Soap Box Time Again...DANGER!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

[soapbox]Hi to everyone in this forum. I'd like to take this oppertunity to apologize to all those hard working railroaders out there that make and keep this country (and many other countries) running[^]!! Although, we can't compare ourselves to the men and women in the armed services that protect our land(s), we certinely have sacrifices we make also in the performance of our assigned duties[tup]!!

Now, on to the topic at hand[2c]. Can anyone name a car/truck manufacturer that has built any mile of public highway without any form of government monies, in this country[?][%-)]?? Well...[:-^]? Can anyone name an airline company or manufacturer that has built any public airport without government monies, in this country[?][banghead]?? Well...[:-^]? If you have an answer to these questions, please, I'd love to see your proof. So much for being nice[8]!


Glenn
A R E A L RAILROADER...A TRUE AMERICAN!!!!

[Hugh Jampton]

It don't happen does it. We call it "The unlevel playing field".
Although, cars and trucks pay road tax & airlines pay landing fees, albeit not enough to cover the costs, but they do contribute.

[Anonymous]

That's most definately a huge disadvantage the the railways.

Keeping up the infrstructure is one huge cost.

[Anonymous]

Dear Mr H. Jampton,
To some extent, what you're saying may be true. YET...there's not one airline company or manufacturer that, with their own resources, built an airport or their own terminal building for the purpose of transporting people or freight. They may pay a landing fee, slot fee, whatever fees these airport authorities may require them to pay, but, when it comes down to building these air facilities, it's largely from tax dollars(my tax dollars)and bond offerings. Not one car or truck manufacturer built any length of major highways connecting the major cities in the US. Any highway construction is made with tax dollars mostly. All forms of transportation pay into this fuel fund or fuel tax, BUT, the railroads get roughly 2% of any outlays from the Department of Transportation. The only form of transportation in the US that gets less than the railroads are the waterways. So you can imagine what kind of shape our inland or coastal water passages are in. For all the good and the bad in this, the rail industry, it's the one form of transportation that has built and expanded these United States the fastest, as it has done in some other parts of the world. You can't move large amount of people or freight in a car, bus or airplane. The only form of transport that beats the railroads are some barges and ocean going ships. We have been treated like abandoned children, even by some of our own executives within these companies. All forms of transportation have their purpose, but it seem like the railroads just get the scraps from that government plate.


Glenn
A R E A L RAILROADER...A TRUE AMERICAN!!!!

[Anonymous]

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

[daveklepper]

I have read in some of the transportation technical journals that truckers pay about one third the true costs of the costs of their operations to society in general, including highway maintenance and repair, police for traffic control, costs to society for medical matters not covered by insurance, and land off the tax roles.

Some railroads realized at one time the value of having contact with the public and that is why the Sante Fe and Union Pacific, to name two, were willing to keep passenger service at the highes possible standard, which they did, despite loosing money. They considered it the best form of advertizing, which indeed it was. (Remember President Ronald Regan?) Today, it is definitely in the interests of the freight railroads to see that Amtrak is in good shape, but only Norfolk Southern seems to understand that thoroughly and they do give Amtrak a lot of cooperation.

The Florida trains of the Seaboard, ACL, and then the SCL stayed in the black the longest, and my guess these, along with the Coast Starlight, are the closest ot breaking even for Amtrak today.

Finally, the wholesale abandonment of street railways in major cities was not done to benefit the transit rider but to benefit the private car owner. In smaller cities and rural areas it was done for economic reasons but not in major cities.