
The Koch brothers are campaigning against tax rises for public transit projects - petethomas
https://nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html
======
oldgrumpygeek
It seems like a bit of class warfare on the part of the Koch's. Without public
transportation people in lower income areas can't get to better jobs,
healthcare or schools. People in these areas also don't have access healthy
food because grocery stores won't open in areas where the majority of
customers use food stamps and government aid. Yes current modes of
transportation are becoming out dated the newer modes like self driving cars
are not ready for the mass public. What the Koch's fail to grasp is that the
more people making a living wage we have means we have less people living off
entitlements like food stamps. If we have more people paying taxes instead of
living off the taxes of other we will see improvements for all and possibly
lower taxes due to a surplus not a deficit. Sorry for the soapbox.

~~~
FranzFerdiNaN
Class warfare has never been gone. It's just that it's only the rich and
powerful that wage it, and of course they are winning.

~~~
grasshopperpurp
>There’s been class warfare for the last 20 years, and my class has won

\- Warren Buffett

~~~
RobertoG
This is a real quote but, without context, gives an unfair impression about
Buffet: he said that while supporting bigger taxation.

He also said something in the lines that "he was paying a lower tax rate than
his secretary". That sounds crazy to me, but I'm not going to discuss about
finances with Warren Buffet.

~~~
pseudalopex
Most of Buffet's income is long-term capital gains, and he probably pays his
secretary well above median.

------
tompccs
Some commenters questioning the benefit of public transit infrastructure in an
age of self-driving electric vehicles have perhaps never lived in a city with
good public transit. Road traffic in Victorian London was on average faster
than it is now, but investing in underground tunnels for trains was still
deemed necessary (even profitable). Likewise, buses massively reduce the road
footprint per passenger, not to mention the increased energy efficiency,
regardless of whether it renewable or not.

And finally, end-to-end transport offered by personal vehicles or taxis has
been disastrous for public health. The difference between walking to your
driveway or curbside versus a five minute walk to a bus stop or ten minute
walk to a train station everyday would be enormous aggregated across an entire
population. It would be a great missed opportunity if the idea of being able
to summon a driverless electric car (we still have no idea how this technology
will really pan out, whereas buses and trains have been around for over a
century) kills public transit as an alternative to single-occupancy vehicles
before it's even off the ground.

~~~
orev
> commenters questioning the benefit of public transit infrastructure in an
> age of self-driving electric vehicles

Such commenters would also not be living in reality. A few self-driving
vehicles deployed as research projects in select areas hardly defines an
“age”. We’re just at the start of the path, and until there are millions of
these things roaming the streets, they will have no impact on society. People
need to get to work _today_ , not in some near future that is still defined in
years.

------
dantheman
I think there's an interesting take on this - we are on the verge of a huge
technological shift with the advent of self-driving cars. Should we hold off
on massive transit projects where they don't already exist that is the
community doesn't already have a subway and wait to see how self-driving cars
pan out?

It's like investing in traditional cargo ships right as containerization
started happening. Or investing in horse related infrastructure when the
automotive was first being released.

This seems relatively sensible to me. Address near term issues - small fixes.
And not fund huge projects that may become obsolete before they're finished.

I guess the question is -- how quickly will self driving cars be deployed, and
how will they effect the areas. Will self driving cars completely replace
buses?

~~~
imgabe
Even with self driving cars, they cannot move any where near the quantity of
people in a given space that a train can. It's not going to be a solution for
dense cities.

Besides, if we are just on the cusp of having self-driving _cars_ we should be
able to deploy self-driving _trains_ right now and reap all the benefits of
autonomous transport immediately.

~~~
masklinn
> Besides, if we are just on the cusp of having self-driving cars we should be
> able to deploy self-driving trains right now and reap all the benefits of
> autonomous transport immediately.

Self-driving (GoA4) trains are close to 40 years old:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_New_Transit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_New_Transit)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lille_Metro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lille_Metro)

------
congruence
European here, living happily without a driver's license.

Could someone please explain the gentrification argument? How is public
transport supposed to make it worse?

Assuming gentrification occurs when one area is much more desirable to be in
than others, then with good public transport it can be reached more easily.
People can live outside the center (or the nice district) and still get a good
experience, work or spend time there. The desirable area expands. It seems to
me that if anything, this should work against gentrification.

Also, living in cities means giving up some freedom. We share it, we have to
make some kinds of compromise: keep the noise down, take up less space for our
private use and use the public more (like parks instead of own gardens). In my
opinion this also means limiting the use of cars, so that city centers don't
have to accommodate wide roads and parking space and could become more
walkable and generally pleasant. I appreciate that most major European cities
seem to develop in that direction.

Want freedom - go live away from people, no one will restrict you then.

~~~
funkjunky
"The nice area expands" \- basically what gentrification is.

If public transit opens up travel options for poorer (usually minority) areas,
young white people who can't afford to live in the city will start moving
there, bringing their yoga studios and brunch cafes and actual grocery-stores-
that-arent-just-an-isle-of-canned-food-in-liquor-stores.

------
whb07
What’s the story here? Seems like Koch Bros are against raising taxes. They
aren’t “killing” anything.

Let’s assume the tax raise will only go to public transport. Let’s assume for
now it’s a good plan and actually wanted by the public. The issue isn’t the
previous assumptions but the fact that taxes will not be lowered afterwards.

So even after completion of the project, the tax that was put in place to
raise revenues to fund the project will still remain in the books. That’s the
insidious nature of government. Once it has it it will not let go.

~~~
egypturnash
Well

> One of the mainstay companies of Koch Industries, the Kochs’ conglomerate,
> is a major producer of gasoline and asphalt, and also makes seatbelts, tires
> and other automotive parts. Even as Americans for Prosperity opposes public
> investment in transit, it supports spending tax money on highways and roads.

Also: stuff requires upkeep, consider the current state of the woefully
unfunded NYC subway. You can’t just build it and expect it to stay in perfect
condition forever.

~~~
bmelton
> consider the current state of the woefully unfunded NYC subway

Everything I've read about the NYC Subway system indicates that it's funded
more than adequately, but due to mismanagement, corruption, and cronyism, the
funds walk out the door in the pockets of ghost workers.

Assuming the system wasn't awash with grift, is there evidence to suggest that
NYC doesn't actually fund it adequately? NYC residents pay well above the
national rate in taxes, and presumably those taxes are intended to fund
transit. If the money taxed isn't being used to actually maintain the
infrastructure, I think it supports OP's argument that the taxes haven't
abated but the services being offered for them have.

Without getting into the ideological debate of whether publicly funded
projects are good or bad, I think it's fair to assume that _most_ people
expect that when taxes are raised to fund transit, that the taxes raised will
be used for transit, not to line the pockets of the friends and cohorts of who
raised the taxes.

~~~
ejstronge
I don't think I've read the same things as you. Do you have sources for the
cronyism and ghost workers?

Also, the tax levels in NYC don't necessarily relate to the levels of subway
support (e.g., NY state contributes to the NYC subway).

> I think it's fair to assume that most people expect that when taxes are
> raised to fund transit, that the taxes raised will be used for transit, not
> to line the pockets of the friends and cohorts of who raised the taxes.

This is a straw man argument - the implication here is that the NYC subway's
sole financial problem is corruption. Is that actually true?

~~~
bmelton
Sources:

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html)

* [https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-most-damning-report-yet-on-wh...](https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-most-damning-report-yet-on-why-the-new-york-c-1821651731)

* [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/14/new-yorks-s...](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/14/new-yorks-subway-scam/)

> the implication here is that the NYC subway's sole financial problem is
> corruption. Is that actually true?

So, that isn't the assertion. The argument that taxes are raised for a
project, then being diverted to general funds is a separate issue from the one
of corruption, and speak more directly to OP's argument that "taxes don't go
down", to which the rebuttal from GP was "Well, taxes shouldn't go down,
because maintenance is a thing". If the taxes don't go down, and also aren't
being used for the purpose they were raised, you have sort of a shell game.

That said, on the matter of corruption, here are a few quotes from the first
source I linked:

    
    
        > The estimated cost of the Long Island Rail Road project, known as 
        > “East Side Access,” has ballooned to $12 billion, or nearly $3.5 
        > billion for each new mile of track — seven times the average elsewhere 
        > in the world. The recently completed Second Avenue subway on 
        > Manhattan’s Upper East Side and the 2015 extension of the No. 7 line 
        > to Hudson Yards also cost far above average, at $2.5 billion and $1.5 
        > billion per mile, respectively.
    
        > The spending has taken place even as the M.T.A. has cut back on core
        > subway maintenance because, as The New York Times has documented, 
        > generations of politicians have diverted money from the transit 
        > authority and saddled it with debt.

~~~
ejstronge
I remember glancing at that NYT article. It's hard to prove these things, but
they only peripherally imply the idea of 'ghost workers'.

I agree that it sounds like social connections are leading to small numbers of
contractors, but the takeaway I saw is the lack of political will to manage
contracting - these so-called 'soft' costs were on the order of 1/3 of the
overall costs.

I didn't pick up on the duration of taxes argument - I see your point there.

~~~
bmelton
> It's hard to prove these things, but they only peripherally imply the idea
> of 'ghost workers'.

[https://jalopnik.com/ill-be-damned-feds-indict-new-york-
city...](https://jalopnik.com/ill-be-damned-feds-indict-new-york-city-subway-
worker-1823273269)

That doesn't prove all of the allegations from the earlier articles, for sure,
but does confirm that the story wasn't made up from whole cloth.

> “Lokhandwala concealed his receipt of the bribe payments by having the
> contractors issue checks to shell bank accounts he controlled,” the DOJ
> said. “In exchange for the bribes, Lokhandwala promised to steer future work
> to the contractors and to expedite bureaucratic paperwork for their benefit.
> Lokhandwala threatened to bar the contractors from future projects if they
> did not continue to pay him.”

------
dahdum
That project would have kicked their sales tax to 10.25%, highest in the
country, and like every major public project they’d go far over their 5.4b
budget.

The link to Koch brothers is a bit tenuous, it was the voters who killed this
project, once they knew the costs.

------
sevensor
The article paints their motivation as naked self-serving hypocrisy:

> One of the mainstay companies of Koch Industries, the Kochs’ conglomerate,
> is a major producer of gasoline and asphalt, and also makes seatbelts, tires
> and other automotive parts. Even as Americans for Prosperity opposes public
> investment in transit, it supports spending tax money on highways and roads.

------
21
> Americans for Prosperity counters that public transit plans waste taxpayer
> money on unpopular, outdated technology like trains and buses just as the
> world is moving toward cleaner, driverless vehicles.

> Most American cities do not have the population density to support mass
> transit, the group says. It also asserts that transit brings unwanted
> gentrification to some areas, while failing to reach others altogether.

> Public transit, Americans for Prosperity says, goes against the liberties
> that Americans hold dear. “If someone has the freedom to go where they want,
> do what they want,” Ms. Venable said, “they’re not going to choose public
> transit.”

Public transport is against freedom? I got to say, that is creative.

~~~
dexterdog
There is a point here. Public transportation is great, but under the
incredibly inefficient management of the government it will almost always cost
anywhere from 2x to 10x what it really should. That means it not only costs
more, but takes longer to complete and is possibly irrelevant by the time it
is actually usable. This wasn't the case in the past as much it is today and
it's only getting worse.

~~~
dvtrn
This almost reads like a mad lib of every surface level, trope-like critique
of publicly funded initiatives without actually saying anything at all of
substance.

Government may be inefficient at times but so far they've been the most
consistent purveyor of public mass transportation. It may not be great but I
think in the larger picture the general public is probably well satisfied with
transit that is consistent if you polled riders.

~~~
BadThink6655321
No mass transit system makes a profit, at least the last time I talked to
someone who was heavily involved in the numbers. They require a subsidy of,
what was it, 70%? That doesn’t make it wrong, but it has to be considered.

~~~
rostigerpudel
That is wrong. The Munich public transport system has been turning a profit
for at least 15 years out of the last 17. For the two missing years, I did not
find numbers or sources, but it's probably the same.

Pretty sure there are others that run successfully.

BTW only road systems where you pay for every mile you drive (see e.g.
motorways in France, Spain, Italy) turn a profit. All others are, basically,
just a waste of taxpayers money ;-)

It's usually failed policies and nincompompous administration that make public
transport systems fail.

Sources:
>[https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pre...](https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mvg.de%2Fueber%2Fpresse-
print%2Fpressemeldungen%2F2016%2F2016-04-29-aufsichtsrat-verabschiedet-
jahresabschluss.html&edit-text=)
>[https://www.swm.de/dam/swm/dokumente/unternehmen/swm/geschae...](https://www.swm.de/dam/swm/dokumente/unternehmen/swm/geschaeftsbericht.pdf)

------
plcancel
"The group’s Nashville victory followed a roller-coaster political campaign,
including a sex-and-spending scandal that led to the mayor’s resignation."

Oct 2017 - Unveils $5.2bil plan Mar 2018 - Pleads guilty to felony and
resigns; interim mayor (vice mayor appointed) May 01 2018 - Vote on plan May
24 2018 - Vote for new mayor (vice mayor wins with 55% of vote)

Yeah, sounds roller-coastery.

------
RichardRider
Such public transit tax boondoggles always include buses and commuter rail in
one measure. But the OVERWHELMING majority of such spending (ignoring the
other trendy items such as hiking trails, beautification and congestive bike
lanes) is for rail — NOT buses.

Buses are FAR cheaper and relatively much more efficient than rail. But
central planners LOVE choo-choos.

Rail is NOT desired by most commuters. From 1985 to 2015 the Los Angeles
region spent $9 billion on transit improvements — almost all on rail. At the
end of these 30 years and with a bigger population, public transit in the
region has fewer riders in 2015 than they had in 1985. Not just a lower
PERCENTAGE of rail travelers — fewer ACTUAL riders.
[http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2016/02/billions-spent-but-
fe...](http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2016/02/billions-spent-but-fewer-people-
are.html)

------
cascom
There are very few cities in America where public transport is the most
efficient option for MOST trips - e.g. think about cities where a family of
four could honestly say that they wouldn’t need a car.

If a large capital project is not going to change that equation, it seems
unlikely that that is an efficient use of money.

It’s sad to say that in all but the largest and densest American cities mass
transit is used for the most part by people that can’t drive.

------
jessaustin
OK that seems pretty vile.

Still, one gets the sense that these campaigns succeeded mostly because there
was no response to them. This "team" the reporter followed talked to 66 people
in one day? The campaign in total raised $1.1M? These are not overwhelming
numbers, if the entire Nashville business community and political apparatus
had really been united as described in TFA. It seems possible that support was
a mile wide and an inch deep. It's easy to give lip service to a popular
politician. This charismatic mayor was not around for the long haul, even if
her bodyguard had not been the type of cad to kiss and tell. If her scandal
had been delayed a year, the measure had passed, the money raised, etc.: then
what? What strong constituency existed to keep pushing this project in the
right directions over the decade it would take? If those people exist, they
should have gone door-to-door a week after these AfP yokels to complain about
rich Kansans interfering in our politics to sell us asphalt.

------
epc_chswift
Public transit is the way of the future in higher density urban areas. Not
only is it more energy efficient per rider and of assistance to those that are
financially less well off. It has a much lower impact on air quality. Check
out the article on electric vehicles from The Guardian Aug 4, 2017. Always
concerned when rich people with a vested interest discourage a service that
helps the working poor.

------
smsm42
Americans for Prosperity has 2.3 million members, according to Wikipedia.
Current headline, "The Koch brothers are campaigning against tax rises for
public transit projects", is an improvement over original NYT insane "How the
Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country" but
still misleading. Kochs are financing a 2.3 million organization, which in
part - by activities of their local activists, going door to door, which is
impossible without wide support on the ground - opposes some public
transportation projects. Which sometimes are a colossal waste of taxpayer
money. For example: [https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/22/corruption-
incompetence-c...](https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/22/corruption-incompetence-
characterize-los) [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-
subway-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-
construction-costs.html) [https://reason.com/blog/2017/09/18/seattles-sound-
transit-pa...](https://reason.com/blog/2017/09/18/seattles-sound-transit-
pays-100000-for-a) [https://www.aei.org/publication/whod-a-thunk-it-like-most-
ce...](https://www.aei.org/publication/whod-a-thunk-it-like-most-central-
planning-public-transit-systems-often-fail-without-massive-taxpayer-
subsidies/) and many more.

From the article itself:

Early polling here had suggested that the $5.4 billion transit plan would
easily pass. It was backed by the city’s popular mayor and a coalition of
businesses. Its supporters had outspent the opposition

So the evil Koch's money was actually less than the benevolent whoever-that-
was-NYT-is-not-going-to-tell-us's money. So how did it happen?

“This is why grass roots works,” said Tori Venable, Tennessee state director
for Americans for Prosperity, which made almost 42,000 phone calls and knocked
on more than 6,000 doors.

So it's not nefarious Koch Brothers and their dark magic. It's people on the
ground making phone calls and knocking doors and convincing people that they
are right. This is how democracy is _supposed_ to work. But of course for NYT
it is anathema since their side lost this time, so they would present it as
some kind of dark magic of evil Satan brothers. I would want to say I expect
better from NYT, but the times when I did has long passed.

------
M_Bakhtiari
When Americans pronounce their name as "Coke", is that a mean-spirited jab at
the troublesome byproduct of Fred C. Koch's petroleum cracking process, or is
that how the family pronounces it themselves?

------
weliketocode
I live in nyc now, but grew up in a small conservative-learning town.

So many of my friends & colleagues who have spent their lives in liberal areas
refuse to see the issue from the perspective of middle-class conservatives -->
instead calling them 'deplorables' or 'morons'.

If you went around at my town's local supermarket handing out $50 gift cards -
telling people that this was how much their taxes were going up - that
proposition was getting voted down.

~~~
justaguyhere
I understand 50$ goes far in small towns than in NYC. That said, shouldn't
voters consider a proposal based on its merits than solely from a tax increase
viewpoint? Sure I'm paying $50 more in taxes, but if it means not having to
use my car as much, then it is a win, isn't it?

Handing out gift cards is a shitty move _even_ if all their reasons against
the project made sense (which it doesn't). These should be settled with
educated, sensible debates rather than who has more money to spend.

~~~
weliketocode
You're right. Completely right. Citizens should understand and think about tax
increases in terms of their longer terms use. Whether that's increased
security, infrastructure, education, etc.

------
phobosdeimos
Driverless cars are tested in Arizona. I am not impressed. The US is FINALLY
being weened off their urban sprawl fetish, every city on the planet is
heavily investing in public transport.

When Trump was talking about how North Korea could one,day look like Singapore
I smiled. Why does LA or New York not look like Singapore?

------
deepGem
Where is the need to spend 5.2 billion on public transit ? A few electric
buses with point to point connections will do. Start small and expand as
needed. Just one high density suburb <-> Downtown connection is sufficient to
start with. Electric buses are so good, they have instant torque - so there is
none of the lag that plague traditional diesel buses, they are fast, quiet and
since it's point to point, your range anxiety is practically eliminated. A
dedicated bus lane or the HOV lane and a stop every 1/2 ecits should cut it.

Sure it's not as fast as a dedicated subway or the Shinkansen but at a
fraction of the cost, you are bringing in people to start using public
transit.

~~~
johannes1234321
The issue with starting small is that there is no network effect - somehow
people have to get to the starting or end point.

This can work if you have a city structure with a clear resedential area and
some central leisure or work place and there's lot's of commute between, but
for many areas the benefit only comes if many people can use a network effect
of reaching many areas.

------
marcoperaza
Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a
level playing field. Instead, they adopt anti-car policies to force people to
behave like they want them to. See the highly inefficient HOV lanes, the
purposeful underdevelopment of roads, exorbitant parking prices, punitive fuel
and car taxes, closure of lanes, and so forth.

If the people really want public transportation, why do you have to punish
them for using cars? Could it be that people value the freedom and privacy of
having a car and living in the suburbs? Of living in quiet suburbs free of
street crime and roving gangs of ne’er-do-wells? Of being free from the
inherent restrictions to freedom that come with being in closer proximity to
others?

~~~
jcranmer
> Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a
> level playing field.

You're right. We need to insist that drivers pay as much for their privilege
to use public roads as we insist that public transit users pay to use public
transit.

> See the highly inefficient HOV lanes, the purposeful underdevelopment of
> roads, exorbitant parking prices, punitive fuel and car taxes, closure of
> lanes, and so forth.

Oh. You want the government to subsidize your car-centric lifestyle even more
than it does so. SOV cars have very large demands on space, and in urban
settings, space is at a premium. Free parking, or even mandatory parking
minimums, are essentially taxing everyone for the benefit of drivers.

The normal "user fees" for roads--gas taxes and car taxes--simply do not cover
the actual costs even of maintenance for roads, let alone the capital costs of
expanding them. This means that those funds come from general revenue, again
causing everyone to subsidize drivers, whether or not they actually use them.

~~~
marcoperaza
I see your point, and it’s a very valid observation. But I think it’s
different when the overwhelming majority of people _want_ cars and _want_ to
live in the suburbs. Organizing public goods to serve the collective desires
of the vast majority is different than socially engineering society by forcing
them to abandon their preferred way of life because a powerful minority thinks
it’s backwards and unenlightened.

~~~
ocschwar
People might "want cars and want to live in the suburbs." That does not mean
that my city should be torn apart with freeways to accommodate them.

