5 ms·

Not competitive compared to what? Combined spending by federal, state, and local governments on roads and airports amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars a

Not competitive compared to what? Combined spending by federal, state, and local governments on roads and airports amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Not exactly a profitable enterprise. Throw in the billions spent by end users of these roads on their own vehicles, and it's hard to see why there is such a fuss over the funding of trains. I'm not saying they are always the best solution in every situation. Planes will continue to win for long distances, and roads will continue to win for short ones, but there is a definite middle ground where trains shine. Having some double standard about profitability and competitiveness when we subsidize airports and highways to the tune of hundreds of billions a year seems rather disingenuous. And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement about government involvement leading to perverse decisions, but remember that this is the case whether we are talking about trains or highways or any other big spending project.

anamax 18y ago
> Combined spending by federal, state, and local governments on roads and airports amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Not exactly a profitable enterprise. Profit is not measured by spending, but by the relationship between spending and revenue. > it's hard to see why there is such a fuss over the funding of trains. Because they lose public money - they cost more to build and run than folks will pay to use them. I've no objection to you spending your money on them, but I'd rather not spend my money on them. > Having some double standard about profitability and competitiveness when we subsidize airports and highways to the tune of hundreds of billions a year seems rather disingenuous. We don't subsidize highways; the total taxes collected more than cover the costs. That's why the rail folks try to get a piece of it.
- Xichekolas 18y ago
  > We don't subsidize highways; the total taxes collected more than cover the costs. Sorry, but this is a commonly held misconception. From this article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274113,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274113,00.html "Close to two-thirds of the trust fund's $40 billion in receipts last year came from the gasoline tax." So the trust fund, which is made up of gas and diesel taxes, amounts to about $40 billion a year. As I have pointed out before here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=260824 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=260824 Total federal outlays were about $67 billion that same year, and states and local governments usually throw in billions more. And besides, I never claimed you can't fund rail via use taxes. But subsidizing roads to the tune of billions a year and expecting rail infrastructure to compete without such subsidies is just silly.
  - anamax 18y ago
    Gas taxes aren't the only taxes that come from autombile use.

anamax 18y ago

> Combined spending by federal, state, and local governments on roads and airports amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Not exactly a profitable enterprise. Profit is not measured by spending, but by the relationship between spending and revenue. > it's hard to see why there is such a fuss over the funding of trains. Because they lose public money - they cost more to build and run than folks will pay to use them. I've no objection to you spending your money on them, but I'd rather not spend my money on them. > Having some double standard about profitability and competitiveness when we subsidize airports and highways to the tune of hundreds of billions a year seems rather disingenuous. We don't subsidize highways; the total taxes collected more than cover the costs. That's why the rail folks try to get a piece of it.

Xichekolas 18y ago
> We don't subsidize highways; the total taxes collected more than cover the costs. Sorry, but this is a commonly held misconception. From this article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274113,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274113,00.html "Close to two-thirds of the trust fund's $40 billion in receipts last year came from the gasoline tax." So the trust fund, which is made up of gas and diesel taxes, amounts to about $40 billion a year. As I have pointed out before here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=260824 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=260824 Total federal outlays were about $67 billion that same year, and states and local governments usually throw in billions more. And besides, I never claimed you can't fund rail via use taxes. But subsidizing roads to the tune of billions a year and expecting rail infrastructure to compete without such subsidies is just silly.
- anamax 18y ago
  Gas taxes aren't the only taxes that come from autombile use.