Posted on 07/24/2010 8:08:03 AM PDT by Willie Green
The idea that rail must pay its own way is ill-conceived. Rail brought this country together; passenger rail was made extremely attractive, complete with luxurious hotels, to bring alive the excellence of rail travel. Since its inception, huge grants, subsidies and concessions have been given to rail to ensure its viability.
Rail is hugely efficient, but its sad demise came with the onset of the private automobile. Public funding gradually supported roads over rail.
The automobile has become its own enemy: Roads clogged, time wasted and fossil fuels keeping engines idling at standstill. Costs, inconvenience and frustration bring visions of rail travel -- efficient, non-polluting transportation for greater safety and on-time dependability no matter the weather or traffic.
Rail's economic benefits outweigh highway "investment." Social, lifestyle, environmental and business benefits are the return. Equipment lasts far longer and maintenance is far less. Land use, noise and pollution factors are incomparable. An electrified rail line is the last word in efficiency.
Planning and transportation must go hand-in-hand. Suggesting that rail creates sprawl is equally applicable to highway expansion. Sprawl is controllable; rail is a valued tool for attaining that goal.
Population often determines the need for rail. Here, geography trumps population. The Malahat and Colwood exit are "pinch points." One rail line can handle the traffic of many highway lanes. It's time to bring the E&N into its full capability.
Better make that an SEIUnACORN because those wonderful subsidies will be paying the union ransom for generations.
Railroads have been in this country since 1829 - you would think they could pay their own way by now.
Canada’s freight railroads are immensly profitable. They efficiently meet a marketplace demand. They have nothing to do with Willie’s social engineering fantasies.
cant we all just ride the subway?
Freight is the most efficient use of rail in this country as well.
I don't have any problem with freight lines, especially ones that are immensely profitable because they can pay for their own expansion.
Railroads have been in this country since 1829 - you would think they could pay their own way by now.
But I doubt if many knee-jerk naysayers will bother to notice that the article is about Canadian rail service.
;^)
Private enterprise (aka Capitalism) brought this country together, not taxpayer subsidies. Once the railroads stopped making money, the owners found other things to do.
Private enterprise (aka Capitalism) brought this country together, not taxpayer subsidies. Once the railroads stopped making money, the owners found other things to do.
Incorrect.
Construction of the original transcontinental railroads was heavily subsidized with massive government land grants.
Actually, I did notice. The Canadians can subsidize whatever the heck they want. I did assume you had some sort of point for Americans by posting in a forum that is read primarily by Americans. If not, please let me know what your intent was by posting this article.
The transcontinental railroad construction was accompanied by governmental fraud, waste and abuse on a scale that was unknown in this country until that time.
Passenger rail is for the masses not the elitists.
The left want to pack us like sardines into cheap tin cans in the name of ‘saving’ the environment while the ‘enlightened’ ones ride the empty freeways on their way to world saving NGO meetings on empty freeways.
Willie Green - Incorrect. Construction of the original transcontinental railroads was heavily subsidized with massive government land grants.
Professor Schweikert addressed this in his book, A Patriot's History of the United States.
Perhaps he would be kind enough to weigh-in on the subject. Incidently, Willie failed to address SZonian's charge that the owner's dropped rail once the profits fell.
Huge blocks of land were given away to motivate construction; in turn, the government would receive bargain rates to ship the mail, soldiers, military equipment and other cargo.
Quid pro quo. Nothing was given for "free". The gov't expected something in return for their "subsidies" and the RR's bore the expense.
Quid pro quo. Nothing was given for "free".So subsidized discount fares for government freight, postal union employees and military personnel is "quid pro quo"???
That doesn't sound very "conservative" to me...
but if that's the "spin" you want to put on your argument, that's fine by me.
I guess it must also be "quid pro quo" to offer free/reduced fares to other government workers / public school/university teachers to ride light rail, too. Right???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.