Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06
So basically you are admitting to support something that will not pay for itself and relies on subsidization from non-users to work. I just want to clear that up.
|
Yes. Just like most government programs such as public parks, libraries, NASA...
And I take issue with the term 'non-user'. Perhaps you don't use the train itself, but you certainly benefit from it. The wikipedia entry on public transport has a few choice paragraphs that I'll quote:
Quote:
A 2002 study by the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute found that public transportation in the U.S uses approximately half the fuel required by cars, SUV's and light trucks. In addition, the study noted that "private vehicles emit about 95 percent more carbon monoxide, 92 percent more volatile organic compounds and about twice as much carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide than public vehicles for every passenger mile traveled".
Public Transportation allows for cars to be removed from the road. This lowers gas emissions and traffic congestions.
Urban space is a precious commodity and public transport consumes it more efficiently than a car dominant society, allowing cities to be built more compactly than if they were dependent on automobile transport.
Public transport allows transport at an economy of scale not available through private transport. Through stimulating public transport it is possible to reduce the total transport cost for the public. Time costs can also be reduced as cars removed from the road through public transit options translate to less congestion and faster speeds for remaining motorists. Transit-oriented development can both improve the usefulness and efficiency of the public transit system as well as result in increased business for commercial developments.
Well-designed transit systems can have a positive effect on real estate prices. The Hong Kong metro MTR generates a profit by redeveloping land around its stations. Much public opposition to new transit construction can be based on the concern about the impact on neighborhoods of this new economic development. Few localities have the ability to seize and reassign development rights to a private transit operator, as Hong Kong has done. Increased land desirability has resulted around stations in places such as Washington, D.C..
Investment in public transport also stimulates the economy locally, with between $4 and $9 of economic activity resulting from every dollar spent.[1] Many businesses rely on access to a transit system, in particular in cities and countries where access to cars is less widespread, businesses which require large amounts of people going to a same place may not be able to accommodate a large number of cars (concert venues, sport stadia, airports, exhibitions centres,...), or businesses where people are not able to use a car (bars, hospitals, or industries in the tourism sector whose customers may not have their cars).
An important social role played by public transport is to ensure that all members of society are able to travel, not just those with a driving license and access to an automobile — which include groups such as the young, the old, the poor, those with medical conditions, and people banned from driving.
|
Quote:
NYC relies on the MTA, not the mom and pop shops, not the local library, and not the business' on Long Island. The vast majority of traffic is going into the city in the morning and coming back from the city at night.
Schools aren't really using it for any real percentage of students. I'd probably be willing to say that less then 2% of Stony Brooks students actually use the train regularly to commute, unless you mean heading home to the city on Friday and returning on Sunday.
|
You're going to have to prove these claims, because we're getting into a "my anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence" situation, and you're the one calling for the dismantling of the LIRR. Even if what you say is true, so what? You're still benefiting.
Quote:
|
Yes, the train stops a driving commute, but people USING the damn thing should be PAYING for it. I've used the LIRR maybe once in 5 years. Like I said, might as well have everyone using the train subsidize my Porsche.
|
They are paying for it. The LIRR is actually pretty expensive. It's just never going to be self-sufficient.
And people ARE subsiding your "Porsche". People that don't have cars and don't drive are paying for the roads that you drive on, the traffic lights, street lamps and signs, the police to enforce the traffic laws, the DMV, and a variety of other massive costs associated with cars.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every public service is subsidized by non-users. Awesome point.
