Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: WLJ on September 13, 2022, 10:00:28 PM
-
A major rail strike could begin Friday if a deal isn't agreed to by then.
Business and government officials are bracing for the possibility of a nationwide rail strike at the end of this week while talks carry on between the largest U.S. freight railroads and their unions.
The railroads have already started to curtail shipments of hazardous materials and have announced plans to stop hauling refrigerated products ahead of Friday's strike deadline. Now businesses that rely on Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific, BNSF, CSX, Kansas City Southern and other railroads to deliver their raw materials and finished products have started planning for the worst.
Some businesses would likely be affected more than others by a rail shutdown. For instance, nearly all ethanol and coal and most grain moves by rail.
Another disruption to the supply chain coming right up.
I guess we can expect another spike in prices.
Businesses, White House Plan for Possible Rail Strike Friday
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-09-13/businesses-white-house-plan-for-possible-rail-strike-friday
-
Some businesses would likely be affected more than others by a rail shutdown. For instance, nearly all ethanol and coal and most grain moves by rail.
And thanks to Brandon, at least SOME oil that SHOULD be moving by pipeline is moving by rail instead. No wonder the stock market went down sharply today.
-
Hard to pick a winner in that one. I am sure rail management is crap, look no further than Precision Scheduled Railroading. I am 100% certain the unions are trash too. Maybe time to pray for an asteroid.
-
But the White House is also keeping the pressure on the two sides to settle their differences, and a growing number of business groups are lobbying Congress to be prepared to intervene and block a strike if they can't reach an agreement.
Yes I’m sure the Democrats who are firm allies and owned by the unions are applying pressure to the unions. This strike is just coincidentally threatened during a Dem administration and Dem controlled legislature period I’m sure.
-
This has been percolating at least since early this year. I have family connected to the industry.
-
Talk of UPS striking too
-
They are apparently striking. One of the *expletive deleted*ers for CSX just came into my wife’s department to get strike/protest permit for tomorrow…this is in a tiny city in SC.
-
It's OK. The main representative of the Alzheimer's Association of American worked out a tentative agreement to prevent a strike.
-
what is the role of the Alzheimer's Assoc here? Random Neutral 3rd party?
-
Either way you can bet dollars to donuts he'll take credit.
-
what is the role of the Alzheimer's Assoc here? Random Neutral 3rd party?
More like random neural amirite? huh?
It's a joke. He was referring to Joe Biden
-
Oooooh... that makes more sense. =D =D
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/
Yes, management probably needs to make more than a few concessions to labor. But someone in the labor camp needs to realize they can’t spend decades making it nearly impossible to bring in new blood, and then blame management for the fact there’s nobody around to give them time off. The laws of supply and demand are vicious mistresses, and they don’t like being broken.
My only addition would be to remark on what a comfort it has been to know that our devoted and tireless Secretary of Transportation has obviously had this situation well in hand from the beginning. And then he lets the Sec. of Labor take all the credit! What an extraordinary gentleman.
-
what is the role of the Alzheimer's Assoc here? Random Neutral 3rd party?
The initial announcement of a settlement came from Biden's office...
Given his mental capabilities... Alzheimer's Association.
-
More like random neural amirite? huh?
It's a joke. He was referring to Joe Biden
Bingo!
:rofl:
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/
My only addition would be to remark on what a comfort it has been to know that our devoted and tireless Secretary of Transportation has obviously had this situation well in hand from the beginning. And then he lets the Sec. of Labor take all the credit! What an extraordinary gentleman.
Management isn’t the only determining factor in railroad employment. The ‘boards’ at any given railroad office are controlled by the union local. While management decides how many people to train and hire for a specific location, the union decides how many jobs there are at that location. And of course, the jobs are bid by seniority.
[Back when I worked in the railroad industry] BNSF hired me and about 20 other guys to work; we spent six weeks in training and another two months in on-the-job-training before we could ‘mark up’ at the yard office.
Sounds simple, right?
Well, the local union decided there was only enough work for about 15 of us. That left the bottom five guys left to go elsewhere in the district to find a job. If you couldn’t find a job, you were unemployed until a spot opened up.
I was the fourteenth guy in that group, so every time the board got cut, I had to go to another town where I outranked someone, and I could bump that person off that board. Let me tell you, doing that makes you really popular in a town you don’t live in.
Add to this the fact that the railroad job is 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. You go to work on about two hours’ notice, and you could be gone for three days or longer. You could go to work at two in the afternoon or two in the morning- and you could work a 12-hour shift. Yes, you earn vacation time. But if you want to take it, there must be enough people available to do your job while you’re out.
Not exactly a model workplace.
So, while the unions may complain about the number of people leaving railroad service all together, the unions are a big part of the problem they’re complaining about.
For the past two decades, the unions have been making it very hard for new guys and gals to hire on and stay on. I endured two years in northeastern Montana before I found myself standing in a field during a blizzard waiting for a train and wondering exactly what the hell I was doing there.
Railroading is a hard job. But it’s a good solid job and one this nation relies on.
Back to my point: Yes, management probably needs to make more than a few concessions to labor. But someone in the labor camp needs to realize they can’t spend decades making it nearly impossible to bring in new blood, and then blame management for the fact there’s nobody around to give them time off. The laws of supply and demand are vicious mistresses, and they don’t like being broken
A decade ago I was looking to leave the park service and applied for numerous railroad jobs as I was an ideal candidate being single and no kids to be a conductor or a fireman (basically an oiler) I probably applied for a hundred jobs in locomotive crewing, yards, and track gangs with UP, BNSF, CSX, and NS. I got interviews for two of them…a BNSF fireman for Montana and conductor for NS. I decided not to go to the Montana one due to distance to get there. I went to the conductor one.
I expected that since I was being invited to an actual interview that it meant I was at least a good chance if I interviewed well to get a job offer.
No such chance. It was an interview day for a hundred men competing for one job. One. They had us for four hours filling out paperwork detailing backgrounds, all the same info you sent on your resume so the aholes already had THAT plus info for extensive background checks.
Then they made us wait for two hours while they were behind closed doors, then one came out and taped a list of five names to the door. These were the guys getting the actual interviews.
I talked with a bunch of other candidates, most had been trying for years to get on the job. The interview crew knew the five they were going to talk to before the event, they just wanted to waste the time of 95 other people who were hoping so bad to get a chance for a lucrative paying job in the middle of a recession.
-
Preacherman says the rail companies are treating their employees badly, and a strike is justified:
https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2022/09/if-i-worked-on-railroads-id-vote-for.html
-
Wait, the Preacherman who used to post here in the early days?
I thought he had passed away?
-
My dad spent 39 years working for Q, then BN, and retired with BNSF. (Mergers of railroads).
The 24/7 call crap got old growing up, he wasn't able to participate much in family life outside the house. Stuff needs to change with the railroads and how employees are treated.
-
Wait, the Preacherman who used to post here in the early days?
This is the same Preacherman from the firing line and the armed polite society. I don't know if he used to post here or not. He is an immigrant from South Africa, retired prison Chaplin, and a former Catholic priest. Now he is married.
-
My dad spent 39 years working for Q, then BN, and retired with BNSF. (Mergers of railroads).
The 24/7 call crap got old growing up, he wasn't able to participate much in family life outside the house. Stuff needs to change with the railroads and how employees are treated.
Friend of mine used to work for the railroad, can't remember which company, and I remember him saying the 24/7 thing was the biggest reason he got out.
-
And that is another job that is so tightly sewed up that you damn near have to be the son of an existing worker to even be considered...
-
Are the working conditions (and resulting high salaries) the fault of the unions, management, or both?
-
This is the same Preacherman from the firing line and the armed polite society. I don't know if he used to post here or not. He is an immigrant from South Africa, retired prison Chaplin, and a former Catholic priest. Now he is married.
Uhm... huh?
THIS is the Armed Polite Society, and yes, a Preacherman by that description used to post here in the early days.
As I said, I was under the impression that he had passed away -- I'm glad that you're reporting that he's alive and well.
-
Are the working conditions (and resulting high salaries) the fault of the unions, management, or both?
Probably both. I read where the unions make it super hard to bring in new guys, so labor shortages are endemic as a result. But management probably has some responsibility for that situation too.
It’s one of those things where the old guys at the top love it because they make bank and can control a lot. But the guys that aren’t quite at the very top feel overworked (if also overpaid), the guys in the middle get jerked around terrible, and the guys at the bottom are constantly getting shafted. But the only people with the power to change anything are the same ones vested in keeping it the same.
-
Uhm... huh?
THIS is the Armed Polite Society, and yes, a Preacherman by that description used to post here in the early days.
Yes, you are right. I meant to say the Firing Line and the High Road.
-
and the saga continues
-
Yep looming again after being put off.
But you can't go strike, we're making it illegal.
The House has passed a resolution 209-137 that would force unions to accept a tentative agreement reached earlier this year between railroad managers and their workers and make an imminent strike illegal.
The House has voted to avert a rail strike. Now the bill heads to the Senate
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/30/1139876084/congress-house-railroad-strike-bill
Lets see how the union responds to that
But that's okay Americans don't, or didn't, know what a supply chain is anyway.
During a recent rally in Michigan, Biden suggested that the crowd, and Americans in general, had no idea what a supply chain was until it became a recent media topic related to the country’s economic troubles in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Biden slammed for claiming public didn't know 'what the hell a supply chain was': 'Insulting Americans'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-slammed-claiming-public-didnt-know-what-hell-supply-chain-insulting-americans
Just like with inflation, it's some new term or something.
-
Yep looming again after being put off.
But you can't go strike, we're making it illegal.
The House has voted to avert a rail strike. Now the bill heads to the Senate
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/30/1139876084/congress-house-railroad-strike-bill
Lets see how the union responds to that
But that's okay Americans don't, or didn't, know what a supply chain is anyway.
Biden slammed for claiming public didn't know 'what the hell a supply chain was': 'Insulting Americans'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-slammed-claiming-public-didnt-know-what-hell-supply-chain-insulting-americans
Just like with inflation, it's some new term or something.
Well, considering how gourd awful stupid the average American really is I'm gonna actually side with Biden on this one, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while and even a broken analogue clock is right twice a day.
-
I actually hope that this is the timeline where railroad workers strike, and the Biden Administration jails some and forces others to work under threat of force.
Yeah, it'd *expletive deleted*ck up the supply chain, be morally reprehensible, and probably lead to violence, but it'd be great to see the national level Dems shed their skins and show themselves. It'd be great for next year's Thanksgiving Cheat Sheet.
Biden. He'll make the trains run on time!
-
I actually hope that this is the timeline where railroad workers strike, and the Biden Administration jails some and forces others to work under threat of force.
Yeah, it'd *expletive deleted*ck up the supply chain, be morally reprehensible, and probably lead to violence, but it'd be great to see the national level Dems shed their skins and show themselves. It'd be great for next year's Thanksgiving Cheat Sheet.
Biden. He'll make the trains run on time!
I'm sure the MSM will find a way no matter how stupid it will sound to those who know better to blame Trump and the Rs and the sheep will go Baaaahh
-
I actually hope that this is the timeline where railroad workers strike, and the Biden Administration jails some and forces others to work under threat of force.
Yeah, it'd *expletive deleted*ck up the supply chain, be morally reprehensible, and probably lead to violence, but it'd be great to see the national level Dems shed their skins and show themselves. It'd be great for next year's Thanksgiving Cheat Sheet.
Biden. He'll make the trains run on time!
Will the Dems go against their butt buddies the unions like that?
-
. . . Lets see how the union responds to that . . .
They all call in saying they tested positive for covid.
Seems like it would be a problem much worse than the PATCO strike back in the '80s, and the legality is suspect; the PATCO strikers were government employees so Reagan could fire them. Railroad workers . . . I don't know.
I actually hope that this is the timeline where railroad workers strike, and the Biden Administration jails some and forces others to work under threat of force.
I suppose Biden could jail them with the Jan 6 people, but that won't get the trains running. Forcing them to work "under threat of force" probably wouldn't work very well unless the overseers were using whips . . . and then just imagine if some workers were POCs and someone got video . . .
-
Well, considering how gourd awful stupid the average American really is I'm gonna actually side with Biden on this one, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while and even a broken analogue clock is right twice a day.
Biden is digital clock blinking
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
-
Yep looming again after being put off.
But you can't go strike, we're making it illegal.
The House has voted to avert a rail strike. Now the bill heads to the Senate
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/30/1139876084/congress-house-railroad-strike-bill
Lets see how the union responds to that
But that's okay Americans don't, or didn't, know what a supply chain is anyway.
Biden slammed for claiming public didn't know 'what the hell a supply chain was': 'Insulting Americans'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-slammed-claiming-public-didnt-know-what-hell-supply-chain-insulting-americans
Just like with inflation, it's some new term or something.
My opinion of Unions is generally lower than whale *expletive deleted*it, but I have a real problem with Congress making them slaves.
-
Got to hammer out a deal before those Rs ruin everything.
But the dangers a strike would pose to the U.S. economy and Americans’ health and safety proved too great as months of talks barreled toward a Dec. 9 deadline with no resolution in sight, White House aides said Tuesday after Biden asked Congress to impose a settlement that left many union supporters angered.
The administration also worried that Republicans, who are set to take control of the House in January, could impose an even less labor-friendly deal if the strike threat is still lingering then.
Inside Biden’s decision to halt a rail strike
Months of talks have failed to end the impasse between unions and freight railroads. And a GOP-led House looms in January.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/29/bidens-congress-halt-rail-strike-00071251
-
Well so much for organized labor.
-
Looks like he signed it. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-signs-bill-rail-strike/
They didn't give the railroad workers any sick leave, which was one of their big talking points.
I'm impressed with the balls to call it a "labor agreement" when it was forced by legislative action.
-
What's the value of a union if they have no leverage?
-
What's the value of a union if they have no leverage?
Pretty much the same as the value of a politician who once in power doesn't do the things they claimed to be for.
That is to say, it makes corrupt leaders very wealthy.
-
This bothers me. The fed.gov legislating that workers of a private company must accept terms they don't want & the workers must continue to work under those terms.
That's wrong. Very wrong.
-
Imagine the MSM if this occurred under Trump. Be 24/7 how how Trump is a fascist dictator etc.... With Biden, crickets.
-
So what happens if the workers call in sick on the 9th?
-
In this specific case they have the law on their side, 1926 Railway act, an early use of them claiming broad powers under the interstate commerce clause. The precedent is kinda disturbing though since we must all be at our machines lest we affect interstate commerce. And if we're not at work we might grow pot, which we also have precedent of that affecting interstate commerce...
-
I can't dismiss the notion that this is all a put-up prearranged crisis to make the administration look good.
Are you listening,(https://www.deccanherald.com/sites/dh/files/styles/article_detail/public/articleimages/2020/10/17/p8th8oxp400x400-1-903116-1602905314.jpg?itok=8un22njo)?
I always had the back-of-my-mind suspicion that Preacherman was Perd Hadley's first ID before his four or five name changes.
Just a suspicion awaiting evidence, so I never said anything until it came up here. =)
-
I can't dismiss the notion that this is all a put-up prearranged crisis to make the administration look good.
Are you listening,(https://www.deccanherald.com/sites/dh/files/styles/article_detail/public/articleimages/2020/10/17/p8th8oxp400x400-1-903116-1602905314.jpg?itok=8un22njo)?
I always had the back-of-my-mind suspicion that Preacherman was Perd Hadley's first ID before his four or five name changes.
Just a suspicion awaiting evidence, so I never said anything until it came up here. =)
I am very confused.
-
This bothers me. The fed.gov legislating that workers of a private company must accept terms they don't want & the workers must continue to work under those terms.
That's wrong. Very wrong.
The workers are now in the same exact place all of us non union workers are. Work or get fired. As a side note it is quite amusing that the left LOVES to tell me I’d be much better off in a union when this major union controlled industry gets treated worse and have the government involved telling them that striking is off the table. :rofl:
-
The workers are now in the same exact place all of us non union workers are. Work or get fired. . . .
How fast and easy would it be to replace a whole bunch of railroad workers? I know for a while it would have been easy to get rid of firemen (whose ONLY duty was to shovel coal into the firebox . . . even on a diesel locomotive.) but engineers and others would seem to have some learned skills, and I really don't know how deep the bench of qualified replacements is.
-
Car MFRs: Too big to allow to fail.
RR Unions: Too big to allow to fail bail.
"Doesn't this sniff a little bit like the first step to nationalize the railroads?" Terry asked, paranoidically.
(dogmush's remark about Mussolini made me think of that.)
-
Nationalizing the railroads is probably the right thing to do at this point anyway.
-
Nationalizing the railroads is probably the right thing to do at this point anyway.
:facepalm:
-
Nationalizing the railroads is probably the right thing to do at this point anyway.
... because it worked so well in the U.K. ...
-
... because it worked so well in the U.K. ...
Didn't it? And private railroads are working so well in the US?
European railroads were nationalized for specific historical reasons that don't apply in the US.
-
Didn't it?
No. It didn't. https://theconversation.com/britains-railways-were-nationalised-70-years-ago-lets-not-do-it-again-89545
And private railroads are working so well in the US?
By and large, yes, they are:
https://ajot.com/news/railroads-are-usas-most-profitable-industry-with-a-50-profit-margin
-
Didn't it? And private railroads are working so well in the US?
European railroads were nationalized for specific historical reasons that don't apply in the US.
America's private rail services are working one hell of a lot better than America's government rail service -- AMTRAK.
-
My mom got all agitated about having to wait while on Amtrak. She said the freight should wait so the passenger traffic is non stop. I explained that it was because Amtrak is asking nicely and paying to use track owned by the freight rail. I can only imagine how bad it would be if Amtrak owned everything. If nationalization is the answer then it sure must have been a dumb question.
-
I've traveled a lot by rail over the years. I LOVE traveling by rail. Traveling by rail in Europe is a lot nicer, no doubt about it. But given my druthers, I'll continue to travel by rail, even if it's via Amtrak.
-
Nationalizing the railroads is probably the right thing to do at this point anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
I really hope that actor made a shitload of money from that line.
-
Only the easements should be nationalized, and they should have been from the very beginning.
Any infrastructure that is inherently monopolistic should be held by the public as monopolies are themselves inherently abusive. The trains that travel the rails, however, should remain private, just as private ships use the waterways and private land vehicles use the roads. Speaking of roads, transportation infrastructure is one of the few enumerated powers of the federal government: "to provide for the creation and maintenance of postal roads," paraphrased.
-
Amtrak sucks precisely because the railroads are private. The railroads have monopolies on the lines and only let amtrak use them at extortionate rates and criminal levels of service.
Just about everything is broken about the US rail system. I'm trying to think of one single thing that isn't. They are the reason we can't build pipelines, and the reason we are the only developed country without passenger rail. They use their monopolies to do nothing for the country that doesn't line their pockets and do everything else that does. The idea of defending them is pure Stockholm syndrome.
-
By and large, yes, they are:
https://ajot.com/news/railroads-are-usas-most-profitable-industry-with-a-50-profit-margin
You prove my point better than I could have. Your metric for success is how much profit they can extract from their rent seeking at the expense of the American public, without regard for what they actually provide or contribute. How very 21st-century American.
That profit margin is being sucked directly from the rest of the US economy due to their abuse of their monopolies, lack of competition, lack of any spending on infrastructure or service improvements, and so on.
Profit is great but the very fact that a capital heavy Industry like railroad is making Pharmaceutical-level profit margins is all but proof that it's rotten. If they earned their profit fairly, I would say great! God bless America. But they are parasites that cripple our infrastructure, harm our economy, make our country into a laughingstock while impeding any progress that eats into their nice racket.
-
If they earned their profit fairly, I would say great! God bless America. But they are parasites that cripple our infrastructure, harm our economy, make our country into a laughingstock while impeding any progress that eats into their nice racket.
So just to be clear, you'd like to take the railways away from "parasites that cripple our infrastructure, harm our economy, make our country into a laughingstock while impeding any progress that eats into their nice racket" and give them to ... politicians?
Could you please ponder that for a moment for me?
-
if nationalization is the answer then it sure must have been a dumb question.
Very cute. Do you feel the same about the post office? Interstate highway system? Or are you one of those people who say that while actually complaining for the government to build you more free roads? There's a reason anarcho-capitalist literature is dystopian.
I don't know of any developed country with private roads. Maybe it's possible, it's just never been done. I do know a country with private railroads. And it's a laughingstock even compared to twobit impoverished hellholes.
Most people don't know or care about the state of US rail, but I think it's bigger than just rail itself, bigger than just transportation. It's so bad it might be an early symptom of the complete downfall of our country. I know people here, myself included, have opined that the US government has already fallen, and we are just watching it fall. When I look at US rail, I think not only is the US falling, it already has. Stick a fork in her boys, she's done. Americans invented the transistor, and can't build electronics anymore. Invented flight, and can't build airplanes anymore (Boeing/737Max). Invented the automobile, and can't build cars anymore (Detroit). Can't provide safe drinking water anymore (Flint). Invented atomic energy (slight exaggeration), and can't build power plants anymore. Our grandparents were the last generation that actually did anything. Do you ever go to other countries and realize they didn't stop... everything... like the US did?
BTW, the chuo shinkansen should be online in a few more years...50 f'in years since the first shinkansen train, they are building a new line maglev line between Tokyo and Osaka. 50 years! And in the US we are still pretending that trains are something out of our grasp. Do you know how poor Japan is? They live in tin houses and have no lumber or oil. But they manage to put down railroads like we did in 1850. It's a really big problem, guys. Who is going to take over when the US falls? My money is on Texas being the last remnant. They are even working on a rail line between Dallas and Houston, but the current DC administration hates Texas so much they will have to do it without any federal funding, and I wish they would, just to flip the bird to California. Texas is already on track to surpass California in wind and solar, while making money doing it. It would warm the corners of my heart; I'd be in line to be the first one to concealed carry a 1911 on the first and only highspeed rail line in America.
-
So just to be clear, you'd like to take the railways away from "parasites that cripple our infrastructure, harm our economy, make our country into a laughingstock while impeding any progress that eats into their nice racket" and give them to ... politicians?
Could you please ponder that for a moment for me?
Yes. I would bring it directly under the Department of Transportation, NHS, and other existing transportation administration. It should be fairly synergistic with the interstate highway system network already in place.
-
Yes. I would bring it directly under the Department of Transportation, NHS, and other existing transportation administration. It should be fairly synergistic with the interstate highway system network already in place.
Maybe it would be as utopian as you imagine, but I just can't get over how much your derisive description of the current owners fits perfectly with your proposed owners.
-
Maybe it would be as utopian as you imagine, but I just can't get over how much your derisive description of the current owners fits perfectly with your proposed owners.
I'm not sensing much actual argument aside from vague statements. Can you answer these questions?
Do you think the interstate highway system should be privatized?
If it were privatized, do you think it would improve? In what ways?
If it were privatized, how profitable would it be? (Usually people don't even consider the idea of roads being profitable. Roads are so unprofitable, the idea of them being profitable seems almost a joke).
If the interstate highway system were private from the beginning, would it exist at all? Would our country be better?
I will answer these ones for you:
Is administration of the current interstate highway system perfect? No.
Do we nevertheless have highways? Yes
Is the administration of the US rail network perfect? No.
Do we have a functional rail network?
Essentially no, for freight rail included, but certainly for passenger rail.
-
Amtrak sucks precisely because the railroads are private. The railroads have monopolies on the lines and only let amtrak use them at extortionate rates and criminal levels of service.
Just about everything is broken about the US rail system. I'm trying to think of one single thing that isn't. They are the reason we can't build pipelines, and the reason we are the only developed country without passenger rail. They use their monopolies to do nothing for the country that doesn't line their pockets and do everything else that does. The idea of defending them is pure Stockholm syndrome.
We build pipelines all the time. I think there are a few cases where stuff was held up at the national level.
The biggest reason passenger rail often sucks as a solution is the cost of it is huge compared to the number of people who actually use it. For cities, a well run bus system is the most efficient way to go.
-
The biggest reason passenger rail often sucks as a solution is the cost of it is huge compared to the number of people who actually use it.
Huge compared to what? If you compared to roads, did you include the cost of all the cars? When you compared to busses, did you include the cost of the roads or just the cost of the busses?
Interestingly, most of the world (literally the entire world besides the US) have passenger rail, despite your "huge cost" argument. In terms of finished cost to the rider, there is never any contest...rail is usually easily the cheapest, even in places where tickets are expensive.
For cities, a well run bus system is the most efficient way to go.
Bikes, buses, cars, trains, and airplanes all do different things. None of them precisely replace any of the others. It is not an either/or question, rather a question about how much of each. The answer is not zero for any of them, unless something is very wrong.
-
The airplane is the reason why passenger rail largely evaporated in the US. Local cities have bus and rail*, regional travel is airplanes. Traveling across the country by rail sounds romantic until it takes a week and costs a lot more than a flight. Also a major downside of mass transit is having to acquire local transportation when you arrive.
*note many of these systems are run by their localities and SUCK. There is not a chance in HELL I’m getting on a city bus or many subways. Say what you will about air travel at least you don’t have bums pissing in the seats, raping women, or shoving passengers into jet engines.
-
I’m hardly a connoisseur of rail travel. But I’ve either used or picked up/dropped off folks using rail service a number of times. My experience with rail travel outside the USA was generally good. Decent-ish ticket prices, comfortable and reasonably on time service, and used by lots of normal people. In the USA while the trains themselves I’ve used had mostly normal people, when they transferred to busses (which was quite common) the weirdos were a very high proportion of passengers.
The reasons pax-rail sucks here has more to do with low utilization than anything else. The train from Seattle to Portland is very small compared to the one I took from Amsterdam to Eindhoven. And there are way more runs on that Dutch route too plus the Dutch trains were fuller.
Now, is that the chicken or the egg? If the service was available at comparable costs to Europe would American rail travel take off? Color me skeptical. Once you arrive you need a car or someone to pick you up. In Europe you hop on a bus (or walk) to get to your final destination. A large number of Europeans don’t even own a car. It’s a little unusual for us, but we have 6 cars right now (granted one isn’t running, and another is my mother in laws, and another is a pickup we lucked into for only $2k). Still, Americans mostly own their own vehicles, and prefer the independence of travel that allows and so they aren’t willing to put up with the imposed schedules of mass transit.
Besides, commies are so enamored with trains that most patriotic Americans kind of instinctually recoil at the idea of trains. Partly because ubiquitous rail travel is seen as a ploy to restrict freedom of movement. Whether it is or not, it’s undeniable that it would be far easier to control a populations movements when rail is a primary mover rather than automobiles.
-
The airplane is the reason why passenger rail largely evaporated in the US. Local cities have bus and rail*, regional travel is airplanes. Traveling across the country by rail sounds romantic until it takes a week and costs a lot more than a flight.
Rail is handily faster than planes up to about 400 miles. Even past 400 miles, rail can still be faster depending what flight you are comparing to, and how much time you have to allow for security, etc.
There are dozens, if not hundreds of high-demand routes under 400 miles in the US. There are over 100 flights per day just between Dallas and Houston, which is why they are looking for a rail link. There is a similar number of flights just between san Francisco and Phoenix, every day, which is also a prime distance. Repeat that for city pairs across the whole country....we haven't even talked about the East coast yet. And only about 20% of the people who make those trips every day fly. The rest drive. Some of both groups would take a train if there were one.
There is tremendous travel demand in the US. We have enough travel demand in the US over PRIME distances that it would be an enormous tailwind for our passenger rail system, if we had one.
Propagandists say rail doesn't work for the US because of size and population density, but it's just wrong. Take Spain -- a first world country with a high speed rail network. Look at the absolute size of Spain, their population density, and their distance between cities. There are multiple places in the US where you could overlay that map and we actually have HIGHER population density, HIGHER travel demand, and BETTER geography. No, there really is no excuse except corruption.
Also a major downside of mass transit is having to acquire local transportation when you arrive.
I think you mean "a major benefit of mass transit is not having to acquire local transportation when you arrive". That's the entire point of transit you know. When the transit functions, you take the transit to where you want to go.
Planes are much better for crossing oceans than trains though.
*note many of these systems are run by their localities and SUCK. There is not a chance in HELL I’m getting on a city bus or many subways. Say what you will about air travel at least you don’t have bums pissing in the seats, raping women, or shoving passengers into jet engines.
Because air travel is federally regulated. You may remember that for a big chunk of the 20th century, air travel was completely run by the government, and now it's partially deregulated, and in my opinion, it needs to be slightly more regulated. But notice, we actually have airplanes. We actually established an air travel network, using government regulations, back when America still did things. We are comparing an existing air travel network to a nonexistent train network. If there were no airports, no airlines, and no airplanes, there would be no point in pondering the benefits of air travel. That's where our train network is right now. I honestly wonder if we had zero air network, and the only way to fly being to ship yourself on a cargo plane or something, while everyone else in the world had affordable air travel and in-flight movies, if Americans would somehow claim it's because airplanes don't work in America, too expensive, too dangerous, or whatever lame excuse to avoid admitting we just failed.
-
Americans mostly own their own vehicles
which costs, by any fair estimate, at least $10,000/year. And when there's no other transport option, and you need it to survive, not really much of a choice is it. Makes the auto industry happy though. Murica.
The independence of travel that allows
You get to independently sit in the same traffic as everyone else.
Also, did you know that they don't confiscate your car when they build a train? They don't force people to ride the trains either (you actually have to go there yourself and even pay a small amount). You can have both car and train, and have more travel options. More options. More freedom of choice. More options.
The imposed schedules of mass transit
For planes yeah, but trains? What schedule? Busy trains usually come every 5 minutes. 2 minutes on some platforms in Japan. Regional trains like the RER, maybe every 15. There's no schedule, you just go whenever you want.
ubiquitous rail travel is seen as a ploy to restrict freedom of movement.
Why would having less transportation options create more freedom of movement?
-
You prove my point better than I could have. Your metric for success is how much profit they can extract from their rent seeking at the expense of the American public, without regard for what they actually provide or contribute. How very 21st-century American.
Actually I disproved your claim that American railroads are doing poorly. But you already knew that.
"Rent seeking"? You really don't understand how railroading works.
That profit margin is being sucked directly from the rest of the US economy due to their abuse of their monopolies, lack of competition, lack of any spending on infrastructure or service improvements, and so on.
Wrong again. They make profits because they provide a service that their customers want. Transporting freight by rail is a very efficient mode, especially for bulk freight that isn't time-sensitive (coal, grain, sand, gravel, etc.). Railroads do not "suck" money from the economy; they contribute to the economy.
As for "monopolies" that's also wrong. The railroads compete with each other (BNSF competes with Union Pacific, CSX competes with Norfolk Southern, short lines and regional RRs compete with each other). Moreover, railroads compete with trucking companies for customers.
Profit is great but the very fact that a capital heavy Industry like railroad is making Pharmaceutical-level profit margins is all but proof that it's rotten. If they earned their profit fairly, I would say great! God bless America.
Profit is proof that the industry is rotten. Riiiiiight.
Also: define "fairly."
But they are parasites that cripple our infrastructure, harm our economy, make our country into a laughingstock while impeding any progress that eats into their nice racket.
Once again, you're wrong. Railroads are a vital part of our transportation infrastructure. Far from harming our economy, they contribute to it in a very real manner, moving freight from where it is to where it is needed. They do all this without being run by the government. In fact, excessive government regulation was strangling the railroads until the Staggers Act was passed. This freed the railroads to make the necessary decisions to ensure their survival.
Nationalizing the nation's railroads would result in lower quality of service, higher operating costs, and decision-making based on politics rather than business realities.
-
Actually I disproved your claim that American railroads are doing poorly. But you already knew that.
The railroad companies are doing well for themselves. That's all you proved. The railroad companies have utterly failed Americans in providing reasonable rail service, arguably for freight and indisputably for passenger rail.
"Rent seeking"? You really don't understand how railroading works.
Because the railroad companies have pseudo -monopolies, there is a tremendous barrier to new entries that would compete with them, including political barriers like zoning, environment, etc
They monetize this advantage by charging far more, and providing much worse service, than they would in a competitive environment. Textbook rent seeking. You own the bridge, you charge what you want. That's rent seeking.
As for "monopolies" that's also wrong. The railroads compete with each other (BNSF competes with Union Pacific, CSX competes with Norfolk Southern, short lines and regional RRs compete with each other).
I said pseudo monopolies. Google technically competes with duckduckgo. And with newspaper ads. But due to network effects, Google is a pseudo monopoly. Look it up.
Profit is proof that the industry is rotten. Riiiiiight.
Is this controversial? In an efficient market, profits are always driven down. Walmart's profit margin is like 1%. Hard to argue they are like the railroads. The more competitive the market, the lower the profit margins; this is practically an iron law of economics. I work in an extremely capital intensive industry (many billion/year continuing capital investment), but the fact that it's reasonably competitive means profit margins are small, and the most commoditized sectors run on margins of a fraction of a percent. The fact that a very capital intensive and long established industry like railroads would be making 50% profit margins is a glaring indicator somebody is getting screwed. Note: that somebody is the American people.
also: define "fairly."
"Earned legally in a functional, competitive market" (doesn't apply to railroads due to rent seeking behavior; see above)
Railroads are a vital part of our transportation infrastructure.
You said it. That's my whole concern. The US rail is in abject shambles and this is a big problem that isn't popular to talk about, probably because of the rail companies are happy to sit back quietly and rake in their 50% profits.
Excessive government regulation was strangling the railroads until the Staggers Act was passed. This freed the railroads to make the necessary decisions to ensure their survival.
This probably needs translated to something like "the railroad shareholders weren't getting rich enough fast enough while also providing good service, building for growth, and maintaining infrastructure, so they petitioned the government to let them out of obligations and engage in business practices that maximized their shareholder value by squeezing value out of the railroads at the expense of the American economy and the future health of the US transportation system, and since DC is either corrupt, incompetent, or simply not paying attention, they said "sure why not" and here we are 50 years later with an effectively destroyed rail network and pile of dividend checks for the right people". Broken, fasco-capitalism at it's finest, seemingly the only thing America still does well. Hey, those railroad companies are making money though, and that's one definition of success. Just not success at actually providing rail service.
Nationalizing the nation's railroads would result in lower quality of service, higher operating costs, and decision-making based on politics rather than business realities.
Citation needed.
-
If you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of differences between the USA and Japan.
-
I’ll just leave this here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
-
If you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of differences between the USA and Japan.
You are very right. The thing about Japan is that it's full of Japanese people. That's what they have going for them, because they don't have much otherwise. In some ways it's a very poor country. They have very little resources. On the other hand, the US is truly overflowing with milk and honey in comparison. So one might ask the question why we can't lay down railroads. Actually the correct question is, why can't we lay down railroads ANYMORE, because of course we were powerful at one time, but somehow we have lost the ability to do 19th-century things. When Toyota was starting out, they copied Detroit. Toyota didn't surpass; Detroit fell. Why?. Is it corruption in DC? Pthalates in the water? The internet? Why can't we do simple things in America that we used to do?
And it's not US vs. Japan. It's US vs. every other country. I believe in American exceptionalism, but I don't like this kind. I'm not proud that China and Uzbekistan and Russia can build railroads but we can't.
-
Zahc, population density is a huge piece of what makes rail and other fixed-infrastructure mass transit work.
Japan by and large has extreme population density. The vast majority of the US lacks the density necessary to support that kind of mass transit.
-
Zahc, population density is a huge piece of what makes rail and other fixed-infrastructure mass transit work.
Japan by and large has extreme population density. The vast majority of the US lacks the density necessary to support that kind of mass transit.
Completely false and has been shown false many times. You sell the US short by underestimating the sheer size of our internal travel and economy, AND population densities.
There are a multitude of locations in the US that have optimum population densities AND existing travel demand. Texas alone has opportunities for high speed rail better than many countries that have it. Other corridors in the US are even better.
By the way, Japan is not densely populated. Most of Japan is relatively uninhabitable because of mountains. Uniform population is not optimal for trains anyway. Trains are good for connecting people to places they want to go while going fast through places the people don't need to be. Those same mountains make building trains between places in Japan very hard. There are many routes in the US that have much better geography for trains than anything they have in Japan. And we hardly even have earthquakes in the US.
No, really, we have all the density, proximity, population, travel demand, and geography in spades. It's all just excuses and propaganda. It really is just that bad. You should be very very mad at American leadership for the glory of previous generations that they have stolen, destroyed, or sold overseas and continue to steal from America and her children.
-
Completely false and has been shown false many times. You sell the US short by underestimating the sheer size of our internal travel and economy, AND population densities.
There are a multitude of locations in the US that have optimum population densities AND existing travel demand. Texas alone has opportunities for high speed rail better than many countries that have it. Other corridors in the US are even better.
By the way, Japan is not densely populated. Most of Japan is relatively uninhabitable because of mountains. Uniform population is not optimal for trains anyway. Trains are good for connecting people to places they want to go while going fast through places the people don't need to be. Those same mountains make building trains between places in Japan very hard. There are many routes in the US that have much better geography for trains than anything they have in Japan. And we hardly even have earthquakes in the US.
No, really, we have all the density, proximity, population, travel demand, and geography in spades. It's all just excuses and propaganda. It really is just that bad. You should be very very mad at American leadership for the glory of previous generations that they have stolen, destroyed, or sold overseas and continue to steal from America and her children.
Japan’s rail works because they have very dense cities relatively close to each other. The only place in the US that is remotely close to Japan in that regard is the northeastern cities.
Even with Japan’s very lightly populated areas included, their overall population density is ten times that of the US. So lots of people in a few cities relatively close together. Great scenario for rail transport. Unsurprisingly their farebox recovery ratio is some of the best in the world.
The US by and large is simply not well suited to the fixed infrastructure mass transit model.
I’m sure there are a handful of isolated places in the US that could support better rail systems but pretending that the only thing interfering with passenger rail in the US is bad policy or not enough government shows a spectacular lack of understanding of the basic concepts involved.
-
The U.S. has been going the wrong way with regard to railroads for decades. One of the reasons (not the only one, but one) is the highway lobby -- the companies who make big bucks out of building and rebuilding roads.
I'm in my late 70s. Even when I was a kid, the northeast had a LOT of transportation of both goods and people by rail. There used to be a HUGE rail switching yard located in New Haven, Connecticut. You can find it on Google -- it was called the Cedar Hill Yard. It was a sorting yard -- trains would bring in strings of freight cars. The yard would uncouple them, push them up a hill, and as they rolled down the other side of the hill the yard operators would flip switches and sort the freight cars into different trains, depending on where they were going. When I was a Cub Scout my troop took a day trip to see the Cedar Hill Yard in operation.
The Cedar Hill yard no longer exists -- and it can't be brought back, because most of the land it occupied has now been built over with a couple of shopping centers. There is comparatively NO freight rail service in New England any more, and passenger rail service exists basically only around Boston, between New haven and New York, and a smattering of under-utilized Amtrak trains that pass through once in a while.
Years ago, Congress foresaw a need for rail service and they passed a railway right-of-way conservation law (I think it was called the National Rail Banking Act). Basically, it said (and I believe it's still on the books) that existing railroad rights-of-way can't be lost if the railroad stops running trains on them. The land can be used for other purposes, but must be preserved for future use as a railroad.
This was the birth of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. They would take over abandoned rail rights-of-way and convert them to hiking and bicycling trails. Fine. Good interim use of the land. For several years I contributed to the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy on an annual basis. Then I saw something in one of their newsletters that bothered me, so I called their headquarters. I asked if their program was based on the National Rail Banking Act. Yes, it was. So then I asked how they would react if someone came along and wanted to use one of those old railroad rights-of-way for something other than a hiking trail -- like, say, a railroad.
"Oh, we would be strongly opposed to that."
I no longer support the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railbanking
-
Completely false and has been shown false many times. You sell the US short by underestimating the sheer size of our internal travel and economy, AND population densities.
There are a multitude of locations in the US that have optimum population densities AND existing travel demand. Texas alone has opportunities for high speed rail better than many countries that have it. Other corridors in the US are even better.
By the way, Japan is not densely populated. Most of Japan is relatively uninhabitable because of mountains. Uniform population is not optimal for trains anyway. Trains are good for connecting people to places they want to go while going fast through places the people don't need to be. Those same mountains make building trains between places in Japan very hard. There are many routes in the US that have much better geography for trains than anything they have in Japan. And we hardly even have earthquakes in the US.
No, really, we have all the density, proximity, population, travel demand, and geography in spades. It's all just excuses and propaganda. It really is just that bad. You should be very very mad at American leadership for the glory of previous generations that they have stolen, destroyed, or sold overseas and continue to steal from America and her children.
Sure, rail could work in some parts of the US but I don't think it would work everywhere.
I live in a rural area 50-ish miles from a major metropolitan area. There is a BNSF line in town 2 miles away so rail access. If I were to catch a train to Tulsa I would have to rely on busses for getting around in town either for shopping or entertainment or employment making me reliant on someone else's schedule. And, if was there to buy something I'd have to carry it around with me. I also can't imagine being allowed to be armed on public transportation. My preference would be to drive.
-
" No, there really is no excuse except corruption."
"The railroad companies have utterly failed Americans in providing reasonable rail service, arguably for freight and indisputably for passenger rail."
I think it's more likely that they haven't provided a service that no one wants and isn't profitable.
-
This has become an interesting conversation and has had be thinking about my own perspective on mass transit.
And... it turns out I'm extremely biased against mass transit in the US, with the exception of air travel.
I've been to other places in the world, where mass transit was fairly normal, and didn't find it objectionable. The underground in the UK. The french rail network. No worries - by and large much like with US air travel is like. Normal people moving about for whatever reason. Reasonably clean, safe and economical.
In the US though? Not long ago I flew into midway and took the "L" to Michigan avenue. Cheapest way to go. On the way I was panhandled three times, had two people try to sell me illegal drugs, witnessed one arrest at a station and felt uncomfortable about my personal security the whole time. Experiences from much further in the past in New York and Baltimore weren't much different. In the US, you are around and dealing with the segment of society that are on mass transit because they lack any other options. Why would you want to put yourself in a confined space with a bunch of low SES folks?
Now, those aren't true rail systems - they are intercity connections and have the same problems that cities typically have. Fair enough. But when I've looked at Amtrak travel, I've found that it takes just as long as driving, costs a similar amount, and at the end I don't have a car for the last leg of my journey. If you already own an reliable car, there's no advantage. I'll pay more to get their faster via air, or pay less and get there in my own car on my own terms.
-
Completely false and has been shown false many times. You sell the US short by underestimating the sheer size of our internal travel and economy, AND population densities.
There are a multitude of locations in the US that have optimum population densities AND existing travel demand. Texas alone has opportunities for high speed rail better than many countries that have it. Other corridors in the US are even better.
By the way, Japan is not densely populated. Most of Japan is relatively uninhabitable because of mountains. Uniform population is not optimal for trains anyway. Trains are good for connecting people to places they want to go while going fast through places the people don't need to be. Those same mountains make building trains between places in Japan very hard. There are many routes in the US that have much better geography for trains than anything they have in Japan. And we hardly even have earthquakes in the US.
No, really, we have all the density, proximity, population, travel demand, and geography in spades. It's all just excuses and propaganda. It really is just that bad. You should be very very mad at American leadership for the glory of previous generations that they have stolen, destroyed, or sold overseas and continue to steal from America and her children.
The last time I saw the high speed rail plans for Texas they were idiotic. Huge tracts of eminent domain land bisecting huge distances of rural Texas with crossings spaced out at fairly large distances. All to drop people off somewhere in the suburbs of a few major cities so they have to rent a car or ride a bus to where they need to go. Nothing is within walking distance in Texas. At the time, the high speed rails would have to cut a straighter distance than even the interstate highways which IMO is a potential problem depending on the route.
The costs of high speed rail in Texas would be huge even compared to interstate highways and I don't think the ridership would come even close to justifying the cost and headaches.
IMO, the highways are better allowing people the freedom to pick whatever destination they want. Tons of people leave Houston on Fridays and Saturdays (and all return Sunday afternoon) heading out to lakes and parks elsewhere. Guess where the rail won't go. To all the spots people want to get to. The highways will still be full of people driving.
I know there were high level plans to expand the interstate highway routes including adding more freight rail. I have no idea where that stands.
-
"The railroad companies are doing well for themselves. That's all you proved. The railroad companies have utterly failed Americans in providing reasonable rail service, arguably for freight and indisputably for passenger rail."
OH MY GOD! EVIL CAPITALISM!
Sure, every time you purchase a consumer production, virtually ANY consumer product, the railroads have failed you. The simple fact that you can purchase anything at all is because of the freight railroads.
Your contention is most incredibly stupid statement I've ever heard, and is apparently based only on your feels and on love of government control.
As for passenger service, it is NOT the duty of the freight railroads to provide passenger service -- that is Amtrak's duty. The agreement as it exists exists because of the Government/industry agreement that was reached that created Amtrak.
The railroads, at the time of the agreement, were looking to exit passenger service because it was a DYING service. The government decided that it needed to be maintained and stepped in, set the conditions for the deal, and agreed to it.
Amtrak exists, and its conditions of its existence, aren't the fault of the freight railroads, it's due to the complete and blatant fuckuppery of the government's negotiating position when Amtrak was created. So sure, the government *expletive deleted*ed up Amtrak, let's fix everything by nationalizing everything and giving top priority to passenger service, which constitutes something like 4% of the total value of rail service in the United States!
Hey, those 50,000 tons of wheat that are needed to ensure that companies can actually continue supply bread products to the North East?
Let those aholes eat cake! 36 passengers need priority transport from DC to Boston!
Wonderful solution to a problem that exists only in your mind.
-
I think our philosophies are similar. The difference is in our understanding of the situation and how bad it is. I have come to the realization of what has happened and how bad it is, and you haven't.
All the talk about capitalism and free markets is not wrong, just doesn't apply here. I think of it very much like Pacific Gas and Electric. PG&E are not a good company. They have many failures and corruption, (although not as bad as railroads because people in California still have electricity, usually). When I see your defense of the railroads, in plain view of their utter and consistent destruction of US rail network, for me it's like this. This is a fake scenario, but very similar and actually happening right now.
Imagine if nobody did anything about PG&E, and let them do whatever they wanted to maximize shareholder value. Let's make sure the only metric we care about is maximizing shareholder value, and nothing else, nothing so mundane as actually providing electricity to Californians.
