As If Flying Didn't Suck Enough..

[SDW2001]

Now this:

Major Carriers Merging (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080425/bs_nm/americanairlines_dc)

So pretty soon we'll be down to Delta/Northwest) vs. US Air/Continental/American/United. That can't be good for the industry. Service sucks, and prices are rising. When I fly I already do my best to avoid these carriers. Instead I fly AirTran or USA 3000 or other smaller carriers. At least we still have Jet Blue and Southwest.

Personally I think these deals should not be allowed. Your thoughts....

[addabox]

At the very least, this means that people living in small markets will pay much more for air travel.

I think I read somewhere that trains are making a comeback. I wonder if we'll reach the point that air travel is so expensive, and such an unbelievable, spine-fusing, brain melting pain in the ass, that we'll actually get a functioning national rail system.

It would mean a wholesale adjustment of our expectations for travel time, of course, but that might be for the better. Planes would become largely the domain of the first class well to do and mission critical business flyers (who would also decrease in number as budget conscious organizations are driven to better and more extensive use of tele-presence). Ever fewer flights, except for few main trunk lines.....

Wow, kind of drifted off there.

Uh, not sure about the ramifications of prohibiting mergers. Apparently running an airline is a pretty dicey proposition, within the current structure.

[SDW2001]

At the very least, this means that people living in small markets will pay much more for air travel.

I think I read somewhere that trains are making a comeback. I wonder if we'll reach the point that air travel is so expensive, and such an unbelievable, spine-fusing, brain melting pain in the ass, that we'll actually get a functioning national rail system.

It would mean a wholesale adjustment of our expectations for travel time, of course, but that might be for the better. Planes would become largely the domain of the first class well to do and mission critical business flyers (who would also decrease in number as budget conscious organizations are driven to better and more extensive use of tele-presence). Ever fewer flights, except for few main trunk lines.....

Wow, kind of drifted off there.

Uh, not sure about the ramifications of prohibiting mergers. Apparently running an airline is a pretty dicey proposition, within the current structure.

WRT trains, I really doubt it. People are used to flying, and have been for 40 years or more. Even with high speed trains, which would cost billions to develop and build...I still doubt it. You might see more in terms of commuting traffic/local transportation, but long distance?

[mydo]

At the very least, this means that people living in small markets will pay much more for air travel.

I think I read somewhere that trains are making a comeback.

In my area the train is a horrible way to travel. Always late. Always slower than driving. The major problem being that Amtrak basically owns no tracks. They always get pushed around by the freight trains. Freight trains business is increasing so it's just going to get worse.

[groverat]

High speed trains between major population centers are tricky propositions in America, where land is vast.

[mydo]

Not on the east coast.

You're not going to get large amounts of people taking the train from NY or LA. Maybe for Boston/NY/Phily/DC but they have that rail already and it's not a huge success.

Low cost airlines are beating rail in Europe too. In terms of price and time. It seems that rail is just a by gone technology for anything other than freight.

[Jubelum]

Isn't Europe the size of America?

They seem to have a train or two.

I posted about the distance issue a couple of weeks ago...

A 12 hour trip in Europe:
You can go from Berlin to Paris, cross two national borders, and have three hours left over.

A 12 hour trip in the Western US:
You can drive from one side of a single state, Texas, to the other side of the same state.

[audiopollution]

I posted about the distance issue a couple of weeks ago...

A 12 hour trip in Europe:
You can go from Berlin to Paris, cross two national borders, and have three hours left over.

A 12 hour trip in the Western US:
You can drive from one side of a single state, Texas, to the other side of the same state.

Travelling by land in the US is a fucking bore.

[Jubelum]

Travelling by land in the US is a fucking bore.

Yep... last weekend we drove six hours in a stretch in west Texas. What a snoozer....

[Jubelum]

Regardless, Europe is comparable to America in total land area, and they seem to have good train service throughout the continent. And I'm sure some areas have better service than others, much like how denser regions like the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and California would have better service than our Midwest.

Not to belabor the point... but europe has about twice the population density per square mile as the US... there are more people "between here and there" to make a rail system work. There's a whole lot of "fly-over country" out west.

I think that the eastern seaboard and west coast could really make it work, if they wanted to.

The Amtrak system has demonstrated the lack of economic viability of a national rail system. It's been an albatross since its inception. It may be great in some areas (the Hiawatha Line from Milwaukee to Chicago is nice) but the overall Amtrak program has been a real loser.

[BRussell]

Not to belabor the point... but europe has about twice the population density per square mile as the US... there are more people "between here and there" to make a rail system work. There's a whole lot of "fly-over country" out west.

I think that the eastern seaboard and west coast could really make it work, if they wanted to.

The Amtrak system has demonstrated the lack of economic viability of a national rail system. It's been an albatross since its inception. It may be great in some areas (the Hiawatha Line from Milwaukee to Chicago is nice) but the overall Amtrak program has been a real loser.

That's not an excuse. You just have less tracks in regions with less people. Europe is larger than the US, contrary to your example about Texas and Berlin-Paris. The real reason it doesn't happen is because of the economic philosophy in the US, which is all about disposable income to buy shit rather than pooling tax money together to do something that could actually good for the country.

[tonton]

That's not an excuse. You just have less tracks in regions with less people. Europe is larger than the US, contrary to your example about Texas and Berlin-Paris. The real reason it doesn't happen is because of the economic philosophy in the US, which is all about disposable income to buy shit rather than pooling tax money together to do something that could actually good for the country.

My friend (from Hong Kong) is going from LA to San Francisco in June. The cost of his flight: US$69. The cost of Amtrak: US$64. The flight takes 2 hours. The train takes 12. Driving takes 8. Who the hell is going to take the train?

We need higher speed rail in viable places like California. And yes, it is exactly about pooling resources to do something beneficial for the country. Americans just hate the concept. Greed greed greed.

[Jubelum]

And yes, it is exactly about pooling resources to do something beneficial for the country. Americans just hate the concept. Greed greed greed.

Um, tonton... I have something to say about pooling resources: AMTRAK.

We've already publicly funded (yes, "pooled resources") Amtrak for decades... and it is still not profitable. Or break-even-able. Failure. No go. Non-viable. DOA. A dud. And chronically mismanaged to boot.

I think it is funny that you agree in the statement with "why would anyone choose rail" (based on logistics) and then turn around in the same post and call out Americans for "greed greed greed." Never miss a chance, eh. ;)

[tonton]

Um, tonton... I have something to say about pooling resources: AMTRAK.

We've already publicly funded (yes, "pooled resources") Amtrak for decades... and it is still not profitable. Or break-even-able. Failure. No go. Non-viable. DOA. A dud. And chronically mismanaged to boot.

I think it is funny that you agree in the statement with "why would anyone choose rail" (based on logistics) and then turn around in the same post and call out Americans for "greed greed greed." Never miss a chance, eh. ;)

Um... does it have to be profitable? Maybe that's where it failed. You don't get the concept. Is the Police Department "profitable"? The Fire Department? Road works?

And the reason Amtrak is "a failure" is because it's half-assed. No high-speed rail. No service. No subsidy from the government to encourage patronage. Half-assed, just like every other compromise we are forced into by people who don't get the concept.

[Jubelum]

Um... does it have to be profitable? Maybe that's where it failed. You don't get the concept. Is the Police Department "profitable"? The Fire Department? Road works?

And the reason Amtrak is "a failure" is because it's half-assed. No high-speed rail. No service. Half-assed, just like every other compromise we are forced into by people who don't get the concept.

I get the concept... maybe we need another 40 years and another 10-20 billion dollars to see if it will somehow suddenly gain widespread appeal. It won't, except maybe in the northeast. I just don't hear people clamoring for more and better rail service... except a few in the eco-crowd and the "US should be more like Europe" crowd. Personally, I love train trips, when I have the time on vacation.

14 unions with 24 contracts does not help progress or reform, either.

No subsidy from the government to encourage patronage.
What? Amtrak is HEAVILY subsidized (read: floated completely with taxpayer funds and worthless stock).
If people had to pay the true cost of a ticket... we'd have a lot of scrap metal to recycle.

[addabox]

My friend (from Hong Kong) is going from LA to San Francisco in June. The cost of his flight: US$69. The cost of Amtrak: US$64. The flight takes 2 hours. The train takes 12. Driving takes 8. Who the hell is going to take the train?

