Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Samantha"]Higher fuel costs might create an environment where it would be possible for train operators to recover their costs and earn a return for their shareholders.     [/quote]But why do you assume that principle would only apply to short distance trains and not long distance trains?  If fuel costs were raised to cover the true costs of its production as you suggest, jet fuel would also be much higher, and air fares would not longer be as cheap as they are today. That could make long distance train travel much more attractive. [quote]If the government created a level playing field for all common carriers, as well as private transport, market driven passenger trains might be possible in some areas. [/quote]I'm inclined to agree with you there. The key here is a level playing field. Existing subsidies for Amtrak are an attempt to do just that given the diffferences in how railroads are run compared to everything else. Now, you have stated that you don't think the government should be involved in any  commercial enterprise. I understand that view, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. As an ideal, it has many merits, but I think it is too narrow a view to apply it indiscriminately in the real world. IF all things were equal, if railroads had a publicly owned infrastructure and anyone with a train could use any tracks, and if those tracks were adequately maintained by the government to allow for the smooth flow of both passenger and freight traffic, then I would agree with you. Private enterprise could operate passenger trains, and the market would sort out the winners and losers. But that is not possible under current conditions. Private enterprise owns most of the railroad tracks, while the government owns most of the airports and roads. I know you know that, but this means that on infrastructure development, private enterprise is competing against the government. Thus there is no incentive to maintain the infrastructure to passenger service standards, much less accommodate any potential passenger growth, without government involvement.So if you can find an equitable arrangement, given real world conditions, whereby market forces can be allowed to provide the best possible rail service (without inserting your or my preconceived notions about which types of trains are workable and which are not), I'm willing to listen. But unilaterally singling out certain trains for elimination just to suit an ideology, without leveling the playing field first, strikes me as simply unfair.
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