saxman66

I actually know where that came from, and it is very misleading. First off it's from 2004 using older data. And in that case, of course the subsidy per 1000 passenger miles is less, because there are millions of drivers driving millions of miles and only a small fraction of that travels by train. This is because there are so few passenger trains now.

I'll refer you to the actual USDOT's website where it charts out the Highway Trust Fund over the last few years. You can see that in 2008, Congress had to bail out the HTF with $8 billion from the general tax fund. In 2009, you have $7 billion, and in 2010, $14.5 billion. So the notion that your federal gas tax (about 18 cents per gallon) pays for all highways and then some is completely false.

Here's another report from the US PIRG, saying that collectively since 1947, we've spent another $600 billion (2005 dollars) more than what was taken in just on highways.

I'm trying to find it, but the US DOT has also stated that the gas taxes and other vehicle fees only pay for about half of what is actually spent on roads. Amtrak's farebox recovery on a whole pays more like 60-70% on average of the costs of running the trains.

LeftWing

Man, you really reached in making your strawman argument! I didn't even remotely suggest anything about pay disparity, preferential hiring or accommodating phobias......not even close!

When I was talking about a level playing field, I meant between modes of transportation. i.e. One cannot say that the market will decide between air and HSR when air's infrastructure is much more established than HSR. Of course people will choose air if their only rail option is to be on a train that must share the tracks with freight trains. That is not true HSR. However, if there was true HSR infrastructure in densely populated areas, i.e. Philly to NYC, damn right passengers would choose rail over air.

And I will be pulling into Penn Station before you even get halfway through NJ in your Chevrolet.

LeftWing

A. IMHO, it is not wasting money, it is an investment.
B. "un-American?" That isn't the way taxes work. i.e. In many states, part of one's property tax is allocated for public schools. If a taxpayer is without children, they still pay it. Do you know why? It is because we all benefit from a society that is educated. In this case, directly or indirectly, we all will ultimately benefit from HSR. So no, you're wrong. Tax money for HSR, even though one is doesn't use it is very American.

FDXLAG

Why cant you, George Soros, and a couple of Hollywood lefties get together build your train and make obscene profits on your outstanding vision of what the public wants?

I mean besides all the environemental regs (those tracks are destroying the kangaroo rat habitat, pay 50 billion do not pass go) that would strangle you it sounds like you think this thing is a no brainer.

zondaracer

Yeah, i agree. Europe (excluding Russia) is half the land mass of the US but twice the population.

Ewfflyer

This whole discussion reminds me of this episode of the Simpsons....

YouTube - Simpsons - Monorail