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.
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.
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
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... )
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... )
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.
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?
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I agree, Schlimm. I'll stop using the T word and the S word here.
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.
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?
John WRAnd if it is "never personal" why, then, do you personalize it?
John WRI 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?
The simplest answer is usually correct.
Paul M: This forum is about intercity passenger trains, not transit. And the poster seems to continually weave politics into almost every post, even though political discussions are supposed to be off limits. Why is that so difficult for you that you have to resume your thinly-veiled sarcasm again?
oltmanndThe simplest answer is usually correct.
I agree. Completely.
John WR oltmanndThe simplest answer is usually correct. I agree. Completely.
Works for 9/11. Works for buses replacing trolleys, steam replacing diesel.
Long ago I worked near the top of General Motors and as a railfan I dug into the issue. There is no truth to the rumors there was a conspiracy to take out the streetcar lines. The so called National City Lines Conspiracy. It's bunk spread by trial lawyers and railfans. GM settled on a number of the lawsuits because of it's policy to avoid prolonged litigation when the settlement is small enough to end the court cases vs dragging it out for 10-20 years in court and paying more. It was a simple business decision on GM's part to settle these cases. Had it been a real admission of guilt you would have seen damages awarded in the multiple Billions vs a paltry few hundred million.
GM's arguing stance at the time was correct. Most of the transit lines were on the verge of financial collapse, NEW REGULATIONS by the Feds in the area of signaling (very few of the lines had signaling), converged over time to force the lines out of business as they did not have the capital to comply with the regulations. It was a logical choice to replace them with buses. The Federal requirement for signalling was the death nail in the coffin for the Milwaukee Electric "Speedball" Lines. It was issued by decree following a deadly TMERL crash near what was then County Stadium (now Miller Park).
schlimm Paul M: This forum is about intercity passenger trains, not transit. And the poster seems to continually weave politics into almost every post, even though political discussions are supposed to be off limits. Why is that so difficult for you that you have to resume your thinly-veiled sarcasm again?
CMStPnP Long ago I worked near the top of General Motors and as a railfan I dug into the issue. There is no truth to the rumors there was a conspiracy to take out the streetcar lines. The so called National City Lines Conspiracy. It's bunk spread by trial lawyers and railfans. GM settled on a number of the lawsuits because of it's policy to avoid prolonged litigation when the settlement is small enough to end the court cases vs dragging it out for 10-20 years in court and paying more. It was a simple business decision on GM's part to settle these cases. Had it been a real admission of guilt you would have seen damages awarded in the multiple Billions vs a paltry few hundred million. GM's arguing stance at the time was correct. Most of the transit lines were on the verge of financial collapse, NEW REGULATIONS by the Feds in the area of signaling (very few of the lines had signaling), converged over time to force the lines out of business as they did not have the capital to comply with the regulations. It was a logical choice to replace them with buses. The Federal requirement for signalling was the death nail in the coffin for the Milwaukee Electric "Speedball" Lines. It was issued by decree following a deadly TMERL crash near what was then County Stadium (now Miller Park).
You had better watch it . . . there are strict rules around here that Transit gets discussed only in the Transit Forum.
Oops, I am engaging in thinly veiled sarcasm. That is not allowed here anymore either.
Seriously, now, your remarks based on your life experience and what you had looked into are well taken. There are reasoned arguments to be made without demanding that people leave the Forum.
The law suite was not about conversion of streetcars to buses. It was about restricting the NCL and directly owned lines (Chicago Motor Coach, Fifth Avenue Coach, and New York Omnibus) to buying only GM buses, and cutting Ford, White, and Mack out of the business. And the fine was trivial.
There was no conspiracy on the conversions. They were simply sound business decisions. Like the much lamented scrapping of the needed North Shore (not related to GM, but the Susquhanna investment company). GM was not in the business to subsidize urban transportation to coax people out of cars. Everything was done openly and above board. And it was not just that the transit systems began loosing money, there was also the consent decree that forced power companies to sell anything relating to the transportation a business, a downright stupid decision (in my opinion) by the Justice Department on the basis of anti-monopoly. This was a sort of conspiracy -----by the oil companies and highway lobby in general, not just GM by any means.
daveklepper The law suite was not about conversion of streetcars to buses. It was about restricting the NCL and directly owned lines (Chicago Motor Coach, Fifth Avenue Coach, and New York Omnibus) to buying only GM buses, and cutting Ford, White, and Mack out of the business. And the fin vvgce was trivial. There was no conspiracy on the conversions. They were simply soundh in business decisions. Like the much lamented scrapping of the needed North Shore (not related to GM, but the Susnquhanna investment company). GM was not in the business to subsidize urban transportation to coax people out of cars. Everything was done openly and above board. And it was not just that the transit systems began loosing money, there was also the consent decree that forced power companies to sell anything relatinyg to the transportation a business, a downright stupid decision (in my opinion) by the Justice Department on the basis of anti-monopoly. This was a sort of conspiracy -----by the oil companies and highway lobby in general, not just GM by any means.
The law suite was not about conversion of streetcars to buses. It was about restricting the NCL and directly owned lines (Chicago Motor Coach, Fifth Avenue Coach, and New York Omnibus) to buying only GM buses, and cutting Ford, White, and Mack out of the business. And the fin vvgce was trivial.
There was no conspiracy on the conversions. They were simply soundh in business decisions. Like the much lamented scrapping of the needed North Shore (not related to GM, but the Susnquhanna investment company). GM was not in the business to subsidize urban transportation to coax people out of cars. Everything was done openly and above board. And it was not just that the transit systems began loosing money, there was also the consent decree that forced power companies to sell anything relatinyg to the transportation a business, a downright stupid decision (in my opinion) by the Justice Department on the basis of anti-monopoly. This was a sort of conspiracy -----by the oil companies and highway lobby in general, not just GM by any means.
Sorry if I caused conflict but I simply wanted to point out the rigged system and how government destroyed rail in the US. As for monopolies they aren't inherently bad and real monopoly power is difficult to obtain. I don't get how that is a conspiracy theory the streetcar scandal was fueled by government. A conspiracy implies secret but this happened out in the open. Government regulations do distort the actual cost of something. To deny the visible hand of government in our economy is to deny reality. As for what my ideology is it really doesn't matter too much because labels divide people unnecessarily, people fall too much into the habit of deqling with ideologies rather than issue itself.
Paul Milenkovic You had better watch it . . . there are strict rules around here that Transit gets discussed only in the Transit Forum. Oops, I am engaging in thinly veiled sarcasm. That is not allowed here anymore either. Seriously, now, your remarks based on your life experience and what you had looked into are well taken. There are reasoned arguments to be made without demanding that people leave the Forum.
Heretics have to leave the forum, too. Sorry. ...unless you end your statements with a smiley.
ontheBNSFSorry if I caused conflict but I simply wanted to point out the rigged system and how government destroyed rail in the US.
The "rigged system" of auto ownership, highway building and suburban living was wildly popular and pretty much universally acclaimed in the 1950s and 60s. No one but us railfans was yelling, "we was robbed!" It wasn't until the middle 1970s that the unintended consequences of these policies really start to hit home.
There was no great outcry over passenger trains going away or the flight of people to the suburbs or trolley routes converting to bus. This was "progress" back when progress meant "out with the old, in with the new", a space program, modern architecture, glass and chrome, aluminum Christmas trees and the Jetsons.
So, if the system was rigged, it was with the full backing of public. It was very popular!
oltmannd ontheBNSFSorry if I caused conflict but I simply wanted to point out the rigged system and how government destroyed rail in the US. The "rigged system" of auto ownership, highway building and suburban living was wildly popular and pretty much universally acclaimed in the 1950s and 60s. No one but us railfans was yelling, "we was robbed!" It wasn't until the middle 1970s that the unintended consequences of these policies really start to hit home. There was no great outcry over passenger trains going away or the flight of people to the suburbs or trolley routes converting to bus. This was "progress" back when progress meant "out with the old, in with the new", a space program, modern architecture, glass and chrome, aluminum Christmas trees and the Jetsons. So, if the system was rigged, it was with the full backing of public. It was very popular!
Maybe my bean-counting emphasis on Amtrak stretching its subsidy dollar is misplaced. So too are the "wee wuz robbed" discussions of unlevel playing fields, the distortions of subsidies, the hidden subsidies of cars and highways, and how much nicer they have it in Europe and East Asia.
People are willing to dig into their pockets to pay for sports stadiums, mainly to keep the local professional sports team from moving, with the idea that there is an economic multiplier effect of visitors occupying hotel rooms and eating high calorie meals at local restaurants, with the tax money largely helping to build luxury suites for the lofty sports-watching elites, with those elites being alleged captains of industry who do more deal making than game watching in those suites, which has an economic trickle-down effect helping everyone?
Whether sports stadiums have all of that goodness or if it is all made up, does anyone know? But they are very popular civic projects.
So planes, trains, or automobiles, there is no Great Anti-train Conspiracy, it all reduces to political popularity. And advocating for trains is in essence a (political) marketing campaign.
Consider the milk marketing campaign, which promotes milk drinking for putative health benefits (although PETA vehemently disagrees). Do the dairy farmers have a Web site like this where dishing on PETA, dumping on the Coca Cola Corporation is the stock-in-trade, and questioning the Dairy Subsidy is considered social bad form?
So I am just saying that we should advocate for spending the Amtrak dollar where it provides (good) train service for the most people, to over time build up the popularity of trains.
Paul MilenkovicSo I am just saying that we should advocate for spending the Amtrak dollar where it provides (good) train service for the most people, to over time build up the popularity of trains.
I couldn't agree more. Endless debates about why trolley lines were torn up, interurban lines built over, who paid for the Interstates or where did the money come from to build an air transport system are fruitless. The question should be what do we need to do now, if anything, for efficient transportation for the next 50 years? I also think we need to distinguish between investments in needed infrastructure, whether for roads, rail, waterways or air, versus operating subsidies and judge those by the efficiency of the services subsidized..
schlimm Paul MilenkovicSo I am just saying that we should advocate for spending the Amtrak dollar where it provides (good) train service for the most people, to over time build up the popularity of trains. I couldn't agree more. Endless debates about why trolley lines were torn up, interurban lines built over, who paid for the Interstates or where did the money come from to build an air transport system are fruitless. The question should be what do we need to do now, if anything, for efficient transportation for the next 50 years? I also think we need to distinguish between investments in needed infrastructure, whether for roads, rail, waterways or air, versus operating subsidies and judge those by the efficiency of the services subsidized..
Works only if you can get the debate off of $15 hamburgers and $200 per person subsidies for passengers on the Sunset. There is only one outfit that has control over that - Amtrak. So, they need to fix their own house up if they want to make their case politically. Otherwise the only ones pushing for more "Amtrak" will be the "all trains are good" crowd.
If Amtrak did not have to haggle for funding each year with Congress and engage in "pork" in the form of "running trains" [I use the term in the pejorative sense the way henry6 does] in the districts and states of key congressmen and senators, maybe it would do more things in a more rational way. But barring a change in its funding, that won't happen anytime soon.
Using the example of the Sunset, there is a Rep. from NM on the commerce committee with 22 years seniority; another from AZ; another from AZ on the Appropriations committee; from TX three on Commerce, four on the Appropriations committee, two on transportation and infrastructure. And that's not looking at the senate or Louisiana or California. That is a lot of clout, or conversely, a lot of cuts in the Amtrak budget if toes are stepped on.
schlimm If Amtrak did not have to haggle for funding each year with Congress and engage in "pork" in the form of "running trains" [I use the term in the pejorative sense the way henry6 does] in the districts and states of key congressmen and senators, maybe it would do more things in a more rational way. But barring a change in its funding, that won't happen anytime soon. Using the example of the Sunset, there is a Rep. from NM on the commerce committee with 22 years seniority; another from AZ; another from AZ on the Appropriations committee; from TX three on Commerce, four on the Appropriations committee, two on transportation and infrastructure. And that's not looking at the senate or Louisiana or California. That is a lot of clout, or conversely, a lot of cuts in the Amtrak budget if toes are stepped on.
There are lots and lots of things Amtrak could be working on to make their overall results better, even if they did have to run a Sunset 3 days a week.
Like Don Phillips said in his last column -what's taking them so long to do a re-org? (for example)
oltmanndWorks only if you can get the debate off of $15 hamburgers and $200 per person subsidies for passengers on the Sunset.
I had one of those hamburgers on the Texas Eagle. Have to tell you it was pretty *** good for being microwaved AND it was Black Angus.
Schlimm,
Perhaps we should not have Amtrak at all. Perhaps we should just let all rail passenger service except, perhaps, for the Northeast Corridor, die out as it is not worth what we spend on it. I can certainly accept an argument that we should.
What we should not do is to delude ourselves into believing that if Amtrak stopped somehow the private sector would provide rail passenger service. The private railroads lost money on passenger service for many, many years and found they were unable to get rid of it. Why in the world would any sane corporation choose to run that risk again now that they are finally rid of it? We might possibly get a few short routes but we would never ever get a national system.
Rationality for a private corporation means making a profit. But rationality for a government agency, be it military or civilian, means carrying out its mission. Amtrak's mission is to provide a national passenger rail system. As long as Amtrak exists we have to expect that it will do that.
There is an alternative but that alternative is no national passenger rail system at all. We need to choose one of the other.
John
John WR Schlimm, Perhaps we should not have Amtrak at all. Perhaps we should just let all rail passenger service except, perhaps, for the Northeast Corridor, die out as it is not worth what we spend on it. I can certainly accept an argument that we should. What we should not do is to delude ourselves into believing that if Amtrak stopped somehow the private sector would provide rail passenger service. The private railroads lost money on passenger service for many, many years and found they were unable to get rid of it. Why in the world would any sane corporation choose to run that risk again now that they are finally rid of it? We might possibly get a few short routes but we would never ever get a national system. Rationality for a private corporation means making a profit. But rationality for a government agency, be it military or civilian, means carrying out its mission. Amtrak's mission is to provide a national passenger rail system. As long as Amtrak exists we have to expect that it will do that. There is an alternative but that alternative is no national passenger rail system at all. We need to choose one of the other. John
But the private sector is already planning to doing it. These organizations aren't receiving government so obviously their is a profit to be made.
http://www.allaboardflorida.com/
www.texascentral.com/
www.rockymountaineer.com
http://www.vegasxtrain.com/
One last point about the subsidies, regulations, and general visible hand government were not in this area there would be more incentive to create profitable and private passenger rail and transit that is what my point is. Cheers
So there we have the two polar opposites. 1. The idea that we can have a real national passenger rail system called Amtrak II, as opposed to the rather feeble system we have now. or 2. Leave it all to some private operators.
ontheBNSFBut the private sector is already planning to doing it. These organizations aren't receiving government so obviously their is a profit to be made.
If you can show me that I am wrong and we can have a national passenger rail network run by private companies nobody will be happier than I will be. However, I remain skeptical to say the least.
I looked up Texas Central Railway. They hope to be in operation by 2020.
It is a little late to look at the others.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.