EternalHoH
Posts: 791
Joined: 5/30/2010 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Considering how cheap /lb rail is. Hold on here. Rail infrastructure is NOT cheap. *Freight* rail is the ONLY transportation system that is 99% privately funded in its infrastructure. Because of that high cost of infrastructure maintenance borne by the private sector owners and no taxpayer subsidy that all other modes get (air, interstate highways, barges), the people patronizing passenger trains could never be charged the full cost of a rail journey. In fact, thats why Amtrak was born, all the private sector railroads could no longer charge passengers enough to offset the cost of capital. Amtrak became the government subsidy for rail that correlates to the government subsidy that all other modes get, except with rail it was fashioned as an operational subsidy (government-operated trains haul people) rather than an infrastructure subsidy from the government that other modes get. The infrastructure costs in the rail segment is still privately funded. If you want to cut Amtrak, fine, then you also need to cut highway subsidies, and then watch your property taxes and fuel taxes and trucking costs skyrocket. Cut airport subsidies, and then watch your plane ticket costs skyrocket. Here, in the land of capitalism, NO transportation system operates without public subsidy. It is the sheer 'efficiency' (in a physics/kinetic energy sense) of steel wheel rolling on steel rail, the ability to move high tonnage with limited fuel energy, that allows an unsubsidized freight rail infrastructure to compete with all the other modes that are infrastructure subsidized by the government. This efficiency only pays off when high tonnages are moved, explaining why freight rail hauls bulk goods, and passenger rail is not a high tonnage proposition (which is why it doesn't benefit as much from this efficiency.)
< Message edited by EternalHoH -- 11/7/2010 6:53:30 AM >
|