Tolling Urban Freeways

[Mdcastle]

So would everyone be happy if the gasoline tax were raised to pay for 100% of the cost of traffic lanes (and to make sure car-users aren't unfairly subsidizing other users, transit users pay 100% of their costs also, and there's a new tax on bicycles to pay for bicycles?) Would people then stop complaining every time a road is widened in the suburbs or more parking is built? And stop dreaming of the suburbs becoming an exact copy of the cities?

Or we could raise the tax some more, and finally get MN 41 and MN 410 done...

[Rich]

Subsidizing their decisions so they don't have to pay their true cost punishes people who don't make that decision yet still end up footing the bill.

So when government subsidizes someone’s decision to ride the LRT, that punishes people who don’t make that decision yet still end up footing the bill?

[at40man]

There's a lot of reasons besides loving cars that people choose to live in the suburbs. Even all the freeways were toll roads I'd still live out here, so it's not a 'market distortion" that makes people want to live here and not the city. Although make it too expensive to visit the city and I wonder how many people would find a job out in the suburbs rather than pay to drive in or move closer.

Nobody here has any problems with you living a car dependent lifestyle in the suburbs, we just don't want to subsidize it.

I say this as a supporter of LRT -- but with all due respect, when I read the online comments in the news, people in the suburbs feel the same way about the subsidized offerings in the city that they may not use. Exact same argument.

I live in North St Paul, and find value in being close to my job at 3M and within a short distance of most stuff I use (I can walk or bike to most places). I could live in Lowertown, in comparison, but when I compare my expenses of when I lived there from 2006-2010 compared to my current residence N. St Paul -- well, N. St Paul is much easier on the pocket book. Does that count as "suburban living"?

[ECtransplant]

Transit subsidies don't come anywhere close to making up for all the ways society subsidizes the suburbs. Sprawling highways and free parking are only a fraction of it. The home mortgage interest deduction, foreign wars to keep gas cheap, municipalities paying companies to move to the burbs, failures to internalize the externalities of sprawl, etc. etc.

[Rich]

Do city dwellers not deduct mortgage interest? Do they never drive cars or ride buses fueled with cheap gas? Do they never park in the street for free? Do they not lure business with tax dollars (Vikings, Wells Fargo etc.)?

[ECtransplant]

Homeownership is higher in the suburbs than the city. Suburbanites drive more than city dwellers. Free parking is much more abundant in the suburbs than the city. These all are fairly obvious. A $10 subsidy to live in the suburbs with a $1 subsidy in the city is no different than a $9 tax on the city.

[Rich]

There are $10 of suburban subsidies for every $1 of urban subsidies? Does this stat have a source?

[ECtransplant]

I don't know the exact ratio. Just illustrating the point. Do you dispute those things all favor the suburbs?

[Rich]

I don’t dispute it at all. But 10 to 1 seems hyperbolic. I’m here to be persuaded. So if anyone has actual statistics I'm all ears.

[EOst]

As a society, we subsidize all sorts of things that most people don't complain one bit about. Criticizing subsidies for the pure fact that they're subsidies is hypocritical and, frankly, illiberal.

[Anondson]

You might consider the water treatment costs a subsidy that induces new construction in suburbs. If new homes had to pay the full cost of treating potable water and treating waste water all costs of new construction would be much higher and we probably would have seen much more infill than converting productive farms to neighborhoods.

[Rich]

I pay $106 a month for waste water management in my suburban home. Doesn’t that cover the full cost? Also I have a well, and so do all my neighbors, so we pay the full cost of our own potable water.

[ECtransplant]

. Criticizing subsidies for the pure fact that they're subsidies is hypocritical and, frankly, illiberal.

Subsidizing one lifestyle over another seems pretty illiberal to me. Let alone subsidizing the one that is less sustainable and more damaging to the environment and public health

[go4guy]

Transit subsidies don't come anywhere close to making up for all the ways society subsidizes the suburbs. Sprawling highways and free parking are only a fraction of it. The home mortgage interest deduction, foreign wars to keep gas cheap, municipalities paying companies to move to the burbs, failures to internalize the externalities of sprawl, etc. etc.

Free parking? You dont think someone pays for that parking? If I park on my property, I PAID for that property and am paying taxes on that property. Same goes for any store. The city or state and for damn sure, not your taxes, are paying for that parking. If a city pays a company to move to their city, that does not come out of your pocket. They are attracting jobs for people that live in their community. I would argue this lessens the need for long commutes. Not everyone can live in the city, and not everyone should. I live in a suburb. I pay for my water, parks, roads, and anything else with my property taxes. That is how a municipality works. These things aren't being paid by you. Maybe we really need to evaluate the cost of providing adequate spaces for bikers. How are bikers paying their way?

[David Greene]

Look, I think the suburbs are too subsidized but subsidy in itself is not bad. Way back when, those subsidies were put in place because people thought it was a good idea. Home ownership is (was) a great wealth builder, so at the end of WWII we wanted to increase home ownership. The particular implementation was poor, to say the least, but that doesn't *necessarily* mean the subsidy itself was a bad idea.

On the other hand, subsidizing car ownership (even electrics and EVs) seems like a bad idea because they don't build wealth, they suck it dry due to maintenance and depreciation. Unfortunately, because of the way we subsidized home ownership, we almost have to subsidize car ownership so people can get around and the economy can function.

We subsidize all kinds of things. All transportation is subsidized. Utilities are subsidized. The arts are subsidized. These are all public goods and they *should* be subsidized. The question is one of balance and how much.

Frankly, it's MUCH more effective to talk to people about why development patterns in the suburbs aren't sustainable than to blame people for getting a subsidy they most likely don't even realize and certainly don't feel like they asked for. The White Bear Lake situation is a good opportunity to talk about our water policy. Not to blame people for living on the lake but to have a conversation about how to naturally restore the lake so it sustains its levels far into the future. At a gut level people have to know diverting water from the Mississippi isn't going to keep lake levels up for long if everything else stays the same. People understand that getting a bonus isn't a stabilizer like a good regular salary is.

And we subsidize the auto plenty in the cities. Look at all the parking lots in Uptown, free street parking, etc. The beam in one's own eye and all that...

[David Greene]

live in a suburb. I pay for my water, parks, roads, and anything else with my property taxes. That is how a municipality works. These things aren't being paid by you.

Actually, they are due to tax base sharing (fiscal disparities program). Mind you, I think tax base sharing is a great idea, but don't pretend all the tax money everyone pays in their local area stays there.

Minneapolis puts way more into the state and regional sales tax than it gets back. Minneapolis is in fact subsidizing a ton of things, particularly the suburbs. If Minneapolis kept the sales tax generated within the city limits, we'd have a pretty robust transit system right now, among other things. Minneapolis (or any other city) doesn't see a penny of the sales tax generated within its borders until it's passed through state and regional hands.

Accounting by dollars, Minneapolis is not subsidized at all. It subsidizes everything else. Again, I am *not* saying that's necessarily bad, just stating the facts.

[ECtransplant]

Free parking? You dont think someone pays for that parking? If I park on my property, I PAID for that property and am paying taxes on that property. Same goes for any store. The city or state and for damn sure, not your taxes, are paying for that parking. If a city pays a company to move to their city, that does not come out of your pocket. They are attracting jobs for people that live in their community. I would argue this lessens the need for long commutes. Not everyone can live in the city, and not everyone should. I live in a suburb. I pay for my water, parks, roads, and anything else with my property taxes. That is how a municipality works. These things aren't being paid by you. Maybe we really need to evaluate the cost of providing adequate spaces for bikers. How are bikers paying their way?

If you're parking on the street, the city, county, or whatever entity is responsible for that road pays for your parking. The sum of all gas taxes, tolls, and user fees covers less than half the road costs in Minnesota. And a city doesn't create jobs by paying a company to move to its city from wherever it used to be located. This just moves jobs around while transferring funds from taxpayers to the company.

[mattaudio]

How the heck anyone can claim subsidies, especially subsidies of regressive outcomes, is somehow liberal is beyond me. Is corporate welfare progressive too?

[David Greene]

How the heck anyone can claim subsidies, especially subsidies of regressive outcomes, is somehow liberal is beyond me. Is corporate welfare progressive too?

"Liberal" and "conservative" to me are useless terms along with other pigeonholing efforts, but I'll run with it.

Certain subsidies are "liberal." WIC and unemployment benefits, for example.

[FISHMANPET]

Transit subsidies don't come anywhere close to making up for all the ways society subsidizes the suburbs. Sprawling highways and free parking are only a fraction of it. The home mortgage interest deduction, foreign wars to keep gas cheap, municipalities paying companies to move to the burbs, failures to internalize the externalities of sprawl, etc. etc.

Free parking? You dont think someone pays for that parking? If I park on my property, I PAID for that property and am paying taxes on that property. Same goes for any store. The city or state and for damn sure, not your taxes, are paying for that parking. If a city pays a company to move to their city, that does not come out of your pocket. They are attracting jobs for people that live in their community. I would argue this lessens the need for long commutes. Not everyone can live in the city, and not everyone should. I live in a suburb. I pay for my water, parks, roads, and anything else with my property taxes. That is how a municipality works. These things aren't being paid by you. Maybe we really need to evaluate the cost of providing adequate spaces for bikers. How are bikers paying their way?

Your parking at the store is paid for by your purchase whether you drive there or not. What if your goods were cheaper but you had to pay to park? Some people would still drive, and they'd pay a little bit more, but their grocery bill would be a bit cheaper. If you choose to bike or walk you wouldn't pay to park (maybe you'd pay a much smaller fee to park your bike, considering bike parking is much cheaper to provide) so your grocery bill would be cheaper and your overall bill would be cheaper as well.

Yes, it's paid for, but when you have no choice but to pay for it, why would you make any rational choice other than to use it?