It might have been my pal Elliott Sclar, one of the founding members of URPE. He's at Columbia Univ.
> Also, it should be noted that using "user fees" to finance capital
> expenditure of transit is misplaced anyway, it is not the rider who is the
> economic beneficiary of transit, but the land owner who's location rents
> capture the investment in transit. The "free rider" is not the one riding.
More broadly, land rent can be taxed to a fare thee well for anything, not just transit. The rider's net benefit depends on the fare. In the standard theory, of course, the inframarginal riders get some premium over the fare. In practice, increased property tax revenues accrue from transit development, though I doubt you see any special levies. They might be illegal. There are cases -- I think -- where the government gets greater benefit because it owns property near a station and rents it out.
> IMO, fees should only be used against congestion, capital financing should
> come from value capture or land value taxation. Not even a big fan of
> general taxation as a source of such financing since that amounts to a
> transfer of wealth from the general public to land owners (as usual).
I agree capital outlays need not come from fares, though as I said there are models where the proceeds of congestion charges equal the amount of optimal capacity expansion.