Answering a question with a question (or questions) doesn’t answer it very well.
That said, others answered yours okay.
Care to tackle mine?
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, two weeks, six days, 13 hours, 10 minutes and 13 seconds.
6941 cigarettes not smoked, saving $867.74.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 2 hours, 25 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
Because it’s not a fast, too expensive, you’d need more land, plus you’d need more people going to the same place at the same time. I used to take the train from Frederick, MD to Washington DC everyday for work, now I take my motorcycle, it’s cheaper, generally faster and I can come and go as I please. I can also get to NYC from Frederick faster than I can by train and a hell of a lot cheaper.
The other problem with trains is that you can’t have the spurs of tracks like you can with highways, plus you still have to get to the station and that takes time and roads. I don’t think that trains are much of an answer really, at least not in the states as who really goes to NYC from DC everyday? not many I’m sure. and trains are frequently late as there where many complaints about the DC to Chigaco trains a year or two ago that where always late.
I still think that the answer is to use more motorcycles, they get much better gas milage, are cheaper to make etc. or at least make cars that are smaller and promote more car pooling. But the same goes for car pooling, people have different scheduals. there is no easy answer for travel until we get transporters or something. maybe we should spend tons of money on that instead.
waterj2: *Gasoline is subsidized? I always thought it was taxed.
The automobile industry as well could easily survive without the government’s help, but has realized that it can get money from more people than just those who buy its cars. You have any cites to back up the assertion that the automobile and gasoline industries are kept afloat through government subsidies? It runs counter to everything I’ve heard. *
Then you haven’t been paying attention to any of the recent threads here on public transit, for one thing. Indeed there are lots of public subsidies that artificially lower the cost of gasoline and cars. Here is a 1998 article:
Now most of the above costs are not what I would consider direct “subsidies”, although they are certainly external costs that are not recouped specifically from the gasoline consumer. Nonetheless, direct tax and spending subsidies are part of the package too. Overall, gasoline prices are much farther from representing the real cost of the product than train tickets are.
Similarly, the sticker price of an automobile comes nowhere near to representing its hidden costs for parking, highway construction and safety, and so forth (many of which overlap with the external costs of gasoline mentioned above); see this VTPI report for details.
Now I don’t claim that the automobile and oil industries couldn’t possibly survive without the public subsidizing their external costs (although I think they would certainly suffer some significant changes if they had to charge fair market prices for their products). I merely claim that as things are, they are getting at least as much of a free ride as Amtrak is.
*You have any real reason that passenger rail should be run by the government rather than the privately? *
I never said it shouldn’t. I was simply pointing out, in response to Satan’s bitching about Amtrak subsidies, that automobile travel is also heavily subsidized. If we’re going to cut off public subsidies for transportation, let’s do it across the board, and then we’ll see what mode is really cheapest.
Satan: *Answering a question with a question (or questions) doesn’t answer it very well. *
As I noted to waterj2, the point I was trying to make is that it’s not fair to contrast subsidized rail travel with automobile travel unless you also take into account the subsidies, hidden and explicit, that make automobiles and their fuel artificially cheaper. Why do you think it’s bad to give tax subsidies to Amtrak but okay to have, for example, zoning regulations that mandate minimum parking requirements, or taxes on non-car-owning city dwellers to pay for municipal parking lots? If you’re going to complain about the “unfair” breaks that one transit mode is receiving, you have to make sure you’re considering the advantages the competition is getting as well.
*That said, others answered yours okay. *
Not really: see above.
*Care to tackle mine? *
See above.
First of all, the government paying to clean up oil spills is not the same as “here’s money because you obviously aren’t making any.” And that seems to be (in a vast oversimplification, purhaps, but hopefully not an inacurate one) what we are doing as far as gas is concerned. If we start looking at indirect costs involved, we start to think about shooting the moth flapping its wings in Asia for the hurricane it might or might not cause off the east coast of the US.
Also, most gas produced doesn’t wind up in cars, I don’t think. I’ll bet that most of the stuff is used in other things - houses as well (especially if we include both natural gas and oil) and lip balms for that matter. Even if cars and trucks are the leading users of petroleum products, the rest has to be significant when added up.
Finally, I will grant you that the government pays for the roads (except in New Jersey… Heh!) But the government also pays for the tracks, do they not? Big difference between fixing tracks and saying “here is some money, Mr. Choo-Choo Train,” isn’t there?
And I don’t think for one second that automobile manufactuers are hurting for money en masse, a fucked-up Daewoo notwithstanding.
In any event, even if we were to show that cars use a ton of government subsidies, that would be because (in theory) nobody would be able to drive if they didn’t. Too cost prohibitive. Whereas, why aren’t the fares that riders pay enough - would THEY TOO be much more without a check from uncle Sam directly for their operational costs (not track maintenance, I stress).
By the same token, what of the airline industry? Sure, the government oversees airports and other agencies involved in flying (safety overseers and crash dissection come to mind), but are they just GIVING checks to US Air here? Is Northwest Airlines ridership at all-time highs (to be analagous to the situation trains have now according to the OP) and they still need several million dollars from Uncle Sam? Do they get it? Should they?
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, two weeks, six days, 16 hours, 15 minutes and 26 seconds.
6947 cigarettes not smoked, saving $868.39.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 2 hours, 55 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
Satan: *First of all, the government paying to clean up oil spills is not the same as “here’s money because you obviously aren’t making any.” *
Not exactly the same, but it’s still a handout provided by the taxpayer so that the industry doesn’t have to bear the full costs of its operation. If we made oil companies pay to clean up all their own messes and protect all their own supplies, their profits would take a big hit.
*If we start looking at indirect costs involved, we start to think about shooting the moth flapping its wings in Asia for the hurricane it might or might not cause off the east coast of the US. *
I agree that indirect costs are a pain to evaluate, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have to worry about them. If one industry is relying heavily on direct subsidies and another is relying even more heavily on indirect subsidies, we won’t get a fair comparison between them in terms of true cost-effectiveness if we restrict our consideration just to direct subsidies. (And don’t forget that there are direct subsidies involved in gasoline costs too, according to the article I quoted: however you look at it, oil companies have their hands in the taxpayer’s pocket as surely as Amtrak does.)
*Also, most gas produced doesn’t wind up in cars, I don’t think. I’ll bet that most of the stuff is used in other things - houses as well (especially if we include both natural gas and oil) and lip balms for that matter. Even if cars and trucks are the leading users of petroleum products, the rest has to be significant when added up. *
Right, but all that means is that these other petroleum-dependent industries are also getting subsidized, as well as the gasoline industry.
*Finally, I will grant you that the government pays for the roads (except in New Jersey… Heh!) But the government also pays for the tracks, do they not? *
Some, especially for things like rail-and-road crossings, but as was pointed out before, Amtrak pays other rail companies such as Conrail to use their tracks, and the other rail companies have to spend for track maintenance too. I don’t know how much of the cost is borne by the govt. vs. by the private companies, but I can try to find out.
*And I don’t think for one second that automobile manufactuers are hurting for money en masse, a fucked-up Daewoo notwithstanding. *
Neither do I, but I think that that’s partly because their product is so heavily subsidized. If we put taxes on autos and gasoline that were really sufficient to cover the major costs of their use, Detroit would not be feeling so fat and happy.
*In any event, even if we were to show that cars use a ton of government subsidies, that would be because (in theory) nobody would be able to drive if they didn’t. Too cost prohibitive. *
Well, why is it better to subsidize cars in order to make them cheap enough for lots of people to use them than to subsidize trains for the same purpose?
Because most people in this country use automobiles rather then the rail system. The rail system lost out to the automobile decades ago and I doubt it’ll be making much of a come back. If you rely on rail for travel then you are very restricted in where you can go. Even in countries like Germany there are a large number of automobiles and an excellent highway systemn.
The rail system is a 19th century answer to a 21st century problem. It isn’t going to solve pollution or commuter traffic like promised. New York has a great rail system and is traffic any better? So here’s my list of why we should focus on the automobile.
#1. Automobiles have become more gas efficent and green friendly over the decades. That trend will continue in the future and realistic alternative fuels are within reach.
#2. On board computers will go a long way towards solving rush hour traffic jams. Basically the computer controls your vehicle so in bumper to bumper traffic you’ll still be going 60 mph.
#3. With an automobile I don’t have to set my schedule to match that of the rail system. I can come and go where and as I please.
I admit that the problems aren't going to be solved overnight. But we shouldn't look towards 19th century concepts to solve our 21st century problems.
Marc
MGibson: *The rail system is a 19th century answer to a 21st century problem. It isn’t going to solve pollution or commuter traffic like promised. *
I don’t think anybody’s arguing that we should do away with cars and only use trains. But mass transit certainly does reduce pollution and commuter traffic, especially in high population-density areas like Northeastern cities.
New York has a great rail system and is traffic any better?
Yes, it’s a hell of a lot better than it would be without the rail system! Can you imagine what city traffic would be like if everyone in New York (or San Francisco, or Boston) were driving his or her own car?
Advocating railroads as the sole mode of transit in a country as large and non-uniform as the U.S. would indeed be a 19th-century answer to a 21st-century problem; it can’t work. But advocating the private automobile as the sole mode of transit is a mid-20th-century answer to a 21st-century problem. It won’t work either, no matter how many onboard computers you have.
“Finally, I will grant you that the government pays for the roads (except in New Jersey… Heh!) But the government also pays for the tracks, do they not? Big difference between fixing tracks and saying ‘here is some money, Mr. Choo-Choo Train,’ isn’t there?”
Read my second posting above. The government does NOT pay for the tracks! With the exception of the Northeast and some commuter tracks in Chicago and other cities, the rail system is entirely privately owned by the companies that operate the freight trains. Private companies lay the tracks, maintain them, operate them. Amtrak, a government-owned corporation, uses those freight tracks for a fee to operate its passenger trains.
It’s true that I said the states are paying for improvements to some lines in the Midwest. But this is:
something they’ve just started to do in literally the last couple of years. Before that, the federal or state governments had no role in improving privately-owned rail lines.
a program involving only a few million dollars a year, sums easily devoured by what is spent on a single major highway project.
mainly the closing of grade crossings, or the installation of four-way gates, to keep pedestrians and motorists out of the way of trains. This is part of a state’s highway responsibilties independent of how it helps the railway.
“the government oversees airports”
No, the government doesn’t “oversee” airports in the way that the Feds oversee the safety of privately-manufactured pharmaceuticals or cities oversee private land development. That’s nonsense. The government owns and pays for airports directly. Most airports are owned by a county, city, or a special authority, and all major airports with significant interstate traffic get a big chunk of federal money for construction and capital improvements.
And I know you meant “Mr. Choo-Choo Train” facetiously, but many a truth was said in jest. Even though trains haven’t been pulled by steam engines for around 50 years, and can achieve speeds of 70 mph or more on many lines, the image that comes to many people’s minds when you say train travel is an old steam train from the middle of the century puffing across the landscape, probably in a romantic movie of that era. But the same thing that makes dinner trains and nostalgia steam excursions successful makes passenger rail as everyday, serious transportation so unthinkable to many people – it is seen as old-fashioned and not part of a modern transportation system.
Every first-world government subsidizes every transportation method in some manner because a good transportation system is in the public interest and benefits everyone. It is impossible to allocate the costs of building and maintaining a transportation system in relation to those benefits by charging only its primary users.
Trains planes and automobiles, buses and subways, none of them can alone solve our transportation needs. Working in concert, their individual strengths offset the weaknesses of the others.
Automobiles have the benefit of perfect scheduling (your car is always available exactly when you need it, and goes precisely to your destination) but they travel slowly, need a very expensive infrastructure and have the highest energy cost per passenger-mile.
Airplanes can go very long distances very quickly. Relative to passenger miles, their infrastructure is probably the cheapest, but the necessity of relatively remote and highly centralized airports makes the overhead cost of air travel prohibitive for middle distances.
Trains are a very good middle distance solution. Because their terminals need not be remote nor highly centralized, they can avoid the remote location problem of airplanes. They can travel about twice as fast as automobiles, and their infrastructure and energy costs are considerably less (again, per passenger-mile).
A train from Kansas City to Denver makes no sense, except as a novelty. It is much cheaper and faster to fly. However, a train from Manhatten to Boston makes much more sense than a commercial airplane or an automobile.
Over 40 years ago the rail station in my town closed. 8 years ago, it was renovated (restored) and moved into a public park as a bit of history.
Air fare is getting out of sight. Air crews are getting rude. Baggage handlers have been filmed matter-of-factly looting people’s bags, one of the major aircraft makers has aircraft full of highly flammable wires and refuses to replace them or switch to safer types in new craft. Many aircraft do not carry life rafts to be used over water because the FCC has not ordered them to do so and they are pricey.
My mother told me of riding trains as a young woman. She loved it. Some years ago, she and my younger brother went to Washington, DC, by rail, though they had to drive to another city to catch the train. They loved it. I’ve seen many a picture and documentary of train travel and it looks cool.
Europeans have been using rail travel for ages, especially France and Japan. France, I think, has one of the fastest trains in the world.
Currently, we have bus travel, but the last time I rode a Greyhound, it was annoying. No smoking at all (which I did anyhow once I discovered that I sat by an air exhaust vent), a small group of lowlifes spent half of the trip annoying a pretty girl behind me, the driver paid no attention to what was going on in the cabin and missed another group of low life’s going into the can to smoke pot. The trip for me was 8 hours. There was no place to move around, except at the few stops.
On a train, you can move around, locate better seats, buy a compartment, buy food and drinks and even watch TV. The conductor and personnel move around and will handle complaints quickly. The rail cars are climate controlled.
Yes. Bring back the passenger trains! I have National Geographic books showing great advertisements for vacations by rail with view cars, good food, comfortable seats and clean cars. They were printed in the 1950s. The trains looked good.
I would love to see more passenger rail in this country. As much as I love cars, I think that mass transit is usually a better solution, both for each person involved, and for society (which as a libertarian, I’m not supposed to believe exists) as a whole.
The main problem I see with passenger rail becoming a viable alternative on a larger scale is that Amtrak is pretty much the only player, and it’s a nationwide agency. Simply put, the passenger rail needs of the Boston to New York City route are vastly different than those of the Pierre, ND to Bozeman, MT route. More control should be given to regional subsections, so that they can independantly pursue the best solution for each region.
One of the main priorities that I know of is modernizing much of the track in the Northeast Corridor, which is getting in the way of being able to run high-speed lines and double-stacked freight trains in many places. The Northeast Corridor (where I live, so what I am most familiar with) needs a high speed rail line that can be priced well below even the cheapest airline ride.
Rail has one major advantage over airlines, namely a low additional cost per person. If there is significant demand, which will only happen for much higher speed trains than currently available, prices can be set low enough to severely undercut airline prices, plus attract weekend travellers with a much more limited budget.
As mentioned previously, Amtrak is the only game in town (except for regional commuter rail agencies; Amtrak’s charter is specifically for “long-distance” service only) because the major railroads badly wanted out of passenger service.
Amtrak has (belatedly) become aware of the difficulties of trying to centrally manage its far-flung operations, and has recently begun organizational changes to allow more autonomy at the regional level.
Finally, those who have been reading this thread and desire to be more activist on behalf of passenger rail may wish to consider membership in the National Association of Railroad Passengers, Friends of Amtrak, or one of the many regional rail advocacy groups. For links to these organizations, see: