Sadly, the state of California would never give out incentives like that for businesses to expand and create new jobs. All they know how to do is tax businesses to death and encouraging them to flee the west coast.
Well, Warren Buffet thinks CA has the right idea - and wants to apply to it all Americans. And he's a billlionaire. So he must be right...
In other news, Denise Richards, famous wife of famous pardoned tax cheat who was a famous Clinton supporter announces renouncing her citizenship because the US is a "tax hell."
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
It might make sense to do both. Keep in mind that the government subsidized highways might cost more per passenger mile than government subsidized mass transportation, however.
The US Interstate Highway System costs billions of dollars to build and maintain. In general, it is free to use. Trucking companies, while they pay taxes intended to offset some costs, are heavily subsidized by gaining access to the highways.
In general, trains cost less than trucks, In general, trains cost less than airplanes, but take longer. In general, trains should be subsidized to at least the level of the trucking companies and the airlines. This might include government-built tracks, much like the government builds highways and airports.
I'm not confident on any of this, but it strikes me when people oppose subsidies for more efficient transportation while not examining subsidies for highway-dependent businesses.
Anyone who thinks that getting around on a fixed, limited schedule mass transit (and getting to the station and then somewhere from the station) is "efficient" in most parts of the country ('tho it makes sense in super-dense Manhattan, where you can also get within blocks of most places, e.g., and operate at least on a reduced schedule 24/7) is thinking only of pie in the sky green goodness. The "Light Rail" link put in along Utah's Wasatch population access is quiet, fast, comfortable, reasonably priced, has Wi-Fi, AND quits running at 11:00, doesn't run on Sundays - and is being expanded even as studies show it's so underutilized it costs much more in $/mile AND energy consumed/per passenger mile than driving a single passenger average car. Not including the system's capitalization costs. Nor our gradual surrender of sovereignty through total governmental indebtedness.
And games may be played, but gas taxes - at all levels - were designed to be used to support highways - as a user pay as you go fee - some of which actually gets diverted into mass transit subsidies.
Instead of building trains that do not go where people live, why not expand the bus routes. It's a lot easier to move a bus stop than to move a train station.
Bus routes sound good too. You can ride a bus from Boston to NYC for well under $20.
They could build a bullet train from Fresno to Bakersfield for a mere $8 billion. Makes sense...NOT!
As long as we are intent on spending money on idealistic transportation projects why not spend the it on building a hydrogen refueling infrastructure and electric car charging outlets in the major metropolitan areas?
People like you said the same things before BART was built, and now it can be impossible to find a seat on it.
San Francisco is the second densest city in North America. The LA metro area is the second densest in the country. The bullet train will link city center to city center. Airports link suburbs to suburbs, with up to an hour extra commute time from the airport to reach the city center.
The initial link in the central valley is less contested with lawsuits and special engineering and that is why it will be built first. While that is being built, the technicalities of the urban areas will be worked out and then construction can commence after the central valley links are built. Makes sense to me.
And the comments about California being a bad place for business are comical, seeing as how it is home to the largest corporation in the world and the center of the digital world economy.
You guys need to turn off F news and get out more.
Comments
As opposed to tracts of flaming hot magma.
It was part of the credit extension deal with China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianfrick
Do you mean tracts of land...?
Maybe they are referring to the new F1 track they are building in Austin? Vroom, vroom. Look at me, I'm racing around Apple's tracks of land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb
Sadly, the state of California would never give out incentives like that for businesses to expand and create new jobs. All they know how to do is tax businesses to death and encouraging them to flee the west coast.
Well, Warren Buffet thinks CA has the right idea - and wants to apply to it all Americans. And he's a billlionaire. So he must be right...
In other news, Denise Richards, famous wife of famous pardoned tax cheat who was a famous Clinton supporter announces renouncing her citizenship because the US is a "tax hell."
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
It might make sense to do both. Keep in mind that the government subsidized highways might cost more per passenger mile than government subsidized mass transportation, however.
The US Interstate Highway System costs billions of dollars to build and maintain. In general, it is free to use. Trucking companies, while they pay taxes intended to offset some costs, are heavily subsidized by gaining access to the highways.
In general, trains cost less than trucks, In general, trains cost less than airplanes, but take longer. In general, trains should be subsidized to at least the level of the trucking companies and the airlines. This might include government-built tracks, much like the government builds highways and airports.
I'm not confident on any of this, but it strikes me when people oppose subsidies for more efficient transportation while not examining subsidies for highway-dependent businesses.
Anyone who thinks that getting around on a fixed, limited schedule mass transit (and getting to the station and then somewhere from the station) is "efficient" in most parts of the country ('tho it makes sense in super-dense Manhattan, where you can also get within blocks of most places, e.g., and operate at least on a reduced schedule 24/7) is thinking only of pie in the sky green goodness. The "Light Rail" link put in along Utah's Wasatch population access is quiet, fast, comfortable, reasonably priced, has Wi-Fi, AND quits running at 11:00, doesn't run on Sundays - and is being expanded even as studies show it's so underutilized it costs much more in $/mile AND energy consumed/per passenger mile than driving a single passenger average car. Not including the system's capitalization costs. Nor our gradual surrender of sovereignty through total governmental indebtedness.
And games may be played, but gas taxes - at all levels - were designed to be used to support highways - as a user pay as you go fee - some of which actually gets diverted into mass transit subsidies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Sukalewski
Highways are not free to use - gas taxes are 67 cents per gallon of gasoline & 75.9 cents for diesel in CA (as of 1/1/12).
http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/gasoline-diesel-summary.pdf
Instead of building trains that do not go where people live, why not expand the bus routes. It's a lot easier to move a bus stop than to move a train station.
Bus routes sound good too. You can ride a bus from Boston to NYC for well under $20.
But buses are slow.
People like you said the same things before BART was built, and now it can be impossible to find a seat on it.
San Francisco is the second densest city in North America. The LA metro area is the second densest in the country. The bullet train will link city center to city center. Airports link suburbs to suburbs, with up to an hour extra commute time from the airport to reach the city center.
The initial link in the central valley is less contested with lawsuits and special engineering and that is why it will be built first. While that is being built, the technicalities of the urban areas will be worked out and then construction can commence after the central valley links are built. Makes sense to me.
And the comments about California being a bad place for business are comical, seeing as how it is home to the largest corporation in the world and the center of the digital world economy.
You guys need to turn off F news and get out more.
When I think of effluents, Texas immediately comes to mind, yes.