cordon wrote: This is because they (the middle eastern countries) have no other source of revenue. They need to sell oil just as badly as we need to buy it, and they are not going to let anything interfere with that.
This is because they (the middle eastern countries) have no other source of revenue. They need to sell oil just as badly as we need to buy it, and they are not going to let anything interfere with that.
That is something we often forget. I don't know for sure that the middle eastern countries have no other source of revenue, for example Iran sells caviar and rugs, but I am sure that oil is a big part of their revenue.
Imagine though that you control all the world's oil. In order to have gotten 100% of the market you probably had to forego investing in something else, so keeping with this extreme theme let's say your country produces no food. You can't eat oil, hydrocarbons are not as nutritious as carbohydrates. In order to buy food you have to sell it to somebody at a price they're willing to pay.
Think of the restaraunt sign "Last food for 50 miles, Eat here or we both starve." This guy seems to recognize that monopoly or not, he still has to entice people to buy from him, with humor at least, even if not with reasonable prices.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
blue streak 1 wrote: Samantha:I was asking if any developments are going up around all the Austin stops. That is more important. Also population density and business density around those stops. Now the densities around the stops in Dallas is a much more reliable metric of the ability of transport to affect changes. Compare the rail line density to other new developments not near these transport locations.
Samantha:
I was asking if any developments are going up around all the Austin stops. That is more important. Also population density and business density around those stops. Now the densities around the stops in Dallas is a much more reliable metric of the ability of transport to affect changes. Compare the rail line density to other new developments not near these transport locations.
I have not seen any extraordinary real estate developments near the proposed Leander to Austin train stations. There is a sign in a field close to the Leander station advertising it as a prime location for transit access housing and commercial development, but I am not aware of any plans to develop it.
Although I don't have any census data to support my observation, population densities in Austin are considerably lower than in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. It has a population of near 6.3 million people, while the population of Central Texas is about 1.5 million.
Like many cities, Austin is seeing a wave of in-town apartment and condo developments, but few if any of them are near the proposed commuter rail line. That could change, of course, once the train is running.
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) had a studied performed by a team under Dr. Bernard Weinstein, Professor of Economics, University of North Texas, touting the real estate developments supposedly spawned by DART's light rail system. The study pointed to a number of developments near the light rail line, claiming that they were made possible by the train. The most impressive development has been near the Mockingbird Station area. The study, however, left out several key points.
It did not acknowledge that the developments might have occurred irrespective of whether Dallas built a light rail line. Dallas is a growth community; it is possible that the developments would have occurred anyway. In addition, it did not note that the most dramatic developments in Dallas, e.g. Uptown, Victory Station, Oak Lawn, and Oak Cliff, are not severed by the light rail lines. The biggest in-town real estate developments in Dallas have been in Uptown, which is served by the McKinney Avenue Trolley Line, but very few residents ride it. It is mostly for tourists. The Victory Station area is served by TRE and DART special trains when there is an event at the American Airlines Center; otherwise, there is no service to Victory Station. Most of the residents walk to work or drive.
There is a challenge for public transit in Texas that many people from other parts of the country probably miss. It gets very hot here in the summer. We are already experiencing 100 degree days, and they will be with us until the third or fourth week of September. Unless they have no choice, Texans are not going to fry on a transit platform waiting for a bus or train. They would rather wait in a traffic jam in an air conditioned car or truck.
Tulyar15 wrote: blue streak 1 wrote: Tulyar, Samantha:You may have hit upon the financing of operating deficits of commuter RRs. If the additional property tax (due to higher valuation) that is collected around a RR station was all directed to support the operating deficits of that operation that might solve the operating deficit/ It would not solve the capital problem. I think you'll find in the case of the Victoria Undergroun line in London, that the increase in property tax revenue was so great it repaid the cost of building the line several times over!With regard to a general point of congestion, given the different characteristics of American and European cities, it's probably harder to get people to swithc to public transport in American than Europe because American cities tend to be more spread out and have evolved along a grid iron pattern of roads. In Britain we tried to copy this in the 1960s with the new town of Milton Keynes, which is generally regarded as a bit of a planning disaster. European cities being more compact, they lend themselves more readily to public transport. As long ago as the 1960's the authorities in Britain recognised that it would be impracticable for people to commute into London by car because there was just not enough room for every one to park.
blue streak 1 wrote: Tulyar, Samantha:You may have hit upon the financing of operating deficits of commuter RRs. If the additional property tax (due to higher valuation) that is collected around a RR station was all directed to support the operating deficits of that operation that might solve the operating deficit/ It would not solve the capital problem.
Tulyar, Samantha:
You may have hit upon the financing of operating deficits of commuter RRs. If the additional property tax (due to higher valuation) that is collected around a RR station was all directed to support the operating deficits of that operation that might solve the operating deficit/ It would not solve the capital problem.
As I mentioned in a previous post, there has been an increase in property development along the Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail system. However, there is no evidence that the developments would not have occurred if the rail line had not been built. That is to say, there is every likelihood, given the growth of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, that the developments would have occurred anyway, in which case there would have been an equal run-up in county wide property values and tax receipts.
In the U.S. property in most states is appraised by county appraisal districts. The rates, which are the other variable in the property tax equation, are set by local taxing authorities, e.g. county, city, school district, etc.
In a growth environment property development will occur irrespective of whether a light rail line is built, and property tax receipts will increase. In a stagnate or declining environment incremental increases in development, e.g. residential, retail, commercial, etc. alongside a new rail line will be offset by abandoned properties in other areas of the appraisal district. The upshot, assuming the tax rate is constant, would be no increase in tax receipts.
I was a strong supporter of the DART referendum. I canvassed neighborhoods and manned telephone banks to help bring it about. But 20 years later I have some reservations about whether light rail, especially in the southwestern United States, where cities are spread out, unlike European cities, is cost effective.
The cost of the Dallas light rail system to date is more than $3 billion. Moreover, the expansion program, which will total $1.8 billion, is more than $1 billion over budget. What started out as a project to be funded with local sales tax receipts became a project heavily dependent on an infusion of federal monies.
Riders on light rail in Dallas get a nice handout. In 2007, for example, they received an average subsidy of $3.18 per ride. For a commuter this works out to $6.36 a day or approximately $1,653 a year. This is for a system that attracts less than three per cent of the Metroplex adult population. By comparison, the 110,000 users of the HOV lanes, nearly double the number of light rail riders, received a daily subsidy of 14 cents per passenger. With the completion of the system expansion in 2013, it is estimated that the average subsidy per light rail rider will increase significantly.
Could you point me to any hard data showing how much the property taxes in the taxing jurisdictions served by the Victoria line were increased as a result of its build out? Also, how much did the new rail line cost, and what per cent of the cost is recovered through the fare box as opposed to payments from government sources?
Tulyar:
Getting people to switch to mass transit is a chicken and egg senario.
People don't use mass transit because it doesn't run often enough or to enough places to serve their needs.
Governments don't build more lines, or run trains more often because not enough people use mass transit.
When Charlotte, NC first announced their intent to build a light rail line roughly parallel to South Boulevard and I-77, two roads that come to a complete stop during rush hour, everyone, including the hired consultants were skeptical. They wanted the money used to add more lanes to the existing roads.
One of the arguments was to point out that the route was already served by bus routes, local bus service running every 30 minutes on South Boulevard, and express busses on I-77 to city center that ran only during rush hour. Everyone could see how few people were on those busses when they went by. No one could understand why a train that can hold 236 people per unit, capable of running three of those units per train running every 15 minutes all day, and every 7 1/2 minutes during rush hour, was needed.
There was a great deal of resistance. It has been open only since November, running single units every 15 minutes all day and double units every 7 1/2 minutes during rush hour, and the public complaint now is that it is taking too long to implement the rest of the system which won't be totaly deployed until 2030. People along the proposed Silver Line, Purple Line and the 10 mile extension of the existing Blue Line, want it NOW.
If you build it, they will come...
http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/656506.html
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
blue streak 1 wrote:Tulyar, Samantha:You may have hit upon the financing of operating deficits of commuter RRs. If the additional property tax (due to higher valuation) that is collected around a RR station was all directed to support the operating deficits of that operation that might solve the operating deficit/ It would not solve the capital problem.
blue streak 1 wrote: Samantha:What is happening around the line in Austin? I know its early but-----.
What is happening around the line in Austin? I know its early but-----.
The Leander to Austin passenger rail link is on target to begin service by the end of this year or early next year. The build portion of the project appears to be on time, but it is over budget to the tune of approximately $30 million, depending on whose accounting you choose to believe.
The equipment has been delivered and is being tested. Also, the operating crews are being trained to drive the trains. Some of the operating training was being down at night, which upset some Austinites who live near the street crossings. Apparently they objected to the sound of the horns.
Apparently the equipment does not meet all of the Federal Railroad Administration's requirements for mixing passenger and freight operations. They claim the equipment fails to comply with 10 of their rules. Capital Metro, which is the operator of local transit services, has filed for exemptions, point out amongst other things that it does not intend to mix the passenger trains with freight trains, as per the comments below.
Most of the station platforms have been completed, and some of the fixtures, e.g. lights, handrails, seating fixtures, canopies, etc. have been set. However, it appears that the stations will not be completed until shortly before the start-up
I participate in a continuing education program for seniors at the University of Texas. A Capital Metro executive is scheduled to speak to us in October about Capital Metro's role in the greater Austin community. We have timed his presentation just before the start-up of the rail operation so that he can give us an update on "the train".
I take a bus from Leander, which is about 18 miles from where I live, to UT. I am looking forward to the opening of the rail link. It should cut my commute by a third. Unfortunately, the rail line will not stop in front of UT. I will have to transfer to a bus that will carry me from the closest station, which will be a mile or so from the campus, to my destination. Moreover, the train will not be able to run into the central business district. Again, Capital Metro is planning connecting buses to carry people to their final destination. This is not an ideal arrangement, but it is the only way that passenger rail could work in Austin. Capital Metro had to use existing right of way. It could not afford to tack down a new right of way.
The Leander to Austin rail link will run on The Austin Western Railroad (AWRR), which is owned by Capital Metro. It operates 155 miles of track from Llano, TX to Giddings, TX with a 6.4 mile branch extending from Fairland to Marble Falls, TX.
The line dates back to 1871 when the Houston and Texas Central Railroad built the Giddings to Austin line. The AWRR interchanges with the UP at McNeil and Elgin. Nearly 49,000 carloads move annually, shipping commodities such as aggregates, crushed limestone, calcium bicarbonate, lumber beer, chemicals, plastics and paper.
Once commuter rail commences freight service will operate primarily at night during non-commuter operations. One rumor has it that commuter rail will run in the mornings to Austin and from Austin in the evenings, with bus service during off-peak hours.
Proponents of transport subsidies, especially rail, claim highways and airways users benefit because of reduced congestion. This point is debatable.
In the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, according to a study released last week, approximately two per cent of the population uses public transit, which consists of buses, commuter rail, and light rail. This number is probably too low. It considers the total population. However, 28 per cent of the population is below 16, which could be considered the age when a teenager decides independently how to get from Point A to Point B. The percentage of adults who use public transport is probably between six and nine per cent, although approximately 15 per cent of the users do not have an option. In Dallas more than 40 per cent of the bus riders and 20 per cent of the light rail riders don't have a car. No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, the percentage of people in Texas, which the part of the country that I know best, who use public transport is pretty low. However, with the recent run-up in the cost of gasoline, the number of riders has increased during the first five months of this year.
Overall each user received an average subsidy of $3.22 per ride (2006 figures), whereas commuter rail riders received an average subsidy of $6.44 per ride in 2006. The largest subsidies go to the light and heavy rail users.
Dr. Bernard Weinstein, Professor of Economics, University of North Texas, claims that the light rail lines have attracted a considerable amount of trackside development, which in turn has raised property values and tax receipts along the rail lines. Clearly, the light rail lines in Dallas have spawned considerable development. What is not said, however, is whether the development would have occurred without the rail lines. The rail footprint in North Texas is very small, but development throughout the Metroplex has been very large. In the 32 years that I lived in the Metroplex, the population grew from 1.5 million to 6.3 million. Passenger rail did not fuel the growth or even make it possible. Highways did.
If the true cost of driving had not been masked, i.e. the full cost of gasoline was not passed through to the end user; the Metroplex might have seen a better balanced transport system, with less emphasis on highways and more emphasis on an integrated transport system.
kevin1978 wrote:This is the case in Britain where more and more rail companies are moving towards profitability. An amazing example is my local Scotrail. The company has routes which would make your Amtrak long distance look like the honey pot. However they have a good mix of routes which allows an overall balance.
This is the case in Britain where more and more rail companies are moving towards profitability. An amazing example is my local Scotrail. The company has routes which would make your Amtrak long distance look like the honey pot. However they have a good mix of routes which allows an overall balance.
Our worldwide naval forces are only a shadow of what they once were. Today they have a lot less capability than they once did, although they remain very large compared to those of other countries.
I believe they are simply left over from the cold war. I.e., we keep them up because we can't emotionally face the thought of not having them.
We certainly don't need naval forces to protect oil supplies. If "bad guys" of any type were to scuttle even one multi-billion-dollar tanker, I believe the middle eastern powers that be would take action to prevent it happening again. This is because they (the middle eastern countries) have no other source of revenue. They need to sell oil just as badly as we need to buy it, and they are not going to let anything interfere with that.
Mailman56701 wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: Samantha:I also did not mention Republican, Democrat, the current administration, Iraq, or Afganistan. I cited our long standing military interference in the middle east. I was not refering to the current fiasco. That is a whole different argument that is unrelated to railroading.Oil is the primary source of wealth in the middle east. They don't need to be intimidated into selling it. We are the only country on the planet that feels the need to have a military presence all over the world to demonstrate how tough we are. We have hundreds of military bases in 130 foreign countries. Incidentally, I was in the Navy during the Viet Nam Era (1966, 67,& 68). It is not about defense, it is about projecting power.The cost of that bully attitude has nothing to do with any form of transportation unless you want to count the fact that the Eisenhower Defense Highway system, usually called the Interstate Highway System, was built so that the military could move quickly to any place in the US on short notice. Therefore I do not believe that any form of transportation should be taxed to support any portion of the miltary.Typing this has given me another thought. Perhaps we could get the Feds to use the same military motivation to take a clean sheet of paper and build a rail system similar to the Interstate Highway system for the same reason. Surely you're not suggesting that the reason for the long standing US military prescence in the ME is to "intimidate" countries into selling oil ?
Phoebe Vet wrote: Samantha:I also did not mention Republican, Democrat, the current administration, Iraq, or Afganistan. I cited our long standing military interference in the middle east. I was not refering to the current fiasco. That is a whole different argument that is unrelated to railroading.Oil is the primary source of wealth in the middle east. They don't need to be intimidated into selling it. We are the only country on the planet that feels the need to have a military presence all over the world to demonstrate how tough we are. We have hundreds of military bases in 130 foreign countries. Incidentally, I was in the Navy during the Viet Nam Era (1966, 67,& 68). It is not about defense, it is about projecting power.The cost of that bully attitude has nothing to do with any form of transportation unless you want to count the fact that the Eisenhower Defense Highway system, usually called the Interstate Highway System, was built so that the military could move quickly to any place in the US on short notice. Therefore I do not believe that any form of transportation should be taxed to support any portion of the miltary.Typing this has given me another thought. Perhaps we could get the Feds to use the same military motivation to take a clean sheet of paper and build a rail system similar to the Interstate Highway system for the same reason.
I also did not mention Republican, Democrat, the current administration, Iraq, or Afganistan. I cited our long standing military interference in the middle east. I was not refering to the current fiasco. That is a whole different argument that is unrelated to railroading.
Oil is the primary source of wealth in the middle east. They don't need to be intimidated into selling it. We are the only country on the planet that feels the need to have a military presence all over the world to demonstrate how tough we are. We have hundreds of military bases in 130 foreign countries. Incidentally, I was in the Navy during the Viet Nam Era (1966, 67,& 68). It is not about defense, it is about projecting power.
The cost of that bully attitude has nothing to do with any form of transportation unless you want to count the fact that the Eisenhower Defense Highway system, usually called the Interstate Highway System, was built so that the military could move quickly to any place in the US on short notice. Therefore I do not believe that any form of transportation should be taxed to support any portion of the miltary.
Typing this has given me another thought. Perhaps we could get the Feds to use the same military motivation to take a clean sheet of paper and build a rail system similar to the Interstate Highway system for the same reason.
Surely you're not suggesting that the reason for the long standing US military prescence in the ME is to "intimidate" countries into selling oil ?
If you are interested in the role played by the western powers, e.g. UK, France, Germany, U.S., etc. in the development of the Middle East oil fields, The Prize by Daniel Yergin is an excellent book. It traces the role of the western oil companies since the early 20th century in developing the fields. Military might was not used to gain access to the fields; the developers were invited in by the Saudi's, as well as others, to explore for oil.
The Brits, French, Germans, Russians, and U.S., at different points, have used their influence, including military power, to protect their vested interest in the fields. They have not, however, used their power to run rough shod over the Middle East countries. In fact, when the Middle Eastern governments took control of the oil production facilities in their countries, in the face of western displeasure, the western military powers were relatively helpless to do anything about it.
The U.S. maintains a naval presence in the Middle East, at least in part, to keep the oil sea lanes open. The cost is not reflected in the price of gasoline. It should be. Because it is not, the true cost of driving is not reflected in the price of motor fuel. This is one factor that has helped lead to a lopsided transportation policy in the U.S. that favors cars and planes over trains. And this is how it relates to railroads.
The Interstate Highway System was built as a civilian highway project. To get it funded, the Eisenhower Administration pushed it through Congress on the premise that it could be used for defense in case of a national emergency. Most informed people, according to contemporary news accounts, knew that claiming it was for national defense was a ruse. The military did not fund it nor did it build it.
oltmannd wrote: Samantha wrote: cordon wrote: It's a very attractive concept. We may as well throw into the "automobile costs" the costs for that portion of your police department and court system devoted to traffic safety.We don't have to speculate about politics here, but I don't think that the politicians will sign up to any new principle unless they understand how it will affect them in every detail.I also feel that some people are concerned with costs and benefits that we don't ordinarily measure in monetary terms. For example, I frequently gladly pay more for a product "Made in the USA" than for an identical product made elsewhere because I see an American job at the other end of that product line. The price of gasoline should reflect the cost of policing our highways; it should also reflect the cost of responding to an accident and cleaning up the mess. Amtrak's costs include the cost of cleaning up a train wreck and repairing the equipment.Economics and politics go hand in hand. After all, if it had not been for politics, Amtrak would not have seen the light of day. That said, the probability of changing the current system is very slim. It would not happen unless the U.S. hits a major economic crisis, and the politicans determined that rationalizing the price of transportation would be crucial to solving it.Today's paper carried an announcement by GM that it is shutting down four SUV and pick-up truck plants because people have stopped buying GM's big vehicles. With $4 gasoline, many people realize that they cannot afford to drive them. If gasoline had been priced properly, as per my argument, they would have realized this decades ago, and they would probably have opted for more fuel efficient vehicles.As I mentioned, cost is only one compenent of selecting a transport mode. Other factors, such as convenience, safety, dependability, comfort, are equally important. But most economic models suggest that cost is a major driver. One only needs to look at the success of Wal-Mart to verify this fact. Its business model is the envy of the retail and marketing world. ...or look at what torture flying can be....the Walmart of transport!I read recently that it's not only the high price, but the persistence of it that gets changed behavior. With that in mind, and knowing that these wild price variations are what we can expect in the future, it might not be a bad idea to tax production a varying amount in order to keep prices more or less stable - a negative price support - in effect. That would do a couple of things:1. Give incentive for consumers to change their long term behavior.2. Reduce risk for development of alternate energy/fuels.The revenue could be used to fund basic research and expensive, long term development of alternate energy.Ross Perot's 50 cents per gallon deficit reduction tax he proposed about 20 years ago is seeming pretty tame, these days....
Samantha wrote: cordon wrote: It's a very attractive concept. We may as well throw into the "automobile costs" the costs for that portion of your police department and court system devoted to traffic safety.We don't have to speculate about politics here, but I don't think that the politicians will sign up to any new principle unless they understand how it will affect them in every detail.I also feel that some people are concerned with costs and benefits that we don't ordinarily measure in monetary terms. For example, I frequently gladly pay more for a product "Made in the USA" than for an identical product made elsewhere because I see an American job at the other end of that product line. The price of gasoline should reflect the cost of policing our highways; it should also reflect the cost of responding to an accident and cleaning up the mess. Amtrak's costs include the cost of cleaning up a train wreck and repairing the equipment.Economics and politics go hand in hand. After all, if it had not been for politics, Amtrak would not have seen the light of day. That said, the probability of changing the current system is very slim. It would not happen unless the U.S. hits a major economic crisis, and the politicans determined that rationalizing the price of transportation would be crucial to solving it.Today's paper carried an announcement by GM that it is shutting down four SUV and pick-up truck plants because people have stopped buying GM's big vehicles. With $4 gasoline, many people realize that they cannot afford to drive them. If gasoline had been priced properly, as per my argument, they would have realized this decades ago, and they would probably have opted for more fuel efficient vehicles.As I mentioned, cost is only one compenent of selecting a transport mode. Other factors, such as convenience, safety, dependability, comfort, are equally important. But most economic models suggest that cost is a major driver. One only needs to look at the success of Wal-Mart to verify this fact. Its business model is the envy of the retail and marketing world.
cordon wrote: It's a very attractive concept. We may as well throw into the "automobile costs" the costs for that portion of your police department and court system devoted to traffic safety.We don't have to speculate about politics here, but I don't think that the politicians will sign up to any new principle unless they understand how it will affect them in every detail.I also feel that some people are concerned with costs and benefits that we don't ordinarily measure in monetary terms. For example, I frequently gladly pay more for a product "Made in the USA" than for an identical product made elsewhere because I see an American job at the other end of that product line.
It's a very attractive concept. We may as well throw into the "automobile costs" the costs for that portion of your police department and court system devoted to traffic safety.
We don't have to speculate about politics here, but I don't think that the politicians will sign up to any new principle unless they understand how it will affect them in every detail.
I also feel that some people are concerned with costs and benefits that we don't ordinarily measure in monetary terms. For example, I frequently gladly pay more for a product "Made in the USA" than for an identical product made elsewhere because I see an American job at the other end of that product line.
The price of gasoline should reflect the cost of policing our highways; it should also reflect the cost of responding to an accident and cleaning up the mess. Amtrak's costs include the cost of cleaning up a train wreck and repairing the equipment.
Economics and politics go hand in hand. After all, if it had not been for politics, Amtrak would not have seen the light of day. That said, the probability of changing the current system is very slim. It would not happen unless the U.S. hits a major economic crisis, and the politicans determined that rationalizing the price of transportation would be crucial to solving it.
Today's paper carried an announcement by GM that it is shutting down four SUV and pick-up truck plants because people have stopped buying GM's big vehicles. With $4 gasoline, many people realize that they cannot afford to drive them. If gasoline had been priced properly, as per my argument, they would have realized this decades ago, and they would probably have opted for more fuel efficient vehicles.
As I mentioned, cost is only one compenent of selecting a transport mode. Other factors, such as convenience, safety, dependability, comfort, are equally important. But most economic models suggest that cost is a major driver. One only needs to look at the success of Wal-Mart to verify this fact. Its business model is the envy of the retail and marketing world.
...or look at what torture flying can be....the Walmart of transport!
I read recently that it's not only the high price, but the persistence of it that gets changed behavior. With that in mind, and knowing that these wild price variations are what we can expect in the future, it might not be a bad idea to tax production a varying amount in order to keep prices more or less stable - a negative price support - in effect. That would do a couple of things:
1. Give incentive for consumers to change their long term behavior.
2. Reduce risk for development of alternate energy/fuels.
The revenue could be used to fund basic research and expensive, long term development of alternate energy.
Ross Perot's 50 cents per gallon deficit reduction tax he proposed about 20 years ago is seeming pretty tame, these days....
Spot on! A couple of years ago I proposed to my elected representative pegging the cost of gasoline at $4 per gallon, using the federal gasoline tax to keep it there. The tax would be adjusted inversely with the movement in the underlying commodity. Needless to say, they did not agree with me.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Phoebe Vet wrote: Samantha:Your repeated proposition that gasoline should be taxed at a high enough level to pay for our ongoing military interference in the middle east makes it very hard to not turn this into a political conversation.I won't mention it again if you don't.
Your repeated proposition that gasoline should be taxed at a high enough level to pay for our ongoing military interference in the middle east makes it very hard to not turn this into a political conversation.
I won't mention it again if you don't.
My latest post did not say anything about gasoline wearing the cost of our military interference in the Middle East. You must be referring to a previous post.
What I have said, in essence, is that the price of fossil fuels should wear the cost of maintaining a naval presence in the Middle East to keep the oil sea lanes open. I did not mention Afghanistan or Iraq, which I would dub military interference.
The U.S. has maintained a naval presence in the Middle East for more than three decades. Doing so has been supported by Republican and Democratic administrations. The military analysts that I have read say that it is there to protect, in part, the sea lanes through which Middle East oil flows to Europe and the United States. There is nothing political about this observation.
cordon wrote: I'm having trouble figuring out how it would be any easier to do. Consider airline tickets in the 1950s, when only the rich could afford them. Adding in all the hidden costs for the growing commercial airline business would only have made airline tickets less affordable. Same for air freight, which already was pretty much limited to perishables (e.g., lobsters) and special government shipments (things like aircraft parts and missile parts). Do you think that train and bus tickets, as well as automobile costs, would also have been much more expensive if all the costs were included? Getting back to the present, how would society decide whether or not I need a subsidy to ride the train or to fly in an airplane? I wonder if the process to do that might be just as complex and hard to understand as the current process of subsidizing modes of transportation is.
I'm having trouble figuring out how it would be any easier to do. Consider airline tickets in the 1950s, when only the rich could afford them. Adding in all the hidden costs for the growing commercial airline business would only have made airline tickets less affordable. Same for air freight, which already was pretty much limited to perishables (e.g., lobsters) and special government shipments (things like aircraft parts and missile parts).
Do you think that train and bus tickets, as well as automobile costs, would also have been much more expensive if all the costs were included?
Getting back to the present, how would society decide whether or not I need a subsidy to ride the train or to fly in an airplane? I wonder if the process to do that might be just as complex and hard to understand as the current process of subsidizing modes of transportation is.
If the true cost of each mode of transport was passed directly to the user, i.e. in the price at the pump or ticket prices, they would have better knowledge of the cost of each. Of course, there are other variables that make up the transport value package, e.g. time, comfort, safety, etc. that would still be part of the decision matrix. They are subjective.
The true cost of each transport mode would be reflected in its pricing mechanisms. This includes train and bus tickets. And it would have been included in the 50s if we had not started down the slipper slope of subsidies.
Determining the amount of direct subsidy, i.e. intergovernmental transfers to Amtrak, Aviation Trust Fund, Highway Trust Fund, etc. would be easy. Without difficulty they can be included in the gasoline tax, which is a user fee, as well as the ticket (haulage) prices for all commercial modes of transport. The sticky wicket is the indirect costs.
If fossil fuels wear their true cost, as reflected in the taxes or user fees, the cost should include a component for cleaning up the environment because of the damage done by burning fossil fuels. How much damage does each mode of transport do? That's the 64 dollar question, and it would be difficult, although not impossible, to determine.
If each mode of transport reflected its true cost in the user fees or ticket prices, several significant changes would probably occur. There would be a rush out of SUVs and large pick-ups for more fuel efficient vehicles, a decrease in short haul flights, an increase in passenger trains in relatively short high density corridors, more use of public transit, etc. These are only a few examples of the changes that would likely occur.
The 1950s is not a good comparative base for airline fares or who could afford them. During that era the most common commercial airliners were propeller driven; relatively slow airplanes that carried a smaller passenger load than today's airplanes. The economics of flying, as well as government regulation, dictated the relatively high fares.
The jet airplane has changed the game. It is a far more productive machine than the 1950s flying machines. This fact together with a paradigm shift in pricing, i.e. yield management, is what makes it possible for the average person to fly today. And it would remain the case if the subsidies were removed, because the per seat mile subsidies for the airlines are less than a penny a mile, excluding the so called subsidy from the tax free financing of airports, which is arguable. Of course, if aviation fuel was priced to reflect its true cost, i.e. the cost of the naval presence in the Middle East to protect the oil sea lanes, etc., the price would increase more than it has recently. And this increase would have to be factored into the fares, which could have a significant impact on who flies and from where.
Here is an example of the difference in productivity between the DC-6B, which was in common use during the 1950s, and the Boeing 767, which is typically used for cross country flights.
The 6 could carry up to 102 passengers in economy class at 315 miles per hour at a cruising altitude up to 25,000 feet. It required a cockpit crew of three. A typical flight from New York to Los Angles would require about 10.5 hours. This means that the airplane could fly to LA in the morning and turn around for a red eye back to New York in the evening.
The 767 can zip along at 530 mph with up to 375 passengers at a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. The 767 requires a flight deck crew of two. A typical flight from New York to Los Angles requires approximately6.0 hours. This means that the bird can fly from LA as an early morning flight, turn around as an afternoon flight to New York, and return to LA as a late night flight.
Modern airplanes have another advantage over 1950s airplanes. They require less maintenance, and they are more reliable, which reduces the cost of flying.
In 2006 the median household income in the United States was $48,201 a year. This means that half the households in the U.S. had annual incomes of less than $48,201. The amounts differed significantly between regions, e.g. Northeast, Midwest, etc., and urban, rural, etc. Depending on family size, actual income, etc., many of those with incomes below the median household income can take the earned income tax credit on their federal income tax return. So the mechanism to subsidize transportation costs for low income people is built into the tax system, at least for people who have income. Expanding it would not be a great challenge. This is one way to do it.
Another way to do it would be to use the current system of granting discounts to select classes of people. For example, most transit systems grant discounts to students, seniors, mobility impaired, etc. Similar discounts could be extended to low income people. However, doing so would require a means test, which many Americans consider demeaning, so it could be a hard sell.
Government would not determine whether people could fly or take the train. It would simply provide an income support for people below a threshold income level, and they would decided whether they could afford it.
Here is another important point to keep in mind. If the cost of country roads and city streets, which is embedded in county and local property taxes, was included in the price of gasoline or other end user fees, property taxes, which affect everyone, would go down.
Direct pricing as opposed to burying some of the cost in subsidies would not be a panacea. There would be plenty of issues that would need to be sorted out. But at the end of the day it would be a better system than we have now. And it would be better for rail passenger enthusiasts, because it could put rail in a more competitive position in select markets.
So, I'm hearing that all customers will be better able to decide the relative advantages of each mode of transportation when the user fees include all the costs, and that we should subsidize a certain class or classes of users, if needed, with tax credits, instead of subsidizing a certain mode of transportation (passenger rail).
It sounds reasonable, but I'm having trouble figuring out how it would be any easier to do. Consider airline tickets in the 1950s, when only the rich could afford them. Adding in all the hidden costs for the growing commercial airline business would only have made airline tickets less affordable. Same for air freight, which already was pretty much limited to perishables (e.g., lobsters) and special government shipments (things like aircraft parts and missile parts).
Paul:
I'm sorry if you thought my reply to blue streak, which you quoted, was directed at you.
It was not.
Phoebe Vet wrote: blue streak 1 wrote:I am really worried about the trend of some posts that only give the the well off ability to travel and use transport. The eldery who can no longer drive, Handicapped poeple including a lot of Iraq veterns. The veterns are taking enough bad treatment and neglect. This is not my problem but I never know if it could or any of you posters. Pure capitalism, which some of the posters seem to advocate, is survival of he fittest and is controlled by natural selection. The example cited in this thread would be the demand that each form of travel should be totally paid for by the individual people who actually use it.Concern for the life quality of others get's immediately labeled "Socialism".MOST, but not all, of us realize that a humane and workable society actually exists somewhere in the middle. Concern for the quality of life of others can be termed "social justice" and the primary method of achieving it is debatable. Is it the will of the people working thru gov't or is it the will of the people working directly ala Habitat for Humanity, World Vision, United Way, Red Cross, etc or is it a hybrid - gov't as the catalyst for direct action?The how, why and who of social justice in the realm of transport is an interesting question...
blue streak 1 wrote:I am really worried about the trend of some posts that only give the the well off ability to travel and use transport. The eldery who can no longer drive, Handicapped poeple including a lot of Iraq veterns. The veterns are taking enough bad treatment and neglect. This is not my problem but I never know if it could or any of you posters.
Pure capitalism, which some of the posters seem to advocate, is survival of he fittest and is controlled by natural selection. The example cited in this thread would be the demand that each form of travel should be totally paid for by the individual people who actually use it.
Concern for the life quality of others get's immediately labeled "Socialism".
MOST, but not all, of us realize that a humane and workable society actually exists somewhere in the middle.
Concern for the quality of life of others can be termed "social justice" and the primary method of achieving it is debatable. Is it the will of the people working thru gov't or is it the will of the people working directly ala Habitat for Humanity, World Vision, United Way, Red Cross, etc or is it a hybrid - gov't as the catalyst for direct action?
The how, why and who of social justice in the realm of transport is an interesting question...
I have never advocated a pure capitalistic approach, and I have never advocated doing away with Amtrak subsidies. Perhaps Samantha is the one person advocating a somewhat more capitalistic, Libertarian, or laissez-faire approach, but Samantha can address and defend that viewpoint as required.
But I somehow on these pages have gotten lumped in at times with the heartless, the delusional, or the Concrete Lobby in discussing pros and cons to various approaches to trains. There is a Party Line within the advocacy community, and if I even try to address where an Amtrak critic may be basing their opinion, I get lumped in with the Lumpen Faction (lumpen is a German-language word for rag -- Karl Marx wrote of a lumpen proletariat, I guess we would call that class the working poor, and I have been accused of not having the right attitude towards the working poor and I have been threatened that fortune and luck could make me part of that class because my support for train and transit subsidies is not unconditional).
At one level, there are people who think cars are really cool and they ooh and aahh and drool over the new kinds of cars and fantasize driving some "hot" car, other think that airplanes are exciting (really, there are indeed people who enjoy flying), and there are a lot of people here who think trains are cool, some of whom have given up on passenger trains as most people have given up on the steam locomotive, others who are still pushing the passenger train idea, and an even smaller minority who hasn't quite given up on the steam locomotive. There are even some people who think that over-the-road trucks are cool, and there may even be a minority who think buses are cool, although I don't know anyone who has scale models of buses filling up their basement.
At another level, once the novelty has worn off, an airplane is just another kind of bus, and even the same could be said for a train for many people who have to ride one every day, crammed in 150+ fellow commuters to a gallery bilevel. But the driver for a lot of passenger train advocacy is that trains are intrinsicaly cool, and a lot of arguments are advanced between trains are cool and trains are a worthy object of public subsidy.
NARP long talks of "balanced transportation system." OK, we have highways with their private cars and public buses, we have airways with airline service and GA, why can't we have trains to round out the transportation choices?
So what do we know about trains? Well, everyone knows that the steel wheel on the steel rail has much lower rolling resistance than a rubber tire, and combined with the wind blocking effect of each train car on the next, a train whether electric or Diesel should be energy saving and a great thing with $4+ gas. Trains have wider seats than planes of buses with much more leg room, and trains have special sections or special cars that allow you to get up, stretch your legs, and walk over to where you get a meal or a snack. Some trains even have special sections with large windows to see the majestic scenery of the Mountain West and many other parts of the country. Trains run up to 80 MPH are even faster in some places while 65 or less is a common highway speed limit, and trains are not subject to road congestion. Train cars cost less to build and operate because they don't need to be built ultra-lightweight to narrow design margins like an airplane, and if a locomotive quits, it is merely an annoying inconvenience, not a life-endangering emergency. Passenger service doesn't recover enough in fares to make a profit, either here or in Europe or elsewhere, but every other mode gets some form of direct or perhaps indirect subsidy, so it all works out anyway.
Guess what. Amtrak trains are only marginally more fuel efficient than cars and planes. Part of that has to do with trains needing to be heavy to give a smooth ride since the steel wheel on steel rail doesn't have the give of the rubber tire on concrete, part of it has to do with trains needing to be heavy to withstand collisions, especially when operated around even heavier freight trains, and part of it is that combination of cheap fuel and Amtrak subsidies means no one has taken a hard look at train fuel consumption as a major operating cost, or at least until now. Another part of it is that trains offer the amenities of leg room and "walking around to stretch your legs" not found on intercity buses, which are by far the fuel economy champs on account of the high seating density that is a byproduct of their labor cost structure.
Amtrak trains could be made more fuel efficient by cramming in more seats, but then an Amtrak train would not offer any advantage with regard to the elderly or disabled with respect to buses. As to the subsidy, it is masking the effect that Amtrak is a high cost way of providing seat miles relative to the airline and bus competitors. Strictly on the basis of cost, for hauls over a couple hundred miles, airplanes are by far the low cost way of moving people, even at today's increased fuel prices, and this fact was known and discussed in Trains in issues from the early 1960s. As to congestion, the highways are jammed up, but passenger trains suffer from the congestion of competing for track space with the booming freight business.
But there must be other economies to train travel. One train driver can operate a train with hundreds of seats while a bus driver is limited to 40 or so seats. But when you work out everyone else associated with operating and staffing Amtrak, on train and off train, Amtrak labor costs are multiples of any bus company,
But these things can't be right, even though all this ground was gone over in the old issues of Trains magazine and other places. Trains are cool. The American people must be shown that they like them, that America needs trains. We must direct our train advocacy groups to become anti-road construction groups -- gas is so expensive and the public must be made to understand the need for trains.
There has got to be some kind of catch. The critics of trains must all have connections to right-wing think tanks or the Concrete Lobby. Critics of trains are heartless people who don't care for disabled war veterans.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Phoebe Vet wrote: blue streak 1 wrote:I am really worried about the trend of some posts that only give the the well off ability to travel and use transport. The eldery who can no longer drive, Handicapped poeple including a lot of Iraq veterns. The veterns are taking enough bad treatment and neglect. This is not my problem but I never know if it could or any of you posters. Pure capitalism, which some of the posters seem to advocate, is survival of he fittest and is controlled by natural selection. The example cited in this thread would be the demand that each form of travel should be totally paid for by the individual people who actually use it.Concern for the life quality of others get's immediately labeled "Socialism".MOST, but not all, of us realize that a humane and workable society actually exists somewhere in the middle.
My original post contained the following sentence: "The earned income tax credit would be expanded to help the working poor, as well as the mobility impaired, offset the burden of higher transit costs."
If society decides that low income people, seniors, mobility impaired, etc. should be able to travel anywhere via whatever mode of transport is appropriate, there are a variety of mechanisms that can be implemented to make it possible. The earned income tax credit is one way to do it. Another way is to discount the price for select groups, i.e. seniors, students, mobility impaired, etc. Most common carriers, e.g. airlines, bus companies, Amtrak, transit systems, etc. give discounts to seniors, students, as well as the mobility impaired.
The advantage of discounts is that they are not hidden in the cost structure, thereby keeping the true cost and price of a service in view. Subsidies mask these vairiable and promote inefficiencies.
Pure capitalism refers to a lassie fare economic system that most people gave up on generations ago. Socialism is an economic and political system where the government owns the principal means of production. It has nothing to do with transport pricing.
What is to say that accomodation for the elderly and the disabled is restricted to trains. What is to say that a given amount of subsidy dollar spent on lower seating densities to accomodate the wheel-chair bound or simply less able might go farther on airplanes or perhaps buses. What is unique about trains that makes a low seating density affordable in the rail mode?
A good measure of the advantage ascribed by the advocacy community to trains over even buses is the low seating density. It seems you get what you pay for. Trains, by historical tradition have much more leg room, a little more elbow room, considerable room to "stretch your legs and walk to the lounge car for a snack." Trains with these amenities, however, cost multiples of what bus travel does, and even with traffic congestion, the schedule keeping is only better in rare instances (NEC, maybe the Hiawatha).
People keep coming back to how much nicer trains are than buses, but maybe thats because trains are subsidized at a dollar for every dollar in fare, and the fare is still higher than the bus. Maybe if we subsidized buses the same way we might even get more seats with more legroom for the same subsidy dollar?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.