Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where in the Constitution is the authority for the government to operate a passenger rail service?
That's a bit like saying that Doritos aren't Kosher because they weren't specifically sanctioned by Moses.
I.e., a really very poorly thought-out position.
But then, this thread is awash with the dreariest sort of cardboard-capitalist cant.
Tell me, why does your federal government invest heavily in roads? Because roads are essential to the ability of your economy to function, but, at the same time, are a loss-making enterprise themselves.
Likewise, where are the financiers queuing up to pay for your schools and your military? Answer: they're not, because these too are loss making enterprises in themselves, but their cost is borne, by the taxpayer, because it is thought that this cost will be outweighed by the wider economic benefit of having a population that is not illiterate, and a territory that is not occupied by foreign powers.
So it is with HSR in the United States. You can argue one way or the other over whether it is a good idea, or a good investment, and over whether it should be publicly or privately run. But the notion that it can only be economically worthwhile if it directly turns a profit is plainly and simply wrong, as evidenced by the plethora of long-established loss-making national enterprises that are universally recognised to be economically not just beneficial, but essential.
I just thought of a really good idea. I think we can improie Amtrak greatly if we did what the Japanese and British did and privatize their entire passenger rail operations. The way they work are different but similar.
The UK's passenger trains are owned and operated by First Group, but they don't directly own and manage the train companies throughout Britain. They have regional franchises that own and operate within their own specific regions and they have a harmonized structure with First Group being like the federal government, and First Great Western, First CapitalConnect, etc. being like states.
Or we can go the Japanese route, and structure the company like JR Group. They have JR Group, which is a consortium made up of JR East, JR Central, JR West, etc. Each has their own geographic region that they operate in, but they are completely independent on how they operate and maintain their section of the network, and JR Group exists to harmonize ticket services. Each train company also operates local rail lines in their respective regions to serve their intracity passengers. You can say this system is set up like a confederation
Each country saw its ridership increase and efficiency increase as well as service quality increase after privatization. Amtrak should be done away with, and go either the First Group route, or the JR route. Considering the size and scope of the U.S., I think Amtrak would be better off operating like the JR Group of rail companies.
If HSR were a financially viable enterprise in & of itself, it would exist in far more portions of the country than just the Northeast.
Amtrak has always been on a starvation diet with minimal funding levels, but since a current trip from LA to Chicago takes 40-something hours, what would be the point of building HSR for the same route without government subsidies, since it would never be utilized enough to have a chance of ever becoming profitable?
The answer is that there isn't one, a fact that our clueless President can't seem to comprehend.
That's a bit like saying that Doritos aren't Kosher because they weren't specifically sanctioned by Moses.
I.e., a really very poorly thought-out position.
But then, this thread is awash with the dreariest sort of cardboard-capitalist cant.
Tell me, why does your federal government invest heavily in roads? Because roads are essential to the ability of your economy to function, but, at the same time, are a loss-making enterprise themselves.
Likewise, where are the financiers queuing up to pay for your schools and your military? Answer: they're not, because these too are loss making enterprises in themselves, but their cost is borne, by the taxpayer, because it is thought that this cost will be outweighed by the wider economic benefit of having a population that is not illiterate, and a territory that is not occupied by foreign powers.
So it is with HSR in the United States. You can argue one way or the other over whether it is a good idea, or a good investment, and over whether it should be publicly or privately run. But the notion that it can only be economically worthwhile if it directly turns a profit is plainly and simply wrong, as evidenced by the plethora of long-established loss-making national enterprises that are universally recognised to be economically not just beneficial, but essential.
Good post. I just don't understand how so many of these anti-rail posters claim unconstitutionality or unprofitability as their reasons for why rail shouldn't be invested in. Like all roads that the government paves are for reasons of national defense (which is FAR from true) or like all roads are paid for by only those who drive (which is FAR from true). It's a short-sighted argument.
This country is going to sink money into infrastructure regardless of what we decide to invest in. However, we (as Americans) need to start considering the big picture over what each individual wants for just themselves. We need mass transportation that is more fuel efficient and more sustainable than our massive network of roads. It's a "bang for your buck" question.
