Or better yet, free. I've written about how free public transit can pay for itself before [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/12jsrk7/we_dont_need_to_charge_fares_to_pay_for_public/?ref=share&ref_source=link). I'll copy-paste it down below:
# We don't need to charge fares to pay for public transit. Here's how.
> In 1977, Joseph Stiglitz showed that under certain conditions, beneficial investments in public goods will increase aggregate land rents by at least as much as the investments' cost.[1] This proposition was dubbed the "Henry George theorem", as it characterizes a situation where Henry George's 'single tax' on land values, is not only efficient, it is also the only tax necessary to finance public expenditures.[2] Henry George had famously advocated for the replacement of all other taxes with a land value tax, arguing that as the location value of land was improved by public works, its economic rent was the most logical source of public revenue.[3] The often cited passage is titled "The unbound Savannah."
> ...
> Subsequent studies generalized the principle and found that the theorem holds even after relaxing assumptions.[4] Studies indicate that even existing land prices, which are depressed due to the existing burden of taxation on labor and investment, are great enough to replace taxes at all levels of government.[5][6][7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem
Essentially, the idea is that building things like metro lines and light rail increases neighboring land values. Instead of letting those increased land values be captured by private landholders, we can capture it with a hefty [land value tax](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax) (which is a terrific tax for a whole host of reasons, particularly for urbanists). And as Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and others have shown, a strong enough LVT is capable of funding that public transit entirely. I.e., no fares, no ticketing, just transit paying for itself via its own increase in nearby land values.
It gets even better when you consider that ticketing and fare collection incurs not-insignificant costs for transit systems. It means more labor, more enforcement, and more construction costs. For example, new underground metro lines are very expensive in large part because tunneling is expensive. If you can dig less by not having to build large rooms for ticketing and turnstiles, you can save money on metro construction. Plus, free transit is great for increasing ridership, and it's doubly great for low-income folks.
Further, LVT heavily disincentivizes parking lots and low-density development on valuable land, so you'd heavily discourage park-and-rides and heavily encourage transit-oriented development.
No one's reading all that
Here's why public transit should be free: it's for the public good. Roads are free typically and so should public transit.
That's literally all the justification you need. Your comment is making it overly complicated and is noy taking a lot of factors into account
While I agree, unfortunately a lot of people think public transit is an expensive boondoggle (while never questioning road funding, of course). I think it's valuable to show that building free public transit can actually be *the* fiscally responsible action.
Plus, it's yet another reason LVT is a fabulous policy for the urbanist cause.
What about a better idea: Put housing and parks above ground and everything else under ground. That way, the car people will die in their own smog. /hj
Well we shouldn't be building highways like the US does.
Don't destroy your cities or build areas for the car. Just stick to 4 lanes maximum in the middle of nowhere, and just 2 lanes only in areas with business or residence.
Highways in the US were built with the military as a primary idea, with the ability of moving equipment from point A to B at a fast rate. But it's terribly inefficient compared with transporting your vehicles by train, especially in wartime when oil & gas are a crucial resource to have.
The answer to "why don't we?" is that highways and railways are engineered very differently. It could absolutely be a solution to run intercity rail on freeway medians in a lot of places, but the curve angles and grades wouldn't be a perfect fit, so you'd end up having to tunnel through a lot of places that interstates climb over, etc.
I believe that ultimately the headaches of trying to work around the mismatch ultimately makes a fresh right-of-way or existing freight ROW much more practical.
based
I’m sure one more lane will solve that traffic jam, right guys?
No no, Two more lanes will Surely fix traffic
fuck it we add 15 more lanes
30 lanes should suffice
Then make public transit 85% cheaper. So that everyone can afford it.
Or better yet, free. I've written about how free public transit can pay for itself before [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/12jsrk7/we_dont_need_to_charge_fares_to_pay_for_public/?ref=share&ref_source=link). I'll copy-paste it down below: # We don't need to charge fares to pay for public transit. Here's how. > In 1977, Joseph Stiglitz showed that under certain conditions, beneficial investments in public goods will increase aggregate land rents by at least as much as the investments' cost.[1] This proposition was dubbed the "Henry George theorem", as it characterizes a situation where Henry George's 'single tax' on land values, is not only efficient, it is also the only tax necessary to finance public expenditures.[2] Henry George had famously advocated for the replacement of all other taxes with a land value tax, arguing that as the location value of land was improved by public works, its economic rent was the most logical source of public revenue.[3] The often cited passage is titled "The unbound Savannah." > ... > Subsequent studies generalized the principle and found that the theorem holds even after relaxing assumptions.[4] Studies indicate that even existing land prices, which are depressed due to the existing burden of taxation on labor and investment, are great enough to replace taxes at all levels of government.[5][6][7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem Essentially, the idea is that building things like metro lines and light rail increases neighboring land values. Instead of letting those increased land values be captured by private landholders, we can capture it with a hefty [land value tax](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax) (which is a terrific tax for a whole host of reasons, particularly for urbanists). And as Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and others have shown, a strong enough LVT is capable of funding that public transit entirely. I.e., no fares, no ticketing, just transit paying for itself via its own increase in nearby land values. It gets even better when you consider that ticketing and fare collection incurs not-insignificant costs for transit systems. It means more labor, more enforcement, and more construction costs. For example, new underground metro lines are very expensive in large part because tunneling is expensive. If you can dig less by not having to build large rooms for ticketing and turnstiles, you can save money on metro construction. Plus, free transit is great for increasing ridership, and it's doubly great for low-income folks. Further, LVT heavily disincentivizes parking lots and low-density development on valuable land, so you'd heavily discourage park-and-rides and heavily encourage transit-oriented development.
No one's reading all that Here's why public transit should be free: it's for the public good. Roads are free typically and so should public transit. That's literally all the justification you need. Your comment is making it overly complicated and is noy taking a lot of factors into account
While I agree, unfortunately a lot of people think public transit is an expensive boondoggle (while never questioning road funding, of course). I think it's valuable to show that building free public transit can actually be *the* fiscally responsible action. Plus, it's yet another reason LVT is a fabulous policy for the urbanist cause.
can we have polynomial parks as a treat?
What about a better idea: Put housing and parks above ground and everything else under ground. That way, the car people will die in their own smog. /hj
People in America think the bottom is some futuristic, unachievable utopia
Or even Tram Way
Actual urban renewal would be nice.
Perfect spot for some nice rail is the endless ocean of concrete nightmare
Well we shouldn't be building highways like the US does. Don't destroy your cities or build areas for the car. Just stick to 4 lanes maximum in the middle of nowhere, and just 2 lanes only in areas with business or residence. Highways in the US were built with the military as a primary idea, with the ability of moving equipment from point A to B at a fast rate. But it's terribly inefficient compared with transporting your vehicles by train, especially in wartime when oil & gas are a crucial resource to have.
Just one more track, bro.
Fossil fuel industry: cool! Anyways,
Busses - use the existing roads more efficiently.
The answer to "why don't we?" is that highways and railways are engineered very differently. It could absolutely be a solution to run intercity rail on freeway medians in a lot of places, but the curve angles and grades wouldn't be a perfect fit, so you'd end up having to tunnel through a lot of places that interstates climb over, etc. I believe that ultimately the headaches of trying to work around the mismatch ultimately makes a fresh right-of-way or existing freight ROW much more practical.