3 ms·
> Roads are cheap and not heavily subsidized when you account for how many people use them. Your whole point depends on the fact that almost everyone uses road
by kiliantics 7y ago
> Roads are cheap and not heavily subsidized when you account for how many people use them.
Your whole point depends on the fact that almost everyone uses roads and of course everyone uses roads when there are no great alternatives. If things were structured differently, the same could probably be said for other transit options.
Bike lanes. for instance, are ridiculously cheap from every perspective, have none of the externality costs you mention, but no one can bike safely as of now and therefore much fewer choose to do so than the infrastructure could support.
- rayiner 7y agoNo, it’s based on cost divided by usage. It’s not like there is a ton of underutilization of the NYC Subway and per-person per-mile costs would go down with economies of scale. Rail is just really expensive. Biking is cheap only if your time is worth nothing. It’s also untenable given the climate of most of the US (much wider temperature variation than in Europe where biking is more common), and the physical fitness of your average American.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago> Rail is just really expensive. How much would an equivalent amount of road capacity cost in NYC? (For the sake of argument, ignore the fact that such an insane amount of road capacity is probably physically impossible in NYC without knocking down half the city)