Phoebe Vet That's true. Every time I tell someone that I have a train trip scheduled they respond with amazement. "We have trains in Charlotte?". "Yes, 3 trains a day." "Wow. Where is the train station?". Most people outside a few high density corridors think passenger trains are already gone. Transportation infrastructure, like medicine, is one of the many areas where we are falling rapidly behind the rest of the world while bragging that we are actually ahead of all those other countries.
That's true.
Every time I tell someone that I have a train trip scheduled they respond with amazement. "We have trains in Charlotte?". "Yes, 3 trains a day." "Wow. Where is the train station?".
Most people outside a few high density corridors think passenger trains are already gone.
Transportation infrastructure, like medicine, is one of the many areas where we are falling rapidly behind the rest of the world while bragging that we are actually ahead of all those other countries.
Johnny
Paul Milenkovic Economic arguments that high-speed rail should not be "subsidized" ignore many ways that other travel options are indirectly "subsidized" or otherwise supported by our government. Most other developed nations have figured out that passenger trains are important. Did I ever say trains should not be subsidized? Other people may have chimed in with that point of view, but I have never, ever stated that trains should not get subsidy. What I have brought up, time and again, and there are a few on this Forum who back me up on this, is that the rate of subsidy is a serious problem in getting a political constituency for yet more subsidy to get higher levels of train service. What is the argument for subsidizing Amtrak at the rate of 20 cents/passenger mile? What social benefit or combination of benefits (reduced energy use, and how much energy is Amtrak saving in percentage terms, by the way?) are worth that rate of subsidy? Is there so much inherent goodness with train travel that any rate of subsidy is justified? What is the limit to spending that someone would say, gee, we are not getting enough in return?
Economic arguments that high-speed rail should not be "subsidized" ignore many ways that other travel options are indirectly "subsidized" or otherwise supported by our government. Most other developed nations have figured out that passenger trains are important.
Did I ever say trains should not be subsidized? Other people may have chimed in with that point of view, but I have never, ever stated that trains should not get subsidy.
What I have brought up, time and again, and there are a few on this Forum who back me up on this, is that the rate of subsidy is a serious problem in getting a political constituency for yet more subsidy to get higher levels of train service.
What is the argument for subsidizing Amtrak at the rate of 20 cents/passenger mile? What social benefit or combination of benefits (reduced energy use, and how much energy is Amtrak saving in percentage terms, by the way?) are worth that rate of subsidy?
Is there so much inherent goodness with train travel that any rate of subsidy is justified? What is the limit to spending that someone would say, gee, we are not getting enough in return?
Ideally all transport subsidies could be phased out over five to seven years. They distort the market, which is the best way to allocate scarce economic resources. Each mode of transport would absorb its full cost and pass them on to the user in ticket prices and fuel taxes. Unfortunately, given the political nature of transport subsidies, this will not happen.
Passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors, especially where the cost of constructing additional highways and airways is prohibitive. In these cases, subsidizing them is justified. But subsidizing long distance trains, which require an inordinate amount of support, while serving a small per cent of intercity travelers, is not justified. By the same token, pouring massive subsidies into high speed rail, especially for a nation that has the debt profile of the U.S. is, makes no economic sense.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
I am just saying that trains are so much fun. Everyone in America should take a cross-country trip in a private room. It is better than a cruise, because one can actually experience the source of our bread and beef. Priceless...
Obviously, something is wrong with our economy, the environment, and a culture that responds to a live-webcam suicide with LOL and OMG. I think trains are an important part of the solution, and am struggling to get my opinions in a form that can be understood by your average federal decision-maker. I apologize for inappropriate references to slave ships.
Thanks for your time!
Pulama! (Hawaiian for shine bright as a torch; conserve as an eternal source of fire)
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
As to crime rates being lower in countries with HSR, is that our new talking point, that Amtrak is a crime-fighting program? What is the return on the dollar from fighting crime by giving money to Amtrak vs the conventional methods (early childhood education, more police, tougher gun laws, etc,).?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Point taken.
Oh, and it's possible to have sex on a train; safely, comfortably, and privately. In some ways, faster trains and smoother track will be a disappointment...
"And what do whatever subsidies, working conditions, or other factors on cruise ships have to do with Amtrak? Are you saying that if Amtrak got the same deal as the cruise lines that Amtrak would be self-sufficient?"
High-speed rail would be more likely if Amtrak were more popular, and cruise ships take vacation dollars away from Amtrak. Cruise lines are able to offer low fares because they pay their foreign workers at a much lower rate than what would be allowed on a US-registered vessel. But at present, rail travel is an expensive and often inconvenient vacation option.
Now here's another point, and I don't have any statistics but just a few observations. I know that's a hornet's nest on this forum... People who ride trains are happier, and crime rates are lower in countries that promote high-speed rail. One who rides a train is moving in the same direction as and in intimate contact with his or her neighbors (yes, I have been on some uncomfortable train rides...). It is more obvious who is drunk or abused. And trains are okay for talking on the phone or reading.
HarveyK400 This is straying from the topic; but I'd rather have a seat, and have a better chance, in the "Peanut Gallery" on Metra to or from Rogers Park than to stand on the CTA from downtown to Belmont or Addison. Also, I would rather have a fast, stress-free ride downtown on Metra, even if I'm rubbing shoulders, and invest some of the $4,500 saved not driving. I like your point about positive commercials for commuting by train.
This is straying from the topic; but I'd rather have a seat, and have a better chance, in the "Peanut Gallery" on Metra to or from Rogers Park than to stand on the CTA from downtown to Belmont or Addison. Also, I would rather have a fast, stress-free ride downtown on Metra, even if I'm rubbing shoulders, and invest some of the $4,500 saved not driving.
I like your point about positive commercials for commuting by train.
I live in Rogers Park too, and I totally agree with you. Also no coming to work late via Metra.
CRUISE SHIPS are subsidized by laws that allow non-union workers to perform most jobs on board. Why do we allow these slave vessels to carry US citizens from US ports? This is a part of the "free market" which conspires against trains. And those calculations about cost of highway travel -- do they include the cost of the car? It is not unusual for an American family to spend $10 or $20 per day on a second car for getting to work.
CRUISE SHIPS are subsidized by laws that allow non-union workers to perform most jobs on board. Why do we allow these slave vessels to carry US citizens from US ports? This is a part of the "free market" which conspires against trains.
And those calculations about cost of highway travel -- do they include the cost of the car? It is not unusual for an American family to spend $10 or $20 per day on a second car for getting to work.
Is there a corollary to Godwin's Law that applies to invoking the Middle Passage to describe working conditions on a modern cruise ship? Maybe it is a "figure of speech" to relate low wages and long hours on a cruise ship to the appalling conditions on a slave ship, but persons who trace their ancestory to those ships may take personal offense.
And what do whatever subsidies, working conditions, or other factors on cruise ships have to do with Amtrak? Are you saying that if Amtrak got the same deal as the cruise lines that Amtrak would be self-sufficient?
That argument cuts both ways, along with the argument that "only fools think that a passenger train service anywhere in the world can make a profit." Keep hammering on the high cost nature of trains and we in the advocacy community may yet get Congress to pull the plug.
If you are going to blame the unions for Amtrak's cost structure, some will support subsidy money for Amtrak because they support unions, others will oppose subsidy money for Amtrak, arguing that those union wages are higher than anything a particular person could ever make in some other line of work. Saying Amtrak requires subsidy because it has a union wage work force sounds like a good plan for rallying opposition to Amtrak. The subsidize-GM-to-help-UAW-people-keep-their-contract-and-jobs argument sounds like it is sinking the proposed auto bailout, and this is with a pro-labor political party in charge of Congress.
About the high cost of a car. A car, famously, has high fixed costs and low (until the price of gas went up) variable costs. A good transit system may get people to forgo a second (or even a first car), but the availability of Amtrak or some HSR successor would have little impact on car ownership decisions.
I've got it. The connection between cruise ships and trains and public transit is this. When you are stuck in traffic behind a Madison Metro bus squirting plumes of Diesel smoke into the air, you can read this ad saying that if you have up a second car and rode Metro, you could save enough money to go on a warm-climate vacation every year, and they show these happy Madison, WI people running barefoot on a beach someplace. So trains and cruise ships are connected.
They actually give a number for the savings, which, I believe, is close to the upper end of your range, of $20/day spent on owning and operating car (something like 7K a year).
You know, if I had an extra 7K to spend every year, I would not waste it on a fancy vacation. I would take that money and pay for gas and lease payments on a nice, comfy SUV to drive to work every day so I could ride to work in rush hour without being in bodily contact with my fellow passenger in the next seat (if you think trains are better, you haven't been relegated to the "peanut gallery" upper-deck bench section of a Chicago commuter train).
If people make a free-market decision to get a first or a second car, and if we point out how much money they are spending on that compared to the amount of tax they are paying to subsidize Amtrak or transit, whether they favor it or not, are we really helping the cause of making people feel positively about trains, or are we scolding people that they are spending their own money, but in a way that we don't favor?
You take a car into Chicago, and the Ohio Street off ramp has a big billboard "could you have used Metra for this trip?" Back in the day, the Chicago and Northwestern Railway ran perky "Go Northwestern!" radio adds talking about how you could beat traffic by taking the train. Now that it is a subsidized agency, they are scolding you for not taking the train and adding to traffic congestion.
I don't think the plan refers to consumer electronics for retailers, it seemed to be more about shipping electronic components for manufacturing. After all the state still produces a lot of computer equipment as well as military electronic equipment. IIRC correctly the idea was to run these trains mostly at off peak times...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I had an epiphany last night concerning economics of rail service: We are missing the boat on cruise ships. Some of the money spent on those vacations should be spent riding Amtrak's outdated equipment, which is due to be given away when the govenment builds our maglev system.
MAGIC CARPETTransportationTransportationTransportationWill be the keyWill be the keyWill be the keyTo make me freeTo make me freeTo make me free
Take the train Take the trainNot the planeEnjoy the rideNo need to hideCome insideTake a cruise?That's a bruiseOn the crewsYou'll abuseIn the future we can flyAs an arrow through the skyNo need to go much higherWhen the train runs on a wireCall it "Magic Carpet"We don't need your garbage!It's a magnetic carriageBeautiful as a marriage!-by me, Phillip Bose; inspired by a poem heard at Chicago Union Station Black History Day, 14 Februay 2000 (?); I was on my way from Hawaii to Ann Arbor for geofusion research.
I had forgotten the TGV postal trains.
Also, postal trains do not necessarily equate with a market for electronics shipments. What's the hurry for an iPod as compared to other goods? What about a collectable low-tech doll purchased on e-Bay? Or a birthday or wedding gift purchased at the last minute? A lot of mail that went express is going electronic; so how much of a market will there be?
Al-in-Stockton Maybe that same 25 Billion could be put to better use upgrading the rail lines that Amtrak travels on. Easing curves, additional and longer sidings, heavier rail where needed. I'm not talking about the long distance lines but those like the previous writers mentioned Dallas - San Antonio, Dallas - Houston, St. Louis - Chicago, Cleveland - Cincinnatti and others. They don't have to be HSR corridors but lets at least make them average 70 mph or there abouts. If one compares train times today with train times in the 1940's and 1950's over many of these same routes and others we are getting slower and slower. Another good example is the Missouri Mules between KC and St. Louis. Just look at the schedule today compared to the 1940's and 50's.
Maybe that same 25 Billion could be put to better use upgrading the rail lines that Amtrak travels on. Easing curves, additional and longer sidings, heavier rail where needed. I'm not talking about the long distance lines but those like the previous writers mentioned Dallas - San Antonio, Dallas - Houston, St. Louis - Chicago, Cleveland - Cincinnatti and others. They don't have to be HSR corridors but lets at least make them average 70 mph or there abouts. If one compares train times today with train times in the 1940's and 1950's over many of these same routes and others we are getting slower and slower. Another good example is the Missouri Mules between KC and St. Louis. Just look at the schedule today compared to the 1940's and 50's.
Curve easement is expensive.
First, more than a couple degrees of curvature will require additional ROW easement. At best this may take a few feet of some backyards; and more likely will incur costly dislocation costs for lineside homes and businesses. As the degree of curve decreases, the length of the curve increases. For example, easing a 1-degree curve to 0.5-degree will about double its length and the cost of reconstruction.
Second, often curve easement is not possible without a major relocation on a new ROW for a succession of curves. This gets back to the increased length of broader curves.
Any substantial program for curve easement could blow the budget in implementing fast regional intercity rail passenger service. An evaluation will be needed to determine if the service can be viable with few if any changes; if the service will remain viable over time with improvements for the competition; and whether there is a potential to reach a sufficiently larger market to justify the costs of relocations and future incremental improvements toward a high speed corridor.
