Efficiency is not the problem. Regulations and population density is, regarding things like transportation.
The US has two maybe 4 areas in which HSR could make sense, the east coast from Boston down to Atlanta, perhaps Texas between Houston and Dallas, and the west coast, in California, perhaps up to Seattle (Oregon) would be an issue. Also a line from say Chicago down to Atlanta could be useful. The western states do not have the population to support it at all
A few years back, there was a proposed HSR between Tampa and Orlando. I think there are other routes. The mid-east and Pennsylvania have a pretty dense population - Ohio, Michigan, etc. Tie in some other cities like Indianapoiis and Saint Louis, and you'd have a pretty nice transit system. The key is to start making automobile drivers pay for highways, and stop subsidizing them with Trillions of tax dollars.
Are you saying the gas tax paying for roads is a subsidy?
LOL...
I believe that gas taxes do not cover the full cost of roads, building and maintaining
my vote is don't expect it to make a profit, but keep funding it. making a profit isn't the most important aspect of a public service.
How about breaking even? Would that be okay with you?
You would be correct, so why have I never seen you advocate raising the fuel tax like I have several time?
I forget what it is on diesel, but gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon for federal and has not increased for a rather long time. Around 25 years comes to mind, but I'm not sure. States and some cities attach their own taxes as well. Oregon's tax is higher than the average states and needs to be increased as well. To keep up with costs, taxes needs to be approximately doubled if I remember correctly.
I'm not going to look those facts up again. I have in the past.
I have however advocated that we increase the tax, and then index it to inflation.
Those of you championing green power should be on board with this, right? I support this, but not a carbon tax.
Why use amtrak when you can just drive or fly?
I believe that gas taxes do not cover the full cost of roads, building and maintaining
sure, that would be great. i don't consider it to be necessary, though.
I do, there is no pride to be found in taking govt (TAXPAYER) money.
It's asinine for something to lose money. Amtrak should be downgraded to being more of a local subway system. If that doesn't work then off with it's head. They had passenger trains in the 19th century for God's sake. Next up: The US postal service. Sell it off and let private business run it. If you have to rely on heavy subsidies then they shouldn't be around in the the first place.
Less volume on the road is generally a benefit of mass transportation.
Amtrak is not a one size fits all solution. It only works in crowded cities where there are sufficient patrons to make the investment cost effective. As we go out to less populated areas, the cost is not worth the benefits, since too few people will use it. The rural areas is where a different solution; personal transportation and automobile, makes more sense. The automobile is a tiny fraction of the cost, for a complete alternate rural Amtrak solution, that can reach every road and customer.
The analogy is cable TV is not in all the rural locations, due the cost per extra rural customer. However, it is in all the major cities where people are stacked, closely, like cords of wood. In rural areas, one has to be more creative and self sufficient. They will use satellite TV, instead of cable. Each person can control this without placing a large burden on everyone else. This is team spirit.
Another big problem with Amtrak, is this is more of a Progressive vision than a Conservative vision. At the same time, Progressive led municipalities have too many rules, regulations, and busy bodies. The result is the places, that have the vision, tend to sky rocket costs, until even crowded cities are not cost effective. There is too much middleman skim and and too much foot dragging involved in Progressive led cites; money pit.
Consider the high speed rail in California, that is way over budget, and has become a national money pit. This was being used as a local Progressive piggy bank at the tax payer expense. California could use the Amtrak, on paper, but it is worse place to build anything that is cost effective. The dream becomes a night mare for the tax payer.
When the US Government finally does infrastructure, they need to set a standard cost and standard time schedule for all states. The fund should not pander to inefficient and wasteful states. Places like California, with all types of hidden costs and expected delays, which cannot meet this cost schedule, would have to agree to pay foe these extras. If the project is stopped for 6 months, to figure out how to deal with a rare cockroach, then this idle time should no be supported by the Federal fund. The cost of having everyone stand around and equipment idle should come from that state. Places like Texas will do just fine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?