Tweet
Nationalize the freight rail tracks? You're insane.
-
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891 -
Nationalize all the tracks period so they're just like the roads. Then we have multiple carriers all bidding for frieght and passenger services and we'd have a federal agency some what like the FAA which would schedule trains so that accidents were avoided but use of the track is maximized.
We'd have a ton more competetion and lower prices. You could even charge your user fees you were pining over.
Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Bah! You truly are insane!
Basically, what you're suggesting is a complete reworking of the entire rail system for the sake of passenger rail, only a tiny portion of the traffic.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
You would have called Ike insane.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
No, what I'm suggesting is a better way to promote greater competetion in all forms of rail service. Right now railroads are a natural monopoly where only one freight or passanger provider works in a given region. That means there is no direct competetion. By having rail tracks treated the same as roads we could have as many rail providers as we have airlines so we'd increase the level of competetion dramatically.Originally posted by DanS
Bah! You truly are insane!
Basically, what you're suggesting is a complete reworking of the entire rail system for the sake of passenger rail, only a tiny portion of the traffic.
Shouldn't that be the goal? Lower prices and more competetion?Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Originally posted by Oerdin
...competetion ...
competetion...
competetion...
competetion
j/k
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Alright it has an i instead of an e.
Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Could build tracks over houses.Our current right-of-ways aren't straight enough for the bullet trains. In order to create the straight tracks, you would have to buy out every homeowner between Washington and Boston and then the environmentalists would be suing the government at every turn because the train is disturbing this or that.
We're talking extreme amounts of money.
Hey. I didn't say it would be easy either.meet the new boss, same as the old bossComment
-
The point is that a sufficiently funded rail network can be so much more efficient than a bus network, and more environment friendly.Originally posted by DanS
It's not much slower. And the clogging of highways is minimal. Certainly much better than cars. If people want a faster trip, they can fly.
Another problem in America is that gas isn't sold at its 'true' price, namely that its price doesn't reflect environmental costs and the loss of efficiency due to traffic. In France for instance it costs significantly more to fill your car than to buy a train ticket.In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
-
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If they cut subsidies on rail, why not cut them on air and highways as well? We could stop spending $200,000,000,000 so that we could have cheap gasoline by killing Iraqis.
In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
-
It would be tough to compete against a $35 round trip fair Washington <-> NYC. Even with fully-burdened fuel prices to fund retirement of the externalities, the prices wouldn't be much higher.The point is that a sufficiently funded rail network can be so much more efficient than a bus network, and more environment friendly.
Yes, but there's got to be better ways using much less direct government involvement.Shouldn't that be the goal? Lower prices and more competetion?I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
It depends on the kind of involvement you're willing to put in. When I was in France I got a Paris-Bordeaux return trip for 40 euros - that's 800km, twice.Originally posted by DanS
It would be tough to compete against a $35 round trip fair Washington <-> NYC.
I'm curious to know though, is the SNCF a money-drainer?In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
-
What really needs to be used as a comparison for rail however isn't buses or any other mass transit- it's driving.
It's about 300 miles on the road from NY to DC, with four toll sections (Hudson River, NJ Turnpike, Delaware River, Baltimore Harbor) Total toll I recall being around $20 each way. Assuming a gas mileage of 20 mpg and gas costing $2 a gallon, that's $30 for gas each way. For a typical weekend trip or business convention, two days of parking will run about $50.
Therefore, a round trip from NY-DC by car weighs in at $150, assuming single occupancy.
That's the price that rail needs to beat. Can it be done in the NE Corridor? Quite likely.Visit First Cultural Industries
There are reasons why I believe mankind should live in cities and let nature reclaim all the villages with the exception of a few we keep on display as horrific reminders of rural life.-Starchild
Meat eating and the dominance and force projected over animals that is acompanies it is a gateway or parallel to other prejudiced beliefs such as classism, misogyny, and even racism. -General LuddComment
-
Wait, the tracks are privately owned, and the public company operates them?Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think he means the rail lines.
Edit: after reading this thread it strikes me that DanS is defending a system of private monopolies. Rail tracks are indeed a huge investment, and it's prohibitive to attempt to challenge a local monopoly. I thought free-marketeers were supposed to like competition, but I guess the love of private corporations sometimes surpasses the love of competition.Last edited by Spiffor; February 3, 2005, 03:57."I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- DisComment
-
This shouldn't be about love of private companies or love of competition- it should be about love of getting from point A to B cheap and fast. That's why the Japanese rail system works so well, both under public and private management.Visit First Cultural Industries
There are reasons why I believe mankind should live in cities and let nature reclaim all the villages with the exception of a few we keep on display as horrific reminders of rural life.-Starchild
Meat eating and the dominance and force projected over animals that is acompanies it is a gateway or parallel to other prejudiced beliefs such as classism, misogyny, and even racism. -General LuddComment
Comment