I have read on the California HSR site that they are def. considering high speed freight service and apparently would seek a third party to operate it. What they seem to be talking about is shipping roll on air freight containers on special trains similiar to the French TGV postal trains. They may also be considering container service. The website mentions that any freight operations would be marketed to high end traffic like electronics.
KCSfan Sam1 The U.S. would be better off if the passenger rail advocacy community urged planners and lawmakers to implement frequent, quick, economical, comfortable, and dependable passenger rapid rail in high density corridors, where there is a reasonable market for it, instead of harping about a super expensive high speed rail system that would be used by relatively few people. We need affordable, workable solutions to our transportation problems. We don't need a system that will break the piggy bank just to say that we are keeping up with other countries that have different needs that require individual solutions. Amen Sam I agree 100%. True HSR in in the US is such a quantum leap forward that it is only a pipe dream of its advocates. Maybe some day but in the meantime concentrate efforts on more realistic and attainable goals - 1) dependable on time performance, 2) 70mph average speeds and 3) more frequent corridor service. Get train service up to a level that is reasonably comparable with auto travel and the riders will come. Mark
Sam1 The U.S. would be better off if the passenger rail advocacy community urged planners and lawmakers to implement frequent, quick, economical, comfortable, and dependable passenger rapid rail in high density corridors, where there is a reasonable market for it, instead of harping about a super expensive high speed rail system that would be used by relatively few people. We need affordable, workable solutions to our transportation problems. We don't need a system that will break the piggy bank just to say that we are keeping up with other countries that have different needs that require individual solutions.
The U.S. would be better off if the passenger rail advocacy community urged planners and lawmakers to implement frequent, quick, economical, comfortable, and dependable passenger rapid rail in high density corridors, where there is a reasonable market for it, instead of harping about a super expensive high speed rail system that would be used by relatively few people.
We need affordable, workable solutions to our transportation problems. We don't need a system that will break the piggy bank just to say that we are keeping up with other countries that have different needs that require individual solutions.
Amen Sam I agree 100%. True HSR in in the US is such a quantum leap forward that it is only a pipe dream of its advocates. Maybe some day but in the meantime concentrate efforts on more realistic and attainable goals - 1) dependable on time performance, 2) 70mph average speeds and 3) more frequent corridor service. Get train service up to a level that is reasonably comparable with auto travel and the riders will come.
Mark
Don't be fooled by these exceptionally low gas prices at this time. Remember OPEC controls the prices and this will not last. It has been a long time since gas fell below $2.00 a gallon and it wasn't that long ago it was above $4.00.
Al - in - Stockton
Sam1 I have not put the numbers to shipping UPS style stuff on HSR, primarily because I don't have access to good cost information. However, based on the published estimated numbers for the California HSR, if the incremental pricing reflected the true cost of HSR, I doubt that UPS or any similar carrier could afford to ship on it. Last weekend I drove from Austin to San Antonio. I-35 was chockers. How nice it would have been to be able to go on a train. Unfortunately, there is only one train a day between Austin and San Antonio. It is the notorious late running Texas Eagle. The U.S. would be better off if the passenger rail advocacy community urged planners and lawmakers to implement frequent, quick, economical, comfortable, and dependable passenger rapid rail in high density corridors, where there is a reasonable market for it, instead of harping about a super expensive high speed rail system that would be used by relatively few people. We need affordable, workable solutions to our transportation problems. We don't need a system that will break the piggy bank just to say that we are keeping up with other countries that have different needs that require individual solutions.
I have not put the numbers to shipping UPS style stuff on HSR, primarily because I don't have access to good cost information. However, based on the published estimated numbers for the California HSR, if the incremental pricing reflected the true cost of HSR, I doubt that UPS or any similar carrier could afford to ship on it.
Last weekend I drove from Austin to San Antonio. I-35 was chockers. How nice it would have been to be able to go on a train. Unfortunately, there is only one train a day between Austin and San Antonio. It is the notorious late running Texas Eagle.
Here's what I was thinking about handling parcels on HSR. Assuming $10 to ship a cubic foot package 500 miles, that's 2 cents per mile. If the typical passenger space is 2 x 3 x 8 feet - call it 50 cubic feet, then you can get a buck a mile for handling packages less handling costs to load, unload, etc, should leave you about the same rev/mile as a passenger. If most HSR clears costs ATR, then package business should be incrementally profitable.
But I agree with you and others about needing affordable, incremental solutions, not expensive home runs.
Anybody who'd like to see a presentation on the state of the industry, both frt. and passenger, check this out http://transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2008/2008.11.18.McClellan.Presentation.pdf
Jim McClellan is a "true believer"...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
There seems to be some confusion about the "old" stations in Richmond, VA. There are two "old"station, there is Broad Street, a large "beaux arts" structure that was used by the RF&P and the ACL. It is now the Virginia Science Museum. Broad Street Station was actually about 2 miles from downtown Richmond See:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,1441160
Then there was Main Street Station, in the heart of downtown, used by the SAL and the C&O. This is used by Amtrak, for the Newport News trains, off the CSX. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Street_Station_(Richmond)
There was a third station, across the river used by the Southern RR, being Hull Street. Now owned by the Old Dominion Chapter, NRHS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_Street_Station
In Charlotte NC the old Southern RR station was on W. Trade Street, downtown. It was demolished as part of a track elevation project in the early 1960's (1963?) and the station was moved to a new facility north of downtown, next to the SR yard. That is the station Amtrak is still in. To show that "What goes around, comes around" Greyhound built their station in the late 60's on the site of the old SR station. This is the same land and building that has been bought back by the state (NCDOT & NCRR) and wil be the site of the new station that Pheobe has shown above.
I agree with Sam1 on affordable solutions.
As I've written previously, much more than hourly service seems to be needed to begin to justify HSR given the initial Japanese and French successes. Freight and express are potential markets that may bring viability, or at least a more practical solution than more highway lane capacity. I am skeptical that HSR would be viable, even if more practical, in California or here in the Midwest.
I feel for Texans traveling between Austin and San Antonio. I agree that this corridor deserves more and better than the Eagle. Without track charts, I can only ascertain the approximate curvature along that corridor from aerial photos; and the picture ain't pretty. With traffic "chockers," maybe a lot of 60-70 mph curves would seem fast. New tilt trains that could run faster are expensive; but tilting running gear and lifts might be installed on wreck rebuilds.
Another point Sam1 made previously was the need to extend service beyond the city centers, perhaps to Georgetown north of Austin. For years I've urged extending Amtrak services through Union Station to the O'Hare Transfer station in the Metra North Central Line. Similarly, the Hiawathas need to be extended to Oconomowoc, Watertown, and Madison to boost intermodal use through the Milwaukee (Gen Mitchell) Airport Station, currently serving more as a suburban station.
Sam wrote:
"The U.S. would be better off if the passenger rail advocacy community urged planners and lawmakers to implement frequent, quick, economical, comfortable, and dependable passenger rapid rail in high density corridors, where there is a reasonable market for it, instead of harping about a super expensive high speed rail system that would be used by relatively few people. "
Of course, an incremental approach is the only feasible option. Some first steps:
--Fix wrecked Amtrak cars
--Get moving on adequate station facilities in our largest city (New York)
Without correcting existing deficiencies, we will never be able to move forward. But unless we take some leaps -- like really starting to plan for a high-speed network -- the United States will alwys be in a catch-up mode.
Look at our pitiful 70-mph Acela trains -- they should have been prototypes for Amfleet replacements, and the Amfleet equipment sent to develop other high-density corridors. But no, our couple dozen Acela's with tray tables that send food flying onto your lap are the best we can come up with now. The "Intercity 225" trains I rode in England 15 years ago are superior to Acela (and they had a better name also). Maybe we should apologize for the Boston Tea Party and beg the Queen to help us travel from our largest city to our capital quickly, comfortably, and economically.
passengerfan gardendance HarveyK400Asuming there are viable HSR corridors, why not start with well cars with TGV-type trucks and electronic brakes? Adding fiberglass covers to reduce drag around different size, boxy, and often outside-ribbed containers poses issues for overhead power and transfer operations that need to be resolved. And design the electrical system for longer trains of multiple coupled blocks.are you related to Trains magazine columnist John Kneiling? Sam1Airbus may have learned a lesson or two from the SST, albeit how not to do it, but it is successful largely because it developed a business model that could compete with the American large commercial airplane manufacturers.Formula for success: pay attention to everything they do, and make sure you do the exact opposite. It got George Costanza his job at the Yankees. First off Airbus only seems successful. The new plane has fallen far short of sales expectations and is still unable to pay its way which means more heavy subsidies from the European governments behind this Company. Boeing on the other hand has a new plane the 787 Dreamliner that has firm sales on the books for over 900 planes and deliveries will begin in 2009. Maybe this time Airbus guessed wrong that bigger was better. Boeing still continues to sell newer versions of the 747 outpacing Airbus sales of there new plane 26 to 1. If you look carefully at Airbus sales there largest customers are the National carriers of the countries that build it. The new Airbus is being purchased for extremely long well patronized routes and few airports as this is written are capable of handling the new plane. The Boeing 737 is the most widely flown airliner in the world and continues to be a best seller as newer versions are built. Al - in - Stockton
gardendance HarveyK400Asuming there are viable HSR corridors, why not start with well cars with TGV-type trucks and electronic brakes? Adding fiberglass covers to reduce drag around different size, boxy, and often outside-ribbed containers poses issues for overhead power and transfer operations that need to be resolved. And design the electrical system for longer trains of multiple coupled blocks.are you related to Trains magazine columnist John Kneiling? Sam1Airbus may have learned a lesson or two from the SST, albeit how not to do it, but it is successful largely because it developed a business model that could compete with the American large commercial airplane manufacturers.Formula for success: pay attention to everything they do, and make sure you do the exact opposite. It got George Costanza his job at the Yankees.
HarveyK400Asuming there are viable HSR corridors, why not start with well cars with TGV-type trucks and electronic brakes? Adding fiberglass covers to reduce drag around different size, boxy, and often outside-ribbed containers poses issues for overhead power and transfer operations that need to be resolved. And design the electrical system for longer trains of multiple coupled blocks.
Sam1Airbus may have learned a lesson or two from the SST, albeit how not to do it, but it is successful largely because it developed a business model that could compete with the American large commercial airplane manufacturers.
First off Airbus only seems successful. The new plane has fallen far short of sales expectations and is still unable to pay its way which means more heavy subsidies from the European governments behind this Company. Boeing on the other hand has a new plane the 787 Dreamliner that has firm sales on the books for over 900 planes and deliveries will begin in 2009. Maybe this time Airbus guessed wrong that bigger was better. Boeing still continues to sell newer versions of the 747 outpacing Airbus sales of there new plane 26 to 1. If you look carefully at Airbus sales there largest customers are the National carriers of the countries that build it. The new Airbus is being purchased for extremely long well patronized routes and few airports as this is written are capable of handling the new plane. The Boeing 737 is the most widely flown airliner in the world and continues to be a best seller as newer versions are built.
Airbus produces a large stable of commercial jet airplanes. The A-380 is just one of its offerings. Since 2000 Airbus has sold more airplanes in many of the intervening years than Boeing. North American operators of Airbus airplanes include United Airlines, US Airways, Jet Blue, Frontier and Air Canada. They are not government owned carriers. Nope, not Air Canada. It has been privatized. In fact, many of the so-called government owned airlines, i.e. Qantas, Air New Zealand, Air France, etc. have been privatized in part or wholly.
Sam1 If UPS or any other shipper had to wear the market cost of shipping by HSR, given its cost structure, they could not afford to do so.
If UPS or any other shipper had to wear the market cost of shipping by HSR, given its cost structure, they could not afford to do so.
The niche for UPS on HSR would be as incremental traffic as part of their overnight network. There should be enough revenue in that to pay the incremental costs. It would be a relatively small part of the overall business.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Sam wrote "Imperfect as it is a smartly regulated competitive market, in the long run, will force a better use of scarce economic resources than any other economic model."
But our economy is not "smartly regulated." That is why there is a global economic crisis. Also, we are not a democracy in the sense that we do not vote on every issue; we elect a federal government to do that job.
A couple corrections to my previous post --
Indeed, "corrupt lobbyists" was not a good choice of terms. We have an economy that looks purely at profit; while ignoring scientific reasoning, environmental costs, and social disruption.
Also, in the forseeable future, rail travel should be logical for distances on the order of 1,000 miles or less. Surface speeds of 200 mph crossing the Rocky Mountains are very unlikely...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.