Hugh Conway Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The Federal investment on the Columbia River dam system was HUGE at that time, and it was all paid back and has been both a huge money maker and generator of many ancillary business's for many years until recently. There's one for you, and its a big one. I'm not agreeing that this is a good investment, and I'd agree with you that it is critical to the long term health of our country to get out spending (military in particular) under control. Without the Columbia dams and the Northern Pacific (47 million acres of corporate welfare!) the Northwest would be a far different place. I don't think High Speed rail is necessarily a great idea, and spending is definitely an issue, but shit have a fucking vision for the future. The little "positive ROI, the market will provide" is and was bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I don't understand the right's constant refusal to accept the scientific fact of climate chane. It's weird But, that article is really a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Since it's hard to understand their position, you can make two logical assumptions: 1) They are criminally insane -- i.e. they secretely know they're destroying the environment in exchange for higher profits or 2) they really DON'T believe in climate change, hence their passion -- and they sincerely believe it's the "liburuls" that are actually consciously trying to destroy this country, and so they are "fighting back." I think #2 is more likely, and when you frame the argument that way, you realize these guys are hopelessly misguided, but that they're americans just like you and me. I sincerely believe that most people on the right ACTUALLY THINK they're doing what's best for this country. Their intentions are not bad. So, maybe you can frame them as stupid, or misguided, or whatever, but I don't think that's a very productive way to address the problem. If everybody accuses the other side of being anti-american and of destroying our country, nothing will ever get done, because in reality, neither side is really trying to do that. Is this "Celebrate Naivety Day" or did I get skipped in the toke circle again? We're still reeling from a financial crisis caused by investment banks reaping billions by knowingly selling junk paper and betting against their own customers. The fossil fuel industry is one of dozens that hires "scientists" and lobbyists to knowingly spread misinformation about the impacts of its practices. Corporations are not people and the calculus of profit and growth they're ruled by more often than not doesn't include the kind moral/ethical consciousness or intention you're applying here. I'm not applying conscience or ethics to criminal corporations, but to the many, many well-intentioned citizens who have been mislead by people like Sara Palin, rush Limbaugh, and Glenn beck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Uhhh, He asked for a single example so I was giving Nitrox the dams as a positive example. One that was paid back, in full and faster than projected in fact. I'm not argueing that it as a bad idea at all. $53 Billion for high speed rail on the other hand I'd have a 3 part disagreement with. 1st) Amtrak has been cutting services as they can't keep the existing trains full. 2nd) As current projects done like this always seem to have massive cost overruns, $53 billion will soon be $75 billion. Lastly) I'd want to see some serious cost analysis that focus on answering the question "what would be the best thing the US could do tight now". I highly suspect that we could use that $53 billion in a lot better places than a train system we might no utilize once it's built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 How much have you ridden Amtrak? The trains I've been on have been pretty full. My wife, who doesn't fly, travels to the east coast & back at least once a year. She's booking a trip right now, and the day she wants a Milwaukee to Seattle leg the train is full. All transportation is subsidized, and I think high speed rail is a viable alternative for a post air travel world, and a much more efficient use of fuel. I love those freight trains too, each one of those stacked container cars is one or two trucks that are not on the highway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 $53 Billion for high speed rail on the other hand I'd have a 3 part disagreement with. 1st) Amtrak has been cutting services as they can't keep the existing trains full. If this is true (OffWhite disagrees) imo much of that is because Amtrak's service sucks, a large part because pretty much everywhere but the Easter Seaboard Amtrak doesn't own the track, and doesn't have track priority - the freight trains do. So Amtrak has to schedule shit times and gets delayed. Building high speed rails would most definitely change this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 As pat pointed out, I think most communities with high-speed rail have been pretty happy with their investment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 As pat pointed out, I think most communities with high-speed rail have been pretty happy with their investment. they are dirty filthy socialists though. This is Amerika, we do things differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Yet another reason increased transit investment is a good idea. Aging boomer drivers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 How much have you ridden Amtrak? The trains I've been on have been pretty full. My wife, who doesn't fly, travels to the east coast & back at least once a year. She's booking a trip right now, and the day she wants a Milwaukee to Seattle leg the train is full. All transportation is subsidized, and I think high speed rail is a viable alternative for a post air travel world, and a much more efficient use of fuel. I love those freight trains too, each one of those stacked container cars is one or two trucks that are not on the highway. I think this article has it pretty close. http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/amtrak/subsidies For myself, I'm not anti rail. I see people using gas like it's unlimited, not realizing that it is subsidized as well many ways on many levels so they can get it cheap. Great question from that article. "As former senator Russell Long once said, why is the government trying to get people "to leave a taxpaying organization, the bus company, and ride on a tax-eating organization, Amtrak?" My neice just road the bus back to college Sunday as they had canceled the Amtrak service. If I owned a bus company, I would find that Senators question of particular interest and concern. However, as I am being asked to pay for you or other people to ride the train, I think it's still germaine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 "As former senator Russell Long once said, why is the government trying to get people "to leave a taxpaying organization, the bus company, and ride on a tax-eating organization, Amtrak?" My neice just road the bus back to college Sunday as they had canceled the Amtrak service. If I owned a bus company, I would find that Senators question of particular interest and concern. However, as I am being asked to pay for you or other people to ride the train, I think it's still germaine. Because rail (and air) don't use the same structures as private cars? Taking the train from SEA-PDX I don't have to worry about an accident on I-5. Unless and until you are creating bus lanes/the like you've got a major problem with your transport system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Because rail (and air) don't use the same structures as private cars? Taking the train from SEA-PDX I don't have to worry about an accident on I-5. And that is worth exactly how much money? Bus service is very very safe, and as noted, they pay into the tax system. Do you think it's fair to the bus companies that we subsidize rail with our taxes to compete with them? BTW, lots of old people get hit by trains. I haven't looked at the $, but I'd bet someone has. Finally, one big argument against the $53 billion is that Amtrak has been promising to be a money maker per goverment studies and claims and never come close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Do you think it's fair to the bus companies that we subsidize rail with our taxes to compete with them? The subsidies bus companies receive in the form of the interstate highways system dwarf the pittance paid to Amtrak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The subsidies bus companies receive in the form of the interstate highways system dwarf the pittance paid to Amtrak I suspect that you do not actually know the reality of it. Do you know the actual numbers? ie, what the buses pay in tax on Diesel fuel, income taxes, sales taxes etc etc? I confess that I don't, but it would be interesting to look at real numbers. How would you back the cars out of the interstate highway costs? Difficult, but you could do it on a per mile thing I suppose. Cars are the big beneficiary of the highways, not buses, are they not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 don't bus companies also get refunded for most of the gas tax? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) don't bus companies also get refunded for most of the gas tax? I don't know jb, it would be interesting to see the whole package, as Hugh suggests up there, there are a lot of costs, some hidden, some not so much. BTW, one more point: gas is going up and will be more precious in the future. Looking 5 years down the road, it might be worth every penny and then some to keep rail in place, or modernize it. I really don't know the true facts, and it should be looked at in a serious manner and studied. Certainly the recent news that the Saudis had overstated their oil reserves should be an unsettling thing for policy makers looking out a bit in time. That Obama changed his policy in the middle east from disengagement before election to engagement afterwards speaks to the fact that the policy makers and wizards behind the curtains most likely already knew these facts and more, and are bracing for that bleak day coming up. We had some discussion * cough * cough * arguments, over what the gov't should be sticking their nose in, and I think that about everyone would agree that having an energy policy, as a country, that integrates into our foreign policy goals is critical. I'm sure we agree that's the Governments job to get in front of that and work the hell out of it, few things are more important. Edited February 10, 2011 by billcoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Springfield, MA – Peter A. Picknelly, president of Springfield-based Peter Pan Bus Lines Inc., told Congress Thursday that bus companies such as his would have to raise fares if they lose a diesel fuel-tax rebate they’ve been getting since the 1970s. [..] Peter Pan pays the federal tax of 24.3 cents on diesel fuel, but gets 17 cents a gallon of that refunded, eventually paying only 7.3 cents a gallon in taxes. http://www.peterpanbus.com/peter-pan-bus-lines-president-peter-a-picknelly-tells-congress-that-diesel-fuel-tax-rebate-is-critical/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 BTW, one more point: gas is going up and will be more precious in the future. Looking 5 years down the road, it might be worth every penny and then some to keep rail in place, or modernize it. I really don't know the true facts, and it should be looked at in a serious manner and studied. Certainly the recent news that the Saudis had overstated their oil reserves should be an unsettling thing for policy makers looking out a bit in time. we have known for decades that OPEC reserves were overestimated by ~1/3. OPEC members inflated their reserve on paper to be granted greater export quota by the cartel right after OPEC formation in the 70's. Everybody knew it except for those with an interest in pretending we haven't reached peak oil, the oil lobby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 It looks to me like the average tax payer's subsidy of Amtrak amounts to $14 per year year. This info came from an endlessly fascinating graphic representation of the federal budget: Death and Taxes You'll want to blow it up to full screen and zoom in to make out the details. Transportation is just up and right from the central circle, info about taxpayer contributions is in the lower left corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 That Obama changed his policy in the middle east from disengagement before election to engagement afterwards speaks to the fact that the policy makers and wizards behind the curtains most likely already knew these facts and more, and are bracing for that bleak day coming up. Obama hasn't changed policies toward oil rich nations, before or after the elections. Controlling the oil resource was the reason to invade Iraq, and it is still the reason to be in Iraq today. Nothing's changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Any discussion of the subsidies that fund different modes of transportation that doesn't normalize them by passenger mile is silly: http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf "On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002(Figure 2). Whilenet federal subsidy per thousand passenger-miles for buses (including school, transit, and intercity buses) has been positive during 1990-2002, it has been negative for autos, pickups, and vans (Figure 4). Autos, pickups, and vans paid on average about $2.03 per thousand passenger-miles more each year than their allocated cost." "On average, passenger rail received the largest subsidy per thousand passenger miles,averaging $186.35 (in year 2000 chained dollars) per thousand passenger miles during 1990-2002 (Figure 2)." "On a per thousand passenger-miles basis, transit received the second highest net federal subsidy, second to passenger rail, averaging $118.26 in year 2000 chained dollars (Figure 2." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Any discussion of the subsidies that fund different modes of transportation that doesn't normalize them by passenger mile is silly: as if any discussion of public subsidy only involved direct subsidy and no consideration of externalized cost. But at least we got you to acknowledge that highways too were subsidized. That's small progress I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Any comparison of transportation that includes only federal subsidies, rather than state and local (which pay for most roads), is silly. Cherry picking alert! Why is it that nearly every one of your posts features some glaringly obvious rhetoric trick? Your either dishonest or just not very good at debate and analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Any discussion of the subsidies that fund different modes of transportation that doesn't normalize them by passenger mile is silly Because that gives you the data you want! Gee, lets look at I-84. I'm guessing passenger miles are not evenly distributed on this road at all - usage will peak at Portland, Boise and SLC. Similar for a number of other "interstates" which are mostly urban highways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Any comparison of transportation that includes only federal subsidies, rather than state and local (which pay for most roads), is silly. Cherry picking alert! Why is it that nearly every one of your posts features some glaringly obvious rhetoric trick? Your either dishonest or just not very good at debate and analysis. I'm not convinced that the intensity of subsidization relative to revenue is going to change the picture at all, but if you've got the data that shows that state and local subsidies for the likes of Metro, the WSF, etc narrow or eliminate the subsidization gap on a passenger mile basis - that would be a welcome addition to the debate here. Happy Googling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Any comparison of transportation that includes only federal subsidies, rather than state and local (which pay for most roads), is silly. Cherry picking alert! Why is it that nearly every one of your posts features some glaringly obvious rhetoric trick? Your either dishonest or just not very good at debate and analysis. I'm not convinced that the intensity of subsidization relative to revenue is going to change the picture at all, but if you've got the data that shows that state and local subsidies for the likes of Metro, the WSF, etc narrow or eliminate the subsidization gap on a passenger mile basis - that would be a welcome addition to the debate here. Happy Googling. It's your stupid argument. Own it. Edited February 10, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.