Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="oltmannd"]</p> <p>[quote user="dakotafred"]</p> <p>Why do we need trains as "basic transportation," when we already have planes and busses?</p> <div style="clear:both;">[/quote]</div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">That gets right to the "nut" of this whole discussion, doesn't it!</div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">There are a few answers to pick and chose from.</div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">1. Because, we really don't - at least most places.  The NEC is the single exception since it provides capacity that can't be replaced by road or air except at great cost.  Easy to demonstrate.</div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">2. Because, in other "emerging corridors", trains are the most cost effective way to increase capacity in areas that have constrained air/road capacity  (So. Cal and routes in/out of Chicago are good examples).  Have to do total cost/benefit to show return.  This can get rather fuzzy.</div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">3. Because, trains really aren't cost-ineffective.  The proof on this one is really shaky.</div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">4. Because trains spur economic development.  This one is really hard to show since the alternatives to trains have some effect, too.  I'd call this one "fuzzy and shaky".</div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">5. Because trains are our heritage and we should retain them "as rolling museums" or "kinetic art".  Their value is not calculable.  This one is supported as a tenet of faith.</div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">6. Because "The People" want them.  Voters vote.  Legislators legislate...and occasionally authorize taxes and spending.  No further analysis necessary!</div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">Personally, I'd like to see the trains do "useful" work, as efficiently as possible.  I'd like to see the whole argument about LD trains become a moot point.  The only way that can happen is if the corridor growth is great enough that the LD trains just have to bridge the gaps in the corridors.  This increases the base of potential passengers and spreads the cost of fixed facilities out over more traffic.  Secondly, I'd like to see the LD trains "bottom line" improve as much as possible.  You can't do this running the current 1950s schedules and service arrangements.  Its'  time for some fresh thinking.</div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">...or even argument #6 will fail.[/quote]</div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">Amtrak has had more than 40 years to get it right.  It has fail miserably as a business.  It has lost more than $40 billion when adjusted for inflation. It will continue to fail as long as it is a creature of Washington.  And as long as it is managed as if nothing has changed since the 1950s or 1970s.  </div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">Privatization is the one step that would bring about true change. Let the market place decide what people really want by a vote of their pocketbooks.  Privatization would require some transitional support from the government(s).  Ultimately, however, passenger rail should be required to compete in the market place, which apparently is occurring in some countries, or it should go the way of the stagecoach.</div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">To ensure a level playing field, the cost of all modes of transport should be reflected at the price points, i.e. motorists should see the cost of local streets, county roads, state and national highways, traffic enforcement, etc. in the price of their fuel.  The same concept should apply to all modes of transport. If this were to come about, passenger rail might do very well in short, high density corridors.</div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">Under privatization the long distance trains would be dead, and most of the losses associated with on-board food and beverage services, since they are incurred on the long distance trains, would also go away.</div> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <div style="clear:both;">Properly regulated markets are the optimum arbitrator for allocating scarce economic resources. Unfortunately, given the politics of transportation, real change (privatization of Amtrak) is unlikely. What is not so unlikely, however, are private initiatives to build passenger rail corridors, i.e. California, Texas, Florida.  If these are successful, they will bypass Amtrak and leave it holding onto the losers.  </div>
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