I do not like the elastic clause, but in conjunction with the post road clause as well as the interstate commerce clause, I think it clearly gives the Federal government the power to build them.

But the whether the Feds can (which they clearly can) and should build roads are two different arguments. I was addressing only the first.

Give them an inch, and they’ll take your wallet. And your house. And your rights and liberties.

“Regulating” interstate commerce hardly implies spending billions of forcibly removed taxpayer dollars on highways.

And if you’re going for “post road” as meaning ANY road used for the transportation of mail… then the federal government has the responsibility to build and maintain every single road in the entire country, since nearly EVERYONE gets mail delivered right to their doorstep (or at least the end of their driveway). Surely you’re not saying that? Because the statists will take that inch you give them, and run with it — quite far, in fact.

Commerce clause:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Elastic Clause:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Post Roads Clause:

To establish post offices and post roads;

A post road is any road used for the transportation of mail. The IHS is critical to this function.

If you are going to criticize a function of government, try to stick to the 99.5 percent that are actually un-Constitutional.

Additional fodder for thought for Taft Republican – where in the Constitution does it say “Interstate Highway System.” ? It says “Post Roads” which in the 1790s meant toll roads.

It doesn’t. But who cares whether what the Congress does is Constitutional, right?

The IHS may actually be argued to be consistent with Article I, Section 8(g); however, that was not put forth as its raison d’être, which was to have a means of transporting troops and missiles quickly in a war with the USSR.

2) I was attempting to make the point that high-speed rail would need be subsidized at a far higher cost per passenger mile than both private and public cost components of vehicle transportation. We can discuss assumptions, but the overall difference is so massive that tweaking the assumptions isn’t going to change the reality.

3) Follow the money.

Additional fodder for thought for Taft Republican – where in the Constitution does it say “Interstate Highway System.” ? It says “Post Roads” which in the 1790s meant toll roads.

As for air travel/rail travel, rail seems best suited to journeys of 400-500 miles or less and air for 500+. And air journeys of <500 miles are usually the most expensive to provide (i.e. Jacksonville, Charlotte, Albany, Savannah), which is why when the new High Speed Line to Strasbourg at operating commercial speeds of 200+ mph, Air France dropped its flights to Metz and Strasbourg and reassigned them to the more profitable slots at CDG to Reunion, Dakar, and St. Martin. We subsidize air and roads, either subsidize rail at the same level to eliminate the market distortion or subsidize none.

The problem with using more than 20 year amortization is that everything is wasting rapidly — equipment, computers, rolling stock, rails, rail beds — and has to be replaced or upgraded on I would posit a 20 year cycle. Maybe there’s some land acquisition. But even so, my point is that a high-speed rail system would remove only a minuscule fraction of travelers from planes and autos, and at a far greater cost per passenger mile.

Not sure how well that could/would work. Ideally it would be fine, but things rarely work ideally. I personally love riding on trains, even the slow ones – but if this is going to be more of the same, then whats the point? We already have Amtrak – but I think if you approached the rail system from the right perspective and sought new forms of power that would reduce the inherent cost of use, then I think you might could have something worthwhile.

I took an urban econ course once where the costs of various forms of public transit were analyzed. The professor claimed that bus systems were the most cost effective method of transit if you were starting a new system, with rail second, and private cars third. He then added that if rail systems were already in place, then rail was much cheaper, but the upfront cost of the infrastructure made it cost prohibitive.

I asked the dumb question of how long the costs of the rail infrastructure were amortized in the study. He didn’t know, and was annoyed by the question. After a few minutes of arguing, he told me to forget it, and just know for the test that buses were cheaper.

My point is, in your example, you are using 20 years. I think even Marta uses 30 or 40. The Boston Subway (I think our nation’s oldest) still has tracks in operation that were built in 1897, and is still going strong.

Given the cost of the Big Dig, do you think it would be cost effective to start this as a new system today? Do you believe that Boston is a better city with the subway than it would be without it?

You might find this interesting

U.S.-China Cash Flow Depends On Fannie, Freddie

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94377295

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,418496,00.html

Transportation is subsidized by governmnet in every form, here and all over the globe.

So? What makes it right to do?

I keep looking through my copy of the Constitution… nope, still can’t find that Article/Section/Subsection…

But who cares, right? Constitution, shmonstitution. Pass me another roll of 100-millions.

With any mode you have to look at the cost per mile. Let’s say there are 20 high-speed trains and they get a total of 5,000 passengers riding an average of 500 miles per day. That’s 2.5 million passenger miles per day, or 912.5 million passenger miles per year. Let’s say the improvements have an average lifespan of 20 years, so that’s 18.25 billion passenger miles. $400 billion (including debt service) divided by 18.25 billion is $22 per passenger mile just for debt service on the improvements, not even including operating expenses. Operating expenses will be heavy because we’re talking government workers.

Now, let’s say it costs you 50 cents a mile to operate your vehicle, an 2 people ride so it’s 25 cents per passenger mile, and the government spends another 50 cents a mile to maintain the roads for both of you. So, 50 cents total per passenger mile is what it costs to move you by automobile. Quite a difference, isn’t it?