My wife and I have free all day MTS passes we got from jury duty. We may just take a day and travel all the Trolley routes for fun. You are right I do not like the traffic. I moved to Alaska in 1970 partly because San Diego was getting too crowded. I would hate to work and commute here. I just read this morning you are 3 times more likely to suffer a heart attack if you are subject to heavily congested traffic. Most would consider San Diego light compared to LA, SF or Seattle.
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
We have a GST in my area - the nearest big city Boston is connected to NYC by the Acela train. Would I take it - NO. Why? Because there is no public transport from my small city to Boston first. Why? Because it does not make much economic sense. There are very few people each day who want to go to Boston from here. People who do want to go without a car use a private commuter van - about $45 each way per person. It takes 2 hours to get to Boston. Then by the time I my ticket and get on the train (if on time), and get to NYC - well it would cost my wife and I much more time and money.
HST train costs: 2 tickets on the van = $180 roundtrip, 2 Acela tickets $250? total time 5-6 hr?
Driving from my house to NYC - 4 hr in the comfort of my car with the temperature the way I like, with the music the way I like, and enjoying the drive. Cost - 3/4 of a tank 93 octane - about $30 + some wear and tear. And then I don't need to rent a car, or deal with getting a taxi when I get to my destination.
Any travel under 300 miles without question, I would rather drive and I'll get there faster.
Any travel under 300 miles without question, I would rather drive and I'll get there faster.
Absolutely right. I use to fly to Phoenix and Las Vegas. With all the hassles at the airports it is easier and probably faster to drive the 325 miles to either one. Even with $3 to $4 gas and 15-17 MPG it is cheaper than one round trip ticket on the plane or bus. I would hitch hike before taking the bus to Phoenix. Not to mention the cost of parking or shuttle to the airport. Shuttle to the airport 30 miles is $82 for seniors.
HST train costs: 2 tickets on the van = $180 roundtrip
hmm, $180 - that's like a 24 hour parking bill in Manhattan. :P The last time I was in the area driving, I camped at a state park an hour north of the city and took the train in. Cheap, especially since the rangers didn't bother collecting camping fees.
Every time I have used the Trolley in San Diego it was to avoid leaving my car in an undesirable location or the high cost of parking. Also street fairs & Oktoberfest where parking is nearly impossible. I cannot imagine paying $180 to park to see anything or anyone. I refused to pay $18 at the Emerald Plaza and my company would reimburse it. In fact I only use parking lots where the local businesses validate for purchase. Never use valet parking. It amazes me how foolish people are with money. Then the last time I went to the theater the matinee was $6.50 and I nearly had a coronary attack. I am patient and will wait for it to come out on DVD.
So why would I want to give the wasteful government one more penny per gallon in tax?
Every time I have used the Trolley in San Diego it was to avoid leaving my car in an undesirable location or the high cost of parking.
I had to go into Baltimore a few weeks ago, and for a change of pace, thought that taking the Light Rail would be fun. Plus, it would avoid the hassle of trying to find parking down town.
Instead of driving to the last station on the line, I drove to one a few stops up, to save time. After I parked and got out of the car, I started to have second thoughts. There was broken glass in several spots in the parking lot, an indication of cars having their windows smashed in. The place seemed really desolate, too. I was the only person around, and the sun was beginning to set. Made me think of something out of "I am Legend" or "The Last Man on Earth", and I really started to wonder what was going to come out of the woodwork once night fell!
The ride up wasn't too bad, but on the way back...man, I felt like I was sealed in there with a can of mixed nuts! The best part had to be when these two guys and a girl got on. They were all high, but she was just about passed out. She'd slip in between moments of being dead to the world, and moments of making out with one of the guys. When they got off, the guys had to practically drag her off the train! At the same time though, there were a couple families on there with little kids, a couple of successful businessman-looking types, and some college student/hippie types, who just seemed to act normal, as if the drunks and the crackheads were just an everyday occurrence, part of the natural wildlife, I guess.
Oh well, at least nobody threw up on themselves, no fights broke out, and nobody pulled any weapons. And when I got off the train, my car was still sitting there, safe and sound, all windows intact.
The Trolley parking lots in San Diego are very high risk for theft. I use the one that is part of a big mall. So they do not know if you are in the store ready to come out or on the trolley. It is so easy for the perps to ride the trolley from TJ and get off at one of the big parking lots. Pick the car they want to steal and head South to the border. It is a lot easier getting into Tijuana than getting back out. They only rarely ask to see your ticket. I have never been asked. Many just get on and ride. If they get a ticket they throw it in the trash. How do you find an illegal that just gave you a phony name and lives in a canyon. Cops don't arrest illegals. Too many hassles.
"...I left upstate in 1967...I can't believe how bad traffic is around Colonie Center..."
Ahh, that brings back memories. In 1967, Wolf Rd. where Colonie Center is located was still a two lane road bordered by small farms. The last small greenhouse/farmstand closed last year and was replaced by a hotel I think. You probably left NY at a good time.
The mess of traffic on the roads you mentioned are due in part to the crazy urban planning that goes on around there.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
>The CA HST is a pipe dream. A big waste of tax payers money.
as long as it remains a dream, it will cost a lot of money. all unfinished projects are generally fiascos. When it comes to reality, I have yet to find an existing HST line (top speed more than 150 mph) which is a financial failure
>Not everyone in the path is excited about HST.
of course not. Generally most people are against actually. Same for highways when they were built. Do you think people were in agreement with their land being ripped off by a stinking and noisy strech of bitumen ? Yet no one is calling for withdrawing them, are they.
>Cobb said that's not part of the authority's plans That's a mistake. Trains can't bring most people door to door and parking infrastructures need to be part of the plan.
>f I want to ride on a high speed train I can go visit a country that has them.
To be forced to fly to take the train may be ok for you, but is putting a financial burden going well over a fuel tax increase. This is pretty hard to bear for a low-income family.
To be forced to fly to take the train may be ok for you, but is putting a financial burden going well over a fuel tax increase. This is pretty hard to bear for a low-income family.
I am not sure your point. The truth of the matter is any additional gas tax will impact those in the bottom half of the population. A HST will mean NOTHING to them. This LA to SF or Las Vegas is for Upper Middle class and wealthy folks. It will cost more to ride the HST than it does to fly. The projections are for $1B revenue per year. How will that pay the interest on $45Billon or the more realistic estimate of $90B to complete.
Add to that the dozens of towns the HST is projected to pass along the way. Just how does it do them any good? The plan is for one or two stops from LA to SF. So unlike the interstate highway it has no means to allow people on or off the train. It will be VERY limited in its appeal. A monstrous boondoggle on a scale larger that the Boston Big Dig. A feel good project for the greenies and a tax drain on the working class that will have NO way to use it.
PS The interest on $45B at a very low 5% bond rate will cost $2.25Billion per year. Who will pay the enormous shortfall?
>it's absolutely ridiculous to think of trains as a mode for travel in most parts of US for replacing daily travel by automobile
Whoa, such a bold statement! While nobody ever advocated building lines in the middle of nowhere, there are certainly many parts of the US where this would make sense.
>That's a parallel to other... Such idea never came to my mind. Besides the sweet talk, nothing really breaking through in terms of transportation policy.
I just don't see what would make the US a world exception where built-up areas would be doing better without trains.
Innovation will be an important key to generate growth out from recession. Sticking to an outdated and unsustainable development model won't bring anything new and therefore won't create jobs.
>OTOH cars have wheels that turn and go where the people need to go.
Opposing cars and trains makes as little sense as opposing cars to planes or cars to bicycles. Those different transportation means answer different needs. HST is some kind of middle way between planes and cars. I never claim there is 100% overlap, but there is some, and many parts of America miss such a combination.
> My problem is stealing money out of the pockets of the gas users to subsidize the mass transit users
It is the same problem when it came to financing the building of all roads when car ownership was still a minority's. Maybe horse riders or steam trains passengers had to pay for it. I suspect most people who paid for it were not users.
Are you going to tell me it was a different period of time and that it does not apply any more? I disagree then. Older technologies always paid for newer ones. This may be unfair and I accept this, but we are not going to set double standards are we?
HST is some kind of middle way between planes and cars. I never claim there is 100% overlap, but there is some, and many parts of America miss such a combination. How can you think that? It is a slow replacement for air travel only. The only advantage would be less pollution. You know they will have to have the same crazy security that is in place at the airports. It will just add more time to a slower means of travel. It is all Pie in the Sky. I can fly to SF from LA any hour of the day round trip for about $85. HST will not be able to offer anything like that. Maybe two times per day.
You seem to forget the railroads were run out of business by the Interstate highway system. Trains were and are antiquated means of travel. Nice if you have a lot of time and money to throw away. We don't want to be like the EU or any other place. We do need alternative energy sources to continue our penchant for individual means travel. Will it be diesel from algae my favorite or some type of EV. Whatever I don't see US getting away from individual forms of transportation. You are in China right now. Look around and see the explosion of the auto industry. They passed US up this year, about 7 years ahead of predictions. Do you think the people of China are not interested in getting into their own car and going where they like?
The Acela is in dire need of a complete track rebuild in order to become a full fledged HST. Its current aveage speed of 86 mph does not make it attractive enough in regard to cars. On to of it, it isn't cheap and connections are scarce
Given the surrounding population, the ridership potential is between the french TGV and the Japanese Shikansen. The problem is that it is a pretty much isolated line, so we can barely speak about a network.
Therefore, in the current situation, it makes more sense to drive the car.
"...It is the same problem when it came to financing the building of all roads when car ownership was still a minority's..."
You may be on to something there. Henry Ford promoted highway construction as a way to help "the poor farmer" get his products to market. He never mentioned that his cars would be the main beneficiary. After WW 2 the building of high speed interstates was justified by defense considerations.
So if you want trains maybe you should lie and tell everyone you want to build them to save the web-footed booby bird or anything other than the truth. :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
>You seem to forget the railroads were run out of business by the Interstate highway system
That's my point : Interstate higways were heavily subidized by the government, while railways just got taxed. Money was stolen from taxpayers and non highway users to be put into roads. Therefore, there is nothing wrong doing it the other way.
>Trains were and are antiquated means of travel. They were slow and uncomfortable in the 50s, this is true. I suggest to cut the old cliché, as today modern trains are very far away from this. The technological breakthrough is as remarkable as, say, for diesel cars...
> I don't see US getting away from individual forms of transportation
I reply to one other message you post to explain why I mentioned flying to take the plane: I clumsily tried to express how shocking I find that one NEEDS to have a car (bought/rented or offered, whatever...) to survive in the US. there are many costs other than gas attached to car usage (insurance, depreciation, accidents, tickets, repairs, traffic jams, ...). This "compulsory" piece of equipment is putting a heavy financial burden on low income homes, as they NEED to buy 1, 2, 3 cars to compensate for the absence of serious transport alternatives.
In other words the poor people are the first to be stricken by the absence of investment in this area.
> You are in China right now I moved back to France. Profile updated
>Do you think the people of China are not interested in getting into their own car and going where they like?
You are 120% right, They would live in an attic to afford a car (people often put more $$ in cars than in their apartment). They want to revive the American dream their own way. Will this model be good for China, for the US and for the rest of the world ? Imho it won't, but they need to go bust first to understand this.
You seem to forget the railroads were run out of business by the Interstate highway system.
Yes. Then fast forward 50 years to the present, and find that the interstate highway system is now massive and so congested that we can keep up with neither our maintenance and repair nor our expansion needs.
You know they will have to have the same crazy security that is in place at the airports
Why would they? They don't in Europe. You can't hijack a train and drive it into the Pentagon.
The airlines are sealing their own demise with the rates they are offering now. Every time you turn around another airline has dclared bankruptcy. It is an extremely distressed industry. Might be good to have some trains ready as a back-up plan. ;-)
If I fly to SoCal, the total time once I arrive at the airport is about 2.5 hours. That includes all the pleasantries associated with air travel, ie removing my shoes merely to enter the place, being treated like cattle 100% of the time from the beginning to the end, waiting here there and everywhere. The train will be able to deliver the same 2.5 hours, no waiting, no shoe removal, no lost luggage if I have brought any. Sounds like a decent alternative. It certainly works well in Europe.
If I drive to SoCal it costs me more than twice as much time, and then I risk my neck driving with the lunatics that inhabit the I-5 corridor (fast is never fast enough for some, it would seem). If I need a car at the other end, that's a point in favor of driving. But if I am being met at the other end by family, as is invariably the case for me personally, I don't.
I would very much like to see the rail industry revived in this country, both for passenger travel and for freight too. It is in both cases much less polluting to the environment and uses much less energy per passenger or pound of freight.
Having said ALL that, how did the HST even come up? Gas taxes are not being diverted to pay for it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Having said ALL that, how did the HST even come up? Gas taxes are not being diverted to pay for it.
I think it was an offshoot from mass transit. But I agree we aren't talking long range travel here we are talking day to day commuting expenses. No one will get hit harder than the working class and the working class will not benefit from higher fuel taxes. So if they want a lie to get something accomplished like Old farmer said then pretending increased taxes on fuel will help the working class. It will cost them both coming and going. First it will cost them in their daily commute and in what they will have to support their families. And second it would coast them even if they bought a new vehicle. About 50 cents of every gallon of gas today is tax. doesn't anyone else feel that is excessive to begin with? About 25 percent tax on a purchase. And then place a sales tax on top of that? why not just use a gun?
Why would they? They don't in Europe. You can't hijack a train and drive it into the Pentagon.
I would think after 191 people were killed in the train bombing in Spain they would start. I just did jury duty for 6 days. Had to go through security each time I entered the courthouse. At least twice per day. If, BIG IF, I lived close to a HST station and was going close to the other end, I would consider it an option. As one that hates cities and find them an abomination it is not likely they will have a station anywhere near my idyllic paradise home. So it would be the same hassle as flying. Just longer getting there. And in the case of the CA HST the there I doubt I would ever want to go to SF again.
The reason it came up is 1A was passed and someone has to pay for it. As CA dumps the gas tax into the general fund, it is very likely I would be stuck paying some part of a white elephant HST project.
That same story is repeated everywhere. Mass transit is a millstone around the neck of local politicians. We run at least that big of a deficit on the San Diego Trolley system. It has alleviated a big parking problem at San Diego State College. So who is going to pay for it? Not the students. All these programs operate like they own a money printing press. Someone has to pay. If the taxes increase in CA I am moving out. Simple as that. I can stand worse weather like in Hawaii where they do not tax pension income. Plus give big property tax incentives to ALL seniors. Not just the ones that have lived in CA for 30 years. CA is pushing for the distinction of highest taxed people in the Nation. Under Benadick Arnold the no more taxes governator.
gas tax is that it's a fixed amount, not a percentage of the gas purchase like sales tax.
Not in CA. Your gas includes whatever your local sales tax is. State wide that is currently 7.25%. We have local cities that have kicked it up to 8.75%. That is why CA has one of the highest priced gas in the Nation. We don't need no more stinking gas tax.
I see the problems of mass transit. It doesn't make me any happier to see the difficulties because I wish there were options other than having to have a car just to get to work. Mind you I most likely would have a car or truck for personal use anyway but if the option were available commuters might not pack some of our freeways 5 days a week.
I guess an alternative is to move businesses to where people live and that works as far as supporting private businesses. So maybe the Suburban or Urban sprawl model is the design of the future. Spreading out the places people need to get to would also reduce traffic. We do have the advantage of space in the US. We don't need the big city centers like we once did. They still serve a purpose as conference centers like San Diego and San Francisco, which is also a financial center. But they are no longer manufacturing centers now that we have moved to the industrial park model.
Using the new models of urban sprawl and Suburban industrial parks and shopping malls private industry can provide the ability for less traffic without increasing fuel taxes. At least it is worth thinking about and it beats the European model.
NO! You can't mean it. Having to put up with constant 75-85 degree temps and the sight of thousands of beautiful women wearing next to nothing? Don't do it, You'll never forgive yourself. :P
If someone has to move there let me make the sacrifice. I'll take one for the team.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
If someone has to move there let me make the sacrifice. I'll take one for the team.
Just sell your farmstand and farm to some city slicker like Trump and live the good life in Hawaii. You could grow flowers as I do and get the tax breaks. Ag rate for property tax is low. I pay around $600 per year on 2.5 acres of Anthuriums. With a house and cabin I rent out on the place. Sales tax is 4.25% and no income tax on defined pension plans. Gas is expensive or more than most places. Very high diesel tax for some reason.
It is looking better every day. If this new big tax hike gets voted in by the stupid voters of CA. It may be the straw. Small businesses are not doing well in this state.
I'm a Big Island fan. I lived in Kona for a while. Now the volcano makes the air tough to breath when it is active. Either the North end or around Hilo is my choice. The other Islands are much more expensive. The housing prices are still behind the curve. I look for them to drop at least another 20%. I think much of CA has bottomed out. I could be wrong though. Ahnold and the goons in Sacramento could push the state into a full blown Depression with their inability to pay the bill and cut the waste.
If you are really interested in Hawaii go rent for a few months in Hilo and see if it suits you.
> About 50 cents of every gallon of gas today is tax. doesn't anyone else feel that is excessive to begin with?
it means tax represent about 25 % of the overall Gallon price. That's dirt cheap. in many other underdeveloped countries (UK, Germany, France, Italy, Japan...) tax easily represent 80% of the paid liter price.
> No one will get hit harder than the working class They have been hit already. No mass transit at all makes car purchase compulsory. Many other workers in many other countries can live without one car per person. That's a hell a lot of savings.
> would think after 191 people were killed in the train bombing in Spain they would start.
They were 10 planted bombs in total, which show how lax the security was. If trains were not chosen, then buses would be or even buildings (à la 9/11) This threat has been pretty well kept in check in France since 1995, without security being as heavy as in airports.
Statistically speaking, dying of terrorist attacks in trains in Europe may be 1000 times less probable than to be murdered by a drunk driver in any given country.
I suspect the BART needs to pay cover for the infrastructure investment costs, which is something that should be supported by the state (as it is the case for roads). This is reflected by the expensive ticketing price.
the other issue I see with Bart is that it is barely a network to begin with. 100 miles only in such an area may cover maybe 3% of the population commuting needs, whereas a 30% cover would yield significant results.
It is a step in a right direction and it allows poor workers to go to work too, which is something you will appreciate. 300 thousand fewer people on SF roads everyday can't be a bad thing can it ?
"it means tax represent about 25 % of the overall Gallon price. That's dirt cheap. in many other underdeveloped countries (UK, Germany, France, Italy, Japan...) tax easily represent 80% of the paid liter price."
Stop and read that post again. Is there a chance in hades we want to be taxed like a Underdeveloped country? The topic is if a higher gas tax is good for America? We sure don't want to lower our standards of living to underdeveloped country status. The number of people moving from those countries to this country as opposed to the the number of people moving to those countries from this country should be evidence of which lifestyle people prefer. Americans do no like to be over taxed and unlike our european cousins we vote to keep us from becoming like them. We don't pay 25 percent tax on food, cloths, TVs or even the cars we drive. Maybe cigarettes and alcohol but not anything else I can think of. Not our style. And still we were able to put a man on the moon before anyone else. I know the last part was boastful but it shows we can afford what we want to afford. If we prefer privately owned cars or want private funded mass transit who better than we the public to make that decission? And if our congressmen wish to remain our congressmen they need to learn that truth.
>We do need alternative energy sources to continue our penchant for individual means travel
Why would American corporations develop such alternative technologies ? Gas is so cheap... Now that USG is less than $2, GM could even drop the Volt (not sure if they will still be in the business when the model is supposed to be rolled out)
The fuel saving cars will be again developed in Germany or in Japan where high gas price is a true incentive. Those thrifty cars will make a slam dunk again in the US the next time Gas prices hikes.
Cheap gas is like Marijuana for the US economy : does feel good but is eventually bad.
> The number of people moving from those countries to this country
I should have add the "" for underdeveloped. if you checked the examples I mentioned, there were countries with a GDP close to the US.
incidentally, most OECD countries (considered as "developped") have a high Gasoline tax approach (4 to 6 USD /Gallon) , whereas many "developing countries" have cheap gas.
US has one of the cheapest gas price in the world. cheaper ones being mostly oil producing "democracies" like Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia... Good references aren't they ?
>Americans do no like to be over taxed... 35% or more on income tax, it really hurts don't you think ?
>And still we were able to put a man on the moon before anyone else It was not boastful, just true. But this achievement came at a price. I don't think today's US would be able to send a man on the moon.
A real gas tax is needed to fund serious and long term projects that will drive US back to the front.
> If we prefer privately owned cars or want private funded mass transit who better than we....
I just happen to think that alternative transport systems and clean technologies will allow us to use our cars in reasonable conditions. Otherwise we may be one day driving 40HP cars governed at 45 mph because we did not want to consider something else.
The fuel saving cars will be again developed in Germany
Yes they already have them. Just not clean enough to meet our requirements. You are right that there is no real incentive to developing alternatives while oil is cheap. That includes the government. Notice how they are really not interested in viable alternatives. They promote Corn ethanol which is a total waste of fossil fuel to produce. The government is not going to develop alternatives. The private sector will do it when it is profitable.
As far as mass transit replacing cars. It just does not make sense when we are spread out. Congregating in cities where mass transit is practical is even less desirable. This country has spread out for its entire existence so as not to emulate the squalor of the early European cities. From what I read London is not much better than it was 200 years ago except less horse poop.
And you talk about trains. The US has been there and done that. In 1900 the US had more miles of railroad track than the whole rest of the world. We opted for a better system of roads to the home and I see no reason to return to that antiquated system of transportation. If science comes up with a decent system of storing electricity the EV market will take off. Until then we should try to get the most miles from a gallon of fossil fuel as possible. And without the government trying to engineer our lives with horrible EU style taxes.
If you follow our news you will see there is a ground swell against this latest pork bill stimulus package. A large part of the citizens can see it is burying US in future debt with little immediate help. Spending wisely the taxes they currently extort from US is the answer. Not more taxes to waste. The current gas tax is far and away more than is needed to maintain and expand our roads and bridges. They have for decades stolen gas tax money for other projects. Let them tax the bus rider that is saving a bundle each month not owning a car. Tax the services to whom they are rendered. Quit robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Yes they already have them. Just not clean enough to meet our requirements.
Be careful not to live too much in the moment. In four short years the Europeans will match us for diesel emissions requirements, which I know is what you are referring to. My suspicion is diesel power STILL won't take off in the States. In the auto industry, four years is nothing.
You are right that there is no real incentive to developing alternatives while oil is cheap
The problem is that the time period between oil being cheap and rip-roariously expensive is much too short to develop and get alternatives out there. There HAS to be a ramp-up period in order to avoid 10 or 20 years of severe economic pain.
From what I read London is not much better than it was 200 years ago except less horse poop.
This very vague statement is difficult to interpret, but if you mean to imply that London is somehow this squalor-ridden place because of high gas taxes, I suggest you start reading less and actually visit. It will do wonders for your perspective, I suspect.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well, it's like everything else at GM: it reacted to a trend and arrived about five years later than everyone else, so that NOW it has a fairly fuel-efficient portfolio all lined up: the new Malibu is tops among the midsized sedans (although the Fusion hybrid will blow the Malibu hybrid RIGHT out of the water), the Aveo will be joined by the 40 mpg Spark, the Volt may be (optimistically thinking) just around the corner, it is suddenly very much in Wagoner's interest to promote a gas tax, with a price floor of $4/gallon, to get people thinking about his new fuel-efficient models.
It doesn't matter much what his opinion is, as either he or GM, or possibly both, won't be around long enough to see any gas tax come to fruition.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
There HAS to be a ramp-up period in order to avoid 10 or 20 years of severe economic pain.
You are dealing with American car buyers here. Last summer when gas was through the roof people were paying premiums over MSRP for the end of run Prius. Now that gas is cheaper, they cannot give the Prius away. We are talking knee jerk buying. So someone comes up with an alternative. Who is going to buy it if it is not cheaper than a fossil fuel vehicle? And who is going to get the prize if the government develops it? The Argonne labs have developed a wonderful system to clean NOX from diesel engines without Urea. Has anyone used it in a diesel car? There is a HUGE chasm between developing an alternative to a fossil fuel burning vehicle and getting it into production.
Please spare me what other people do in other countries. Our founders were great, our leaders are great, our people are great, our system is great, and our resources are great.
it means tax represent about 25 % of the overall Gallon price
not by a long shot. there are so many ways a gallon of gas is taxed. it all started with oil flowing up a pipe in the ground. for Exxon to net $48 billion a quarter, how much tax is paid by them alone? everyone who works to bring us the gas pays tax. all profit and wages along the way from that pipe to my tank gets taxed.
"you seem to be one of those very common 'do as i say, not as i do ' types. didn't you post that you drove your bmw 740 90 mph on a regular basis? "
And on top of that his opinion of what is good for America comes from a non American perspective. Didn't the brits tell us it was good for America to pay tea tax?
As far as ramping up now to avoid the pain later if fuel prices go up here, and if fuel goes back to over 100 bucks a barrel guess what. The already ramped up gas will be even more expensive. Even in those countries that taxed themselves early to avoid the rush. That concept sounds a bit like, we are all dying a bit every day so why not take poison so it won't take so long.
I rather like having the different perspectives and seeing what other countries do. It's not much different from the way the US was set up - lots of state's rights stuff that encourages different approaches to problems from the individual states.
i am willing to consider any other post, but i have my limits. my office has a hugely varied workforce, and many of them are the cream of the crop from their repsective origins, but i am willing to challenge another opinion. it's about figuring out what is the best solution.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
What I am saying is it seems self serving for someone from a competing nation with a competing form of government, more socialist, that has already submitted to higher taxes suggesting what is good for us. Hopefully California doesn't get to pass on their high taxes to other states? If so PM me and I will let you know where to send my check. Not to be confused with a cheque. :P
Think of California and CARB. Someone leads the way and others follow. Not everyone, but plenty do. We can strut all we want, but we don't have a monopoly on good ideas.
Some country may implement higher fuel taxes and that may have benefits that we could adopt in the US. That could be one way to encourage diesel cars here for example, if you're one of those who think diesel is a better alternative than hybrids.
Comments
They are considered as offering same traffic capacity than a 2X3-lane highway, which is obviously wider
We have a GST in my area - the nearest big city Boston is connected to NYC by the Acela train. Would I take it - NO. Why? Because there is no public transport from my small city to Boston first. Why? Because it does not make much economic sense. There are very few people each day who want to go to Boston from here. People who do want to go without a car use a private commuter van - about $45 each way per person. It takes 2 hours to get to Boston. Then by the time I my ticket and get on the train (if on time), and get to NYC - well it would cost my wife and I much more time and money.
HST train costs: 2 tickets on the van = $180 roundtrip, 2 Acela tickets $250? total time 5-6 hr?
Driving from my house to NYC - 4 hr in the comfort of my car with the temperature the way I like, with the music the way I like, and enjoying the drive. Cost - 3/4 of a tank 93 octane - about $30 + some wear and tear. And then I don't need to rent a car, or deal with getting a taxi when I get to my destination.
Any travel under 300 miles without question, I would rather drive and I'll get there faster.
Absolutely right. I use to fly to Phoenix and Las Vegas. With all the hassles at the airports it is easier and probably faster to drive the 325 miles to either one. Even with $3 to $4 gas and 15-17 MPG it is cheaper than one round trip ticket on the plane or bus. I would hitch hike before taking the bus to Phoenix. Not to mention the cost of parking or shuttle to the airport. Shuttle to the airport 30 miles is $82 for seniors.
hmm, $180 - that's like a 24 hour parking bill in Manhattan. :P The last time I was in the area driving, I camped at a state park an hour north of the city and took the train in. Cheap, especially since the rangers didn't bother collecting camping fees.
So why would I want to give the wasteful government one more penny per gallon in tax?
I had to go into Baltimore a few weeks ago, and for a change of pace, thought that taking the Light Rail would be fun. Plus, it would avoid the hassle of trying to find parking down town.
Instead of driving to the last station on the line, I drove to one a few stops up, to save time. After I parked and got out of the car, I started to have second thoughts. There was broken glass in several spots in the parking lot, an indication of cars having their windows smashed in. The place seemed really desolate, too. I was the only person around, and the sun was beginning to set. Made me think of something out of "I am Legend" or "The Last Man on Earth", and I really started to wonder what was going to come out of the woodwork once night fell!
The ride up wasn't too bad, but on the way back...man, I felt like I was sealed in there with a can of mixed nuts! The best part had to be when these two guys and a girl got on. They were all high, but she was just about passed out. She'd slip in between moments of being dead to the world, and moments of making out with one of the guys. When they got off, the guys had to practically drag her off the train! At the same time though, there were a couple families on there with little kids, a couple of successful businessman-looking types, and some college student/hippie types, who just seemed to act normal, as if the drunks and the crackheads were just an everyday occurrence, part of the natural wildlife, I guess.
Oh well, at least nobody threw up on themselves, no fights broke out, and nobody pulled any weapons. And when I got off the train, my car was still sitting there, safe and sound, all windows intact.
Ahh, that brings back memories. In 1967, Wolf Rd. where Colonie Center is located was still a two lane road bordered by small farms. The last small greenhouse/farmstand closed last year and was replaced by a hotel I think. You probably left NY at a good time.
The mess of traffic on the roads you mentioned are due in part to the crazy urban planning that goes on around there.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
as long as it remains a dream, it will cost a lot of money. all unfinished projects are generally fiascos.
When it comes to reality, I have yet to find an existing HST line (top speed more than 150 mph) which is a financial failure
>Not everyone in the path is excited about HST.
of course not. Generally most people are against actually. Same for highways when they were built. Do you think people were in agreement with their land being ripped off by a stinking and noisy strech of bitumen ? Yet no one is calling for withdrawing them, are they.
>Cobb said that's not part of the authority's plans
That's a mistake. Trains can't bring most people door to door and parking infrastructures need to be part of the plan.
>f I want to ride on a high speed train I can go visit a country that has them.
To be forced to fly to take the train may be ok for you, but is putting a financial burden going well over a fuel tax increase. This is pretty hard to bear for a low-income family.
I am not sure your point. The truth of the matter is any additional gas tax will impact those in the bottom half of the population. A HST will mean NOTHING to them. This LA to SF or Las Vegas is for Upper Middle class and wealthy folks. It will cost more to ride the HST than it does to fly. The projections are for $1B revenue per year. How will that pay the interest on $45Billon or the more realistic estimate of $90B to complete.
Add to that the dozens of towns the HST is projected to pass along the way. Just how does it do them any good? The plan is for one or two stops from LA to SF. So unlike the interstate highway it has no means to allow people on or off the train. It will be VERY limited in its appeal. A monstrous boondoggle on a scale larger that the Boston Big Dig. A feel good project for the greenies and a tax drain on the working class that will have NO way to use it.
PS
The interest on $45B at a very low 5% bond rate will cost $2.25Billion per year. Who will pay the enormous shortfall?
Whoa, such a bold statement!
While nobody ever advocated building lines in the middle of nowhere, there are certainly many parts of the US where this would make sense.
>That's a parallel to other...
Such idea never came to my mind. Besides the sweet talk, nothing really breaking through in terms of transportation policy.
I just don't see what would make the US a world exception where built-up areas would be doing better without trains.
Innovation will be an important key to generate growth out from recession. Sticking to an outdated and unsustainable development model won't bring anything new and therefore won't create jobs.
>OTOH cars have wheels that turn and go where the people need to go.
Opposing cars and trains makes as little sense as opposing cars to planes or cars to bicycles. Those different transportation means answer different needs. HST is some kind of middle way between planes and cars. I never claim there is 100% overlap, but there is some, and many parts of America miss such a combination.
It is the same problem when it came to financing the building of all roads when car ownership was still a minority's. Maybe horse riders or steam trains passengers had to pay for it. I suspect most people who paid for it were not users.
Are you going to tell me it was a different period of time and that it does not apply any more? I disagree then. Older technologies always paid for newer ones. This may be unfair and I accept this, but we are not going to set double standards are we?
How can you think that? It is a slow replacement for air travel only. The only advantage would be less pollution. You know they will have to have the same crazy security that is in place at the airports. It will just add more time to a slower means of travel. It is all Pie in the Sky. I can fly to SF from LA any hour of the day round trip for about $85. HST will not be able to offer anything like that. Maybe two times per day.
On to of it, it isn't cheap and connections are scarce
Given the surrounding population, the ridership potential is between the french TGV and the Japanese Shikansen.
The problem is that it is a pretty much isolated line, so we can barely speak about a network.
Therefore, in the current situation, it makes more sense to drive the car.
You may be on to something there. Henry Ford promoted highway construction as a way to help "the poor farmer" get his products to market. He never mentioned that his cars would be the main beneficiary. After WW 2 the building of high speed interstates was justified by defense considerations.
So if you want trains maybe you should lie and tell everyone you want to build them to save the web-footed booby bird or anything other than the truth. :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
That's my point : Interstate higways were heavily subidized by the government, while railways just got taxed. Money was stolen from taxpayers and non highway users to be put into roads. Therefore, there is nothing wrong doing it the other way.
>Trains were and are antiquated means of travel.
They were slow and uncomfortable in the 50s, this is true. I suggest to cut the old cliché, as today modern trains are very far away from this. The technological breakthrough is as remarkable as, say, for diesel cars...
> I don't see US getting away from individual forms of transportation
I reply to one other message you post to explain why I mentioned flying to take the plane:
I clumsily tried to express how shocking I find that one NEEDS to have a car (bought/rented or offered, whatever...) to survive in the US.
there are many costs other than gas attached to car usage (insurance, depreciation, accidents, tickets, repairs, traffic jams, ...). This "compulsory" piece of equipment is putting a heavy financial burden on low income homes, as they NEED to buy 1, 2, 3 cars to compensate for the absence of serious transport alternatives.
In other words the poor people are the first to be stricken by the absence of investment in this area.
> You are in China right now
I moved back to France. Profile updated
>Do you think the people of China are not interested in getting into their own car and going where they like?
You are 120% right, They would live in an attic to afford a car (people often put more $$ in cars than in their apartment). They want to revive the American dream their own way. Will this model be good for China, for the US and for the rest of the world ? Imho it won't, but they need to go bust first to understand this.
Yes. Then fast forward 50 years to the present, and find that the interstate highway system is now massive and so congested that we can keep up with neither our maintenance and repair nor our expansion needs.
You know they will have to have the same crazy security that is in place at the airports
Why would they? They don't in Europe. You can't hijack a train and drive it into the Pentagon.
The airlines are sealing their own demise with the rates they are offering now. Every time you turn around another airline has dclared bankruptcy. It is an extremely distressed industry. Might be good to have some trains ready as a back-up plan. ;-)
If I fly to SoCal, the total time once I arrive at the airport is about 2.5 hours. That includes all the pleasantries associated with air travel, ie removing my shoes merely to enter the place, being treated like cattle 100% of the time from the beginning to the end, waiting here there and everywhere. The train will be able to deliver the same 2.5 hours, no waiting, no shoe removal, no lost luggage if I have brought any. Sounds like a decent alternative. It certainly works well in Europe.
If I drive to SoCal it costs me more than twice as much time, and then I risk my neck driving with the lunatics that inhabit the I-5 corridor (fast is never fast enough for some, it would seem). If I need a car at the other end, that's a point in favor of driving. But if I am being met at the other end by family, as is invariably the case for me personally, I don't.
I would very much like to see the rail industry revived in this country, both for passenger travel and for freight too. It is in both cases much less polluting to the environment and uses much less energy per passenger or pound of freight.
Having said ALL that, how did the HST even come up? Gas taxes are not being diverted to pay for it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think it was an offshoot from mass transit. But I agree we aren't talking long range travel here we are talking day to day commuting expenses. No one will get hit harder than the working class and the working class will not benefit from higher fuel taxes. So if they want a lie to get something accomplished like Old farmer said then pretending increased taxes on fuel will help the working class. It will cost them both coming and going. First it will cost them in their daily commute and in what they will have to support their families. And second it would coast them even if they bought a new vehicle. About 50 cents of every gallon of gas today is tax. doesn't anyone else feel that is excessive to begin with? About 25 percent tax on a purchase. And then place a sales tax on top of that? why not just use a gun?
I would think after 191 people were killed in the train bombing in Spain they would start. I just did jury duty for 6 days. Had to go through security each time I entered the courthouse. At least twice per day. If, BIG IF, I lived close to a HST station and was going close to the other end, I would consider it an option. As one that hates cities and find them an abomination it is not likely they will have a station anywhere near my idyllic paradise home. So it would be the same hassle as flying. Just longer getting there. And in the case of the CA HST the there I doubt I would ever want to go to SF again.
The reason it came up is 1A was passed and someone has to pay for it. As CA dumps the gas tax into the general fund, it is very likely I would be stuck paying some part of a white elephant HST project.
How's it running these days. High population area. Making money?
NOT>
http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2009/news20090130a.aspx
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/22/BAM415FGTF.DTL
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Problem with the gas tax is that it's a fixed amount, not a percentage of the gas purchase like sales tax.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Not in CA. Your gas includes whatever your local sales tax is. State wide that is currently 7.25%. We have local cities that have kicked it up to 8.75%. That is why CA has one of the highest priced gas in the Nation. We don't need no more stinking gas tax.
http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/MotorFuelNotesJan20092.pdf
Notice that diesel in CA is taxed 10 cents per gallon more than gas. Another disincentive to save fossil fuel by the wackos in Sacramento.
I guess an alternative is to move businesses to where people live and that works as far as supporting private businesses. So maybe the Suburban or Urban sprawl model is the design of the future. Spreading out the places people need to get to would also reduce traffic. We do have the advantage of space in the US. We don't need the big city centers like we once did. They still serve a purpose as conference centers like San Diego and San Francisco, which is also a financial center. But they are no longer manufacturing centers now that we have moved to the industrial park model.
Using the new models of urban sprawl and Suburban industrial parks and shopping malls private industry can provide the ability for less traffic without increasing fuel taxes. At least it is worth thinking about and it beats the European model.
NO! You can't mean it. Having to put up with constant 75-85 degree temps and the sight of thousands of beautiful women wearing next to nothing? Don't do it, You'll never forgive yourself. :P
If someone has to move there let me make the sacrifice. I'll take one for the team.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Just sell your farmstand and farm to some city slicker like Trump and live the good life in Hawaii. You could grow flowers as I do and get the tax breaks. Ag rate for property tax is low. I pay around $600 per year on 2.5 acres of Anthuriums. With a house and cabin I rent out on the place. Sales tax is 4.25% and no income tax on defined pension plans. Gas is expensive or more than most places. Very high diesel tax for some reason.
It is looking better every day. If this new big tax hike gets voted in by the stupid voters of CA. It may be the straw. Small businesses are not doing well in this state.
If you are really interested in Hawaii go rent for a few months in Hilo and see if it suits you.
it means tax represent about 25 % of the overall Gallon price. That's dirt cheap. in many other underdeveloped countries (UK, Germany, France, Italy, Japan...) tax easily represent 80% of the paid liter price.
> No one will get hit harder than the working class
They have been hit already. No mass transit at all makes car purchase compulsory. Many other workers in many other countries can live without one car per person. That's a hell a lot of savings.
They were 10 planted bombs in total, which show how lax the security was. If trains were not chosen, then buses would be or even buildings (à la 9/11) This threat has been pretty well kept in check in France since 1995, without security being as heavy as in airports.
Statistically speaking, dying of terrorist attacks in trains in Europe may be 1000 times less probable than to be murdered by a drunk driver in any given country.
I suspect the BART needs to pay cover for the infrastructure investment costs, which is something that should be supported by the state (as it is the case for roads). This is reflected by the expensive ticketing price.
the other issue I see with Bart is that it is barely a network to begin with. 100 miles only in such an area may cover maybe 3% of the population commuting needs, whereas a 30% cover would yield significant results.
It is a step in a right direction and it allows poor workers to go to work too, which is something you will appreciate. 300 thousand fewer people on SF roads everyday can't be a bad thing can it ?
Stop and read that post again. Is there a chance in hades we want to be taxed like a Underdeveloped country? The topic is if a higher gas tax is good for America? We sure don't want to lower our standards of living to underdeveloped country status. The number of people moving from those countries to this country as opposed to the the number of people moving to those countries from this country should be evidence of which lifestyle people prefer. Americans do no like to be over taxed and unlike our european cousins we vote to keep us from becoming like them. We don't pay 25 percent tax on food, cloths, TVs or even the cars we drive. Maybe cigarettes and alcohol but not anything else I can think of. Not our style. And still we were able to put a man on the moon before anyone else. I know the last part was boastful but it shows we can afford what we want to afford. If we prefer privately owned cars or want private funded mass transit who better than we the public to make that decission? And if our congressmen wish to remain our congressmen they need to learn that truth.
Why would American corporations develop such alternative technologies ? Gas is so cheap...
Now that USG is less than $2, GM could even drop the Volt (not sure if they will still be in the business when the model is supposed to be rolled out)
The fuel saving cars will be again developed in Germany or in Japan where high gas price is a true incentive. Those thrifty cars will make a slam dunk again in the US the next time Gas prices hikes.
Cheap gas is like Marijuana for the US economy : does feel good but is eventually bad.
I should have add the "" for underdeveloped. if you checked the examples I mentioned, there were countries with a GDP close to the US.
incidentally, most OECD countries (considered as "developped") have a high Gasoline tax approach (4 to 6 USD /Gallon) , whereas many "developing countries" have cheap gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_price#Average_gasoline_prices_around_the_world
US has one of the cheapest gas price in the world. cheaper ones being mostly oil producing "democracies" like Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia... Good references aren't they ?
>Americans do no like to be over taxed...
35% or more on income tax, it really hurts don't you think ?
>And still we were able to put a man on the moon before anyone else
It was not boastful, just true. But this achievement came at a price.
I don't think today's US would be able to send a man on the moon.
A real gas tax is needed to fund serious and long term projects that will drive US back to the front.
> If we prefer privately owned cars or want private funded mass transit who better than we....
I just happen to think that alternative transport systems and clean technologies will allow us to use our cars in reasonable conditions.
Otherwise we may be one day driving 40HP cars governed at 45 mph because we did not want to consider something else.
Yes they already have them. Just not clean enough to meet our requirements. You are right that there is no real incentive to developing alternatives while oil is cheap. That includes the government. Notice how they are really not interested in viable alternatives. They promote Corn ethanol which is a total waste of fossil fuel to produce. The government is not going to develop alternatives. The private sector will do it when it is profitable.
As far as mass transit replacing cars. It just does not make sense when we are spread out. Congregating in cities where mass transit is practical is even less desirable. This country has spread out for its entire existence so as not to emulate the squalor of the early European cities. From what I read London is not much better than it was 200 years ago except less horse poop.
And you talk about trains. The US has been there and done that. In 1900 the US had more miles of railroad track than the whole rest of the world. We opted for a better system of roads to the home and I see no reason to return to that antiquated system of transportation. If science comes up with a decent system of storing electricity the EV market will take off. Until then we should try to get the most miles from a gallon of fossil fuel as possible. And without the government trying to engineer our lives with horrible EU style taxes.
If you follow our news you will see there is a ground swell against this latest pork bill stimulus package. A large part of the citizens can see it is burying US in future debt with little immediate help. Spending wisely the taxes they currently extort from US is the answer. Not more taxes to waste. The current gas tax is far and away more than is needed to maintain and expand our roads and bridges. They have for decades stolen gas tax money for other projects. Let them tax the bus rider that is saving a bundle each month not owning a car. Tax the services to whom they are rendered. Quit robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Be careful not to live too much in the moment. In four short years the Europeans will match us for diesel emissions requirements, which I know is what you are referring to. My suspicion is diesel power STILL won't take off in the States. In the auto industry, four years is nothing.
You are right that there is no real incentive to developing alternatives while oil is cheap
The problem is that the time period between oil being cheap and rip-roariously expensive is much too short to develop and get alternatives out there. There HAS to be a ramp-up period in order to avoid 10 or 20 years of severe economic pain.
From what I read London is not much better than it was 200 years ago except less horse poop.
This very vague statement is difficult to interpret, but if you mean to imply that London is somehow this squalor-ridden place because of high gas taxes, I suggest you start reading less and actually visit. It will do wonders for your perspective, I suspect.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Not worth a penny of what he's been paid...
It doesn't matter much what his opinion is, as either he or GM, or possibly both, won't be around long enough to see any gas tax come to fruition.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You are dealing with American car buyers here. Last summer when gas was through the roof people were paying premiums over MSRP for the end of run Prius. Now that gas is cheaper, they cannot give the Prius away. We are talking knee jerk buying. So someone comes up with an alternative. Who is going to buy it if it is not cheaper than a fossil fuel vehicle? And who is going to get the prize if the government develops it? The Argonne labs have developed a wonderful system to clean NOX from diesel engines without Urea. Has anyone used it in a diesel car? There is a HUGE chasm between developing an alternative to a fossil fuel burning vehicle and getting it into production.
it means tax represent about 25 % of the overall Gallon price
not by a long shot. there are so many ways a gallon of gas is taxed. it all started with oil flowing up a pipe in the ground. for Exxon to net $48 billion a quarter, how much tax is paid by them alone? everyone who works to bring us the gas pays tax. all profit and wages along the way from that pipe to my tank gets taxed.
didn't you post that you drove your bmw 740 @ 90 mph on a regular basis?
didn't you post that you drove your bmw 740 90 mph on a regular basis? "
And on top of that his opinion of what is good for America comes from a non American perspective. Didn't the brits tell us it was good for America to pay tea tax?
As far as ramping up now to avoid the pain later if fuel prices go up here, and if fuel goes back to over 100 bucks a barrel guess what. The already ramped up gas will be even more expensive. Even in those countries that taxed themselves early to avoid the rush. That concept sounds a bit like, we are all dying a bit every day so why not take poison so it won't take so long.
How else can you explain California? :P
my office has a hugely varied workforce, and many of them are the cream of the crop from their repsective origins, but i am willing to challenge another opinion.
it's about figuring out what is the best solution.
Some country may implement higher fuel taxes and that may have benefits that we could adopt in the US. That could be one way to encourage diesel cars here for example, if you're one of those who think diesel is a better alternative than hybrids.