And doesn’t Europe subsidize rail travel?
1 Like
I don’t think train travel will be cheaper until there is innovation and expansion in that space. Where have I heard innovation is the key lower prices?! Hmmm… on yea on this very board.
In this case I agree… if we can innovate in that space it can be cheaper than air travel in some, if not most cases.
California will set the example and put our money where our mouth is… if it works it will be a model for the nation… if it doesn’t? It will have been a gross waste of funds. Innovation is a not for the weak at heart.
Because where we are heading is free trains.
As well as universal Healthcare, Free college, guaranteed income for those who don’t want to work…
You are comparing hub to hub transportation.
I’m talking more about ease of movement for daily use as well as leisure travel. So what about the man who lives 60 miles from paris? Nearly every town in eroupe is connected to the train network making it very easy and affordable to get around.
Certainly, flying from a large hub city to another large hub city is affordable, and likely always will be. But that’s not really what I am arguing for.
We subsidize air travel.
And of course car/bus travel as well.
If rail travel isn’t affordable in china, japan and europe why do so many people choose it?
Like I said, what you are talking about is heavy government subsidies, period. England for example subsidizes their trains and busses to the tune of 5 billion a year. And guess who derives most of the benefit from that? Rich people in London, thats who.
An estimated £1,943 is being spent per person in London on current or planned projects, compared with just £427 in the north. A household in London benefits from almost four times as much rail subsidy as a household in Wales.
We subsidize air and car travel.
What do you think the federal government spent constructing and maintaining the interstate highway system? Do you remember the post 9/11 airline bailouts? Who do you think pays for the airports? And the FAA? And TSA?
Britain chose trains. We chose planes and cars.
Oh brother.
from America's Airports | Did you know?
America’s airports are largely self-sustaining and do not drain precious local tax dollars away from other important government services.
- Airports are locally owned and operated . All but one U.S. commercial airport are owned and operated by public entities, including local, regional or state authorities with the power to issue bonds to finance some of their capital needs.
- Airports are landlords . Airport operations are largely self-sustaining – rent, fees and other charges are assessed to businesses that operate at the airport, including airlines.
- Airports are largely funded by those who use them . The vast majority of airport revenues come from fees paid by passengers using the airport, landing fees and space rental fees paid by airlines, parking charges and sales of food and goods at the airport. Though not well understood by many Americans, commercial airports receive almost no taxpayer-funded support from state or local sources. Federal grants that help pay for airport construction projects come from a portion of the travel taxes paid when you buy an airline ticket or ship a package and fuel taxes paid by general aviation. 4
Same goes for the FAA and TSA, mostly funded by the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which in turn is funded with taxes collected by users, not from the general fund.
Talking points from an airport lobby group aren’t that convincing.
lol.
Lawmakers proposed a $114 million bump in funding for the Transportation Security Administration under the new $1.3 trillion spending bill passed by both houses of Congress on Thursday. Under the proposed spending bill, the TSA would get a total of $7.9 billion in funding.
Congress passed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2018 (HR 302) on Oct. 3.
The bill would reauthorize the FAA for five years, FY 2019-2023, at a cost of $97 billion and represents the longest funding authorization period for FAA programs since 1982.
http://www.ncsl.org/blog/2018/10/04/congress-passes-5-year-faa-reauthorization-act.aspx
There is no denying that AOC is on to something big. A discussion of Climate Change and responses to it touches most aspects of life. For example, the very issue of the existence of Climate Change requires us to address the political divide in US politics where one of the two major parties is resistant to even admitting the scientific evidence of Climate Change.
Making changes to our country in response to climate change is also political and will be contentious even if everybody agrees on the underlying science. Transportation, power generation, housing, taxation, agriculture, industry, hell everything is involved in a response to Climate Change. Why? Because human civilization is associated with, dependent upon, characterized by, even defined by increased energy consumption. In other words, there will be losers with every change we decide to make and the losers will resist.
It seems/feels to me that we are behind in addressing this issue like we are in other major Left issues like voting rights and climate change because of the Republican Party. The Republican Party needs to be defeated root and branch in order to move forward on these issues.
But how do we do that when the very issues we seek to solve through political domination generate multiple communities of political resistance to said solutions?
So I am among those that consider human-driven climate change to be the single biggest challenge facing the world. That said, this from the “Green New Deal” is simply farcical:
“a complete transition to 100% renewable energy in the next 10 years,”
We criticize the GOP when they claim that lower taxes will increase revenue - we can do that because we believe in facts and reality.
Here is where we stand on renewables now:
http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-renewable-energy-factsheet
So note that hydro (the single biggest present source) is pretty much tapped out. Biomass (the second biggest) is not carbon friendly.
Once you exceed about 15-20% from intermittent (non base-load) sources, you have to start building storage alongside - that dramatically increases the cost, perhaps by a factor of 3 or more.
To pretend that you can be 100% renewable in a decade is fantasy.
ATL…the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport…is the cash cow for the City of Atlanta…and Jackson’s progeny.
The crook, Maynard Jackson set his family (and his friend, Herman Russell) up well by awarding them concession rights even when many (and more qualified) applicants wanted the spaces.
I would bet the wordsmiths just used the wrong terms. We could definitely make all new installations renewables. We could reasonably require all new vehicles to be operable on renewable energy by 2030, as this would allow for bio- or solar-sourced chemical fuels.
I don’t think it’s a fantasy, but they’re not talking about the enormous sacrifices and lifestyle changes they will have to demand of the American people to accomplish all this. It’s implicit in the 'WWII type of mobilization" phrasing, but they’re not spelling out that everyone will be on public mass transport or bicycles, we’ll all have to go vegetarian, etc, etc. Because if they do, we’ll all just go ‘fuck no, we’d rather die’. And we will.
In a very real way, pushing a Green New Deal is a godsend for the Republican Party. Millions of Americans that are now leaning left will spring to the right in a blinding flash when they’re told they’ll have to give up meat, or, especially, individual automobile ownership.
I say this as a lifelong liberal.
Lol, you might want to check how much the security fee paid by passengers brings in per year.
Those were votes to allocate portions of that money, not from the general fund. As of 2012 just the airline security fee passengers pay was generating 18 billion a year. Taxes make up over 20% of an air travel ticket. So sorry your link of them appropriating some of that money back to them isn’t a subsidy.
from http://airlines.org/dataset/government-imposed-taxes-on-air-transportation/
you cant compare us to the Japanese, Chinese and Europe, the reasons why high speed rail is a success there because more people take the train, even before High Speed came in , railways there in different towns and cities are accessable by public transit.
Here in the states because its so spread out you need a car to get to a train station, and lets use your example of if one lives in Chicago and wants to take their family to NYC what is the cost to take a high speed train, It would be what 10 to 15% cheaper than economy flight.
YOu might save money but not time, because security is just as bad as the airport, do you really want to arrive two hours before the train ride unless you ride first class and then sure you ride in comfort but the time to get from Chicago to NYC by high speed train isnt worth it.
In Europe and the Asian countries its different train travel is a way of life, in America, Cars and flying is a way of life.
how does a high speed train help the poor in inner cities access to Work markets?
Where are you coming up with high speed rail being cheaper? Regular rail sure isn’t and I can’t see any reason costs would go down for high speed rail.