Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="daveklepper"] Sam keeps repeating that if people use a service, they should pay for it. Sam, if I remodel an old defunct theatre, I am obligated to install all kinds of measures, special elevators, ramps, hard of hearing devices, just so handicapped, blind, deaf, and elderly people can enjoy the shows I present/  All this investment, and some matters also involve operating costs, does not bring in near the income this necessary compliance with the Dissabled etc. acts require of me.   So I am forced, even though I paid for the threatre and own it, to subsidize these deaf, blind, handicapped, and elderly people.  The American people have decided that is fair.   Just like long distance trains for the same population and internal tourism.   Now, Great Britain went the bidding process of specific routes route .  The results have been generally better service in most cases, but worse in some and some loss of connectivity, but a huge increase in subsidy costs, even acounting for inflation.   Why?  Because of loss of economies of scale.   The British readers of this thread can verify my comment. [/quote] The owners of Dell Diamond, which is located in Round Rock, TX and is the home field for the Round Rock Express, which is the Texas Rangers AAA minor league baseball team, must comply with a variety of safety and ADA regulations.  At the end of the day, however, the patrons pay for these requirements.  The cost is embedded in the ticket price.  The taxpayers do not pick-up the tab. To the extent that the true cost of a service is not reflected in the price paid by the customer, i.e. ticket price, fuel taxes, user fees, etc., the users are not fully aware of the cost of their choices and, therefore, may over use or under use a service, product, commodity, etc. One of the best examples of this is found in the price of gasoline in the United States, which does not reflect the true cost of driving, e.g. cost of local streets, county roads, etc. As a result Americans have tended to buy large, gas guzzling SUVs and pick-ups. If the true price of driving were reflected in the price paid at the pump, they may have chosen more fuel efficient vehicles. For this reason I have argued that each mode of transport should stand on its own feet, i.e. no subsidies, with the possible exception of low cost, government loans to develop infrastructure that would be paid back by the users. This would mean, of course, that outside of a few high density corridors passenger rail probably would be dead in the water.   I don't buy your argument that the taxpayer has an obligation to support long distance trains because they promote tourism, which is a dubious assertion, or to provide transport options for the disabled.  If this argument had merit, then the United States should offer passenger rail service to every community in the United States with a population of 25,000 or more, which is out of the question. The country, which has a combined national, state, and local debt in excess of $19 trillion, could not afford it. Properly regulated, competitive markets will always trump government run commercial enterprises. Why wouldn't they. Government enterprises, which are usually monopolies, have little incentive to do things better, faster, cheaper. The operative word is better. In 1990 most major businesses in Australia were owned by the government or very tightly regulated. Included in this model were the nation's airlines, railways, banks, telecommunication companies, electric utilities, etc. Then the Australians decided to go for more open, competitive, properly regulated markets. They privatized a slew of commercial activities. Today, as a result, along with some good luck, Australia has one of the most vibrant economies of any OECD country. Far more than the U.S. economy. By now it is no secret that I believe markets are a better vehicle for the allocation of scarce economic resources.And that includes passenger rail.  If it cannot stand on its own, it should be allow to wither.  Having said that, if all transport subsidies were eliminated, passenger rail probably could survice in relatively short, high density corridors. But the operators would have to be allowed to implement modern work practices, up to date technologies, and relevant marketing strategies.  As noted in a previous post, a group of Italian business persons are giving it a go. I hope that they succeed.
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