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.
I said it once, I will say it again. If you have money invest in alternative energy and infrastructure (ie mass transit, Pebble Bed nuke reactors etc.)
Mass transit loses money on operations world wide... HongKong has the only passenger rail system where fares support operations... all others require taxpayer support. And that is for operations... if you look at capital costs for developing the infrastucture it is a huge tax drain with a high cost per passenger everywhere.
There is money to be made in the press to find alternative energy sources but it will be where money is going, not necessarily where it was spent in the past.
Mass transit loses money on operations world wide... HongKong has the only passenger rail system where fares support operations... all others require taxpayer support. And that is for operations... if you look at capital costs for developing the infrastucture it is a huge tax drain with a high cost per passenger everywhere.
There is money to be made in the press to find alternative energy sources but it will be where money is going, not necessarily where it was spent in the past.
Quote:
Operations researchers working with Netherlands Railways constructed an improved timetable. As a result, the percentage of trains arriving within 3 minutes of the scheduled time increased from 84.8 % in 2006 to 87.0 % in 2007. Public opinion surveys showed greater commuter satisfaction and the number of passengers grew by 2% in the first six months of 2007 alone.
In 2007, these more efficient schedules and the increased number of passengers resulted in an additional annual profit of 40 million Euros (approximately $60 million). Additional annual profits are expected to grow to 70 million Euros (approximately $105 million) in coming years. A further increase in mass transit is now possible, which would reduce road congestion and pollution from greenhouse gases.
So this shows the above statement isn't accurate. But more importantly how many of these companies (mass transit authorities) are for profit as opposed to not for profit? The entire way of how mass transit has been done will be rethought. I expect a lot of public/private partnerships. Look into the matter, i think you will see what I am getting at.
Re mass transit. Many of these companies (if they are out of the US) are also heavily subsidized by their respective goverments. That being said, if there are investment opportunities in the US, wouldn't they come as muni bonds to pay for some of these services? Just wondering.
I think they will be municiple bonds may play a roll in this, but I also think a lot of it may be done with a public/private venture which could mean other forms of financing as well. Just look at warren buffet and what he has been investing in (rail). My take on it is this, yes we will have alternative fuels but with limited access to credit moving forward how many will be able to purchase a new fangled vehicle, at least not for some time. I think the answers to how to move forward will be many fold. Meaning not only alternative fuel by good old fashioned foot to pavement (more walkable cities), it will be build out of broadband (telecommuting) it will be alternative fuel vehicles (fuel cell maybe?) it will be mass transit. I think the government knows it can't go it alone and I think a lot of private companies will play a part in a lot of this.
In doing some research the other night I saw that trains run on diesel fuel (I never knew that). But they are better for transporting goods and people than trucks (maybe even planes?) because they can carry more goods\people per gallon of diesel fuel used (more efficient). You also have to look at the jobless numbers. If jobs dry up as many are predicting they will need something to put these people back to work (infrastructure related jobs?). All this is just my opinion, which was heavily influenced by reading Eric Janszen's article in Harper's magazine along with Nourel Roubini. So I could be wrong.
Quote: Operations researchers working with Netherlands Railways constructed an improved timetable. As a result, the percentage of trains arriving within 3 minutes of the scheduled time increased from 84.8 % in 2006 to 87.0 % in 2007. Public opinion surveys showed greater commuter satisfaction and the number of passengers grew by 2% in the first six months of 2007 alone.
In 2007, these more efficient schedules and the increased number of passengers resulted in an additional annual profit of 40 million Euros (approximately $60 million). Additional annual profits are expected to grow to 70 million Euros (approximately $105 million) in coming years. A further increase in mass transit is now possible, which would reduce road congestion and pollution from greenhouse gases.
Nederlandse Spoorwegen is the passenger transport arm of the entire system. The government (the Dutch National Rail Infrastructure Company) is still responsible for maintenance and operation of the physical power plant. In addition, as is very typical in Europe, there are a huge amount of joint venture partnerships with government and quasi-government entities making a true P&L for operating passenger trains not something that can be identified and reported.
what do you mean by "quasi government" private companies under heavy govt regulation or something else? If it is what I ASSUME you are meaning, this is what I think America will end up doing.
The rails were nationalized and consolidated more than once over the last 150 years to keep them running. Huge government investments have been channeled into privatized operations but concluding it is profitable overall ignores much of the facts.
"The network used to be operated by NS (Nederlandse Spoorwegen, Dutch Railways) but in recent years EU regulation has forced European governments to break the old state rail monopolies and the "old" NS was split up and new operators appearing such as ACTS and Prorail.
It remains to be seen if these companies will be of benefit to the country or turn our fine rail network into the complete mess that they have wrought in the United Kingdom. NS itself was also divided into several independent companies."
The rails were nationalized and consolidated more than once over the last 150 years to keep them running. Huge government investments have been channeled into privatized operations but concluding it is profitable overall ignores much of the facts.
"The network used to be operated by NS (Nederlandse Spoorwegen, Dutch Railways) but in recent years EU regulation has forced European governments to break the old state rail monopolies and the "old" NS was split up and new operators appearing such as ACTS and Prorail.
It remains to be seen if these companies will be of benefit to the country or turn our fine rail network into the complete mess that they have wrought in the United Kingdom. NS itself was also divided into several independent companies."
More examples in the world where mass transit is self sustaining or profitable link (http://www.apta.com/services/intnatl/intfocus/privlam.cfm - broken link). I will dig up more info on the NS system to see if the first link i found was accurate or not but from the looks of it, your initial claim is inaccurate. Korea or wherever you said is not the only mass transit system that turns a profit or is self sustaining. Public-private partnerships are forming now in America and now would be a good time to invest (again doing research in how it is done in some areas in canada or europe or even latin america will show what I am talking about).
There are other links out there as well from government case studies for public private partnerships, cost savings and how they have worked in other countries (These cases show where there is no subsidizing by govt and the system runs itself and in some cases turn profit).
From your link the quotes hardly sound like profitable ventures…
‘practically self-sustaining’, ‘its operating subsidy has dropped’, ‘operating with a subsidy of $30 million’
And this is after the public has spent billions in building the infrastructure.
If you want to invest in mass transit it will be the companies building the trains or the hugely overpriced green busses that so many cities think they need.
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.
