4 ms·

Roads don't pay for themselves, we even make them free to drive on. We pay for them with our taxes. Are they a drain on society because there is no revenue stre

Roads don't pay for themselves, we even make them free to drive on. We pay for them with our taxes. Are they a drain on society because there is no revenue stream and they are expensive to maintain? No, of course not, the cost is payed off many times over by the benefits of the economic activity it facilitates. Same thing with HSR. It will shorten commutes for everyone, not just people on the train, enabling those contractors and utility workers do their jobs more efficiently. These things have ripple effects opening up new economic avenues for all different types of people, and not just those who ride the train

TMWNN 6y ago
>Roads don't pay for themselves US highways do pay for themselves (http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passeng...) (non-PDF version: http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/index.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...), and help pay for other modes of transportation. Transit receives the biggest subsidy per passenger-mile, with rail and airlines in between. (For those wishing more detail: From the executive summary (http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/executive_summary.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...): >*Highways* >* Users of the highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs in 1994-2000.(http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/figure_01.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...) This was a result of the increase in the deficit reduction motor fuel tax rates between October 1993 and September 1997, and the increase in Highway Trust Fund fuel tax rates starting in October 1997. >* School and transit buses received positive net federal subsidies over the 1990-2002 period, but autos, motorcycles, pickups and vans, and intercity buses paid more than their allocated cost to the federal government. >* On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002.)
- Fern_Blossom 6y ago
  Don't know if it's my end, but your links aren't working. Did a quick search, is it this site you're referencing? https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/federal_subsidies_t...
  - TMWNN 6y ago
    Yes; thank you for finding the current site.
Fern_Blossom 6y ago
Okay, but does it add 5 times or more value? We're not talking about a 10% difference in price tag. Both are a long term maintenance drain, yes. But one has wide potential use, the other is niche. One is civilian commuter only. The other is civilian commuter, commercial cargo and even military transport (the amount of convoys using I25 in that area is extremely frequent). The city got donations and grants to widen the highway because of wide usage. While I do see your argument that a rail can lighten the traffic load for I25, is $1.8B worth it? It already wasn't worth it when thinking in terms of 50k usage. You're now saying it's going to have less and that's still good? Local gov don't get to treat money like the fed. They ultimately do have to act like a business with profit and loss ratios. While their profits are to be used for expanse of civil and social programs, they can't operate at losses indefinitely. Detroit is a fantastic example of what happens when a city doesn't do responsible fiscal planning. Just because it isn't directly "your money" doesn't mean you can dumpster fire it on super sexy ideas. HSR is all about the dick measuring of, "Look what we have. It doesn't do much, but we have it. We're just like Japan and Europe. We so cool." It's like that $700 Juicero, over engineered, wifi enabled juicer that squeezed pre-juiced drinks into a glass. Packets of juice that could be squeezed by hand or just cut open with $5 scissors and poured into a glass. Fuck, you had to provide your own drinking vessel to that Silicon Valley stupidity. At least Bolthouse drinks don't require anything more than unscrewing the cap. Just because something is cool, popular and sexy doesn't mean it's the right solution. It makes more sense to expand the highway and just fully subsidize the Mustang service between the two cities for poor commuters. It'll be far cheaper on the tax payers and still provide the benefits for the local community. This is the point. Why spend $1.8b on something when there's a more effective $350m solution?
- thethethethe 6y ago
  All of your arguments are logical in the short term but I think you are not looking at the bigger picture. HSR isn't about just building one rail line between two cities and calling it good. It's about building a network, investing in more public transportation and general infrastructure supporting the trains to make the more efficient. It's about reducing emissions and pollution. Improving these things have more impact on people's lives and open up new opportunities than just reducing the travel times between two cities. And these things don't need to be payed for by the local governments, it can be nationalized and payed for by the fed like other countries do. The fed has demonstrated that it can print 5 trillion dollars in a year but it won't invest anything infrastructure. There is no excuse

TMWNN 6y ago

>Roads don't pay for themselves US highways do pay for themselves (http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passeng...) (non-PDF version: http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/index.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...), and help pay for other modes of transportation. Transit receives the biggest subsidy per passenger-mile, with rail and airlines in between. (For those wishing more detail: From the executive summary (http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/executive_summary.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...): >*Highways* >* Users of the highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs in 1994-2000.(http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/figure_01.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...) This was a result of the increase in the deficit reduction motor fuel tax rates between October 1993 and September 1997, and the increase in Highway Trust Fund fuel tax rates starting in October 1997. >* School and transit buses received positive net federal subsidies over the 1990-2002 period, but autos, motorcycles, pickups and vans, and intercity buses paid more than their allocated cost to the federal government. >* On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002.)

Fern_Blossom 6y ago
Don't know if it's my end, but your links aren't working. Did a quick search, is it this site you're referencing? https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/federal_subsidies_t...
- TMWNN 6y ago
  Yes; thank you for finding the current site.

Fern_Blossom 6y ago

Okay, but does it add 5 times or more value? We're not talking about a 10% difference in price tag. Both are a long term maintenance drain, yes. But one has wide potential use, the other is niche. One is civilian commuter only. The other is civilian commuter, commercial cargo and even military transport (the amount of convoys using I25 in that area is extremely frequent). The city got donations and grants to widen the highway because of wide usage. While I do see your argument that a rail can lighten the traffic load for I25, is $1.8B worth it? It already wasn't worth it when thinking in terms of 50k usage. You're now saying it's going to have less and that's still good? Local gov don't get to treat money like the fed. They ultimately do have to act like a business with profit and loss ratios. While their profits are to be used for expanse of civil and social programs, they can't operate at losses indefinitely. Detroit is a fantastic example of what happens when a city doesn't do responsible fiscal planning. Just because it isn't directly "your money" doesn't mean you can dumpster fire it on super sexy ideas. HSR is all about the dick measuring of, "Look what we have. It doesn't do much, but we have it. We're just like Japan and Europe. We so cool." It's like that $700 Juicero, over engineered, wifi enabled juicer that squeezed pre-juiced drinks into a glass. Packets of juice that could be squeezed by hand or just cut open with $5 scissors and poured into a glass. Fuck, you had to provide your own drinking vessel to that Silicon Valley stupidity. At least Bolthouse drinks don't require anything more than unscrewing the cap. Just because something is cool, popular and sexy doesn't mean it's the right solution. It makes more sense to expand the highway and just fully subsidize the Mustang service between the two cities for poor commuters. It'll be far cheaper on the tax payers and still provide the benefits for the local community. This is the point. Why spend $1.8b on something when there's a more effective $350m solution?

thethethethe 6y ago
All of your arguments are logical in the short term but I think you are not looking at the bigger picture. HSR isn't about just building one rail line between two cities and calling it good. It's about building a network, investing in more public transportation and general infrastructure supporting the trains to make the more efficient. It's about reducing emissions and pollution. Improving these things have more impact on people's lives and open up new opportunities than just reducing the travel times between two cities. And these things don't need to be payed for by the local governments, it can be nationalized and payed for by the fed like other countries do. The fed has demonstrated that it can print 5 trillion dollars in a year but it won't invest anything infrastructure. There is no excuse