3 ms·

If you think the existing air travel infrastructure was built in its entirety for "a fraction" of $64B (in 2016 dollars), I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like t

If you think the existing air travel infrastructure was built in its entirety for "a fraction" of $64B (in 2016 dollars), I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Most of the cost of air travel is hidden in places you don't think about, and might surprise you if you knew how much it added up to (or how much tax money -- in the US, around $300 million per year currently, and around $9m/year of it in California -- goes into subsidizing unprofitable air routes in order to keep airlines flying them, for sake of maintaining connectivity).

billions 10y ago
Per your numbers 64B / 9m per year = 7 thousand years California could continue subsidizing those air routes for the cost of the track. Can't you see the disparity in cost?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  That's to keep service on a few routes that get direct subsidies. That's not the cost of running the entire airport and air-travel infrastructure in the state, which also runs on a lot of direct or indirect taxes. And it's not the cost of building out that infrastructure in the first place. And I suspect that when you add it up you'll find that $64B is not much money compared to what having a well-developed air-travel network costs, and in fact this sort of argument is precisely the point people make when they argue for building out better rail service along major corridors: the cost seems steep when someone presents you with the bill up-front, but we routinely pay and have paid bills just as high or higher for things that we'd now yell and scream about if they got taken away.
labrador 10y ago
I didn't say it could be built in it's entirety for a fraction of the cost, I said the existing air travel infrastructure could be improved and made more efficient for a fraction of the cost.

3 ms·

If you think the existing air travel infrastructure was built in its entirety for "a fraction" of $64B (in 2016 dollars), I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like t

by ubernostrum 10y ago

billions 10y ago
Per your numbers 64B / 9m per year = 7 thousand years California could continue subsidizing those air routes for the cost of the track. Can't you see the disparity in cost?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  That's to keep service on a few routes that get direct subsidies. That's not the cost of running the entire airport and air-travel infrastructure in the state, which also runs on a lot of direct or indirect taxes. And it's not the cost of building out that infrastructure in the first place. And I suspect that when you add it up you'll find that $64B is not much money compared to what having a well-developed air-travel network costs, and in fact this sort of argument is precisely the point people make when they argue for building out better rail service along major corridors: the cost seems steep when someone presents you with the bill up-front, but we routinely pay and have paid bills just as high or higher for things that we'd now yell and scream about if they got taken away.
labrador 10y ago
I didn't say it could be built in it's entirety for a fraction of the cost, I said the existing air travel infrastructure could be improved and made more efficient for a fraction of the cost.