blownout cylinderHaving had relatives that lived in the former East Germany and the Soviet Union does do certain things to a person.
Same here, blownout, but only the former DDR (Thuringia) in my case .
Abuses can take place anywhere. I'm not sure that the bonuses paid to executives are really even abuses. Certainly not illegal. Seems to me it is an intrinsic part of a system with little in the way of checks and balances (stockholders here have little voice). The decisions are made by "a single group of authorities controlling everything". And clearly abuses and corruption happen in all governments, rather less so in democratically elected ones. Most industrialized economies in the world are mixed, not purely market-driven, and they work pretty well. Probably the solution to our RR questions lies in some pragmatic, mixed approach as others wiser than myself suggested: use government bond-power, use private corporations to run the operation and pay back on the bonds.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm blownout cylinder schlimm $162 Bil. in bonuses for Wall Street executives in 2009. Great allocation of financial resources. Thank you to the omniscient, omnipotent "market." And some are incensed about $8 Bil. for HSR? That is not an 'open market' idea. That was stupidity. Don't be blaming an open market for stuff like that. The former USSR had graft of huge amounts----China's Gang of Four did stuff akin to this---need we go on? So it's the 'open market' only when it works well. But when corporate executives get huge bonuses, the former CEO of United Heathcare got 1 Bil. as a 'parting gift', Enron manipulations of the energy market, ad nauseam, that's "stupidity?" There is an appropriate place for the market, including HSR's and electrification, but the solution may require some government involvement as well. just as building transcontinental RR's did 150 years ago. I, and others are only suggesting that a blind faith in the "market" as the best/only mechanism to generate solutions and automatically rejecting the government is a highly ideological rather than pragmatic position to serious national problems.
blownout cylinder schlimm $162 Bil. in bonuses for Wall Street executives in 2009. Great allocation of financial resources. Thank you to the omniscient, omnipotent "market." And some are incensed about $8 Bil. for HSR? That is not an 'open market' idea. That was stupidity. Don't be blaming an open market for stuff like that. The former USSR had graft of huge amounts----China's Gang of Four did stuff akin to this---need we go on?
schlimm $162 Bil. in bonuses for Wall Street executives in 2009. Great allocation of financial resources. Thank you to the omniscient, omnipotent "market." And some are incensed about $8 Bil. for HSR?
$162 Bil. in bonuses for Wall Street executives in 2009. Great allocation of financial resources. Thank you to the omniscient, omnipotent "market." And some are incensed about $8 Bil. for HSR?
That is not an 'open market' idea. That was stupidity. Don't be blaming an open market for stuff like that. The former USSR had graft of huge amounts----China's Gang of Four did stuff akin to this---need we go on?
So it's the 'open market' only when it works well. But when corporate executives get huge bonuses, the former CEO of United Heathcare got 1 Bil. as a 'parting gift', Enron manipulations of the energy market, ad nauseam, that's "stupidity?" There is an appropriate place for the market, including HSR's and electrification, but the solution may require some government involvement as well. just as building transcontinental RR's did 150 years ago. I, and others are only suggesting that a blind faith in the "market" as the best/only mechanism to generate solutions and automatically rejecting the government is a highly ideological rather than pragmatic position to serious national problems.
Look. The point I made was that a 'centrally planned economy' is just as likely to be abused by those who will take advantage. You had regulatory bodies who did not do due diligence in many of these cases as well. You had gaps and loop holes taken advantage of. In the case of the former Soviet Union there was virtually no control over the upcoming--"russian mafia" that came out when the communist regime collapsed there--and look what is going on in China. Same thing. It is not the "Open Market" that does this--it is US as HUMANS that do these things.
Centrally Planned economies are just as prone to this kind of stuff----because human beings are involved. Having had relatives that lived in the former East Germany and the Soviet Union does do certain things to a person. I prefer to take a chance on an Open Market than on something that involves a single group of authorities controlling everything----sheeesh
A pragmatic solution should involve that "OTHER"----the open market as well----
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
blownout cylinderschlimm $162 Bil. in bonuses for Wall Street executives in 2009. Great allocation of financial resources. Thank you to the omniscient, omnipotent "market." And some are incensed about $8 Bil. for HSR? That is not an 'open market' idea. That was stupidity. Don't be blaming an open market for stuff like that. The former USSR had graft of huge amounts----China's Gang of Four did stuff akin to this---need we go on?
On this question of "let the market decide":
Mu MIT Alumni magazine informs me that Julius Ceaser decreed in the year 45 BCE that all private chariots were banned from downtown Rome between 6AM and 4PM.
Do you let the market decide when it comes to police, firemen, traffic lights, water, sewerage, etc? Some people do think transportation should be treated similarly.
There is a lot of route possibilities for HSR in the US that would probably make sense.
Miami - Orlando - Jacksonville
Tampa - Orlando - Jacksonville
Jacksonville - Atlanta
Jacksonville - New Orleans
Atlanta - Birmingham - New Orleans
New Orleans - Houston - San Antonio
Houston - Dallas
San Antonio - Austin - Dallas
Dallas - Denver
Dallas - Oklahoma City - Kansas City
Tucson - Phoenix - Los Angeles
Los Angeles - San Francisco
San Diego - Sacramento
Los Angeles - Las Vegas
And this is just across the southern tier. Not all of these routes if built will turn a profit in the first decade but they are all growth cities and connecting them with HSR will make sense in the long run. It was just yesterday that hundreds of domestic flights were cancelled and people were left stranded at airports due to a computer glitch in the ATC system. Most of the Interstates need major upgrades and gasoline will once again be on the rise. A fast alternative means to Air and highway travel is an absolute necessity as our population continues to grow. Not every city needs HSR but the ones I have mentioned in the southern tier are all growth cities and need alternative transportation methods.
Al - in - Stockton
wjstix and GN Fan: good points!
Back to HSR. I remember reading Trains 40 years ago when they had an annual Speed Survey by (the late?) Donald Steffee. Back then (pre-Amtrak, pre-FRA track speed limits) the US still was right up there on some passenger fast tracks. Now? Too bad it had to be d/c'd.
wjstix Europeans don't see it as a "luxury item" but more a "quality of life" issue...not only is it easier and cheaper than flying, it's also environmentally sound. Hard to believe in the US but in Europe it's not uncommon for a family to not own a car. They can commute to work, take daytrips on the weekend, or longer vacation trips all on public transportation. It's probably not going to be possible to get beyond the fact that Europeans and Americans have opposite views of life. In Europe the feeling is "if we pool our resources, we can create things that benefit all of us" - like rail transportation, health care, day care etc. In the US we feel "I want to keep all my money for myself, and to heck with everybody else". We pay lower taxes than any other industrialized nation, but think we pay the most...so politicians know it's suicide to put forward anything to help society as a whole if it would mean even a tiny tax increase. That's why we're a generation or two behind Europe in transportation.
Europeans don't see it as a "luxury item" but more a "quality of life" issue...not only is it easier and cheaper than flying, it's also environmentally sound. Hard to believe in the US but in Europe it's not uncommon for a family to not own a car. They can commute to work, take daytrips on the weekend, or longer vacation trips all on public transportation.
It's probably not going to be possible to get beyond the fact that Europeans and Americans have opposite views of life. In Europe the feeling is "if we pool our resources, we can create things that benefit all of us" - like rail transportation, health care, day care etc. In the US we feel "I want to keep all my money for myself, and to heck with everybody else". We pay lower taxes than any other industrialized nation, but think we pay the most...so politicians know it's suicide to put forward anything to help society as a whole if it would mean even a tiny tax increase. That's why we're a generation or two behind Europe in transportation.
As an expat now retired in Italy, I see WJSTIX point of view, but I also disagree on a few issues. It's really about freedom, and having choices is freedom. When you take away choices and give no alternatives, you lose freedom -- the freedom of choice, and that is waht you have in America. America calls itself the Land of the Free, and yet at the same time, transportation is only twofold -- either drive or fly, and both are VERY expensive. There is no alternative. I live in Trieste, a city of about 200,000 hard on the border with Slovenia. Outside my door are 7 bus routes, and within 2 blocks walk ther are 4 more. We have 55 buses per hour in front of our windows and can anywhere we wish. Venice is 2 hours 6 minutes away, and there are about 30 trains a day each way. It is not a high speed route and trains are limited to 90 MPH -- very fast by USA standards, but just a normal train here. Buses travel the routes that trains do not, mostly into Slovenia and Croatia. I have not driven since we left the the US some 5 years ago, and do not expect to. I have that fredom of choice -- you do not.
I will be traveling to the US in a few months and want to visit my son and my sister. One lives in the bay area amd one near LA. Driving time is 6.5 hours while Amrak is closer to 12 hours. Fast?? Absolutely crawling. I leave around 8AM and arrive close to midnight. I like trains or that would no a non-starter.
As for taxes, WJSTIX is absolutely wrong. The taxes are really equal because of symantics. The Italian tax rate usually is over 40% which is appalling to Americans. In 2003 I paid less that 7%. BUT -- add in 13% social security (yours plus the employer's share), medicare, and both your and your employer's share of health insurance, health deductibles and co-pays, unemployement taxes, and all that, it's about even. You have to remember that the Italian 40% includes social nets that Americans totally lack. It's not an even playing field when you look just at income tax -- not even close.
I retired with social security at about 20% of my average wage, as did my wife who was born and raised here but immigrated to the US when we were married in 1968. She has high school friends her who are her age and have been retired for years. You can retire with full benefits after 35 years, so by age 53, you get full retirement. They retired with 60-100% of their LAST wage, not just the average. We feel poor and are ashamed of our meager retirement. THIS is what you pay for -- in addition to high speed rail. I can be in Milan by rail in 4.5 hours -- you can't even make it that fast if you fly. The last time I checked, the rail fare was about 80€ and the air fare arout 450€. With gas at $8 a gallon -- only Americans drive. The trains are packed here, and they love it. You're living in a cacoon.
Sometimes one must be a dictator. As one, you know what has to be done, what your advisers say has to be done, or whatever reason there is that something, a particular something, has to be done. So you remove, downgrade, ignore or otherwise eliminate, the value of everything else. It is how the record companies launched rock and roll (no fooling, read the book "Hit Men") and it is how railroad companies eliminated the passenger train from their records and the public eye.
Er, no, Crandell, this is not aimed at you!!!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Fellas, the discussion is becoming circuitous and at the same time more political. Please do try to ask simple questions and avoid accusations. If the other(s) don't provide direct answers, or if they continually hedge and prevaricate, then the conversation should be over. Interested readers will have long since forumated an opinion or conclusions about the topic, so what's left is becoming stale and leaning towards being piqued and political.
It has to stop.
-Crandell
schlimm htgguy Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to when the free market is not the best tool for allocating capital, who should determine when those conditions are met, and what mechanism should replace it? Don't just criticize, propose alternatives. I think the free market is the best capital allocation tool. You don't, but you fail to say what should replace it. I said there are other mechanisms (other than profit-driven or "government fiat") which we use nearly every day. You seem so ideological about this that you perhaps have overlooked some.
htgguy Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to when the free market is not the best tool for allocating capital, who should determine when those conditions are met, and what mechanism should replace it? Don't just criticize, propose alternatives. I think the free market is the best capital allocation tool. You don't, but you fail to say what should replace it.
Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to when the free market is not the best tool for allocating capital, who should determine when those conditions are met, and what mechanism should replace it?
Don't just criticize, propose alternatives. I think the free market is the best capital allocation tool. You don't, but you fail to say what should replace it.
I said there are other mechanisms (other than profit-driven or "government fiat") which we use nearly every day. You seem so ideological about this that you perhaps have overlooked some.
What are these mechanisms?
Visit look4trains.com
NASA used the dreaded "open market" going to private/investor funded firms to do contract work on all kinds of missions. There are private/public partnerships that have worked in all kinds of areas. Germany has done partnerships and IPO's for spun off segments of their RR's in the recent past. Let's just say that .
Sheesh--we all seem to need the drug--Sombunall---Some But Not All---
htgguyPerhaps you would care to enlighten us as to when the free market is not the best tool for allocating capital, who should determine when those conditions are met, and what mechanism should replace it? Don't just criticize, propose alternatives. I think the free market is the best capital allocation tool. You don't, but you fail to say what should replace it.
htguy, you are not paying attention. I don't criticze the alternative except for the one to do nothing.
Marketing and political bent are two of the most powerful tools working on the populace. I jokingly say that the greatest marketing feats in our life time have been the NFL, Rock and Roll, Vanna White, Madonna, and the World Wrestling Federation. But on the serious side so are TV, the mini vans and SUV's, automobiles in general, religious pursuasions, the cereal you eat, the restaurant you go to, the ciggarette you smoke(d) and why you (should) quit; the style clothes you wear, the movies you see, I mean I don't believe there is much in ourlives that hasn't been marketed, sold, forced upon us or otherwise made attractive to our lifestyles and choices. Does the market make the decision?...only for whoever did the best marketing job.
My rant is that something has to be done to assure an economical, safe, efficient, environmentally sound, and user freindly passenger and freight transportation system for our future has to be planned today. HSR certainly has to be included in the planning.discussions.
htgguy schlimm henry6I am not totally sure that the market will find the correct answer though. I am not sure the "market" is the only way to find answers to allocation nor is it always the best or most appropriate way. Many times it is, but there are some/many sectors where capitalism - decisions based on profit/return on investment - may not be the best mechanism. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to when the free market is not the best tool for allocating capital, who should determine when those conditions are met, and what mechanism should replace it? Don't just criticize, propose alternatives. I think the free market is the best capital allocation tool. You don't, but you fail to say what should replace it.
schlimm henry6I am not totally sure that the market will find the correct answer though. I am not sure the "market" is the only way to find answers to allocation nor is it always the best or most appropriate way. Many times it is, but there are some/many sectors where capitalism - decisions based on profit/return on investment - may not be the best mechanism.
henry6I am not totally sure that the market will find the correct answer though.
I am not sure the "market" is the only way to find answers to allocation nor is it always the best or most appropriate way. Many times it is, but there are some/many sectors where capitalism - decisions based on profit/return on investment - may not be the best mechanism.
I would like the critics of an open market to at least try to make alternatives here. Since they do seem to know what is 'incorrect' I do think they can propose their own 'perfect system'. Let us hear of it---
That is the core of the debate about HSR. Probably the most obvious example of a government response being preferable to a private sector marketing response is going to war to defend the country from foreign enemy invasion. With HSR, the choice of government response is far less compelling. Why would it be preferable?
Boston - NY vs. NY Washington. Boston - NY high percentage of college students, vacationers, etc. vs high percentage of business travelers. Longer travel times by rail because of Metro North restrictions. Buses are NOT taking signifacant trips from rail NY -Washington. But despite the desertion to buses, Boston - NY remains a good market for Amtrak, and is bolstered by Providence, New London, and New Haven also being good markets.
That is reality, As for speculation, I think overnight sleeper travel could again appeal to business travelers if everything was done right. And I mean everything. Comforfable accomodations, quiet and lack of vibration and smooth operation, courteous service, on time arrivals, etc. A round trip cost competitive with air fare plus hotel.
Amtrak's verson of HSR on the Boston to New York, is losing market share to.....a bus!
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/11/17/cheaper_fares_web_access_draw_many_to_bus_travel/
Build it and they will come my foot!
An "expensive model collector"
schlimm beaulieuBut there are something on the order of 30 to 40 flights per day from Minneapolis to Chicago between the various Airline companies, and similar amounts between Dallas and Houston, etc. that could easily be replaced. Hear! Hear! Similar deal Chicago to St. Louis: 28 non-stop flights per day on a ~300 mile flight that the airlines manage in 1 1/2 hours. Add one hour minimum for security and boarding and two hours to and from airports to downtowns. Even a 100 mph average train would dominate the market. Or Atlanta to Charlotte: 24 non-stop flights per day on a 240 mile flight, again in ~ 1 1/2 hours. Add 3 hours on the ground, etc. and an 80 mph train (not even HSR) would dominate.
beaulieuBut there are something on the order of 30 to 40 flights per day from Minneapolis to Chicago between the various Airline companies, and similar amounts between Dallas and Houston, etc. that could easily be replaced.
Hear! Hear!
Similar deal Chicago to St. Louis: 28 non-stop flights per day on a ~300 mile flight that the airlines manage in 1 1/2 hours. Add one hour minimum for security and boarding and two hours to and from airports to downtowns. Even a 100 mph average train would dominate the market.
Or Atlanta to Charlotte: 24 non-stop flights per day on a 240 mile flight, again in ~ 1 1/2 hours. Add 3 hours on the ground, etc. and an 80 mph train (not even HSR) would dominate.
No HSR would not dominate the market. I see this argument from HSR cheerleaders very often, and all is shows is the lack of knowledge of how airlines work. Most people who fly from St Louis to Chicago, or Atlanta to Charlotte are not using those two cities as endpoints. One must remember that Chicago is a major hub for United, American and Southwest Airlines. Atlanta is a major hub for Delta and Airtran, Charlotte is a hub for US Air. Most people who board a flight in St Louis are going somewhere besides Chicago, but have to fly through Chicago due to airlines hub and spoke system. These people have no interest in the fact that rail will drop them off in downtown Chicago, they want to be 15 miles northwest of there to go on to there destination. Now maybe one could use HSR as a feeder, going from airport to airport and rid of regional flights. But that would kill one of the major points of HSR, the "downtown to downtown" trip.
htgguy henry6 We are the individual sums of our experiences, our learnings, our social and political upbringing. So of course all our thinking can be considered "tainted" by anyone else! I am not totally sure that the market will find the correct answer though. I believe we are marketed to and duped so much we don't really know what we really like. I think, for instance, that our music tastes have been marketed to us by minipulative record company executives: they forced a product on us while ignoring other products available...and in demand...but with smaller profit margins. The NFL is a great example of marketing: changed and altered to fit the television format in ways that enticed many to get involved who would not otherwise have gotten involved. Baseball did not; hockey cannot figure it out; basketball has done quite well but in more urban areas. Airlines and highways were also marketed to us in such an appealing and universal way that passenger rail fell off and freight rail fell out of the public's mind. So, the public can be pursuaded when you give them a lot of what you want and as little as possible as what they think they want. If the market won't find the correct answer, then what will find the correct answer? A bureaucrat? Elected leaders? A poll?
henry6 We are the individual sums of our experiences, our learnings, our social and political upbringing. So of course all our thinking can be considered "tainted" by anyone else! I am not totally sure that the market will find the correct answer though. I believe we are marketed to and duped so much we don't really know what we really like. I think, for instance, that our music tastes have been marketed to us by minipulative record company executives: they forced a product on us while ignoring other products available...and in demand...but with smaller profit margins. The NFL is a great example of marketing: changed and altered to fit the television format in ways that enticed many to get involved who would not otherwise have gotten involved. Baseball did not; hockey cannot figure it out; basketball has done quite well but in more urban areas. Airlines and highways were also marketed to us in such an appealing and universal way that passenger rail fell off and freight rail fell out of the public's mind. So, the public can be pursuaded when you give them a lot of what you want and as little as possible as what they think they want.
We are the individual sums of our experiences, our learnings, our social and political upbringing. So of course all our thinking can be considered "tainted" by anyone else!
I am not totally sure that the market will find the correct answer though. I believe we are marketed to and duped so much we don't really know what we really like. I think, for instance, that our music tastes have been marketed to us by minipulative record company executives: they forced a product on us while ignoring other products available...and in demand...but with smaller profit margins. The NFL is a great example of marketing: changed and altered to fit the television format in ways that enticed many to get involved who would not otherwise have gotten involved. Baseball did not; hockey cannot figure it out; basketball has done quite well but in more urban areas. Airlines and highways were also marketed to us in such an appealing and universal way that passenger rail fell off and freight rail fell out of the public's mind. So, the public can be pursuaded when you give them a lot of what you want and as little as possible as what they think they want.
If the market won't find the correct answer, then what will find the correct answer? A bureaucrat? Elected leaders? A poll?
The part that was bolded did have me kind of surprised. Since it is all manipulation--in marketing---as well as in politics( haven't we ALL seen this going down for the last who knows how long?)--- then you will have to be careful of all information. You cannot be trusting of political pundits just as you cannot blindly trust marketing men either. All information must be placed under the scope. Doubt is reasonable, paranoia not so much...
Also, to think that there is a correct way to do any of this is misrepresenting what is a process. Who is going to be the judge of said process? A detached observor from Mars?
I am thinking that there are pragmatic ways of getting funding done that can give a kind of incremental form of HSR that should be regional in approach. No large scale 'system' a la Amtrak, but one that will start some processes going on. The financing will have to get done in a number of ways---I do not think excluding an open market will work either---but it will have to be done in such a way that governental control is kept to a minimum.
Maybe it works that way with you, but I don’t believe most people are as duped by marketing as you seem to think. I give people a lot more credit than that. You seem to believe that marketing tells people what they want. I believe that people know what they want first, and marketing then seeks to detect that want and fulfill it with the right products.
