Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I also think an even tax break is the way to go with protecting the RRs. One of the glories of this country is its huge capital markets send money to the most feasible companies and concerns, and government interfering with that process would simply send OUR money to what would indeed be pork barrels. On the other hand, I don't consider a railroad to be in poor financial health because it's trying to slough off nonproductive lines. They're trying to save money by doing so, so I can't assume (most of the time, at least) that a railroad that is handed government money would use it to "save" the minor tributaries. Get careless with conglomerating ventures is more like it, because no one ever turns a subsidy down but the money means much less than that which is earned or invested at a market rate. I'm a little less tighta***d about passenger trains. Passenger trains just don't make money. Yes, passenger trains in the USA were in steep decline in the Sixties because of government-sponsored superhighways and airports, but what REALLY drove passenger train service to the brink of extinction was when LBJ pulled the RPO's from the passenger trains in 1967 and gave them to the truckers. Delighted JImmy Hoffa and really p.o.'d Bobby Kennedy. Something about the enemy of my enemy being my friend? I am not sure we need a barrel of big huge government projects to accompli***his, but there must be some way to get loans and/or loan guarantees to places that clearly would benefit from high-speed rail and by that I mean the citizens, not just the RR's or the government. Why on earth don't we have electrified lines to places like Milwaukee-Chicago, Chi-Detroit, San Diego-L.A., possibly Tampa-St. Pete?
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