2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Government Subsidy vs Ridership Fares  (Air vs Rail, for instance)

If we want to talk about USERS PAYING FOR capital expense, etc... then should we also raise the price for AIRPORTS to ensure that they pay their way. 

Airports are heavily SUBSIDIZED compared to their capital costs.

That should be the point of comparison, rather than Morrison being a toll-bridge funded by passage of chickens as the guest (John Charles) said!!

There is nothing wrong with subsidizing High Speed Rail.  It's mostly a result of the greed of Oil, Rubber and Steel barons of the early 1900's that the US' investment in rail of all sorts (street car, passenger rail, etc) dwindled in favor of their ability to build roads and cars.

Anyone who's ridden the rails in Europe understands how rail investements are indeed investments...   People moving around are not doing so as mere beanbags.  They're moving $$, business, opportunity, etc.   

It's definitely INVESTMENT.

posted 2 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Although I also own a Prius for local car travel, I have also been a regular AmTrak traveler all around the country, too.   For those of us who've traveled trains for years, it's already romantic.  : )

I've many times ridden the trains in Europe, which connect just about every town to every other town.   Even tiny places are served.   One can work on the train, walk around, eat in a diner, have meetings, sleep, and sight see.   These aren't nearly as useful when done on a bus or a plane.  THERE is the romance.

I have traveled EUG - SEA many times, and even traveled back east to DEN, Kansas City and other locations and here in the US, the romantic side of things is still very much intact.  (But now those Pioneer east-west lines are gone, so it's only North-South)

I also lived in New England in 2007 and traveled another North-South line, AmTrak's premiere Eastern corridor running New England to WashDC/NYC.  Very nice service with good frequency, pricing and coverage.

General Passenger Rail is a great thing to increase.  I wrote to the Obama administration right after they came in and suggested we'd like to see more Train service in all the infrastructure changes.   All in all, I do not know that it's so much about SPEED as it is the CONNECTIVITY and OPTIONS around the country.

This is what it used to look like around the country and I think should come back again.

Thanks for the program.   It's all good stuff.

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

As the commentor said at the opening of the show, this isn't exactly the time to be proposing spending public revenue on luxury type things, which is akin to what this is.

If Portland is to be providing funding for a sports complex, then I'd assume that it would also be sharing in the revenues. 

What is the proposed revenue split between Portland and Owners?

Public financing should only be reasonable when public revenue is equally a significant portion of the equation.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context