schlimm These highly ideological/political discussions are supposed to be off-limits on this forum.
These highly ideological/political discussions are supposed to be off-limits on this forum.
Phoebe Vet Sam1 Phoebe Vet I don't use it, so the government shouldn't be involved in it. Let the people who use it pay for it. Now where have I heard that before? Try to picture a world where all roads are toll roads and the airlines have to operate the air traffic control system. Who said anything about the airlines operating the air traffic control system? That's odd. I could swear he said that the government should get completely out of the transportation business and privatize everything. Isn't ATC part of the transportation infrastructure he wants to privatize?
Sam1 Phoebe Vet I don't use it, so the government shouldn't be involved in it. Let the people who use it pay for it. Now where have I heard that before? Try to picture a world where all roads are toll roads and the airlines have to operate the air traffic control system. Who said anything about the airlines operating the air traffic control system?
Phoebe Vet I don't use it, so the government shouldn't be involved in it. Let the people who use it pay for it. Now where have I heard that before? Try to picture a world where all roads are toll roads and the airlines have to operate the air traffic control system.
I don't use it, so the government shouldn't be involved in it. Let the people who use it pay for it. Now where have I heard that before?
Try to picture a world where all roads are toll roads and the airlines have to operate the air traffic control system.
Who said anything about the airlines operating the air traffic control system?
That's odd. I could swear he said that the government should get completely out of the transportation business and privatize everything. Isn't ATC part of the transportation infrastructure he wants to privatize?
From the original post:
"Air Subsidies: End subsidy direct or indirect. The most obvious thing is to get rid of essential air service. Privatize federally owned commercial airports and make air traffic control, security and other parts of the airport privately owned. A private institution could provide its own security or air traffic control."
Apparently your enthusiasm for libertarian schemes caused you to overlook that.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Sam1There is no reason why the government has to own all the roads. In Texas, overseas investors have built or are building some toll roads.
But Sam, BNSF did not propose private ownership of "some toll roads." He proposed private ownership of every single road in the country, from the local roads at the end of my driveway and yours to Interstate 80 which runs from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. He also proposed private ownership of all other transportation but that is small potatoes compared to every single road in the whole of the United States. And yes, it would be possible to begin a toll at the end of each person's driveway and put it on every single road a driver travels on. But I hope you agree that would be a massive undertaking and would would create a lot of issues that we cannot even imagine. Is there any state or any country that even comes close to doing that?
John WR Sam1There is no reason why the government has to own all the roads. In Texas, overseas investors have built or are building some toll roads. But Sam, BNSF did not propose private ownership of "some toll roads." He proposed private ownership of every single road in the country, from the local roads at the end of my driveway and yours to Interstate 80 which runs from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. He also proposed private ownership of all other transportation but that is small potatoes compared to every single road in the whole of the United States. And yes, it would be possible to begin a toll at the end of each person's driveway and put it on every single road a driver travels on. But I hope you agree that would be a massive undertaking and would would create a lot of issues that we cannot even imagine. Is there any state or any country that even comes close to doing that?
Now there is a wonderful idea. Let's pay foreign investors to let us drive on our roads.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
I think BNSF's post reveals the utterly crazy ideology lurking behind it. All this might be OK for children playing "What if" but it is impossible to take this nonsense seriously. Privatizing passenger rail might theoretically work, though unlikely to be totally private. As another poster stated before, privatizing (user-fee-basis) our waterways, the airways and ALL roads could only lead to a Balkanized United States (apologies to the Balkan states since this notion would lead to a situation far worse than the Balkans at their worst).
schlimm Phoebe Vet Sam1 Phoebe Vet I don't use it, so the government shouldn't be involved in it. Let the people who use it pay for it. Now where have I heard that before? Try to picture a world where all roads are toll roads and the airlines have to operate the air traffic control system. Who said anything about the airlines operating the air traffic control system? That's odd. I could swear he said that the government should get completely out of the transportation business and privatize everything. Isn't ATC part of the transportation infrastructure he wants to privatize? From the original post: "Air Subsidies: End subsidy direct or indirect. The most obvious thing is to get rid of essential air service. Privatize federally owned commercial airports and make air traffic control, security and other parts of the airport privately owned. A private institution could provide its own security or air traffic control." Apparently your enthusiasm for libertarian schemes caused you to overlook that.
I don't necessarily agree with everything that said in the original post. But I commend the author for stirring a worthwhile discussion.
As I noted in another post, air traffic control in Australia, whilst coordinated by the federal government, is operated by contractors. The airports are owned by private interest. What have the results been? Much better than when they were operated by government employees.
Privatizing air traffic control does not mean that it would be owned or operated by the airlines. Inasmuch as they are not the major user of the system, why would they want to buy a stake in it.
I believe that market solutions, where they will work independently or with some subsidization, is a valid point of view. Labeling market solutions as libertarian is out of order. You should be able to make a point without name calling.
schlimm I think BNSF's post reveals the utterly crazy ideology lurking behind it. All this might be OK for children playing "What if" but it is impossible to take this nonsense seriously. Privatizing passenger rail might theoretically work, though unlikely to be totally private. As another poster stated before, privatizing (user-fee-basis) our waterways, the airways and ALL roads could only lead to a Balkanized United States (apologies to the Balkan states since this notion would lead to a situation far worse than the Balkans at their worst).
So people who don't see the world the way you do are crazy and childish by implication. Why don't you just say why you disagree without the name calling?
I've been waiting for someone to mention water transport. Dams are built for one of, or a combination of, the following purposes: 1 - Flood control, 2 - Hydro-electric power generation and, 3 - Reliable water supply for cities or agricultural use. The locks that are associated with them are a different story. They exist only to enable barge transportation and to a lesser degree, recreational boating. Without knowing the details, I am pretty confident that any user fees paid by the barge lines do not begin to cover the cost of building, operating and maintaining the locks through which they pass. The same can be said for any channelization projects and the constant dredging acivities of the Corps of Engineers. Should the locks which are often an integral part of the dam structure itself be privatized and operated for a profit? How about the cost of maintining a shipping channel of a given minimum depth and width?
It might be possible to fragmentize our national transportation network into a hodgepodge of private entities. But, IMHO, by the time we realized what a mess we'd created, undoing it would be more (far more) difficult than putting Humptey Dumpty together again.
Mark
You will note that my comment says that there is no reason why the government has to own all the roads. And that is all that I said. In addition, I pointed out that an increasing number of roadways in Texas are being built by private owners and operators. They are being built under the direction of the Texas Department of Transportation.
I don't agree with everything BNSF said, but I believe his views are worthy of consideration. Having said that, it raises an interesting question. Could every roadway in America be tolled. Yes! With GPS and computer technology, you could track the movement of every vehicle by Zip Code, upload and process the data, and bill each user. Would it be politically feasible. Nope! But how we bill people for road use, irrespective of who builds and operates the roadways, is going to change.
Fuel taxes are the largest single source of revenue for state and federal highways. But they are not keeping up with revenue needs as Americans opt for more fuel efficient vehicles and drive somewhat less. So we are going to have to find a different way to bill the users for their road use. Rick Williams, who was the Texas Transportation Commissioner, told me that tracking vehicle use by some automated technique (GPS) will be necessary if we are to raise sufficient revenues going forward.
