"US citizens drove 9.6 billion fewer miles in May 2008 than in May 2007, or 3.7% less. Yet May usually means an increase in traffic because of Memorial Day vacations and the beginning of summer."
I don't think Memorial Day being in May means May this year has an increase in traffic over May last year, that would've only made sense if they compared April and May
...which says that not only are we seeing a drop compared to last year, but we are also seeing month-by-month drops, which is unusual because May has historically been an "up" month.
Yeah, I coughed when I read this too. The reason a May-over-May comparison is made is to take out the seasonality; Memorial Day is irrelevant to May08/May07 (or, as they would say in finance, 07K-08K).
The American government could have put a $3 tax on gas when it was $1, and the consumption would have dropped and all those oil profits could have been invested in renewable domestic energy development.
People would have screamed bloody murder then, but they're screaming now anyways. 20-20 hindsight.
The other day my girlfriend, who is of Louisiana Creole extraction, commented: "I've never seen so many white people on bicycles!"
We live in Houston, and it used to be that most of the bicyclists you see in my neighborhood are Black and Hispanic guys who have to get to work but can't afford a car.
What the green lobby can't do, it looks like economic pressures might be able to do.
It's a pity that the gas prices will probably drive higher usage of cheap coal, instead of more environmentally friendly alternatives like geothermal, wind, solar, and (dare I say it) most practically, nuclear.
Edit: Interesting typo in the article -- it seems that this month's usage was actually less than this month's usage.
I'm going to lay the blame fairly and squarely on the Simpsons.
Seriously.
The show is the only mass market show that I can think of that is continually giving nuclear power (in general) a bad reputation and because of its popularity amongst young people, it is helping to prevent the adoption of nuclear power, even though the technology is much safer than earlier implementations.
There's a few nuclear power plant on Long Island that never got started due to Three Mile Island :\. Also, Brookhaven has a few nuclear reactors for research purposes that are still used as well. In the late 60's or early 70's, they (the power company, now known as LIPA, but this was before NY State took over) started to constructed a commercial nuclear power plant.
It was originally supposed to output ~550 Megawatts of power and cost ~75 million to make. Then it got delayed. They went back to planning stages and increased the output to over 800 Megawatts as well as designing plans for another two reactors. However, one reactor was close to Manhattan. That one never got past planning stages due to protests. The other one never got built either. I'm not sure why.
Anyway, by the end of the 70's, the cost of the original plant had skyrocketed to over $2 billion. And it wasn't even finished yet. Then there were protests due to Three Mile Island. By the mid 80's, the plant was complete. However, politics deemed that it would never be opened. So they spent another $250 million to decommission the plant. It cost around 6 billion in total.
And a few years back, anyone remember the big blackout that happened? Power grid got overloaded. There's a cable that runs under the LI Sound now that draws power from Connecticut's nuclear power plant. Around 330 Megawatts of power. By comparison, the unused nuclear power plant on Long Island - that's still connected to the power grid - is supposed to be able to produce around 400 Megawatts of power.
Oh, and we (the taxpayers) are still paying the bill for that unused power plant. And will be for the next 15 years.
I think so too, but it shouldn't. Chernobyl was deemed unsafe by the US before it was even built, and Three Mile Island didn't hurt a single citizen, and I believe killed no one.
Great. Can someone raise the gas price to 5 dollars. Sure my milk will be more expensive, but it will force more people to work from home instead of going to an office to drink coffee and take smoke breaks.
I upmodded you because I share your wish, but unfortunately what you're asking for is impossible.
Both of my parents have been railroad engineers all their lifes, and the main thing I learned was this: railroads are not economical at transporting passengers. Nearly all countries with "decent train systems" use government subsidies to effectively sponsor passenger railroad transport. Even subways can't make any profit.
And I am against paying more taxes. Period. Therefore, no government subsidies to Amtrak from me.
In the US, highways get an order of magnitude more government subsidy than transit (not just Amtrak but also urban subway systems, etc). Even if you treat the revenue from the gas tax as a user fee rather than a subsidy, there's still a huge subsidy coming from other kinds of tax revenue.
But the government pays for the roads too. Isn't that a subsidy? And without trains or subways much more people would need to use cars - where would they be parked? Who would pay for all that parking space? Trains allow people who can't drive (or can't afford to drive) to travel.
And can you imagine the traffic in New York, Paris or London if the "unprofitable" subway networks were shut down? Society has a huge interest in keeping these networks running, even if it's impossible for a private company to start a new railroad and turn a profit.
There are a lot of variables involved here. Don't be too sure you see the whole picture.
Transportation is a good with a large demand. I am certain that, absent the government, quite a bit of transportation would be demanded and provided in the free market. The quantity of roads or rail produced might be less without all the subsidies, but I'm not sure this would be a bad thing. It would certainly be easier on the environment, since transportation tends to be resource-intensive.
The amount of transportation produced in the free market would be equal to the amount that people were willing to pay for, and that seems fair to me. Producing roads that people aren't willing to voluntarily pay for is a social loss. The people paying for the roads would rather use their money for other things. We are taking their consumption away from more highly valued goods and putting it towards lesser valued goods.
Transportation may be a good, but infrastructure isn't, and there are good reasons why depending on the free market to invest in infrastructure is a bad idea. It is very hard (and wasteful) to charge for roads. Infrastructure forms a natural monopoly (worse even than the telecom industry). There are huge sunk costs. The existence of roads benefits everybody, even those who don't use them, but nobody wants to pay for them.
I like free markets too, but whenever there's something like the Tragedy of the Commons or Moral Hazard involved, free markets lose much of their advantages.
I mentioned this in other comments, but private roads, highways, canals, and railroads (even one of the four great transcontinentals) had a long and successful history in the United States before the rise of public monopolies. Since it is clearly possible to build even very expensive infrastructure by private means, we have to ask if it fair or efficient to do otherwise. Is it okay to tax people in California to pay for highway boondoggles in Massachusetts? Is it in society's best interest for infrastructure to be built by entities that have a history of being behind schedule and over budget? Is it wise to build more highways than the free market would provide in order to have cheap transit when all side effects are considered? I'm not sure.
The free market isn't the best solution for every problem. Imagine if firemen worked like American doctors and wouldn't deal with you unless you were properly insured, or police who only helped those who could afford it or had paid their protection dues.
Some things really do benefit the whole herd and and everyone needs to contribute whether they like it or not. I'm all for minimal government where the free market works, but it's not the right solution to every problem.
Profit can't be the only motive for doing things, some things must be done because it's simply the right thing to do and profiting off of it just wouldn't be right.
Society might not be required to feed and cloth you, but it should damn sure protect you from other members of society, and it should step in and do things to prevent the free market from damaging the one world we all have to share, like decent public transportation to reduce the need for everyone to drive and continually pollute the environment.
I've heard those points and that rhetoric before and I am not convinced. It is insufficient to say this, but I think we are approaching this issue with substantially different experience, assumptions, and background knowledge. I don't think I am contributing much to the world by spending a lot of time on a comment in this forum, so I will unfortunately leave it at that right now. If you live in San Diego, how about coffee sometime?
If I did, I most certainly would, it's an interesting discussion, but I don't so I can't. I used to be all hardcore libertarian like that, but as I get older I lighten up and see that it's a bit too idealistic and leads to anarchy which doesn't really work well in practice.
Pure libertarianism focuses too much on individual rights without acknowledging the reality that we aren't born into such a world, we're social animals and we're born into large societies that we're forced to conform to which in may ways benefits us all, but hurts us as well.
No one gets rich or wealthy alone, they get it from society and that can't be a one way street. Those people who have money to spend on roads only have it because of society, like it or not, the owe society something back for that.
Libertarians believe government doesn't work so the less there is the better, and this is mostly correct; big government doesn't work and can't because there is no one set of rules that all people will ever agree too, but local government, say city level, must work because the only alternative is lawlessness. That being the case, ridding ourselves of federal influence would allow us to segregate into like minded communities where rules can be established that all agree to. Some cities might want prayer in school, others might not, some want everyone to carry a gone while others want to outlaw guns, and that's as it should be, live and let live by recognizing that 300 million people won't ever agree so don't force them to.
The flaw in our society is not government, it's how big and non local we've let it become.
... since we don't pay any taxes towards our road/highway system.
Private transportation is subsidized just as much as public transportation if you factor in the cost of all those eight lane interstates. It's all a matter of priorities.
I'm not saying that rail travel is a better solution... I'm just pointing out that no matter what way we go about it, the government will spend significant amounts of money. The Federal Budget allotted $67 billion for transportation improvement projects this year.[1] Add to that a huge amount spent by the states and local jurisdictions (I know my state roughly matches it's Federal grants with it's own money.) Contrast this with Europe, which spent 125 billion euros on road projects, and 73 billion on rail subsidies, and has three times as many people.[2]
You can't end a debate on rail travel by saying it's not profitable without subsidies. Roads would not happen without massive government subsidies either. Witness the need for the Eisenhower Interstate project to kickstart decent long distance highways in the 1950s.
Air travel benefits from the same things. If airlines had to build their own airports, ticket prices would be much higher. The airlines benefit from billions of dollars spent annually by states and municipalities to build nice airports, add runways, and run air traffic control.
