The FRA has proposed a national system consisting of ten corridors, with the money coming from the federal government and states, and they have committed $13 billion for what they term a down payment. What will be the total price? Surely the FRA must have calculated the total.
I am of the opinion that the money-spending layers of administrative overhead will rise up to the task of consuming that $13 billion before the first rail is laid.
So, other than taking pot shots at the concept, are you saying nothing can make HSR succeed?
A high tax on gasoline? Tolls on every road? Pardon me, but if either of those happen, I’m moving to another country.
I’m almost wondering whether the amount of $$$$ discussed is just for the overhead, period. How is anything going to be done with just that?
Maybe the real question should be —is there the politicosocial will to do HSR at all?[%-)] Me. I kind of doubt it. And it has zip to do with the car------
Absolutely yes I am. But again, it depends on what the defintion of succeed is. What is your definition of succeed as it applies to HSR?
This is a straw man argument designed to make others think that forced toll roads and gasoline taxes are the method of payment. As long as you are up to using these rhetorical devices, I see no valid reason to respond to your postings. You have made it abundantly clear you oppose HSR, etc.
If we did 50 cents per gallon, where could you go to find cheaper gas? Saudi Arabia? Venezuela? Certainly none of the G8. We are just at the edges of coming out of the worst recession in 60 years and gas only dropped to $2.50 a gallon - which is surprising to me. What do you think it will do in a few years once the economy gets going? I wouldn’t bet against $3-4.00 a gallon again - without any tax increase.
Rhetorical devices? Straw man argument?
Getting travelers off of the roads is one of the stated objectives for HSR. Encouraging reduced consumption of oil by taxing motor fuels is also a commonly proposed public policy objective. The FRA is on the record as stating that the purpose of HSR is as follows:
It’s not so much the price, it’s the thought process that if we just hike up gas tax to European rates, high speed rail is just going to magically happen. The difference is that the US isn’t Europe. Why should a rancher in the Nebraska panhandle (who will never see rail service, let alone high speed rail service) have to pay that $.50/gallon tax for something that will do nothing but increase costs for his operation?
I’m just against the premise that cars are evil and that we should jack up taxes and toll every road to drive people away from their cars. There are a LOT of places in this country where cars are an absolute necessity because no other transportation mode can serve the public. If we evolve to such a state that owning and operating vehicles is viewed as a social evil, that’s the point when I pack my bags.
Got it! Thanks for the explanation. Agree that cars are not “evil”, but some sort of gas tax increase in inevitable if only to keep the highways we have from crumbling to dust. The current tax is way down from 15 years ago after you adjust for inflation. Also, some sort of tax might be useful to push things along toward more efficient vehicles and less imported oil. It could also be fluctuated to stabilize prices during price shocks (Katrina, OPEC, you name it…)
Agreed. And a gasoline tax makes sense for all of those things. I’m just opposed to the idea of a nationwide tax to fund HSR. If it was a localized thing, I wouldn’t oppose it either. Urban dwellers would certainly see benefits from HSR funded through a gasoline tax even if they didn’t directly use the HSR. I just don’t think it’s fair to add a nationwide HSR gas tax because rural America will see no benefits from it whatsoever.
It’s going to come down to high taxes on gas and tolls on roadways, because they are not paying for themselves as well. We just can’t keep putting more and more traffic on the highways and not expect their maintenance cost of go up.
Airlines have become to costly as well, and quit simply a hassle.
And you can’t play the “why should a rancher pay for a system he won’t use” card. How many interstates are there in this country? I driven on maybe 7 of them, also air transportation is heavily subsidized by the government with my taxes and I have never stepped foot in an airport.
If I can drive to Latrobe, catch a morning train to Pittsburgh, use mass transit, and then take an evening train back, that would be what I would be well spent tax money, and you know there are countless other scenarios like that in this country.
If high speed rail is highly developed and mass transit is extensive, then you can kiss goodbye to regional airlines, and there are people afraid of that. They rather strain are congested two modes of transportation instead of giving intercity travelers something they want and is NEEDED for us to continue to prosper.
You laugh at gas prices getting has high as they are in Europe but I don’t see it so much further down the line for them to get that high here, because those highways and airlines are not cheap either, you need to take the stain off of them. When I look 50 years down the road either we will have and extensive high speed rail network or complete transportation breakdown.
High Speed rail is not to replace all of car travel or air travel but it will make it more convenient for quiet a few people that use them now.
I’m not opposed to the idea of gasoline taxes. I’m opposed to the idea of a nationwide gas tax to fund HSR, and especially to the idea that such a tax would be a “penalty” to those who wish to use their cars/trucks. There are places in this country that one could do well with little automobile use. Likewise, there are definately places that being punished for auto use is simply not fair because there are NO other options.
Yes I can. Why should that rancher in the middle of nowhere NE or WY have to pay a tax that’s funding HSR in Southern California? Or a tax that’s serving as a penalty for using an automobile? The difference between you and him is that you choose not to use the interstate system or the airports. Neither is unavailable to you.
So let’s say we add a $1.00 or $2.00 tax nationally to fund public transit and to “punish” automotive usage. For urban America, no big deal. We’d complain a lot, but we’d still be able to use public transit to get where we need to go. What are you going to tell that rancher? Just take the bus? Jump on the high speed rail line that runs past his place?
[quote]
If I can drive to Latrobe, catch a morning train to Pittsburgh, use mass transit, and then take an evening train back, that would be what I would be well spent tax money, and you know there are countless other scenarios like that in this country.[/quo
A couple of comments here.
I do a lot of driving in areas that do not involve multi lane freeways. My territory covers a lot of rural communities that service the agricultural area north of London ON. To get to the 401 from Harriston takes about 2.5 hours. Owen Sound about 3 to 3.5 hours. I can already guess just how popular any tolling will be up here…[:-^]
Most farms of here are still family owned/operated. There are factory farms, yes, but we still have a lot of the other farms. Not all have been doing as well as we think----most of our food is still comparitively cheap and these farmers are not getting the barrels of $$$$ as some think they are. If these farmers/food producers end up paying a wacking amount of road tolls simply to go from point A to point B do not be surprised if your food bill goes up…trucking produce to market will cost more hence urbanites will be crabbing about the cost of food more—
And I’m not even going to ask how that will effect the other sectors even—
I do think that there are regional means of dealing with this issue----a “one size fits all” approach just does not cut it here[:-^]
But Barry, isn’t the gasoline/petrol tax higher in Canada than down here?
Yep. And we pay more for just about everything too—[sigh][:-^]
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
Rhetorical devices? Straw man argument?
Getting travelers off of the roads is one of the stated objectives for HSR. Encouraging reduced consumption of oil by taxing motor fuels is also a commonly proposed public policy objective. The FRA is on the record as stating that the purpose of HSR is as follows:
The idea that people in sparsely populated states shouldn’t pay for services they don’t use doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It is hard to find a breakdown on the distribution to the states of the Federal Excise tax on fuel, but it probably is in line with these numbers from the conservative Tax Foundation on overall Federal tax burdens:
Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures: Nebraska is a Beneficiary State
Nebraska taxpayers receive more federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid compared to the average state. Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2004, Nebraska citizens received approximately $1.10 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 25th highest nationally. Neighboring states and the amount of federal dollars they received per dollar collected in federal taxes were: South Dakota ($1.53), Iowa ($1.10), Missouri ($1.32), Kansas ($1.12), and Wyoming ($1.11).
More densely populated states generally are donor states: California $ .78,New York .79, Illinois .75. People in Nebraska, et al. shouldn’t complain, lest they have to start carrying their own weight in tax burden.
Forget higher gas taxes please! We have enough taxes already. Price the HSR so it would be stupid not to take the train.
In the Chicago area Metra charges you $5.00 for a weekend pass.That’s all the travel you want on Metra all weekend.When I go to the city on a weekend I never drive. That could be why the trains seem packed to me. People will flock to a good deal.
No one said HSR had to be profitable. The airlines would not last without subsidies, neither would the interstate system, which by the way is 90% funded by the feds.
People will ride on an extensive network of rail if it were up to par. Look at the Northeast Corridor and the Keystone Service. They are used heavily by the public.
We are going to be forced onto the railways to cover a certain percentage of our commutes and travels. Americas love affair with the car is nearing it’s course. Up until now we have had the luxury to drive a car at low cost. We are becoming heavily populated, demographics show more and more people are living in urban centers. I see America going down a road that relies on HSR and mass transit to move folk around. It’s inevitable the way I look at it.
You look over at Europe & Asia and see it not happening here, how long have they been around? They are just ahead of us. We will catch up eventually.