Passenger Trains > RPA's Matthews Debates Cato Institute

Anyone read RPA's hotline for this Friday 10/12? 

In the debate, Mathews countered author and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, Randal O’Toole. The debate--dubbed “Romance of the Rails: Why the Passenger Trains We Love Are Not the Transportation We Need”--was named for O’Toole’s book, in which he says that he loves passenger trains, but that cars, buses and airplanes should replace them, in much the same way as telephones replaced the telegram.

I was emailing with this nucklehead about 6 or 7 years ago....He says he loves passenger trains but there are of no use in transportation anymore..... Really?    He also says that we could stop public transit and have companies running small vans.  Does he not see the GRIDLOCK? He thinks the future is in autonomous personal vehicles, not rail transit or high-speed rail.   Obivously he does not have much clue about computer software... 

Check this out
https://www.cato.org/events/romance-rails-why-passenger-trains-we-love-are-not-transportation-we-need

I must commend Jim Matthews for a great rebuttal....



Thoughts? 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/18 07:12 by bluesboyst.

O'Toole is a fitting last name for that fool. 

I don't agree with everything O'Toole says, but I think it is a mistake to write him off as a "nucklehead" [sic].  There are some very knowledgeable people in the railroad industry, and ones that follow the industry, that view autonomous trucks and platoon trucking as as an existential threat to the railroads. Serious studies have concluded that a railroad right-of-way converted to a dedicated autonomous truck "smart highway" would support moving a greater volume of freight than as a railroad.  The full ramification of "smart highways" is not really known but it is generally felt that transportation, both freight and passenger, will not look in twenty-five years like it looks now.  So you can argue with O'Toole on points of detail, but change in some form is coming.

Gordon    

You can’t have a legitimate debate with an ideologue but it’s great he went. If a lie is told enough it becomes the truth unfortunately. 

I wouldn't ignore the possibility of tax rules driving huge changes on the freight rails. Which will have its own impact on passenger rail.

WONK

The Treasury has authorised changes in the way refinery taxes are imposed. The bottom line is railroads which allow open access to other operators could find their taxes slashed.

I have to believe the rails are looking at this.

Open access, and rail owners NOT operating their own trains could revolutionize the way fees are assessed.

Posted from Android

The self-named "Cato Institute" says it all. The 1% in cap and gown. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/18 07:50 by RRBARON.

gbmott Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't agree with everything O'Toole says, but I
> think it is a mistake to write him off as a
> "nucklehead" .  There are some very knowledgeable
> people in the railroad industry, and ones that
> follow the industry, that view autonomous trucks
> and platoon trucking as as an existential threat
> to the railroads. Serious studies have concluded
> that a railroad right-of-way converted to a
> dedicated autonomous truck "smart highway" would
> support moving a greater volume of freight than as
> a railroad.  The full ramification of "smart
> highways" is not really known but it is generally
> felt that transportation, both freight and
> passenger, will not look in twenty-five years like
> it looks now.  So you can argue with O'Toole on
> points of detail, but change in some form is
> coming.
>
> Gordon    

Were did you read about "smart Highway" and autonomus truck would move a great volumne of frieght?   So what happens at the end of the smart highway?  Unload there? 

I'll try to dig out the studies I have seen.  Don't get me wrong, this is not anything I want to see happen but I think we have to accept that we can't count on maintaining the status quo.

Gordon

Flyer92122 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can’t have a legitimate debate with an
> ideologue

Aren’t many members of the RPA also an ideologue, just with an opposing view?

Posted from iPhone

I would not draw any false equivalency of Cato and NARP. 
Who bankrolls Cato and O'Toole ?
Who pays NARP  ?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/18 13:56 by joemvcnj.

Cato is bankrolled by the Koch brothers of petroleum industry fame according to the net. Cato was basicly Ayn Rand in a toga. 
NARP I think is solely bankrolled by the dues of individual memberbers who desire better passenger rail transport. For many years, I was a member and no one bankrolled me to cover my  dues.  



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/18 17:29 by RRBARON.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would not draw any false equivalency of Cato and
> NARP. 
> Who bankrolls Cato and O'Toole ?
> Who pays NARP  ?

Both are groups advocating the ideology of the people funding them. The only difference is one has presumably deeper pockets.

Posted from iPhone

> Both are groups advocating the ideology of the
> people funding them. The only difference is one
> has presumably deeper pockets.

I think there are at least two differences. One, Cato, represents private interests who wish to put more money in their private and/or foreign bank accounts--no law against that. Whereas the other group, NARP, wants to improve the lifestyle of the entire nation--no rule against that either--but it remains to be seen whether their "train" has already left. The former has access to deeper pockets and more quickly than the latter. Finally, two sides of a public issue may not be of equal value--that's what the Bible's for. 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/18 17:31 by RRBARON.

RRBARON Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Both are groups advocating the ideology of the
> > people funding them. The only difference is one
> > has presumably deeper pockets.
>
> I think there are at least two differences. One,
> Cato, represents private interests who wish to put
> more money in their private bank accounts--no law
> against that. Whereas the other group, NARP, wants
> to improve the lifestyle of the entire nation

Your letting your ideology cloud your view. You are assuming that what the NARP’s viewpoint improves the lifestyle of everyone in the nation. Not everyone agrees that it does.

I don’t think having your ideology is bad. But I do take issues with calling out others with an opposing ideology as an impossible person to deal with. Pot meet kettle.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/18 15:36 by Typhoon.

"Read my lips", that's not what I wrote. NARP believes it is doing a public service, that may or may not be true, but it believes it is so. Me, I'm neutral. NARP has accomplished precious little in it's decades of service. On the other hand Cato and the Koch brothers have done a great deal in helping to position the US behind almost every First World country in climate protection and life expectancy. So is Cato/Koch on the "right" track? Look to the Bible for your answer. Matt: 19:23 is a good place to start.   



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/18 15:56 by RRBARON.

I'd argue that Cato, within their stated desire of less or limited government, is consistent in its views.

People here may disagree, but they make strong arguments.

Posted from Android

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd argue that Cato, within their stated desire of
> less or limited government, is consistent in its
> views.

Consistency is not necessarily equal to the truth. The Catos are Sophists, more concerned about being "logical" in their arguments than seeing the waves of giant storms come crashing into the windows of their Ivory Tower. Philosophy is a human invention made by the nerve endings of one's brain--but seeing the ice melt, the storms rage, etc. is not philosophy, it is fact when you are wet and crashing onto the rocks. To some degree more coal and petroleum-based toxic gases in the atmosphere will cause these bad things to happen--its scientically proven. But are they the only causes? Who knows for sure? But it certainly won't help the climate by putting even more toxic gases in air. None-the-less
I still run unit coal trains on my Rio Grande model railroad. It's called willful suspension of disbelief. 



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/18 17:33 by RRBARON.

RRBARON Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Read my lips", that's not what I wrote.

It is exactly what you wrote. You added believes later.

> Look to the Bible for your answer. Matt: 19:23 is
> a good place to start.   

I’ll pass, thank you.

Posted from iPhone

What I wrote implied belief. I think that NARP believes it is doing a public service. But to those who did not read the implication I had in mind I apologize for my apparent lack of clarity. Alas, Sophists are big on details like that, but short on the Big Picture. The Bible not your cup of tea? Then try Confucis' "Golden Rule" when considering the best transport mode for planet earth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/18 16:33 by RRBARON.

chrsjrcj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> O'Toole is a fitting last name for that fool. 

I agree, the telephone was an improvement to the telegram, what this idiot doesn't see is hopw a balanced transportation system works, we get rid of mass trainsit and all passenger trains, this country would be in gridlock in mostly the major cities,. Los Angeles was becoming like that until they started the Blue Line and went fromt here back in 89, they didn't do that and the Northridge Earthquake happened, it would've been a major mess!