eolafan wrote:QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan. Sounds like it's time to build a new by pass around the windy city. I heard a rumor last weekend about them looking at possibly double tracking "The J" in the future to accomodate more bypass traffic, but it was just a rumor..
QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan. Sounds like it's time to build a new by pass around the windy city.
I though they had to doubletrack no matter what to accomodate the STAR line that METRA will be running on the EJ&E - new station at Plainfield, commuter connection with the BNSF at Eola, etc.
I'm about 2 miles east of the J at 103rd and there are a lot more horns sounding the past couple of years.
When it comes to bad weather they have already done this. A blizzard gave the city a big hit a few years ago and it took months to get back to normal. So RR's created a council of sorts to develop a plan for next time and a the communcation to to complete it. Result? After the next blizzard it took them only three days to return the normal (if that is way they call it) traffic patterns.
QUOTE: Originally posted by croteaudd My ONLY comment on this topic: When EVERYONE cannot see the forest because of the trees, the forest fails to be exploited UNTIL it is seen.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton I would suggest that there might be a few 100 million people of China and India that would strongly dispute your contention that all are thriving. Personally, I would prefer to hang about here or one of the other "declining" nations. Going from poverty to near poverty isn't my idea of a goodtime. By the way, are you suggesting to me that neither country has massive public works projects nor extensive government ownership of infrastructure and basic industries? That would be big news.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton greyhounds-Are you suggesting that the 25 nations in the European Union are on there way to third world status? Since the GDP of the EU is equal to the United States, I think they have a long way to go. Anyway, I am sort of curious as to how socialism causes third world status. Jay
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe Sorry, but I see your argument as a bit mendacious.
QUOTE: (1) I can't think of a more subsidized—federal—entity than the interstate highway system and trucking. Yes, truckers pay taxes on it—but are you really asserting that those taxes represent the entirety of the expense that provides truckers the benefit of the Interstate highway system? I see your argument as—in effect—saying that the waitress has the right not to have her federal subsidy interfered with by other federal subsidies.
QUOTE: (2) If the government were to spend three times the amount of money on CREAT, it is not going to leave the interstate highway system—or waitresses at truck stops—wanting for truckers. The issue here is not directing a large portion of the trucks on the road to rail, it is trying to stunt the growth of trucks before they drown themselves in their own success and the highways simply are not able to absorb them all. (3) I disagree with your premise that highly expensive modes of transportation can be paid for by the individuals who use them. Would the Interstate highway system have been able to have been built were it not for federal investment? Heck, I don't think the rail system in this country would have developed the way it did without land grants.
QUOTE: Many believe our government has a duty to develop a transportation network and infrastructure that allows our economy to thrive—. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe (2) CREAT does not just benefit the citizens of Chicago and railroads; it benefits the whole nation. Increasing efficiency in the Chicago hub area will allow railroads to offer more competitive rates and take trucks off the road all over the nation. If X trucks per year from New Jersey to Seattle are taken off the road doesn't the entirety of the—federal—interstate highway system and every state between New Jersey and Washington benefit? If there are benefits beyond State lines, why shouldn’t the federal government be allowed to enter into such a contract? Thank you for responding, Gabe No, it won't benifit the whole nation. It would benifit some people in the nation and harm other people in the nation. If you're a waitress at a truck stop in North Dakota, and the number of trucks using I-94 goes down, you're not going to benifit. You're going to see your income degraded. There is absolutely no way for the Federal Govt. to sort this out so they should stay out of it and let that waitress earn her living. The people who will benifit will be the shippers and rail carriers. These benifits are "divisible" in that they can be paid for by the entities that actually receive the benifits. Benifits for some things, such as national defense, are "indivisible" in that niether one of us can buy the amount of national defense we want. It has to be done collectively. That's not the case with rail freight. A shipper making the decision to use rail freight can decide just how much he wants to buy at just what price. He gets the benifits and he pays the costs. You may regard shifting freight from truck to rail as a "good thing" ,but there are a whole lot of good folks who would be hurt by such a shift. You're seeking to impose your values in an arbitrary manner that will harm many people. The Federal Govt. shouldn't do this - mainly because they can't begin to understand the costs/benifits of their actions in allocating economic activity. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Monday, February 21, 2005 9:43 AM All of the $$$ in the world may not help move the trains if the terminals cannot handle inbound moves. Intermodal yards in the city are very small and cramped. I know there is a move out to Joliet and Rochelle for the new yards, but if an inbound train cannot be yarded, it sits. That in turn takes away a section of a mainline or a siding. ed Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 18, 2005 1:13 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S. I wish I were as confident of the EJ&E's becoming a true belt line as you are, Dave. I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. The fundamental problem is that most of the yards are deep inside the EJ&E belt, will not and cannot move outside the belt for good economic reason, and once the traffic is beyond the belt, backtracking isn't going to happen -- not so much because of the added circuit length, but because it would require doubling of capacity on the main lines between the yards and the belt. In the meetings I attend in Chicago, the EJ&E is rarely even mentioned, and the CREATE project essentially doesn't include it. I agree that traffic will grow on the EJ&E, but not by leaps and bounds. There just aren't that many trains that arrive in Chicago that actually go through Chicago, untouched. OS I'm not involved in the kind of stuff you are, so I don't know what the real plans are. I just think the ultimate resolution will be moving a lot of the traffic to the fringe areas, so it doesn't have to enter the city proper in the first place. This is what's happening in a lot of cities, not only with rail traffic, but truck as well. Logistics in Joliet is a good example of that. It may seem crazy to think it could happen on a large scale for now, but they said the same thing about the Alameda Corridor project out here in the Port of Los Angeles. It's simply unbelievable how much money has been spent to make the expansions that were needed, but they did do it. Also, if you look at how much RR traffic actually interchanged inside the city limits of L.A. even just 30 years ago, as compared to now... It's a tiny fraction. So I think it's possible. This is just pie in the sky, but I personally think the EJ&E should have built their own new classification yard on the West end, and also something like Logistics. Other small roads have benefited from the gamble of having a 'build it and they will come' attitude. I think that could have worked on some level for the EJ&E... But as was stated by someone before. USX is in the steel biz, not the rail biz. Dave -DPD Productions - Home of the TrainTenna RR Monitoring Antenna- http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/ Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 18, 2005 10:07 AM I'm not familiar with the entire length of the J, but between Elgin and Joliet there aren't a lot of houses next to it. The trucking terminals and light industry is much more predominant. There's also a big political issue out there right now regarding the construction of a high voltage transmission line Com-Ed wants to build, I believe along the ROW. I realize changes won't happen overnight and the planning people just advise. I also don't think it has to be an all or nothing solution where the inner yards would be eliminated. Clyde has become so overloaded with Intermodal, the Q is doing a lot more flat switching of general freight at Eola(out near the J) so it's already happening. Most of the local freight work along the racetrack now originates from Eola, rather than Clyde. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 18, 2005 9:30 AM 1. The Chicago, IDOT, Metra, and Class I planning people are aware of what's going on. Have been for decades. If you browse through all the reports you can find in Google (there are hundreds upon hundreds of reports, meeting notes, data sets, etc.), look at the dates these documents were issued. I have reports on my desk on Chicago dating to 1917 (!!!!) that have been ignored by the elected representatives of the voters ever since. The planners are not vested with dictatorial powers. The voters often don't want to listen, or don't want to pay, or prefer to wait for miracles to happen. The politicians can't act on their own, independent of the voters wishes -- and I'm thankful they don't, that's called totalitarianism. 2. Most of the planning and railroad types realize that a massive build-up of freight traffic on the J probably isn't going to happen now. The voters who live next to it would consider that a dimunition of their property values, and something that a reasonable person wouldn't have predicted when they bought the property, and the law is on their side. It's a lost cause. 3. If Chicago had three or four billion dollars in spare cash, it could pull all the yards out of the city and put them on the J, build up the J, and buy all the houses next to it for a few blocks on either side. Is that a reasonable use of that much money, out of anyone's pocket? Probably not. Most solutions in the real world are far from "ideal," but they are usually practical. 4. The suburbs intentionally did not institute grade-separation ordinances back when they had the chance. They wanted the railroad in order to enhance their property values and to create economic activity, and since they couldn't agree to coordinate with each other, none was about to independently pass an ordinance, because that would have encouraged railroads to go around it. What they could have done was agree to be incorporated into Chicago, but they wanted to have their cake and eat it, too -- piggyback on Chicago's economic engine while not paying any of the costs. In other words, the suburban forefathers sold future generations down the river for short-term economic gain. OS Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 18, 2005 9:11 AM Very Interesting thread. Some thoughts. Chicago proper has long required grade seperations for all railroads, so blocked crossings is not a benefit to the city. The same is not true of the suburbs, however they don't have the political clout the city does and regional co-operation isn't the greatest. The state has recently trippled tolls for trucks on the tollways which will affect some rail to rail via road transfers. I'm not familiar with all of the inner yards, but many have no room for expansion. Both Clyde and Proviso are pretty much a mess now. The BNSF tanscon yards along I-55(Corwith or Corinth??) are also a mess. I saw one double-stack parked over Harlem ave. waiting to get in for 3 days last weekend. Regarding the J, maybe some of the planning people should take a drive along the Kane/Kendall county corridor(Elgin to Joliet). In addition to the new Inermodal facilities that far out, trucking companies are building massive terminals out there. There's also a couple of massive delievery facilities for unloading auto-racks and storing cars for dealers. Things aren't so built-up that adding capacity to the J would be that difficult. 10 years from now, I don't know. Maybe they're holding out for a better offer??? Since there's far fewer railroads coming into the region, I'm surprised they haven't rationalized interchange more than they have??? Reply Edit gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, February 18, 2005 8:08 AM QUOTE: [Gabe, I'm not saying the city can't contract. Of course it can contract. I'm not even saying it shouldn't assist CREAT. There can be local benifits from reduced congestion and the city can contract for the "mutual benifit" of its citizens. (Although in Chicago, the city contracts tend to be less than "mutually benificial" from time to time.) I'm saying that the Federal Government shouldn't (not couldn't) put money into the project. If there are national benifits those benifits can be captured and changed to the entitities benifiting, the private railroads and the shippers. Those are the ones who should pay. Greyhounds, I see two problems with your argument that CREAT should solely be a contract between the City of Chicago and the federal government. (1) The tax structure—and current structure of government itself—would make such a contract impossible. The federal government taxes Chicago citizens at a considerably higher rate than city and Illinois taxes. If Chicago were to undergo such a project by itself, Chicago’s taxes would not only have to be considerably raised, but—in effect—Chicago would be hit up twice. It would have to pay federal taxes that are designed to go to such projects and its own tax increases in order to pay for the project. I realize this is something you would probably like to change as well. However, this structure of government and taxation has been established since the second Roosevelt administration. It would take several years to redirect tax revenues—in the mean time we have to make sure the trains keep running. (2) CREAT does not just benefit the citizens of Chicago and railroads; it benefits the whole nation. Increasing efficiency in the Chicago hub area will allow railroads to offer more competitive rates and take trucks off the road all over the nation. If X trucks per year from New Jersey to Seattle are taken off the road doesn't the entirety of the—federal—interstate highway system and every state between New Jersey and Washington benefit? If there are benefits beyond State lines, why shouldn’t the federal government be allowed to enter into such a contract? Thank you for responding, Gabe Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:34 PM The AAR meeting would have been an interesting one, but not worth a month's salary. Moreover, I do understand rates of return and the rails inability to achieve their cost of capital. Therefore, the absolute best method of purchase of a railroad, or it's stock is to purchase below it's value. Thus, when CN is giving up tracks (and LAND) in a very hot real estate market and not receiving ownership in something in return...I have to wonder. So, lets see, their benefit is they will be able to move their trains quicker, yet in the meanwhile they will continue to consume themselves. That logic is flawed. As an owner of the company, it concerns me. Regarding partial ownership of the IHB, I am sure their Canadian neighbor didnt want ANY part of that deal. Since I am an outsider, I have no idea what goes on in the industry, nor the operations in the city. I dont know how much it costs to operate either on a company's own line or over the IHB or any other line. But, if the CN is giving up book value and is receiving a double turnout in return while in the meanwhile their competitor is receiving considerable improvements to their property (IHB) I would question whether or not the project doesnt need revisiting. Of course, CN may be trading it's real estate for lower payments into the $212 million cost. I dont know. Nor will I ever know. My options are to cash out and pay capital gains if I dont trust ownership. Regarding the flyover that benefits NS only, is that a true statement, or a generality? The two flyovers I recall would benefit more than just NS. This should be a great project for the system and particularly when the six class ones become four or less. ed Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:23 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe Greyhounds, You are, in effect, asserting the people of Chicago cannot contract with railroads for mutual benefit. Federal, state, and local government have always contracted with private enterprise. So long as both contracting parties have the right to refuse, I fail to see how sacrosanct notions of classical liberalism are intruded upon. I seem to remember BN giving the Iowa Interstate Railway low-interest loans to improve certain segments of track because BN believed the money returned by IIRR's interchange traffic would justify the expenditure. I don't see CREAT any differently. Cities are no less of an economic entity and market participant than ADM—and they are treated that way by courts. If you don’t believe me, watch the next time there is a problem with such a project and there is legal action. The city’s claim of “sovereign immunity" will be laughed out of court before you can say “Adam Smith.” This is not a recent phenomenon and it has paid dividends in the past. Without the federal government "investment" in the form of land grant railroads, would your former employer the IC ever have come into existence? I see your argument as counter to classical liberalism. The absolute bedrock of a classical liberal economic system is freedom to contract. CREAT is not government regulation; it is a contract between two parties that are free to say “yes or no.”--Capitalism in its purist form. Nonetheless, very interesting comments and I hope you don't stop offering your opinion on this subject. I am learning a great deal from both you and O.S. Gabe Gabe, I'm not saying the city can't contract. Of course it can contract. I'm not even saying it shouldn't assist CREAT. There can be local benifits from reduced congestion and the city can contract for the "mutual benifit" of its citizens. (Although in Chicago, the city contracts tend to be less than "mutually benificial" from time to time.) I'm saying that the Federal Government shouldn't (not couldn't) put money into the project. If there are national benifits those benifits can be captured and changed to the entitities benifiting, the private railroads and the shippers. Those are the ones who should pay. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:01 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S. "The farmers and small busineses that you cite didn't go away. " "But the percentage of the population living on farms was drastically lower in 1980 than in 1880 - they had lost some political clout." "I never said farmers opposed dereg. I said they hadn't gone away and were still upset about railroad rates." Grey, I'm trying to find the merits in your arguments -- it strikes me as important to see if you're right. But among other things, I can't even get past the foundational facts you're using, because they seem to say one thing in one place, and something else in another. For instance, how do I reconcile these three statements of yours in reference to farmers? Did they or didn't they go away? Did they or didn't they lose political power? Did this loss or lack of loss of power effect different outcomes 97 years apart? Could you help me out here? OS I'll try. "Somewhat reduced" is not synonymous with "Gone away" While the farm population has declined relative to the rest of the country, the agri business sector - ADM, Cargil, ConAgra, Tyson, etc. is huge. These are the entitites that actually ship the grain. Couple this up with states such as Iowa where farming is still a huge sector of the economy and you've got significant political power. To say that the farmers have had their political clout "somewhat reduced" does not mean that they don't still have significant political influence. There is nothing contradictory in the statements you cite. And no, I don't think it would have made any difference if they had even more political power. As I stated, economic deregulation of transportation won the day based on its merits. There were entities against it, entitites with real political power such as the Teamsters Union. Besides, today's farmers are not the same as their predicessors of the 1880's. The guy who was best man at my wedding (why didn't he stop me?) farms several thousand acers in central Illinois. He's got a degree in agrcultural economics from the University of Illinois. He also spent 30 years in the air guard and reached the highest enlisted rank possible in the Air Force. He's not going to buy the snake oil of economic regulation. He understands economic reality. Sometimes he doesn't like that reality, but he understands it. There are plenty of other farmers with those university ag degrees. That doesn't mean they are above pushing for regulation if they think it will increase their income - it just means that at least the better educated ones will recognize that it's not a viable long term solution. Contrast that with the experiences of my parents. My father lost his farm the year I was born, 1950. He spent most of his life without electric lights. He was born in 1907, got electricity 40 years latter, and died in 1977. 40 years without electric lights, 30 years with 'em. He was in the first class in town to go through four years of high school. Didn't have a four year high school before that. He was a good man, but he didn't have a clue as to what made an economy go. Nobody ever taught him economics. My mother started teaching school when she was 17 in 1928 in a one room school house out in the country. Her students not only didn't have electricity, they'd never been to town. Now keep in mind that this town had all of about 900 people living in it, and the children were growing up having never seen that many people living in one place. It isn't like that anymore, those kids have cable TV, this here internet, and a good shot at going to college. So the farm population is better educated and more experienced today. They're not going to see the world as their predicessors saw it. They can understand economic priciples much better. So no, given the changes in rural America over the past years, I don't think the farmers would have stood in the way of deregulation. But some of 'em are still going to gripe about railroad rates. It's a rural tradition. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 17, 2005 6:11 PM "The farmers and small busineses that you cite didn't go away. " "But the percentage of the population living on farms was drastically lower in 1980 than in 1880 - they had lost some political clout." "I never said farmers opposed dereg. I said they hadn't gone away and were still upset about railroad rates." Grey, I'm trying to find the merits in your arguments -- it strikes me as important to see if you're right. But among other things, I can't even get past the foundational facts you're using, because they seem to say one thing in one place, and something else in another. For instance, how do I reconcile these three statements of yours in reference to farmers? Did they or didn't they go away? Did they or didn't they lose political power? Did this loss or lack of loss of power effect different outcomes 97 years apart? Could you help me out here? OS Reply Edit greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, February 17, 2005 4:18 PM QUOTE: Now I'm really confused by your argument. Germ theory was a discovery. What was discovered by economists after 1883 that changed everything? Weren't the benefits of a free market described 117 years earlier by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, and published to broad acclaim in 1776? Well, obviously one guy didn't sit down and write one book and cover everything. More to the point it was the spreading knowledge of how economies work and the application of that knowledge to specific situations that carried the day. The titans of industry in the late 1800's really didn't buy into the competition thing. They kept trying to form cartels and limit competition. The cartels didn't work - people kept acting in their own best interest which meant they would break the rules of the cartel. J.D. Rocefeller Sr. formed the Standard Oil Trust to prevent competition - he wasn't really a bad guy, he just liked things to be orderly. The economists explained where he was wrong. And he couldn't maintain his monopoly on oil after it was discovered in diverse locations. QUOTE: Earlier I understood you to say that farmers opposed deregulation in 1980. So the farmers that didn't understand the merits of free enterprise in 1883 and agitated for regulation came to understand its merits by 1980 and supported deregulation? Or are you saying that farmers' never got it right, but their views commanded votes in Congress in 1883, but in 1980 Congress ignored this constituency? (You're saying that Congress, for once, got it right? Wasn't the House controlled by the Democratic Party then?) I never said farmers opposed dereg. I said they hadn't gone away and were still upset about railroad rates. Basically, I don't think farmers do what's right, I think they do what's in their own best interest. If they can have a rail rate held artificially low to their benifit, they'll try to do so. If that means regulation, then they're for it. Pretty much like the rest of us. But the percentage of the population living on farms was drastically lower in 1980 than in 1880 - they had lost some political clout. QUOTE: Or are you saying that railroads had the power to self-regulate themselves in 1883 to bring legal protection and authority to their cartels, AKA rate bureaus, neglected to return to Congress, once it became apparent this was a mistake, to tell them to turn the switch off, and then had the power to deregulate themselves in 1980? Was I mistaken when I read all those statements about the evils of regulation in Railway Age, Railroad Gazette, and Railway Record beginning in the 1870s when states startted to regulate railroads, and continuing unabated to 1980? No, it was quite the opposite, the railroads lacked the power to self-regulate in the 1880's , that's why they wanted the Federal Government to do it. Once regulation was established it created a constituancy that kept it in place - the railroads had created their own jail and they couldn't let themselves out. QUOTE: If that's not what happened, exactly who did become educated by 1980? Congress? Yes. QUOTE: And to return to an earlier statement by you, when you said that small businesses opposed deregulation of motor trucking in 1980, how is it that their views didn't carry the day? What about the small businesses advantageously situated that wanted deregulation so they could beat down their rates at the expense of their less advantageously situated competitors? Where did they fall in all this? OS I didn't say small business opposed dereg. I said they used regulated rates. The fact that they didn't try to stop dereg shows that they had been convinced on the merits. If a business has a good location it has a competitive advantage and should make use of that advantage.
(2) CREAT does not just benefit the citizens of Chicago and railroads; it benefits the whole nation. Increasing efficiency in the Chicago hub area will allow railroads to offer more competitive rates and take trucks off the road all over the nation. If X trucks per year from New Jersey to Seattle are taken off the road doesn't the entirety of the—federal—interstate highway system and every state between New Jersey and Washington benefit? If there are benefits beyond State lines, why shouldn’t the federal government be allowed to enter into such a contract? Thank you for responding, Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S. I wish I were as confident of the EJ&E's becoming a true belt line as you are, Dave. I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. The fundamental problem is that most of the yards are deep inside the EJ&E belt, will not and cannot move outside the belt for good economic reason, and once the traffic is beyond the belt, backtracking isn't going to happen -- not so much because of the added circuit length, but because it would require doubling of capacity on the main lines between the yards and the belt. In the meetings I attend in Chicago, the EJ&E is rarely even mentioned, and the CREATE project essentially doesn't include it. I agree that traffic will grow on the EJ&E, but not by leaps and bounds. There just aren't that many trains that arrive in Chicago that actually go through Chicago, untouched. OS
QUOTE: [Gabe, I'm not saying the city can't contract. Of course it can contract. I'm not even saying it shouldn't assist CREAT. There can be local benifits from reduced congestion and the city can contract for the "mutual benifit" of its citizens. (Although in Chicago, the city contracts tend to be less than "mutually benificial" from time to time.) I'm saying that the Federal Government shouldn't (not couldn't) put money into the project. If there are national benifits those benifits can be captured and changed to the entitities benifiting, the private railroads and the shippers. Those are the ones who should pay.
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe Greyhounds, You are, in effect, asserting the people of Chicago cannot contract with railroads for mutual benefit. Federal, state, and local government have always contracted with private enterprise. So long as both contracting parties have the right to refuse, I fail to see how sacrosanct notions of classical liberalism are intruded upon. I seem to remember BN giving the Iowa Interstate Railway low-interest loans to improve certain segments of track because BN believed the money returned by IIRR's interchange traffic would justify the expenditure. I don't see CREAT any differently. Cities are no less of an economic entity and market participant than ADM—and they are treated that way by courts. If you don’t believe me, watch the next time there is a problem with such a project and there is legal action. The city’s claim of “sovereign immunity" will be laughed out of court before you can say “Adam Smith.” This is not a recent phenomenon and it has paid dividends in the past. Without the federal government "investment" in the form of land grant railroads, would your former employer the IC ever have come into existence? I see your argument as counter to classical liberalism. The absolute bedrock of a classical liberal economic system is freedom to contract. CREAT is not government regulation; it is a contract between two parties that are free to say “yes or no.”--Capitalism in its purist form. Nonetheless, very interesting comments and I hope you don't stop offering your opinion on this subject. I am learning a great deal from both you and O.S. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S. "The farmers and small busineses that you cite didn't go away. " "But the percentage of the population living on farms was drastically lower in 1980 than in 1880 - they had lost some political clout." "I never said farmers opposed dereg. I said they hadn't gone away and were still upset about railroad rates." Grey, I'm trying to find the merits in your arguments -- it strikes me as important to see if you're right. But among other things, I can't even get past the foundational facts you're using, because they seem to say one thing in one place, and something else in another. For instance, how do I reconcile these three statements of yours in reference to farmers? Did they or didn't they go away? Did they or didn't they lose political power? Did this loss or lack of loss of power effect different outcomes 97 years apart? Could you help me out here? OS
QUOTE: Now I'm really confused by your argument. Germ theory was a discovery. What was discovered by economists after 1883 that changed everything? Weren't the benefits of a free market described 117 years earlier by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, and published to broad acclaim in 1776?
QUOTE: Earlier I understood you to say that farmers opposed deregulation in 1980. So the farmers that didn't understand the merits of free enterprise in 1883 and agitated for regulation came to understand its merits by 1980 and supported deregulation? Or are you saying that farmers' never got it right, but their views commanded votes in Congress in 1883, but in 1980 Congress ignored this constituency? (You're saying that Congress, for once, got it right? Wasn't the House controlled by the Democratic Party then?)
QUOTE: Or are you saying that railroads had the power to self-regulate themselves in 1883 to bring legal protection and authority to their cartels, AKA rate bureaus, neglected to return to Congress, once it became apparent this was a mistake, to tell them to turn the switch off, and then had the power to deregulate themselves in 1980? Was I mistaken when I read all those statements about the evils of regulation in Railway Age, Railroad Gazette, and Railway Record beginning in the 1870s when states startted to regulate railroads, and continuing unabated to 1980?
QUOTE: If that's not what happened, exactly who did become educated by 1980? Congress?
QUOTE: And to return to an earlier statement by you, when you said that small businesses opposed deregulation of motor trucking in 1980, how is it that their views didn't carry the day? What about the small businesses advantageously situated that wanted deregulation so they could beat down their rates at the expense of their less advantageously situated competitors? Where did they fall in all this? OS
QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S. Originally posted by greyhounds Now I'm really confused by your argument. Germ theory was a discovery. What was discovered by economists after 1883 that changed everything? Weren't the benefits of a free market described 117 years earlier by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, and published to broad acclaim in 1776? Indeed, France SIC 1847--before the 1848 revolution--is almost certainly the most pure form of a lassie faire economic system in the history of the world—it would probably make most adherents at the University of Chicago blush as they are complaining about gas prices while filling up their SUVs. Stated differently, the historical engine driving the 1980’s regulatory changes was Marxist rather than Hegelian. Economic circumstances and changes (stagflation) proved fertile ground for pre-existing anti-regulatory economic ideologies. Gabe P.S. What is eponym form of Adam Smith? Smithian? Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:24 AM Again, I maintain that it is fair for the Government to contribute to the Chicago project. Did the Big Dig in Boston come entirely out of highway user fees? Even so, it no way does for Boston the advantages that the general population of Chicago will derive from the rail improvements there. Far less waiting at grade crossings. Less pollution. Less possibility of business and employment leaving because of congestion. It is established that local and federal support (more than operating costs) for commuter rail is valuable and proper. Part of the improvement in Chicago will be for the commuter rail network. I think a very good case can be made. Hasn't the government already spent money on maglev research? Why? And then there is the fuel cell Hydrogen boondogle, and it is a boondogle, there is NO chance of a SAFE Hydrogen economy. One big Hindenburg flying ship. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:50 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds The University of Chicago happened. Seriously - knowledge and understanding of all sciences advanced, including economics. As you said, people didn't understand the merits in 1883, but had come to understand them in 1980. Just as doctors didn't know about germs back then but had an understanding of infections in 1980. Now I'm really confused by your argument. Germ theory was a discovery. What was discovered by economists after 1883 that changed everything? Weren't the benefits of a free market described 117 years earlier by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, and published to broad acclaim in 1776? Earlier I understood you to say that farmers opposed deregulation in 1980. So the farmers that didn't understand the merits of free enterprise in 1883 and agitated for regulation came to understand its merits by 1980 and supported deregulation? Or are you saying that farmers' never got it right, but their views commanded votes in Congress in 1883, but in 1980 Congress ignored this constituency? (You're saying that Congress, for once, got it right? Wasn't the House controlled by the Democratic Party then?) Or are you saying that railroads had the power to self-regulate themselves in 1883 to bring legal protection and authority to their cartels, AKA rate bureaus, neglected to return to Congress, once it became apparent this was a mistake, to tell them to turn the switch off, and then had the power to deregulate themselves in 1980? Was I mistaken when I read all those statements about the evils of regulation in Railway Age, Railroad Gazette, and Railway Record beginning in the 1870s when states startted to regulate railroads, and continuing unabated to 1980? If that's not what happened, exactly who did become educated by 1980? Congress? And to return to an earlier statement by you, when you said that small businesses opposed deregulation of motor trucking in 1980, how is it that their views didn't carry the day? What about the small businesses advantageously situated that wanted deregulation so they could beat down their rates at the expense of their less advantageously situated competitors? Where did they fall in all this? OS Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:31 AM Are you saying that it is wrong for a state or municipal government to engage in a taking of private property without due compensation, but it is right for the federal government to do so? Do you think it is acceptable for a state or city to participate in a project that benefits interstate commerce, but it is unacceptable for the federal government to encourage interstate commerce? OS Reply Edit « First«1234567 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by greyhounds Now I'm really confused by your argument. Germ theory was a discovery. What was discovered by economists after 1883 that changed everything? Weren't the benefits of a free market described 117 years earlier by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, and published to broad acclaim in 1776?
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds The University of Chicago happened. Seriously - knowledge and understanding of all sciences advanced, including economics. As you said, people didn't understand the merits in 1883, but had come to understand them in 1980. Just as doctors didn't know about germs back then but had an understanding of infections in 1980.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.