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.
You can't guarantee any private enterprise will succeed. Period.
Were you complaining last year when the airlines got billions in bailouts, which prevented them from (once again) losing large amounts of money? If you were not, I don't understand why you would complain about this. The aviation industry throughout its entire existence has never made money. US airlines lost money pretty much continuously from the end of deregulation in 1978 until around 2012 or so. Only recently have U.S. airlines been printing money from 2012-2019 due to monetizing literally every aspect of the travel experience. I'm sure a lot of high-speed rail systems worldwide could do the same if they crammed seats in at 30 inch pitch and charged for bags, Wifi, advance seating, the ability to cancel your ticket, etc. Most airlines worldwide do not make money and are subsidized.
In the U.S., our subsidies to that industry come in the form of publicly owned airports - almost all of them are other than Dulles (Federally owned) and a few privately owned fields. In other words, communities paid for their own airports originally. Airlines didn't have to build their own infrastructure. That is a subsidy. And any other form of non-cargo transportation has some public component. Roads, bus/light rail systems, etc. are paid for by tax dollars (and lots of them).
There's nothing wrong with the idea of transportation services operating at a loss and it is very common both here and around the world. Not sure why this particular project should be expected to be profitable other than a desire to set parameters that are unattainable. I get that you don't like it. I do, and I have no problem with my tax money going towards its operation one day should the company go belly-up. In my opinion, this rail line would have greater overall economic and quality of life benefits (regardless of who operates it) for Texans than a lot of the stupid stuff this state spends money on year after year.
There is a difference between guarantee and probability. A venture that historically has a 75% chance of success is not equal to a venture that has almost never succeeded or has no track record.
There is also a difference between an occasional loss and a certain blackhole. A venture that has up years and down years is not equal to a venture that posts massive losses every single quarter.
You seem to not understand the concept of degree. You think if one thing costs us $1 in taxes it's ok if another thing costs us $100 in taxes. You think if one thing carries a small risk of failure it's ok if another thing faces a near certain failure.
Airports are big money makers for the municipalities. Cities don't build airports as a free public service and allowing airlines to use them is not a subsidy. They charge the airlines landing fees and gate fees and parking fees. They charge passengers via taxes onto every fare. The federal funding comes from user fees on airfares. https://www.bizjournals.com/charlott...enue/175/table
Car ownership is over 91% per household and everyone uses products distributed over the roads. Everyone cannot subsidize everyone. Call it cost shifting or cost allocation but it is not a subsidy. https://www.valuepenguin.com/auto-in...hip-statistics
There's no pressing need for this rail service. The highways and airports are providing the service cheaper and more efficiently than even what this rail project promises. The fact that we are wasting money on one thing is not a justification to waste money on yet another thing. And adding wasteful spending almost never reduces other wasteful spending.
There's nothing wrong with a pulic services operating at a loss if the need is justified but there is something very wrong with turning a blind eye to fiscal accountability because one is smitten with an idea.
There is a difference between guarantee and probability. A venture that historically has a 75% chance of success is not equal to a venture that has almost never succeeded or has no track record.
There is also a difference between an occasional loss and a certain blackhole. A venture that has up years and down years is not equal to a venture that posts massive losses every single quarter.
You seem to not understand the concept of degree. You think if one thing costs us $1 in taxes it's ok if another thing costs us $100 in taxes. You think if one thing carries a small risk of failure it's ok if another thing faces a near certain failure.
Airports are big money makers for the municipalities. Cities don't build airports as a free public service and allowing airlines to use them is not a subsidy. They charge the airlines landing fees and gate fees and parking fees. They charge passengers via taxes onto every fare. The federal funding comes from user fees on airfares. https://www.bizjournals.com/charlott...enue/175/table
Car ownership is over 91% per household and everyone uses products distributed over the roads. Everyone cannot subsidize everyone. Call it cost shifting or cost allocation but it is not a subsidy. https://www.valuepenguin.com/auto-in...hip-statistics
There's no pressing need for this rail service. The highways and airports are providing the service cheaper and more efficiently than even what this rail project promises. The fact that we are wasting money on one thing is not a justification to waste money on yet another thing. And adding wasteful spending almost never reduces other wasteful spending.
There's nothing wrong with a pulic services operating at a loss if the need is justified but there is something very wrong with turning a blind eye to fiscal accountability because one is smitten with an idea.
What venture are you referring to that has had a 75% chance of success? Airlines?! They lost $370 billion worldwide last year alone. (https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/01/1082302) From 1978 to 2009, U.S. airlines alone had lost about $60 billion throughout the history of the industry. (https://www.nber.org/papers/w16744) Literally the only time in history that U.S. airlines have consistently made money was the last decade or so until 2019, and like I said that is only due to massive monetization of every single aspect of the flying experience.
I think its interesting you cherry-picked Southwest being profitable all this time as an example. 1) They are literally the only airline in the world that can say that, 2) They were only profitable last year because of the PPP funding they got from the government (thus allowing them to use gov money to pay a significant amount of their labor bill - otherwise they would have had a huge loss just like everyone else), and 3) They were only able to get off the ground in the first place (pun not intended) because they were able to bypass CAB regulatory standards that allowed that agency to set the prices for interstate flights by operating initially only within Texas. Additionally, they were the first airline to fly Love to Hobby since IAH opened in 1969 and had no competition for a time. Then, when DFW opened and the airlines all moved there in the late 70s, Southwest was able to print money from Love Field routes, despite them being limited by the Wright Amendment. These are unique operating conditions no one else had.
What about pre-merger American, U.S. Airways, Northwest, Braniff, Pan Am, America West, Midwest, pre-merger United, and all of the other airlines that have come and gone? Noticed you had nothing to say about them, but they represent the airline industry as a whole prior to the airlines becoming too big to fail as they are now. These, like most airlines worldwide continue to be, were constant money-pits.
As far as there being a pressing need for rail service, I'd argue there absolutely is just as much as there was a pressing need for Southwest's original 1971 Dallas-Houston service. It's too slow to drive (and getting slower) and flying is unreliable (see current swath of weather and staffing related cancellations nationwide, as well as the weather-related cancellations we see every summer). Additionally, there are significant environmental advantages (especially given Texas' relatively clean - and getting cleaner - grid) to flying, as well as advantages in passenger comfort, which is important to most people.
The idea that what we have is good enough is never something I'd agree with. Some probably said U.S. 75 was "good enough" before I-45 was built. Landowners in much of the country did not want to give up land through eminent domain via the Interstate system either, but guess what - they benefit from the fact that we're not still using some two lane highway with stoplights to get to Dallas. Some said that having two airports in Dallas and Ft. Worth was good enough until the Feds got tired of it and demanded a better solution. And many are still saying what we have right now is good enough when we have a growing population and increasing demand for travel between these two cities. Additional options will only supercharge the growth in both of these cities.
And honestly, you have no idea whether this is a "near-certain failure" or how much tax money the state could potentially be on the hook for, nor do any of us. You've decided those things based on the fact you don't like the project. Have you read a detailed business plan or the company's purchase orders? Do you know what their cash balance and investor situation looks like? I doubt it.
You talk about high levels of car ownership as if that level of car ownership preceded the government (both state govs originally and the Fed government in the 50s) choosing to spend enormous amounts of the budget on road development. If the government had made a choice earlier in the 20th century to invest more in rail and create a network like we see in Europe, we would have lower car ownership as they do in Europe. The huge road system we built is exactly why car ownership is so high - i.e. we subsidized the auto manufacturers. You don't have that level without the road infrastructure we have so its disingenuous to use high car ownership as a reason why we should not invest in other modes.
As far as airports being moneymakers for municipalities, that's true now, however, these municipalities had to invest in the airport in the first place and some airports (see Stewart International in NY, Washington Dulles, Gary - Chicago Airport and quite a few others) are big white elephants. The investing in the first place is what this private entity is attempting because its clear that the state will not/cannot do it. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out, but the infrastructure itself will be privately funded and that in and of itself is a win for Texas.
Last edited by Mr. Clutch; 06-23-2021 at 12:26 PM..
As far as there being a pressing need for rail service, I'd argue there absolutely is just as much as there was a pressing need for Southwest's original 1971 Dallas-Houston service.
If so, then the railroad will be able to "print money" on it's routes and won't need any subsidy. You can throw anything to do with last year out the window.
Rail ridership would never be able to reach 90% no matter how much the government subsidizes it. Their support of road infrastructure and not rail just shows they know a good bet from a losing bet.
Rail had it's big opportunity from 1990 to 2010 and it didn't happen. This project will never happen, either. I've been laughing at it's supporters for almost a decade now and I'll still be laughing a decade from now. Burns you up, doesn't it?
If so, then the railroad will be able to "print money" on it's routes and won't need any subsidy. You can throw anything to do with last year out the window.
Rail ridership would never be able to reach 90% no matter how much the government subsidizes it. Their support of road infrastructure and not rail just shows they know a good bet from a losing bet.
Rail had it's big opportunity from 1990 to 2010 and it didn't happen. This project will never happen, either. I've been laughing at it's supporters for almost a decade now and I'll still be laughing a decade from now. Burns you up, doesn't it?
Nope, because I doubt you'll be correct, but even if you are, who cares? You're just a random person on the internet with an opinion, no one of importance. It's just fun breaking down your relatively weak arguments and clear lack of knowledge on the airline industry (and its perpetual losses) that you extol, one by one. I work in that industry and love airlines - but I also know it like the back of my hand. Unlike you, I understand that not everything is about profitability, some things (fire, EMS, police, local public transit etc.) are provided by the government for quality of life reasons. This extends to intercity transit in the case of Northeast and West Coast cities, and improves their quality of life. I've done trains on both coasts and would never take a plane over them as a passenger for a short (<300 mile) route, and I'm an actual licensed pilot. Trains are just the better solution for that type of distance. The proof is in the pudding as every high-speed rail line that opens and replaces a popular air route (e.g. London-Paris, Barcelona-Madrid) completely kills the air route. And that's perfectly OK because then the resources needed to fly that air route can be redeployed by the airlines elsewhere. France is about to ban short-range flights that are also served by HSR, and no one is really mad at them because the market has already spoken in that regard.
Texas should and will have an HSR option, whether its through this, or through the planned Amtrak expansion. I suspect that what you fear is that this will eventually open and be popular, thus opening the floodgates for other high-speed rail systems throughout the South.
Keep screaming at the moon young man, perhaps it'll one day yell back at you.
Nope, because I doubt you'll be correct, but even if you are, who cares? You're just a random person on the internet with an opinion, no one of importance. It's just fun breaking down your relatively weak arguments and clear lack of knowledge on the airline industry (and its perpetual losses) that you extol, one by one. I work in that industry and love airlines - but I also know it like the back of my hand. Unlike you, I understand that not everything is about profitability, some things (fire, EMS, police, local public transit etc.) are provided by the government for quality of life reasons. This extends to intercity transit in the case of Northeast and West Coast cities, and improves their quality of life. I've done trains on both coasts and would never take a plane over them as a passenger for a short (<300 mile) route, and I'm an actual licensed pilot. Trains are just the better solution for that type of distance. The proof is in the pudding as every high-speed rail line that opens and replaces a popular air route (e.g. London-Paris, Barcelona-Madrid) completely kills the air route. And that's perfectly OK because then the resources needed to fly that air route can be redeployed by the airlines elsewhere. France is about to ban short-range flights that are also served by HSR, and no one is really mad at them because the market has already spoken in that regard.
Texas should and will have an HSR option, whether its through this, or through the planned Amtrak expansion. I suspect that what you fear is that this will eventually open and be popular, thus opening the floodgates for other high-speed rail systems throughout the South.
Keep screaming at the moon young man, perhaps it'll one day yell back at you.
Nope, because I doubt you'll be correct, but even if you are, who cares? You're just a random person on the internet with an opinion, no one of importance. It's just fun breaking down your relatively weak arguments
Texas should and will have an HSR option, whether its through this, or through the planned Amtrak expansion. I suspect that what you fear is that this will eventually open and be popular, thus opening the floodgates for other high-speed rail systems throughout the South.
Keep screaming at the moon young man, perhaps it'll one day yell back at you.
And it's been fun laughing at the likes of you for the past 20 years on these kinds of projects that never go anywhere. Let's circle back in 2030, if you're still around.
They're not. Just about everyone is using the roads. A subsidy is when the many support the few.
That's not the definition of a subsidy. A subsidy is when you don't pay the costs of using a public service. No one pays the full cost of their road use. We are all subsidized. Gas taxes in Texas don't even cover the costs of maintaining existing roads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffdoorgunner
with the price of lumber........what do you think a railroad tie costs now???
That's not the definition of a subsidy. A subsidy is when you don't pay the costs of using a public service. No one pays the full cost of their road use. We are all subsidized. Gas taxes in Texas don't even cover the costs of maintaining existing roads.
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Everybody can't be subsidizing everybody. If I go out to lunch with a co-worker every day and we take turns paying the bill, we are not both being "subsidized" in our lunches. Cost sharing is not subsidization.
If people who use the roads are not collectively paying for the roads, who exactly is paying for them? The Chinese? The relatively few people who don't have access to a car or a ride in a car are probably not contributing much to the tax burden anyway so it's not them.
I pay more than just gas taxes. I also pay taxes on tires, sales tax on the auto I purchased, sales tax on repairs and maintenance, title and registration fees, tolls, property taxes and more.
And it's been fun laughing at the likes of you for the past 20 years on these kinds of projects that never go anywhere. Let's circle back in 2030, if you're still around.
Yeah, ha ha ha, what a joke, a project that aims to improve transportation and doesn't rely on fossil fuel ha ha ha let's all laugh when it fails!
Yeah, ha ha ha, what a joke, a project that aims to improve transportation and doesn't rely on fossil fuel ha ha ha let's all laugh when it fails!
At the expense of draining the funds for all the other projects that can actually make a difference. We won't laugh, we'll breath a sigh of relief and cheer.
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.
