<p>Alaska is an oil colony, effectively entirely dependent on the price of oil and its extraction from the North Slope. Petrodollars run the state as much as they do in Saudi Arabia. So yes, taxes are really low. For now.</p>
<p>When the oil starts to dry up (as it is starting to now), things are going to be a lot different on the Last Frontier.</p>
<p>poetgrl- the money for the national parks would not show up in federal aid to Wyomings state budget. The federal aid figure is mostly the medicaid reimbursement for each state plus other programs.</p>
<p>
The bus is not going to go from downtown Boston to downtown Manhattan in 3.5 hours, as the Acela Express does. The Acela targets business travelers willing to pay a premium for fast service.</p>
<p>
Yes, that’s because they’re charging what the market will bear and making a profit doing so. Acela trains are commonly completely sold out and Amtrak is planning to replace them with larger trains in the next 5 years.</p>
<p>The Acela carries more than 50% of all air or rail travelers in the BOS-NYC market and more than 75% of air/rail travelers in the NYC-WAS market.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/business/hassles-of-air-travel-push-passengers-to-amtrak.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/business/hassles-of-air-travel-push-passengers-to-amtrak.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The part which is shadest darkest and says, “Other programs” is the largest part of what is going to Wyoming. Like three people live in Wyoming, and I am guessing “other programs” is about National Parks and Reservations, for the most part.</p>
<p>If you can come up with the other programs part, though, I’m sure, as you know, I would read it. But, I cannot imagine anything that is costing Wyoming’s three citizens that much more than it is costing Virginia, at the bottom.</p>
<p>It took 4.5 hours - so whats the difference? Are you suggesting a 250% premium is worthwhile for an hour in savings?</p>
<p>
If you’re a business traveler and time is money, yes it is. Hence, the Acelas are regularly sold out.</p>
<p>tom - I looked into the sunshine review numbers. Texas also ranks 50th in spending per capita which means we are a lean mean operating machine. If we spent more per capita, then our percentage of federal contribution would automatically go down. So if you spend more, your rank goes down - what would that prove?</p>
<p>[Texas</a> state budget - Sunshine Review](<a href=“http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Texas_state_budget]Texas”>http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Texas_state_budget)</p>
<p>“In per capita spending by state, Texas ranks 50th in the nation, meaning there is likely less fat to trim when making budget cuts in Texas than in other states.”</p>
<p>“A new Fraser Institute report on economic freedom ranks Texas 2nd in economic Freedom. Delaware ranks 1st and New Mexico ranks 50th.”</p>
<p>"If you’re a business traveler and time is money, yes it is. Hence, the Acelas are regularly sold out. "</p>
<p>Good for them that business pays for it. I prefer to save my money for my other needs. Btw, the buses were fully sold out too. So lots of people like cheaper choices.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I assume that they’d do that in California too. So does it make economic sense to run a train through the state when Air travel is pretty commonplace?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>If you’re commuting, sure. You can get to your meeting and back in the same day.</p>
<p>Acela is business class too over Coach.</p>
<p>
This is CA’s version of the Big Dig.</p>
<p>Whatever they are telling you is the price, add a zero, and multiple the time by 5.</p>
<p>
You think air travel isn’t commonplace between Boston, New York and Washington, D.C.? The train and the plane compete head-on in the marketplace. As noted, the train is actually winning.</p>
<p>The busiest air travel corridor in the country is, indeed, between the Bay Area and Southern California. All of the major airports are at or near capacity and expanding them is at best ridiculously expensive and at worst completely impossible. There is no feasible place to build more runways at SFO, OAK, SJC, LAX, BUR, LGB, SNA, etc. Building an LA-SF high-speed rail line will provide competition for this market and relieve pressure on the overcrowded airports. </p>
<p>In fact, many of the state’s airport authorities have expressed support for building high-speed rail for precisely this reason: If high-speed rail usage reduces the need for flights between Los Angeles and San Francisco, slots and gates will be opened up at those airports for more long-distance flights that create more revenue and improve international connectivity.</p>
<p>Furthermore, as oil prices continue to rise, air travel will become increasingly expensive compared with other modes of transportation, as there is no feasible or foreseeable way of powering passenger aircraft via anything other than jet fuel. Airlines are entirely at the mercy of the global oil market.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’ve flown, taken Amtrak, taken the bus and driven those routes myself. The bus stinks but it is cheap. Air travel and train travel can be similar when you factor getting into the aiport and doing security from Boston to New York. If it’s a business trip from Boston to Washington, your time is money and the easy choice is to fly. If someone else is paying everything and you have plenty of time, then I suppose that you could take the train but that’s a luxury.</p>
<p>SFO - LAX is 400 miles or about an hour. There are many airports in the San Francisco and Los Angelos areas so you have some flexibility in where you wind up. How long would it take from San Francisco to Los Angelos on high-speed rail?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Would new airports in the SFO and LAX areas cost less than high-speed rail?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>What does a new airport cost?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Oil prices continue to rise?</p>
<p>Saudi Arabia just cut production by 500,000 barrels a day this week because of soft demand. We have increasing supply from shale from the US and Canada. And then there’s this:</p>
<p>[California</a> could be next oil boom state - Jan. 14, 2013](<a href=“California could be next oil boom state”>California could be next oil boom state)</p>
<p>We have considerable monetary inflation but oil and gasoline demand has been down. I think that gasoline demand in the US has been falling for several years. I own a lot of shares in oil and natural gas companies and I’d love prices to go up but demand remains soft. You can find lots of articles on declining gasoline demand.</p>
<p>[Guest</a> Post: Why Is Gasoline Consumption Tanking? | Zero Hedge](<a href=“http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-why-gasoline-consumption-tanking]Guest”>Zerohedge)
[Chart</a> of the Day: U.S. Gasoline Consumption Tanks in 2011 | Credit Writedowns](<a href=“http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2012/01/us-gasoline-consuption.html]Chart”>Chart of the Day: U.S. Gasoline Consumption Tanks in 2011 – Credit Writedowns)
<a href=“This Week in Petroleum - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)”>This Week in Petroleum - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA);
<p>^ alll those volts flooding the market reducing oil consumption. :D</p>
<p>Passenger miles driven is declining too.</p>
<p>
Once again, this is a question pretty easily answered by taking a look at a map or a satellite photo of the regions in question. There is literally no unused land available to put new airports anywhere remotely convenient to those metro areas. The only option would be to buy out and bulldoze entire neighborhoods, which is a non-starter politically and financially.</p>
<p>
Two hours and 45 minutes.</p>
<p>Acela is handicapped by a legacy right-of-way and is substantially slower than most high-speed rail systems around the world. It is high-speed rail only by American standards.</p>
<p>The California system, by contrast, is to be a purpose-built true European-style high-speed rail system with trains and tracks capable of speeds up to 220 mph.</p>
<p>As an FYI only, the NYT of 2/15/13 has an article by James Stewart called “The Alluring Myth of the Tax-Fleeing Millionaire.” I don’t intende to stir up the same pointless debates, but the piece does a reasonable job of pulling together the latest facts about how taxes affect migration of high-earners. And note that is a separate issue than, say, where old people retire.</p>
<p>So the article notes that when Maryland raised its rate for 2008 and the number of millionaire tax returns dropped by a third, the causes were the stock market fall and the bad economy not the widely claimed idea of millionaire flight. As facts, it notes that the number of people dropping off that list - including by death - was the same the year before (2007) and the year after (2009) and that in 2009 almost 5x as many went on the list of millionaire tax returns. That of course was because they were doing better, not because they were moving in droves to Maryland.</p>
<p>Good study of Cali migration issues.</p>
<p>[Civic</a> Report 71 | The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look](<a href=“http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm]Civic”>http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm)</p>
<p>Not sure if Perry convinced anyone to move but 200 companies showing interest in his pitch can’t be ignored. I can’t imagine him being all that popular in California.</p>
<p>[Texas</a> and California spar over jobs and taxes | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/13/us-usa-jobs-texas-california-idUSBRE91C0PZ20130213]Texas”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/13/us-usa-jobs-texas-california-idUSBRE91C0PZ20130213)</p>
<p>200 businesses? That is nothing.</p>