The disagreement over Amtrak funding boils down to a basic disagreement about the roll of government in peoples lives. Traditionally in the USA the government provided an infrastructure for transportation, but did not provide the means of transportation. (This was tru of local and State Govt too). This was true for roads, waterways, airways, and although to a lesser extent railroads (example: land grants and even direct payments to the CP and the UP for construction completed on the transcontinental) Historically the individual public road users did not pay to use the roads (prior to the auto user fees were difficult to access so except for tolls on some roads, non existent) , but the government did not furnish their horse or pay for the feed. Transportation providers obtained franchises from government to operate, for which they paid. Rail, being privately owned, usually tried to at least recover their costs. When passenger transportation was subsidized, it was by revenue from freight hauling, not by the government. Private street car and interurban lines were franchised by local governments, for which they paid, and where they ran in roads were expected to pay for at least some and often all of the road maintenance costs. In the early days even government owned rail transit was expected to at least pay its costs. Is the government responsible to provide transportation for people who are incapable or unwilling to pay the costs themselves? Should those people, and also those who can and are willing to pay, be subsizied by people who recieve no benefit?
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
QUOTE: Should those people, and also those who can and are willing to pay, be subsizied by people who recieve no benefit?
QUOTE: Originally posted by goboard Since some of you might have misunderstood me, let me put it in less eloquent terms: 1. Somebody, somewhere will want passenger trains. If it's not the govt. it has to be the freight railroads. Why? Because short of the states paying billions of dollars to build new rail, commuter operators must first start running on existing lines. They have to train their employees to the standard of the host RR, or else hire freight crews to run passenger service. 2. As political pressure increases, the railroads will be reobligated to run passenger service, or else resurrect Amtrak. They are considered a public trust and are subject to reasonable user demands. 3. Railroads can't pay much for the track they need. They compensate by maximizing their operating efficiencies with few alternate routing options. They are now running out of routing options. 4. Open-access rails would lead to political jockeying in the event that the infrastructure company was govt bonded. The RRs would not accept liability for deferred maintenance leading to derailments and slow orders. 5. The imbalance in govt subsidies has caused the RRs to be undercapitalized as they spend money keeping up with other transport modes. 6. Passenger trains are what spur triple-tracking and advanced signalling. You have to run passenger trains without timetable interruption and you need infrastructure improvements. Dual-use infrastructure investment helps freight RRs with route flexability, line density, and real estate investment. 7. The meltdown is here. The expansions may be too late. Where will the money come from? WIll the govt give money outright, or will they require some sort of public-use benefit in return? Let the RRs contract passenger service. They have no choice, if they expect to get any kind of subsidy for freight at all. 8. The NEC is the best test-case. 9. HIghspeed rail is nearly impossible politically without the prior investment into incremental increases in line density: in other words, local commuter trains over established lines built to solve a need, rather than building new lines disconnected from their operating costs just to please politicians. 10. I'm not anti-access, I'm anti-stupidity.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by goboard @ futuremodal: You probably won't see direct subsidies for new lines, that's true. What you could see is the govt paying the freights to run passenger service over existing freight lines, in compensation for infrastructure upgrades.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Dunkirkeriestation Goverment provides the "Forum" who speaks in that forum is entirley up to them. Local municipality have provided Public Market Houses which are owned by the city. The Vendors and Farmers that are in that Public Market pay a small rent to cover there expences. Some of the Best Public Markets I have been in are in Cleveland,Broadway Market in Buffalo and Portland Public Market. These markets that I have been in benifit the community by providing a outlet for fresh produce and meats that might not be able to get on the big corparte grocery shelves. They provide inner city people with food in areas atht are too dence to build a huge supermarket. In Cleveland the West Side Public Market has benifited the whole neighbood in increased real esate and quality of life in "Ohio City". The FCC owns the air waves and then doles them out the local radio stations who are free to broadcast whatever they want. NFTA ownes the Buffalo Airport but does not control the airlines. The Thruway Authority ownes and manages the Turnpike and Canal System but does not manage the truck and barge companys that run on there System. But Railroads on the other hand is the only transportation system that I can think of that owns the Infrastucture and the Vehicles that run on it. Its like the local mall owns all the shops inside the mall. The Cost of Infrastucture should be borne by Goverment because we all benifit from having that infrastucture there. Goverment is good at building and owning highways and bridges and sewers. Let the buisness be good at what it does and that is the free market. Railroads benifit more then just the people who pay the freight and passenger bills. It not fair to make them pay the full bill when so many of us benifit from cleaner air and less traffic congestion. Why Railroads would fight tooth and nail not to have to the goverment take take over a major part of there expence is behond me. Railroads are in the transportation buisness not in the infrastucture buisness. Leave Transportation to the Buisness and Infrastucture to the goverment.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Dunkirkeriestation Thank you futuremodal, Now if I can get the other 299 million Americans to see things my way. Its hyprocritical they want goverment subsides of highways but when it comes to railroads they want to call you communist~!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.