undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbombcar4y ago0 comments

Replace "profit" with "worthwhile" and it may become more clear. Literally getting to fare-box neutral is one way of determining if something worthwhile but it's not the only one. But people are bad at comparing the value of projects that are in the billons, and the value may take decades to appear. It can take 10+ years for people to decide to start using commuter rail that was just added, even if it would have worked fine the whole time.

0 comments

iso12104y ago

You're assuming the direct profit is the benefit, and ignore all externalities.

Do city streets make a profit? How about sewers?

The value of those resources is immeasurable - they enable trillions of dollars of economic benefit in the US alone.

bombcarOP4y ago

No, I'm saying it's hard for people to see the externalities and so they're inclined to ignore them. And in the US at least, sewers are "farebox positive".

Instead of trying to nail on rail to cities it should be part of comprehensive travel planning that includes roads, etc. But selling it alone gets things like the California High Speed rail which hasn't sped anywhere, and dampens further similar projects.

closeparen4y ago

Yes, the parcels along those streets pay property tax. Municipalities that supply infrastructure to vacant or low-value used are in trouble.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse