4 ms·

It's a public utility, it doesn't have to be self-sustainable if it is already covered by taxes, and provides mobility in other ways, e.g. cheap transportation

It's a public utility, it doesn't have to be self-sustainable if it is already covered by taxes, and provides mobility in other ways, e.g. cheap transportation means more to spend on holidays locally. Furthermore, a reduction in car emissions means lower healthcare costs. Not everything has to make money.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Well, everything needs money. You're right that some of the money here is extracted from people whether they use the service or not, but it's not great. > Furthermore, a reduction in car emissions means lower healthcare costs. Not necessarily - imagine a pandemic where people could only use public transport.
- s1mplicissimus 3y ago
  he says "reduction", you respond to "removal". i think that is called a strawman :) but you are right, everything needs money. so it ends up being a political issue where ideally we democratically figure out how much tax money we give to the train operators
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > he says "reduction", you respond to "removal". i think that is called a strawman :) Good point. I misread - didn't mean to mischaracterise.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  Respectfully, this mindset is myopic. Utilities are called utilities for a reason, and PUBLIC transportation is a utility. Better mobility means less road congestion, fewer emissions, less energy wasted needlessly, fewer healthcare costs, easier access to jobs and education which implies reduced crime, reduced crime means improved living conditions, more safety, fewer healthcare costs. The ROI on utilities is in many ways intangible due to the sheer complexity of our society. Measuring how much utilities make directly and using that to argue that they should be discontinued is naive at best and downright dangerous at worst.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Measuring how much utilities make directly and using that to argue that they should be discontinued is naive at best and downright dangerous at worst. I see this formulation so much. Almost these exact words, although the topic varies. Why is that? Thoughts are not dangerous, yet people keep saying they are. Incidentally the formulation often has the additional characteristic yours also does, which is assuming I said something I didn't. No one mentioned discontinuing anything.
    - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
      That line of thought “if it doesn’t immediately pay for itself it’s a liability and tax payer money shouldnt be used for it” keeps getting used by certain groups to diminish what the government provides back to the people. It trivially follows that if you find a service unsustainable then you must cut it. But this makes sense only when you can show that the secondary effects also don’t cover for the costs, however those are often ignored in such discussions. Ideas are dangerous when they are dishonest and misrepresent reality or hide the full picture. People don’t want complicated solutions to things they don’t understand, they want simple solutions to things they believe they understand. This is the basis of populist rhetorics and populist politics.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > That line of thought “if it doesn’t immediately pay for itself it’s a liability and tax payer money shouldnt be used for it” keeps getting used by certain groups to diminish what the government provides back to the people. You seem to be saying that when "certain groups" confront the fact I stated, they respond with a solution you don't like. That doesn't mean the fact is incorrect. That's a logical fallacy: arguing from adverse consequences[0]. > It trivially follows that if you find a service unsustainable then you must cut it. But this makes sense only when you can show that the secondary effects also don’t cover for the costs, however those are often ignored in such discussions. That doesn't mean they're being ignored here. Mention them to enrich the discussion, rather than suppressing the discussion with fearmongering. > Ideas are dangerous when they are dishonest and misrepresent reality or hide the full picture. Who gets to decide the full picture? I tell my kid gravity exists, and in doing so I hide the big picture. Your definition is too vague. The solution is not to squirrel around looking for a definition that is easy to falsify. The solution is to stop calling ideas dangerous and figure out what actually is dangerous. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World#Logical_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World#Logica...
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  It works the same as maintaining road infra. Car/fuel taxes are not enough to cover it, so ppl taxes are used. There is no sustainable transport in this regard maybe except bike lanes since these require minimal maintenance after built and have long lifespan, but public transport is better (cheaper to maintain) compared to car infra when accounting nr of passengers transported
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > but public transport is better (cheaper to maintain) compared to car infra when accounting nr of passengers transported Is that true on a like for like basis? E.g. a car goes to my house. A bus needs the same road that cars do.
    - josefx 3y ago
      A thousand people driving to work using busses need a lot less space/lanes than a thousand people driving cars to work.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        For sure, if people all live in my SimCity2000 designed cities of everyone lives over here and works over there : - )
    - Moldoteck 3y ago
      Buses need much less lanes since in dense areas one bus line can serve thousands of ppl that live close to each other. Operating buses on all roads is not practical, it'll be expensive taxi on steroids, the scope of the bus is to collect ppl from a bigger area and drop them to a place where ppl also continue walking to their destination

robertlagrant 3y ago

Well, everything needs money. You're right that some of the money here is extracted from people whether they use the service or not, but it's not great. > Furthermore, a reduction in car emissions means lower healthcare costs. Not necessarily - imagine a pandemic where people could only use public transport.

s1mplicissimus 3y ago
he says "reduction", you respond to "removal". i think that is called a strawman :) but you are right, everything needs money. so it ends up being a political issue where ideally we democratically figure out how much tax money we give to the train operators
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > he says "reduction", you respond to "removal". i think that is called a strawman :) Good point. I misread - didn't mean to mischaracterise.
PartiallyTyped 3y ago
Respectfully, this mindset is myopic. Utilities are called utilities for a reason, and PUBLIC transportation is a utility. Better mobility means less road congestion, fewer emissions, less energy wasted needlessly, fewer healthcare costs, easier access to jobs and education which implies reduced crime, reduced crime means improved living conditions, more safety, fewer healthcare costs. The ROI on utilities is in many ways intangible due to the sheer complexity of our society. Measuring how much utilities make directly and using that to argue that they should be discontinued is naive at best and downright dangerous at worst.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Measuring how much utilities make directly and using that to argue that they should be discontinued is naive at best and downright dangerous at worst. I see this formulation so much. Almost these exact words, although the topic varies. Why is that? Thoughts are not dangerous, yet people keep saying they are. Incidentally the formulation often has the additional characteristic yours also does, which is assuming I said something I didn't. No one mentioned discontinuing anything.
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    That line of thought “if it doesn’t immediately pay for itself it’s a liability and tax payer money shouldnt be used for it” keeps getting used by certain groups to diminish what the government provides back to the people. It trivially follows that if you find a service unsustainable then you must cut it. But this makes sense only when you can show that the secondary effects also don’t cover for the costs, however those are often ignored in such discussions. Ideas are dangerous when they are dishonest and misrepresent reality or hide the full picture. People don’t want complicated solutions to things they don’t understand, they want simple solutions to things they believe they understand. This is the basis of populist rhetorics and populist politics.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > That line of thought “if it doesn’t immediately pay for itself it’s a liability and tax payer money shouldnt be used for it” keeps getting used by certain groups to diminish what the government provides back to the people. You seem to be saying that when "certain groups" confront the fact I stated, they respond with a solution you don't like. That doesn't mean the fact is incorrect. That's a logical fallacy: arguing from adverse consequences[0]. > It trivially follows that if you find a service unsustainable then you must cut it. But this makes sense only when you can show that the secondary effects also don’t cover for the costs, however those are often ignored in such discussions. That doesn't mean they're being ignored here. Mention them to enrich the discussion, rather than suppressing the discussion with fearmongering. > Ideas are dangerous when they are dishonest and misrepresent reality or hide the full picture. Who gets to decide the full picture? I tell my kid gravity exists, and in doing so I hide the big picture. Your definition is too vague. The solution is not to squirrel around looking for a definition that is easy to falsify. The solution is to stop calling ideas dangerous and figure out what actually is dangerous. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World#Logical_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World#Logica...
Moldoteck 3y ago
It works the same as maintaining road infra. Car/fuel taxes are not enough to cover it, so ppl taxes are used. There is no sustainable transport in this regard maybe except bike lanes since these require minimal maintenance after built and have long lifespan, but public transport is better (cheaper to maintain) compared to car infra when accounting nr of passengers transported
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > but public transport is better (cheaper to maintain) compared to car infra when accounting nr of passengers transported Is that true on a like for like basis? E.g. a car goes to my house. A bus needs the same road that cars do.
  - josefx 3y ago
    A thousand people driving to work using busses need a lot less space/lanes than a thousand people driving cars to work.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      For sure, if people all live in my SimCity2000 designed cities of everyone lives over here and works over there : - )
  - Moldoteck 3y ago
    Buses need much less lanes since in dense areas one bus line can serve thousands of ppl that live close to each other. Operating buses on all roads is not practical, it'll be expensive taxi on steroids, the scope of the bus is to collect ppl from a bigger area and drop them to a place where ppl also continue walking to their destination