4 ms·

I up-voted your post because whether or not I disagree, I can't stand people coming by and doing drive-by down votes on posts like this where you've clearly tho

I up-voted your post because whether or not I disagree, I can't stand people coming by and doing drive-by down votes on posts like this where you've clearly thought about and put work into a response. Thanks for that. I don't take public transportation, I'm a car-commuter. But I have an issue with something you said and it irked my quite a bit. You called those riding the trains and what not "subsidies" but you don't look at our car culture and have the same view. This befuddles me. Highway construction is every bit the subsidy that public transportation construction is, perhaps more so. Not to mention the other impacts, environmental or otherwise, that cost us dearly. Whether it's the harm to the environment, the higher cost paid to maintain a car and the infrastructure to drive it on, or the fact that car accidents are the leading cause of death for our country's youth, picking on public transportation as a subsidy is not a fair characterization.

graycat 9y ago
> Highway construction is every bit the subsidy that public transportation construction is, perhaps more so. Well, first, my understanding is that the Federally funded roads are paid for from the Highway Trust Fund, that gets gas taxes and commonly shows a profit, that is, gets used for other than highways, but I don't have good data. Second, on this thread the beginnings of this was cost/benefit analysis. There if benefits of roads exceed the costs, then it's okay to spend general tax money on the roads. The reason I'm screaming subsidy is that I don't believe that passenger trains can pass traditional cost/benefit analysis anywhere in the US except in NYC, maybe SF, and that's about it. Or, for NYC they will do what they do because in some sense NYC needs it, to heck with cost/benefit analysis. But recently I did have to pay a surtax to support the NY MTA when I never use it -- apparently they are not charging enough for their tickets. I'm not part of the unique NYC thingy so should not have to pay for the MTA for NYC. My view of the trains being pushed now is that no way will they pass cost/benefit analysis unless count all kinds of distant benefits that traditional analysis never did. So, to me, the only way the trains could roll would be just flat out subsidies taken from people by force via the tax laws. Bummer. I'm less concerned about the bad aspects of private cars than you are. I regard the trains as a scam intended to make a few people rich from money from the Federal government from tax money. E.g., supposedly Musk's businesses have gotten $1 B or more, or was it $5+ B. It's a lot. To me, Musk is sucking on the public teat.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  You're putting your car before your horse. The reason they don't pass this cost benefit analysis is because we continue to build and subsidize road construction, gasoline, and cars. If you keep subsidizing that, then turn around and look at public transportation and sneer at it as if it is somehow something that is a subsidy, of course you can never do an appropriate cost/benefit analysis. Not to mention that instead of fixing the issue, we keep building roads. That never solves the problem. I'm not familiar with your particular situation or how the NYC metro works, but typically we pay taxes for all sorts of things we don't use, and some thing we indirectly benefit from. > I'm less concerned about the bad aspects of private cars than you are. Which I find bizarre. Why are you so concerned that you might be subsidizing trains, but unconcerned about the environmental impact, the suburban sprawl and resource drainage, the insane amount of money spent purchasing and maintaining cars and highways, and the thousands of people who die every year in car accidents? > I regard the trains as a scam intended to make a few people rich from money from the Federal government from tax money. Well then you can just level that criticism at everything so unless you're an anarchist (and I am, actually), this isn't really a useful comment. Plus, if you think trains are a "scam" that are somehow screwing the American taxpayer, why would you not level the same criticism at the auto or fuel industry?
  - graycat 9y ago
    > unconcerned about the environmental impact, the urban sprasubwl and resource drainage, the insane amount of money spent purchasing and maintaining cars and highways, and the thousands of people who die every year in car accidents? We could go on and on about that. Sure, ballpark, first cut, you are correct. But I don't see a better alternative. And for the costs, IIRC, and again, this is not my job and I don't have good data, nearly cars pay for themselves from when people buy the cars, buy gas, pay for maintenance and insurance, when the gas taxes are used to build the roads, etc. > environmental impact From cars and truck on the roads, I'm no longer much concerned. > suburban sprawl I like the suburbs, much better than living in a large city. > resource drainage I'm not very concerned: We're using iron, aluminum, concrete, and oil. Someday we will run out of oil, and then we will make it from electricity, water, and CO2. We can recycle the iron and aluminum -- IIRC the aluminum is valuable enough to be eagerly recycled now. Concrete? It needs mostly only calcium carbonate, that is, lime stone. The planet is totally awash in lime stone. And the concrete on the roads can be recycled. Some people are concerned about concrete because making cement from lime stone releases CO2. My understanding is that CO2 from human sources is tiny compared with what comes from volcanoes. > purchasing and maintaining Yup, it's expensive, one of the major expenses, likely second only to housing. But I don't know of an alternative unless we are all going to live in small apartments in high rise buildings in dense cities. And we will still need roads for trucks, taxis, and likely busses. But, a lot of people would rather live in the suburbs and drive a personal car and are willing to pay the costs. If they are in fact paying the costs, then fine with me. > the thousands of people who die every year in car accidents I don't like that. But I've driven maybe 800,000 miles without an injury. As a teenager I had some minor accidents, but the main cause was ice and no one was hurt and no cars were seriously damaged. In some parts of the country, when the roads are covered with glare ice, don't drive for 3-4 days. I just bought auto insurance in NY: It was $370 for the year. That's a good measure of the costs of the accidents and injuries. Medical insurance for the rest of health care is much, much higher. So, auto accidents are not a biggie for medical problems. The old biggie was smoking, but we've made progress on that. Now a biggie is obesity. IIRC, then it's heart disease and cancer. My parents dies of smoking, via heart disease and cancer. Without the smoking the cancer would not have been there. Same for the heart disease except eventually Dad would have had that but now some simple pills for about $0.50 a day fixes that quite nicely. We're making progress in medicine, but, still, that $370 a year figure shows that the medical side of cars is tiny compared with the rest of medicine. Cars are better than they used to be: Tires used to be gone in 10,000, 20,000 miles. Now it's common to get 70,000 miles. Brakes, ball joints, they last much longer. The engines are much cleaner due to electronic ignition and fuel systems and, thus, last much longer, commonly over 200,000 miles. We're getting more lifetime out of U-joints, wheel bearings, shocks, etc. My SUV has over 200,000 miles and the original shocks -- Bilsteins, from Chevy. Also original springs, suspension bushings, and ball joints. For much of the car interiors, the synthetic fabrics are nearly indestructable. In my 200,000 mile SUV, a lot of the interior looks new. And cars are getting better still, e.g., better protection against corrosion. The US is a big country. Cars are working great. I see no better alternative. Passenger trains? NYC and DC for commuters. Secret? Both were awash in money and could buy whatever they wanted.

graycat 9y ago

> Highway construction is every bit the subsidy that public transportation construction is, perhaps more so. Well, first, my understanding is that the Federally funded roads are paid for from the Highway Trust Fund, that gets gas taxes and commonly shows a profit, that is, gets used for other than highways, but I don't have good data. Second, on this thread the beginnings of this was cost/benefit analysis. There if benefits of roads exceed the costs, then it's okay to spend general tax money on the roads. The reason I'm screaming subsidy is that I don't believe that passenger trains can pass traditional cost/benefit analysis anywhere in the US except in NYC, maybe SF, and that's about it. Or, for NYC they will do what they do because in some sense NYC needs it, to heck with cost/benefit analysis. But recently I did have to pay a surtax to support the NY MTA when I never use it -- apparently they are not charging enough for their tickets. I'm not part of the unique NYC thingy so should not have to pay for the MTA for NYC. My view of the trains being pushed now is that no way will they pass cost/benefit analysis unless count all kinds of distant benefits that traditional analysis never did. So, to me, the only way the trains could roll would be just flat out subsidies taken from people by force via the tax laws. Bummer. I'm less concerned about the bad aspects of private cars than you are. I regard the trains as a scam intended to make a few people rich from money from the Federal government from tax money. E.g., supposedly Musk's businesses have gotten $1 B or more, or was it $5+ B. It's a lot. To me, Musk is sucking on the public teat.

muninn_ 9y ago
You're putting your car before your horse. The reason they don't pass this cost benefit analysis is because we continue to build and subsidize road construction, gasoline, and cars. If you keep subsidizing that, then turn around and look at public transportation and sneer at it as if it is somehow something that is a subsidy, of course you can never do an appropriate cost/benefit analysis. Not to mention that instead of fixing the issue, we keep building roads. That never solves the problem. I'm not familiar with your particular situation or how the NYC metro works, but typically we pay taxes for all sorts of things we don't use, and some thing we indirectly benefit from. > I'm less concerned about the bad aspects of private cars than you are. Which I find bizarre. Why are you so concerned that you might be subsidizing trains, but unconcerned about the environmental impact, the suburban sprawl and resource drainage, the insane amount of money spent purchasing and maintaining cars and highways, and the thousands of people who die every year in car accidents? > I regard the trains as a scam intended to make a few people rich from money from the Federal government from tax money. Well then you can just level that criticism at everything so unless you're an anarchist (and I am, actually), this isn't really a useful comment. Plus, if you think trains are a "scam" that are somehow screwing the American taxpayer, why would you not level the same criticism at the auto or fuel industry?
- graycat 9y ago
  > unconcerned about the environmental impact, the urban sprasubwl and resource drainage, the insane amount of money spent purchasing and maintaining cars and highways, and the thousands of people who die every year in car accidents? We could go on and on about that. Sure, ballpark, first cut, you are correct. But I don't see a better alternative. And for the costs, IIRC, and again, this is not my job and I don't have good data, nearly cars pay for themselves from when people buy the cars, buy gas, pay for maintenance and insurance, when the gas taxes are used to build the roads, etc. > environmental impact From cars and truck on the roads, I'm no longer much concerned. > suburban sprawl I like the suburbs, much better than living in a large city. > resource drainage I'm not very concerned: We're using iron, aluminum, concrete, and oil. Someday we will run out of oil, and then we will make it from electricity, water, and CO2. We can recycle the iron and aluminum -- IIRC the aluminum is valuable enough to be eagerly recycled now. Concrete? It needs mostly only calcium carbonate, that is, lime stone. The planet is totally awash in lime stone. And the concrete on the roads can be recycled. Some people are concerned about concrete because making cement from lime stone releases CO2. My understanding is that CO2 from human sources is tiny compared with what comes from volcanoes. > purchasing and maintaining Yup, it's expensive, one of the major expenses, likely second only to housing. But I don't know of an alternative unless we are all going to live in small apartments in high rise buildings in dense cities. And we will still need roads for trucks, taxis, and likely busses. But, a lot of people would rather live in the suburbs and drive a personal car and are willing to pay the costs. If they are in fact paying the costs, then fine with me. > the thousands of people who die every year in car accidents I don't like that. But I've driven maybe 800,000 miles without an injury. As a teenager I had some minor accidents, but the main cause was ice and no one was hurt and no cars were seriously damaged. In some parts of the country, when the roads are covered with glare ice, don't drive for 3-4 days. I just bought auto insurance in NY: It was $370 for the year. That's a good measure of the costs of the accidents and injuries. Medical insurance for the rest of health care is much, much higher. So, auto accidents are not a biggie for medical problems. The old biggie was smoking, but we've made progress on that. Now a biggie is obesity. IIRC, then it's heart disease and cancer. My parents dies of smoking, via heart disease and cancer. Without the smoking the cancer would not have been there. Same for the heart disease except eventually Dad would have had that but now some simple pills for about $0.50 a day fixes that quite nicely. We're making progress in medicine, but, still, that $370 a year figure shows that the medical side of cars is tiny compared with the rest of medicine. Cars are better than they used to be: Tires used to be gone in 10,000, 20,000 miles. Now it's common to get 70,000 miles. Brakes, ball joints, they last much longer. The engines are much cleaner due to electronic ignition and fuel systems and, thus, last much longer, commonly over 200,000 miles. We're getting more lifetime out of U-joints, wheel bearings, shocks, etc. My SUV has over 200,000 miles and the original shocks -- Bilsteins, from Chevy. Also original springs, suspension bushings, and ball joints. For much of the car interiors, the synthetic fabrics are nearly indestructable. In my 200,000 mile SUV, a lot of the interior looks new. And cars are getting better still, e.g., better protection against corrosion. The US is a big country. Cars are working great. I see no better alternative. Passenger trains? NYC and DC for commuters. Secret? Both were awash in money and could buy whatever they wanted.