After looking at what Amtrak has gone through with the national government, would it really be a good idea to privitize the passenger railroad? It worked with Conrail, so why not Amtrak? It would take a lot off of the goverments shoulders, and allow Amtrak to not worry about funding.
So, what do you think about this possibility? Do you think that it could really help the system, or just send it into turmoil?
The Lehigh Valley Railroad, the Route of the Black Diamond Express, John Wilkes and Maple Leaf.
-Jake, modeling the Barclay, Towanda & Susquehanna.
Two different legislative creations, not equal, not able to do with Amtrak what was done with CR.
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.
Privatizing Amtrak is completely unworkable: no system of public transportation anywhere makes a profit, and so in the end it would cost more to support the private firms operating Amtrak AND their profits and executive bonuses than it does as a straight government entity. Pro-privatization types like to point to Germany as a success, but only after HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS were invested in right of way improvements from the seventies on. In the UK it cost a fortune for the government to privatize BR and then pay to fix up the tracks. And then you have the tendency for private operators to cut costs on labor, rotating and split shifts etc., as with Veolia Transportation, the operator of Metrolink in California, until one of their engineers crashed into a UP freight while texting: http://projects.latimes.com/metrolink-crash/ No thanks.
Dwight, it is the mechinisms of the legislation that makes it all but impossible for Amtrak to become a private corporation. As for the Metrolink engineer texting or on the cell phone, that's indicative of too many working in all kinds of jobs be it transportation or factory or retail and even offices today; so that's not a factor of private operation not being able to make it. Our economic and political systems do not allow a private operation to succeed if because of high expectations of rate of return for investors (prublc or private), demands of a labor intensive business, and the unwillingness of a public to accept the whole cost plus profit purchase price. The ICC held railroad passenger ticket pices at given rates, the government built roads for cars and buses and built airports and provided traffic management for airlines, and states like NY had legislatures which did not allow the cost of a subway ride to raise above a nickel for over 50 years. So the public has no idea of the actual cost of traveling because it is so hidden and confusing to figure out. With that in mind, who in his right mind wants to get into the business of running passenger trains? Especially if there is no promise of financeial support (subsidy) from any government?
Lehigh Valley 2089 After looking at what Amtrak has gone through with the national government, would it really be a good idea to privitize the passenger railroad? It worked with Conrail, so why not Amtrak? It would take a lot off of the goverments shoulders, and allow Amtrak to not worry about funding. So, what do you think about this possibility? Do you think that it could really help the system, or just send it into turmoil?
As discussed in the latest issue of Trains, Nuovo Trasporto Viaggiatori, a private operator in Italy, is planning high speed (187.5 miles per hour) passenger rail service connecting Turin, Milan, Rome and Naples. Start-up is planned for later this year.
The article did not present any comprehensive financial details, i.e. fares, rentals for facilities use, etc., but the investors apparently believe that they can make money with a privately owned and operated rail service. The article indicates that they have raised the capital in public financial markets. I am keen to see how it works out. Hopefully, as the title of the article suggests, it could be a model for the U.S.
The Great Southern Railway in Australia is operated on a contract basis by a consortium of private investors. The Indian Pacific, The Gahn, and the Overland are its trains. The operators receive a subsidy from the Australian federal government. In turn they are required to meet stiff performance standards, or they run the risk of losing the contract. Having lived in Australia for five years, I have ridden all three trains on numerous occasions. I rode them when they were operated by the government and afterwards. The private operators improved the performance significantly.
The V Line in Victoria has been privatized along lines similar to the Great Southern Railway. Again the transition took place whilst I lived in Melbourne, and I saw first hand the improvements that followed the transition. Even the tram and bus lines in Melbourne were privatized.
I moved to Australia at the behest of my company because the Victorian government was privatizing the electric grid. The state government, which had owned it, sold it off, and my company bought a piece of it. As a result, amongst other things, the private operators were able to shed more than 20,000 unnecessary employees, who constituted a hidden tax on the customers, thereby delivering a better service for the utility customers. Most of the employees who lost their jobs found others of equal value or retired with a nice incentive package. Privatization involved temporary pain. But the benefits, at least in the case of electric utility service in Australia, outweighed the pain and resulted in an overall benefit for the population as a whole.
As long as Amtrak or any operator is forced to run long distance trains, which are used by a small percentage of intercity travelers, privatization would not work. However, privatizing passenger rail service in the relatively small number of corridors in the United States where trains make sense, i.e. NEC, southern California, Illinois, etc. might work if the operator could reduce the bureaucracy that encumbers Amtrak and force higher productivity from its employees.
Unfortunately, given the political environment in the United States, privatization of Amtrak or any form of intercity passenger rail is not likely. So Amtrak's losses, which reached a cumulative $28 billion at the end of FY11, will continue to add to the taxpayer burden associated with keeping it afloat.
Henry, you are right, but the sort of transparency of costs would actually dissuade anyone from privatizing Amtrak. I always ask: is this a total privatization, including the cost of rebuilding track." A few years back the states in the NE Corridor rebuffed an offer from Republicans to give them the NE Corridor, to quote a Don Phillips Trains article from June 2005: "Obviously private operators could not make money any more than Amtrak can make money. So would they be subsidized? ... The Northeast Corridor states all but sniffed at the plan. Why would they want a half-crumbling railroad line that needs billions of dollars in work."
And that is also another reason why "privatization" attempts are really only the privatization of operating profits but the socialization of losses in the form of upkeep of track. During the 2005 congressional hearings when the Republicans wanted to eliminate "money losing" long distance trains and keep the NE Corridor it was revealed that Amtrak loses more per rider in the NE Corridor than on long distance trains when you account for the upkeep Amtrak must pay for on track it owns. Long distance trains are on the other had a small incremental cost for the freight railroads. I saw a figure once that Amtrak pays the same to CSX and NS to send one train from NYC to Chicago as UPS does to send one piggyback trailer.
BTW, a little-advertised part of the Transport bill that made its way out of the Senate a few weeks back was a provision that would severely restrict the privatization of highways, I think they are waking up that privatization is more expensive:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/jeff-bingaman-senate-highway-bill-leases_n_1266385.html
Politicians not only want thier cake and eat it to, but they want the oven, the pan it was cooked in, the knife that cut it, the plate is was served on, the fork they used plus total amnisty all while telling you it doesn't exist.
.
This is almost humorous. Everybody here thinks Amtrak is vital to the survival of the nation.This is simple. Do we need amtrak? No. If if falls of the face of the earth will it matter? No. So the answer is to privateize it. If it fails there is a reason. The US dosen't need it. If it succeds all the better. These are the founding priciples of the US.
"Mess with the best, die like the rest" -U.S. Marine Corp
MINRail (Minessota Rail Transportaion Corp.) - "If they got rid of the weeds what would hold the rails down?"
And yes I am 17.
gabeusmc These are the founding priciples of the US.
These are the founding priciples of the US.
If that is so, gabeusmc, then why does the Constitution give the Congress right to regulate interstate commerce? Why is there copyright laws and a Patent Office? Why has the Federal and state governements from the beginning issued charters, legislated bonding, allowed for eminent domain, or otherwise help form the system...I am not talking just 20th or 21st Century, I am talking 18th and19th Century, too. I am not neccessarityly talking railroads either, I am talking roads and highways, canals, waterways, airports and air traffic controls.
"The US dosen't need it."
What do you envision our population corridors would be like without passenger rail service? What alternatives would you propose that wouldn't be congested, used more land than in use now, and be non pollutant?
Overall your statement lacks a sense of history and the role the government has played in all our intercourse and economic (military?) growth nor considers the need for proper use of fuel, land, and air for practicality, safety and enviornmently sound choices.
It didn't work with Conrail until they changed the game (Staggers Act). It won't work with Amtrak unless they change the game there, too. But the change would have to be really drastic. REALLY drastic. Amtrak loses nearly 50 cents on the dollar. Conrail was much closer to breaking even, even before Staggers.