If you don't trust the market, then what do you trust? I don't understand how you think decisions should be made about where society should spend its (not unlimited) money. I don't trust policticians or bureaucrats to make my decisions-I think I should make them, pay for what I want, and deal with the consequences.
The problem with passenger trains was and is not marketing-it's that people like the speed of air travel or the flexibility of auto travel. Trains can't compete with either of these, a fact that airlines and automakers recognized and capitalized on. The public will get as much of what they want as they can with the money that they have available. Why should the public care about freight rail-all they care about is that the stores and factories they obtain things from are using the most cost-effective mode available to transport raw materials and finished goods, to keep the price as economical as possible.
It seems like you think people are ignorant sheeple who need to be guided in their decision making by a benevolent overseer, while I think people should be given a choice of whatever is possible at the price it really costs and they can choose what THEY want, rather than what the benevolent one thinks is best for them.
tree68 htgguyWhat is the best way to decide whether a given project contributes to a balanced and integrated (and low cost) transportation system? I think I have been pretty clear that the market will make the best decision, but I'm not sure what your specific view on how these decisions should be made is. The answer is, of course, return on investment. Unfortunately, that can't always be quantified on a balance sheet. What is the social/environmental payback of removing 20 or so of those "short hop" flights between {name your endpoints}? Of reducing the number of vehicles on the highway? For that matter, what is the payback of adding a couple of lanes to some freeway - lanes that will simply fill up again? Or adding a new runway or terminal buildings to an airport? We're willing to spend millions and billions trying to make the existing infrastructure handle more people - be it roads or airports. Both exist by virtue of significant subsidies from the taxpayer. You don't see anybody building private highways or airports, do you? The NYS Thruway was supposed to go toll-free years ago. They just raised the tolls, again. HSR needs to be considered on its merits as part of the overall passenger transportation system and be funded accordingly. We know it's not going to survive on its own.
htgguyWhat is the best way to decide whether a given project contributes to a balanced and integrated (and low cost) transportation system? I think I have been pretty clear that the market will make the best decision, but I'm not sure what your specific view on how these decisions should be made is.
The answer is, of course, return on investment. Unfortunately, that can't always be quantified on a balance sheet. What is the social/environmental payback of removing 20 or so of those "short hop" flights between {name your endpoints}? Of reducing the number of vehicles on the highway?
For that matter, what is the payback of adding a couple of lanes to some freeway - lanes that will simply fill up again? Or adding a new runway or terminal buildings to an airport?
We're willing to spend millions and billions trying to make the existing infrastructure handle more people - be it roads or airports. Both exist by virtue of significant subsidies from the taxpayer. You don't see anybody building private highways or airports, do you? The NYS Thruway was supposed to go toll-free years ago. They just raised the tolls, again.
HSR needs to be considered on its merits as part of the overall passenger transportation system and be funded accordingly. We know it's not going to survive on its own.
On the one hand, decision making by evaluating the numbers that determine return on investment seems very unpopular, but on the other hand no one seems to be able to come up with a workable alternative other than "I think we should build more highways" or "HSR is the best investment".
It's unfair to keep throwing the highway argument out, when in many places, at least, they are paid for by dedicated user taxes and fees. As I have posted before, in Minnesota, where I live, users pay at least 90% of highway construction and repair costs. That is not a significant subsidy by the taxpayer-that's the users of infrastructure paying for what they utilize.
Why is there social value to removing vehicles on the highway? No one is forcing those people to be out there driving, they are working, or travelling, or joyriding, or going to grandma's. They WANT to be travelling, and they see using the highway as the best option they have. Why can't THEY decide how they should travel, rather than having you, or I, or some faceless bureaucrat decide how they should travel?
That's also how water systems, and sanitary sewer systems, and other infrastructure are paid for. In fact, in a lot of locations, those "infrastructure" items even charge users enough that the users provide a subsidy to the general fund.
When you build something the user is paying for, and it fills up, the market is signalling that there is demand for that thing at the price that is being charged for it. If the price (user fees) were too high, then two things would happen-people would quit driving (demand would decrease) and highways would stop being built (supply would level off or fall to meet the new level of demand). Seems to me the NYS Thruway is a perfect example of user fees funding infrastructure. Why should the fees go away, when their is a cost to providing the Thruway? Do you think it would be better to pay for it with magic subsidy dollars? I don't-I think it's right that the users pay for it. If the fees get too high, fewer people will use the freeway, revenue and maintenance cost will fall, the price will decline, and more people will start driving on the freeway again. The market will find the price people are willing to pay for a service or good.
And it's not true that there is no investment in other modes of transport. Why, just this week, the Northstar Commuter Rail operation in the Twin Cities began operating. Obviously, it's subsidized-who gets to decide that spending tax money on this operation has "social value" and how do they quantify it?
Of course, if you set the price (or user fee) artifically low by subsidy (see Northstar, Amtrak, and HSR proposals), demand is created that would not exist if the user needed to pay the full price of the service. This leads to building more capacity, and paying more subsidy. And if that's not bad enough, it reduces the amount of capital available for things that users are willing to pay full price (or closer to full price) for. Thus, bad capital allocation decisions result. That hurts everyone in society. It makes society less wealthy, and the standard of living of the population is lower as a result.
So I will ask, again-if you aren't willing to let market forces (and they are certainly at work, even when the money is funneled through government agencies, in funding highways) decide how best to allocate capital, how do you propose to make those decisons? Using ROI numbers isn't a bad system just because it doesn't direct money where an individual thinks it should be going.
schlimm blownout cylinder henry6But lets face it, everyone who has been in this thread, everyone who discusses the government and transportation, the government and HSR, passenger trains, airlines, waterways, highways, et. al., do so with a given political bent. Therefore there is no reslove. Especially here Are you going to say that you have a political bent as well? Or, are you going to place yourself in a 'enlightened' knowing position? I don't see that in henry6's statement. I do see it in how one writes the thing. If he said "We all have---" then there might not be this quibble. But--"everyone---" is sometimes used to describe others outside of the writer---- blownout cylinderwhat happens when people try to complete a project demanding a few decades of work and financial labour into a few days/weeks. Not in days or weeks (and just who is suggesting we can complete a HSR system in that time frame?) but several years: Manhattan Project, Moon landing.
blownout cylinder henry6But lets face it, everyone who has been in this thread, everyone who discusses the government and transportation, the government and HSR, passenger trains, airlines, waterways, highways, et. al., do so with a given political bent. Therefore there is no reslove. Especially here Are you going to say that you have a political bent as well? Or, are you going to place yourself in a 'enlightened' knowing position?
henry6But lets face it, everyone who has been in this thread, everyone who discusses the government and transportation, the government and HSR, passenger trains, airlines, waterways, highways, et. al., do so with a given political bent. Therefore there is no reslove. Especially here
Are you going to say that you have a political bent as well? Or, are you going to place yourself in a 'enlightened' knowing position?
I don't see that in henry6's statement.
I do see it in how one writes the thing. If he said "We all have---" then there might not be this quibble. But--"everyone---" is sometimes used to describe others outside of the writer----
blownout cylinderwhat happens when people try to complete a project demanding a few decades of work and financial labour into a few days/weeks.
Not in days or weeks (and just who is suggesting we can complete a HSR system in that time frame?) but several years: Manhattan Project, Moon landing.
True about getting the things done, but the debates are acted upon as if we are all supposed to have all the answers and know ahead of time what will--or won't happen. Anyone have the power to foresee the future here?
blownout cylinderhenry6But lets face it, everyone who has been in this thread, everyone who discusses the government and transportation, the government and HSR, passenger trains, airlines, waterways, highways, et. al., do so with a given political bent. Therefore there is no reslove. Especially here Are you going to say that you have a political bent as well? Or, are you going to place yourself in a 'enlightened' knowing position?
tree68The answer is, of course, return on investment. Unfortunately, that can't always be quantified on a balance sheet. What is the social/environmental payback of removing 20 or so of those "short hop" flights between {name your endpoints}? Of reducing the number of vehicles on the highway? For that matter, what is the payback of adding a couple of lanes to some freeway - lanes that will simply fill up again? Or adding a new runway or terminal buildings to an airport? We're willing to spend millions and billions trying to make the existing infrastructure handle more people - be it roads or airports. Both exist by virtue of significant subsidies from the taxpayer. You don't see anybody building private highways or airports, do you? The NYS Thruway was supposed to go toll-free years ago. They just raised the tolls, again. HSR needs to be considered on its merits as part of the overall passenger transportation system and be funded accordingly. We know it's not going to survive on its own.
Very well-stated!
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.