01-31-2018, 03:37 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018, 03:37 PM by danbrotherston.)
(01-31-2018, 03:30 PM)SammyOES Wrote: It is just semantics, to a point. But its also important. Because if you do what ijmorlan is doing and pretend that direct usage fees are all that matter you get to logical conclusions like:
"My observation was about people who are in effect complaining about the public funding for public transit, implicitly saying the 40% (probably higher in Manhattan where the discussion was) should be 100%, without even noticing that the equivalent number for the road network is 0%."
This is a silly way of looking at the issue - because, again, drivers are paying for the road in other ways. Its really disingenuous to compare user fees directly between public transit and road networks while ignoring that the road network has a much bigger user base and those people are funding it through their taxes.
The discussion was about the farebox recover ratio, which is a measure of the proportion of the direct user fees which pay for transit. The direct user fees which pay for roads *IS* zero, (or nearly zero, if you want to count the 407).
So when you keep saying that drives pay for their roads because they're also taxpayers you're missing the entire point. Either that, or you're implying that transit users aren't taxpayers, which is quite likely the crux of the issue for many people---they believe transit users don't contribute to society.
This conversation is frankly, tiresome, drivers do not pay a direct user fee for accessing the roads. I don't own a car, but I pay all the same taxes that a driver does. This should not be a contentious issue.