posted
You may or may not be able to access this material as I do not know at this time what is free content at the Wall Street Journal's site. Either way, I don't think too many advocates of mass transportation will hold same view as does the author:
What is the appropriate response to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who as General Motors prepared to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection declared that he wants to "coerce people out of their cars"? One might be inclined to dismiss these words as overkill -- except for recently introduced legislation by some congressional heavy-hitters that would take us down this road......Moreover, public transportation (passenger rail services, subways, buses, light rail) requires heavy subsidies, while roads mostly pay for themselves through fuel taxes. Our roads would be even more self-sustaining if 20% of the federal fuel tax were not already diverted to public transit from the federal Highway Trust Fund. Messrs. Rockefeller, Lautenberg and Oberstar want to grab even more money from the trust fund.
Americans have always valued their independence and mobility.....
It would appear that this piece would appeal to "Red State" constituents as well as Wall Street Journal readers in the back seat of the Limo or Livery Car.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Instead of being "coerced" out of our cars, as the author claims, I would argue we are being "coerced" into them by the absence of convenient and time competitive public transportation. I live in the center of the Minneapolis-St.Paul metro area. A bus trip to work downtown takes 45 minutes and I can drive it in 10 minutes.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just talking to someone this morning about BART and how long it takes to get to SFO. From my BART station (Dublin/Pleasanton), I used to be able to walk across the street with my rolling luggage, get on BART, and be at SFO in about an hour. But the powers-that-be at BART eliminated direct service to SFO from the East Bay. Now, I would have to take BART to an intermediate station, then sit around and wait for the SFO train to show up.
It takes me 45 minutes to drive to SFO. It takes 90 minutes to take BART to SFO. Neeldess to say, I always drive to SFO now. So I would say that public transportation decisions are forcing me into my car. My local transit agency (called "Wheels"), just announced a major reduction in service. Off the top of my head, I think they said they are completely eliminating all weekend bus service as well as evening bus service. I need to go look that up to confirm, but once again, transit forces us into our cars.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...I get their point, but the Highway Fund has had infusions of cash from the genreal fund n the past, and is likely to need more in the very near future. Car/road travel is subsidized now, perhaps not on such a grand scale, but it doesn't pay for itself with just the current fuel tax.
Smitty doesn't inlcude parking charges now in his time-only comparison. While it takes 90 minutes vs. 45, if he drives and stays away a few days his parking bill will be pretty large, and if he parks off-site, he can eat up that extra 45 minutes pretty easily. But his point that the transport company shoots itself in the foot is well taken.
Posts: 406 | From: La Grange, CA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "coerce people out of their cars" comment was made during a Q&A session at the National Press Club on May 21. The phrase actually came from a question put to him. He repeated and appeared to agree with it, in the context of explaining that road congestion is already intolerable and alternatives need to be better utilized. I suspect that if he had a little more time to think about it he wouldn't have repeated the language given to him by the questioner. Had it come from his prepared remarks I would be more concerned.
See his remarks in context here in a National Press Club Video. The relevant comment comes at the 21 minute mark. Remarks that precede this particular question are also related.
And don't get me started about how gas taxes cover highway costs:
"The notion that the gas tax covers all highway expenses is a notion that will send any state Governor into fits of laughter. The highways require enormous support, local state and federal, that goes well beyond what gas taxes bring in." -William Lind, co-author of Moving Minds - Conservatives and Public Transportation.
posted
RR4me: True on the parking stuff. If I'm gone for, let's say, 3 days, then my parking bill at SFO will be anywhere from $55 at the high end (parking in Garage A right at the terminal), to about $35 at the low end (SFO long-term parking, which requires an SFO bus ride to the terminal). There are cheaper off-site parking lots (such as Anza), but those also require a bus ride to the airport.
So if cost is not a factor, then by far, the easiest (and quickest) option is for me to drive myself to SFO and park in Garage A.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please name one transportation system that "pays its way". From roads, to airways, to city metro systems, to canals/waterways, to rail, to any bus system, not one of them pays their way.
They all are subsidized by our taxes, and even when taxes on the roads {gas tax} and airways {boarding fees} are imposed, they still do not meet the needs of each system and have to be subsidized out of our general funds.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that American passenger trains lost money after 1929 and made profits during World War II only because rationing and huge troop movements artificially drove up ridership.
GBN may have a better handle on this.
I also seem to have read recently in a respected railroad history (whose title escapes me for the moment) that some economists believe passenger railroading never really paid for itself, that many of its costs were subsumed into freight-side accounting. Again, GBN may know more about this.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The eastern companies had to make it pay its way as long as possible because they had so much of it. The western lines put on single flagship type trains for promotional purposes.
It was somewhat like the concept behind the entire Florida East Coast Railroad. Henry Flagler really did not care if the railroad make a profit. It was necessary to bring people to his south Florida developments.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
