• 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!

St. Louis, Long a Coal Capital, Votes to Get All of Its Power From Clean Sources

long term I think we need both solar and nuclear.

Certainly solar is better in remote situations or areas with more sunlight, as a backup or on rooftops. But we should let the market decide that.
 
Yes, it is.

Why is their a need of light rail to rural areas. have any idea how much it ends up costing per ride? You could pay for a taxi for everyone who wanted to come and go.

What percentage of government funds go towards rail projects, versus the government money that go towards roads? Roads use Federal tax money, State tax money, County tax money, and local tax money. Many roads are maintained with General Fund expenditures, which comes from sales tax. Almost every city in the US uses the General Fund for roads.

In addition, because Light Rail, subways, elevated rails, etc use a separate travel medium, it helps to relieve road congestion. If everybody drove in cities like New York and Chicago, nobody would get anywhere. Personally, I biked to work, year-round, for 30+ years. The bicycle is the most efficient vehicle in existence. And it fights the great American epidemic - obesity. It's a win-win. If nobody gets anywhere, that's a lose-lose.
 
Certainly solar is better in remote situations or areas with more sunlight, as a backup or on rooftops. But we should let the market decide that.

The market decided for me. I'm laughing all the way to the bank. No utility bills!!!

SolarWind_CloseUp.JPG
 
What percentage of government funds go towards rail projects, versus the government money that go towards roads? Roads use Federal tax money, State tax money, County tax money, and local tax money. Many roads are maintained with General Fund expenditures, which comes from sales tax. Almost every city in the US uses the General Fund for roads.

In addition, because Light Rail, subways, elevated rails, etc use a separate travel medium, it helps to relieve road congestion. If everybody drove in cities like New York and Chicago, nobody would get anywhere. Personally, I biked to work, year-round, for 30+ years. The bicycle is the most efficient vehicle in existence. And it fights the great American epidemic - obesity. It's a win-win. If nobody gets anywhere, that's a lose-lose.

But is is very, very expensive, and without a supporting ridership, a stupid thing to implement.

I guess you must be rich and not care...
 
But is is very, very expensive, and without a supporting ridership, a stupid thing to implement.

I guess you must be rich and not care...

Avoided the question, didn't you?
 
It's a nice dream, but only a dream for now.
 
What percentage of government funds go towards rail projects, versus the government money that go towards roads?

That is no excuse to spend more money we don't have.

Do you run your household that way?
 
Certainly solar is better in remote situations or areas with more sunlight, as a backup or on rooftops. But we should let the market decide that.

For the current prices, Solar is looking like a good value as a hedge against future home spending.
 
That is no excuse to spend more money we don't have.

Do you run your household that way?

"Money that we don't have" also applies to tax dollars spent on roads. As vehicles have become more efficient, gasoline consumption is down, so cities are seeing much less revenue from gas taxes. That's why they consistently rob the General Fund for road repair.
 
"Money that we don't have" also applies to tax dollars spent on roads. As vehicles have become more efficient, gasoline consumption is down, so cities are seeing much less revenue from gas taxes. That's why they consistently rob the General Fund for road repair.

The federal fuel tax of 18.4 cents per gallon is long overdue for a raise. Still, it is to maintain roads for the vehicles taxed. Not liberal utopia.
 
The federal fuel tax of 18.4 cents per gallon is long overdue for a raise. Still, it is to maintain roads for the vehicles taxed. Not liberal utopia.

I have no problem with using every penny of the gasoline tax for roads. You ignore all the other taxes, especially at the state, county, and local levels. If people started paying the true value for the upkeep of roads, through their gasoline purchases, they would be screaming for other transportation alternatives. They would be riding bicycles. Getting healthy! But I get your rhetoric, calling that "liberal utopia". Your Conservative quagmire also keeps the health care industry alive and happy, with slews of obese Americans, and the associated tax dollars. Conservative hypocricy!
 
I have no problem with using every penny of the gasoline tax for roads. You ignore all the other taxes, especially at the state, county, and local levels. If people started paying the true value for the upkeep of roads, through their gasoline purchases, they would be screaming for other transportation alternatives. They would be riding bicycles. Getting healthy! But I get your rhetoric, calling that "liberal utopia". Your Conservative quagmire also keeps the health care industry alive and happy, with slews of obese Americans, and the associated tax dollars. Conservative hypocricy!

No conservative quagmire here. I have long been an advocate to raise the gasoline tax. I think we should at least double it and change it quarterly or monthly indexed to inflation. I just do not want to see any form of a carbon tax.

With as high as gas prices go sometimes, your alarmist mentality is very bright right now. cannot miss it.
 
No conservative quagmire here. I have long been an advocate to raise the gasoline tax. I think we should at least double it and change it quarterly or monthly indexed to inflation. I just do not want to see any form of a carbon tax.

With as high as gas prices go sometimes, your alarmist mentality is very bright right now. cannot miss it.

Found an article from June of 2008, where gas prices in Great Britain were $15/gallon. That's the kind of prices we're talking about. I'm all in!
 
Found an article from June of 2008, where gas prices in Great Britain were $15/gallon. That's the kind of prices we're talking about. I'm all in!

I wouldn't want to see it go that high, but making the federal gas tax in the neighborhood of $0.50/gallon, over maybe a years time, shouldn't be drastic. Most of Europe has high gas prices. It doesn't impact their transportation of goods as much as it would us, because they are more densely populated. When I was in Germany in the 80's and 90's, the gas tax if I recall correctly was DM 1.01 per liter.

Don't forget. England uses imperial gallons, which are slight larger than US gallons.
 
I wouldn't want to see it go that high, but making the federal gas tax in the neighborhood of $0.50/gallon, over maybe a years time, shouldn't be drastic. Most of Europe has high gas prices. It doesn't impact their transportation of goods as much as it would us, because they are more densely populated. When I was in Germany in the 80's and 90's, the gas tax if I recall correctly was DM 1.01 per liter.

Don't forget. England uses imperial gallons, which are slight larger than US gallons.

I wouldn't want to see it go that high, but making the federal gas tax in the neighborhood of $0.50/gallon, over maybe a years time, shouldn't be drastic. Most of Europe has high gas prices. It doesn't impact their transportation of goods as much as it would us, because they are more densely populated. When I was in Germany in the 80's and 90's, the gas tax if I recall correctly was DM 1.01 per liter.

Don't forget. England uses imperial gallons, which are slight larger than US gallons.

An increase of $.50 per gallon isn't going to put a dent into all the road expenses. There was a study from 2012 in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Per that study, Light Rail costs the least per passenger trip. A city representative provided the following numbers (2008 numbers):

Urban buses, local $2.17
Suburban buses, local $4.98
Express bus $2.48
Light rail $1.44

They didn't provide numbers for automobile travel, so the author ran his own calculation (the excessive detail seems very reasonable). He came up with $2.56 per trip. It's a very interesting article.

https://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/...ubsidies-twin-cities-light-rail-seems-bargain
 
An increase of $.50 per gallon isn't going to put a dent into all the road expenses. There was a study from 2012 in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Per that study, Light Rail costs the least per passenger trip. A city representative provided the following numbers (2008 numbers):

Urban buses, local $2.17
Suburban buses, local $4.98
Express bus $2.48
Light rail $1.44

They didn't provide numbers for automobile travel, so the author ran his own calculation (the excessive detail seems very reasonable). He came up with $2.56 per trip. It's a very interesting article.

https://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/...ubsidies-twin-cities-light-rail-seems-bargain

At 1.44 per ride, they either inflated the expected ridership, or didn't include the construction costs. We have a line in Portland going to Clackamas that when ridership, employee wages, construction, maintenance, and all other factors are included, costs over $35/ride over something like a 30 year period.

Maybe they misplaced a decimal point, but light rail is not that cheap these days.
 
At 1.44 per ride, they either inflated the expected ridership, or didn't include the construction costs. We have a line in Portland going to Clackamas that when ridership, employee wages, construction, maintenance, and all other factors are included, costs over $35/ride over something like a 30 year period.

Maybe they misplaced a decimal point, but light rail is not that cheap these days.

Obviously I read the article and you didn't, so no point in commenting.
 
Obviously I read the article and you didn't, so no point in commenting.

LOL...

A five year article for proposal, on a line now in operation.

It does not say anything about including the costs of building it, factored into the ride subsidies. If I missed it, please quote. Better yet, have a 2016 annual assessment of the line instead?
 
They didn't provide numbers for automobile travel, so the author ran his own calculation (the excessive detail seems very reasonable). He came up with $2.56 per trip. It's a very interesting article.

https://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/...ubsidies-twin-cities-light-rail-seems-bargain

You claim I didn't read it?

I did. You simply do not think, or do research past your confirmation bias.

If I take his 35 mile daily trip, and city average 19 MPG, then the paid fee in federal tax is $0.339. Increasing to $0.50 per gallon makes it $0.921. However, you completely ignore state and city gasoline taxes, which are higher than federal taxes usually. My state imposes a $0.30 per gallon tax, and Portland has another $0.10 per gallon tax. These numbers for Portland would be $1.08 and $1.66 per trip. However, these are taxes paid by the users. More of a use fee. His assessment of $2.56 is ridiculously high also. He obviously low-balled the light rail fee and is obviously high-balling the road fees.

Use whatever numbers you like, but include state and city gas taxes.
 
LOL...

A five year article for proposal, on a line now in operation.

It does not say anything about including the costs of building it, factored into the ride subsidies. If I missed it, please quote. Better yet, have a 2016 annual assessment of the line instead?

I would argue that road taxes don't cover the cost of initially building the roads either, which is much more substantial than the rail construction.
 
You claim I didn't read it?

I did. You simply do not think, or do research past your confirmation bias.

If I take his 35 mile daily trip, and city average 19 MPG, then the paid fee in federal tax is $0.339. Increasing to $0.50 per gallon makes it $0.921. However, you completely ignore state and city gasoline taxes, which are higher than federal taxes usually. My state imposes a $0.30 per gallon tax, and Portland has another $0.10 per gallon tax. These numbers for Portland would be $1.08 and $1.66 per trip. However, these are taxes paid by the users. More of a use fee. His assessment of $2.56 is ridiculously high also. He obviously low-balled the light rail fee and is obviously high-balling the road fees.

Use whatever numbers you like, but include state and city gas taxes.

I agree, he missed some taxes. The gentleman didn't claim to be an expert. I think the point here is that Light Rail is certainly not as costly as you make it out to be, versus other modes of transportation. The comparison to buses was hands-down to Light Rail.

The other point that I mentioned earlier, that you glossed over completely is that a city Rail Option reduces traffic and congestion on highways and roads. This improves the quality of life for everybody. Light rail riders get to enjoy a book, as they ride; and drivers get to their destination more quickly. Less traffic, fewer hours that engines run, less emissions. Expensive highway expansions are avoided. A WIN-WIN.
 
There's a nice enclave but the money has gone elsewhere. Busch Stadium and surroundings are great, but that doesn't change the balance.

So obviously the people who live there and their actions are irrelevant. Cities prosper and decline and prosper again. What’s your point? The rules will still apply when more important people live there again.
 
It would be one thing if St Louis was good at this and decided " Let's be best and market the Hell out of it" as the place is going nowhere economically at the moment and that would sure help if they could do it getting dependable power at a price that is not ridiculous which is certainly no sure thing.

USA 2016 renewable electricity 15%

St Louis 5%

Plus they have lots of major problems and no real money to throw around. This looks like ST Louis leaders are taking the people for a ride as they try to divert attention from all that has gone wrong, from all that is not getting fixed.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom