You also subsidize them through insurance claims -- they are less safe, but the drivers of SUVs pay the same insurance rates as those who drive normal cars.
OK I have seen the tax break on the oversized SUV's and trucks. I agree that is is subsidy. Of course out tax code is full of these. Renters subsidize home owners and the investers in income producing reale estate. Wokers subsidize investors captial gains. I'm not arguing for or against these specfics, just noting that we have many of these situations.
On the insurance issue I think it is a bit more complex. I have a hard time parsing out vehicle safety vs. driver safety. I undersant that there is a lot of self selection going on but I'm more inclined to lay the risk on the driver than on the vehicle.
Stephen Harding <[email hidden]> wrote in news:__Bif.782$iZ3.460@trndny03:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Andy Gee wrote:
>But my biggest subsidy is peculiar to Manhattan. Stockbroker from >Connecticut drives to NY in his X5 because the farm state >congessional delegation decided to take my federal transportation >money and pay for a road from his subdivision and not pay for a rail >hub in the former World Trade Center site. I think we're getting a >museum and a bus stop or something instead. Fair enough. But he >then emits ozone precursors at
So how do you feel taking subsidies from the American taxpayer to promote your mass transit system? I believe the over-riding bulk of Federal mass transit subsidy actually goes to NYC.
I'm going to put my statistician hat on for a moment. Federal mass transit money is part of Federal transportation money, which includes highways. If there is a transportation bill for $286 billion, of which, say, $20 billion is for mass transit, and New York, where the overwhelming majority of mass transit riders lives, gets the majority of that money, we're still paying out much more to other people's highways.
Sure, but there's a lot more people using national highways than people in NYC using mass transit!
Please let me clarify this. Someone (me, for example) in New York City pays out $1.40 or so in Federal taxes for each dollar in Federal money received. Add to that a the cost of living factor -- $100,000 is "average" in Manhattan but lets a family have lots left over in most other places. Plus, unlike other places with air quality issues, New York City's air problems are almost exclusively from sources originating from outside the city: automobile commuters and midwestern coal power plants. Finally, I'd like to separate true "national highways" which should be a common expense from local roads masquerading as Interstates. The only thing they do is at value to local sprawl, and should be paid for locally.
IMHO, mass transit isn't going to work in the US until private transit costs so much time (or money) in congestion (or use costs) that alternatives start to kick in. That seemed to be starting to happen with $3/gal gas but now that's gone [for a while]. I think $5/gal gas will probably do more for public transit than just about anything else anyone could come up with.
Frankly, higher gas prices may get people to re-think what vehicles they buy - i.e. take gas milage into consideration, or get a hybrid..
BUT - many places there is NO WAY to use Mass Transit simply because it DOES NOT EXIST!. Yes, in cities you can get around, but here in the NJ suburbs you cannot get from point A to point B via mass transit unless points A&B happen to be along one of the rail lines going into NYC (or Philly for southern NJ). And if you don't live along one of the rail lines, you have to drive to get to a train station. Also many buses are INTERSTATE (i.e., originate in NJ but terminate in NYC). Although they make many stops in NJ, you cannot get off in NJ, you can only get on the bus (You must stay on all the way into NYC). This is fine if you are commuting into NYC....
