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.
The train service is not particularly slow, it just makes a lot of stops.
California's proposed system would involve trains about twice as fast as conventional trains today. By the way, another reason that passenger train service in the United States is relatively slow today is the delays caused by higher-priority freight trains.
The automobile is in your garage, you don't need to travel do it. The train will only be noticeably faster for a fairly small group of people. Talking about the time to travel between train stations is highly misleading, as the majority of riders will have to travel a decent distance to the train stations in question.
I love this logic. You should work for GM ("see the USA in a Chevrolet").
First, ask yourself why you need a car to get to many places at your destination? The answer is, of course, publicly subsidized roadways and free (well, not really, but it seem so to most people), parking. And why free parking? Well, for one thing, the car companies (and the oil refiners and tire producers), helped to write many of the zoning and building ordinances used by most municipalites. You know, the one's that state how many parking spaces are required based upon building occupancy and whether these spaces are "free".
Now if you think about "best use" of a property, a parking space is not which is why parking costs so much in cities. If it didn't, the property would be put to a more productive use. The "urban sprawl" which made owership of a motor vehicle essential was caused by public subsidies of roads, highways and bridges and by free parking (which is nothing more than passing on the cost of the parking to the renters/owners of the property who pass that cost onto their customers in the form of higher prices).
Something else about roadways; they don't pay taxes. The railroads do. So, let's think about this. In today's dollars, the Interstate System (alone) cost over $400 billion to build. At $40 billion/year, which is the Federal share of road, highway and bridge subsidies, we can't even maintain our existing roadways, not even with the States' contributions, which is why in Western PA, for example, there are so many "shovel ready" projects involving roads and bridges. Problem is, many of those projects were first conceived when gas was under $2/gallon and there was no though that our economy would ever contract. Does it make sense to go ahead with transportation projects conceived in the 80s when it is doubtful that we can continue to live the way that we are?
Take away the huge subsidy that we pay for our roads and make the system pay-as-you-go (which the Transportation Department is recommending that we do in the next 10 years), and THEN we'll see what the majority of Americans prefer as their mode of transportation. Wait until oil tops $300/barrel (around 2020, when CAFE standards will be at 35 MPG), and see how competitive automobile transportation is.
But don't talk like passenger rail is some kind of socialism. Of all the transportation systems built in the US, only rail (and canals) were built with private financing. And the relaxing of onerous regulations (route and fare), has restored the nation's rail systems to profitability. In contrast, look at GM, Chrysler, the airlines, etc., all of whom are asking for public bailouts.
The train service is not particularly slow, it just makes a lot of stops.
this isn't true, it's slow and makes a lot of stops. It's certainly not fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
A HSR rail would not be any cheaper to run, the only way the ticket prices would be cheaper is if it was subsidized. But in that case you'd still be paying for it.
no, but you'd be paying a lot less per passenger. I did a comparison last year, the federal government is going to pay $116 per person for air sservice from Lancaster to BWI while the state is paying $6 per person fo train service to Philadelphia and NYC. If you put money into the track, the per person operating subsidy will decline, just as in any other business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The fact that you haven't used the current rail system, says to me that you wouldn't use a HSR either. Driving a family from SF and LA is going to be much cheaper than riding the HSR.
and much slower and perhaps more aggravating. particularly if you can reserve 4 seats at a table on the train.
I think it's ridiculous that someone woudl use military research as an example of what private companies do. If the US government spent less on the military, private companies would spend less on military R&D. the entire industry is subsidized. where's the private company stepping up to spend $20 bn on a second runway at congested Philadelphia airport?
Something else about roadways; they don't pay taxes. The railroads do.
I read that the Erie and Lackawanna railroad was paying the state of NJ $75000 per year per mile on ROW (in inflation adjusted dollars). If the feds do anything, they should exempt railroads from these taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn
Take away the huge subsidy that we pay for our roads and make the system pay-as-you-go (which the Transportation Department is recommending that we do in the next 10 years), and THEN we'll see what the majority of Americans prefer as their mode of transportation. Wait until oil tops $300/barrel (around 2020, when CAFE standards will be at 35 MPG), and see how competitive automobile transportation is.
imagine if gas taxes had to pay for the US warships that escort oil ships in the persian gulf not to mention military operations and bases in the middle east.
Well, I guess companies are willing to invest billions in pharmacudical research, billions in military equipment research, and billions in other sectors of the economy, but they aren't willing to invest billions in high speed trains, despite the sure profits?
You are kidding, right? Most of the advances in technology and pharmaceuticals began as grant-funded research; predominantly Federally funded. Drug companies R&D frequently amounts to little more than finding a variation on an existing product in order to get into an existing market or preserve their standing in the market after the patent expires. Universities know this which is why they have taken to claiming patent rights on research done on their campuses.
As a medical professional, I would be hard pressed to think of a single drug class that didn't begin as grant-funded research. In fact, most of the start-up genetically engineered drug companies are nothing more than commercial licensees of the fruits of public research. Sure, additional research and testing is often done to get the product to market. But it is a fallacy to assert that pharmaceutical companies start with a blank slate.
In fact, among the world's top 10 largest pharmaceutical companies, those which spend the largest percentage of their revenues in R&D are located in countries with some form of government-provided health care which seems to belie the notion that universal health care would stymie pharmaceutical R&D.
This was not always the case. In the late 1800s and early 1900s most innovation came from the private sector. Ironically, what changed that was, in part, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, both of whom believed that innovation and progress would decline if the "bottom line" were the driver. They set up foundations to fund research at universities. Government involvement as the driver for basic science research was insignificant until after WWI when it became clear that technical dominance as well as new technologies to increase survivability and treatment of battlefield injuries were essential to being a dominant military power.
The growth of the Alta Velocidad Española, or AVE, high-speed rail network is having a profound effect on life in Spain. Many Spaniards are fiercely attached to their home regions and studies show they are unusually reluctant to live or even travel elsewhere.
But those centuries-old habits are starting to change as Spain stitches its disparate regions together with a €100 billion ($130 billion) system of bullet trains designed to traverse the countryside at up to 218 miles an hour.
Moderator cut: shortened, copyright protection
. So, even for people as much as 45 minutes away from the nearest terminal, they would still be saving well over an hour each way, maybe more.
You are not adding in any wait time or things of that nature. For many it would not save any time and given the culture they'd be more likely to drive. Even if it saved 30~60 minutes many people would just prefer to drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
This makes economic sense because the marginal cost of providing the service to the additional people in the group is quite low.
This is funny. If the revenue from ticket sales is going to have any hope of covering operation costs than you can't do things like this in any sort of dramatic fashion. After all, if it made so much "economic sense" why is it not done in the market place? Its not because, this is where they make their profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
That is particularly relevant for the hypothetical driver, but also to some extent for hypothetical passengers as well.
If Americans were all that interested in this issue, they would be riding trains in greater numbers. The current rails are not that slow in comparison to driving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
The models take into account the major market factors.
Give me a break. Economic models never account for all "major market factors". They are just toys. Please point to one of these models that takes into account "the major market factors".
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
By the way, another reason that passenger train service in the United States is relatively slow today is the delays caused by higher-priority freight trains.
From my experience this is not a major issue you just split the tracks here and there. I've also never had to wait for a train to pass while riding the Amtrak so it would seem it has fairly high priority.
The answer is, of course, publicly subsidized roadways and free (well, not really, but it seem so to most people), parking. And why free parking?
I do not agree with the current way roads are paid for. If it was up to me I would fund both local and interstate transportation with taxes/fees that are proportional to your usage (fuel taxes, tolls, etc) and also a city level transportation tax on business and individuals (only the first $X should be taxed for individuals).
The government is not subsidizing parking, commercial real estate developers don't get the land used for parking for free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn
The "urban sprawl" which made owership of a motor vehicle essential was caused by public subsidies of roads...
You've got your history mixed up. The automobile started to become widespread in the 1920's, this is before "urban sprawl". Suburbs started to develop in part because the automobile allowed for their existence. This started to happen after WW2.
But suggesting urban sprawl occurred just because of the automobile is to ignore economic reality. As cities develop the associated cost of living goes up due to a variety of factors (The most important of which I think is rent-seeking property owners). The suburbs where attractive because people of lower incomes could afford to purchase a home and the automobile gave them the ability to escape the rent-seekers in the city.
Not much has changed today. And it should be noted the rail systems in Europe have not prevented "urban sprawl" because as I suggest it was not caused by the automobile, rather the automobile was a precondition for it to occur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn
Something else about roadways; they don't pay taxes. The railroads do.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. The railroads are currently subsidized. And the cost of building any new rails will land on the tax payers lap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn
Problem is, many of those projects were first conceived when gas was under $2/gallon and there was no though that our economy would ever contract. Does it make sense to go ahead with transportation projects conceived in the 80s when it is doubtful that we can continue to live the way that we are?
Automobile can run on far more than gas, so this is a non-issue. A number of technologies are ready (or near ready) for the market. There just needs to be demand. As the cost of gas goes up, it will push these alternatives. The free markets in action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn
Take away the huge subsidy that we pay for our roads and make the system pay-as-you-go (which the Transportation Department is recommending that we do in the next 10 years)...
You seem to be under the impression that other modes of transportation are not subsidized, but in reality they all are. After all what is this post about? Obama giving tax payer money to fund upgrades to the rails.
These are not bonds being sold to railroad companies, its a tax payer handout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn
But don't talk like passenger rail is some kind of socialism.
I have never suggested that passenger rails are "some kind of socialism". I have no problem with them being built so long as its private industry doing the building.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn
In contrast, look at GM, Chrysler, the airlines, etc., all of whom are asking for public bailouts.
The rail system has been bailed out many times. As far as GM and Chrysler goes, they should have let them file for Bankruptcy. This is what they are likely to do anyways, they need to bust the unions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pman
this isn't true, it's slow and makes a lot of stops. It's certainly not fast.
It travels faster than automobiles, I don't consider that "slow". It does makes a of stops. And the route in question is not that much longer if you take the train. Actually, the train/bus combo via the central valley is the fastest.
I think her cases demonstrates how Americans prefer travel by automobiles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pman
I think it's ridiculous that someone woudl use military research as an example of what private companies do.
Its not that ridiculous. A lot of weapons are sold to foreign governments and it operates mostly as a free market. But there are plenty of examples of capital intensive projects that are not subsidized in any sense.
Anyhow, our transportation system is planned and at least for many cases that is completely unnecessary and has resulted in a number of unpleasant things. There is no reason why private industry can't do it. Of course, you would no longer be able to rob peter to pay for Paul's transportation needs.
I do not agree with the current way roads are paid for. If it was up to me I would fund both local and interstate transportation with taxes/fees that are proportional to your usage (fuel taxes, tolls, etc) and also a city level transportation tax on business and individuals (only the first $X should be taxed for individuals).
The government is not subsidizing parking, commercial real estate developers don't get the land used for parking for free.
You've got your history mixed up. The automobile started to become widespread in the 1920's, this is before "urban sprawl". Suburbs started to develop in part because the automobile allowed for their existence. This started to happen after WW2.
But suggesting urban sprawl occurred just because of the automobile is to ignore economic reality. As cities develop the associated cost of living goes up due to a variety of factors (The most important of which I think is rent-seeking property owners). The suburbs where attractive because people of lower incomes could afford to purchase a home and the automobile gave them the ability to escape the rent-seekers in the city.
Not much has changed today. And it should be noted the rail systems in Europe have not prevented "urban sprawl" because as I suggest it was not caused by the automobile, rather the automobile was a precondition for it to occur.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. The railroads are currently subsidized. And the cost of building any new rails will land on the tax payers lap.
Automobile can run on far more than gas, so this is a non-issue. A number of technologies are ready (or near ready) for the market. There just needs to be demand. As the cost of gas goes up, it will push these alternatives. The free markets in action.
You seem to be under the impression that other modes of transportation are not subsidized, but in reality they all are. After all what is this post about? Obama giving tax payer money to fund upgrades to the rails.
These are not bonds being sold to railroad companies, its a tax payer handout.
I have never suggested that passenger rails are "some kind of socialism". I have no problem with them being built so long as its private industry doing the building.
The rail system has been bailed out many times. As far as GM and Chrysler goes, they should have let them file for Bankruptcy. This is what they are likely to do anyways, they need to bust the unions.
It travels faster than automobiles, I don't consider that "slow". It does makes a of stops. And the route in question is not that much longer if you take the train. Actually, the train/bus combo via the central valley is the fastest.
I think her cases demonstrates how Americans prefer travel by automobiles.
Its not that ridiculous. A lot of weapons are sold to foreign governments and it operates mostly as a free market. But there are plenty of examples of capital intensive projects that are not subsidized in any sense.
Anyhow, our transportation system is planned and at least for many cases that is completely unnecessary and has resulted in a number of unpleasant things. There is no reason why private industry can't do it. Of course, you would no longer be able to rob peter to pay for Paul's transportation needs.
Homework assignment:
Please name a large airport hub that was built using nothing but private funds and operates at a profit based purely upon the market demand for use of said airport. For extra credit, please name a new road project that was funded by a private interest and operates at a profit.
There are simply things that the private sector cannot do. The creation of large infrastructure is one of them. No one but the government has the billions needed build a non-existent piece of major infrastructure. By your logic the interstate highway system would have built itself, and major international airports would have been financed because they are good business opportunities as stand-alone entities.
Libertarians crack me up in their simple-minded ideology that everything must have a singular profit motive. Granted some projects are wasteful, but public projects are there because they create external benefits, and ultimately bolster the private sector.
I do not agree with the current way roads are paid for. If it was up to me I would fund both local and interstate transportation with taxes/fees that are proportional to your usage (fuel taxes, tolls, etc) and also a city level transportation tax on business and individuals (only the first $X should be taxed for individuals).
The problem is, in reality, the only place the market is allowed to work is for trains while planes, cars, etc work in the subsidized market place. I think you are completely on point that there needs to be more pay per use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The government is not subsidizing parking, commercial real estate developers don't get the land used for parking for free.
depends on how things are taxed but in land value taxation, this should be pretty much true. frequently parking is "subsidized" by rents, such as at a mall. It's not free, nothing is, just included. the downtown equivalent would be retailers striking a deal with parking operators for "free" parking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
You've got your history mixed up. The automobile started to become widespread in the 1920's, this is before "urban sprawl". Suburbs started to develop in part because the automobile allowed for their existence. This started to happen after WW2.
actually, suburbs date to teh creation of the railroad. still, we shouldn't confuse 1920's era suburbs with urban sprawl. 1920's suburbs still retained the town model and were actually fairly innovative with how cars fit into life (but this was before the power of zoning and the auto centric central planning)
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
As cities develop the associated cost of living goes up due to a variety of factors (The most important of which I think is rent-seeking property owners). The suburbs where attractive because people of lower incomes could afford to purchase a home and the automobile gave them the ability to escape the rent-seekers in the city.
well, that and the feds adopted stndard lot sizes for subsidized mortgages (which effectively excluded cities), the adoption of the progressive income tax (which penalizes high wage earners in high cost of living areas), red lining, urban renewal, white flight, the War on Prosperity, etc, etc. oh yes, the federall subsidized interstate highway system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Not sure what you are trying to say here. The railroads are currently subsidized. And the cost of building any new rails will land on the tax payers lap.
how so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
You seem to be under the impression that other modes of transportation are not subsidized, but in reality they all are. After all what is this post about? Obama giving tax payer money to fund upgrades to the rails.
one should probably separate freight from passenger rail but yes, they all are, why are you singling out rail to complain about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
I have never suggested that passenger rails are "some kind of socialism". I have no problem with them being built so long as its private industry doing the building.
private industry is free to compete with Amtrak, I'm hopeful they will one day do so. nonetheless, the feds subsidize all transportation and rail should be part of that mix
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
It travels faster than automobiles, I don't consider that "slow". It does makes a of stops. And the route in question is not that much longer if you take the train. Actually, the train/bus combo via the central valley is the fastest.
It only travels faster than autos east of harrisburg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
I think her cases demonstrates how Americans prefer travel by automobiles.
of course, it was subsidized to be that way so that's kind of irrelevant. that's like putting out coors and bud with a sign that the bud is free and saying "Americans prefer bud"
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Its not that ridiculous. A lot of weapons are sold to foreign governments and it operates mostly as a free market. But there are plenty of examples of capital intensive projects that are not subsidized in any sense.
I guess the hundreds of billions our government spends is miniscule, despite being as much as the next several countries combined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Anyhow, our transportation system is planned and at least for many cases that is completely unnecessary and has resulted in a number of unpleasant things. There is no reason why private industry can't do it. Of course, you would no longer be able to rob peter to pay for Paul's transportation needs.
you're right but it's not going to happen. politicians are aware of the importance of transportation in determining the future growth prospects of an area. even in the days of the private rail system, politicians did everything they could to sway railroad officials to put a stop in their town.
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.