You could privatize in the sense that you bid out the operation in parts with the guy who needed the least subsidy winning. But that's not really privatizing....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
DwightBranch ...Republicans wanted to eliminate "money losing" long distance trains and keep the NE Corridor it was revealed that Amtrak loses more per rider in the NE Corridor than on long distance trains when you account for the upkeep Amtrak must pay for on track it owns. Long distance trains are on the other had a small incremental cost for the freight railroads. I saw a figure once that Amtrak pays the same to CSX and NS to send one train from NYC to Chicago as UPS does to send one piggyback trailer. BTW, a little-advertised part of the Transport bill that made its way out of the Senate a few weeks back was a provision that would severely restrict the privatization of highways, I think they are waking up that privatization is more expensive: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/jeff-bingaman-senate-highway-bill-leases_n_1266385.html
...Republicans wanted to eliminate "money losing" long distance trains and keep the NE Corridor it was revealed that Amtrak loses more per rider in the NE Corridor than on long distance trains when you account for the upkeep Amtrak must pay for on track it owns. Long distance trains are on the other had a small incremental cost for the freight railroads. I saw a figure once that Amtrak pays the same to CSX and NS to send one train from NYC to Chicago as UPS does to send one piggyback trailer.
You are buying into a myth. Sam and others here have debunked it a couple of times. (maybe more). The LD trains are losers, Truly.
UPS pays about a grand to have a trailer moved 1000 miles. Amtrak pays about $10 a mile for a LD train. (Which isn't even close to what it costs the frt RR to host it). So, the Amtrak rate is about 10x more per mile.
I really like the LD trains. I wish it wasn't true that they are such losers. I also wish Amtrak would tighten up their leaky ship a good bit so that we have a chance of keeping some of them.
henry6 gabeusmc: These are the founding priciples of the US. If that is so, gabeusmc, then why does the Constitution give the Congress right to regulate interstate commerce? Why is there copyright laws and a Patent Office? Why has the Federal and state governements from the beginning issued charters, legislated bonding, allowed for eminent domain, or otherwise help form the system...I am not talking just 20th or 21st Century, I am talking 18th and19th Century, too. I am not neccessarityly talking railroads either, I am talking roads and highways, canals, waterways, airports and air traffic controls. "The US dosen't need it." What do you envision our population corridors would be like without passenger rail service? What alternatives would you propose that wouldn't be congested, used more land than in use now, and be non pollutant? Overall your statement lacks a sense of history and the role the government has played in all our intercourse and economic (military?) growth nor considers the need for proper use of fuel, land, and air for practicality, safety and enviornmently sound choices.
gabeusmc: These are the founding priciples of the US.
Well if we need the rail transportation some guy/s (like me but with more money) will buy it and make money on it, if it is indeed needed and is profitable. As for the regulation of interstate commerce,I am not saying that there should be none. I am just saying that if there is a need for transportation somthing will fill thae gap if Amtrak goes under. It could be that CSX (as an example) decides it can make money providing passenger transit between here and there they will do it. If they don't acme bus will. Taking amtrak off the shoulders of the goverment will help our debt problem.
As for the statment the "US does not need it" I meant if it is not profitable then there must be no demand for it an therefore not needed. The biggest problem is that the goverment beurcrats are running it. The post office is struggling, yet Fedex and UPS seem to do fine. theres some food for thought.
Long haul trains are mostly tourist atractions for people like you and me. If I need to get from LA to Chicago for bussinessI am taking a plane, because it is faster. I'll take a train because I want to see the land. And yes I know this dosen't apply to inter city transit.
Also I live in Northern MI. not many people here want to pay taxes to help people in Washington DC get to work. Make the people in washington DC pay to get to work.
And as for as a non pollutent choice, I could care less. The ECO people want to get rid of CO2, Ironically thats what trees "breath".
Three issues:
One, polluting emissions are not only CO2, so we can't take pollution lightly.
Two, no one can deny the role of governments in creating and maintaining our transportation system.
Three, is cash payback the only value of any endeavor especially when so much of society benefits? I know we've lost many valuable products and services over the years and lost quality of products and services, too, simply because cash payback was not enough to satisfy the investors. Look at what is happening to our drugs as profit margin drops, no matter how valuable the drug is for taking care of patients' needs, the drug becomes scarce or not available anymore.
henry6 Three issues: One, polluting emissions are not only CO2, so we can't take pollution lightly. Two, no one can deny the role of governments in creating and maintaining our transportation system. Three, is cash payback the only value of any endeavor especially when so much of society benefits? I know we've lost many valuable products and services over the years and lost quality of products and services, too, simply because cash payback was not enough to satisfy the investors. Look at what is happening to our drugs as profit margin drops, no matter how valuable the drug is for taking care of patients' needs, the drug becomes scarce or not available anymore.
