What would the founding fathers think about this.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by KCMOWMAN

You dudes are deep.

Let's make it simple, you can't move enough people, as fast, as cheaply,
as you can in an airplane, to make it worthwhile.

"Cheaply as you can in a plane?"

So we're not supposed to consider the cost of the huge pieces of property needed for airports and runways? (BTW, these are bought, built, and maintained with your tax dollars)

Or the Air Traffic Control System? (PS: Run by and at the expense of the federal government)

The people making these decisions should be taking all these factors into consideration, along with the enviornmental impact of the different modes, to decide which is best for the given situation. This is not a "one size fits all" type question.

The amount of money and breaks given the airlines is hardly an excuse to do the same for the railroads, which did get their land given to them. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The people making these decisions should not be the government.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by KCMOWMAN

You dudes are deep.

Let's make it simple, you can't move enough people, as fast, as cheaply,
as you can in an airplane, to make it worthwhile.

"Cheaply as you can in a plane?"

So we're not supposed to consider the cost of the huge pieces of property needed for airports and runways? (BTW, these are bought, built, and maintained with your tax dollars)

Or the Air Traffic Control System? (PS: Run by and at the expense of the federal government)

The people making these decisions should be taking all these factors into consideration, along with the enviornmental impact of the different modes, to decide which is best for the given situation. This is not a "one size fits all" type question.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

Wow.

Put things in their historic context.

Now THAT's a novel thought.

[daveklepper]

Again, remember that all Department of Transportation figures do not include the tremendous subsidy given highway and air transportation because of

LAND USE

Highways and airports do not pay real estate taxes that support schools, police departments, waterworks, garbage disposal, the justice system, parks, sports facilities, libraries. Railroad taxes do.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

QUOTE: Originally posted by KCMOWMAN

You dudes are deep.

Let's make it simple, you can't move enough people, as fast, as cheaply,
as you can in an airplane, to make it worthwhile.

Rubbish! Air lines are only cheaper because they dont pay tax on fuel. Since air is the least environmentally friendly form of transport, this indirect susbidy is indefensible.

Well, now he has a point. Airlines even though the government keeps up most of their infrastructure, still have much less than any possible railroads. Airlines don't run on tracks, that need replaced. Other than airports, air traffic doesn't get congested and slowed down, in flight. Airlines may always be leading passenger trains to their grave. Here is a little reasoning about a HSL; it must be cross-country compete with airlines and a long enough route to make it worth high speed. All the routes we have proposed are fairly short, not long cross-country routes, which require copious amounts of funding.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

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?

Certainly.

QUOTE: One of the most quoted studies is that which the Greater London Council did in the 1960's when it was deciding whether or not to build the Victoria line. The results of the study suggested that on a pure profit and loss basis the line would loose money but the wider benefits such as reduced journey times, reduced congestion on other subway lines and also the road, greater property values would outweigh this. So the GLC went ahead and buitl the Victoria line, which opened in 1967. Within 10 years of opening it had paid for itself several times over as a result of the greater property values (and hence tax revenue - in Britain most local authorities are funded by property taxes). So a scheme which would not have been attractive to private investors was nonetheless affordable and financially worthwhile to local government.

Since the 1960's the UK Government has developed a method of assessing whether public sector projects represent good value or not by attempting to quantify the economic benefits of the project. For a project to be viable the ratio of benefits to cost must be at least 1.15 to 1 ie $1.15 of benefits for every $1.00 spent. In the case of the Waverley line from Edinburgh to Galashiels which the Scottish Parliament has just voted to re-open, the ratio is 2:1 which is regarded as very good. Benefits are likely to include giving greater mobility to people in an area of high unemployment, reduced unemployment as a result and as a consequence of this greater wealth to that area. At the same time it will also make it easier for day trippers to visit the area, bringing more money.

Finally I'd like to quote another example of non-users benefiting from the existence of a rail line. For several years I used to go up to Scotland to work on the Strathspey Railway, a preserved line which runs from Aviemore to Boat of Garten. Boat of Garten is a small village with just one shop and a pub. The guy who runs the shop told me that without the trade the railway brought him, he wouldn't survivie in business. As a result the villagers of Boat of Garten benefit by having a shop they would not have if the railway were not there.

As you have pointed out this made the line economically feasible. I would not be totally against it in such a case, but one must be careful. Even if the government funds it, running it would still be a serious problem. If it works so well, what is keeping investors from it?
Also does anyone think there are any economically feasible lines here in the US?

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

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?

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by KCMOWMAN

You dudes are deep.

Let's make it simple, you can't move enough people, as fast, as cheaply,
as you can in an airplane, to make it worthwhile.

Rubbish! Air lines are only cheaper because they dont pay tax on fuel. Since air is the least environmentally friendly form of transport, this indirect susbidy is indefensible.

[Anonymous]

You dudes are deep.

Let's make it simple, you can't move enough people, as fast, as cheaply,
as you can in an airplane, to make it worthwhile.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: EVERY nation IN THE WORLD that has a functioning HSR or even a functioning national rail system has substantial government support.

EVERY ONE OF THEM LOOSES MONEY IN THE LONG RUN!

Yes, they do, and they always will, but they still keep building more of them, more people keep riding them, and we keep admiring them from afar.

Where we probably should if it has to be paid for out of the pockets of people who have no say in the matter. Why if so many people want it and are going to pay for it anyways, why don’t we try LETTING THEM CHOOSE, gasp freedom, if they want to?

QUOTE: If everything has to earn a buck, why are we still in Iraq? Dont see any profits there?

Well now this is different, I thought you said we went in for oil profits. We went in to save lives, and establish peace. Keeping our country safe is in our national interest and will in the long run help the whole nation, we can pay for it now, or pay for it later, and we have little choice.

QUOTE: Its not all about the money, namely tax money, yet thats all you seam focused on.

You have a better way to fund it, that you haven’t mentioned?

QUOTE: The Manhattan Project was the biggest money pit of the war, yet no one cried about the costs when it ended the war.

Going to the Moon?, I guess that was a boondogle also, regardless of any scientific knowledge, national prestige, beating the Soviets, just a waste? nor was the most massive achievement of the century, landing on another world, just an dream since Man could first talk, guess that was a waste also?

Everything worth doing, costs.

The atomic bomb saved the life of many an American soldier. Space exploration has helped us to launch many communication satellites, which are economically feasible, ie make money. Defeating the Russians also saved many Americans lives. So if you were trying to imply that I value money over life, you got me dead wrong. I don’t mind some government funding for scientific, and military research, for many reasons. But, even this can get out of hand; look at how many scientists continue to proclaim the theory of global warming, just to keep their research money. Yes everything worth doing cost money, the question becomes is it worth the money.

QUOTE: Youz needs a trip ta Europe ma friend, Someone get this man a Eurail Pass !!!
Once you experience it, the ability to get from city to city fast comfortably and cheap, you want it here also. Its that convincing.

Sounds like a great idea! That is if I can survive going through France, the country operated so much like you want; look at it, DO WE WANT AMERICA TO BECOME LIKE FRANCE?In France due to a socialist society, 30% of the people are unemployed. People don't work because the government takes their money for the TGV and other much worse swindles.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: EVERY nation IN THE WORLD that has a functioning HSR or even a functioning national rail system has substantial government support.

EVERY ONE OF THEM LOOSES MONEY IN THE LONG RUN!

Yes, they do, and they always will, but they still keep building more of them, more people keep riding them, and we keep admiring them from afar.

If everything has to earn a buck, why are we still in Iraq? Dont see any profits there?

Its not all about the money, namely tax money, yet thats all you seam focused on.

The Manhattan Project was the biggest money pit of the war, yet no one cried about the costs when it ended the war.

Going to the Moon?, I guess that was a boondogle also, regardless of any scientific knowledge, national prestige, beating the Soviets, just a waste? nor was the most massive achievement of the century, landing on another world, just an dream since Man could first talk, guess that was a waste also?

Everything worth doing, costs.

I would prefer to see my tax dolars being used for something constructive that I can actually use and would benifit me and 10,000's of others. Haven ridden the TGV and the Eurostar and the Chunnel from England to France, NOTHING you say can make me believe they are a waste of money, especially given the alternatives of schlepping in a car or bus on a highway or dealing with the insane overcrowded airports.

Youz needs a trip ta Europe ma friend, Someone get this man a Eurail Pass !!!
Once you experience it, the ability to get from city to city fast comfortably and cheap, you want it here also. Its that convincing.

[Anonymous]

Let me know when enough United States citizens... decide that sending their earnings to politicians is a mistake (no matter the political stripe).

[jeaton]

Hang in there vsmith, it will be over soon.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: EVERY nation IN THE WORLD that has a functioning HSR or even a functioning national rail system has substantial government support.

EVERY ONE OF THEM LOOSES MONEY IN THE LONG RUN!

[blhanel]

This thread is proving to be quite interesting.

[Anonymous]

One reason Government Spend so Much

Industries generally develop in three stages. First is scientific feasibility, second is engineering feasibility, and the third is economic feasibility.
Using the airline industry as an example, the question in the 1800’s was: “Is long-distance air travel possible?”
In the 1800’s, balloons were already in use but were not practical. This problem solve was the heavier-than-air-machine.
The Wright Brothers in 1903 proved scientific feasibility. They risked their time, money and lives to show that a heavier-than-air-machine could fly.
Lindbergh in 1927 proved engineering feasibility. He risked time, money and his life to show that long distance air travel was possible.
This gave investors enough confidence to risk their money in the aircraft industry. In 1935 the Douglas Company came with the DC-3, which was the beginning of economic feasibility.
The modern airline industry resulted from all this risk-taking. Today, a middle class American can go anywhere in the world much faster, and in much greater comfort, than a Roman emperor could. Travelers fly because the benefits are greater than the costs. This is economic feasibility.
This three-step model explains why governments gamble with other people’s money, so they tend to confuse scientific and engineering feasibility with economic feasibility.
Once science and engineering prove something can be done, those who comprise the government will do it even if the costs are greater than the benefits.

If any such lines are economically feasible, they should be built. However the government is incapable of deciding if it is or isn’t. If it is economically feasible, that means the private sector will pay for it. I am not against the government giving railroads the land during the building of the Transcontinental Railroad, even funding it possibly. However if the choices are, government funding, or no railroad; then I am afraid as Americans, and rail fans, we have but two choices. These are, no HSL and we put our favoritism aside; or we build an HSL, and compromise our values of our country. You choose.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

No I did not say that these were as important as these. I was carrying out to the logical conclusion you mooting their beliefs. If one start to say “well this does not matter any more, they are too old.” Or “ Well I am sure they would change their mind.” You open up the whole basis of our country to the same interpretation.

QUOTE: 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.

Have you ever wondered what you could do with the probably other third of your income if the government weren’t taking it? The path of our leaders is the same path taken thousands of years earlier by the Roman Republic; a path of corruption and greed. The founding fathers, especially Jefferson, were knowledgeable historians, these as you said are the paths they wanted our country to take. These words were not spoken lightly, neither were the spoken infrequently. These quotes of their voluminous work were based on the hindsight to try to prevent the repeating of history.

QUOTE: 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.

These views were carried on much longer than their lifetimes take a look at this.
“The history of liberty is a history of limitation of government power, not the increase of it.” -Woodrow Wilson 28th President of the United States.
He saw things as they were over a full century after Adams, and Jefferson. To expand the government is to move away from liberty. To use the boondoggles of recent times as an excuse is as anti-gaites, put it perfectly: well your son is addicted to heroin, maybe he should try crack too?
As I said these views are not just a stated merely a couple times by a couple people, take a look for you self.
Cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible.”
- George Washington.
You can’t say this too is moot! Building such a proposed system on public credit is hardly a sparing use of it.
Every time government attempts to handle our affairs, it cost more and the results are worse than if we had handled them ourselves.”-Benjamin Constant, 1833-1891 Brazilian statesman.
Hardly a founding father, but still quite right. Now as Futuremodal, suggested government does not have to RUN, it just fund it. This is a matter of feasibilities, which I will tackle in one of my next posts.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

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?

What you suggest here is almost exactly what Amtrak has recommended for the development of the regional routes. A combination of federal/state/local government grants/loans are used to build the infrastructure and one of the government entities contracts the rest to any business that want's to do the job. Amtrak's proposal contemplates government ownership of the equipment, but I can't imagine that private ownership of the equipment would off the table.

Can't see any reason that the government owned routes could not be rented to freight railroads. The CSS&SB works that way.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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![;)]

[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.

[oltmannd]

Why not just hear what they have to say:

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

[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.