Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
The problem now however is that the situation is difficult to remedy. You have two options: 1.) Give railroads government subsidies or 2.) Make other industries pay for their infrastructure. And now, I give you full warning: stop reading now or be besieged by my "in-depth" [:)] analysis. The giving of government subsidies to railroads varies from nonexistent to total depending on the country. In many countries of Europe, for example, the railways are not only governmentally subsidized, but also governmen-run, government-managed, and government-owned. If you like this approach, then it can work fairly well. I once heard locomotive maintenance in Europe described as an "obsession," and government railways can justifiably hire armies of employees. In some places this works, service is exemplary, trains run on time, as well as having the benefits of more people having jobs. If done well, the railway will charge reasonable rates, even if it has a monopoly. Having just said that, it is necessary to say that state run railways can also be a model of exactly what not to do with fleets of flanged wheels. I don't hear anybody bragging about how good service was on the USSR's railroads, and while China may be a destination for steam seeking railfans, standard passenger services are fairly lacking. In the United States, where make-work government projects are often an unpleasant reminder of the Great Depression and people are wary of government run businesses, any amount of government subsidization would be met with opposition. Until a major railroad would be in dire financial trouble, few would see need for giving railroads tax dollars. And, for the time being, the big systems will continue to operate in good financial health. The airlines and trucking companies in the US and Canada have a tremendous advantage over railroads: the public knows that they exist. Most Americans (I can't speak for Canadians) regard trains merely as an antiquated holdover from a bygone era, or worse, as the ugly and noisy things which stop them at grade crossings. As such, politicians are much more likely to give government dollars to planes and trucks, which their constituents regard as "important." On the same lines, they are very unlikely to charge airlines and trucking companies for the use of roads and airports, not to mention the tremendous lobying power those two have. This general mentality is largely responsible for Amtrak's troubles as well. I once heard someone describe passenger trains as obsolete. Although I managed to suppress the urge to give him a lecture on the necessity of passenger rail transporation, it did make me think that if only people would respect railroads, we would not have this plurality in treating different forms of transportation. It amazes me how millions of people can ride the subway every day, and still have no respect for an intermodal train carrying goods they use every day of their life! Then the ultimate question of how to remedy the situation arizes--do we subsidize them all or make them all pay? Both have merits, but either way it's all or nothing, and either way, a lot of people will be very unhappy. In my opinion, it is better for the government to not give monetary subsidies unless a business would collapse without them, but rather it is best for government to regulate the industries, to make sure that safe and ethical procedures are adhered to, so that the customer benefits from fair competition--we know that while government railways can have poor service, unregulated private industries can be a detriment to the consumer (think Enron). Most sincerely yours, Daniel
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag