Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="henry6"] I'd like to go back to the (often heard or posted) comment that if there was profit or if it had potential then investors, private enterprise, would do it.  But that is definitely not the case, nor was it ever!  From the Erie Canal to the Panama Canal and so many others around the world (I know there are or were some private capitlaized canals) it took governments and/or governents in partnership with private capital. The Union Pacific Railroad relied very heavily on government land grants and protections in order for private enterprise to succeed.  So why does this come up everytime a major project which will benifet people and private business is proposed?  Should only private enterprise do anything concerning commerce from making mining a mineral and making widgets to carrying the raw material to the factory and finsihed product to market?  Does anyone have any idea how far  back in time we would be if Dewitt Clinton turned his back on the concept of the Erie Canal or if Abraham Lincoln couldn't fathom the need for a transcontinental railroad?  Or how would you get to work in the morning if there were no roads from your house to your place of work?  I just don't get this fearful fervor against governments doing anything to progress society and the feeling that if a private investor isn't going to do it then it shouldn't be done.  [/quote] The federal and state governments, sometimes in partnership with private capital, invested in transport infrastructure, e.g. canals, railroads, highways, airways, waterways, etc., because they realized the need to do so to jump start the projects.  They expected to recoup their investment from user fees.  In most instances they did. Given the dismal financial performance of passenger railways trains throughout the world, there is little chance that investing in high speed rail will enable the investors to recoup their investment.  In fact, there is a scant probability that the operators will even recover their operating expenses.  This is why I question the wisdom of using public or private monies to build high speed rail. I favor using government monies to invest in conventional rail infrastructure associated with short, high density corridors, where expanding highways and airways is cost prohibitive, because there is a good chance that the operator can recover the operating expenses and, as is the case with the NEC, contribute something to the capital investment.
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