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

[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 cost of riding the bus went up this year by 12.5 percent
The cost of riding the subway this year when up by 12.5 percent
The cost of parking in a large vicinity around U Street is going up by almost 1000 percent.
Electric cars will be subject to an excise tax of up to 10 percent
A city surcharge on gas is going up 4 percent.

The annual membership cost of Capital Bikeshare hasn't increased in more than three years.

[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.

Nope. Sorry. That’s just not how these things work.

Anyone who pays income, property, and sales taxes and does not drive (much) is paying for others to drive.

Anyone who pays the median share of taxes and drives a lot is being subsidized by the rest of the population.

You seem to be arguing that because a majority of the adult population drives and because a majority of the adult population pays taxes, driving is not subsidized.

I can only then infer that you don’t understand what a subsidy is.

[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.

Over 40% of taxes are paid by 1%ers. 1%ers don’t drive. They get around on business jets and helicopters.

By your logic, we should be eliminating landing fees and other taxes on corporate aviation as those who use these forms of transportation have already paid their fair share through general taxation.

Given unfettered campaign contributions and lobbying, the rich almost always get what they want in this country.

I just don’t think I’ve read anyone put forth such a naked argument for plutocracy. You are a very strange individual.

[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.

Nope. Sorry. That’s just not how these things work.

Anyone who pays income, property, and sales taxes and does not drive (much) is paying for others to drive.

Anyone who pays the median share of taxes and drives a lot is being subsidized by the rest of the population.

You seem to be arguing that because a majority of the adult population drives and because a majority of the adult population pays taxes, driving is not subsidized.

I can only then infer that you don’t understand what a subsidy is.

I can only infer from everything that you've written on this topic and others that you don't understand what a subsidy or anything else is.

Roads aren't built for drivers and they aren't subsidized. Roads are built for commerce and the average residential user is a free rider.

[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.

Nope. Sorry. That’s just not how these things work.

Anyone who pays income, property, and sales taxes and does not drive (much) is paying for others to drive.

Anyone who pays the median share of taxes and drives a lot is being subsidized by the rest of the population.

You seem to be arguing that because a majority of the adult population drives and because a majority of the adult population pays taxes, driving is not subsidized.

I can only then infer that you don’t understand what a subsidy is.

You know how people on the far, far right believe all kinds of wacky, demonstrably untrue shit like vaccines cause autism? You are the leftwing version of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 cost of riding the bus went up this year by 12.5 percent
The cost of riding the subway this year when up by 12.5 percent
The cost of parking in a large vicinity around U Street is going up by almost 1000 percent.
Electric cars will be subject to an excise tax of up to 10 percent
A city surcharge on gas is going up 4 percent.

The annual membership cost of Capital Bikeshare hasn't increased in more than three years.

It really, really bothers you when people go places by bike, huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 cost of riding the bus went up this year by 12.5 percent
The cost of riding the subway this year when up by 12.5 percent
The cost of parking in a large vicinity around U Street is going up by almost 1000 percent.
Electric cars will be subject to an excise tax of up to 10 percent
A city surcharge on gas is going up 4 percent.

The annual membership cost of Capital Bikeshare hasn't increased in more than three years.

It really, really bothers you when people go places by bike, huh?

You can dish it out, but you can't take it, huh? All the arguments for dramatically increasing the cost of parking on the street also apply to Capital Bikeshare.

The city pours tens of millions of dollars into Bikeshare every year because the fees it charges are far too low to cover it's costs. Meanwhile, the bike system in NYC receives zero public dollars. Why shouldn't Bikeshare fees be increased to cover its costs? The costs of every other form of transportation are going up by double digits. Maybe cyclists can share in the sacrifice (Bikeshare data shows very few poor people use it).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 cost of riding the bus went up this year by 12.5 percent
The cost of riding the subway this year when up by 12.5 percent
The cost of parking in a large vicinity around U Street is going up by almost 1000 percent.
Electric cars will be subject to an excise tax of up to 10 percent
A city surcharge on gas is going up 4 percent.

