> Cities are _expensive_. Especially dense cities like NYC.
But much cheaper per capita than everyone owning a car, an acre, traveling long distances for everything, and providing infrastructure etc. for all those people. MTA provides 6.5 million rides per day (!). Imagine that in daily car trips.
The difference is that people need to put their money together and build shared resources like the subway, and then then some think it's more expensive because taxes and expenditures are higher. But you don't need a car, gas, insurance, etc.; the store is two blocks away; there is much more of everything. It works really well and people pay lots of extra money to live in much smaller spaces in cities.
> But much cheaper per capita than everyone owning a car
No, it's not. One ride on MTA costs around $20. The average US commute is 40 miles (both ways), so that $20 is actually more expensive than the IRS value for car depreciation.
> MTA provides 6.5 million rides per day (!).
Easily. Look at Houston, TX. Then compare the cost of real estate between Houston and NYC. I suggest to look at the average square footage of residences.
Make sure you don't cry when you realize how much NYC is screwing with your perception.
> But you don't need a car, gas, insurance, etc.
Why are you assuming that subway is cheaper than a car?
? The subway is $3 and the most expensive bus is I think $7.xx [0], and those are without bulk purchase (e.g., monthly passes) or discounts (seniors, etc.). Do you mean something like the Long Island Railroad? That goes out to the suburbs; it's not much part of NYC density.
> The average US commute is 40 miles (both ways)
Do you mean 80 mi total?
The IRS milage depreciation number and is now 70 cents/mile [1] and doesn't include insurance. I'm not sure it includes overall depreciation of the car's value due to age (i.e., excluding milage?).
40 mi daily would be $28/day, 80 mi $56/day.
> Easily. Look at Houston, TX. Then compare the cost of real estate between Houston and NYC. I suggest to look at the average square footage of residences.
Square footage in NYC is smaller, of course, which has the side effect of density. Overall people far prefer NYC to Houston (based on supply and demand and prices). I'm not sure what your point is beyond that? Do you mean Houston has as many commuters as NYC? Obviously that's not true.
LA might be an example of something approaching NYC scale without much public transit.
It's a lie. The true cost is around $20, and with capital expenses of new construction, it's closer to $30. Although pricing the capital construction cost is always tricky.
You just don't see the true cost in the _ticket_ price, because productive citizens in suburbs are forced to subsidize inner-city transit through taxes.
You can compute the true cost of a ride by trivially dividing the total yearly budget by the total number of trips.
> Do you mean 80 mi total?
No, 40 miles of total driving within a day.
> Square footage in NYC is smaller, of course, which has the side effect of density. Overall people far prefer NYC to Houston
No. People don't so much _choose_ as are forced to stay in NYC by economics mercilessly crushing them into dense shoebox-sized apartments.
> productive citizens in suburbs are forced to subsidize inner-city transit through taxes.
Could you say specifically what you mean? People in NYC pay state taxes for things that happen in the suburbs and upstate, and around the country and in other parts of the world. That's part of living in a community. NYC is also an incredible economic (and cultural and ...) engine without which, most of those suburbs and the jobs of the suburbanites wouldn't exist. (Also, the MTA runs to the suburbs.)
> It's a lie.
I provided a cite. Maybe you can do better on HN than this sad attempt at aggression.
> The true cost is around $20
We were talking about the cost to individuals of transportation. The subway costs $3 per trip, before any discounts.
> People don't so much _choose_ as are forced to stay in NYC by economics mercilessly crushing them into dense shoebox-sized apartments.
You'll have to provide some evidence. The data says people pay a lot of money to live in NYC, in tiny apartments. Many of people I know would love to live there if they could afford it. People love to visit from all over the world. People buy homes there who could afford to live anywhere. There are songs about it, you might have heard.
Most of what you have is just aggressive words - 'lie', 'forced'. What do you have against NYC? Did someone run over your toes at an intersection? And if you don't like it, why insist everyone else must think and feel the same as you?
> NYC is also an incredible economic (and cultural and ...) engine without which, most of those suburbs and the jobs of the suburbanites wouldn't exist. (Also, the MTA runs to the suburbs.)
I was speaking more in general. In other cities, the dense inner cores are overwhelmingly subsidized by the suburbs and/or urban villages ("suburb within a city").
This can be easily seen if you look at the _personal_ income tax stats.
> NYC is also an incredible economic (and cultural and ...) engine without which, most of those suburbs and the jobs of the suburbanites wouldn't exist.
Or maybe not having an endless pit of generational despair would have ensured that other states had better economics, resulting in less polarization and the true golden age for the US?
If you want to talk about "would haves", I can also invent tons of scenarios.
> We were talking about the cost to individuals of transportation. The subway costs $3 per trip, before any discounts.
We can also sponsor every car owner to the tune of $500 a month, and they would also have 3$ trips, before any discounts. See? Money comes out of somewhere, and by allocating funds towards unproductive transit, we move them away from better projects.
Money is a proxy for the natural and human resources, and they're not unlimited.
> You'll have to provide some evidence. The data says people pay a lot of money to live in NYC, in tiny apartments.
Look at your argument backwards: what is forcing people to cram into tiny apartments that cost more than mansions just a few hours away? The answer is simple: jobs.
The runaway density pollution resulted in economy that is forcing people to migrate to be in proximity to ever-densifying city cores. They don't have a choice, just like you couldn't chose not to breathe toxic smoke back in the industrial era.
> Most of what you have is just aggressive words - 'lie', 'forced'. What do you have against NYC?
I'm using exactly the same language as urbanists. They force that vocabulary on the unsuspecting people, framing discussions in their favor simply by chosing words. Why shouldn't I?
> I was speaking more in general. In other cities, the dense inner cores are overwhelmingly subsidized by the suburbs and/or urban villages ("suburb within a city").
> This can be easily seen if you look at the _personal_ income tax stats.
I don't see how personal income taxes relate - in fact, many cities have higher taxes, which is why some people move to suburbs. Also, what you say disagrees with economics, which generally agrees that cities are the economic engines of modern economies. Is there any question what generates more income, Manhattan or North Hempstead?
And part of the reason for that level of high economic activity is density.
> We can also sponsor every car owner to the tune of $500 a month, and they would also have 3$ trips, before any discounts. See? Money comes out of somewhere, and by allocating funds towards unproductive transit, we move them away from better projects.
We do subsidize car ownership heavily, via fossil fuels, highways, parking, etc. In the 2008 recession, US taxpayers loaned extraordinary amounts of money to the car industry to keep it afloat.
To say mass transit is unproductive is just circular reasoning, based only on your assumptions. Again, afaik economists strongly agree that mass transit is far more efficient, which also seems obvious - why have a separate ICE for each of 40 people on one subway car or bus? Just imagine how much real estate those cars would take, on the road and parking.
> what is forcing people to cram into tiny apartments that cost more than mansions just a few hours away? The answer is simple: jobs.
No, people actually love living in NYC and other dense cities. Lots of people I know do. You can live outside Manhattan or even NYC and work the same jobs (including by using mass transit) - lots of people do that too. But demand is much higher for much smaller space to live in the city, where there are people (humans love being around other humans), restaurants and food, arts, culture, social events, activity in the city that never sleeps (something people love), endless resources.
Manhattan, the most expensive place in the country, is not filled with working class people.
> I'm using exactly the same language as urbanists.
I don't know what you're talking about, but your language betrays the weakness of your arguments. There are no factual bases to them.
> I don't see how personal income taxes relate - in fact, many cities have higher taxes, which is why some people move to suburbs.
Again, buildings don't generate wealth. People do. And personal Federal income taxes serve as a good proxy to see who's contributing more to the US economy.
> We do subsidize car ownership heavily, via fossil fuels, highways, parking, etc.
The car subsidies are NOWHERE close to transit subsidies. In my state, car users pay for everything directly. Yet there are no cities in the US where transit pays even for its running costs without subsidies.
> In the 2008 recession, US taxpayers loaned extraordinary amounts of money to the car industry to keep it afloat.
I agree. We should force all the transit agencies to start paying back what they got as subsidies. Let them raise ticket prices, sell space for ads, whatever.
GM got a $12B bailout in 2008. Sound Transit in Seattle will get more than $100B to build about 50 miles of rail.
> To say mass transit is unproductive is just circular reasoning, based only on your assumptions.
I actually have other evidence. Like accessibility of jobs. A person with a car in 1980-s US had access to about 2-3x businesses than an average European living in a large city with transit.
> Again, afaik economists strongly agree
Who?
> which also seems obvious - why have a separate ICE for each of 40 people on one subway car or bus?
Let me reverse this argument: why have 3 people (number of bus drivers/number of buses) serving as a dedicated driver just for 18 people (average bus load)?
This is not a good use of human potential. It's like having a separate person coming in every day just to turn on your lights!
> Just imagine how much real estate those cars would take, on the road and parking.
Not much more than a bus, actually. About 2-3x more. The average bus load is just around 18 people, even in NYC.
> No, people actually love living in NYC and other dense cities.
Nope. We can check that by looking at total fertility rates. It's a J-shaped curve in the modern societies.
> You can live outside Manhattan or even NYC and work the same jobs (including by using mass transit) - lots of people do that too.
No, you can't. You have only a 30-minute commute budget before it becomes uncomfortable, and so you _have_ to live close enough.
> I don't know what you're talking about, but your language betrays the weakness of your arguments. There are no factual bases to them.
I'm the only one in this thread citing anything but feelings or easily debunked "intuitive" ideas.
Cars are subsidized by the very large externalities of fossil fuels that taxpayers cover: Climate change, a large military, wars, use of economic leverage, etc. ICE drivers don't pay anywhere near the real price of gas.
Your theories aren't verified against reality. There are endless people who commute into NYC and Manhattan specifically for work, via mass transit (such as the LIRR), the bridge and tunnel crowd, etc. I'm confident that more federal taxes are paid per square mile in Manhattan than anywhere in the country. No matter what you think or whatever you are saying about fertility rates (what does that have to do with NYC?), people do love living in New York and other cities.
And how could one bus take up as much room as all the cars its passengers would drive. How long is a bus - 2-3 sedans? And what's wrong with someone driving a bus and providing a service to others - should we get rid of rideshare and taxi drivers too; they only drive one at a time? Is housekeeping also a waste of human potential?
What is the point of insisting on these things? They are mostly factually baseless and/or logically wrong. You won't persuade people by insisting on them.
Science works by checking our theories against reality; before science people had many beliefs that were nonsense. I have had many theories that the facts didn't corroborate, and so as Keynes said, I changed my mind.
Anyway, there isn't much more to say, so I will sign off this discussion. Have a good day!
I am not here to take a position on the larger discussion you're having, but a couple of your points here are deeply flawed.
> Let me reverse this argument: why have 3 people (number of bus drivers/number of buses) serving as a dedicated driver just for 18 people (average bus load)?
They don't. They serve as a dedicated driver for 18 people x however many trips they make in a day. That's a significantly higher number.
> > Just imagine how much real estate those cars would take, on the road and parking.
> Not much more than a bus, actually. About 2-3x more. The average bus load is just around 18 people, even in NYC.
Same problem here. The bus makes several trips; one bus handles 18 people in an average trip but far more people in a day. Those "far more people" take far more than 18 parking spots if they all drive.
> They don't. They serve as a dedicated driver for 18 people x however many trips they make in a day.
> That's a significantly higher number.
That's just 1 trip, because 18 people per bus is already an average. It already takes into account people who do multiple trips.
> Same problem here. The bus makes several trips; one bus handles 18 people in an average trip but far more people in a day. Those "far more people" take far more than 18 parking spots if they all drive.
I see that you're already trying to justify the horribleness of transit by denying it: "Maybe it's not THAT bad".
Given how bad you are at trying to guess my motives, you should probably stop.
I didn't say transit was not horrible; I said your reasoning is faulty. You didn't address the issue at all.
Perhaps you attempted to, by mentioning that people do multiple trips. OK, how many do they do? 2? 3? What's the average? But how many does a driver do? 8 a day? 12? 20? So your argument " why have 3 people (number of bus drivers/number of buses) serving as a dedicated driver just for 18 people (average bus load)?" is completely flawed. One driver is driving 18 people per load, times the average number of trips per day that the driver makes, divided by the average number of trips per day that a passenger makes. That is still far higher than 18, and your logic on this point is still broken.
Is it possible to calculate how much free at time of use roads are? How much of the tax bill goes towards that?
If we are going to talk about how much the cost of public transportation such as trains or buses are covered by taxes it would only be fair to look at roads and personal vehicles too.
> If we are going to talk about how much the cost of public transportation such as trains or buses are covered by taxes it would only be fair to look at roads and personal vehicles too.
Absolutely! I agree that we should be pricing pollution and other negative externalities. But in addition, we should fairly price the all public services. And people who need public assistance should just get money.
And of course, we should be penalizing density pollution. There's no reason to build high-rise offices, and we should be demolishing them by now (except for historically-significant buildings).
May I introduce you to the budget for the MTA that is larger than the GDP of several countries?
Cities are _expensive_. Especially dense cities like NYC.
> Those big, wide areas out towards the fringes? They generate next to no tax income and cost a lot to maintain.
And this is the biggest lie.
These suburbs? They generate most of the wealth in the US because the most affluent people live there. Buildings don't produce value, _people_ do.