schlimm It is "interesting" how conservative-leaning folks, such as sam1, greyhounds, the dakotas, to name just a few, express their ideas freely. Yet if they are challenged, that challenge is labeled as "political" or a personal attack.
It is "interesting" how conservative-leaning folks, such as sam1, greyhounds, the dakotas, to name just a few, express their ideas freely. Yet if they are challenged, that challenge is labeled as "political" or a personal attack.
You might want to be careful with labels. In 2008 I supported President Obama. Not only did I vote for him, I used my own money to fly to North Carolina to campaign for him during the primary season. I knew that he did not have a chance in Texas, so I decided not to waste a lot of time in what was sure to be a losing cause.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Which it is.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet Paul: I'm not sure how you got all of that from my reply that claiming that we have been forced to expend all of our resources defending all the other nations of the world because they have chosen not to defend themselves is an interesting rationalization.
Paul:
I'm not sure how you got all of that from my reply that claiming that we have been forced to expend all of our resources defending all the other nations of the world because they have chosen not to defend themselves is an interesting rationalization.
Um, could it have been because you characterized U.S. 'defense spending and posture' as 'paranoid'?
I disagree completely with the above post. because rail transportation is far more effficient for freight than any kind of highway or air transportation, and the only reason the airlines and truckers could compete was because of the massive intervention of government, both in ivestment and regulaation. If integrated transportaton companies had emerged, and the government would not have interfered, we would proabably have integrated power and rail companeis, with elelctrification widespread, with abandonmennt of little used branch lines beause of the wide availableiltiy of intermodal transfer points. We might have had double-sttack trains (with catenary high enough to handle them) on some routes before WWII, s a logical development of what the PRR wanted to do in 1931. Instead Firestone-GM-Texaco owning most of the USA's transit systems thorugh Naitonal City Lines, the power companies would have continiued owning most of the larger ones that were not municipally owned, and in many places where there are now new light rail lines, these would have grown logically from the existing streetcar systems, where heavy trunk routes would have been upgraded, and minor ones converted to buses. Regarding mergers, of course the Hill lines would have emerged long ago, the PRR, N&W, and Southern, and possibly the ACL, with the Seabord, NYC, B&O, and C&O forming the maor competitor in its territory. Probably WP-D&RGW-MP-TP and possibly RI. Of course, all these railroads would probably own trucking companies with most freight, as today, either intermodal or unit trains. The two competing technologies would have been container on flatcar, pioneered by PRR at a major, and trailer on flatcar. But long distance truckiing and air-freight would have been specialty situations for freigiht not adaptable for intermodal or unit train operation. Loose car railroading would be a minor part of the freight business, about parallel with long-distance trucking and air-freight. We would have been better prepared for WWII. and less dependent on mideast oil after!
oltmannd MidlandMike: Admittedly, sometimes these good intentions morph into misguided consequences, but then they were brought back into line with the Staggers Rail Act. To say that without interference we would now have a healthy freight rail system is a best case scenario, and it may just have likely turned out that the rail companies would have morphed int trucking or airline companies, We would have integrated transportation companies - not morphed railroads. The railroads would have poured their capital into integrating trucking and air travel into their railroad network. The roads would have merged down to 3 or 4 and served everyone, everywhere.
MidlandMike: Admittedly, sometimes these good intentions morph into misguided consequences, but then they were brought back into line with the Staggers Rail Act. To say that without interference we would now have a healthy freight rail system is a best case scenario, and it may just have likely turned out that the rail companies would have morphed int trucking or airline companies,
Admittedly, sometimes these good intentions morph into misguided consequences, but then they were brought back into line with the Staggers Rail Act. To say that without interference we would now have a healthy freight rail system is a best case scenario, and it may just have likely turned out that the rail companies would have morphed int trucking or airline companies,
We would have integrated transportation companies - not morphed railroads. The railroads would have poured their capital into integrating trucking and air travel into their railroad network. The roads would have merged down to 3 or 4 and served everyone, everywhere.
Yes, that also might have happened, but also an integrated company might also have decided that the rail portion was not lucrative enough and spun it off as a depleted shell. Also I prefer airline companies to be focused on air safety. Plus I think that all transportation to be controlled by 3 or 4 integrated companies would be too close to transport oligarchy to be good for the country.
I only replied to someone who made that claim. I have no intention of making it a protracted debate. Such a debate would be totally political and in violation of the rules of the forum.
Phoebe Vet What an interesting way to rationalize our paranoid defense spending and posture.
What an interesting way to rationalize our paranoid defense spending and posture.
I suppose on this anniversary of our great nation's founding, I could take personal offense at that remark, especially in light of two persons who would later become my parents being independently granted refugee status to come to this country in the aftermath of WW-II and not forced to be repatriated with a newly Communist country.
But what bothers me more about such remarks is that damage is done to the cause of passenger train advocacy. Yes, being for or against public spending on passenger trains roughly correlates with the Liberal/Conservative political divide. But even in the Liberal camp there is not universal enthusiasm for trains, and given the close division of the American electorate along the main ideological lines, advancing the cause of trains is going to require support from both Liberals and Conservatives, as well as from people who question our defense spending and posture and those who unabashedly support it (not cleanly split along Liberal and Conservative lines either).
How are we going to build this broad coalition in support of trains if advocacy people go around offending people either in that coalition or who could be in it? And I have experienced this not only here but in the bricks-and-morter advocacy circles as well.
Furthermore, let's stipulate that all of this is going to change, peace is going to break out all over, and there will be this enormous peace dividend coming. It is a real stretch to think that passenger trains are going to be first in line for that money. For example, the Recovery Act (Stimulus bill) was roughly 800 billion for various worthwhile non-defense expenditures, and passenger trains got 8 billion, about 1 percent, and from an Administration who has as strong a passenger advocate (the Vice President) as you are going to ever get in high places. 8 billion dollars may not be a lot of money compared to the need and the passenger-train wish lists, but from the high-speed baggage car thread, it is not clear that money is being spent for maximum impact, it is not clear to me that the advocacy community took seriously the one-time-window-of-opportunity nature of that money.
So if not trains, what is ahead of us (besides defense) claiming Federal money? Health care for one. I had suggested in another thread that the broadening of who is covered by health insurance is going to require more money and is an important social priority, and a certain person laid into me as being a Right-wing shill for suggesting that. There are certain things about the social climate of this forum that I simply don't get.
Education is also a priority. Having enough men and women as police and firefighters and municipal workers is also a priority. Somewhere down the list are trains, probably at the one-part-in-one hundred level of the stimulus bill, given the most favorable political environment as you are going to get for this sort of thing.
The other thing that bothers me is that as soon as anyone introduces anything remotely approaching a Free Market argument in passenger advocacy circles, there is this piling on regarding the virtue as well as necessity of passenger train subsidies. The amount of subsidy Amtrak receives is just a rounding error in the Federal Budget, but then too, contrary to some vehement denials by the way, the Amtrak contribution to moving people around outside of the NEC is a footnote entry in the Department of Commerce transportation statistics.
Advocacy business-as-usual hasn't gotten us off dead center since Amtrak's inception over 40 years ago. I welcome the people who challenge the passenger-train orthodoxy on this forum because we need new ideas, and such were certainly not expressed in the bricks-and-morters circles I frequented, or if you were (a published railroad historical book author!) speaking as much, you ended up blacklisted in not being invited back for not keeping to the party line.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Also Sam, we have a two fold public relations/image problem One is several generations who have no concept of what passenger service (again, I say service and not trains) is all about. Talking to them about rail travel is akin to explaining space travel to our grandparents whose concept is Buck Rogers and Flash Gorden and not Niel Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. And second is the older generation who don't understand that the train left the station decades ago, today's railroads are not the same as those who took us through WWII and the Korean War with troop trains and billions of tons of freight. Say "choo, choo" in front of them and they remember steam locomotives belching through the night. Say "choo, choo, in front of a contemporary person and they say, "Ggesundhiet!" to you. That's why we have to start planning a transportation system for this into the next century starting from scratch, forgetting the past and the present, more than just thinking outside the box but thinking as if there was never a box at all. Therein lies the future of Amtrak and not in the timetables of the past.
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.
MidlandMike Admittedly, sometimes these good intentions morph into misguided consequences, but then they were brought back into line with the Staggers Rail Act. To say that without interference we would now have a healthy freight rail system is a best case scenario, and it may just have likely turned out that the rail companies would have morphed int trucking or airline companies,
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
[quote user="blue streak 1"]
Sam1: Whether truckers pay their fair share of the roadway system has been debated and will continue to be debated for year. . For example, truckers pay hefty fuel taxes, which contribute a disproportionate percentage of revenues to the highway trust fund For comparative purposes, the median return on sales for the Fortune 500 (America's freight railroads are Fortune 500 companies) was approximately 5% and the median return on equity was 14.3%, which was significanty above the historical return of 12%. As these numbers show, at least from a financial perspective, America's freight railroads are performing substantially above the financial medians for America's largest corporations.
Whether truckers pay their fair share of the roadway system has been debated and will continue to be debated for year. . For example, truckers pay hefty fuel taxes, which contribute a disproportionate percentage of revenues to the highway trust fund
For comparative purposes, the median return on sales for the Fortune 500 (America's freight railroads are Fortune 500 companies) was approximately 5% and the median return on equity was 14.3%, which was significanty above the historical return of 12%. As these numbers show, at least from a financial perspective, America's freight railroads are performing substantially above the financial medians for America's largest corporations.
sam1; To say that trucks are paying their fair share of the roadway system is incorrect. as our poster mudchicken has cited trucks wear out the interstate system not cars.
to cite a few examples Ga DOT just finished repaving I-85 from about mile post 36 to mile post 57. It took 2-1/2 years to complete on an in service road. The outer lanes of concrete were pot holed and rough ( main lane of heavier trucks ). 8" concrete was replaced with 12 - 14 " 8000# concrete. Now I-85 ( 2 lanes each way ) from mile post 0 to mile post 36 is slated for replacement in a couple years with the right lanes cracked and pot holed.
Henry6 can cite several NY parkways built in the 1960s around NYC thah have always banned trucks and have never had to be even repaved.
Maybe RRs do have a better ROI now but look at all the lean years that they did not have such ?? /quote]
Most transport experts understand that heavy trucks do more damage to the highways per vehicle mile traveled than light trucks and cars. Studies from the Texas Transportation Institute show this to be true. I did not agree or disagree with their findings. I alluded to the fact that the question of whether they are paying their fair share is being debated and probably will continue to be debated or words to that effect.
Heavy truck operators pay considerably more in vehicle taxes and user fees (primarily diesel) than light truck and car owners. In addition, the overwhelming majority of heavy trucks is operated by for profit common carriers (J.B. Hunt, Roadway, etc.) or private carriers (Ashley Furniture, Walmart, Frito-Lay, etc.) Most of these firms pay federal, state, and local income taxes, inventory and property taxes, etc. A portion of these taxes flow to highway development and maintenance. Accordingly, the key question is whether the incremental taxes and fees paid by heavy truck operators, as well as their corporate taxes, cover the incremental maintenance costs caused by their trucks.
If Henry can point to verifiable data that the Taconic Parkway in New York, as well as the Merit Parkway in Connecticut, as examples, have never been resurfaced, I'll believe it, although it has nothing to do with determining whether truckers pay the incremental cost of maintaining the highways that they use. Otherwise, having driven these parkways, both of which appear to have been resurfaced at least once, I will remain a skeptic. By comparison, you can look up the data that I presented regarding the financial performance of the nation's freight railroads. The annual reports of the reporting railroads is a good place to start, except in the case of the BNSF the data has to be dug out of Berkshire Hathaway's financial data.
As the figures shown in my previous post show, the nation's freight railroads are outperforming their Fortune 500 counterparts. And not just by a little bit. Prior to the regulatory reforms implement by the Stagger's Act, the returns was less than what they could have gotten from a passbook savings account. That was then. This is now.
I come back to what I have said and will continue repeat. Whether the railroads were treated unfairly in comparison to alternative modes of transport or are being treated fairly is irrelevant. We ain't going back! Americans are not going to give up the technological, commercial, and convenience advantages delivered by cars, planes, and trucks. It just is not going to happen. Which leaves us with this question: what is the role for passenger rail in the nation's bag of transport options?
Sam1 Whether truckers pay their fair share of the roadway system has been debated and will continue to be debated for year. . For example, truckers pay hefty fuel taxes, which contribute a disproportionate percentage of revenues to the highway trust fund For comparative purposes, the median return on sales for the Fortune 500 (America's freight railroads are Fortune 500 companies) was approximately 5% and the median return on equity was 14.3%, which was significanty above the historical return of 12%. As these numbers show, at least from a financial perspective, America's freight railroads are performing substantially above the financial medians for America's largest corporations.
Maybe RRs do have a better ROI now but look at all the lean years that they did not have such ??
daveklepper Yes, Sam, but reputable research says that truckers pay only about 50% of the total maintenance costs of highways that their usage requires, and this says nothing about land use and equitable division of the tax load. The point is not only that the massive investment in competition to railroads was made by government, but government prevented railroads from using their natural efficiency and postponed the intermodel revolution until after the Interstates were complete and long distance trucking became a major industiry. If Government had not interfered, starting 90 or 100 years ago, we would now have a healthy freight railroad system without anyone considering long distance trucking as anything but a specialty case. The competition would be between many competing railroads, and they would be proud to show potential freight shippers with the excellence of service they can provide by sterling long distance passenger trains with losses considered as first class advertizing.
Yes, Sam, but reputable research says that truckers pay only about 50% of the total maintenance costs of highways that their usage requires, and this says nothing about land use and equitable division of the tax load. The point is not only that the massive investment in competition to railroads was made by government, but government prevented railroads from using their natural efficiency and postponed the intermodel revolution until after the Interstates were complete and long distance trucking became a major industiry.
If Government had not interfered, starting 90 or 100 years ago, we would now have a healthy freight railroad system without anyone considering long distance trucking as anything but a specialty case. The competition would be between many competing railroads, and they would be proud to show potential freight shippers with the excellence of service they can provide by sterling long distance passenger trains with losses considered as first class advertizing.
The "Good Roads" movement was begun, even before autos, by bicyclist. President Eisenhower saw the effectiveness of German autobahns as a general, and signed the Interstate Highway Act.
Railroad regulation came about because citizens were so outraged by various practices that they pushed their representatives into passing legislation. Democracies tend to cause "government interference". Admittedly, sometimes these good intentions morph into misguided consequences, but then they were brought back into line with the Staggers Rail Act. To say that without interference we would now have a healthy freight rail system is a best case scenario, and it may just have likely turned out that the rail companies would have morphed int trucking or airline companies,
A.McIntosh...the future of passenger rail in this country is at least cloudy but undefined. Yes there are the corridors you mentoned, but others, too, and still others emerging. What there isn't is a definition of what is going to emerge. Could be an intact Amtrak or one totally altered in appearance and operation. Could be in just defined corridors or regions with or without oun inter connections. Could be HSR as defined by Japan and France or HSR as defined by the US. Or it could be mass modifications and improvements on what we already have. As long as the highway lobby is in the heads of Congress and the public, not much will happen that will be noticable.
As to the future of Amtrak, we need to see what future passenger rail will have in the US. From what I h ave seen, and what others have commented, passenger rail's future will lie in short haul corridors in three regions of the country: Eastern seaboard from Maine to North Carolina, upper midwest corridors radiating from Chicago, and west coast corridors. With the possible exception of Auto Train and maybe one or two others, long distance passenger trains are dead. Air travel is just too efficient. With this in mind, the states in these regions should name six of the nine directors to serve on Amtrak's board. The other three can be selected to represent the freight railroads, Congress, and the President, respectively. The states will have to take center stage here, particularly if the Republicans prevail in Nov.
I am sick and tired of hearing about the "grants and benefits" bestowed upon the railroads. The railroads paid deeply with free or low cost transportation for the Government including mail into the middle of the 20th Century (it was posted somewhere here the other day what it would have cost the Government to pay transportation costs while waging WWII if it had not been for the government grants and benefits). If the railroads were never built there would have been either no or so slow population growth in the west, lack of ability to move natural resources out, and to serve the agricultural industry. Add to that the losses railroads incurred in running passenger trains so that a few post cards could be delivered. The railroads were being repaid by not being able to curtail unprofitable services nor create rates that would be profitble and competitive. Rails paid and the Government and its people reaped well...probably second only to Seward's purchase in value.
Whether truckers pay their fair share of the roadway system has been debated and will continue to be debated for year. What is missing in so many of these arguments are the grants and benefits bestowed on the railroads. For example, truckers pay hefty fuel taxes, which contribute a disproportionate percentage of revenues to the highway trust fund whilst the railroads pay no fuel taxes because they are classified as off road users. Whether these offset the property taxes is unclear. At the end of the day, however, it does not matter. We are where we are; the key question is what are the best solutions for America's future transport needs.
As an article in this week's or last week's Time made clear, America's freight railroads are on a roll. For 2011 America's freight railroads had a median return on sales of 15.8%; on assets of 6.5%; and on equity, which is the most important indicator of profitability, of 19%. In addition, CN, which is a Canadian company with significant operations in the United States, had corresponding returns of 27.4%, 9.9%, and 23 %, and CPR, also a Canadian company with significant U.S. operations, had returns of 12.5%, 4.8%, and 13.9% in the listed categories.
This discussion, as tends to be true for most of our discussions, has strayed off the presenting issue: What's Ahead for Amtrak? In my view it will muddle along without any significant changes until the United States hits the impending financial wall, i.e. overseas investors stop buying our bonds or demand a significant risk premium. Then we will see an outcome similar to what is being experienced in Europe, and real change likely will happen.
Phoebe Vet dakotafred: For the last 60 years or so Europe has had a lot of money for various amenities, thanks to the United States attending to most of their defense needs for them. (To appreciate how much we saved them, consider that, at the height of the Cold War, defense -- ours and theirs -- consumed up to 50 percent of our national budget.) As for freight infrastructure, Don Phillips in the August TRAINS shows how much better off the rails are these days, largely attending to their owns needs, than barges and trucks, who have to wait on Uncle Sam. What an interesting way to rationalize our paranoid defense spending and posture.
dakotafred: For the last 60 years or so Europe has had a lot of money for various amenities, thanks to the United States attending to most of their defense needs for them. (To appreciate how much we saved them, consider that, at the height of the Cold War, defense -- ours and theirs -- consumed up to 50 percent of our national budget.) As for freight infrastructure, Don Phillips in the August TRAINS shows how much better off the rails are these days, largely attending to their owns needs, than barges and trucks, who have to wait on Uncle Sam.
For the last 60 years or so Europe has had a lot of money for various amenities, thanks to the United States attending to most of their defense needs for them. (To appreciate how much we saved them, consider that, at the height of the Cold War, defense -- ours and theirs -- consumed up to 50 percent of our national budget.)
As for freight infrastructure, Don Phillips in the August TRAINS shows how much better off the rails are these days, largely attending to their owns needs, than barges and trucks, who have to wait on Uncle Sam.
That's grownup, Dave -- our being paranoid about a peaceable, non-expansionist Soviet Union. Tell that to a fool -- also to Europe, which scampered happily under our umbrella after what had happened to their brothers in Eastern Europe.
Let any trigger-happy moderator reflect that my comment was on Europe having lots of money for railroad things, like passenger subsidies and freight infrastructure -- money that, on the U.S. side, was otherwise committed.
dakotafred For the last 60 years or so Europe has had a lot of money for various amenities, thanks to the United States attending to most of their defense needs for them. (To appreciate how much we saved them, consider that, at the height of the Cold War, defense -- ours and theirs -- consumed up to 50 percent of our national budget.) As for freight infrastructure, Don Phillips in the August TRAINS shows how much better off the rails are these days, largely attending to their owns needs, than barges and trucks, who have to wait on Uncle Sam.
As for freight infrastructure, Don Phillips in the August TRAINS shows how much better off the rails are these days, largely attending to their own needs, than barges and trucks, who have to wait on Uncle Sam.
daveklepper I studied with Milton Friedman when I was an undergraduate at MIT 1949 - 1953 (one Semester economics course). You are right, they arre not nonsense and are applicable to a wide variety of manufacturing, farming, and service industries. They may have been applicable to transportation at one time, but the massive government interference that you object to already occured and it furthered highway and air transportation massively over rail transportation. YOu will find NO reasonably sized developed country in the world that does not subsidize rail transportation, including passenger rail transportation to some extent today. I am not a Socialist. I am definitely in favor of free market capitalism where there is a level playing field. But railroads, and particularly passenger railroading, does not have a level playing field. The massive government capital investment in interstate highways and airports has already occured, and private capital expecting a decent return, did not make the investment. Governments at vairous levels did that and are happy to get the bonds paid off or even just make operating costs. The kind of automation and advanced thinking that produced the machanical sorting of mail at major post offices could have just as well been applied to make railway post offices far more efficient, and the USA would have far better mail service today. It really was the removal of the post office business that finally put passssenger train service into a money loosing tailspin. The conversion to post office automation was a government investment.
I studied with Milton Friedman when I was an undergraduate at MIT 1949 - 1953 (one Semester economics course). You are right, they arre not nonsense and are applicable to a wide variety of manufacturing, farming, and service industries. They may have been applicable to transportation at one time, but the massive government interference that you object to already occured and it furthered highway and air transportation massively over rail transportation. YOu will find NO reasonably sized developed country in the world that does not subsidize rail transportation, including passenger rail transportation to some extent today. I am not a Socialist. I am definitely in favor of free market capitalism where there is a level playing field. But railroads, and particularly passenger railroading, does not have a level playing field. The massive government capital investment in interstate highways and airports has already occured, and private capital expecting a decent return, did not make the investment. Governments at vairous levels did that and are happy to get the bonds paid off or even just make operating costs.
The kind of automation and advanced thinking that produced the machanical sorting of mail at major post offices could have just as well been applied to make railway post offices far more efficient, and the USA would have far better mail service today. It really was the removal of the post office business that finally put passssenger train service into a money loosing tailspin. The conversion to post office automation was a government investment.
Nothing that you have said means that some or all of the current approach could not be reversed to some extent. In Texas new toll roads are being funded, at least in part, by private investors, some times with government incentives, with good outcomes. Moreover, there is nothing to say that some areas of the country could not or would not support privately funded passenger rail.
Private developers probably could not afford to build the whole system. But they might be able to pay their fair share of an existing railway, i.e. just as truckers, bus operators, etc. pay a share of the highways, which they argue is a fair share. This is what the south Florida experiment is all about. Well see how it goes.
I spent most of my working life in the electric utility business. As one of the last bastions of regulated monopolies everyone said that industry could not be opened to competition. They were wrong. It has been done in Texas and Australia as well as several other areas. I was part of the driving force that brought it about in Texas. It was like pulling teeth. But we got it done.
What they do in other countries, especially European countries, may be the best fit for the problems facing those countries. Given the disastrous outcomes stemming from the European debt crisis, I hardly think that we want to emulate them. What they do in Australia, where I lived for more than five years, has been good for Australia. They may have some good practices there that we should consider, but at the end of the day we should craft solutions that fit our problems within the context of our culture.
CMStPnP Sams arguement on each mode of transportation paying for itself without subsidy is a recipe for the United States to become a third world country. It's pure nonsense and hopefully will forever be treated as such. The fact is the United States is competing on a world stage with countries that are pouring billions into their ifrastructure and very little of it based on user fees. For the U.S. to flip entirely to a unsubsidized model in that environment would mean an EPIC FAIL in economic competitiveness of this Country. Further apart from the Countries we are competing against.....our transportation system cannot be supported entirely by user fees without significantly and negatively impacting year to year Economic growth. We tried it with our Private Freight railway industry and look where we are now, we have a freight rail system feverishly trying to add capacity BUT is limited by the amount of capital it has on hand, we have shippers suing the same industry for attempting to cover their true capital costs of carrying the freight, eventually the government is going to have to step in and fund some large scale freight rail projects (and they already have) because the private railroads cannot handle the entire burden financially. Even the ones earning their full cost of capital do not have enough money to do so. It's interesting reading Sams posts but his theories have already been proven NOT to work in practice in this country, they would be a disaster if applied today for our economic competiveness against other countries.......none of which are following his "model".
Sams arguement on each mode of transportation paying for itself without subsidy is a recipe for the United States to become a third world country. It's pure nonsense and hopefully will forever be treated as such. The fact is the United States is competing on a world stage with countries that are pouring billions into their ifrastructure and very little of it based on user fees. For the U.S. to flip entirely to a unsubsidized model in that environment would mean an EPIC FAIL in economic competitiveness of this Country. Further apart from the Countries we are competing against.....our transportation system cannot be supported entirely by user fees without significantly and negatively impacting year to year Economic growth. We tried it with our Private Freight railway industry and look where we are now, we have a freight rail system feverishly trying to add capacity BUT is limited by the amount of capital it has on hand, we have shippers suing the same industry for attempting to cover their true capital costs of carrying the freight, eventually the government is going to have to step in and fund some large scale freight rail projects (and they already have) because the private railroads cannot handle the entire burden financially. Even the ones earning their full cost of capital do not have enough money to do so.
It's interesting reading Sams posts but his theories have already been proven NOT to work in practice in this country, they would be a disaster if applied today for our economic competiveness against other countries.......none of which are following his "model".
My views are not unlike those of Milton Friedman, Joseph Schumpeter, Martin Feldstein, etc. They may differ from yours, but they are not nonsense. Calling other view points nonsense does little to add to or further a discussion.
The US is a Republic but also a Social Democracy where private interests and government work together for each's greater good. We have been that way since the beginning. I don't use the California Coast Highway or Route 80 across Nevada nor the port facilities in the states of Oregon or Washington nor the Intercoastal Waterway from Maine to Key West. Should they all be abandoned because I pay but don't use? We are not built on usage but on broad benefits for all. Private enterprise has always, is now, and forever will call on governments to kick in to help make things occur for the enterprise and the people.
But the cost of renovation of my theatre was increased by 35% (and you can check on this by contacting architects who have done theatre rernovation projects) and the cost of operation, including special elevators and the hard of hearing systems operators salary by 15%, and this subsidizes 2 or 3% of the ticket holders who need the services of the handicapped ramps, special elevators, and hard of hearing system.
So you believe subsidies are OK for the handicapped and elderly when they go to a theatre and are part of somewhat private industry (but the theatre could also have been the Municipall theatre or auditorium, and many inadequate technically poor ones were constructed under WPA in ther 1930's and modernized in 1970-90 with tzx money), but want to discriminate against them and deny them access to the breadth of the country in transportation.
My case is simiple. We have to subsidize the corridors, either in capitol costs, or operating costs or both. Otherwise, gridlock in airports and or highways. But it is unfair to subsidize the user of the corridor and not subsidize the elderly and handicapped who require the long distance trains.
The 1? (or even less) per cent of people who use long distance trains is based ON PASSENGER JOURNEYS AND NOT ON THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER YEAR USING THE SERVICE. That is obvious and well known. The elderly or handicapped person who uses the long distance train once a year, will be counted as two, one for each direction of a round trip. The business passenger who commutes five days a week for say fifty weeks a year will be counted as 500. Sam says it is OK to subsidize the business passenger but not the once a year vacationer. I think that is extremely, extremely unfair.
Sam and I have had this argument over and over again. Neither side convinces the other. To say "people should pay for the costs of the services they get" is a useful mantra in many ways, but not, in my opinion, with in total with regard to ground transportation under present circumstances with the history of specific investments, encouragemen of specific industries, land taking, even n ational defense and emergency requiprements, and much else.
No, intercity motor coaches do not provide the same service, the total area per passenger is about half that provided by an intercity train before you even count the food service areas. Yes, I have and will probably use greyhound on occasion to catch up with my party though the last time was a bit much, I could see the lav tank fluid beneath the seat, no toilet bowl present.
And this is from a carrier that is using a facility built almost entirely by non users. It really isn't a good deal economically as you suppose.
henry6 Lets face it, Sam1, today's big business and its managment does not appear to be anything but greedy with a wont to run ramshod over the American public disavowing laws and regulations. They cut jobs while eliminating or downsizing products and services or reduce quality. At the same time they appear to take more money and perks for themselves. In the banking, investing, insurance sector, they continue the practice and procedures that brought us down in 2008. I will give you the point about railroad executives who have steered their idle time and excess dollars into improving their intrastructure and increase their inventory of locomotiives and equipment to ready for the return and upturn of business. But they appear to be the exception to the rule. CP presents a yellow flag where investors has overturned management because of poor performance and return. Whether this will present opportunities for increased productivity, efficiencey, and profits without dismantling of the property and dismissal of huge numbers of employees is yet to be seen. Basically, the appearence of greed and disregard from the CEO's and companies which led us into the recession has tainted the air and made many of us suspicious of all. When we see a turnaround in their behavior and of our fate, then we may stop generalizing and pick on the offenders singely and by name.
Lets face it, Sam1, today's big business and its managment does not appear to be anything but greedy with a wont to run ramshod over the American public disavowing laws and regulations. They cut jobs while eliminating or downsizing products and services or reduce quality. At the same time they appear to take more money and perks for themselves. In the banking, investing, insurance sector, they continue the practice and procedures that brought us down in 2008. I will give you the point about railroad executives who have steered their idle time and excess dollars into improving their intrastructure and increase their inventory of locomotiives and equipment to ready for the return and upturn of business. But they appear to be the exception to the rule. CP presents a yellow flag where investors has overturned management because of poor performance and return. Whether this will present opportunities for increased productivity, efficiencey, and profits without dismantling of the property and dismissal of huge numbers of employees is yet to be seen.
Basically, the appearence of greed and disregard from the CEO's and companies which led us into the recession has tainted the air and made many of us suspicious of all. When we see a turnaround in their behavior and of our fate, then we may stop generalizing and pick on the offenders singely and by name.
I disagree with your analysis. It is time to move on.
daveklepper Exactly, Sam, it is included in the ticket price. But the handicapped who benefit from the expensive hard-of-hearing systme in my theatre and the services of the sound system operator that has to be paid are subsidized by the ticket holders who have no nead of this service. Diitto the handicapped provisions. In nearly all democratic societies, couples with many children pay less taxes than those with no children. Children get free education, paid f or by trax payers. Education is important, and is funded by tax money. I happen to think long distance rail service is also important, even as part of education. Not as important as education, but mobility of the handicapped and elderly for the enitre country is important to me, if not for you. When you use an elevator in an apartment house, store, or office building, you are getting absolutely free transportation. There is a difference in direction and scale, but it is sitll transportation!
Exactly, Sam, it is included in the ticket price. But the handicapped who benefit from the expensive hard-of-hearing systme in my theatre and the services of the sound system operator that has to be paid are subsidized by the ticket holders who have no nead of this service. Diitto the handicapped provisions.
In nearly all democratic societies, couples with many children pay less taxes than those with no children. Children get free education, paid f or by trax payers.
Education is important, and is funded by tax money. I happen to think long distance rail service is also important, even as part of education. Not as important as education, but mobility of the handicapped and elderly for the enitre country is important to me, if not for you.
When you use an elevator in an apartment house, store, or office building, you are getting absolutely free transportation. There is a difference in direction and scale, but it is sitll transportation!
Having general ticket buyers pay a very small premium to subsidize ADA compliance in a public venue is one thing. Having people without children pay for public eduction on the theory that society as a whole benefits is another thing.
Requiring single people to pay higher income taxes is unfair. Where is it written that they work less hard or have lower skills than married people. This feature in the tax code falls under the heading of politics of envy. Subsidizing intercity passenger railroad trains, especially the long distance trains that are used by less than one per cent of intercity travelers, makes no sense. No real intercity transport need is served. And if there is a need for commercial intercity service for the cities served by the long distance trains, it can be provided by commercial bus operators.
As I have said on numerous occasions, I am all for intercity passenger rail in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the airways and highways is prohibitive. I would like to see the users pay for the services. As noted in another post re: new station in Miami, hopefully we will get to a point where the short corridor services can be privatized, and the users will pay for the services through the fare box. The proposed private operations in Florida and Italy may show us how it can be done.
Needless to say, at this point we see the world differently and are not like to change our views.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.