Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
But making all roads a toll road idea. Wouldn't the perfect implementation of that be like a device that charges the driver per mile driven? But that sounds awfully similar to a gas tax, which roughly does the same thing.
But why do we have public roads and private rails? Why does property tax pay for roads and not rails? Shouldn't the city or state or federal government be required to make rail lines just as they are required to build roads?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
And ask Europeans how their rail system works. Most Europeans that have come over here that I have talked to complain about the lack of mass transport.
|
I need you to understand something. I worked for BNSF railroad. It is the second-largest railroad in the United States, behind the Union Pacific. I was working for BNSF railroad when Warren Buffett effectively bought the railroad. I adore the railroads. And I've often dreamed of creating my own railroad. I've thought about it so much, that I spent several days reading about the costs of building a railroad, and what kind of machinery you would need to lay track.
Let me give you a basic primer on railroads and their cost, because I've spent plenty of time on the topic. Here are a few links from previous discussions...
Breakdown of cost to build/operate railroad,
Discussion of efficiency and labor costs,
Discussion about Oklahoma City transit options...
As I mentioned in one of those links, the current going price for light-rail through a major city is about $70 million per mile. And that is "on-grade separated" light-rail. The cost to build above or below grade(IE a subway) would be much higher than that.
As a comparison, it costs about $2 million to build heavy-gauge freight rail through small cities and rural areas. The actual materials cost of freight railroad track is only around $200,000. Installation costs of just track is an additional $150,000. Most of the remaining cost comes from acquiring "right of ways"(basically permission from land-owners or governments to cross their property, which includes public roads). Then safety equipment such as signs, lights, and crossbars(which requires electricity, sensors, communication equipment, etc).
So you decide you want to build a railroad, and you even have the money to build one. What is the process you have to go through? Well, first, you'll have to get the permission of landowners. But "landowners" in regards to individuals isn't really the problem. The real problem is getting permission from governments. Especially in getting the "right of ways" to cross public roads. Trains tend to be loud, and they hold up traffic. So most governments aren't interested in allowing new rail lines, unless they can't impede traffic(usually requiring bridges), and they have noise barriers.
The likelihood of you as an individual(or a private company) being able to build a new railroad anywhere near any major city, is practically zero. You simply won't be able to get the permission from city governments. For them even to consider it, you would practically have to bribe them with huge sums of money. And even then, they would require you to spend massive amounts of money in order to temporarily "reroute traffic", because any new construction is going to make some roads practically inaccessible for a period of time.
The government can build roads under the same circumstances. And the roads they build are even more expensive than even the ridiculously overpriced rail lines. And they'll even create huge traffic problems many times for months at a time. But since they are supposedly providing "free roads", they can get away with it. The same goes for government-built rail lines. The government can build them, because its supposedly for the benefit of society. If a private-company tried to build a rail line and it inconvenienced someone. Then people would be beating down the door of their government officials, demanding to know who is getting paid off by big business(and they may be right).
Thus, as long as there is government, and as long as there are government owned and tax-funded roads. Then it is practically impossible for private companies to build new rail lines, other than in rural areas. In fact, the total number of rail miles in this country actually declines every year. And only governments are building new rail lines, all commuter rail/light-rail. And when they build them, not only does their construction have to be publicly financed. But their operation has to be publicly financed as well. Because mass transit simply doesn't come anywhere close to paying for itself. In my city of Oklahoma city, only about 14% of the cost of our mass transit system is paid for by fares. Even if you argue that gas taxes don't cover all of the costs of roads. The ratio is far better for gas-tax to cost of roads, than the ratio of fares to mass transit costs. And you'll still have to have roads, regardless of how good the mass transit system is.
So what is the solution? You seem to be advocating that, the best way to encourage mass transit. Is simply to make any alternative so expensive as to be completely impractical for anyone who isn't rich. But the indirect effect of such a plan. Would be to drive up the price of real-estate to the point that no one with a low income will even be able to afford their rent or mortgage. Most likely forcing the majority of low-income people into high-crime/drug infested public housing projects. The much higher costs of mass transit will either have to be paid directly by individuals(making the poor even poorer), or by raising other taxes to pay for the extremely high price of mass transit. But who really benefits?
In my opinion, the solution is simple. If mass transit is desirable. And if mass transit is more efficient. Then in a free market. It should be able to come out on top. The problem is, the market simply isn't free. It is heavily regulated and/or monopolized by the government. So what is a practical solution for creating a competitive free market in transportation.
Well, you cannot have a competitive market in transportation, if the government creates roads with taxpayer dollars, and lets people use them for free. The only way roads and rail can compete with each other on an even playing field, is if roads were privately owned and paid for. There is simply no alternative.
I can promise you, if public roads were no longer owned and subsidized by the government. There would be an absolute boom in the building of railroads, especially for the purposes of mass transit.
And the availability of mass transit would be both be widespread, accessible, and cheap. It would actually reduce the cost of living, especially for the poor. And would not require any increase in taxes. No bloated bureaucracy, no overpaid spoiled government workers, and a drastic reduction in the amount of fuel consumed in the United States. Tie that in with rolling back EPA regulations on compressed natural gas. And the overall price of transportation in the United States would fall through the floor. While most likely over a short period of time, making us completely energy-independent.
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.
. Thorium nuclear reactors is the answer to our electric needs but that's off topic. 
