A Washington Post writer observes that a roundtrip Amtrak ticket from DC to New York is $140 or more, while there are buses that go the same route for only $20 each way. Unlike Amtrak, the buses have leather seats and free WiFi, and they take only an hour longer than the train.
The Antiplanner made much the same point in an op ed recently published in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer: All American taxpayers will share the cost of a national high-speed rail network, but its use will be limited mainly to the wealthy and those whose employers pay the cost.
Kamagra Oral Jelly remains one of the most affordable medications for erectile dysfunction, especially amongst men who are looking for a mouthsofthesouth.com women viagra australia little extra when performing in bed. These herbs are perfectly blended and processed in the concoction of click now tadalafil price Gokhru, Ashwagandha, Semal Musli and Akarkra. PDE-5 is an enzyme which hinders the erectile functioning, which when inhibited results in better erectile functioning.The medicine discount generic cialis then increases the production of cGMP which increases blood volume. What’s worse, the interaction between immune and cancer stem cells will support purchase levitra tumor cell proliferation and cell apotheosis. The Washington Post failed to mention that the trains are heavily subsidized while the buses are not — yet the buses still manage to charge much lower fares. Of course, the buses will use interstate freeways most of the way, but those interstates were 100 percent funded out of gas taxes and other user fees.
“Interstates paid for themselves out of gas taxes, and most Americans use them almost every day,” says the op ed. “Moderate or high-speed rail would require everyone to subsidize trains that would serve only a small elite.” Is it ironic or just inevitable that the Democratic Party, which likes to to think of itself as the party of the common people, supports policies that take from the poor and middle-class and give to the rich?
they take only an hour longer than the train
Funny how one’s agenda helps determine one’s perspective.
“Only an hour”? If the train took an hour longer than the bus, the Antiplanner wouldn’t hesitate to portray that extra hour as a major inconvenience.
Not to mention the fact that a man was recently beheaded on a bus. If the beheading had happened on a train, the Antiplanner would have written a post about how trains are unsafe.
Shhhh! Don’t say anything that makes the road and car lobbies look bad!
DS
The Autoplanner:“Interstates paid for themselves out of gas taxes, and most Americans use them almost every day,â€Â
THWM: Gas taxes are not road user fees, they are sale taxes on gas.
Then there is the sheer irony that you get paid by the highway collective.
“Is it ironic or just inevitable that the Democratic Party, which likes to to think of itself as the party of the common people, supports policies that take from the poor and middle-class and give to the rich?”
Okay… first off let me say that I’m not arguing that Amtrak is not subsidized, nor do I consider myself a democrat, but this statement reminds me of having an argument with my wife during that special time of the month (i.e. full of heated and exaggerated quips in order to prove a point). Let’s begin with “policies that take from the poor and middle-class.” Do the rich not get taxed? And to the extent that they do not, how is that the fault of those wealth redistributing democrats? And then “and give to the rich.” Oh of coarse! Only rich people ride trains! Democrats are soooooo stupid 😉
I’ve taken Amtrak from NY to Boston several times and never seen a “rich” person in the economy class. Rich people fly or have someone else drive them. I think the overall point of this post is interesting however. Amtrak is a bondoggle, though anyone who has ridden Greyhound would argue the same. But as THWM inevitably points out it is the “WHY” that is so important.
May I make a suggestion before you right your next post O’Toole? Take 1 midol, 1 valium, and 10 deep breaths before you start writing. Your argument will be that much more credible. Wow, now I really feel like I’m arguing with my wife.
Take 1 midol, 1 valium, and 10 deep breaths before you start writing. Your argument will be that much more credible
And don’t take the bribes from auto/property rights/developer/etc. groups.
Check out http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_transportation/html/figure_02.html
There you will see there is a massive difference between subsidies to transit, especially rail transit, and other forms, especially automobile transportation.
I have also seen some data on average incomes of riders of commuter rail. Perhaps Randal could share this with us. I seem to remember a fellow named Ted Balaker of the Reason Foundation tabulated this data a while ago, after the big NAACP class action lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles. This lawsuit was in response to to the city cutting bus lines due to the high cost (due to cost overruns) of commuter rail. Many saw this as a subsidy to the rich.
Amtrak is competing in an unfair market. Railroads pay property taxes on their lines – airports and roads do not. Airports get billions of dollars in security subsidies, not to mention many, many grants.
Yes, roads and airports pay certain fees, but these don’t come close to paying the actual cost. Railroads fund their own construction, pay their own security, and pay excessive taxes that are not levied on airports and roads.
Assuming the roads, rail, and airports (and sea) were competing in a fair market, subsidization of Amtrak would drastically drop, not to mention we would have had high speed rail YEARS ago. But a few “things” happened along the way that put the road/automobile above the railroad system.
I find it funny how ROT does not like rail considering it is a private enterprise – a bastion of libertarian ideology.
Lots of comments proving the antiplanner is a bad man sometimes employed by the eeevil sooper seekrit “auto/property rights/developer/etc. groups” or “road and car lobbies” or “the highway collective” whatever those are. Can you say “ad hominem”?
Then a nutbar in Canada beheads some poor schnook riding a bus and it gets into a criticism of the Antiplanner. You lot are kidding right? These are not arguments, these are emotional bits of bathos and I can’t even tell which of the logical fallacies this is, I dunno, straw man, maybe.
The Antiplanner claims that the new trains will be expensive and therefore their use limited to the wealthy. bennett then proves conclusively that the old trains are not used by the wealthy and triumphantly denounces the antiplanner as a dumb cunt on the rag. Sorry Antiplanner, I know you say be polite, but these swine repeatedly accuse you of the foulest things and I thought maybe a few home truths might be useful. Can you say “non sequitur”? “ad hominem” and “guilt by association” too, but who’s counting.
The Antiplanner then says that buses and roads are cheaper than the proposed new trains. THWM responds: “Gas taxes are not road user fees, they are sale taxes on gas.” Double-plus-good! Perfect Newspeak. Orwell himself could not have done better. I went through the list of 42 logical fallacies the Romans identified 2000 years ago and once again had trouble categorizing this one. I think maybe it’s just a lie.
I disagree with the Antiplanner quite often. I thought his recent post on the old Victorian house in Portland was wrong – he was substituting his personal taste for the tastes of others, so don’t call me an Antiplanner sycophant. I am merely tired of the repetitive, insulting and stupidly illogical comments I see here all the time.
I am also shocked and horrified by what has happened to the left. The Antiplanner is quite right that this type of boondoggle, screamingly supported by the left, will have the effect of further impoverishing lower income people because they will pay for some portion of it but get none of any benefits. Too much of the left is “objectively pro-fascist”, so long as I am dragging out my Orwell, and so long as we all understand I am speaking of the industrial dirigiste element of fascism.
This stupid proposal is no different than Mussolini “making the trains run on time”.
Antiplanner wrote:
“A Washington Post writer observes that a roundtrip Amtrak ticket from DC to New York is $140 or more, while there are buses that go the same route for only $20 each way. ”
Which is in reality $140 return versus $40 return. And you only get a $20 ticket if you book in advance (otherwise it’s $25×2=$50). And it’s not much use if you don’t want to go to and from New York, because that’s the only place that they go.
The article posted says that the WiFi doesn’t really work that well. So that cannot be counted for the bus.
So, what might account for the x3 difference? One is that Amtrak will have to subsidise other operations. Washington to New York might be profitable, but what about the other routes that they are expected to provide? (Where there is subsidy, there is pressure). Another is that the railway has to provide its own infrastructure whilst the bus can use existing infrastructure. Yet another is that the railway provides many services per day, whereas the bus company provides only two services (so a day trip will take 10 hours, with only two hours at the destination). Additionally, the train is a reliable service, whilst the bus is to some extent dependent on the road conditions, and reliability is just as important as speed – at both the bus is lacking.
