Posted on 06/11/2010 7:43:40 AM PDT by Willie Green
Well it was more than that. Air travel became more common and less expensive. The federal highway system was built. The rail infrastructure was old and needed repair or replacement. The railroads vastly over-expanded and could not afford to maintain lightly used tracks. The railroads also had purchased many new passenger cars and recently replaced all of their steam engines with diesel electrics. With the increase in rail traffic during the war the railroads never forecast that they would have competition between cars and airplanes. It was kind of a perfect economic storm. These were all companies that had been in business for 150 years surviving all sorts of ups and downs. These railroads all merged dropped passenger rail and still went bankrupt. U.S. mail was a hit and airplane travel didn't help either. But the federal highway bill was the death knell. Another government boondoggle.
It’s addressing my honest situations. I drive from my 30041 zip home to Roswell, Cobb, Savannah, Syracuse and Montreal on a regular basis (from daily to annual). I see no way rail would helpEven if you choose not to ride passenger rail yourself, you benefit from the reduced traffic congestion due to the passengers who DO switch to rail.
So I should ride a superfast train to get to these places sooner so I can wait there longer?In my experience, getting there faster usually gets you a better spot toward the front of the line, not way in back. So there would be less waiting, not more.
“The whole choo choo argument reminds me of the cap and trade argument.”
Because they are the same argument. Climate legislation and/or EPA directives are critical to the HSR plans success.
Just look at the projection maps of the Wildlands Project and the HSR system and the correllations are obvious. Remember...the black dots are the “Smart Growth” zones.
http://www.savethetrails.us/WildlandsMapUSA.pdf
http://www.ushsr.com/hsrnetwork.html
This is not about making our lives better...this is about building us a confined habitat as if we were in a zoo.
http://www.ushsr.com/benefits/sustainability.html
By the way long haul trucks do the most damage to the highways. If you eliminate the trucks from the highway system then you will extend the life of the highway. But you also lose the tax revenue.
Better yet, just raise the gas tax another $0.25 per gallon and we’re there.
That's YOUR proposal, not mine.
I don't believe that FedGov should be collecting any kind of Sales Tax whatsoever.
I'm not convinced that it gets allocated back fairly to the states from which it is collected.
It's much better to abolish the Federal gas tax and let the individual states collect it ALL for the maintenance of local roads where it is impractical to collect tolls. Then limited access highways would not recieve any gas tax support whatsoever. Those would be the ones that would be funded by tolls.
Very simple, straightforward and easy to understand.
It makes it very difficult for the legislative weasels to play a shell game with the funding.
Complete horse crap. Rail is twice as expensive as air travel here. Bus transportation is also half the price of rail. Clearly, the cost of fuel is insignificant compared to the other costs or rail transportation.
Of course, you have to get to the train to use it. If you live downtown in a major city, no problem. Downtown areas of major cities in the US take up less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of the country.
“closest Park-N-Ride. “
That would be about 60 miles from my house and much farther from most.
I sit corrected. (thanks for the link)
OK, put toll roads out there so highways are 100% paid for by user fees. No problem there. It’s a small increase in the current prices paid.
The current Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. Right now, the LOW estimate is that this gas tax pays for 70% of the costs of the highway system. So let’s bump the tax up 26.3 cents per gallon (add 7.8 cents per gallon). Now the highways are 100% funded by gas taxes. A typical 20 mile one-way commute went up by 16 pennies per day (assuming 20 MPG).
Now do the same for train. Add $32 per ticket for each train rider. Look at what happens to ridership at that point. That DC to Baltimore ticket goes from $15 to $47 one way. Think that’ll be good for ridership, more than tripling the costs of the ticket?
Willing to agree to that Willie?
The ten percent or so who would try it (and I'm being generous here) would never even be noticed missing from the traffic patterns.
High speed rail cannot compete with the Airplane over long distances (too slow) or with the car over short distances (too expensive). It might have a chance at middle distances in very, very crowded areas (Northeast) but even there it is at a serious disadvantage.
High speed rail is the answer to a question that noone has ever asked and the solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It is not economically feasible outside of a theme park.
Now do the same for train. Add $32 per ticket for each train rider. Look at what happens to ridership at that point. That DC to Baltimore ticket goes from $15 to $47 one way. Think that’ll be good for ridership, more than tripling the costs of the ticket?
Kind of a big play with numbers there. DC to Baltimore is fully funded with the current Amtrak ticket prices and Amtrak does not need to triple or double its prices to be fully funded. The long distance trains are where you will need to increase the price. By the way Amtrak is looking into this and not by increasing coach tickets but by adding more sleepers. Sleepers regularly sell out and if Amtrak added more sleepers to the train the long distance trains might be closer to profitability. The capitol costs for buying more sleepers or repairing existing fleet will be the problem.
Also your highway costs are going to be going up even more as more of these 30, 40 and 50 year old bridges need costly repair or replacing.
Of course all those factors contributed to the decline of passenger service. That process began long before freeways were built. The switch to diesels began three decades years prior to the creation of Amtrak, and they were cheaper and more efficient to run than steam locomotives. The Feds would not allow some roads to drop unprofitable routes, and the increasing danger of a catastrophic lawsuit made the passenger market more and more risky. But the death knell was not the highway system, but the end of revenue from mail service, which took place in 1964. Railroads like Santa Fe wanted to keep going with profitable routes like the San Diegan and the Super Chief, but without those revenues even they were money losers. Even at that, six railroads refused to join Amtrak, but eventually the Feds brought enough pressure to bear and Amtrak was born.
Willing to agree to that Willie?
No, you agreed to a toll on highways,
So there's no need to increase the federal gas tax.
The gas tax should be eliminated and all funding provided by tolls.
Under those conditions (all limited access highways funded by tolls), I would agree that all passenger rail would be funded by fares... but I also think that your $32 dollar figure is arbitrary and excessive. In fact, I think the increase in ridership would be so dramatic, Amtrak may even be able to be more profitable with reduced ticket prices!!!
By the way Santa Fe was kind of strong armed by Amtrak to give-up the Super Chief. Santa Fe was still making money on the route and management had great debates about giving it over to Amtrak. Also the fact that Amtrak would take over the pension funds of their passenger train employees was enticing.
Railroads were also arrogant towards their customers at the time and where also complacent. These were companies that had turned a profit for 150 years. The Pennsylvania railroad still holds the stock trading record for the longest consecutive years returning a dividend to stock holders.
What do you think is going to happen to private hospitals or private insurance once Obamacare is fully under steam?
Just look at the railroads.
Actually it's pretty accurate. So how about it, Willie? Want to bump up the cost of each ticket by $32?
And why tolls? Why not a gas tax? We have the entire infrastructure in place, a raise of $0.076 per gallon is easy to calculate, and it's inherently fair; travel less or with a high MPG (typically lighter - less wear and tear on the roads) car and you pay less. People drove plenty when gas was at $3.50 per gallon, adding this extra tax would still result in fuel costs below that level.
Don't think your trains as they exist now can compete when tickets are upped by $32 each?
From the article you posted Amtrak disputed those numbers claiming they lose on average $8 per passenger.
I’ll take this number and your increase in the fed gas tax and see who wins out.
How about we swap the funding amounts for Amtrak and the federal highway system for a few years and see which mode would win that one? Care to take that bet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.