Only if you pop for the 'Mayhem' Fiesta package.

 

We have two projects going on in the Albany area right now. One is to add a 3rd lane each way to the Thruway for a ~10 mile stretch. That project is costing $99 million dollars. The other project is a adding a 2nd rail line from Albany to Schenectady, 17 miles at a cost of $91 million. The rail line is almost 1/2 the price. Of course every place is going to be different based on what existing infrastructure you have to work around and cost of obtaining right of ways. These are both in areas where there is room to work and not smack dab in the middle of a big city.


Is it right that I have to pay for all those miles of paved road in sparsely populated areas? how about the power and phone lines? All that is subsidized by people that live in more densely populated areas. They are one of those states that gets more in services than they pay in taxes.

Wouldn't be a problem if the United States issued its own currency instead of borrowing it from the Federal Reserve, but that is a topic for some other time and another thread.

I say keep your eye on the Chevy Sonic. It is in the same class and will offer a 1.8L N/A and a 1.4L turbo. Ford will probably follow that model. Only time will tell if people are willing to pay a premium for a 3cyl. just to get better gas mileage. If the costs are close enough they might just stop selling the 1.6L.

 

I love it when self proclaimed experts crawl out of the woodwork...

BTW, just in case it was missed... I am a civil engineer that has spent the last 25 years in the transportation industry. The first 10 years I built highways; the last 15 years I have worked for a major metropolitan subway (rail) system.

Yes rail is more expensive to construct (the wikipedia numbers are a bit on the high side, probably more weighted toward subway than at-grade rail); however there are far more pluses than minuses. Most high density rail systems are electric, cutting down pollution substantially from comparable highways; most rail systems can push far more people and products through densely populated areas with a lot less gridlock... especially when you consider the amount of space they take up compared to how big that highway would need to be to push the equivalent amount of people and product. (We're talking twelve lanes and multi-stories folks.) This is not to mention the reduction in noise pollution (electric trains are quite, the bulk of the noise you hear is wheel-on-rail friction and train horns.). Additionally, if a subway system, you can typically build commercial, retail and residential spaces around and directly on top of it.

Yes, in the vast stretches between the major metropolitan areas, high density rail makes far less sense. However, it is also far less expensive to move product by rail over long distances than by truck. Furthermore, once the infrastructure is in place, high-speed transcontinental rail will become less expensive as use and ridership increases; which in turn, will also help to reduce the cost of competitive transport like airplane and bus travel.

Plus there's that whole providing less dependance on foreign oil bit. Building high-speed rail systems creates jobs here, both in construction, suppliers and operations. Being electric, there's no requirements for expensive jet fuel, diesel or gasoline produced overseas by Big Oil. In fact, if you look at who the major players are that are spending big bucks on lobbyists to try to defeat rail projects, it is primarily Big Oil. Even if you live in an area where high-speed rail is not necessary, it will benefit you in the long run by reducing the costs of other products and services you do use.

Rail is a positive for all of us. Don't be fooled by the Big Oil propaganda meant to derail progress.

(Stepping off my soapbox.)

 

In your own state? Sure it is. Your state taxes (gasoline and other) support your state roads, so your state taxes can also support your state rail lines. All I am saying is make rail projects that service dense regions an issue and a subsidy for those regions. Then go gonzo on the choo-choo to your heart's content.

No pun intended?

I'm not "fooled", unless you consider sound, factual numbers that happen to not support widespread passenger rail to be propoganda. Agree to disagree I guess.

 

Don't forget the federal government collects gasoline tax too. I also pay a very large chunk of my pay check to the Federal government. I want something back for all that money. This is the problem with a strong federal gov't.

 

I'd settle for a Fiesta ST.

 

Guys, stop hijacking my thread! Start a new one .

 

The deficit in 2010 was about $1.2 trillion. The national debt was about $14 trillion.

Not quite true. If you're ever to erase a $1.2 trillion deficit, chopping off a fifth of it is a huge start. To get the same $150T saving you'd have to completely wipe out the Departments of State, Housing, and Education. As much as we all believe there's tons of waste in the government, to eliminate $1.2T worth of deficit is going to require some very real sacrifices, and elimination/reduction of services that everyone will feel. Comparatively speaking, $1 gas tax might be downright palatable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

 

Semantics. $150B annually does not come close to providing the type of solution Guy was talking about. It was a poor assertion.

Wiping out those departments might be an even better start, especially Housing and Education which are State/Local issues.

Can someone please explain to me what all these great services are the government is so benevolently giving to us today that they weren't 15 years ago when our national debt was far more manageable? Are we really running far better and are people much better off today as opposed to then because the gov't is hemmoraging money? Yes, it's a serious question.

 

There are 3 things that are breaking the bank, Military spending, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security. If we cut funding to all 3 of those by half then the deficit goes away. I'm willing to be you and most people are not willing to make that sacrifice though.

 

I am, cut all three in half. Military spending is ridiculously wasteful, medicare/cade is a joke, and social security is something that should be in the former USSR, not here. IMO

 

I am all for wiping away Social Security entirely. Someone just has to accept to pay, and never get anything out of it.

 

FWIW, 2011 Federal budget was $3.8188 trillion. Social Security was 19.6% ($748.4 billion), Defense was 25.3% ($964.8 billion) and Medicare was 12.9% ($494.3 billion) for a total of $2.207 trillion. If you reduce these budget items by half, that would cut $1.103 trillion. 2011 deficit was $1.645 trillion. So you're still a little more than half a trillion short. Not judging, just sayin'.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_budget_pie_chart

 

Sir,

I like your style.

 

You you talking light rail on a city street with cement around it? or just your good old conventional rail line going throw the country side? I was under the impression the latter was much cheaper than highway.