3 ms·

>The GOP wants to zero out Amtrak because it isn't cost-effective; it would have been bankrupt but for tens of billions of subsidies. Do you think that toll ro

by sc68cal 15y ago

>The GOP wants to zero out Amtrak because it isn't cost-effective; it would have been bankrupt but for tens of billions of subsidies. Do you think that toll roads wouldn't go bankrupt, if not for the gas tax subsidy that they receive? It's a false equivalence because one subsidy is directly authorized by congress and is a political football that each side uses for fundraising, while the other (the gas tax) can't be used as a political football because voters would revolt. Also, The jury is still out on your basic assertation that Amtrak is not cost effective. David C. of the blog GreaterGreaterWashington published a classic in this genre late last month. "When indirect subsidies are considered, Amtrak's total subsidy comes out to a little less than 44¢ ppm," he argues. "Motoring's subsidy rises up to almost 45¢ ppm." http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/11/road-v-rail http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/11/road-v-rail

ams6110 15y ago
At least the people paying gas tax are the people using the roads. I never use Amtrak, yet I still pay for it.
- sc68cal 15y ago
  This is another poor basis for public tax policy - the classic "I don't use it so I don't want to pay for it." First - part of living in a society is paying for things that others use that you may not, but which improves society for all. Second - I live in Philadelphia and rarely use roads, and yet my tax dollars to the government of Pennsylvania are used, in combination with gas tax proceeds, to repair roads that others drive on, and that I don't directly benefit from. That's the price of living in a society, and I support it.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    You're answering a resource allocation argument with a moral argument. Non sequitur. If you reject the premise that we should allocate resources to the modes of transport that move the most people at the least expense including external costs, you're opting out of the whole debate. Also, unlike most of Amtrak, you benefit directly from Penn's roads even when you don't use them yourself; for instance, virtually everything you eat is brought to you over them.
    - sc68cal 15y ago
      I would argue that is an indirect beneift - the fact that my food arrives fresh and to my grocer. When I said direct benefit, I meant more along the lines of driving my car on those roads, which I do rarely. Still, excellent point.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        Assume we didn't have the road system we have now, and that an entire food delivery system was organized around local sources (yay!). What would the result be? Lots of root vegetables and drastically higher food prices.
tptacek 15y ago
First, you're making an argument I didn't make. I didn't say, "the GOP thinks Amtrak is bad because it is subsidized more than roads" (though clearly some do think that, like the Cato libertarians). I said "the GOP thinks Amtrak is bad because it operates on the brink of insolvency mitigated by direct cash subsidies". Secondly, go read the actual source cited by that Economist blog post. It's another blog post: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12208/funding-amtrak-is-more-cost-effective-than-subsidizing-roads/ http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12208/funding-amtra... The cost breakdown in this blog post is ad hoc, and the biggest "wins" for Amtrak come from parking and "resource consumption". Parking is taxed, not directly subsidized. The blog post dips into studies that (rightly) excoriate free parking, and scales the external cost of free parking across all parking, thus conflating the total cost of driving with the subsidized cost of driving. For "resource consumption", the blogger found a study that attributed the entire cost of our military presence in the gulf to oil prices, simply averaging the military budget across oil prices per barrel. This just isn't credible. I am not anti-Amtrak, but I am anti-oversimplified-arguments and anti-demonizing-viewpoints. A counterpoint from Cato, which I also do not buy outright: http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp107.pdf http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp107.pdf
- sc68cal 15y ago
  Secondly, go read the actual source cited by that Economist blog post. It's another blog post: Yes - I'm quite aware of the original source, I went and found the Economist piece after finding the GreaterGreatWashington post, because I felt it added more interesting reading and discussion. For "resource consumption", the blogger found a study that attributed the entire cost of our military presence in the gulf to oil prices, simply averaging the military budget across oil prices per barrel. We are there as part of the Carter Doctrine, which states that our security depends on access to cheap oil. This is not just dug up by a pro-Amtrak blog post to make a point. This is a stated national policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine I am not anti-Amtrak, but I am anti-oversimplified-arguments and anti-demonizing-viewpoints. A counterpoint from Cato, which I also do not buy outright Agreed. My hat goes off to you for the Cato link, even though they drive me up the wall. Bonus link "Help Passenger Rail by Privatizing Amtrak - Cato Institute" - http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa419.pdf http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa419.pdf

by sc68cal 15y ago

ams6110 15y ago

At least the people paying gas tax are the people using the roads. I never use Amtrak, yet I still pay for it.

sc68cal 15y ago
This is another poor basis for public tax policy - the classic "I don't use it so I don't want to pay for it." First - part of living in a society is paying for things that others use that you may not, but which improves society for all. Second - I live in Philadelphia and rarely use roads, and yet my tax dollars to the government of Pennsylvania are used, in combination with gas tax proceeds, to repair roads that others drive on, and that I don't directly benefit from. That's the price of living in a society, and I support it.
- tptacek 15y ago
  You're answering a resource allocation argument with a moral argument. Non sequitur. If you reject the premise that we should allocate resources to the modes of transport that move the most people at the least expense including external costs, you're opting out of the whole debate. Also, unlike most of Amtrak, you benefit directly from Penn's roads even when you don't use them yourself; for instance, virtually everything you eat is brought to you over them.
  - sc68cal 15y ago
    I would argue that is an indirect beneift - the fact that my food arrives fresh and to my grocer. When I said direct benefit, I meant more along the lines of driving my car on those roads, which I do rarely. Still, excellent point.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Assume we didn't have the road system we have now, and that an entire food delivery system was organized around local sources (yay!). What would the result be? Lots of root vegetables and drastically higher food prices.

tptacek 15y ago

First, you're making an argument I didn't make. I didn't say, "the GOP thinks Amtrak is bad because it is subsidized more than roads" (though clearly some do think that, like the Cato libertarians). I said "the GOP thinks Amtrak is bad because it operates on the brink of insolvency mitigated by direct cash subsidies". Secondly, go read the actual source cited by that Economist blog post. It's another blog post: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12208/funding-amtrak-is-more-cost-effective-than-subsidizing-roads/ http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12208/funding-amtra... The cost breakdown in this blog post is ad hoc, and the biggest "wins" for Amtrak come from parking and "resource consumption". Parking is taxed, not directly subsidized. The blog post dips into studies that (rightly) excoriate free parking, and scales the external cost of free parking across all parking, thus conflating the total cost of driving with the subsidized cost of driving. For "resource consumption", the blogger found a study that attributed the entire cost of our military presence in the gulf to oil prices, simply averaging the military budget across oil prices per barrel. This just isn't credible. I am not anti-Amtrak, but I am anti-oversimplified-arguments and anti-demonizing-viewpoints. A counterpoint from Cato, which I also do not buy outright: http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp107.pdf http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp107.pdf

sc68cal 15y ago
Secondly, go read the actual source cited by that Economist blog post. It's another blog post: Yes - I'm quite aware of the original source, I went and found the Economist piece after finding the GreaterGreatWashington post, because I felt it added more interesting reading and discussion. For "resource consumption", the blogger found a study that attributed the entire cost of our military presence in the gulf to oil prices, simply averaging the military budget across oil prices per barrel. We are there as part of the Carter Doctrine, which states that our security depends on access to cheap oil. This is not just dug up by a pro-Amtrak blog post to make a point. This is a stated national policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine I am not anti-Amtrak, but I am anti-oversimplified-arguments and anti-demonizing-viewpoints. A counterpoint from Cato, which I also do not buy outright Agreed. My hat goes off to you for the Cato link, even though they drive me up the wall. Bonus link "Help Passenger Rail by Privatizing Amtrak - Cato Institute" - http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa419.pdf http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa419.pdf