Have I got a deal for you!

[henry6]

I was never making any personal note of you or your knowledge of history.  And I really never did think about you.

 

[John WR]

I'm sure you do know a lot about history, Henry.  However, when you referred to my knowledge as "high school history" I thought it might be helpful if I explained just how I came by it.  And then when you suggested there were issues about subways and even airplanes at a time when the state of the art was the horsecar, well, what would you have thought had I made such an error?  Now I'll get down off my soap box and not subject you to any more of my lecturing.  Have a little better day now that you don't have to think about me.  John

[henry6]

Excuse me.  My comments were on the role of government in transportation subsidies as not being a new issue and nothing more than that.  And I don't know Albro Martin offhand so I have no reason to comment.  I don't understand your comments about Cornelius Vanderbilt or Erastus Corning.  I know who they are and what they did and when.   I have been a student of railroad history for almost 70 years so don't lecture me. I am very aware, intimately so, of the history of railroads, canals and highways especially in New York and New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania and parts of New England and have ridden, driven, and even walked many of the rights of way. 

[John WR]

Henry,  

You call my comments about railroads up to 1860 "high school history."  In fact, most of what I know comes well after high school from a writer named Albro Martin.  I have high regard for him although I gather you might disagree.  

In 1860 I think subways were not a big issue even for New Yorkers and airplanes were not much of an issue either.  I guess you must have missed some of your high school history classes or you would know that carrying freight along the Erie Canal on railroads like the Mohawk and Hudson was a very big issue.  I think of Cornelius Vanderbilt as the first railroad "baron" but he did not own even the New York and Harlem in 1860.  However, perhaps you allude to Erastus Corning?  

My own main interest is passenger railroads as a reasonable method of transportation today.  However, the above comments are about the earliest days of railroads before the Civil War.  It surprises me that you seem unaware of this history considering your own travels.   

[henry6]

John WR

What I understand, Henry, is that up to 1860 government tended to regard waterways as preferable to railroads because waterways often were free as they were rivers, lakes and the ocean and because the Erie Canal was so successful.  Wise and prudent men asked "Why should we build this expensive iron road when we can just put a boat or ship in the water?"

Early railroads usually connected inland points to tidewater or to connect tided water with tide water.  The only exceptions I know are the Baltimore and Ohio because a canal was not practical, the Erie Railroad which was built to satisfy New York's southern tier citizens who had been taxed to pay for the Erie Canal and the Illinois Central and Mobile and Ohio because of Stephen Douglas's ability to get Congressional pork.  

After the Civil War it is another story or a few stories.  Government generally tried to exploit railroads with a fair amount of success while railroad men did the same thing.  

Yes, this is all  high school history...but you are leaving out what governments at all levels did to aid the building of the railroads.  And waterways were not really free as there had to be ways to get around rapids and falls; plus dredging had to be done to make ports and passages.

And, passengers, in fact, were major users of rail transportation.  Railroads would run trains for passengers, mail, lcl, freight, and baggage and express.  They would  total up the money taken in and subtract what was spent not seperating income from each commodity...thus a train either made money or it didn't...the fact that passengers accounted for a small portion of the income didn't matter as long as the train took in the gross needed to keep it profitable.  As lcl declined, as express dissapeared, as mail contracts were removed, passengers were the only ones paying and it wasn't enough to keep a train moving.  (This is all simplified but is the long story of passenger services in just a paragraph...I'm sure there are those who will pick apart each segment and argue a point or two, but overall it gives the big picture.)  Also, Americans are cheap and railroad barons of the 19th Century were ruthless and demanding.  The Grange was formed by farmers to combat monopolistic and seemingly high tariffs from the railroads.  This led to the Interstate Commerce Commission to oversee and mitigate the instituting of tariffs and complaints.  Passenger travel was short changed when both the solons of the City of New York and the State of New York insisted that a nickle be the fare paid to ride subway trains despite rising costs to operate.  Thus, the American traveler looked at riding a train...transit, commuter or long distance..as a right rather than a product to be purchased at a fair market price.  The need to keep ticket prices low became the practice until it was deemed  a public relations and advertising neccessity which was followed by outragious costs and elimination of the services.  (Again, a broad stroke overview.)  Add to all this the increased government support of highway transportation, military research and development of aircraft and operation of air traffic and municipal ownership and operation of airports and rail passenger service costs and use dwindle in comparison along with the increased unwillingness to pay for what you get because all the rest seems "free".

 

[oltmannd]

henry6

So why are we so argumentative, shy, and repulsed by passenger trains by Amtrak? 

I'm not.  I just want Amtrak improved.  As they are now, they're too easy a target for budget hawks.

So, you're OK with my deal or do you hate me?

[Anonymous]

henry6

But as to the question of the government providing assistance to transportation projects you can look to the Post Roads and turnpikes of  Colonial and Federal times and then the canals...New York State alone built the Erie Canal!  With rarilroads came the issuing of charters and permissions and bonding authority, etc., even governments a various levels subscribing to stock of the private railroads.  Then came airlines and airports, waterways and locks, power generating and distribution systems,  US and Federal highway programs.  So why are we so argumentative, shy, and repulsed by passenger trains by Amtrak?  Besides the way it has been handled that is. 

The government funding of transport infrastructure (local, state, and federal) was predicated on the premise that the users would pay the cost of the investment.  And for the most part they have.  The problem for passenger rail in the United States today is the low probability that the users will pay for it.  Therefore, it becomes a burden on the general taxpayer, as is the case with Amtrak.

[John WR]

What I understand, Henry, is that up to 1860 government tended to regard waterways as preferable to railroads because waterways often were free as they were rivers, lakes and the ocean and because the Erie Canal was so successful.  Wise and prudent men asked "Why should we build this expensive iron road when we can just put a boat or ship in the water?"

Early railroads usually connected inland points to tidewater or to connect tided water with tide water.  The only exceptions I know are the Baltimore and Ohio because a canal was not practical, the Erie Railroad which was built to satisfy New York's southern tier citizens who had been taxed to pay for the Erie Canal and the Illinois Central and Mobile and Ohio because of Stephen Douglas's ability to get Congressional pork.  

After the Civil War it is another story or a few stories.  Government generally tried to exploit railroads with a fair amount of success while railroad men did the same thing.  

[henry6]

But as to the question of the government providing assistance to transportation projects you can look to the Post Roads and turnpikes of  Colonial and Federal times and then the canals...New York State alone built the Erie Canal!  With rarilroads came the issuing of charters and permissions and bonding authority, etc., even governments a various levels subscribing to stock of the private railroads.  Then came airlines and airports, waterways and locks, power generating and distribution systems,  US and Federal highway programs.  So why are we so argumentative, shy, and repulsed by passenger trains by Amtrak?  Besides the way it has been handled that is.

 

[John WR]

henry6

But there is nothing new here...it is the same pro Amtrak and pro Rail arguements that have been put forth since the beginning of time and transcends backward to Colonial era turnpikes and postal roads through the canal era into the rail years and into the air with the Wright Bros. discovery.  It is political by all means, but dispted by those who don't understand history and forgotten by others.

I find it interesting that by the 1840's many people in government realized we needed a transcontinental railroad but for several reasons even those who agreed we needed it didn't want the government to build it.  After the Confederate States seceded it was at least possible to agree on a route.  It was perfectly clear to everyone that without some government assistance the transcontinentals would not be built for many years but the country needed them now.  In 1862, the Pacific Railroad Act was passed.  The intent was that railroads would be build that would serve the nation with no money to be raised through direct taxes.  Provided land grants to railroad companies seemed a good idea because most of the land where there transcontinentals were built was worthless without a railroad to provide transportation.  Also, railroad companies would be allowed to borrow money with the Federal Government guaranteeing payment.  Ultimately this became second mortgage bonds.  Finally, the Union Pacific would build west from Omaha and the Central Pacific would build east from San Francisco and competition would naturally regulate both competing railroads.  Somehow it didn't work out exactly as it was envisioned.  

[Deggesty]

Don, I agree with you about driving in Atlanta. Until this spring, I had not driven in Atlanta since 1962, and it was bad enough then.

This year,  I was not driving there when people were rushing to or from work, but it was bad enough--especially with Atlanta's non-system of streets. People talk about Boston's streets, but Atlanta has its own horrors.

[blownout cylinder]

That might actually work if you were in TO....

[henry6]

But there is nothing new here...it is the same pro Amtrak and pro Rail arguements that have been put forth since the beginning of time and transcends backward to Colonial era turnpikes and postal roads through the canal era into the rail years and into the air with the Wright Bros. discovery.  It is political by all means, but dispted by those who don't understand history and forgotten by others.

 

[PNWRMNM]

Don,

At the grave risk of being political, I think you should be a politician. Your reasons for supporting this innovative program are acutely appropriate.

Mac McCulloch

[oltmannd]

Oh, and if you are not for this, I can only conclude you hate me!

[oltmannd]

As you may be aware, many American cities have traffic issues.  Atlanta is one of them.  Some days, I drive to work on highly subsidized interstate highways.  They are terribly congested when I go.  I want to help fix the problem.

Here's my solution.  I'd like the Federal Gov't to collect an additional one cent tax from every income tax filer and pay it to me in exchange for a vow that I will never again use any highway during rush hour.  I'll leave my car in the garage except during off-peak hours.

Here are the benefits:

1. reduced highway congestion

2. Improved air quality

3. Improved quality of life

4. Reduced reliance on foreign oil

5. Reduced need for fire/police/ambulance

6. Reduced need for subsidized highway maintenance

Selling points:

1. The total cost is much much less than an Abrams main battle tank.  

2. I am a US citizen and deserving government benefits

3. The per person tax burden is exceedingly tiny, compared to other things the government buys

4. The government has many similar programs, like farmers being paid not to grow certain crops.

5. I will use the money to create jobs. (only the "good" kind)

6. The whole program would be less than the rounding error on many gov't programs

How could anybody possibly be against this!  Lobby your congressman now!  Meanwhile, I'm going to keep driving.  It's up to you.