4 ms·
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
by johan_larson 8y 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 8y agothe 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_ 8y agoYou 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 8y 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?"