FlashwaveICLandAside from two bankruptcies for the NP and one for the UP, ripping millions out of the US economy, and particularly when both simultaneously bankrupted in 1893 -- strictly a government land grant fiasco -- which precipitated the worst and longest financial depression up until 1933. Wasn't that the Credit Mobilier blowing up? Or am I too far ahead? The thing I love about UP, for the iron giant it is today, When UP was formed, it was so a bunch of corrupt tycoons could makemoney off the governmen,. since they were sponsoring the Transcon. Most of them had no interest in running a railroad, and the ones that did had the smarts to get out of the project before the Mobilier was discovered, IE that UP execs were siphoning off money from the Government into their own pockets.
ICLandAside from two bankruptcies for the NP and one for the UP, ripping millions out of the US economy, and particularly when both simultaneously bankrupted in 1893 -- strictly a government land grant fiasco -- which precipitated the worst and longest financial depression up until 1933.
Wasn't that the Credit Mobilier blowing up? Or am I too far ahead? The thing I love about UP, for the iron giant it is today, When UP was formed, it was so a bunch of corrupt tycoons could makemoney off the governmen,. since they were sponsoring the Transcon. Most of them had no interest in running a railroad, and the ones that did had the smarts to get out of the project before the Mobilier was discovered, IE that UP execs were siphoning off money from the Government into their own pockets.
Well, that was yet another damage done to the economy and to the American political system that took decades to wring out of the economy and the political system, if it ever did. The poster who commented that there was essentially no cost is clearly not an economist.
These projects took land which, per se, did nothing for anybody at the time except speculators. The projects themselves however took enormous sums of money out of the US government, and absorbed enormous capital resources at a time when the US economy simply didn't have the wherewithal to undertake such projects. And the Government can't just "invent" stimulus, as we are again seeing. Wall Street was all about these two massive projects, and this took investment money from nearly everything else. They slowed the development of the economy significantly, made Wall Street look increasingly speculative, sunk enormous capital into vast wastelands, and hindered development of private railroads.
Was there a wheat shortage in the fields of Ohio, that really required wheat to be hauled on the NP from Montana? Was there really a timber shortage in Michigan, that required lumber from Washington state? Were the copper mines of Hecla so played out that Utah copper was absolutely necessary to development? None of the above. The whole project likely caused excessive competition as rates plunged on certain commodities as railroads tried to be part of a competitive commodity structure for which no rational basis existed except the "existence" of railroads that shouldn't have been there at the time.
Commodity prices plunged, especially in agriculture, and agitation began against the only thing that farmers could directly see as responsible: railroad rates that had caused the problem of low commodity prices in the first place, hauling goods into markets that didn't need them at loss rates, injuring farmer and railroad alike. The resulting regulatory structure damaged railroads and the national economy alike for over a century.
But, as you note, this is WOT, way off topic. So, that's that.
marcimmeker greyhounds Snip. 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. Presumably that "useless" resource was worth something to the people that were living there (you know, the ones called Indians and later Native Americans or First Americans). Otherwise they would not have felt the need to fight those who came and stole their land and put them in concentration camps, sorry "reservations".
greyhounds Snip. 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.
Snip.
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.
Presumably that "useless" resource was worth something to the people that were living there (you know, the ones called Indians and later Native Americans or First Americans). Otherwise they would not have felt the need to fight those who came and stole their land and put them in concentration camps, sorry "reservations".
If I understand his point correctly, the land's value is a relative term. It grew crops, it fed animals, it fed the indians, but what's the point in having a million dollars if there's no place to spend it? There was such plentifuls amount that could be sold, but no way to do so. Hence, the waste or "Useless". The railroads created their way to that market, and what Americans called value increased.
And since the Indians' interest was in themselves, not market greed, they did not need the railroad, and the land was fully valuable already.
Have I helped at all?
Anyway, in getting back to the orignal topic, I wanted to sharethe exerience Indiana Transortation Museum is now experiencing. The tracks have been ther sinc 1848. (The ex-Peru & Indianapolis) The museum has been there since the late 60s I believe it is. Last Year, the museum was told to be quiet in their own museum by the town of Noblesville. No station calls, nothing but the absolute minimum. That got carried into not doing stationcalls or anything at the other towns.
Three problems with that:
I've noticed, we seem to be making more noise again though. It's kinda nice.
-Morgan
ICLand - Are you saying that the Panic of 1893 was that era's version of the 2000 or so "dot-com" "irrational exuberance" and subsequent crash - or better yet, the current burst housing bubble and ripple effects ? I had thought that the 1893 bust was more related to the silver market crash - or was that in 1873 ?
I'd be interested in some elaboration on the "government land grant fiasco" aspect of your post. Are you perhaps saying that the land grants were the basis of/ led to overcapitalization/ too much debt for those firms, which they couldn't support/ pay off for the long term ?
Also, I had thought the Progressive/ Granger movements were more related to high rail rates for farmers, and many business trusts - think Standard Oil - than just the railroads.
- Paul North.
greyhounds They created something out of nothing. They didn't divert any economic resources from more productive uses. They made a potentially great economic resource, midwest farmland, valuable. Great gain, no harm.
Aside from two bankruptcies for the NP and one for the UP, ripping millions out of the US economy, and particularly when both simultaneously bankrupted in 1893 -- strictly a government land grant fiasco -- which precipitated the worst and longest financial depression up until 1933.
The losses in railroad investment and devastating effects on the general economy prompted the so-called "Progressive Era," resulting in regressive regulation which nearly killed the industry.
Kind of like, "... other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the Play?"
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. 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. 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.
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.
You're making up your own definition of the word "subsidy".
The mail lowered the average cost of moving people and goods by rail because it spread the fixed costs of the railroad (which are high) over a larger base. But then, so did a carload of hogs shipped by a farmer to Chicago for slaughter. Was the farmer "subsidizing" the railroad? No. He was purchasing services from the railroad. He made the purchase for one reason. His purchase improved his economic situation. Same with the government mail. The government gave itself a monopoly (weren't we lucky) on mail by passing the Private Express Statues which prohibited the private express companies from handling mail. (UPS, FedEx, fax, and email finally broke the government choke hold.)
Having given themselves a monopoly, the government had to actually move the mail. The best way to do this was often by purchasing transportaiton service from a railroad. A government purchase of transportation is in no way different than a hog farmer's purchase of transportation as far as the transportation provider is concerned. The customer is simply paying for what they use. That ain't no subsidy. If you want to make up an inovative definition of the word "subsidy" that says it is, have fun. But thinking folks know better.
As far as the land grants, the land without transportation had virtually no value. It didn't do much good to raise those hogs or grow corn if you couldn't get the hogs/corn to a market. And before the railroads you could not do that very well.
You might want to read "The Chicago & Alton Railroad" by Glendining. The author goes in to detail about the difficulty of moving around in Illinois prior to the railroads. People basically had great difficulty getting themselves somewhere, let alone with a load of hogs or corn. (Some of the best farmland in the world was useless because they couldn't get its production to a market.) Close to the rivers they could do something. Abe Lincoln, who you invoked, participated in this transportaiton inefficiency.
What they did was construct a small wooden barge called a "flatboat". They loaded this thing up with whatever they wanted to get to a population center or a port, such as New Orleans. Then a couple guys with poles took this thing down the rivers. At destination they sold whatever the load was, sold the boat for lumber, and walked back. Needless to say, economic development and growth lagged.
Lincoln did this at least once. He took a flatboat to New Orleans and walked back to Springfield, IL. He then became an ardent supporter of railroad building.
They had otherwise useless land (more than 10 miles from the river) and could make it valueable by getting railroads built. They did this with land grants (about 7% of the rail mileage in the US was built with land grants.) They created something out of nothing. They didn't divert any economic resources from more productive uses. They made a potentially great economic resource, midwest farmland, valuable. Great gain, no harm.
This incredibly wasteful plan to operate high speed trains to Madison, WI won't be like that. The government will have to divert economic resources from more productive uses to subsidize (I'm using the word correctly.) the wasteful service. That will harm the people of the United States. I have considered everything I know that should be considered about this train service. I know the experience in China and France with these "High Speed Trains". They are money pits that degrade the people's standard of living. They benefit a few while harming many.
I grew up in a very small town in central Illinois. I plan on going back over Labor Day. The town holds a "Homecoming" over Labor Day. As a friend put it, "It's a little town surrounded by corn." That it is. The agricultural production is amazing. This time of year one can see very tall corn stalks closely spaced in mile after mile of fields. That was created by transportaiton. The first railroad land grants were used to build railroad tracks in Illinois. But those grants didn't divert economic resources from other, more productive uses, which is what the subsidies for the Wisconsin high speed rail will do.
BTW, I do visit Madison, WI with regular frequency. I have no difficulty getting there or back. I don't know anyone who does have any such difficulty.
YoHo1975Incentive vs. subsidy sounds like a game of semantics. And you can say it had little value (something I dispute, especially say in California and parts of the midwest), but the value wasn't zero. If nothing else, the Federal government paid money for it and they could have recuped that. and what of the money paid out for mileage completed? Was that a subsidy or an incentive? The distinction here is that to some, Subsidy is a bad word, so to justify their love of the railroads, they have to concoct linguistic distinction to justify how this or that isn't a subsidy. In either case, its the government spending tax money for what it sees as the public interest.
The distinction here is that to some, Subsidy is a bad word, so to justify their love of the railroads, they have to concoct linguistic distinction to justify how this or that isn't a subsidy. In either case, its the government spending tax money for what it sees as the public interest.
Yes the government paid for the land. The Louisians Purchase which covered the land between the Mississipi River and the Rocky Mountains worked out to about 3 cents per acre. California and the Southwest were taken as a result of the Mexican War. Speaking of subsidies, the railroads were required to carry government cargo and troops at a reduced rate as part of the land grant.
The main reason why much of the public opposes HSR is the objection to the fact that HSR must be subsidized with public funds. HSR proponents will then always counter that highways are subsidized, or even that everything is subsidized. By using a highly elastic definition of subsidy, they can prove that virtually everything the government spends money on is a subsidy to the recipient. Therefore, they conclude that if everything is subsidized, it is okay to subsidize any new thing, and that means it is okay to subsidize HSR no matter what it costs. But to compare apples to apples, there needs to be the following:
1) A definition of subsidy.
2) A measurement and quantification of the subsidy.
3) An explanation of who pays the subsidy and who benefits from it.
Even the definition of the term, subsidy is subject to individual interpretation. To some extent a subsidy might simply be the government directing the public’s money to a public good. One could therefore argue that that’s a direct purchase by the public, mandated by government. In those terms, the subsidy would not even be a subsidy.
Here is another way of looking at it:
Government has the authority to tax at whatever amount it chooses. So the government could tax income at 100% if it wanted to. Then if you earned a dollar, government would take the whole dollar as tax. If instead, they set the tax at 50%, and because they could take 100%, does that mean that government is giving you a 50-cent subsidy on each dollar you earn if they tax it at 50%? That is believed to be the case by those who consider corporate tax breaks to be government subsidies to those corporations.
Because the term subsidy means so many different things, I believe that it should be set aside for purposes of HSR funding discussion. The far more important issue is item #2, and especially item #3 above. Whether we call it a subsidy or not is beside the point. Ultimately, it is not the government doing the funding of these public projects, but rather, the government forcing private citizens to do the funding. So the more those citizens find the funded work useful, the more fair the deal will be for them.
While both highway and HSR funding might be called subsidies, there are many times more highway users in the group doing the funding of highways than there will be HSR users in the group doing the funding of HSR. That is the difference.
greyhounds 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.
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.
As opposed to putting it in (global) wealth destroying banks and wars?
Sorry, don't mind me. I have a bad day and this post just rubs me the wrong way.
YoHo1975Except that the reason the railroad lowered its fairs was to encourage travel and resettlement in locations where it owned land and facilities. Ultimately the intrinsic value of those locations was based on people using them. Now you might say that these other enterprises picked up the slack and thus the RPO car was just another revenue stream and I suppose that's a valid way to look at it, but its also a chicken and egg situation. the RPO car brings in revenue whether people partake of the railroad services or not.
I don’t think it is a "chicken and egg" situation. The RPO service, the passenger travel, and the passenger restaurants are just three different chickens. You say the RPO car brings in revenue whether people partake of the railroad services or not. Yes it does, but those other services bring revenue whether the RPO brings in revenue or not.
It is true that only the government can offer a subsidy, but it does not necessarily follow that every government expenditure amounts to a subsidy to the recipient.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/)
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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?
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
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
Where is the hatred in opposing public funding of rail projects that people don’t think are the best use of taxpayers’ money?
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.
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
DITTO!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.