Well, the rush is on to destroy the classic automobiles clunkers in this billion-dollar subsidy for the auto manufacturers. Little help in sight for Amtrak, though...
The Wisconsin Vision* report says we need about $8 billion per year for Amtrak. President Obama mentioned this amount also, but then it morphed into some kind of long-term investment that only required one billion per year. And so it was a big political victory when Congress came up with four billion--four times what the President requested!!! Four times four equals eight?
Just the fact that we are still able to use fifty-year-old dining cars shows what a good investment trains can be. We need to re-tool our economy to build durable transportation vehicles as opposed to planned subsidized obsolescence.
*http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/docs/prwg-report.pdf
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Maglev Well, the rush is on to destroy the classic automobiles clunkers in this billion-dollar subsidy for the auto manufacturers. Little help in sight for Amtrak, though... The Wisconsin Vision* report says we need about $8 billion per year for Amtrak. President Obama mentioned this amount also, but then it morphed into some kind of long-term investment that only required one billion per year. And so it was a big political victory when Congress came up with four billion--four times what the President requested!!! Four times four equals eight? Just the fact that we are still able to use fifty-year-old dining cars shows what a good investment trains can be. We need to re-tool our economy to build durable transportation vehicles as opposed to planned subsidized obsolescence. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/docs/prwg-report.pdf
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/docs/prwg-report.pdf
I'm trying to follow your logic/math in the second paragraph: Prez originally mentioned eight billion dollars (not specified where) but the actual request was one billion per year. Congress bumped this up to four billion the first year, which is four times what the Prez requested (one billion times four equals four billion, that part works). Then your last sentence, "four times four equals eight?" Where did those figures come from?
Cash for clunkers I wonder if that applies to the GEVOs as well.
Al - in - Stockton
This cash for clunkers program is a waste of money. Most Americans are in late model cars, debateable that it's worth the tax money spent on the reduction in fuel economy. I think it would have been better to expand the tax credit for hybrids or alternate fuel cars. Just my two cents though.
As for High Speed Rail. Believe it or not it is Amtrak arguing for the go-slow incremental approach. I think Joe Vranich argued fairly effectively why such an approach means Amtrak will never achieve the goal of truely High Speed rail. Heck they even converted the Obama administration already. Before entering office POTUS defined High Speed Rail as bullet trains like what was in Japan, France and Germany. Now, however he is redefining the term to mean trains that run at 110 mph to 120 mph. He probably has a good idea now what can be achieved by the next election.
The cash for clunkers program was to stimulate the auto industry by encouraging the purchase of new cars, the slight increase in fuel economy was just a bit of gravy.
And yes I do believe it that Amtrak is in favor of the go-slow approach, especially considering they're the ones that have to implement any changes/programs. And the one thing to consider, the high speed trains that you find in Germany, France, and Japan have dedicated right-of-ways, meaning NO freight, or even lower speed passenger trains. In those countries, when the HS trains move on to shared tracks, their maximum speed drops dramatically.
TomDiehlAnd yes I do believe it that Amtrak is in favor of the go-slow approach, especially considering they're the ones that have to implement any changes/programs. And the one thing to consider, the high speed trains that you find in Germany, France, and Japan have dedicated right-of-ways, meaning NO freight, or even lower speed passenger trains. In those countries, when the HS trains move on to shared tracks, their maximum speed drops dramatically.
This is true of the mixed lines in Germany. I think the max passenger speed there on the mixed lines is 110-120 mph. The other thing I suspect the Europeans have going for them is their frieght cars are not as massive as ours and I suspect that the axle loadings on their frieght cars are less but I am not sure though. Their frieght trains seemed to be limited to around 50-60 mph in Germany.
Keep in mind the Stimulus Bill did have funds to rebuild about 80 passenger cars and 20 locomotives, so in a way there is cash for clunkers but in the rail industry we just rebuild. Here is early info from Amtrak
Amtrak shops in Beech Grove, Ind., will rebuild 20 out-of-service Superliner and one Viewliner railcar ($19.3 million) and 15 locomotives ($13 million) and the Amtrak shops in Bear, Del, will rebuild 60 out-of-service Amfleet railcars ($58.5 million). This equipment can be used throughout the Amtrak system.
CMStPnP This cash for clunkers program is a waste of money. Most Americans are in late model cars, debateable that it's worth the tax money spent on the reduction in fuel economy. I think it would have been better to expand the tax credit for hybrids or alternate fuel cars. Just my two cents though. As for High Speed Rail. Believe it or not it is Amtrak arguing for the go-slow incremental approach. I think Joe Vranich argued fairly effectively why such an approach means Amtrak will never achieve the goal of truely High Speed rail. Heck they even converted the Obama administration already. Before entering office POTUS defined High Speed Rail as bullet trains like what was in Japan, France and Germany. Now, however he is redefining the term to mean trains that run at 110 mph to 120 mph. He probably has a good idea now what can be achieved by the next election.
It is also interesting to note that approximately two thirds of Americans buy used cars as opposed to new vehicles. The used car market is one of the most significant wealth transfer programs in the United States. The willingness of middle income Americans and above to trade their vehicles whilst they are in reasonably good shape has made it possible for most lower income Americans to own automobiles.
Sam1It is also interesting to note that approximately two thirds of Americans buy used cars as opposed to new vehicles. The used car market is one of the most significant wealth transfer programs in the United States. The willingness of middle income Americans and above to trade their vehicles whilst they are in reasonably good shape has made it possible for most lower income Americans to own automobiles.
I would argue the Cash for Clunkers program itself was a significant wealth transfer and will be even more so in the future.
The Big 3 used to be heavy in fleet sales but have since downplayed it because of the downward pressure on both new car prices and used car prices that it caused. Not sure how that plays into the wealth transfer theory but the Big 3 can impact prices and availability in the used car market anytime they want to. The Big 3 only like the program because it's clearing their inventory. I can argue that it's only temporary relief and the Big 3 will overproduce again and ask for another incentive next year.......watch. The Big 3 are hooked on over production and then follow-up incentives.
That was part of their problem that made them enter bankruptcy in the first place. The average price on their new cars was substantially lowered by incentives. What they should have done is cut production and if they really needed to lowered the MSRP and production costs to boost sales. Interesting to me that the reformed Big 3 is again headed down the same path but with the taxpayer fianancing part of the incentive now. We'll see how long it lasts beyond the initial clearing of inventory.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.