Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (218740)	2/11/2005 2:22:35 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 1575626

In Great Britain, the rail subsidy per passenger mile was 4 pence. The subsidy per passenger journey was £1.08. publications.parliament.uk In the US it is 16.3 cents per passenger mile. that is almost four timees as much depending on curreny exchange rate fluctuations. cato.org Rail travel is almost 3 times as expensive as buses, over twice as expensive as planes and almost twice as expensive as cars per passenger mile. We have a large country and rail is not efficient.

To: tejek who wrote (218740)	2/16/2005 8:48:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575626

U.S. Department of Transportation Funding, 2002: $32,300,000,000 54% Highways 1996 U.S. Total Highway Account Tax Receipts ($000) 22,033,866 fhwa.dot.gov So $32.3 bil x .054 or $17.44 bil federal spending on highways. And $22.03 bil of federal income from gas and other taxes and fees from road use. Meaning that drivers are net givers of money to the feds not recievers of a subsidy from the feds. Also I imagine the money from these taxes went up between 1996 and 2002, but I don't have data more recent than 2002. OTOH I wouldn't be surprised to hear that drivers recieve a net benefit from the states. Tim