SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: i-node who wrote (495273)7/14/2009 11:49:44 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) of 1578121
 
The taxpayer pays for the development and upkeep of the roads you drive your car on; for the airport terminals and runways at airports. Why shouldn't they pay for the upkeep of trains?

There is a trend toward user fees (tolls) for some of the expensive highway developments, and I think they make a lot of sense. While I have no problem with basic road infrastructure being maintained as they always have, it is time the users paid for the multi-billion dollar freeways. I'd rather everyone just pay for what they use except for the most basic infrastructure such as city streets and the US highway system.

What about the street that runs in front of your house or the blvd you do your shopping on......all those roads are maintained and built with monies from taxpayers. In other words, taxpayers subsidize the roads on which cars travel. And there are millions of miles of roads in this country.

Airports and ATC are a subsidy the airline industry have received forever. Of course, airlines pay for these, but nowhere near the operating costs. But I think this is a perfect example of why we need to prevent further government bankrolling of such provisions. Today, we are reliant on the airline system whether we like it or not, and so it is just one more thing the government has gotten sucked into. I use airlines quite a bit -- maybe 20-30 round trips a year -- practically always personal travel. I can't think of any reason someone else should be footing the bill for any part of this.

I've got news for you.....gov'ts subsidize travel everywhere on the planet. Why Rs believe the US should be exempt from that responsibility has always been a source of wonderment to me.

Why do we need trains to become another ward of the state? If routes can be profitable, let business go after them. If they can't we don't need them.

Because train travel is a better mode of travel than cars, buses and planes in a fuel conscious world.

If it were up to me I would tell airlines, "We'll provide ATC and related technology improvements; but if you want hard infrastructure improvements -- runways, terminals, etc., you'd best plan for them and have the money to pay for them. Learn to compete."

Then plane travel would only be for the very rich.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News