The annual membership cost of Capital Bikeshare hasn't increased in more than three years.

It really, really bothers you when people go places by bike, huh?

You can dish it out, but you can't take it, huh? All the arguments for dramatically increasing the cost of parking on the street also apply to Capital Bikeshare.

The city pours tens of millions of dollars into Bikeshare every year because the fees it charges are far too low to cover it's costs. Meanwhile, the bike system in NYC receives zero public dollars. Why shouldn't Bikeshare fees be increased to cover its costs? The costs of every other form of transportation are going up by double digits. Maybe cyclists can share in the sacrifice (Bikeshare data shows very few poor people use it).

Oh really? The arguments for increasing the cost of street parking are:

1. It directly increases the availability of street parking.
2. It provides an incentive for people to use transit, walking/bicycling, or even taxi-service-by-app instead of driving and parking - which also indirectly increases the availability of street parking.

In addition, as a economic principle, when something costs more, people generally use less of it.

Now, which of those arguments apply to Capital Bikeshare?

[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.

I have to hand it to you. This really is top-shelf satire. If ever I get an urge for some laugh-out-loud ridiculousness, I know that the DC traffic discussions on DCUM are a few short clicks away.

Here, you have defined subsidy in a way that ensures it has absolutely no meaning at all. Roads are not subsidized because taxpayers use them. Transit is not subsidized because taxpayers use them. Bikeshare is not subsidized because taxpayers use them.

Are there any activities that are not subsidized under this very interesting conceptualization you have conjured up?

[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:

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.

Nope. Sorry. That’s just not how these things work.

Anyone who pays income, property, and sales taxes and does not drive (much) is paying for others to drive.

Anyone who pays the median share of taxes and drives a lot is being subsidized by the rest of the population.

You seem to be arguing that because a majority of the adult population drives and because a majority of the adult population pays taxes, driving is not subsidized.

I can only then infer that you don’t understand what a subsidy is.

I can only infer from everything that you've written on this topic and others that you don't understand what a subsidy or anything else is.

Roads aren't built for drivers and they aren't subsidized. Roads are built for commerce and the average residential user is a free rider.

Roads are build for commerce and yet 99% of vehicular traffic is non-commercial. Interesting.

[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:

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.

Nope. Sorry. That’s just not how these things work.

Anyone who pays income, property, and sales taxes and does not drive (much) is paying for others to drive.

Anyone who pays the median share of taxes and drives a lot is being subsidized by the rest of the population.

You seem to be arguing that because a majority of the adult population drives and because a majority of the adult population pays taxes, driving is not subsidized.

I can only then infer that you don’t understand what a subsidy is.

I can only infer from everything that you've written on this topic and others that you don't understand what a subsidy or anything else is.

Roads aren't built for drivers and they aren't subsidized. Roads are built for commerce and the average residential user is a free rider.

Roads are build for commerce and yet 99% of vehicular traffic is non-commercial. Interesting.

Do taxis, rideshares, and delivery drivers in regular vehicles count as commercial traffic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 cost of riding the bus went up this year by 12.5 percent
The cost of riding the subway this year when up by 12.5 percent
The cost of parking in a large vicinity around U Street is going up by almost 1000 percent.
Electric cars will be subject to an excise tax of up to 10 percent
A city surcharge on gas is going up 4 percent.

The annual membership cost of Capital Bikeshare hasn't increased in more than three years.

It really, really bothers you when people go places by bike, huh?

You can dish it out, but you can't take it, huh? All the arguments for dramatically increasing the cost of parking on the street also apply to Capital Bikeshare.

The city pours tens of millions of dollars into Bikeshare every year because the fees it charges are far too low to cover it's costs. Meanwhile, the bike system in NYC receives zero public dollars. Why shouldn't Bikeshare fees be increased to cover its costs? The costs of every other form of transportation are going up by double digits. Maybe cyclists can share in the sacrifice (Bikeshare data shows very few poor people use it).

Oh really? The arguments for increasing the cost of street parking are:

1. It directly increases the availability of street parking.
2. It provides an incentive for people to use transit, walking/bicycling, or even taxi-service-by-app instead of driving and parking - which also indirectly increases the availability of street parking.

In addition, as a economic principle, when something costs more, people generally use less of it.

Now, which of those arguments apply to Capital Bikeshare?

1. We have these nonsensical arguments that the public subsidizes drivers. Well, with CaBi that's plainly true. The program says it's user fees, which are far, far lower than what other cities charge, don't come anywhere close to covering its bills. Why is that acceptable? Other city programs are self sufficient.

2. Someone said that if the city can get away with charging $8 an hour for parking on the street, then why shouldn't it? Same question goes for CaBi. Why is it charging below market rates? It says a majority of its users make six figure incomes. They can afford to pay a lot more, and they would.

3. If charging people through the nose for parking, increases parking availability (an Orwellian argument because parking will be too expensive for many people to afford so it won't be available to them), then that's also true of bikes. Cyclists complain all the time that there's not enough bikes available on CaBi. If we charged more, more bikes would be available, by your logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 cost of riding the bus went up this year by 12.5 percent
The cost of riding the subway this year when up by 12.5 percent
The cost of parking in a large vicinity around U Street is going up by almost 1000 percent.
Electric cars will be subject to an excise tax of up to 10 percent
A city surcharge on gas is going up 4 percent.

The annual membership cost of Capital Bikeshare hasn't increased in more than three years.

It really, really bothers you when people go places by bike, huh?

You can dish it out, but you can't take it, huh? All the arguments for dramatically increasing the cost of parking on the street also apply to Capital Bikeshare.

The city pours tens of millions of dollars into Bikeshare every year because the fees it charges are far too low to cover it's costs. Meanwhile, the bike system in NYC receives zero public dollars. Why shouldn't Bikeshare fees be increased to cover its costs? The costs of every other form of transportation are going up by double digits. Maybe cyclists can share in the sacrifice (Bikeshare data shows very few poor people use it).

Oh really? The arguments for increasing the cost of street parking are:

1. It directly increases the availability of street parking.
2. It provides an incentive for people to use transit, walking/bicycling, or even taxi-service-by-app instead of driving and parking - which also indirectly increases the availability of street parking.

In addition, as a economic principle, when something costs more, people generally use less of it.

Now, which of those arguments apply to Capital Bikeshare?

1. We have these nonsensical arguments that the public subsidizes drivers. Well, with CaBi that's plainly true. The program says it's user fees, which are far, far lower than what other cities charge, don't come anywhere close to covering its bills. Why is that acceptable? Other city programs are self sufficient.

2. Someone said that if the city can get away with charging $8 an hour for parking on the street, then why shouldn't it? Same question goes for CaBi. Why is it charging below market rates? It says a majority of its users make six figure incomes. They can afford to pay a lot more, and they would.

3. If charging people through the nose for parking, increases parking availability (an Orwellian argument because parking will be too expensive for many people to afford so it won't be available to them), then that's also true of bikes. Cyclists complain all the time that there's not enough bikes available on CaBi. If we charged more, more bikes would be available, by your logic.

I really think you would be happier with a different hobby. I can't imagine that internet hating on bicycles, as a hobby, is very satisfying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 cost of riding the bus went up this year by 12.5 percent
The cost of riding the subway this year when up by 12.5 percent
The cost of parking in a large vicinity around U Street is going up by almost 1000 percent.
Electric cars will be subject to an excise tax of up to 10 percent
A city surcharge on gas is going up 4 percent.

The annual membership cost of Capital Bikeshare hasn't increased in more than three years.

It really, really bothers you when people go places by bike, huh?

You can dish it out, but you can't take it, huh? All the arguments for dramatically increasing the cost of parking on the street also apply to Capital Bikeshare.