>You can't end a debate on rail travel by saying it's not profitable without subsidies. Roads would not happen without massive government subsidies either.
The marginal road might not be profitable, but some roads would be built without subsidies. The earliest highways in America were funded by private businessmen who thought it would be profitable to connect the towns that they lived in. Private roads have a long and successful history, even if in modern times they have been crowded out of the market by trillions of dollars of federal and state projects.
One of the four great intercontinental railroads was built entirely without government grants or subsidies. If I recall correctly, it also lasted the longest.
When I criticize the government or question the need for its existence, people often respond with "Oh yeah, how would you get around without roads? The government provides all our transportation. That's useful.". However, the argument is a straw man, historically ignorant, and blinded by the status quo. Too often people are so constrained by how things are that they can not think about how they were different in the past or how they could be in the future.
"One of the four great intercontinental railroads was built entirely without government grants or subsidies. If I recall correctly, it also lasted the longest."
Which one? From what I've read they all got the government to make eminent domain seizures for them (so even if this one railroad paid for the land it got, it still had a government subsidy in the form of a strongarm).
Oh I agree there would be roads/railways/airports without government subsidy. Frankly there is a need for those things, so someone will build them. I should have been more clear in that 'the road system as we have it today would not have happened without government subsidies'.
Back to the topic, what I was trying to point out is that it's silly to expect unsubsidized private railways to compete with massively subsidized road/air transport and still be profitable. It's hypocritical to always expect rail to bootstrap itself while giving such massive assistance to road/air, then claim that it's somehow rail's fault when it cannot compete.
Don't say "just as much". People buy their own cars, perform their own maintenance, pay their own insurance, and essentially pay a subscription through gas taxes (which, in my opinion, should fund 100 percent of roadwork.)
You are correct, but in precicely the wrong direction: private transportation is subsidised much, much more than rail transport as a function of GDP, passenger miles, or population. It isn't even close.
And your "gas tax should fund highways" idea is laughable. Look at the numbers (there were some posted at matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com in the past few weeks). The gas tax doesn't even cover maintenance of existing road systems, much less all the new construction that we are constantly doing. And remember that it's not just the roads themselves, but all the extra costs involved in forcing society to do all that driving. Cost of delivery of goods to residential areas, for example, is much higher in the US than western europe because of all the trucks needed.
private transportation is subsidised much, much more than rail transport as a function of GDP, passenger miles, or population. It isn't even close.
That is surprising. Source? Also, does your source explain why someone would want to know the subsidy per person, mile, $ of GDP, etc., instead of the percentage of spending accounted for by subsidies versus other activities? It seems that the latter measures what you would actually care about -- e.g. the government probably spends more money on retirement (through Social Security) than it does on space flight. But the government spends a higher fraction of the total money spent on space flight than on retirement, so one would argue that space flight is more subsidized.
much, much more than rail transport as a function of GDP
Uh, you have to compare it with the amount of people it moves. Not the absolute amount. If taxes pay for trains, upkeep, insurance, salaries for drivers, as well as the infrastructure, then that is a greater tax burden than just the highways, PER USAGE. I considered explaining that in my post, but I figured that math savvy hackers wouldn't need it. I figured wrong.
And your "gas tax should fund highways" idea is laughable.
Oh? Please...explain why.
The gas tax doesn't even cover maintenance of existing road systems,
Oh, I see. Well, if you re-read my sentence I said "SHOULD" fund highways. "Should"
SHOULD: A word meaning, "ought", as in, you "should" parse and process each sentence properly before commenting on it. You "should" look up any words you don't fully understand. That sort of thing.
See, I figured that a bunch of well-educated hackers could understand basic language concepts. I figured wrong.
So? The cost of roads, traffic lights, snow removal, and police coverage aren't factoring in? I get on a subway car each day with 100+ other people at a time, it probably gets 1,000 people on it a day, everyday, for the last 20+ years. How much could it have cost per person over that time?
Sidenote - the MTA in NYC is only 5% paid for by the city, with 95% of its operating budget coming from rider fairs. There is a big complaint from subway riders that it isn't more, the subways make the city possible, shouldn't they pay more into it?
We already give Amtrak over $1 billion a year in tax subsidies. The problem is that the company is a monopoly with no incentives to improve service or reduce costs. Passenger rail and subways can make a profit...the New York subway system was built by competing private subway companies, as was the initial national rail network. The problem is the unions and the government now have a stranglehold and there's no competition or innovation.
I am pretty sure the London Underground is run at a profit, as are the private railsways that service the country side around London. Of course, the cost of using those services is pretty much the highest in the world, and they have pretty high population density, but still, pretty sure its run at a profit.
I'm okay with paying higher taxes if I'm getting something for it-- cheap transportation, universal high-quality healthcare. It's paying high taxes to support Bush's war and tax cuts for the rich that I have a problem with.
The problem with the train system now is that it's dilapidated, expensive, and slow, which leads to low use, leading to disrepair... and so on. However, air travel is going that way right now, and something will fill the void. Trains at 80 mph are not competitive with airlines, but maglev trains are capable of 250+.
It's paying high taxes to support Bush's war and tax cuts for the rich
Paying high taxes to support tax cuts for the rich?
I'm okay with paying higher taxes if I'm getting something for it-- cheap transportation
You do realize that "paying for something to make it cheap" just changes who pays for something, yes? Like...I'm in favor of YOU buying ME a nice present, like cheap transportation. At gunpoint.
Basic stuff.
A train passes by my office occasionally. I don't think it is subsidized. It carries coal. Now...if it was practical for that train to carry people, it would do so, without subsidies. It's not like government is actually needed to make trains profitable.
Apart from SS, the "rich" pay the vast majority of income taxes in the US. That's not to say that all of the rich people pay taxes - there's a lot of folks who buy Munis and the like for tax avoidance (supposedly reducing the costs of various govt projects) and then there are the folks who have managed their estates so they'll never be taxed (including Warren "the inheritance tax should be higher" Buffet).
Yes - it's reasonable to exclude SS. SS is essentially a bad forced savings account. However, SS is progressive in that the less you contributed, the better your return. For folks who pay the max, it's a horrible deal. Both "contributions" and benefits are capped so Perot doesn't get $1M/month.
The rich pay a lower fraction of their income in consumption taxes than the poor, but that's because they consume a smaller fraction of their income and they don't consume as much "sin". (Most consumption taxes exempt food, which is a larger fraction of poor people's income, but poor people also spend more of their money on tobacco and alcohol.)
time_management: "It's paying high taxes to support Bush's war and tax cuts for the rich that I have a problem with."
mynameishere: "Paying high taxes to support tax cuts for the rich?"
Hexstream: "If the rich pay less taxes then the non-rich probably pay more..."
I meant that if the rich get new tax cuts, thus paying less taxes, and the government wants the same amount of taxes overall, then the non-rich necessarily have to pay more to compensate the loss incurred.
That's fixing itself too - airplanes are so unreliable that people are using them less and less. That plus security checking, long lines, drive to the airport; and flying takes about as long as driving.
Hmm, what's better: fly, together with a bunch of people, or drive all by yourself?
Anyway, you'll see a lot of airlines go bust this coming year - unless they start offering on-time guarantees.
On-time guarantees will never happen, given the miserable shape the airlines are already in. This would further increase their costs.
I was stuck on the tarmac at Amsterdam's airport for 8 hours and got a EUR 50 voucher from Northwest Airlines toward a future ticket (yeah, right). I tore it up in front of the woman, and told her that anything less than a free ticket was an insult. This was in 2003, and if airlines weren't going to offer on-time guarantees then, they certainly won't do so now.
Frankly, I don't think it's high oil that is hurting the airlines, because they can (and almost certainly do) hedge against this by buying oil futures. I think the collapse of demand for first-class and last-minute seats is hurting them. The fussy rich people who used to demand 1st class, and were willing to pay 4x the regular price for 50% more space, now prefer to fly chartered or private planes. If you have a pilot's license, taking a family of four in a small plane is comparable in cost to 1st-class commercial. Also, the growth of videoconferencing is causing a massive decline in short-notice business travel, formerly a source of demand for overpriced late tickets.
So when a customer buys a ticket, the airline is in such bad financial shape that they can't use some of the cash from that ticket payment to buy the future fuel for that customer's flight? That is pretty dire.
Trains are not so bad. A major problem is the lack of a local area support network of public transport.
Example: there is a train from Los Angeles Union Station to San Diego. But how can one go to LA Union Station? From Santa Monica, Venice Beach, West LA, Pacific Palisades, etc. it's just plan impossible. The Metro bus is a joke: it takes over an hour, and likely you need a previous bus with added waiting times in between (and buses are unreliable because they have no exclusive lanes to avoid heavy traffic). A taxi is very expensive ($60+). You need a friend to drive you there. And once in San Diego the situation repeats itself.
Same situation, but a bit less bad, in the East Coast: nice trains from Washington DC to NY and Boston. While Boston and NY have very decent local transport systems, Washington's doesn't really go anywhere. Again one is stuck with $60+ taxis to go anywhere.
I don't think Memorial Day being in May means May this year has an increase in traffic over May last year, that would've only made sense if they compared April and May