Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact is, roads constitute one of the biggest tax burdens we face.Non-users fork over $779 per household for roads — as opposed to $50 for transit. But most drivers still believe that transit eats a huge chunk of transportation funding while roads are self-supporting. SSTI wanted to dispel that notion, said study author Bill Holloway. http://ssti.us/wp/wp-content/uploads...s%20report.pdf
This is why I laugh when people say that spending on rail is a waste of money. You know what is 15 times as much of a waste of money?Highways/roads. Also, people put way more money into cars for purchasing/insurance/repairs/gas alone than they would ever pay in 100 lifetimes for using any type of public transit.
Yet the obvious agenda of those in power who claim to be interested in "lowering the debt" and helping the average citizen, is to place no limit on highway spending at the expense of other modes of travel that are proven to be much more efficient and less costly in the long-term.
I don't "support" subsidies for anybody; in theory all business should operate in a laissez-faire environment, but we all recognize that that's not completely practical. The current congestion at the edge of major cities is an example that rail service can address at (probably) a lower cost per passenger than the other alternatives. But ultimately the choice rests with the individual traveler/customer, as it should.
that's not true, though, as has been pointed out. the individual traveler makes decision based on the options available to him/her...the options that are available are influenced by a number of factors, the main one being government policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
Re-instituing a lightly-used and more-expensive rail option to serve a handful of railroad buffs (of which, I admit to being, BTW) finicky grandparents and expensive (and state sanction-monopolized) union labor is not a reasonably priced option, so the use of the state's access to the power to coerce is sought.
and where's where you get silly. a handful of railroad buffs? do you have any proof of that or is that in your libertarian for dummies manual? if the union labor (which also maintains the roads you drive on) is overpriced due to state sanctions, why not address that issue rather than arbitrarily pick on rail? there is little evidence of your assertions, ride the keystone some time...not that "finicky" elderly are a small consideration in the fourth oldest state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
Then you still have the option of waiting until the next day, or booking in advance, or flying on a competitor based at a nearby airport like Allentown.
really, have you checked those options out and know they are cheaper or are you assuming? seems to me like I just told you, booking in advance will not change the price....but that's all really besides the point isn't it, since people choose from the options available to them, and decisions made within only reflect preferences within today's parameters. you're issue is that you blindly assume that all rail appeals only to elderly and railroad buffs and that is has to cost more per passenger (or passenger mile) than another mode.
I guess I don't need to address the rest of the drivel you posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212
Wow I never knew how Elitist the Eastern Side of the state has become towards the Western....Its like they're totally oblivious to the anything important west of Harrisburg
shuster is FROM altoona (or at least represents it)...not the eastern side of the state.
The department also has increased the Essential Air Service subsidy to an annualized $1.64 million, from $1.37 million...The subsidy for each departing flight from Lancaster is $465, according to the transportation department...The EAS program spends $200 million a year to subsidize commercial flights to 153 communities that otherwise would not have air service because those routes are unprofitable...nine-passenger Cessna 402 twin-engine planes
The airline's average number of passengers per flight on the route has jumped from 1.5 in March to 2.6 in August, according to The Herald-Mail of Hagerstown. Cape Air flies four daily round-trips between Cape Air and BWI on 9-seat Cessna aircraft.
AP adds "Cape Air vice president of planning Andrew Bonney says the airline gets $1.2 million a year from the Essential Air Service program for serving Hagerstown.
in contrast, PennDOt paid $9.2 million to Amtrak to move 1.33 million passengers for a subsidy of around $7 per passenger...maybe haegerstown should be looking to extend keystone service to their town instead of $158 per passenger subsidies.fwiw, I found the trip to bwi is 35 min and copsts ~180 RT while lancaster to philadelphia costs $26-30 RT. I couldn't find ridership info for lancaster airport but last I looked it was north of $100 per passenger. the last estimates I saw for Pittsburgh service, not imroved, was a subsidy of $5-7 million, 225k passengers...which is $22-35 per passenger...but per passenger mile it might be much lower, and obviously capital improvements would lower that subsidy since either more people would ride or people would pay more to ride, all things being equal
Wow I never knew how Elitist the Eastern Side of the state has become towards the Western....Its like they're totally oblivious to the anything important west of Harrisburg
Huh?
This next part is not addressed at you, just so we're clear:
Oh, and I travel by rail. I hate flying. Plenty of people would rather not fly but have to because there is no high speed rail. The idea that the ridership is not there is flat out ridiculous.
The reason for LaHood's, and other Administration flunkies supporting this proposal is really quite simple -- it involves government hijacking of private-sector responsibilities, and overpriced union labor.
If the public wanted this frill, and were willing to pay the full price, it would appear on its own. But rail passenger service, under any conditions, can't recover the full cost of its provision, due mostly to the fact that it involves huge amounts of fixed capital, which then becomes hostage to all manner of political looters.
.
I think that's an oversimplification.
Are there some issues with high-speed intercity rail in terms financial feasibility? Sure -- and that is mostly to do with the lack of population density in American cities compared to cities in Europe and Asia that lead to much greater economies of scale for infrastructure investment. It's the same reason why it is feasible for highly robust subway systems in places like New York, Paris, London and Tokyo but probably not in Oklahoma City.
Still, I don't think the primary motivation for wanting to invest in high-speed rail is for some politically-motivated purpose of creating a slew of patronage jobs for union workers. Would the same thing have been the case under Eisenhower and building our interstates? Absolutely not. We need infrastructure in this country terribly, and we have to stop acting like any public investment is a "waste" or politically-motivated. I could not think of anything more short-sighted.
I also can't stand when people critique high-speed rail projects for subsidization when many conveniently neglect to consider how much subsidization goes into our many highways and bridges. Do you honestly think that's a break-even venture? Absolutely not. Why is rail constantly held to a different standard?
The fact of the matter is that America's current highway system is highly deficient and strongly lack capacity due to decades of underinvestment. Not to mention our urban areas are getting more and more congested by the day. We absolutely are in dire need of multiple modes of inter-city travel, aside from cars, buses and air. Maybe high-speed rail may not be the model of choice for most cases, but more rail enhancements and coverage is just common sense.
I think that's one way our country's size hurts us really, as well as the fact that our native population is incredibly small. Countries in Europe on the other hand are most smaller than our states and the ones that aren't are highly populated by people of that country's "original" ethnicities. That's why their cities are so populated, along with the fact that some of their cities are also very large in area. London, for example, is 600 square miles.
I think both the Northeast Corridor and Midwest need-high speed rail. The reason for the former is obvious but the reason for the latter would be to help continue to revive the former industrial cities like Detroit or Cleveland by better connecting them with the other Midwestern cities in that area. The biggest problem with rail travel, in my opinion, is how ridiculously fragmented the lines are, which makes you have to transfer one or multiple times. You should be able to go directly from station to station for every line, with no having to transfer to a different train.
I think that's one way our country's size hurts us really, as well as the fact that our native population is incredibly small. Countries in Europe on the other hand are most smaller than our states and the ones that aren't are highly populated by people of that country's "original" ethnicities. That's why their cities are so populated, along with the fact that some of their cities are also very large in area. London, for example, is 600 square miles.
I think both the Northeast Corridor and Midwest need-high speed rail. The reason for the former is obvious but the reason for the latter would be to help continue to revive the former industrial cities like Detroit or Cleveland by better connecting them with the other Midwestern cities in that area. The biggest problem with rail travel, in my opinion, is how ridiculously fragmented the lines are, which makes you have to transfer one or multiple times. You should be able to go directly from station to station for every line, with no having to transfer to a different train.
actually, ny-philly-pittsburgh isn't so different than paris-Marseilles. sure, when you get out west rail doesn't make a lot of sense for those population densities but PA doesn't have the second most rural residents because it's the biggest state, it's because our rural areas are heavily populated (in a relative sense). anyway, I don't buy the distance and density thing with respect to Philly-Pittsburgh...and the nec is almost too dense(or sprawling), much cheaper and easier to build a new high speed line through a rural area than a densely populated one.
Eastern PA is expected to double its population by 2050 , 80% of that population will be located in the Lehigh Valley , Southeastern PA and Harrisburg - Reading Metros...the Need for Rail connecting Harrisburg , Philly , Reading , Allentown and Newark / NYC. More Connectivity means more jobs and makes the region or town look more attractive for developers and companies alike look at NJ , with more and more Rail lines being restored and expanded companies are relocating half or all there company to a Transit city like New Brunswick or Paterson or Jersey City... Allentown would be the first city to capitalize on the NY pull , lines to Philly gives people more areas to live and less traffic on the narrow PA roads. The Reading , West Chester and Newtown are badly needed , and the cost benefit is decent , PA has a high fare box recovery compared to NJT and LIRR even with Lower ridership and now that Septa is taking some advice from NJT about TOD you might see some profitable lines one day.
actually, ny-philly-pittsburgh isn't so different than paris-Marseilles. sure, when you get out west rail doesn't make a lot of sense for those population densities but PA doesn't have the second most rural residents because it's the biggest state, it's because our rural areas are heavily populated (in a relative sense). anyway, I don't buy the distance and density thing with respect to Philly-Pittsburgh...and the nec is almost too dense(or sprawling), much cheaper and easier to build a new high speed line through a rural area than a densely populated one.
You're not getting what I'm saying.
I'm saying that their metros are larger than ours because they are boosted by the "original ethnicity" population of those countries, whereas ours is mostly made up of immigrants as they almost completely wiped out the indigenous people of this country. Also, as I pointed out, because their cities are larger in area for the most part.
You're going by one state, without seeming to notice that migration from state to state happened a lot more often in history than migration from European country to European country. Not to mention the fact that the cities of a country are much more emphasized than the cities of one state in a large country full of them.
I disagree about the NEC but I agree that we need to build high-speed lines longer-distance, like from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh for example. The Northeast Corridor would just be the most profitable high-speed rail early on so it's necessary to start there. Otherwise high-speed rail will probably be abandoned.
I'm saying that their metros are larger than ours because they are boosted by the "original ethnicity" population of those countries, whereas ours is mostly made up of immigrants as they almost completely wiped out the indigenous people of this country. Also, as I pointed out, because their cities are larger in area for the most part.
You're going by one state, without seeming to notice that migration from state to state happened a lot more often in history than migration from European country to European country. Not to mention the fact that the cities of a country are much more emphasized than the cities of one state in a large country full of them.
I disagree about the NEC but I agree that we need to build high-speed lines longer-distance, like from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh for example. The Northeast Corridor would just be the most profitable high-speed rail early on so it's necessary to start there. Otherwise high-speed rail will probably be abandoned.
I'm still not understanding the relevance of your point to a discussion about rail. you're talking about ethnicities all sorts of other stuff that isn't particularly useful. we're talking about Pennsylvania here, not other states. you can disagree about the nec but it's a fact..american sprawl means there is much less rural areas and urban areas are very expensive in which to build, thus the cost of new right of way in the nec is astronomical. that doesn't mean it isn't worth it, but it does make it much more expensive. however, I don't think you're getting my point
Quote:
Approx Distance between Marseille and Paris is 410 miles
The city of Lyon has 480,660 inhabitants.[1] Together with its suburbs and satellite towns, Lyon forms the largest agglomeration (metropolitan area) in France with the population of its urban area estimated to be 1,422,331 (Paris having no agglomeration) and the second urban area with 1,757,180
Pittsburgh is a branch of the nec, or would be. it makes sense to improve the rail connections outside the nec, otherwise the idea will just be abandoned. and let's face it, we're not even talking high speed rail, just improved rail. so just to get your point straight, because we wiped out the american indians, you oppose improving rail access to pittsburgh?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
