3 ms·
> Things that are actually more efficient don't require subsidies.... This rings true, but I'm not sure. Isn't the truth the weaker statement that new venture
by jbert 18y ago
> Things that are actually more efficient don't require subsidies....
This rings true, but I'm not sure.
Isn't the truth the weaker statement that new ventures which can't clearly demonstrate, in advance, that their balance of return+risk is likely to be better than investment in their competitors are unlikely to be funded?
And with larger ventures, which require significant investment in infrastructure, this calculation is skewed against new players (and new approaches - where rail counts as a 'new approach' for these purposes)?
Subsidy can tip the balance by reducing the initial risk, effectively lowering barriers to entry and thus encouraging more competition?
[Your other comments about viability are presumably dependent on passenger volumes/density etc. e.g. Local light rail works well in some cities. It may well be that all intercity services would come under your characterisation tho.]
- anamax 18y ago> Isn't the truth the weaker statement that new ventures which can't clearly demonstrate, in advance, that their balance of return+risk is likely to be better than investment in their competitors are unlikely to be funded? That's an interesting, but different and irrelevant question because there's no reason to believe that high speed rail in the US won't require on-going subsidies. The only argument is over how big they'll be. Run the numbers on every proposal you see. Compare the total salaries for the "jobs created" to the projected revenue (ridership * average fare). Look at the estimates for other on-going costs. Look at the startup costs.