DDOT wants to charge $8/hr for street parking, require payment 24 hours/day

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Everyone who pays taxes pays for the roads, including those bike riding people who don't put nearly as much wear and tear on the surface.

And no, the cost for gas is highly subsidized and the taxes on it don't come close to paying for the roads.

ironically it is the people who are driving heavily subsidized cars who are the freeloaders.

The lion's share of income taxes are paid by drivers, who obviously also pay the gas tax and and an almost impossibly long list of fees on top of that. The notion that they're some kind of welfare queens who are sponging off the rest of us is just bizarre. If drivers aren't paying their own way, then no one else in any other conceivable category is either, except maybe the crazy rich.

This is not hard. But yet you don’t seem to get it. So let me explain it for you.

If you pay taxes and don’t drive, you are subsidizing those who drive.

If you pay taxes and drive, your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive.

The more you drive, the more your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive or drive less.

Drivers are not, by any measure, paying their own way.

There's approximately 300,000 cars registered for the city, and there's approximately 315,000 households in the city. "Drivers" and "taxpayers", by and large, are the same people. The likelihood of someone owning a car(s) increases with income and you know what else increases with income? That's right! How much they pay in taxes!

Everyone pays taxes. One-third of people don't drive.

Now, as it happens, I am both a taxpayer and a driver. I am also a transit user, a bicyclist, and a pedestrian. I pay $0 in traffic citations because I don't break traffic laws when I drive.

Everyone does not pay taxes! And the car registration numbers are the numbers! If one-third of adults actually didnt drive (and don't own cars), everyone else is going to have to own a whole lot of cars for the math to work out right. Obviously, the one-third figure is bogus.

Yes, you're right, billionaires don't pay taxes, at least not in the US tax system. Everyone else does, though.

One third of people living in the United States do not have a driver license.

The US has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. The top 1 percent pay roughly half of all taxes.

You mean to say that income taxes are paid by those who actually have income? The horror!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this thread: many suburbanite bridge and tunnel people who don't go to DC anyway.

Hint: We are tired of subsidizing your car use. Get over it and cry more people. lol.

Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Keep crying, oh privileged one. It's not going to make your silly notions any the more correct.

Gas taxes and "outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees . . . and laughably expensive traffic citations" don't begin to cover the costs of building and maintaining roads. Here is a deep dive into some data that might begin to get that through to your thick skull:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/21/drivers-pay-4x-more-for-cell-phones-than-roads

The burden of building and maintaining roads falls on general taxation. Many of those taxpayers - both rich and poor - drive, but plenty do not (including some surgeons).

The clear takeaway is that drivers, collectively, are some of the biggest welfare queens in America. Deal with it and move on without slinging nonsense everywhere you go.

And here's an analysis done by the Cato Institute, of all places, that demonstrates that even California - which has some of the highest car use fees in the nation - subsidizes drivers: https://www.cato.org/blog/driving-california-subsidized-1

Our finding is that driving-related expenditures exceed revenues by over $3 billion . . . So, in California, assertions by transit advocates that driving is subsidized appear to be empirically supported. Comparable analyses in other states may yield different conclusions. Although subsidies for driving are smaller than those for transit, they nonetheless merit criticism from those of us who believe in small government and fiscal responsibility.

I like the super weird blogs people cite on this thread. It's like they're citing, as an authority, some strange AM radio station they heard while driving through Alabama. This guy said it! It must be true!

You are drawing an equivalence between the Cato Institute and an AM radio station in Alabama?

Isn’t it cute when ignorance becomes a qualification?

Ignomarus: The Cato Institute is the leading libertarian think-tank. Even they admit that driving is subsidized.

Obviously, they were referring to the kooky "usa streets" blog link you posted. But Cato is full of kooks too.

Here you are making stuff up again. They replied to the post that linked to the Cato Institute.

The blog you seek to denigrate describes analysis conducted by the Tax Foundation, which is a right-leaning think tank.

Your ignorance, chauvinism, and reliance on ad hominem attacks is downright pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Good. There's no reason the city should be subsidizing personal vehicles.

If anything the entire downtown area should be a parking-free zone along with every hotspot corridor - H St., U St., 14th St. should all be loading zone and 15-minute rideshare/delivery driver pickup and dropoff only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Everyone who pays taxes pays for the roads, including those bike riding people who don't put nearly as much wear and tear on the surface.

And no, the cost for gas is highly subsidized and the taxes on it don't come close to paying for the roads.

ironically it is the people who are driving heavily subsidized cars who are the freeloaders.

