Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Will this area one day fill in and become more urbanized? Perhaps. But look at what's happened to cities like those I already mentioned when it does fill in as well as age: growth stagnates, property values decline. The growth and money instead flow to the outer suburbs.
So the argument is that we should subsidize this process because of the malign effects of this process?

There is nothing absurd about the cost of Philadelphia / NYC Amtrak monthly tickets: these ticket holders are taking up seats that could be sold to people taking individual trips, and an intercity rail service with no operating subsidies are just not going to offer cheap commuter tickets. Why would they? What is the appeal of serving fewer people at lower operating ratios or even operating losses?

You seem to be treating an Express HSR as eqivalent to a local commuter rail system in order to argue that instead of spending less money on providing intercity Express HSR capacity, we should spend more money on providing intercity road capacity. I don't follow the argument.

which part of the historical cases that you are referring to are pre-1920's and which are post-1920's? Just saying 'some kind of trunk transport corridor' when in fact the cross subsidies being drained from these places are for roadworks from the 1930's to the present is begging the question ~ you are assuming there would be no difference what kind of transport that might be, even though all of your evidence is drawn from only the one type, to argue that there is no difference.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:28:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows: