Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
When the state and federal governments invested in canals and railroads during the early days of the Republic, they expected the operators would be able to cover the cost of the investments through user rates.  For the most part they did, i.e. the B&O was a profitable railroad for more than a century. Unfortunately, no passenger train in the U.S. covers its fully attributed costs.  In fact, with the exception of the NEC, plus three state supported and other short distance trains, none of them covered their operating costs in FY 2008. Those who supported the SST and Super Collider, amongst other projects, claimed that the folks who opposed them lacked vision.  It's a matter of perspective.  The SST, which was operated only by British Airways and Air France, never made a dime.  In fact, they were a heavy drain on both airlines.  And even the spendthrift U.S. Congress finally realized that the Super Collider was a bottomless money pit.  If the proponents of high speed rail, which admittedly has many definitions, really believe that they are visionaries, they would find a way to fund it with private capital.  Of course, to attract private capital, they would have to show the investors that there is a reasonable chance of making money on their investments.  But they can't.  So they take a tin cup to the federal government and claim that transportation Armageddon is just around the corner unless the U.S. builds high speed rail.
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