Quote:
Originally Posted by Craven Morehead
There are no benefits if its a losing proposition.
To be truly beneficial to society, it needs to be self sufficient.
|
We don't know if any of the following are self-sufficient, because they are heavily subsidized by the government:
- airports (and the manufacture/purchasing/leasing of airliners)
- highways
- the meat industry
- the dairy industry
- localized public transportation
Taking away the subsidies would increase the per-user/consumer cost by enough to discourage use/consumption. In many cases, I would assume the per-user cost would double or triple. The government subsidizes many things for a reason: its benefits extend beyond the immediate. None of these things operate in isolation. There are a number of industries that benefit from them.
Quote:
|
The proposed high speed rail lines will only serve major metropolitan areas, should the tax burden be increased for all?
|
Not necessarily. I imagine the funding should come primarily from municipalities and states/provinces that would benefit directly. I'm not so sure about federal money, unless there is some country-wide plan with obvious benefits.
Basically, if a lack of subsidies would mean no one would do it, then it might suggest the government needs to support it if the overall benefit it worth it.
Would you say high-speed rail is worth it in Europe and Asia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eribrav
[...] Having lived outside Buffalo I'd say it makes no sense to end the rail line without going to Toronto. Western NY's economic future depends at least as much on Ontario as it does on the rest of New York.
|
Yeah, there is a lot of co-dependence across the entire border, I'm sure. High-speed rail (I'm assuming) isn't just for passenger traffic. Imagine the boon to industry with an improved train system for transporting goods.