Orlando High Speed Rail IS DEFINITE

[jt04]

One of the main barriers to HSR here is the vast size and low population density of the United States. On a table of density by country, the US comes in at #178 out of 238.

Our density is about half that of Europe and a quarter or so of almost every Asian country where HSR seems to work pretty well.

And since this thread was originally about the proposed Florida route, if you look at a list of US cities, Orlando and Tampa don't even crack the top 125.

Even in Europe, train routes of 4 hours and more have lost market share to discount airlines.

Exactly! Except you must look at where the Tampa/Orlando area will be in 10 years and beyond.

 

[stlbobby]

I am at least glad you make an attempt at justifying your ideas. That seems pretty rare.

But even in places that have massive public transportation plans, they still need to continually upgrade highway systems. Ease of travel creates more travelers. And then of course you must add in population increases. So, while I agree we need to do some things better, my opinion is a plan such as yours is just not economically viable.

High Speed Rail certainly must be a part of the mix as long as it is strategically built (ideally through the private sector. The privatization of space technology proves it is possible). But it can never replace air travel as a more efficient 'people mover'.

In my opinion of course.

Here is a blog that suggests a much more compelling future for travel.....

http://blog.cafefoundation.org/

I did not have time to read the whole article, but electric cars do not solve the problems for disabled persons, nor do they remove economic barriers that currently exist, nor do they deal with the whole owning a car and commuting sucks issue. They would get use off foreign oil and ease the environmental impact.

 

[googilycub]

These statements simply are not true. The Federal Government provides the bulk of the highway money and that revenue comes largely from income taxes.

Incorrect.

"About 70% of the construction and maintenance costs of highways in the U.S. are covered through user fees (net of collection costs), primarily gasoline taxes collected by the federal government and state and local governments, and to a much lesser extent tolls collected on toll roads and bridges. The rest of the costs are borne by general fund receipts, bond issues, and designated property and other taxes. The federal contribution is overwhelmingly from motor vehicle and fuel taxes (93.5% in 2007), as is about 60% of the state contribution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Financing

Don't forget than one sixth of all gas taxes are taken away from the highway trust fund to help fund public transportation......

 

[googilycub]

We have built a world where cars are for the most part mandatory.

No we have not. As I said earlier in this thread I lived without a car for over 2 years, using public transportation to get to and from my job, and my legs to get to and from the shopping areas. It is all about choices, and people have decided that they would rather own a car then have to deal with public transportation. These choices were made long before government funded transportation, when private companies were still trying to make a go of it. The American public has voted with their cars as to how they want to get around, and I don't see that way of thinking changing any time soon.

 

[stlbobby]

Incorrect.

"About 70% of the construction and maintenance costs of highways in the U.S. are covered through user fees (net of collection costs), primarily gasoline taxes collected by the federal government and state and local governments, and to a much lesser extent tolls collected on toll roads and bridges. The rest of the costs are borne by general fund receipts, bond issues, and designated property and other taxes. The federal contribution is overwhelmingly from motor vehicle and fuel taxes (93.5% in 2007), as is about 60% of the state contribution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Financing

First off your using Wikipedia. I can change that in ten seconds to support my point.

But even by this reference only 70% is user generated. That's 30% unfunded, far from, "Roads in the US almost pay for themselfs(sic)." So the questionable citation you made actually proves the point I was making. Thank you.

This also ignores the fact that many people who buy and maintain a car incur those taxes, but do not regularly use the massive highway system which is by far the biggest expenditure. It also ignores expenditures on snow removal which are born by the states and municipalities, further increasing the 30% burden.

Finally, the problem is systemic. I am forced by the design of our society, to own a car, therefore I am forced to pay the taxes on that car, which in turn propagates the system.

 

[jt04]

I did not have time to read the whole article, but electric cars do not solve the problems for disabled persons, nor do they remove economic barriers that currently exist, nor do they deal with the whole owning a car and commuting sucks issue. They would get use off foreign oil and ease the environmental impact.

Actually the blog I linked to is more dedicated to travel by personal aircraft and the emerging concept of 'pocket airports'. A kind of Star Wars like future resembling those seen on Coruscant.

It is a very real, very serious possibility. And since the planes will fly themselves, they could easily be used by anybody.

Here is a better more specific link....

http://blog.cafefoundation.org/?p=2325

 

[stlbobby]

No we have not. As I said earlier in this thread I lived without a car for over 2 years, using public transportation to get to and from my job, and my legs to get to and from the shopping areas. It is all about choices, and people have decided that they would rather own a car then have to deal with public transportation. These choices were made long before government funded transportation, when private companies were still trying to make a go of it. The American public has voted with their cars as to how they want to get around, and I don't see that way of thinking changing any time soon.

It is sometimes possible to live without a car. I have done it myself, but for the most part to have access to a range of employment and educational opportunities you must have a car.

You are correct people can make choices to live in NYC or a small town and not own a car, or work at a local job and never have real opportunities for up-ward mobility. But is it fare to make people chose between living near family, friends, and familiar surroundings just to be without a car?

As I posted earlier many disabled people have to make that exact decision. Live with family or move to a city with adequate transport. That is neither freedom or fairness.

Also as I stated earlier the American public did not, "(vote) with their cars." They were forced into our current lifestyle by corporate America. The streetcars were destroyed either directly or through deceit by people who wanted to make money building roads, cars, and subdivisions. It was a great horns-waggle, but you are right I don't see it changing anytime soon either.

 

[stlbobby]

Actually the blog I linked to is more dedicated to travel by personal aircraft and the emerging concept of 'pocket airports'. A kind of Star Wars like future resembling those seen on Coruscant.

It is a very real, very serious possibility. And since the planes will fly themselves, they could easily be used by anybody.

Here is a better more specific link....

http://blog.cafefoundation.org/?p=2325

Better than what we have, but still an economic barrier. And I'd just rather get on a train and leave the driving and the maintenance to others.

I am more than willing to pay a tax for that, even if that tax ended up being more than my car, insurance, and maintenance. The convenience and egalitarianism of it would be worth it to me.

 

[jt04]

Better than what we have, but still an economic barrier. And I'd just rather get on a train and leave the driving and the maintenance to others.

I am more than willing to pay a tax for that, even if that tax ended up being more than my car, insurance, and maintenance. The convenience and egalitarianism of it would be worth it to me.

In the concept I linked to you would not necessarily own the aircraft. In fact, almost everyone using the service would not own the craft and the airplane would be maintained by the company providing the service. No different than rental cars. Except you would not need insurance as you do with rental cars. Pocket airports would be nearly as flexible as a rental car. And far beyond what a train can provide.

BTW, the old STOL airport at WDW is the perfect size for a pocket airport. Just sayin'.

PS- No need for tax dollars either. The private sector could easily build these.

 

[googilycub]

First off your using Wikipedia. I can change that in ten seconds to support my point.

But even by this reference only 70% is user generated. That's 30% unfunded, far from, "Roads in the US almost pay for themselfs(sic)." So the questionable citation you made actually proves the point I was making. Thank you.

You mean this point? "The Federal Government provides the bulk of the highway money and that revenue comes largely from income taxes" which is shown to be wrong.

BTW in Utah user fees cover 73% of highway funding
http://www.le.state.ut.us/lrgc/briefingpapers/hwyfunding.pdfTexas would be doing even better than 69% if it didn't take 25% of the gas taxes it recieved and gave it to local schools
http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Other_Pubs/Highway_Funding_Primer_0209.pdf
http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/focus/HighwayFund81-5.pdf

And of course the original construction did not add to the national debt.

"The Interstate Construction Program, like the Federal-aid highway program of which it is a part, operates on a reimbursement basis. After FHWA authorizes a State to proceed with a project, the State pays the bills for eligible activities, and then submits bills to the FHWA, which reimburses the State for the Federal share. The FHWA makes a commitment (or "obligation") to reimburse the Federal share, but Interstate development takes several years. As a result, the FHWA obligation results in reimbursements to the State for the Federal share over several years. The 1956 Act included a provision named after Senator Harry Flood Byrd (D-VA), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, to ensure the Highway Trust Fund would contain enough money to pay the bills. If sufficient funds are not available, the program must be reduced administratively in proportion to the imbalance.
The Highway Trust Fund financing mechanism established in the 1956 Act satisfied President Eisenhower's "self-liquidating" demand. As a result, construction of the Interstate System did not contribute to a Federal deficit."
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question8​

I could go on and on to show that the majority of highway funding is not funded by property taxes as you stated, but a simple google search should set you straight. All these facts come from govenment run web sites, and the information is pretty close to what was in Wiki

This also ignores the fact that many people who buy and maintain a car incur those taxes, but do not regularly use the massive highway system which is by far the biggest expenditure.
Which is no different than part of the taxes I pay go to funding public transportation that I will never use, it is no different than part of my property taxes going to fund the local fire department that so far I have never had to call on. It is no different than my 55 year old neighbors who do not have any kids, having to help pay for the local schools in their property taxes.

It also ignores expenditures on snow removal which are born by the states and municipalities, further increasing the 30% burden.
So I guess states that do not see snow doing even better than average, good to know.
Finally, the problem is systemic. I am forced by the design of our society, to own a car, therefore I am forced to pay the taxes on that car, which in turn propagates the system.

No one if forcing you to own a car. If you decide to live outside of walking distance of your work that is on you. If you decide to work at someplace that you can't walk to, that is on you. There are millions of people who function just fine without a car, I did for some time. However the freedom of car ownership is something that MOST people want. The majority should not have the ideas of the few forced on them.....

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Also as I stated earlier the American public did not, "(vote) with their cars." They were forced into our current lifestyle by corporate America. The streetcars were destroyed either directly or through deceit by people who wanted to make money building roads, cars, and subdivisions. It was a great horns-waggle, but you are right I don't see it changing anytime soon either.

Reminds me of the scene from Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Eddie Valiant: "Why would anybody drive this lousy freeway when they could take the Red Car for a nickel?"

Judge Doom: "Oh, they'll drive. They'll have no choice. You see, I acquired the Red Car so I could DISMANTLE it."

Granted, that's Hollywood, but if you look at the real history of Los Angeles, the streetcars were removed for the benefit of the industries pushing for a massive highway system.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

No one if forcing you to own a car. If you decide to live outside of walking distance of your work that is on you. If you decide to work at someplace that you can't walk to, that is on you.

This just doesn't have the ring of a serious argument to me. Finding an affordable place to live within a half-mile or so of a place that will hire you, AND within walking distance of basic necessities like groceries, is a realistic expectation for every person in the country (including those in the suburbs)?

I suppose the follow-up would be that it's an individual decision to live in the suburbs, where business and housing districts are separated by miles. But that just ties into stlbobby's point that car ownership is de facto mandatory in this country, unless you decide to move to a city.

 

[SeaCastle]

In the concept I linked to you would not necessarily own the aircraft. In fact, almost everyone using the service would not own the craft and the airplane would be maintained by the company providing the service. No different than rental cars. Except you would not need insurance as you do with rental cars. Pocket airports would be nearly as flexible as a rental car. And far beyond what a train can provide.

BTW, the old STOL airport at WDW is the perfect size for a pocket airport. Just sayin'.

PS- No need for tax dollars either. The private sector could easily build these.

The STOLport is zoned for redevelopment as a resort. Even if the concept was feasible, Disney doesn't believe it is- they will be using that area as one of the next spots to build their next timeshares.

 

[stlbobby]

In the concept I linked to you would not necessarily own the aircraft. In fact, almost everyone using the service would not own the craft and the airplane would be maintained by the company providing the service. No different than rental cars. Except you would not need insurance as you do with rental cars. Pocket airports would be nearly as flexible as a rental car. And far beyond what a train can provide.

BTW, the old STOL airport at WDW is the perfect size for a pocket airport. Just sayin'.

PS- No need for tax dollars either. The private sector could easily build these.

OK you convinced me. Let's build these.

 

[stlbobby]

No one if forcing you to own a car. If you decide to live outside of walking distance of your work that is on you. If you decide to work at someplace that you can't walk to, that is on you. There are millions of people who function just fine without a car, I did for some time. However the freedom of car ownership is something that MOST people want. The majority should not have the ideas of the few forced on them.....

I'm not going back line through line again, but a few things. I never said property taxes. I said taxes.

You are making my point with you're fire department analogy. We should all pay our part for something important even if we don't use it. You are arbitrarily deciding that cars are worth it and trains aren't and I have spent countless post showing how that is a perception issue. You make many assumptions about cars and why we have them because you have been socialized that way.

Additionally, there is a simple way to build a massive system of HSR and metros without adding one cent to the national debt--raise taxes to support it. And once it is finished it would actually help the economy. On a macro level by easing our dependence on foreign oil. And on a micro level by putting more money in the average person's pocket. Money they would spend on American products as opposed to giving it to Middle-East Governments.

I have spent several posts talking about the car as a lifestyle choice. I admitted it is possible if you are willing to forgo many employment and educational opportunities. In certain fields and certain regions it would be completely impossible. I have also shown several times that for some people it isn't a choice and their lives are severally diminished due to society's reliance on cars. I ask again is it fair to make a person choose between living near family or moving to a place with adequate public transport?

 

[stlbobby]

Reminds me of the scene from Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Eddie Valiant: "Why would anybody drive this lousy freeway when they could take the Red Car for a nickel?"

Judge Doom: "Oh, they'll drive. They'll have no choice. You see, I acquired the Red Car so I could DISMANTLE it."

Granted, that's Hollywood, but if you look at the real history of Los Angeles, the streetcars were removed for the benefit of the industries pushing for a massive highway system.

I wasn't going to use the Roger Rabbit card, but since you did, it is a fictional movie based on a serious fact.

 

[googilycub]

You make many assumptions about cars and why we have them because you have been socialized that way.

.

The American public and time had made clear what they prefer. If you would like to belive the theory that we were all somehow brainwashed by the auto makers go head. I will even give you some tin foil for your hat. However the American people have spoken with the wallets as to what they prefre for their means of transportation, and rail is not it. Rail needs to be left alone and permitted to do what it does best, transport large amounts of freight safe and cheap, and leave the passengers to more agile forms of transportation.

While I do not know who said the following quote, it is worth repeating....build me a mile of highway/railway I will take you a mile. Build me a mile of runway, I will take you anywhere.

 

[stlbobby]

Here's a simple question for everyone contending that having a car is simply a choice. How would people react if you announced you were homosexual? You were becoming a vegetarian? You were giving up your car and all auto travel completely?

Which decision would be easiest to execute? Which decision would draw the least amount of scorn? Pity?

In today's society the autoless person would be the most unusual. I bet everyone knows a gay person, and probably knows a vegetarian, but outside of Manhattan how many people know a person that doesn't have a car? Much less someone that never uses them period?

 

[stlbobby]

The American public and time had made clear what they prefer. If you would like to belive the theory that we were all somehow brainwashed by the auto makers go head. I will even give you some tin foil for your hat. However the American people have spoken with the wallets as to what they prefre for their means of transportation, and rail is not it. Rail needs to be left alone and permitted to do what it does best, transport large amounts of freight safe and cheap, and leave the passengers to more agile forms of transportation.

While I do not know who said the following quote, it is worth repeating....build me a mile of highway/railway I will take you a mile. Build me a mile of runway, I will take you anywhere.

Your obstinate attitude is my point. You continue to make my argument for me.

 

[googilycub]

. I ask again is it fair to make a person choose between living near family or moving to a place with adequate public transport?

Life is not fair Bobby.....


It is not the govenments job to make EVERY thing in ones life fair.......