Yes, cash payback or payout is indeed the only value to any endeavor, especially if you want to maximize a social payout in the form of reduced imported oil, reduced Greenhouse gas emission, or any other metric.
Someone here please convince me that subsidizing Amtrak results in more quantifiable environmental savings then taking the same money and giving tax breaks on hybrid or electric cars.
By my reckoning, if Amtrak saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile at 20 cents subsidy/passenger mile. If a hybrid or electric car saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile, a $10,000 tax credit for a plug-in hybrid amounts to 7 cents/passenger mile. Hence the hybrid car subsidy is three times more effective than subsidizing Amtrak. Why are we giving money to Amtrak if saving the environment is a concern?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
First, I don't believe cash payback to only one or just a few people is good. In the cancer drug shortage, drug companies stopped supplying because there was no huge profit in it despite the life and death dependency of the drug, and the fact that only drug companies can make drugs...if you don't want to make drugs, then open a pizza parlor or go to work for the railroad; you chose to make drugs, so take on the responsibility or is there no such thing as corporate responsiblity and patriotism or dedication? So if you want to get into the railroad business, then get in the railroad business. But if you want to make lots and lots money become a printer in the treasury department. In other words, yes, make as much money as you can, there is nothing wrong with that; but also try to be satisfied with what you can make or else get out.
Second, subsidies for Amtrak on dense corridors do make environmental impacts. Less land is used, less fuel is used, less pollutants are produced, roads and airways are less congested. NY to Boston or D.C. for instance. There is little land, if any, which can be turned over to more highway building. Both highways and airlanes are already dangerously croweded in plane physical congestion. AIr quality is bad and getting worse...and if you have so much congestion not only are people not moving or moving quickly, thus there is even more pollution. Putting money into a better Amtrak...be it high speed, renewed infrastructure, more trains...would work to reduce air pollutants in the densly populated area. Even if you had an all electric automobile with unlimited mileage and speed, there isn't enough room many places to build more highways which would take space away from industry or homes.
Paul Milenkovic Yes, cash payback or payout is indeed the only value to any endeavor, especially if you want to maximize a social payout in the form of reduced imported oil, reduced Greenhouse gas emission, or any other metric. Someone here please convince me that subsidizing Amtrak results in more quantifiable environmental savings then taking the same money and giving tax breaks on hybrid or electric cars. By my reckoning, if Amtrak saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile at 20 cents subsidy/passenger mile. If a hybrid or electric car saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile, a $10,000 tax credit for a plug-in hybrid amounts to 7 cents/passenger mile. Hence the hybrid car subsidy is three times more effective than subsidizing Amtrak. Why are we giving money to Amtrak if saving the environment is a concern?
The environmental costs of cars is more than just fuel burning. All those extra hybrid cars would need more highways and parking lots. All that paving leads to loss of habitable space, loss of vegetative cover, storm water issues, etc. Adding more airports would have similar consequences. Whether or not they can be quantified monetarily does not disqualify them as environmental problems.
LA once has an efficient rail transit system, but it was abandoned when thy thought it could be replaced by freeways. With the freeways clogged, and people commuting hours to work, they realized the limits of roadways, and are rebuilding the rail system at great costs. Amtrak and commuter rail have a place, at least in dense corridors.
I say privatize the trains, train service employees and ticket agents. Let Amtrak stay in place as the owner of the Northeast Corridor tracks, keep up with the maintenance and provide dispatching.
Another suggestion would be to do away with long distance service and instead offer corridor service where private passenger train companies negotiate trackage rights with private freight train companies. Who knows...maybe a private freight train company might offer passenger service if federal, state and local governments would be willing to pay for trainsets, stations and upgrades to mainlines to high speed standards.
By doing away with the non-competitive bureaucratic government run Amtrak, service would greatly improve and the US could catch up with the rest of the world in passenger train service.
0 0 1 625 3564 Retired 29 8 4181 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
According to Amtrak’s September 2010 Monthly Operating Report, which includes the financial results for FY10, the average cost to carry a passenger in the NEC was $83.78 compared to $58.46 for the State Supported and Other Short Distance Corridor Trains (Corridor) and $263.67 for the long distance trains. These numbers represent average costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses.
FY11 segment numbers have not been provided. Amtrak is re-working its accounting system. Amongst other things it will be able to allocate depreciation, interest, and other expenses by segment and route. Why Amtrak ceased segment reporting before the new accounting system is ready for prime time is a mystery.
The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
Assuming 80% of the depreciation, interest and other expenses is allocable to the NEC, with 10% being allocable equally to the other two segments, the average loss per passenger after considering these items was $48.67 for the NEC compared to $21.68 for the corridor trains and $144.15 for the long distance trains. Even if 100% of the depreciation, interest, and other expenses were charged to the NEC, which would be inappropriate accounting, the long distance trains would still lose considerably more money per passenger than the NEC and the corridor trains.
The cost of normal maintenance of any segment of Amtrak’s owned system, including the equipment and infrastructure for the NEC, is included in operating expenses. If the maintenance is designed to extend the life of the asset, it is capitalized. Ultimately, depending on the depreciation schedule for the assets, it flows through the income statement as a part of the depreciation expense. In Amtrak’s case it take decades for some of the capitalized costs to be fully amortized.
The long distance trains accounted for 15.6% of system passengers and 26.0% of system revenues. But their losses wiped out the NEC operating profit and accounted for 76.2% of the net operating losses before allocation of depreciation, interest, and other expenses. Sleeping car passengers accounted for 2.3% of system passengers and 15% of long distance passengers. Sleeping car revenues accounted for 3.7% of long distance revenues. Amtrak does not disclose the costs attracted by the sleeping cars, but in a 2005 report the Inspector General indicated that the subsidy for sleeping car passengers was greater than the subsidy for coach passengers on the long distance trains.
Amtrak claims that it would realize net savings of approximately $300 million per year if the long distance trains were discontinued. I have not been able to obtain a breakdown for these numbers. Clearly, the savings during the first year or two of discontinuance would not equal the operating and fixed costs associated with the long distance trains because of severance packages, asset sale and salvage lag, and overhead reallocations. Some of the overheads associated with the long distance trains, e.g. reservation systems, management, maintenance facilities, etc., could not be reduced proportionately with the discontinue of the long distance trains. Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that Amtrak would not be able to realize savings of more than 52% of the net operating losses by discontinuing the long distance trains. A for profit private enterprise probably would be able to achieve considerably greater savings.
Even if the saving were only $300 million per year, it adds up. Assuming that they were invested at the Treasury Department’s weighted average cost of borrowing, the savings would amount to $3.34 billion over 10 years. That is a significant amount of money and would go a long way toward upgrading the DFW/San Antonio corridor, which is the kind of environment in which passenger trains make sense.
EMD#1 I say privatize the trains, train service employees and ticket agents. Let Amtrak stay in place as the owner of the Northeast Corridor tracks, keep up with the maintenance and provide dispatching. Another suggestion would be to do away with long distance service and instead offer corridor service where private passenger train companies negotiate trackage rights with private freight train companies. Who knows...maybe a private freight train company might offer passenger service if federal, state and local governments would be willing to pay for trainsets, stations and upgrades to mainlines to high speed standards. By doing away with the non-competitive bureaucratic government run Amtrak, service would greatly improve and the US could catch up with the rest of the world in passenger train service.
Ditto. It makes sense.
Shouldn't we therefore also privatize highways, waterways, canals, airports and air traffic control and any other transportation mode the governemtn underwrites? Or is it just trains?
Henry,
Those are all fine ideas, and doing so would minimized the economic distortion caused by government intervention. The case for ATK is so blatent that almost anybody who cares to look wonders why in the world congress is doing it. My suggestion is to purchase union votes.
Mac McCulloch
MidlandMike Paul Milenkovic: Yes, cash payback or payout is indeed the only value to any endeavor, especially if you want to maximize a social payout in the form of reduced imported oil, reduced Greenhouse gas emission, or any other metric. Someone here please convince me that subsidizing Amtrak results in more quantifiable environmental savings then taking the same money and giving tax breaks on hybrid or electric cars. By my reckoning, if Amtrak saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile at 20 cents subsidy/passenger mile. If a hybrid or electric car saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile, a $10,000 tax credit for a plug-in hybrid amounts to 7 cents/passenger mile. Hence the hybrid car subsidy is three times more effective than subsidizing Amtrak. Why are we giving money to Amtrak if saving the environment is a concern? The environmental costs of cars is more than just fuel burning. All those extra hybrid cars would need more highways and parking lots. All that paving leads to loss of habitable space, loss of vegetative cover, storm water issues, etc. Adding more airports would have similar consequences. Whether or not they can be quantified monetarily does not disqualify them as environmental problems. LA once has an efficient rail transit system, but it was abandoned when thy thought it could be replaced by freeways. With the freeways clogged, and people commuting hours to work, they realized the limits of roadways, and are rebuilding the rail system at great costs. Amtrak and commuter rail have a place, at least in dense corridors.
Paul Milenkovic: Yes, cash payback or payout is indeed the only value to any endeavor, especially if you want to maximize a social payout in the form of reduced imported oil, reduced Greenhouse gas emission, or any other metric. Someone here please convince me that subsidizing Amtrak results in more quantifiable environmental savings then taking the same money and giving tax breaks on hybrid or electric cars. By my reckoning, if Amtrak saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile at 20 cents subsidy/passenger mile. If a hybrid or electric car saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile, a $10,000 tax credit for a plug-in hybrid amounts to 7 cents/passenger mile. Hence the hybrid car subsidy is three times more effective than subsidizing Amtrak. Why are we giving money to Amtrak if saving the environment is a concern?
What extra highways and lots? Nearly everyone who rides Amtrak has a car. ...or two. Amtrak service in the NEC is worth about 1/3 of a highway lane in each direction during peak hours.
We would be left with the NEC and it's extensions plus California. Is that enough?
How much profit are the armed services returning on their investment? We are in a profit driven world so every organization getting tax dollars should be returning a profit to the treasury to justify it's continued existence.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD How much profit are the armed services returning on their investment? We are in a profit driven world so every organization getting tax dollars should be returning a profit to the treasury to justify it's continued existence.
oltmannd What extra highways and lots? Nearly everyone who rides Amtrak has a car. ...or two. Amtrak service in the NEC is worth about 1/3 of a highway lane in each direction during peak hours.
You want to make some more sweeping generalizations about DC-NYC-BOS and its millions of people that don't have cars and use Amtrak to get between the cities?
henry6 Shouldn't we therefore also privatize highways, waterways, canals, airports and air traffic control and any other transportation mode the governemtn underwrites? Or is it just trains?
Turning highways into tollways and turning them over to a private company is an idea that I support. My commute takes me over I80/90 in Indiana, which was leased by the state of Indiana to a private firm a couple of years ago. The state made a nice little chunk of change, and the highway seems to get more maintenance since the lease. Seems like a win for everyone....The city of Chicago leased out the Skyway, which is part of I90 a couple of years ago. It also seems to be working well. Chicago is also talking about leasing out Midway to a private firm. So no, it is not just trains....
An "expensive model collector"
What is more blatent than the government building a highway and allowing buses and trucks to use it while charging less than the cost of damage ot the highway infrastructure or the air pollution? Or what about communities pouring millions of dollars (including commercial or other viable land values) into an airport that eliminates the land from commercial development and has so little traffic that the taxpayers foot the bill? Or a canal that sees so little commercial traffic it doesn't pay the way for private craft so fees have to be subsidized from highway funds? I could go on. And what does "union votes" mean? What does that have to do with infrastructure, economic fuel use and environmental concerns? You don't make sense...you are sweeping dirt under the carpet to pretend it doesn't exist.
n012944 henry6: Shouldn't we therefore also privatize highways, waterways, canals, airports and air traffic control and any other transportation mode the governemtn underwrites? Or is it just trains? Turning highways into tollways and turning them over to a private company is an idea that I support. My commute takes me over I80/90 in Indiana, which was leased by the state of Indiana to a private firm a couple of years ago. The state made a nice little chunk of change, and the highway seems to get more maintenance since the lease. Seems like a win for everyone....The city of Chicago leased out the Skyway, which is part of I90 a couple of years ago. It also seems to be working well. Chicago is also talking about leasing out Midway to a private firm. So no, it is not just trains....
henry6: Shouldn't we therefore also privatize highways, waterways, canals, airports and air traffic control and any other transportation mode the governemtn underwrites? Or is it just trains?
Wrong:
You have that backwards. One railroad track can carry 6 highway lanes of traffic in one hour. That's why commuter rail is used..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.