It sounds like paying different amounts of money for different things.
In the UK, a fairer comparison is between modern coaches and modern diesel-multiple units. The journey time for my usual route is comparable. The cost of the coach is £15 return if booked in advance, with limitations on transferability between different services, otherwise £19 return. The cost of the train is £20 return. The train goes to my city, the coach to the next city, so I then have to pay for another journey on top. The railway provides more choice of journey time.
And whilst we’re talking about public transport, here’s an article from today’s press about a Scottish politician who claimed that buses used less energy than buses.
I can dimly remember Antiplanner doing a similar exercise and coming up with a similar result.
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Transport-minister-under-fire-over.5242733.jp
Which should read that he claimed that buses sued less energy than trams. (Trams are a big deal in Edinburgh right now).
I’ll get it right in a moment…
Lots of comments proving the antiplanner is a bad man sometimes employed by the eeevil sooper seekrit “auto/property rights/developer/etc. groups†or “road and car lobbies†or “the highway collective†whatever those are. Can you say “ad hominem�
Yes, I can, but the phrase is irrelevant in this case. The point is that the Antiplanner gets paid to make certain arguments, which (rightfully) raises questions regarding his objectivity, transparency, credibility, etc. A number of commenters around here routinely point out hypocrisy and double-standards in his writings, which presumably stem at least in part from the fact that he gets paid to be biased.
Then a nutbar in Canada beheads some poor schnook riding a bus and it gets into a criticism of the Antiplanner. You lot are kidding right? These are not arguments, these are emotional bits of bathos and I can’t even tell which of the logical fallacies this is, I dunno, straw man, maybe
You must have missed all the times the Antiplanner pointed to crimes committed at light-rail stations as an argument against light-rail. But you’re forgiven: you’re new around here.
500 people, all over the world, read the Antiplanner Blog daily. I read it to educate myself and learn from the intelligent comments presented. 4DP and a few others respond just to harass O’Toole and contribute nothing but garbage. Give us some facts and educate us or get off the page.
I think if ROT made rational arguments and did not violate his ideology so much you’d see more meaningful discussion from everyone. The blatant disregard for factual analysis in ROT’s articles, “reports” and columns is simply put offensive to everyone’s intelligence. Clearly ROT is in some deep pockets, and this post is a great example:
He argues for “free markets” but is disregarding the fact that railroads are overwhelmingly at a market disadvantage compared to all forms of transportation. Sure, Amtrak is subsidizes, but the average airline passenger is overwhelmingly subsidized too! Where’s the transparent discussion on this matter? It’s nowhere to be found.
Reciprocation of meaningful discussion is a two-way street.
My apologies, the correct link in my post (#6) is:
http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/figure_02.html
“Give us some facts and educate us or get off the page.”
lgrattan,
Let’s be realistic here. This isn’t a thesis, it’s a blog. What do you expect? O’Toole has a site called the “Anitplanner” in which he often misrepresents data, exaggerates, and harasses people himself. Forgive us planners if we take it a bit personally and retaliate. D4P and THWM can dish it out, there is no doubt about that, but most of their comments are intelligent, even though the cynicism is laid on thick. O’Toole, Craig, foxmarks etc. are just as big of bullies. If you want to be throughly educated I suggest you look other places than a blog. Plus, something tells me that O’Toole can take it. Could it be that he has a new post harassing someone/something almost every day. If you can’t stand the heat…
“500 people, all over the world, read the Antiplanner Blog daily. I read it to educate myself and learn from the intelligent comments presented. 4DP and a few others respond just to harass O’Toole and contribute nothing but garbage. Give us some facts and educate us or get off the page.”
Might I add that this statement has no useful facts nor is it educational. Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.
blacquejacqueshellac said:
The Antiplanner claims that the new trains will be expensive and therefore their use limited to the wealthy.
Me:
No. The DC to NY is an existing line.
then blacquejacqueshellac said:
bennett then proves conclusively that the old trains are not used by the wealthy and triumphantly denounces the antiplanner as a dumb cunt on the rag.
Me:
sort of. I used an analogy of my wife making irrational statements just to try and prove me wrong. The difference is, O’Toole doesn’t apologize 20 mins later. And then again the DC to NY line is not that new.
then blacquejacqueshellac said:
I am merely tired of the repetitive, insulting and stupidly illogical comments I see here all the time.
and ws said:
Reciprocation of meaningful discussion is a two-way street.
Me:
Exactly. The same repetitive, passive-aggressive, and stupidly illogical arguments from O’Toole will continue to fish out the “the repetitive, insulting and stupidly illogical comments,” of those who oppose him. As I have been a loyal “FAN” of this blog for 2+ years now (it’s the only blogging I participate in) I can honestly say that’s the way it works. I would like to congratulate the likes of Dan, Frances King, and others whom do stick to the facts and keep it courteous. I take some of O’Toole’s b.s personally and react too strongly sometimes. Sorry if I offend anyone, but I am often offended by O’Toole’s assertions. I suppose what I like about blogging is that I don’t have to be the bigger man and take the high road. C’est la vie.
blacquejacqueshellac: well said. The utter drek that is thrown around by about four idiots in the comments on this site is pathetic.
blacquejacqueshellac & mattb02,
Welcome to the game. Glad to see you are willing to play. The pot calling the kettle black is not off limits, as you both demonstrated today.
The utter dre[c]k that is thrown around by about four idiots in the comments on this site is pathetic.
I was going to do an example of ad hominem on the other thread*, because it was used incorrectly. As it often is when thrown around as a rhetorical tactic.
However, this is much better (and I hope no one spews vitriol and umbrage at poor Matt for using ad hominem. He may not know any better).
Anyway:
Ad hominem: (ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\ adj. You are wrong because you are an idiot.
NOT ad hominem: ˈnät\ ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\ adj. You are wrong because of (1. 2. and/or 3.). And by the way, your utter dreck that you throw around like an idiot in the comments on this site is pathetic.
There! Get it? Excellent.
DS
* can’t embed a hyperlink: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=1275#comment-42623 Too bad as I wanted to mouseover a clever comment.
bennett said:
blacquejacqueshellac & mattb02,
Welcome to the game. Glad to see you are willing to play. The pot calling the kettle black is not off limits, as you both demonstrated today.
THWM: Yes and the game is that of political football.
bennett said: May I make a suggestion before you right your next post O’Toole? Take 1 midol, 1 valium, and 10 deep breaths before you start writing. Your argument will be that much more credible. Wow, now I really feel like I’m arguing with my wife.
THWM: Thank you for saying that. Though the sad reality is that Mr.O’Toole gets PAID by oligarchs to complain about nothing and to sabotage attempts of people having other transport options.
“THWM: Gas taxes are not road user fees, they are sale taxes on gas.”
But don’t most if not all gas taxes get put into a roads related fund instead of the general fund?
prk166 said: But don’t most if not all gas taxes get put into a roads related fund instead of the general fund?
THWM: It still isn’t a user fee. Some body driving a Tesla isn’t paying.
prk166 wrote:
“But don’t most if not all gas taxes get put into a roads related fund instead of the general fund?”
Not in the UK. Winston Churchill abandoned the practice of hypothecated funds to pay for roads – on the grounds that it suggested that the roads belonged to those people who paid the tax, and not to those who didn’t – so that cyclists, horse-drawn vehicles and pedestrians would have no right to use the roads. Even today, some people in the UK believe that pedestrians have no right to be on the road, even crossing the road. Bizarre, but there it is.
Interesting to see what is happening in the UK. As for the Tesla, that makes perfect sense.
I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be adequate funding for roads, though there should be adequate funding for other modes of transportation(like walking, cycling, rail & transit) too.