6 ms·
Living in DC as a consultant, reliable Amtrak service meant I could make a 9:30AM meeting just about anywhere between DC and NY. 2-4 trips per month. Those ear
by madenine 7y ago
Living in DC as a consultant, reliable Amtrak service meant I could make a 9:30AM meeting just about anywhere between DC and NY. 2-4 trips per month.
Those early morning / early evening trips are packed with other business people doing the same thing you're doing. Full train of people quietly working/reading, maybe talking to a colleague. Very civilized.
The few times I had to travel mid-day on the same routes? Shit shows of confused tourists, kids who don't want to sit still for 3 hours (don't blame 'em), and all manner of "what can go wrong will" (delays, issues with the heat/ac, issues with passengers, etc).
Its like there's two parallel dimensions of Amtrak out there.
I'd choose Amtrak 100% of the time for business travel if its an option, 0% of the time for pleasure.
- rayiner 7y agoI take Amtrak all the time between New York and DC for business. Why should people in Iowa subsidize each of those trips to the tune of $73 each way?
- catalogia 7y ago> Why should people in Iowa subsidize each of those trips to the tune of $73 each way? Same reason people in rural or suburban communities subsidize city buses?
- rayiner 7y agoFor the most part, needy people ride city buses, not businesspeople, lawyers, and politicians as in OP’s anecdote about the northeast regional.
- catalogia 7y agoI think city buses would be worthwhile even if dislikable people like lawyers used them. Wouldn't you agree?
- rayiner 7y agoNo. The government shouldn’t subsidize services used primarily by well-off people.
- catalogia 7y agoThen we should tear up the road in your neighborhood.
- rayiner 7y agoTo the extent a particular neighborhood can be identified as especially wealthy, it would seem fine to require them to pay for private maintenance of roads constructed by the subdivision developer in the first instance.
- catalogia 7y agoOr, instead of privatizing roads, the maintenance of roads could be paid for by taxes and the wealthy could be made to pay higher taxes. Crazy, I know.
- briandear 7y agoThe wealthy already pay the majority of taxes.
- travisporter 7y agoWhat does that mean? It’s like saying the human body is mostly water; the devil is on the details. Should we all just pay a fixed amount?
- travisporter 7y agoWhat if they now become poor? Would you subsidize them? What about police services and ambulance services for a poor versus rich person visiting that neighborhood? This already happens in some places, but I don’t think it’s practical or fair.
- pen2l 7y agoWhy would you deny needy people, people trying to make ends meet and move up the ladder, people with revoked licenses, etc. the opportunity to partake and contribute in society? Wouldn't you agree that if we take this away, it would cost the economy more by causing more crime and reducing gains these folks might have had to offer?
- rayiner 7y agoI'm saying we should spend the money on needy people, and let services used primarily by wealthier people pay for themselves.
- jcranmer 7y agoThe same reason why you subsidize the people driving on the highways in Iowa. And the airports in Iowa as well, too.
- tptacek 7y agoThat's not really true, is it? I rarely have any reason to personally drive the highways of Iowa (despite living in Illinois next door), but presumably benefit directly and in a variety of ways from their availability to trucks. Amtrak can make no such claim.
- jogjayr 7y agoI don't know if it's 100% true that Amtrak benefits only the areas it's in. People who take the train instead of flying (less carbon emissions) or driving (less interstate maintenance, paid for out of the federal budget, less gasoline consumed) are providing benefits to everyone.
- pcwalton 7y agoMovement of people has economic benefits just as movement of goods does. If anything, in a service-based economy like that of developed countries, movement of people is more important.
- CPLX 7y agoWhy should New Yorkers subsidize ethanol production in Iowa? Why should anyone in the society give a fuck about anyone else in society? Maybe the answer is because people think it's better for the society, as a whole, when various things are supported by all.
- rayiner 7y agoThey shouldn’t! I’m not advocating “everyone for themselves.” But I don’t see why the national government needs to subsidize a service that overwhelmingly benefits just a single region. It’s not like Medicare or social security that can be used by anyone. Trains only go to a well defined set of places. We could have an interstate compact approach instead, like we do for things like WMATA.
- CPLX 7y agoOK why should I subsidize the Federal court system? I don't use it. I also don't have kids so let's get rid of all the schools.
- yathern 7y agoI side with you, but your last two comments are basically the same "but what about this?!" Rayiner clarified and meant there should be geographical considerations to some subsidies: > "It’s not like Medicare or social security that can be used by anyone" Schools and federal court would fall under that categories of medicare and social security.
- CPLX 7y agoHe edited his original two word comment after I posted mine. I think my basic point stands up pretty well though. The entire class of arguments along the lines of “why should we do X when only some of the people need/want X” just has no value at all. There’s no coast guard in Iowa either. Or avalanche prevention. Why is geography the privileged metric here? It only matters if things are segregated by location, but not if they are segregated by age? Medicare is a subset of Americans too. So are people of school age. You can argue the programs on the merits of course, and say that it’s too niche, or panders to special interests in a way that’s harmful. But to just make the facile point that a government program contains an element of some people subsidizing something that benefits other people adds literally zero to any discussion. That’s a characteristic of literally all government actions.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoBoth the California Zephyr and the Southwest Chief go through Iowa. Why should people in New York subsidize each of those trips?
- unlinked_dll 7y agoSurely you can recognize that the taxpayers in Iowa derive indirect benefits from commerce between NYC and DC.
- aeturnum 7y agoI know you've already gone around on this post for a while, but it is worth saying that the people of Iowa don't really subsidize those trips. Iowa draws more in federal funds than it contributes in federal tax.