Report a Comment

Again, a person driving a brand new Mercedes would be subsidized less, as a percentage of cost, than a person driving an old Sentra, even if they leave from the same cul-de-sac to the same workplace parking lot. Isn't that a sign of a flaw in the methodology?

No, of course not. Why is it a "flaw in the methodology?"

It was at the link. A superior method is to analyze the total annual transportation budget of different classes (transit users, drivers, etc...) of users.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. "Analyze" in what way? To compare transportation subsidies across modes, you have to use some kind of common unit. The standard common unit for transportation cost-benefit analysis is the passenger-mile. What supposedly superior unit to passenger-miles do you propose, and why do you think it's superior?

The point, as we've been over before, is that transit enables people to live in denser neighborhoods nearer everything they need to travel to and thus reduce their total transportation budget, and thus the total subsidy they consume per year.

So what? Subsidizing bicycles or walking would "enable" people to live in even denser neighborhoods and reduce their transportation budget even more. Bicycles also produce less pollution, congestion, etc. than any form of motorized transportation. So why aren't you advocating bicycle subsidies instead of transit subsidies? Again, your argument doesn't make any sense. You're not applying it consistently.

No it isn't. You aren't including all subsidies. Just road subsidies.

Then, as I keep telling you, we must include all those other subsidies for transit too. So transit subsidies are even higher than 70%. I'm still waiting for you to present any kind of serious argument as to why transit users should receive this enormous subsidy.

by Bertie on Mar 19, 2012 1:36 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam