Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="henry6"] But it had to be chartered and made exclusive by a government somewhere along the way....and the rights of way were possibly easements rather than purchase of land...and a lot of other indirect government incursions. [/quote] The company was not charted by the government; it was incorporated in accordance with Texas law.  To that extent you could say that it was granted a state charter. Its ability to operate was due to being granted a franchise (usually by the city) to serve an area, for which it paid and is paying franchise taxes.  How anyone could view this as a subsidy is beyond me. The company's rights-of-way were secured in part by eminent domain. It paid the landowners for the rights-of-way. In most instances the company (shareholders) pay the owners what they asked, which arguably was above the fair market value of the land. How anyone could view this as a subsidy akin to the cash subsidies received by Amtrak is beyond me. I keep telling myself not to respond to the postings about subsidies.  They are irrelevant.  It does not matter whether a particular form of transport got a subsidy or was mistreated by the government. It is done and over with. The key questions is where does passenger rail makes sense, how should we pay for it, and what form should it take?  But sometimes I read a posting that I cannot help but respond to.
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