then are we going to end all subsidies for all businesses ( and which subsidies are you referring to specifically)

Some people have called for exactly that -not many though. Most want to end subsidies for all businesses except the ones they are involved in.

Or more specifically, they want to end the subsidies given to industries they compete with.

True - that is more accurate.

When you agree to immediately end ALL subsidies for oil and gas exploration, then and only then will the discussion fundamentally change.


As BoulderSooner already ask ……“which subsidies are you referring to specifically”?

Ok we will do this again but I expect your response will be the same it always is when someone challenges your sacred cow.

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of SUBSIDY: a grant or gift of money: as
a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation
b : money granted by one state to another
c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

If you cannot, or will not accept this is in fact a subsidy, then it is not useful to engage in a discussion on the topic with you. But for the benefit of other readers and posters:

What incentives encourage energy production? (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/energy/incentives.cfm) Tax Policy Center

The tax breaks granted for preparation of drilling sites, etc to the oil and gas industry is a subsidy provided in tax policy. In 2011, it was estimated to be approximately $41 billion annually. (Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year? - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0309/Budget-hawks-Does-US-need-to-give-gas-and-oil-companies-41-billion-a-year))

The O&G industry receives subsidies IN ONE YEAR equal to the total subsidy for the entire 40 year existence of Amtrak.

When the combined integrated oil corporations' 2012 profit was over $118 million, it is a far better target for subsidy elimination than a transportation service that also serves a public good. The targeting of the comparative "drop in the bucket" that is the Amtrak subsidy is nothing more than a tactic designed to direct attention away from much larger subsidies to extremely profitable corporate interests. It is a classic red herring repeated ad nauseum by Teapublican austerity hawks and O&G lobbyists.

Amtrak has been mischaracterized as an entity that needs to be profitable to justify its existence. It is more correctly classified as a government provided service for the public good. If Amtrak is going to be the primary passenger rail service in the United States, increasing the appropriation to Amtrak should be considered so it can more effectively provide a service that is part of a well developed modern transportation system.

None of this shoud be taken to mean I am anti-hydrocarbon because I am not. I do not want any of the integrated or independent oil and gas companies to fail. I know it is not a realistic expectation to completely cease burning hydrocarbons for transportation and energy. I simply want to change the disingenuous nature of the discussion about Amtrak and the reasons for their obvious challenges in providing the service they are tasked with.

Ok we will do this again but I expect your response will be the same it always is when someone challenges your sacred cow.

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of SUBSIDY: a grant or gift of money: as
a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation
b : money granted by one state to another
c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

If you cannot, or will not accept this is in fact a subsidy, then it is not useful to engage in a discussion on the topic with you. But for the benefit of other readers and posters:

What incentives encourage energy production? (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/energy/incentives.cfm) Tax Policy Center

The tax breaks granted for preparation of drilling sites, etc to the oil and gas industry is a subsidy provided in tax policy. In 2011, it was estimated to be approximately $41 billion annually. (Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year? - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0309/Budget-hawks-Does-US-need-to-give-gas-and-oil-companies-41-billion-a-year))

The O&G industry receives subsidies IN ONE YEAR equal to the total subsidy for the entire 40 year existence of Amtrak.

When the combined integrated oil corporations' 2012 profit was over $118 million, it is a far better target for subsidy elimination than a transportation service that also serves a public good. The targeting of the comparative "drop in the bucket" that is the Amtrak subsidy is nothing more than a tactic designed to direct attention away from much larger subsidies to extremely profitable corporate interests. It is a classic red herring repeated ad nauseum by Teapublican austerity hawks and O&G lobbyists.

Amtrak has been mischaracterized as an entity that needs to be profitable to justify its existence. It is more correctly classified as a government provided service for the public good. If Amtrak is going to be the primary passenger rail service in the United States, increasing the appropriation to Amtrak should be considered so it can more effectively provide a service that is part of a well developed modern transportation system.

None of this shoud be taken to mean I am anti-hydrocarbon because I am not. I do not want any of the integrated or independent oil and gas companies to fail. I know it is not a realistic expectation to completely cease burning hydrocarbons for transportation and energy. I simply want to change the disingenuous nature of the discussion about Amtrak and the reasons for their obvious challenges in providing the service they are tasked with.



The simple fact is that you are wrong and so are your links…. If you don’t believe me I would strongly suggest that you contact a tax attorney who specializes in oil and NG tax law.


The IRS Oil & Gas Tax provisions are not subsidies for "Big Oil"… to say otherwise is a patently false, a lie and shows a very low understanding of pretty basic IRS tax codes. But stupid people believe stupid things and often fall prey to political demagoguery.

OKC’s own Harold Hamm testified under oath in a congressional hearing and indicated that the oil and natural gas industry does not actually receive any tax “subsidies” from the federal government, but (its) frustrating because pretty much no one in the news media ever reports on the subject accurately.

Under IRS Tax code rules every industry of any kind is allowed a depreciation deduction on its assets… But this tax treatment was in fact repealed for all integrated oil companies, i.e., ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc., in 1975, and is today available only to independent producers and royalty owners. So repeal of this extremely long-standing, completely common tax treatment would have no effect on “big oil” at all, and would in fact hit small producers and royalty owners harder than anyone else.

The tax code contains a couple of credits related to the oil and gas industry – the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit, and the Marginal Well Tax Credit. Far from being “subsidies” to “big oil”, these tax credits are used almost exclusively by small to mid-size independent producers who tend to become the operators of marginal oil and gas fields as they age and are divested by the larger companies. The EOR credit was implemented in 1990, and the Marginal Well Credit was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

This is yet one more subject where journalism has mostly failed to accurately report on the facts, probably because of their biased ways.

The simple fact is that you are wrong and so are your links…. If you don’t believe me I would strongly suggest that you contact a tax attorney who specializes in oil and NG tax law.

Let me try it this way - that statement is analagous to Mack Brown asking Bob Stoops for advice on how to best defend OU's offense inside the 10 yard line. Energy industry tax attorneys sole purpose - and source of income - is based on exploiting the tax code (legally I grant) to the advantage of O&G companies. Call it a tax credit, accounting technique, or whatever you prefer; the fact remains there are over $40 billion in them granted to the industry annually, so for someone to get "the vapors" over the comparatively miniscule federal appropriation to Amtrak is laughable at best.

But your response was exactly as expected.

Let me try it this way - that statement is analagous to Mack Brown asking Bob Stoops for advice on how to best defend OU's offense inside the 10 yard line. Energy industry tax attorneys sole purpose - and source of income - is based on exploiting the tax code (legally I grant) to the advantage of O&G companies. Call it a tax credit, accounting technique, or whatever you prefer; the fact remains there are over $40 billion in them granted to the industry annually, so for someone to get "the vapors" over the comparatively miniscule federal appropriation to Amtrak is laughable at best.

But your response was exactly as expected.

You’re perfect proof of…. if you repeat the lie often enough that people like you will believe it.

THE FACT IS THAT YOU ARE WRONG!
IRS TAX Codes says you are wrong.
Countless professionals who are experts in this field would also tell you that you are wrong.
But you would rather believe misinformed and dubious sources.

You’re perfect proof of…. if you repeat the lie often enough that people like you will believe it.

THE FACT IS THAT YOU ARE WRONG!
IRS TAX Codes says you are wrong.
Countless professionals who are experts in this field would also tell you that you are wrong.
But you would rather believe misinformed and dubious sources.

Ou48a, I've pointed out to you before the hundreds of millions oil companies get in use tax credits/rebates just from Oklahoma. Don't know what kind of subsidies they get federally but they get a ton just from our state legislature.

Ou48a, I've pointed out to you before the hundreds of millions oil companies get in use tax credits/rebates just from Oklahoma. Don't know what kind of subsidies they get federally but they get a ton just from our state legislature.

Yes, but in this case since we are talking about Amtrak so we are talking about the federal tax codes.

You’re perfect proof of….

defense of the sacred cow at all cost is your prime objective and attacking anything that threatens the primacy of the automobile and oil based transportation fuel consumption precludes any discussion of the topic.

Ou48a, I've pointed out to you before the hundreds of millions oil companies get in use tax credits/rebates just from Oklahoma. Don't know what kind of subsidies they get federally but they get a ton just from our state legislature.

A combination of credits, etc to the tune of $40+ billion annually. Numerous sources are readily available

defense of the sacred cow at all cost is your prime objective and attacking anything that threatens the primacy of the automobile and oil based transportation fuel consumption precludes any discussion of the topic.

The simple fact of the matter is that I’m dealing with IRS facts.
You are dealing in known propaganda that’s basically political in nature and untrue.
Since you do not deal in known IRS facts I believe you could be accurately described as a low information voter.

Since you do not deal in known IRS facts I believe you could be accurately described as a low information voter.

Nice one Rush - the standard response to anyone who does not agree. Enjoy your false sense of superiority.

The fact remains that your original argument concerning the federal support of Amtrak is disingenuous to be kind. You have voiced opposition to any form of transportation that does not involve rubber tires on asphalt or concrete roads. You cherry pick subsidies you do not like, yet ignore those that are advantagous to industries you have a stake in or otherwise favor. Does that make you a low integrity voter?

Nice one Rush - the standard response to anyone who does not agree. Enjoy your false sense of superiority.

The fact remains that your original argument concerning the federal support of Amtrak is disingenuous to be kind. You have voiced opposition to any form of transportation that does not involve rubber tires on asphalt or concrete roads. You cherry pick subsidies you do not like, yet ignore those that are advantagous to industries you have a stake in or otherwise favor. Does that make you a low integrity voter?


If a person like Harold Hamm and others like him would testify under oath that the oil and natural gas industry does not actually receive any tax “subsidies” from the federal government then only a very stupid fool would think that Hamm and others would lie about something so significant in a hearing before congress.

People like Hamm often have access to in house attorneys and tax people who specialize in this area and if needed they can hire outside legal and tax help as they sometime do.

As a result,,,,, people like Hamm and others like him are extraordinarily well informed and are not about to commit an act of perjury in a congressional hearing.

The above should be enough to convince any reasonable person who has ever had doubts that the oil and natural gas industry does not actually receive any tax “subsidies” from the federal government.

You have voiced opposition to any form of transportation that does not involve rubber tires on asphalt or concrete roads.


You lied when you said the following:
“ You have voiced opposition to any form of transportation that does not involve rubber tires on asphalt or concrete roads.” In fact I said this on post # 53 on this very thread.

“ We would do far more good with our limited resource to divert most of the federal subsidies for Amtrak to various rail options in our nation’s city’s where congestion is a major problem and where far more people would be helped.”
I have also said somthing like this elsewhere from time to time.

Since you have lied about what I have actually said and since you continue to lie about something that is a lie in the first place. I will no longer waste my time responding to somebody who won’t or can’t deal with the truth and in known facts which pretty much makes your views on all topics null and void.

It’s one thing to disagree and that's fine.... but I have a policy of putting proven liars like you on ignore. I have only done this to one other poster who also lied, so I feel I’m pretty tolerant. But until further notice you are on my ignore list for lying.

If a person like Harold Hamm and others like him would testify under oath that the oil and natural gas industry does not actually receive any tax “subsidies” from the federal government then only a very stupid fool would think that Hamm and others would lie about something so significant in a hearing before congress.

People like Hamm often have access to in house attorneys and tax people who specialize in this area and if needed they can hire outside legal and tax help as they sometime do.

As a result,,,,, people like Hamm and others like him are extraordinarily well informed and are not about to commit an act of perjury in a congressional hearing.

The above should be enough to convince any reasonable person who has ever had doubts that the oil and natural gas industry does not actually receive any tax “subsidies” from the federal government.

That's right - everyone in the O&G industry are so pure of heart that profit is not a primary motive behind their actions and statements including how they testify to Congress. That doesn't mean they commit perjury, but rather they state their case in the manner that benefits them most. People like Harold Hamm, Larry Nichols, and others have worked the tax system to their (and their companies) benefit - nothing wrong with that. But the rose colored glasses act from you is tiresome.

My point all along has been it is misguided and disingenuous to point to federal spending you do not like for whatever reason as wasteful and advocating for its elimination, while simultaneously insisting other industries benefitting from federal policy is somehow above the same scrutiny.

So at your insistence we will say the various credits and deductions available to the oil and gas industry in the tax code are not "subsidies" but are some sort of earned benefit. Therefore the federal funds appropriated to Amtrak for operations, maintenance, and equipment acquisition are not subsidies either, but rather we shall call them investments, which negates your original gripe about the relatively miniscule amount it has received over the last 40 years.

You lied when you said the following:
“ You have voiced opposition to any form of transportation that does not involve rubber tires on asphalt or concrete roads.” In fact I said this on post # 53 on this very thread.

“ We would do far more good with our limited resource to divert most of the federal subsidies for Amtrak to various rail options in our nation’s city’s where congestion is a major problem and where far more people would be helped.”
I have also said somthing like this elsewhere from time to time.

Since you have lied about what I have actually said and since you continue to lie about something that is a lie in the first place. I will no longer waste my time responding to somebody who won’t or can’t deal with the truth and in known facts which pretty much makes your views on all topics null and void.

It’s one thing to disagree and that's fine.... but I have a policy of putting proven liars like you on ignore. I have only done this to one other poster who also lied, so I feel I’m pretty tolerant. But until further notice you are on my ignore list for lying.

All one need do is read through the majority of your posts to see I correctly stated your usual stance. Ignore away if it makes you feel better.

The only "problem" with The Heartland Flyer is that not enough people share the wonder of a functional anachronism to pay for it no matter how good or bad it may be. It's sort of like the O.E.T.A./P.B.S./N.P.R. (and affiliates) of transportation. I love 'em all. =) I hope as they "remodel" the Travel Center on The H.E. Bailey Turnpike at Vinita that they include putting in the foundations for a passenger rail disembarking platform for the future spur to Tulsa to enjoy the improved facility.

Heck, they might even get a dispensation from McDCorp to dress the staff like Harvey Girls (and Guys).

Stop maintaining I-35 and see how many people start taking the Heartland flyer.

Stop maintaining I-35 and see how many people start taking the Heartland flyer.If they stopped maintaining I -35 many people would fly rather than take a once a day slow train that ends up on the wrong side of the Dallas metro area for most going that way. Hell, we could still take 2 lane roads and still beat the train.

If they stopped maintaining I -35 many people would fly rather than take a once a day slow train that ends up on the wrong side of the Dallas metro area for most going that way. Hell, we could still take 2 lane roads and still beat the train.

I just don't get it. Why are people so dang intent on hating certain forms of transportation?

Oh, and to be clear, you can take the train to Fort Worth and then go to Dallas without ever having to step foot in a rubber-tired vehicle. It's quite nice.

If they stopped maintaining I -35 many people would fly rather than take a once a day slow train that ends up on the wrong side of the Dallas metro area for most going that way. Hell, we could still take 2 lane roads and still beat the train.

Now you are just being ridiculous, so let me ask a you a serious question. Why do you oppose rail as a system of transit for people? Just pick your top 3 reasons and list them.

If they stopped maintaining I -35 many people would fly rather than take a once a day slow train that ends up on the wrong side of the Dallas metro area for most going that way. Hell, we could still take 2 lane roads and still beat the train.


Now you are just being ridiculous, so let me ask a you a serious question. Why do you oppose rail as a system of transit for people? Just pick your top 3 reasons and list them.

Not difficult to ascertain....

Now you are just being ridiculous, so let me ask a you a serious question. Why do you oppose rail as a system of transit for people? Just pick your top 3 reasons and list them.

People are not opposed to rail. Yes, people are offended when others say let's not maintain roads and see how many people ride the train. That is a not productive conversation.

So what are the disadvantages of the Heartland Flyer. 1) The trip to Ft. Worth (not even Dallas) takes significantly longer on the train than in a car; 2) The Heartland Flyer requires a multi million dollar subsidy from the state of Oklahoma for one round-trip train a day. To many people that just does not seem like money well spent. 3) The cost of the train ticket is roughly the same as an airline ticket but airplane service isl faster (even with the security checks).

To many people train service is not economically efficient. The answer from some train supporters is to reduce choices by "not maintaining roads." That is just not America!

Stop maintaining I-35 and see how many people start taking the Heartland flyer.

yeah that wouldn't effect the economy at all ...

Now you are just being ridiculous, so let me ask a you a serious question. Why do you oppose rail as a system of transit for people? Just pick your top 3 reasons and list them.

People are not opposed to rail. Yes, people are offended when others say let's not maintain roads and see how many people ride the train. That is a not productive conversation.

So what are the disadvantages of the Heartland Flyer. 1) The trip to Ft. Worth (not even Dallas) takes significantly longer on the train than in a car; 2) The Heartland Flyer requires a multi million dollar subsidy from the state of Oklahoma for one round-trip train a day. To many people that just does not seem like money well spent. 3) The cost of the train ticket is roughly the same as an airline ticket but airplane service is faster (even with the security checks).

To many people train service is not economically efficient. The answer from some train supporters is to reduce choices by "not maintaining roads." That is just not America!

People are not opposed to rail. Yes, people are offended when others say let's not maintain roads and see how many people ride the train. That is a not productive conversation.

So what are the disadvantages of the Heartland Flyer. 1) The trip to Ft. Worth (not even Dallas) takes significantly longer on the train than in a car; 2) The Heartland Flyer requires a multi million dollar subsidy from the state of Oklahoma for one round-trip train a day. To many people that just does not seem like money well spent. 3) The cost of the train ticket is roughly the same as an airline ticket but airplane service is faster (even with the security checks).

To many people train service is not economically efficient. The answer from some train supporters is to reduce choices by "not maintaining roads." That is just not America!

And the highways take multi-multi-million dollar subsidies to operate as well. That's a non-starter. The cost of a train ticket to Fort Worth is not close to the cost of an airline ticket to Dallas, unless you happen to find an incredible deal. Even then, you end up in downtown Fort Worth on the train, and out in suburban DFW airport or LUV if you fly, necessitating a car/bus/taxi trip elsewhere.

And the highways take multi-multi-million dollar subsidies to operate as well. That's a non-starter. The cost of a train ticket to Fort Worth is not close to the cost of an airline ticket to Dallas, unless you happen to find an incredible deal. Even then, you end up in downtown Fort Worth on the train, and out in suburban DFW airport or LUV if you fly, necessitating a car/bus/taxi trip elsewhere.

unless you are going specifically to downtown ft worth you require a car/bus/taxi either way

for instance if you want to go to dallas on Saturday the 18th of May

you can leave on the Amtrak from OKC at 825am (we are assuming you get dropped off at both the Amtrak station in Okc and at Will Rodgers for the exercise)

arrive in Fort Worth at 1239 pm (over 4 hours later) depart ft worth at 220pm and arrive in Dallas at 320 pm

total trip time 7 hours cost 46.50

or you can get on a southwest flight to love field departing at 815am and landing at Love field at 910 am for a coast of 107.00 travel time 55 min

or if you want to sleep in you can catch the 1:35 pm flight out of OKC for the same price and land at Love field at 230pm

so 60 bucks more and 6 hours less travel time ..


i don't know about most people but my time is worth considerably more than 10 dollars an hour

so let me break down that list to see if I got it right.

1) Train is not as fast as car.
2) The train is subsidized
3) Train ticket cost same as plane ticket and plane is faster

So allow me to respond.

1) Speed is a 'you' problem. Personally, I don't mind the trip taking longer if it means I don't have to drive. No one is making you take the train but you ARE forcing me to drive. Is that American?
2) I-35 is subsidized. So is the gas you put in your car. So is the auto company that built your car. So is the UAM worker that built your car (unless of course your car came from a foreign country in which case the shipping company that sent it here is subsidized). So is the highway patrol officer that ensure traffic is safe. So are the medical bills auto accident victims get. So is the military that keep gasoline affordable. Etc. etc. etc.
3) The train ticket DOES NOT cost the same as a plane ticket (which btw is also subsidized by the federal government AND the city of Oklahoma City (you don't think WRWA was built by the airlines do you), and I won't even mention who pays for the FAA.

So now tell me the REAL reasons you don't like rail travel for humans (I assume you aren't oppose to rail travel for freight, livestock, coal, and grain).

Now you are just being ridiculous, so let me ask a you a serious question. Why do you oppose rail as a system of transit for people? Just pick your top 3 reasons and list them.
And to stop maintaining I-35 isn’t ridiculous…. That was sort of the point.

Why do you oppose rail as a system of transit for people? Just pick your top 3 reasons and list them.If you will go to POST #56 on this thread you will see where I said

“We would do far more good with our limited resource to divert most of the federal subsidies for Amtrak to various rail options in our nation’s city’s where congestion is a major problem and where far more people would be helped”


So to say that I’m against “rail as a system of transit for people” is extremely wrong

So OU48A - your problem isn't with rail travel per se, it is with how Amtrak is operated? That I can totally agree with. Amtrak is probably the single biggest barrier to rail transit in America. Here in Florida we passed a constitutional amendment to implement State wide HSR. It was going to cost something like $40 billion. That money should be spent getting people to work 5 days a week, not providing a train for tourism or the occasional in-state business trip. Thankfully, we repealed that amendment a few years later.

A train to downtown Tampa doesn't do anyone any good if we can't move around once we are there. Of course, now it is 15 years later and Miami has 2 rail systems, Ft Lauderdale has rail, downtown Tampa has a streetcar, Orlando's SunRail opens next year, and Jacksonville has the Skyway. Now it makes sense to link them all.

http://www.allaboardflorida.com/

And the highways take multi-multi-million dollar subsidies to operate as well. That's a non-starter. The cost of a train ticket to Fort Worth is not close to the cost of an airline ticket to Dallas, unless you happen to find an incredible deal. Even then, you end up in downtown Fort Worth on the train, and out in suburban DFW airport or LUV if you fly, necessitating a car/bus/taxi trip elsewhere.

It may cost more to build and maintain I-35 but it provides many thousands of times more in benefit to society that the Heartland Flyer. It’s the same story though out virtually the entire nation and it’s not even close.
In most places (not all) Amtrak is a waste of money and an unnecessary duplication of government transportation.

So OU48A - your problem isn't with rail travel per se, it is with how Amtrak is operated? That I can totally agree with. Amtrak is probably the single biggest barrier to rail transit in America. Here in Florida we passed a constitutional amendment to implement State wide HSR. It was going to cost something like $40 billion. That money should be spent getting people to work 5 days a week, not providing a train for tourism or the occasional in-state business trip. Thankfully, we repealed that amendment a few years later.

A train to downtown Tampa doesn't do anyone any good if we can't move around once we are there. Of course, now it is 15 years later and Miami has 2 rail systems, Ft Lauderdale has rail, downtown Tampa has a streetcar, Orlando's SunRail opens next year, and Jacksonville has the Skyway. Now it makes sense to link them all.

All Aboard Florida (http://www.allaboardflorida.com/)

In general I want the biggest economic benefit to the biggest number of people possible and at the lowest cost.
And that usually isn’t slow Amtrak or HSR except where its justified by congestion.

so let me break down that list to see if I got it right.

1) Train is not as fast as car.
2) The train is subsidized
3) Train ticket cost same as plane ticket and plane is faster

So allow me to respond.

1) Speed is a 'you' problem. Personally, I don't mind the trip taking longer if it means I don't have to drive. No one is making you take the train but you ARE forcing me to drive. Is that American?
2) I-35 is subsidized. So is the gas you put in your car. So is the auto company that built your car. So is the UAM worker that built your car (unless of course your car came from a foreign country in which case the shipping company that sent it here is subsidized). So is the highway patrol officer that ensure traffic is safe. So are the medical bills auto accident victims get. So is the military that keep gasoline affordable. Etc. etc. etc.
3) The train ticket DOES NOT cost the same as a plane ticket (which btw is also subsidized by the federal government AND the city of Oklahoma City (you don't think WRWA was built by the airlines do you), and I won't even mention who pays for the FAA.

So now tell me the REAL reasons you don't like rail travel for humans (I assume you aren't oppose to rail travel for freight, livestock, coal, and grain).


Let us consider the following intellectual exercise:

Suppose the state of Oklahoma set up a turnpike authority just for I-35 between Norman and the Texas state line. The turnpike authority would have to takeout bonds and pay the state for the present value of the current road. The new turnpike authority would also be responsible for maintenance on I-35. It would then have to charge tolls to cover those bond and maintenance costs. Additionally, the state would stop subsidizing the Heartland Flyer. Thus, no public money would be spent on either form of transportation. After a year, what would be the status of the toll road and the Heartland Flyer? If the trip between OKC and Tulsa is any indication, the toll road to Dallas would be an economic success while the Heartland Flyer would be out of business.

As for your statement "tell me the REAL reasons you don't like rail travel for human," it is unproductive, and something I just don't expect from you. I understand you like and support rail transport, but it is not my or others preferred form of transportation. I hope that you could respect that just like I and others respect your preferences.

so let me break down that list to see if I got it right.

1) Train is not as fast as car.
2) The train is subsidized
3) Train ticket cost same as plane ticket and plane is faster

So allow me to respond.

1) Speed is a 'you' problem. Personally, I don't mind the trip taking longer if it means I don't have to drive. No one is making you take the train but you ARE forcing me to drive. Is that American?
2) I-35 is subsidized. So is the gas you put in your car. So is the auto company that built your car. So is the UAM worker that built your car (unless of course your car came from a foreign country in which case the shipping company that sent it here is subsidized). So is the highway patrol officer that ensure traffic is safe. So are the medical bills auto accident victims get. So is the military that keep gasoline affordable. Etc. etc. etc.
3) The train ticket DOES NOT cost the same as a plane ticket (which btw is also subsidized by the federal government AND the city of Oklahoma City (you don't think WRWA was built by the airlines do you), and I won't even mention who pays for the FAA.

So now tell me the REAL reasons you don't like rail travel for humans (I assume you aren't oppose to rail travel for freight, livestock, coal, and grain).


Let us consider the following intellectual exercise:

Suppose the state of Oklahoma set up a turnpike authority just for I-35 between Norman and the Texas state line. The turnpike authority would have to takeout bonds and pay the state for the present value of the current road. The new turnpike authority would also be responsible for maintenance on I-35. It would then have to charge tolls to cover those bond and maintenance costs. Additionally, the state would stop subsidizing the Heartland Flyer. Thus, no public money would be spent on either form of transportation. After a year, what would be the status of the toll road and the Heartland Flyer? If the trip between OKC and Tulsa is any indication, the toll road to Dallas would be an economic success while the Heartland Flyer would be out of business.

As for your statement "tell me the REAL reasons you don't like rail travel for human," it is unproductive, and something I just don't expect from you. I understand you like and support rail transport, but it is not my or others preferred form of transportation. I hope that you could respect that just like I and others respect your preferences.

So vaflyer - is the cost of the gasoline on the trip going to be the true cost of gasoline, or do all those subsidies stay in place? Or would you roll all the subsidies of the auto-chain into the toll? How much do you think that toll would be?

Here is the bottom line - we live in a subsidized world. I wish we didn't - but we do and who knows how much longer we will be able to keep it up. So when you base your opposition on subsidies that isn't even a rational argument and isn't even close to being grounded in reality.

Is rail travel for everyone? No it isn't, especially with out limited infrastructure in place. For the last 60 years we have developed away from rail corridors to highway corridors. If we want to keep the economic lights on post-subsidy we better start building up a system of transportation (and development in general) that can survive without them - and I assure you - the automobile model IS NOT the solution.

here is the bottom line - we live in a subsidized world. I wish we didn't - but we do and who knows how much longer we will be able to keep it up. So when you base your opposition on subsidies that isn't even a rational argument and isn't even close to being grounded in reality.

Is rail travel for everyone? No it isn't, especially with out limited infrastructure in place. For the last 60 years we have developed away from rail corridors to highway corridors. If we want to keep the economic lights on post-subsidy we better start building up a system of transportation (and development in general) that can survive without them - and i assure you - the automobile model is not the solution.

this

this

x2

So vaflyer - is the cost of the gasoline on the trip going to be the true cost of gasoline, or do all those subsidies stay in place? Or would you roll all the subsidies of the auto-chain into the toll? How much do you think that toll would be?

I am well aware that the argument given by rail supporters is the hidden costs (or subsidies) related to cars. I could argue that people driving cars are still paying gas taxes and that faster travel by car/truck provides economic benefits to society that need to be calculated (to both travelers and people receiving goods moved by trucks). The problem with undertaking this detailed level of economic analysis is to accurate quantify those costs/benefits that are directly related to cars without making some controversial assumptions. Thus, it is common in economics to weigh the costs and benefits that can be directly attributed to question at hand. That is what I did in my proposed intellectual exercise.

On a side note, this discussion reminds me of the sports economist arguing for the city of Seattle a few years back in their case against the Sonics. When asked what the economic impact of the Sonics were to city of Seattle, he said something along the lines that impact was so large you could not even calculate it.

You know, this is what frustrates the hell out of me with my fellow Tea Partiers. They think we are either still living in 1950, or they want to return to 1950, and not if a societal sense, but in an economic sense. They think we have this unlimited supply of debt that we can continue to tap into that will increase everyone's standard of living and some future people will pay it off. They claim to be deficit hawks and what not, and then turn around and defend the status quo - which produced massive deficits. To quote Rush (while talking about liberals mind you)... they don't think it is the policies that don't work, it is just that the wrong people tried it. If we try it, it will work.

Well here is a serious reality check for you. It won't work no matter who tries it. We DON'T have an endless supply of debt we can tap into. In fact, we about 100% tapped out. We have to create money from the Federal Reserve just to stay going now, AND - we are that 'future people' who are stuck with the bill. Not only do we need to find a more responsible way for us to live, we have to do it while paying off the debts of the dumbasses in the past.

I can't read a single article on Drudge without some yahoo telling the American people they better wake up - well hells bells - I am awake and I am telling you what needs to be done because I can do the math. Is my solution the only solution? I think so, but if someone has a better one I would like to hear it.

Okay, rant off.

I am well aware that the argument given by rail supporters is the hidden costs (or subsidies) related to cars. I could argue that people driving cars are still paying gas taxes and that faster travel by car/truck provides economic benefits to society that need to be calculated (to both travelers and people receiving goods moved by trucks). The problem with undertaking this detailed level of economic analysis is to accurate quantify those costs/benefits that are directly related to cars without making some controversial assumptions. Thus, it is common in economics to weigh the costs and benefits that can be directly attributed to question at hand. That is what I did in my proposed intellectual exercise.

On a side note, this discussion reminds me of the sports economist arguing for the city of Seattle a few years back in their case against the Sonics. When asked what the economic impact of the Sonics were to city of Seattle, he said something along the lines that impact was so large you could not even calculate it.

THIS^
See how easy that is.

Okay vaflyer - what is your solution to creating a sustainable transportation system? And just so we are clear what 'sustainable' means, it means a system that doesn't rely on growth or subsidies to keep it running.

Okay vaflyer - what is your solution to creating a sustainable transportation system? And just so we are clear what 'sustainable' means, it means a system that doesn't rely on growth or subsidies to keep it running.

I do not quite understand what you mean by growth being necessary for a transportation system. Please explain.

As for a model, I really liked TX Gov. Perry's proposed (and now defunct) Trans Texas Corridors. Putting road, rail, and utilities in the same right of way minimizes construction costs and improves efficiencies. Plus, for rail supporters like you, it would be the most cost effective way (and politically feasible) to build high speed rail in the United States.

You know, this is what frustrates the hell out of me with my fellow Tea Partiers. They think we are either still living in 1950, or they want to return to 1950, and not if a societal sense, but in an economic sense. They think we have this unlimited supply of debt that we can continue to tap into that will increase everyone's standard of living and some future people will pay it off. They claim to be deficit hawks and what not, and then turn around and defend the status quo - which produced massive deficits. To quote Rush (while talking about liberals mind you)... they don't think it is the policies that don't work, it is just that the wrong people tried it. If we try it, it will work.

Well here is a serious reality check for you. It won't work no matter who tries it. We DON'T have an endless supply of debt we can tap into. In fact, we about 100% tapped out. We have to create money from the Federal Reserve just to stay going now, AND - we are that 'future people' who are stuck with the bill. Not only do we need to find a more responsible way for us to live, we have to do it while paying off the debts of the dumbasses in the past.

I can't read a single article on Drudge without some yahoo telling the American people they better wake up - well hells bells - I am awake and I am telling you what needs to be done because I can do the math. Is my solution the only solution? I think so, but if someone has a better one I would like to hear it.

Okay, rant off.

cars and roads is not what got us into debt and a change in transportation won't get us out of debt

and please explain to me how our gas price is subsidized when the price of oil and gas are a traded assets

Debt isn't the the right word really... deficit is. There is a massive funding deficit for our road system. One that will compound as life cycle costs continue to increase and there are more drivers.

while this is mostly true .. it is a different kind of "deficit" its not like roads stop working when you get to day 1 behind of scheduled rebuild .. or year 1 for that matter ...

I do not quite understand what you mean by growth being necessary for a transportation system. Please explain.

As for a model, I really liked TX Gov. Perry's proposed (and now defunct) Trans Texas Corridors. Putting road, rail, and utilities in the same right of way minimizes construction costs and improves efficiencies. Plus, for rail supporters like you, it would be the most cost effective way (and politically feasible) to build high speed rail in the United States.

I mean, the system has to be paid for by the people that use it. You can't borrow a $1 trillion and say growth will occur in the future so future people will pay it off - because if we have learned anything after 50 years of that kind of thought process it is this 1) the growth projection never work out, 2) the future people don't have the money to pay it off and meet their own needs.

Now if we want to discuss national rail transit strategies, I am not really in favor of any long distance HSR trains. We have airplanes for that. I think Amtrak should be reorganized into at least 6 regional carriers where the focus is on moving people from one regional city to another city in the same region. If you want to travel to another Region you drive your car to the nearest city in that region or you fly.

I mean, the system has to be paid for by the people that use it. You can't borrow a $1 trillion and say growth will occur in the future so future people will pay it off - because if we have learned anything after 50 years of that kind of thought process it is this 1) the growth projection never work out, 2) the future people don't have the money to pay it off and meet their own needs.



Oklahoma doesn't borrow money for road projects

Now if we want to discuss national rail transit strategies, I am not really in favor of any long distance HSR trains. We have airplanes for that. I think Amtrak should be reorganized into at least 6 regional carriers where the focus is on moving people from one regional city to another city in the same region. If you want to travel to another Region you drive your car to the nearest city in that region or you fly.

would really like to see what your 6 regions look like and which cities are in each region

It would look very similar to this (which has 8 regions).

http://newurbanismblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2050_Map_Passenger_Network_150.png

BTW - the Florida region has a very good head start because every major city on the route will have some form of local rail operation by next summer and Florida East Coast Industries is well on the way to getting the inter-city links started.

http://www.allaboardflorida.com/

Orlando International Airport (not wanting to be left out in the cold) has already requested connections to both SunRail and All Aboard Florida to connect to South Florida. Service is scheduled to begin 2015.

http://www.allaboardflorida.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/OIA-Moves-Closer-to-Becoming-Intermodal-Gateway.pdf

There is a good chance I will be able to take the train from Jax to South Beach before Sid can take the train from Deep Deuce to MBG.

It would look very similar to this (which has 8 regions).

http://newurbanismblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2050_Map_Passenger_Network_150.png

BTW - the Florida region has a very good head start because every major city on the route will have some form of local rail operation by next summer and Florida East Coast Industries is well on the way to getting the inter-city links started.

All Aboard Florida (http://www.allaboardflorida.com/)

Sounds great to me. Use electric trains and you've also solved part of the long term oil issues. (Assuming we find more alternate ways to generate electricity over the long term.)

However, there are lots of miles driven by service and delivery vehicles of every type to all corners of the planet, not just the major populations centers, and many of those use the interstates now. I can't see that as decreasing over time.

I am well aware that the argument given by rail supporters is the hidden costs (or subsidies) related to cars. I could argue that people driving cars are still paying gas taxes and that faster travel by car/truck provides economic benefits to society that need to be calculated (to both travelers and people receiving goods moved by trucks). The problem with undertaking this detailed level of economic analysis is to accurate quantify those costs/benefits that are directly related to cars without making some controversial assumptions. Thus, it is common in economics to weigh the costs and benefits that can be directly attributed to question at hand. That is what I did in my proposed intellectual exercise.

On a side note, this discussion reminds me of the sports economist arguing for the city of Seattle a few years back in their case against the Sonics. When asked what the economic impact of the Sonics were to city of Seattle, he said something along the lines that impact was so large you could not even calculate it.

Then you also need to calculate the work that someone can get done while riding a train. Which obviously cant be done when you are driving.

Sounds great to me. Use electric trains and you've also solved part of the long term oil issues. (Assuming we find more alternate ways to generate electricity over the long term.)

However, there are lots of miles driven by service and delivery vehicles of every type to all corners of the planet, not just the major populations centers, and many of those use the interstates now. I can't see that as decreasing over time.

No doubt that cars and trucks will be in use, but as more people relocate to rail based transit the demand will go way down - especially in small rural Oklahoma communities where life at one time centered around the train station (and now centers around WalMart on the edge of town). Look how fast we migrated from trains to cars. I think it will reverse course even faster because the competition and economics will require it. As for power systems, electricity would be ideal as tracks running though rural areas could tap directly into their own solar or wind power and only use coal/natural gas/nuclear to fill the power gap.

Sounds great to me. Use electric trains and you've also solved part of the long term oil issues. (Assuming we find more alternate ways to generate electricity over the long term.)

However, there are lots of miles driven by service and delivery vehicles of every type to all corners of the planet, not just the major populations centers, and many of those use the interstates now. I can't see that as decreasing over time.

what long term oil issues??

The one where we can't afford to keep sending in the military to ensure the free-flow of oil at affordable prices.

I mean, the system has to be paid for by the people that use it. You can't borrow a $1 trillion and say growth will occur in the future so future people will pay it off - because if we have learned anything after 50 years of that kind of thought process it is this 1) the growth projection never work out, 2) the future people don't have the money to pay it off and meet their own needs.

Now if we want to discuss national rail transit strategies, I am not really in favor of any long distance HSR trains. We have airplanes for that. I think Amtrak should be reorganized into at least 6 regional carriers where the focus is on moving people from one regional city to another city in the same region. If you want to travel to another Region you drive your car to the nearest city in that region or you fly.

Most economists support debt financing to fund highway construction. Highways are a capital good that provides benefits for many years. Thus, economic efficiency indicates that drivers in 2023, who are benefiting from a highway constructed today, should contribute to paying for that highway (via gas taxes that are used to pay off the bonds used to fund the road construction).

The one where we can't afford to keep sending in the military to ensure the free-flow of oil at affordable prices.

the military budget should be bigger and we can afford for it to be bigger we can cut in tons of other areas

but either way that has nothing to do with roads in oklahoma where we don't borrow to build roads

Now we are just going in circles. Every time I think some light is shed we just go right back to the talking points. It is like Groundhog Day.

what long term oil issues??

Surely you were asking this question in jest...?