msetty said: ignores mode share BY TRIP; the significance of the fact that in walkable areas, a trip of a few hundred yards for a given purpose is functionally equivalent to the same trip by automobile over miles seems to elude Karlock.
JK: And, as usual, the planning class, ignore the simple FACT that most people DO NOT WANT to live as YOU desire them to live.

msetty said: Of course, to admit that modal share BY TRIP is just as important as distance traveled unravels his hoary beliefs.
JK: More name calling: “hoary beliefs”

msetty said: The person preparing the chart hasn’t be identified simply because the paper its going in has not yet been completed.
JK: As I said before: arguments based on sevret data are BULLSHAT. But that seems to be the planning class’ specialty.

msetty said: Setty 2, gRidLock 0.
JK: Name calling tally: S[hi]etty 2, gRidLock 0.

PS: Be sure to let us know if you have any NON-SECRET data supporting your wacked out ideas.

Thanks
JK

ws said: JK:“Speaking of BULLSHIT, where did you get those numbers – they are not typical of overall EU15 travel:”
ws:Yeah, you’re right JK. Cars have a way higher passenger mile total than airplanes as a percentage of modal split, so I expect you to drive next time you need to get to the East Coast…you know because car miles are higher than airline miles. Remember, no flying for you because you believe so hardily in assessing mobility in terms of passenger miles only, and I expect you not to be a hypocrite.
JK: Again, I ask, where did you get those numbers?
Or is this an admission of just making them up?

Thanks
JK

ws: Yes, it is a private industry. Like I said, every business and industry in America has received a subsidy. Are big agri-businesses private? Yeah, but they are very much subsidized, too. That does not mean that agri-business would not exist w/o subsidization.

All you have done is point to certain scenarios (obviously you did a random google search) where railroads received subsidization without realizing the areas were they have not received subsidization. The railroads’ history is too long and storied in the US, and I am no expert at telling that story.

Frank: “Moving onward=changing the subject. You’ve responded with nothing but unsupported assertions, so I can see why you’d throw out this red herring. Honestly, I’m not interested in it; I’ve made my points. This conversation is over.”

ws: This isn’t changing the subject. I made this point in my previous post, too. Private highways should be paying taxes on their land. Highways do not, and truckers take advantage of operating their business on public infrastructure. This is a major issue, and when has a public entity ever been efficient?

All industry in the US is subsidized to an extent or another.

Glad to see you agree that railroads were built on subsidies.

The issue is, the railroads are a great example of private industry at work.

But you wont let that one go. Is it “private industry” if it’s funded by federal tax payers? Or is it corporatist?

There’s no amount of examples you can provide that will dilute this fact of US history.

Fact of US history? Only in your mind. The Union Pacific was incorporated by Congress. How does that remotely resemble “private industry”?

Moving onward: Do you agree or disagree that roads should be privatized and pay property taxes on the land they consume (in addition to railroads doing the same for all their lines)?

Moving onward=changing the subject. You’ve responded with nothing but unsupported assertions, so I can see why you’d throw out this red herring. Honestly, I’m not interested in it; I’ve made my points. This conversation is over.

All industry in the US is subsidized to an extent or another. What, do you think our cars can stay fueled without political hand-jobs to the Middle East? The issue is, the railroads are a great example of private industry at work. There’s no amount of examples you can provide that will dilute this fact of US history. Great, companies get special tax deductions. What do you call tax deductions for home mortgages then?

Moving onward: Do you agree or disagree that roads should be privatized and pay property taxes on the land they consume (in addition to railroads doing the same for all their lines)? This is not meant to be a punitive statement to roads, but it is meant to reflect the unfair market conditions that exist for railroad companies compared to trucking companies.

You want congestion relief, look no further than pushing some trucking freight to railroad freight by fixing our transportation impediments. Trucks use public infrastructure and routinely use more road than they give back in user fees. Not to mention, the externalized cost of intercity trucking freight is much more than railroads (“External costs of intercity truck freight transportation” and “Comparison of external costs of rail and truck freight transportation” by David J. Forkenbrock cover this issue).

The external cost per ton-mile of trucks is 1.11 cents vs. .25 cents for railroad for intercity travel.

BS WS.

“Please, don’t obfuscate the situation.”

You’re the one changing the topic.

My claim: Heavy subsides granted to railroads built America.

Then you go off on a tangent about a proposal to privatize roads.

I have given you two pieces of evidence that the larger railroads were heavily subsidized (that they did NOT pay for their own construction):

1. They received massive land grants, which economists consider a subsidy.
2. They received loan subsidies, which has been shown to be “twice as large relative to investment costs as the land grant aid.”

As for railroads paying taxes on their holdings (property taxes), that’s a tricky one. Land grants were federal public land; property taxes are levied by state and local governments, not by the feds. This essentially is a wealth transfer.

Additionally, since property tax paid to state and local governments, there was a great deal of variation on taxes paid. In California, railroads could deduct deduct debts from the taxable property value. Other local governments granted railroads complete tax exemptions.

But this last point is irrelevant since local taxation could not repay the tremendous national subsidies in the form of federal land grants and federal loans.

Bottom line: The biggest railroads received large federal subsides and did not pay for their own construction.

ws:It’s no secret, really:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/vm2.cfm

Just plug in the state’s population and you will see that low VMT/capita state’s have a higher GPD/capita. Even Texas, a huge state with many cities and locations has a relatively moderate lelve of VMT/capita. Their state’s GDP/Capita is about middle of the pack, too. New York does have one of the lowest VMT/Capita and one of the higher GDP/Capita.

JK:“Speaking of BULLSHIT, where did you get those numbers – they are not typical of overall EU15 travel:”

ws:Yeah, you’re right JK. Cars have a way higher passenger mile total than airplanes as a percentage of modal split, so I expect you to drive next time you need to get to the East Coast…you know because car miles are higher than airline miles. Remember, no flying for you because you believe so hardily in assessing mobility in terms of passenger miles only, and I expect you not to be a hypocrite.