For Mass Transit to Work, You First Need ‘Mass’

 

In my experience, mass transit works best in densely-populated cities.  There is a lot more actual demand for mass transit, and city systems can be full at least during rush hour.  Unfortunately, the Leftists who run West Coast cities are enamored of mass transit, and totally ignore the fact that they simply lack the “mass” to make it work.  Seattle is in love with “light rail,” and their mostly-leftist voters voted to increase taxes on everything (sales, property, cars) to pay for a light-rail system.  That system is partly running now, from north Seattle to the airport, but it really isn’t drawing many riders.

Of course, they hadn’t counted on a pandemic of respiratory disease that shut down the system for months, then had few riders when it re-opened; they had successfully persuaded citizens that they should fear all their fellow citizens, which doesn’t contribute much to the demand for packed rail cars or buses.  Of course, Sound Transit bemoans its funding shortfalls, which could have been expected in any case.  Then, they let kids ride free, contributing even more to the funding shortfall.  And their trains have become rolling homeless shelters, making legitimate riders very uncomfortable.

Now, they are extending the light rail to Tacoma, and there are some very unhappy business owners there, as shown by this story today: Construction Delays Pile Up. Here’s a quote:

The extension is set to have six new stations as free bus shuttles will replace Tacoma Link service for a few weeks this summer while crews connect the existing line with the Hilltop extension.

“They broke ground in front of my shop in summer of 2019. Fast forward three years, they’re still closing roads here all around my shop,” Salamone said. “They still got construction materials and construction vehicles strewn about alongside road signs, closures. They’re still digging up parts of the rail that they already installed, and then just chip it all out. And, you know, I can’t even imagine what the carbon footprint of this project is.”

Salamone stated a dip in sales occurs immediately with each closure or construction project that his business has to work around.

“The more trouble people have coming to patronize your business, the less people are going to come,” Salamone said.

Exactly what we would have expected.  But the Left never listens to reason, they just go by their feelings.  And WE pay, and pay, and pay.

Published in Domestic Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 162 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The revenue on the notorious ones are still down 25% after the pandemic. Crime and social problems are up on most of them. 

     

    • #121
  2. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    There are always tradeoffs. The point is for conservatives to make more intelligent tradeoffs than seems possible for liberals.

    For example, the California high speed train is moronic, not because it’s a train, but because the need it’s supposed to fill is already efficiently covered from two sides by cars and planes. BTW, I said tradeoff: that doesn’t mean that cars are utterly and always perfect for every job, or that planes are sacred. 

    • #122
  3. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    These things have horrific fixed costs and capital investment. The implications are staggering if you ask me.

    • #123
  4. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    The revenue on the notorious ones are still down 25% after the pandemic. Crime and social problems are up on most of them.

     

    I remember the gas crises of 1973 and 1979. Cars weren’t doing so well then. Today’s gas prices don’t look prizeworthy either. I recall that after 9/11, air travel wasn’t so popular. From time to time we are compelled to stick with unpopular choices until either conditions improve or better alternative emerge. 

    • #124
  5. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    The revenue on the notorious ones are still down 25% after the pandemic. Crime and social problems are up on most of them.

     

    I remember the gas crises of 1973 and 1979. Cars weren’t doing so well then. Today’s gas prices don’t look prizeworthy either. I recall that after 9/11, air travel wasn’t so popular. From time to time we are compelled to stick with unpopular choices until either conditions improve or better alternative emerge.

    The difference is, it’s a very inflexible capital structure. The other thing is, to the extent it’s politically managed or badly managed, they drag the whole society down with them. 

    Personally, when ***I*** travel out there, BART has done me a ton of good, but that’s not how you analyze it. Minneapolis is a joke from top to bottom. 

    • #125
  6. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The areas where it’s going to work are limited, but the thing I’m most excited about is the Hyperloop. That thing has very high odds of jacking up life quality and economic output. Supposedly, in less than five years they are going to prove if it’s going to work or not.

    • #126
  7. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Inflexible capital structure I can’t argue with. But it’s not just transit. Sure, if a city’s employment and residential tastes change, it’s tough to pick up a subway tunnel and move it five miles. On the other hand, ever try picking up a major airport and moving it a few miles out of town? It happens…and it’s always a huge, expensive political fight.

    In L.A., the downtown traffic interchange is between an east-west freeway that is 12 to 14 lanes wide and a north/south one that’s 8 lanes wide. It was designed in the late Fifties and built over the next 15 years. Many of the industries that kept downtown humming in 1960 are long gone, but the freeway interchanges will probably be there for a century.  

    • #127
  8. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Inflexible capital structure I can’t argue with. But it’s not just transit. Sure, if a city’s employment and residential tastes change, it’s tough to pick up a subway tunnel and move it five miles. On the other hand, ever try picking up a major airport and moving it a few miles out of town? It happens…and it’s always a huge, expensive political fight.

    In L.A., the downtown traffic interchange is between an east-west freeway that is 12 to 14 lanes wide and a north/south one that’s 8 lanes wide. It was designed in the late Fifties and built over the next 15 years. Many of the industries that kept downtown humming in 1960 are long gone, but the freeway interchanges will probably be there for a century.  

    What I mean is, on one extreme you have roads and cars that are far less centrally managed and don’t have the problems of centralization. Choo-choo trains are the complete opposite and really, airports are more flexible than choo-choo trains and do more for everybody. 

    When individuals and cities make mistakes with cars and roads, it doesn’t have the implications that you do with choo-choo trains. I mean these things are going to sit there forever and suck up capital. They are going to be even worse if you shut them down. You start having a bunch of social problems, get behind on maintenance, or pension deficits, it gets really hard to stop the momentum. It’s like the most leveraged risk up or down that a city can take.

    It’s really hard to put into words what I mean so ask questions, no problem.

    Minneapolis should have put in one single east west choo-choo and then just let sprawl happen. They want to turn the center into utopia and it’s not going to work. No way.

    • #128
  9. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Inflexible capital structure I can’t argue with. But it’s not just transit. Sure, if a city’s employment and residential tastes change, it’s tough to pick up a subway tunnel and move it five miles. On the other hand, ever try picking up a major airport and moving it a few miles out of town? It happens…and it’s always a huge, expensive political fight.

    In L.A., the downtown traffic interchange is between an east-west freeway that is 12 to 14 lanes wide and a north/south one that’s 8 lanes wide. It was designed in the late Fifties and built over the next 15 years. Many of the industries that kept downtown humming in 1960 are long gone, but the freeway interchanges will probably be there for a century.

    That’s a lot of concrete to recycle. 

    • #129
  10. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    I don’t see anyone claiming that cities can be forced to be like New York. But it’s not the only city that has lots of transit. Cities that have a strong downtown/suburbs axis at rush hour or ones where the main business area is geographically forced into a narrow corridor are usually good candidates to have a Monday to Friday alternative. That isn’t everyone, but it does describe places as different as Salt Lake City and San Francisco.

    Older overseas cities with existing 19th century train routes have expanded them in the 20th century as subways: London, Paris, Budapest, Berlin, Stockholm, and Tokyo, among many others. Older American cities with subways are sometimes just as crowded with downtown stations, like Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, or Cleveland. None of them is just like New York; AFAIK none of them wants to give up their transit system.

    The newest systems, like San Francisco, Washington, Atlanta, Buffalo, Miami and Baltimore, are mostly a combination of high speed commuter railroads with a relatively small handful of downtown stops. That speediness encourages people to leave their car behind, but it still leaves the issue of how you get around without a car downtown, which varies with each of those examples. Some are designed to do a great job, others aren’t.

    Subsidize any product enough and you can make it appear to be working. It’s a case of the Bastiat effect: “That which is seen” is the benefit; “that which is unseen” is the cost.  

    There may be an urban rail system somewhere in the world that is not a failure in the narrow sense of its consumers being willing to pay for the service, but there aren’t many.