The lion's share of income taxes are paid by drivers, who obviously also pay the gas tax and and an almost impossibly long list of fees on top of that. The notion that they're some kind of welfare queens who are sponging off the rest of us is just bizarre. If drivers aren't paying their own way, then no one else in any other conceivable category is either, except maybe the crazy rich.

This is not hard. But yet you don’t seem to get it. So let me explain it for you.

If you pay taxes and don’t drive, you are subsidizing those who drive.

If you pay taxes and drive, your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive.

The more you drive, the more your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive or drive less.

Drivers are not, by any measure, paying their own way.

By this logic metro riders should also pay "their own" and fares should be substantially higher. Metro fares would need to be around 10x their current level for riders to fully cover their share of metro costs. This means that your one way trip (during weekday hours) should cost anywhere from $22.5 to $67.5 and a one-day unlimited pass should cost $135.

Apparently you do not understand externalities. Please enroll in an Econ 101 class and get back to us when you have the basic knowledge required to have a meaningful conversation on this topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Everyone who pays taxes pays for the roads, including those bike riding people who don't put nearly as much wear and tear on the surface.

And no, the cost for gas is highly subsidized and the taxes on it don't come close to paying for the roads.

ironically it is the people who are driving heavily subsidized cars who are the freeloaders.

The lion's share of income taxes are paid by drivers, who obviously also pay the gas tax and and an almost impossibly long list of fees on top of that. The notion that they're some kind of welfare queens who are sponging off the rest of us is just bizarre. If drivers aren't paying their own way, then no one else in any other conceivable category is either, except maybe the crazy rich.

This is not hard. But yet you don’t seem to get it. So let me explain it for you.

If you pay taxes and don’t drive, you are subsidizing those who drive.

If you pay taxes and drive, your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive.

The more you drive, the more your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive or drive less.

Drivers are not, by any measure, paying their own way.

By this logic metro riders should also pay "their own" and fares should be substantially higher. Metro fares would need to be around 10x their current level for riders to fully cover their share of metro costs. This means that your one way trip (during weekday hours) should cost anywhere from $22.5 to $67.5 and a one-day unlimited pass should cost $135.

Apparently you do not understand externalities. Please enroll in an Econ 101 class and get back to us when you have the basic knowledge required to have a meaningful conversation on this topic.

Physician, heal thyself

[Anonymous]

The level of entitlement in this thread is astounding. Believe it or not, people LIVE near U st and need parking for visitors, families, repair people, etc. But it's always clogged up with you bridge and tunnel people.

We don't live in DC to facilitate your bar hopping, bridge and tunnel people. Go away. 8 bucks? It should be more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The level of entitlement in this thread is astounding. Believe it or not, people LIVE near U st and need parking for visitors, families, repair people, etc. But it's always clogged up with you bridge and tunnel people.

We don't live in DC to facilitate your bar hopping, bridge and tunnel people. Go away. 8 bucks? It should be more.

What tunnels exactly are you referring to?

[Anonymous]

It's extremely cheap to rent a bike on Capital Bikeshare. In fact, it's cheaper than pretty much any other city's bike sharing program. Those fees don't come anywhere close to covering the program's expenses, even though Capital Bikeshare says its users tend to make six figure incomes. The only reason the program can even function is because taxpayers have contributed tens of millions to dollars to cover the shortfall left by cyclists' artificially low rental fees. Why shouldn't Capital Bikeshare fees be raised by enough to cover its expenses? Other cities' bike sharing programs are self financing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's extremely cheap to rent a bike on Capital Bikeshare. In fact, it's cheaper than pretty much any other city's bike sharing program. Those fees don't come anywhere close to covering the program's expenses, even though Capital Bikeshare says its users tend to make six figure incomes. The only reason the program can even function is because taxpayers have contributed tens of millions to dollars to cover the shortfall left by cyclists' artificially low rental fees. Why shouldn't Capital Bikeshare fees be raised by enough to cover its expenses? Other cities' bike sharing programs are self financing.

lol

wouldn't you be happier if you took up a different hobby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Everyone who pays taxes pays for the roads, including those bike riding people who don't put nearly as much wear and tear on the surface.

And no, the cost for gas is highly subsidized and the taxes on it don't come close to paying for the roads.

ironically it is the people who are driving heavily subsidized cars who are the freeloaders.

