Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> There are people who do not drive or fly but use trains.

So this isn't about providing people with access to transportation, because people do, in fact, have access to other transportation options. It's about catering to the whimsical preferences of people who like to ride trains. I don't think catering to those whimsical preferences is a necessary public service.




That's ridiculous. Different modes of transportation have real pros and cons, this isn't just whimsical preferences. That's why every city in America has at least a few options for transportation.


> Different modes of transportation have real pros and cons

Exactly. And the pros and cons for trains, as a mode of transportation, have made them a less viable option for most American journeys ever since the mid-20th century. When you say "there are people who do not drive or fly but use trains", you're not describing the typical, reasonable person who weighs the pros and cons between different modes of transportation, you're describing someone who refuses to even consider alternate modes of transportation. Maybe it's not necessarily a whimsical romanticism for trains, but it's certainly something well short of any actual necessity that's deserving of public subsidy.


I disagree. Just like the USPS USO and Essential Air Service, I think it is not only worth subsidizing accessibility beyond the whims of the free market, but it is a duty of the government to do so.

These things should be done exactly because they are not the norm. There are people in unique circumstances in every corner of this country who rely on niche options. I know some of them who have relied on these things. The free market can take care of “normal” people and circumstances just fine.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: