
Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums - paulpauper
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-16/four-reasons-taxpayers-should-never-subsidize-stadiums
======
uber-employee
The biggest abuse of this was definitely with the A’s stadium in Oakland. If a
game doesn’t sell out, the city pays for the empty seats. Your tax dollars at
work.

~~~
dtech
How is that even possible? It completely disincentives the need to market and
sell tickets.

I assume there's rules against this, but take this to the extreme and see how
preposterous it is: 365 days a year, 24 1-hour baseball games every day. The
city will pay for it.

------
drugme
_Elected officials have been played by team owners and sports leagues._

The article conveniently neglects to mention one of the more notable examples
of a certain very well known official getting "played" in this fashion (for
the benefit of a certain hugely unnecessary sports arena on the edge of
downtown Brooklyn):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg)

~~~
Mountain_Skies
Not even sure it's correct to say elected officials are being played. Quite
often they're sitting on the same side of the negotiating table as the team
owner without no one there to represent the public. In most cases with a few
notable exceptions, the elected officials are as rah-rah for a new stadium as
the team owner. Which is why in so many jurisdictions they no longer allow the
public to vote on stadium funding. With the elected officials on board, why
would the team owners ever want the public to have a voice?

~~~
sgt101
I suspect that democracy is actually a driver here. I think that it's possible
that the calculation is that "fans" will vote for a representative who backs
the stadium where as most other voters will not care about the issue, and will
switch off when it's raised as it's a "sports" thing. If you don't back the
stadium then your opponent's will and you'll be out! Also I guess this falls
into the "any publicity is good" bucket - so you back the stadium and the rich
folks driving it will ensure that you are at events where the TV cameras are
running and your face is on the screen.

~~~
snapdangle
Sorry, but that seems a bit confused. If there are not enough votes for a
stadium, then there will not be enough votes to throw out a candidate for "not
backing" a stadium.

Not allowing people a voice in the question and then blaming democracy for it?
You can't blame an abstract system of government for sports owners making
sweatheart deals that ignore public sentiment.

~~~
sgt101
I think you are thinking that elections are a zero sum game, but the reality
is that most people either don't vote, always vote for a party no matter what
or vote for the candidate that they know. Politicians are all about
influencing the swing vote - get people who never vote to vote for you or
alternatively influence some small part of the electorate that does make
positive decisions. Most people who don't want the stadium will either not
vote or vote the way that they would have anyway, the calculation is that
voters who are "fans" will vote positively for the people who stick up for
their team. Stir in the "I'll vote for the person who's popular" block (which
politicians are hoping that the free exposure in the stadium campaign will
grant) and the negative effect of shutting out your opponent (because backing
like this is strangely exclusive for some reason).

------
mathattack
I cringe when I see SF bringing the Warriors to town. Why not use the space
for housing? It’s not like Cincinnati where you need Sports attractions to
draw people to the area.

Having a Sports Team May help local restaurants, but I would think so would
more houses. When there are so many homeless people, the housing stock is more
important than a stadium.

~~~
jm4
You think people are homeless because there is not enough housing available in
the city? How many homes do you think you could build on the same plot of land
as a basketball arena? Several hundred? Maybe a thousand condos? That’s like
spitting in the ocean. And then what? Give them away to the homeless? It’s not
like they’re going to pay for them just because you made a few more available.

Housing is expensive in big cities because there are jobs, amenities and
entertainment for a diverse group of people. That entertainment includes
sports.

~~~
titanomachy
There are people who are on the margin of being able to afford a rental.
Increase in supply could slightly lower prices and allow those people to
afford to rent a home.

You're right of course that the poorest people would still be unable to afford
homes. Building more homes would reduce homelessness but not eliminate it.

~~~
jm4
Someone on the margin of affording a rental in SF isn’t homeless. They live
someplace else that costs less. Why should taxpayers foot the bill to build
more homes with the goal of making SF marginally more affordable when there
are plenty of other good places to live? How is that better than some dumb
stadium idea? And how long does it keep housing costs down? Those new homes
will be gobbled up immediately and then the available inventory on the resale
market will be back to about the same level as before.

~~~
notSupplied
Because the the best jobs are in SF, so scratching SF off of your list if
you're in particular industries is too large of a sacrifice.

The problem with NIMBYism isn't saying no to building more homes per se, it is
saying no to more homes while saying yes to more jobs and more commerce that
creates the problem.

Someone who works in SF, but lives 40 minutes away due to cost, should be
considered a constituent of SF and their voice is as valid as that of a
resident.

~~~
masonic

      while saying yes to more jobs
    

How do local _residents_ have any say in local job offerings?

~~~
notSupplied
By fighting high density projects that are residential ("It brings too much
traffic! It'll shade this nearby park!") but not when they're for commercial
use. See recent SOMA mixed use construction in SF. Office to residential
square footage ratio is completely skewed towards offices.

------
pgreenwood
> The bottom line here is very simple: The cost of building and maintaining
> these facilities should be borne by the people who attend these events via
> their ticket purchases, and not the people of an entire state and/or
> metropolitan region, the vast majority of whom will never set foot inside
> these enormously costly structures.

The article is arguing from a perspective that amenities such as stadiums
should be user-pays. There's an alternative viewpoint though; it could be a
principle beneficiary-pays. Who benefits? Well for example the land values in
the surrounding area are likely to rise, benefiting land owners through no
effort of their own. If a portion of this windfall gain could be captured via
say a land value tax, then that tax could partially fund the stadium in a fair
way. But I agree with the author that subsidies through income tax seems
unfair.

~~~
homero
Land value rises? I would think noise and traffic decreases it.

~~~
offsetr
Unless you're talking about commercial property, which has more value than
residential property.

Where commercial property has more value due to more foot traffic, the closest
residential property gets value too.

------
l0b0
Although I completely agree about the general premise, it's borderline
intellectually dishonest to include a link to your own web site as a reference
(the "infrastructure" link). Just include the direct references to third
parties, like in the footnote.

~~~
cududa
Most outlets link to their own prior reporting instead of source material.
Drives me nuts

~~~
reboog711
Prior reporting is the one resource they can guarantee will not turn into a
dead link.

------
jrnichols
" Stadiums add little or nothing to the local economy."

I think that AT&T Stadium (Arlington, TX) may be a good example of one that's
helped. One article from 2015 says "WrestleMania — the Super Bowl of pro
wrestling — is coming to Arlington’s AT&T Stadium in April, and it could pack
a financial wallop for local businesses."

The new Rangers stadium nearby has benefited, and so has nearby Six Flags &
Hurricane Harbor. The new Arlington entertainment district and local
businesses have been picked up as well. It feels like the whole area has
improved.

~~~
kodablah
And it was all subject to a vote and is just a slight increase on local sales
tax. I too think it is a model example of a community voting for what they
want and getting it, even if some newspaper tells them otherwise. Subsidizing
entertainment should be the local populace's right despite the external guilt
others want to heap on. Of course I think the same about communities and tax
abatements for businesses too so I'm in the minority on HN.

~~~
mr_toad
If no-one tells the voters that what they’re voting for doesn’t make economic
sense, then where are they supposed to find out?

Vested interests and popularist politicians have no interest in the facts, and
are why we need newspapers ‘telling them otherwise’.

~~~
kodablah
I think you're confusing telling voters what they're voting for and telling
voters whether it's good or bad. Arts and entertainment are too subjective for
these journalists to objectively proclaim they are bad deals. In the instance
with the new Cowboys' stadium and the new Rangers' stadium, the electorate was
plenty informed.

~~~
emiliobumachar
By "plenty informed", do you mean no more than a tiny minority thought they
were buying far more economic stimulus than it would be realistic to expect?
If everyone knew they were just using government to buy entertainment in bulk,
them you are right, but things are often not like that.

------
mschuster91
The reason why politicians decide to subsidize stadiums and other sport venues
/ events (esp. the tax break deals given to UEFA/FIFA!) is imho relatively
clear cut and dates back to the Roman Age: _panem et circenses_ , aka "bread
and games".

Basically, to keep the population happy, provide them with food and games for
entertainment. And try to have your city team the best in league. For
international events (Olympic Games, soccer Euro Cup/World Cup, Formula 1) in
addition international prestige for the hosting country comes to play in
decision making. _Every_ country that hosted soccer EC/WC or Olympic Games in
the near past has made, sometimes vast, economic losses. Lot of F1 race tracks
have closed for F1 as it's not profitable any more, and public support is
dwindling, but politicians still want to have the photo job opportunity at
opening and irate their electorate.

(Am on mobile so if anyone wants sources, reply and I'll update tomorrow, but
everything should be 1 Google search away anyway)

------
fmajid
As long as elected officials believe sports fan voters will punish them for
letting a team leave, they will be blackmailed by team owners. The day pols
are punished by voters for subsidizing millionaires, that will stop.

~~~
onetimemanytime
There's a major delay between saying "yes" and seeing that it doesn't work.
Probably a decade or so, plus they are many weasel words and other campaign
issues: Yes, I voted for the stadium but I also support abortion /want you to
carry guns in the park or whatever.

------
slg
There is no question that public stadium subsidies are almost always a bad
investment. However these type of articles never take into consideration that
people generally like sports teams and want them to stay in the same region.
It also isn't just people who attend the games or businesses around the
stadium. A local sports team, unlike nearly any other private business,
provides a huge but unknown amount of utility to a wide range of residents who
never pay for a ticket or a piece of merchandise. Is it unreasonable for a
sports team to want to benefit from that free utility?

Politicians shouldn't buy all of these stupid economic arguments for a simple
fact they are often wrong. But governments aren't businesses. They don't have
to make the smart economic move on every single decision. Creating a public
park is rarely a smart economic move, but cities do it because that is what
residents want. Politicians who let a sports franchise leave town without
putting up a fight in negotiations are often quickly voted out (as well as
politicians who offer too many incentives for a team to stay). So the people
clearly want to keep teams when the cost is reasonable. The problem is what is
"reasonable", especially when there is another city a few states over that has
a slightly more generous definition of "reasonable"?

TL;DR - It is more complicated than "sports stadiums = bad" but these
discussions rarely get deeper than that.

~~~
CamperBob2
_TL;DR - It is more complicated than "sports stadiums = bad" but these
discussions rarely get deeper than that._

Additionally, the detractors often don't understand that these things are
basically urban pacification projects. The argument has been made that having
a place where the mayor sits down with a businessman on one side and a
bricklayer on the other, where everybody has temporarily set aside their
differences in politics, occupation, wealth, class, IQ, gender, religion,
what-have-you and is lustily cheering for the same outcome, is good for social
order.

To the extent that's true, it makes stadiums a valid subject for government
funding. I don't like sportsball and I don't like being forced to pay for it,
but I also can't see how to shoot any holes in this argument. It makes some
sense.

~~~
mattchew
You can always make up a story where your project brings intangible but
wonderful benefits that no decent person could be against. This is _normal_.

If you can paint a rosy picture of community, or the happiness of children, or
the safety of the vulnerable, it is indeed very hard to argue against. Saying
the glowing vision is exaggerated or fabulated just makes you look like a
grouch and a jerk.

In my town, the new stadium has a VIP area. Important people are specifically
shielded from contact with bricklayers. Just saying.

~~~
CamperBob2
_Saying the glowing vision is exaggerated or fabulated just makes you look
like a grouch and a jerk._

Yep. Unfortunately, the people who want to treat stadiums as public works
projects have 2000+ years of history on their side going back to classical
Rome and Athens. I've concluded that it's not a battle worth fighting, if only
because my lack of appreciation of team sports makes me a bad judge of how
important they are to society.

------
dwighttk
Arlington, TX subsidized the Cowboys stadium and however that plan was
structured they were set to pay off those bonds 14 years early (2020 instead
of 2034). Instead they refinanced the bonds to help pay for the new Texas
Rangers ballpark.[1]

The increased tax revenue really surprised them despite the projections being
made before the recession. (A 25 year bond only taking 11 years to pay off.)

[1][https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-
estate/2017/09/13/6...](https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-
estate/2017/09/13/600-million-loan-rangers-new-arlington-stadium)

~~~
chiph
They also took 19 properties from their owners to build it.

[https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/eminent_domain_ruling_affe...](https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/eminent_domain_ruling_affects_dallas_cowboys_stadium/)

------
rajacombinator
Meh. I’d rather my tax money be wasted on pro sports entertainment than
starting wars in other countries, drone bombing civilians, bailouts for
megabanks, etc.

------
mlinksva
Needs to be made illegal (not just stadiums) [http://www.governing.com/gov-
institute/on-leadership/col-eco...](http://www.governing.com/gov-institute/on-
leadership/col-economic-development-incentives-federal-law-washington-state-
seattle-boeing.html) or at least not federally subsidized
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-
bill/134...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1342)

[https://www.goodjobsfirst.org/](https://www.goodjobsfirst.org/) is a good
general resource on the issue.

~~~
ajross
How would one propose to make it illegal for an elected government to finance
construction of a public building? I mean, yeah, sports stadiums are wasteful.
But how would you draft that such that it wouldn't eliminate libraries and
museums?

I mean, I agree with you in spirit but at the end of the day the whole point
of a democratic government is that it's empowered to work to better our
collective lives. And that has to include dumb-but-popular boondoggles as
offerings to attract football teams.

~~~
hammock
>dumb-but-popular

Do you have a recent example of a new football stadium that had popular
support among the constituent taxpayers? My memory can only recall ones
opposed by the general public.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I remember the Seattle vote back in the mid-90s, we clearly rejected it but
they went ahead with it anyways.

~~~
rnd0
I lived there then; as I remember it was put to the ballot two or three times
-and when it kept getting voted down they basically just said "screw it" and
built it anyway.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
They passed a hotel occupancy tax by council vote alone to build it if I
remember correctly...and the tax is still going on today. I'm far from a anti-
tax conservative, but I feel like this is the wrong thing to be taxing for.

------
village-idiot
A classic case of what’s popular isn’t always good policy.

Although I get the feeling that financing of sports stadiums is becoming less
popular now.

~~~
dluan
It has nothing to do with popularity - it's a feature, not a bug of democratic
capitalism: [https://ashesashes.org/blog/episode-53-welfare-
titans](https://ashesashes.org/blog/episode-53-welfare-titans)

------
aliuakbar
In Switzerland the citizens can vote about such businesses and still they
decided last to pay for a new stadium last year.

~~~
streichg
I guess you speak about the new stadium in Zürich. The government actually
doesn't pay for the new stadium. The deal is that the city gives investors
some land for free, where they can build the stadium. The investors also get
some more land where they can build housing to get a return on there
spendings. The city itself doesn't spend anything on building or maintaining
the stadium.

~~~
briandear
How can I get public land in Zurich for free to build my private enterprise?

~~~
mr_toad
It’s a lot like dating.

You start with a common interest. Like golf. Then you invite them to party on
your super-yacht. Before you know it you’ll be taking limousines to all the
same $10,000 per plate charity events together and showering their non-profit-
campaign-fund in ‘gifts’.

------
redshirtrob
Probably the thing that annoys me most about these deals is how one-sided the
tenancy is. For example, an NFL team can play eight games a year in a publicly
financed stadium, but if a game doesn't "sell out", then the local broadcast
is blacked out. AFAIK only the NFL does this, but that's probably a function
of the number/timing of games more than anything else.

~~~
stevehawk
NFL dropped the blackout rule three years ago. The loss in tv ad revenue
outweighed the "gain" of full attendance.

~~~
redshirtrob
As I mentioned in another reply, I totally missed that change. I think your
assessment is spot on though. They did a cost-benefit analysis and realized it
made more sense to lift the blackouts. It's not like they ceded the right to
do so.

My preference is they should not have that right for publicly financed
stadiums. Privately financed (meaning 100% private, don't ask for infra
changes or anything else), then they can do what they want. Make it PPV for
all I care.

------
phkahler
Perhaps cities could charge teams for the use of the cities name.

~~~
dwighttk
you'd probably see more regionally named teams e.g. Texas Rangers, Tennessee
Titans, Golden State Warriors, Arizona Diamondbacks/Cardinals/Coyotes, New
England Patriots, Carolina Panthers/Hurricanes, Colorado Avalanche, Utah Jazz,
Minnesota Wild... Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

------
nraynaud
I'd suggest we be careful with the vocabulary, there exist 2 kind of stadiums:
the stadium for spectacle made for filming sport related TV shows; and the
stadium for the local citizens where normal people have access to sport
facilities.

Please, don't throw the baby with the bathwater, even if I don't use a
stadium, people will enjoy their local running track, disk throwing field or
soccer field.

~~~
TulliusCicero
I don't think this warning is really necessary. Nobody's thinking of a modest
local high school stadium with garden variety bleachers when they're
discussing this topic.

------
rdiddly
There's an additional set of costs that begin on the day the stadium opens,
and are borne by the people who live near it.

------
jccalhoun
It would be nice if more cities were able to own the teams like Green Bay does
but the leagues have made that impossible.

------
gamblor956
Staples Center in DTLA revitalized a previously barren part of downtown and
was one of the major factors leading to the gentrification of the rest of the
downtown area.

It was partially subsidized by taxpayers...

------
dluan
Is the author actually trying to say that taxpayers paying or stadiums is
socialist?

As a Seattle sports fan, I am evidence that a lot of major American sports
practice is not a democratic socialist exercise - we had a team and community
anchor taken from us with zero recourse. And with what's happening in Columbus
right now with the Crew has basically been a hostage situation for over a
year.

It's funny that Americans love to throw around 'socialist' and 'communist'
when it comes to parity and quality of play in the NFL/NBA/MLS/NHL with salary
caps and strict team rules, but these clubs act like cartels. The fact that
teams can at any moment be stolen or moved entirely negates any argument of
social or economic return to the citizens. Now if only Bloomberg writers would
wise up to the 'economic development' scams that companies like Amazon
exploit, we'd actually have a better society.

~~~
creato
> Now if only Bloomberg writers would wise up to the 'economic development'
> scams that companies like Amazon exploit, we'd actually have a better
> society.

Is anyone really not wise to this issue? I think everyone fully understands it
is a race to the bottom, but people still want to win the race. Locally,
people are making the best decision they can given the bargaining power they
have.

------
SomeHacker44
I have just one word: duh.

I have been saying this forever. When we (New Yorkers) paid to redo the Yankee
and Mets stadiums I was so unhappy. What a waste.

------
nolta
[http://www.fieldofschemes.com](http://www.fieldofschemes.com)

------
lifeisstillgood
Simplest answer to all this I know of is for local and national governments to
have to publish, and news outlets to report regularly on, in the same common
format, P&L and balance sheet statements, including hard to measure non
financial indicators like commute times.

We all need a base line to work from. We should all have the same baseline

------
csense
Art Modell, the owner of the Cleveland Browns, moved the team to Baltimore
right after the taxpayers built them a new stadium. Even though these events
happened in the mid-90's and Modell died in 2012, his name is still considered
a curse word in Cleveland.

~~~
redshirtrob
This is basically wrong, except that Modell's name is a curse word in
Cleveland.

Modell announced the move, and _the_ _very_ _next_ _day_ Cleveland voters
approved funding to remodel Cleveland Municipal Stadium. It didn't work,
Modell still wanted to move the team. The city of Cleveland sued Modell and a
bunch of other entities with the result being Cleveland retained the Browns
legacy and the franchise was considered dormant for three years [0].

The upshot of the whole affair was the passage of The Art Modell Law [1] which
Save The Crew supporters invoked when Precourt Sports Ventures tried to pull
the same trick on the Columbus Crew.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns_relocation_co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns_relocation_controversy)
[1] [https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ohio-art-modell-law-
sav...](https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ohio-art-modell-law-save-
columbus-crew)

------
crobertsbmw
Although I totally agree. The arguments here aren’t very well laid out. I feel
like we got some thesis statements but no data to back anything up.

------
matte_black
When money is going out so easily to build 7 billion dollar stadiums, it’s
hard to imagine why they can’t just throw 5 billion into something like border
security.

------
flag_bcz_mad
At least a stadium has some kind of use. I wish I could get my 2B back for the
completely aesthetic suspension on the new bay bridge.

------
the_cat_kittles
why do they call this socialist in the first sentence and crony capitalist in
the 3rd.

~~~
ademup
See the aforism "Privatizing profits and socializing losses". I think the
author is saying that the costs are being socialized by having taxes fund
construction and maintenance while the owners are making it happen via the
mechanism of crony capitalism.

~~~
yxhuvud
Privatizing profits is not compatible with socialism though. Not even close.

~~~
tylersmith
It's sloppy language to call it "socialism" but it has socialistic properties.
The worst of socialism mixed with the worst of capitalism presented under both
terms so people from both sides will agree.

------
viburnum
Stadiums should be public as well as the teams.

------
samstave
I only need one reason why taxpayers should never fund stadiums:

Stadiums are not politics.

~~~
tylersmith
Are roads politics?

~~~
samstave
do i have to use the stadium to get to work? or provide commerce, police or
medical coverage?

~~~
tylersmith
What does that have to do with politics? None of those things you mention are
any more political than sports. I don't care about you getting to work or
receiving medical care any more than you care about my sports.

~~~
samstave
Politicians pass bonds and laws which force people to allocate a portion of
their tax revenues to sports stadiums. That should not happen.

Taxes pay for roads - which is a critical infrastructure for all aspects of a
modern society. This is an appropriate use of tax funds.

Stadiums are not critical infrastructure, and should not be paid for with
public money.

I cannot fathom how this confuses you.

------
jumha
The senate/Cesar built gladiators arenas when Rome was on the decline.

------
paulie_a
If anything stadiums should have an additional tax. If the team threatens to
leave, the response should be "whatever, you already cost us enough money"

------
acd
Ever since social media hit the prime light, I have noticed people has become
more obsessed with external appearance. This includes sport stadiums. So now
towns are competing with each other who has the flashiest government subsided
sport arenas.

------
autokad
i hate this anti-sports rhetoric. i agree municipalities should take caution
when funding a stadium, but claiming they should never do it and pretending it
doesn't add value is just dishonest.

we are more than just the direct benefit of what something gives back. if its
a matter of only people who use should pay, well there are a ton of stuff on
my list that cost me a hell of a lot more that I'd like to get rid of.

~~~
spamizbad
> but claiming they should never do it and pretending it doesn't add value is
> just dishonest.

Well, for one, there's not a whole lot of evidence showing that they do add
value.

But even then, the bigger issue here is that these venues are largely a
handout to already wealthy team owners. It would be one thing if more sports
team were like the Greenbay Packers, where the team itself has community
ownership, but in most cases you have teams that are owned by individuals who
are fully capable of financing the whole operation themselves. Owners shake
down local municipalities by threatening to walk unless they receive some sort
of subsidy that _they_ feel represents the externalized "upside" of a
stadium's presence.

Anyway, I think this behavior is starting to become a huge turn-off with
voters. After a certain point, pissing off your tax base is going to cost you
more votes than pissing off a rich team owner and their gaggle of sports
fans.. and when that happens the gravy-train is over.

~~~
shaklee3
I've never seen anything say that a sports stadium doesn't add value in the
sense that it drives in tourism and dollars into local business. You are
probably referring to whether giving them subsidies to build the stadium is
worthwhile. That's a completely different question.

------
jtlienwis
I watch some of the video generated by the Maddon football video game, and
find it almost as realistic as the real games. Someday, some entrepreneur is
going to figure out that you can have realistic pro games generated by
software. It will save a lot on player salaries etc. Then when the people at
home start watching those instead of the real games (maybe they will all be
online, and not blocked by the networks), they might not even want any more to
go see real games at the stadium.

~~~
bfred_it
Games are not just about a ball moving. People attach feelings to players and
teams, especially if they’re from their city.

A computer match wouldn’t have either

~~~
RunawayGalaxy
Not only that, a big reason people watch sports is to witness peak human
performance.

------
rayiner
> The bottom line here is very simple: The cost of building and maintaining
> these facilities should be borne by the people who attend these events via
> their ticket purchases, and not the people of an entire state and/or
> metropolitan region, the vast majority of whom will never set foot inside
> these enormously costly structures.

We shouldn’t subsidize subways and rail transit for the exact same reason.
Indeed, more people in any given metro region watch football than ride
subways.

~~~
nowarninglabel
Except, there are lots of reasons to subsidize subways, for example to
encourage ridership which in effect can then decrease public roadway
congestion. Thus, even the people who don't directly ride the subway still
benefit. It also can reduce pollution as well has have local economic
benefits. All of which benefits others, not just the riders.

Source:
[https://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/transitstats...](https://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/transitstats.aspx)
which gets its data from the Federal Transit Administration.

~~~
rayiner
This is only really true in cities where the major commuting pattern is into
the city. In the DC area, for example, most jobs are in Virginia or Maryland,
not DC. So the subway benefits the relatively small number of
(disproportionately higher income) people who take the subway or a car
downtown. It doesn’t really benefit all the folks driving to jobs in Virginia
and Maryland.