Then, (spoiler alert: some of this has already happened) imagine they petitioned the government to remove or relax standards for electricity reliability. Because maintaining 99% grid uptime is "not profitable". So they allow the standard to be that rolling blackouts, peak pricing and shutdowns, etc. are all normal. Then, imagine they failed to build any new power plants (investing in additional capacity is not profitable compared to just raising rates to reduce demand). Imagine they stopped maintaining their line right of ways altogether, or just decided to turn the lines off to prevent fires instead (more profitable that way). Imagine this trend of reducing service went on for 50 years.
One day, you take a trip from you home in Nevada to California, and realize they have no functional power grid. Everyone has standby generators, their air conditioning turns off during the day, if they can afford air conditioning at all, toaster ovens have been banned, and what's left of the power grid goes out daily, and electricity rates are $1/kWh. You realize, my God, they have no electricity in California, and it's like a 3rd world country. Wait, it's worse than that, because in the meantime, even third world countries figured out how to have electricity. And you remember last time you came to California 50 years ago, they had perfectly fine electricity.
Meanwhile, across the border in Nevada your electricity works reliably. You look into PG&E and find they have been making 50% profit margins off the remaining remnant of the power grid while investing nothing in maintenance or growth for the last 50 years.
In this scenario, what is your assessment of what happened to the power grid in California? My assessment would be that PG&E, and the government that let them do it, sold the California power grid down the river in exchange for piles of dividend checks, enjoying lack of any effective competition, and this is a despicable thing that's borderline criminal. Your assessment, if your opinions on US rail are any indication, would be that PG&E is a shining beacon of capitalism, heros providing a needed good to customers who need it, at a fair price by definition, and the fact that they are making 50% profit margins, while failing in their mission, means they are "doing well" since the government thankfully let them out of all their obligations in that messy business to actually provide first-world electricity to California. The destruction of the functioning power grid that previously existed in California was just a natural fact of life that couldn't be helped, despite the fact that California used to have a great power grid, scaled it and maintained it for decades to meet demand, all similar states and countries have managed to have reliable electric at reasonable rates and consider it a basic necessity if life since the early 20th century. Meanwhile, people in California who don't know any better think that reliable electricity is overrated, they "know" they can't have a reliable grid because California is special because of (made up absurd reasons), and it has nothing to do with PG&E failing, in fact they are thankful to PG&E for the remaining grid they have left. People who take the latter stance are some combination of ignorant, naive, brainwashed, or just not very bright. Or, they lie themselves because they have no individual power to change it, and moving on is easier than admitting the electricity situation in their state is so bad and hopeless.
And that's most Americans and US rail network. They are like future generations of Californians who won't even know what it's like to live where there's reliable electricity, unless they travel to Nevada one day and realize what they could still have.
-
Anyone who believes government-run high speed rail is a good idea needs to take a long hard look at the HSR boondoggle happening right now in California:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-entirely-predictable-failure-of-california-high-speed-rail/
https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/blogs/p/2022/08/30/high-speed-rail-boondoggle-continues-to-stagger-forward
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/07/09/california-wastes-billions-more-on-bullet-train-boondoggle/
-
Some interesting arguments to be sure. I guess I'll throw my two cents in (for passenger rail only, not freight).
It IS affected by population / population density. It IS affected by geography. It IS affected by culture. It IS affected by economics.
It has worked in modern Europe because of population distributions and geography. It has also worked there because they didn't get on the car bandwagon like the US did, when the US did. Some of my relatives in Germany didn't even own a car until the 1960s. By then, despite people becoming wealthier, a train system and train culture were baked in to Western Europe. Plus owning cars (and buying fuel) was and still is much more expensive in Europe than here. Though talking with my relatives at various times, in Germany at least, other than the greenies, in the last couple of decades people there have also tended more to like driving and going where they want, when they want. I don't know how it is in other Western European countries.
I did the Eurail thing in the 80s. For the most part, it was great, with trains going everywhere everyday. Still, while travel was clean (as in newer, well kept train cars) and efficient in the Germanic countries and the nordic countries, that wasn't the case everywhere. Traveling one time from Germany to Spain, everything was peachy until France, where suddenly in Marseilles (what a dirty train station) I was out of luck with trains going anywhere West when I arrived in the late afternoon and couldn't catch another train until the next morning. Going into Spain, the trains got crappier, and so did the schedules.
You can argue that in Russia, much larger than the US, they have trains running so how can geography make a difference? Well, economy and culture will make a difference. It's another place, unlike the US (and I think we are unique with our car culture) where there was neither infrastructure nor money in households to support individual cars for many people, so rail became a viable option. It's probably still difficult to drive the ~4K miles (as the crow flies) from Moscow to Vladivostok between bad roads and refueling infrastructure. You can take the rail of course, and I just looked it up: $400US for a 2nd class berth and a 160 hour train ride. The price is pretty reasonable, though you're bunking in the same room with strangers (and of course, the 160 hours one way, so build two weeks travel time into your trip). I tried looking at flights but Russian flights seem to be blocked on every travel site. I can't imagine they cost more than $400 though, and they only take 8 hours. Russians seem to like to drive cars in the cities moreso than taking public transport.
https://www.russianrail.com/search/A3KP2CU5PE
If you look at the ragistan countries who also have large geographic areas with lots of empty spaces, sure they have passenger rail, also because there's not a lot of car ownership and a lot of poor people who can't afford a car or airfare.
The US is simply designed for auto and air travel. Sure there are exceptions like the DC Metro. When I had to go to DC a lot for work, I took a cab from Dulles to my DC hotel, then everything was done on the metro. There were stops within 10-15min walks of everywhere I had to go. Certainly Nick makes a good point about the demographics. Even back then, I would constantly be accosted by aggressive panhandlers, which residents seemed to take as "well, that's just how it is." I'm guessing that has only gotten worse.
Then of course we have the government high speed rail in California. A bajillion dollars over budget, and a rail that was supposed to connect LA with SanFran is currently being partially built to connect BFE with BFE.
I can't think of any circumstances for longer distances in the US where a train gets me somewhere faster and easier than driving or flying. If it's a shorter trip, the car almost always wins. If it's a longer trip, the plane wins and is probably cheaper most of the time.
Edit: Angel Eyes posted on the CA boondoggle while I was typing.
-
On freight rail, I don't see the whole "no working rail network" argument? I certainly run across trains moving frequently. A quick google shows me the DOT claims about 28% of freight movement in the US is by rail. https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/freight-rail-overview (It also says railroads invest 19% of their revenues in maintaining and increasing the rail network, for what that's worth). I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but it seems like we have a functional freight rail network. [shrug]
True, the US doesn't have a decent passenger rail system (mostly because it's been nationalized, IMO) but it also doesn't seem to want one. Amtrak doesn't run at capacity, and inter city light rails are perpetual boondoggles that loose millions because usage estimates always fall short of reality. We're dealing with that in central FL right now, where the mass transit-philes are perennially trying to build high speed rail between cities, and their ideas are all stupid on the face.
I will say, that I'm not normally a union fan by any means, but from what I read this summer working for the RR's is some BS. The whole "on call 24/7 unless on PTO" would be a deal breaker for me. Those unions might want to step up a little more.
-
I don't see the whole "no working rail network" argument?
I depends how low you set your standards. Others have already posted upthread about the rail infrastructure that has been neglected or torn out. Places that used to have rail sidings have them removed ("not profitable "). Grain bins and other ag infrastructure that used to run on trains has been cut off, purely at the mercy of the rail companies who seem to have no obligation whatsoever. Imagine if a private road company just up and decided to shut down the WV turnpike when they decided it wasn't profitable enough for them. Do you think that would be Ok or better?
You don't have to tell me about what boondoggles train projects are in the US; we are both complaining about the same thing, that's how the US can't seem to do any productive industrial things that not only poorer countries can do, but we ourselves used to be able to do. I agree many rail projects in the US are boondoggles, note however that ALL transportation projects in the US are boondoggles, making it not strictly a train problem. Do you consider how many highway boondoggles there are? Or are they so commonplace, they don't even make the news anymore?
They have been working on I395 in Maine for 25 years and spent untold million dollars on it. Nobody has yet driven on it. Heck they haven't completed 1-69, and they've been working on it 75 years (should be done in 2024 though, for real this time). Similar project boondoggle road projects are too numerous to count. Many states are hundreds of millions in the hole on road maintenance. The government budget just for expansion, not maintenance, in 2016 was 30 billion. Yet every time a train project goes over budget, everyone knows about it and pretends it proves something.
But really, California HSR is a boondoggle for sure. I'm not going to defend those guys. Just show me a road project that isn't also a boondoggle on top of the existing billions of dollars deferred maintenance boondoggle.
-
I'm curious as to what other industries you think would be better run if the federal government took them over?
Why should the RRs be required to maintain and service infrastructure and locations that are not profitable?
My little podunk rural town used to have 3 rail sidings to support coal mining, the local feed and grain elevator and the lumber yard.
The rail lines used to service every little piss-ant farming town along their route, times changed, people changed, how things got done changed
In the early '60s you cold catch a train with several stops along the way in to Tulsa and back the same day. It stopped because people found ways to travel that they like better.
They fell out of use in the late '70s and have since been torn out with just the main rail line passing though town.
There also used to be a Greyhound bus station in town. That's been gone for decades as well, now you have to go to downtown Tulsa to catch a bus. Should Greyhound be nationalized so they will be forced to service unprofitable locations and routes?
-
I'm curious as to what other industries you think would be better run if the federal government took them over?
It's interesting that you used the term "industries". You probably consider railroads to be "industry", but you probably don't consider roads to be "industry" but rather "infrastructure". I reject the double standard. Both road and railroad is critical infrastructure, which supports many industries. Most of the world agrees.
Why should the RRs be required to maintain and service infrastructure and locations that are not profitable?
I see your point but if you follow that line of thinking you can't do literally anything. You certainly can't have a civilization. You have to have a way of getting things done. It's like saying, why should gas companies be "forced" to run gas lines to every house. They aren't "forced" to do it, they do it as part of their very mandate for existing. Because we as a society recognize that's their entire purpose. You can't just one day let the gas companies start cutting off houses to boost their profits, with the idea that's it's evil to "force them to do unprofitable things". Or maybe in your world, you think that would be ok? I mean it would undeniably boost their profits if they could just start failing to provide services at their discretion, right? Repeat for any other essential service or public infrastructure. Would you be happy if some company bought out public waterworks and started cutting unprofitable services and extorting the remainder with high rates, while not maintaining the capital? They could boost profits to railroad levels and be business heros.
Why should any infrastructure exist? Why should we have any civilization at all?
times changed, people changed, how things got done changed
Yes; all of those things happened as a result of specific government policy decisions.
And they didn't change the same way in other developed countries, due to different specific government policy decisions. This is the entire discussion. We aren't talking about forces of nature here. We got here by specific government policy action. Don't pretend the government had nothing to do with it.
Also, there is no arrow of progress leading to rail becoming obsolete. Rail was efficient then, and it's efficient now.
In the early '60s you cold catch a train with several stops along the way in to Tulsa and back the same day. It stopped because people found ways to travel that they like better.
It stopped because the trains disappeared. You talk like people had a choice. When the railroads disappear, is that really a case of people choosing other options?
If the roads all disappeared and people took trains because that was their only remaining option, would you say that it must have been that people all decided they liked trains better? Or would you grasp the actual situation?
Should Greyhound be nationalized so they will be forced to service unprofitable locations and routes?
I don't think they reallly need to be taken over. Maybe there could be a government supported option to bus people long distances, that coexist alongside private options, but would have some guarantee that people could travel the great nation, even to "flyover country", in some capacity. Sort of like how the USPS delivers to everyone, while coexisting (even sometimes collaborating) with private options like FedEx and UPS.
-
. . . Sort of like how the USPS delivers to everyone, while coexisting (even sometimes collaborating) with private options like FedEx and UPS.
USPS doesn't deliver to all addresses - I have some (distant) cousins that live in a very rural area of Virginia, and they have no local mail service; a couple of times a week they have to drive into town to the post office to pick up their mail. And most new housing developments have their mailboxes grouped at the entrance to the development. So yes, virtually everyone has service of some sort, but it's good to keep in mind it's not always local service.
-
USPS doesn't deliver to all addresses - I have some (distant) cousins that live in a very rural area of Virginia, and they have no local mail service; a couple of times a week they have to drive into town to the post office to pick up their mail. And most new housing developments have their mailboxes grouped at the entrance to the development. So yes, virtually everyone has service of some sort, but it's good to keep in mind it's not always local service.
This makes sense and I would support USPS scaling back in smart ways. Especially with the way the market has changed due to the internet. It just makes sense. Honestly I would be fine only delivering on alternate days, or whatever, considering I mostly get junk mail anyway. I think it makes a lot of sense to have the community mailboxes too, not only because it is easier for the mailman, but also declutters the area from having a million mailboxes on the sidewalks.
-
There's a lot of "which came first" argument here.
Your claim is that the passenger service went away because the passenger rail service went away. My contention, based on admittedly 2nd hand information from the people that actually used the service, is that the passenger service went away because the passengers stopped using it.
Another argument you offer is that gas companies are forced to run service to every house. Out here in rural America they do not in fact run service to every house I know many people that are either total electric or have a big ass propane tank in their yard. Nor do all the people I know have public water service, I now many people that are on private wells. I also know many people that are generally unable to get reliable high speed broadband service to their house.
You position seems to be solidly rooted in a metropolitan/high population density mind set. It doesn't work in rural America.
Mass transit is all well and good in high population density locations. it would not work in my area or for my life style. I don't have a use for it, I don't want to be required to pay for it by way of taxation so other people can benefit from something I have no desire to use.
-
It's interesting that you used the term "industries". You probably consider railroads to be "industry", but you probably don't consider roads to be "industry" but rather "infrastructure". I reject the double standard. Both road and railroad is critical infrastructure, which supports many industries. Most of the world agrees.
I see your point but if you follow that line of thinking you can't do literally anything. You certainly can't have a civilization. You have to have a way of getting things done. It's like saying, why should gas companies be "forced" to run gas lines to every house. They aren't "forced" to do it, they do it as part of their very mandate for existing. Because we as a society recognize that's their entire purpose. You can't just one day let the gas companies start cutting off houses to boost their profits, with the idea that's it's evil to "force them to do unprofitable things". Or maybe in your world, you think that would be ok? I mean it would undeniably boost their profits if they could just start failing to provide services at their discretion, right? Repeat for any other essential service or public infrastructure. Would you be happy if some company bought out public waterworks and started cutting unprofitable services and extorting the remainder with high rates, while not maintaining the capital? They could boost profits to railroad levels and be business heros.
Why should any infrastructure exist? Why should we have any civilization at all?
Yes; all of those things happened as a result of specific government policy decisions.
And they didn't change the same way in other developed countries, due to different specific government policy decisions. This is the entire discussion. We aren't talking about forces of nature here. We got here by specific government policy action. Don't pretend the government had nothing to do with it.
Also, there is no arrow of progress leading to rail becoming obsolete. Rail was efficient then, and it's efficient now.
It stopped because the trains disappeared. You talk like people had a choice. When the railroads disappear, is that really a case of people choosing other options?
If the roads all disappeared and people took trains because that was their only remaining option, would you say that it must have been that people all decided they liked trains better? Or would you grasp the actual situation?
I don't think they reallly need to be taken over. Maybe there could be a government supported option to bus people long distances, that coexist alongside private options, but would have some guarantee that people could travel the great nation, even to "flyover country", in some capacity. Sort of like how the USPS delivers to everyone, while coexisting (even sometimes collaborating) with private options like FedEx and UPS.
Much of the passenger trains stopped because the interstate highway system made it easier and faster to drive longer distances. Many of the state highways have improved as well. I think demand had a lot to do with it. Not to mention that driving comfort has improved in cars.
On the freight side, trucks can haul a lot of the smaller volume freight in a much more flexible manner than trains. I don't think the heavy 18 wheeler trucks were around until the '50's or '60's.
You mentioned interstate highways in Maine, those are built and maintained by the state govt with federal funding. If they can't manage that, then building rail infrastructure won't be any better.
-
There's a lot of "which came first" argument here.
Your claim is that the passenger service went away because the passenger rail service went away. My contention, based on admittedly 2nd hand information from the people that actually used the service, is that the passenger service went away because the passengers stopped using it.
Another argument you offer is that gas companies are forced to run service to every house. Out here in rural America they do not in fact run service to every house I know many people that are either total electric or have a big ass propane tank in their yard. Nor do all the people I know have public water service, I now many people that are on private wells. I also know many people that are generally unable to get reliable high speed broadband service to their house.
You position seems to be solidly rooted in a metropolitan/high population density mind set. It doesn't work in rural America.
Mass transit is all well and good in high population density locations. it would not work in my area or for my life style. I don't have a use for it, I don't want to be required to pay for it by way of taxation so other people can benefit from something I have no desire to use.
And rural people certainly don't want BigGov seizing land with eminent domain to run high speed rail trains through the area that will never stop anywhere nearby and restrict travel due to limited crossings.
-
Some interesting arguments to be sure. I guess I'll throw my two cents in (for passenger rail only, not freight).
It IS affected by population / population density. It IS affected by geography. It IS affected by culture. It IS affected by economics.
It has worked in modern Europe because of population distributions and geography. It has also worked there because they didn't get on the car bandwagon like the US did, when the US did. Some of my relatives in Germany didn't even own a car until the 1960s. By then, despite people becoming wealthier, a train system and train culture were baked in to Western Europe. Plus owning cars (and buying fuel) was and still is much more expensive in Europe than here. Though talking with my relatives at various times, in Germany at least, other than the greenies, in the last couple of decades people there have also tended more to like driving and going where they want, when they want. I don't know how it is in other Western European countries.
I did the Eurail thing in the 80s. For the most part, it was great, with trains going everywhere everyday. Still, while travel was clean (as in newer, well kept train cars) and efficient in the Germanic countries and the nordic countries, that wasn't the case everywhere. Traveling one time from Germany to Spain, everything was peachy until France, where suddenly in Marseilles (what a dirty train station) I was out of luck with trains going anywhere West when I arrived in the late afternoon and couldn't catch another train until the next morning. Going into Spain, the trains got crappier, and so did the schedules.
You can argue that in Russia, much larger than the US, they have trains running so how can geography make a difference? Well, economy and culture will make a difference. It's another place, unlike the US (and I think we are unique with our car culture) where there was neither infrastructure nor money in households to support individual cars for many people, so rail became a viable option. It's probably still difficult to drive the ~4K miles (as the crow flies) from Moscow to Vladivostok between bad roads and refueling infrastructure. You can take the rail of course, and I just looked it up: $400US for a 2nd class berth and a 160 hour train ride. The price is pretty reasonable, though you're bunking in the same room with strangers (and of course, the 160 hours one way, so build two weeks travel time into your trip). I tried looking at flights but Russian flights seem to be blocked on every travel site. I can't imagine they cost more than $400 though, and they only take 8 hours. Russians seem to like to drive cars in the cities moreso than taking public transport.
https://www.russianrail.com/search/A3KP2CU5PE
If you look at the ragistan countries who also have large geographic areas with lots of empty spaces, sure they have passenger rail, also because there's not a lot of car ownership and a lot of poor people who can't afford a car or airfare.
The US is simply designed for auto and air travel. Sure there are exceptions like the DC Metro. When I had to go to DC a lot for work, I took a cab from Dulles to my DC hotel, then everything was done on the metro. There were stops within 10-15min walks of everywhere I had to go. Certainly Nick makes a good point about the demographics. Even back then, I would constantly be accosted by aggressive panhandlers, which residents seemed to take as "well, that's just how it is." I'm guessing that has only gotten worse.
Then of course we have the government high speed rail in California. A bajillion dollars over budget, and a rail that was supposed to connect LA with SanFran is currently being partially built to connect BFE with BFE.
I can't think of any circumstances for longer distances in the US where a train gets me somewhere faster and easier than driving or flying. If it's a shorter trip, the car almost always wins. If it's a longer trip, the plane wins and is probably cheaper most of the time.
Edit: Angel Eyes posted on the CA boondoggle while I was typing.
A few points on that:
1. I don't think Russia has any sort of interstate highway system like the US. I don't know if they have ever encouraged freedom of travel like we do.
2. From what I have heard about Europe, part of the reason for the population density is zoning. People are not allowed to buy up rural property and build a house. There are waiting lists for housing outside the major cities. Where they have relaxed zoning and allowed it, people there move out of the city and drive with the resulting traffic congestion. IMO, no one wants to be packed into a dense area if they have a choice.
3. In the US, there was a lot of movement from the farms to the cities to work in industry just like a lot of countries. Our road infrastructure has allowed smaller scale industry to move out of the cities and use the roads to ship materials and equipment.
IMO, our road networks allow a great deal of individual freedom to move around without depending on anything but fuel. I would hate to change that.
Question for the Group: If the existing rail lines set up some nice passenger cars on the rail around the country, would anyone actually ride them? The speeds would be relatively slow and have limited destinations. Not to mention rail yards are not always in the best areas of cities. Buses make a lot more sense these days than rail. Only way I could see it work is if a city had an existing mass transit rail system, a connection could be made to the interstate rail to allow people to switch over. I doubt it would make economic sense to build all that if it didn't exist.
-
A few points on that:
1. I don't think Russia has any sort of interstate highway system like the US. I don't know if they have ever encouraged freedom of travel like we do.
Question for the Group: If the existing rail lines set up some nice passenger cars on the rail around the country, would anyone actually ride them? The speeds would be relatively slow and have limited destinations. Not to mention rail yards are not always in the best areas of cities. Buses make a lot more sense these days than rail. Only way I could see it work is if a city had an existing mass transit rail system, a connection could be made to the interstate rail to allow people to switch over. I doubt it would make economic sense to build all that if it didn't exist.
On #1, that's part of what I was getting at regarding infrastructure . There may not even be roads in some areas between Moscow and Vladivostok for all I know. It's a 1000 miles shorter distance, but a relevant example would be not being able to drive from LA to NYC because there are no roads in Colorado.
On the question, certainly we no longer have the train stations of old here from all those movies from the 1930s. A few big hubs like Union Station sure. I recall the train station in Santa Barbara (I often dropped hippie coworkers off who wanted to take the train to San Diego or wherever) was just seats, a ticket counter, and bathrooms. If you look at European train stations, from mid-sized cities on, the train stations are almost like airports here, with lounges, restaurants, etc.
-
Question for the Group: If the existing rail lines set up some nice passenger cars on the rail around the country, would anyone actually ride them?
What you have described is known as "Amtrak" and it's pretty sucky because it attempts to use private freight rail for passenger use. Despite sucking I'm still glad we have it because it's better than nothing.
It has been shown that even as sucky as Amtrak is, some people do in fact ride it. Amtrak doesn't come to my city at all, so I can't.
Generally if the trains went where people want to go, then people ride them.
The speeds would be relatively slow and have limited destinations.
Yes, but why do we shoot so low? Why can't the trains be fast, and go many places? Why are we the most (formerly) great country in the world and we are talking about aspiring to crappy slow train running on freight rails?
Not to mention rail yards are not always in the best areas of cities.
Which is why passenger rail is universally separate from freight rail. Passenger stations need to be where people want to go. One example is when I lived in Dallas, there was a DART station right by TI blvd where I worked. I was able to take it right to the courthouse. No traffic or parking. One less car on 75.
Only way I could see it work is if a city had an existing mass transit rail system, a connection could be made to the interstate rail to allow people to switch over.
Yes, what you have imagined is called a "connection". By connecting train lines, you can form what is known as a "rail network", allowing you to travel around! You can also connect the rail lines to other modes like airports, rental garages, and bus terminals, forming what is known as a "transportation network". These "rail networks" are common everywhere in the world except the US.
I doubt it would make economic sense to build all that if it didn't exist.
And here we are back to the fall of America. We can't build anything. Only if it was already built by previous generations of Americans, the ones who did great things (or even mundane things like build trains), is it possible. We are doomed.
-
Back to the rail strike.
I think the democrats showed their hand too much with the way they totally f'd the rail unions this time.
I honestly don't know why the democrats weren't smart enough to broker some kind of compromise, and throw at least a few bones to the unions. They are usually smarter than that; anyone would be smarter than that... it's so weird I wonder if there is some shadow force at work.
There seems to be a widespread reaction not just from rail unions but other labor groups who apparently are stupid enough to vote Democrat, but apparently smart enough to comprehend when they get F'd by the D party, at least when the Fing is this bad, which is a glimmer of progress. a man can hope: could this be a step along a path of not just labor, but other D stronghold constituencies finally realizing they are voting for the wrong party?
"Well I tell you what, If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't [a blue collar worker]."
“Outrageous that the most pro-union President since Roosevelt has failed to stand up for railway workers on the union's important sick pay issue,” said Seth Goldstein, a lawyer for the Amazon Labor Union. "This just shows unions should never be reliant on a political party or politician.”
A worker should not be fired for going to the doctor. Yet it is 2022 and railroaders are fighting for sick leave in the richest country on Earth,” the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of unions in the country, said in a statement.
Teamsters General President Sean M. O’Brien:. “Why should rail executives and members of Congress have paid sick time, but rail workers don’t get a single paid sick day? If Congress is going to take over this process, they need to include paid sick days.”
“If Congress forces a crap deal on the railroad workers they should all strike anyway,” one person wrote in a Reddit post. “*expletive deleted*ck the economy. Let the cargo on those trains rot.”
Starbucks Workers United, which represents over 250 unionized Starbucks stores, tweeted, “Pres. Biden forcing railroad workers to accept a deal they voted down is a betrayal of working class people. Siding with the bosses to deny workers paid sick leave and prevent a strike is not pro-labor.”
When you lose Amazon and Starbucks....
https://www.vice.com/en/article/93avvp/scab-workers-furious-at-joe-biden-after-pro-labor-president-sells-out-railworker-unions
-
Back to the rail strike.
I think the democrats showed their hand too much with the way they totally f'd the rail unions this time.
I honestly don't know why the democrats weren't smart enough to broker some kind of compromise, and throw at least a few bones to the unions. They are usually smarter than that; anyone would be smarter than that... it's so weird I wonder if there is some shadow force at work.
There seems to be a widespread reaction not just from rail unions but other labor groups who apparently are stupid enough to vote Democrat, but apparently smart enough to comprehend when they get F'd by the D party, at least when the Fing is this bad, which is a glimmer of progress. a man can hope: could this be a step along a path of not just labor, but other D stronghold constituencies finally realizing they are voting for the wrong party?
"Well I tell you what, If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't [a blue collar worker]."
When you lose Amazon and Starbucks....
https://www.vice.com/en/article/93avvp/scab-workers-furious-at-joe-biden-after-pro-labor-president-sells-out-railworker-unions
*expletive deleted*ck Amazon. Jeff who just wants to make money trucking the freight the trains won't be moving.
-
Question for the Group: If the existing rail lines set up some nice passenger cars on the rail around the country, would anyone actually ride them?
No. It's an unprofitable and unwanted service.
IMO, our road networks allow a great deal of individual freedom to move around without depending on anything but fuel. I would hate to change that.
That's the reasoning for my answer to the first question. Until they manage to force us all into shitty little electric cars and make fuel prices comparable to Europe , there's no incentive to use any form of mass transit. Unless you really enjoy the "vibrant diversity" that entails. Which is why I preffer taxi or uber in large cities. *expletive deleted*ck subways.
And if driving isn't practical, I'll hold my nose and get on a plane.
-
IF the government WERE to make a serious investment in long distance passenger rail . . . they'd CERTAINLY overlay it with TSA screenings and restrictions, just like they do with airline travel. They'd do everything to make train travel just as pleasant and relaxing as airline travel.
And that's assuming they actually DID build and operate such a system, unlike California's bullet train which is just a way of conveying public (taxpayer) funds into private pockets.