State of the Union

[PRR 60]

FYI, the original Federal fuel tax was imposed to pay down the deficit. The first Federal fuel tax was imposed in 1932 by then President Herbert Hoover. It wasn't until Ike came along in the late 50's with his dream of the Interstate Highways that the fuel tax got diverted to the highways.

Once the initial Interstate Highway system was built by 1972 IIRC that money was supposed to revert back to its original purpose of paying down the national debt. That however never happened. In 1990 President George H W Bush raised the Federal fuel tax by 5 cents and sent half that to the HTF and half to deficit reduction. President Clinton in 1993 raised the fuel tax by another 4.3 cents with the money going to deficit reduction.

All of that however changed in 1997, when all the monies going to deficit reduction were sent back to the highways instead. And the fuel tax has remained unchanged since 1993, currently 18.4 cents per gallon.

And the Federal gas tax has never generated enough revenue to pay for the highways fully. From 1956 to 1993 the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax imposed on the diesel fuel that the freight RR's use for their engines went into the Highway Trust Fund. Now that 4.3 cents just goes into the General fund.

The Federal Gas Tax and the Highway Trust Fund was never intended to pay for highways fully, if "fully" is defined as all costs, capital and expense, for all highways down to neighborhood streets. The Highway Trust Fund was established to fully fund federal highway construction grants for both Interstate highway construction (@90%) and qualified arterial highway construction (@50%). From 1956 until 2008, the Highway Trust Fund did just that. It fully funded all the federal contributions for highway construction, and a lot more. That "a lot more" includes rail.

Starting in 1983, the Highway Trust Fund became a source of funding for the Urban Mass Transit Administration (now the Federal Transit Administration). Although initially a relatively minor source, the Highway Trust Fund now provides 80% of the entire budget of the FTA, which means 80% of FTA grants for rail transit projects come from the federal gas tax and the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund now provides about $8 billion per year to fund the FTA. That is about 16% of the all Highway Trust Fund disbursements.

In 2008, the Highway Trust Fund essentially went broke. The fund required an $8 billion infusion of general tax funds to remain solvent and support all the approved projects. But, it was not just highway projects that resulted in the shortfall. It was transit projects as well.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with using gas tax revenue to support transit. In fact, it makes a lot of sense. However, that diversion of funds should be considered when assessing the viability of federal gas tax revenue for supporting federal highway grants. It is a little duplicitous for transit to take 17 cents of every dollar of the Highway Trust Fund, and then point to the insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund as proof that the highway funding mechanism does not work anymore.

 

[AlanB]

FYI, the original Federal fuel tax was imposed to pay down the deficit. The first Federal fuel tax was imposed in 1932 by then President Herbert Hoover. It wasn't until Ike came along in the late 50's with his dream of the Interstate Highways that the fuel tax got diverted to the highways.

Once the initial Interstate Highway system was built by 1972 IIRC that money was supposed to revert back to its original purpose of paying down the national debt. That however never happened. In 1990 President George H W Bush raised the Federal fuel tax by 5 cents and sent half that to the HTF and half to deficit reduction. President Clinton in 1993 raised the fuel tax by another 4.3 cents with the money going to deficit reduction.

All of that however changed in 1997, when all the monies going to deficit reduction were sent back to the highways instead. And the fuel tax has remained unchanged since 1993, currently 18.4 cents per gallon.

And the Federal gas tax has never generated enough revenue to pay for the highways fully. From 1956 to 1993 the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax imposed on the diesel fuel that the freight RR's use for their engines went into the Highway Trust Fund. Now that 4.3 cents just goes into the General fund.

The Federal Gas Tax and the Highway Trust Fund was never intended to pay for highways fully, if "fully" is defined as all costs, capital and expense, for all highways down to neighborhood streets. The Highway Trust Fund was established to fully fund federal highway construction grants for both Interstate highway construction (@90%) and qualified arterial highway construction (@50%). From 1956 until 2008, the Highway Trust Fund did just that. It fully funded all the federal contributions for highway construction, and a lot more. That "a lot more" includes rail.

My apologies for not being clearer. My definition of fully, was to cover what the Fed laid out for the roads.

And again, no, the HTF never did that via the fuel taxes on cars & trucks. As I noted above; the freight RR's were taxed to help support their competition, the truck, at a rate of 4.3 cents per gallon of diesel fuel. Millions of dollars per year went into the HTF thanks to that tax on the freight RR's.

In 2008, the Highway Trust Fund essentially went broke. The fund required an $8 billion infusion of general tax funds to remain solvent and support all the approved projects. But, it was not just highway projects that resulted in the shortfall. It was transit projects as well.

Agreed, transit is part of the problem. But the bigger problem is the fact that driving is down, cars are more fuel efficient, Congress in 2005 outspent the income when they passed the 5 year spending plan (despite warnings from the Bush White House), and the fact that we haven't raised the fuel tax since 1993. What costs the same today as it did back then?

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with using gas tax revenue to support transit. In fact, it makes a lot of sense. However, that diversion of funds should be considered when assessing the viability of federal gas tax revenue for supporting federal highway grants. It is a little duplicitous for transit to take 17 cents of every dollar of the Highway Trust Fund, and then point to the insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund as proof that the highway funding mechanism does not work anymore.

And again, the Federal fuel tax was never orginially designed to support federal highway grants. The fact that it does that today is the diversion. Transit is a sub-diversion.

Additionally I'm not trying to suggest that the "mechanism" isn't working. In fact; most times that I bring it up is to simply point out that no form of transit fully pays for itself via user fees. In this case however, I only mentioned things because Henry stated that the fuel tax was created to pay for the roads, which isn't correct. That was never the purpose of the Federal fuel tax.

 

[PRR 60]

And again, the Federal fuel tax was never orginially designed to support federal highway grants. The fact that it does that today is the diversion. Transit is a sub-diversion.

Additionally I'm not trying to suggest that the "mechanism" isn't working. In fact; most times that I bring it up is to simply point out that no form of transit fully pays for itself via user fees. In this case however, I only mentioned things because Henry stated that the fuel tax was created to pay for the roads, which isn't correct. That was never the purpose of the Federal fuel tax.

I'm going to take issue with you on point that the funding highway construction was "never" the purpose of the federal gas tax. In essence, funding highway construction was always the purpose of the federal gas tax even before that purpose became formalized with the 1956 establishment of the Highway Trust Fund. Prior to 1956, federal highway grants were targeted to meet the revenue brought in by the gas tax. Like anything involving the federal government and funding, unless the plan is written into law, the goal and the reality can vary a bit, but that was the plan.

The establishment of the Interstate Highway program brought about the Highway Trust Fund and the legal designation of all (or, at times, part) of the federal gas tax as the revenue source for the trust fund. Lawmakers in the 1950's were fearful that the proposed Interstate program would add to the federal deficit. The increase in the gas tax rate, the establishment of the Highway Trust Fund, and the legal requirement that highway grants be made on a pay-as-you-go basis from the trust fund (no borrowing) is what brought the Interstate program into being. From that point forward, all federal highway grants would be limited to the revenue generated by the gas tax as fed into the trust fund. That made law what was the plan all along - that gas tax paid for roads.

The 1956 plan worked so well that the Highway Trust Fund became a cash cow. It was almost an embarrassment of riches for highways while other needs like transit begged for funding. Thus came opening of the trust fund to purposes other than highway construction grants, including transit. Many of the commuter rail and light rail projects completed in the last 20 years were made possible by funding from the Highway Trust Fund.

In the 53 years from 1956 to 2008, every penny of federal highway grants came from the federal gas tax, and that was the formal, stated purpose of the tax. From 2008 to today, only the diversion of the trust fund to other purposes (worthy as they are) caused the fund to go into deficit. The fact is that the Highway Trust Fund has worked almost exactly as planned in 1956. The plan in 1956 was to formalize the prior goal and designate the federal gas tax to fund federal highway construction grants. That is what happened, and more.

 

[henryj]

In essence, funding highway construction was always the purpose of the federal gas tax even before that purpose became formalized with the 1956 establishment of the Highway Trust Fund.

That has always been my understanding also PRR.

 

[AlanB]

Bill,

All subsequent quotes come from this document.

I'm going to take issue with you on point that the funding highway construction was "never" the purpose of the federal gas tax. In essence, funding highway construction was always the purpose of the federal gas tax even before that purpose became formalized with the 1956 establishment of the Highway Trust Fund. Prior to 1956, federal highway grants were targeted to meet the revenue brought in by the gas tax. Like anything involving the federal government and funding, unless the plan is written into law, the goal and the reality can vary a bit, but that was the plan.

It was President Herbert Hoover who, in 1932, proposed a federal gas tax—not to raise money for roads, but to pay down the federal deficit. For the next 24 years, federal gasoline taxes were deposited into the general fund. According to the Federal Highway Administration, “Although taxes on motor fuels and automobile products were in existence, they were not linked to funding for highways.

Pages 11&12.

The establishment of the Interstate Highway program brought about the Highway Trust Fund and the legal designation of all (or, at times, part) of the federal gas tax as the revenue source for the trust fund. Lawmakers in the 1950's were fearful that the proposed Interstate program would add to the federal deficit. The increase in the gas tax rate, the establishment of the Highway Trust Fund, and the legal requirement that highway grants be made on a pay-as-you-go basis from the trust fund (no borrowing) is what brought the Interstate program into being. From that point forward, all federal highway grants would be limited to the revenue generated by the gas tax as fed into the trust fund. That made law what was the plan all along - that gas tax paid for roads.

No, the plan was basically left open ended, such that Congress could change its mind, but failing that the funds from the fuel taxes would have gone back to the deficit.

Indeed, the 1956 Highway Revenue Act dedicated the federal gasoline tax to the Highway Trust Fund explicitly only until 1972, by which time the Interstate Highway System would presumably be complete. Beyond that point, the 1956 law left the gasoline tax to revert to one-anda-half cents and again be deposited again into the general fund.

Page 13.

The 1956 plan worked so well that the Highway Trust Fund became a cash cow. It was almost an embarrassment of riches for highways while other needs like transit begged for funding. Thus came opening of the trust fund to purposes other than highway construction grants, including transit. Many of the commuter rail and light rail projects completed in the last 20 years were made possible by funding from the Highway Trust Fund.

Actually the opening of the Mass Transit Fund by President Ronald Reagan included a hike in the fuel taxes at the same time.

I do concur that many transit projects that exist today would not exist, had President Reagan not created the MTF.

In the 53 years from 1956 to 2008, every penny of federal highway grants came from the federal gas tax, and that was the formal, stated purpose of the tax. From 2008 to today, only the diversion of the trust fund to other purposes (worthy as they are) caused the fund to go into deficit. The fact is that the Highway Trust Fund has worked almost exactly as planned in 1956. The plan in 1956 was to formalize the prior goal and designate the federal gas tax to fund federal highway construction grants. That is what happened, and more.

Once again, that's not true. From 1956 to 1993, billions of dollars from the RR's went into the Highway Trust Fund. The 4.3 cents per gallon tax that the RR's pay went into the Highway Trust Fund. In 1993, that money was sent to the General fund.

I've also been told by several people, but have never been able to find a cite so take this with a grain of salt, that

a passenger rail ticket tax pre-Amtrak also went into the HTF.

 

[B&Ofan]

Not to fan the flames but I have always been confused by the "Freedom" people get with autos. One thing that tends to get overlooked is To me, it is only a "freedom" if everyone can participate in it. There are many people who cannot drive be they too young, suffer from some ailments of old age, are vision impaired (I no longer qualify for an un-restricted license), too tired, too drunk even too poor. For people in any of these states (and likely a few that I forgot) if you do not have a transit system to fall back on you are pretty much stuck. Yes I live in a city with transit, which allows me to be a productive member of society. Without it I would be extremely limited in where I could work or live. `Without transit I would be a burden on society or living in a cardboard box.

The bottom line is transit GIVES me freedoms that an auto-centric society takes away.

I do know that many city's would be hard pressed to be served well by transit, this is due to the lack of or very poor property management. In the 50's and 60's city's were growing like weeds.The assumption was that everyone would be driving. This caused quite a bit of blight in the old city centers.

The conditions that came about that require us to 'need' Amtrak (and I do believe that we DO need it as it fills a much needed nich) is because of government policies started in the mid-40's that nearly destroyed the railroad industry. With the elimination of some of these restrictions we have seen the freight railroads come back, proving that it is indeed an efficient way to transport goods. This shift came much too late for passenger trains though. To run passenger trains, private railroads would have to start from scratch. While it's true they never made money carrying people, they thought the goodwill combined with the head-end business made it worth the effort. I say this because of the post-war investment they made in passenger equipment. Clearly at the time they were interested in staying in the business of moving people.

The New York Central did a film in the 50's that does a good job of explaining the pressures that the railroads were under. It's fairly easy to find in you tube. The railroads were not looking for government handouts, they just wanted a level playing field.

Anyways that's my 2 cents.

 

[dan72]

Interesting history with the HTF. It also shows how our politicians have had a long history of diverting funds for other things instead of maintaining better fiscal discipline practices and keeping our debt at a more manageable level instead of the absolutely insane 14 Trillion we have today (and my finger of blame points to ALL politicians, regardless of party). Instead of so much of our budget going towards servicing that debt, things like transportation, healthcare, etc, etc, etc. would be much easier to fund might not be subject to the acrid debates of today.

On a related gas-tax note, I'm curious if anybody knows more about the proposed 'AmPenny' tax from the 1970's. Brian Solomon mentions it in his book about Amtrak, and evidently, a 1 cent gas tax was proposed with those proceeds going directly to Amtrak. With the Mideast Oil Crisis hitting shortly after the idea was put forward, it was quickly scrapped never to see the light of day again. It would be interesting what would have happened had the AmPenny survived. Would it have resulted in stable funding for Amtrak or would it eventually be raided by our congresscritters to pay for other more politically desirable items.

Dan

 

[henryj]

The bottom line is transit GIVES me freedoms that an auto-centric society takes away.

I do know that many city's would be hard pressed to be served well by transit, this is due to the lack of or very poor property management.

B&O I agree with you to a certain extent. I use public transit when I have the need and it is useful to me. However, if you look at ridership in almost any large city, and large cities are the only ones with real public transit, the ridership is 10% or less with only a few exceptions. Even in Europe which is way ahead of us in public transit ridership is often less than 50%. In America's small to medium size cities there is virtually no public transit. If you start looking at intercity transit outside of the Northeast corridors ridership compared to driving is even less. So the automobile may not be green or environmentally friendly, but it is a necessary part of the mobility framework and a very large one. Here in Houston I think transit usage is less than 10%. Just take a look at any major road artery or freeway and watch the cars go by vs an occasional bus or tram. We certainly need to improve our public transportation network, particularly rail, but it will never in any way replace the automobile. As I have said, the automobile will just evolve to meet the circumstances, but it will never, at least in our future, be replaced.

 

[AlanB]

The bottom line is transit GIVES me freedoms that an auto-centric society takes away.

I do know that many city's would be hard pressed to be served well by transit, this is due to the lack of or very poor property management.

B&O I agree with you to a certain extent. I use public transit when I have the need and it is useful to me. However, if you look at ridership in almost any large city, and large cities are the only ones with real public transit, the ridership is 10% or less with only a few exceptions. Even in Europe which is way ahead of us in public transit ridership is often less than 50%. In America's small to medium size cities there is virtually no public transit. If you start looking at intercity transit outside of the Northeast corridors ridership compared to driving is even less. So the automobile may not be green or environmentally friendly, but it is a necessary part of the mobility framework and a very large one. Here in Houston I think transit usage is less than 10%. Just take a look at any major road artery or freeway and watch the cars go by vs an occasional bus or tram. We certainly need to improve our public transportation network, particularly rail, but it will never in any way replace the automobile. As I have said, the automobile will just evolve to meet the circumstances, but it will never, at least in our future, be replaced.

Here you and I are agreement Henry by and large. An old expression that I'm sure you've heard many times; "the right tool for the right job."

While I advocate for trains, I'm smart enough to know that they aren't the answer for everything. One of my favorite lines is "we need the proper balance or mix of transit." That means putting trains in where it makes sense, and what actually makes sense isn't what many people believe. You don't need a NYC or Boston for certain types of trains to make sense. Pretty much any city with a population of 100K can and should be supporting an LRT system.

But we also need our buses for the lower density areas. And for some no matter what we do, assuming it's practical, the car will remain the only viable choice. And even for those with access to transit, there are still times and places where the car is the superior choice.

I take a bit of issue with the percentages, not saying that they're wrong, just that they're low because we're not building/providing enough transit to make the numbers higher.

Finally, repeating myself again, I only bring up the highway's failure to actually fund themselves via user fees because too many Americans believe that they actually don't get subsidies.

 

[dan72]

The bottom line is transit GIVES me freedoms that an auto-centric society takes away.

I do know that many city's would be hard pressed to be served well by transit, this is due to the lack of or very poor property management.

B&O I agree with you to a certain extent. I use public transit when I have the need and it is useful to me. However, if you look at ridership in almost any large city, and large cities are the only ones with real public transit, the ridership is 10% or less with only a few exceptions. Even in Europe which is way ahead of us in public transit ridership is often less than 50%. In America's small to medium size cities there is virtually no public transit. If you start looking at intercity transit outside of the Northeast corridors ridership compared to driving is even less. So the automobile may not be green or environmentally friendly, but it is a necessary part of the mobility framework and a very large one. Here in Houston I think transit usage is less than 10%. Just take a look at any major road artery or freeway and watch the cars go by vs an occasional bus or tram. We certainly need to improve our public transportation network, particularly rail, but it will never in any way replace the automobile. As I have said, the automobile will just evolve to meet the circumstances, but it will never, at least in our future, be replaced.

Here you and I are agreement Henry by and large. An old expression that I'm sure you've heard many times; "the right tool for the right job."

While I advocate for trains, I'm smart enough to know that they aren't the answer for everything. One of my favorite lines is "we need the proper balance or mix of transit." That means putting trains in where it makes sense, and what actually makes sense isn't what many people believe. You don't need a NYC or Boston for certain types of trains to make sense. Pretty much any city with a population of 100K can and should be supporting an LRT system.

But we also need our buses for the lower density areas. And for some no matter what we do, assuming it's practical, the car will remain the only viable choice. And even for those with access to transit, there are still times and places where the car is the superior choice.

I take a bit of issue with the percentages, not saying that they're wrong, just that they're low because we're not building/providing enough transit to make the numbers higher.

Finally, repeating myself again, I only bring up the highway's failure to actually fund themselves via user fees because too many Americans believe that they actually don't get subsidies.

Right now, the area I live in (Duluth, MN) has proposed reinstating passenger service to the Twin Cities (Amtrak's former Arrowhead/Northstar). The cost for establishing 110mph service is, in some estimates, approaching 1 Billion dollars. As much as I would love to see passenger rail resurrected in this area, I'm skeptical of the cost and also the ridership numbers proponents are claiming. When I looked at sample fares, it wold cost my family to travel to the Twin Cities round trip (which this line would terminate at the northern end) about $150-200. Even if gas is $4-5/gallon, my car that gets 30-35 is going to be much for financially viable for me to take at about half the cost of four tickets. Plus, I can travel to any part of the Twin Cities (in my case, south of the metro area to see my family) without figuring commuter rail/bus/taxi to do it. Now if the St. Paul Union Depot renovation happens and it connects there along with other modes and the Empire Builder, that might be a different story. But only time will tell at this point. To echo Alan's sentiment, I'm not certain the tool proposed will get the job done, although I would love it if it did.

Dan

 

[AlanB]

Right now, the area I live in (Duluth, MN) has proposed reinstating passenger service to the Twin Cities (Amtrak's former Arrowhead/Northstar). The cost for establishing 110mph service is, in some estimates, approaching 1 Billion dollars. As much as I would love to see passenger rail resurrected in this area, I'm skeptical of the cost and also the ridership numbers proponents are claiming.

I'd have to see the numbers to really talk intelligently, but even as you look at the numbers remember Lynchburg, VA. The State estimated a first year ridership of 50K for that train. By the end of the first year that train had seen 126,000+ rides taken. Lynchburg has a population of just over 67K.

When I looked at sample fares, it wold cost my family to travel to the Twin Cities round trip (which this line would terminate at the northern end) about $150-200. Even if gas is $4-5/gallon, my car that gets 30-35 is going to be much for financially viable for me to take at about half the cost of four tickets.

Here you're making the same mistake that many others opposed to trains are making. You are only counting the price of the gas in your tank. You're not accounting for the other costs of owning your car and you're not accounting for the subsidies to the roads.

Yes, I'll grant that gas is your only immediate cost out of pocket, but that doesn't change the fact that those other costs exist and that you hve to pay them.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

While I advocate for trains, I'm smart enough to know that they aren't the answer for everything. One of my favorite lines is "we need the proper balance or mix of transit."

I don't know a single passenger rail proponent that honestly thinks trains will or even can replace all other modes of transportation. Which leaves me to wonder where exactly do all these anti-rail people get the idea that passenger rail proponents want to completely eradicate cars and trucks? There's no initiative, no group, no politician, and no government agency that is seeking to create a rail-only nation. Yet we hear average Americans continue to regurgitate this illogical and unexplainable concern over and over again. Meanwhile, there IS a large and growing wing of a major political party that IS trying to eradicate public funding for passenger rail of all shapes and sizes across the board. The group that can't shut up about refusing to give up their options is the only group actually trying to take options away. As with virtually every other issue America currently faces, the level of intentional irony and hypocrisy at play in America's passenger rail debate truly boggles the mind.

There is no reason, and indeed no possibility, that America will ever give up the automobile. We've spent the last half century carelessly building ever more bloated and sprawling cities that are so spread out and so inefficiently connected that the automobile has become the one and only way for their sedentary inhabitants to navigate them. There is absolutely no way today's Americans would ever give up their cars and of course nobody in power would ever think of asking us to do so. Yet these and other fabricated "issues" continue to plague us thanks to opponents who simply do not care what bizarre lies they have to concoct, so long as they can find a way to benefit from them. Seeing the first seriously pro-rail political environment in decades quickly dissolve into little more than a rallying cry for the opposition a year or two later has given me great pause. From my perspective the "balanced mix" of transportation options we hope to see in the future is likely to be something we'll only find in America's past.

 

[dan72]

Right now, the area I live in (Duluth, MN) has proposed reinstating passenger service to the Twin Cities (Amtrak's former Arrowhead/Northstar). The cost for establishing 110mph service is, in some estimates, approaching 1 Billion dollars. As much as I would love to see passenger rail resurrected in this area, I'm skeptical of the cost and also the ridership numbers proponents are claiming.

I'd have to see the numbers to really talk intelligently, but even as you look at the numbers remember Lynchburg, VA. The State estimated a first year ridership of 50K for that train. By the end of the first year that train had seen 126,000+ rides taken. Lynchburg has a population of just over 67K.

When I looked at sample fares, it wold cost my family to travel to the Twin Cities round trip (which this line would terminate at the northern end) about $150-200. Even if gas is $4-5/gallon, my car that gets 30-35 is going to be much for financially viable for me to take at about half the cost of four tickets.

Here you're making the same mistake that many others opposed to trains are making. You are only counting the price of the gas in your tank. You're not accounting for the other costs of owning your car and you're not accounting for the subsidies to the roads.

Yes, I'll grant that gas is your only immediate cost out of pocket, but that doesn't change the fact that those other costs exist and that you hve to pay them.

Alan

Great points to keep in mind. Again, I'm not against it at this point, but some items leave me a bit hesitant. Duluth MN and Superior, WI have a population of about 130K and they are projecting ridership to be 800K/year.

And you're right, I am only taking into account the cost of gas which is a pitfall most people fall into. Using the IRS mileage rate of .50/mile it would be close to a break-even.

One other point of correction I need to make on my previous post. The destination wold be the Target Field baseball park area which would be downtown Minneapolis. Much better than northern suburbs, but still lacking a direct connection to the Empire Builder and the national network which I think is still a drawback. Again if that changes to SPUD, that would be much better IMHO.

Thanks!

Dan

 

[Trogdor]

I don't know a single passenger rail proponent that honestly thinks trains will or even can replace all other modes of transportation. Which leaves me to wonder where exactly do all these anti-rail people get the idea that passenger rail proponents want to completely eradicate cars and trucks?

Someone made up a lie, and nobody challenged them on that point. From there, it spread.

That's why it's important for us, as advocates, to challenge the misinformation as much we promote our own information.

Say what you will about NARP, but a few years ago, when former Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta was on his lies and BS/dog and pony show tour, basically badmouthing Amtrak and long-distance trains, NARP organized a counter-rally and a fact check website at pretty much every location. Their response was directed specifically at the misinformation that Mineta was spreading, rather than the generic "trains are good, they are efficient and help avoid traffic congestion..." stuff that you normally see.

Looking at the Milwaukee-Madison line as an example, its failure is half because of Scott Walker, and half because of WisDOT's/other supporters' absolute inability to address the public misconceptions of what the service would and wouldn't do. When the anti-railers had the public believing that the fare would be $150-200 round-trip, per person (rather than the true figure of $30-40), you probably lost half of your potential support right there. It's frustrating that absolutely NOBODY challenged that figure with factual information. If incompetence was criminal, I'd be pressing charges against WisDOT administrators over that fact alone.

It may get annoying, and it may make you sound like a broken record, but it's important that every time you see anyone even suggest that pro-rail automatically means ban cars, that person must be corrected. We must start with this forum, because if we can't even get rail advocates to have their facts straight, there's no hope of getting anyone else on board. Even if the person spreading the misinformation doesn't change their view, remember that on a public forum like this (and the same goes for the comments section of online news articles, as I mentioned in another thread) you don't know how many dozens (or hundreds, or in some cases even thousands) of people read the comments for every one person that posts. If the person with incorrect information (I want to say liar, but not everyone is intentionally trying to deceive someone else, they may be passing on whatever they heard, incorrectly, from another source) goes unchallenged, then those dozens/hundreds/thousands will see one side of the story, and not the other. And from there, the lie spreads even further.