3 ms·

Taxpayers subsidize all successful transit. True of cars, true of rail.

twoodfin 10y ago
The subsidies are qualitatively different: If roads had to be paid for entirely from user fees in the form of gas or mileage taxes, they could be for effective rates not much higher than fuel prices of a few years ago. Capital and maintenance. If you tried to charge passengers adequately to fund rail, the system would go into a death spiral, absent radical changes in consumer preferences.
- lhopki01 10y ago
  Europe has significantly higher taxes on fuel yet still needs to subsidise roads from general taxes so I think if roads were properly funded it would be higher than fuel prices a few years ago. Also if both rail and roads were funded only by users then rail would be the more attractive option.
  - privong 10y ago
    > Also if both rail and roads were funded only by users then rail would be the more attractive option. Can you elaborate? This is the first time I've heard this claim – I'm curious about the details.
    - lhopki01 10y ago
      Cost per passenger per mile is cheaper by rail than by road. It is just much more efficient. If we then start to take into account the other costs such as pollution, land wasted on parking and wider roads, the increased area of municipal services that have to be covered because of the much lower density require for cars, and the massively increased health costs associated with a car lifestyle and trains not only are more cost efficient than cars they're an order of magnitude more cost efficient. Trains are wildly efficient, they only use energy to overcome air and rolling resistances as energy used to accelerate is put back into the system during deceleration. They can pack many more people with much higher throughput. For example Crossrail in London is designed to have 24 1500 person trains an hour on a single track.
      - privong 10y ago
        Okay, that makes sense. > Cost per passenger per mile is cheaper by rail than by road. It is just much more efficient. Is this still true if one also considers the infrastructure investments that need to be made, both in terms construction and maintenance?
        lhopki01 10y ago
        Highway costs less per lane than a single line of rail but considering most highways are 3 lanes either side the cost factor starts to become favourable to railway lines.

The subsidies are qualitatively different: If roads had to be paid for entirely from user fees in the form of gas or mileage taxes, they could be for effective rates not much higher than fuel prices of a few years ago. Capital and maintenance. If you tried to charge passengers adequately to fund rail, the system would go into a death spiral, absent radical changes in consumer preferences.

lhopki01 10y ago
Europe has significantly higher taxes on fuel yet still needs to subsidise roads from general taxes so I think if roads were properly funded it would be higher than fuel prices a few years ago. Also if both rail and roads were funded only by users then rail would be the more attractive option.
- privong 10y ago
  > Also if both rail and roads were funded only by users then rail would be the more attractive option. Can you elaborate? This is the first time I've heard this claim – I'm curious about the details.
  - lhopki01 10y ago
    Cost per passenger per mile is cheaper by rail than by road. It is just much more efficient. If we then start to take into account the other costs such as pollution, land wasted on parking and wider roads, the increased area of municipal services that have to be covered because of the much lower density require for cars, and the massively increased health costs associated with a car lifestyle and trains not only are more cost efficient than cars they're an order of magnitude more cost efficient. Trains are wildly efficient, they only use energy to overcome air and rolling resistances as energy used to accelerate is put back into the system during deceleration. They can pack many more people with much higher throughput. For example Crossrail in London is designed to have 24 1500 person trains an hour on a single track.
    - privong 10y ago
      Okay, that makes sense. > Cost per passenger per mile is cheaper by rail than by road. It is just much more efficient. Is this still true if one also considers the infrastructure investments that need to be made, both in terms construction and maintenance?
      - lhopki01 10y ago
        Highway costs less per lane than a single line of rail but considering most highways are 3 lanes either side the cost factor starts to become favourable to railway lines.