Originally Posted By leemac <<As for Maglev, that is a total ego trip by the government officials in China. I have ridden the toy system in Shanghai from the airport. The train barely gets to its top speed before it has to start slowing down for the station.>> Ain't that the truth. The alleged cost is only $1.4bn which I'm sure isn't the true cost for the line. It is still only 50 yuan and never seems busy even when all of the international flights land at Pudong together (the European and US flights tend to land in a concentrated window). I'm sure Siemens and ThyssenKrupp are the only people to truly benefit from this vanity project. Worth adding that Shanghai Disney Resort will have a high tech transport system - buses.
Originally Posted By TP2000 Highways are mostly subsidized by taxes from... gasoline. The people using the highways have paid for them with their gas taxes. If you don't buy gasoline, you aren't being taxed for highways. The people using the bullet train to Fresno will have to buy a ticket which will pick up a small cost of the trip, but everyone else will also have to send Sacramento plenty of money each year in their state income and sales taxes to keep the thing going.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 If you buy anything in any store that has been shipped by highway, the taxes that the shipper paid on the gasoline used are ultimately passed on to you. You are taxed for airport infrastructure whether you use it or not, also.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "The sense I get for S.F. to L.A. is that the businessmen and people who's time is valuable will still fly and the people trying to save money/families will still drive (and not take the time and money to park a car at one end and rent a car at the other)." SF mayor Ed Lee has gone on record as saying that the city's objective with high speed rail is to reduce the number of flights between SFO and LAX and open up the airport to more international flights. Currently flights to and from Southern California make up about 30 percent of the traffic at SFO, I believe.
Originally Posted By ksargen "Currently flights to and from Southern California make up about 30 percent of the traffic at SFO, I believe." At least. California being the size of a country on its own, most of the major airports devote more to in state bound flights than many other places. Every smaller airport in the state flies to LA, SF or both. The expansion of the Bradley terminal at LAX has been a loooooong time coming, and with the landlocked situation at both LAX and SFO, they're both looking for ways to push more of the commuter air to somewhere to allow more international and long distance national flights to land. Thus the infamous "remote terminals."
Originally Posted By TP2000 "You are taxed for airport infrastructure whether you use it or not, also." Rarely, unless you live in a city that is horribly corrupt (Detroit, Chicago, etc., and who knows what's buried in those books besides Hoffa or an old Daley opponent) or a city that has just opened their first international airport with bonds voted on by taxpayers (rare these days). I refer to our local airport, John Wayne Orange County, that is representative of most mid-size cities. This statement from their 2012 financial report sums it up best... "The Airport is operated as a department of the County of Orange, California, and is accounted for as a self-supporting enterprise fund in the basic financial statements of the County." Their 2012 books support their basic claim as being self-supporting. Without going into the nitty gritty on capital and debt service, here's the rundown on where the money comes from to operate John Wayne for a year, and where it goes to keep it running for future years. OPERATING REVENUES 2012 Terminal Space Airline Rent - 23.7 Million Auto Parking Fees - 35.8 Million Terminal Concessions - 25.1 Million Airline Landing Fees - 12.5 Million Revenue From Property Use - 9.4 Million Charges For Services (Private Planes) - 3.5 Million Tie-Down Services (Private Plane Storage) - 1.4 Million TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 2012 - 111 Million OPERATING EXPENSES 2012 Professional Services (TSA, Air Traffic Control, Sherriff, etc.) - 34.4 Million Airport Salaries/Benefits - 18.6 Million Supplies - 24.7 Million Depreciation - 21 Million TOTAL EXPENSES 2012 - 98 Million TOTAL OPERATING INCOME 2012 - 19 Million So, there's a basic mid-size airport running its annual business based mainly on gate and landing fees charged to airlines, with some extra cash coming in from fees charged to private plane owners using or storing the airport for their planes. And right out the other side goes most of that money to pay the TSA, Air Traffic Controllers, the airport staff, and then to keep the place clean and well stocked for business. The net result is that the airport has made 19 Million dollars for the county and is "self-supporting". Now if you want to argue that your federal income taxes help subsidize the Department of Homeland Security and that jet fuel tax gets passed on to customers who then pay for it in their airline fare, then sure. But that's mostly third-hand taxes paid by force from the IRS and cycled through Washington DC before doled back out to the airports. The average citizen of Orange County pays no special income, sales or property tax to directly subsidize John Wayne Airport. As is the case in most financially prudent and un-corrupt cities. The high speed train to Fresno is something different entirely, and will require Billion dollar subsidies from Sacramento to keep it going if it ever gets built. Where will Sacramento pols get the money, I wonder?
