Victrola1 "The completion of ADM’s new $540 million dry mill ethanol plant in Cedar Rapids has created a need for more railroad track. The CRANDIC Railway began construction this month of a hew 9,000-foot track that will go from Old Bridge Road to just east of Fairfax, CRANDIC Marketing Manager Jeff Woods said." http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/2010/08/19/adm-expansion-requires-crandic-to-add-track (Sorry, can not activate link) Just enter a space in front of link HT now activated!! No report of NIMBY activity, yet.
"The completion of ADM’s new $540 million dry mill ethanol plant in Cedar Rapids has created a need for more railroad track.
The CRANDIC Railway began construction this month of a hew 9,000-foot track that will go from Old Bridge Road to just east of Fairfax, CRANDIC Marketing Manager Jeff Woods said."
http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/2010/08/19/adm-expansion-requires-crandic-to-add-track
(Sorry, can not activate link)
Just enter a space in front of link HT now activated!!
No report of NIMBY activity, yet.
YoHo1975Bucyrus To what extent are they subsidized? Every day, governments give away an estimated two billion dollars of taxpayer money to the fossil fuel industry. Most industrialised countries subsidise oil, coal and natural gas production to reduce the cost of finding and producing oil for oil companies. Countries in the developing world subsidise the cost of buying fuel to the public. Experts agree that both forms of subsidies encourage consumption of fossil fuels and thus increase the price of oil the petroleum industry "probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country", according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury's former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free Research-and-development programs at low or no cost Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth) The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve Construction and protection of the nation's highway system Why does a company like Exxonmobil need 1 dime of subsidy to do anything?
Bucyrus To what extent are they subsidized?
To what extent are they subsidized?
Most industrialised countries subsidise oil, coal and natural gas production to reduce the cost of finding and producing oil for oil companies. Countries in the developing world subsidise the cost of buying fuel to the public. Experts agree that both forms of subsidies encourage consumption of fossil fuels and thus increase the price of oil
the petroleum industry "probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country", according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury's former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy
Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead
Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Construction and protection of the nation's highway system
Why does a company like Exxonmobil need 1 dime of subsidy to do anything?
When I say that wind energy is subsidized, and you counter above that the rest of the energy industry is also subsidized, what exactly are you concluding about the cost and viability of wind energy?
This is a great thread!
Some of you may be following the struggle to get a passenger train running between Milwaukee and Madison, Wis. What started out as a good idea has turned into a politicla football.
I just wrote a blog about this for the Trains Web site: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/blogs/trains-talk/2010/08/20/my-night-with-the-train-haters.aspx
It was my first experience first-hand with this. Your comments, and examples from around the country, have been fascinating to read.
Matt Van Hattem
Senior Editor
Bucyrus When I say that wind energy is subsidized, and you counter above that the rest of the energy industry is also subsidized, what exactly are you concluding about the cost and viability of wind energy?
All of our energy is heavily subsidized. Nobody has ever paid an unsubsidized price for gas at the pump, a kilowatt of electricity, or a BTU of heat. Complaining that wind power is only viable because its subsidized is either devious or ignorant. Demanding that the Government not subsidize windpower, while not also demanding the end of subsidized coal, oil and natural gas is disingenuous and stupid.
Not to get too political, but I personally am fine with a Keynesian economic policy, If people are not, then they need to at least be consistent. Across the board. Not pick and choose because its a new thing that has come up in their lifetime rather than something that's been in place for a century.
Matt Van Hattem This is a great thread! Some of you may be following the struggle to get a passenger train running between Milwaukee and Madison, Wis. What started out as a good idea has turned into a politicla football. I just wrote a blog about this for the Trains Web site: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/blogs/trains-talk/2010/08/20/my-night-with-the-train-haters.aspx It was my first experience first-hand with this. Your comments, and examples from around the country, have been fascinating to read. Matt Van Hattem Senior Editor
Matt,
I think your use of the term “train hater” is a politically inflammatory cheap shot. It implies that anyone passionately opposed to publicly funded rail projects has a character flaw. The political left is always referring to the political right as “haters,” as a way to demonize the right’s opposition to runaway government spending and expansion, which is often predicated on compassion. It is very similar to the left’s use of the term “global warming denier” as a way to link opposition to the anti-carbon agenda to the seeming stupidity and unreasonableness of denying the holocaust as in the term, "holocaust denier," which is the only other popular use of the term, denier.
When I read your piece, I don’t see many examples of what I would call NIMBYISM. NIMBYS oppose projects because they object to the impact, noise, dust, danger, and the affect on their property values. Instead, what I read in your piece are many examples of the political objection to the runaway expansion of government, which is leading us away from a free market economy, and toward a socialist, redistributionist system. If the country were chugging along with a balanced budget, a government living within its means, economic growth, job creation, and an optimistic future, I doubt there would much opposition to a publicly funded passenger rail project.
Where is the hatred in opposing public funding of rail projects that people don’t think are the best use of taxpayers’ money?
Victrola1 "The completion of ADM’s new $540 million dry mill ethanol plant in Cedar Rapids has created a need for more railroad track. The CRANDIC Railway began construction this month of a hew 9,000-foot track that will go from Old Bridge Road to just east of Fairfax, CRANDIC Marketing Manager Jeff Woods said." http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/2010/08/19/adm-expansion-requires-crandic-to-add-track (Sorry, can not activate link) No report of NIMBY activity, yet.
Don't forget the joint yard that was proposed by CRANDIC and U.P. to be put in just east of Fairfax, Iowa -- just about where this new track is going to go -- and the NIMBYs that objected to it. Too much noise, too much damage to the envrionment, too much danger to children that might be moving into the area since somebody might want to build a housing addition near the same place... The excuses were manyfold, but mainly were of the "Not In My Back Yard" variety
.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Outrage that is sometimes valid and sometimes irrational and often ignores large sections of historical fact. As the comments about cars and highways and Priuses indicate. Of course, I grew up in Chicago and have lived in San Diego and Portland, Rail transportation is, to me, part of being a modern city and I think anyone that opposes it is crazy.
And rail transport has been subsidized since Lincoln signed the transcontinental railroad act if not earlier as has every single transportation project in this nation. So I really struggle to find common ground on this issue.
But that is political and generally not NIMBY.
One thing railroads actually could be involved in ---- preventing flooding by not building fills that completely dam wetlands and riverbeds. The railroad construction crews must put culverts in the filled areas. The culverts are needed everywhere there is a big rock fill. They also help amphibians and reptiles migrate.
What should not be in anybody's town or Front Yard are Mailboxes and Newspaper Tubes that are randomly placed, have rotting wood, rusting metal, and are falling or bent. Start getting people with College Degrees to relplace those nasty things along the roads of small towns. Why is there never any action on that everyday eyesore of badly constructed and impossible to install correctly Mailboxes and Paper Tubes?
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Apparently a number of California "tree huggers" have moved to Durango, Colorado to retire. My brother-in-law told me that a portion of those folks have complained to the city fathers about the presence of coal smoke in certain enclaves around town, and they, the tree-huggers, don't like that. Apparently all of those vacuously chic, trendy, fashionably hip and liberal left-coast environmentalists take great offense at the way the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad powers its trains. Having been in Durango just a month before, it appears to me that the city father's have turned a deaf ear to their requests.
Decades ago while poking around the C.& N.W.'s tracks in downtown Elgin, Ill. an old, retired railroad man approached me and we struck up a conversation.
"Diesel smoke," he advised, "is bad for you. Breathing it will give you cancer."
"But coal smoke," he further implored, "is good for you. Coal smoke has vitamins!"
That ol' boy may be right. I've always enjoyed the smell of burning coal.
Bob-FrymlApparently a number of California "tree huggers" have moved to Durango, Colorado to retire. My brother-in-law told me that a portion of those folks have complained to the city fathers about the presence of coal smoke in certain enclaves around town, and they, the tree-huggers, don't like that. Apparently all of those vacuously chic, trendy, fashionably hip and liberal left-coast environmentalists take great offense at the way the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad powers its trains. Having been in Durango just a month before, it appears to me that the city father's have turned a deaf ear to their requests. Decades ago while poking around the C.& N.W.'s tracks in downtown Elgin, Ill. an old, retired railroad man approached me and we struck up a conversation. "Diesel smoke," he advised, "is bad for you. Breathing it will give you cancer." "But coal smoke," he further implored, "is good for you. Coal smoke has vitamins!" That ol' boy may be right. I've always enjoyed the smell of burning coal.
BucyrusMatt Van Hattem This is a great thread! Some of you may be following the struggle to get a passenger train running between Milwaukee and Madison, Wis. What started out as a good idea has turned into a politicla football. I just wrote a blog about this for the Trains Web site: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/blogs/trains-talk/2010/08/20/my-night-with-the-train-haters.aspx It was my first experience first-hand with this. Your comments, and examples from around the country, have been fascinating to read. Matt Van Hattem Senior Editor Matt, I think your use of the term “train hater” is a politically inflammatory cheap shot. It implies that anyone passionately opposed to publicly funded rail projects has a character flaw. The political left is always referring to the political right as “haters,” as a way to demonize the right’s opposition to runaway government spending and expansion, which is often predicated on compassion. It is very similar to the left’s use of the term “global warming denier” as a way to link opposition to the anti-carbon agenda to the seeming stupidity and unreasonableness of denying the holocaust as in the term, "holocaust denier," which is the only other popular use of the term, denier. When I read your piece, I don’t see many examples of what I would call NIMBYISM. NIMBYS oppose projects because they object to the impact, noise, dust, danger, and the affect on their property values. Instead, what I read in your piece are many examples of the political objection to the runaway expansion of government, which is leading us away from a free market economy, and toward a socialist, redistributionist system. If the country were chugging along with a balanced budget, a government living within its means, economic growth, job creation, and an optimistic future, I doubt there would much opposition to a publicly funded passenger rail project. Where is the hatred in opposing public funding of rail projects that people don’t think are the best use of taxpayers’ money?
DITTO!
This reminds me of a local fiasco I ran into several years ago. At the time, I was employed at Dean Foods in Wayland, MI. We were recieving anywhere between 30-40 semi-tankers of soybean oil, corn syrup, etc. every day. I contacted Norfolk Southern sales dept. and asked them to look into our situation.( our plant was right beside the Kalamazoo-Grand Rapids NS line) They sent out a sales rep. and things started to look pretty good. Rates were set, plans were made for re-installing a long gone siding, and we were all-set. Or so it seemed.... Once the local city NIMBYS got wind of it, all Hell broke loose. "Oh boy, more train traffic", "will our school busses be safe in town now?" REALLY, Come on now! One siding, 5 mph switching, once a day, usually in the evening? All the sudden the NIMBYS think there is going to be 150mph trains ripping through town every ten minutes. All this hoopla for a siding for corn syrup tank cars.... After the dust settled, we got our siding, we took about 30 semis off the towns streets every day, and guess what? No school busses got destroyed, no noise issues came about, but still, no matter where you go. There are still the idiots that say, Not In My Backyard!!!!!!
Todd
YoHo1975rrnut282 We have one NIMBY who dials the sherrif's department as soon as the crossing gates go down to complain that the crossing is blocked. Nevermind he built his house about 20 years after NS built a passing siding that crosses "his" road and he can drive around the block to go out to the highway. I can read every week in the local paper where a citation was actually issued or it was on the court docket and NS was fined. The genius "knows railroads are on the way out" and that's why he built there. Wait, I'm confused, are you saying that the local police and courts actually issues a fine on this bull? How is that even possible?
rrnut282 We have one NIMBY who dials the sherrif's department as soon as the crossing gates go down to complain that the crossing is blocked. Nevermind he built his house about 20 years after NS built a passing siding that crosses "his" road and he can drive around the block to go out to the highway. I can read every week in the local paper where a citation was actually issued or it was on the court docket and NS was fined. The genius "knows railroads are on the way out" and that's why he built there.
We have one NIMBY who dials the sherrif's department as soon as the crossing gates go down to complain that the crossing is blocked. Nevermind he built his house about 20 years after NS built a passing siding that crosses "his" road and he can drive around the block to go out to the highway. I can read every week in the local paper where a citation was actually issued or it was on the court docket and NS was fined.
The genius "knows railroads are on the way out" and that's why he built there.
He calls so many times, that eventually, the sheriff witnesses a blockage exceeding the 10minutes allowed by law, and a citation is issued. With many trains over a mile long, when there is a meet there, chances are the crossing will be blocked. Most crews/dispatchers are aware of the situation and if they know they will be there for more than a half hour, they will cut the crossing while they wait. when NS gets tired of the fines, they just stop on the main before the siding, sometimes blocking 2 or 3 crossing just to avoid this nimrod.
This is the last siding on the New Castle District before it goes into Fort Wayne, and many trains are held here waiting their turn in the yard or a slot in the track they are taking out of Fort Wayne. Unfortunately, Triple Crown trains can't be cut out on the road, so they have to block the crossing while they wait, which is rare.
YoHo1975And rail transport has been subsidized since Lincoln signed the transcontinental railroad act if not earlier as has every single transportation project in this nation. So I really struggle to find common ground on this issue. But that is political and generally not NIMBY.
No, it hasn't been subsidized since Lincoln. Statements such as this are a ruse used to support a position. As in: "Everybody does it" or "It's an established procedure." Saying it doesn't make it so.
I guess he's talking about the land grants, which predated Lincoln. The government used them for a lot of things such as railroads, canals, and universities. A long time ago I graduated from a land grant university.
I'll leave aside the arguments as to whether the railroads paid back the grants, (I believe they did) and simply point out that there is a major, critical difference between the land grants and the subsidies sought for this incredibly wasteful train service. The land grants took an otherwise basically useless resource and made it useful. The land was useless without transportation because anything produced on the land could not be moved to market. So a useless, but potentially useful, resource was developed. The government took nothing of value away from someone and gave it to someone else.
That isn't the case with these trains. The government will have to take economic resources away from productive, wealth creating, segments of the economy and put it in to a money loosing, wealth destroying train service. Doing things such as that harms the economy and the US economy doesn't need to be harmed any more than it has been. The wealth created by the productive segments should be allowed to go where it will create more wealth and growth, not destroyed by this looser train service.
greyhoundsSaying it doesn't make it so.
You might want to follow your own dictum in your own pronouncements. Much of what you say in this post is merely an interesting opinion or viewpoint, but hardly a settled wisdom.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CShaveRRLarry, wind farms in Lake Michigan are an issue, too--they've been run out of the best area of the lake by NIMBYs, and the area they're looking at now (down where I grew up) seems to be a battle ground. I've heard already that concrete supports are hazardous to the lake environment! You would think that the settlers in this area, used to windmills at work in their native European country, would certainly understand that they wouldn't be eyesores.
Living in said European country I can assure you that over here people are just as much against those "damned eyesores". They "pollute the horizon" (we still have plenty of it as we have no mountains or hills worth mentioning....) so now we build them out into the North Sea, just out of sight over the horizon. Pretty soon we will build so many windmills in our part of the North Sea that ships will have to zig zag around them instead of oil platforms.....
Personally I don't mind them as they have a certain charm completely unlike the old ones. I fail to see why they can't be build in places that are eyesores anyway, like industrial areas next to motorways.
greetings,
Naomi
Matt Van Hattem Some of you may be following the struggle to get a passenger train running between Milwaukee and Madison, Wis. What started out as a good idea has turned into a political football.
Some of you may be following the struggle to get a passenger train running between Milwaukee and Madison, Wis. What started out as a good idea has turned into a political football.
I understand one of the candidates for Governor is running on a "kill the train" platform. Should he win and that occurs, what happens to the promised car assembly operation? I would assume that goes somewhere else should there be sufficient orders from Washington state to support it.
On the "political football" front the Milwaukee newspaper reported the proposed station at Oconomowoc (no idea how to pronounce that one) has been eliminated by the state for lack of local support. The local officials contradict that -- their story is that they were just asking questons regarding who was going to build and maintain it. Has that been resolved?
The railroad in my town was the victim of the new construction project. So was half the town. Between 1897 to 1908, the state bought the entire village of Sawyer's Mills from the private owners, paid to reroute the railroad (through a tunnel and huge steel bridge!), then flooded the entire valley to create the Wachusett Reservoir so the people of Boston would have water to drink. Unfortunately, the railroad was rerouted on the other side of the reservoir, so the only railroad service in town was the local trolley line, which we lost in 1920 to a bus.
Regarding Matt Van Hattem’s post about NIMBYS impeding HSR projects, I see the following four impediments to a U.S. high-speed rail system:
1) Resistance of NIMBYISM
2) Resistance to the public cost.
3) Resistance by the class 1 freight railroad hosts.
4) Runaway cost dynamics (feeding the seagulls).
Item #1 will be a constant drag.
Item #2 will depend on the political leadership in power over time.
Item #3 will be a major conflict between the private railroad business and congress.
Item #4 will take effect if items #1-3 are overcome.
BucyrusRegarding Matt Van Hattem’s post about NIMBYS impeding HSR projects, I see the following four impediments to a U.S. high-speed rail system: 1) Resistance of NIMBYISM 2) Resistance to the public cost. 3) Resistance by the class 1 freight railroad hosts. 4) Runaway cost dynamics (feeding the seagulls). Item #1 will be a constant drag. Item #2 will depend on the political leadership in power over time. Item #3 will be a major conflict between the private railroad business and congress. Item #4 will take effect if items #1-3 are overcome.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
greyhoundsYoHo1975And rail transport has been subsidized since Lincoln signed the transcontinental railroad act if not earlier as has every single transportation project in this nation. So I really struggle to find common ground on this issue. But that is political and generally not NIMBY. No, it hasn't been subsidized since Lincoln. Statements such as this are a ruse used to support a position. As in: "Everybody does it" or "It's an established procedure." Saying it doesn't make it so. I guess he's talking about the land grants, which predated Lincoln. The government used them for a lot of things such as railroads, canals, and universities. A long time ago I graduated from a land grant university. I'll leave aside the arguments as to whether the railroads paid back the grants, (I believe they did) and simply point out that there is a major, critical difference between the land grants and the subsidies sought for this incredibly wasteful train service. The land grants took an otherwise basically useless resource and made it useful. The land was useless without transportation because anything produced on the land could not be moved to market. So a useless, but potentially useful, resource was developed. The government took nothing of value away from someone and gave it to someone else. That isn't the case with these trains. The government will have to take economic resources away from productive, wealth creating, segments of the economy and put it in to a money loosing, wealth destroying train service. Doing things such as that harms the economy and the US economy doesn't need to be harmed any more than it has been. The wealth created by the productive segments should be allowed to go where it will create more wealth and growth, not destroyed by this looser train service.
YoHo1975 First of all, you undercut your own statement by saying There were no subsidies then saying "well I guess this is what he meant." In fact I did mean the land grants, but not just the land grants, the stock grants, and every other law that was passed, many of which were done for no valid purpose (and I knew they predated Lincoln, but Lincoln is a good starting point. Secondly, do you have the economic figures to prove out that the benefit to Businesses in Milwaukee and Madison won't outweigh the losses on the route and the costs to tax payers? I think not, I suspect you are thinking myopically about only the businesses along the route and the costs to tax payers, not the benefits to the businesses that remain and the advantages to them or in fact the advantages to the people living in line side towns that can take advantage of the system. And for the record, The RPO was a government subsidy. It was the only reason passenger trains were kept on the rails at all.
First of all, you undercut your own statement by saying There were no subsidies then saying "well I guess this is what he meant." In fact I did mean the land grants, but not just the land grants, the stock grants, and every other law that was passed, many of which were done for no valid purpose (and I knew they predated Lincoln, but Lincoln is a good starting point. Secondly, do you have the economic figures to prove out that the benefit to Businesses in Milwaukee and Madison won't outweigh the losses on the route and the costs to tax payers? I think not, I suspect you are thinking myopically about only the businesses along the route and the costs to tax payers, not the benefits to the businesses that remain and the advantages to them or in fact the advantages to the people living in line side towns that can take advantage of the system. And for the record, The RPO was a government subsidy. It was the only reason passenger trains were kept on the rails at all.
Well, there are a several things here.
First let's deal with the false claim that the RPO was a "subsidy". No, it was the best way the government had to move the mail. They passed a law and forced the railroads to carry it. The railroads provided a service to the government and were paid for providing the service. Whether they were paid enough is debateable.
In any event, providing a good or service puchased by the government is not in anyway a "subsidy". By your line of reasoning anyone selling potatoes to the Army would be getting a subsidy. No, they're not getting a subsidy, they're just getting paid for what they do. Same with the RPOs.
Second, I never said there were no subsidies. You remind me of a former forum member who would make things up as to what was said and then argue with what he made up instead of what was actually said.. There were land grants. If they were, in fact, "subsidies" I simply pointed out the difference between them (they cost the government virtually nothing and diverted no economic resources from other productive uses) and what would be required for this incredibly wasteful proposed train service in Wisconsin. These trains will requie the diversion of economic resources from other uses that would otherwise create wealth in the American economy. The land grants didn't do that. (I am ot the conviction that the railroads paid the land grant construction "subsidies" back.)
And the land grants stopped. This is the meaning of the word "since". As in, "This has been going on 'since' Lincoln." No, it was a one time thing and it stopped.
"Every Other Law" is extreamist and speaks for itself. The railroads certainly had detrimental legislation passed against them time and again. To the detriment of the American economy and American people.
Finally, I'm challenged to prove a negative. I'm to "Prove" that the economic benefits to businesees in two Wisconsin cities won't outweigh the costs to the country wide taxpayers. Well, challenging someone to prove a negative is an old trick. As in: "I say it's so, you prove it isn't." If that was a valid line of reasoning we'd all be in jail because someone could simply accuse us of something and we'd have to prove we didn't do it.
But I'll try. If the benefits to the businesses in Milwaukee and Madison will outweigh the costs then levy the tax only on those businesses. If they're going to get the benefits then they should pay for the benefits. These trains certainly aren't going to do anyone in West Memphis, Arkansas much good and the good people of West Memphis souldn't be taxed to help businesses in Wisconsin.
Why don't you try that. Tax the businesess you propose might benefit so greatly to pay for these trains.. They'll scream bloody murder because they know the costs will far exceed the benefits. That B my proof.
greyhounds [snip] . . . If the benefits to the businesses in Milwaukee and Madison will outweigh the costs then levy the tax only on those businesses. If they're going to get the benefits then they should pay for the benefits. These trains certainly aren't going to do anyone in West Memphis, Arkansas much good and the good people of West Memphis souldn't be taxed to help businesses in Wisconsin. Why don't you try that. Tax the businesess you propose might benefit so greatly to pay for these trains.. They'll scream bloody murder because they know the costs will far exceed the benefits. That B my proof.
I believe something of that nature was/ is being done in Portland, Oregon a few years ago - like since 2004 - to support an extension of either the MAX light rail system, and/ or the downtown Portland Streetcar trolley (for some reason, they're 2 separate operations) - i.e., added taxes for transit assessed on properties within a special downtown transit district. There was indeed an outcry against it, but I'm not sure how that ended up - I'm almost 3,000 miles away. As best as I can recall, the estimated cost of the extension / revenue to be raised was in the range of $600 million, but I have no idea of the gross value of the real estate within that district, or what the effect on each property each year in either $ or % terms was or would be, which would furnish the basis for a more objective view of the matter. It would be interesting to go back and revisit all of that and see what they think of it now . . . I'm reasonably sure that's also been done elsewhere, but cannot recall any specifics at the moment.
- Paul North.
A couple of actual NIMBY actions near here:
1) Norfolk Southern wanted to built an ethanol transfer station at the Van Dorn Street Yard in Alexandria, VA - Alexandria sued to stop it. As far as who won, last time I got on the Metro at Van Dorn Street, I saw several ethanol cars and trucks parked in the yard.
2) A funnier NIMBY from Harrisonburg, VA where the city council and JMU periodically wants to stop NS from running trains through JMU and use the train tracks as an official trail from campus to downtown (as opposed to now when it is an unofficial trail for students). The proponents of this believe that the rail service can be provided instead through the north on a former Southern Railroad line into Harrisonburg. Slight problem - NS went with the routing over the former Chesapeake Western over the former Southern line for a reason - flooding knocked out a bridge on the southern line - so NS simply reaches the shippers from the north or the south and the bridge portion is out of service - so it would cost several million to built a new bridge. Other and more significant problem - there are a number of shippers located right in downtown Harrisonburg including a large feed mill. So it wouldn't eliminate trains in downtown (it would keep trains from going through campus, but it would also take a large amount of property from Norfolk Southern).
3) Washington, DC has a hilarious example of NIMBY - when building the Metro system, the homeowners and business owners in Georgetown (which at one point was a major center of the trolley system in DC) opposed having a stop there fearing it would bring in "the wrong elements" (which everyone understood to mean "Blacks" - today, Georgetown still has no Metro stop and its basically impossible to built one now - but the business owners today are highly upset because it costs them millions in business (and the homeowners are upset because parking there is impossible and their homevalues suffer due to having no Metro access) just because 40 years ago their predecessors were racists (of course, a lot of NIMBYISM is based on racism).
3) Funniest example of NIMBYISM - yes, its an airport, but I always laughed at the people who bought houses near Dulles Airport complaining about jet noise - Dulles was built in 1960 - it was by design put out in what was then the middle of nowhere (and well into the 1990s was still the middle of nowhere). Even weirder some home owners actually complain about jet noise at Washington National - National was built in the 1930s and has been there for almost 80 years with essentially the same flight plans.
penncentral2002 A couple of actual NIMBY actions near here: 1) Norfolk Southern wanted to built an ethanol transfer station at the Van Dorn Street Yard in Alexandria, VA - Alexandria sued to stop it. As far as who won, last time I got on the Metro at Van Dorn Street, I saw several ethanol cars and trucks parked in the yard. 2) A funnier NIMBY from Harrisonburg, VA where the city council and JMU periodically wants to stop NS from running trains through JMU and use the train tracks as an official trail from campus to downtown (as opposed to now when it is an unofficial trail for students). The proponents of this believe that the rail service can be provided instead through the north on a former Southern Railroad line into Harrisonburg. Slight problem - NS went with the routing over the former Chesapeake Western over the former Southern line for a reason - flooding knocked out a bridge on the southern line - so NS simply reaches the shippers from the north or the south and the bridge portion is out of service - so it would cost several million to built a new bridge. Other and more significant problem - there are a number of shippers located right in downtown Harrisonburg including a large feed mill. So it wouldn't eliminate trains in downtown (it would keep trains from going through campus, but it would also take a large amount of property from Norfolk Southern). 3) Washington, DC has a hilarious example of NIMBY - when building the Metro system, the homeowners and business owners in Georgetown (which at one point was a major center of the trolley system in DC) opposed having a stop there fearing it would bring in "the wrong elements" (which everyone understood to mean "Blacks" - today, Georgetown still has no Metro stop and its basically impossible to built one now - but the business owners today are highly upset because it costs them millions in business (and the homeowners are upset because parking there is impossible and their homevalues suffer due to having no Metro access) just because 40 years ago their predecessors were racists (of course, a lot of NIMBYISM is based on racism). 3) Funniest example of NIMBYISM - yes, its an airport, but I always laughed at the people who bought houses near Dulles Airport complaining about jet noise - Dulles was built in 1960 - it was by design put out in what was then the middle of nowhere (and well into the 1990s was still the middle of nowhere). Even weirder some home owners actually complain about jet noise at Washington National - National was built in the 1930s and has been there for almost 80 years with essentially the same flight plans.
Another potential case of new arrivals complaining about old jet noise fortunately got pre-empted in Colorado a few years ago.
Denver's new International Airport (warts and all) at least got located way out of town. In fact, when you drive there from the city, you feel like you're half the way to Kansas. But at least it's out there alone. However, it had hardly been open when someone wanted to build apartments near it. One can understand the need to live close to work, but it's easy to picture residents suddenly deciding that those darn airplanes harm their "quality of life." At least in this case, I give credit to a planning agency for turning down a project.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you if you've taken in all of the variables in your assertion. I do not believe you have.
YoHo1975The RPO car subsidized the cost of passenger trains they ran on allowing the railroads to lower the price of passenger tickets while maintaining profitable service.
I don’t think that is a subsidy. The RPO is one contract, and the passenger business is another contract. If you say that the RPO subsidized the passenger business, by the same logic, you could say that the passenger business subsidized the RPO.
If the RPO income allowed the railroads to lower their passenger fares, why would they lower their passenger fares? Why not leave the passenger fares where they would be without the RPO income? Why give up part of the fare income?
By your analysis, if the RPO allowed railroads to lower passenger fares and still make a profit, and if the railroads did that, then what it would amount is this:
The government would be subsidizing the railroads, and the railroads would be passing the subsidy through to the passengers. Therefore, according to your analysis, the railroad would not be receiving a government subsidy, as you contend they were. So you have disproved your own assertion by your explanation of it.
lets also not forget that access to communication is essential to migrating populations. the RPO car means fast reliable mail out west and that encourages people to move west and that movement generates profit for the railroads not just in ticket sales, but in sales of land and revenues from land. To say nothing of the fact that the RPO service justifies the quality of infrastructure maintained on the railroad.
The point is that passenger service at the ticket prices charged throughout the 20th century was not self supporting. It was supported by the RPO revenue. That's what a subsidy is.
YoHo1975. Land grants were a subsidy, the land was owned by the government and had a value. The government gave up that value to encourage the railroads to expand. The government could have charged the railroad for the land instead in which case it would not have been a subsidy. Therefore the government subsidized the costs of the expansion of the railroads by eating its own potential profits.
Without the tracks there the land had very little value. The land grants were more of an incentive than an outright subsidy. The government kept alternate sections of the land and by encouraging the railroads to build the value of the government owned land increased considerably.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.