Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Here's my context. I'm 20 miles outside of Asheville, a city that's getting too big for its britches. Traffic is a huge problem. The idea of having less cars on the road through means of a respectable, updated public transit system, much like what I experienced in Austria (which is not even one of the most advanced European countries), is extremely appealing and also a better solution long term than just adding another highway lane which will alleviate the problem for maybe 10 more years. I don't imagine Asheville is the only growing city in America with this problem. Yeah, all this would cost money but money is not something that America is short on, being the richest nation on earth. Of course this brings up the subject of who gets taxed, how much, and where it goes, but that's a different discussion. My point still stands though.
Richest nation on earth? You do realize our government is $20+ trillion in debt, right?
Once again,
"Of course this brings up the subject of who gets taxed, how much, and where it goes, but that's a different discussion."
You do realize that public transportation is also subsidized by the government right? I guess depending on the transit agency, anywhere from 1/3 to 1/4 of the fare covers the actual costs of the system. So those $2-$3 fares are more like $8-$10 in actual costs per ride. They get that from levies from individual towns and additional state taxes and city taxes. That just covers existing systems, probably a lot more if you want to start up a system. The math and the political will just isn't there. They have high speed trains in other countries too, this country is nowhere close.
Yes I realize that, you say that as if someone wouldn't. I will repeat this for the third time now: "Of course this brings up the subject of who gets taxed, how much, and where it goes, but that's a different discussion."
Point being, America has the resources.
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Here's my context. I'm 20 miles outside of Asheville, a city that's getting too big for its britches. Traffic is a huge problem. The idea of having less cars on the road through means of a respectable, updated public transit system, much like what I experienced in Austria (which is not even one of the most advanced European countries), is extremely appealing and also a better solution long term than just adding another highway lane which will alleviate the problem for maybe 10 more years. I don't imagine Asheville is the only growing city in America with this problem. Yeah, all this would cost money but money is not something that America is short on, being the richest nation on earth. Of course this brings up the subject of who gets taxed, how much, and where it goes, but that's a different discussion. My point still stands though.
Richest nation on earth? You do realize our government is $20+ trillion in debt, right?
Once again,
"Of course this brings up the subject of who gets taxed, how much, and where it goes, but that's a different discussion."
You do realize that public transportation is also subsidized by the government right? I guess depending on the transit agency, anywhere from 1/3 to 1/4 of the fare covers the actual costs of the system. So those $2-$3 fares are more like $8-$10 in actual costs per ride. They get that from levies from individual towns and additional state taxes and city taxes. That just covers existing systems, probably a lot more if you want to start up a system. The math and the political will just isn't there. They have high speed trains in other countries too, this country is nowhere close.
Yes I realize that, you say that as if someone wouldn't. I will repeat this for the third time now: "Of course this brings up the subject of who gets taxed, how much, and where it goes, but that's a different discussion."
Point being, America has the resources.