Sam1 John WR Sam1There is no reason why the government has to own all the roads. In Texas, overseas investors have built or are building some toll roads. But Sam, BNSF did not propose private ownership of "some toll roads." He proposed private ownership of every single road in the country, from the local roads at the end of my driveway and yours to Interstate 80 which runs from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. He also proposed private ownership of all other transportation but that is small potatoes compared to every single road in the whole of the United States. And yes, it would be possible to begin a toll at the end of each person's driveway and put it on every single road a driver travels on. But I hope you agree that would be a massive undertaking and would would create a lot of issues that we cannot even imagine. Is there any state or any country that even comes close to doing that? You will note that my comment says that there is no reason why the government has to own all the roads. And that is all that I said. In addition, in I pointed out that an increasing number of roadways in Texas are being built by private owners and operators. They are being built under the direction of the Texas Department of Transportation. I don't agree with everything BNSF said, but I believe his views are worthy of consideration. Having said that, it raises an interesting question. Could every roadway in America be tolled. Yes! With GPS and computer technology, you could track the movement of every vehicle by Zip Code, upload the data, and bill each user for his or her use. Would it be politically feasible. Nope! But how we bill people for road use, irrespective of who builds and operates the roadways, is going to change. Fuel taxes are the largest single source of revenue for state and federal highways. But they are not keeping up with revenue needs as Americans opt for more fuel efficient vehicles. So we are going to have to find a different way to bill the users for road use. Rick Williams, who was the Texas Transportation Commissioner, told me that tracking vehicle use by some automated technique will be necessary if we are to raise sufficient revenues going forward.
You will note that my comment says that there is no reason why the government has to own all the roads. And that is all that I said. In addition, in I pointed out that an increasing number of roadways in Texas are being built by private owners and operators. They are being built under the direction of the Texas Department of Transportation.
I don't agree with everything BNSF said, but I believe his views are worthy of consideration. Having said that, it raises an interesting question. Could every roadway in America be tolled. Yes! With GPS and computer technology, you could track the movement of every vehicle by Zip Code, upload the data, and bill each user for his or her use. Would it be politically feasible. Nope! But how we bill people for road use, irrespective of who builds and operates the roadways, is going to change.
Fuel taxes are the largest single source of revenue for state and federal highways. But they are not keeping up with revenue needs as Americans opt for more fuel efficient vehicles. So we are going to have to find a different way to bill the users for road use. Rick Williams, who was the Texas Transportation Commissioner, told me that tracking vehicle use by some automated technique will be necessary if we are to raise sufficient revenues going forward.
Why do people keep saying that I want to privatize all transportation I explicitly said that city rail and local roads should remain publicly owned. I never suggested privatizing city streets.
Railroad to Freedom
Overseas investors already own and maintain roadways in America. The Indiana Turnpike is one example, TX 130 is another. They don't control who has access to the roads. They are simply investors.
The overseas investors bid on the roadways because they expect to earn a return on their investment, and not because they expect to control access to the roadways.
The deals have been attractive because the states don't have to borrow money for the road construction. Frequently, the investors can get money cheaper than the states if there is an arbitrage opportunity. Depending on how the deal is structured, it can be a win/win outcome for both parties.
High debt states, by attracting private investors, can keep additional debt off their balance sheets, which reduces their leverage rates and helps their bond ratings. Unlike the federal government, which can print money, all but one of the states is forbidden by their constitution to run a deficit.
ontheBNSF Sam1 John WR Sam1There is no reason why the government has to own all the roads. In Texas, overseas investors have built or are building some toll roads. But Sam, BNSF did not propose private ownership of "some toll roads." He proposed private ownership of every single road in the country, from the local roads at the end of my driveway and yours to Interstate 80 which runs from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. He also proposed private ownership of all other transportation but that is small potatoes compared to every single road in the whole of the United States. And yes, it would be possible to begin a toll at the end of each person's driveway and put it on every single road a driver travels on. But I hope you agree that would be a massive undertaking and would would create a lot of issues that we cannot even imagine. Is there any state or any country that even comes close to doing that? You will note that my comment says that there is no reason why the government has to own all the roads. And that is all that I said. In addition, in I pointed out that an increasing number of roadways in Texas are being built by private owners and operators. They are being built under the direction of the Texas Department of Transportation. I don't agree with everything BNSF said, but I believe his views are worthy of consideration. Having said that, it raises an interesting question. Could every roadway in America be tolled. Yes! With GPS and computer technology, you could track the movement of every vehicle by Zip Code, upload the data, and bill each user for his or her use. Would it be politically feasible. Nope! But how we bill people for road use, irrespective of who builds and operates the roadways, is going to change. Fuel taxes are the largest single source of revenue for state and federal highways. But they are not keeping up with revenue needs as Americans opt for more fuel efficient vehicles. So we are going to have to find a different way to bill the users for road use. Rick Williams, who was the Texas Transportation Commissioner, told me that tracking vehicle use by some automated technique will be necessary if we are to raise sufficient revenues going forward. Why do people keep saying that I want to privatize all transportation I explicitly said that city rail and local roads should remain publicly owned. I never suggested privatizing city streets.
Because they did not read or think about what you said. I congratulate you for raising a worthwhile point of view.
Mark,
To the extent that the barge operators do not pay the full cost of at least the locks, chanel maintenance and the labor costs of those who make it all work, they are getting a subsidy. I think everyone realizes that they are getting a subsidy. One of the results of that subsidy is to divert traffic from the railroads to the rivers. The amount of the diversion is related to the amount of subsidy. Taking the subsidy cost into account, the result is that the total transportation cost is higher than would be the case without the subsidy.
That excess cost is a deadweight loss to the economy. Some of the loss is borne by railroad companies and railroad employees and some by the taxpayers. Quantifying that would involve some serious study of particular traffic on particular rivers. That is the straight, simple economics of the matter.
Why do we do such a stupid thing? First the beneficiaries lobby for it. Second the politicians buy votes with the taxpayer's money. In short it is both redistributionist AND gives the politicians power they would not otherwise have.
To me that is three strikes. One, the dead weight loss. Two, the redistributionist aspect. Three more power to the politicians.
The water case is relatively simple and straight forward. Air and highway are much more complex but we could have far less government involvement in transportation and would have to work really hard to not have a better result. The real problem is that the politicians know the game. You can count the times that the politicians voluntarily gave up any power on one hand.
Mac McCulloch
ontheBNSF Why do people keep saying that I want to privatize all transportation I explicitly said that city rail and local roads should remain publicly owned. I never suggested privatizing city streets.
KCSfan I've been waiting for someone to mention water transport. Dams are built for one of, or a combination of, the following purposes: 1 - Flood control, 2 - Hydro-electric power generation and, 3 - Reliable water supply for cities or agricultural use. The locks that are associated with them are a different story. They exist only to enable barge transportation and to a lesser degree, recreational boating. Without knowing the details, I am pretty confident that any user fees paid by the barge lines do not begin to cover the cost of building, operating and maintaining the locks through which they pass. The same can be said for any channelization projects and the constant dredging acivities of the Corps of Engineers. Should the locks which are often an integral part of the dam structure itself be privatized and operated for a profit? How about the cost of maintining a shipping channel of a given minimum depth and width? It might be possible to fragmentize our national transportation network into a hodgepodge of private entities. But, IMHO, by the time we realized what a mess we'd created, undoing it would be more (far more) difficult than putting Humptey Dumpty together again. Mark
If the river was navigable before the dam(s) was built, and the locks were built to maintain the navigability of the waterway, then the barge operators should not be required to pay the total cost. They should share the cost proportionally with all of the potential beneficiaries. Had the damns not been built, there would have been no need for the locks.
Before dams were built on the Missouri River, which is the longest river in America, shallow draft boats could go at least as far as present day Miles City, Montana. The Star of the West, which served as General Alfred Terry's headquarters during the ill fated Custer expedition of 1876, was anchored near the Miles City area. It was the first to bring the news of the Custer defeat back to Fort Lincoln, where Mrs. Custer and many of the wives of the men of the 7th Calvary lived.
While this is really drifting further from the railroad topic, dams, locks and navigation are all intertwined. It is perhaps true that before a dam, locks might not have been required. But the shallow draft vessels and barges that could navigate those areas were not particularly economic and in many areas were quickly superseded by railroad alternatives. There are lots of swing bridges across the continent that haven't moved since sometime in the early years of the last century. The river is still technically navigable but no commercial operator would even consider it unless a sugar daddy made a much deeper channel for his use.
Dams, by creating an extended deep water area behind them, are what allowed a number of rivers to retain commercial barge traffic. By providing locks around the dam, and dredging a deeper channel in some of the free-flowing reaches of the river, it became possible for vessels and barges of larger capacity to operate profitably.
Dams are usually built to serve a variety of purposes, so improving navigation is often only a minor side benefit. But the locks are definitely for the benefit of the water operators. Typically a fast-flowing shallow segment that is difficult or impossible to navigate in periods of flood or low water is replaced by a deeper channel that can handle larger boats year round (unless frozen, of course).
John
the digression to dams and locks is slightly off topic. Of course the worse waterway project ever conceived was probaably the Tenn - Tombigbee waterway. traffic almost non existant on it.
Sam1 If the river was navigable before the dam(s) was built, and the locks were built to maintain the navigability of the waterway, then the barge operators should not be required to pay the total cost. They should share the cost proportionally with all of the potential beneficiaries. Had the damns not been built, there would have been no need for the locks. Before dams were built on the Missouri River, which is the longest river in America, shallow draft boats could go at least as far as present day Miles City, Montana. The Star of the West, which served as General Alfred Terry's headquarters during the ill fated Custer expedition of 1876, was anchored near the Miles City area. It was the first to bring the news of the Custer defeat back to Fort Lincoln, where Mrs. Custer and many of the wives of the men of the 7th Calvary lived.
True, the old paddle wheel steamboats could and did ply many of our rivers but with few execptions had been supplanted by railroads long before the Corps of Engineers began its massive waterway construction projects of levees, channelization and locks and dams. Design criteria for locks and dams on navigable inland waterways calls for a minimum dependable channel depth of 9 ft. except in periods of extreme drought. This is far in excess of what would be required for the old steamboats and is dictated by the draft of towboats and loaded barges. To maintain a minimum 9ft. pool upstream of each dam requires far more dams (and locks) than would be required if flood control were the sole objective. Comparing the navigation needs of the old paddle wheel steamboats to those of towboats and barges is tantamount to comparing apples and oranges.
In line with the prior dicussions of ending transport subsidies and privatization it follows that the cost of constructing, maintaining and operating at least the locks and any navigation channel dredging should be fully covered by user fees paid for by the barge operators.
Sam1 Before dams were built on the Missouri River, which is the longest river in America, shallow draft boats could go at least as far as present day Miles City, Montana. The Star of the West, which served as General Alfred Terry's headquarters during the ill fated Custer expedition of 1876, was anchored near the Miles City area. It was the first to bring the news of the Custer defeat back to Fort Lincoln, where Mrs. Custer and many of the wives of the men of the 7th Calvary lived.
cx500 ontheBNSF Why do people keep saying that I want to privatize all transportation I explicitly said that city rail and local roads should remain publicly owned. I never suggested privatizing city streets. As the tongue-in-cheek poster back on page one, I agree this is what you proposed. But I am not entirely certain I see the consistency. Either the road system is considered a "public good" and public ownership is OK, or it isn't. And that doesn't change because the car or truck is on an Interstate Highway instead of a city street. The mode of transportation is exactly the same, rubber tires on asphalt. While you may think your idea is radical and new, in fact you are tied to the past in outlook. Certain expressways and bridges have been toll roads for years, but this is mostly because the technology in the past meant that toll booths were the only means of collecting payment for use of the road, which meant it had to have controlled access. I presume that is why you only suggested privatizing that type of road. With GPS tracking technology, as others have described earlier in this thread, that limitation may no longer exist. Your philosophy should really be carried through to the logical, but ludicrous, conclusion that I described in my original response. If you want to limit privatization to only some roads, you open a real can of worms. Does that mean the slower publicly owned road roughly parallelling the private road is unfair competition since it is free? Not to mention the very contentious issue of deciding which roads or segments should or could be privatized. Or defining when it becomes a local road since a number take on quite different aspects as they traverse various districts. Subsidies are undesirable since they distort the natural marketplace. That is why politicians like to claim the tax dollars they spend are "investing" in new roads or deeper shipping channels. And the people have been fooled. Why is that new $300,000,000 bridge an investment while the same amount used for desperately needed new Amtrak equipment is called a subsidy? End of rant John
highways for the most part were not originally a "public good". Buying large amounts of undeveloped land and paving it can be done by the private sector. Much of the system was built by taking property building right through the middle of cities. People only think highways are essential but truthfully many extensive road projects have been built by the private investment. The great northern is an example of a extensive infrastructure project built by the private sector.
The Cumberland Road (National Road, National Pike) was the first major improved highway in the US built by the federal government. It charged tolls for maintenance. The approximately 620-mile (1,000 km) long National Road provided a connection between the Potomac and Ohio rivers and a gateway to the West for thousands of settlers. When rebuilt in the 1830s, the Cumberland Road became the first road in the U.S. to use the new macadam road surfacing.
Sounds like a "public good" to me and was presented as such in the authorization.
dakotafred Sam1 Before dams were built on the Missouri River, which is the longest river in America, shallow draft boats could go at least as far as present day Miles City, Montana. The Star of the West, which served as General Alfred Terry's headquarters during the ill fated Custer expedition of 1876, was anchored near the Miles City area. It was the first to bring the news of the Custer defeat back to Fort Lincoln, where Mrs. Custer and many of the wives of the men of the 7th Calvary lived. I believe the steamers actually reached as far as Great Falls, when the water was high enough, as early as the late fur-trade era. Usually they did well to get as far as Fort Union, in (future) far western North Dakota. Then their trade goods would be transloaded to keelboats for posts further upriver. The boat accompanying the Custer expedition was the Far West, hired by Terry but owned and piloted by a great figure in the history of Missouri River navigation, Bismarck's Grant Marsh.
KCSfan Sam1 If the river was navigable before the dam(s) was built, and the locks were built to maintain the navigability of the waterway, then the barge operators should not be required to pay the total cost. They should share the cost proportionally with all of the potential beneficiaries. Had the damns not been built, there would have been no need for the locks. Before dams were built on the Missouri River, which is the longest river in America, shallow draft boats could go at least as far as present day Miles City, Montana. The Star of the West, which served as General Alfred Terry's headquarters during the ill fated Custer expedition of 1876, was anchored near the Miles City area. It was the first to bring the news of the Custer defeat back to Fort Lincoln, where Mrs. Custer and many of the wives of the men of the 7th Calvary lived. True, the old paddle wheel steamboats could and did ply many of our rivers but with few execptions had been supplanted by railroads long before the Corps of Engineers began its massive waterway construction projects of levees, channelization and locks and dams. Design criteria for locks and dams on navigable inland waterways calls for a minimum dependable channel depth of 9 ft. except in periods of extreme drought. This is far in excess of what would be required for the old steamboats and is dictated by the draft of towboats and loaded barges. To maintain a minimum 9ft. pool upstream of each dam requires far more dams (and locks) than would be required if flood control were the sole objective. Comparing the navigation needs of the old paddle wheel steamboats to those of towboats and barges is tantamount to comparing apples and oranges. In line with the prior dicussions of ending transport subsidies and privatization it follows that the cost of constructing, maintaining and operating at least the locks and any navigation channel dredging should be fully covered by user fees paid for by the barge operators. Mark
I disagree.
The barge operators should pay a proportional share of the cost of the water way improvements. They should not have to pay for improvements that benefit primarily others. The have successfully made this point since the Roosevelt Administration in the 1930s.
To a certain this is a chicken and egg argument. The operators, who currently pay approximately half of the cost of the current system, through Marine diesel and excise taxes, would not have required the extensive flood control and power dams constructed by the Tennessee Valley Authority as an example. Moreover, the navigation aids are used by a variety of cruise operators as well as numerous pleasure boats, some of which are of considerable size.
In FY11 the operators contributed $84 million to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the U.S. Treasury contributed $90.3 million. In addition to the fuel and excise taxes collected from the operators, they paid corporate income taxes, a portion of which flowed from the U.S. Treasury to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
To the extent that the barge operators don't cover their proportional share of the cost of maintaining the inland waterways, they should. This applies to all transport operators who use shared facilities.
As point out previously, this is a long way from passenger rail, although it would be appropriate in a discussion covering the competitive context of freight rail.
This thread is way beyond of what is covered by our host´s policy for the use of this forum. It will be therefore locked.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.