Yes we can drift a bit. It seems as if we have come to a place where we have to make some big decisions. The most logical and quickest solution is mass transit. In places where they have it they can get the people out of their cars within months rather than years or decades. When places like London put restrictions on how many cars get in the city by charging people to drive their car there, at least they have to option of using the underground. But trying to get people to drive less or buy new cars isn't going to solve anything for a very long time. We need a solution for the average person that will get them from point A to point B when they need to get from those two points. It isn't the size or fuel efficiency of our vehicles as much as the number of them. Cities all over the world are working on making parts of their area car free, are at least restricted, so people can move around, shop and work without getting mowed down by cars because or ever shrinking sidewalks. Something has got to give and attacking what people drive for leisure when the problem is daily driving is just plain myopic.
That of course has little to do with taxing fuel because it will not be used to expand mass transit. So it has little to do with creating a solution.
Lots of us think it's perfectly appropriate to subside mass transit and paths with fuel taxes.
From your mouth to the governments ears. No to their cold heart. Could they not have done so years ago? If they can find trillions of dollars to save wall street at the drop of a hat couldn't they have funded a mass transit program? Will they now see the light? Makes your head hurt just thinking about it. :sick:
'the single straw' was an addition to all other factors. i just filled up my car 16 gallons = $32, at the peak i paid 8-9 months ago, that fillup would have cost about $70. multiply that $38 dollars by several fillups, and for many, times several vehicles, that is a large increase in expense to absorb in a short time. i support a higher fuel tax if it is phased in gradually.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Lots of us think it's perfectly appropriate to subside mass transit and paths with fuel taxes.
Thank God that idea and the Socialists are still in the minority. Mass transit whether land or water born should be self supporting by only those who use it.
Do you want your ski lift ticket to include the tax for plowing the road to the resort?
I don’t believe in an additional fuel tax because I don’t believe it will accomplish anything. The problem isn’t how much we drive the problem is how many of us there are. That problem isn’t going to change just because they raise fuel taxes. More and more people in more and more countries are getting into the car age so fuel should at some point get more expensive without the help of taxes. If anyone even believed the reason was to get people into more fuel-efficient cars, and that the Easter bunny is real?
So if the problem is we are using too much oil because we drive too many cars then the only way to reduce how much we drive is to get more people into one vehicle. Light rail, bus, vans or vanpools or something has to be offered so people will stop driving everyday. The infrastructure for such an alternative has to be put in place even if we would like private industry to run such a system and only the government seems to be able to fund such a project. It isn’t like there have been no precedents with rail and highways.
Here is the question, is there a problem or isn’t there?
Do you want your ski lift ticket to include the tax for plowing the road to the resort?
The resort pays to plow the public road, but the state/feds spent millions a decade ago to upgrade it and repave it. That tax expenditure helped the resort stayed healthy enough to hire a bunch of people every winter and improve the quality of life around here.
Transit throws off a lot of tangible benefits beyond simply moving people from point A to point B.
Thank God that idea and the Socialists are still in the minority. Mass transit whether land or water born should be self supporting by only those who use it.
52% is what I heard, so not quite a minority :P
Maybe all the mass transit users should go park on the freeway to make your commute easier....
If 52%, that's an improvement for the numbers of MT to pay their own way, in MI, but out in the NW, Seattle & particularly Portland are cutting services due to a lack of riders.
Same in San Diego. We only have 4 buses per day out in my part of East County. Those rarely have more than 3-4 riders. Mass transit equals mass pollution unless the bus is full. I have not seen a full bus or Trolley in San Diego EVER.
Amen. If the traffic is too heavy where you live - live somewhere else! Government's job is not to control people's behavior. We live in a free society. People need to stop allowing government to tax anything they want or make laws governing driving habits, etc. People need to actually read the consitution and see what limited power government is supposed to have. If you're a socialist - move to Europe. Doesn't anyone remember the cold war vs soviet socialist ideology?? :surprise:
Americans have VERY short memories. As shown by the knee jerk reaction to buying vehicles. Gas price goes up and Hybrid sales go up. Gas price goes down and the SUVs are gobbled up. Believing the government should control what people buy through taxation is scary to me. What makes these people think the government won't turn on them and start forcing people to eat what they mandate. All you folks have to eat corn flakes as we are going to tax Wheaties out of existence. We are seeing just that mentality with the attempt to bolster ethanol that is a failing mandate. If ethanol fails with the huge subsidy it now gets what makes these legislators think they can force it on the American public. Vote ALL incumbents out of office in 2010.
You mean running up massive amounts of debt to fight an enemy we blindly gave massive aid just a few years before? Look at Russia now, doesn't seem so defeated...might even have a better future than what's left of Europe.
If people are going to make those changes and cut the tax robbery, they will need to do so in ways other than elections and petitions.
You mean running up massive amounts of debt to fight an enemy we blindly gave massive aid just a few years before?
I believe you're referring to Allied aid to the Soviet Union during WWII? You do know enough about the war to understand that if the Soviet Union fell during 1941 or 1942, that the millions of German troops that would then be freed up would have made a Normandy invasion impossible? So at least 1/2 the world would still be fascist. I also think you're not old enough to remember most of the Cold War. Reagan running up a little extra debt was well worth ridding the world of the Soviet Union. It's one of the few good things I see our tax $'s have done.
My opinion is: 100% of gas tax $'s are dedicated to roads. If there is a shortage, then raise the tax to make up the difference. No gas tax $ to mass transit, healthcare, or to encourage people to buy Smartcars.
The Soviet Union is dead? Tell that to Stalputin and his cronies. Dead in name only. By aiding that ideal, the "allies" also aided the deaths of countless millions after the war, including another hundred thousand or so American men.
Don't tell me you believe Europe was liberated...it simply fell from one enslavement to another. Liberation is a lie.
Imagine if all gas taxes went to roadways...we'd have better than the sometimes second world quality infrastructure seen today. The monies wasted when car registration fees are diverted are enough. The roads aren't going to get better in the next 20 years.
Where ideology and practicality have to meet. Like many here I don't believe the government should raise our taxes just to raise taxes. But they do have the responsibility to provide for the public defense. So there are times they do take extream measures to do that. But the government is the only one that can provide for interstate transportation. The state Governments are the only ones that can provide for intrastate transportation even if we agree it was simply to build roads and bridges.
I also agree without an alternative private cars are the best way to get from point A to point B. Public transportation doesn't cut it in most places. But there are places where I have been that it does work. London was a perfect place for someone that wanted to make the choice of driving in town or taking public transportation. Some Eastern Cities in the US do a reasonable job but still we as consumers don't have a big choice. If you want to get somewhere in California you need a car or truck. The public transportation we have is run on a schedual the meets the needs of the the employees not the commuters.
I don't care how it is operated but a system needs to be put in place where commuters can get from point A to Point B as effectively as they can in their own cars. Without that we are doomed into living with ever increasing numbers of cars on our already over crowded highways.
I don't believe the government should be in the business of determining what we drive but they are in a position to build the infrastructure for public transportation just like they are for public defense. If once the infrastructure is in place they want to allow private operation of those services that would be fine as well.
Most people believe in public education as being important for our future. Public transportation could be seen in the same light. Could we have privately run public education? Sure we could. Could we have privately run public transportation? I think we could. But until something is done provide light rail or even something like the old red car line LA once had we are a nation developing clogs in our highways with platelets that look a lot like cars.
There are other solutions I agree. Why raise taxes to change driving habits? You could simply change the way our roads are used. During working hours put in lane controls for each lane of a 4 lane highway. One lane is for cars with one person. One lane is for cars with two people. One lane is for cars with three people and one for cars with four. The government already has control of the roadways they wouldn't even need to raise taxes and they could easily reduce the number of cars on the road. And at first there would be an big increase in revenue from people violating the lane restriction laws. Not that I think it will happen.
>if nothing else it takes more vehicles off the road so I have more road to myself.
My point exactly, but much better said
It is in the the interest of motorists to support other forms of transport because they will eventually benefit from it.
The road ahead is long. any bullet train project needs 10 years at least to complete. The St Gothard Tunnel in Switzerland (57 km= 35 miles) all digged in alpine rocks is a 30- year project....
> 8-9 months ago, that fillup would have cost about $70
Filling up my departed BMW 740 would have cost $200 in Europe last summer. Even when gas was cheaper, I remember seriously considering before taking the car. At the end of the year I would not put more than 8K miles a year and only take it for long journeys (about 20 mpg at 90+ mph..) $ 30 would fill up my motorcycle.
The idea of cheap or expensive is pretty relative isn't it?
Weather is getting warmer, I plan to cycle the 5 miles to my part-time job. I need 25 minutes by bicycle and about 12 minutes by car, so the extra time is bearable. I estimate I could save about 1.5 Euro (1.8 USD) everyday doing this over here.
>i support a higher fuel tax if it is phased in gradually
While I respect your view, I support a steep increase instead of a gradual one. The idea is to create some kind of shock where people seriously think over it and consider other solutions.
if the Government really wanted to get money stealthily, they could have slowly risen tax since last summer to fill for the barrel price decrease. The USG would still be at around 4 and people would not complain more than they did before
>Mass transit whether land or water born should be self supporting by only those who use it.
Weren't US highways mostly built thanks to State or Federal money ? If we agree that mass transit infrastructures should be funded the same way, then I agree with you: all form of transport should be self supporting.
One exception though regarding car ferries : They contribute to extend a stretch of road where a bridge would not be (financially) possible. The cost of ferries should be considered in light of the substitution cost of the corresponding infrastructure.
>Thank God that idea and the Socialists are still in the minority
Thanks to those ideas being minority, you have at least 250 million Americans 100% dependant from one single unsustainable form of transport. When a middle east oil dictator coughs, America get the flu.
I will like cars until the day i have no choice but to drive one.
The idea is to create some kind of shock where people seriously think over it and consider other solutions.
Similarly would you suggest feeding your child bad meat, to get him to eat his vegetables? At least eating vegetables would be good. I don't see much advantage in wrecking the economy, and the result is driving is reduced 5-10% her in the U.S.; and at the same time driving is increasing in other parts of the world.
>Here is the question, is there a problem or isn’t there?
The problem is that no serious other than road infrastructure has been built in the US for decades. A few isolated light rail stretches and a few extensions of existing mass transits in some large cities. maybe 0.1% of the total needs.
As such projects demand at least 5 years, in average 10 years, no government will risk its popularity in investing money with only the first beneficial effects coming during a second mandate.
Take the California HST. Millions spent in studies and talk but no move since 1998. It should have been opened last year. It may not be ready next decade. GM alone is going to cost the taxpayer the same amount of money (everybody says it won't, I hope they are right)
Millions spent in studies and talk but no move since 1998. It should have been opened last year. It may not be ready next decade.
By the time they get around all the lawsuits by environmentalists the track will look like a snake the length of California. There are so many so called sensitive areas between LA and SF it will probably cost billions to settle all the lawsuits and conduct the studies. We cannot get a high power line from the solar generation plant to the consumers because of environmental roadblocks. I seriously doubt the HST will pull from the station in 20 more years.
>Similarly would you suggest feeding your child bad meat...
Sorry, I did not expressed myself correctly. I meant increasing price of gas at the pump, not lowering the quality of the gas, which I adamantly object. If junk food became more expensive, maybe people would consider turning to healthy food. It's not happening anytime soon. >I don't see much advantage in wrecking the economy
I don't either. I rather see unchecked speculation as the cause for the current crisis. In a difference from investment, speculation money can disappear into thin air (or into other people's pockets) very swiftly. Serious investments will remain even when there is a crisis. All the difference between building an betting imho.
>driving is reduced 5-10% her in the U.S. but does it mean transports are down 5-10% ? maybe the same people managed to travel in a way that required that much less driving. Less fuel burnt, fewer road casualties, fewer traffic jams, is that really a bad thing ?
A pair of tracks use about a 1/3rd of the real estate of an equivalent capacity highway on the same lenght. in the 1950s a strong political will (and less developed personal rights) made highways possible, and until today we still benefit from that. HST need the same kind of support from the government to go forward. People are yelling today, but everybody will consider it was a good thing even 50 years later.
In some European countries, there is a process defined by Law that gives a frame to infrastructure projects in order to cut legal issues at the root.
If you want to get somewhere in California you need a car or truck. The public transportation we have is run on a schedual the meets the needs of the the employees not the commuters.
Wow, how totally myopic.
San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara are both totally survivable (even enjoyable) sans car. In San Luis Obispo, the buses were free to Cal Poly and Cuesta students, and saved the ridiculous prices for a hunting permit for a parking space on the outskirts of campus, while dropping off students right in front of college. They also had bike racks on the front so I could bring my bike with me to class or to work.
In Santa Barbara, student fees at UCSB or SBCC covered the MTD buses (which were good enough for Dustin Hoffman in "The Graduate"). Roads were set up with bike lanes and traffic signals that see bicycles. If we kept the people from LA out of the area, it was actually safe to ride.
In San Jose and San Fransisco, a car is pretty optional as well. Public Transportation and bikes have far less trouble in SF area traffic than cars. San Jose has trains and buses that go from residential areas to the areas where the malls or businesses are located.
Even in Ann Arbor, between the University of Michigan blue buses and the AATA are very effective at moving 30-40,000 people around Ann Arbor every day. They also have bike racks (less fun when its 29 and snowing, but okay the rest of the time).
Strange. Our freeways are still bumper to bumper in LA every day. Interstate 5 is busy even on the weekend heading towards San Diego. My sister worked for OCTA and lived in Riverside but she couldn't get to work using a bus or a train. with all of these good mass transit systems you would think people could ditch the car and ride to work. when traveling through the state it seems as if when I go through Sacramento about between 3 and 5 PM traffic is still pretty bad. Maybe this great system is just kept secret? The 405, 5, 91, 10, 710, 110 and 605 are jammed packed with cars even with the metro link so why aren't people riding these busses and trains if they are available to all of us? And at the time we need them to be running? Do we have commuter trains running every 30 minutes from 4 am to 7pm ? Do we even have busses running between LA and Orange County during those same hours. Yes if you get to Fullerton you can leave at 5:30 and need to go to down town LA But they don't run much during off hours like 10am to 2pm.
Just for numbers and not knowing the reason OCTA this year is expecting to cut one bus from every stop every hour. The number of cars on the road contradict the convienince of public transportation. And didn't someone post they were reducing bus runs in San Diego?
Look I am all for public transportation. I am also all for reducing the number of cars on our highways during commuting hours. But to suggest that California isn't the Kingdom of the car culture just isn't going to pass.
Those are SoCal people talking - don't worry, they don't speak for any area north of the San Fernando Valley. ;-)
Having said that, it is obvious that SoCal is a big transportation nightmare stemming from a complete lack of diversity in infrastructure planning and funding. Gotta get folks out of those cars....I mean, how many lanes do you hope to cram into I-5 between Orange County and San Diego? They are almost out of room, and that's just ONE area with a major problem.
As for the HST, it will in most places use the existing right of way for the railroad and they will run side by side, so I don't see environmental roadblocks being the problem. Funding? Yes, that could be a problem, it's only 25% funded so far, which won't be 25% any more after the inevitable delays. Where will the other $30 billion come from, and when?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Mass transit works well in the older central city model. The problem is that most places are now spread all over the place and a lot of commuters aren't going from the suburbs to downtown, but rather from one suburb to another, and to spread out places within their work location suburb destination. How do you mass transit that model?
>A pair of tracks use about a 1/3rd of the real estate
And that pair of tracks can only have passenger trains and only a distance apart. And they can only go one direction on the track without stopping or sidings.
Perhaps in high density population areas like India might that be feasible. But the US has large expanses of open areas where this is silly talk.
Once again the same tired committee folk are planning to waste money on a rail line from Cincinnati to Columbus to Cleveland. Duh. Most people traveling for business are going to be going to widely varying parts--not near a railroad track which serves only one small stripe, and even then without frequent stops is inconveniently far from the destination. And how many times does a person travel from Columbus to Cincinnati? In the days of video conferencing and computer webmeetings, it just doesn't make sense to waste huge amounts of stimulus money on projects that won't make jobs into the future. And they can get in their car and in a short couple of hours be where they wish to be rather than waiting for changes to local mass transportion buses.
Making a job for a few years building a white elephant isn't what the economy needs or making a project to throw money at like studying mouse behaviors for $30 million won't make jobs into the future.
We've had this rail thing 3 times in Ohio and now up for #4. Waste. Waste. Waste.
Another problem with rail is that Amtrak gets politically pushed into making too many stops in podunk towns. There might be a market for high speed rail between business centers like the 3 you mention in Ohio, but to compete with air they need to be fast with only a few stops. Maybe a better rail model would be fast trains between medium size cities that are losing commuter air service and bigger city airports like Dayton to Cincy or Toledo to Cleveland or Detroit in your state.
PS - it always seemed to me that your state gets screwed by the airlines because Delta has such a fortress hub in Cincinnati and Continental essentially controls Cleveland. In fact, when I was at O'Hare I noticed that both large airlines in Chicago, American and United were only running commuter flights into your big city airports. That will further jack up your fares.
amtrak could make sense in the northeast, but have you ever taken it? for 1 person it could work. start multiplying by additional tickets and it doesn't make sense for a family. the ambience is kind of locker room.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
amtrak could make sense in the northeast, but have you ever taken it? for 1 person it could work. start multiplying by additional tickets and it doesn't make sense for a family. the ambience is kind of locker room.
I used to take the "Pacific Surfliner" and "Coastal Starlight" from SLO to San Diego all the time, or my gf would take the train the other way. It was great, I sat there and did my homework for the weekend, met people that helped with my homework (this incredible physicist from Poland who was working as a building supervisor in teh US got me through calculus, physics, statics and dynamics, while his wife bought us food), and other kids going down to SD for a weekend of partying. Student tickets were like $30 or something, which was easily worth 5 hrs of my time.
I also still take the "Wolverine" from Ann Arbor to Chicago. Its on time rate is about 80-85%, but tickets are super cheap. When its on time, its about the same time as driving, so I can spend that 4 hrs working or what not. There is also something romantic about a train. You can get up and walk around, you can see all the places along the way, you don't have to drive. its nice. And you wake up in down town Chicago.
But imagine a public transportation system based on a 80 to 85 percent on time schedual? How many people could do business like that? And like I said they will be cutting bus service in the OC this year. Somehow they come up with the number of 55000 hours because they are getting a budget cut. Don't ask me how the get the numbers because they are talking about cutting the runs down by 10 or 15 minutes. Example, where they had 4 busses during peak hours every 15 minutes they will only have three. Where they have three they will cut down to two. For people that have to get to work and get there on time that makes a big difference.
And I have you know we think all the way up to Santa Barbara. But we will consider thinking up to Santa Maria and Lompoc if you take Fresno and Bakersfield.
Taking the train up the coast from San Diego is fun and can be pleasurable. It can also be super frustrating when it gets screwed up and you are stuck in Simi Valley or some other stop along the way. Not for people with a tight schedule. That train line is controlled by Murphy.
I have picked people up in SD at the train station. It is not a pleasant area after dark. Thanks but no thanks I will drive even if our whacked out Congress tries to control US with higher gas tax. I have had a pleasant time using the trolley to get to a seminar for a week in downtown SD. It was less money than the parking. It was at least twice the time getting there and back. And I did meet interesting people that ride every day.
But imagine a public transportation system based on a 80 to 85 percent on time schedual? How many people could do business like that? And like I said they will be cutting bus service in the OC this year. Somehow they come up with the number of 55000 hours because they are getting a budget cut. ... For people that have to get to work and get there on time that makes a big difference.
Yeah it sounds like the system in OC stinks.
Google will now give directions to places based on public transportation. So it will say take the 12 from Goleta to the MTD station and transfer to the 6 or something like that.
I actually really like the Metro in DC...we used to fly into National on a Friday, jump on the metro and meet up with our friends in DC, totally car-less (which is a good thing in DC) and have a great time, and fly home after the weekend.
And I have you know we think all the way up to Santa Barbara. But we will consider thinking up to Santa Maria and Lompoc if you take Fresno and Bakersfield.
Santa Barbara definitely doesn't want to be associated with the likes of LA. We are the southern end of the Central Coast. :P I would say that runs up past SLO/Atascadero to PR or so. The inland stuff you can keep.
Yes, but I was pleased to see this week that in a new RL Polk survey, Californians overwhelmingly opposed the notion of splitting the state in two, either north and south or east and west. :-)
But imagine a public transportation system based on a 80 to 85 percent on time schedual?
I don't need to imagine a personal car system based on an 80 to 85 percent on-time schedule, I drive in the LA basin regularly through the year, and if I am headed past LAX, ANYWHERE south of Orange County towards San Diego, or from the valley to downtown LA most rush hours, I KNOW I will arrive on time a LOT less than 80 to 85 percent of the time. So which is better?
Yes, yes, I know you folks want to claim Santa Barbara. OK, you can have it, but no further! ;-) And I don't want Fresno or Bakersfield, two sprawling metropolises in the vein of Los Angeles, where unmet public transit needs in the future will be enormous. Sacramento's light-rail system works much better than it has been represented here though, if only as a commuter-type system requiring a short drive to the train station before transit takes you the rest of the way.
Money spent on transit does help clear the roads and reduce the need to spend yet more money expanding the highways again and again.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Santa Barbara definitely doesn't want to be associated with the likes of LA.
Like it or not Santa Barbara is a suburb of LA, mostly for the wealthy to get out of the stinking city. Though last time I was through Santa Barbara it reminded me of Santa Monica with the hordes of homeless wandering in the park along Cabrillo Blvd.
You can have the 101 corridor from Petaluma to the OC northern border. We will throw in Sacramento with the whole batch of losers in the Legislature. That includes Benadick Arnold. And take your gas tax with it.
It's stuff like this that makes many say "First we want the money you collect now to be used well. If we give you more money to fix the roads and bridges that need it, then there will be no incentive to cut the waste."
obviously we can't mass transit everything, but we should start with the most urgent areas, the most populated ones for a HST backbone. More remote areas could be irrigated through light rail. California must find its own model and the 100% car+plane is not the winning one.
>that pair of tracks can only have passenger trains and only a distance apart
I did not express myself correctly. I meant a pair of railway lanes. They are considered as offering same traffic capacity than a 2X3-lane highway, which is obviously wider. Freight trains could go too, but this would not be a high speed line.
>And they can only go one direction on the track without stopping or sidings.
One lane per way. no right of way or siding issue
>But the US has large expanses of open areas where this is silly talk.
California has a slightly higher population density than Spain (Southern Europe), yet Spain has already a plan to reach 4300 miles of High speed lines for 2011 (9 times the Califonia HST) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Spain
Spanish people are implementing silly ideas don't they ?
The CA HST is a pipe dream. A big waste of tax payers money. They did get it past by the people last November. Just no one dumb enough to loan the money. CA is close to bankrupt. The HST is supposedly going to cost $40B for just the LA to SF leg. If they want it tax those two cities to pay for it. It will not do the rest of us any good. The opponents say it will cost at least $90B to complete. I can see HST having limited usage. I think the proponents have exaggerated the potential ridership by several multiples to sell the idea. Not everyone in the path is excited about HST.
Other residents showed the same anxiety that Palo Alto residents have expressed about the potential negative effects of the project, including visual blight from constructing overhead wires and the potential for high walls or barbed-wire fencing. One man said he was skeptical that the Peninsula's power grid could support a high-speed train.
One woman asked whether the authority would construct extra parking if a high-speed stop was built in Redwood City. Cobb said that's not part of the authority's plans, but officials believe entrepreneurs would build new parking near high-speed stops, much the way parking operators set up shop near airports.
Others questioned the proposed route of the train up the Peninsula; one man asked why it couldn't go through the East Bay.
> Spain has already a plan to reach 4300 miles of High speed lines for 2011
Good for Spain. They can keep it.
Maybe they'd like to pay for building same here. I sure don't plan to do so.
It's absolutely ridiculous to think of trains as a mode for travel in most parts of US for replacing daily travel by automobile. Absolutely unreasonable. That's a parallel to other countries holding the past Presidential candidate in such high esteem and lauding him. They aren't the ones having to elect and suffer the socialism ideas of him and his handlers who are the real brains behind things in DC.
The big difference is trains are bound to tracks. OTOH cars have wheels that turn and go where the people need to go.
The big difference is trains are bound to tracks. OTOH cars have wheels that turn and go where the people need to go.
I am not sure why people do not understand that concept. Europe has almost 2.5 times the population of the USA with about the same area. Making mass transit somewhat more practical. My problem is stealing money out of the pockets of the gas users to subsidize the mass transit users. This latest scam in CA with HST is a prime example. They get the gullible constituents to vote for a high speed train from LA to SF. Without telling them just what it will cost. There is no free lunch or HST. Why would anyone in Lake Tahoe want to subsidize a train from LA to SF or LA to Las Vegas? We need people to spread out more not jam together in the sewers they call cities.
The gas tax should only be used to repair our crappy roads. Our CA legislators need to take a trip to TX and see how it is done. My trip to visit the great state of TX was an eye opener. They had great roads even out in the middle of nowhere. As soon as you cross into NM the roads where rough and poorly maintained. TX must be using their gas tax as it was intended.
Even here the Metro (RTA) has a countywide sales tax to support them and then they get all these grants. They are gloating over the grants for them included in the Obama Stimulus earmark/pork-filled bill.
We currently have buses bouncing all around the area more than a county in area and rarely to do they have more than 3-4 people on them when you come upon them. At morning and evening rush hour quit a few are filled. There are factors that mean that many people will not ride the buses because of safety.
They also have little vans that run around supplying taxi service for elderly disabled people to doctor visits or shopping or whatver from what I can tell.
The RTA suffered a CEO who retired one day several years back and reemployed herself the next at full retirement from the public employees system and full pay from RTA. The board wasn't even aware until after it happened. She was "earning" over $150,000 exclusive of perks as I recall. She also did little other than slide her cronies into plum jobs.
Somehow that used up the millions of dollars of their rainy day funds. But they still supplied millions to help build an A-team baseball park in downtown Dayton from RTA funds--our money. The state also gave tens of millions to the ballpark. Oh, team is independently owned by business people--not by the city or county (Dayton DRagons).
So much for the federal funding and regional transit. The same folks want to build a trolley/railroad system from downtown convention center (owned by city and tax grants public provided) and the Air Force Museum and another location south of downtown. Few people come to Dayton to see the convention center or the Wright Bros. buildings in W. Dayton (permit to carry needed for safety). Many come to the Air Force Museum.
I can't think of one area where a rail transit would help reduce traffic by carrying passengers efficiently and to where they want to go at a cost taxpayers should be saddled with.
The only buses I ever see full are the Old Town Trolley sightseeing Buses for tourists. Best way to see the sights in San Diego for about $30. I don't think they get any government money. Too bad all mass transit is not privatized. Why I have to pay for someone else to ride the trolley to work is beyond me. Of course that is just one of many injustices in our tax and spend society.
Here in NY our governor wants to spend $2 billion to install high speed rail from NYC to Buffalo. Why any one from NYC would want to go to Buffalo is any one's guess. The people in Buffalo don't even want to go there. The city has seen thousands of residents flee every year for decades. The entire upstate area all the way back to Albany looks like something out of the "Grapes of Wrath".
All while the state has a $16 billion deficit. I guess thinking about riding the train to granma's house takes our leaders minds off their other problems.
I'm sure we will soon be ordered to put all our money out on the porch in a paper bag for them to pick up.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Comments
That of course has little to do with taxing fuel because it will not be used to expand mass transit. So it has little to do with creating a solution.
If nothing else it takes more vehicles off the road so I have more road to myself. :P
From your mouth to the governments ears. No to their cold heart. Could they not have done so years ago? If they can find trillions of dollars to save wall street at the drop of a hat couldn't they have funded a mass transit program? Will they now see the light? Makes your head hurt just thinking about it. :sick:
i just filled up my car 16 gallons = $32, at the peak i paid 8-9 months ago, that fillup would have cost about $70. multiply that $38 dollars by several fillups, and for many, times several vehicles, that is a large increase in expense to absorb in a short time.
i support a higher fuel tax if it is phased in gradually.
Thank God that idea and the Socialists are still in the minority. Mass transit whether land or water born should be self supporting by only those who use it.
Do you want your ski lift ticket to include the tax for plowing the road to the resort?
(and probably to support the upcoming pension collapse for state workers)
So if the problem is we are using too much oil because we drive too many cars then the only way to reduce how much we drive is to get more people into one vehicle. Light rail, bus, vans or vanpools or something has to be offered so people will stop driving everyday. The infrastructure for such an alternative has to be put in place even if we would like private industry to run such a system and only the government seems to be able to fund such a project. It isn’t like there have been no precedents with rail and highways.
Here is the question, is there a problem or isn’t there?
The resort pays to plow the public road, but the state/feds spent millions a decade ago to upgrade it and repave it. That tax expenditure helped the resort stayed healthy enough to hire a bunch of people every winter and improve the quality of life around here.
Transit throws off a lot of tangible benefits beyond simply moving people from point A to point B.
52% is what I heard, so not quite a minority :P
Maybe all the mass transit users should go park on the freeway to make your commute easier....
You mean running up massive amounts of debt to fight an enemy we blindly gave massive aid just a few years before? Look at Russia now, doesn't seem so defeated...might even have a better future than what's left of Europe.
If people are going to make those changes and cut the tax robbery, they will need to do so in ways other than elections and petitions.
I believe you're referring to Allied aid to the Soviet Union during WWII? You do know enough about the war to understand that if the Soviet Union fell during 1941 or 1942, that the millions of German troops that would then be freed up would have made a Normandy invasion impossible? So at least 1/2 the world would still be fascist.
I also think you're not old enough to remember most of the Cold War. Reagan running up a little extra debt was well worth ridding the world of the Soviet Union. It's one of the few good things I see our tax $'s have done.
My opinion is: 100% of gas tax $'s are dedicated to roads. If there is a shortage, then raise the tax to make up the difference. No gas tax $ to mass transit, healthcare, or to encourage people to buy Smartcars.
Don't tell me you believe Europe was liberated...it simply fell from one enslavement to another. Liberation is a lie.
Imagine if all gas taxes went to roadways...we'd have better than the sometimes second world quality infrastructure seen today. The monies wasted when car registration fees are diverted are enough. The roads aren't going to get better in the next 20 years.
I also agree without an alternative private cars are the best way to get from point A to point B. Public transportation doesn't cut it in most places. But there are places where I have been that it does work. London was a perfect place for someone that wanted to make the choice of driving in town or taking public transportation. Some Eastern Cities in the US do a reasonable job but still we as consumers don't have a big choice. If you want to get somewhere in California you need a car or truck. The public transportation we have is run on a schedual the meets the needs of the the employees not the commuters.
I don't care how it is operated but a system needs to be put in place where commuters can get from point A to Point B as effectively as they can in their own cars. Without that we are doomed into living with ever increasing numbers of cars on our already over crowded highways.
I don't believe the government should be in the business of determining what we drive but they are in a position to build the infrastructure for public transportation just like they are for public defense. If once the infrastructure is in place they want to allow private operation of those services that would be fine as well.
Most people believe in public education as being important for our future. Public transportation could be seen in the same light. Could we have privately run public education? Sure we could. Could we have privately run public transportation? I think we could. But until something is done provide light rail or even something like the old red car line LA once had we are a nation developing clogs in our highways with platelets that look a lot like cars.
There are other solutions I agree. Why raise taxes to change driving habits? You could simply change the way our roads are used. During working hours put in lane controls for each lane of a 4 lane highway. One lane is for cars with one person. One lane is for cars with two people. One lane is for cars with three people and one for cars with four. The government already has control of the roadways they wouldn't even need to raise taxes and they could easily reduce the number of cars on the road. And at first there would be an big increase in revenue from people violating the lane restriction laws.
My point exactly, but much better said
It is in the the interest of motorists to support other forms of transport because they will eventually benefit from it.
The road ahead is long. any bullet train project needs 10 years at least to complete.
The St Gothard Tunnel in Switzerland (57 km= 35 miles) all digged in alpine rocks is a 30- year project....
Filling up my departed BMW 740 would have cost $200 in Europe last summer. Even when gas was cheaper, I remember seriously considering before taking the car. At the end of the year I would not put more than 8K miles a year and only take it for long journeys (about 20 mpg at 90+ mph..)
$ 30 would fill up my motorcycle.
The idea of cheap or expensive is pretty relative isn't it?
Weather is getting warmer, I plan to cycle the 5 miles to my part-time job. I need 25 minutes by bicycle and about 12 minutes by car, so the extra time is bearable. I estimate I could save about 1.5 Euro (1.8 USD) everyday doing this over here.
>i support a higher fuel tax if it is phased in gradually
While I respect your view, I support a steep increase instead of a gradual one. The idea is to create some kind of shock where people seriously think over it and consider other solutions.
if the Government really wanted to get money stealthily, they could have slowly risen tax since last summer to fill for the barrel price decrease. The USG would still be at around 4 and people would not complain more than they did before
Weren't US highways mostly built thanks to State or Federal money ? If we agree that mass transit infrastructures should be funded the same way, then I agree with you: all form of transport should be self supporting.
One exception though regarding car ferries : They contribute to extend a stretch of road where a bridge would not be (financially) possible. The cost of ferries should be considered in light of the substitution cost of the corresponding infrastructure.
>Thank God that idea and the Socialists are still in the minority
Thanks to those ideas being minority, you have at least 250 million Americans 100% dependant from one single unsustainable form of transport. When a middle east oil dictator coughs, America get the flu.
I will like cars until the day i have no choice but to drive one.
Similarly would you suggest feeding your child bad meat, to get him to eat his vegetables?
The problem is that no serious other than road infrastructure has been built in the US for decades. A few isolated light rail stretches and a few extensions of existing mass transits in some large cities. maybe 0.1% of the total needs.
As such projects demand at least 5 years, in average 10 years, no government will risk its popularity in investing money with only the first beneficial effects coming during a second mandate.
Take the California HST. Millions spent in studies and talk but no move since 1998. It should have been opened last year. It may not be ready next decade.
GM alone is going to cost the taxpayer the same amount of money (everybody says it won't, I hope they are right)
By the time they get around all the lawsuits by environmentalists the track will look like a snake the length of California. There are so many so called sensitive areas between LA and SF it will probably cost billions to settle all the lawsuits and conduct the studies. We cannot get a high power line from the solar generation plant to the consumers because of environmental roadblocks. I seriously doubt the HST will pull from the station in 20 more years.
Sorry, I did not expressed myself correctly. I meant increasing price of gas at the pump, not lowering the quality of the gas, which I adamantly object.
If junk food became more expensive, maybe people would consider turning to healthy food. It's not happening anytime soon.
>I don't see much advantage in wrecking the economy
I don't either. I rather see unchecked speculation as the cause for the current crisis. In a difference from investment, speculation money can disappear into thin air (or into other people's pockets) very swiftly. Serious investments will remain even when there is a crisis. All the difference between building an betting imho.
>driving is reduced 5-10% her in the U.S.
but does it mean transports are down 5-10% ? maybe the same people managed to travel in a way that required that much less driving.
Less fuel burnt, fewer road casualties, fewer traffic jams, is that really a bad thing ?
in the 1950s a strong political will (and less developed personal rights) made highways possible, and until today we still benefit from that.
HST need the same kind of support from the government to go forward. People are yelling today, but everybody will consider it was a good thing even 50 years later.
In some European countries, there is a process defined by Law that gives a frame to infrastructure projects in order to cut legal issues at the root.
Starting from scratch will be painful indeed
Wow, how totally myopic.
San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara are both totally survivable (even enjoyable) sans car. In San Luis Obispo, the buses were free to Cal Poly and Cuesta students, and saved the ridiculous prices for a hunting permit for a parking space on the outskirts of campus, while dropping off students right in front of college. They also had bike racks on the front so I could bring my bike with me to class or to work.
In Santa Barbara, student fees at UCSB or SBCC covered the MTD buses (which were good enough for Dustin Hoffman in "The Graduate"). Roads were set up with bike lanes and traffic signals that see bicycles. If we kept the people from LA out of the area, it was actually safe to ride.
In San Jose and San Fransisco, a car is pretty optional as well. Public Transportation and bikes have far less trouble in SF area traffic than cars. San Jose has trains and buses that go from residential areas to the areas where the malls or businesses are located.
Even in Ann Arbor, between the University of Michigan blue buses and the AATA are very effective at moving 30-40,000 people around Ann Arbor every day. They also have bike racks (less fun when its 29 and snowing, but okay the rest of the time).
Just for numbers and not knowing the reason OCTA this year is expecting to cut one bus from every stop every hour. The number of cars on the road contradict the convienince of public transportation. And didn't someone post they were reducing bus runs in San Diego?
Look I am all for public transportation. I am also all for reducing the number of cars on our highways during commuting hours. But to suggest that California isn't the Kingdom of the car culture just isn't going to pass.
Those are SoCal people talking - don't worry, they don't speak for any area north of the San Fernando Valley. ;-)
Having said that, it is obvious that SoCal is a big transportation nightmare stemming from a complete lack of diversity in infrastructure planning and funding. Gotta get folks out of those cars....I mean, how many lanes do you hope to cram into I-5 between Orange County and San Diego? They are almost out of room, and that's just ONE area with a major problem.
As for the HST, it will in most places use the existing right of way for the railroad and they will run side by side, so I don't see environmental roadblocks being the problem. Funding? Yes, that could be a problem, it's only 25% funded so far, which won't be 25% any more after the inevitable delays. Where will the other $30 billion come from, and when?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And that pair of tracks can only have passenger trains and only a distance apart. And they can only go one direction on the track without stopping or sidings.
Perhaps in high density population areas like India might that be feasible. But the US has large expanses of open areas where this is silly talk.
Once again the same tired committee folk are planning to waste money on a rail line from Cincinnati to Columbus to Cleveland. Duh. Most people traveling for business are going to be going to widely varying parts--not near a railroad track which serves only one small stripe, and even then without frequent stops is inconveniently far from the destination. And how many times does a person travel from Columbus to Cincinnati? In the days of video conferencing and computer webmeetings, it just doesn't make sense to waste huge amounts of stimulus money on projects that won't make jobs into the future. And they can get in their car and in a short couple of hours be where they wish to be rather than waiting for changes to local mass transportion buses.
Making a job for a few years building a white elephant isn't what the economy needs or making a project to throw money at like studying mouse behaviors for $30 million won't make jobs into the future.
We've had this rail thing 3 times in Ohio and now up for #4. Waste. Waste. Waste.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
PS - it always seemed to me that your state gets screwed by the airlines because Delta has such a fortress hub in Cincinnati and Continental essentially controls Cleveland. In fact, when I was at O'Hare I noticed that both large airlines in Chicago, American and United were only running commuter flights into your big city airports. That will further jack up your fares.
for 1 person it could work. start multiplying by additional tickets and it doesn't make sense for a family.
the ambience is kind of locker room.
for 1 person it could work. start multiplying by additional tickets and it doesn't make sense for a family.
the ambience is kind of locker room.
I used to take the "Pacific Surfliner" and "Coastal Starlight" from SLO to San Diego all the time, or my gf would take the train the other way. It was great, I sat there and did my homework for the weekend, met people that helped with my homework (this incredible physicist from Poland who was working as a building supervisor in teh US got me through calculus, physics, statics and dynamics, while his wife bought us food), and other kids going down to SD for a weekend of partying. Student tickets were like $30 or something, which was easily worth 5 hrs of my time.
I also still take the "Wolverine" from Ann Arbor to Chicago. Its on time rate is about 80-85%, but tickets are super cheap. When its on time, its about the same time as driving, so I can spend that 4 hrs working or what not. There is also something romantic about a train. You can get up and walk around, you can see all the places along the way, you don't have to drive. its nice. And you wake up in down town Chicago.
But imagine a public transportation system based on a 80 to 85 percent on time schedual? How many people could do business like that? And like I said they will be cutting bus service in the OC this year. Somehow they come up with the number of 55000 hours because they are getting a budget cut. Don't ask me how the get the numbers because they are talking about cutting the runs down by 10 or 15 minutes. Example, where they had 4 busses during peak hours every 15 minutes they will only have three. Where they have three they will cut down to two. For people that have to get to work and get there on time that makes a big difference.
And I have you know we think all the way up to Santa Barbara. But we will consider thinking up to Santa Maria and Lompoc if you take Fresno and Bakersfield.
I have picked people up in SD at the train station. It is not a pleasant area after dark. Thanks but no thanks I will drive even if our whacked out Congress tries to control US with higher gas tax. I have had a pleasant time using the trolley to get to a seminar for a week in downtown SD. It was less money than the parking. It was at least twice the time getting there and back. And I did meet interesting people that ride every day.
For people that have to get to work and get there on time that makes a big difference.
Yeah it sounds like the system in OC stinks.
Google will now give directions to places based on public transportation. So it will say take the 12 from Goleta to the MTD station and transfer to the 6 or something like that.
I actually really like the Metro in DC...we used to fly into National on a Friday, jump on the metro and meet up with our friends in DC, totally car-less (which is a good thing in DC) and have a great time, and fly home after the weekend.
And I have you know we think all the way up to Santa Barbara. But we will consider thinking up to Santa Maria and Lompoc if you take Fresno and Bakersfield.
Santa Barbara definitely doesn't want to be associated with the likes of LA. We are the southern end of the Central Coast. :P I would say that runs up past SLO/Atascadero to PR or so. The inland stuff you can keep.
Yes, but I was pleased to see this week that in a new RL Polk survey, Californians overwhelmingly opposed the notion of splitting the state in two, either north and south or east and west. :-)
But imagine a public transportation system based on a 80 to 85 percent on time schedual?
I don't need to imagine a personal car system based on an 80 to 85 percent on-time schedule, I drive in the LA basin regularly through the year, and if I am headed past LAX, ANYWHERE south of Orange County towards San Diego, or from the valley to downtown LA most rush hours, I KNOW I will arrive on time a LOT less than 80 to 85 percent of the time. So which is better?
Yes, yes, I know you folks want to claim Santa Barbara. OK, you can have it, but no further! ;-)
And I don't want Fresno or Bakersfield, two sprawling metropolises in the vein of Los Angeles, where unmet public transit needs in the future will be enormous. Sacramento's light-rail system works much better than it has been represented here though, if only as a commuter-type system requiring a short drive to the train station before transit takes you the rest of the way.
Money spent on transit does help clear the roads and reduce the need to spend yet more money expanding the highways again and again.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Like it or not Santa Barbara is a suburb of LA, mostly for the wealthy to get out of the stinking city. Though last time I was through Santa Barbara it reminded me of Santa Monica with the hordes of homeless wandering in the park along Cabrillo Blvd.
You can have the 101 corridor from Petaluma to the OC northern border. We will throw in Sacramento with the whole batch of losers in the Legislature. That includes Benadick Arnold. And take your gas tax with it.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/12/corridor.h/index.html
It's stuff like this that makes many say "First we want the money you collect now to be used well. If we give you more money to fix the roads and bridges that need it, then there will be no incentive to cut the waste."
obviously we can't mass transit everything, but we should start with the most urgent areas, the most populated ones for a HST backbone. More remote areas could be irrigated through light rail. California must find its own model and the 100% car+plane is not the winning one.
I did not express myself correctly. I meant a pair of railway lanes.
They are considered as offering same traffic capacity than a 2X3-lane highway, which is obviously wider.
Freight trains could go too, but this would not be a high speed line.
>And they can only go one direction on the track without stopping or sidings.
One lane per way. no right of way or siding issue
>But the US has large expanses of open areas where this is silly talk.
California has a slightly higher population density than Spain (Southern Europe), yet Spain has already a plan to reach 4300 miles of High speed lines for 2011 (9 times the Califonia HST)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Spain
Spanish people are implementing silly ideas don't they ?
>Making a job for a few years building a white elephant isn't what the economy needs
Absolutely agree. the economy needs this
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/stimulus.htm
Other residents showed the same anxiety that Palo Alto residents have expressed about the potential negative effects of the project, including visual blight from constructing overhead wires and the potential for high walls or barbed-wire fencing. One man said he was skeptical that the Peninsula's power grid could support a high-speed train.
One woman asked whether the authority would construct extra parking if a high-speed stop was built in Redwood City. Cobb said that's not part of the authority's plans, but officials believe entrepreneurs would build new parking near high-speed stops, much the way parking operators set up shop near airports.
Others questioned the proposed route of the train up the Peninsula; one man asked why it couldn't go through the East Bay.
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_11841457
PS
If I want to ride on a high speed train I can go visit a country that has them.
Good for Spain. They can keep it.
Maybe they'd like to pay for building same here. I sure don't plan to do so.
It's absolutely ridiculous to think of trains as a mode for travel in most parts of US for replacing daily travel by automobile. Absolutely unreasonable. That's a parallel to other countries holding the past Presidential candidate in such high esteem and lauding him. They aren't the ones having to elect and suffer the socialism ideas of him and his handlers who are the real brains behind things in DC.
The big difference is trains are bound to tracks. OTOH cars have wheels that turn and go where the people need to go.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I am not sure why people do not understand that concept. Europe has almost 2.5 times the population of the USA with about the same area. Making mass transit somewhat more practical. My problem is stealing money out of the pockets of the gas users to subsidize the mass transit users. This latest scam in CA with HST is a prime example. They get the gullible constituents to vote for a high speed train from LA to SF. Without telling them just what it will cost. There is no free lunch or HST. Why would anyone in Lake Tahoe want to subsidize a train from LA to SF or LA to Las Vegas? We need people to spread out more not jam together in the sewers they call cities.
The gas tax should only be used to repair our crappy roads. Our CA legislators need to take a trip to TX and see how it is done. My trip to visit the great state of TX was an eye opener. They had great roads even out in the middle of nowhere. As soon as you cross into NM the roads where rough and poorly maintained. TX must be using their gas tax as it was intended.
We currently have buses bouncing all around the area more than a county in area and rarely to do they have more than 3-4 people on them when you come upon them. At morning and evening rush hour quit a few are filled. There are factors that mean that many people will not ride the buses because of safety.
They also have little vans that run around supplying taxi service for elderly disabled people to doctor visits or shopping or whatver from what I can tell.
The RTA suffered a CEO who retired one day several years back and reemployed herself the next at full retirement from the public employees system and full pay from RTA. The board wasn't even aware until after it happened. She was "earning" over $150,000 exclusive of perks as I recall. She also did little other than slide her cronies into plum jobs.
Somehow that used up the millions of dollars of their rainy day funds. But they still supplied millions to help build an A-team baseball park in downtown Dayton from RTA funds--our money. The state also gave tens of millions to the ballpark. Oh, team is independently owned by business people--not by the city or county (Dayton DRagons).
So much for the federal funding and regional transit. The same folks want to build a trolley/railroad system from downtown convention center (owned by city and tax grants public provided) and the Air Force Museum and another location south of downtown. Few people come to Dayton to see the convention center or the Wright Bros. buildings in W. Dayton (permit to carry needed for safety). Many come to the Air Force Museum.
I can't think of one area where a rail transit would help reduce traffic by carrying passengers efficiently and to where they want to go at a cost taxpayers should be saddled with.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
All while the state has a $16 billion deficit. I guess thinking about riding the train to granma's house takes our leaders minds off their other problems.
I'm sure we will soon be ordered to put all our money out on the porch in a paper bag for them to pick up.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible