|
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote: As for using increased tax revenues to fund, say, mass transit. It takes five years to lay track. So 100% of the drivers in my town would be charged extra amounts so that five years from now, 2% of the population will have the opportunity to use rail transit? Really bad trade-off. Really bad. Five years to lay track, but 10 years to do the engineering studies, 5 to do the enviornmental impact statements, 5 years to get the right of way figured out. One of the first things I did in '76 when I was a freshly minted newspaper reporter was attend the first public hearing for a bypass around the city I worked in. The final section was opened up 3 years ago. Took 'em '76 to 95 to put the first shovel in the ground and '95 to '05 to get it done. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , "HeyBub" wrote: As for using increased tax revenues to fund, say, mass transit. It takes five years to lay track. So 100% of the drivers in my town would be charged extra amounts so that five years from now, 2% of the population will have the opportunity to use rail transit? Really bad trade-off. Really bad. Five years to lay track, but 10 years to do the engineering studies, 5 to do the enviornmental impact statements, 5 years to get the right of way figured out. One of the first things I did in '76 when I was a freshly minted newspaper reporter was attend the first public hearing for a bypass around the city I worked in. The final section was opened up 3 years ago. Took 'em '76 to 95 to put the first shovel in the ground and '95 to '05 to get it done. About the only 'mass transit' you can do in a hurry is buses, either conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or the old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city. The routes to the burbs and large apartment projects were money holes, even with a buttload of federal subsidies. At work, I suggested they get with the city bus folks, and try 4-trip a day (early and late to the office, then the same thing the other way at quitting time) shuttle service from where employee homes were concentrated to the office complex. The idea went nowhere, even though several apartment complexes probably account for a third of the junior-level employees. -- aem sends... |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
"aemeijers" wrote in message About the only 'mass transit' you can do in a hurry is buses, either conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or the old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city. Schedules are not a problem. Years ago companies and workers adapted to available transportation or they walked because they lived near the mill That is probably the only easy part to overcome. The automobile allowed us to use many other options. Used to be, people did not complain about taking two busses and a trolley to get to work. Now we complain if our parking spot is more than 25' from the door. If a train dropped 100 people off at the entrance to an industrial park, chances are they'd still have to travel a quarter mile to a mile to their workplace along roads with no sidewalks. The last time I took public transportation to work was in the 1960's and where I park at work is only 10' from the door. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
europeanvic wrote:
On Mar 28, 7:01 pm, Brian wrote: It is not in US only, the prices in Europe are doubled and it is not because of Gorge Bush war, gas prices in Europe have been always 2 - 3 times higher. Actually the cost of living in Europe is 3 times more expensive than here in US, if you don't believe just try to live 3 years in Europe and will see:-) http://www.planorealestateadvisor.com http://www.planorealty.blogspot.com It's all tax in Europe that causes the double gas price. There are politicians that would like to emulate this in the US. Personally I do not like "sin" taxes as they make the government dependent on the sin for their income. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message Schedules are not a problem. Years ago companies and workers adapted to available transportation or they walked because they lived near the mill That is probably the only easy part to overcome. The automobile allowed us to use many other options. Used to be, people did not complain about taking two busses and a trolley to get to work. Now we complain if our parking spot is more than 25' from the door. If a train dropped 100 people off at the entrance to an industrial park, chances are they'd still have to travel a quarter mile to a mile to their workplace along roads with no sidewalks. The last time I took public transportation to work was in the 1960's and where I park at work is only 10' from the door. Reminds me of years ago I was transfered downtown where I would have to pay parking. I investigated taking the bus and got all the brochures from the bus company. Of major interest to me was their giving their total passenger miles and fuel consumed. A simple calculation revealed that one gallon of gasoline transported one passenger nine miles - less than half the mileage I was getting on my car at the time ;) |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
In article , gas
