What would the founding fathers think about this.

[Anonymous]

Should the government pay for a high-speed rail system?
A high-speed rail lines have been proposed by some intelligent members of our great forum, I decided I might present a somewhat overlooked side of this issue.

Just to set things straight airline subsidies, and the roads being paid for by tax dollars are hardly an excuse to. I am not against a new passenger rail service, but should Uncle Sam be paying for it? Well, for the answer let us turn back the years and listen to what the founding fathers have said.


Before Uncle Sam was so fat on government pork.
…a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring each one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of a good government.”- Thomas Jefferson, 1801
Building an expanded rail system with government money, is hardly keeping a wise and frugal government; sure our government may not be and wise or frugal as it once was, but we need to move in the right direction.

“The public money of this country is the toil and labor of the people, who are under many uncommon difficulties and distresses at this time, so that all reasonable frugality ought to be observed.” -John Adams, 1735-1826.
Should people be forced to toil to pay for it, which don’t want to, what kind of freedom would that be?
Surely taxes would have to be raised to pay for a rail system.
Avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”- George Washington.
I think the idea of the government paying for any thing like the suggested rail system should be shunned.

”Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left the most free to individual enterprise.”
- Thomas Jefferson, 1801.
We can’t risk upsetting a pillar of our prosperity, just to have a system of transportation; even I would love to see. I am not saying it shouldn’t be done, it just shouldn’t be done with government money, get some investors, it has been done before.

What do think? What lines might be workable, or are there none?
No flames please. Do we have jalapeno popcorn?

[Anonymous]

Look at the Acela, it is falling apart...

[Anonymous]

Just my opinion,but, I think that HSR is gonna be THE next big swindle. And I expect it to go over like this:

Peoples emotions will be played, offering to return passenger rail to a lot of communities that lost out as Amtral shrank and contracted over the decades.

Some crook will come up with the great idea that abandoned right of ways can be used, with taxpayer funded rehab to the roadbed..

Calls will be made for local level 'matching funds" just like the robber barons of the 19th century called ipon cities to pay for a route to their towns.

The game plan will suggest that building a 110-120 mile an hour "startup" operation makes the most sense, with the REAL hi speed to come "later"

'Later' will never come,...instead the construction companies that build phase one will pocket the federal and local level contributions, and it will be decided that demand/ridership is too weak to justify the full blown HSR...

So, the money spent will go a long way to enriching the principals of the plan, and the tax payers get handed a white elephant.


That is my prediction anyway..

[Anonymous]

Your prediction is one of my fears.

[jeaton]

Jefferson and Adams have been gone for a few years now and it is impossible to say that they would have retained their 18th Century views if they had lived to the present time. What is certain is that the changes that have occured over the last two centuries makes those views moot. Many will argue that were it not for government expenditures to build infrastructure and develope technology our society would not have advanced as far as we have. That may or may not be true, but the situation is not going to be reversed. If you want to live in times like theirs, you are going to have to find a time machine or move to a present day third world country.

You are entirely entitled to take the view that with cars and airplanes there is no need for rail passenger service. But given that these modes are supported by government expenditures, there is no way that rail passenger service will be a profitable. With no profit potential, there will be no private investment in the busines, and so, absent government money, there will be no rail passenger service. That's the choice.

Jay

[jeaton]

The Anti Gates

Swindles are the result of people not being able to differentiate between between style and substance. If all the younger people I know had such a cynical attitude, I would be looking for a nice third world country.

Jay

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

What is certain is that the changes that have occured over the last two centuries makes those views moot.

That is hardly the case. These are fundamental principles, with extreme bearing to today’s events. Why do you decide what views are moot, where does it stop, the Declaration of Impendence, the Constitution, our own Bill of Rights, The Bible, where I ask you? Indeed I say, that if these views are moot, then all wisdom of old is lost, and we are doomed; a fate worse than death at that, the fate of ignorance. If rejected what is to keep our country from going down the long slippery path of socialism France took; If the foundation of our country is allowed to crumble, and freedom becomes a myth, all the deaths of the Revolution, Civil war, and many others, were in vain.

"Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly."- Thomas Jefferson, 1816" To proclaim these views outdated is to make a mockery of all they worked so hard for! Is even Liberty outdated?

QUOTE: …Many will argue that were it not for government expenditures to build infrastructure and develope technology our society would not have advanced as far as we have…
… If you want to live in times like theirs, you are going to have to find a time machine or move to a present day third world country…

You have missed the point entirely; it was these very principles that allowed society to get as far as it did. Assuming that history too is not moot. Let us take a look back even father into antiquity; back to the old Roman Republic. In 500 B.C. the inhabitants of Britain lived in primitive log huts with dirt floors. Along cam those old principles of capitalism and freedom, in the form of the Roman Republic, which our founding fathers had the wisdom to base our society on the same ideals. By 200A.D Roman civilization brought large tile roofed buildings with mosaic floors, plumbing, baths, glass windows, and central heating. But corruption was at work, the principles of old were declared moot. And so, the infamous Roman Empire was born, it could not last as the scolism seeped into it began to crumble. By 500 A.D the people were back to their log huts, and unsanitary conditions, as they had one thousand years earlier. A great book called Ancient Rome How it Affects You Today, by Richard J. Maybury, a history, and economics teacher, explains how history is repeating between Rome and the US. Part of his premise is that the Romans were on the verge of a industrial revolution, the one we hit in 1776, freedom is what got us to where we are today; out of our mud huts, and into our cars. To achieve, liberty should be our goal, not to live with their technology, but to live with their God inspired ideas.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

The Anti Gates

Swindles are the result of people not being able to differentiate between between style and substance. If all the younger people I know had such a cynical attitude, I would be looking for a nice third world country.

Jay

If every one belived what you just said, you would have one.[V]

[Jack_S]

There is a simple YES/NO choice regarding passenger rail, including High Speed Rail. Either

A - The US government funds passenger rail

or

B - The USA will have no passenger rail.

An easy choice, take your pick.

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE:

You have missed the point entirely; it was these very principles that allowed society to get as far as it did. Assuming that history too is not moot. Let us take a look back even father into antiquity; back to the old Roman Republic. In 500 B.C. the inhabitants of Britain lived in primitive log huts with dirt floors. Along cam those old principles of capitalism and freedom, in the form of the Roman Republic, which our founding fathers had the wisdom to base our society on the same ideals. By 200A.D Roman civilization brought large tile roofed buildings with mosaic floors, plumbing, baths, glass windows, and central heating. But corruption was at work, the principles of old were declared moot. And so, the infamous Roman Empire was born, it could not last as the scolism seeped into it began to crumble. By 500 A.D the people were back to their log huts, and unsanitary conditions, as they had one thousand years earlier. A great book called Ancient Rome How it Affects You Today, by Richard J. Maybury, a history, and economics teacher, explains how history is repeating between Rome and the US. Part of his premise is that the Romans were on the verge of a industrial revolution, the one we hit in 1776, freedom is what got us to where we are today; out of our mud huts, and into our cars. To achieve, liberty should be our goal, not to live with their technology, but to live with their God inspired ideas.

I think you're a bit wide of the mark here about the Roman Empire. It was not on the brink of an industrial revolution in the 5th century; if anything it had been in decline for the last century. The Germanictribes who conquered the Roman empire in Western Europe in the 5th century AD (and gave their names to the countries we now now, eg Angle-land = England, Franks - France) were able to do so because they had better swords than the Romans! Equally important though, they also had better ploughs. This meant the Angles and Saxons were able to farm areas of Britain that the Romano-Briton had not. Consequently the population of Britain increased in the 5th and 6th centuries whereas it had declined in the 4th. In due course the Vikings came too - they also had better swords (and ploughs!). Meanwhile in the Arab world lots of developments took place in sciences (astronomy, algebra and chemistry all come from Arabic words!). Even before the Crusades these sevelopments were starting to filter thru to the Christian world. As for the myth that people thought the world was flat - well the 13 th century English scholar Francis Bacon describes how to calculate the curvature of the Earth (and he refers to how a 3rd century AD Greek mathematician Ptolemy did so).

Getting back to economics and transport, if you go back to Adam Smith, you will find that he accepts that roads (and hence transport infrastructure) are a legitimate responsibility of government. As for the issue of susbidy, it has been shown time and time again that unprofiitable does not mean uneconomic as non users benefit from rail services. Then of course there;s also the issue of climate change which even President Bush is finallly waking up to.

[Anonymous]

I think the founding fathers were a group of fairly rich farmers and traders who were interested in conducting business without government interference. Consider for a moment that most of the colonial citizens were loyal subjects of the King- not fire breathing revolutionaries.

When railroads first developed, it was the wealthy miners, industrialists, and farmers who realized what the potential was of a new transportation system in the USA. Most railroads were built not for passenger service- but to carry freight. They have been doing that well for over a century and a half. Then, as now, early railroads wanted government support in terms of land grants (for right of way) and bonds (for capital to lay rails.)

As railroads grew, so too did government regulation. When it became apparent that railroads were fast becoming the haven for con artists, press agents, and speculators, the government moved in with a vengeance. The regulation was not so much over passenger service, but freight rates and trust combinations.

The business of America is concerned with producing goods, and moving them. Moving people is far and away a secondary consideration.

By the way, early roads in the USA were, in many cases, privately owned- the owners paid for upkeep by charging tolls- thus the beginning of "toll roads".

Erik

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikthered


By the way, early roads in the USA were, in many cases, privately owned- the owners paid for upkeep by charging tolls- thus the beginning of "toll roads".

Erik

This is quite true but the Federal Government built the National Highway from Tidewater to the Ohio River, the state of New York financed the Erie Canal and the state of Maryland invested heavily in the Baltimore and Ohio at its start up. Many other states and cities financed internal improvements well before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1860s.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

I think you're a bit wide of the mark here about the Roman Empire. It was not on the brink of an industrial revolution in the 5th century; if anything it had been in decline for the last century. The Germanictribes who conquered the Roman empire in Western Europe in the 5th century AD (and gave their names to the countries we now now, eg Angle-land = England, Franks - France) were able to do so because they had better swords than the Romans! Equally important though, they also had better ploughs. This meant the Angles and Saxons were able to farm areas of Britain that the Romano-Briton had not. Consequently the population of Britain increased in the 5th and 6th centuries whereas it had declined in the 4th. In due course the Vikings came too - they also had better swords (and ploughs!). Meanwhile in the Arab world lots of developments took place in sciences (astronomy, algebra and chemistry all come from Arabic words!). Even before the Crusades these sevelopments were starting to filter thru to the Christian world. As for the myth that people thought the world was flat - well the 13 th century English scholar Francis Bacon describes how to calculate the curvature of the Earth (and he refers to how a 3rd century AD Greek mathematician Ptolemy did so).

In the book mentioned early, he refers to this need to conquer as the Roman Disease, but you have to admit, Rome could not have expanded a vast empire like she did, had she not first formed the Roman Republic. Merely an analogy between the two countries, admittedly the idea of an industrial revolution, is just speculation on the part of the author. The ancient Greeks and the Romans were surprisingly advanced, they had water clocks, which told time, and may have figured the position of the stars, accurate odometers for roads, and other advanced mechanisms, like flame throwers. Things that wouldn’t be rediscovered for nearly 2000 years. Also the Catholic church persecuted anyone who said the world was flat, in fact it took until 1923, to admit that Aristotle was wrong, and the earth was round. But, I am getting farther of topic than a bloodhound with a bad cold...

QUOTE: Getting back to economics and transport, if you go back to Adam Smith, you will find that he accepts that roads (and hence transport infrastructure) are a legitimate responsibility of government. As for the issue of susbidy, it has been shown time and time again that unprofiitable does not mean uneconomic as non users benefit from rail services. Then of course there;s also the issue of climate change which even President Bush is finallly waking up to.

I think this is a very interesting point, would you care to expand on it?

[ndbprr]

I am in complete agreement with the founding fathers but there is a fine line between the role of the government and private enterprise. The Trancontinental railroad opened up the west. No conmpany existed that coulkd have done that. The electronics and computers we have today are a direct result of the space program and the need for weight reduction to get capsules into outer space so there is benefit beyond the initial effort. I draw the line if the government needs to take away private citizens holdings for right of way and not compensate them and builds bridges to Alaskan islands nobody wants, etc.

[tree68]

No scholar in his right mind would consider taking Shakespeare at face value - he/she would insist on knowing about the environment in which old Bill wrote. I'm no Shakespearean scholar, but I do know that there are all sorts of puns written into those works, puns that go right over our heads today.

So too must we consider the thoughts/writings of our founding fathers in light of the times in which they occurred. Much of the Constitution deals with correcting the wrongs of the Brits as perceived by the colonists. That's not to say that they were wrong, since they paved the road to where we are today. But to take those thoughts/writings verbatim without considering history is to do a disservice to their originators.

Ericthered makes that very point.

The old toll roads were mentioned. It would be an interesting study, forecasting where transportation would be today if its development had been left entirely to the private sector...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

The Anti Gates

Swindles are the result of people not being able to differentiate between between style and substance. If all the younger people I know had such a cynical attitude, I would be looking for a nice third world country.

Jay

I can't help but to think your post was intended as a polite slap in the face of sorts. Which is fine, I won't be ~shamed~ into accepting the nonsense that I've seen the proponents trying to force down the throat of the gullible and the forlorn

I could go on and on with a rant about my misgivings on the discussion I've seen to date.

But it would only aggravate the sheep .

Foremost among my reservations would be the way the private parties willing to enter into the proposed "partnership" are not willing to quantify their own level of (monetary) contribution to the plan, Nor are they even willing to identify who they really are, they just time and again troll some big juicy worm through the pond, trying to see how many fools (mooneyed taxpayers) might be ready to "bite".

When the topic passes through the local media, the response tends to inspire the impressionable into making starry eyed "water cooler" talk along the lines of "hey did you hear? we might be getting HSR!" with all the analytical prowess if a drunken sailor on shore leave.... No thought. as to where it will be going, whether it will be able to support itself, or what actual public good it will serve, they just get giddy with the joy of "getting something" like kids waiting for Santa to come sliding down the chimney.

Ebeneezer Scrouge said it best "Bah HUMBUG!! [;)][;)]

[zapp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

The Anti Gates

Swindles are the result of people not being able to differentiate between between style and substance. If all the younger people I know had such a cynical attitude, I would be looking for a nice third world country.

Jay

I can't help but to think your post was intended as a polite slap in the face of sorts. Which is fine, I won't be ~shamed~ into accepting the nonsense that I've seen the proponents trying to force down the throat of the gullible and the forlorn

I could go on and on with a rant about my misgivings on the discussion I've seen to date.

But it would only aggravate the sheep .

Foremost among my reservations would be the way the private parties willing to enter into the proposed "partnership" are not willing to quantify their own level of (monetary) contribution to the plan, Nor are they even willing to identify who they really are, they just time and again troll some big juicy worm through the pond, trying to see how many fools (mooneyed taxpayers) might be ready to "bite".

When the topic passes through the local media, the response tends to inspire the impressionable into making starry eyed "water cooler" talk along the lines of "hey did you hear? we might be getting HSR!" with all the analytical prowess if a drunken sailor on shore leave.... No thought. as to where it will be going, whether it will be able to support itself, or what actual public good it will serve, they just get giddy with the joy of "getting something" like kids waiting for Santa to come sliding down the chimney.

Ebeneezer Scrouge said it best "Bah HUMBUG!! [;)][;)]
I must agree, why should the general public pay for somehting,that the vast majority of the populas will never utilize?
When and where did the American people begin to assume that the federal goverment should pay for all local projects? Was it the Transcontinental railroad or was it the projects that were created during the Depression of the 1930's?
Either way we have become dependent on our federal goverment to pave our driveway.
The small town I live in has really grown in the past few years. New business' have been popping up left and right,but the city fathers have done nothing about our infastructure,why,because they are waiting for the state and federal goverments to come up and do their part, then see how much the city will have to ante up with.
We all have the power to stop pork barrel spending: VOTE!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zapp


I must agree, why should the general public pay for somehting,that the vast majority of the populas will never utilize?
When and where did the American people begin to assume that the federal goverment should pay for all local projects? Was it the Transcontinental railroad or was it the projects that were created during the Depression of the 1930's?
Either way we have become dependent on our federal goverment to pave our driveway.
The small town I live in has really grown in the past few years. New business' have been popping up left and right,but the city fathers have done nothing about our infastructure,why,because they are waiting for the state and federal goverments to come up and do their part, then see how much the city will have to ante up with.
We all have the power to stop pork barrel spending: VOTE!

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikthered

I think the founding fathers were a group of fairly rich farmers and traders who were interested in conducting business without government interference. Consider for a moment that most of the colonial citizens were loyal subjects of the King- not fire breathing revolutionaries.

When railroads first developed, it was the wealthy miners, industrialists, and farmers who realized what the potential was of a new transportation system in the USA. Most railroads were built not for passenger service- but to carry freight. They have been doing that well for over a century and a half. Then, as now, early railroads wanted government support in terms of land grants (for right of way) and bonds (for capital to lay rails.)

As railroads grew, so too did government regulation. When it became apparent that railroads were fast becoming the haven for con artists, press agents, and speculators, the government moved in with a vengeance. The regulation was not so much over passenger service, but freight rates and trust combinations.

The business of America is concerned with producing goods, and moving them. Moving people is far and away a secondary consideration.

By the way, early roads in the USA were, in many cases, privately owned- the owners paid for upkeep by charging tolls- thus the beginning of "toll roads".

Erik

Trade and Commerce requires an ability to move people and goods about a nation, The American transportation paradigm is changing, and those unwilling to change will get left behind.. Self-deprecating cynicism seems to rule in this country, along with a lack of any positive atrtitudes. Change is inevitable and economic force is undeniable, the strength in a system is in its ability to accept new technologies, incorporate them and enjoy the benefits. Those that cannot adapt will become extinct.

[oltmannd]

Why not just hear what they have to say:

http://www.jibjab.com/Movies/MovieList.aspx (founding fathers)

[jeaton]

James

In your red letter response to my view, you have suggested that the OPINIONS of two of our very intelligent founding fathers should have the same weight as the Bible, The Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution and Amendments. The latter are the accepted moral (in the case of the Bible) or legal documents that are the foundations of our faith (Bible) or our Federal Gavernment. On the other hand, Jefferson and Adams were expressing their view of the way they wanted the United States to move forward. In the two centuries subsequent to their statements, our society and our leaders decided that we could go in a different direction. You might not agree with the direction that the country has taken, but you can hardly argue that intelligent views ended with the death of Adams and Jefferson.

Solid and respected opinions come from careful evaluation of facts and circumstances. Over 200 years, the facts and circumstances relating to the isues of government involvement incommerce have changed very dramaticly and in ways the neither Jefferson nor Adams ever contemplated. That is why I have the view that their opinions are not relevant to today's issues and why any suggestions as to what they might think about government support of high speed passenger rail service is purely speculation.

[vsmith]

It wasnt so much the need to conquer that led to the failure of the Roman system ...it was their choice in plumbing. Yep. beginning about the time mentioned they began useing LEAD pipes to carry water directly into their homes. They used the stufff everywhere, for plates, mugs, storage jars and took the technology to all their major centers.

Unfortunatly the lead leeched into the water and food supply and the Romans slowly got lead poisioning in ever larger accumulations with each generation. So only about a century and a half later most Romans were unknowingly being driven MAD! Literally, their intelligence IQ's steadily fell, they were more prone to hostile and violent outbursts and there ability for higher thinking was deminished, so YES by the begin of the Barbarian raids most of the Romans were unknowingly so effected by the long term exposure to lead that they were often defeated by the uneffected raiders who only previously had been easily defeated by a razor sharp Roman legion.

All of this has been verified by recent archelogical research including documentation by historic visitors to Roman citys during this perios and the comments on their citizens behavior and by tissue samples from bone fragments of those of this period who were not usually creamated, like those killed by earthquake or like event. It was quite a surprise to the researchers.

Now this wasnt the ONLY reason why the Roman system fell, the above mentioned reasons, corruption, power grabs, overextension, inability to reinforce areas quickly due to too thin spread forces, and a hopping angry hord of Barbarians who just dont like the Romans all contributed, but it does help explain why all their Emporers seamed to all go nuts eventually and were seemingly unable to cope with the invading hoardes that eventually invaded and sacked Rome itself!


History bantering aside...
As for HSR. The costs are such that you will either have government subsidies or you wont have it at all. For HSR to work you MUST have dedicated ROW's, no sharing with freight trains. That means new ROW's . Elevated or subterrainian or grade seperated along the entire route. Those costs are too great to rely on private investment alone. Considering that the Continental Railroad of 1865 was almost entirely funded by the goverment. RRs have always recieved subsidies or breaks from the governement. The private interests are unable or unwilling to foot the enormous costs themselves even if it is in their long term interests. Private interests who only wanted to make a buck often also lack the will to commit to large enterprises. There is a real danger with subsidies but unfortunaly the government is the only real entitity that has the capital to fund such an undertaking. EVERY nation IN THE WORLD that has a functioning HSR or even a functioning national rail system has substantial government support. France's TGV and Eurostar, Japan's Shinkisen, Germany's ICE trains, ALL heavily government funded. Its the only way. Look what happened when they privatized Englands RR's the whole dam thing nearly collapsed and they had to take over substantial funding and operational control again!

If we rely entirely on the private sector only, we will get no real results. Spotty at best. NEC maybe , LA/San Diego maybe. And thats likely only as long as the ROW owners allow the passenger trains to use their ROWs. What happens if the NEC is privatized, then the owner RR's refuse to grant use or renewal and lose trackage rights to those rail lines due to ever increasing freight demands, kiss the Northeast Corridor goodbye!

I dont think many of us would like waiting 3 hours at the airport for a 30 minute flight. HSR is a great untapped potential for moving people across urban distances fast, comfortably, and efficiently. We know this is undisputable from 40 years of usage in Europe and Japan. I think the more basic question is this...

Is HSR in the publics benifit enough for the government to fund it?

I say long term yes it is, because as I said elsewhere you can only put so many planes in the air, so many cars on the road before those systems fail. We all saw the chaos post 9/11 when the air system was grounded, the entire country ground to a halt for lack of any effective alternatives.

To me its a simple choice, either fund it or forget it.


Hows that for keeping the flamethower in the trunk![;)]

[daveklepper]

I think the Founding Fathers would support a strong nationwide passenger railroad service because it makes the contry stronger and allows it to respond to emergencies quicker and more thoroughly. Also, they would not wi***o deprive the elderly and infirm of the capabilitiy of accesing most of the copuntnry.

[jeffhergert]

Article l Section 8 Clause 1 gives Congress the authority to lay and collect taxes etc, to pay debts, provide for the commen defence and the general welfare.

I would say that while they embraced free enterprise, they also provided for when free enterprise comes up short.

Whether or not they would consider HSR to fit the general welfare requirement in this day and age, I cannot say. Remember HSR will compete not so much with Amtrack for passengers, but with airlines on regional/corridor type routes. The founding fathers may say free enterprise has already filled that transportation need, airline troubles aside.
Jeff
PS. My thinking about subsidies for all transportation modes (and they all get them some more than others) is, if we all paid 100% of our travelling requirements most of us would have to stay home.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikthered

.. Consider for a moment that most of the colonial citizens were loyal subjects of the King- not fire breathing revolutionaries.


The business of America is concerned with producing goods....

Only about 1/3 of the colonists were Tories. The service sector, not production of goods, has dominated the US economy for many years.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jack_S

There is a simple YES/NO choice regarding passenger rail, including High Speed Rail. Either

A - The US government funds passenger rail

or

B - The USA will have no passenger rail.

An easy choice, take your pick.

Neatly cuts to the chase!

[jeaton]

Actually, it would seem that the Romans and their government were pretty smart folks. While they dumped a bunch of money into building publicly owned roads, they didn't foolishly blow big bucks on railroad passenger service. Near as I can tell, they didn't even spend any money for consultants to study the idea.

Jay

[Anonymous]

I need to ask this question to all the thread participants: When each of your refers to the concept of HSR, you all seem to perceive it as a government run passenger service aka Amtrak II. Why is it necessary to emulate the integrated rail concept for HSR? Has anyone but myself visualized a HSR system in which the government (if indeed it has a primary role at all) simply constructs that ROW and then rents it out to whoever shows up with their HSR train? Why should the government also be responsible for marketing and running the trains? And why do most of you want to exclude freight from a potential HSR system?

As for funding, there is a tendency nowadays for both private and public ventures to be backed up by federal loan guarantees. These loan guarantees have the effect of lowering the cost of borrowing from the private loan markets, and unless the project goes belly up, the taxpayers aren't out one dime. Could the first vestiges of a HSR system be constructed this way, maybe include the right of Eminent Domain, without additional need for de facto taxpayer dollars?

[CSXrules4eva]

I do know that Benjamin Franklin one of America's great founding fathers, statesman, and scientist would of supported a high speed passenger line with no questions asked. As most of you know Ben Franklin discovered electricity, and experamented with electricty, he also invented the lightning rod. Ben also was the first to found the following : a pulbic library, the fire department, insurance companies (initially fire insurance). He also founded the Philadelphia University know today as the University of Pennsylvania, owned his own newspaper (The Pennsylvania Gazzette) and printing company. I think that his vast interest in electricity, as a scientist, and his interest in creating institutions or services to help people would have lead him to create a high speed passanger line, if high speed rail were around in his time period. As for John Adams and the other founding fathers I don't know weather they would support such a system, I don't think they would honestly.

[DSchmitt]

The basic National Transportation Policy of the United States was established by "Gallatin's Road and Canal Report" presented by Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin to the Senate on April 4, 1808.
1. "the legitimacy of Government aid to finance transportation projects transcending local needs."
2. "only those routes be constructed, which would yield reasonable returns for the original investment."
3. "a nationwide system of thansportation was essential in the interests of national defence."

This policy was determined when the only "instruments of transportation" were roads and canals but has not been restricted to them.


One of the early US Government built roads was the Natchez Trace from Nashville TN to Natchez (the capitol of the Mississippi Territory) . Thomas Jefferaon directed the Secretary of War to to negotiate a treaty with the Indians to allow improvement of road access through their territory. A 460-mile road traversable by wagons, constructed by the Army, was officially opened in 1809.

The National Pike (officially Cumperland Road) wad authorized by Congress in 1803 was the "first important road to be built with Federal funds". The route of the first 72-mile (Cumberland MD to Brownsville PA) segment was selected by commissioners apointed by Presedent Jefferson. It eventually (by 1841) ran 677 miles from Cumbrtland to the Missippi River in the vicinity of St Louis.