4 ms·

Having a car also entails massive subsidies; when taking that into account the all-in costs per unit traveled are basically always cheaper with rail.

by dpe82 2y ago

thehappypm 2y ago
[flagged]
- geysersam 2y ago
  Almost every road project is paid by public money.
  - thehappypm 2y ago
    $200B/year spent on roads in the USA (federal, state, and local) for passenger vehicle miles driven in the trillions, plus truck miles. $4B/year spent on Amtrak for passenger miles in the billions. Roads are an order of magnitude cheaper
    - geysersam 2y ago
      You can't just compare the entire multi purpose road network of the US to a single rail company. That's just not a serious comparison. Besides, you didn't include the cost of the vehicles or the cost of fuel for the cars. I presume the number for Amtrak include all operating costs. The truth is that different modes of transport have different strengths and weaknesses. In densely urbanized areas trains and trams are typically more efficient than cars.
      - thehappypm 2y ago
        There are definitely places where rail is awesome, a great example is New York to DC. Better than driving or flying by a mile. But on a purely cost basis, rail is very expensive. It just more expensive for the government to build an operate rail than it is for them to build and operate roads. You’re right that part of it is because some of the cost is shouldered by the car owner. But, even in Europe, car ownership is very common outside of city centers. You can’t really expect there to be a rail station taking you from anywhere you want to go to anywhere else you wanna go unless you’re in an urban hub.
        geysersam 2y ago
        > But on a purely cost basis, rail is very expensive I'm not sure that's true, and I don't see any obvious reasons why that would be the case. Do you have a source to back that up? Of course we need roads. But the question is how many and how big they need to be.
        thehappypm 2y ago
        I gave data showing that the hundreds of billions of tax dollars spent on roads supports trillions of miles traveled, while billions of dollars spent on Amtrak (largest rail system in the US) leads to an order of magnitude less miles traveled
        geysersam 2y ago
        Yes but like I said the comparison is totally flawed since you counted all costs for Amtrak but only a subset of costs for car traffic. If you are convinced roads+cars is an order of magnitude more efficient than rail, maybe you can explain what you think is the cause of that difference. Does rail require more land? Does it require more maintenance hours? Does it require more expensive materials? Does it require higher insurance fees? What's the reason?
        thehappypm 2y ago
        operating and capital costs for transit in the USA are absolutely sky-high compared to the rest of the world. It doesn’t cost Japan billions to extend their subway a couple miles, but it does in NYC. The “why” is complex but well documented.
        15155 2y ago
        > rail station taking you from anywhere you want to go to anywhere else you wanna go unless you’re in an urban hub. The specific people pushing this form of development also want you to live in ultra-high-density housing in an urban center - that's the whole idea and eventuality of this type of development. You WILL raise your family in an apartment, they WILL ride a bicycle everywhere they aren't using mass transit. You will own nothing and like it.
gruez 2y ago
Source?

Having a car also entails massive subsidies; when taking that into account the all-in costs per unit traveled are basically always cheaper with rail.

by dpe82 2y ago

Having a car also entails massive subsidies; when taking that into account the all-in costs per unit traveled are basically always cheaper with rail.

thehappypm 2y ago

[flagged]

geysersam 2y ago
Almost every road project is paid by public money.
- thehappypm 2y ago
  $200B/year spent on roads in the USA (federal, state, and local) for passenger vehicle miles driven in the trillions, plus truck miles. $4B/year spent on Amtrak for passenger miles in the billions. Roads are an order of magnitude cheaper
  - geysersam 2y ago
    You can't just compare the entire multi purpose road network of the US to a single rail company. That's just not a serious comparison. Besides, you didn't include the cost of the vehicles or the cost of fuel for the cars. I presume the number for Amtrak include all operating costs. The truth is that different modes of transport have different strengths and weaknesses. In densely urbanized areas trains and trams are typically more efficient than cars.
    - thehappypm 2y ago
      There are definitely places where rail is awesome, a great example is New York to DC. Better than driving or flying by a mile. But on a purely cost basis, rail is very expensive. It just more expensive for the government to build an operate rail than it is for them to build and operate roads. You’re right that part of it is because some of the cost is shouldered by the car owner. But, even in Europe, car ownership is very common outside of city centers. You can’t really expect there to be a rail station taking you from anywhere you want to go to anywhere else you wanna go unless you’re in an urban hub.
      - geysersam 2y ago
        > But on a purely cost basis, rail is very expensive I'm not sure that's true, and I don't see any obvious reasons why that would be the case. Do you have a source to back that up? Of course we need roads. But the question is how many and how big they need to be.
        thehappypm 2y ago
        I gave data showing that the hundreds of billions of tax dollars spent on roads supports trillions of miles traveled, while billions of dollars spent on Amtrak (largest rail system in the US) leads to an order of magnitude less miles traveled
        geysersam 2y ago
        Yes but like I said the comparison is totally flawed since you counted all costs for Amtrak but only a subset of costs for car traffic. If you are convinced roads+cars is an order of magnitude more efficient than rail, maybe you can explain what you think is the cause of that difference. Does rail require more land? Does it require more maintenance hours? Does it require more expensive materials? Does it require higher insurance fees? What's the reason?
        thehappypm 2y ago
        operating and capital costs for transit in the USA are absolutely sky-high compared to the rest of the world. It doesn’t cost Japan billions to extend their subway a couple miles, but it does in NYC. The “why” is complex but well documented.
      - 15155 2y ago
        > rail station taking you from anywhere you want to go to anywhere else you wanna go unless you’re in an urban hub. The specific people pushing this form of development also want you to live in ultra-high-density housing in an urban center - that's the whole idea and eventuality of this type of development. You WILL raise your family in an apartment, they WILL ride a bicycle everywhere they aren't using mass transit. You will own nothing and like it.

gruez 2y ago

Source?