All over the country, transit agencies splurge hundreds of millions of dollars building rail lines that hardly anyone uses, then declare the lines to be a great success. There is good reason for that: if they declare federally supported lines to be a failure and quit running them, they have to give the money back to the feds. Since there isn’t much market for holes in the ground, light-rail stations, and other expensive parts of rail infrastructure, it usually seems cheaper to just keep running the http://pharma-bi.com/2009/07/ buy cheap cialis ED is an inability to sustain an adequate erection throughout the sexual act. Also, do consult about generic levitra online generic levitra online your doctor before using these tablets as recommended. The safe use and knowledge of all pharma-bi.com cialis cost low is decreasing day by day. It should cheapest viagra uk not be taken along with any medicine containing nitrates as this may result in adverse side effects. lines.
How do ordinary taxpayers judge whether a transit line is really successful or the transit agency is just claiming it is because it is too embarrassed to admit it wasted so much money? To answer this question, the Antiplanner developed six different tests, including profitability, effects on ridership, and the famous cable-car test, and evaluated more than 70 rail transit systems in about 30 cities using these tests. Cato is publishing the resulting report, “Defining Success: The Case Against Rail Transit” today.
This psuedo-success is similar to the broken window fallacy, whereas that is just replacing the same window, a new LRT is replacing buses or a very few car trips (not cars), at a much higher cost & interfering with existing roadway, & preventing some road improvements.
How much can mass transit mileage be expanded?
Even 100% is still <5% of VMT.
What good is expanding mass transit?
It can barely serve densities below ~5,000.
The NYC MTA is almost insolvent.
The most dense city in the US, at 50% transit ridership should have a 100% fairbox recovery. What is it? Not sure, <50%?
How can any other city expect to cover many expenses?
Well, unions are a big problem for all of gov.
With his health deform package, it's time to consider moving to to Ireland or one of the Asian Tigers. A few Caribbean islands might be good.
Australia & NZ are great, except for the top tax rate of 45%.
See, economic freedom.
The point isn’t necessarily if in that bracket, but to avoid that immoral redistribution mentality, & it’s a big drain on the economy, taking away motivation.
The bottom half of earners will not have to do jack shit if BO has his way. It’s almost that many that pay no fed income tax.
Do a Google search with the search term rail transit success and see what comes up. I just did, and the Antiplanner’s new Cato report (mentioned above) does show up, but so do many other items.
The weakness in the Antiplanner’s arguments is that rail will influence future development (the free market is nothing if not adaptable). So when a city adopts rail transit, the future development will build housing and services around the cheap transportation, so that people who will use the transit will pay premiums to make that work for them. There is no way the modern NYC could exist without decades of subways and commuter transit.
The strength of the Antiplanner’s arguments is that at any reasonable discount rate, those changes do not make economic sense. The subways and transit take huge subsidies, and since they still don’t cover operating costs, they clearly don’t pay for themselves.
So it seems that transit is a bet on the future. It might have worked in NYC, but it also didn’t work in other cities. Will it work in Phoenix, for example? It depends on your vision of the future. Cities want to project optimistic futures.
The debate on light rail vs. buses is very interesting, and is worthy of much more debate.
Well, The Antiplanner has laid down the gauntlet, so to speak, on the issue of rail transit.
Too bad most of his calculations are so far off as be downright embarrassing.
For example, the average long-distance express bus in the San Francisco Bay Area that would theoretically “replace” BART barely carries 100 passengers per day per bus. For current Transbay service, AC Transit carries around 15,000 daily trips with somewhere between 150 and 200 bus pullouts every weekday.
He also dismisses the fact that massive express bus networks would also require substantive capital investments in dedicated busways and terminal facilities, in some cases matching or exceeding the cost of rail infrastructure.
Again, a few San Francisco Bay Area examples should suffice (for now).
Prior to BART, AC Transit carried about 50,000 daily Transbay passengers to and from San Francisco, roughly 1/3 of this total in each peak period. At that time, the capacity of the Transbay Terminal–an off-street facility originally designed for the electric trains that ran across the Bay Bridge until 1958–was very close to its capacity with that level of bus ridership.
Providing the same capacity to downtown San Francisco with buses rather than rail would require a multi-billion off-street terminal similar to the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan, or a 4-lane bus subway for BART (never mind Muni LRT services!) under Market Street, out Mission Street, with exclusive sections at least as far as Daly City. Such a tunnel complex would have been far more complex than the BART tunnels that actually were built–given that bus tunnels would have required extensive ventilation, much more maneuvering room at stations, and so forth.
The East Bay approaches to the Bay Bridge would have also required several billion dollars in exclusive busways and other treatments to come anywhere near matching the speed and performance of BART, particularly from those areas where trains are considerably faster than buses.
Finally there is the issue of operating expenses. Typically express buses cost more per revenue vehicle hour to operate than local buses. Combined with the very limited number of passengers a highly-peaked express bus operation would carry per bus, operating costs per passenger would be very high compared to local riders–apparently The Antiplanner forgot, in most situations, rail transit trip lengths are considerably longer than average bus trip lengths (there are a few exceptions), so proportionately more bus resources would be used.
Also, why is applied interest rate on rail capital costs so high, higher than one can get for 30-year mortgages??? If one used the current federal bond rate, you’d be paying less than 4% annually, lowering the estimated annual capital costs by 30%-40%. Or could The Antiplanner have an anti-rail bias? Naw….
“Also, why is applied interest rate on rail capital costs so high, higher than one can get for 30-year mortgages??? If one used the current federal bond rate, you’d be paying less than 4% annually, lowering the estimated annual capital costs by 30%-40%. Or could The Antiplanner have an anti-rail bias? Naw….”
These normally are government issued bonds backed by some sort of sales tax revenue, are they not? Why would they have much of anything to do with mortgage rates? Nor are these Fed treasuries backed by the US Federal government.
What were the rates some recent projects bonds were issued at?
Borealis:“The debate on light rail vs. buses is very interesting, and is worthy of much more debate.”
ws:Not really. Both systems should work together in the transit world, not against one another. Why must it be one mode versus another?
I never understood why buses on dedicated lanes is preferred over rail among Reason. To offer the same kind of service as rail they would need to have dedicated lanes which either requires taking away lanes from cars (politically unpopular) or building dedicated infrastructure which is pretty expensive in its own right.
As far as rail replacing buses, I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. Most bus riders work at necessary but thankless jobs and contribute to our economy. I don’t see what’s so bad about improving their quality of life. Many of our goods are cheap because people work for so little money. Without bus service, corporations may have to pay higher wages so that their workforce can actually buy a car to get to work, which would drive up prices for consumers. I don’t know, though, I can’t predict the future.
ws:Not really. Both systems should work together in the transit world, not against one another. Why must it be one mode versus another?
Yes, exactly. More choice = more freedom = greater resilience.
Basic stuff.
And thank you Mr Setty for the sunshine.
DS
“I don’t know, though, I can’t predict the future.”
Then what are you doing on this blog? Everybody round here knows exactly what will happen in the future. 😉
There have been plenty of cases where LRT has come up short on new development.
Even if there is new development, it’s just displacing from somewhere else, like rearranging water in a bathtub, which is done often by taking $ from the private sector (taxes, bonds) & given to the public sector, in the hopes that the water level can rise.
Comparisons with NYC is not applicable to other areas, having a density of 26,000 & for Manhattan, 65,000. Density happened their first, before much rail. Manhattan even had more residents, a century ago. Situations similar to SF (BART, 16,000 density) are rare to be found elsewhere. Chicago & DC round out the top 4 & there are only 2 other markets where public transit is widespread. Big gap to #7 UA for transit. None can be fully labeled a success though, because of the non-user money needed for capital & operation.
In general, the error is to say that since transit works fairly well, in “these” markets, it can work in many places. Then, another failure is choosing CBDs & UAs with medium & low densities.
To cut off the hypocrites, highways only need a little more for self-sufficiency, perhaps 10-20% more, in what each driver pays for all costs, whereas transit tickets need to be 200-300%.
One thing about regional rail is that it encourages (slightly) suburban residences, while working in the core CBD. Centralized employment is not necessary. Employment can be disbursed around the region. The problem is that people often choose to not locate places of work & living, very close.
Expectations of furious hand-flapping on the incoherence notwithstanding:
There have been plenty of cases where LRT has come up short on new development
Evidence please.
DS
Dan, this doesn’t make sense, Expectations of furious hand-flapping on the incoherence notwithstanding. If you cannot understand, you don’t need to be nebulous.
You are again freely admitting that you are short on information.
It’s up to you to keep abreast of current events, urban conditions & such.
This is more complicated than simple numbers.
I gave you evidence.
The top 6 transit UAs already had transit before cars became prevalent & have their own reasons, including high density for being the only UAs in the US w/commuter us above 10% for transit.
So, look at all the other markets. There is nothing special about those with new LRT.
In fact, the fastest growing large regions didn’t get new transit.
Phoenix LRT is after the fact. Austin is borderline, but the rail did not contribute & its congestion is even increasing with resources away from highways.
Here’s one specific example, in San Jose, the 20 year old LRT line has one of the lowest riderships in the country. There are no real TODs, and building around stations is mostly coincidental, due to land expansion being off limits for over 2 decades. The downtown is still a joke. Transit use is <10%, & riders are mostly poor & carless. Little, if any, of the major development has been along the route.
Re: Austin, it’s not even a candidate for LRT spurring growth. I thought read that it had a fairly new line; it has no LRT, but it does have BRT, inconveniencing cars. There is a 3 month old commuter rail; 3,000/day riders. The transit system’s expenses are only 1/7 covered by direct revenue.
Oh, in general, to see how new development is spurred by new transit is to see how ridership has increased.
Otherwise, the customer/tenants use cars & the location can be anywhere.
Transit use has not increased dramatically anywhere to claim that transit investment stimulates.
The assertion is that LRT “has come up short on new development”. That presumably means that the projections of development proximate to stations in numerous instances are less than forecast.
Evidence with ratios or % please. That is how it is done. Plenty would imply greater than, say, 1/5 of all stations or markets.
DS
Dan, you continually avoid reasons & basic facts, trying to get nitpicky.
When somebody mentions access to water, do you need biology & agriculture reports as to why?
Dude, do think there are reports or studies that analyze each station for a LRT?
There probably are, but also biased. I’m not going to search.
You suggested metric doesn’t make sense & doesn’t even measure the right variables. What it assumes is that any land near that a station that becomes developed, would have remained vacant without the station. Wrong!
Actually, the burden of evidence is to show how LRT stations have encouraged development because of the rail. Not because of tax breaks, low priced land, just available land, etc.
Increased transit use is needed, as partial proof, to show how it impacted the development.
Consider that a rail route might have access, to within 1/3 mile, of about 2% of a region’s urbanized land.
Look at that area. Developments in other areas don’t count.
Consider, a fairly constant amount residence requirements & retail spending. Obviously depend on economy.
It’s a matter of location, near a transit or elsewhere.
Randall has given many examples for station places in Portland that have not been developed & those that have are the result of massive tax discounts & have low occupancy. If you read his books & articles & PDFs you will find more explanation & evidence.
“if they declare federally supported lines to be a failure and quit running them, they have to give the money back to the feds. Since there isn’t much market for holes in the ground, light-rail stations, and other expensive parts of rail infrastructure”
I do not see why the door doesn’t swing both ways. The how many times are we hearing about highway projects being a complete failure? What is the market for snaking, elevated strips of pavement and concrete? I do not think anyone here is going to claim that there are not highways that are a dismal representation of transit. Pick any around L.A., Rt 128 and 93 around Boston (even after the Big Dig). Speaking of the Big Dig, a federally funded highway project passed for 2 billion dollars in funding and costing 13.5 billion. What were they going to do without more funding? Stop their tunnel halfway?
Scott, it seems convenient to say that comparison to NYC is not applicable. Yes, it is true that New York has always had more density than other cities, but it is not by accident. It is not as though people in the NYC metro area propagate more than other places. New York gathered its citizens from the entire world. It is dense because it has been designed that way including, but limited to, zoning, support of business types, funding for transit access of all types (including bridges and tunnels.) As an urban culture it has fostered growth better than other cities. This could be emulated.
It’s transit system is currently insolvent because the city is insolvent-and it’s not alone. The recession and the dip in the market hit New York’s trading and financial center hard which contributed to declining ridership and tax shortfalls. Many city and state governments are facing cutbacks. The area also has the Long Island Railroad, one of the most heavily traveled and profitable railroads in the country.
Sitting in traffic on a highway for hours to commute 20 miles seems like a failure to me.
What highways are failures because of limited use.
The Big Dig was just way too costly, but still heavily used. I don’t know why that should be Federally funded–same with any transportation project–fund it regionally. This collectivism invites grandeur & waste, because “others” pay.
It’s ridiculous to claim that any other city in the US can achieve density approaching that of NYC, or even much higher density than current, by just adding more transit. It’s also silly to talk of New Yorkers being not more fertile. Do you know about Ellis Island & the rural to urban migration?
It would take too much space to explain the intricacies. You really need to read more urban history, & about current conditions & tastes.
Let me give you some hints: High transit use only exists in old cities. Old cities built dense before rail, because walking & horse were the only ways to get around. Old city densities have mostly declined in density Transit use has declined for a century. People move to cities for jobs, not just born there as you pretended to assume.
Well I think I said that NYC’s density was the result of it being “designed” through a series of factors, not just transit. Transit is a component of a successful system, so no… by adding only transit to a poorly designed city it would not suddenly increase density. That is probably as ridiculous as claiming that transit has no part in urban function and economic success. And I also think I said that the city gathers it’s citizens from around the world–so I never assumed that its citizens are only those born there. I live in Manhattan. I am fairly well acquainted.
I think it is true that some old cities have declined and shed population. Others have prospered. And a reason why older cities have more developed transit systems is that most were built as privately funded ventures that failed and were subsequently absorbed by the government, Boston, NYC, Chicago, London. Just because we have realized that urban-scaled transit (roads and highways included) need to be managed and funded by regional government does not mean they are not integral to improving how cityscapes function.
Highways that would “fail” due to the inefficiency of limited use would never be recognized because they are not isolated like individual transit systems. We do not count cars on every highway and road but we still have to fund them all.
T.Caine
It’s true that I exaggerated your comments on the transit impacts to growth & density. But when other factors are brought in, I try to weed them out.
Good for you to note that cites vary in population changes.
Of course transportation networks are needed & mostly built w/taxes.
Good grasp on obvious.
Does a road have a minimum amount of traffic needed, in your mind?
Is there a problem with roads being built & no traffic?
What transit systems are isolated?
As foolish as many agencies are, I don’t think any are built in rural areas.
I’m not sure where your points trying to go.
The original point was new LRT (buses are very flexible) & how unsuccessful they are, including transit usage change & stimulating the local economy (false).
Living in Manhattan (5x dense as Chicago) can cause bias, & difficulty viewing other UAs, with much different conditions.
Personally, I would hate it.
Sure, many love it, to pay an avg of ~$800,000.
But it seems that many want much more transit, like NYC. Not realistic.
Scott,
I was mainly just responding to the original post’s comment about not wanting to admit to transit failures and instead, continuing to fund them. I would think that building roads that aren’t used is still pretty inefficient, but I admit it costs a lot less than building a streetcar that isn’t used. When I said transit systems were isolated I just meant isolated for study and critique. We can get very accurate information on their ridership, even on specific portions of transit systems, which we cannot mirror for most roads.
Admittedly, I would say I am a bit biased living in Manhattan, but I’m also someone who grew up in the suburbs all my life. Not to sound melodramatic, but it changes perspective a bit. Trying to create more systems that rival New York’s is certainly not realistic in the time frame most people/politicians would be trying to vie for.
There probably are, but also biased. I’m not going to search.
Thank you, Scott, for not having any evidence to back your claim, nor having the intellectual honesty to do the work to see if your evidenceless claim is factual.
At least the usual suspects are consistent!
DS
Dan,
Specific articles are not needed to know about general conditions.
I gave you examples.
You have refrained from showing how LRT has spurred development, without tax breaks, that would not have occurred otherwise.
Imagine a trial: the prosecutor/plaintiff has to prove that the other side “did something”.
The defendant does not have to prove that something did not happen.
The basic evidence that I mentioned is that transit ridership has not dramatically increased anywhere.
That means that any development is not because of ridership.
You have refrained from showing how LRT has spurred development, without tax breaks, that would not have occurred otherwise.
It was your claim. I asked for evidence. You have none. I call BS.
DS
Oh Dan, you are so predictable. You can’t defend your position, so you try to make everyone else prove their position. You want public money, so you need to prove your position. There are a million proposals wanting public money, so why should you get any funds when we could have a new NFL team?
So let’s just make a big donkey out of you for the 433rd time. Name one, ONE, light rail or high speed rail developments in the US that even broke even on operating and capital costs. You can’t do it, can you? Even with your head up your sewer pipe flapping your hands back and forth (as you love to fantasize about), and you still can’t do it?
Thus, we ask for evidence, you have none,we all call your BS, and we officially define you as a “troll.”
Scott said: This psuedo-success is similar to the broken window fallacy, whereas that is just replacing the same window, a new LRT is replacing buses or a very few car trips (not cars), at a much higher cost & interfering with existing roadway, & preventing some road improvements.
THWM: Well broken window the sense that the government policy trashed rail lines in the first place. There’s still 100,000+ miles of rail line missing in the US.
So Scott STFU!
I am in search of the federal regulation Randal references when he writes: if a federally funded transit project is cancelled before the end of its expected lifespan, the local transit agency must repay the prorated value of all grants to the federal
government”
I NEED this information and I didn’t find it when cruising through 49 USC 53. I’m presuming it’s gonna be in the CFRs. Can someone help me? Thank/bless you!
Oh Dan, you are so predictable. You can’t defend your position, so you try to make everyone else prove their position.
Our almost 7 year old argues better than this. And she surely would be embarrassed if she uttered something so weak.
One can argue that such low-wattage is a combination of nature-nurture, but one can’t argue the low-quality output is embarrassing.
DS
Dan, You do argue like a 7 year old, having no evidence, not backing claims, twisting issues, avoidance of most points, etc.
You should be “embarrassed by your low-quality output”, not getting specific, without any support for your position.
You cannot prove new development because of LRT. You want proof of absence of development. That’ like guilty until proven innocent. You seem to miss many explanations & analogies. Prove something didn’t happen. Well, it’s too bad that you are not aware enough on news to know more.
Highman, What 100,000 miles of railways did the gov get rid of. Where is the demand for those?
Individuals got rid rid of millions of horses & candles, because of new technology.
Do want those all obsolete products back?
Oh, did poor Dan get his feelings hurt? I know it must be hard to have your 7 year old girl be more grown up than you. Personally, I wouldn’t bring up my kids, but you must have been badly scarred by having a kid that has better manners and more intelligence than you do. I know you wouldn’t ever avail yourself of free market ideas like charter schools and home schooling to nurture her intelligence, but there is a slight chance that your city uses magnet schools to hide their failing schools and drum up business for their failing transit.
Since you used your kid to defend your political position, I have to ask you, “Does your girl like riding the transit bus or would she rather have you drive her to school?”
Scott said: What 100,000+ miles of rail lines did the government policy get rid of.
THWM: You want rail judged on a profit or loss basis, yet with roads socialism is fine?
Hman,
No, highways should pay for themselves. A $0.50/gallon more gas tax will do that. Property taxes going for local roads is fine, similar to other infrastructure & protection services (police, fire), used by all.
You characterization of socialism applied to highways is wrong.
1.You are making a false, binary choice.
2.Not a business or industry.
3.Not redistribution.
4.Existence of profit is not question.
5.Roads are a public good; Public transit is not.
Regardless of any allocation of resources that are not directly by user, the funding from general revenue for highways is much less per passenger-mile, and about 90% of adults drive regularly, while <4% rider public transit regulars.
You have never made any point or documentation on the 100,000 miles of railways claim. Where are these rails & who would take these if reactivated?
Anyway, so what? Look at Amtrak with only 21,000 miles & very very low ridership.
Most rail transit used to be private. Gov took over & it fails.
cott said: What 100,000+ miles of rail lines did the government policy get rid of.
THWM: You want rail judged on a profit or loss basis, yet with roads socialism is fine?
I’m curious as to where the 100k+ miles claim comes from. At best I can tell it’s based on the peak rail mileage in the US versus today. If that’s the case it’s over simplistic if not ignorant since not all of those 100k+ miles were “lost” due to government policy.
Government policies obviously had some affect on some rail miles being abandoned. But there were many other factors that lead to less miles of track beside government policies. Worse, the entire thing appears to be built on the assumption that all 100,000+ miles of that rail was even needed in the first place.
The problem with assuming that those miles were needed is that if one looks at the history of railroads, one sees a history full of track building based not on demand but on speculation. Railroads were a new technology and they experienced a bubble in terms of building. A good example of this is the Colorado Midlands. It was built in a hurry, mostly duplicated existing routes and hoped that by being the first with standard gauge through the Rockies that it could become a viable business. But it was rarely profitable and finally scrapped shortly after WWI. It was a duplicate trackage from day one and if it’s wasn’t for the bubble in rail building and in expansion in the West, likely would’ve never been built. It definitely wasn’t needed.
There are other less obvious examples. The Minneapolis and St Louis railway never reached it’s namesake St. Louis. And like the Colorado Midland nearly from day one it was in financial trouble and quickly went into receivership (aka operating under bankruptcy). It emerged from it only go fall back into it again in the early 1920s (there was a depression in 1922, IIRC, that probably did it in but like mentioned, it was always tenuous at best). It shouldn’t be surprising that a railroad that counted Peoria and Mason City as major operational centers had such financial troubles. But it operated under bankruptcy for 20 something years at that time. There just wasn’t enough traffic to justify it’s existence and that was clear long before highways and semi trucks came into the picture.
Those railroads are rather large. Railroad history in the US is full of hundreds of smaller railroads that were built and quickly abandoned. For example, the Forest City and Gettysburg was built in the 1890s to connect those two South Dakota towns. It was never profitable and abandoned within 20 years of being built.
And it’s not just entire railroads whose existence from day were questionable but quite often specific lines. The Durango and Rio Grande Western’s famous Chili line was an example of this. Yes, shipments along the line stretching from far south central Colorado Antonito, CO to Santa Fe were hurt by the building of highways (IIRC US 84 runs along much of the southern 2/3 of that route today). But the line also suffered because it was narrow gauge. What little traffic that did originate along the line was being hauled in smaller, less efficient cars. And at that it could only be hauled a short distance to Santa Fe or a longer distance to Antonito or Alamosa where it then had to be unloaded from it’s freight cars into larger, standard gauage freight cars. In fact, that the Chili line was never upgraded to standard guage speaks to how sparse it’s traffic was during it’s history. The Denver and Rio Grande Railroad had upgraded many of it’s lines to standard guage by the 1900s / 1910s. Unfortunately the beloved Chili line even before trucks came around wasn’t producing enough traffic to justify the upgrade.
A line like the Chili line also brings into question what exactly is behind all those rail miles. For example, the Chili line had several forestry operations along it. Little lumber railroads were common. They’d lay down some light track right on the forest floor, often picking it up and moving it to another spot in the next year or three. Or just abandoning it altogether. It would be curious to say the least to make a fuss over the tens of thousands of miles of rail that existed for these forest harvest operations. But they’re there and commonly included in historical total rail trackage numbers.
More so those numbers simply don’t account for improvements in efficiencies in rail operations. For example, historically it was common for railroads to convert double tracked lines to single track after installing CTC. Other efficiencies were found too from larger rail cars (IIRC modern cars are @30% larger than they were 50 years ago), unit trains, more efficiently moving cars to their destination (that is, tearing up countless rail yards because instead of cars sitting around in a yard, they’re kept moving), radio controlled locomotives, et al. These are all factors that would’ve allowed for less miles of track to be needed while at the same time actually carrying more freight. In fact, US railroads today carry nearly 4 times the amount of traffic in terms of tonnage-miles they did 100 years ago. It’s doubled since the 1970s alone.
And at that, what miles of trackage were actually lost in the end due to government regulations, one has to ask what regulations. Government regulations were deeply entrenched with railroads early on. The government would allow for some lines to be abandoned, forcing railroads to operate them at a loss, diverting resources that could’ve been used to improve service on profitable lines into propping up marginal, redundant and plain out unneeded lines. The same with allowing certain railroads to merge, crew size, etc. All of which could’ve lead to railroads being able to better meet customer needs. How many miles of track were abandoned because the government fronted capital for highway building versus traffic lost due to higher operational costs due to government regulations?
Again, you want rail judged on a profit or loss basis, yet with roads you think socialism is fine.
Higman,
We don’t want rail to be judged.
We don’t want government to spend money on things that are extremely expensive & used by <1% of the people.
It's up to private rail companies on how they own track & deliver products (which we all use). It's good for them & all businesses, to make profits, which average <5% of sales.
You can never make a point about the 100,000 of railways lost. You seem to avoid the fact that those railways were privately owned. How do you think that those "lost" railways are a negative?
I explained how roads are not socialism.
To you, any kind for government beyond anarchy is socialism.
Roads are public goods, as are parks, forests & sidewalks.
Rail trackage is private.
Thank you Scott for showing us once again that you’re a hypocrite.
highman,
Why do you think that?
Your labels do not fly.
It’s ridiculous that you can just make up inaccurate accusations & think that they will stick.
It’s already known that you you are a hypocrite, because you are concerned about a slight non-usage tax for highways, while not for non-usage taxes for public transit, which are many many times (per capita/passenger-mile).
Scott wrote:
> It’s up to private rail companies on how they own track &
> deliver products (which we all use). It’s good for them &
> all businesses, to make profits, which average
> You can never make a point about the 100,000 of railways
> lost. You seem to avoid the fact that those railways were
> privately owned. How do you think that those “lost” railways
> are a negative?
Scott, do not forget that while railroads have often been owned by private corporations, many of them were started or substantially expanded with the help of governments and government-owned resources.
Examples include the B&O (got subsidies from the State of Maryland), the Pennsylvania Railroad (got subsidies from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) and Central Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroads (construction was funded by federal railroad bonds and received generous grants of government-owned lands).
Scott, that doesn’t make me a hypocrite.
I’m not against the street infront of my house, even though I only drive on it about 3 times in a month.
C. P. Zilliacus said:
Scott wrote:
> It’s up to private rail companies on how they own track &
> deliver products (which we all use). It’s good for them &
> all businesses, to make profits, which average
> You can never make a point about the 100,000 of railways
> lost. You seem to avoid the fact that those railways were
> privately owned. How do you think that those “lost†railways
> are a negative?
Scott, do not forget that while railroads have often been owned by private corporations, many of them were started or substantially expanded with the help of governments and government-owned resources.
Examples include the B&O (got subsidies from the State of Maryland), the Pennsylvania Railroad (got subsidies from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) and Central Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroads (construction was funded by federal railroad bonds and received generous grants of government-owned lands).
THWM: Tollroad companies got land grants as well.
EXCELLENT resource, Randal. This will go in the “Frequent” folder.
Dan, these comments apply to our discussions too, while I’m addressing specifics to these gentlemen.
CPZ & railhighman, You are referring to events of over a century ago. Come on!
Not really relevant. Should that be undone? How? Let’s just undo the $12 trillion debt, because redistribution in payouts to individuals (many via programs) equals that much.
Regardless, your point about the funding mechanism is the opposite way from which you intend to go, because that implies that the rail companies should pay more taxes to repay past gov largess.
Hman, One example that you give(your local street) means that you don’t have a double standard? Okee dokee. Whatever you type. Do you drive that only to a rail station? Good for you. You should be proud.
BTW, Personally, I like driving to places, because it’s much more convenient than the dozen or so routes that I have access to, 3 block form my place. By car, I can access 100% of the streets (paved, non-private) in the Bay Area, in up to 1.5 hours (non-rush), while through pubic transit, I could access maybe 10% of the streets in up to 5 hours.
What’s the beef? Are you getting screwed with extra taxes?
Unlikely, for anybody making under ~$100,000.
The top 5% of earners (above ~160,000) pay 60% of all Federal income taxes, plus more payroll tax, more sales tax, more property tax, more gas tax, more death tax & so on.
Well, you are all against some part of highways because of ~20% non-user funding,
but public transit is okay with ~65% non-user funding?
Is that your guys’ positions?
Local streets are mostly paid by property taxes & other municipal sources.
In other words, separate from numbered highways.
Dan, if that ratio is correct, of 3.25 more “subsidy” for public transit, all that’s needed for my previous statement of 20x to be true, is for highway passenger-VMTs to be about 6 times the public transit passenger-miles.
I’ll just pretend that you are familiar with math, even though I have not seen it demonstrated, for any of you. Not that you guys don’t know it, but it’s rare for specifics.
Then you don’t really have any thing to complain about Scott.
railman,
Again, you are too brief to make any sense & have no point.
Scott, for a “libertarian”, you’re pretty damn conformist!
???
What do you think that I’m conforming too?
For a literate person, you’re pretty & you’re full of damn nonsense, in addition to being a hypocrite which is standard for a leftist.
I have no problem if you want to drive Scott, though just don’t attack mass transit & railroads.
The attack is on all this general funding to go for <4% of the population; also on the waste & road interference of transit.