ComradeTaco I would think there would be a tad bit of difficulty running over sleepers if only because no companies have had much experience with the matter,
I would think there would be a tad bit of difficulty running over sleepers if only because no companies have had much experience with the matter,
Just think of them as glorified coaches with a few more bathrooms! (and nothing would stop Herzog from hiring the guys with the expertise that would be laid off at Amtrak)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ComradeTaco "It is true that user fees pay for a shrinking portion of the federal highway system for a variety of reasons. The biggest is the unwillingness of the Congress to raise the federal fuel taxes to compensate for increased highway growth and maintenance requirements. As a result in FY10 the federal government transferred $14.7 billion from the general fund to the HTF. Who pays the money into the general fund. Taxpayers with a federal income tax liability as well as those who buy the goods and services of corporations and businesses with a tax liability." So the cost of highways and highways alone is not being repaid by the users.
"It is true that user fees pay for a shrinking portion of the federal highway system for a variety of reasons. The biggest is the unwillingness of the Congress to raise the federal fuel taxes to compensate for increased highway growth and maintenance requirements. As a result in FY10 the federal government transferred $14.7 billion from the general fund to the HTF. Who pays the money into the general fund. Taxpayers with a federal income tax liability as well as those who buy the goods and services of corporations and businesses with a tax liability."
So the cost of highways and highways alone is not being repaid by the users.
And since most of those taxpayers are users of the highway system, its costs are paid for by its users.
An "expensive model collector"
The general fund comes from all those paying taxes to the general government and federal loans. Many but not all of those who pay into the fund are not users. Thus it's costs are not being borne entirely by its users, but rather entire taxpaying American public.
Thus Amtrak, on the one hand, and highways and roads and streets, on the other are both financed, in part, by various taxpayer sources. Some of them use Amtrak (very few) and some use highways (many to most). So both have a mixture (though differing in percentages) of taxpayer and user financing.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
So the consensus of all this back and forth posturing is
Everybody pays for everything and nobody pays for nothing!
If anybody or anything had a viable idea and the resources to pull it off to make rail passenger service in the US a profit producing entity - it would have already been done.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD So the consensus of all this back and forth posturing is Everybody pays for everything and nobody pays for nothing! If anybody or anything had a viable idea and the resources to pull it off to make rail passenger service in the US a profit producing entity - it would have already been done.
Yes, that´s it in a nut shell!
History shows us, that only very few railroads were built with passenger service in mind. Railroads always relied on the revenues from freight services. Even in the days, when railroads had a quasi monopoly, passenger services hardly earned their keep. It is said, that in the 1840´s, the King of Prussia turned down a proposal to build a state-owned line from Berlin to Potsdam with the words "no need to be in Potsdam an hour earlier". In most European countries, railways since then have been regarded as a necessary public utility for the welfare of the people, and thus have invested substantial amounts of tax money into their systems. Most attempts to privatize railroads were not made to turn railroads into profit-making entities, but to reduce the amount of public funding.
BaltACD If anybody or anything had a viable idea and the resources to pull it off to make rail passenger service in the US a profit producing entity - it would have already been done.
Ain't that the truth! But, I still think we could get more for our tax money....
As a research engineer by profession, I take exception to the blanket characterization of my opinions or the opinions of others on this forum as posturing.
I will characterize one line of reasoning in the advocacy community. Passenger rail service has never been a money maker -- seems that was the case for a long time and will continue to be the case. Private highway transportation has never been a money maker, also requiring substantial government money, and we can argue about whether the gas tax is a "user fee" for highway users or simply a general tax. Ergo, we should spend whatever quantity of money it takes to keep passenger trains running. QED.
The fallacy with that reasoning is this. Amtrak is subsidized at the rate of 20 cents per passenger mile. Were highway transport to be subsidized at the same rate, we would see somewhere close to a trillion dollars per year being spend on highways and subsidies to other aspects of automotive transport -- that amounts to about 6 percent of GNP.
I do not see how a person comes up with a trillion/year in either direct or indirect subsidy to highways taking into account all levels of government. Hence passenger trains have a much higher subsidy rate. Wouldn't the subsidy rate diminish were it not for the fact that trains are underfunded. Well, no, not if you believe the Vision report advocating for a 10-fold expansion in U.S. passenger rail service over 50 years.
The argument in the advocacy community that all modes get substantial subsidy so trains should get their fair share really needs to be retired after, what is it, the 45'th anniversary of the founding of NARP? Were we to support trains to get a fair share as a proportional share of transportation subsidy, well, that is pretty much what Representative Mica is asking for isn't it? What basis does anyone in the advocacy community have to disagree?
This is not a matter of back and forth posturing; it is a matter of the fundamental posture and direction of the passenger train advocacy community. Let's put it another way. If the arguments we in the advocacy community have been advancing for 45 years were persuasive in the political arena, wouldn't we be much farther ahead? And arguments such as corporate money having too much political influence don't wash because there are other advocacy communities that have made much more progress against intrenched corporate interests than we have.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The advocacy community has lost a lot of credibility with a lot of people since they appear to be clinging to a "golden era" represented by the streamliners of the post-WW2 period. They need to realize that the long-distance passenger train no longer serves a useful purpose and re-direct their energies to that which is realistically attainable.
The "golden era" is a fairly apt description for passenger trains in the 1945-55 decade. The new trains were reasonably fast and with air conditioning, arguably more comfortable than pre-streamliner trains. In addition, long distance driving was a bit of a pain in most places before the interstate highways and air travel was uncomfortable (pressurized airliners were uncomon for several years after WW2) and had a high accident rate (design problems with planes, poor air traffic control, unreliable engines, etc).
IMHO, the big mistake with the California passenger rail advocates is concentrating too much on HSR and ignoring the corridors. I would guess that uprated LOSAN corridor would generate more passenger miles than the proposed HSR would generate outside of the LOSSAN area and for less than a tenth of the cost of the proposed HSR. With reference to my first paragraph, airlines would not be competitive with an improved LOSSAN service.
- Erik
Paul,
You correctly note that the passenger train advocacy community has not made any significant progress over the last 45 years.
I suggest the fundamental problem is that the general public quite simply does not give a dam about passenger trains. I think that is true for a whole host of reasons.
The only "corporate interests" are the freight carriers who are forced by law to give ATK virtually free access to their very expensive fixed plants and to suffer the costs of thousands of hours of uncompensated freight train delay every month. They have every reason to resist expansion of ATK in terms of either route or frequency. You would do the same thing if you were in their shoes.
My personal opinion is that the advocacy community would be wise to support termination of ATK as we know it, including their free ride on the freight carriers. That would regionalize the NEC and allow anything involving the freight carriers to be based on market based access to the network.
For the foreseable future that would be the end of service beyond the NEC. At some point if demand ever warrented it, the business would be organized on business principles, as opposed to theft of freight capacity.
As long as the interstate highways and jet planes exist, passenger service is not a business, it is just another welfare program.
Mac McCulloch
So long as it is talk - it is posturing. When REAL money is being invested and spent and construction projects are moving dirt or purchasing equipment then it becomes real. Until then posture away!
Paul Milenkovic BaltACD: So the consensus of all this back and forth posturing is Everybody pays for everything and nobody pays for nothing! If anybody or anything had a viable idea and the resources to pull it off to make rail passenger service in the US a profit producing entity - it would have already been done. As a research engineer by profession, I take exception to the blanket characterization of my opinions or the opinions of others on this forum as posturing.
BaltACD: So the consensus of all this back and forth posturing is Everybody pays for everything and nobody pays for nothing! If anybody or anything had a viable idea and the resources to pull it off to make rail passenger service in the US a profit producing entity - it would have already been done.
One of the determinations that has to be made is where to you measure financial success of a passenger service? At the cash box or somewhere else? And are you talking all passenger services, just commuter, or just intercity/long distance? In commuter services...if there were no trains running in and out of NYC for instance, what would the economy be like? How many businesses would not longer be and how many would not be working? So, take the commuter's ticket price and subsidy and determine the value of the service, What does the service do for the overall economy and business of a region and what would happen if the service were gone? How about any and all services on Amtrak's Boston-D.C. Corridor? What if Amtrak weren't there, no trains besides commuter trains existed? What is the value to the commerce and ecnomony of the East Coast? Is there only one way to determine value and profit of railpassenger service, i.e. somebody gets to count more money in the cash box? Doesn't it really mean the most after where you put the cash box?
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.
Seems like all the usual cast of characters with the usual set of opinions. Two stand out, to me at least. CSSHEGWISCH Paul is quite right about the failure of advocacy for clinging to the past, by extolling the virtues of long distance trains. Paul M. also is critical of the advocacy community for a host of reasons, here and earlier, but does not seem to articulate any reason FOR passenger service, only all the fallacies. Are there any positives, in his view, such as some corridors?
BaltACD So long as it is talk - it is posturing. When REAL money is being invested and spent and construction projects are moving dirt or purchasing equipment then it becomes real. Until then posture away!
You want to talk about posturing vs "real" money. I'll tell you all about real money, posturing, and the advocacy community.
It is in the early Summer of 2010. Extending Hiawatha Service to Madison, Wisconsin had 810 million dollars of real ARRA "Stimulus Bill" money behind it.
Sometime in May, 2010, the Governor of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin DOT Secretary, and the Mayor of Madison, WI gave a joint news conference and announced that the location of the train station would be on East Wilson Street within walking distance of the Capitol Square.
This was not something our brick-and-morter advocacy group, which had been promoting the Madison train for more years than anyone can remember, was ready for. In fact, from the president of that group on down through the ranks of the membership, this announcement was something of a betrayal. The station for years and years of WisDOT plans was "supposed" to be neighbor to the Dane County Regional Airport -- you can in fact see the train tracks when you turn the corner after dropping off or picking someone up at the airport just as you leave the terminal. The train station was supposed to share parking with the Airport.
The Downtown location of the proposed Madison station had some technical problems. One problem was parking. Another problem was, as explained by a WisDOT person, that the train tracks to be used ran through the Oscar Mayer plant. Yes, that Oscar Mayer as in "My bologna has a first name, O-s-c-a-r . . ." Every time a train goes through, they have to clear the factory floor to let it by. DOT was looking into "sinking" the train line below the factory floor. Furthermore, there was no way you were going to back the Empire Builder with its long consist into the Madison train station and then send it on to St Paul if they ever completed the complete Madison connection on to the Twin Cities.
What drove the Downtown location was the then Mayor of Madison with the unspellable name. He and others had gone on a European fact-finding tour that included the Talgo factory in Spain, and along the way he was impressed on how the European trains were integrated into the central cores of major cities. The Governor wasn't going to disrespect his fellow Democrat the Mayor, and the press conference was a show of unity that everyone was on the same page on the Madison train station.
On to early summer 2010 when WisDOT's Donna Brown addressed the membership of the local bricks-and-morter advocacy group and other interested citizens at the Middleton, WI Public Library. Our people, and I say "our" as I had been a long-time member and board member, comported ourselves with Donna Brown in what I considered to be a rude and disrespectful manner. The train station was "supposed" to be at Dane County Regional Airport, not Downtown, and how dare the WisDOT do this? I am telling you this meeting was ugly, it was Tea Party ugly.
Anyone who wasn't in the Liberal Madison Bubble could tell that there were storm clouds on the horizon, there was push-back looming against the Obama Adminstration reforms on many fronts, and there were grumblings at the Middleton Public Library meeting about "those Republicans", but it didn't seem there was anyone at that meeting who knew of anyone who voted Republican or was active in the Tea Party, so it was ironic that we put on a good simulation of Tea Party people giving their member of Congress a hard time at a town-hall meeting.
I guess I am partly to blame that I wasn't more vocal, but I tried on multiple occasions to persuade the leadership of our group to act something along the lines that maybe the Downtown Madison location was not optimal, but maybe we had a short window of opportunity to break ground on the Madison train line prior to the November elections in 2010, and maybe we should pull together with the Mayor, the WisDOT Secretary, and the Governor and show our solidarity and support for this train and worry about having an Amshack at the Dane County Regional Airport down the line.
Well, some people just never give up, and the last I heard was our local advocacy group asking in E-mail for a laundry list of "demands" of what services and amenities the Madison Downtown station had to have, and present that list to the Mayor's representative in a meeting with representatives of this group. My thought was "just build the train line already" and put an Amshack at the Downtown.
And then we had the November 2010 elections giving us Scott Walker in Wisconsin, John Kasich in Ohio, and Rick Scott in Florida. I suppose you are going to say that since ground was never broken that it was "all posturing." I suppose the fault lies with Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Rick Scott along with everyone who voted them into office. But do you suppose that the advocacy community had a teensy bit of influence of tipping matters in that direction?
My read on all of this is that the talk about Corridors and 110 MPH Midwest Regional Rail Initiative and a Chicago regional rail hub was partly for show. The real motivation was that the members of our local advocacy group wanted to ride the long-distance trains out of the Chicago hub, and were put out that they had to take the Van Galder bus with the 4 1/2 hour schedule and the tight leg room to Chicago Union station. Were the Madison Station at the Airport, it would be Park-n-Ride. With the Madison Station at the Downtown, it was the Madison Mayor who wanted to build streetcars and his vision of a post-automobile New Urbanism in Downtown condos.
So don't insult me that the talk around here is mere posturing. The talk around here and in advocacy circles on-line or in the community is about high stakes, billion-dollar level stakes.
henry6 One of the determinations that has to be made is where to you measure financial success of a passenger service? At the cash box or somewhere else? And are you talking all passenger services, just commuter, or just intercity/long distance? In commuter services...if there were no trains running in and out of NYC for instance, what would the economy be like? How many businesses would not longer be and how many would not be working? So, take the commuter's ticket price and subsidy and determine the value of the service, What does the service do for the overall economy and business of a region and what would happen if the service were gone? How about any and all services on Amtrak's Boston-D.C. Corridor? What if Amtrak weren't there, no trains besides commuter trains existed? What is the value to the commerce and ecnomony of the East Coast? Is there only one way to determine value and profit of railpassenger service, i.e. somebody gets to count more money in the cash box? Doesn't it really mean the most after where you put the cash box?
If the users pay for the goods and services that they consume, thereby covering the costs of the entity offering them, it is a financial success. If they require a taxpayer bailout to cover the cost of goods and services, it is not a financial success. I don't know a single accountant, financier, or economist who would argue otherwise. This is true for commercial enterprises run by the government, e.g. passenger rail, postal services, etc., as well as non-commercial activities, e.g. police, education, etc.
If a nation covers the cost of the services that people want, it is a financial success. Passenger rail is not a financial success in the sense that the passengers are willing to pay for it. And given the debt structure of the United States, which is in hawk to the tune of $18 trillion, which includes national as well as state and local government's debt, it would be a stretch to say that the republic's citizens are willing to pay for the government that they supposedly want.
Part of the transport problem with in the United States, as well as the other countries where I have lived, is hidden and cross subsidies distort the true cost of the transport services, with the outcome being that most people don't understand the financing and, therefore, make sub-optimum decisions, i.e. drive big SUV's because they don't see the true cost of doing so.
I am a strong advocate of passenger trains in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the highways and airways is prohibitive. I am also a strong advocate of fiscal responsibility. That is to say, people should be willing to pay for what they want and not pass it off on others, either those now living or those to come.
The argument that we should tear everything up and start over is unrealistic. That is not the way things work. No country, even one as rich as the United States, can afford to do so.
schlimm ... CSSHEGWISCH Paul is quite right about the failure of advocacy for clinging to the past, by extolling the virtues of long distance trains. Paul M. also is critical of the advocacy community for a host of reasons, here and earlier, but does not seem to articulate any reason FOR passenger service, only all the fallacies. Are there any positives, in his view, such as some corridors?
... CSSHEGWISCH Paul is quite right about the failure of advocacy for clinging to the past, by extolling the virtues of long distance trains. Paul M. also is critical of the advocacy community for a host of reasons, here and earlier, but does not seem to articulate any reason FOR passenger service, only all the fallacies. Are there any positives, in his view, such as some corridors?
I disagree in that too many passenger train advocates have held on to the past too dearly. I keep saying that the whole transportation system ( rail, air, highway,waterway, intercity, interstate, intrastate, freight and passenger) should be shut out of one's mind and the whole thing redsigned from the ground up...it is more than thinking outside of the box, it's thinking like there was no box at all. Yes, it is just like reinventing the wheel, but too many are trapped in the past of choo choo's with robber barons and union thugs, grandpa's Oldsmobile, business jet flights of the 60's, and the romantic life of on the road again truckers. None of them ain't the future! Yes, there are some good things about the past that must be incorporated in the future, but those are blocks to be attached after it is determined what we need and how it will work and not the base foundation.
Sam1 henry6: One of the determinations that has to be made is where to you measure financial success of a passenger service? At the cash box or somewhere else? And are you talking all passenger services, just commuter, or just intercity/long distance? In commuter services...if there were no trains running in and out of NYC for instance, what would the economy be like? How many businesses would not longer be and how many would not be working? So, take the commuter's ticket price and subsidy and determine the value of the service, What does the service do for the overall economy and business of a region and what would happen if the service were gone? How about any and all services on Amtrak's Boston-D.C. Corridor? What if Amtrak weren't there, no trains besides commuter trains existed? What is the value to the commerce and ecnomony of the East Coast? Is there only one way to determine value and profit of railpassenger service, i.e. somebody gets to count more money in the cash box? Doesn't it really mean the most after where you put the cash box? If the users pay for the goods and services that they consume, thereby covering the costs of the entity offering them, it is a financial success. If they require a taxpayer bailout to cover the cost of goods and services, it is not a financial success. I don't know a single accountant, financier, or economist who would argue otherwise. This is true for commercial enterprises run by the government, e.g. passenger rail, postal services, etc., as well as non-commercial activities, e.g. police, education, etc. If a nation covers the cost of the services that people want, it is a financial success. Passenger rail is not a financial success in the sense that the passengers are willing to pay for it. And given the debt structure of the United States, which is in hawk to the tune of $18 trillion, which includes national as well as state and local government's debt, it would be a stretch to say that the republic's citizens are willing to pay for the government that they supposedly want. Part of the transport problem with in the United States, as well as the other countries where I have lived, is hidden and cross subsidies distort the true cost of the transport services, with the outcome being that most people don't understand the financing and, therefore, make sub-optimum decisions, i.e. drive big SUV's because they don't see the true cost of doing so. I am a strong advocate of passenger trains in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the highways and airways is prohibitive. I am also a strong advocate of fiscal responsibility. That is to say, people should be willing to pay for what they want and not pass it off on others, either those now living or those to come. The argument that we should tear everything up and start over is unrealistic. That is not the way things work. No country, even one as rich as the United States, can afford to do so.
henry6: One of the determinations that has to be made is where to you measure financial success of a passenger service? At the cash box or somewhere else? And are you talking all passenger services, just commuter, or just intercity/long distance? In commuter services...if there were no trains running in and out of NYC for instance, what would the economy be like? How many businesses would not longer be and how many would not be working? So, take the commuter's ticket price and subsidy and determine the value of the service, What does the service do for the overall economy and business of a region and what would happen if the service were gone? How about any and all services on Amtrak's Boston-D.C. Corridor? What if Amtrak weren't there, no trains besides commuter trains existed? What is the value to the commerce and ecnomony of the East Coast? Is there only one way to determine value and profit of railpassenger service, i.e. somebody gets to count more money in the cash box? Doesn't it really mean the most after where you put the cash box?
But Sam. my point was not about the immediate attributal cost and return for service but also counting the success at a point where thousands if not millions can get to and from work be it through suburbs to city or a whole city or town existing or a facility able to be in business employing so many and being a successful enterprise because of public transit, a case where if transit were not available, there would be no commerce.
But Henry, why can not the commuters, your foundation of commerce, pay the full cost of their ticket?
Mac
PNWRMNM But Henry, why can not the commuters, your foundation of commerce, pay the full cost of their ticket? Mac
Goods and services, including public transit and transportation, should be priced at the user interface to reflect their true cost. Then if society decides that everyone should be able to ride public transit (I agree), as an example, those who meet an income test could be given vouchers to pay the difference between what they can theoretically afford and the cost of the service.
If people see the real cost of their "stuff", they are likely to make better decisions about how much of it they really need, i.e. buy a vehicle that pollutes less, live closer to an urban community as opposed to facilitating urban sprawl, etc. Don't worry, however, the politicians will never allow it.
My point isn't about who pays but where do you put the end value. In our country the foundation of commerce is the investor owned businesses. Therefore the business that benefits from a work force able to get to and from work which otherwise couldn't, could be the end point of the value, or the town in which the business is located could find the endpoint of the value somewhere in their tax structure or their mere existance.
And let me add...how much real estate is sold, how many jobs are chosen, with the sales point of good convenience to public transportation...bus stop or commuter rail? It is a bonus to industry and businesses, it is their benefit as much as it is the commuter's. So, again, where is the end point at which we determine cost, value, and return?
Henry,
What are you blathering about with "end value". I have not seen that term before. It sounds to me like the begining of an arguement for ever more govt medling with the economy to me.
It is the medling that is the source of the problem. Instead of allowing people to make their own decisions based on the market cost of things, which is equal to all, and the relative value of things to them, which is not equal, we simply declare everything to be a right. This destroys the ability of all individuals to choose privately, makes everything a political issue, shifts ever more power from individuals to the politicians, and subjects the people to the cost of the government's "generosity" either through taxes or unfunded mandates on an ever shrinking pool of people who do useful work.
I am saying that the guy who rides the train may not be the sole benificiary of the ride....that businesses and towns may actually benefit as much or more. If a business can operate or a town can exist because there is a train seat to the factory or in and out of town and they benefit by the rider coming into town, then the final value is not in the cost of the ticket paid by the rider but at the point of benefit to the business or municipality. As for more government or socialism, it is too late to argue that because it has been going on in transportation since th Post Roads were deemed important by our Founding Fathers and part of our practice of government since.
henry6 If a business can operate or a town can exist because there is a train seat to the factory or in and out of town and they benefit by the rider coming into town, then the final value is not in the cost of the ticket paid by the rider but at the point of benefit to the business or municipality. Which is impossible to calculate! And is an argument used by those who want a service that the users cannot or will not pay for. As for more government or socialism, it is too late to argue that because it has been going on in transportation since th Post Roads were deemed important by our Founding Fathers and part of our practice of government since. Most of the early transport infrastructure was supported in part by a government, although not always the federal government, with the expectation that the users would pay for it. But not all of it. Many of the early toll roads and bridges in Texas at least were built by private interests that hoped to earn a return on their investment. And in most instances they have. The one glaring exception is passenger rail since the private carriers gave up on it. This is true for public transit as well as intercity rail. I and not saying that government should not be involved nor am I saying that it should not help people use it if it is in the national interest. I am saying, however, that it should be priced properly.
If a business can operate or a town can exist because there is a train seat to the factory or in and out of town and they benefit by the rider coming into town, then the final value is not in the cost of the ticket paid by the rider but at the point of benefit to the business or municipality. Which is impossible to calculate! And is an argument used by those who want a service that the users cannot or will not pay for.
As for more government or socialism, it is too late to argue that because it has been going on in transportation since th Post Roads were deemed important by our Founding Fathers and part of our practice of government since.
Most of the early transport infrastructure was supported in part by a government, although not always the federal government, with the expectation that the users would pay for it. But not all of it. Many of the early toll roads and bridges in Texas at least were built by private interests that hoped to earn a return on their investment. And in most instances they have.
The one glaring exception is passenger rail since the private carriers gave up on it. This is true for public transit as well as intercity rail. I and not saying that government should not be involved nor am I saying that it should not help people use it if it is in the national interest. I am saying, however, that it should be priced properly.
But priced properly for who and by who? If the rider is not the main beneficiary of the service, what is his share compared to a town that wouldn't exist if there were no riders or businesses who benefit because employees can use rail or bus to commute to and from work...(benefit to business: not have to maintain huge parking lots which are taxed; commuters can get to and from place of employment with little or no hassel from service with integrety and reliablity. Towns benefit because they don't need to take property off tax roles for parking spaces and the attended need for patroling; retailers and other besinesses benefit by customers using public transportation, etc.). Again, where do we draw the line where there is a cash benefit...to the rider, to the business or manufacturing facility, or to the municipallit(ies?) which it serves. We are so far along, admittedly, that this is an answer which is unfathomable to most people, and may be more rhetorical than anything. Maybe what I am saying is that we've got to attach values and not just costs to public transportation.
henry6 But priced properly for who and by who? If the rider is not the main beneficiary of the service, what is his share compared to a town that wouldn't exist if there were no riders or businesses who benefit because employees can use rail or bus to commute to and from work...(benefit to business: not have to maintain huge parking lots which are taxed; commuters can get to and from place of employment with little or no hassel from service with integrety and reliablity. Towns benefit because they don't need to take property off tax roles for parking spaces and the attended need for patroling; retailers and other besinesses benefit by customers using public transportation, etc.). Again, where do we draw the line where there is a cash benefit...to the rider, to the business or manufacturing facility, or to the municipallit(ies?) which it serves. We are so far along, admittedly, that this is an answer which is unfathomable to most people, and may be more rhetorical than anything. Maybe what I am saying is that we've got to attach values and not just costs to public transportation.
The rider in the case of public transport or the motorists in the case of the highways totes the full note. If public transit adds value for the community or a business or whatever, they can help defer the cost of the note with voucher subsidies. That is exactly what my corporate employer did. It bought bus and train passes from Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and sold them to employees at a discount because it believed it was in the interest of the business to do so. I was one of seven managers out of more than 750 who rode public transit.
However, neither my employer or most riders had any idea of what the service really cost. And therein lies the problem. Because no one fully understands the cost, i.e. it is not reflected at the price point, all sorts of bad decisions were made about its construction and operation. And the drum beat goes on, unfortunately, and always will as long as people mask the cost of goods, services, government, etc.
Sam1 henry6: If a business can operate or a town can exist because there is a train seat to the factory or in and out of town and they benefit by the rider coming into town, then the final value is not in the cost of the ticket paid by the rider but at the point of benefit to the business or municipality. Which is impossible to calculate! And is an argument used by those who want a service that the users cannot or will not pay for.
henry6: If a business can operate or a town can exist because there is a train seat to the factory or in and out of town and they benefit by the rider coming into town, then the final value is not in the cost of the ticket paid by the rider but at the point of benefit to the business or municipality. Which is impossible to calculate! And is an argument used by those who want a service that the users cannot or will not pay for.
A datum that is perhaps more appriate to commuter rail than LD passenger rail:
The county courthouse in downtown San Diego does not provide parking for jurors even though they are required by law to show up for jury duty. The court does recommend use of public transit for travel to/from the court (and it is convenient for both the "Trolley" and the Coaster). I would argue that the court benefits from not having to provide parking space for jurors and thus should contribute to operating costs of the various public transit agencies.
So, Sam1, are you saying you see my point and may even agree with me that it is a question that we must agree on in order to find agreement of how to tackle the future of transportation in our country?
henry6 So, Sam1, are you saying you see my point and may even agree with me that it is a question that we must agree on in order to find agreement of how to tackle the future of transportation in our country?
A little bit!
The United States has a transport framework. Otherwise, how did we get to where we are now, which for all of its flaws is a transport system that works pretty well. And one that appears to reflect the wishes of the people. Having said that, the system can and should be tweaked from time to time as circumstances dictate.
If one believes that Washington or Austin bureaucrats know more about planting cotton on the high plains of Texas than the cotton farmers, then they are inclined to favor highly centralized, top down centralized planning. On the other hand, if like me they believe that the high plains cotton farmers know more about planting the cotton, then the role of the central planners should be to develop a framework to help bring about better cotton yields. But they should not attempt to micromanage the outcomes because every time they do so they mess it up.
What would be nice is for governments to understand that while they have to pay for some services and infrastructures they should no micormanage but leave it to experts but with a knowledgable overseer at hand. From school boards on up the chain.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.