High high speed rail for Atlanta metro (Alpharetta, Kennesaw: subsidized, sales tax)

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

Jsvh - China's MTR is not private. It is 70% owned by the government.

Never said it was 100% private. Nor is most of Europe's "private" rail lines. Key here is that it is partially government owned, but not government run.

However, it is still profitable. And is the model we need to switch to here (with subsidies as long as we keep highway subsidies).

[erick295]

Originally Posted by jsvh

I never said MARTA was profitable.

No, you sure didn't. You did say France's high speed rail was profitable, though, so let's see what that's all about!

France's rail network is operated by SNCF and maintained by RFF (both are government-owned). RFF has more than $40 billion in debt and receives about $5 billion in subsidies from the French government each year.

SNCF can turn a $1-2 billion profit in a good year, but receives about $10 billion in government subsidies which go on the books as gross revenue. On a bad year SNCF loses $1-2 billion.

So your example of a "profitable" rail network is $40 billion in the hole and requires $15 billion a year in government assistance to stay operational--and that's in a country with significantly higher taxes and double the population density of Georgia.

I'm mystified as to why you think that can be translated into a profitable rail network in the South

[AnsleyPark]

Without access to detailed financials, we can't draw the conclusion that there transit ops were profitable and, if they were, it they would have been profitable without government support. They certainly appear to have made money from real estate investments, but the press release didn't break down the financials within industry sectors as we do in US filings. Do you have sector performance information and related auditeds? It would be interesting to see.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by erick295

No, you sure didn't. You did say France's high speed rail was profitable, though, so let's see what that's all about!

France's rail network is operated by SNCF and maintained by RFF (both are government-owned). RFF has more than $40 billion in debt and receives about $5 billion in subsidies from the French government each year.

SNCF can turn a $1-2 billion profit in a good year, but receives about $10 billion in government subsidies which go on the books as gross revenue. On a bad year SNCF loses $1-2 billion.

So your example of a "profitable" rail network is $40 billion in the hole and requires $15 billion a year in government assistance to stay operational--and that's in a country with significantly higher taxes and double the population density of Georgia.

Having debt does not make a company unprofitable. Coke is billions in debt as are almost every major company.

Here are their financials from 2013 if you want it (They had an operating profit, but a net loss): http://www.sncf.com/sites/default/fi..._gb_simple.pdf

Originally Posted by erick295

I'm mystified as to why you think that can be translated into a profitable rail network in the South

It may or may not be profitable, all I am saying is that we need to stop giving so much more tax money to their competition and give rail a chance.

[AnsleyPark]

Anything can be made "profitable" if it's given enough money. By that reasoning, my 20 year old college student daughter is profitable in her own right without having a job outside of studying. But I assure you, someone else has to pay for her profit.

[erick295]

Originally Posted by jsvh

It may or may not be profitable, all I am saying is that we need to stop giving so much more tax money to their competition and give rail a chance.

Why? What evidence do you have that rail is more economically beneficial than roads and airports in a place that has a population density of 65 per sq. km?

Anyway, you were actually saying this:

Originally Posted by jsvh

You try so hard to fight it, but transportation was, is, and will be successful and profitable without being run by a government.

...yet an example you provided (France) is 1) not profitable, and 2) paid for by a government.

[erick295]

...and before you say "but it is profitable," no, it isn't. When you offload $40 billion in debt to another company it doesn't magically disappear from the formula. RFF is paying out much more than SNCF can net, and you're fooling yourself if you think that doesn't count because an Atlanta-based soft drink company has corporate debt.

Their system is in trouble right now, by the way. Ridership is dropping and there's a growing concern that maintenance costs aren't going to be covered and routes will need to be dropped. So even government-subsidized high speed rail isn't viable in a country with more than twice the population density.

I don't blame you for your mistake... rail boosters constantly use "profitable" companies like SNCF as examples of why the US needs high speed rail, and I'm sure you've come across a lot of those articles. They come to that conclusion by conveniently ignoring the geographical, political, and economic differences between the US and Europe, and by ignoring the fact that those companies are only "profitable" because they receive massive subsidies from government bodies and--in the case of SNCF and other providers in Europe that are separated from infrastructure by law--offload the costs of building and maintaining the system itself to other entities.

[jsvh]

erick295- Just because you only want to travel by roads dosen't mean we all should have to pay a disproportionately large share of taxes for them.

Rail can haul more with less fuel in a narrower ROW than anything else. It is by nature more efficient and higher capacity than roads.

But it should not be up to you or me or a government bureaucrat how someone gets from point A to B. They should have the choice on how to spend their transportation dollars.

[erick295]

I'm no longer sure what your argument is. It seems to be evolving. First you said rail should be implemented because it can be profitable without the government, now you're saying it should be implemented because people have an inherent right to it.

Call me crazy, but I think the rather libertarian notion that people should "have the choice on how to spend their transportation dollars" conflicts with the idea of spending billions of taxpayer dollars on a system that millions of people wouldn't be using.

Do you actually have data or examples to show why high speed rail would benefit Georgia enough to justify its cost, or do you just want it implemented because it's neat?

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by erick295

I'm no longer sure what your argument is. It seems to be evolving. First you said rail should be implemented because it can be profitable without the government, now you're saying it should be implemented because people have an inherent right to it.

Call me crazy, but I think the rather libertarian notion that people should "have the choice on how to spend their transportation dollars" conflicts with the idea of spending billions of taxpayer dollars on a system that millions of people wouldn't be using.

Do you actually have data or examples to show why high speed rail would benefit Georgia enough to justify its cost, or do you just want it implemented because it's neat?

I don't think we should be spending tax dollars on rail ..... assuming we stop spending tax dollars on its main competitor, highways. That is the long term ideal, get tax dollars out of both. But I am a realest and know change will not happen all at once. So I think we should even out the subsidy until we can remove it all together. I think the best way to increase passenger rail service is not spending more tax dollars on it, but less on its competitor, highways.


Can you imagine if we had government run all our housing? We could be going back and forth about if the government should build more single family homes or high-rises and which is better. And then we could argue if it is fair for the government to subsidize one type of housing more than other. Should it be houses or condos that are more "efficient" as homes? Should one be free and the other have a rent? Or we could do it like we do now and let people pay the cost to live where they want. And we should do the same with transportation.