Originally Posted By TP2000 Sorry, I did the math wrong trying to round things. John Wayne had an operating income of 12 Million dollars for 2012, not 19 Million.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Well, that is a small regional airport that has the good fortune of being located close to a major tourist attraction. Most regional airports are HEAVILY subsidized. Not only the infrastructure is subsidized, but the flights themselves are subsidized through the Federal "Essential Air Services" program. At the Joplin, MO airport, a little more than an hour from where I live, that subsidy amounts to $129 per passenger. At the other end of the scale, the Metropolitan Airports Commission that operates Twin Cities International Airport, a major hub, is entirely self-supporting.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Rarely, unless you live in a city that is horribly corrupt" You mean like most large cities? New York isn't even particularly corrupt, but don't get me started on the Port Authority, which runs the airports. And roadtrip nicely delineates how smaller airports can be heavily subsidized also.
Originally Posted By TP2000 Tiny airports, especially those that only have seasonal traffic like Glacier National Park, etc. are subsidized by taxes. Their local residents often support that, however, because they know they wouldn't receive air service otherwise. That's a very tiny amount of the air travel in this country, however. I think it's safe to say that for most airline travel through most airports, that type of travel is not directly subsidized by taxpayers. I merely chose John Wayne Airport because I live in Orange County and usually use that airport. It took about five Google minutes to discover they made a tidy 12 Million dollar profit last year and took no taxpayer subsidy to do it. Like John Wayne, Portland International Airport receives no direct taxpayer subsidy and relies on airline gate fees, parking fees, concession rents, etc. to keep it in business. And after it paid all its employees, federal workers, and kept the place clean and stocked with supplies, it made 30 Million dollars for the Port of Portland. Portland airport is notably a notch bigger and busier than John Wayne. On the very far end of that spectrum is a giant, mature, famous airport like JFK in New York. It could be considered as the nation's flagship airport, due to all of the foreign airlines that provide direct service to JFK, often as their only American destination. JFK, just like much smaller John Wayne Airport, is entirely self-supporting. Their website is quite proud of that fact, and here's their statement on that... "It does not receive tax revenue from either state or from any local jurisdiction and has no power to tax, nor does it have the power to pledge the credit of either state or any municipality." <a href="http://www.panynj.gov/about/facilities-services.html" target="_blank">http://www.panynj.gov/about/fa...ces.html</a> Perhaps we should ask someone to provide us an example of a mid-sized or big city airport that DOESN'T support itself without direct tax subsidy? The excuse "Air travel is heavily subsidized" to help support why the bullet train to Fresno shouldn't be questioned for running Billion dollar subsides for decades doesn't appear to hold up.
Originally Posted By karlg Adding to TP2000, Don't forget all the taxes and fees on an airplane ticket. There are the visible ones charged on your ticket (in total about 12% on a domestic flight) plus the ones the airlines pay. On the other hand, the biggest subsidy to oil in general including gas for cars has to be the U.S. military and its use in oil producing regions of the world (some how human rights are more important to defend in the oil producing regions). If it were up to me, I would apportion a part of the military expenditures as a tax on oil/gas. But then I wouldn't subsidize other forms of transportation, but rather let the market seek of the most cost effective method. What we have now is politicians picking winners (that often coincidentally (?) happen to be their "friends" that give them money). I'm certainly not against the country improving its infrastructure in ways that make sense. But unfortunately, much of the infrastructure spending seems to go toward boondoggles based on political motives.
Originally Posted By phruby What does the politics of improving infrastructure have to do with the Next-Gen things in WDW? How did we get here?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <JFK, just like much smaller John Wayne Airport, is entirely self-supporting. Their website is quite proud of that fact, and here's their statement on that... "It does not receive tax revenue from either state or from any local jurisdiction and has no power to tax, nor does it have the power to pledge the credit of either state or any municipality."> I notice you took that from the Port Authority's own website. The PA (officially not the government, but a "public-private hybrid") always says it doesn't take tax money, but it takes "federal grants," as well as "fees," as well as tolls from its horrendously overpriced bridges and tunnels, as well as bond financing, as well as loans... "Byzantine" is a word often used around these parts to describe the Port Authority's financing. They have their finger in so many pies around here that no one can ever seem to figure out just where the money comes from or where it goes. Take their website with several grains of salt, please.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The excuse "Air travel is heavily subsidized" to help support why the bullet train to Fresno shouldn't be questioned for running Billion dollar subsides for decades doesn't appear to hold up.>> Are you forgetting the enormously expensive U.S. air traffic control system? As far as I know that is a freebie provided by the government.
Originally Posted By mickeymorris1234 I think we should jump back to Disney topics and leave politics out. We get heated enough over Disney politics, who knows what will happen when we bring in country politics . I love a good political debate, but on a more.... political websites..... we're all Disney nerds here . (Just a suggestion before the moderators close it.)
Originally Posted By karlg Ok, but some of the above explains why we don't see 400MPH maglev monorails sailing around Tomorrowland or interconnecting the parks. I would like to see a computer controlled transportation system linking the parks and the resorts, but it is unlikely to happen due to cost. Predicting the future is precarious. Really, little of what was envisioned for transportation in Tomorrowland worked out in practice. Computers in the home were expected in the 1960's but nothing like the iPhone (although it is not that far from the Dick Tracy Television Watch) and the idea of "wearable computers" has been around since at least the 1970's. Flat screen TV's were expected in the 1970's but weren't viable until the late 1990's. The new wrist bands for WDW on the other hand are approaching something out of Orwell's 1984 (sort of).
Originally Posted By karlg Ok, but some of the above explains why we don't see 400MPH maglev monorails sailing around Tomorrowland or interconnecting the parks. I would like to see a computer controlled transportation system linking the parks and the resorts, but it is unlikely to happen due to cost. Predicting the future is precarious. Really, little of what was envisioned for transportation in Tomorrowland worked out in practice. Computers in the home were expected in the 1960's but nothing like the iPhone (although it is not that far from the Dick Tracy Television Watch) and the idea of "wearable computers" has been around since at least the 1970's. Flat screen TV's were expected in the 1970's but weren't viable until the late 1990's. The new wrist bands for WDW on the other hand are approaching something out of Orwell's 1984 (sort of).
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "The new wrist bands for WDW on the other hand are approaching something out of Orwell's 1984 (sort of)." To me it's nothing more than an extension of our plugged-in digital society. MyMagic+ is probably the single biggest thing that Disney has done technologically since EPCOT in 1982 and if it's successful I expect that it will be a game changer for the theme park industry.
Originally Posted By TP2000 "How did we get here?" I often liken LP boards to a cocktail party. The conversation can drift wildly amongst cordial adults here, but you are correct that we need to steer back on topic. Just one answer to a question before we do... The FAA air traffic controllers are paid from the FAA Trust Fund, which is funded solely by the passengers via airport gate fees, landing fees, and jet fuel taxes included in the cost of your airline ticket based on the airports you are travelling through. No federal or local taxes on the general public are used to pay the salaries of air traffic controllers. <a href="http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/" target="_blank">http://www.faa.gov/about/offic...pl/aatf/</a> As for Disney and trains... WDW in particular seems to be in the best position politically and logistically to build and operate whatever type of rail transit system they want. But they don't. The cost to maintain the unglamorous but reasonably efficient WDW bus system each year must pencil out easier for the Orlando management and their Burbank masters. Hmm. And for all the trendy save-the-earth green buzzwords used to open Animal Kingdom, and keep it going, it's ironic that it's the only WDW park on property that requires visitors to take their own car or ride a diesel bus to get there. A massive flat parking lot for American SUV's plopped in front of it with diesel trams, and diesel buses chugging in to unload others visiting from All Star Sports or the Grand Floridian. Kinda funny how that worked out. Not a boat or monorail or walking path in sight near the Animal Kingdom entrance. If gee-whiz 21st century maglev or electric personal rapid transit pods are to be built at WDW, I would think the first line should service Animal Kingdom. It would at least be good PR for them.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "A massive flat parking lot for American SUV's plopped in front of it with diesel trams, and diesel buses chugging in to unload others visiting from All Star Sports or the Grand Floridian. Kinda funny how that worked out." This illustrates perfectly what I was trying to say before, which was that Disney completely dropped the ball on the original idea that WDW be an urban design showcase complete with a simple to use intermodal passenger transportation network with limited automobile use. The plan seems to have permanently derailed sometime after EPCOT opened, perhaps around the time Eisner came on board and revitalized the WDCo. In any case, what they've developed instead, whether intentionally, or by accident, is a gigantic model of 21st Century suburban sprawl, complete with huge parking lots, polluting highways, and bland corporate looking architecture with a few strip malls thrown in for good measure.
