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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (40574)	1/22/2010 12:37:29 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

Since there are projects that are estimated to cost much less than $24 per hour saved it probably doesn't make much sense to spend a lot on those less efficient projects. Cost effectiveness should be a central consideration. The Peters rule was a clumsy attempt at applying the idea in a limited fashion. Not ideal but better than what we have now. Really it shouldn't be some arbitrary number like $24, where 5 cents is treated the same as $23.99, and where $24.01 is treated the same as $5000. What we should do is give extra weight to projects the less they cost per hour saved, not that it should be the only criteria but it should be one of the most important ones, and right now it isn't one at all.

To: tejek who wrote (40574)	1/22/2010 12:59:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The Rail Scam Besides alternative energy, on my FBN show tonight, I cover government rail projects. Politicians love spending your money on rail. They claim it cleans the air and reduces traffic jams. Joe Biden said last year: "if you're going to create jobs with a long-lasting platform for the future, it's rail, rail, rail, and rail." But it turns out that, in most places, rail is terribly inefficient. Amtrak loses $32 for every ticket it sells. So few people ride the line from New Orleans to Los Angeles that it manages to lose $462 per passenger. The average subsidy per ride on all LA rails is $10.53, according to data from transportation consultant Tom Rubin. For someone who uses the rail to go back and forth to work every day, that adds up to a subsidy of $5,369 per year -- enough to lease that person a Toyota Prius for the year. Biden claims that rail will "protect the environment." But actually, says Randall O'Toole of the CATO Institute, who will be a guest on my show (Stossel, 8pm EST) light rail uses more energy per passenger mile than the average car – twice as much as a Toyota Prius. Even some of the nation's most lauded rail systems have been a disappointment. The manager of Portland Oregon’s light rail service, James E. Cowen, proclaimed four days after the rail had opened that "the initial response is so tremendous that there is no doubt now that light rail in Portland will be a huge success." But as Randall O'Toole points out: "The share of Portland-area commuters who ride transit to work shrank from 9.8 percent before Portland built its light rail to 7.6 percent today. Why? Because the rail lines cost so much that Portland raised bus fares and cut bus service, forcing many former transit riders to take up driving... Portland's fastest light-rail line averages 22 miles per hour. Portland's streetcar goes about 7 miles per hour. I am waiting to see a developer advertise, "If you lived here and rode transit home from work, you'd still be sitting on the train."' So far, the Portland rail has cost taxpayers $1.5 billion. And Joe Biden is about to take more of your money to build more. Give me a break. stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com