Comment 15699

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted December 14, 2007 at 13:43:27

A quick reply to Balance's comment: Your argument is simplifying the situation too much. For instance, consider that you and your neighbour both pay similar municipal levies for transit and road building. You have a car, and your neighbour does not. You are likely going to drive many many more kilometres per year on the roads you both pay equally for than he rides on a city bus. This is just one simple example of why it's not as straightforward as your comments suggest.

Beyond that, there are all sorts of hidden subsidies which we all pay, and which allow you to make the choice to spend a little more for the privilege of having a private automobile. Without these subsidies, you probably couldn't afford to drive. In fact, the cost to all of us of your car are probably greater than the costs you pay yourself. This is through non-drivers subsidizing your free parking at all businesses that we both shop at (land is expensive!), through the treatment of injuries caused by cars, through the treatment of the long term health effects of putting one or two people per vehicle instead of one or two dozen, Through the building of kilometre after kilometre of roads that no public transit vehicle will EVER use (all of the cul de sacs in every subdivision in every city), through tax breaks, bailouts and other government money given to automobile manufacturers, etc etc.

It is widely known that hidden public subsidies are the reason that car ownership is affordable for many. This is why it is ludicrous to cry foul when it comes to publicly subsidizing PUBLIC transit.

Unfortunately it's way too easy for us all to dismiss these public costs because they are completely hidden from any individual's bottom line.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds