5 ms·

Cheap trains everywhere doesn’t have to mean high speed rail everywhere. You can have slower cheaper rail infrastructure that serves less traveled routes.

AussieWog93 3y ago
Fair enough, but then nobody wants to use it because it's slow.
- comte7092 3y ago
  I like using the train in America. The main issues I have are that the trips aren’t as frequent as I’d like and often don’t leave on time.
CharlieDigital 3y ago
It also doesn't have to be profitable. Transportation is a service that's critical to economic function. There's no reason not to shift the cost of taxpayer funded vehicle infrastructure to transit infrastructure.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  What those utilizing the transportation network are willing and able to pay to use the network will be directly proportional to how critical the usage of that transportation network is to economic function. So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the transportation network from those using it, to taxpayers at large. In fact, socializing costs of transportation is what can cause economically non-viable transportation services to grow in usage, and in doing so, burden the economy with loss-making transportation.
  - CharlieDigital 3y ago
    > So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the transportation network from those using it, to taxpayers at large. Like most things in a thriving, functioning society, socializing the costs is what makes it work. Let me reframe your statement: > So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the education system from those using it, to taxpayers at large. In fact, socializing costs of education is what can cause economically non-viable education services to consume greater amounts of resources, and in doing so, burden the economy. Yet this same education system is what has produced a society capable of enormous economic output over the relatively short history of public education. Your argument is the most basic of libertarian nonsense that would argue that in past decades would argue that tax dollars collected in UT shouldn't fund interstate highways in CA.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      >Like most things in a thriving, functioning society, socializing the costs is what makes it work. What is it about transportation wherein socializing the costs of using it would make it work? Toll roads work all around the world, and better than the routes where the costs are socialized. >Yet this same education system is what has produced a society capable of enormous economic output over the relatively short history of public education. The modern education system arose largely in the 1930' "high school movement", which was almost all locally funded and controlled, and thus subject to very little socializing of costs. As the costs of providing education have become increasingly socialized, the spending efficiency has decreased as rent-seeking institutions like teachers unions have taken over: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839935 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839... >Your argument is the most basic of libertarian nonsense that would argue that in past decades would argue that tax dollars collected in UT shouldn't fund interstate highways in CA. I never made a libertarian argument. I made an appeal to basic economics. That triggered your anti-libertarian ideological defense mechanism, which has been instilled in the populace by the rent-seeking institutions that rely on centralized control: https://www.hoover.org/research/california-state-government-workers-earn-143000-twice-much-private-sector-workers https://www.hoover.org/research/california-state-government-... These rent-seeking mechanisms are rapidly taking over the economy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long... And as they do, the belief systems that they rely on, like anti-libertarianism, become more pervasive.
      - dendriti 3y ago
        Libertarianism has been exposed as bullshit over and over again. To dismiss these well-documented concerns as "ideological defense mechanisms" is just sad. FWIW homeopaths and chiropractors use the same sad defense.
      - fzeroracer 3y ago
        > As the costs of providing education have become increasingly socialized, the spending efficiency has decreased as rent-seeking institutions like teachers unions have taken over: I have nothing else to say but to point at this comment and say that calling a teacher's union a 'rent-seeking institution' is nonsense. As a libertarian you should be cheering for unions because they are the natural consequence of workers using their power in a free market to come together and negotiate as a block.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Not everything needs to be done for purely economic purposes - that includes the creation and maintenance of transportation networks. Societies are free to have broader sets of objectives.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      Of course. I was pushing back against the claim in the original post, which argued for socializing transportation costs on economic grounds: >Transportation is a service that's critical to economic function. Transportation is not amongst the subset of goods/services where having individual market actors pay for its production leads to economically sub-optimal under-production. Whether transportation should be subsidized for other reasons is an entirely different subject.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        I am a bit less convinced about the "optimalities" in practice, because differences in funding costs, risk preferences etc. can lead to inefficiencies in the real world that a state actor could bridge.
        ETH_start 3y ago
        >>because differences in funding costs, risk preferences etc. can lead to inefficiencies in the real world that a state actor could bridge. I don't understand, could you elaborate?
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        For example: corporations have a lot of secondary objectives beyond profit such as limited volatility of profits that can suppress beneficial activities. State actors can take different risks and absorb such volatility by funding activities and then recovering via taxes (simplistically). In the financial markets this gets often arbitraged away, but in slow and high cost markets, those arbitrageurs aren't necessarily forming. Similarly, time preferences can stop long-term beneficial activities by corporate actors. In the end, it is about bridging different preferences. There are also issues of resource pooling and coordination, but those are easier to overcome.
saalweachter 3y ago
So I think there is an opportunity here. Like many people, I cross a train track on my commute. There even used to be a commuter rail line that stopped there. Now it is all freight. Like many freight lines, it carries a lot of "bomb trains" running oil between the fields and the refineries. Eventually -- not tomorrow, probably more in the 30-50 year range -- those bomb trains are going to stop running. That is going to leave a lot of track underutilized, and adding passenger rail back to these lines is one way to keep it cost effective to keep them open for freight. You have some overhead to re-add minimal stations -- concrete pads for disembarking, roofs optional -- but the tracks already existing covers a lot of the cost and complications.

AussieWog93 3y ago

Fair enough, but then nobody wants to use it because it's slow.

comte7092 3y ago
I like using the train in America. The main issues I have are that the trips aren’t as frequent as I’d like and often don’t leave on time.

CharlieDigital 3y ago

It also doesn't have to be profitable. Transportation is a service that's critical to economic function. There's no reason not to shift the cost of taxpayer funded vehicle infrastructure to transit infrastructure.

ETH_start 3y ago
What those utilizing the transportation network are willing and able to pay to use the network will be directly proportional to how critical the usage of that transportation network is to economic function. So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the transportation network from those using it, to taxpayers at large. In fact, socializing costs of transportation is what can cause economically non-viable transportation services to grow in usage, and in doing so, burden the economy with loss-making transportation.
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  > So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the transportation network from those using it, to taxpayers at large. Like most things in a thriving, functioning society, socializing the costs is what makes it work. Let me reframe your statement: > So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the education system from those using it, to taxpayers at large. In fact, socializing costs of education is what can cause economically non-viable education services to consume greater amounts of resources, and in doing so, burden the economy. Yet this same education system is what has produced a society capable of enormous economic output over the relatively short history of public education. Your argument is the most basic of libertarian nonsense that would argue that in past decades would argue that tax dollars collected in UT shouldn't fund interstate highways in CA.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    >Like most things in a thriving, functioning society, socializing the costs is what makes it work. What is it about transportation wherein socializing the costs of using it would make it work? Toll roads work all around the world, and better than the routes where the costs are socialized. >Yet this same education system is what has produced a society capable of enormous economic output over the relatively short history of public education. The modern education system arose largely in the 1930' "high school movement", which was almost all locally funded and controlled, and thus subject to very little socializing of costs. As the costs of providing education have become increasingly socialized, the spending efficiency has decreased as rent-seeking institutions like teachers unions have taken over: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839935 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839... >Your argument is the most basic of libertarian nonsense that would argue that in past decades would argue that tax dollars collected in UT shouldn't fund interstate highways in CA. I never made a libertarian argument. I made an appeal to basic economics. That triggered your anti-libertarian ideological defense mechanism, which has been instilled in the populace by the rent-seeking institutions that rely on centralized control: https://www.hoover.org/research/california-state-government-workers-earn-143000-twice-much-private-sector-workers https://www.hoover.org/research/california-state-government-... These rent-seeking mechanisms are rapidly taking over the economy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long... And as they do, the belief systems that they rely on, like anti-libertarianism, become more pervasive.
    - dendriti 3y ago
      Libertarianism has been exposed as bullshit over and over again. To dismiss these well-documented concerns as "ideological defense mechanisms" is just sad. FWIW homeopaths and chiropractors use the same sad defense.
    - fzeroracer 3y ago
      > As the costs of providing education have become increasingly socialized, the spending efficiency has decreased as rent-seeking institutions like teachers unions have taken over: I have nothing else to say but to point at this comment and say that calling a teacher's union a 'rent-seeking institution' is nonsense. As a libertarian you should be cheering for unions because they are the natural consequence of workers using their power in a free market to come together and negotiate as a block.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Not everything needs to be done for purely economic purposes - that includes the creation and maintenance of transportation networks. Societies are free to have broader sets of objectives.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    Of course. I was pushing back against the claim in the original post, which argued for socializing transportation costs on economic grounds: >Transportation is a service that's critical to economic function. Transportation is not amongst the subset of goods/services where having individual market actors pay for its production leads to economically sub-optimal under-production. Whether transportation should be subsidized for other reasons is an entirely different subject.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      I am a bit less convinced about the "optimalities" in practice, because differences in funding costs, risk preferences etc. can lead to inefficiencies in the real world that a state actor could bridge.
      - ETH_start 3y ago
        >>because differences in funding costs, risk preferences etc. can lead to inefficiencies in the real world that a state actor could bridge. I don't understand, could you elaborate?
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        For example: corporations have a lot of secondary objectives beyond profit such as limited volatility of profits that can suppress beneficial activities. State actors can take different risks and absorb such volatility by funding activities and then recovering via taxes (simplistically). In the financial markets this gets often arbitraged away, but in slow and high cost markets, those arbitrageurs aren't necessarily forming. Similarly, time preferences can stop long-term beneficial activities by corporate actors. In the end, it is about bridging different preferences. There are also issues of resource pooling and coordination, but those are easier to overcome.

saalweachter 3y ago

So I think there is an opportunity here. Like many people, I cross a train track on my commute. There even used to be a commuter rail line that stopped there. Now it is all freight. Like many freight lines, it carries a lot of "bomb trains" running oil between the fields and the refineries. Eventually -- not tomorrow, probably more in the 30-50 year range -- those bomb trains are going to stop running. That is going to leave a lot of track underutilized, and adding passenger rail back to these lines is one way to keep it cost effective to keep them open for freight. You have some overhead to re-add minimal stations -- concrete pads for disembarking, roofs optional -- but the tracks already existing covers a lot of the cost and complications.