    The US would benefit enormously by simply educating its successive generations in basic economics, as a part of a civics curriculum. It is only the incalculable wealth created by such markets that have been allowed to survive by the state that has concealed the magnitude of the damage done by economic ignorance.

    Note that I don’t question that all of these tax-funded products have arguments in favor of them based on costs and benefits that market prices are truly incapable of signaling.

    But let’s give thinking a chance:

    • let the people examine these total cost-benefit arguments (i.e., analyses considering externalized costs and benefits) using rational thinking. The majority never get to the first stage: look at the hard facts–dollars and cents–on the budget and the Income Statement of a subsidized enterprise.  The loss at the cash register tells you objectively and precisely how much unmeasurable profit you will need to find with your cost-benefit analysis.
    • let cost-benefit analyses be fact-based. I don’t discuss it here, but I’ve read at least one paper that surveys cost-benefit studies themselves. They tend to be rubbish.
    • #130
  11. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Read End The Fed. All is revealed. 

     

     

     

    • #131
  12. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Also, I don’t think that Minneapolis is putting in one penny for long-term capital gear replacement, like the rails and the cars. They are supposed to be doing that constantly. 

    • #132
  13. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Subsidize any product enough and you can make it appear to be working. It’s a case of the Bastiat effect: “That which is seen” is the benefit; “that which is unseen” is the cost.

    There may be an urban rail system somewhere in the world that is not a failure in the narrow sense of its consumers being willing to pay for the service, but there aren’t many.

    The US would benefit enormously by simply educating its successive generations in basic economics, as a part of a civics curriculum. It is only the incalculable wealth created by such markets that have been allowed to survive by the state that has concealed the magnitude of the damage done by economic ignorance.

    Note that I don’t question that all of these tax-funded products have arguments in favor of them based on costs and benefits that market prices are truly incapable of signaling.

    But let’s give thinking a chance:

    • let the people examine these total cost-benefit arguments (i.e., analyses considering externalized costs and benefits) using rational thinking. The majority never get to the first stage: look at the hard facts–dollars and cents–on the budget and the Income Statement of a subsidized enterprise. The loss at the cash register tells you objectively and precisely how much unmeasurable profit you will need to find with your cost-benefit analysis.
    • let cost-benefit analyses be fact-based. I don’t discuss it here, but I’ve read at least one paper that surveys cost-benefit studies themselves. They tend to be rubbish.

    I cannot think of a single example of these kinds of projects in which those promoting it didn’t exaggerate the benefits and underestimate the costs.  

    • #133
  14. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):
    I cannot think of a single example of these kinds of projects in which those promoting it didn’t exaggerate the benefits and underestimate the costs.  

    Trains are really slick, and they think they can social engineer everything so it’s better. If we had natural interest rates, this crap would never get off the ground. 

    I got in a big argument with the local communist about electric buses. I am all for electric buses. That is a much better way to live. The problem is they haven’t worked anywhere in Minnesota and it’s just money down the drain. Of course he can pull something up from NPR about why it works. 

    Same thing with electric dump trucks. Those things are really cool. Much better way to live. They make way less noise. The driver can run it with a remote control outside of the truck. The problem is, they cost 50% more. 

    • #134
  15. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The other thing is, all of this stuff makes it more dangerous to drive. They change the layout of the roads. They are trying to make it easy for bicycles, which doesn’t move any volume of people but he increases the danger. Really dangerous where they put choose in crowded areas. I’m going to upgrade my Subaru again to get better anti-collision systems. 

    • #135
  16. GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms Reagan
    GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms
    @GLDIII

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    San Francisco and Washington are typical fiascoes. Crime. Social problems. That’s because those cities are a mess. The problems aren’t caused by BART or DC’s Metrorail.

    Are you talking about the bad character and stupidity of the leadership and the citizens? Gigantic capital projects created at gunpoint just make the situation worse and I would say it’s pretty much irreversible.

    To be fair to the DC metro up until the last few years it was a relatively pleasant experience, no crime to speak of, mostly on time, and reliable.

    But from about 2018 it started to experience tangible signs of neglected maintenance, and the charges started to no longer reflect a reasonable rate for the casual users, which given the DC tourism flow is significant part of the revenue base. Folks start to bail for alternate methods of getting downtown. My last trip this summer did not have the feel of being unsafe, but Union Station, as lovely as it is, has way too many vagrants. I suspect that many other stops on Metro are experiencing these issues.

    • #136
  17. GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms Reagan
    GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms
    @GLDIII

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Inflexible capital structure I can’t argue with. But it’s not just transit. Sure, if a city’s employment and residential tastes change, it’s tough to pick up a subway tunnel and move it five miles. On the other hand, ever try picking up a major airport and moving it a few miles out of town? It happens…and it’s always a huge, expensive political fight.

    In L.A., the downtown traffic interchange is between an east-west freeway that is 12 to 14 lanes wide and a north/south one that’s 8 lanes wide. It was designed in the late Fifties and built over the next 15 years. Many of the industries that kept downtown humming in 1960 are long gone, but the freeway interchanges will probably be there for a century.

    Stapleton to Denver International Airport…

    DEN was moved way out to  the middle of no where, but now Denver is “moving” up to the west side of the airport. It was not a big political fight, but boy did it increase the time to get from the airport to say Boulder (or for most folks, the ski resorts on the other side of Loveland pass into the Rockies proper.)

     

    • #137
  18. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Ma… (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    San Francisco and Washington are typical fiascoes. Crime. Social problems. That’s because those cities are a mess. The problems aren’t caused by BART or DC’s Metrorail.

    Are you talking about the bad character and stupidity of the leadership and the citizens? Gigantic capital projects created at gunpoint just make the situation worse and I would say it’s pretty much irreversible.

    To be fair to the DC metro up until the last few years it was a relatively pleasant experience, no crime to speak of, mostly on time, and reliable.

    But from about 2018 it started to experience tangible signs of neglected maintenance, and the charges started to no longer reflect a reasonable rate for the casual users, which given the DC tourism flow is significant part of the revenue base. Folks start to bail for alternate methods of getting downtown. My last trip this summer did not have the feel of being unsafe, but Union Station, as lovely as it is, has way too many vagrants. I suspect that many other stops on Metro are experiencing these issues.

    I don’t know, but I’m assuming this was started a long time ago when everybody was poorer. Those have potential to work. The development goes around them naturally. They have a good start because everybody is poor, basically.

    • #138
  19. GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms Reagan
    GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms
    @GLDIII

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Ma… (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    San Francisco and Washington are typical fiascoes. Crime. Social problems. That’s because those cities are a mess. The problems aren’t caused by BART or DC’s Metrorail.

    Are you talking about the bad character and stupidity of the leadership and the citizens? Gigantic capital projects created at gunpoint just make the situation worse and I would say it’s pretty much irreversible.

    To be fair to the DC metro up until the last few years it was a relatively pleasant experience, no crime to speak of, mostly on time, and reliable.

    But from about 2018 it started to experience tangible signs of neglected maintenance, and the charges started to no longer reflect a reasonable rate for the casual users, which given the DC tourism flow is significant part of the revenue base. Folks start to bail for alternate methods of getting downtown. My last trip this summer did not have the feel of being unsafe, but Union Station, as lovely as it is, has way too many vagrants. I suspect that many other stops on Metro are experiencing these issues.

    I don’t know, but I’m assuming this was started a long time ago when everybody was poorer. Those have potential to work. The development goes around them naturally. They have a good start because everybody is poor, basically.

    Metro’s initial service was ~1980 (and was about 1/2 the service area it is now). While the country was suffering from stagflation, the initial 20 years of operation were a boom time for the recession proof DC metro area.

    • #139
  20. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Ma… (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Ma… (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    San Francisco and Washington are typical fiascoes. Crime. Social problems. That’s because those cities are a mess. The problems aren’t caused by BART or DC’s Metrorail.

    Are you talking about the bad character and stupidity of the leadership and the citizens? Gigantic capital projects created at gunpoint just make the situation worse and I would say it’s pretty much irreversible.

    To be fair to the DC metro up until the last few years it was a relatively pleasant experience, no crime to speak of, mostly on time, and reliable.

    But from about 2018 it started to experience tangible signs of neglected maintenance, and the charges started to no longer reflect a reasonable rate for the casual users, which given the DC tourism flow is significant part of the revenue base. Folks start to bail for alternate methods of getting downtown. My last trip this summer did not have the feel of being unsafe, but Union Station, as lovely as it is, has way too many vagrants. I suspect that many other stops on Metro are experiencing these issues.

    I don’t know, but I’m assuming this was started a long time ago when everybody was poorer. Those have potential to work. The development goes around them naturally. They have a good start because everybody is poor, basically.

    Metro’s initial service was ~1980 (and was about 1/2 the service area it is now). While the country was suffering from stagflation, the initial 20 years of operation were a boom time for the recession proof DC metro area.

    One possible feature that works for them is, people are genuinely forced to be in a central area. That is just wishful thinking in Minneapolis. 

    I just remembered that, Seattle only has like 20% paying customers. Everybody else just jumps over the turnstile. lol Madness. And for reasons I can’t understand, BART  is spending millions on bigger turn styles. Everybody’s more dishonest four years later. lol

    • #140
  21. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Ma… (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    San Francisco and Washington are typical fiascoes. Crime. Social problems. That’s because those cities are a mess. The problems aren’t caused by BART or DC’s Metrorail.

    Are you talking about the bad character and stupidity of the leadership and the citizens? Gigantic capital projects created at gunpoint just make the situation worse and I would say it’s pretty much irreversible.

    To be fair to the DC metro up until the last few years it was a relatively pleasant experience, no crime to speak of, mostly on time, and reliable.

    But from about 2018 it started to experience tangible signs of neglected maintenance, and the charges started to no longer reflect a reasonable rate for the casual users, which given the DC tourism flow is significant part of the revenue base. Folks start to bail for alternate methods of getting downtown. My last trip this summer did not have the feel of being unsafe, but Union Station, as lovely as it is, has way too many vagrants. I suspect that many other stops on Metro are experiencing these issues.

    I rode it years ago as a visitor and agree, it was super nice and very convenient.  I am glad someone paid the cost of it, which was probably 5 or ten times what I paid for a ticket.

    • #141
  22. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    And there are no economies of scale for a train system, either surface or subway.  As the years go by, everything gets more expensive.  All the capital equipment deteriorates and must be maintained and replaced, always at a higher cost than the original construction.  Since they are subsidized by taxpayers, the majority of whom never ride the trains, their taxes can go only one way, and that is UP.  At some point, the taxpaying public (if they are paying attention) will refuse to pay the higher taxes for no visible benefit to them.

    • #142
  23. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    And there are no economies of scale for a train system, either surface or subway. As the years go by, everything gets more expensive. All the capital equipment deteriorates and must be maintained and replaced, always at a higher cost than the original construction. Since they are subsidized by taxpayers, the majority of whom never ride the trains, their taxes can go only one way, and that is UP. At some point, the taxpaying public (if they are paying attention) will refuse to pay the higher taxes for no visible benefit to them.

    On the other hand, the populations usually increase too, so the per capita tax doesn’t necessarily go up as quickly as it otherwise would.

    The bigger problem tends to be putting off maintenance etc to “save money” or sometimes even to “cut taxes” which makes it so much worse later on.  Repairing or maybe even just repainting something now, might cost $10, but they want to “Save” $10 now which requires a $100 replacement in the future.  Or maybe it just doesn’t work any more.

    • #143
  24. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    And there are no economies of scale for a train system, either surface or subway. As the years go by, everything gets more expensive. All the capital equipment deteriorates and must be maintained and replaced, always at a higher cost than the original construction. Since they are subsidized by taxpayers, the majority of whom never ride the trains, their taxes can go only one way, and that is UP. At some point, the taxpaying public (if they are paying attention) will refuse to pay the higher taxes for no visible benefit to them.

    Well done. Perfect. 

    • #144
  25. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    kedavis (View Comment):
    On the other hand, the populations usually increase too, so the per capita tax doesn’t necessarily go up as quickly as it otherwise would.

    You could say that about any nominal public good. That would be the absolute last reason I would do it.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    The bigger problem tends to be putting off maintenance etc to “save money” or sometimes even to “cut taxes” which makes it so much worse later on.  Repairing or maybe even just repainting something now, might cost $10, but they want to “Save” $10 now which requires a $100 replacement in the future.  Or maybe it just doesn’t work any more.

    Let’s just not even go down this road because all of this crap is managed politically. This is the worst thing to manage politically. Maintaining roads in this sense is way easier.

    • #145
  26. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    And there are no economies of scale for a train system, either surface or subway. As the years go by, everything gets more expensive. All the capital equipment deteriorates and must be maintained and replaced, always at a higher cost than the original construction. Since they are subsidized by taxpayers, the majority of whom never ride the trains, their taxes can go only one way, and that is UP. At some point, the taxpaying public (if they are paying attention) will refuse to pay the higher taxes for no visible benefit to them.

    Well done. Perfect.

    Oh, and I just thought of something else.  Since trains are run by government, they all get some amount of federal funding.  And one of the very tight strings of federal funding is “project labor agreements”, which mandate union wages on construction projects-government knowingly increases taxpayer costs on all construction.  And union workers not only come with high wage demands, but they come with working conditions that non-union workers might not require, increasing cost burdens even more.  Lose-lose-lose.

    • #146
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    And there are no economies of scale for a train system, either surface or subway. As the years go by, everything gets more expensive. All the capital equipment deteriorates and must be maintained and replaced, always at a higher cost than the original construction. Since they are subsidized by taxpayers, the majority of whom never ride the trains, their taxes can go only one way, and that is UP. At some point, the taxpaying public (if they are paying attention) will refuse to pay the higher taxes for no visible benefit to them.

    Well done. Perfect.

    Oh, and I just thought of something else. Since trains are run by government, they all get some amount of federal funding. And one of the very tight strings of federal funding is “project labor agreements”, which mandate union wages on construction projects-government knowingly increases taxpayer costs on all construction. And union workers not only come with high wage demands, but they come with working conditions that non-union workers might not require, increasing cost burdens even more. Lose-lose-lose.

    But where is the compromise?  Should they import prison/slave labor from China to do it as cheaply as possible?

    • #147
  28. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    And there are no economies of scale for a train system, either surface or subway. As the years go by, everything gets more expensive. All the capital equipment deteriorates and must be maintained and replaced, always at a higher cost than the original construction. Since they are subsidized by taxpayers, the majority of whom never ride the trains, their taxes can go only one way, and that is UP. At some point, the taxpaying public (if they are paying attention) will refuse to pay the higher taxes for no visible benefit to them.

    Well done. Perfect.

    Oh, and I just thought of something else. Since trains are run by government, they all get some amount of federal funding. And one of the very tight strings of federal funding is “project labor agreements”, which mandate union wages on construction projects-government knowingly increases taxpayer costs on all construction. And union workers not only come with high wage demands, but they come with working conditions that non-union workers might not require, increasing cost burdens even more. Lose-lose-lose.

    Everyone loses except the high-rolling union boss or the politician who is expecting a “campaign contribution.” 

    • #148
  29. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    LOL 

     

     

    • #149
  30. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    LOL

    On the one hand, I’ve lived in places (two years in Chicago, a month in Innsbrueck) and visited places (London, Amsterdam, Munich, Paris, Venice, Washington DC, New York City) where you could do fantastically well without a car.  I loved it. Like this guy, I hate needing a car, which I do where I live.

    On the other hand… the economist in me annoyingly insists on asking, “Would I be willing to pay what it costs to consume that product?

    Darn economists.

    We’ll never know (I didn’t have to pay for the product when I consumed it.  Somebody confiscated the money and paid it for me).

    The nice thing about replacing coercion with markets is that we would find out just what is worth it, and what is not.  Maybe I would not want to own a car at all!

    • #150
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.