My major complaint with high-speed train travel is that it is difficult to observe close-by scenery. It passes by so quickly that observation is highly limited, and I get dizzy. Still worse is when any train operates on a sunken track with berms or walls blocking any view. Nevertheless, train travel is more like first-class air travel as far as seating and comfort is concerned.
Mark
Where is Ed at a time like this?
Sam1 As I stated in my post, the first question is whether the U.S. should build high speed rail, i.e. what problem will it solve better than any alternative. The second question is whether we can afford it, which again no one posting to this forum, at least, has answered in detail. If the answers to these questions is yes, then it would be appropriate to look at what other countries have done and determine whether their solutions or modificatons would be a good fit here.
As I stated in my post, the first question is whether the U.S. should build high speed rail, i.e. what problem will it solve better than any alternative. The second question is whether we can afford it, which again no one posting to this forum, at least, has answered in detail. If the answers to these questions is yes, then it would be appropriate to look at what other countries have done and determine whether their solutions or modificatons would be a good fit here.
To be somewhat contrarian myself, I think the focus on high speed rail in North America is premature, trying to run before learning to walk. For rail travel to work well the most important aspect is it be CONVENIENT for passengers to use. Other things being equal, obviously a fast train is more convenient than a slow one, but that is only part of the picture.
One of the biggest advantages in Europe, and why trains are so convenient, is that for many destinations they run as frequently as my city transit bus route. Some make more stops and take longer, but often just catching the next train provides the fastest journey. Waiting half an hour to catch a train that is 20 minutes faster is still a net loss of 10 minutes.
We only have to look at California to see how modest increases in train frequency have led to quite dramatic increases in ridership. By running more trains, the times become convenient for a much broader market. If the business meeting, shopping trip, etc., is shorter you can get home earlier, and of course if it runs overtime, there might be an suppertime departure to still get you home. The one train a day model that is all too common usually has a compromise schedule that is not particularly convenient for more than a handful of passengers.
High Speed Rail necessarily implies few if any intermediate stops. The issue of convenience again comes to the fore. The train may go right past your suburban town, but you will be forced to spend 40 minutes going to the city center before whizzing past your house 10 minutes later. A slower train that actually stops has a 50 minute head start, may well provide fairly competitive overall journey times, and is certainly more convenient to use. This of course is why the automobile is such strong competition to all modes of commercial transport, since the majority of trips are more than simply city center to city center (or airport to airport).
While there are likely a few corridors where high speed rail may be justified, my opinion is that at this stage the California example of increased frequency with relatively fast trains provides a better first stage. First develop a convenient and usable network so that passenger rail is seen to be more than a historical remnant. Once the frequency exists, and the service is being used, it becomes appropriate to consider the megabucks that the much higher speeds will cost.
John
blue streak 1Sam1 As I stated in my post, the first question is whether the U.S. should build high speed rail, i.e. what problem will it solve better than any alternative. The second question is whether we can afford it, which again no one posting to this forum, at least, has answered in detail. If the answers to these questions is yes, then it would be appropriate to look at what other countries have done and determine whether their solutions or modificatons would be a good fit here.Sam1: I think for better or worse the answer to the first question is yes HSR will be built unless there is a quantum shift in the political mindset. That said the 2nd quention comes into play. Can we afford Express (very expensive), Regional ( less expensive for the 110 - 150 MPH) which we sort of have for Bos - NH, Emerging which seems a very good start (90-110)?. Probably the test case of WASH - Raleigh being built and the resulting traffic will go a long way to verifying what we can afford.
I tend to agree with Paul about the fuel efficiency argument regarding Amtrak.
One problem has been the resolution of passenger safety by building rolling tanks and putting massive locomotives in the front. This didn't work at Chatsworth (CA) and lowers train fuel efficiency by increasing weight and resistance. At some point, the force of a collision throws passengers with more fatal results than from crushing. PTC is the only rational solution; and railroads should embrace it as well for freight operations. Way too many costly and deadly collisions occur between freights overrunning signals and block limits.
The second problem is utilization with a relatively small number of intercity passengers in the numerator, even on a sold-out Acela. The morning and evening commuter Hiawathas may be sold out or nearly so much of the time; but the dozen other trains averaged less than 50 passengers! With a one-way fare as much as the promtional rate to Saint Louis and virtually break-even with out-of-pocket driving costs, it's no wonder few beside those destined for downtown Chicago take the train. I've contended that if off-peak fares were reduced by half and ridership doubled, there would be no loss in revenue; and fuel efficiency would surpass a Prius with two people. At least two more peak round trips to Chicago would better meet demand and raise overall fuel efficiency.
Combining peak Amtrak and Metra trains may have been proposed in a previous thread. As it is, #330 arriving at 7:58 am is carded for 102 minutes compared to 92 minutes for other trains. Additional stops at Kenosha and Gurnee with the stop at Glenview moved to Lake-Cook and take the same time. This can be done carrying more passengers and justifying a slot in a near-capacity Metra commuter operation without costly capacity improvements.
I understand the TGV's, ICE's, and AVE's carry around 400 passengers (what is the average load factor?). Cutting through the fluff about high speed, these trains come from branches that provides the volume of traffic to justify the investment in high-speed infrastructure. The California plan may approach European traffic levels with services from San Francisco, Oakland, and Sacramento to Los Angeles and San Diego. It certainly come closer to justifying a Fresno-Los Angeles segment.
The downside is high speed takes energy. 200 mph goes well beyond what it takes to compete with driving. I vaguely recall some fuel comparisons with aviation; but they're not at hand and I'm too lazy (and lunch is ready) to look it up. The question becomes how much energy efficiency compared to driving is given up to compete with the airlines?
I agree with John's comment that high speed should not imply few intermediate stops. Suburban stops provide a convenience, and smaller markets deserve some rail service, whether on the high speed line or existing infrastructure as a complementary service.
As I've mentioned before, passenger service on the old JNR Tokaido Line did not cease with the New Line; and subsequent high speed lines only brought a reduction in services, not discontinuance, on existing lines. Furthermore the New Tokaido Line had non-stops, expresses, and locals with stops on passing tracks that allowed faster trains to overtake and pass.
Yes the fuel efficiency in the U.S. does not compare to Europe (and others) just because of our "heavy loading standards"; its the choice we have made over the years when it came to railroading in North America. It carried over to the highways, too, with big cars and huge trucks and truck trains (those tractors pulling two or more trailers at 80mph down the Interstate and 65 on the two lanes). Couple that with the fact that there are many other factors differentiating foreign rail systems and societies so you are actually comparing apples to oranges when talking foriegn versus North American railroading. It has technical as well as social and political overtones. We have to decide how we want to pay for our transportation system: a universal system for all to use equally (buy the service you can afford or want) under government financing or only those who can afford travel will pay for any and all travel out of thier own pockets, one trip at a time and at full cost, i.e. no government subsidies, traffic control, terminal control, research and development, tax breaks so that what you pay for is what you get and I ain't gonna help you. Niether exterme is going to work in this country, it has always been a sort of attempt at midddle ground with private and public sectors paying for it all so that all can share the need and use.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Randall O'Toole points to only 33 states being in high speed rail plans - that's relevance for 2/3 the senators.
Similarly, it's not so much the area as the population and travel demand being served along a corridor. This may not be much in the often-cited percentage of total travel; but it begins to have significance to travel in a corridor.
Well, my July Trains arrived the other day...
Passenger trains don't lose money (Bob Johnson, pp. 28-29).
"Maglev really is the technology of the future (David Lustig, p.33)."
Sam1 has questioned the reliability of this secondary source, and I couldn't agree more. But due to our nation's inadequate transportation system, it is difficult for me to get to a library for research.
And I know the response I'll hear to that is, "Use the internet!" But I trust the internet less than Sam1 and Trains as sources of transportation statistics. In defense of printed media, there is a fundamental difference between browsing a library and using Google. On the internet, one can find the information you are seeking. In a library, you stumble on surprises. Full text of many primary journal artices is not available on the internet, and only the best-supported universities can afford many specialty journals.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
I have not read the July Trains having just recieved it this afternoon. However I did go through it and noted the names on the article mentioned above and have to take exception to the accusation that what is contained in Trains is not real railroading. Those writers of these articles in question are not fan writers but business writers and write for a whole group of other publications other than Trains or Kalmbach Publishing. Their credentials are excellent and their expertise widely sought. They have all had journalism experiences as well as railroad business exposure unlike any of us...well most of us. Certainly I would pay more attention to what they say about railroading than a writer or poster like me. Plus you have to consider the reputation and stature of Kalmbach and Trains on top of that. Wikopedia and Facebook and the like cannot match the professional journalistic efforts like that.
henry6 I have not read the July Trains having just recieved it this afternoon. However I did go through it and noted the names on the article mentioned above and have to take exception to the accusation that what is contained in Trains is not real railroading. Those writers of these articles in question are not fan writers but business writers and write for a whole group of other publications other than Trains or Kalmbach Publishing. Their credentials are excellent and their expertise widely sought. They have all had journalism experiences as well as railroad business exposure unlike any of us...well most of us. Certainly I would pay more attention to what they say about railroading than a writer or poster like me. Plus you have to consider the reputation and stature of Kalmbach and Trains on top of that. Wikopedia and Facebook and the like cannot match the professional journalistic efforts like that.
Magazine publishers select the writers who produce the articles that appear in their publications. Frequently the writers are asked to address a theme. The publishers edit the articles and pay the writers. Thus, they have a significant say in what is published in their publication(s).
There is not such thing as objective reporting. It is relative and, therefore, bespeaks of the need to read widely from many sources, including those at variance with your favorite publication(s), to get as broad and objective a view as possible. This is especially true for publications that are geared to fan and interest groups.
Few professional journalists blatantly distort their findings. But they filter them through their perspectives, which will be influenced by their life experiences, as well as the organization that selected them and is paying them.
I don't mean to suggest that Trains or any other publication would knowingly skew the facts regarding high speed rail, for example, but I doubt that the editors would hire a "Mr. O'Toole" to write an article for Trains.
The most objective assessment of the high speed rail projects that I have seen is a March 2009 audit report issued by the Government Accounting Office (GAO). It does not have a dog in the hunt, which a Texas way of saying that it does not have a vested interest in the outcomes of its findings. It is known amongst auditors and many laypersons as one of the most objective reporting organizations in the United States if indeed not the world.
I subscribed to Trains for more than 25 years. Now I buy only those issues, as well as PDF files, that contain subjects that interest me. If an issue contains more than one article that interests me, I buy the magazine at the news stand. I buy approximately four issues a year; I will probably buy the July issue. But I will compare the findings in any high speed rail article(s) against the GAO's findings as well as any independent audits of these projects.
I have told Trains that I would be willing to buy on-line and download the articles that interest me. I prefer this approach to buying a magazine with only one article of interest. Trains could wait a month or two to make the articles available on line so as not to unduly harm news stand and subscription sales. Unfortunately, the editors have not bought into my desire. But they will. The day of print journalism is coming to an end. This 70 year old sees it with crystal clarity.
You're right, Sam. If you don't like what a magazine or newspaper stands for, or a TV netwrok, station, or show, stands for, don't buy, don't look. But also don't complain. That is who they are and you know that going into it. (And I mean this in a generic, general way, not a personal way.)
Well Sam, last week marked the beginning of a good test of whether or not HSR can make money or not. Last week Alstom completed the first bodyshell for a new AGV (next generation TGV) for the company NTV. NTV is intending to compete against the incumbent Trenitalia for HSR in Italy. As a competitor to the State owned Trenitalia, NTV isn't likely to receive subsidies from the Italian government.
NTV website
For what it's worth, I have some experience in high-speed rail economics, technical aspects, and feasibility studies, and my billable hours in the last six months have swung almost 100% into high-speed rail.
This is what I can tell you from an insider's point of view:
Bottom line? This is an interesting thread but so far all it's mostly done is restate positions that I already knew from the people I knew already had them.
If the voting public wants HSR, they get HSR. If they don't, they don't. So be it. I'm not worried that the nation will come to an end either way.
