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.
Private companies are contracted by the state to build the trains and stations, lay the tracks, to do consulting work, etc. The private sector is always heavily involved in the process. It creates a lot of jobs for private business.
In Spain for example, private companies are hired to operate some of the lines once they are built.
When something is profitable (especially with the glowing terms you use for HSR) private companies would have built some HSR in America by now.
Was the Trans Continental Railway built with government subsidies?
When something is profitable (especially with the glowing terms you use for HSR) private companies would have built some HSR in America by now.
Was the Trans Continental Railway built with government subsidies?
NO
Wrong. No company has the resources or the ability to manage a large scale infrastructure project such as a national railway or even a state-wide railway. Only the government is capable of doing that.
And yes, the transcontinental railway was built with government funds. The private sector was contracted to do the actual labor and construction, but the project was administered and managed by public agencies on the state and federal levels.
Private companies are contracted by the state to build the trains and stations, lay the tracks, to do consulting work, etc. The private sector is always heavily involved in the process. It creates a lot of jobs for private business.
And private companies build solar panels, wind mills and all kinds of things because the government is paying for it, the business may profit but it doesn't mean its profitable. By your definition the military is profitable.
And yes, the transcontinental railway was built with government funds. The private sector was contracted to do the actual labor and construction, but the project was administered and managed by public agencies on the state and federal levels.
How did I know you were going to say that?
Wrong again.... Land grants of government land and bond sales are NOT subsidies and private companies were NOT used as sub-contractors...
Here, read this and then you might be able to talk intelligently on the subject.
And private companies build solar panels, wind mills and all kment to sucinds of things because the government is paying for it, the business may profit but it doesn't mean its profitable. By your definition the military is profitable.
Most private business ventures that don't involve public funding of any kind usually end up failing or losing money. There's always some kind of risk going into any kind of business. Does that mean private investments should be banned?
You can't expect all private business ventures to be successful because most of them are not. Just as you cannot expect every government investment to succeed (Solyndra being an example of a publicly-funded failure). Its ridiculous to always expect 100% success just because public funding is involved.
You can always minimize risk, but never eliminate it. That's the nature of any kind of business, public or private.
We had a chance with the stimulus money.
China used theirs to build high speed rail.
We broke ours up into a bazillion little projects in cities all over the US.
We repaved roads that were just paved, built turtle tunnels under highways, hike and bike trails that go nowhere and literally 1/2 of a bridge. Oh and don't forget that busy John Murtha airport renovation to the tune of over $200 million..those handful of folks that use it are mighty greatful.
And we threw some cash to green energy companies that went bankrupt.
That's what we did with our stimulus. It was supposed to go to infrastructure. I'm sure the turtles are thankful for their tunnels.
We did that but most of the money went back to fund government union workers to pay them back for their support.
I wouldn't have wanted to spend on HSR but we could have improved our power grid or put in infrastructure for natural gas use.
Hey cisco, this another corporate media's campaign of misinformation too?
Dateline: Jan 6, 2012
High Speed Rail in California
The California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group issued a report on Tuesday that recommended that the state legislature should not issue any bond money for the project. The $98.5 billion project would seem to have to go back to the drawing board. The Peer Review Group was specifically empowered to make a recommendation before any money could be spent.
The Peer Review report specifically said: ”Moving ahead on the HSR project without credible sources of adequate funding, without a definitive business model, without a strategy to maximize the independent utility and value to the state, and without the appropriate management resources, represents an immense financial risk to the part of the state of California,” wrote Will Kempton, peer review group chairman, in the report. “The Peer Review Group cannot at this time recommend that the Legislature approve the appropriation of bond proceeds for the project.”
It was built with the help of land grants - the companies tried to make the distances longer so they'd get more in government subsidies...
Thanks, I said that in post #25....
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.
