> Public transit makes the most sense to fund with property taxes proportional to the benefit that public transit brings in.

Which is essentially zero in many cities. And even in cities with transit, an expansion should result in a lot more benefit than they are currently getting, but they need that money now not in 10 years after that expansion is done and the city sees that benefit.

▲

MangoToupe 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Which is essentially zero in many cities.

??? How does this make any sense at all? You have no basically economy without transit. And you get a far greater return from mass transit than from roads.

> And even in cities with transit, an expansion should result in a lot more benefit than they are currently getting, but they need that money now not in 10 years after that expansion is done and the city sees that benefit.

This is what bonds are for....

▲

bluGill 3 days ago | parent [-]

When I said transit I mean mass transit. Most people do not refer to roads as transit even though they are part of your transportation network.

▲

MangoToupe 3 days ago | parent [-]

Sure, and I'm just saying there's the rational impulse to tax cars to death and then enjoy the fruits of a mass transit network. The way we have things set up now doesn't make any sense to begin with—almost like we're taxing our economic centers for existing.

▲

1718627440 2 days ago | parent [-]

> we're taxing our economic centers for existing.

Yes. Economic centers need transport. Transport costs money to operate, so it is an external cost for an economic center. Taxes are a ways to price in external costs.

▲

MangoToupe 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Transport costs money to operate, so it is an external cost for an economic center

Only by choice! Hence why america has such inefficient transit even compared to other such-dense metros.

	▲	1718627440 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry what is the choice here? That transport costs money? That transport is needed by an economic center?