Sam1, there appears to be some inconsistencies in your argument:
Oltmand tell us that automobiles won because they're a superior mode of transportation.
LNERR tell us that the government can't build anything without massive cost inflation. Thus private enterprise is far superior to the government.
Automobiles are completely dependent upon the government to build every interstate and local road they use, they're dependent upon the government for regulation of every vehicle and driver on the aforementioned roads, and dependent upon the government to use our military to ensure that cheap oil continues to flow from foreign lands.
With this in mind, our road system is perhaps one of the greatest examples of socialism in modern day America. It would be a contradiction to support both views.
LNER4472 You can count me in as a "knee-jerk" opponent to such proposals, and for a simple reason: Time and time again, we've been told by government that their studies and consultants show XX amount of cost and YY amount of return (in additional taxes, revenues, visitation, whatever) for a project. Time and time and time again, the reality turns out to be XXX amount of cost and Y amount of return when it's done.The list is long: Convention centers, sports stadiums, industrial parks, housing projects, military/defense systems, parks, overseas wars, you name it. Amtrak itself was basically a "bag of goods" sold to Congress and the public: It was supposed to last five years. At least that's what legislators and the public heard. It was a "bail-out," not a never-ending annual operational outlay and further infrastructure and capital costs. The California HSR project has already mushroomed from the originally proposed $39 billion to $97 billion (numbers not precise, but the idea is true nonetheless). This is a pattern we've seen over and over again. If I sold you on the idea of owning a car based on $1-a-gallon gasoline and $100 a year insurance, and all of a sudden you're paying $3.50-4 a gallon and $600-1200 a year insurance or more, you'd never do business with me again, or demand a refund. But when government is involved, the typical answer to fixing such a problem is not to end or change a program, but to throw MORE money at it--"Hey, let's sell you on the idea of an electric car, and subsidize your purchase!"
You can count me in as a "knee-jerk" opponent to such proposals, and for a simple reason:
Time and time again, we've been told by government that their studies and consultants show XX amount of cost and YY amount of return (in additional taxes, revenues, visitation, whatever) for a project. Time and time and time again, the reality turns out to be XXX amount of cost and Y amount of return when it's done.The list is long: Convention centers, sports stadiums, industrial parks, housing projects, military/defense systems, parks, overseas wars, you name it.
Amtrak itself was basically a "bag of goods" sold to Congress and the public: It was supposed to last five years. At least that's what legislators and the public heard. It was a "bail-out," not a never-ending annual operational outlay and further infrastructure and capital costs.
The California HSR project has already mushroomed from the originally proposed $39 billion to $97 billion (numbers not precise, but the idea is true nonetheless).
This is a pattern we've seen over and over again. If I sold you on the idea of owning a car based on $1-a-gallon gasoline and $100 a year insurance, and all of a sudden you're paying $3.50-4 a gallon and $600-1200 a year insurance or more, you'd never do business with me again, or demand a refund. But when government is involved, the typical answer to fixing such a problem is not to end or change a program, but to throw MORE money at it--"Hey, let's sell you on the idea of an electric car, and subsidize your purchase!"
Wow, another person who has it right. I am on a roll.
Don't get me wrong. I believe that passenger rail can be a viable solution in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the highways and airways is prohibitive. Clearly, long distance trains or most of Amtrak does not fit this definition.
oltmannd henry6: As for people leaving trains for planes and cars in the late 40's and early 50's the choice was made because of the extreme marketing efforts of the highway lobby companies, gas, automobile, etc. as opposed to rail. AIr, well, we were indoctronated with how sexy it was to jet to foriegn shores for vations, and how businessmen could fly out at breakfast and be back home for dinner. Of course, where we were not being told was that the train ride was paid for by the railroad while the auto and jet were being paid by local and federal governments. But it was glitzy, sexy, dazzling, the thing to do rather than ride the train. But the railroads also were to blame on several fronts; They presented trains as they always had presented them, marketing and advertising brought nothing new. And there also was the fact that long distance passenger rail had been a public relations tool as much as a transportation mode, the government was taking mail contracts away from railroads and giving the business to common carrier trucs, and rail management knew no passenger trains meant they could run freight trains with more freedom and frequency. But to blame the public for shunning trains, I see the powers of government and big business were actually making the choice for the public, not giving them a chance to be able to make the choice. You are totally discounting the introduction and marketing of streamliners as well as the last gasp of transforming passenger rail in the mid-50s (e..g. Train X, Talgo, Keystone, Aerotrain, etc)??? I believe RR passenger marketing departments were plenty savvy and streamliners were plenty glitzy, shiny and new. Automobiles are the "base load carrier" in all of the western world. That's a fact not so much because Ford or GM are brilliant marketers or because Eisenhower was a dupe, but because they do a superb job of transport. Rail is just a niche provider - even in Europe. People aren't just mindless sheep.... That said, I do believe that, policy-wise, the US should have pushed corridor development along in the 1950s and given the RRs some greater flexibility to decide routes, etc.
henry6: As for people leaving trains for planes and cars in the late 40's and early 50's the choice was made because of the extreme marketing efforts of the highway lobby companies, gas, automobile, etc. as opposed to rail. AIr, well, we were indoctronated with how sexy it was to jet to foriegn shores for vations, and how businessmen could fly out at breakfast and be back home for dinner. Of course, where we were not being told was that the train ride was paid for by the railroad while the auto and jet were being paid by local and federal governments. But it was glitzy, sexy, dazzling, the thing to do rather than ride the train. But the railroads also were to blame on several fronts; They presented trains as they always had presented them, marketing and advertising brought nothing new. And there also was the fact that long distance passenger rail had been a public relations tool as much as a transportation mode, the government was taking mail contracts away from railroads and giving the business to common carrier trucs, and rail management knew no passenger trains meant they could run freight trains with more freedom and frequency. But to blame the public for shunning trains, I see the powers of government and big business were actually making the choice for the public, not giving them a chance to be able to make the choice.
As for people leaving trains for planes and cars in the late 40's and early 50's the choice was made because of the extreme marketing efforts of the highway lobby companies, gas, automobile, etc. as opposed to rail. AIr, well, we were indoctronated with how sexy it was to jet to foriegn shores for vations, and how businessmen could fly out at breakfast and be back home for dinner. Of course, where we were not being told was that the train ride was paid for by the railroad while the auto and jet were being paid by local and federal governments. But it was glitzy, sexy, dazzling, the thing to do rather than ride the train. But the railroads also were to blame on several fronts; They presented trains as they always had presented them, marketing and advertising brought nothing new. And there also was the fact that long distance passenger rail had been a public relations tool as much as a transportation mode, the government was taking mail contracts away from railroads and giving the business to common carrier trucs, and rail management knew no passenger trains meant they could run freight trains with more freedom and frequency. But to blame the public for shunning trains, I see the powers of government and big business were actually making the choice for the public, not giving them a chance to be able to make the choice.
You are totally discounting the introduction and marketing of streamliners as well as the last gasp of transforming passenger rail in the mid-50s (e..g. Train X, Talgo, Keystone, Aerotrain, etc)???
I believe RR passenger marketing departments were plenty savvy and streamliners were plenty glitzy, shiny and new.
Automobiles are the "base load carrier" in all of the western world. That's a fact not so much because Ford or GM are brilliant marketers or because Eisenhower was a dupe, but because they do a superb job of transport. Rail is just a niche provider - even in Europe. People aren't just mindless sheep....
That said, I do believe that, policy-wise, the US should have pushed corridor development along in the 1950s and given the RRs some greater flexibility to decide routes, etc.
This is an excellent response. Too many people believe passenger trains lost out to a cabal of highway and airway interests. In fact, as oltmannd makes crystal clear, the trains lost out to better technologies for the missions. And not because people did not understand what they wanted.
One unintended consequence of 60-70 years of automotive "freedom" is this: Some frightening statistics about American parking lots: not only are there possibly as many as 2 billion parking spaces from sea to shining sea, but the parking lot, that paved desert for inert cars, has become what M.I.T. urban planning professor Eran Ben-Joseph calls “the single most salient landscape feature of our built environment,” occupying over 3,500 square miles of land within the country and providing an estimated eight parking spots for every car.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The social impact of jet planes was great. No longer did a businessman/salesman have to plan for 3 days from NY to Chicago and back but could leave after breakfast and be home for dinner. Same for Chicago-LA, etc. With the by then standard 5 day work week, this was great for businesses. As for the vacationer...no longer was it a trip up to the lake but a quick jet run to Miami or the Bahamas, or from LA to Hawiai. It is not just the time factor, but also the distance factor. And those who were in a position who had the time and could take advantage of the situation did indeed jet across country to Colorado or over to the European Alps to ski rather than take the train to Vermont or consider a weeklong respite at Sun Valley.
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.
The introduction of the 707 and DC-8 to domestic airline service in 1958 accelerated the decline of long-distance passenger service since they sliced travel times dramatically, especially on transcontinental routes. A 4-1/2 hour flight from Chicago to Los Angeles was appreciably faster than even a 40-hour streamliner time, so guess where the business went. Speed has always sold well.
Good advertising and marketing can make a big difference when there is little real difference between products, like soap. When there was a difference in quality, as was the case in domestic vs imported autos in the 80's - late 90's, all the advertising dollars in the world didn't help Detroit preserve market share. There was a qualitative difference in passenger rail, highway and air travel starting in the 30's which increased in the 1950's and accelerated dramatically in the 1960's with the introduction of jets and widespread interstates. To proclaim the decline of passenger rail was through advertising and marketing brainwashing simply does not jive with facts.
Oltman, I am not discounting the marketing efforts of the railroads; they did the job the were trained (?) to do. But they weren't enough to overcome the marketing of the automobile lobby nor the airline lobby. But how is this different than when the railroads overtook the canals in the early 19th Century or how the railroads overtook the steamboats to the Catskills followed by the automobile access and the jet plane's syponing off the vacation crowd, each a revlolution in living? Weseemto like to find one single reason for there having been a change, when it is usually several factors combining either at once or in rapid succession that cause it.
henry6 As for people leaving trains for planes and cars in the late 40's and early 50's the choice was made because of the extreme marketing efforts of the highway lobby companies, gas, automobile, etc. as opposed to rail. AIr, well, we were indoctronated with how sexy it was to jet to foriegn shores for vations, and how businessmen could fly out at breakfast and be back home for dinner. Of course, where we were not being told was that the train ride was paid for by the railroad while the auto and jet were being paid by local and federal governments. But it was glitzy, sexy, dazzling, the thing to do rather than ride the train. But the railroads also were to blame on several fronts; They presented trains as they always had presented them, marketing and advertising brought nothing new. And there also was the fact that long distance passenger rail had been a public relations tool as much as a transportation mode, the government was taking mail contracts away from railroads and giving the business to common carrier trucs, and rail management knew no passenger trains meant they could run freight trains with more freedom and frequency. But to blame the public for shunning trains, I see the powers of government and big business were actually making the choice for the public, not giving them a chance to be able to make the choice.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Also, it seems extremely unfair to me to say that commuters should be subsidized but the once-a-year vacation rider who uses long distance trains should not get any subsidy. And a good portion of those once-a-year vacationers who use long distance trains are elderly, handicapped, and wounded who would not otherwise be able to travel long distances if long distance trains were eliminated.
Removal of long distance trains removes an important element of freedom for many people.
Unfortunately, cars are collective, as mentioned in the post you quoted. Now, onto freedoms: As ranked by the heritage foundation, the United States in 9th in economic freedom, with countries/territories such as Hong Kong, Denmark, and Switzerland come in above us. All three of those nations have extensive public transit systems and intercity rail connections (although, Hong Kong is a bit more limited for intercity connections, if only because of it's unique status under Chinese rule). On the political end, the Democracy index puts us in 19th place, well below the majority of Western European nations, all of which posses extensive rail transport and public transport network.
Also, trains do not equal communism any more than cars. This isn't some big red plot to take away all your freedoms, so we can turn American into a train-based Stalinist state. It's more of a, "our highways are crowded and crumbling, gas is getting more and more expensive, and we're experiencing record obesity rates. Let's invest more into maintenance of roads, but more so into the expansion of fast,effective rail transit." Although, there will be people who oppose trains, because they say they're expensive commie-boondoggles, while ignoring how our expensive road infrastructure is literally crumbling, and will cost trillions of FEDERAL dollars to replace. They'll never change, even in the face of reason.
THIS IS NOT REVISIONIST HISTORY! This is my observation as a marketer and advertisng professional...the highway and automotive people did a hell of a job it pushing their product an the railroads were complacent. If you look at any product/brand it has an active average life of approximately 25 years and it either reinvents itself for another 25 years or it lingers and shrinks. I wish people would learn history, look behind the words and actions and piece things together for themselves rather than accept political rants of the left and right as gospel truth.
henry6 But to blame the public for shunning trains, I see the powers of government and big business were actually making the choice for the public, not giving them a chance to be able to make the choice.
But to blame the public for shunning trains, I see the powers of government and big business were actually making the choice for the public, not giving them a chance to be able to make the choice.
Henry,
This is completely fabricated revisionist history. Model T cars on dirt roads took most of the passengers off local trains in the 1920's.
Americans wanted cars as shown by their purchase of them. Then they wanted roads to run them on. Certainly the politicians gave them what they wanted. That is what politicians do.
Passengers left the trains long before the railroads got rid of what they could. Too bad they did not get rid of all of them.
Mac
ComradeTaco Fourth Point: It isn't purely about reducing dependency in foreign oil. The goal of intercity trains is to provide fast,effective city center to center travel which takes up a minimal amount of space.
Fourth Point: It isn't purely about reducing dependency in foreign oil. The goal of intercity trains is to provide fast,effective city center to center travel which takes up a minimal amount of space.
Taco: A point not considered is national security. It probably is too late for much RR help if Iran goes completely beligerent that may cause a shortage of petroleum ??? although the energy efficiency of trains are not that much greater than cars except on electric lines there would be some gain.
ComradeTaco The majority of Americans choose car for medium to short distance travel because they have no other choice. Most of the freedom of cars is an illusion: You're driving on a government funded highway, on a government registered vehicle (likely produced by a government bailed-out corporation) with a government issued license. Aside from that, you're eternally bound into paying for the car, oil, insurance and repairs. Now, anyone can bring an Ipod or Zune with them on public transit, so can listen to whatever music the user desires. In a civil society, you have to learn to deal with the presence of other people. If we as citizens of a republic cannot do that for a commute, we might as just abandon democracy.
The majority of Americans choose car for medium to short distance travel because they have no other choice. Most of the freedom of cars is an illusion:
You're driving on a government funded highway, on a government registered vehicle (likely produced by a government bailed-out corporation) with a government issued license. Aside from that, you're eternally bound into paying for the car, oil, insurance and repairs.
Now, anyone can bring an Ipod or Zune with them on public transit, so can listen to whatever music the user desires.
In a civil society, you have to learn to deal with the presence of other people. If we as citizens of a republic cannot do that for a commute, we might as just abandon democracy.
Comrade, I'm a big passenger-train fan, but think autos have contributed to our habit of freedom in America and our instinct to shrug off the collectivization impulse beloved of so many politicians (and the people who support those politicians).
A civil society, you bet; but not at the price of a free society.
Statistics are wonderful. In the case of more Americans commuting by driving, the statistics are stacked in the favor ot the car because more people have to drive because they don't live in districts where they could commute by other means. Also, commuter railroad statistics are stacked by the moniker "commuter" railroad and do not reflect the use of inter conntected commuter lines for regional travel. That being said, I was amazed on the number of NYP to Poughkeepsie, NY riders on mid morning Amtrak trains I have ridden as opposed to commuter trains to Pkpsy from GCT. I have seen alot of NY or New Jersey passengers ride to Trenton on NJT then SEPTA to Phila. Ore come in from LI or NJ and change to NJT or LIRR trains at NYP...and not in so called commuter rush hours, either. Weekends are great times to see how many people choose train travel, commuter train travel, for regional trips.
henry6 Sam1, I don't agree with your assumption that the key point is how Americans prefer air and personal auto over train. You can say that simply because that is, for the most part, all most Americans have to chose from. If there were a viable, well scheduled, marketed, frequent, reliable, and well priced service be it bicycles, buses, rickshaws, trolley cars or medium or high speed trains, it would probably be deemed successful. I don't know where you get this asumption, but where I am I hear so many people wisihg they could ride a train to there from here, they'd prefer it to the current driving situation and air schedules and prices. And, though I don't ride Amtrak great distances, I ride a lot of commuter operations which customers use for regional rail transportation and not for going to and from work. We have so much available, so little understood, in our vast transportation system that any one and all of us are right and any one of us and all of us are wrong. One thing that is clear is that our transportation system needs comtemplating, reviewing, studying, reinvesting, reinventing, too!
Sam1, I don't agree with your assumption that the key point is how Americans prefer air and personal auto over train. You can say that simply because that is, for the most part, all most Americans have to chose from. If there were a viable, well scheduled, marketed, frequent, reliable, and well priced service be it bicycles, buses, rickshaws, trolley cars or medium or high speed trains, it would probably be deemed successful. I don't know where you get this asumption, but where I am I hear so many people wisihg they could ride a train to there from here, they'd prefer it to the current driving situation and air schedules and prices. And, though I don't ride Amtrak great distances, I ride a lot of commuter operations which customers use for regional rail transportation and not for going to and from work. We have so much available, so little understood, in our vast transportation system that any one and all of us are right and any one of us and all of us are wrong. One thing that is clear is that our transportation system needs comtemplating, reviewing, studying, reinvesting, reinventing, too!
Following WWII U.S. railroads invested hundreds of millions of dollars in new and refurbished passenger train equipment to offer people a rail choice. It would be the equivalent of billions today. Most communities had or were near towns and cities with frequent service. Unfortunately, it did not work. People in droves chose cars and airplanes.
Intercity passenger rail is a different kettle of fish than commuter rail. Nevertheless, according to the DOT Annual Statistics release, 88 per cent of Americans commute to work by car. A variety of factors contribute to this pattern. One of them is the choice that Americans have made.
ComradeTaco Edit: To Paul's response to my post. First point: We're not debating over the rate of subsidy, only the merit. I can go run operating ratios for you if you want it, but there's no golden rate. (Personally, I think we should be aiming for intercity rail to have 100% operating cost recovery) Second Point: Please refer to the previous post of why Amtrak has a higher subsidy per mile. Third Point: Ignoring your snarky criticism, it's on a rouse by route basis. There are a massive number of metrics you can use to determine cost effectiveness. Fourth Point: It isn't purely about reducing dependency in foreign oil. The goal of intercity trains is to provide fast,effective city center to center travel which takes up a minimal amount of space. Mind you, a quadruple track railway is slightly smaller than the width of a double-lane highway with Interstate Highway Standards. Hell, even stations can be fit in a small space, considering Penn Station handles 300,000 people daily in a basement. *However* Cars require prime massive streets, feeders and of course parking space. In some U.S. cities parking lots take over 1/3 all real estate. No number of hybrid cars will fix that. Fifth Point: Well it won't help the 38,000 people killed yearly in car accidents, and about 3 million injuries. In addition this,hybrids take take up a wonderful Rare Earth Element of which 90% of world reserves are in China, and 100% of production. It's name is Lanthanum. China has reduced it's exports of Lanthanum and is hiking prices.Lanthanum is also the only practical material to use in a car battery powerful enough for a commercial automobile.
Edit: To Paul's response to my post.
First point: We're not debating over the rate of subsidy, only the merit. I can go run operating ratios for you if you want it, but there's no golden rate. (Personally, I think we should be aiming for intercity rail to have 100% operating cost recovery)
Second Point: Please refer to the previous post of why Amtrak has a higher subsidy per mile.
Third Point: Ignoring your snarky criticism, it's on a rouse by route basis. There are a massive number of metrics you can use to determine cost effectiveness.
Fourth Point: It isn't purely about reducing dependency in foreign oil. The goal of intercity trains is to provide fast,effective city center to center travel which takes up a minimal amount of space. Mind you, a quadruple track railway is slightly smaller than the width of a double-lane highway with Interstate Highway Standards. Hell, even stations can be fit in a small space, considering Penn Station handles 300,000 people daily in a basement. *However* Cars require prime massive streets, feeders and of course parking space. In some U.S. cities parking lots take over 1/3 all real estate. No number of hybrid cars will fix that.
Fifth Point: Well it won't help the 38,000 people killed yearly in car accidents, and about 3 million injuries. In addition this,hybrids take take up a wonderful Rare Earth Element of which 90% of world reserves are in China, and 100% of production. It's name is Lanthanum. China has reduced it's exports of Lanthanum and is hiking prices.Lanthanum is also the only practical material to use in a car battery powerful enough for a commercial automobile.
According to the Department of Transportation Annual Statistics Report for 2009, the latest year for verified numbers, 37,261 people lost their lives in highway related accidents. Of these 14,587 were passenger car occupants, 10,784 were in light trucks, 5,290 were on motorcycles, 677 were in heavy trucks, 67 were on a bus, 4,378 were walking, 716 were riding a push bike, and the balance were other.