We need higher speed rail in viable places like California. And yes, it is exactly about pooling resources to do something beneficial for the country. Americans just hate the concept. Greed greed greed.

Right, and my original point about rail transit is that if things keep going like they're going, with airlines merging and failing and fuel costs rising and routes being canceled or consolidated, rail may become much more attractive, its drawbacks notwithstanding.

I can't contest that it's neat to go 1000 miles in a few hours instead of a day, but if the plane ticket is three or four times the rail ticket, and the airline experience is like some kind of medieval torture, and if there's a better than even chance that that "few hours" is going to turn into an all day slog through delayed or canceled flights anyway, sitting in that comfy chair with lots of leg room, watching the scenery roll past, starts looking a lot more attractive.

[SDW2001]

That's not an excuse. You just have less tracks in regions with less people. Europe is larger than the US, contrary to your example about Texas and Berlin-Paris. The real reason it doesn't happen is because of the economic philosophy in the US, which is all about disposable income to buy shit rather than pooling tax money together to do something that could actually good for the country.

Oh my God. The average American is paying a good 40-50% in total taxes as we speak. But like most good liberals, you think we need more. Or you know what...maybe it's the Iraq war that's the problem. Or Teh Global Warming™. Guess what will fix it though..more money! And who is going to pay for it? Me and the millions of middle class people just like me. We should stop being so greedy and just pony up the cash. At the same time we can continue to me blamed for all the world's ills.

In all seriousness though, the US is far to spread out. The population density is double that of the US. Jub's example is spot on. Drive through central/western PA and you'll see the same thing.

[SDW2001]

Um... does it have to be profitable? Maybe that's where it failed. You don't get the concept. Is the Police Department "profitable"? The Fire Department? Road works?

I don't agree that transportation should be a government service necessarily, but let's put that aside. BTW, many roads are quite profitable. Why do you think we have permanent tolls on many roads and bridges? Tolls for many roads were put in place to pay for construction. At one time it was promised that the tolls would go away once the road was paid for. Hmmm. Sounds profitable to me.



And the reason Amtrak is "a failure" is because it's half-assed. No high-speed rail. No service. No subsidy from the government to encourage patronage.

Amtrak has some higher speed capability. http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Route/Vertical_Route_Page&cid=1080772074490

And subsidies? Are you kidding me?

Half-assed, just like every other compromise we are forced into by people who don't get the concept.

Right..we just need some enlightened socialists to explain it to the rest of us. The American people don't want rail service. It's slow. It's inconvenient. It's not much cheaper than flying.

I just ran a quote for PHL to Ft Myers Florida. Price? $180. I can fly for about that. That $180 gets me this:

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/7049/trainro2.png (http://imageshack.us)

Are you kidding me? But hey, maybe if we all pay more in taxes, we could eliminate that bus trip at the end and get the trip down to 20 hours instead of 25.

[Bergermeister]

High speed rail is great and Japan has it right. The country is long and narrow, which also helps. However, it can be rather expensive for long trips, topping air travel. The stations tend to be right in the middle of town, so it is very convenient for business travelers.

The train has far better views, more leg room, you can move around, there are vending machines, if you travel in a small group you can spin the chairs around so they face each other, there is a service cart with hot lunches, beer, AC receptacles in many seats.

Local trains abound, which makes train travel really convenient.

[@_@ Artman]

I think I read somewhere that trains are making a comeback.

Why Warren Buffett is buying a train set (http://www.moneyweek.com/file/28514/why-warren-buffett-is-buying-a-train-set.html/)

You would normally associate Warren Buffett with big consumer brands like Coca-Cola and American Express. So when he shelled out $4.4bn on three US rail companies last week, many wondered why he had suddenly fallen in love with the sector. The simple answer is globalisation. With booming demand for commodities from the East and a hunger for cheap foreign goods in the West, the rail companies linking consumer and producer look appealing for the long haul.

...

Buffett will also have noted how the US and Canada have embraced alternative energy, with an increasing amount of coal being hauled across the country for energy production. Coal transport has been a significant factor in the 25% growth in transport volumes in the US since 2002. Potential competition from trucking companies is falling by the wayside amid rising fuel prices: railroads are able to transport the same amount of goods using just a third of the energy.

Though this investment trend isn't directed to the public transportation sector it is a good idea. Rails used to run through most small towns, but they've been removed as freight became dominated by semis. As the price of oil continues to increase, we'll be kicking ourselves for destroying such an efficient means of distribution.

And the technology is advancing too. GPS and radio are starting to be used to providing remote monitoring for each container that is being shipped around the world. This allows the rail network to be come a sort of packet-switched network for containers. Shippers can know exactly where their container is as it is shipped from say the far east to the West Coast and then by rail to Chicago. Data such as temperature for refrigerated containers can also be tracked.

[BRussell]

Oh my God. The average American is paying a good 40-50% in total taxes as we speak. Jeez, no wonder you think taxes are so high. Try about half that.

[KingOfSomewhereHot]

Jeez, no wonder you think taxes are so high. Try about half that.

No, He's pretty accurate.
Figure Federal taxes, State taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, Fee's for various registrations, licenses, permits, etc. Tolls for state/fed highways. All of these things realistically fall under the title of "Tax". The government does not have any money except what they collect form the citizens, so ALL money the government collects are taxes, regardless of what they choose to call them.

With this in mind, my tax burden is over 40%.

[tonton]

No, He's pretty accurate.
Figure Federal taxes, State taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, Fee's for various registrations, licenses, permits, etc. Tolls for state/fed highways. All of these things realistically fall under the title of "Tax". The government does not have any money except what they collect form the citizens, so ALL money the government collects are taxes, regardless of what they choose to call them.

With this in mind, my tax burden is over 40%.

Hey I thought you lived overseas.

[midwinter]

My wife and I hate to fly, and so we've often looked at taking the train back to our hometowns for Xmas. It's completely, utterly, ridiculous (http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak/FareFinder?_tripType=Return&_origin=SLC&_depmonthyear=2008-05&_depday=10&_dephourmin=&_destination=MEM&_retmonthyear=2008-05&_retday=20&_rethourmin=&_adults=1&_children=0&_infants=0&_searchBy=schedule&x=19&y=21). 45 hours one way from SLC to Chicago to Memphis.

[SDW2001]

The "too far spread out argument" is bogus. We established that you wouldn't have 500 trains running to Topeka or Lincoln everyday. And the density argument only pertains to the overall level of service trains would provide. It speaks nothing about whether the *current* level of train service is meeting *potential* demand.

It's bogus? The country is 3,000 miles coast to coast, with one hell of a lot of empty space in between. And really...why do you think we don't have a better rail system? Because there is no demand. People aren't going to pay nearly as much for rail, then spend 18 hours on a train instead of 2 on a plane .

One more thing: Are you arguing that if the system was better, it would attract more demand? Isn't that kind of like supply-side transportation?

[SDW2001]

Jeez, no wonder you think taxes are so high. Try about half that.

I can't believe we still are arguing this point. Add up all the taxes you pay, such as:

Income Tax-Federal/State/Local
Social Security
Medicare
Unemployment Tax
Capital Gains Tax
Real Estate Transfer Tax
Property Tax-school/county/local
Sales Tax
Gas Tax
Luxury Tax
Services Tax
Taxes on Utilities
Tobacco tax
Telecommunications taxes ("fees")
Liquor Tax
Tolls
Licenses/permits (fishing, hunting, driving, pets, etc.)
Inheritance tax


Really...do the math. I did once, and found I paid about 40% of my income to a state, local or government agency.

[Jubelum]

No, He's pretty accurate.
Figure Federal taxes, State taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, Fee's for various registrations, licenses, permits, etc. Tolls for state/fed highways. All of these things realistically fall under the title of "Tax".

+1
....

[Jubelum]

Isn't that kind of like supply-side transportation?

:lol: Awesome...

[BRussell]

No, He's pretty accurate.
Figure Federal taxes, State taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, Fee's for various registrations, licenses, permits, etc. Tolls for state/fed highways. All of these things realistically fall under the title of "Tax". The government does not have any money except what they collect form the citizens, so ALL money the government collects are taxes, regardless of what they choose to call them.

With this in mind, my tax burden is over 40%.

I can't believe we still are arguing this point. Add up all the taxes you pay, such as:

Income Tax-Federal/State/Local
Social Security
Medicare
Unemployment Tax
Capital Gains Tax
Real Estate Transfer Tax
Property Tax-school/county/local
Sales Tax
Gas Tax
Luxury Tax
Services Tax
Taxes on Utilities
Tobacco tax
Telecommunications taxes ("fees")
Liquor Tax
Tolls
Licenses/permits (fishing, hunting, driving, pets, etc.)
Inheritance tax


Really...do the math. I did once, and found I paid about 40% of my income to a state, local or government agency. I just don't believe it. I'd be willing to be proven wrong, but I can't see how it's going to add up to 40-45%. The overall tax "wedge" - total state and federal effective taxes, including social security - is an average of 15%. It varies a lot depending on your situation, of course. My US state and federal effective tax rate was less than 10% in 2007, according to turbotax, and that makes sense because the average for families with kids is under 12% according to this (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp).

To get to 40-45% from 15%, you'd need 1/3 of your income going to your highway tolls and car registration fees and sales taxes and such. That's just not credible. A family making $60,000 is not paying $20,000 of it to fees and sales taxes. I'd guess an extra 3-5%, still putting the overall tax rate at something like half of what you claim.

If I'm wrong, please show me how.

[midwinter]

Maybe he's just adding up all those "1% increases" and not figuring how that plays into income?

[addabox]

One more thing: Are you arguing that if the system was better, it would attract more demand? Isn't that kind of like supply-side transportation?

Yes. And rightfully, America's roads should be allowed to deteriorate till they're impassible, then we'll see what's what.

The damn gummit has no business in the transit infrastructure game, since transit infrastructure has no bearing on national well-being, and surely market forces will sort things out.

Privatize the nation's highways immediately! If you can't afford the toll, you should have chosen a better career path!

Once driving reflects its actual costs, we can revisit the efficacy of rail transit.

[SDW2001]

I just don't believe it. I'd be willing to be proven wrong, but I can't see how it's going to add up to 40-45%. The overall tax "wedge" - total state and federal effective taxes, including social security - is an average of 15%. It varies a lot depending on your situation, of course. My US state and federal effective tax rate was less than 10% in 2007, according to turbotax, and that makes sense because the average for families with kids is under 12% according to this (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp).

To get to 40-45% from 15%, you'd need 1/3 of your income going to your highway tolls and car registration fees and sales taxes and such. That's just not credible. A family making $60,000 is not paying $20,000 of it to fees and sales taxes. I'd guess an extra 3-5%, still putting the overall tax rate at something like half of what you claim.

If I'm wrong, please show me how.

OK. Here's a quick and dirty. I currently make about $60,000 gross. This summer I am buying a home, so I'll base it on that.

Effective Income Tax Rate, Federal: 11%
Effective State Tax Rate About 3%
Effective Local Rate 1%
Medicare-1.5%
Social Security-6.2%
Unemployment Tax-negligible
Property Tax-School and county--$4000 or 6%
Sales Tax--assume $20K of taxable spending=About 1.5% of gross income
Gas Tax about 70 cents per gallon (state/federal), 18,000 miles per year=about 1%
Tolls/Road Fees: $20 a month or about .5%
Licenses: About .5%
Utility Taxes: .5%
Telecom taxes .5%
Use Taxes .25%
Real Estate Transfer Tax (one year only): $2000 or 3%

So let's do the math: Without even trying, I'm at about 37%. There are many more taxes and fees I haven't listed here. As you can see, getting to 40% is not hard. I also think I may have underestimated sales taxes. I only figured 20K as taxable, which means the other 2/3 goes to other taxes, food and non-taxable living expenses such as rent/mortgage.


Yes. And rightfully, America's roads should be allowed to deteriorate till they're impassible, then we'll see what's what.

Uhh...why? So we can live in the Utopian paradise of public transit?



The damn gummit has no business in the transit infrastructure game, since transit infrastructure has no bearing on national well-being, and surely market forces will sort things out.

Don't think I made that claim.



Privatize the nation's highways immediately! If you can't afford the toll, you should have chosen a better career path!

Take a pill.



Once driving reflects its actual costs, we can revisit the efficacy of rail transit.

I don't even know what that first part means.