• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gas prices are highest ever for this time of year

Gill said:
For the cost to build the 20 mile light rail system in Phoenix, which was $1.4 billion [...]
Click to expand...
$70 million per mile. Including the cars. Urban freeway costs $39 million a mile -- not including the cars :2razz: (or the pollution, or the accidents, or the injuries -- all of which are a cost to society).

So... for a $780 million 20-mile freeway, you could have bought 1,000 Bell 206B five-seat helicopters and ferried the 10,000 riders to and from work every day :mrgreen:

Or, you could have bought one $780 million teleportation device (pat. pending) from the Federation of Planets Corp. and simply beamed them back and forth to work, Scotty....
 
Samhain said:
And if you increase fuel economy, you increase the price of your vehicle.
Click to expand...

Why? I was checking out the Mazda 3 yesterday. You can buy one for less than 20K and it gets 40 mpg. The Miata sitting on the showroom floor is rated at 28 mpg and it costs just over 30k.

The 40 mpg 1.4 Chevy Sonic actually costs less than the 1.8 version.

Doubling the minimum fuel economy on a car prior to the technology being ready for that innovation will immediately spike manufacturing costs.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone is argueing for an immediate production of 80 mpg cars.
 
Gill said:
The number I quoted was from 2010. Daily ridership does not equal number of riders. It can be assumed that each rider uses the train twice a day, so even using Wiki numbers, only about 20,000 people a day ride the train. It is still a monumental failure and a huge drain on taxpayer money. But what the hell...........Obama can just borrow some more from the Chinese, right ??
Click to expand...

Ridership is defined as the number of persons who ride -- not the number of trips. But even if you were correct, you still understated it by 100%. :roll:

Apparently the line has exceeded ridership projections and is close to meeting its projected revenue numbers, so it would appear that the voters are getting what they wanted.
 
Gill said:
I'm very happy that you and your wife live and work near a train station. I'm sure you share that with 2% of the population.

How much did the rail system cost to build?

What are its operating costs per year ?

How much does it make?

How many people ride on it every day ?

In almost all cases, it costs the taxpayers thousands of dollars in subsidies for each and every passenger on light rail systems.
Click to expand...

It breaks even more or less. I'm sure a lot of that comes from advertising revenue. They're basically rolling billboards. :neutral: But it is an effective transit system.

It all has to do with how it is routed. In Buffalo, where I once lived, it was a failure because it was poorly planned, and it doesn't go anywhere people want to go (generally). Here, the terminii are Target Field (Twins) and the Mall of America. Along the way it stops at the Metrodome and both airport terminals. All places people want to go. They also made many of the stations mini-transit hubs, so it's easy to switch between bus and train, there's bike racks on the trains and a couple of park and ride lots, so if you don't live within walking distance, it's easy to use.

Well planned light rail systems work well. Poorly planned ones do not. Like most things in life, better planning yields better results.
 
1Perry said:
I had to counter this one not long ago and here we are again. For years it was the (D) representatives from Michigan that fought against higher Cafe ratings.
Click to expand...
Local issue (Higher CAFE = smaller cars = less profit per car for Detroit).

1Perry said:
This one also. It's been the Dems fighting against nuclear energy.
Click to expand...
Environmental issues (safety and waste).

Fail x 2.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
$70 million per mile. Including the cars. Urban freeway costs $39 million a mile -- not including the cars :2razz: (or the pollution, or the accidents, or the injuries -- all of which are a cost to society).

So... for a $780 million 20-mile freeway, you could have bought 1,000 Bell 206B five-seat helicopters and ferried the 10,000 riders to and from work every day :mrgreen:

Or, you could have bought one $780 million teleportation device (pat. pending) from the Federation of Planets Corp. and simply beamed them back and forth to work, Scotty....
Click to expand...

Interstate highways are mostly paid for with usage fees. Light rail will never come close to being paid for with fees.

A teleportation device would be more practical than light rail, and probably cheaper.

Try again.
 
Gill said:
Interstate highways are mostly paid for with usage fees. [...]
Click to expand...
Explain and calculate these so-called user fees.
 
Karl said:
Local issue (Higher CAFE = smaller cars = less profit per car for Detroit).


Environmental issues (safety and waster).

Fail x 2.
Click to expand...

Obama's energy department recently approved the first all-new nuke plant in this country in the last 40-something years....
 
Karl said:
Explain and calculate these so-called user fees.
Click to expand...

Gasoline taxes, which in fact don't come close to paying for the highways ... are are paying for less every year due to more efficient cars and trucks.
 
rocket88 said:
It breaks even more or less. [...]
Click to expand...
Irrelevant in the final analysis, which requires the calculation of the total life cycle cost to society (total cost to the economy, if you like) for various options (freeway, bus, light rail, teleportation device ;), etc).
 
Karl said:
Local issue (Higher CAFE = smaller cars = less profit per car for Detroit).
Click to expand...

So what? They were still (D)'s.

Environmental issues (safety and waster).

Fail x 2.
Click to expand...

France has seemed to make it work just fine. Oh, and it actually works.
 
Gill said:
Interstate highways are mostly paid for with usage fees.
Click to expand...

Well, where I'm from there's another word for those "usage fees." They're called "gas taxes."

So it all gobbles up taxes. You can call it a usage fee if you want, but it's a tax. Tim Pawlenty raised cigarette taxes here and justified it by calling it a "health impact fee." Then he ran for President saying he never raised taxes. BS. Call it a fee if you want, but it's a tax.
 
1Perry said:
So what? They were still (D)'s.

France has seemed to make it work just fine. Oh, and it actually works.
Click to expand...

Obtuse x 2
 
AdamT said:
Obama's energy department recently approved the first all-new nuke plant in this country in the last 40-something years....
Click to expand...

And higher CAFE ratings easily passed. Both being positive turn of events for both parties. Neither negates past actions.
 
AdamT said:
Gasoline taxes, which in fact don't come close to paying for the highways ... are are paying for less every year due to more efficient cars and trucks.
Click to expand...

Actually, they pay for 70% of the construction and maintenance costs.

Want to compare that to light rail ??
 
rocket88 said:
Well, where I'm from there's another word for those "usage fees." They're called "gas taxes."

So it all gobbles up taxes. You can call it a usage fee if you want, but it's a tax. Tim Pawlenty raised cigarette taxes here and justified it by calling it a "health impact fee." Then he ran for President saying he never raised taxes. BS. Call it a fee if you want, but it's a tax.
Click to expand...

Do light rail passengers pay a usage tax that pays for 70% of the cost to build and operate light rail ??

NO, we all pay for the trains whether we ride on them or not. If you don't drive, you don't pay for highways.

See the difference ??
 
Last edited:
According the memo from the GOP / RNC media strategy, pundits are supped to blame gas prices on Obama.

Does Fox News get paid by the GOP?
 
Karl said:
Follow the money.

When alternative transportation (or fuels) are utilized, who loses market share (money)? (oil companies)

Who is mostly paid by the oil companies to protect their profits/market share? (Republicans)
Click to expand...

Name a company that was a huge contributor to Obama. BP
 
Gill said:
Actually, they pay for 70% of the construction and maintenance costs.

Want to compare that to light rail ??
Click to expand...

Actually, once again, you are way wrong on the facts. Fuel taxes only pay for about 45-50% of highway costs, and falling.

The USA is at a critical juncture in how it pays for roads, bridges and transit. That's because the federal tax on gasoline, the primary method since 1956, has lost one-third of its buying power since it was last raised in 1993. States add their own tax on top of that, but the federal tax accounts for about 45%-50% of capital spending for transportation.

The federal gas tax — 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline, 24.4 cents for diesel — is growing anemic because of more fuel-efficient vehicles, Americans driving fewer miles and the growth of electric and alternative-fuel vehicles. The tax rate on gasohol and most other special fuels is much less.


Fedeal gas tax increasingly unable to pay for transportation needs
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
Gasoline taxes, which in fact don't come close to paying for the highways ... are are paying for less every year due to more efficient cars and trucks.
Click to expand...

Due to the price of fuel doubling, I would say they are making twice the amount on taxes.
 
Gill said:
Do light rail passengers pay a usage tax that pays for 70% of the cost to build and operate light rail ??

NO, we all pay for the trains whether we ride on them or not. If you don't drive, you don't pay for highways.

See the difference ??
Click to expand...

You do pay for the highways that you don't use. I don't particularly use the highways between 2 suburbs, but I still pay for them.

Look, where the light rail runs here, a solution was needed. People tend not to like it when you run an interstate right down the middle of the neighborhood. On the other hand, people were taking that route from the airport to get downtown anyway, but city streets weren't designed to handle that kind of traffic. So what do you do? Light rail worked as a solution here. It won't work everywhere, just like highways won't work everywhere. Between fares and ad revenue, it breaks even. Sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less.

I know you're a conservative and basically against public transportation anyway, but a well planned light rail line can work if it's deployed properly. A poorly planned, poorly deployed line doesn't work. If you're thinking light rail from suburb to city, I can see that probably wouldn't work. Within an urbanized area, it works quite well.
 
And since we are talking about renewable fuels, and how bipartisan this is, look up wind powered plants in MA and CT. There are billboards and flyers everywhere saying not in my backyard. Enviromentally friendly renewable energy is only a good thing if it isn't in your backyard. Just like a cell phone tower. It doesn't matter what party. People go nuts seeing these things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom