3 ms·

That is the part that is already under construction. The money cannot be lit on fire because it has already been spent.

by muzz 8y ago

dekhn 8y ago
nono, the money is already on fire, and they have to give it to somebody.
jessriedel 8y ago
Not $3.5B of it. It sounds like the governor really would like to light it on fire rather than give it back: > “Abandoning high-speed rail entirely means we will have wasted billions of dollars with nothing but broken promises and lawsuits to show for it,” he said. “And by the way, I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump.”
- masonic 8y ago
  If you'll end up with a product that can't get sufficient fare return to cover all operating costs (let alone debt service), you're better off shutting it down in place, like Brazil's Transnordestina.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    I don't think New York City's MTA even covers its operating costs out of revenue.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    Untrue. Transportation systems rarely deliver the bulk of their benefits to direct users. The indirect effects of increased activity, commerce, industry, trade, opportunities, etc., accrue to the entire region, and not just the users of the system. This is why, historically, transit projects have tended to be heavily funded by indirect beneficiaries. In cities: merchants and employers, both of whom benefit by increased customer and worker populations. The case of Denver, Colorado shows the impacts improved transport can have on an otherwise remote city. Prior to the construction a connecting line to the Transcontinental Railroad, the city had fewer than 5,000 residents. A decade later, that rose to over 35,000. Mind, at the time, this was the best, cheapest, and fastest transport option available, but improved mobility can have tremendous impacts on growth and activity patterns. https://www.uncovercolorado.com/historic-colorado-railroad-depots/ https://www.uncovercolorado.com/historic-colorado-railroad-d... Similarly, automobile drivers pay only a relatively small fraction of the direct costs of highway transport, with much else provided through general funds, property taxes (for state/local construction), income, and fuel taxes (the latter at least an indirect contribution). Imposing a 100% farebox recovery obligation is highly flawed policy.

That is the part that is already under construction. The money cannot be lit on fire because it has already been spent.

by muzz 8y ago

That is the part that is already under construction. The money cannot be lit on fire because it has already been spent.

dekhn 8y ago

nono, the money is already on fire, and they have to give it to somebody.

jessriedel 8y ago

Not $3.5B of it. It sounds like the governor really would like to light it on fire rather than give it back: > “Abandoning high-speed rail entirely means we will have wasted billions of dollars with nothing but broken promises and lawsuits to show for it,” he said. “And by the way, I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump.”

masonic 8y ago
If you'll end up with a product that can't get sufficient fare return to cover all operating costs (let alone debt service), you're better off shutting it down in place, like Brazil's Transnordestina.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  I don't think New York City's MTA even covers its operating costs out of revenue.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  Untrue. Transportation systems rarely deliver the bulk of their benefits to direct users. The indirect effects of increased activity, commerce, industry, trade, opportunities, etc., accrue to the entire region, and not just the users of the system. This is why, historically, transit projects have tended to be heavily funded by indirect beneficiaries. In cities: merchants and employers, both of whom benefit by increased customer and worker populations. The case of Denver, Colorado shows the impacts improved transport can have on an otherwise remote city. Prior to the construction a connecting line to the Transcontinental Railroad, the city had fewer than 5,000 residents. A decade later, that rose to over 35,000. Mind, at the time, this was the best, cheapest, and fastest transport option available, but improved mobility can have tremendous impacts on growth and activity patterns. https://www.uncovercolorado.com/historic-colorado-railroad-depots/ https://www.uncovercolorado.com/historic-colorado-railroad-d... Similarly, automobile drivers pay only a relatively small fraction of the direct costs of highway transport, with much else provided through general funds, property taxes (for state/local construction), income, and fuel taxes (the latter at least an indirect contribution). Imposing a 100% farebox recovery obligation is highly flawed policy.