America will suffer because of the budget compromise

[mhaze]

The interstate didn't take anyone where they couldn't already drive. ....

Why should Chicago pay for highway maintenance and expansion in California? Well, seeing as Cali pays out more to the fed than it gets back in the first place, why should Cali pay for roads in Alabama?

Minor note, the Interstate had its origin in Eisenhower having had to drive from the East to the West coast, I think in the late 1940s. It took him almost two weeks. That caused him to push the legislation when he became president.

And that bill, which was the largest construction project in world history, was a concise 17 pages long.

Unlike bills of today.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm sorry, what implement do you use to avail yourself of the highway system? I, and most folks, use cars or related structures based on the internal combustion engine. Typically you need one of these "cars" to drive on a "road."

The majority of that portion of transportation cost is already paid for by gasoline taxes. What's more, is that highways, roads and parking lots have to be designed for truck loads. Passenger car loads are typically ignored in the design process as their effect on wear and tear of roads, bridge design forces, etc is insignificant. If you want to break out passenger car costs and compare it to HSR, that's one thing. But what your articles fraudulently did is not accurate for what you want.

Similarly, "trains" run on "rails." Now, you may have noticed that there are some differences. For one, roads sometimes have yellow stripes down the middle and are good places to pick up drifters. Rails often have to parallel metal bars and are more appealing to hobos.

Talking down to other people is surprisingly arrogant for a person who thinks cars are a fuel subsidy.

Nevertheless, were we to consider the cost of rail travel, we would likely need to contemplate both the rail tracks and the train itself. On a national level, both these things would need to be considered to have an idea of what we spend on "train travel."

Thus, one would imagine that consideration of the cost of road travel would similarly contemplate the cost of cars. Subsidies at every level of the automotive process from materials to parts to assembly has made cars very affordable. It's wonderful that our nation has the wealth to make travel accessible to basically the entire population. This is unique on a worldwide level.

What you're talking about is not a subsidy. It's a "total cost of automotive transportation". The total, actual, subsidies, according to your article, is less than 1% of the total cost of automotive transportation. Most of the cost of transportation is the fuel and the car. That's 75%+ of the figures cited in your silly article. And the car is not a subsidy. Everyone pays for the car themselves. Most of the rest are some BS environmental, medical and law enforcement numbers. Which of course makes the actual subsidies of course miniscule, as I've already stated.

If everything that was actually a subsidy were lumped back into the fuel price it would go up about $0.50/gallon to fully cover road construction with taxes rather than bonds. But once again that money is being paid mostly by passenger cars, rather than freight trucks which drive up the design loads.

No, it was pretty obvious. You thought you'd try a reductio, but it was based on your misunderstanding of the point about subsidies. There's nothing evil about gas and oil subsides. They make travel by car affordable for a huge number of people which, until we learned about the environmental costs, was a very good thing (setting aside those other externalities, like reliance on the whims of insane Middle Eastern regimes...).

The reason these subsidies need to be considered in this discussion is not to engage in the cartoonish guilt trip that you saw fit to express in your post, but to obtain a realistic comparison of the costs of rail and automotive travel.

But please, continue to condescend with you brilliant comments.

It's not subsidies! Do you even understand what an actual subsidy is? Do you understand that people who have bought a car don't have to pay an extra $5-6 at the pump for a "car subsidy" because they've already paid for their car elsewhere? Do you understand that cars aren't the controlling factor in highway and road design? In the wise words of Samuel L: English , do you speak it?

 

[Newtons Bit]

LIGHT RAIL! Our idiotic governor, Richardson, blew through half a billion dollars of tax payer money and bonds to build his dream light-rail from Albuquerque to Santa Fe. It opened two years ago and it has consistently lost money. You want to talk about subsides? The tax payer forks out an extra 20 million dollars each year in "Rail Runner" operating costs to keep the cost of a ticket in the $2-3 range instead of $20 without the subsidy. It's not making money. It's losing money. It's a subsidy. The liberals in this state sold a bill of goods to the public and we're too embarrassed to just shut the thing down now. That money, that 500 million dollars, was promised in education capital improvements. That's 2 high schools, 4 middle schools and 6 elementary schools that weren't constructed because our moronic governor had a ridiculous idea of "if you build it, they will come". Well they didn't. And we're suffering because of it. So thanks ********. Thanks for throwing away my tax money that was promised to be on education. We needed that money.

 

[Dymanic]

Whoa, calm down and back away from all that enthusiasm and strong language.

Heh. "Look, I came here for an argument..."

That couldn't be repeated today.

If what you are saying is that powerful special interests are no longer as capable as they once were of exerting influence on public policy in ways which would benefit themselves, at the expense of the public, then I must disagree.

Streetcars, as the name suggests, didn't go across the country.

No, but they were operated across the country (if you see what I mean), and their deliberate dismantling was only a small part of a larger nation-wide trend away from rails and toward roads. You said, "Rail was an option, but then people rejected that option". I don't think it was that simple, but I wouldn't try to make a case that it was entirely the result of a carefully orchestrated effort on the part of large special interests, either -- not the least reason being that I also don't think it was that simple.

So Amtrak will lose a few hundred million less than usual? Well, then let's all get behind this obvious moneymaker!

The arguments have already been made that public rail systems, like public road systems, have benefits beyond direct generation of revenues. I see little to gain by repeating them.

You definitely shouldn't sink billions of dollars into high speed rail infrastructure based on the temporary fluctuations of the volatile oil market.

I don't disagree. I just don't happen to believe that phrase "temporary fluctuations" fully explains recent trends toward higher prices in global oil markets or what may be reasonably predicted over the next couple of decades. The claim you made was that we know that people will not choose to travel by rail; the evidence indicates that they will, and do, especially when gas prices spike. If I thought there were good reasons to predict to see prices of oil (and hence gasoline) do anything but continue to trend (yes, jerkily) upward in upcoming years, I'd be less disappointed to see funding for HSR slashed from the federal budget.

I find it hard to be optimistic about any of this anyway. It seems to be human nature to sacrifice the future on the altar of the present, and some of the problems we're facing just can't be solved with that sort of approach. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that ultimately they simply won't be solved, because we have so much trouble mustering the political will to do what is necessary to solve them.

 

[Dymanic]

It's not subsidies! Do you even understand what an actual subsidy is?

Not even all analysts agree on what qualifies as a "subsidy". Perhaps you could clarify how you define that.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Not even all analysts agree on what qualifies as a "subsidy". Perhaps you could clarify how you define that.

It's certainly not something you've already paid for!

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I live in the Hudson River Valley of New York. It takes about as long to ride the train into NYC as it does to drive - only with far, far less frustration on my part when I'm on the train.

I know, I know, that's just me. Tell that to the millions of monthly passengers that work in NYC and ride the rail to/from work every day.

Still a local thing, because parking is hard in NYC? I have a parking lot I can choose my spot and park for weeks for free (courtesy of my GF's grandparents' apartment building) right down the street from the 59th St bridge. Sure, I drive sometimes. I even drive in Manhattan (and sometimes even park there as well). But, mostly, I prefer paying for the both of us to just ride the train down. It's easier, costs about the same (even for two of us to ride roundtrip), and we can get wherever we want on the subway (station is 3 blocks away).

The point is that there are plenty of people willing to ride the rail because it's simply that much more convenient than driving - even if it costs a bit more. And I'm certainly not the only one. There are hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers that ride the rail to work every day, and that's not including the subway (286K or so, per day, on my line according to Wiki, as well as another two that serve Jersey and LI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_commuter_rail_systems_by_ridership )



So, not only is the argument that people won't use it completely dependent on region, rail pollutes far less than for each of those riders to drive into NYC - even if they were to carpool, the rail would still pollute less. There's also reduced congestion, reduced road maintenance costs, fewer accidents, etc.


But, you keep on believing that HSR just cannot work between populated areas. Tell that to the people riding the rails that operate between not-so-highly populated areas and NYC.

 

[Travis]

Bolding mine. In reality, California is getting ready to start construction on the Nowhere to Nowhere line, in the hopes that some Congress, some time, might deign to return to California some of the money it has taken from California, along with money taken from other states, on the condition that this money be spent to realize the dream shared by some (Travis included), that an LA to San Fransisco HSR line be completed.

The rationality of this dream, and the value of its realization, are debated elsewhere.

Um the line will connect several CITIES not the middle of nowhere. And you have to start building something somewhere. The first stretch of the interstate highway system was out in the middle of nowhere Missouri.

Travis is whining yet again about his pet boondoggle project, high speed rail. Thankfully, cooler heads are prevailing in many areas that are putting the breaks on these pork barrel projects.

Thank you for that pointless post. Why is it a boondoggle? Why is it a pork project?

California is still free to build it themselves, which should be no problem since it's such a guaranteed money-maker, right?

California could afford to build it out of gold if it wasn't for all the money that California sends to the Federal Government in taxes that get spent on highways in Pennsylvania. But, since California is still a part of the country, it will need some help from the Feds to build it. California has $35 billion set up for it (with $24 billion coming in the form of a loan from either China or Japan with them being given the rights to operate the system in return) and is asking that the Feds only pay for 25%.

And why are you cheering this? Should I cheer every time Illinois doesn't get federal money to build a highway or airport?

If the government is going to spend money to improve the economy (a result I have doubts about), I would prefer that much more of it be spent doing R&D and actual building stuff, rather than being spent on converting private property to government property--and HS rail in the areas you propose will be nearly ALL land purchase.

And the interstate highway system did not also involve lots of land purchases?

Travis, I want to be with you as a fellow democrat, but I'm a little skeptical.

Can you link to a compelling pro-high-speed-rail case?

Sure. Every other high speed rail system ever built. High speed rail has been a huge success everywhere it has been built. Including in Spain which has the same population size and density as California. In Spain the train has taken so much of the market that no commercial air service now runs domestic flights between Madrid and Barcelona.

Similarly California has one of the most trafficked air corridors in the world between San Francisco and Los Angeles. It also has rural freeways between the two points that are heavily used. With the highways gridlocked in the middle of nowhere and the airports needing expansion projects estimated at tens of billions of dollars in cost it was figured a high speed train would move more people at less cost than the alternatives. The only problem was coming up with the $45 billion to build it. California has found ways to get most of that money but it is looking to the Federal Government for the remainder.

Are you going to take HSR to Costco for your grocery run? Home Depot to buy a new refrigerator? Take your kid to his baseball practice? Do you think everyone will live within walking distance of a HSR terminal?

HSR cannot be a substitute for automobiles.

HSR is not intended to substitute for automobiles. It is intended to replace airplanes. Granted it can substitute for cars as some people do drive between cities. The train stations are to serve as transportation hubs in the same way airports are. You won't take a HSR train to go grocery shopping. You will take it to a business meeting in another city.

 

[Travis]

The majority of that portion of transportation cost is already paid for by gasoline taxes. What's more, is that highways, roads and parking lots have to be designed for truck loads. Passenger car loads are typically ignored in the design process as their effect on wear and tear of roads, bridge design forces, etc is insignificant. If you want to break out passenger car costs and compare it to HSR, that's one thing. But what your articles fraudulently did is not accurate for what you want.

Not true. Only 25% of the cost for highways is paid for by gasoline taxes. The remainder comes out of the general fund.

 

[Travis]

Most other developed countries have three effective passenger transportation systems. A road network, a rail network and an air travel network. Air travel works best for long distances. If it's less than two hours by train, the speed advantage of air travel is lost due to the additional time required to travel to and from the airport. The three modes of travel complement each other.

I think this needs highlighting.

High Speed Rail is intended only for medium distance intercity travel. Long distance is still best handled by rail and short distance is best handled by car or regional public transit.

Should I point out that I'm a huge supporter of public transportation at all levels? We do need modern airports. We do need safe and efficient highways. We do need light rail or metro systems. And we also need electric intercity passenger rail. Ideally all the systems will be integrated with each other (for example having metro stations at airports and HSR stations) providing a comprehensive web of transportation options.

 

[Travis]

Okay, here's a look into what may be in store for certain places if they continue to be anti-train. A brain drain.

 

[WildCat]

Again, we WILL be building new infrastructure. We will add 100,000,000 people over the next century. That new infrastructure can be clean, efficient trains, or it can be the old, equally as expensive auto/plane centric model.

Uh-oh, tyr_13's going to get upset that you're presenting HSR as a substitute for automobiles, he assures me nobody is making this claim and it's a strawman argument if I bring it up...

 

[WildCat]

And bicycles emit even less per mile. It's not a useful measure unless you factor in ridership.

And, of course, TraneWreck is assuming that in 20-30 years cars will still be running on gasoline, a shaky assumption at best.

 

[WildCat]

Most other developed countries have three effective passenger transportation systems. A road network, a rail network and an air travel network. Air travel works best for long distances. If it's less than two hours by train, the speed advantage of air travel is lost due to the additional time required to travel to and from the airport. The three modes of travel complement each other.

What's the population density of those developed countries compared to the US?

And why are you assuming people don't need to travel to train statrions just like they need to travel to airports? And if you say "but we'll have more train stations close together" then how will the train ever get to "high speed" if it has to stop at a station every few miles?

 

[WildCat]

Sure. Every other high speed rail system ever built. High speed rail has been a huge success everywhere it has been built. Including in Spain which has the same population size and density as California. In Spain the train has taken so much of the market that no commercial air service now runs domestic flights between Madrid and Barcelona.

You've just made a slam-dunk case for California to build it yourselves. You don't need a single cent of tax dollars from the other 50 states. Surely, it will generate bazillions of dollars for California, I'm sure investors will snap up the bonds to fund it, it's as close to no-risk as you can get!

Right?

 

[WildCat]

Okay, here's a look into what may be in store for certain places if they continue to be anti-train. A brain drain.

More reason for California to build it! All those smart people who love shiny new trains will flock to California, generating even more bazilions of dollars!

 

[Newtons Bit]

Not true. Only 25% of the cost for highways is paid for by gasoline taxes. The remainder comes out of the general fund.

TraneWreck's own link said it was 51 percent. Perhaps you want to go back and reread the posts?

 

[Kestrel]

What's the population density of those developed countries compared to the US?

And why are you assuming people don't need to travel to train statrions just like they need to travel to airports? And if you say "but we'll have more train stations close together" then how will the train ever get to "high speed" if it has to stop at a station every few miles?

It's not the density of our entire nation, it's the distance between large cities. Any two metropolitan areas with a population over 1 million that can be linked by a rail trip of two hours or less are good candidates for high speed rail. For example, a 160 mph train could link Dallas to Houston or Los Angeles to Las Vegas in under two hours.

An express from Los Angles to Las Vegas might make a stop in the suburbs on the way out of town, but there is no reason to stop every few miles.

 

[tyr_13]

Uh-oh, tyr_13's going to get upset that you're presenting HSR as a substitute for automobiles, he assures me nobody is making this claim and it's a strawman argument if I bring it up...

Only if you missed that word 'new'.

 

[bikerdruid]

More reason for California to build it! All those smart people who love shiny new trains will flock to California, generating even more bazilions of dollars!

public transportation is not supposed to be a money-maker.
i guess it is easy to see where the confusion comes from.
heck, you live in a country that views hospitals as a 'for profit' business.