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'm a Libertarian and I favor small government. I'm certainly not a Democrat, so don't call me a leftist.
I'm sincerely curious:
Conservatives frequently base their opposition to spending on Amtrak and other mass transit on a desire for a free market in transportation, and they claim that government shouldn't spend money on a transportation service that loses money.
However, they so often favor increasing spending on highways and airports (and even subsidies to airlines, after 9/11, in 2020 and for "essential air service"), and even out of general revenues.
Do conservatives not see the inconsistency?
You realize highway spending is based on pay-as-you-go fuel taxes, right? Highways are self supporting financially.
I can't speak to airports, but it is what it is. Airlines need modest subsidies. Rail needs massive subsidies. There is your difference. It is just a matter of how much money you want to waste.
The automotive industry and the airline industry are special interests. They stand to make enormous profits off of this public infrastructure spending, so they support politicians who have their back.
No private enterprises want passenger rail. They are content to push freight. Therefore, there is no special interest pumping large amounts of money into lobbying efforts for it. If there were, you can bet conservative politicians would be for it, because the dark money would want it and they would tell their bought congresspeople and senators to push it.
So that is left to the idealists and advanced thinkers to promote. They can not count on getting any lobbying investment back from future sales because there is no financial gain in it for them, so there is really not a lot in terms of resources to push these projects through congress. They have nothing but moral suasion, and that is not enough to overcome the special interest's dark money grasp on congress. Other countries seem not to have this problem but we are hamstrung by it.
Even though we know such projects as high speed passenger rail would be better for the country as a whole, the special interests kill it off.
Nobody "pushes" rail freight. Just as nobody "pushes" oceanic freight. Trains and freighter ships are economically viable. They are the most cost effective solutions for what they do. Nobody has to "push" them.
It is patently false that auto manufacturer lobies are killing passenger rail development. Politicians love passenger rail and would do anything possible to add it, lobbyists be damned. The fact is, passenger rail anywhere but in the highest density cities is a huge money loser.
It can be grass, so people can use horse/mules/donkeys/camels/reindeer too to pull a wagon. Most hwy going through rural areas have large patches of grass along the shoulders so the horses can feed, and defecate (which in turns fertilizes). Nothing is more natural than horses/donkeys/mules/camels/reindeer, and is the most sustainable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker
I don't either the only time we used the train was for going cross country and on an occasional trip to New York City. But as a rail fan I have nothing against trains. In some places trains are more practical for commuting to a major city like New York City from where we used to live in the Hudson Valley. I certainly would not like to use my car if I had to commute to Manhattan if I worked there or have to drive into Manhattan and leave my car parked somewhere if I was there for a visit.
When we lived in the Hudson Valley it would be highly impractical to take a train to where we worked as you'd have to have a train station in every town throughout that area and then have to take a cab to work. You can't use a train to go grocery shopping and using a train to run errands wouldn't be too practical either. Unless of course you lived or worked in Manhattan where mass transit is about the only practical way to get around.
We rarely went to New York City for anything. If we were going into Manhattan we'd take the train. If we went to the outer boroughs we'd drive there. But then again it all depends on what you're going there for where you are going and what your schedule is. If I was going to visit a relative who lived in Brooklyn I'd take my vehicle. If my job was in Brooklyn I'd take the train to Grand Central Station then take the subway to Brooklyn.
As much as I can't stand New York City they have a pretty good public transportation system where you really don't need a personal vehicle to get around if you're staying within the confines of the five boroughs.
Obviously having a public transportation system in every town and city from the smallest to the biggest throughout the entire United States like New York City's would be prohibitively expensive and highly impractical. There's no way that any rational person could even think of justifying that. Those that do are not rational.
When you're traveling long distance either by flying or by train depending on where you are going and what you plan on doing renting a car may be your only option. Like places such as Flagstaff where we arrived. As we planned on looking at different places to move to throughout Arizona. It would be impossible to take a bus or cab to all of those places. If you're going from LA to New York City and plan on staying within the confines of New York City public transportation may be a better option. Again it all depends on what your plans are.
Even the NYC MTA cannot fund itself just from the service it provides. Unless they increase prices to point which those with the most need for the Subway can barely afford.
MTA has to keep borrowing/refinancing, and never ever actually paying its debt off. More new money has to be created pumped into it.
You realize highway spending is based on pay-as-you-go fuel taxes, right? Highways are self supporting financially.
I can't speak to airports, but it is what it is. Airlines need modest subsidies. Rail needs massive subsidies. There is your difference. It is just a matter of how much money you want to waste.
Your first sentence is not correct. Fuel taxes pay only part of the cost of highways, and fuel taxes are drying up. See, among others:
Airlines require huge subsidies for Essential Air Service: over $600 per passenger for service to some airports, just for operating flights (and that excludes airport costs):
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 18 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,531,868 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSPNative
I'm a Libertarian and I favor small government. I'm certainly not a Democrat, so don't call me a leftist.
I'm sincerely curious:
Conservatives frequently base their opposition to spending on Amtrak and other mass transit on a desire for a free market in transportation, and they claim that government shouldn't spend money on a transportation service that loses money.
However, they so often favor increasing spending on highways and airports (and even subsidies to airlines, after 9/11, in 2020 and for "essential air service"), and even out of general revenues.
Do conservatives not see the inconsistency?
The worst part is that it doesnt even make sense.
Rail lines in the deep south for example would do much more for the rural poor, than an airport renovation in Charlotte.
Rail lines in the deep south for example would do much more for the rural poor, than an airport renovation in Charlotte.
The expansion of rail lines and service in the Deep South (or any rural area in North America) would make no sense whatsoever today.
The rural "branch line", usually featuring one daily (or possibly, semi-weekly) train was always built before the coming of the automobile, the light-duty truck and the all-weather highway; it served mostly feed mills, fuel dealers, and possibly a lumber yard or two. Once the highway network developed, perishable and livestock traffic was quickly shifted to trucking.
And as freight cars gradually grew from 40- to 100-ton capacity, new methods of freight-handling also evolved, the larger shipments might be too much for one consignee, but in-bulk handling allowed those 100 tons to be broken down into smaller shipments delivered over the last few miles by highway; bulk shipments and handling also eliminated the need for labor to handle feed in 100-lb burlap sacks.
But if some people want to go back to the romanticized "good ol' days", well .....
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 06-13-2021 at 04:32 PM..
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 18 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,531,868 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
The expansion of rail lines and service in the Deep South (or any rural area in North America) would make no sense whatsoever today.
The rural "branch line", usually featuring one daily (or possibly, semi-weekly) train was always built before the coming of the automobile, the light-duty truck and the all-weather highway; it served mostly feed mills, fuel dealers, and possibly a lumber yard or two. Once the highway network developed, perishable and livestock traffic was quickly shifted to trucking.
And as freight cars gradually grew from 40- to 100-ton capacity, new methods of freight-handling also evolved, the larger shipments might be too much for one consignee, but in-bulk handling allowed those 100 tons to be broken down into smaller shipments delivered over the last few miles by highway; bulk shipments and handling also eliminated the need for labor to handle feed in 100-lb burlap sacks.
But if some people want to go back to the romanticized "good ol' days", well .....
I completely disagree.
We build entire suburbs of 20,000+ residents in 10 year phases. We could certainly modernize our transportation system to incorporate rail if we wanted too. We simply choose not to.
There are actually a could of youtube channels that go into great detail on this
The expansion of rail lines and service in the Deep South (or any rural area in North America) would make no sense whatsoever today.
The rural "branch line", usually featuring one daily (or possibly, semi-weekly) train was always built before the coming of the automobile, the light-duty truck and the all-weather highway; it served mostly feed mills, fuel dealers, and possibly a lumber yard or two. Once the highway network developed, perishable and livestock traffic was quickly shifted to trucking.
And as freight cars gradually grew from 40- to 100-ton capacity, new methods of freight-handling also evolved, the larger shipments might be too much for one consignee, but in-bulk handling allowed those 100 tons to be broken down into smaller shipments delivered over the last few miles by highway; bulk shipments and handling also eliminated the need for labor to handle feed in 100-lb burlap sacks.
But if some people want to go back to the romanticized "good ol' days", well .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
I completely disagree.
We build entire suburbs of 20,000+ residents in 10 year phases. We could certainly modernize our transportation system to incorporate rail if we wanted too. We simply choose not to.
One is talking 'freight' the other is talking 'passenger'. Apples and Oranges.
We build entire suburbs of 20,000+ residents in 10 year phases. We could certainly modernize our transportation system to incorporate rail if we wanted too. We simply choose not to.
I'll admit that I haven't read this entire thread. But being someone who will admit to never quite grown out of loving trains, I would say that the primary issue (in my humble opinion) has nothing to do with concept and is completely related to "implementation". I would be 100% behind most any rail initiative if I thought that it could be implemented in a cost effective manner, but therein lies the rub, I have literally 0 (zero, none, zip, zero, zilch) faith in any governmental agency to do so. Some folk believe in the concept so much that they are more than willing to ignore reality. I honestly think that rail could be implemented in a way that makes sense and actually provides real benefit to us all. I also honestly think that given the current realities of local and state governments, that most any decent sized rail project will end up being implemented in a way that will eventual fail to meet meet my (and the majority of the populace's) expectations.
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.
