Obama to unveil HSR plan Thursday

[AlanB]

By the way, NYC doesn't rank in the top 10 US cities for most time lost commuting to work in one's car. And NYC, unlike most other major US cities, has no freeways that are wider than 3 lanes in each direction.

For wider Freeways you have to cross the river to NJ and experience the wonders of 10 and 12 lane highways. That of course if you ignore all the lanes on GW Bridge and Verrazano Narrows Bridge and even Staten Island Expressway. Of course true New Yorkers do not consider Staten Island to be part of New York City except when it comes to collecting taxes I am told Afterall, it ison the other side of the Hudson Ocean

Actually I do consider SI to be part of the city, and the SI expressway is predominately 3 lanes in each direction. There is one short stretch right at the merge with the West Shore where its 4 lanes in each direction, and a recent addition puts a bus/hov lane westbound off the bridge which could sort of be considered a 4th lane, but I didn't count that since it's not a general travel lane.

There is also about a mile on the Long Island Expressway in Queens where the road is 4 lanes in each direction, and for an even shorter distance within that same segment, 5 lanes in each direction. Additionally there is a section of the Grand Central Parkway that's also about a mile long and 4 lanes in each direction. But as a general rule there are no highways with more than 3 lanes in each direction for any significant and useful distances within NYC.

As for bridges, you actually forgot about the Triborough, now RFK, Bridge that has 4 lanes in each direction over the bulk of its length. And again all the bridges aren't sufficiently long enough in length to be significant, and they are already choke points since all bring multiple highways and local streets together at one point.

 

[George Harris]

Without addressing some of the spicifics given: Here are a few thoughts:

Any solution that drives people toward poverty is the wrong solution. That includes all solutions that result in restraints on mobility. I am not talking about increases in efficiency of mobility. That is needed, but solutions that are determined to reduce energy use, polution, or whatever by making mobility difficult or expensive are simply wrong. Those constraints fall hardest on those least able to afford it.

I am a believer in improved rail passenger service, and high speed trains as a means of increasing mobility without signicant increases in energy consumption, and possibly with reductions in energy consumption. It can happen.

If you want to see a country where there is a heavily used railway system that works, go to Japan.

Sitting here in San Francisco, I can and do live without a car. There are occasions when we rent one.

If I retire back to the semi-rural area I came from, I will need a car. There is no public transit there.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Just wait till your house is on fire then, luddite child! Crying like a baby wanting the firefighters to get there quicker!

At which point I will get off my ***, get a hose from my neighbors house, and put the bloody thing out. Gee, that was hard.

If it can't be done in Europe, with its shorter transportation distances and denser populations, I doubt very much it can be done here, no matter how much money we throw at it. It's much more reasonable to aim rail towards reducing aviation congestion and providing alternatives for local high-density transportation, but you can never eliminate the need for good road transport in today's economy. (And if you want to revert to a previous economy, well, good luck getting people to give up, despite its downfalls, the highest standard of living the world has ever enjoyed.)

Ya know, a hundred years ago, we got by with a lot less of this moving around stuff. The world has gotten too small. Traveling fifty miles should be an event, not a commute.

GML,I am thinking in scale. The costs of driving our older vehicle are minimal, at best. We bought it used for under 1K. We drive it 3-4 times a week, maybe 30 miles total. We don't pay for parking, & not driving to work. So hubby & I are way below average on the money spent for car stuff. We would not be able to maintain a car by spending 25K a year. At this point, it needs major work. We will probably get another used car for under 1K, and fix this one up as a second or sell/give away.

You are neglecting to include the money you pay in non-directed taxes that go towards maintaining the infrastructure. You paid for the Big Dig in Boston, even if you will never see it. I know you happen to be on a fixed income, but the fact of the matter is, you pay a lot of money towards having a car that you don't even realize you pay to that.

Oh DUDE BTW- I'm definitely a woman, wife, mother & grandmother. :blink: Maybe I should change my nickname to something more girly? :unsure: Haven't posted a pic because I don't want to scare anyone!!!! :lol:

I know, but the masculine encompasses the feminine in 3rd person and non-directed pronouns.

I'll agree with sunchaser that not everyone spends $25,000 per year on their car and associated costs. I think you (GML) are severely overestimating the cost of maintaining a vehicle.
As best I can calculate, I spend about $3,000 per year on my transportation. Here's my breakdown:

Gas: $1,500 per year (12 gallons of gas each week)

Insurance: $1,200 per year (and hopefully about to go down when I turn 25!)

Registration: $60 per year ($120 every two years)

IM: $40 per year ($80 every two years)

Miscellaneous repairs: ~$300 per year

University parking: $300 per year

Vehicle purchase: $400 per year (for the five years I've owned the car; it goes down the longer this car lasts me)

Even rounding up, I'm hard pressed to figure out how my car costs me more than $4,000 per year.

So, driving a 12-year-old car may put be below average, but even if someone buys a $30,000 car new and you factor in the monthly payment, you're still under $10,000. Maybe it would be $25,000 if you bought a BMW or Mercedes and lived in New York, but that's probably .01% of the nation's population--hardly the "average person."

Granted, even the $4,000 per year I spend on my car far exceeds the $600 an Anchorage PeopleMover bus pass would cost me for 12 months, but without the car, I'd bet you my annual income would be cut by a lot more than $3,400 per year since I'd need to find a new job that would allow me to ride the bus to and from work (I currently get off work after the bus system stops running) and still fits in my school schedule. Plus, I'd need to factor in that I'll be running a lot less efficiently since my 15-minute commute to work would turn into 2.5 hours (or whatever it was I calculated in the other thread), not to mention my options for doing things (shopping, classes at remote campuses, going out to eat, meeting up with friends, etc.) would be severely curtailed.

I'll keep my car, thankyouverymuch.

The purchase price of a car is not one of its costs, thats just a conversion of assets. The cars annual cost is the difference between the price of acquisition and the price of sale divided by the number of years owned. But that's not really relevant.

As I pointed out to Sunchaser, how much do we all spend in taxes to maintain and operate massive and excessive road infrastructure? How much less would we spend if we replaced the 12 lane highway with a 2-track railroad?

Without addressing some of the spicifics given: Here are a few thoughts:
Any solution that drives people toward poverty is the wrong solution. That includes all solutions that result in restraints on mobility. I am not talking about increases in efficiency of mobility. That is needed, but solutions that are determined to reduce energy use, polution, or whatever by making mobility difficult or expensive are simply wrong. Those constraints fall hardest on those least able to afford it.

I am a believer in improved rail passenger service, and high speed trains as a means of increasing mobility without signicant increases in energy consumption, and possibly with reductions in energy consumption. It can happen.

If you want to see a country where there is a heavily used railway system that works, go to Japan.

Sitting here in San Francisco, I can and do live without a car. There are occasions when we rent one.

If I retire back to the semi-rural area I came from, I will need a car. There is no public transit there.

What's poverty? Not owning a PS3? We drive people to poverty by creating a society so focused on the possession of unimportant material possessions. What do we need to live comfortably? A roof over our head, sufficient food on the table, a secure income? Everyone has to work 90 hours a week, live in a freakin' mansion, own enough electronics to consume the entire electrical grid of New York City circa 1890, drive a car- and it better be a 'nice' car- and eat insanely tasteless prepackaged 'gourmet' food from supermarkets!

That's just silly. So much pursuit of unneeded junk. So little pursuit of happiness. This has to change.

 

[Ispolkom]

What's poverty? Not owning a PS3? We drive people to poverty by creating a society so focused on the possession of unimportant material possessions. What do we need to live comfortably? A roof over our head, sufficient food on the table, a secure income? Everyone has to work 90 hours a week, live in a freakin' mansion, own enough electronics to consume the entire electrical grid of New York City circa 1890, drive a car- and it better be a 'nice' car- and eat insanely tasteless prepackaged 'gourmet' food from supermarkets!
That's just silly. So much pursuit of unneeded junk. So little pursuit of happiness. This has to change.

What's poverty? Being stuck in a jerk-water town. Following the south end of a horse (or worse, a mule) 14 hours a day. Not having a clean change of clothes. It's very easy for youngsters to speak of "unimportant material possessions" such as, I suppose, modern medicine and fresh vegetables in January. Eat cabbage every day for lunch and dinner a few months and your opinion might change. Have friends who cannot get medicines as simple as beta-blockers to treat high blood pressure and you opinion might change. Heck, plant potatoes by hand for a few days on a collective farm, and your opinion might change.

