Congestion Pricing

[mightyace]

As for driving excessively, anywhere that's congested enough to be considering peak pricing is somewhere that has too much driving going on.  What may be excessive in one place might be normal in another, but the point is that any highways or bridges that are routinely congested are ones that are (by definition) being used excessively.  

Not necessarily, all it means is that the roads there there is not enough road to meet demand.  Now, whether there should be more road or less driving, should be handled on a case by case basis and not by blanket statements.

For example, the Sure-kyll Expressway into Philadelphia has been congested ever since it opened in the late 1940s.  Over driving, in this case, I think not, but under capacity.

I'll leave examples of "too much driving" as an exercise to the reader.

EDIT:
But, there is a simple reason that roads are so popular: FREEDOM!

With a car you can go where you want, when you want.  With all other forms of transit, you are beholden to the company or government entity that runs it as to where you can go and when.

To the extreme, if cars were abolished, then we'd be back to the days when only the rich and powerful could travel long distances and rural America would be back to the horse.

[Zmapper]

But, there is a simple reason that roads are so popular: FREEDOM!

With a car you can go where you want, when you want.  With all other forms of transit, you are beholden to the company or government entity that runs it as to where you can go and when.

Is bicycling or walking included in that ALL statement of yours? Last time I checked, they are not included in any congestion pricing system because:
1. Due to their smaller sizes, they do not take up much space; thus not contributing to congestion as much as cars do.
2. People do not pollute. While one could consider the materials needed to make a bicycle, they dwarf in comparison to the amount of materials it takes to make a car and to operate it.

Why are you not complaining about signal timings and turn restrictions? They are essentially government meddling as to when and where you may travel. Signal timings can also be used to give priority to special interests and richer areas.

To the extreme, if cars were abolished, then we'd be back to the days when only the rich and powerful could travel long distances and rural America would be back to the horse.

Has anyone other then extremists seriously considering banning ALL cars on a macro scale? Charging for peak demand does not equal banning. Plus, it is not like congestion pricing has been seriously proposed in rural Nebraska.

[jjakucyk]

But, there is a simple reason that roads are so popular: FREEDOM!

With a car you can go where you want, when you want.  With all other forms of transit, you are beholden to the company or government entity that runs it as to where you can go and when.

It's only freedom if you can afford to buy, fuel, maintain, and insure a car, and are not disabled, too young, or too old to drive it.  There's a very large number of people in the world who do not meet those criteria, so how do they get to experience that freedom?  They can't.  The ability to go where you want when you want comes with certain costs, and those costs must be paid for.  It's incredibly inequitable to make everyone pay for those costs even when they can't benefit from them. 

Freedom is about having choice, and it's not a true choice when you can only pick between driving here and driving there, or living in this isolated subdivision or that isolated subdivision.  You should be able to choose to have a car, or live without one, to ride your bike or to walk rather than drive, to build a store or home with parking spaces or without them.  As it is, our choices are so skewed in the name of "cars=freedom" that everything else is compromised to the point that it's not a true choice anymore. 

[Landshark]

I'm of the opinion that we have too many roads as it is, and need to start focusing on alternatives rather than endless road expansion programs.

That doesn't make sense.  The alternatives do not make economic sense.  Just look at cost benefit analysis.   Plus it restricts freedom of movement.  Where I live, we do not have enough road capacity and plenty of design deficiencies to correct.

It's been proven over and over that adding road capacity does not fix congestion in the long term, it only induces more driving, and within a decade or two the wider road is just as congested as before.

There is nothing wrong with more driving.   We need to discourage mass transit, because it is a mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners, and restricts freedom of mobility.

Also, taxes don't come anywhere close to paying the full cost of roads and driving in general.

Gas and car tab taxes generate a far greater % of the costs of the road/highway system than fares cover the costs of mass transit.  Do the math; more roads, less wasteful mess transit. 

This is aaroad.com, correct?

[agentsteel53]

We need to discourage mass transit, because it is a mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners, and restricts freedom of mobility.

can you substantiate this?  I am on both sides of the fence here: I use mass transit for my commute, and put in more than enough miles driving to get to faraway places.

[Landshark]

We need to discourage mass transit, because it is a mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners, and restricts freedom of mobility.

can you substantiate this?

I live in the Puget Sound area, take a look at the costs and benefits of the Sounder Rail and the Sound Transit Lightrail.  They are throwing away massive amounts of $ to do nothing but benefit the few people where it is convenient to use.  They routed the lightrail line down a corridor that already had a high % of transit users.  So instead of using the cheaper, more flexible existing bus system, they are pulling users away to a significantly more expensive mode of transportation on gerrymandered route that does little to provide an alternative to congestion.  

Other than the most densest population areas, mass transit doesn't pencil out.  I can see fast trains replacing shorter airplane flights, but roads are never going away.  We need them for access, for movement, for mobility.  It is the superior system of transportation.  People that hate roads, hate freedom.  The folks fighting roads up here hate prosperity and growth, and are smart enough to realize that roads lead to both.

[agentsteel53]

the Puget Sound example sounds like an argument against those specific instances of mass transit, not mass transit in general.

in densely populated areas, I think it works quite well.

[Zmapper]

I'm of the opinion that we have too many roads as it is, and need to start focusing on alternatives rather than endless road expansion programs.

That doesn't make sense.  The alternatives do not make economic sense.  Just look at cost benefit analysis.   Plus it restricts freedom of movement.  Where I live, we do not have enough road capacity and plenty of design deficiencies to correct.

The design deficiencies can be corrected if they do not involve demolishing large swaths of buildings. And the cost of the project is only one consideration. Whether it would benefit the users and citizens near the project is another. Frequently transit projects don't recoup their construction costs, but the amount that is added to the tax base exceeds the construction costs.

It's been proven over and over that adding road capacity does not fix congestion in the long term, it only induces more driving, and within a decade or two the wider road is just as congested as before.

There is nothing wrong with more driving.   We need to discourage mass transit, because it is a mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners, and restricts freedom of mobility.

What's wrong with more driving, oh yeah, air, water and ground pollution, driving sucks valuable time that could be spent with their families, while driving you can't do work, the stress, etc. We need to discourage highway construction, because it is a mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners and developers, and restricts use to those that are of driving age, not too old, not disabled, and rich enough to afford to purchase and maintain a car. The people stated earlier are unable to directly use roads. Mass Transit, by design, doesn't discriminate against about 1/3 of the population.

Also, taxes don't come anywhere close to paying the full cost of roads and driving in general.

Gas and car tab taxes generate a far greater % of the costs of the road/highway system than fares cover the costs of mass transit.  Do the math; more roads, less wasteful mess transit.  

Mass Transit might actually profit, yes profit, if we didn't throw so much money away on roads that, by design, exclude 1/3 of the population.

[corco]

I live in the Puget Sound area, take a look at the costs and benefits of the Sounder Rail and the Sound Transit Lightrail.  They are throwing away massive amounts of $ to do nothing but benefit the few people where it is convenient to use.  They routed the lightrail line down a corridor that already had a high % of transit users.  So instead of using the cheaper, more flexible existing bus system, they are pulling users away to a significantly more expensive mode of transportation on gerrymandered route that does little to provide an alternative to congestion.  

I tell you what- I used to ride the 194 bus from downtown to Seatac reasonably frequently when I lived there. I was back a couple weeks ago and took the light rail.

I fail to see how the light rail is better than the now-discontinued 194 bus. It may have been a tiny bit more comfortable, but it wasn't nearly as fast (the 194 took the Bus Tunnel to Busway to I-5 to Seatac, the light rail goes clear to Mt. Baker and MLK, following the speed limit of 35 on MLK which is way out of the way).

I know a lot of people in that area who say "ooo-shiny light rail!" This particularly applies to some of my Mariners fan friends who live in the South Sound who, instead of parking at Tacoma Dome and taking the 594 bus up (which I used to do all the time and was super-convenient), now drive to Tukwila and then catch the light rail, which is A) more driving, B) more expensive, and C) takes longer. That whole system drives me nuts now.

I think it's a status thing.
Buses= something poor people ride on
Light rail= something yuppies ride on

That said, I strongly disagree with the idea of getting rid of mass transit. When I lived in the Puget Sound area, the buses were my best friend (I had a car, but I was there when gas was $4/gallon- I didn't want to pay $20 everytime I drove from Tacoma to Seattle and back!). It just needs to be useful and we need to overcome the social barrier that non-shiny new light rail mass transit is not just for poor people.

[agentsteel53]

fuck status.  the bus works.  it isn't as fast as commuting to work via car would be, but it is a whole lot less stressful.  

if I had to drive the same arterial road for five miles each way, twice a day, during near-peak traffic hours ... I'd lose 10 years of my life.  screw that!  give me the bus any day.

[Landshark]

Frequently transit projects don't recoup their construction costs, but the amount that is added to the tax base exceeds the construction costs.

Proof please.  

Whats wrong with more driving, oh yeah, air, water and ground pollution, driving sucks valuable time that could be spent with their family, while driving you can't do work, the stress, etc.[/quote]

Then invent a clean car if you care about that.   Also, car = faster and more convenient than transit, unless you are lucky enough to live on a route that well serves your lifestyle and schedule.

We need to discourage highway construction, because it is a mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners and developers,

That's crap.  Everyone lives near roads.  

Do the math; roads do a better job at a significantly better price.  

and restricts use to those that are of driving age, not too old, not disabled, and rich enough to afford to purchase and maintain a car.

So why did you start this thread?  Congestion pricing benefits the rich.  Congestion already alters behavior.  

The people stated earlier are unable to directly use roads.

False.  Ever hear of passengers?

Mass Transit might actually profit, yes profit, if we didn't throw so much money away on roads that, by design, exclude 1/3 of the population.

Name them.  Also roads serve 100% of the population; drivers, passengers, busses, etc.  Cut the canards please.

[corco]

busses [sic]

Those are mass transit, by the way.

Then invent a clean car if you care about that.   Also, car = faster and more convenient than transit, unless you are lucky enough to live on a route that well serves your lifestyle and schedule.

Have you even used Puget Sound area transit? It works very well. Get in your car at your house, drive to the park and ride lot. Catch the express bus that goes to a transfer station near your destination. Sound Transit does a pretty damn good job of timing it so all local buses arrive about 5 minutes after the express buses do, so you can then jump on your local bus.

If I'm going from Tacoma to say, Dick's in Wallingford, it takes about 45 minutes by car. It takes about 65 minutes by bus (catch the 35 minute bus from Tacoma Dome to 4th and Jackson, take another bus to somewhere on 45th, then walk (OMG!) three blocks) , but it only costs me $3 (as opposed to about $7 in my Liberty). During rushhour, this gap is lessened since the bus can use the HOV lanes and I can't as a single passenger

[jjakucyk]

Transit restricts freedom of movement?  How does having more choices in how to get around do that?  Transit does not make roads go away.  As I mentioned before, there's a lot of people who can't drive, so why should they be left out?  Do they "hate freedom" because they can't drive?  That's asinine. 

There absolutely is a lot of stuff wrong with more driving.  Air pollution, congestion, excessive water runoff/flooding, wars in the Middle East, oil spills in the Gulf.  Gas is not going to get cheaper, so it's very naive to think that we should just keep expanding highway systems endlessly if we won't be able to afford to use them.  Correcting geometric deficiencies and general safety hazards is a noble goal, but that doesn't mean we need to build huge amounts of new capacity (which makes maintenance even more expensive in the future).  

I could just as easily say that massive highways and huge interchanges are a "mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners, and restricts freedom of mobility (for anyone who's not fortunate enough to own a car)."  How many developers out there benefitted from the opening of a new highway interchange?  

Transit is not the money loser you think it is compared to roads.  In general, the best case scenario for transit is that 50% funding comes from fares (this is the case of the Chicago Transit Authority, which is mandated by its charter to maintain that ratio).  Most other transit systems are about 30% funded by fares.  However, while interstate highways are mostly funded by gas taxes (and they're the most expensive roads), that's still a small portion of the total network.  Only half of road costs come from user fees, while the rest is from general funds and some bonds.  So in reality we subsidize roads nearly as much as we subsidize transit, on top of requiring private businesses and land owners to provide off-street parking, which is another forced subsidy that's not accounted for. 

Nobody is advocating removing cars or not building roads.  What is being advocated is having a comprehensive transportation network with many modes that serve their best purpose.  A diverse transportation system is akin to having a diverse stock portfolio.  It's much less risky when you're diversified, and in the face of diminishing oil reserves, unstable oil suppliers, climate issues, and a lack of capital and credit, we need to be much more diversified in how we get around.  The point of a transportation network is to move people and goods, not just cars and trucks.

[corco]

Nobody is advocating removing cars or not building roads.  What is being advocated is having a comprehensive transportation network with many modes that serve their best purpose.  A diverse transportation system is akin to having a diverse stock portfolio.  It's much less risky when you're diversified, and in the face of diminishing oil reserves, unstable oil suppliers, climate issues, and a lack of capital and credit, we need to be much more diversified in how we get around.  The point of a transportation network is to move people and goods, not just cars and trucks.

This is incredibly well put.

Another thing to consider, particularly in the context of a city is parking. If every person in Seattle drove a car into downtown, they'd have to convert several skyscrapers into parking garages. It's just not feasible to get an entire big city's worth of workers cars into a downtown city.

The other option is the suburban sprawl model, and while I will not be mistaken for an environmentalist, I can say that our population is going to continue to grow and we're already running semi-low on developable land (yes, I guess you technically could develop the entire states of Arizona and Wyoming into a giant suburb, but good luck getting all those people water). Mass transit lets us get more people into a smaller space, which in itself is profitable since you're not having to build new water lines and roads and other infrastructure for another pointless suburb.

[Landshark]

Transit restricts freedom of movement?

Fixed routes, schedules.

Transit does not make roads go away.

Transit is going after car tab $ and other taxes on drivers to pay for transit.  That is wrong.  Road users should pay for roads and transit users should pay for transit.

As I mentioned before, there's a lot of people who can't drive, so why should they be left out?

This is a canard.  Most cars have passenger seats.  Need me to show you a picture of a car?  

There absolutely is a lot of stuff wrong with more driving.  Air pollution, congestion, excessive water runoff/flooding, wars in the Middle East, oil spills in the Gulf.  Gas is not going to get cheaper, so it's very naive to think that we should just keep expanding highway systems endlessly if we won't be able to afford to use them.

The solution is a clean car, not wasteful transit.  

I could just as easily say that massive highways and huge interchanges are a "mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners, and restricts freedom of mobility (for anyone who's not fortunate enough to own a car)."  How many developers out there benefitted from the opening of a new highway interchange?  

That's crap since the road network is extensive.  Most people live near roads.  Check the facts.  

Transit is not the money loser you think it is compared to roads.

That's false.  It isn't close.

However, while interstate highways are mostly funded by gas taxes (and they're the most expensive roads), that's still a small portion of the total network.  

And states don't have gas taxes too?  Man, you are clueless.  Where I live, users pay for the roads.  Not only do drivers pay for roads, they also have to pay for someone else to use transit.  

So in reality we subsidize roads nearly as much as we subsidize transit,

That's false.

Nobody is advocating removing cars or not building roads.  What is being advocated is having a comprehensive transportation network with many modes that serve their best purpose.

That's great.  Other than the bus, mass transit doesn't pencil out in most areas.  

[Landshark]

Have you even used Puget Sound area transit? It works very well. Get in your car at your house, drive to the park and ride lot. Catch the express bus that goes to a transfer station near your destination. Sound Transit does a pretty damn good job of timing it so all local buses arrive about 5 minutes after the express buses do, so you can then jump on your local bus.

U-District to Downtown was the only route where it was more practical for me to use transit than drive.  I know the road system around here extremely well, so I can get around problem areas pretty easily.  I also have a job that needs a vehicle, so transit doesn't make any sense even if it were convenient.

Because of Seattle's geography, they should have built the lightrail line north. 

[corco]

U-District to Downtown was the only route where it was more practical for me to use transit than drive.

So, in the interest of flexibility, why not have mass transit? When I lived there, I certainly didn't use mass transit every time I went anywhere, nor did I use my car. Where it was convenient to use mass transit, I used mass transit. Where it was convenient to drive, I drove. What could possibly be wrong with having both options?

Fixed routes, schedules.

I think what we need is a redefinition of freedom of movement. You're free to catch whichever bus you want that runs every 10 minutes- that's pretty free.

I could argue that when I'm in my express bus and it's rushhour and all those cars are clogging the freeway that they are impeding MY freedom of movement.

The solution is a clean car, not wasteful transit.  

Good luck finding parking for all those cars!

Because of Seattle's geography, they should have built the lightrail line north.

As a former South-Sounder I disagree. I do think it would have been way more effective if it followed the I-5 corridor more closely on a line that allowed it to go freeway speeds, however. You could have buses meet the rail at (mostly existing) freeway-side transfer stations and park and rides that serve local areas- if you work downtown that would have been great. Drive to the freeway, get on a fast rail to Seattle, get off downtown, and walk the 5 blocks or so to work without having to detour to Mount Baker at 35 MPH.

[Zmapper]

Frequently transit projects don't recoup their construction costs, but the amount that is added to the tax base exceeds the construction costs.

Proof please.  

In New Jersey, the ARC project is a fine example.
http://njtoday.net/2010/07/30/study-planned-trans-hudson-tunnel-will-boost-home-values/

Whats wrong with more driving, oh yeah, air, water and ground pollution, driving sucks valuable time that could be spent with their family, while driving you can't do work, the stress, etc.

Then invent a clean car if you care about that.   Also, car = faster and more convenient than transit, unless you are lucky enough to live on a route that well serves your lifestyle and schedule.

The car is only faster because we skewed our transport network towards cars. And a cleaner car still takes up space, still sucks time, doesn't all work to be done, still has the same stress, etc. I'll also add that cars kill 33,000 people each year. Equivalent to a Hiroshima bomb going off every 1.5 years! How many do bikes and trains kill each year? Probably not even 1/10 of 33,000.

We need to discourage highway construction, because it is a mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners and developers,

That's crap.  Everyone lives near roads.  

Do the math; roads do a better job at a significantly better price.  

They still exclude 1/3 of the population. So something is still needed for that 1/3, and that's going to be walking, biking, and transit.

and restricts use to those that are of driving age, not too old, not disabled, and rich enough to afford to purchase and maintain a car.

So why did you start this thread?  Congestion pricing benefits the rich.  Congestion already alters behavior.  

Congestion Pricing also allows those that don't drive to breathe better air, have a better transit system, etc. Don't forget that an appropriately priced congestion pricing system allows those that actually do have to drive to have less congestion.

The people stated earlier are unable to directly use roads.

False.  Ever hear of passengers?

Then they have to travel when it is convenient for the driver to take them to their destination, meaning that they can't spontaneously take trips.

Mass Transit might actually profit, yes profit, if we didn't throw so much money away on roads that, by design, exclude 1/3 of the population.

Name them.  Also roads serve 100% of the population; drivers, passengers, busses, etc.  Cut the canards please.

Look at airport shuttles. Because parking at airports is through the roof, many prefer to take Supershuttle or ride transit. And for an urban setting, look at the jitneys setting up shop in Northern New Jersey; they operate without subsidies because driving is already priced at the crossings to NY and when they park. And many municipal transit routes profit because, again, they go through a tolled choke-point and parking is priced highly.

[Zmapper]

Nobody is advocating removing cars or not building roads.  What is being advocated is having a comprehensive transportation network with many modes that serve their best purpose.  A diverse transportation system is akin to having a diverse stock portfolio.  It's much less risky when you're diversified, and in the face of diminishing oil reserves, unstable oil suppliers, climate issues, and a lack of capital and credit, we need to be much more diversified in how we get around.  The point of a transportation network is to move people and goods, not just cars and trucks.

This is incredibly well put.

I have to agree with corco. That is the best way to sum it up!

[Landshark]

So, in the interest of flexibility, why not have mass transit?

Where it makes sense and pencils out, sure.  I am not anti-mass transit, I am anti-wasting money where it fails a cost-benefit analysis.

As a former South-Sounder I disagree. I do think it would have been way more effective if it followed the I-5 corridor more closely on a line that allowed it to go freeway speeds, however.

I am a South Sounder     It needed to go north because of geography (Ship Canal only has 6 crossings with little room for additional vehicle capacity), it follows one of the most congested corridors (provide an actual alternative instead of the airport tourist train we have now), and also mirrors the largest transit corridor in the state.  

I too agree it should have followed I-5.  It needed to be a fast spine system, that later could have spur lines as growth and development patterns dictate.

[Landshark]

In New Jersey, the ARC project is a fine example.

How many other transit projects link to the densest zipcodes in America?  Again, mass transit only makes sense in super dense areas or when connecting dense nodes.  

The car is only faster because we skewed our transport network towards cars.

And it should be!  It is more than cars, it is moving freight, moving goods and services in a timely, efficient manner.

They still exclude 1/3 of the population.

Drop the b.s. please.  I already explain above why this is a canard.  PASSENGER SEATING EXISTS IN CARS!  Using your silly argument, transit excludes 99.99999% of the population because they can't drive the subway.

Congestion Pricing also allows those that don't drive to breathe better air, have a better transit system, etc.

Again, clean car.  So you want car users to directly pay for transit?  That's crap.  You shouldn't tax my lifestyle to pay for yours.  

Don't forget that an appropriately priced congestion pricing system allows those that actually do have to drive to have less congestion.

We need to add more road capacity, not turn roads into rich people toys.

Then they have to travel when it is convenient for the driver to take them to their destination, meaning that they can't spontaneously take trips.

And how is this any different than transit?  Transit = fixed route, fixed schedule.  

Look at airport shuttles. Because parking at airports is through the roof, many prefer to take Supershuttle or ride transit.

Bad example.  Cheaper for me to park at Doug Fox lot at SeaTac than take shuttle

[corco]

And how is this any different than transit?  Transit = fixed route, fixed schedule.  

Begging people for rides = A) knowing people, B) being dependent on their schedule. Transit runs every 10-30 minutes on a predictable schedule. My friend Bob who drives me around does not.

I had people a couple times ask me to drive them from Tacoma to Seattle. My response- "Either take the bus or wait until next Tuesday when I'm going up anyway"

There's no conceivable way to argue that depending on other people for rides = more freedom of movement than transit

[Zmapper]

Have you ever been forced to schedule a ride with someone when you can't drive? I take it he or she didn't drop everything at that moment and rush to serve you. It would be like having a transit system that forces you to wait for the bus to navigate from the bus barn every time on the drivers whim.

[jjakucyk]

Transit restricts freedom of movement?

Fixed routes, schedules.

You took my response completely out of context by removing the point that transit is IN ADDITION to roads.  Roads+transit=more freedom of movement than roads alone.

Transit does not make roads go away.

Transit is going after car tab $ and other taxes on drivers to pay for transit.  That is wrong.  Road users should pay for roads and transit users should pay for transit.

I agree that road users should pay for roads and transit users should pay for transit.  The fact of the matter is, however, that road users pay for disproportionately less than the cost of the roads and the externalized impacts of driving than others.  We heavily subsidize all forms of transportation in this country, except for freight rail.  If we eliminated the airline bailouts, taxpayer funded airports, general fund bailouts of the highway trust fund, mandatory off-street parking requirements, property and income tax payments for roads, and operating subsidies for transit, then we'd have a more level playing field.  Yes it would cost more to use the roads and take the train or fly, but we'd have lower taxes and more choices in how to get around that would maximize efficiency.

As I mentioned before, there's a lot of people who can't drive, so why should they be left out?

This is a canard.  Most cars have passenger seats.  Need me to show you a picture of a car? 

Just because you CAN beg someone for a ride somewhere doesn't mean you should have to.  You keep extolling the "freedom" of the road, well for someone who can't drive, begging for a ride from someone else is not freedom.  To them, and to people who simply would rather not drive, freedom is the ability to take a train, or ride their bike, or walk somewhere on their own without assistance.  Also, since you keep harping on transit riders being a slave to the route and the schedule, well so is the unfortunate child, the blind person, or the elderly who are trying to get into someone's passenger seat. 

There absolutely is a lot of stuff wrong with more driving.  Air pollution, congestion, excessive water runoff/flooding, wars in the Middle East, oil spills in the Gulf.  Gas is not going to get cheaper, so it's very naive to think that we should just keep expanding highway systems endlessly if we won't be able to afford to use them.

The solution is a clean car, not wasteful transit. 

Clean cars are a step in the right direction, but not a solution.  Electric cars or biofuels aren't going to solve congestion problems, or water runoff, or the lack of credit/capital.  The restrictions on who can drive them are still the same too.  Besides, even a clean car still takes much more resources to build and operate than transit vehicles, especially with the abysmal occupancy numbers in most cars in this country.   

I could just as easily say that massive highways and huge interchanges are a "mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners, and restricts freedom of mobility (for anyone who's not fortunate enough to own a car)."  How many developers out there benefitted from the opening of a new highway interchange? 

That's crap since the road network is extensive.  Most people live near roads.  Check the facts. 

Again you misinterpreted what I said.  There's roads pretty much everywhere, but that new highway and interchange is a huge boon to developers.  Light rail and streetcar systems help bring value back to areas that lost it when the transit systems in those built-up areas were dismantled.  It's a different sort of situation, but no doubt there's people who benefit from both. 

Transit is not the money loser you think it is compared to roads.

That's false.  It isn't close.

So do you just choose not to believe the numbers I presented? 

However, while interstate highways are mostly funded by gas taxes (and they're the most expensive roads), that's still a small portion of the total network. 

And states don't have gas taxes too?  Man, you are clueless.  Where I live, users pay for the roads.  Not only do drivers pay for roads, they also have to pay for someone else to use transit. 

Yes states have gas taxes, and that's part of the equation.  Federal gas taxes, state gas taxes, tolls, vehicle registration, and truck weight fees still only cover half of the direct road costs, and none of the externalized costs at all. 

http://subsidyscope.com/transportation/highways/funding/

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/89803737.html

http://www.repamerica.org/opinions/op-eds/6.html

So in reality we subsidize roads nearly as much as we subsidize transit,

That's false.

See above.

Nobody is advocating removing cars or not building roads.  What is being advocated is having a comprehensive transportation network with many modes that serve their best purpose.

That's great.  Other than the bus, mass transit doesn't pencil out in most areas.   

Neither do roads.  The "penciling out" comes in improved land value, increased economic activity, and more tax revenue.  Any transportation improvements, whether roads or transit, bring additional value to the areas they serve.  While they may lose money by themsleves, that's more than made up for by the increased development that happens along them.  This is where transit is a huge win, because the amount of development they create has a much higher payoff in a smaller amount of space than roads do.  Spending $100 million for a few miles of streetcar line can bring in billions of dollars of new development, and thus tens of millions of dollars in new tax revenue per year, which is an order of magnitude more than the operating costs of that streetcar line. 

[Zmapper]

I think this video from 1952 is very interesting and to the point. If you don't have time to view it all, skip to 4:00.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOlxIpbnV-Q&feature=player_embedded