oltmannd I don't know that they are extremist, they are just uber-libertarian. "just let the market do it". Works pretty well for cheap, fungilble things like shoes. Works pretty lousy for things that are large and expensive, like most infrastructure. We could have competing sewer service, but it would require two sets of sewer lines. Big cost. Benefit of competitive pricing over monopoly pricing won't overcome the extra cost to build two systems, hence regulated monopolies.
I don't know that they are extremist, they are just uber-libertarian. "just let the market do it". Works pretty well for cheap, fungilble things like shoes. Works pretty lousy for things that are large and expensive, like most infrastructure. We could have competing sewer service, but it would require two sets of sewer lines. Big cost. Benefit of competitive pricing over monopoly pricing won't overcome the extra cost to build two systems, hence regulated monopolies.
First of all I am not an extremist.This is simply not True New York used to have 3 train systems and a series of competing bus and taxi services The Streetcar System, the Elevated railways, and the subway. Now since the city took over costs have zoomed and fares in terms of inflated dollars have increased. A 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. Even if one were to obtain a railroad monopoly that railroad would have to compete with the other modes of transportation. Even if there aren't competing highways then the highways have to compete with railways or airports. Before World War I their used to be more railroads they were forcibly consolidated. Early railroad monopolies were created by being granted that status Central pacific is an example. Electrical utility companies also used to be a competitive business as well. If one can gain a monopoly without a government privilege then the company can only gain it by offering a better service at a better price.
Railroad to Freedom
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.
ontheBNSFRothbard was merely saying that shoes are esential and that if the government was running that the person who wanted private shoes would be treated the same way as someone who privatized ATC, postal service etc.
The only time I even encountered the government supplying shoes was when I was in the military. Shoes and boots were designed to be functional rather than fashionable. In the military the government did a reasonably good job.
Outside of the military where fashion is a big consideration I don't see the point of even discussing the government supplying shoes. Anyone who wants government shoes might try a war surplus store.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
John WR ontheBNSFHow would most of the public treat the libertarian who now came along to advocate that the government get out of the shoe business The government is not in the shoe business. Does this have anything to do with anything?
ontheBNSFHow would most of the public treat the libertarian who now came along to advocate that the government get out of the shoe business
The government is not in the shoe business. Does this have anything to do with anything?
Rothbard was merely saying that shoes are esential and that if the government was running that the person who wanted private shoes would be treated the same way as someone who privatized ATC, postal service etc.
ontheBNSF appears to be using this rail forum as a sounding board for his ideological, extremist political views.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
So, privatize the Interstates and have them pay real estate taxes like the railroads do.
How would most of the public treat the libertarian who now came along to advocate that the government get out of the shoe business and throw it open to private enterprise? He would undoubtedly be treated as follows: people would cry, "How could you? You are opposed to the public, and to poor people, wearing shoes! And who would supply shoes to the public if the government got out of the business? Tell us that! Be constructive! It's easy to be negative and smart-alecky about government; but tell us who would supply shoes? Which people? How many shoe stores would be available in each city and town? How would the shoe firms be capitalized? How many brands would there be? What material would they use? What lasts? What would be the pricing arrangements for shoes? Wouldn't regulation of the shoe industry be needed to see to it that the product is sound? And who would supply the poor with shoes? Suppose a poor person didn't have the money to buy a pair?" I don't agree with Rothbard on a lot of things but he makes a good argument for privatization in his fable of the Shoes.
You MIGHT be able to come up with a scheme to toll the rural portions of the interstates using RFID tags (EZPASS), but tolling the suburban/urban routes would only chase traffic off onto less safe alternate routes.
You might even just toll trucks and let auto passengers go free. Everyone pays some fuel tax, but trucks pay for the extra-heavy construction, moderate grades and additional wear and tear. A little freight to passenger cross subsidy would be a good match for the reality on the rail side (freight roads provide Amtrak slots at less than full cost - nobody ever tries to figure this hidden subsidy into Amtrak's costs. I wonder why?)
But, it all is a non-starter. There is no ground-swell of political support for this any more than there is for greatly changing Amtrak's route structure. It's fun to talk about, though.
I'm still convinced that the best, and perhaps only route to expanded passenger rail service is for Amtrak to get its act together. If the subsidy per passenger on the LD routes can be whittled down to a respectable size, then Amtrak ceases to be an easy target for scoring political points and has a chance to be taken seriously.
All Interstates private toll roads under your plan?
schlimm ontheBNSF MY point is that all modes of transport should be privately owned. Roads are definitely a place to start and airports could definitely be privately owned as well. My point is that private infrastructure is the way. Why is it "the way?" Roads, transit, airports? For whose benefit?
ontheBNSF MY point is that all modes of transport should be privately owned. Roads are definitely a place to start and airports could definitely be privately owned as well. My point is that private infrastructure is the way.
Why is it "the way?" Roads, transit, airports? For whose benefit?
I view it is "The way" because individual consumers would choose the mode of transit they find to have the most merit and government wouldn't pick winners and loosers like it has for years. Transportation operators would finally be able to operate independently not subject to the political whims of the day. I would also include as part of privatization ending eminent domain laws this would greatly increase private property rights. Privatization would open the way for technological development that has possibly been held back. Competition would drive down costs. Rather than the services costing tax payer they would pay dividends to tax payers. Large bureaucracies would be eliminated. The need for new infrastructure would encourage building of such new infrastructure and job creation as a result. There are other benefits but those are what comes to the top of my head
ontheBNSFMY point is that all modes of transport should be privately owned. Roads are definitely a place to start and airports could definitely be privately owned as well.
One guy who would agree with you is Jon Corzine, the former Governor of New Jersey. He proposed that the state monitize the New Jersey Turnpike. What he meant was that we should sell it and use the money to pay the State's outstanding debt. The idea never got anywhere because of strong opposition.
Today with E-Z pass technology we could sell the whole Eisenhower Defense and Interstate Highway System. The owners would fund it by putting tolls on it. For people without E-Z pass transponders a camera would take a picture of their car and license plate and they would be billed for use of the road plus a service charge to cover the extra cost. Perhaps the time is ripe. The Interstates are crumbling to pieces and Congress doesn't have the money to repair them.
John WR ontheBNSFActually you guys are seeing it all wrong. It isn't a matter of which mode of transport the government run own it is matter of whether there is any merit to government in running ANY mode of transport. Why would rail go the path of the stagecoach or canal the passenger train still remains a popular way to travel in Japan and Taiwan. I would argue that the government runs our road system. Although I don't have a government provided driver for my car any time I drive the roads are all patrolled by government supplied police officers and all signs and traffic signals are installed and maintained by government. And of course, the government builds the roads. If we are going to discuss whether or not the government should run any mode of transport certainly we should start with the road system which is by far the largest system. If the government were to stop running Amtrak I can't imagine who would pick up the passenger service. After all, for over a hundred years the history of passenger railroads is a history of increasing public activism and government control. Ultimately the railroads were required to continue it despite the fact that it ran at a loss and sometimes at a very large loss. Why would any private company want to buy into that risk?
ontheBNSFActually you guys are seeing it all wrong. It isn't a matter of which mode of transport the government run own it is matter of whether there is any merit to government in running ANY mode of transport. Why would rail go the path of the stagecoach or canal the passenger train still remains a popular way to travel in Japan and Taiwan.
I would argue that the government runs our road system. Although I don't have a government provided driver for my car any time I drive the roads are all patrolled by government supplied police officers and all signs and traffic signals are installed and maintained by government. And of course, the government builds the roads. If we are going to discuss whether or not the government should run any mode of transport certainly we should start with the road system which is by far the largest system.
If the government were to stop running Amtrak I can't imagine who would pick up the passenger service. After all, for over a hundred years the history of passenger railroads is a history of increasing public activism and government control. Ultimately the railroads were required to continue it despite the fact that it ran at a loss and sometimes at a very large loss. Why would any private company want to buy into that risk?
You just nailed the point I am trying to argue. MY point is that all modes of transport should be privately owned. Roads are definitely a place to start and airports could definitely be privately owned as well. My point is that private infrastructure is the way. If there was actual level playing field for transportation I think passenger rail would make a comeback and so would city transit systems. When advocate private transport I don't necessarily advocate automobiles.
John WR schlimmFramed in that way, Dave, I tend to agree with you, and that represents a definite compromised view for me. Maybe not so much really deserve, but maybe it is part of the cost of building a sufficient constituency to get on with the main show. There is another issue here which in my view deserves to be considered: Should the United States, as a matter of national policy, have a national passenger rail system? If we believe there should be a national passenger rail system then I think it follows that we need to maintain a political consensus for that system and to maintain that consensus we need the long distance routes even at the cost of their subsidy. The opposing view is that we do not need a national system at all. Those states that want to can provide for their own people and, if they choose, get together with neighboring states. At best that would give us a broken skein of individual routes disconnected from each other. And we would loose much of Amtrak's intercity service, especially where is crosses one or more state lines. There would be no national consensus that passenger rail is needed and no rail service based on that consensus. Perhaps passenger rail service should go the way of travel by canal boat and stagecoach. But until we are willing to say that I think we need Amtrak.
schlimmFramed in that way, Dave, I tend to agree with you, and that represents a definite compromised view for me. Maybe not so much really deserve, but maybe it is part of the cost of building a sufficient constituency to get on with the main show.
There is another issue here which in my view deserves to be considered: Should the United States, as a matter of national policy, have a national passenger rail system? If we believe there should be a national passenger rail system then I think it follows that we need to maintain a political consensus for that system and to maintain that consensus we need the long distance routes even at the cost of their subsidy.
The opposing view is that we do not need a national system at all. Those states that want to can provide for their own people and, if they choose, get together with neighboring states. At best that would give us a broken skein of individual routes disconnected from each other. And we would loose much of Amtrak's intercity service, especially where is crosses one or more state lines. There would be no national consensus that passenger rail is needed and no rail service based on that consensus.
Perhaps passenger rail service should go the way of travel by canal boat and stagecoach. But until we are willing to say that I think we need Amtrak.
Actually you guys are seeing it all wrong. It isn't a matter of which mode of transport the government run own it is matter of whether there is any merit to government in running ANY mode of transport. Why would rail go the path of the stagecoach or canal the passenger train still remains a popular way to travel in Japan and Taiwan.
schlimm daveklepper I don't know about that. Considering the political climate, demands by labor, and much else that is the environment Amtrak works in, I think they deserve at least a C+ or B-. And the political, social, and economic environment is very hard to change. On this subsidy business. And here I run smack into conflict with the kind of thinking of Sam1: Doesn't the once a year vacation traveler deserve a subsidy somewhat in the same order of magnitude, if not quite as great, as the daily commuter, regardless if the daily commuter is using Amtrak between Phily and NY or Old Orchard Beach and Boston or one of the commuter operations? What about the once a lifetime college student seeing the country as his graduation present? And I do believe Amtrak does on occasion save lives. Framed in that way, Dave, I tend to agree with you, and that represents a definite compromised view for me. Maybe not so much really deserve, but maybe it is part of the cost of building a sufficient constituency to get on with the main show.
daveklepper I don't know about that. Considering the political climate, demands by labor, and much else that is the environment Amtrak works in, I think they deserve at least a C+ or B-. And the political, social, and economic environment is very hard to change. On this subsidy business. And here I run smack into conflict with the kind of thinking of Sam1: Doesn't the once a year vacation traveler deserve a subsidy somewhat in the same order of magnitude, if not quite as great, as the daily commuter, regardless if the daily commuter is using Amtrak between Phily and NY or Old Orchard Beach and Boston or one of the commuter operations? What about the once a lifetime college student seeing the country as his graduation present? And I do believe Amtrak does on occasion save lives.
I don't know about that. Considering the political climate, demands by labor, and much else that is the environment Amtrak works in, I think they deserve at least a C+ or B-. And the political, social, and economic environment is very hard to change.
On this subsidy business. And here I run smack into conflict with the kind of thinking of Sam1:
Doesn't the once a year vacation traveler deserve a subsidy somewhat in the same order of magnitude, if not quite as great, as the daily commuter, regardless if the daily commuter is using Amtrak between Phily and NY or Old Orchard Beach and Boston or one of the commuter operations?
What about the once a lifetime college student seeing the country as his graduation present?
And I do believe Amtrak does on occasion save lives.
If only Amtrak's passion for what they do had risen to the level of their ardent supporters, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We'd be arguing over whether the next 180 mph link should go from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh or Charlotte to Atlanta.
CMStPnP According to the article we have 230 million rail passengers in this country sharing Amtrak infrastructure of that amount only 30 million passengers belong to Amtrak. To me that is a fairly persuasive argument that $1.7 Billion, largely applied to Amtrak Infrastructure is not a huge subsidy and not all that different from the Interstate Highway subsidy.
According to the article we have 230 million rail passengers in this country sharing Amtrak infrastructure of that amount only 30 million passengers belong to Amtrak. To me that is a fairly persuasive argument that $1.7 Billion, largely applied to Amtrak Infrastructure is not a huge subsidy and not all that different from the Interstate Highway subsidy.
That's one of the biggest problems with the analysis. If you want the avg subsidy per rider, you have to add in ALL the direct subsidies. You can't just count just the Amtrak subsidy and divide by the total rail passenger count. Farebox recovery in the commuter rail world is generally 50% or less. And, the avg fare for commuter trips is much less than the avg Amtrak fare - for obvious reasons. Should we add in all the riders of the NYC TA 1,2, and 3 trains because they happen to run through Penn Station?
There is a hint that there is a cross-subsidy from Amtrak to the commuter rail world and that is used as justification for Amtrak's subsidy. If it exists, Amtrak should use it as justification to up their tenant fees!
The problem isn't whether there are subsidies - it's how effective they are AND how effective they could be. If my kid came home from school with a C and I knew he was capable of a B+, why would I listen to his pleas that it's okay because lots of other kids got Cs?
Well, Amtrak is capable of Bs and they have been getting Ds.
ontheBNSFBe grateful that our benevolent overlords allow us to have anything. I don't care which side of the political isle you sit whether it be left, right, or up and down. The fact of the matter is that the status quo is always going to limit rail and will make it worse off.
It is true that the Federal Government came close to destroying our rail system. But somehow at the last minute they were overcome by common sense and passed the Staggers act. But I am hopeful that Congress will see the light. They won't force large amounts of freight onto our interstates because right now those interstates are crumbling and they don't know where to find the money to repair them. But that remains more of a hope than a belief.
schlimm OntheBNSF: Be grateful that our benevolent overlords allow us to have anything. I don't care which side of the political isle you sit whether it be left, right, or up and down. The fact of the matter is that the status quo is always going to limit rail and will make it worse off. Enjoy Amtrak before it is destroyed and enjoy the freight rail system before it suffers the same fate as passenger rail. Freight rail like passenger rail will be regulated out of existence in the name of "environmental protection" and "fairness". Why can I say this?, because the EPA keeps raising emission standards and will do so to the point of making freight rail uneconomical. Re-regulation is also in the works as well. Uneconomical PTC systems are going to be shoved down their throats as well. As for high speed rail never going to be built that is why the timelines they are setting are several years down the road. Interesting, if rather gloomy and politically-charged speculations. Any sources?
OntheBNSF: Be grateful that our benevolent overlords allow us to have anything. I don't care which side of the political isle you sit whether it be left, right, or up and down. The fact of the matter is that the status quo is always going to limit rail and will make it worse off. Enjoy Amtrak before it is destroyed and enjoy the freight rail system before it suffers the same fate as passenger rail. Freight rail like passenger rail will be regulated out of existence in the name of "environmental protection" and "fairness". Why can I say this?, because the EPA keeps raising emission standards and will do so to the point of making freight rail uneconomical. Re-regulation is also in the works as well. Uneconomical PTC systems are going to be shoved down their throats as well. As for high speed rail never going to be built that is why the timelines they are setting are several years down the road.
Interesting, if rather gloomy and politically-charged speculations. Any sources?
You can look some of them up yourself. The Epa is going to increase emission standards via Tier 4 emission standards. These emission standards will greatly reduce horsepower and require more locomotives than before thus increasing equipment cost and maintenance. PTC systems are very expensive and railroads are unwilling to upgrade themselves. Re-regulation has been discussed time and time again. If these measures are implemented then it will have the effect of driving up costs and making it far less economical which would cause shipper to use other modes of transit. High speed rail projects were consistently rejected and the ones that are in the works are in the time period of decades to build.
John WR schlimmThe second point suggests that although elimination of LD routes is unlikely, reductions of those losses should be the goal. After all, with politically limited funding available, it is wise to use those funds where they can benefit the most people. Yes, but sometimes the politics of the situation limits the ability to do this. It has been shown that were the Sunset Limited (which loses a lot of money) to operate daily instead of three times a week losses would be significantly reduced. However, Amtrak is unable to do that because of political reasons.
schlimmThe second point suggests that although elimination of LD routes is unlikely, reductions of those losses should be the goal. After all, with politically limited funding available, it is wise to use those funds where they can benefit the most people.
Yes, but sometimes the politics of the situation limits the ability to do this. It has been shown that were the Sunset Limited (which loses a lot of money) to operate daily instead of three times a week losses would be significantly reduced. However, Amtrak is unable to do that because of political reasons.
Be grateful that our benevolent overlords allow us to have anything. I don't care which side of the political isle you sit whether it be left, right, or up and down. The fact of the matter is that the status quo is always going to limit rail and will make it worse off. Enjoy Amtrak before it is destroyed and enjoy the freight rail system before it suffers the same fate as passenger rail. Freight rail like passenger rail will be regulated out of existence in the name of "environmental protection" and "fairness". Why can I say this?, because the EPA keeps raising emission standards and will do so to the point of making freight rail uneconomical. Re-regulation is also in the works as well. Uneconomical PTC systems are going to be shoved down their throats as well. As for high speed rail never going to be built that is why the timelines they are setting are several years down the road.
The first point in particular alters the "numbers" that some repeatedly use as the basis for insisting that passenger rail, as seen in aggregated Amtrak figures, is very cost-ineffective compared to other transportation modes. The second point suggests that although elimination of LD routes is unlikely, reductions of those losses should be the goal. After all, with politically limited funding available, it is wise to use those funds where they can benefit the most people.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.