If the biggest scandal in the history of an agency that has been in charge of investigating counterfeiting for 147 years and responsible for protecting the president for 110 years is that a few agents hired some hookers in another country, I'd say that's a pretty stellar record on balance. Especially considering that they failed miserably in the latter duty at least* once.
Articulating beliefs that might get you declared criminally insane in Norway can help get you elected in (parts of) the United States.
One of the common objections to public transit projects is that they do not pay for themselves, and indeed, tend to lose money. Why is that not an argument against building more roads? Roads don't make any money, either, and nobody expects them to.
You can institute all of the Buffet rules and millionaire taxes you want. As long as the government is using the tax code to get you to have children/buy a house/use alternative energy/populate Alaska/go to college/insulate your home/generally do what they want you to do, those with means are always going to find a way to minimize their tax liability.
*Some people still have doubts about Harding. Look it up.
6 comments:
roads haul freight.
its a lot easier to monetize a bus system, (or a light rail, if you are among that fetish group.)
I understand that roads have more than one use as infrastructure. That's not my point. Besides, the state (or feds) don't make any money off of freight, either.
My point is that both transit and roads are pubic goods, with hard-to-account-for positive returns to the economy. But neither are money-makes for the state, and that's OK. I'm just pointing out that this is (rightly) not a general argument against roads, and it shouldn't be for transit either.
(This certainly leaves open the possibility that other, good arguments can be made against particular transit projects, such as impractical routing, lack of projected ridership, etc.)
apples meeting oranges?
imperfect analogy, i admit.
but so was the first analogy that buses = roads.
My point is that both transit and roads are public goods, with hard-to-account-for positive returns to the economy. But neither are money-makes for the state, and that's OK. I'm just pointing out that this is (rightly) not a general argument against roads, and it shouldn't be for transit either.
States do generally make some money back on the roads in the form of the taxes that freight haulers pay.
What makes roads superior to trains, at least for most people, is that you can use them at any time, as long as you have an operational vehicle. You can't use a train (or a bus) unless you follow the schedule. If I want to get from my house to downtown Minneapolis, I can drive on 35W at any time, day or night, when I choose. The 4 bus runs a block from my house and it's a great way to get to downtown Minneapolis, but if I have a reason to go there, I'm out of luck at various times throughout the day.
More importantly, when I'm behind the wheel I can change my mind, get on 94 and head to St. Paul, or to Chicago, or to Seattle if I really want to. Can't do that on the 4 bus.
Offering urban transit, or intercity transit for that matter, isn't a bad thing at all, but in truth, a road is more likely to benefit most citizens in more ways than a train does. And at times, it seems our transit-loving friends would prefer not to acknowledge it. In a world with limits to available funding, roads are a better investment in most cases.
Mr. D--All true, assuming that you can afford a car. Not everyone can.
All true, assuming that you can afford a car. Not everyone can.
Right, which is why we have transit. How much we choose to spend on it is the question.
Post a Comment