• John Dough Posted: 5/8/2011 3:06am PDT

    Marvin asks, "Is the field level when we spend 100$ on roads for every 1 spent on mass transit."
    The field is level when road users pay 100% of the cost of their highways and transit users pay 100% of the cost of their buses, trains an trolleys. The playing field is tipped when money is taken from one group for the advantage of the other..

  • fb_541702652 avatar Marvin Posted: 5/6/2011 9:51pm PDT

    I am sorry,roads are money losers.
    "Let's not hold rail up and say it needs to make money when highways don't make money, transit doesn't make money and a lot of small airports don't make money and they all get subsidies," Van Beek said.
    Is the field level when we spend 100$ on roads for every 1 spent on mass transit.
    as to the population density of the US, good point, but people still use airports for long trips. why would train travel be any different? unless you like driving 500 miles to get to where you want to go, a train that saves you time, and allows you to relax and work while you travel. is a good option.
    I am not advocating ripping up roads just provide options for the American public other than driving.

  • John Dough Posted: 5/6/2011 6:31am PDT

    To use highway taxes for transit is sheer madness. Transit runs at such heavy losses, it's like cutting up the healthy chickens and feeding them to the sick chickens. There's already too much money transferred from highway users to transit. If not for those transfers, highways would be doing just fine without subsidies.
    I have no problem with using road taxes to build roads that support rubber-tired buses, bicycles, pedestrians, etc. But, buses' and trains' operation costs should be paid by bus and train riders...100%!

  • Bill Posted: 5/5/2011 10:22am PDT

    Why are there so many jerks like Ted C, Jim and MIchael in this country. These are the same kind of people who would have dumped on NASA years ago. They are backward-focused and ignorant of the realities and futire needs. Or maybe they are just cheap and self-centered.
    There are plenty of places in the US that could use a high speed rail. The long skinny states of FL and CA, the NE Corridor, Phoenix to Tucson and so on and on.
    I love cars as anybody else (I have 5), but am not so stupid as to deny the realities of transportation needs in the US.

  • Ted C Posted: 5/5/2011 9:38am PDT

    The Mad Men folks should stick to acting as they clearly haven't read the requirements of the CA HSR bond measure and clearly do not understand the realities of this proposed project. With no money available, do they not understand this is a net sum zero game? I wonder if they understand that in order to build HSR education will suffer? They are still drinking the Obama Kool Aid. Wake up people!

  • Michael Posted: 5/5/2011 6:40am PDT

    Only in the United States does a government pull money away from the automobile for pie in the sky trash like Amtrak on steroids.
    Message to Washington: WE'RE NOT EUROPE. Forget mass transit and trains. It'll never work because the population density isn't here. So quit being stupid, get CNG into our vehicle fleet in order to torpedo oil prices -- and move on.

  • Jim Posted: 5/5/2011 5:46am PDT

    More wasted money. $53B for a rail system no one uses. Watch a train go through Illinois. 15 cars and 15 restless riders, 3 conductors and 25 sacks of mail. Too much money for too few passengers. Why do you think Florida and Wisconsin both said NO. Not worth it.

  • CharlesBrooks avatar CharlesBrooks Posted: 5/4/2011 7:46pm PDT

    great info

  • john_v avatar John Posted: 5/4/2011 4:05pm PDT

    High-speed rail works in medium-length dense corridors, but most of the U.S. has low-density development (suburban sprawl). Amtrak has issued a conceptual plan for the Northeast Corridor (Boston-NYC-Washington) to take it from its current 110-mph maximum to true high-speed rail (150 mph) by moving pieces of the corridor out of developed coastal areas. Cost: $50 billion or so. The NE Corridor should probably be the major focus of any HSR efforts, followed by a dozen or so carefully chosen city pairs (e.g. Chicago-Detroit) of the right length and sufficient density.