Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
The federal budget deficit will not be cured by deficit spending irrespective of what drives it.  Adding more debt inflames the problem, irrespective of its source, which you and your off spring will help pay for.  Spending overseas or on highways or airways facilities, etc., is irrelevant to the question of what the country can and should spend on passenger rail.The amount of debt carried by a family in relationship to its income (debt ratio) is important for determining its ability to service the debt.  The same concept applies to a nation.  According to the Comptroller General of the U.S., the debt burden of American households, when factoring in the unfunded liabilities posed by mandatory government spending (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), is approximately $440,000 per household.  This is nearly 10 times the median household income.  It suggests, amongst other things, that funding projects with low social value is not a good idea.  Highlighting the debt load is not a red herring.  It is an indicator that we should take a very hard look at spending proposals, including the use of public funds to underwrite the loses incurred by Amtrak's long distance trains.     I opposed the Iraq War from day one.  Since you don't know anything about me, nor do I know anything about you, you only have my word for it.Proponents of long distance trains argue that passenger rail in the U.S. would go in the tank if Amtrak discontinued them.  There is no evidence to support this proposition.  Dallas Area Rapid Transit's (DART) light rail system is not dependent on one chronically late, lightly patronized long distance train (Texas Eagle).  Neither is the Trinity Railway Express (TRE).  They are doing well, albeit with significant subsidies, without any help from the Texas Eagle.Congress persons from New York might agree to fund or help fund rapid rail in the Texas Triangle in exchange for a subsequent funding of improvements in the Empire corridor.  It was this kind of trade-off that made the Interstate highway system possible.  In an ideal world, various modes of transport would stand or fall on their own economics.  If all users were required to foot the bill through user fees, e.g. fuel taxes to reflect the true cost of fossil fuels, facilities fees, etc., we would probably see a transport system that would look like this:  Personal vehicles would be the mode of choice for most local trips, except for commuting in densely populated metropolitan areas; rail would be the choice for many people in high density corridors where congestion and cost would give them a natural advantage for many riders, and airplanes would be the mode of choice for long distance travel.  The long distance passenger train, except possibly for some excursion trains or land cruise trains for those with deep pockets, would be given a decent burial, which is what should have happened on May 1, 1971.Unfortunately, we subsidize directly or indirectly all transport modes, thereby creating systems that are not optimized.  They won't be until a wave of common sense blows through the land.  Unfortunately, as long as politicians have undue influence in transport decisions, system optimization is unlikely.
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