Building high-speed trains will obviously create jobs. But they have potential to do even more. Say a high speed train gets built in rural Iowa. These folks would be able to commute to Chicago or St. Louis to work for a fraction of the time it would take to drive.
During previous recessions, people would pack up and move to cities with job growth. Now, due to the dismal housing market, people are less likely to move away.
These high-speed trains can change the way we think about commuting. They can let people in rural areas compete for jobs in the city.
U.S. unveils $53 billion in high-speed rail plan - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110208/pl_nm/us_usa_transport_rail - broken link)
Works in theory. But high speed rail has been tried in lots of countries and has never worked like they thought. Too expensive to build and maintain. We need to learn from history (though we never do).
The principal argument against HSR is that making war is more profitable for more corporations because it costs more money. Compared to our military funding HSR is trivial. In addition HSR would use a lot less petroleum than either airlines or cars and threaten oil company profits. That is unacceptable to the corporatists that rule our politicians and our country.
If HSR were a financially viable enterprise in & of itself, it would exist in far more portions of the country than just the Northeast.
Amtrak has always been on a starvation diet with minimal funding levels, but since a current trip from LA to Chicago takes 40-something hours, what would be the point of building HSR for the same route without government subsidies, since it would never be utilized enough to have a chance of ever becoming profitable?
The answer is that there isn't one, a fact that our clueless President can't seem to comprehend.
The answer to that question is simple. It does not make sense to use a train to go from LA to Chicago when an airplane is much quicker. On the other hand, a high speed train line along the I70 corridor and linking Columbus, Indianapolis and St. Louis (for example) could very well make sense.
High Speed Rail works really well for distances up to around 400 miles. Over 400 miles, flying is quicker.
The principal argument against HSR is that making war is more profitable for more corporations because it costs more money. Compared to our military funding HSR is trivial. In addition HSR would use a lot less petroleum than either airlines or cars and threaten oil company profits. That is unacceptable to the corporatists that rule our politicians and our country.
A proper railway infrastructure would equal reduced demand for oil lessens the need to push the military into oil-wars affects the health of the military industrial complex that feeds the politicians.
The answer to that question is simple. It does not make sense to use a train to go from LA to Chicago when an airplane is much quicker. On the other hand, a high speed train line along the I70 corridor and linking Columbus, Indianapolis and St. Louis (for example) could very well make sense.
High Speed Rail works really well for distances up to around 400 miles. Over 400 miles, flying is quicker.
Which is why in my previous posts a few above this one, it would make sense to break up Amtrak the same way the Japanese government broke up Japan National Railways into JR (Japan Railways) Group. Each JR Group member, wholly independently owned and operated companies, operates a specific geographic region in the country, and maintains their own rolling stock and rails. So they have JR East, JR West, JR Central, etc. If Amtrak were divided up like that, then there would be no problem maintaining track to go from LA to Chicago, it wouldn't be expensive because one company, let's call it Amtrak West, owns and maintains it's track and fleet in the Pacific and Mountain States, and another Amtrak company, let's call it Amtrak Central, would own and operate all the rails and rolling stock in the central plains, reducing the cost of maintenance for both companies.
The only concern I have with privatization in the USA is the interest groups that have an easier time vilifying the government and winning over the people. It is not easy to forget two cars in the 1990s (GM’s EV1 and Honda’s EV-Plus) that I was keenly watching at the time. While EV1 started with Lead-Acid battery (later moved to NiMH), Honda went for NiMH, a technology that was eventually bought over by a Chevron subsidiary and killed. That killed the GM car, and Honda had to go for a lesser NiMH battery technology (killing the all-electric version but launch of a hybrid). Why would a company buy a technology and kill it? Why would similar interest not try to suppress development of railway infrastructure in the USA?
Perhaps it worked in Japan because the infrastructure was already in place through government’s initiative. The same with the UK. The USA has a very strong oil lobby, and I do not see them supporting an idea that works to reduce dependency on what they produce and benefit from. The railways will also have to go against airline industry.
There are greater incentive to work against the advancement of a system that may actually benefit the people and the country’s interests (reduction in oil importation, for example) and easier tools via cheap oil (at $3/gallon, it is still dirt cheap compared to countries where the railways have advanced).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