The city pours tens of millions of dollars into Bikeshare every year because the fees it charges are far too low to cover it's costs. Meanwhile, the bike system in NYC receives zero public dollars. Why shouldn't Bikeshare fees be increased to cover its costs? The costs of every other form of transportation are going up by double digits. Maybe cyclists can share in the sacrifice (Bikeshare data shows very few poor people use it).

Oh really? The arguments for increasing the cost of street parking are:

1. It directly increases the availability of street parking.
2. It provides an incentive for people to use transit, walking/bicycling, or even taxi-service-by-app instead of driving and parking - which also indirectly increases the availability of street parking.

In addition, as a economic principle, when something costs more, people generally use less of it.

Now, which of those arguments apply to Capital Bikeshare?

1. We have these nonsensical arguments that the public subsidizes drivers. Well, with CaBi that's plainly true. The program says it's user fees, which are far, far lower than what other cities charge, don't come anywhere close to covering its bills. Why is that acceptable? Other city programs are self sufficient.

2. Someone said that if the city can get away with charging $8 an hour for parking on the street, then why shouldn't it? Same question goes for CaBi. Why is it charging below market rates? It says a majority of its users make six figure incomes. They can afford to pay a lot more, and they would.

3. If charging people through the nose for parking, increases parking availability (an Orwellian argument because parking will be too expensive for many people to afford so it won't be available to them), then that's also true of bikes. Cyclists complain all the time that there's not enough bikes available on CaBi. If we charged more, more bikes would be available, by your logic.

I really think you would be happier with a different hobby. I can't imagine that internet hating on bicycles, as a hobby, is very satisfying.

You're probably talking to someone directly or indirectly paid by Roads are for Cars only inc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 cost of riding the bus went up this year by 12.5 percent
The cost of riding the subway this year when up by 12.5 percent
The cost of parking in a large vicinity around U Street is going up by almost 1000 percent.
Electric cars will be subject to an excise tax of up to 10 percent
A city surcharge on gas is going up 4 percent.

The annual membership cost of Capital Bikeshare hasn't increased in more than three years.

It really, really bothers you when people go places by bike, huh?

You can dish it out, but you can't take it, huh? All the arguments for dramatically increasing the cost of parking on the street also apply to Capital Bikeshare.

The city pours tens of millions of dollars into Bikeshare every year because the fees it charges are far too low to cover it's costs. Meanwhile, the bike system in NYC receives zero public dollars. Why shouldn't Bikeshare fees be increased to cover its costs? The costs of every other form of transportation are going up by double digits. Maybe cyclists can share in the sacrifice (Bikeshare data shows very few poor people use it).

Oh really? The arguments for increasing the cost of street parking are:

1. It directly increases the availability of street parking.
2. It provides an incentive for people to use transit, walking/bicycling, or even taxi-service-by-app instead of driving and parking - which also indirectly increases the availability of street parking.

In addition, as a economic principle, when something costs more, people generally use less of it.

Now, which of those arguments apply to Capital Bikeshare?

1. We have these nonsensical arguments that the public subsidizes drivers. Well, with CaBi that's plainly true. The program says it's user fees, which are far, far lower than what other cities charge, don't come anywhere close to covering its bills. Why is that acceptable? Other city programs are self sufficient.

2. Someone said that if the city can get away with charging $8 an hour for parking on the street, then why shouldn't it? Same question goes for CaBi. Why is it charging below market rates? It says a majority of its users make six figure incomes. They can afford to pay a lot more, and they would.

3. If charging people through the nose for parking, increases parking availability (an Orwellian argument because parking will be too expensive for many people to afford so it won't be available to them), then that's also true of bikes. Cyclists complain all the time that there's not enough bikes available on CaBi. If we charged more, more bikes would be available, by your logic.

I really think you would be happier with a different hobby. I can't imagine that internet hating on bicycles, as a hobby, is very satisfying.

Er, well, you asked the question. Not sure why it's surprising to you that someone answered.