4 ms·

Why do you want rail to be scrapped?

by gascan 9y ago

Redoubts 9y ago
Why should it be kept?
- anderber 9y ago
  It's a great option of travel. It's good for us to have a variety of ways to travel. Sure, the government doesn't subsidize train travel as much as it does for air and road, but I believe it's important, and so do others. "Yes, Amtrak is subsidized. So are all competing forms of transportation. Highways cover only 51 percent of their costs from all user fees, including the gas tax. The rest is paid by subsidies of one form or another, especially from local property taxes. Airlines receive massive subsidies in the form of airports and the air traffic control system. The day after 9/11, the airlines ran to Capitol Hill and were immediately given billions of dollars in additional taxpayer money, no questions asked." http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/dont-railroad-amtrak/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/dont-railroa...
johan_larson 9y ago
I don't want to scrap it all, just the parts that require hefty subsidies to serve places that have realistic alternatives. US households usually have cars and for those that don't, intercity buses tend to serve even very tiny burgs. So most people most do have realistic alternatives. Trains are the right solution in some cases. Commuter rail often makes sense. And in some densely populated regions, intercity trains make sense too. But in most of the US, because of the distances between cities, cars and planes work better.
- gascan 9y ago
  the parts that require hefty subsidies to serve places that have realistic alternatives You realize roads are built & maintained entirely at public expense? But we are so used to taking roads for granted. Public money spent on rail, is public money that doesn't need to be spent on roads. So, IMO, the first question is how many passenger-miles we get per dollar on rail, and how many per dollar on roads.
  - ascagnel_ 9y ago
    You also can't discount the benefits of modal redundancy in transit. Trains don't just carry people around -- they also take drivers off the road. When NJTransit's rail-workers union was agitating for a strike a few years ago, the state DOT advised drivers to expect a few hundred thousand extra trips per day to make up for the service outage.
  - yongjik 9y ago
    > You realize roads are built & maintained entirely at public expense? But we are so used to taking roads for granted. Reminds me of the famous (and probably fake) quote: "Where was the government when I was on food stamps?"

Why do you want rail to be scrapped?

by gascan 9y ago

Why do you want rail to be scrapped?

Redoubts 9y ago

Why should it be kept?

anderber 9y ago
It's a great option of travel. It's good for us to have a variety of ways to travel. Sure, the government doesn't subsidize train travel as much as it does for air and road, but I believe it's important, and so do others. "Yes, Amtrak is subsidized. So are all competing forms of transportation. Highways cover only 51 percent of their costs from all user fees, including the gas tax. The rest is paid by subsidies of one form or another, especially from local property taxes. Airlines receive massive subsidies in the form of airports and the air traffic control system. The day after 9/11, the airlines ran to Capitol Hill and were immediately given billions of dollars in additional taxpayer money, no questions asked." http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/dont-railroad-amtrak/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/dont-railroa...

johan_larson 9y ago

I don't want to scrap it all, just the parts that require hefty subsidies to serve places that have realistic alternatives. US households usually have cars and for those that don't, intercity buses tend to serve even very tiny burgs. So most people most do have realistic alternatives. Trains are the right solution in some cases. Commuter rail often makes sense. And in some densely populated regions, intercity trains make sense too. But in most of the US, because of the distances between cities, cars and planes work better.

gascan 9y ago
the parts that require hefty subsidies to serve places that have realistic alternatives You realize roads are built & maintained entirely at public expense? But we are so used to taking roads for granted. Public money spent on rail, is public money that doesn't need to be spent on roads. So, IMO, the first question is how many passenger-miles we get per dollar on rail, and how many per dollar on roads.
- ascagnel_ 9y ago
  You also can't discount the benefits of modal redundancy in transit. Trains don't just carry people around -- they also take drivers off the road. When NJTransit's rail-workers union was agitating for a strike a few years ago, the state DOT advised drivers to expect a few hundred thousand extra trips per day to make up for the service outage.
- yongjik 9y ago
  > You realize roads are built & maintained entirely at public expense? But we are so used to taking roads for granted. Reminds me of the famous (and probably fake) quote: "Where was the government when I was on food stamps?"