Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="coloskier"] [quote user="Bucyrus"] [quote user="schlimm"] [quote user="Bucyrus"] There is one more component needed to make passenger rail become the preferred national method of travel.  That is a high tax on gasoline, coupled with high tolls on every road.  It will kill two birds with one stone by getting people out of their cars and into the trains; and it will pay for the trains.  There is no need to wait for the public attitude to change when you can just use force. [/quote] 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. [/quote] 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:  1)      To reduce CO2 by six billion pounds. 2)      To create new jobs. 3)      To offer a new choice for travelers. 4)      To reduce the dependency on oil. 5)      To foster urban and rural communities.  I don’t believe that HSR will go very far in fulfilling the stated objective to get people out of their cars.  So raising the cost of driving will be needed to do the trick.  HSR is the carrot.  High gas taxes will be the stick.  If you look into the grass roots HSR boosterism, you find this to be one of their commonly stated ideas.  I do agree that it is pretty spooky.  [/quote] There are a few problems with your statement. 1. In order for HSR to break even, using Europe as an example, gasoline will have to be at least $15 a gallon, and that is only for short haul distances. This price will cause the economy to totally shut down, lose 5 times as many jobs as it creates, and will do nothing to improve the air because China is going to pick up the slack when all of our jobs move to China. This is a reality so many on the left refuse to accept. 2. The US economy depends on productivity. Your idea will reduce productivity by a very large amount, which loses even more jobs. 3. Reduce dependency on oil???? It will do nothing of the sort, except for the fact that there will be no manufacturing base left in the USA, so there will be many fewer jobs, thus lowering our dependency. 4. We already have urban and rural communities, but to be honest, only a very small minority in the USA actually want to be like Europe. I am all for HSR, but only if it can compete with all other modes of transportation with NO SUBSIDIES. Even if you take away the small subsidies that air, trucking, and automobiles have, HSR still can't even come close to competing. [/quote] coloskier, I believe you might be misunderstanding my position on this.  I am opposed to HSR for all of the reasons you mention.  My preceding statements were only to outline the position of the HSR proponents, including the FRA.  I think it is quite telling that the FRA, in stating why we need HSR, says nothing about it providing necessary, cost-effective transportaion.  And welcome to the forum.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag