"All Aboard!" High-Speed Rail In The U.S. Will Mandate A Ticket To PORKSVILLE!
Fart Sumpter
little else. If states want these projects, they should pay all costs
because there are no meaningful national gains."
----------------------
"California rail project is high-speed pork"
Op-Ed
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, November 1, 2010;
SOMEHOW, it's become fashionable to think that high-speed trains
connecting major cities will help "save the planet." They won't.
They're a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a
respectable social cause. They would further burden already
overburdened governments and drain dollars from worthier programs -
schools, defense, research.
Let's suppose that the Obama administration gets its wish to build
high-speed rail systems in 13 urban corridors. The administration has
already committed $10.5 billion, and that's just a token down payment.
California wants about $19 billion for an 800-mile track from Anaheim
to San Francisco. Constructing all 13 corridors could easily approach
$200 billion. Most (or all) of that would have to come from government
at some level. What would we get for this huge investment?
Not much. Here's what we wouldn't get: any meaningful reduction in
traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, air travel, oil
consumption or imports. Nada, zip. If you can do fourth-grade math,
you can understand why.
High-speed inter-city trains (not commuter lines) travel at up to 250
miles per hour and are most competitive with planes and cars over
distances of fewer than 500 miles. In a report on high-speed rail, the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors
of 500 miles or fewer with the most daily air traffic in 2007. Los
Angeles to San Francisco led the list with 13,838 passengers;
altogether, daily air passengers in these 12 corridors totaled 52,934.
If all of them switched to trains, the total number of daily airline
passengers, about 2 million, would drop only 2.5 percent. Any fuel
savings would be less than that; even trains need energy.
Indeed, inter-city trains - at whatever speed - target such a small
part of total travel that the changes in oil use, congestion or
greenhouse gases must be microscopic. Every day, about 140 million
Americans go to work, with about 85 percent driving an average of 25
minutes (three-quarters drive alone; 10 percent carpool). Even
assuming 250,000 high-speed rail passengers, there would be no visible
effect on routine commuting, let alone personal driving. In the
Northeast Corridor, with about 45 million people, Amtrak's daily
ridership is 28,500. If its trains shut down tomorrow, no one except
the affected passengers would notice.
We are prisoners of economic geography. Suburbanization after World
War II made most rail travel impractical. From 1950 to 2000, the share
of the metropolitan population living in central cities fell from 56
percent to 32 percent, report UCLA economists Leah Platt Boustan and
Allison Shertzer. Jobs moved, too. Trip origins and destinations are
too dispersed to support most rail service.
Only in places with greater population densities, such as Europe and
Asia, is high-speed rail potentially attractive. Even there, most of
the existing high-speed trains don't earn "enough revenue to cover
both their construction and operating costs," the Congressional
Research Service report said. The major exceptions seem to be the
Tokyo-Osaka and Paris-Lyon lines.
President Obama calls high-speed rail essential "infrastructure" when
it's actually old-fashioned "pork barrel." The interesting question is
why it retains its intellectual respectability. The answer, it seems,
is willful ignorance. People prefer fashionable make-believe to
distasteful realities. They imagine public benefits that don't exist
and ignore costs that do.
Consider California. Its budget is a shambles. To save money, it
furloughs state workers. Still, it clings to its high-speed rail
project. No one knows the cost. In 2009, the California High-Speed
Rail Authority estimated $42.6 billion, up from $33.6 billion in 2008
- a huge one-year increase. The CHSRA wants the federal government to
pay almost half the cost. Even if it does and the state issues $9.95
billion in approved bonds, a financing gap of perhaps $15 billion
would remain.
Somehow that is to be extracted from cities, towns and investors. The
CHSRA says the completed system will generate annual operating
profits, $3 billion by 2030. If private investors concurred, they'd be
clamoring to commit funds; they aren't.
All this would further mortgage California's future with more debt
and, conceivably, subsidies to keep the trains running. And for what?
In 2030, high-speed rail trains would provide only about 4 percent of
California's inter-regional trips, the CHSRA projects.
The absurdity is apparent. High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny
group of travelers and do little else. If states want these projects,
they should pay all costs because there are no meaningful national
gains. The administration's championing and subsidies - with money
that worsens long-term budget deficits - represent shortsighted,
thoughtless government at its worst. It's a triumph of politically
expedient fiction over logic and evidence. With governments everywhere
pressed for funds, how can anyone justify a program whose main effect
will simply be to make matters worse?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/31/AR2010103104260.html
tim....
"Fart Sumpter" <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fc836bbe-4251-4513...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> "High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do
> little else. If states want these projects, they should pay all costs
> because there are no meaningful national gains."
Even as someone who disagrees with the first half of the statement, I agree
with the second.
I am surprised that people at federal level are considering paying for it.
tim
Mrs Irish Mike
> "High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do
> little else. If states want these projects, they should pay all costs
> because there are no meaningful national gains."
Substitute the words "interstate highway" for "high-speed rail" and
Eisenhower for Obama. Reads like some fool spouting off as a stupid.
And yet...
Larry Sheldon
Where do we account for the terms like "defense highway", "rapid truck
transport", "evacuation" "mobility" and a number of others that I seem
to recall being part of "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of
Interstate and Defense Highways"?
The Real Bev
> "tim...."<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> found these unused words:
>
>>
>>"Fart Sumpter"<jism...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:fc836bbe-4251-4513...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>> "High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do
>>> little else. If states want these projects, they should pay all costs
>>> because there are no meaningful national gains."
Around here we have lovely air-conditioned buses with big windows so
it's easy to see that each one carries only a small fraction of its
capacity. I'd rather spend the money that goes to bus lines on
something that was actually useful to more than a few people.
>>Even as someone who disagrees with the first half of the statement, I agree
>>with the second.
>>
>>I am surprised that people at federal level are considering paying for it.
>>
> It's all a part of the "Economic Stimulus" in this, our Obama Nation!
Remember, it's actually illegal to buy votes by paying individuals to
vote for you. "Economic stimulus" is intended to accomplish the same
purpose without the risk of jail time.
--
Cheers, Bev
---------------------------------------
A recent psychic fair was cancelled due
to unforeseen circumstances.
Mrs Irish Mike
> Where do we account for the terms like "defense highway", "rapid truck
> transport", "evacuation" "mobility" and a number of others that I seem
> to recall being part of "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of
> Interstate and Defense Highways"?
So let us use terms like "defense rail". NOLA could have been
effectively evacuauted if there was a rail system.
"Rapid truck transport" can be used as is. We all have seen those
commercials where trains take many trucks off the road, it would be
even better if they moved at 100 or 200 mphs.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
>On Nov 1, 4:24�pm, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Where do we account for the terms like "defense highway", "rapid truck
>> transport", "evacuation" "mobility" and a number of others that I seem
>> to recall being part of "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of
>> Interstate and Defense Highways"?
>
>So let us use terms like "defense rail". NOLA could have been
>effectively evacuauted if there was a rail system.
Ike pushed the interstate highway system precisely because rail wasn't
reliable during war. A few bombs in a yard can ruin your whole month. A
couple of people and a dozer can very quickly repair roads.
> "Rapid truck transport" can be used as is. We all have seen those
>commercials where trains take many trucks off the road, it would be
>even better if they moved at 100 or 200 mphs.
Outside of a few corridors, no it certainly wouldn't.
tim....
"The Real Bev" <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ianiau$6c8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 11/01/10 07:54, Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>
>> "tim...."<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> found these unused words:
>>
>>>
>>>"Fart Sumpter"<jism...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:fc836bbe-4251-4513...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do
>>>> little else. If states want these projects, they should pay all costs
>>>> because there are no meaningful national gains."
>
> Around here we have lovely air-conditioned buses with big windows so it's
> easy to see that each one carries only a small fraction of its capacity.
> I'd rather spend the money that goes to bus lines on something that was
> actually useful to more than a few people.
>
>>>Even as someone who disagrees with the first half of the statement, I
>>>agree
>>>with the second.
>>>
>>>I am surprised that people at federal level are considering paying for
>>>it.
>>>
>> It's all a part of the "Economic Stimulus" in this, our Obama Nation!
>
> Remember, it's actually illegal to buy votes by paying individuals to vote
> for you. "Economic stimulus" is intended to accomplish the same purpose
> without the risk of jail time.
But does that work at presidential level.
Most infrastructure projects are organised at state level. Are people
really going to see that it only went ahead because of some additional
federal funding and vote accordingly?
tim
Clark F Morris
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:04:14 -0700 (PDT), Mrs Irish Mike <BeaF...@msn.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Nov 1, 4:24 pm, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Where do we account for the terms like "defense highway", "rapid truck
>>> transport", "evacuation" "mobility" and a number of others that I seem
>>> to recall being part of "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of
>>> Interstate and Defense Highways"?
>>
>>So let us use terms like "defense rail". NOLA could have been
>>effectively evacuauted if there was a rail system.
>
>Ike pushed the interstate highway system precisely because rail wasn't
>reliable during war. A few bombs in a yard can ruin your whole month. A
>couple of people and a dozer can very quickly repair roads.
Actually during World War II, both sides were dismayed by how quickly
bombed rail lines were put back in service by the enemy.
Clark Morris
Graeme
Clark F Morris <cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:58:48 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:04:14 -0700 (PDT), Mrs Irish Mike <BeaF...@msn.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Nov 1, 4:24�pm, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Where do we account for the terms like "defense highway", "rapid truck
> >>> transport", "evacuation" "mobility" and a number of others that I seem
> >>> to recall being part of "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of
> >>> Interstate and Defense Highways"?
> >>
> >>So let us use terms like "defense rail". NOLA could have been
> >>effectively evacuauted if there was a rail system.
> >
> >Ike pushed the interstate highway system precisely because rail wasn't
> >reliable during war. A few bombs in a yard can ruin your whole month. A
> >couple of people and a dozer can very quickly repair roads.
>
> Actually during World War II, both sides were dismayed by how quickly
> bombed rail lines were put back in service by the enemy.
>
Exactly how many railyards in the US were bombed during WW2?
--
Graeme Wall
This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/>
Clark F Morris
wrote:
>In message <5mi0d6pq3g7vcm0d2...@4ax.com>
> Clark F Morris <cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:58:48 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:04:14 -0700 (PDT), Mrs Irish Mike <BeaF...@msn.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Nov 1, 4:24�pm, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Where do we account for the terms like "defense highway", "rapid truck
>> >>> transport", "evacuation" "mobility" and a number of others that I seem
>> >>> to recall being part of "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of
>> >>> Interstate and Defense Highways"?
>> >>
>> >>So let us use terms like "defense rail". NOLA could have been
>> >>effectively evacuauted if there was a rail system.
>> >
>> >Ike pushed the interstate highway system precisely because rail wasn't
>> >reliable during war. A few bombs in a yard can ruin your whole month. A
>> >couple of people and a dozer can very quickly repair roads.
>>
>> Actually during World War II, both sides were dismayed by how quickly
>> bombed rail lines were put back in service by the enemy.
>>
>
>Exactly how many railyards in the US were bombed during WW2?
None that I know of. I was basing it on magazine articles I read
years ago about the results of bombing British, French and German rail
lines among others.
Clark Morris
The Real Bev
> "The Real Bev"<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/01/10 07:54, Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>> "tim...."<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> found these unused words:
>>>>"Fart Sumpter"<jism...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do
>>>>> little else. If states want these projects, they should pay all costs
>>>>> because there are no meaningful national gains."
>>
>> Around here we have lovely air-conditioned buses with big windows so it's
>> easy to see that each one carries only a small fraction of its capacity.
>> I'd rather spend the money that goes to bus lines on something that was
>> actually useful to more than a few people.
>>
>>>>Even as someone who disagrees with the first half of the statement, I
>>>>agree with the second.
>>>>
>>>>I am surprised that people at federal level are considering paying for
>>>>it.
>>>>
>>> It's all a part of the "Economic Stimulus" in this, our Obama Nation!
>>
>> Remember, it's actually illegal to buy votes by paying individuals to vote
>> for you. "Economic stimulus" is intended to accomplish the same purpose
>> without the risk of jail time.
>
> But does that work at presidential level.
Promises that sound good ALWAYS work. Especially in California, where
actual thought has been declared illegal, or at least unmutual.
> Most infrastructure projects are organised at state level. Are people
> really going to see that it only went ahead because of some additional
> federal funding and vote accordingly?
No, that actually requires paying attention. Our local 'stimulus'
project involves spending several $million on a second pedestrian bridge
to the local metro station. NOBODY is going to use this second bridge,
but our tax money is being spent on it anyway. I don't care about
stupid make-work jobs and I think it's deplorable that our elected
representatives trade votes for local projects thereby increasing
EVERYBODY's tax burden which results in NO actual benefit to the taxpayers.
Screw them all, every single one of them. And the horse they rode in on.
--
Cheers, Bev
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to
spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and
begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken
The Real Bev
> Graeme<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Clark F Morris<cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>> > Mrs Irish Mike<BeaF...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> >>On Nov 1, 4:24 pm, Larry Sheldon<lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Where do we account for the terms like "defense highway", "rapid truck
>>> >>> transport", "evacuation" "mobility" and a number of others that I seem
>>> >>> to recall being part of "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of
>>> >>> Interstate and Defense Highways"?
>>> >>
>>> >>So let us use terms like "defense rail". NOLA could have been
>>> >>effectively evacuauted if there was a rail system.
>>> >
>>> >Ike pushed the interstate highway system precisely because rail wasn't
>>> >reliable during war. A few bombs in a yard can ruin your whole month. A
>>> >couple of people and a dozer can very quickly repair roads.
>>>
>>> Actually during World War II, both sides were dismayed by how quickly
>>> bombed rail lines were put back in service by the enemy.
>>
>>Exactly how many railyards in the US were bombed during WW2?
>
> None that I know of. I was basing it on magazine articles I read
> years ago about the results of bombing British, French and German rail
> lines among others.
How many high bridges were taken out? Fixing the rails on level land is
one thing, building a bridge hundreds of feet high and across is
completely different.
This is irrelevant. Right now we need both rails (commercial) and roads
(personal and commercial). When new, our freeways were a joy -- as were
the cars that rode on them.
Graeme
So why would Ike, or anyone else, worry about the effects of bombing US
railyards back in the 1940s?
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>In message <35v0d6h3ftahha9ej...@4ax.com>
> Clark F Morris <cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 18:31:24 +0000, Graeme <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In message <5mi0d6pq3g7vcm0d2...@4ax.com>
>> > Clark F Morris <cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:58:48 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>> >> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:04:14 -0700 (PDT), Mrs Irish Mike <BeaF...@msn.com>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Nov 1, 4:24 pm, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Where do we account for the terms like "defense highway", "rapid truck
>> >> >>> transport", "evacuation" "mobility" and a number of others that I seem
>> >> >>> to recall being part of "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of
>> >> >>> Interstate and Defense Highways"?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>So let us use terms like "defense rail". NOLA could have been
>> >> >>effectively evacuauted if there was a rail system.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ike pushed the interstate highway system precisely because rail wasn't
>> >> >reliable during war. A few bombs in a yard can ruin your whole month. A
>> >> >couple of people and a dozer can very quickly repair roads.
>> >>
>> >> Actually during World War II, both sides were dismayed by how quickly
>> >> bombed rail lines were put back in service by the enemy.
Not as quickly as a road can be repaired and RR marshalling yards were
particularly vulnerable. Ike pushed the interstate highway system for a
reason.
>> >Exactly how many railyards in the US were bombed during WW2?
>>
>> None that I know of. I was basing it on magazine articles I read
>> years ago about the results of bombing British, French and German rail
>> lines among others.
>>
>
>So why would Ike, or anyone else, worry about the effects of bombing US
>railyards back in the 1940s?
So, you're belief is that because they weren't (bombed) during WWII that they
never could be?
Clark F Morris
wrote:
My response was to the comment "Ike pushed the interstate highway
system precisely because rail wasn't reliable during war. A few bombs
in a yard can ruin your whole month. A couple of people and a dozer
can very quickly repair roads." I believe that Ike spent a little
time in Britain and Europe during World War II and maybe he should
have been more fully informed about the speed of repair for rail. In
response to another poster who claimed that taking out a high bridge
also would cripple rail more than road, again I suspect that replacing
that type of bridge would be equally difficult for rail and road.
Temporary track isn't pretty and it is only good for speeds ranging
from very slow to slow but it has been used. Where there is a will
and a need, a way will normally be found. I think there were
precedents in Korea if not in Europe.
Clark Morris
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
The fact is that reliability/repair during wartime was reason Ike pushed the
interstate highway system.
Graeme
"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
Try reading what I said,
Mrs Irish Mike
>
> Where do we account for the terms like "defense highway", "rapid truck
> transport", "evacuation" "mobility" and a number of others that I seem
> to recall being part of "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of
> Interstate and Defense Highways"?
Federal Highway Act of 1956
The president's political opponents considered the "master plan" to be
"another ascent into the stratosphere of New Deal jitterbug
economics," as one critic put it.
Critics in and out of Congress condemned this suggestion as a
"socialistic scheme to transfer the cost of providing deluxe highways
from those most benefited to the already heavily burdened landowner."
And don't forget, it took nearly 30 years for Congress to agree to a
national highway system.
Also interesting is the fact that the Federally funded school lunches
program came about because during WWII the average recruit going into
the military was malnurished. Yet we hear so many on the right condem
the spending of Federal money for nutrition.
I'm sure we can find defensive reasons to build an interstate rail
system. I'm thinking we could also find defensive reasons to fund a
system of basic health care for all Americans.
The ancient Egyptian civilization lasted so long because there was a
make work program for its citizens. When the Nile flooded there was no
work for the farmers and the rest of the working class. The government
employed the workers (and avoided civil unrest) by creating pyriamids
and other public works projects. There is no defense value in burial
crypts, nor is there any real value in burying wealth with the dead
owners; but the value came from giving all the people of Egypt work
and the ability to earn a paycheck.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
I can't help it if you can't write.
Graeme
"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
What a stupid comment, bye.
Mr. Bluster
the nation's economic supremacy, are on high-speed rockets to hell!
DockScience
"Mrs Irish Mike" <BeaF...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:97976e9d-7804-421c...@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>Substitute the words "interstate highway" for "high-speed rail" and
>Eisenhower for Obama. Reads like some fool spouting off as a stupid.
>And yet...
Please.
Interstate highways fundamentally changed the economics of shipping stuff -
an order of magnitude reduction in cost and thus an increase in wealth.
They carry millions of tons of freight and millions of people daily.
High speed passenger trains will have NO impact by comparison. They will
cost much more than they produce, a loss in wealth.
But they do allow the right people to buy their rights of way and thus
recycle corrupt money in government.
Glen Labah
<fc836bbe-4251-4513...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Fart Sumpter <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do
> little else. If states want these projects, they should pay all costs
> because there are no meaningful national gains."
Stand on the bank of the Lake Washington Ship Canal some day. About 90%
of the boats that go through there are huge pleasure craft owned by
maybe the most wealthy 1% of residents, and many of them are registered
in the Cayman Islands.
Maybe one or two per day are commercial craft of some sort.
It takes about 10 people or so to operate the locks (all federal
employees), plus one person at each of the draw bridges.
Yet somehow this all qualifies as vital transportation and worthy of
being provided free of charge for those wealthy individuals, who can't
even be bothered to register their boats in the USA.
At least the high speed rail passengers would buy tickets.
--
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address
harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.
Larry Sheldon
> Glen Labah<gl4...@yahoo.com> found these unused words:
>
>> In article
>> <fc836bbe-4251-4513...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Fart Sumpter<jism...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do
>>> little else. If states want these projects, they should pay all costs
>>> because there are no meaningful national gains."
>>
>>
>> Stand on the bank of the Lake Washington Ship Canal some day. About 90%
>> of the boats that go through there are huge pleasure craft owned by
>> maybe the most wealthy 1% of residents, and many of them are registered
>> in the Cayman Islands.
>>
>> Maybe one or two per day are commercial craft of some sort.
>>
>> It takes about 10 people or so to operate the locks (all federal
>> employees), plus one person at each of the draw bridges.
>>
>> Yet somehow this all qualifies as vital transportation and worthy of
>> being provided free of charge for those wealthy individuals, who can't
>> even be bothered to register their boats in the USA.
>>
>> At least the high speed rail passengers would buy tickets.
>
>
> same validity of 'reasoning'!
>
> perhaps when you get back from your long vacation and return to mons
> olympia, you can propose a new law that will limit the time in US waters for
> such 'foreign registry' - or would that affect -=your=- boat too?
Some states require you to re-register your vehicle(s) and get their
driver's license within 10 days of moving into the state, or of taking a
job there.
I'd say boats are vehicles. And I'd add new legislation that said if
you make the money that made buying the boat possible from books and
road-shows about the evils of carbon dioxide, you would be required to
fill the fuel tanks and crank-cases with kitty litter.
--
Superfluity does not vitiate
California Civil Code quote-#3537
http://lwolt.wordpress.com/
http://tinyurl.com/269dspw # <-- Where I live
3
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
They can try but if you have no intention of becoming a resident (maintain a
residence in another state), they'll fail. In fact, they'll try to do a
catch-22 (and fail).
>I'd say boats are vehicles. And I'd add new legislation that said if
>you make the money that made buying the boat possible from books and
>road-shows about the evils of carbon dioxide, you would be required to
>fill the fuel tanks and crank-cases with kitty litter.
How about legislators who vote for "carbon taxes"?
Larry Sheldon
You got to put the fuel from the tanks somewhere.
Glen Labah
Sir F. A. Rien <jaS...@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> Glen Labah <gl4...@yahoo.com> found these unused words:
>
> >In article
> ><fc836bbe-4251-4513...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Fart Sumpter <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do
> >> little else. If states want these projects, they should pay all costs
> >> because there are no meaningful national gains."
> >
> >
> >Stand on the bank of the Lake Washington Ship Canal some day. About 90%
> >of the boats that go through there are huge pleasure craft owned by
> >maybe the most wealthy 1% of residents, and many of them are registered
> >in the Cayman Islands.
> >
> >Maybe one or two per day are commercial craft of some sort.
> >
> >It takes about 10 people or so to operate the locks (all federal
> >employees), plus one person at each of the draw bridges.
> >
> >Yet somehow this all qualifies as vital transportation and worthy of
> >being provided free of charge for those wealthy individuals, who can't
> >even be bothered to register their boats in the USA.
> >
> >At least the high speed rail passengers would buy tickets.
>
> well, at least these people buy gas or diesel ...
In Venezuela, at $0.40 a gallon.
And even if they did buy it in the USA, my impression is that the marine
fuels are free of taxes, since it isn't a highway vehicle and therefore
there isn't a road fuel tax.
> same validity of 'reasoning'!
The same excuse was raised by the Reagan administration for recreational
use of national forest land (not everyone uses the national forests, so
why should everyone pay for their upkeep?), which is why any of the
parking areas in our national forests now have a user fee drop box. It
used to be you could visit national forests in the USA free of charge.
Natioanl wildlife refuges are frequently the same way, though some of
those are still free of charge. Others are $3 to $5 a visit - because
the Reagan administration wanted to charge those who use federal lands
rather than taxing everyone for their upkeep.
So, charging boaters for using federally owned locks and waterways falls
under the same category: not everyone uses the waterways, so those who
do use them should pay for their use.
> perhaps when you get back from your long vacation and return to mons
> olympia, you can propose a new law that will limit the time in US waters for
> such 'foreign registry' - or would that affect -=your=- boat too?
Olympia doesn't listen to anything I say, because I live in Oregon.
Besides, the Lake Washington Ship Canal, like almost all other
navigation projects, are US Army Corps of Engineers. In other words,
federal projects. They don't listen to Olympia or anyone else for that
matter.
My preference would be to have anything going through any of the
federally maintained waterways, domestic of foreign registry, pay a
toll. At the very least, have them pay a toll for going through the
locks. Those operations are expensive to maintain, and some of them
have had to be expanded over the years. All of that dredging and
maintenance is quite expensive.
Unfortunately, it is doubtful we will ever get that through congress.
The people who pay their bribes (er, campaign contributions) all have
boats.