave you the biggest tax break.
Re:Company built its own rail terminal in NYC to avoid relyi...
by sokoloff on Thursday May 01, 2025 @06:59AM
(#43856076)
If government funds were used to build or finance the parking facility, I’d argue that’s taxes supporting/encouraging mixed mode commuting. (I have no idea if that was 100.00% private or not.)
Re:Company built its own rail terminal in NYC to avoid relyi...
by TimTheTinker on Thursday May 01, 2025 @11:20AM
(#43858870)
It's insane to me that some countries have such high taxes that tax breaks on daily transportation choices become the most important variable when deciding which mode of transportation to use.
Re:Company built its own rail terminal in NYC to avoid relyi...
by brnt on Thursday May 01, 2025 @01:09PM
(#43860481)
You should turn that around: if getting people off the road is something you really care about then make it pay.
Re:Company built its own rail terminal in NYC to avoid relyi...
by TimTheTinker on Thursday May 01, 2025 @04:18PM
(#43862886)
I take no position on which mode of transportation is preferable for others to take (though I have my own preferences, to be sure).
Where I come from, taxes are comparatively low. So it's weird to see people talking about them influencing their behavior so significantly. That's a lot of power the government has... I'd rather keep my money than let bureaucrats spend it to manipulate the public's behavior.
Re:Company built its own rail terminal in NYC to avoid relyi...
by Symbiote on Thursday May 01, 2025 @04:22PM
(#43862936)
Taxes spent on building roads presumably significant influence your behavior.
Taxing cars puts the cost of those roads more directly on the users of them.
Re:Company built its own rail terminal in NYC to avoid relyi...
by TimTheTinker on Thursday May 01, 2025 @11:19PM
(#43865870)
I'm not talking about building infrastructure or paying directly for things that cost money for the government to do, I'm talking about market manipulation.
Re:Company built its own rail terminal in NYC to avoid relyi...
by brnt on Friday May 02, 2025 @11:08PM
(#43876586)
Wait till you discover how capitalists manipulate markets...
Re:Company built its own rail terminal in NYC to avoid relyi...
by brnt on Thursday May 01, 2025 @10:00AM
(#43857780)
In addition to sibling: the bike is, for many people, already, 'too cheap to meter', so the tax advantage goes to the train subscription. And quite some employers either give you a train subscription, or let you deduct kilometers travelled at some rate. That rate depends on modality, but the subscription for free is usually (always) a much better deal, _if_ you really don't need that car.
Whoever is left driving cars (which is, also in the Netherlands, a large fraction), can't for instance drive up to some remote train station, and rail the rest. That's how you can get those who still drive out of their cars; those that already take trains are covered by the rules as they are.
Here in the Netherlands there's actually fewer routes than a 100 years ago (country was full of local 'intertown' trams then). Housing stock has expanded a few times over since the war, but rail routes (light of heavy) stayed put. It's ridiculous to build a 5000 home neighborhood and not plunk down some steel bars! Or at least reserve the space. Meanwhile, bus services are down YoY in frequency, reach. They now basically only serve as a last resort for those that really have no other options and thus can be forced to deal with incredible transit durations.
Even cycling, which in denser cities can absorb some of the commuter traffic, is not encouraged as part of mixed transport. Tax law is such that one modality can be compensated.
The Netherlands has none of the geology to deal with that Switzerland has, so I don't know what excuse there is. All energy went into cycling I suppose. Not bad, but it's about the network, and never about the one modality.