Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Phoebe Vet"] Since we are all just voicing opinion, and no one in here actually has the ability to implement any of these plans, I don't understand why the nay sayers like Samantha (just an example, not an attack on her) hang out in here.[/quote]The purpose of the forums is to share views on railroading.  This subset is devoted to passenger trains.  Telling me to bow out because I don't agree with the orthodoxy does not address the questions that I posed.  Not a single one of my questions was answered.This country was built by many different people.  Some of them were entrepreneurs who saw an opportunity and exploited it.  Others where organization people.  Millions where hard working empoyees, small business people, etc. who have long been forgotten, but whose labor was critical to the development of this country.  But most of the builders had one thing in common.  They did not look to the government for handouts.  Edison, Westinghouse, Lindbergh, Carnegie, Douglas, Piper, as well as 10s of thousands of others used private capital to developed their products and convince the market place that they had a good idea.  The market agreed.  And it provided additional capital to bring the products and services to a market where people would buy them in an arms length transaction.  They did not depend on government handouts.Many people in the passenger rail community seem to know that its service will not sell without a healthy infusion of taxpayer money.  So they use political leverage to fund what the market otherwise would not sustain.  They argue for passenger rail services with scant market research data to support their vision.  Free markets are the best way to allocate scarce resources.  I support passenger rail where there is probable market for it, but eventually it should stand on its own.  Free markets, by the way, go hand in hand with free societies.  In a free society, to the maximum extent possible, the people decide what they want.  Not a central planner in a transportation department in a national or state capital!  And not someone who wants to build an expensive rail system without any idea of how much it would cost and whether the revenues would cover the cost.  Interestingly, the passenger rail community is one of the few that insisted the government save the passenger train.  The Trans Atlantic steam ships were allowed to fold.  Trailways was allowed to go out of business as a national carrier.  Numerous airlines have collapsed.  All sorts of businesses, when they are no longer viable, have been allowed to fold.    Had the passenger train been forced to stand on its own, most of them would have folded in 1971.  And few people in the market would have missed them.  The Northeast Corridor and LA to San Diego, as well as a numerous commuter rail operations, are possible exceptions.  Had they been managed aggressively, i.e. better, faster, cheaper, they might have survived on their own.  But the politicians created Amtrak to save passenger rail.  To date it has drained the U.S. Treasury of more than $25 billion to cover its loses.  And this for a system that is used by less than 1 per cent of intercity travelers.      So I will continue to ask the questions.  No one is forced to read them.  And clearly no one is required to respond with a non-response.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag