No Willie, those rail systems NEVER turn a profit. Why create them?
Public Infrastructure isn't supposed to turn a profit, Ron.
Our airways and airports don't "turn a profit."
Our highways and roadways don't "turn a profit."
Our rivers, canals and waterways don't "turn a profit."
So why act like a silly libertarian and insist that passenger rail systems "turn a profit?"
Because unlike the other modes of transportation they are flexible, can be rerouted easily, and do not have to interfere with other transportation systems. The land grants that have to be acquired, rights to use track, upgrading track, the extreme costs for expansion and adding stops, and then for the billions spent the ALWAYS low ridership numbers, the extreme subsidization that is required per rider...
do we really need to continue? Trains are outdated, 19th century modes of transportation, you can’t carry crap with you, you can’t leave when you want, you still need cars or something else to get to your final destination, and can’t reroute themselves when problems occur.
Why people have love affairs with such systems is beyond me. Too much Logan’s Run as a kid.
Highways shouldn’t necessarily turn a profit, but gas tax dollars should pay to keep them up. If those funds aren’t raided, the gas taxes will support the infrastructure.
I know that freeways and roads cost lots of money, but the outlay is spread over decades, not a cash payout within thirty days of completion. Bonds are floated, and they are serviced with gas tax dollars, or should be.
Airports do have income. They collect a considerable fortune from parking, hub access, direct ticket taxation, security assessments per ticket etc. Once again, infrastructure fees are spread out over decades, using the same bond process.
As for our rivers, what fees do the state or federal governments have to pay out for them? They are a natural resource. Canals do charge fees for passage. Boat licensure and property taxes associated with those boats reap a fortune for the states.
If we use your model for continual rail subsidy on all routes regardless of the feasibility of sound profits, why not expand to other businesses as well?
It’s in the public interest to have as wide a variety of restaurants too. Should we keep them open if they’re not turning a profit? How about super-markets, certainly an important public service in the interest of the public being well fed. Should we keep them open, if they can’t turn a profit? I could come up with a long list of concerns that are advantageous to the public, that we should keep open regardless of profit. Should we?
I’m not approaching this from a Libertarian point of view, although Libertarians may agree with me. I’m approaching it from a sound fiscal stance. If something is so damned important, or integral to the public, the public will pay the freight when it comes to keeping the concerns going.
If the public won’t pay the freight to keep the concerns going, then the concerns should be abandoned.
We should not have funds stolen from us, to keep unprofitable concerns open.
Why is it, do you think, that privately maintained infrastructure can make a profit but socially mainted infrastructure cannot?