And consider your audience. It's going to be hard to sell the members of a transportation forum that they ought to travel less.

Oh, and your experience with house fires must be much different than I. I am very grateful for professional firefighters. And fire insurance, for that matter.

 

[sunchaser]

Just wait till your house is on fire then, luddite child! Crying like a baby wanting the firefighters to get there quicker!

At which point I will get off my ***, get a hose from my neighbors house, and put the bloody thing out. Gee, that was hard.

If it can't be done in Europe, with its shorter transportation distances and denser populations, I doubt very much it can be done here, no matter how much money we throw at it. It's much more reasonable to aim rail towards reducing aviation congestion and providing alternatives for local high-density transportation, but you can never eliminate the need for good road transport in today's economy. (And if you want to revert to a previous economy, well, good luck getting people to give up, despite its downfalls, the highest standard of living the world has ever enjoyed.)

Ya know, a hundred years ago, we got by with a lot less of this moving around stuff. The world has gotten too small. Traveling fifty miles should be an event, not a commute.

GML,I am thinking in scale. The costs of driving our older vehicle are minimal, at best. We bought it used for under 1K. We drive it 3-4 times a week, maybe 30 miles total. We don't pay for parking, & not driving to work. So hubby & I are way below average on the money spent for car stuff. We would not be able to maintain a car by spending 25K a year. At this point, it needs major work. We will probably get another used car for under 1K, and fix this one up as a second or sell/give away.

You are neglecting to include the money you pay in non-directed taxes that go towards maintaining the infrastructure. You paid for the Big Dig in Boston, even if you will never see it. I know you happen to be on a fixed income, but the fact of the matter is, you pay a lot of money towards having a car that you don't even realize you pay to that.

Oh DUDE BTW- I'm definitely a woman, wife, mother & grandmother. :blink: Maybe I should change my nickname to something more girly? :unsure: Haven't posted a pic because I don't want to scare anyone!!!! :lol:

I know, but the masculine encompasses the feminine in 3rd person and non-directed pronouns.

I'll agree with sunchaser that not everyone spends $25,000 per year on their car and associated costs. I think you (GML) are severely overestimating the cost of maintaining a vehicle.
As best I can calculate, I spend about $3,000 per year on my transportation. Here's my breakdown:

Gas: $1,500 per year (12 gallons of gas each week)

Insurance: $1,200 per year (and hopefully about to go down when I turn 25!)

Registration: $60 per year ($120 every two years)

IM: $40 per year ($80 every two years)

Miscellaneous repairs: ~$300 per year

University parking: $300 per year

Vehicle purchase: $400 per year (for the five years I've owned the car; it goes down the longer this car lasts me)

Even rounding up, I'm hard pressed to figure out how my car costs me more than $4,000 per year.

So, driving a 12-year-old car may put be below average, but even if someone buys a $30,000 car new and you factor in the monthly payment, you're still under $10,000. Maybe it would be $25,000 if you bought a BMW or Mercedes and lived in New York, but that's probably .01% of the nation's population--hardly the "average person."

Granted, even the $4,000 per year I spend on my car far exceeds the $600 an Anchorage PeopleMover bus pass would cost me for 12 months, but without the car, I'd bet you my annual income would be cut by a lot more than $3,400 per year since I'd need to find a new job that would allow me to ride the bus to and from work (I currently get off work after the bus system stops running) and still fits in my school schedule. Plus, I'd need to factor in that I'll be running a lot less efficiently since my 15-minute commute to work would turn into 2.5 hours (or whatever it was I calculated in the other thread), not to mention my options for doing things (shopping, classes at remote campuses, going out to eat, meeting up with friends, etc.) would be severely curtailed.

I'll keep my car, thankyouverymuch.

The purchase price of a car is not one of its costs, thats just a conversion of assets. The cars annual cost is the difference between the price of acquisition and the price of sale divided by the number of years owned. But that's not really relevant.

As I pointed out to Sunchaser, how much do we all spend in taxes to maintain and operate massive and excessive road infrastructure? How much less would we spend if we replaced the 12 lane highway with a 2-track railroad?

Without addressing some of the spicifics given: Here are a few thoughts:
Any solution that drives people toward poverty is the wrong solution. That includes all solutions that result in restraints on mobility. I am not talking about increases in efficiency of mobility. That is needed, but solutions that are determined to reduce energy use, polution, or whatever by making mobility difficult or expensive are simply wrong. Those constraints fall hardest on those least able to afford it.

I am a believer in improved rail passenger service, and high speed trains as a means of increasing mobility without signicant increases in energy consumption, and possibly with reductions in energy consumption. It can happen.

If you want to see a country where there is a heavily used railway system that works, go to Japan.

Sitting here in San Francisco, I can and do live without a car. There are occasions when we rent one.

If I retire back to the semi-rural area I came from, I will need a car. There is no public transit there.

What's poverty? Not owning a PS3? We drive people to poverty by creating a society so focused on the possession of unimportant material possessions. What do we need to live comfortably? A roof over our head, sufficient food on the table, a secure income? Everyone has to work 90 hours a week, live in a freakin' mansion, own enough electronics to consume the entire electrical grid of New York City circa 1890, drive a car- and it better be a 'nice' car- and eat insanely tasteless prepackaged 'gourmet' food from supermarkets!

That's just silly. So much pursuit of unneeded junk. So little pursuit of happiness. This has to change.

OH NO!!!! I've been encompassed!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: Should I feel comforted?

I can however agree in part that we as a country overall are obsessed with consuming & have to have the biggest & the best, and of course look like somebody else's idea of beautiful. We do seriously need to focus on the more important things in life, the things that cannot be replaced. Relationships, the planet, etc. Unfortunately, we do not get to choose the projects we want funded by taxes paid out. Nice concept though! I have seen the Big Dig- in the Die Hard movie!!! :lol:

 

[Guest_timetableflagman_*]

I agree with Mr. Harris' last comments here. The capacity and orderliness of rail can make it the most efficient form of overland transport. That can bring down the cost of it.

For AMTRAK, or whatever rail passenger service, to be an all-purpose rail passenger service by serving local and through travelers can make the most of its capacity if done orderly. The railroads have arguably operated like taxi services increasingly since their adoption of train dispatching and their disdainful ditching of the timetable as being "insufficient" for "modern" railroading.

We see that modern outlook in how people drive. The fact that driving is desireable is in its perceived individualized expediency. That's what makes it so problematic. Mass expediency results in mass congestion without any prediction of when or if it will abate.

We can waste the $8 billion or $5 billion more on a few miles of maybe only one fanciful, "true" high-speed line that will swoosh its wide-eyed passengers on a fun and technologically dazzling ride in only an hour-- so they can go board their plane and go back home, etc., in the same amount of time some 500 milea away. Or, we can use about that same amount of opportune funding to upgrade perhaps the SILVER METEOR, CAPITOL LIMITED, CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR and COAST STARLIGHT lines to 110-mph speed, affording overnight connections between Washington, DC, Chicago, Miami and Boston; Chicago and Denver; Salt Lake City, Seattle, San Diego/Los Angeles and Oakland/San Francisco as well as rush hour commuting within about two current AMTRAK stations of each of these cities.

Of course, even our current, 79-mph system could give us that same "corridor" service, if scheduled to do so, between Boston, New York and Buffalo; Charlotte, Florence and New York; Miami and Savannah; Atlanta, Memphis and New Orleans; Cleveland, Cincinnati, Carbondale, St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, Minneapolis/St. Paul and Chicago; San Antonio and El Paso; Tuscon, Flagstaff, Reno and San Francisco Bay/Sacramento; Spokane, Eugene and Seattle; Denver and Salt Lake City and Little Rock and Dallas. AMTRAK could use the revenue from the excessive ridership and undercapacity problems that rush hour commuter and overnight travel might cause it to have.

 

[Steve4031]

Can't we all just talk about trains? I just scrolled to the end of this thing hoping find out more about the high speed rail, and all I see is an argument. I can get those at work from the girls.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

What's poverty? Being stuck in a jerk-water town. Following the south end of a horse (or worse, a mule) 14 hours a day. Not having a clean change of clothes. It's very easy for youngsters to speak of "unimportant material possessions" such as, I suppose, modern medicine and fresh vegetables in January. Eat cabbage every day for lunch and dinner a few months and your opinion might change. Have friends who cannot get medicines as simple as beta-blockers to treat high blood pressure and you opinion might change. Heck, plant potatoes by hand for a few days on a collective farm, and your opinion might change.
And consider your audience. It's going to be hard to sell the members of a transportation forum that they ought to travel less.

Oh, and your experience with house fires must be much different than I. I am very grateful for professional firefighters. And fire insurance, for that matter.

I think we should all do real work, and working behind a mule is a good place to start.

I don't have any friends, besides a girlfriend who, for the most part, thinks the same way I do. I'm not confused as to why or anything.

This world is overpopulated. I'd like to see the majority of modern medicine disappear.

I'm not going to sell my ideas to anyone but similar people. I'm just putting them out there. Even though I fully believe they will work, I don't expect them to happen. I'm crazy, not stupid.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

At which point I will get off my ***, get a hose from my neighbors house, and put the bloody thing out. Gee, that was hard.

And just how much training do you have in not getting yourself killed in the process?

Ya know, a hundred years ago, we got by with a lot less of this moving around stuff. The world has gotten too small. Traveling fifty miles should be an event, not a commute.

Maybe you should chat with some MBTA Worcester Line riders about how they like the OTP there. Their experience might be the sort of thing you seem to be asking for.

Most people want transportation to just get them somewhere efficiently so they can get something else done. I don't see how you're ever going to get a meaningful number of voters to agree with you.

You paid for the Big Dig in Boston, even if you will never see it.

Parts of it are visible from the MBTA's SL1 bus, if anyone coming to the Gathering does want to see it.

What's poverty? Not owning a PS3?

A PS3 plus a 24", 1920x1200 display costs about the same as a year of monthly MBTA LinkPasses. That doesn't even cover the express buses or much of the Commuter Rail system or sleepers on the LSL to Chicago (a roomette at low bucket, round trip, seems to be about as much as a year worth of MBTA LinkPasses).

Everyone has to work 90 hours a week, live in a freakin' mansion, own enough electronics to consume the entire electrical grid of New York City circa 1890, drive a car- and it better be a 'nice' car- and eat insanely tasteless prepackaged 'gourmet' food from supermarkets!

Are you asserting I'm not a person? I don't work anywhere remotely close to 90 hours a week, can't afford a mansion, haven't driven an automobile in over 6 months, and very much enjoyed the vegan pad thai I picked up at Whole Foods a couple hours ago, was moved from a large pan into a pint size or something container while I watched (though I have nothing against eating meat).

 

[sunchaser]

Can't we all just talk about trains? I just scrolled to the end of this thing hoping find out more about the high speed rail, and all I see is an argument. I can get those at work from the girls.

I did a quick search to try and get Obama's HSR plans, but found nothing but blogs & forums. But I did find this link with a report by the GAO. There are details & rail projects on pages 8 & 9.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf

I would like to see more detail on Obama's plans too, like the ones he wants to fund.

 

[George Harris]

I think we should all do real work, and working behind a mule is a good place to start.

Try this for a couple of years, and then call us and see if you still think it is a good idea. I am old enough and from a place where this sort of thing was still a reality for a lot of people in the early part of my lifetime. I don't see any of them wanting it back.

In a word, you have no idea of the reality of what you are talking about.

 

[AlanB]

Can't we all just talk about trains? I just scrolled to the end of this thing hoping find out more about the high speed rail, and all I see is an argument. I can get those at work from the girls.

I did a quick search to try and get Obama's HSR plans, but found nothing but blogs & forums. But I did find this link with a report by the GAO. There are details & rail projects on pages 8 & 9.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf

I would like to see more detail on Obama's plans too, like the ones he wants to fund.

That's because there are no plans yet, not to mention that they aren't Obama's or the Federal Governments plans.

The Fed will draw up a set of rules and conditions first. Then each State that is hoping for a slice of the pie to start working on a project will have to submit a plan if they qualify under the rules. Then the DOT, probably in conjunction with the FRA, will decide which projects have the most merit, can put shovels into the ground within 6 months or so, and dole out the monies.

 

[saxman]

Can't we all just talk about trains? I just scrolled to the end of this thing hoping find out more about the high speed rail, and all I see is an argument. I can get those at work from the girls.

