La Guardia airport is a death trap for flyers, workers

Bolwerk wrote:

mrtravel wrote:

You left out sales tax. Many states charge their regular sales tax on
top of the state fuel tax.


I don't think that tax is earmarked for highways. I may be wrong though.

It isn't. That's the problem. It should be.

mrtravel wrote:
Bolwerk wrote:

mrtravel wrote:

You left out sales tax. Many states charge their regular sales tax
on top of the state fuel tax.


I don't think that tax is earmarked for highways. I may be wrong though.

It isn't. That's the problem. It should be.

It may be in some states. It probably just universally goes into the
pool of general revenues though.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:17:53 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:

Bolwerk wrote:

mrtravel wrote:

You left out sales tax. Many states charge their regular sales tax on
top of the state fuel tax.


I don't think that tax is earmarked for highways. I may be wrong though.

It isn't. That's the problem. It should be.

That should be done only when the sales tax on beer gets earmarked to
breweries.

--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"

"Carole Allen" wrote in message
...



Ya know, no one expects to have 'cost recovery' for roads...those are
heavily subsidized...yet people expect trains, ferries, etc., to pay
their own way...

Most of us would claim that's what taxes on motor fuel pay for....You drive
on the road, you pay, state highways almost directly, while the feds borrow
a lot to prop up schemes to move urbanites about.

Within cities, local taxpayers fund those not paid for by the states.
Sounds legitimate to me.

If any one actually believes that rail service is a workable concept in much
of the US outside of a few easily idientifiable urban corridors, they're
dreaming (or fanticizing in the grip of herbal remedies). To claim that
only "West of Denver" is unfit for rail is even sillier, ignoring the
reality of most of the US West of the Appalachians or South of Mason/Dixon.
The barrier to cost-effective rail service in much of the US is simple
demographics. The population's housing, employment, shopping and social
patterns are so dispersed as to make make potential rail use inconsistent
and below any realistic cost/benefit ratio.

Passenger rail is a sociopolitical issue in the US. Aside from a handful of
urban corridors, essentially "extended commuting/business shuttle" rail
service, the national sociopolitical will is unikely, no, more than
unlikely, to be directed toward the construction of passenger rail, high
speed, or otherwise. All the seeming logic in the world is not going to
alter the public's perception that the amounts of money required to
construct and operate a passenger rail network of any more actual substance
than today's pathetic, amost cartoonish service, little more than rolling
theme parks, in much of the US is simply an unacceptable and grandiose pork
barrel of little utility or application to their lives. On the other hand,
John Q. Public comprehends that from its inception (just as early rail
service was built on varied "subsidies" from free land - and the mineral
wealth beneath it - up through outright bribes) air service came with a
variety of subsidies attached. My Congressman - and those for 50 years
before him - can't - even with 300mph rail - come back to his district for a
long weekend of "politicking", no more than his consituents could
conveniently do business or take pleasure in places to and from which they
quickly travel by air. He and his successors, counting supporters and
potential votes, are unlikely to vote to increase the amount spent on
passenger rail service, but will continue to wink and nod at a variety of
appropriated subsidies for air travel.

Airlines "own" the long distance markets, and even on shorter routes, rail
travel can never accommodate the needs of a majority of US travelers, those
who don't live in conveneient transport range of stations and service
(current or potential - even in fantasy) or whose final destinations - work
or pleasure - are equally inaccessible. Unless there's a national political
"will" and the votes to implement punitive, even confiscatory taxes on motor
fuel and private vehicles - about as likely as cows flying - to build and
operate workable passenger rail, in essence altering the social and economic
dynamics of much of the US, any extension or ral improvement of US passenger
rail service is simply pipe dreams.

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:00:38 -0400, "Sancho Panza"
wrote:


"Dick Locke" wrote in message
.. .


I think we need much higher gas taxes dedicated to repaying some urban
and suburban transit bonds.

Which suburban transit bonds are you referring to?

The ones that could be issued if there was a dedicated revenue source
to pay for them.

Peter Schleifer wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:17:53 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:

Bolwerk wrote:

mrtravel wrote:

You left out sales tax. Many states charge their regular sales tax on
top of the state fuel tax.

I don't think that tax is earmarked for highways. I may be wrong though.
It isn't. That's the problem. It should be.

That should be done only when the sales tax on beer gets earmarked to
breweries.

Heh, gasoline taxes should subsidize breweries. It would be hilarious
to **** off MADD that way.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:15:30 GMT, "TOliver"
wrote:


"Carole Allen" wrote in message
...



Ya know, no one expects to have 'cost recovery' for roads...those are
heavily subsidized...yet people expect trains, ferries, etc., to pay
their own way...

Most of us would claim that's what taxes on motor fuel pay for....You drive
on the road, you pay, state highways almost directly, while the feds borrow
a lot to prop up schemes to move urbanites about.

Within cities, local taxpayers fund those not paid for by the states.
Sounds legitimate to me.

If any one actually believes that rail service is a workable concept in much
of the US outside of a few easily idientifiable urban corridors, they're
dreaming (or fanticizing in the grip of herbal remedies). To claim that
only "West of Denver" is unfit for rail is even sillier, ignoring the
reality of most of the US West of the Appalachians or South of Mason/Dixon.
The barrier to cost-effective rail service in much of the US is simple
demographics. The population's housing, employment, shopping and social
patterns are so dispersed as to make make potential rail use inconsistent
and below any realistic cost/benefit ratio.

Inherent in your message is the idea that the US will always be like
it is now and the values of future Americans will be like they are
now.

Rail changes things. You can see it on a micro scale as high density
development rises up near rapid transit stations.

Long distance high speed rail doesn't have such an obvious immediate
effect, and there will always be a place for air travel. If rail uses
energy more efficiently than either cars or air, and can be made
pleasant, fast and frequent over distances like 500-1000 miles, its
effects will be pervasive throughout the economy but so diffuse that
quantifying them will be difficult.

Dick Locke wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:15:30 GMT, "TOliver"
wrote:

"Carole Allen" wrote in message
...

Ya know, no one expects to have 'cost recovery' for roads...those are
heavily subsidized...yet people expect trains, ferries, etc., to pay
their own way...
Most of us would claim that's what taxes on motor fuel pay for....You drive
on the road, you pay, state highways almost directly, while the feds borrow
a lot to prop up schemes to move urbanites about.

Within cities, local taxpayers fund those not paid for by the states.
Sounds legitimate to me.

If any one actually believes that rail service is a workable concept in much
of the US outside of a few easily idientifiable urban corridors, they're
dreaming (or fanticizing in the grip of herbal remedies). To claim that
only "West of Denver" is unfit for rail is even sillier, ignoring the
reality of most of the US West of the Appalachians or South of Mason/Dixon.
The barrier to cost-effective rail service in much of the US is simple
demographics. The population's housing, employment, shopping and social
patterns are so dispersed as to make make potential rail use inconsistent
and below any realistic cost/benefit ratio.

Inherent in your message is the idea that the US will always be like
it is now and the values of future Americans will be like they are
now.

Rail changes things. You can see it on a micro scale as high density
development rises up near rapid transit stations.

In a lot of cases, passenger rail (commuter or intercity) doesn't even
work that badly. But its obvious drawback is, where does it take you?
In a few big cities that still have thriving downtowns, it takes you
there. For the most part, it doesn't take you home, and doesn't take
you to work. Or, if you're lucky, it maybe does one or the other. If
you're really lucky, it does both. Either way, you're mostly out in the
cold for any other type of trip.

Long distance high speed rail doesn't have such an obvious immediate
effect, and there will always be a place for air travel. If rail uses
energy more efficiently than either cars or air, and can be made
pleasant, fast and frequent over distances like 500-1000 miles, its
effects will be pervasive throughout the economy but so diffuse that
quantifying them will be difficult.

Actually, of all transportation modes, rail probably enjoys the fewest
subsidies. A privately owned track has to pay its own way, and states
collect property taxes on the rights-of-way, while the federal
government collects income taxes. Interstates are publicly owned and
largely free of charge, subsidized by gas taxes and more.

Inter-city passenger rail is a definite flop away from the northeast
corridor, but then the private operators were all driven from the
business by mid-20th century reformist politicians.

If you're going to call something successful though, you need to define
the parameters for success. If success depends on widespread use,
automobiles are very successful. If it depends on profitability,
passenger modes are very hard to call successful. Greyhound is
presumably profitable, but then it enjoys the widespread subsidies that
every automobile-oriented form of transportation enjoys. Airlines appear
lucky to break even, and they're always ready to receive a bail-out if
things go wrong. Transit and commuter services meet the goal of moving
people, but I can't think of an example of one that is profitable either.

Really, the truth is a lot of people make all kinds of money off
transportation. But the transportation services themselves, except
maybe some freight services, just aren't profitable.

In article ,
says...
Peter Schleifer wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:17:53 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:

Bolwerk wrote:

mrtravel wrote:

You left out sales tax. Many states charge their regular sales tax on
top of the state fuel tax.

I don't think that tax is earmarked for highways. I may be wrong though.
It isn't. That's the problem. It should be.

That should be done only when the sales tax on beer gets earmarked to
breweries.

Heh, gasoline taxes should subsidize breweries. It would be hilarious
to **** off MADD that way.

It should be DAMM's[*] campaign promise! ;-)
[*] Drunks Against Mad Mothers

--
Keith

Keith Williams wrote:
In article ,
says...
Peter Schleifer wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:17:53 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:

Bolwerk wrote:

mrtravel wrote:

You left out sales tax. Many states charge their regular sales tax on
top of the state fuel tax.
I don't think that tax is earmarked for highways. I may be wrong though.
It isn't. That's the problem. It should be.
That should be done only when the sales tax on beer gets earmarked to
breweries.
Heh, gasoline taxes should subsidize breweries. It would be hilarious
to **** off MADD that way.

It should be DAMM's[*] campaign promise! ;-)

[*] Drunks Against Mad Mothers

Yeah, good, it should. I can't think of a more authoritarian
organization with such a lily-white image than MADD.