Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j6jg33a wrote

This would be great if it could compete with driving in terms of cost and time. Not sure it could do that though, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if it did.

5

contrary-contrarian t1_j6jnma2 wrote

If we subsidized it at the same level we subsidize driving, it would absolutely compete.

7

cbospam1 t1_j6kgrkt wrote

Who subsidizes driving?

6

contrary-contrarian t1_j6lgul5 wrote

Great question!

Drivers cover around 51% of road maintenance and construction.

The other 49% is paid for by the general tax payer (many of which don't drive by the way).

Road maintenance and construction costed $416 billion in 2014 alone.

This doesn't account for the massive externality of the pollution cars create, traffic deaths, inflation of construction and housing costs, etc. A recent study showed that the lifetime cost of owning a small car is ~690,000 and society subsidizes $275,000 of that cost.

Keep in mind that these are conservative estimates of the subsidies society provides to cars.

Gas subsidies alone account for $16 billion a year from U.S. taxpayers.

Meanwhile in the U.S., passenger rail is subsidized at $1.4 billion a year.

So yeah... cars get massive subsidies compared to rail... and rail is way better for reducing traffic, pollution, deaths, and increasing quality of life, health, and walkable cities and towns.

Seems like we could make the switch.... we already have the transportation funding... the auto industry just has our representatives (and apparently much of the populace) completely brainwashed.

5

WikiSummarizerBot t1_j6lgw5v wrote

Rail subsidies

>Many countries offer subsidies to their railways because of the social and economic benefits that it brings. The economic benefits can greatly assist in funding the rail network. Those countries usually also fund or subsidize road construction, and therefore effectively also subsidize road transport. Rail subsidies vary in both size and how they are distributed, with some countries funding the infrastructure and others funding trains and their operators, while others have a mixture of both.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

2

CorpusculantCortex t1_j6lp62l wrote

Not to be contrarian, but this is a bit of a gross oversimplification, no?

The 49% covered by the taxpayer still benefits the taxpayer as that infrastructure is what supports business, industry, commerce, etc. So it is not a subsidy for drivers, it is a subsidy for transit infrastructure. Which is a subsidy for the effective functioning of society. If we had these rails, we would still need roads for trucks to deliver goods to stores. The fewer drivers on the road, the higher percentage would be paid for by the general taxpayer. (Plus just as a higher order argument, people without children pay for schools. But like that is the point of taxes, to provide for the common good, is it not? We are supposedly a democracy, not an anarcho-capitalist state. It is not 'unfair' to pay for something you don't use through taxes. That is the social contract we have agreed upon, we all adhere to it, that is the definition of equitable. ie fair.)

I'll admit that cars produce more pollution on average than rail per capita of utilization. But the rest of that article is not necessarily translatable as it is based on data from Germany, which has different laws and subsidies, as well as population density. One noted point was designated free parking as a driving subsidy. That is a bit of a stretch, especially in a rural area where land is relatively cheap. And looking at the research itself, I question it a little, though I am not about to do a deep dive into its rigors. But even on the pollution front, EV cars are becoming more prominent, which helps (though electricity is still predominantly produced by burning fossil fuels so not remotely carbon neutral).

Gas subsidies aren't an argument in this context as trains benefit from that as well.. they run on diesel. Almost no major rail systems outside of intercity tram systems in the US run purely electric as the maintenance costs are far in excess of that of maintaining a diesel locomotive.

So to say cars thru gas is subsidized by $16B and rail only at $1.4B is misleading at best. Rail is subsidized thru both programs due to the nature of Diesel engines in the US.

And the whole grouping of last points that it improves traffic, walkable cities, yadda yadda. If this was an urban or suburban state/ region I would agree with you. But it is VT, the second least populous state in the union. We don't need to worry about walkable cities, because, frankly, VT doesn't have any real cities. Burlington is smaller than some MA towns. And it is very walkable. Probably the most walkable city I have been to. Traffic in VT is nearly nonexistent relative to other regions. And while if this rail system existed it would be great, we would still need cars, or at least buses because everything is so spread out here. Where I live it would be an hour bike ride to get to any transit hub. Which to me is a much more costly waste of resources (my time) than 10k per year for my car by that article's estimate. Plus it is simply not feasible with children and families. At least not without a significant reduction in QoL.

These arguments are great for dense urban areas with dense suburban areas in between. Like in Europe, and US megalopolises like the northeast corridor (Boston to DC). For rail systems like this to have an impact on cars, you need layers of transit (buses, then trams, then trains). Layers that would far exceed in cost and personnel the benefit it provides to a population when there aren't enough people.

Granularity matters with science and engineering, and VT is not going to be impacted by transit systems in the same ways that urban areas are.

2

contrary-contrarian t1_j6lqa56 wrote

Kudos for reading up, but I still disagree that light rail isn't a feasible solution for Vermont despite the small population.

I vehemently disagree that walkable towns and cities aren't a priority. Regardless of population, equality and quality of life dramatically improved when individuals have walkable access to community. Vermont is rural but it is full of small towns that have most of the things one needs in a concentrated area. I live in a small town (around ~4,000 people) but I can walk to the grocery store, restaurants, the post office, the library, etc.

Despite this, car-centric infrastructure detracts from this all the time in ways we have become blind to. Instead of more community or living space we hundreds of free parking spaces smack in the middle of town. We have busy roads that are dangerous to walk or bike on. We have had to install flashing pedestrian crossing signals because people keep getting hit by cars.

These are the subsidies that society pays for cars and car infrastructure.

Public transit, whether it be bus, train, or bike lane are more egalitarian and less impactful than cars.

As you reduce the amount of cars on the road, you also reduce road wear and cost as well.

I'm not saying that every little town can have rail, but the map OP posted is reasonable and doable. 95% of these right of ways already exist . . .

This is not a city-only problem or solution.

4

ARaoulVermonter t1_j6klgbq wrote

We the People. Try googling "US oil subsidies"

1

Syncope7 t1_j6le408 wrote

That’s a bit of a stretch, the way that “driving is subsidized”

−1