He's using driving figures which make the frequent mistake of assumign that depreciation is a function of miles more than age (originating from the IRS reimbursing per mile for depreciation - but they do that because it's the only way they can pay _anything_ for depreciation).
M1ek,True, but Goodpseed's other main point is that suburban Metro riders are more heavily subsidized than DC riders, despite the claims of crybaby suburban officials. Just another way that city dwellers subsidize the wasteful lifestyles on suburbanites.
The mechanism by which he arrives at the conclusion that suburban riders are more subsidized included those driving costs, unless I read incorrectly.
I live in a Washington Suburb. I live walking distance to a metro. I don't commute into DC, since my work is a few miles down the street (away from the metro).Part of the assumption of fares on the metro is that there is a 'boarding charge'. I feel that the boarding charge is a facilities fee: everyone gets on at a station, gets off at a station, and charges up their smart-trip cards at a station.While the suburban riders to get a bigger subsidy than the downtown riders, its not as bad if you take into account the concept of a 'boarding charge'.And if you want to complain about subsidizing the suburbs, complain about systems with a flat fare, like Chicago.
Post a Comment