My guess from spending waaaay too much time inside the beltway lately is this:
I try to just deal with reality. Whatever the public wants, they get. Majority rules. I can rant and raise my blood pressure. I can exile myself to another country -- any suggestions which one is better? Or I can just suck it up and get with the program.
RWM
Anyone who reads these knows that Sam and I don't often agree, and I hope our discussions don't sound like there is any personal animosity.
That said I believe that too much emphasis is being put on the fact that many will be paying for a system that few will use. It is, in fact, the nature of our society to do just that.
Here in charlotte, millions of tax dollars have been spent, and continue to be spent on a whitewater center which few local people use. Hundreds of millions were spent to replace a 12 year old Basketball arena with a new one that a small percentage of the people use. Millions have been spent on a NASCAR Hall of Fame which will be attended by mostly out of town visitors. Millions in tax breaks to entice businesses to relocate here, etc. They do it because they believe it benefits the community, not just the actual users.
In my opinion, Intercity Rail and Light Rail fall into that category.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
cx500 While there are likely a few corridors where high speed rail may be justified, my opinion is that at this stage the California example of increased frequency with relatively fast trains provides a better first stage. First develop a convenient and usable network so that passenger rail is seen to be more than a historical remnant. Once the frequency exists, and the service is being used, it becomes appropriate to consider the megabucks that the much higher speeds will cost.
cx500For rail travel to work well the most important aspect is it be CONVENIENT for passengers to use.
Yes convenient has shown what the passenger counts will go to when you look at the California example. Both the Santa Barbara - San Diego and San Jose - Sacremento - Bakersfield examples have yielded more passengers. The worse problem is the capacity limited trains ( with the realization that platform lengths are a problem to increasing train lengths ) and the inability to cut the number of cars on off peak trains (maybe more cab cars are needed?). Decreasing curvature to less than 1 degree allows the Emerging HSR ( 90-110 ) to be implemented. Then the convenience factor is very important. /When memory schedules are implement with the appropriate number of cars then are they convenient?!
henry6 You're right, Sam. If you don't like what a magazine or newspaper stands for, or a TV netwrok, station, or show, stands for, don't buy, don't look. But also don't complain. That is who they are and you know that going into it. (And I mean this in a generic, general way, not a personal way.)
I did not mean to imply that I did not like what I read in Trains, and it was not intended as a complaint. As I stated, I buy approximately four issues of Trains a year because they contain more than one article that I want to read. I also have downloaded many of the past articles that Trains has made available on-line.
My point was that Trains, like most special interest publications, may not be the most objective source for an assessment of the value of passenger trains. The same applies to all sorts of special interest group publications, i.e. gun magazines are not likely to promote laws to curb gun ownership; fitness magazines are not like to urge people to become couch potatoes, etc.
Railway Man is correct when he states that there are many intangibles associated with high speed rail, or any transport project, that cannot be quantified. Moreover, he is correct to say that the tangibles, i.e. technical, costs, revenues, etc. can only be estimated. Wise planners, as a matter of fact, don't project a single outcome. They use scenario analysis to project three or four likely outcomes.
Any capital project (public or private) must be funded, as is true for its operations. Someone has to pick-up the tab. If the users don't pay for it, then the non-users (taxpayers in the case of public projects), almost always within the hoist country, have to pick-up the difference. Given this dynamic, planners should make sure that they are designing the most practicable outcome, i.e. usability, affordability, etc. In most instances I have not seen a compelling argument for high speed rail.
Unfortunately, in public projects political decisions oftentimes trump commercial decisions, and outcome decisions are made for the wrong reasons, with a significant liability for present and future taxpayers. This is the fundamental reason why I believe that government should only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees, and why it should stay out of operations all together.
Does the public want high speed rail, or is it the vested interests, e.g. construction companies, equipment builders, etc., that have convinced the politicians that the public wants it.?
Railway Man For what it's worth, I have some experience in high-speed rail economics, technical aspects, and feasibility studies, and my billable hours in the last six months have swung almost 100% into high-speed rail. This is what I can tell you from an insider's point of view: Calculating the net value of any transportation solution set is extremely difficult, whether it's a city, corridor, region, or nation. There are many variables for which values are not known and cannot be calculated, and many assumptions that have to be made. Thus, when someone hands me a study that says "HSR is the solution we must have now!" or "HSR is a pig in a poke!" I just sort of shrug and say "Sure. Whatever." Same thing for new airports, new highways, new interchanges, new transit systems, new whatever. I've written and read and edited way too many of the studies to have confidence that any of them are something you can gilt and put on a pedestal. This is not to say that all studies are bogus and it's a waste of time. You have to start somewhere with something, and learning anything is better than insisting on remaining ignorant. I just want to point out that if you don't understand the assumptions, you don't understand the study. And the assumptions are almost always fundamentally political in nature. In the worst studies, people have started with an assumption (which is usually either that HSR is bad, or HSR is good), and then picked the facts to fit. Those studies -- whether by Cato or Sierra Club or their kind, I throw into the wastebasket because I already know that even if they're correct, I'll never be able to sort out their good methodology and facts from their bad. They've already told you they have an axe to grind, you already know what the outcome has to be, so why waste your life. Unless you're the kind of person that just likes to have high blood pressure or just needs to have people agree with you. But even in the best studies, there are assumptions about what it is that the people want -- what kind of transportation they want, which in turn informs what they are willing to pay for, which in turn informs what they are willing to support politically. That's inescapable. People do not choose to either ride on or support or pay for a transportation system based solely on a rational economic balancing of all the possible choices. (Chicago School of Economics, RIP.) First, they cannot nearly be well-enough informed to make those decisions because so many of the economic effects are second, third, fourth degree and so on, so many of the effects are subtle, and because they make decisions in large part based on emotion. For example, "I don't like to drive in traffic." "I don't like being on a bus with weird people." "I don't like to go through security at the airport." If I am studying transportation economics, how on earth do I put an economic value to ANY of those emotional decisions? Sure, when the cost of air transportation is $0.01 from LA to Chicago, I bet a lot of people who hate flying will suck it up and fly. And when the cost is $1,000,000 for a coach ticket, I bet a lot of people who hate driving will suck it up and drive. But in between, who knows where the price points lie? People buy all sorts of things that "rational economics" tells us they shouldn't, like $60,000 1-ton 4WD pickups to carry a 140-pound person on dry, sunny paved roads to the office parking lot in the business park in the suburb. While it would be nice to boil down a political decision to purely technical terms, and have technical people announce technical solutions that the public could gratefully accept with relief, that's not possible. The technical solutions invariably are founded upon assumptions that are political at their core. The whole analysis just goes around in a circle and you're back where you started. Unlike Europe and Japan the U.S. is not much of a top-down country and not homogenous. Thus our solutions are heterogenous and they're not the same from one place to the next. The states have enormous influence over Washington. It's a rare program that the administration gets to do without Congress and the Governors redoing it until you can't even recognize it any more, to suit their state's needs and desires. Bottom line? This is an interesting thread but so far all it's mostly done is restate positions that I already knew from the people I knew already had them. If the voting public wants HSR, they get HSR. If they don't, they don't. So be it. I'm not worried that the nation will come to an end either way. My guess from spending waaaay too much time inside the beltway lately is this: We will indeed get a HSR system, slowly, messily, and piecemeal. Each state will be in virtually complete control of how they do their system. About 10 years from now we'll have a couple of very nice systems in a couple of states, a couple of really useless and worthless systems, and a couple that just muddle along. There's no political will to build new highways or new airports on any scale. The decisions on reducing greenhouse gases, dependence on foreign oil, and suburban sprawl have already been made. The public spoke in the last 2006 and 2008 elections. I guess they could change their mind in 2010 and 2012 but I would not bet that way. HSR is an outcome of those decisions. To undo HSR we would have to undo the public's decisions on sprawl, environment, quality of life, etc. Not very likely I think. I try to just deal with reality. Whatever the public wants, they get. Majority rules. I can rant and raise my blood pressure. I can exile myself to another country -- any suggestions which one is better? Or I can just suck it up and get with the program. RWM
Well put!
Random thoughts:
I happen to agree with your opinions and point of view, so does that make them more correct?
What about the value of trains as "kinetic art?" If enough people just like watching them go by, whether or not they actually carry anyone from point A to point B, wouldn't that be enough justification?
Ranting is not a bad thing, per se. It is a sport. And some of us like to play.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Sam1Unfortunately, in public projects political decisions oftentimes trump commercial decisions, and outcome decisions are made for the wrong reasons, with a significant liability for present and future taxpayers. This is the fundamental reason why I believe that government should only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees, and why it should stay out of operations all together. Does the public want high speed rail, or is it the vested interests, e.g. construction companies, equipment builders, etc., that have convinced the politicians that the public wants it.?
I've never seen a public project that wasn't all about politics. Commercial need? Not to sound cynical, but "commercial considerations" is usually nothing more than a post hoc justification for a decision already made by a political faction. Or, a blunt weapon used by one political faction to beat on the the other political faction. No where have I ever seen a political faction submit itself to economic fact or logic.
Ironically, the only public transportation mode that has to present an actual economic case or ridership case in order to obtain federal funding is rail. Highways, port improvements, waterway improvements, and airports do not; they can simply show "demand" or "safety" and use that to justify the expense.
As to whether the vested interests have done the convincing that the public wants HSR, it's actually the other way around. Most of the lobbying effort and dollars are being spent to try to convince Congress and the governors that the public does not want high-speed rail, but instead wants more highways. The contracting community has an enormous amount of investment into highway expertise, machines, and relationships, not in rail. They are scared to death of it. As for the equipment manufacturers, there really aren't any domestic manufacturers to speak of. But regardless of that, I think Congress is actually very good at representing the views of their individual states and districts, which is good (there's local accountability) and bad (good-of-the-nation. I do think there's a sizeable portion of the voting public that thinks HSR is a wonderful idea. Whether they base that belief on economic concepts, I seriously doubt. But I don't think the public cares all that much about the nuances of economics anyway; they like programs because they think they're important and cool and congruent with their vision of America. It's kind of like me buying a refrigerator, which uses up a significant portion of my discretionary income. Do I need "stainless steel" finish at $300 extra? Probably not, and for the life of me I can't see any economic advantage to it. But I bought it anyway because I think it looks better than white.
oltmanndRanting is not a bad thing, per se. It is a sport. And some of us like to play.
Your blood pressure must be lower than mine.
Sam1Unfortunately, in public projects political decisions oftentimes trump commercial decisions, and outcome decisions are made for the wrong reasons, with a significant liability for present and future taxpayers. This is the fundamental reason why I believe that government should only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees, and why it should stay out of operations all together.
And skip any cost/benefit analysis altogether? Highway projects don't require them. I've never seen one done on a highway project, nor a study of alternatives - all of which are generally required for rail and transit projects. Unfortunately, where I live, most highway construction is done by the county with property tax money. Hardly a "user fee".
I wonder if "only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees" wouldn't be a more genuine way to do it.
Perhaps it could work like this:
1. Gov't decides to build HSR line.
2. Aquires 1000'' wide ROW at current real estate value to mitigate any NIMBY objections to noise from construction and operation, catenary EMF, etc.
3. Builds rail line.
4. Decides it needs only 100' ROW for safe operation. Sells now-more-valuable land around stations to developers. Leases remaining land for industrial/commercial use.
5. Land sales/leases profit pays for construction and provides war-chest to offset future operating costs not covered by the fare box.
Wouldn't cost non-users a dime.
Hasn't that been done? Isnt' that what Land Grants and Bonding Authorities, et al, were about? Isn't that how we got to today?
Sam1 Any capital project (public or private) must be funded, as is true for its operations. Someone has to pick-up the tab. If the users don't pay for it, then the non-users (taxpayers in the case of public projects), almost always within the hoist country, have to pick-up the difference. ..... ..... This is the fundamental reason why I believe that government should only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees, and why it should stay out of operations all together.
Any capital project (public or private) must be funded, as is true for its operations. Someone has to pick-up the tab. If the users don't pay for it, then the non-users (taxpayers in the case of public projects), almost always within the hoist country, have to pick-up the difference. .....
..... This is the fundamental reason why I believe that government should only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees, and why it should stay out of operations all together.
But herein lies the question none of us can answer: what is the role of government in social and commercial life? Was Roosevelt wrong with the CCC projects, etc.that built highways and bridges which enabled the country to get through WWII and helped the prosperity (of the automobile, suburbia, industry and commerce) that followed the War? Or Eisenhower with his Federal Highway Program . projects which contributed greatly allowed for both the publice and the truckers to travel coast to coast on four lane highways at 70 to 90 mph? Or the St. Lawrence Seaway project which eliminated many east coast port activities in favor of the Great Lakes? The next question is that just because someone can't find a quick return on investment or the investment is too big a risk for the individual, does that mean a project like damming a river for hydro power, or building a highway between two points, or an airport, or harbor facilities, or running a police department or any other municipal services, should be projects that don't get done or services that are not rendered? The question, Who is going to pay?, has a lot more question behind it, and a lot more answers than just "us".
Railway Man oltmannd Ranting is not a bad thing, per se. It is a sport. And some of us like to play. Your blood pressure must be lower than mine.
oltmannd Ranting is not a bad thing, per se. It is a sport. And some of us like to play.
Probably. Ranting is just the minor league version of Righteous Indignation, which is our national pastime.
Clever plan, Don. I like it and I just passed it on to a couple of people. It's not novel, and I've heard people articulate the same idea for years, but it's easy to overlook things like this in the heat of battle, and you brought it back to my attention at a perfect time. Thanks!
Henry's comments bear examination. To add to his list, Seward's purchase of Alaska. Turned out pretty good, but at the time people were appalled.
henry6The question, Who is going to pay?,
Or, "Who pays how much for what?"
henry6 Sam1 Any capital project (public or private) must be funded, as is true for its operations. Someone has to pick-up the tab. If the users don't pay for it, then the non-users (taxpayers in the case of public projects), almost always within the hoist country, have to pick-up the difference. ..... ..... This is the fundamental reason why I believe that government should only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees, and why it should stay out of operations all together. But herein lies the question none of us can answer: what is the role of government in social and commercial life? Was Roosevelt wrong with the CCC projects, etc.that built highways and bridges which enabled the country to get through WWII and helped the prosperity (of the automobile, suburbia, industry and commerce) that followed the War? Or Eisenhower with his Federal Highway Program . projects which contributed greatly allowed for both the publice and the truckers to travel coast to coast on four lane highways at 70 to 90 mph? Or the St. Lawrence Seaway project which eliminated many east coast port activities in favor of the Great Lakes? The next question is that just because someone can't find a quick return on investment or the investment is too big a risk for the individual, does that mean a project like damming a river for hydro power, or building a highway between two points, or an airport, or harbor facilities, or running a police department or any other municipal services, should be projects that don't get done or services that are not rendered? The question, Who is going to pay?, has a lot more question behind it, and a lot more answers than just "us".
For most of the projects that you have listed, i.e. federal highway program, St. Lawrence Seaway, airports, etc., the government(s) have recovered the cost of the projects through user fees or taxes paid by most of the users who are also taxpayers.
I am not optimistic that high speed rail or any form of passenger rail can recover its operating expenses let alone the capital investment.
How and for what the government(s) should spend the people's monies is a legitimate debate. But government spends on transport projects, as an example, or any other spend for that matter, have to be recovered one way or the other. This is beyond debate, at least for anyone remotely familiar with finance.
A government sponsored spend, without a game plan to recover the costs, is a guarantee for more debt. Like California, the U.S., UK, etc.! And the cost to service the debt can have a dramatic impact on the quality of life for everyone.
henry6 Hasn't that been done? Isnt' that what Land Grants and Bonding Authorities, et al, were about? Isn't that how we got to today?
Sure. I'm also reminded of having read somewhere that many transit lines were built by land developers before the day of the gov't built road. They purchased farm land, built a transit line into it. Subdivided the land and made a killing selling houses. Knew, all along, that owning an operating a transit line was a losing proposition. Ran the line for a while and then sold it to the local gov't.
Now, in the "day of the road", land developers get the gov't to build them the roads into the farmland they've purchased. Is this better or worse?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.