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:

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.

The same can be said for the freeloaders riding the metro, who only cover 10% of the cost for the service they are using.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The same can be said for the freeloaders riding the metro, who only cover 10% of the cost for the service they are using.

Nobody, but NOBODY, has said that fares pay 100% for transit. So I don't know who you're arguing with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

oh stop. taxes in this country are mostly paid by the rich, and rich people tend to have cars. on top of that they pay the gas tax and a gazillion fees tied to owning a car. this notion that drivers are leeches on the public dime is complete nonsense.

[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 is *crazy* cheap compared to other cities. There are cities where it's 5x as expensive as in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

oh stop. taxes in this country are mostly paid by the rich, and rich people tend to have cars. on top of that they pay the gas tax and a gazillion fees tied to owning a car. this notion that drivers are leeches on the public dime is complete nonsense.

You know, it's possible for two things to be true at the same time.

1. In a system with progressive income tax, people with lots of money pay more in taxes than people without lots of money.
2. Gas taxes and car fees do not come anywhere near covering the costs of building, operating, and maintaining roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

oh stop. taxes in this country are mostly paid by the rich, and rich people tend to have cars. on top of that they pay the gas tax and a gazillion fees tied to owning a car. this notion that drivers are leeches on the public dime is complete nonsense.

You know, it's possible for two things to be true at the same time.

1. In a system with progressive income tax, people with lots of money pay more in taxes than people without lots of money.
2. Gas taxes and car fees do not come anywhere near covering the costs of building, operating, and maintaining roads.

obviously gas taxes and fees don't pay for everything, and income taxes make up the difference, but drivers pay the vast majority of income taxes too. this notion that nondrivers subsidize drivers is 100 percent a lie, no matter how much car haters really, really want to believe it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

oh stop. taxes in this country are mostly paid by the rich, and rich people tend to have cars. on top of that they pay the gas tax and a gazillion fees tied to owning a car. this notion that drivers are leeches on the public dime is complete nonsense.

I thought you were telling us that the cyclists are all a bunch of rich white dudes. Now it’s the drivers? Help me out here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

oh stop. taxes in this country are mostly paid by the rich, and rich people tend to have cars. on top of that they pay the gas tax and a gazillion fees tied to owning a car. this notion that drivers are leeches on the public dime is complete nonsense.

You know, it's possible for two things to be true at the same time.

1. In a system with progressive income tax, people with lots of money pay more in taxes than people without lots of money.
2. Gas taxes and car fees do not come anywhere near covering the costs of building, operating, and maintaining roads.

obviously gas taxes and fees don't pay for everything, and income taxes make up the difference, but drivers pay the vast majority of income taxes too. this notion that nondrivers subsidize drivers is 100 percent a lie, no matter how much car haters really, really want to believe it.

One-third of US residents don't have a driver's license - plus the people who do have a driver's license but don't drive.

Also, I do have a driver's license, and I drive. But I also bike, and walk, and take the train and the bus and Metro. So which am I, a driver or a nondriver? Can I apportion my taxes by percent of trips by mode?

[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.

Bowser wants another $14 million next year from taxpayers to cover the hole created by Capital Bikeshare's low fees. If biking is so popular, why is Capital Bikeshare on the dole?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

oh stop. taxes in this country are mostly paid by the rich, and rich people tend to have cars. on top of that they pay the gas tax and a gazillion fees tied to owning a car. this notion that drivers are leeches on the public dime is complete nonsense.

You know, it's possible for two things to be true at the same time.

1. In a system with progressive income tax, people with lots of money pay more in taxes than people without lots of money.
2. Gas taxes and car fees do not come anywhere near covering the costs of building, operating, and maintaining roads.

obviously gas taxes and fees don't pay for everything, and income taxes make up the difference, but drivers pay the vast majority of income taxes too. this notion that nondrivers subsidize drivers is 100 percent a lie, no matter how much car haters really, really want to believe it.

One-third of US residents don't have a driver's license - plus the people who do have a driver's license but don't drive.

Also, I do have a driver's license, and I drive. But I also bike, and walk, and take the train and the bus and Metro. So which am I, a driver or a nondriver? Can I apportion my taxes by percent of trips by mode?

Make up whatever numbers and dumb hairsplitting scenarios you like. The government collects $5 TRILLION in taxes every single year. The share paid by drivers is enough to cover their costs, many, many, many, *many* times over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bowser wants another $14 million next year from taxpayers to cover the hole created by Capital Bikeshare's low fees. If biking is so popular, why is Capital Bikeshare on the dole?

The business model of all the bikeshare companies relies on the government to cover all the costs. The fee, as it exists, is only to discourage theft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bowser wants another $14 million next year from taxpayers to cover the hole created by Capital Bikeshare's low fees. If biking is so popular, why is Capital Bikeshare on the dole?

Capital Bikeshare is run by a for profit company. Your tax dollars at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The same can be said for the freeloaders riding the metro, who only cover 10% of the cost for the service they are using.

Nobody, but NOBODY, has said that fares pay 100% for transit. So I don't know who you're arguing with.

And also, using metro makes life better, using your car makes it worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

oh stop. taxes in this country are mostly paid by the rich, and rich people tend to have cars. on top of that they pay the gas tax and a gazillion fees tied to owning a car. this notion that drivers are leeches on the public dime is complete nonsense.

You know, it's possible for two things to be true at the same time.

1. In a system with progressive income tax, people with lots of money pay more in taxes than people without lots of money.
2. Gas taxes and car fees do not come anywhere near covering the costs of building, operating, and maintaining roads.

obviously gas taxes and fees don't pay for everything, and income taxes make up the difference, but drivers pay the vast majority of income taxes too. this notion that nondrivers subsidize drivers is 100 percent a lie, no matter how much car haters really, really want to believe it.

One-third of US residents don't have a driver's license - plus the people who do have a driver's license but don't drive.

Also, I do have a driver's license, and I drive. But I also bike, and walk, and take the train and the bus and Metro. So which am I, a driver or a nondriver? Can I apportion my taxes by percent of trips by mode?

Make up whatever numbers and dumb hairsplitting scenarios you like. The government collects $5 TRILLION in taxes every single year. The share paid by drivers is enough to cover their costs, many, many, many, *many* times over.

I don't think you have an understanding of the true costs of driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

oh stop. taxes in this country are mostly paid by the rich, and rich people tend to have cars. on top of that they pay the gas tax and a gazillion fees tied to owning a car. this notion that drivers are leeches on the public dime is complete nonsense.

You know, it's possible for two things to be true at the same time.

1. In a system with progressive income tax, people with lots of money pay more in taxes than people without lots of money.
2. Gas taxes and car fees do not come anywhere near covering the costs of building, operating, and maintaining roads.

obviously gas taxes and fees don't pay for everything, and income taxes make up the difference, but drivers pay the vast majority of income taxes too. this notion that nondrivers subsidize drivers is 100 percent a lie, no matter how much car haters really, really want to believe it.

One-third of US residents don't have a driver's license - plus the people who do have a driver's license but don't drive.

Also, I do have a driver's license, and I drive. But I also bike, and walk, and take the train and the bus and Metro. So which am I, a driver or a nondriver? Can I apportion my taxes by percent of trips by mode?

Make up whatever numbers and dumb hairsplitting scenarios you like. The government collects $5 TRILLION in taxes every single year. The share paid by drivers is enough to cover their costs, many, many, many, *many* times over.

I don't think you have an understanding of the true costs of driving.

You don't even believe in truth so why are you complaining?