> the portion of total costs of rail systems not defrayed by riders
> [...] is an implied external benefit to others, justifying its
> finance from general revenue. But the implied level seems high.
For things like this, I usually compare the benefit to what a system would look like if it wasn't a monopoly (and state-monopolies are usually the only ones worth a darn). If you look at the IRT/BMT/IND subway system in NYC and compare it to the MTA of today, you can see that it's worth it to everyone to have a highly functional interconneted system with one set of rules and fares as opposed to several disjoint ones. Similarly with the FAA running the airways and the Interstate Freeway system providing a densely interconnected network for the transportation of goods. In the Bay Area you can compare the bridges to the old system of ferries; I think the case is plain enough that everyone benefits from these kinds of infrastructure projects whether they drive across the bridge or take the subway or not, at least to the same extent as other kind of 'common good' things like public education for people who don't have kids and fire trucks for people whose houses don't burn down.
It seems high, okay. Is it high enough to justify it? I think so. Does it have to be any higher than that? It'd be nice, but: no.
> I guess you could say if a metro system in city X shut
> down, you'd have daily chaos, nothing could function, ergo the
> subsidy is justified. I guess.
I don't think it needs to be that extreme: most of the time when people drive to work or take a bus to the store, GDP is going up; that's good enough for me. But hey: watch what happened to NYC when the subway went down (like the last major power outtage), or watch what happened to BART when the Bay Bridge collapsed.
> Though with no metro, people would have adjusted their behavior
> and found some way to cope, albeit with less efficiency and higher
> costs.
... which would be a net drain on GDP. I think it comes down to: it's going to get done anyway, why not do it in the most efficient, fair way? BTW, what makes you think that the Metro isn't just such an adjustment already? There was a time, you know, before the Metro :-)
> I wouldn't be so sure that outside finance is more progressive
> than fares. Don't forget, someone paying a fare is getting
> something back directly.
*shrug*
They "get" to go to work?
Also: the bigger-benefit systems (i.e., the ones that more 'rich white fatheads' are likely to use) have lower subsidies ... so if you're that worried about it, that should help some. But really, it needs to go the other way; some progress is being made here with things like Transit-Chek:
But I think the general idea stands: congestion pricing is bad policy.
> regional/metropolitan systems are financed predominantly by state and
> local revenues as far as taxes go, and as everyone knows those are not
> as progressive as Federal taxes.
True, though most states that have an income tax have a progressive one. It's only places like Illinois and Colorado that are stupid about it :-) That being said, California's top bracket is like $45k ... which is pretty low.
----
Here's what I don't get: Wojtek wants more transit, but he doesn't want taxes to pay for it ... he wants 'rich white fatheads' to pay for it. You know what you get when you don't have taxes pay for transit? You get crappy boondoggles like this:
/jordan