The Census Bureau has a slightly different number. It shows 33,800 deaths within 30 days and 35,900 deaths within one year. The cause of death one year after an accident would be somewhat difficult to pin down.
In any case, the average national highway fatality rate per 100 million miles has been declining. It was 1.1 in 2009 vs. 2.1 in 1990, and if I remember correctly, it was approximately 6.0 in 1960. Driving has become a lot safer.
Amtrak is a commercial enterprise. The best measure of a commercial enterprise's cost effectiveness is whether it covers its costs out of the fare box. Amtrak has never come close.
Clearly, an effective passenger rail system can speed people from center city to center city, if they anchor a relatively short, high density corridor, faster than most other modes of transport. And the rails take up a lot less room than highways.
But many of the arguments for passenger rail miss a key point. Most Americans, at the end of the day, prefer to fly over long distances and use their car for short or medium travel. In their car they can leave when they want, listen to their radio, not have to put up with fellow passengers screaming into a cell phone, set the temperature to their liking, etc. And when they get where they are going they have their wheels with them.
Sam1 Why is it so hard for you to tell us about Stan or give us a sentence or two on what he is proposing. After all, you seem to have some writing skills. Doing so should not be that much of a challenge.
Why is it so hard for you to tell us about Stan or give us a sentence or two on what he is proposing. After all, you seem to have some writing skills. Doing so should not be that much of a challenge.
I am not in favor of blind spending either....I just don't believe we should not investigate and plan and create and explore ideas because there might be a price tag.
As for Stan. I am neither Rush Limbough nor Fox News...I urge you to open the link and investigate and decide for yourself instead of relying on my slant on the truth!
henry6 First, if you open the link and see what is there you get an idea about who Stan is and can do some googling and digging from there. My point was to dismiss any project out of hand with the phrase about who is going to pay or how it is going to be paid for, is bad. What something is, who needs it, who is going to use it, how will it add or subtract from the overall project or needs for now and the future, are all more important than the money. After determinations are made, then money should be the next question and problem, not the first question or requisite for discussion. With thinking like yours (not attacking or putting you down in anyway) if the first requisite of discussion is money, then why bother with everything from eating to health to football games, internets, and trains?
First, if you open the link and see what is there you get an idea about who Stan is and can do some googling and digging from there.
My point was to dismiss any project out of hand with the phrase about who is going to pay or how it is going to be paid for, is bad. What something is, who needs it, who is going to use it, how will it add or subtract from the overall project or needs for now and the future, are all more important than the money. After determinations are made, then money should be the next question and problem, not the first question or requisite for discussion. With thinking like yours (not attacking or putting you down in anyway) if the first requisite of discussion is money, then why bother with everything from eating to health to football games, internets, and trains?
Neither I or anyone else whom I know has suggested paying for something or raising money without a project in mind. Clearly, one needs to know what the money is for, how it will be raised, and how it will be paid off. Having a vision and how it will be funded are concomitant.
henry6 The question or phrase "how is it or who is going to pay for it" too often sounds like a knee jerk reaction to the concept of passenger rail without seeming to understand or weigh the paying for highway, air, and water transportation. Its like denying oneself an important food because it cannot be determined who is paying for it, or how. The American ifrastructure, transportation systems, abilty to wage war with all kinds of research and development, abiltiy to operate all its governments and agencies is a who will pay for it and how situtation. If that is the first question or concern, then it just might be that doing nothing is surly the most expensive way out and is paid for by everyone by going without or losing what we have. By the way, Stan seems to have a good idea or two as a professional. If you can't read what he has written and presented, then don't comment or ask who is going to pay for it until you have read it.
The question or phrase "how is it or who is going to pay for it" too often sounds like a knee jerk reaction to the concept of passenger rail without seeming to understand or weigh the paying for highway, air, and water transportation. Its like denying oneself an important food because it cannot be determined who is paying for it, or how. The American ifrastructure, transportation systems, abilty to wage war with all kinds of research and development, abiltiy to operate all its governments and agencies is a who will pay for it and how situtation. If that is the first question or concern, then it just might be that doing nothing is surly the most expensive way out and is paid for by everyone by going without or losing what we have.
By the way, Stan seems to have a good idea or two as a professional. If you can't read what he has written and presented, then don't comment or ask who is going to pay for it until you have read it.
How to pay for an improved passenger rail system can be explained in a sentence or two, i.e. the government pays for it, the users pay for it, or a combination thereof. So why don't you tell us in a sentence or two how the vision will be paid for?
Here is the question that I asked at the beginning of this discussion: Who is Stan? What are his credentials? Is he a recognized expert or a self appointed one? If this guy is a recognized expert, then getting his report and reading it may be worth the time. On the other hand, if he is just another blow hard, long on vision and short on details, then I would be wasting my time. And my time is valuable.
Funding for airways, highways, waterways, etc. (past or present) has nothing to do with funding for passenger railroads. Irrespective of the nation's debt load, as mentioned in the next paragraph, if there were a high probability that the returns on passenger rail would cover the investment, the nation would be justified in borrowing the money to fund it. The amount of money required to implement the various visions for passenger rail would not have a material effect on the nation's credit rating. There is, however, a major problem. The probability that passenger rail can even cover its operating costs let alone the fully allocated costs is slim and none.
This country is staring at a $15 trillion federal debt, which is nearly 100 per cent of GDP, as well as another $2.3 trillion in state and local debt. On top of this massive debt load, the country faces nearly $58 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Given the debt contagion that is sweeping Europe because people did not want to ask how it would be paid for, not to mention the same problem in the United States, to belittle someone who wants to know how it will be paid for is over the top.
ComradeTaco Why shouldn't passenger rail be subsidized?
Why shouldn't passenger rail be subsidized?
Yes, but at what rate of subsidy? Does it matter to anyone in the advocacy community that Amtrak requires much higher rates of subsidy per passenger mile than other modes? Do passenger trains have such inherent goodness that they should receive whatever level of subsidy is required to keep the trains running?
What if the subsidy of the purchase of hybrid cars has multiples of the cost-effectiveness in reducing dependency on foreign oil than the Amtrak subsidy? If by your own metric, that of reducing the burden in lost lives and shattered bodies of our soldiers, that Amtrak is not as effective as alternative uses of the money, would that change your view?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Cars are completely dependent upon a government subsidized system of highways and feeder roads. Not to mention the need to constantly secure our oil supply because of the insatiable need neccesitated by an auto-based lifestyle in the cost of money, trauma and most importantly lives of thousands of American Soldiers. Even at home, the car based lifestyle has resulted in the greatest number of obese Americans and perhaps even more concerning, a great many children suffering through obesity. These negative aspects of a car-based society can be reduced with a gradual transition to a more multimodal society.
Phoebe Vet People's feelings about spending are strongly influenced by down whose drain the money is being poured.
People's feelings about spending are strongly influenced by down whose drain the money is being poured.
Let me attempt to parse the phrase I am quoting. Is the phrase "down whose drain the money is being poured" an admission of sympathy with, say, the Ron Paul political faction that all government spending is wasted? So is the sentiment that we are wasting money on foreign wars, wasting money on old person's Social Security and Medicare, wasting money on helping the down-and-out with Food Stamps and Unemployment and SSI, that we could waste a little money on a train here and there and no one would notice? Or is the phrase an attempt at snarky cynicism, something to the effect "All you people who say trains are a waste support all manners of other government programs, and you are fools to believe there is not some waste in all of those"?
So if the meaning of the phrase is to it dish out towards, say, the folks populating a thread over at Hot Air Dot Com, where there is a lively thread going on right now of people yelling "Boondoggle! Boondoggle! Boondoggle!" about the escalating costs of the CHSR, the point is taken. Many if not most of us in these parts support trains from general principles and look askance at the knee-jerk dismissal of trains contributing to the transportation picture, so maybe the comment is like maybe like making a rude remark about the Viking when sitting in the stands at Lambeau Field? It is a "yay Team!" that meets approval from fellow fans?
So maybe the folks congregating at Hot Air Dot Com are all descended from genus Pan (chimps and bonobo apes) for their complete misunderstanding of HSR, the problem the CHSR is meant to solve, and for their hate of any attempt at governmental solutions to social needs. On the other hand, does a person around here suppose that maybe, perhaps, the rapidly escalating cost figures on the CHSR present a bit of an impediment to getting this thing done? That a stopped clock is correct twice a day, and that maybe because of the perfect storm of financial crisis that has descended upon us, that the right-wingers have the correct idea that we at least need to step back and reassess the cost-benefit rati
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.