Keystone Pipeline

[kochman]

What's nonsense? Since the New Deal, and in many cases even before, it has been a reality that the feds have been a major financing portion of all transit, mass and not. That's just reality. The states just aren't going to spend the money. And bringing Medicare into it is just a distraction from reality.

Mass transit is mainly a city issue anyhow... not federal. If the state and fed chip in, sure, that helps, but it is a city issue.

Regardless, I thought the argument was that there was a lack of investment in mass transit on the federal level, you seem to be saying that since the New Deal and before, a major portion of the funing has been federal, and that's just reality...

So, which is it? Are you right? Or is Cheezy the Wiz? You can't both be right, given the certitude of your previous post.

 

[Cutlass]

Mass transit is mainly a city issue anyhow... not federal. If the state and fed chip in, sure, that helps, but it is a city issue.

Regardless, I thought the argument was that there was a lack of investment in mass transit on the federal level, you seem to be saying that since the New Deal and before, a major portion of the funing has been federal, and that's just reality...

So, which is it? Are you right? Or is Cheezy the Wiz? You can't both be right, given the certitude of your previous post.

You are confusing things around and mixing different things together. Transportation of all sorts is mixed funding. With federal funding being a major, and critical, part of the mix. Most of these programs are just not going to happen without the federal funding portion of the mix.

Not, changing the subject to something only tangentially related, you have the level of funding. And Cheezy is right that there is a very critical level of underfunding of transportation in the country. Part of that is the fact that as the feds cut back, the private sector, the states, and the cities, do not pick up the slack. So transit, as opposed to transportation as a whole is critically underfunded to the point where it is a major drag on the economy. And transportation as a whole is a drag on the economy as well, because of the deteriorating condition of it due to underspending on repair and upgrades.

So the level of funding needs to be much higher, regardless of who pays. And the transit portion of it should be a far larger portion of it. But in order for either to happen, the feds must be the leading funder of it. Because the cities and states will not be.

 

[kochman]

But the cities and states will be, if it benefits them...

The Fed is not the answer to cure local issues... in fact, it often screws it up and makes it more expensive with another layer of red tape to cut through.

Many mass transit programs were built without federal funds... if today's federal funds were no strings attached, it would be a different situation.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I agree with much of this, but can you please elaborate on "government willingness to bailout"?

"Too big to fail" was more than just a slogan describing the size of the banks that got saved. And it's not the first time the government has stepped in to save a bankrupting or insolvent company. It saved Lockheed in 1971 and Chrysler in 1980, among others.

incidentally, the situation I describe below actually led to a government bailout in 1970 of Penn Central Railroad, a bailout that caused more outrage at the time than the bank bailouts did, and which wound up going down for good six years later anyway, but that is kind of a different story.

And, lack of investment in mass transit (which is a local project, not a federal level project)?

The automotive industry lobby is very strong. In the 1950s it worked very hard, and the government cooperated, to destroy things like trolley systems in cities, and individual railroad passenger systems (what I mean here is that before Amtrak, which is the national government-started railroad, each freight line ran its own passenger trainsets for use on its own tracks) by making them unprofitable compared to cars, through favorable subsidies and other protections.

 

[kochman]

"Too big to fail" was more than just a slogan describing the size of the banks that got saved. And it's not the first time the government has stepped in to save a bankrupting or insolvent company. It saved Lockheed in 1971 and Chrysler in 1980, among others.

incidentally, the situation I describe below actually led to a government bailout in 1970 of Penn Central Railroad, a bailout that caused more outrage at the time than the bank bailouts did, and which wound up going down for good six years later anyway, but that is kind of a different story.

Ah, good point... I guess you could say ongoing subsidies for Amtrak are a form of bailout, long term bailout... which is really what a subsidy is in a simpler way.

The automotive industry lobby is very strong. In the 1950s it worked very hard, and the government cooperated, to destroy things like trolley systems in cities, and individual railroad passenger systems (what I mean here is that before Amtrak, which is the national government-started railroad, each freight line ran its own passenger trainsets for use on its own tracks) by making them unprofitable compared to cars, through favorable subsidies and other protections.

Yes, I know that was a major problem with LA for example!
You either subsidize our auto industry or our mass transit, it seems. Competing industries, basically. Government picking winners and losers based on... campaign contributions. RR will never be able to put the money into campaigns that the auto industry does, so we see why in the USA we have what we have.

Good points, thanks for elaborating.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ah, good point... I guess you could say ongoing subsidies for Amtrak are a form of bailout, long term bailout... which is really what a subsidy is in a simpler way.

Amtrak is a funny one. It was started in the early 70s by the government, intended to function basically as a government-owned company (ironically, exactly how much of the Soviet defense companies worked!), and to turn its own profit. But it's always struggled, partly because of the great monster the government had created by sponsoring the automotive industry for so many years. It was kind of the like the scene in the new Star Trek movie where Bones keeps giving Kirk shots of different drugs to counteract the side-effects of the drugs he's already given him: passenger rail was dead in the US because of cars, and Amtrak was the last attempt to save it by the only people left who could actually do it.

Yes, I know that was a major problem with LA for example!
You either subsidize our auto industry or our mass transit, it seems. Competing industries, basically. Government picking winners and losers based on... campaign contributions. RR will never be able to put the money into campaigns that the auto industry does, so we see why in the USA we have what we have.

Good points, thanks for elaborating.

No problem!

I want to elaborate more on this, but I gotta run to work now.

 

[Cutlass]

But the cities and states will be, if it benefits them...

The Fed is not the answer to cure local issues... in fact, it often screws it up and makes it more expensive with another layer of red tape to cut through.

Many mass transit programs were built without federal funds... if today's federal funds were no strings attached, it would be a different situation.

The problem is that the cities and states usually do not fund them. At least not up to the need for the programs. So if the feds don't get involved, everyone loses.

It's false to think that federal involvement makes many of these programs worse. More frequently it is state involvement that makes the programs worse. And the total public budget could be cut the most by getting the cities and states out of the way. That is essentially always true with welfare programs.

 

[kochman]

I disagree with your claim that the fed is more efficient... on most issues.
Some things, such as mass transit, needs to be local because the locals understand the issues in the area that it is going to effect.

Ivory tower fed people are not always the answer.

 

[Cutlass]

But neither is local people always the answer. They have too many competing demands. And as sold to special interests as the Congress is right now, it has usually been less so than state legislatures.

 

[History_Buff]

Also, there's no reason a public transit solution can't be locally administered, but (partially or wholly) Federal funded.

The general problem (in Canada anyway, I'd venture it's the same in the US) is that the taxation laws were written at a time when most of the people lived rurally. Cities weren't given much in the way of funding options outside of property taxes, which was fine, because few people lived in them.

Nowadays it's a completely different story. 90% of the population lives in cities, but the cities don't have any access to general tax revenue. All they can due is levy user fees or property taxes. Both of those options are horribly regressive, and usually just wind up with affluent folk fleeing to just outside the city limits.

Since the cities can't raise their own taxes, they're reliant on the Provinces or the Federal government to invest in them. But these governments also have to worry about the feelings of rural voters (who are effectively over enfranchised). Thus you wind up in the exact situation Kochman is railing against: a higher government with little interest in the outcome of the project is dictating terms to people who really understand the problem.

Our mayor has been looking into alternate funding mechanisms for the city, including an extra 1% General Sales Tax (GST). Still kind of regressive, but much better than property taxes. Really I'd prefer that there was an income tax involved, but that's a political/bureaucratic nightmare.

 

[kochman]

Cities in America can and do have taxes (income and sales)...

 

[History_Buff]

Exclusive to the cites though, separate from State/Federal taxes?

 

[Cutlass]

Yes. In most places cities and counties have independent taxing authority. But they can have limits to what they states allow them to do. In Connecticut, for example, cities can tax, counties can not. Most towns don't tax, because their counties do it instead. Some cities even do an income tax.

 

[kochman]

NYC has it's own sales and income tax... on top of the county sales and income tax, which is on top of the state sales and income tax...

Unless the state limits taxing, the cities/counties can levy any tax they want. It generally comes through a vote.

The State of Florida has a 6% sales tax (only)... most counties and some cities have added to that sales tax, so you rarely actually pay 6%, but usually around 7-8%, with no state/county/etc income tax.