I did a quick search to try and get Obama's HSR plans, but found nothing but blogs & forums. But I did find this link with a report by the GAO. There are details & rail projects on pages 8 & 9.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf

I would like to see more detail on Obama's plans too, like the ones he wants to fund.

Here's the official announcement of Obama's HSR plan:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31

Here are the details of that plan:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RR...rategicplan.pdf

 

[sportbiker]

Ahh, to be young and revolutionary...

 

[sunchaser]

Can't we all just talk about trains? I just scrolled to the end of this thing hoping find out more about the high speed rail, and all I see is an argument. I can get those at work from the girls.

I did a quick search to try and get Obama's HSR plans, but found nothing but blogs & forums. But I did find this link with a report by the GAO. There are details & rail projects on pages 8 & 9.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf

I would like to see more detail on Obama's plans too, like the ones he wants to fund.

Here's the official announcement of Obama's HSR plan:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31

Here are the details of that plan:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RR...rategicplan.pdf

Thanks! Here's the map-

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrmap.pdf

No Vegas/LA run..

Edited for incorrect content.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

Thanks! Here's the map-
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrmap.pdf

No Vegas/LA run, no HSR for California Zephyr..

Did you really expect to see all 2438 miles of the CZ high speed?

 

[sunchaser]

Thanks! Here's the map-
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrmap.pdf

No Vegas/LA run, no HSR for California Zephyr..

Did you really expect to see all 2438 miles of the CZ high speed?

No, I guess I misspoke. A guest was talking about CZ running at 110 mph- I am now assuming thats not considered high speed for trains?

Having trouble quoting more than one message. Sorry I guess I'm more tired than I thought.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

Thanks! Here's the map-
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrmap.pdf

No Vegas/LA run, no HSR for California Zephyr..

Did you really expect to see all 2438 miles of the CZ high speed?

No, I guess I misspoke. A guest was talking about CZ running at 110 mph- I am now assuming thats not considered high speed for trains?

Having trouble quoting more than one message. Sorry I guess I'm more tired than I thought.

No problem, I get dinghy too.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

And just how much training do you have in not getting yourself killed in the process?

Iono, I've put out fires before. I'm sure I could do it again.

Maybe you should chat with some MBTA Worcester Line riders about how they like the OTP there. Their experience might be the sort of thing you seem to be asking for.Most people want transportation to just get them somewhere efficiently so they can get something else done. I don't see how you're ever going to get a meaningful number of voters to agree with you.

I mean that it should be undertaken with the frequency and for the importance of something that is considered an event. People shouldn't be traipsing 50 miles from home to work every day. Ridiculous.

A PS3 plus a 24", 1920x1200 display costs about the same as a year of monthly MBTA LinkPasses. That doesn't even cover the express buses or much of the Commuter Rail system or sleepers on the LSL to Chicago (a roomette at low bucket, round trip, seems to be about as much as a year worth of MBTA LinkPasses).

You so completely missed my point this time, I'm not even going to try.

Are you asserting I'm not a person? I don't work anywhere remotely close to 90 hours a week, can't afford a mansion, haven't driven an automobile in over 6 months, and very much enjoyed the vegan pad thai I picked up at Whole Foods a couple hours ago, was moved from a large pan into a pint size or something container while I watched (though I have nothing against eating meat).

Yes. Clearly you are actually some kind of hamster. :unsure:

Obviously, I was talking in generalized hyperbole.

Try this for a couple of years, and then call us and see if you still think it is a good idea. I am old enough and from a place where this sort of thing was still a reality for a lot of people in the early part of my lifetime. I don't see any of them wanting it back.
In a word, you have no idea of the reality of what you are talking about.

Why make such an assumption, Mr. Harris? I spent quite a bit of my early years working on farms in worse conditions than that. I think its a bit lacking in creature comforts, but I also think it makes a better person out of you. More fulfilling.

 

[Neil_M]

Just wait till your house is on fire then, luddite child! Crying like a baby wanting the firefighters to get there quicker!

At which point I will get off my ***, get a hose from my neighbors house, and put the bloody thing out. Gee, that was hard.

Of course you would. You are full of words, but I suspect little action.

 

[Neil_M]

People shouldn't be traipsing 50 miles from home to work every day. Ridiculous.

So how far do you travel to work every day?

 

[jackal]

You probably ought to consider the cost of externalities: transportation infrastructure, the pollution you car is responsible for when it is created, run, and junked, the cost of foreign adventures to guarantee supplies of fossil fuel. I wouldn't care to guess what these costs might be, but they are there.
In general, though, I haven't found attempts to legislature Virtue to be of much use. The results rarely match the goals.

Isn't a good bit of transportation infrastructure on a federal funding level paid for by fuel taxes? I already factored the cost of fuel, which includes fuel taxes, in. On a local level, I'd estimate that no more than $200 per year of property taxes (we don't have income or sales taxes here) goes towards paying off the transportation bonds that pop up (and usually get approved) on local ballots. Of course, I have no hard data with which to confirm that.

Your other two points are predicated on political arguments that I don't agree with, so I can't factor those in.

I will agree with your last paragraph, though!

 

[AlanB]

Thanks! Here's the map-
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrmap.pdf

No Vegas/LA run, no HSR for California Zephyr..

Did you really expect to see all 2438 miles of the CZ high speed?

No, I guess I misspoke. A guest was talking about CZ running at 110 mph- I am now assuming thats not considered high speed for trains?

Having trouble quoting more than one message. Sorry I guess I'm more tired than I thought.

Actually under the current designations in this country 110 MPH would be considered high-speed. Unfortunately much of the CZ's run will never see that speed without a major realignment, a realignment that would eliminate most of the best scenery. In fact right now, much of the CZ's run isn't even at 79 MPH.

 

[AlanB]

You probably ought to consider the cost of externalities: transportation infrastructure, the pollution you car is responsible for when it is created, run, and junked, the cost of foreign adventures to guarantee supplies of fossil fuel. I wouldn't care to guess what these costs might be, but they are there.
In general, though, I haven't found attempts to legislature Virtue to be of much use. The results rarely match the goals.

Isn't a good bit of transportation infrastructure on a federal funding level paid for by fuel taxes? I already factored the cost of fuel, which includes fuel taxes, in. On a local level, I'd estimate that no more than $200 per year of property taxes (we don't have income or sales taxes here) goes towards paying off the transportation bonds that pop up (and usually get approved) on local ballots. Of course, I have no hard data with which to confirm that.

Up until last year, for perhaps the last 10 years or so one could say that the bulk of the Interstate Highway system was being paid for via fuel taxes, although it could still be argued that even that's not a true statement since Congress was not allocating the funds that the DOT estimated it actually needed. Under the current five year plan approved by Congress, they authorized $79 Billion less than the DOT estimated it needed to maintain a state of good repair.

However, starting with last year the fuel taxes fell far short of covering everything. Congress was forced to move $8 Billion from the general budget into the Highway Trust Fund to keep the HTF from going belly up and missing payouts to the states. It was estimated, before the high gas prices of last summer futher drove down revenues, that the HTF will need $9 Billion this year and next. That amount jumps to $12 B in 2011 & 2012. All of this assumes that Congress doesn't raise the Federal portion of the fuel taxes at some point along the way.

And then of course we come to the fact that the Stimulus paackage included highway funding projects and of course what many people are also considering as a subsidy, the bailouts to the Detroit automakers.

 

[George Harris]

Try this for a couple of years, and then call us and see if you still think it is a good idea. I am old enough and from a place where this sort of thing was still a reality for a lot of people in the early part of my lifetime. I don't see any of them wanting it back.
In a word, you have no idea of the reality of what you are talking about.

Why make such an assumption, Mr. Harris? I spent quite a bit of my early years working on farms in worse conditions than that. I think its a bit lacking in creature comforts, but I also think it makes a better person out of you. More fulfilling.

But for you it appears to have been a choice, not a necessity. Would you have been without sufficient food if you had a crop failure? Would risk losing the farm if the cotton price did not pay you enough to cover the mortage on your farm? I know one couple (now deceased) that talked about one year clearing $400.00 and they sat at their kitchen table and cried becuase it was they most money they had ever had at one time in their lives. And, that had to keep them going until the next crops came in the following year. No, I am not talking about it as an experience, but as a life.