wrote: Frankly, what's happening now is a reckoning that's been long in the coming. If we as a nation had maintained the focus on reducing oil consumption and dependence we had in the seventies, even in a toned down fashion, we wouldn't be in the straits we are now. I agree, with the addition that I did not see any real focus to maintain. A short-lived talk about maybe doing something, but other than producing a few years of Vegas and Pintos, nothing of any real consequence. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:01:26 +0000, aemeijers wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote: In article , "HeyBub" wrote: As for using increased tax revenues to fund, say, mass transit. It takes five years to lay track. So 100% of the drivers in my town would be charged extra amounts so that five years from now, 2% of the population will have the opportunity to use rail transit? Really bad trade-off. Really bad. Five years to lay track, but 10 years to do the engineering studies, 5 to do the enviornmental impact statements, 5 years to get the right of way figured out. One of the first things I did in '76 when I was a freshly minted newspaper reporter was attend the first public hearing for a bypass around the city I worked in. The final section was opened up 3 years ago. Took 'em '76 to 95 to put the first shovel in the ground and '95 to '05 to get it done. About the only 'mass transit' you can do in a hurry is buses, either conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or the old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city. The routes to the burbs and large apartment projects were money holes, even with a buttload of federal subsidies. At work, I suggested they get with the city bus folks, and try 4-trip a day (early and late to the office, then the same thing the other way at quitting time) shuttle service from where employee homes were concentrated to the office complex. The idea went nowhere, even though several apartment complexes probably account for a third of the junior-level employees. Buses aren't a bad solution in a places, but your opinion is poorly thought out. Huge amounts of fuel consumption could be saved by replacing the most heavily traveled air commute routes (e.g. L.A. to New York, L.A. to Las Vegas...) with high speed rail solutions. We wouldn't have to develop the tech ourselves either, we can look to Germany, France, Switzerland, China and Japan for examples, and attempt to improve on their designs. Significant fuel use (and human lives) can be saved by allowing people to place their cars on trains for transport (this is done is areas of Switzerland). For commuting distances less than 50 miles, another solution is alternative modes of personal transportation. I personally want a Twike (www.twike.com). In high sun states, e.g. Utah, Arizona, Nevada, California, you could commute entirely on solar energy (charging when parked, not solar cells on twike), _without any new tech_. If more money gets pumped into such vehicles, improvements will come rapidly. In high population density areas, improved Bike infrastructure will help. Better health of the populace, reduced traffic congestion, reduced noise and air pollution. It would be wonderful. For longer commutes, ride-sharing and car-pooling can make significant impacts. In areas where traditional vehicles are needed (farming, development), bio- diesel is a practical solution, and stricter efficiency regulations are needed. We're stuck in a rut, and we need to get out of it. Culturally, we seem to want a simple one-shot magic bullet that cures our woes without any change of behavior on our part. On the other hand, a few common sense tactics and a minor shift in our way of thinking, can make huge differences while we work on further improvements. Removing our dependence on fossil fuels is an eventual necessity. We can already make huge dents in it now. The approaches needed will have both immediate and long term benefits. No one solution is going to work in every area of such a diverse land mass as the United-States, so regional approaches have to be taken. What's most important is to avoid knee jerk 'oh that can't work' reactions. Apply careful analysis, and use what works where it works. Of course, there's a lot of propaganda out there to sabotage these efforts, and most of that propaganda comes from the energy and automobile industries, who are worried about shifting power structures and reduced profits. The worst nightmare for America's energy industry is more self reliant America, where the citizens produce a large portion of the energy they consume themselves. It would reduce their power and profits drastically. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
Not on subject, looks like investing in rail transportation maybe a good long term strategy. Trains are coming back. I agree here. In the long term I think it'll also be good for truckers. I used to hitchhike a lot. B/c of regulations I only rarely got picked up by truckers, and when I did it was usually because they were just dying for someone to talk to and give them some company (sometimes to keep them awake). On the average, most of them didn't seem to like doing long distance hauls. This was always the case for the married, divorced, and with children truckers. They only rarely got to spend time with their families. On the other hand, shifting distribution to send freight by train to major population centers (or freight centers), and the serving local areas by truck from these freight centers would drastically improve energy consumption, mean more time at home for the truckers, reduce traffic on the highways, reduce pollution... Okay, it might take a bit longer. Then the overnight delivery just gets significantly more expensive. I think this is a good trade-off. Also, with automazation technology, and improved routing and tracking, I think we can expect an improvement on the shipping times we used to see. This could also be combined with high speed shipping of people along major flight-commute routes. If we keep tacking on %1 - %5 percent reductions in fuel usage, eventually we could be an energy neutral company (produce what we consume). Wouldn't that be great! |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
On Mar 29, 7:16*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article , wrote: On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 05:23:50 -0700, Smitty Two wrote: According to Environmental Attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, senior counsel for the National Resources Defense Fund: Would that be he same RFKjr that blocked Cape Wind, the wind farm off Nantucket? (along with his drunken uncle Ted, John Kerry and Mitt Romney) Does that disqualify the cited calculations? Maybe you don't like him, or you think he's a hypocrite, but that doesn't invalidate the message. I doubt he obtained those numbers from throwing darts in a pub. No, it doesn't totally discredit the obviously bogus number that should set off anyone's BS detector. But it is a start. Let me finish the discrediting process: http://www.pollutionissues.com/A-Bo/...fe-Refuge.html "The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that ANWR likely holds enough oil to supply six months of U.S. consumption, and that these reserves would take ten years to develop. Conservationists point out that the United States could easily save more oil than can be extracted from ANWR by increasing automobile fuel efficiency standards. For example, a one-mile per gallon increase in U.S. automobile fuel efficiency for a thirty-year period would save more oil than the projected yield from ANWR. " The bogus claim is off by a factor of 30. Now it is totally discredited. And that assumes that the US Geological Survey estimate is right. How about if ANWR has an actual field the size of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? But, the Kennedy clan would rather go around with a cup begging for oil from their buddy Hugo Chavez, blocking offshore wind if it's off their shore, and spreading nonsense. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
On Mar 30, 11:22�am, wrote:
On 30 Mar 2008 14:36:45 +0200, gas wrote: Huge amounts of fuel consumption could be saved by replacing the most heavily traveled air commute routes (e.g. L.A. to New York Yeah people would be lining up to pay more for a 2 day train ride. When air fare was 10 times the price of the train people still took the plane. mag lev can do it at 300 miles per hour, with flight delays etc speed would be a wash. once terrorists shoot some commercial airliners out of the sky mag lev will surge......... they could build a mag lev system with bus sized vehicles leaving hourly sharing a rail guideway running continiously. all coputer controlled for spacing when you want to travel it would be like a bus just go and get on..... if you want timed reservtions pay a bit more. capital building costs high, operating costs low, very flexible. no air pollution except for international flights. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
taxpayers pay for roads...........
railroads have to pay for rails........ made rail cost more for many years. rail lines should be electrified |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message About the only 'mass transit' you can do in a hurry is buses, either conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or the old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city. Schedules are not a problem. Years ago companies and workers adapted to available transportation or they walked because they lived near the mill That is probably the only easy part to overcome. The automobile allowed us to use many other options. Used to be, people did not complain about taking two busses and a trolley to get to work. Now we complain if our parking spot is more than 25' from the door. If a train dropped 100 people off at the entrance to an industrial park, chances are they'd still have to travel a quarter mile to a mile to their workplace along roads with no sidewalks. The last time I took public transportation to work was in the 1960's and where I park at work is only 10' from the door. I'm not sure, but I think we are agreeing with each other. Until July 05, I lived in the apartments about a mile west of here, which was the turnaround point for the end of that particular bus route (before it was cancelled.) So, in theory, I could have ridden the bus to work, assuming I got my lazy ass out of bed in time. However, it was a 20 minute meandering ride from their to the central bus stop downtown, and then a 20 minute wait for a transfer for the bus that stopped in front of my office. Call it 50 minutes to an hour, minimum, twice a day. I'm 51 years old. The insurance company tables say I have maybe 35 years left, if I'm lucky. I can DRIVE to work in 10-12 minutes. Am I going to use up 2 hours sitting on a bus every day? Would you? Would anyone rational, unless they were flat broke and had no other choice? If my employers and the city had come up with a express shuttle for the federal installation where I work, so no transfer was involved and it only took, say, 20 minutes twice a day, the bus would suddenly look a whole lot more interesting. The apartments where I lived could have filled half a bus with just the federal employees that lived there. Add in the other apartments up and down the main drag on this side of town, it could have worked out. The main drags in the other 3 compass directions would have similar numbers- hit the big apartment complexes, and maybe certain subdivisions where you know the employees live. Hey, I LIKE buses. I rode them a lot in college. But they were cheap, and went directly from where I slept, to where I needed to be, and there was one every 15 minutes. -- aem sends... |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
gas wrote:
On the other hand, shifting distribution to send freight by train to major population centers (or freight centers), and the serving local areas by truck from these freight centers would drastically improve energy consumption, ... snip Another possibility too: ship the trailers by train (like ship containers), off load where needed, pick up a tractor and driver. -- dadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
dadiOH wrote:
gas wrote: On the other hand, shifting distribution to send freight by train to major population centers (or freight centers), and the serving local areas by truck from these freight centers would drastically improve energy consumption, ... snip Another possibility too: ship the trailers by train (like ship containers), off load where needed, pick up a tractor and driver. Don't watch many trains go by, do you? Around here, that is already dirt-common. There are sea-train boxes delivered to factories and industrial parks around here that haven't been opened since they left China or wherever. Don't know the handling steps on that end, but here in CONUS they are offloaded in a port, many times directly to purpose-built rail cars, and go cross-country by train to nearest rail yard set up to pull them off and drop them on a matching semitrailer. I understand some big factories with their own rail spurs can even offload the containers directly from the trains. -- aem sends... |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
|
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
On Mar 29, 7:04 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote: On Mar 29, 5:14?pm, wrote: On Mar 29, 7:02 am, " wrote: feds should loosen smog regulations on gasoline and additives, to help bring price down a little temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax That gas tax isn't enough to make a difference. ?RAISE the tax, and use it for alternative development, efficient mass transit, etc. unrestrained higher costs of gasoline means less spending on everything else............. Exactly. Fuel use is virtually inelastic. Price goes up, people pay it or starve, lose their jobs, or suffer other dire consequences. Gone are the days when people "went for a drive." Virtually all travel is a necessity. As for using increased tax revenues to fund, say, mass transit. It takes five years to lay track. So 100% of the drivers in my town would be charged extra amounts so that five years from now, 2% of the population will have the opportunity to use rail transit? Really bad trade-off. Really bad. The alternative is that in 5 years, you'll still be paying huge amounts for gas, but you WON'T have mass transit. That's even worse. We screwed up mass transit a long time ago, and correcting that will be costly, but not impossible. Furthermore, you don't have to have rails for MT. You CAN use busses, which don't take anywhere near 5 years to implement, and the routes can be changed immediately at no cost as situations warrant. Not the best answer, but it is and answer. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
"dadiOH" wrote in message Another possibility too: ship the trailers by train (like ship containers), off load where needed, pick up a tractor and driver. It is done often, stacked two high. Check out the show "Railroads" on Modern Marvels. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
On Mar 29, 3:55 pm, " wrote:
On Mar 29, 5:14�pm, wrote: On Mar 29, 7:02 am, " wrote: feds should loosen smog regulations on gasoline and additives, to help bring price down a little temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax That gas tax isn't enough to make a difference. �RAISE the tax, and use it for alternative development, efficient mass transit, etc. unrestrained higher costs of gasoline means less spending on everything else............. its killing our economy. might be better to take the hit on lost gas tax revenue, than pay tons more for unemployment welfare etc The gas tax revenue is fairly small, but is supposed to be used to fund roadways and improvements. Kill the tax, and in a few years the roadways are in bad shape, at which time you pay more for repairs, detours, etc. Dropping the tax is a short-term answer that creates a long-term problem. Anyway, if you kill the tax, and stop funding needed roadwork, you now have roadworkers out of work, which adds to the unemployment. The gas tax hasn't kept up with inflation and increased road needs for many years now. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
|
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
In ,
wrote: On Mar 29, 7:04 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: On Mar 29, 5:14?pm, wrote: On Mar 29, 7:02 am, " wrote: feds should loosen smog regulations on gasoline and additives, to help bring price down a little temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax That gas tax isn't enough to make a difference. ?RAISE the tax, and use it for alternative development, efficient mass transit, etc. unrestrained higher costs of gasoline means less spending on everything else............. Exactly. Fuel use is virtually inelastic. Price goes up, people pay it or starve, lose their jobs, or suffer other dire consequences. Gone are the days when people "went for a drive." Virtually all travel is a necessity. As for using increased tax revenues to fund, say, mass transit. It takes five years to lay track. So 100% of the drivers in my town would be charged extra amounts so that five years from now, 2% of the population will have the opportunity to use rail transit? Really bad trade-off. Really bad. The alternative is that in 5 years, you'll still be paying huge amounts for gas, but you WON'T have mass transit. That's even worse. We screwed up mass transit a long time ago, and correcting that will be costly, but not impossible. Furthermore, you don't have to have rails for MT. You CAN use busses, which don't take anywhere near 5 years to implement, and the routes can be changed immediately at no cost as situations warrant. Not the best answer, but it is and answer. Keep in mind where some transit tax money goes... 1. In many older big cities, the transit workers get big union benefits that most other workers have no hope of getting. Such as health insurance for entire family 100% paid by the employer or close to that. In Philadelphia, it was some big union giveback around 2005 for the employees with over 24 or 28 or whatever months seniority to pay 1% or whatever pittance towards family health insurance premiums. (Covered are employee and "qualifying dependents"). Despite this "giveback", cost increases in health insurance premiums for employees with over 2 years seniority are 99% paid by the employer. During the first 2 years, employees pay 30% of premiums during the first year, 20% during the second year (as of 2005 and the following contract). I managed to find an agreement for the current TWU Local 234 labor contract, though I cannot quite guarantee that this is the actual current contract as opposed to a proposed one: http://www.twu.com/intstaff/contract...TDContract.pdf The workers also get pensions! Any corrections to any misinterpretations by me of this, please post or e-mail to me at (I will post all factual corrections to anything I said regarding this labor contract as a result of any private e-mails I receive regarding this labor contract.) 2. I do remember ongoing proposals for a rail line to be built (or upgraded) along where one already ran, northwest from Philadelphia along the Schuylkill river past Norristown. A big part was electrifying that route. Price tag was a billion or two as of a few years ago. The dollar amount sounds to me awfully high to get a nice little light rail line up and running. I suspect this was going to be a big pork barrel public works project to keep employed for a little while many people in the politically powerful building construction trades unions at their top dollar rates. ************ I think we need more open debate as to who the politically powerful few of the unions nesting in older big cities are fighting for, and who they are fighting against! This does manage to tie in to political battling for more-vs-less spending of tax dollars towards mass transit, as well as the battles to get these tax dollars spent towards where they will do the most good vs. towards where the political powers that be exert force to spend *our* money on! *********** I am a fan of mass transit, and I am a bit "socialist". I do see fairness in "to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities". However, I also believe that people earning a living largely deserve to not be taxed from most or even half of what they work for or otherwise earn, and that their productivity and increases thereof should reward those that successfully strive more than those who don't! So I see existence of need to subsidize mass transit, but not with tax dollars being spent to give its workers a hugely better deal than that achieved by most of the workers riding mass transit or workers paying for it through taxes! I see need for more open debate in this area! *********** - Don Klipstein ) |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
On Mar 30, 5:19 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
snip of some good stuff - Don Klipstein ) I can't disagree with most of what you said. The efficiency with which tax money is spent is a major issue, somewhat separate from the encouragement of fuel efficiency by raising its cost. Two problems, two solutions that might be related. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
On Mar 31, 3:25 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote: The environmental people closing wells, that hasn't helped. Think Alaska, and offshore. I do believe we have oil in the USA that isn't being used. The enviros have helped a lot. If the oil isn't pumped now, and energy costs therefore rise, we will have that finite oil a bit longer, while alternatives and efficiency are encouraged. If we pump it all quickly and cheaply, we will run out that much sooner and with fewer alternatives on line. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
On Mar 30, 8:19*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
* I am a fan of mass transit, and I am a bit "socialist". *I do see fairness in "to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities". *However, I also believe that people earning a living largely deserve to not be taxed from most or even half of what they work for or otherwise earn, and that their productivity and increases thereof should reward those that successfully strive more than those who don't! You must spend a lot of time arguing with yourself. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:29:19 -0500, gfretwell wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:42:54 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: mag lev can do it at 300 miles per hour, with flight delays etc speed would be a wash. What is the real average speed? 100? 150? What path will the train have to take? 3500-4000 miles? so it only takes 24 hours. Still not much of an option Who will buy the land? How much do you figure that ticket is going to cost? Trains make sense in urban environments but when you start getting out in the boonies they don't attract many passengers. You can't confuse things that work in Europe where countries are the size of congressional districts here with what works in the US. You don't actually need a maglev train. The TGV travels at 320 km/h (200 mph), using traditional train tracks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV .. And they've been running since 1974, the maximum speed they have reached was 515 km/hr. I'm not denying it would be a major engineering and legislative feat, but it wouldn't be any bigger than the U.S. interstate system. Such projects have been very beneficient in the past. I live in Europe, where traveling by train is an option. I have to travel to scientific conferences and such, which is paid by the university. So I don't worry about whether the train or the plane is more expensive (It can go either way, but only because air travel is so heavily subsidized). Train travel uses less energy and less labor to deliver people, so on an even playing field, train travel is cheaper. Now, here is my algorithm for deciding which to take: 0. Can I take a train? Obviously I can't take the train everywhere. So if I'm going to the US or sardegnia, I fly. 1. Less than 6 hours by train? -take the train. It's less hassle with the security, and for works out to be time and energy saving, since I have to add arriving 2 hours early at the airport, plus the time to travel to the airport, etc. Also the trains are WAY more comfortable than planes. 2. More than 8 hours: Is there an overnight train? Then take the train. For travels of 8+ hours on the train, I can get a sleeper car, and wake up refreshed at my destination. Usually for the price of a plane ticket. Otherwise I take the plane. So even in a world where energy isn't YET massively expensive, the train is a valuable alternative to have. Now, if you incorporate the rising costs of energy production the train becomes a more and more viable alternative. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:00:54 +0000, aemeijers wrote:
more where they could share existing freight ROWs. The interstates just have too much of a head start. Don't forget that interstates are completely subsidized. Taxes pay for the wars to guarantee the oil flow. Taxes pay for the interstate system. Why shouldn't taxes pay to maintain railway lines? Especially if the railway lines can save the nation some wars and pollution? |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
In article ,
glen stark wrote: On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:00:54 +0000, aemeijers wrote: more where they could share existing freight ROWs. The interstates just have too much of a head start. Don't forget that interstates are completely subsidized. Taxes pay for the wars to guarantee the oil flow. Taxes pay for the interstate system. Why shouldn't taxes pay to maintain railway lines? Especially if the railway lines can save the nation some wars and pollution? Interstates are largely (especially in the beginning before earmarks) paid for by fed gas taxes, various excise taxes, in other words user taxes. Hardly "completely subsidized". |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
|
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
|
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
|
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:37:03 -0500, gfretwell wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:46:11 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: taxpayers pay for roads........... railroads have to pay for rails........ made rail cost more for many years. I guess you missed the creation of Conrail and Amtrack Uncle sam has been maintaining rails since the Carter administration rail lines should be electrified They are in the places that make sense to do it. Mostly the NE corridor You should read the wikipedia entry on Amtrak. Amtrak is held to much more stringent self sufficiency requirements than either the airline system or the automobile systems, which are very highly subsidized. glen www.glenstark.net |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
Interstates are largely (especially in the beginning before earmarks) paid for by fed gas taxes, various excise taxes, in other words user taxes. Hardly "completely subsidized". From the Wikipedia entry on Amtrak (please check wikipedia.org for original citations): Critics claim that gasoline taxes amount to use fees that entirely pay for the government subsidies to the highway system and aviation. In fact this is not true: gas taxes cover little if any of the costs for "local" highways and in many states little of the cost for state highways.[43][44] They don't cover the property taxes foregone by building tax-exempt roads. They also don't cover policing costs: Amtrak, like all U.S. railroads, pays for its own security, the Amtrak Police; road policing and the Transportation Security Administration are paid for out of general taxation. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
|
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
Larry Caldwell wrote:
.... I spent 3 months in Europe on a Eurail pass in 1986. I never got on the high speed trains, but the typical commuter train ran about 80 in between stations. Express trains didn't go much faster, they just didn't stop as often. The real advantage of rail travel over air is the comfort. Air travel is an ordeal, rail travel is a pleasure. .... We took the "Chunnel" across the channel to/return Paris/London in '99 I believe was last time. It runs max of 100+ but on the time we were on had speed restrictions of 30 for track conditions in an area (I forget just where). So, even there they still have maintenance issues... -- |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
|
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
In article ,
wrote: On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:50:02 -0700, Smitty Two wrote: In article , wrote: On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:57:02 -0700, aspasia wrote: I generally fly first class and they treat me fine. Apres toi, le deluge! Aspasia A first class train ride will cost a lot more than a first class plane ride. The discount price on a train will be more than the discount price on a plane and you will be in the cattle car for 3 days to get across the country. I'm sure Americans who think the microwave is too slow will be linng up for the train. The key AISI is using appropriate technology for the task at hand. Taking a train across the country may not have many advantages. But for some shorter trips, a train may be the fastest, easiest, and least expensive way to get from A to B. California is planning to build a high speed rail line from San Diego to San Francisco. A trip from LA to SF will take less than 2 1/2 hrs. You could scarcely get to LAX, find a place to park, check-in, go through security, board a plane, and wait for it to take off in that amount of time. The trains will also help to relieve congestion on the freeways and airports. Why do you think going to the train station, finding a place to park, checking in, going through security and getting on a train will be faster? I'll answer your rhetorical question: Because the high speed rail project has been well engineered. The trouble with the freeways and airports is that they were designed for about 1/10 of the traffic that they have now. As soon as somebody uncovers a plot to bomb a train we will be talking our shoes off at the train station. I also bet that 2 1/2 hours is a pipe dream that never really happens. I think it will happen. It's a finite distance, and the speed of the train is known. The track will be on a separate grade, so there's no crossings to slow things down. Trains in the north east work well, as long as you are not going very far and light rail is a very successful way to renovate slums. At least close enough along the route to get to easily but far enough away so you don't hear the train. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
In article
, Smitty Two wrote: I'll answer your rhetorical question: Because the high speed rail project has been well engineered. The trouble with the freeways and airports is that they were designed for about 1/10 of the traffic that they have now. The well-engineered part is the problem. The Interstates have always been publicized as being what is needed to keep traffic moving smoothly for 20 years. Yet traffic tends to rise immeditaely to fill all that empty space. Nature abhors a vacuum and motorists abhor a empty inch of traffic lane at rush hour. As soon as somebody uncovers a plot to bomb a train we will be talking our shoes off at the train station. I also bet that 2 1/2 hours is a pipe dream that never really happens. I think it will happen. It's a finite distance, and the speed of the train is known. The track will be on a separate grade, so there's no crossings to slow things down. But that many more bridges or overpasses also increases the number of things that can dynamited and do nasty things to the trains. Also much more bang (so to speak) for the buck smashing around a train carrying 100s of passengers than a few tens of people spread out around on a freeway. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
On Apr 12, 7:44�pm, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:57:02 -0700, aspasia wrote: I generally fly first class and they treat me fine. Apres toi, le deluge! Aspasia A first class train ride will cost a lot more than a first class plane ride. The discount price on a train will be more than the discount price �on a plane and you will be in the cattle car for 3 days to get across the country. I'm sure Americans who think the microwave is too slow will be linng up for the train. no a mag lev train can rival the speed of a aircraft. run with no grade crossings etc. it can be completely computer controlled with individual cars leaving for different places continually........ like every hour 39B leaves for chicago with just 2 stops. pay more for reservations or just show up and take next avaliable spot. all powered by electric for minimum pollution speeds of 350 MPH have been achieved. |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
|
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
In article ,
"Not@home" wrote: Per expedia, the first class flight is $1102, from cowfield to cowfield, so with either flight you have additional time and cost to get downtown. Most of the time on the outbound trip you are substituting a trip from your cornfield to another for a trip from your cornfield to downtown. So, I am not all that sure that trains save you anything on that part. Although this is not always a viable alternative, probably a comparison with flights to Midway (downtown) would be better. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter