Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="henry6"] [quote user="Sam1"] Most government activities, e.g. defense, police, fire, public education, etc. are non- commercial.  Society decided that it is more practicable for the government to provide these services then to have them provided through free market players, although there are some exceptions, e.g. private schools, water companies, utilities, etc. The government invested in highway, airway, waterway, railway, etc. infrastructure because it believed that it could recoup the investment costs through user fees.  For the most part it has, although in some instances the user fees flow back to the government indirectly and, therefore, are difficult to trace.  It should continue to invest in projects, including rail projects, that serve the body politic as a whole, have a reasonable probability of covering the cost through user fees and ticket revenues, and is the best alternative for the situation. Passenger rail, especially high speed rail, has not demonstrated that it can come even close to covering the cost of its investment through user fees and ticket sales.  This means the taxpayer has to pick-up the tab.  For a nation with a governmental debt burden (federal, state, and local) of more than $13 trillion, this warrants major consideration. [/quote] But Sam, it has not been given a real chance to prove itself nor does the catch all phrases concerning monies flowing back to the government that are "difficult to trace".  Either that phrase has to apply to every form of transportation or none, we shouldn't single out just passenger rail.  Since the government has been involved in roads and waterways since before this country's inception and in rail, interstate highways and air traffic terminal and air space control, the mess is too tangled to be undone without serious injury to the overall system. Or can it all be handed over to a profit based investor group to untangle and still allow us to drive, fly, rail, or float to and from where we want and must? [/quote]   The Australians have unwound a significant amount of government investment in their transport systems and handed them over to private contractors with good results. Amtrak has not been able to cover its costs since its inception.  The market for passenger rail in the U.S. is small compared to the alternatives, and it is likely to remain so.  Neither Amtrak nor any of the high speed rail projects in the U.S. is likely to cover its costs.  If fact, it is problematic whether they can even cover their operating costs outside of the NEC, which means non-users, e.g. the taxpayer, will have to cover the losses.    The costs and user fees for all modes of transport in the U.S., including passenger rail, can be traced.  It takes time, as well as some knowledge about government budgeting and accounting, but I have done it.  The users of most modes paid for the infrastructure that they use.  They pay for it in user fees, or they pay for it through taxes paid to the federal and state governments, which in turn flow them back to the government body responsible for implementing and maintaining the infrastructure.  Passenger rail is an exception.  Because it is used by a relatively small number of people, the users rely on a large subsidy paid by non-users. Having said this, I favor government investing in passenger rail infrastructure where the cost of expanding highways, airways, etc. is prohibitive and rail is the optimum alternative.
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