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 agree. My point was that subsidies are not necessarily the problem, it is just where they are directed.
For example, in the 1800's the federal government gave away huge quantities of land and funneled money to railroads to speed the construction of lines in the West. We could of course do that again in order to implement a high speed rail network(s).
But then 100 years down the road we would still be subsidizing trains, and hindering, let's say for ****s and giggles, hover crafts. It was a different time when they built the trans continantal railroad. Subsidies are bad policy no matter where they are directed.
But then 100 years down the road we would still be subsidizing trains, and hindering, let's say for ****s and giggles, hover crafts. It was a different time when they built the trans continantal railroad. Subsidies are bad policy no matter where they are directed.
I just don't believe that all.
Without some support from the government, we are simply not going to have a transportation infrastructure at all. Transportation is a natural monopoly because of the costs involved and the economies of scale. Therefore, there's either going to be government ownership or heavy regulation. We have historically taken the former in regards to our road construction and the later in regards to our rail. Most countries that have an extensive rail network treat their rails like they treat their roads - government construction and ownership.
I would be all for subsidizing trains as long as the gov't set a date, say 20 years down the road, to then cut off federal funds. If a local municipality or county or state wanted to continue to subsidize it, that is up to the local government.
Transit in general is not self-financing. Should we also cut off funding to the interstate highway system? We could do that, by imposing high-enough tolls across the system to make the system self-funding. Non-self-funding segments (like I-80 from Salt Lake City across Nevada to Sacramento) would probably be abandoned altogether.
I would be all for subsidizing trains as long as the gov't set a date, say 20 years down the road, to then cut off federal funds. If a local municipality or county or state wanted to continue to subsidize it, that is up to the local government.
Well perhaps that would work but what I think is probably a better option is to have the government build, operate and own the tracks while leasing the track to private companies that run the trains. I know this is how some European countries run their system. The other option would just to have a fully owned and operated government system. That's what France does and they have one of the best systems in the world.
The biggest cost is to get the right-of-way and build the rail.
Transit in general is not self-financing. Should we also cut off funding to the interstate highway system? We could do that, by imposing high-enough tolls across the system to make the system self-funding. Non-self-funding segments (like I-80 from Salt Lake City across Nevada to Sacramento) would probably be abandoned altogether.
I see transit in general as a government service that is provided in order that society and businesses may operate generally without worrying about it. Police and fire service are other examples.
Of course, we used to have private police and fire services but that didn't work out too well.
well the problem with passenger rail (Amtrak) is that it runs on freight lines so they are at the whim of those companies and their freight schedules. Except for the Northeast corridor which is DC to Boston with it's Acela trains the rest of the system is pretty bleak in terms of time travel.
When I lived in Ohio, I wanted to take the train from Pittsburgh to Philly. It would have taken 8 hours via train .... 4.5 hours to drive and have transport while I was there.
You should specify that it's PASSENGER rail that needs investment. Freight is doing fairly well. They are increasing train speeds around Harrisburg to philly with the track flagged for doing around 90 or so mph.
Also, The NYC-DC route actually carries more people than the planes that do the same trip. It's all about economy vs time.
Of course, we used to have private police and fire services but that didn't work out too well.
As an aside: I have private fire protection. Not taxpayer provided
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.