The lion's share of income taxes are paid by drivers, who obviously also pay the gas tax and and an almost impossibly long list of fees on top of that. The notion that they're some kind of welfare queens who are sponging off the rest of us is just bizarre. If drivers aren't paying their own way, then no one else in any other conceivable category is either, except maybe the crazy rich.

This is not hard. But yet you don’t seem to get it. So let me explain it for you.

If you pay taxes and don’t drive, you are subsidizing those who drive.

If you pay taxes and drive, your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive.

The more you drive, the more your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive or drive less.

Drivers are not, by any measure, paying their own way.

By this logic metro riders should also pay "their own" and fares should be substantially higher. Metro fares would need to be around 10x their current level for riders to fully cover their share of metro costs. This means that your one way trip (during weekday hours) should cost anywhere from $22.5 to $67.5 and a one-day unlimited pass should cost $135.

Apparently you do not understand externalities. Please enroll in an Econ 101 class and get back to us when you have the basic knowledge required to have a meaningful conversation on this topic.

I absolutely do understand externalities, I have a degree in Economics lol. There is no reason to insult people because they point out information that you dislike. My point is that transit is heavily subsidized as well. So this ideological argument that user fees should fund 100% of road use is comical given that you want people to ride the metro where fares only cover 10% of WMATAs annual budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Everyone who pays taxes pays for the roads, including those bike riding people who don't put nearly as much wear and tear on the surface.

And no, the cost for gas is highly subsidized and the taxes on it don't come close to paying for the roads.

ironically it is the people who are driving heavily subsidized cars who are the freeloaders.

The lion's share of income taxes are paid by drivers, who obviously also pay the gas tax and and an almost impossibly long list of fees on top of that. The notion that they're some kind of welfare queens who are sponging off the rest of us is just bizarre. If drivers aren't paying their own way, then no one else in any other conceivable category is either, except maybe the crazy rich.

This is not hard. But yet you don’t seem to get it. So let me explain it for you.

If you pay taxes and don’t drive, you are subsidizing those who drive.

If you pay taxes and drive, your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive.

The more you drive, the more your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive or drive less.

Drivers are not, by any measure, paying their own way.

By this logic metro riders should also pay "their own" and fares should be substantially higher. Metro fares would need to be around 10x their current level for riders to fully cover their share of metro costs. This means that your one way trip (during weekday hours) should cost anywhere from $22.5 to $67.5 and a one-day unlimited pass should cost $135.

Apparently you do not understand externalities. Please enroll in an Econ 101 class and get back to us when you have the basic knowledge required to have a meaningful conversation on this topic.

I absolutely do understand externalities, I have a degree in Economics lol. There is no reason to insult people because they point out information that you dislike. My point is that transit is heavily subsidized as well. So this ideological argument that user fees should fund 100% of road use is comical given that you want people to ride the metro where fares only cover 10% of WMATAs annual budget.

Ok … tell us whose trip is more heavily subsidized: you driving alone in your car; or me on the metro with 400 other pax?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Everyone who pays taxes pays for the roads, including those bike riding people who don't put nearly as much wear and tear on the surface.

And no, the cost for gas is highly subsidized and the taxes on it don't come close to paying for the roads.

ironically it is the people who are driving heavily subsidized cars who are the freeloaders.

The lion's share of income taxes are paid by drivers, who obviously also pay the gas tax and and an almost impossibly long list of fees on top of that. The notion that they're some kind of welfare queens who are sponging off the rest of us is just bizarre. If drivers aren't paying their own way, then no one else in any other conceivable category is either, except maybe the crazy rich.

This is not hard. But yet you don’t seem to get it. So let me explain it for you.

If you pay taxes and don’t drive, you are subsidizing those who drive.

If you pay taxes and drive, your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive.

The more you drive, the more your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive or drive less.

Drivers are not, by any measure, paying their own way.

By this logic metro riders should also pay "their own" and fares should be substantially higher. Metro fares would need to be around 10x their current level for riders to fully cover their share of metro costs. This means that your one way trip (during weekday hours) should cost anywhere from $22.5 to $67.5 and a one-day unlimited pass should cost $135.

Apparently you do not understand externalities. Please enroll in an Econ 101 class and get back to us when you have the basic knowledge required to have a meaningful conversation on this topic.

I absolutely do understand externalities, I have a degree in Economics lol. There is no reason to insult people because they point out information that you dislike. My point is that transit is heavily subsidized as well. So this ideological argument that user fees should fund 100% of road use is comical given that you want people to ride the metro where fares only cover 10% of WMATAs annual budget.

Ok … tell us whose trip is more heavily subsidized: you driving alone in your car; or me on the metro with 400 other pax?

Also, there's a reason we subsidize transit: it's a public service, like schools - which are also heavily subsidized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Everyone who pays taxes pays for the roads, including those bike riding people who don't put nearly as much wear and tear on the surface.

And no, the cost for gas is highly subsidized and the taxes on it don't come close to paying for the roads.

ironically it is the people who are driving heavily subsidized cars who are the freeloaders.

The lion's share of income taxes are paid by drivers, who obviously also pay the gas tax and and an almost impossibly long list of fees on top of that. The notion that they're some kind of welfare queens who are sponging off the rest of us is just bizarre. If drivers aren't paying their own way, then no one else in any other conceivable category is either, except maybe the crazy rich.

This is not hard. But yet you don’t seem to get it. So let me explain it for you.

If you pay taxes and don’t drive, you are subsidizing those who drive.

If you pay taxes and drive, your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive.

The more you drive, the more your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive or drive less.

Drivers are not, by any measure, paying their own way.

By this logic metro riders should also pay "their own" and fares should be substantially higher. Metro fares would need to be around 10x their current level for riders to fully cover their share of metro costs. This means that your one way trip (during weekday hours) should cost anywhere from $22.5 to $67.5 and a one-day unlimited pass should cost $135.

Apparently you do not understand externalities. Please enroll in an Econ 101 class and get back to us when you have the basic knowledge required to have a meaningful conversation on this topic.

I absolutely do understand externalities, I have a degree in Economics lol. There is no reason to insult people because they point out information that you dislike. My point is that transit is heavily subsidized as well. So this ideological argument that user fees should fund 100% of road use is comical given that you want people to ride the metro where fares only cover 10% of WMATAs annual budget.

Ok … tell us whose trip is more heavily subsidized: you driving alone in your car; or me on the metro with 400 other pax?

Also, there's a reason we subsidize transit: it's a public service, like schools - which are also heavily subsidized.

and roads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's extremely cheap to rent a bike on Capital Bikeshare. In fact, it's cheaper than pretty much any other city's bike sharing program. Those fees don't come anywhere close to covering the program's expenses, even though Capital Bikeshare says its users tend to make six figure incomes. The only reason the program can even function is because taxpayers have contributed tens of millions to dollars to cover the shortfall left by cyclists' artificially low rental fees. Why shouldn't Capital Bikeshare fees be raised by enough to cover its expenses? Other cities' bike sharing programs are self financing.

Capital Bikeshare annual membership cost: $95

Citibike annual membership cost: $220

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Everyone who pays taxes pays for the roads, including those bike riding people who don't put nearly as much wear and tear on the surface.

And no, the cost for gas is highly subsidized and the taxes on it don't come close to paying for the roads.

ironically it is the people who are driving heavily subsidized cars who are the freeloaders.

The lion's share of income taxes are paid by drivers, who obviously also pay the gas tax and and an almost impossibly long list of fees on top of that. The notion that they're some kind of welfare queens who are sponging off the rest of us is just bizarre. If drivers aren't paying their own way, then no one else in any other conceivable category is either, except maybe the crazy rich.

This is not hard. But yet you don’t seem to get it. So let me explain it for you.

If you pay taxes and don’t drive, you are subsidizing those who drive.

If you pay taxes and drive, your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive.

The more you drive, the more your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive or drive less.

Drivers are not, by any measure, paying their own way.

By this logic metro riders should also pay "their own" and fares should be substantially higher. Metro fares would need to be around 10x their current level for riders to fully cover their share of metro costs. This means that your one way trip (during weekday hours) should cost anywhere from $22.5 to $67.5 and a one-day unlimited pass should cost $135.

Apparently you do not understand externalities. Please enroll in an Econ 101 class and get back to us when you have the basic knowledge required to have a meaningful conversation on this topic.

I absolutely do understand externalities, I have a degree in Economics lol. There is no reason to insult people because they point out information that you dislike. My point is that transit is heavily subsidized as well. So this ideological argument that user fees should fund 100% of road use is comical given that you want people to ride the metro where fares only cover 10% of WMATAs annual budget.

Ok … tell us whose trip is more heavily subsidized: you driving alone in your car; or me on the metro with 400 other pax?

Also, there's a reason we subsidize transit: it's a public service, like schools - which are also heavily subsidized.

and roads?

Roads are also heavily subsidized. As is street parking. It is possible to discuss whether they should be subsidized and if so, by how much. But not that they are subsidized, because that's just a fact.