John WRAnd if it is "never personal" why, then, do you personalize it?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
schlimm I would like to suggest that ontheBNSF take his trolley discussion to the transit forum and allow this thread to resume its subject on Amtrak and subsidies. As to his anti-government libertarian thoughts, take them to a right wing political chat room or a liberal/moderate one if he wishes to annoy folks.
I would like to suggest that ontheBNSF take his trolley discussion to the transit forum and allow this thread to resume its subject on Amtrak and subsidies. As to his anti-government libertarian thoughts, take them to a right wing political chat room or a liberal/moderate one if he wishes to annoy folks.
So, I had stopped into the nursing home for a family visit, and one of the staff asks me, "So Paul, how are you doing?"
It was the year when the Packers had suffered a string of early-season losses that were on everyone's mind. "I'm depressed" I announced, which elicited a worried look. "I am thinking about going in for psychiatric surgery", which prompted an even deeper look. "They take an inch off your brain", I explained in rehabing a tired joke, "and you turn you into a Vikings fan!"
So I am by some time later for another visit, and I overhear one nurse telling another, "Say, there is this new surgery. They take an inch off your brain. You turn into a Vikings fan!"
OK, OK, so one person around here posts how the goverment stacked the deck against intercity trains by taking gas tax money from driving the local streets to build the Interstates, and folks salute that as a deep insight into what has been going on since more than a half century ago. Another person posts on how the government stacked the deck against the power company owning street cars and interurbans, that the bus takeover was driven by government policy rather than by Firestone and GM, and that person is an anti-government libertarian who belongs on a right wing chat room.
And a person can't bring up trolley cars, even by way of analogy, even to suggest that government actions promoted roads over rails because we have this all compartmentalized into Transit and Intercity/Amtrak forums, gosh forbid that someone asks a model railroad question over here that we beat him about the head until he retreats to the MR section of this site.
And it is OK to bring up transportation subsidies, only woe to someone who critiques the subsidies as they are a dead horse that is dead from people talking too much, and a special curse on someone who agrees with the premise that government distortions in the marketplace drove passenger trains of whatever type out of business as that person is arguing that point incorrectly, and we don't want any stinkin' free-market types around here.
Maybe it wasn't a joke, sometimes it feels like I had that inch taken off my brain.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I agree, Schlimm. I'll stop using the T word and the S word here.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
oltmanndI just get a bit tired of conspiracy theories
I am reluctant to believe in conspiracies too. They rarely happen. But conspiracies are not impossible. Did you ever hear of the conspiracy to fly a couple of airplanes into the World Trade Center?
And if it is "never personal" why, then, do you personalize it?
oltmannd John WR oltmanndt's a free country. You are entitled to your opinion...even when it's wrong. At least this is what my wife tells me.I You are absolutely right about this being a a free country. But most people do not find snide remarks persuasive. It is easy to laugh at people with whom we disagree; many do it. If it were true that the only possible solution to the issues of the street car systems were to replace then all with buses it would also be true that the best way to deal with the wear and tear on railroads as well as all of the taxes they had to pay (and still do) would be to simply trash them and let all of our freight be delivered by trucks. People generally do what makes economic sense as they see it. Sometimes they don't see clearly. Sometimes the economics include exteranlities that don't get accounted for. I just get a bit tired of conspiracy theories and tail-wagging-the-dog justifications. I few snide remarks don't hurt. I can take it as well as I give it. It's never personal ...and I don't mind playing with trolls (another snide remark... )
John WR oltmanndt's a free country. You are entitled to your opinion...even when it's wrong. At least this is what my wife tells me.I You are absolutely right about this being a a free country. But most people do not find snide remarks persuasive. It is easy to laugh at people with whom we disagree; many do it. If it were true that the only possible solution to the issues of the street car systems were to replace then all with buses it would also be true that the best way to deal with the wear and tear on railroads as well as all of the taxes they had to pay (and still do) would be to simply trash them and let all of our freight be delivered by trucks.
oltmanndt's a free country. You are entitled to your opinion...even when it's wrong. At least this is what my wife tells me.
You are absolutely right about this being a a free country. But most people do not find snide remarks persuasive. It is easy to laugh at people with whom we disagree; many do it.
If it were true that the only possible solution to the issues of the street car systems were to replace then all with buses it would also be true that the best way to deal with the wear and tear on railroads as well as all of the taxes they had to pay (and still do) would be to simply trash them and let all of our freight be delivered by trucks.
People generally do what makes economic sense as they see it. Sometimes they don't see clearly. Sometimes the economics include exteranlities that don't get accounted for.
I just get a bit tired of conspiracy theories and tail-wagging-the-dog justifications.
I few snide remarks don't hurt. I can take it as well as I give it. It's never personal ...and I don't mind playing with trolls (another snide remark... )
I get tired of people using the word conspiracy theory as a way of shutting people up. None of the things I mentioned were conspiracy theories even if one them was called one. All of the things I mentioned are examples of failed state intervention.
Railroad to Freedom
ontheBNSF oltmannd John WR General Motors and its fellow conspirators are not the only reason our streetcars were replaced by buses but they are one of the big reasons. The old "National Cities Conspiracy Theory" rears it's head again. Fun to believe, but probably not a big reason. A minor reason and sometimes the death-knell, but a mostly a cause-celeb for the "we was robbed!" crowd. The real issue was transit is pretty much a fixed cost operation and if the ridership base erodes, you can go from thin profit to big losses in a hurry. If you aren't earning cost of capital, you can survive only until you've run the wheels off your existing equipment or need to do track replacement - then it's game over. It isn't a matter of that it happened it is a matter of HOW it happened. The Public Utility holding company act forced utilities to sell off transit systems and removing the utility from the operation reduced efficiency. Utilities could provide cheap energy and the electrical lines could be used to sell electricity. You also forget price fixing, paving requirements, and union labor requirements drove up costs dramatically. World War 2 caused the systems to become overused and in disrepair. The ridership base was evaporating as people abandoned urban living for suburban life in the late 40s and 50s. This is not true many of the first suburbs were built for the usage of transit called streetcar suburbs. The modern equivalent is new Urbanism. One has to understand "suburbia" has been supported by government for years with single use and low density building codes plus the GI housing bill, Mortgage deductions, and guaranteed loans from the FHA The advantages of buses were huge. No huge capital in track and wire to maintain. Easy detours. Double parked cars don't jam up route. Easy to get failed vehicles back to the barn. Easy to change/combine/launch routes as needs change. Lower cost to acquire. Transit companies trying to hang on pretty much had to go to buses or just quit. Buses and cars got to free ride of streets while streetcar systems had heavy property taxes and had to maintain the streets. True streetcars were slower but buses took up just as much space and eventually technological improvements would have improved speed. Buses also discouraged ridership encouraging traffic. The cleanliness and energy cost advantage of trolleys is just too small to overcome their capital ROW needs vs. bus. Where trolleys hung on typically was where there was private ROW/tunnel operation. Trolley operation has become viable again because the huge capital expense are largely covered by the Feds from the gas tax. The "inherent goodness" of rail comes with the dark underbelly of very high capital costs. Streets were provided free of charge and without property taxes. Streets aren't free they were just provided free. But the reality is that Streetcars have lower operating costs than buses and various other advantages as well.
oltmannd John WR General Motors and its fellow conspirators are not the only reason our streetcars were replaced by buses but they are one of the big reasons. The old "National Cities Conspiracy Theory" rears it's head again. Fun to believe, but probably not a big reason. A minor reason and sometimes the death-knell, but a mostly a cause-celeb for the "we was robbed!" crowd. The real issue was transit is pretty much a fixed cost operation and if the ridership base erodes, you can go from thin profit to big losses in a hurry. If you aren't earning cost of capital, you can survive only until you've run the wheels off your existing equipment or need to do track replacement - then it's game over. It isn't a matter of that it happened it is a matter of HOW it happened. The Public Utility holding company act forced utilities to sell off transit systems and removing the utility from the operation reduced efficiency. Utilities could provide cheap energy and the electrical lines could be used to sell electricity. You also forget price fixing, paving requirements, and union labor requirements drove up costs dramatically. World War 2 caused the systems to become overused and in disrepair. The ridership base was evaporating as people abandoned urban living for suburban life in the late 40s and 50s. This is not true many of the first suburbs were built for the usage of transit called streetcar suburbs. The modern equivalent is new Urbanism. One has to understand "suburbia" has been supported by government for years with single use and low density building codes plus the GI housing bill, Mortgage deductions, and guaranteed loans from the FHA The advantages of buses were huge. No huge capital in track and wire to maintain. Easy detours. Double parked cars don't jam up route. Easy to get failed vehicles back to the barn. Easy to change/combine/launch routes as needs change. Lower cost to acquire. Transit companies trying to hang on pretty much had to go to buses or just quit. Buses and cars got to free ride of streets while streetcar systems had heavy property taxes and had to maintain the streets. True streetcars were slower but buses took up just as much space and eventually technological improvements would have improved speed. Buses also discouraged ridership encouraging traffic. The cleanliness and energy cost advantage of trolleys is just too small to overcome their capital ROW needs vs. bus. Where trolleys hung on typically was where there was private ROW/tunnel operation. Trolley operation has become viable again because the huge capital expense are largely covered by the Feds from the gas tax. The "inherent goodness" of rail comes with the dark underbelly of very high capital costs. Streets were provided free of charge and without property taxes. Streets aren't free they were just provided free. But the reality is that Streetcars have lower operating costs than buses and various other advantages as well.
John WR General Motors and its fellow conspirators are not the only reason our streetcars were replaced by buses but they are one of the big reasons.
The old "National Cities Conspiracy Theory" rears it's head again. Fun to believe, but probably not a big reason. A minor reason and sometimes the death-knell, but a mostly a cause-celeb for the "we was robbed!" crowd. The real issue was transit is pretty much a fixed cost operation and if the ridership base erodes, you can go from thin profit to big losses in a hurry. If you aren't earning cost of capital, you can survive only until you've run the wheels off your existing equipment or need to do track replacement - then it's game over.
It isn't a matter of that it happened it is a matter of HOW it happened. The Public Utility holding company act forced utilities to sell off transit systems and removing the utility from the operation reduced efficiency. Utilities could provide cheap energy and the electrical lines could be used to sell electricity. You also forget price fixing, paving requirements, and union labor requirements drove up costs dramatically. World War 2 caused the systems to become overused and in disrepair.
The ridership base was evaporating as people abandoned urban living for suburban life in the late 40s and 50s.
This is not true many of the first suburbs were built for the usage of transit called streetcar suburbs. The modern equivalent is new Urbanism. One has to understand "suburbia" has been supported by government for years with single use and low density building codes plus the GI housing bill, Mortgage deductions, and guaranteed loans from the FHA
The advantages of buses were huge. No huge capital in track and wire to maintain. Easy detours. Double parked cars don't jam up route. Easy to get failed vehicles back to the barn. Easy to change/combine/launch routes as needs change. Lower cost to acquire. Transit companies trying to hang on pretty much had to go to buses or just quit.
Buses and cars got to free ride of streets while streetcar systems had heavy property taxes and had to maintain the streets. True streetcars were slower but buses took up just as much space and eventually technological improvements would have improved speed. Buses also discouraged ridership encouraging traffic.
The cleanliness and energy cost advantage of trolleys is just too small to overcome their capital ROW needs vs. bus. Where trolleys hung on typically was where there was private ROW/tunnel operation.
Trolley operation has become viable again because the huge capital expense are largely covered by the Feds from the gas tax. The "inherent goodness" of rail comes with the dark underbelly of very high capital costs.
Streets were provided free of charge and without property taxes. Streets aren't free they were just provided free. But the reality is that Streetcars have lower operating costs than buses and various other advantages as well.
It's a free country. You are entitled to your opinion...even when it's wrong. At least this is what my wife tells me.
oltmannd ontheBNSF how is my entepretation "unique" http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-government-takes-over-control-of-nations-railroads USRA You had said, "Before World War I their used to be more railroads they were forcibly consolidated." After WWI, the RRs were "forcibly" unconsolidated and control was given back to their owners. This has nothing to do with the consolidation (2-8-0?) in the industry that had been going on, was greatly slowed by regulation, and then restarted after Staggers in 1980.
ontheBNSF how is my entepretation "unique" http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-government-takes-over-control-of-nations-railroads USRA
how is my entepretation "unique"
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-government-takes-over-control-of-nations-railroads USRA
You had said, "Before World War I their used to be more railroads they were forcibly consolidated."
After WWI, the RRs were "forcibly" unconsolidated and control was given back to their owners.
This has nothing to do with the consolidation (2-8-0?) in the industry that had been going on, was greatly slowed by regulation, and then restarted after Staggers in 1980.
I meant to say *During WW1. Service in many areas was reduced as a way of increasing efficiency.
schlimm Trolling....trolling.
Trolling....trolling.
Yup.
John WR ontheBNSFnorth American streetcar scandal I'm with you here. General Motors and its fellow conspirators are not the only reason our streetcars were replaced by buses but they are one of the big reasons. It is true that in the 1930's a lot of people stopped riding street cars to work and preferred to drive there cars. But streetcars, which are powered by electricity, are still more efficient than diesel buses and we would be better off if we used them rather than buses.
ontheBNSFnorth American streetcar scandal
I'm with you here. General Motors and its fellow conspirators are not the only reason our streetcars were replaced by buses but they are one of the big reasons.
It is true that in the 1930's a lot of people stopped riding street cars to work and preferred to drive there cars. But streetcars, which are powered by electricity, are still more efficient than diesel buses and we would be better off if we used them rather than buses.
IT should be noted that GM and the like were able to do what they did because of the Public utility holding company act of 1935 that forced utility companies to sell off assets such as streetcar systems.
oltmannd ontheBNSFAs for wires a neighborhood could own them Some do - particularly in the south. It was how electrification got done. It is STILL a monopoly. I can't opt for a different distribution supplier. As for the rest of your stuff... Wow... You have a "unique" way of looking at history. I'll leave it at that.
ontheBNSFAs for wires a neighborhood could own them
Some do - particularly in the south. It was how electrification got done. It is STILL a monopoly. I can't opt for a different distribution supplier.
As for the rest of your stuff... Wow... You have a "unique" way of looking at history. I'll leave it at that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy north American streetcar scandal
I am wrong on the elevated rail lines. http://marketurbanism.com/2011/01/02/elevated-rail-vs-road-and-monorails/
Again your wrong.
oltmannd Let's take these one at a time... ontheBNSFNew York used to have 3 train systems Each went to and from different locations. Not real competition. Many were built to sell the land they went to. The transit line builder was really in the real estate game and ditched the transit when the land was all sold - or when the equipment and ROW wore out. A trolley or a cab from Queens to Manhattan as serious competition to a subway line? I don't think so! That's like saying walking is competition for Airtran! Many today opt away from taking the subway in favor of the bus systems and taxi. Yes it is competition. A trolley is definitely competition in the true sense. ontheBNSFA subway ticket used to cost 5-10 cents which in today's dollars is around .89-1.60 dollars a subway ticket today is about 2 dollars but its real cost is closer to 4-5 dollars accounting for full farebox recovery and taxis have become cartelized. Which is why they all went bankrupt! Farebox recovery didn't cover the cost of capital - ever. Actually the elevated rail lines were quite profitable. They only went away when the NY government forced them out in favor of their own subways. The streetcars disappeared because of the national city lines conspiracy which happened because of the Public utility holding company act of 1935 and the city regulations that were harsh. ontheBNSFEven if one were to obtain a railroad monopoly that railroad would have to compete with the other modes of transportation When built, RRs had a considerable monopoly power on routes they operated over. Not until the network was completely built out were parallel line constructed to any extent at all - and that was minor. But again the railroad monopolies were granted that status in California it wasn't until Santa Fe was allowed to compete with central pacific did it end. Railroads did compete with canals for a short time and competed toll roads. ontheBNSFBefore World War I their used to be more railroads they were forcibly consolidated. Huh? Forcibly? Which ones? Where? Regulation STOPPED consolidation that was naturally occurring. You are also wrong on this the anti-trust laws benefited railroads and made it harder to get in the business. Railroads were consolidated in WWI and nationalized for the war effort and then denationalized. Many competing services were eliminated as part of nationalization. ontheBNSFElectrical utility companies also used to be a competitive business as well. Say, what? Maybe when Edison was losing his fight with Westinghouse... but the electrical infrastructure in the US is ALL regulated monopoly. There are not two sets of wires on any street, anywhere. There is some competition on the generating side, but not on the distribution side - it would cost more to build out a second set of wires than anyone could ever save from market pricing! This is false modern utility companies are granted monopoly status by governments. As for wires a neighborhood could own them. Maybe in the future personal electrical generation will become possible.
Let's take these one at a time...
ontheBNSFNew York used to have 3 train systems
Each went to and from different locations. Not real competition. Many were built to sell the land they went to. The transit line builder was really in the real estate game and ditched the transit when the land was all sold - or when the equipment and ROW wore out.
A trolley or a cab from Queens to Manhattan as serious competition to a subway line? I don't think so! That's like saying walking is competition for Airtran!
Many today opt away from taking the subway in favor of the bus systems and taxi. Yes it is competition. A trolley is definitely competition in the true sense.
ontheBNSFA subway ticket used to cost 5-10 cents which in today's dollars is around .89-1.60 dollars a subway ticket today is about 2 dollars but its real cost is closer to 4-5 dollars accounting for full farebox recovery and taxis have become cartelized.
Which is why they all went bankrupt! Farebox recovery didn't cover the cost of capital - ever.
Actually the elevated rail lines were quite profitable. They only went away when the NY government forced them out in favor of their own subways. The streetcars disappeared because of the national city lines conspiracy which happened because of the Public utility holding company act of 1935 and the city regulations that were harsh.
ontheBNSFEven if one were to obtain a railroad monopoly that railroad would have to compete with the other modes of transportation
When built, RRs had a considerable monopoly power on routes they operated over. Not until the network was completely built out were parallel line constructed to any extent at all - and that was minor.
But again the railroad monopolies were granted that status in California it wasn't until Santa Fe was allowed to compete with central pacific did it end. Railroads did compete with canals for a short time and competed toll roads.
ontheBNSFBefore World War I their used to be more railroads they were forcibly consolidated.
Huh? Forcibly? Which ones? Where? Regulation STOPPED consolidation that was naturally occurring.
You are also wrong on this the anti-trust laws benefited railroads and made it harder to get in the business. Railroads were consolidated in WWI and nationalized for the war effort and then denationalized. Many competing services were eliminated as part of nationalization.
ontheBNSFElectrical utility companies also used to be a competitive business as well.
Say, what? Maybe when Edison was losing his fight with Westinghouse... but the electrical infrastructure in the US is ALL regulated monopoly. There are not two sets of wires on any street, anywhere. There is some competition on the generating side, but not on the distribution side - it would cost more to build out a second set of wires than anyone could ever save from market pricing!
ontheBNSFI think today the NY MTA uses tickets but I'm not sure whether it was done back then.
Today the MTA uses what it calls Metrocards. Plastic cards which you can buy with a certain amount of fare money encoded on them and add money to as they become depleted. You slide them through a machine that deducts your fare and also allows you to pass through a turn style. They are sort of like tickets but you don't buy one and have it collected like a traditional railroad ticket.
Then again Amtrak issues what looks like the tickets they used to use but they are not collected either. They are scanned with a reader. So I guess maybe the definition of "ticket" is evolving in this electronic age.
ontheBNSF carnej1 ontheBNSF The fundamental problem with ANY government run mode of transportation is that there will always be conflict. You either end up with a one size fits all solution. Imagine if the government was in the shoe business people would always be in conflict over what kinds of shoes are produced, what materials they are made from, and what size etc. vs. buying shoes today on the market where there is no conflict and people simply choose the shoes they find desirable. IF the government ran shoes and either maintained a monopoly on shoes or semimonopoly then people would have to vote for shoes and the majority would get what it wants. Or you vote for politicians who think will produce the kind of shoes you want. With the government being transportation it ends becoming a political football and only the majority ever gets what they want. Either that you vote for people who think have your interest in mind People always fight argue over the merits of one mode of transport or another rather than simply choosing the mode that they find has the most merit. Eminent domain only serves to make this worse. Markets aren't utopian ideas you deal with them almost everyday and without conflict. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and to lesser extent Europe have more of a market for transportation than we do and as such have less conflict than we do. Would I privatize sidewalks or city streets? Not in the traditional sense but I would make property owners, residents upon streets, or HOA's the owners of such properties or retain ownership of them by cities and simply require that if you use them you pay for the full cost of using them. Just my .02 The transportation market you mention in Asia and Europe really is more often in the form of public/private partnerships. The common method of building infrastructure is through concessions whereby a private developer finances, designs,builds and operates the road/railway/bridge ect. and recoups it's investment through charging tolls and fees to users but the government still owns the asset. I am aware that there a sizable part of the passenger rail service in Japan is owned and operated by private railways..do they receive government subsidies? You are wrong on that. In Japan the high speed rail does pay for itself and receives no subsidies. In fact the JR Group paid back all the debt owed by JNR. It should also be noted that the JR group is also required to run routes into country areas and JR themselves divert some of their profit from other rail lines to run these services. Japan also has a series of toll highways. Local railways are also privately owned and receive no subsidies as well. Certain city rail lines such as the Tokyo subway remain government owned but those don't receive any subsidies at all, but some city lines are also privately owned such as the Tokyo monorail which receive no subsidies. Hong Kong's Tram system is privately owned as well as the rest of the Hong Kong MRT. Hong Kong's MRT was privatized when the economy was liberalized and utilities privatized. Hong Kong's bus system is also private. Singapore operates a public private partnership where rail operators pay for usage of Singapore's tracks. Singapore also has a variety of private bus services. In Europe Train operators are effectively private corporations but their stock are owned by their respective governments. Swiss Railways operates profitably to my knowledge (though they operate no HSR of their own), Deustche Bahn used to be a money looser but now operates profitably, SNCF has also made money on it's TGV lines, Italy's high speed service operates profitably as, Italy also allows private competition on their tracks, and Russia operates profitable freight service and operates profitable high speed rail lines though their low speed passenger service is a money loosers. Also to be noted is that these companies are forced divert profit from money making services to money loosing services.
carnej1 ontheBNSF The fundamental problem with ANY government run mode of transportation is that there will always be conflict. You either end up with a one size fits all solution. Imagine if the government was in the shoe business people would always be in conflict over what kinds of shoes are produced, what materials they are made from, and what size etc. vs. buying shoes today on the market where there is no conflict and people simply choose the shoes they find desirable. IF the government ran shoes and either maintained a monopoly on shoes or semimonopoly then people would have to vote for shoes and the majority would get what it wants. Or you vote for politicians who think will produce the kind of shoes you want. With the government being transportation it ends becoming a political football and only the majority ever gets what they want. Either that you vote for people who think have your interest in mind People always fight argue over the merits of one mode of transport or another rather than simply choosing the mode that they find has the most merit. Eminent domain only serves to make this worse. Markets aren't utopian ideas you deal with them almost everyday and without conflict. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and to lesser extent Europe have more of a market for transportation than we do and as such have less conflict than we do. Would I privatize sidewalks or city streets? Not in the traditional sense but I would make property owners, residents upon streets, or HOA's the owners of such properties or retain ownership of them by cities and simply require that if you use them you pay for the full cost of using them. Just my .02 The transportation market you mention in Asia and Europe really is more often in the form of public/private partnerships. The common method of building infrastructure is through concessions whereby a private developer finances, designs,builds and operates the road/railway/bridge ect. and recoups it's investment through charging tolls and fees to users but the government still owns the asset. I am aware that there a sizable part of the passenger rail service in Japan is owned and operated by private railways..do they receive government subsidies?
ontheBNSF The fundamental problem with ANY government run mode of transportation is that there will always be conflict. You either end up with a one size fits all solution. Imagine if the government was in the shoe business people would always be in conflict over what kinds of shoes are produced, what materials they are made from, and what size etc. vs. buying shoes today on the market where there is no conflict and people simply choose the shoes they find desirable. IF the government ran shoes and either maintained a monopoly on shoes or semimonopoly then people would have to vote for shoes and the majority would get what it wants. Or you vote for politicians who think will produce the kind of shoes you want. With the government being transportation it ends becoming a political football and only the majority ever gets what they want. Either that you vote for people who think have your interest in mind People always fight argue over the merits of one mode of transport or another rather than simply choosing the mode that they find has the most merit. Eminent domain only serves to make this worse. Markets aren't utopian ideas you deal with them almost everyday and without conflict. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and to lesser extent Europe have more of a market for transportation than we do and as such have less conflict than we do. Would I privatize sidewalks or city streets? Not in the traditional sense but I would make property owners, residents upon streets, or HOA's the owners of such properties or retain ownership of them by cities and simply require that if you use them you pay for the full cost of using them. Just my .02
The fundamental problem with ANY government run mode of transportation is that there will always be conflict. You either end up with a one size fits all solution. Imagine if the government was in the shoe business people would always be in conflict over what kinds of shoes are produced, what materials they are made from, and what size etc. vs. buying shoes today on the market where there is no conflict and people simply choose the shoes they find desirable. IF the government ran shoes and either maintained a monopoly on shoes or semimonopoly then people would have to vote for shoes and the majority would get what it wants. Or you vote for politicians who think will produce the kind of shoes you want. With the government being transportation it ends becoming a political football and only the majority ever gets what they want. Either that you vote for people who think have your interest in mind People always fight argue over the merits of one mode of transport or another rather than simply choosing the mode that they find has the most merit. Eminent domain only serves to make this worse. Markets aren't utopian ideas you deal with them almost everyday and without conflict. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and to lesser extent Europe have more of a market for transportation than we do and as such have less conflict than we do. Would I privatize sidewalks or city streets? Not in the traditional sense but I would make property owners, residents upon streets, or HOA's the owners of such properties or retain ownership of them by cities and simply require that if you use them you pay for the full cost of using them. Just my .02
The transportation market you mention in Asia and Europe really is more often in the form of public/private partnerships. The common method of building infrastructure is through concessions whereby a private developer finances, designs,builds and operates the road/railway/bridge ect. and recoups it's investment through charging tolls and fees to users but the government still owns the asset.
I am aware that there a sizable part of the passenger rail service in Japan is owned and operated by private railways..do they receive government subsidies?
You are wrong on that. In Japan the high speed rail does pay for itself and receives no subsidies. In fact the JR Group paid back all the debt owed by JNR. It should also be noted that the JR group is also required to run routes into country areas and JR themselves divert some of their profit from other rail lines to run these services. Japan also has a series of toll highways. Local railways are also privately owned and receive no subsidies as well. Certain city rail lines such as the Tokyo subway remain government owned but those don't receive any subsidies at all, but some city lines are also privately owned such as the Tokyo monorail which receive no subsidies. Hong Kong's Tram system is privately owned as well as the rest of the Hong Kong MRT. Hong Kong's MRT was privatized when the economy was liberalized and utilities privatized. Hong Kong's bus system is also private. Singapore operates a public private partnership where rail operators pay for usage of Singapore's tracks. Singapore also has a variety of private bus services. In Europe Train operators are effectively private corporations but their stock are owned by their respective governments. Swiss Railways operates profitably to my knowledge (though they operate no HSR of their own), Deustche Bahn used to be a money looser but now operates profitably, SNCF has also made money on it's TGV lines, Italy's high speed service operates profitably as, Italy also allows private competition on their tracks, and Russia operates profitable freight service and operates profitable high speed rail lines though their low speed passenger service is a money loosers. Also to be noted is that these companies are forced divert profit from money making services to money loosing services.
My sentence about Japanese railways ended with a question mark,so I was asking you about subsidies rather than making a statement.(and you answered).
I did find an interesting article on-line which back up your points:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/10/why-tokyos-privately-owned-rail-systems-work-so-well/389/
"In Europe Train operators are effectively private corporations but their stock are owned by their respective governments"-True, and those operations are somewhat like Amtrak in that regard.
I was certainly not wrong about the system of infrastructure concessions common in Europe, your reply is partly an explantion of how that works.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
ontheBNSFNow that I think about I am not sure. I think today the NY MTA uses tickets but I'm not sure whether it was done back then.
Tokens. Every major transit operation used tokens until PATCO started with magnetic tickets in 1968. NYC TA's Metrocard isn't 20 years old. Most transit cards are RFID-based now.
John WR ontheBNSFA subway ticket used to cost 5-10 cents Are you talking about New York City subways? If so, when did they use tickets?
ontheBNSFA subway ticket used to cost 5-10 cents
Are you talking about New York City subways? If so, when did they use tickets?
Now that I think about I am not sure. I think today the NY MTA uses tickets but I'm not sure whether it was done back then.
raise the gas tax?
54light15the rest of the highways crumble.
Actually in the US our interstates are crumbling. They are in need of rebuilding but where the money will come from I don't known.
And on it goes down the Ayn Rand track. Pretty loose on the facts as well.
It's certainly possible to put tolls on all of the Interstates by privatising them, or even not privatising them. The government of Ontario did it by selling Highway 407 to a Spanish outfit that collects the tolls by transponders mounted in your vehicle and if you don't have a transponder, they will photograph your license plate as you enter and exit the highway. Our former idiot premier Mike Harris sold the road so he could give everyone a measly, mindless tax cut to ensure his re-election, rather than have the province collect the money from tolls which could have funded maintaining other roads and projects. My point is, sure, collect tolls but the private sector will only take most of the money and put it in their pockets as they have done in this case and the rest of the highways crumble.
I love the story about the coffee cake! We had lots of coffee in the Navy back in the 70s, but I sure don't remember any cake. Maybe the officers got it. Back in 1976 when my ship was in the yards in Philadelphia, we were issued a 20 pound can (HUGE) of coffee ever single week. More than the engine room crew could possibly drink. We had a locker full of the damned things and there being a coffee shortage at the time in the civilian world, every single one of those cans were stolen by the yardbirds but how they did it, no one could ever figure out. They were kind of hard to hide but they did it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.