Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="henry6"] It has often been stated that the business of handling people is labor intensive and costly and rarely if ever offers a return on investment.  Canal and river boats, airlines, bus companies and railroads all have benefited from grants, bonds, contract, leases, infrastructure ownership and maintenance, traffic control, terminal ownership, easments, tax abatement, tax deferments, land grants and gifts,and direct deposit subsidies from all different governments and agencies from the first post road to today.  Sometimes regulated, sometimes not.  Deregulation of the airline industry saw the end of the airline industry as we knew it. And all the above were actually considerd public utilities because of the semi monopoly they held in most places and were regulated under the public utilities or public commerce or other public agency in different states.  Pull state and federal support and regulation away and the whole will collapse because no one will venture into the field without back up and direction with the unsureness of return on investmen.  At best, they might make it running a taxi, otherwise, they have to put up with government agencies and regulations.  COme to think of it, even taxi's are heavily regulated so that they can stay in business and do it safely. [/quote] I have never argued that the government has not or should not play a significant role in developing and maintaining transport infrastructures.  I recognize that there have been and will continue to be never ending arguments as to whether users of the common facilities, i.e. highways, waterways, airways, etc. pay their fair share of the cost.  My consistant point, however, is that the users have paid for the use of the infrastructure, although in some instances, e.g. local streets, county roads, and some highways, they have paid indirectly through general taxation rather than user taxes.  I have also argued that there is little evidence that passenger rail, as projected, will be paid for by the users irrespective of any allocation scheme. Most if not all the railways in the United States received government support when being built. But not all of them. Most of them paid it back. But that is not to say that there were no defaults, and clearly most of the railroads, at one time or another, filed for bankruptcy.    The problem for passenger rail is that there is little evidence that the users will pay for it. Clearly, they don't tote the complete note in the United States. Moreover, I don't accept the argument that it is a vital public service. There are few places in the United States, outside of several high density metropolitan areas, i.e. NEC, southern California, etc., where buses could not do the job, especially where they can operate in dedicated bus lanes.   The biggest conflict that I have as a train enthusiast is the conflict between wanting a better passenger train system and how to pay for it.  I have never seen in these forums any serious discussion of how to pay for an expanded passenger rail system, other than by hitting up the taxpayers.  This nation that is more than $15 trillion in debt at the federal level, $3.7 trillion at the state and local level, and facing $46.9 trillion in unfunded liabilities.  How to pay for improved passenger rail should be laid out.
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