Passenger Trains > Harris Poll: Americans DO want more trains

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060208/nyw157.html?.v=41

Dave

LD Trains 35%? Not bad, but let's see what happens this year, Laney's still not on my good side that's for sure!

Interesting poll, but as usual it didn't ask the next logical question..."Would you be willing to pay higher state, local or federal taxes to support rail service?".

Considering how much we are spending on the war, I wouldn't mind paying an extra 0.02% in gas tax to fund the trains.

hesdjjim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Considering how much we are spending on the war, I
> wouldn't mind paying an extra 0.02% in gas tax to
> fund the trains.

I agree considering the benefits in the long run. But looking at an over view of FY 07' budget it seems very sickening, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5192631 With what there planning on giving the blankty-blank Department of Homeland Security we could have a class act rail network. Oh, well I still can dream, write my congressman, and vote.

hesdjjim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Considering how much we are spending on the war, I
> wouldn't mind paying an extra 0.02% in gas tax to
> fund the trains.

You can pay more than what you owe on your tax every year if you are so inclined.

I'd rather buy Amtrak tickets.

The politicians might pocket my money.

68% thinks the federal government should be in charge of maintaning and improving national transportation, only 8% think private companies.

The most amazing statistic of all, IMHO...

lowwater

lowwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 68% thinks the federal government should be in
> charge of maintaning and improving national
> transportation, only 8% think private companies.
>
> The most amazing statistic of all, IMHO...
>
> lowwater

That does show a certain amount of cluelessness.

When does the government do anything meaningful for us Americans as of late!

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lowwater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 68% thinks the federal government should be
> in
> > charge of maintaning and improving national
> > transportation, only 8% think private
> companies.
> >
> > The most amazing statistic of all, IMHO...
> >
> > lowwater
>
> That does show a certain amount of cluelessness.
>
>

Please explain......

ChS7-321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ts1457 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > lowwater Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > 68% thinks the federal government should
> be
> > in
> > > charge of maintaning and improving
> national
> > > transportation, only 8% think private
> > companies.
> > >
> > > The most amazing statistic of all,
> IMHO...
> > >
> > > lowwater
> >
> > That does show a certain amount of
> cluelessness.
> >
> >
>
> Please explain......

Do you want a Soviet-style planned economy, where the masses would line up in hopes of getting a piece of tough meat from the mostly empty butcher's case?

Free markets do a heck of a lot better job in getting the population what it wants or needs than government agencies.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChS7-321 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ts1457 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > lowwater Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > 68% thinks the federal government
> should
> > be
> > > in
> > > > charge of maintaning and improving
> > national
> > > > transportation, only 8% think
> private
> > > companies.
> > > >
> > > > The most amazing statistic of all,
> > IMHO...
> > > >
> > > > lowwater
> > >
> > > That does show a certain amount of
> > cluelessness.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Please explain......
>
> Do you want a Soviet-style planned economy, where
> the masses would line up in hopes of getting a
> piece of tough meat from the mostly empty
> butcher's case?
>
> Free markets do a heck of a lot better job in
> getting the population what it wants or needs than
> government agencies.



A bit overly dramatic, arent you?

The only trouble with your views is some things, in order to be effective and efficient, need consistancy in design over a broader area than one individual state or private company can deliver. THAT is the role of the federal government.

Building an interstate highway system or a national rail network is not like choosing between computer operating systems. In the latter, competition and free markets is good. In the former, there needs to be some broader oversight in place for engineering consistancy. Can you imagine the economic or efficiency ramifications if each state were allowed to build rail lines at whatever gauge width they desired?

Buy a clue, boy.

TV-10 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A bit overly dramatic, arent you?

A good technique for making a point.

> The only trouble with your views is some things,
> in order to be effective and efficient, need
> consistancy in design over a broader area than one
> individual state or private company can deliver.
> THAT is the role of the federal government.

Show me that in the Constitution.

> Building an interstate highway system or a
> national rail network is not like choosing between
> computer operating systems. In the latter,
> competition and free markets is good. In the
> former, there needs to be some broader oversight
> in place for engineering consistancy. Can you
> imagine the economic or efficiency ramifications
> if each state were allowed to build rail lines at
> whatever gauge width they desired?

The Interstate Highway System is a marvel and undoubtedly helped economic development, but did we get the best results? Many states were already building limited access highways, many financed by tolls. If that was the norm, I don't think trucking would have gotten away with the tremendous subsidy that they get operating with the axle loads that require higher initial costs and maintenance - expenses that exceed what they pay for with fuel taxes. Railroading would not have taken as big of a hit as they did from the fifties on as a result of that subsidy to trucking. Not as many urban freeways would have been built, so we would have a higher level of public transit in the cities.

I might remind you that standard gauge came about by the actions of private companies operating in their own self-interest. In fact, the railroads in the South changed from five foot gauge to standard gauge in one day, in order to promote free interchange

> Buy a clue, boy.

Don't need to, but you have proved yourself among the clueless.

Not as many urban freeways would have
> been built, so we would have a higher level of
> public transit in the cities.
>
While it is true that highways in many metropolitan areas hurt public transportation, it does not follow that if the interstate system were not built, private transit systems would be prosperous.

The Pittsburgh Railways (major predecessor to the Port Authority of Allegheny County) was bankrupt throughout much of its existence even though Pittsburgh had and still has a limited network of highways.

Around the country, many local and interurban electric lines went bankrupt during the Depression when roadbuilding was just getting started in the United States. Additionally, many municipal governments were hostile towards transit companies because they were monopolies and attacking them was politically profitable. Fares were strictly regulated.

The nature of public transportation does not lend itself to profitability because in order to move large numbers of commuters, transit operators must maintain a supply of rolling stock and operating personnel to accommodate crowds during just two portions of the day.

Some urban and transit historians believe that many early transit companies were built not to haul people, but to promote real estate development. When communities were built (and automobiles became popular) there was a sharply reduced need for transit services in many places.

When looking at the history of transportation in the United States (canals, railroads, highways, aviation), the one notes the predominant role of the local, state and federal governments in building and, in many cases, operating, the transportation network.

Dave

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not as many urban freeways would have
> > been built, so we would have a higher level
> of
> > public transit in the cities.
> >
> While it is true that highways in many
> metropolitan areas hurt public transportation, it
> does not follow that if the interstate system were
> not built, private transit systems would be
> prosperous....

Dave, I wouldn't disagree with most all of your analysis. While I can think of ways that private enterprise could positively impact urban transportation if certain articifical restrictions were removed, public transit, absent most urban freeways, would still be mostly a governmental responsibility. Without the proliferation of urban freeways financed through the Interstate Highway system, I believe we would have had more ratonal, in economic terms, choices made. Funding urban highway projects from local and state sources would have lead to better consideration of the alternative of improved public transit. As it was 90% Federal funding though the Interstate system made it very easy to rip up the tax base and sometime the essence of our great urban areas. Undoubtedly many metropolitan areas would have developed differently if it wasn't for the Interstate Highway System.