Why do they say that it is not cost effective while other countries have successfuly implemented those rail systems? Are those countries actually losing money on them?
First and foremost, the people DO want to ride trains as attested by ridership increases on Amtrak and light rail everywhere. The reason it never flourished is because of government policy that favors autos and airplanes and discourages rail travel. It becomes obvious when you look at Federal expenditures and what they consider a subsidy and what is not. Paying for air traffic controllers is not a subsidy because they all are government employees. Most airports are funded thru city or state bond issues that must be paid by the government.also not a subsidy. bailout money for bankrupt airlines is not a subsidy either. Doppler radar is funded thru the FAA and is not a subsidy. A tragic crash outside of Charlotte, NC several years ago happened just months before the FAA installed that radar. Just that radar alone costs more than 10 years cash to Amtrak Why then is the paltry cash for trains a subsidy? It defies logic. The disparity becomes even cleared when you look at Federal appropriations. Over the last 10-12 years, land transportation has been funded thru bills like ISTEA, and this year it's SAFETEA, and about 85% of that will go to autos, up from 95% or so. Amtrak is not considered a form of land transportation relative to those bills. Bush wanted ZERO for Amtrak, and SAFETEA gives it almost zero, but almost zero is better than nothing. If airlines would truely be accountable for their costs.a line item on their income statement for dispatching (controllers), a line item for building their share of their terminals, a line item for their share of the radar, that alone would bankrupt them all. No one would fly.it would be too expensive. The US's priority is big oil, and that means cars, roads, and all that. Some 62% of LA is consumed with providing for cars.roads, driveways, garages, service centers, etc. If that were included in the cost of your car.no one would drive. It would be too expensive.
Actually there is always a possibility that that person picked up a stray amber or two so they throw the blanket over you and move it around as a precautionary method.
Effectuve, reliable efficient passenger rail systems must be continually subsidized by the government, otherwise it is not affordable. It is somethign that pays for itself in many other ways, less crowding on the highways, safer, cleaner transportation. Not everyone would ride, and they shouldnt be expected to. In Europe there are a great many people that choose not to own personal automboiles, not because they cant, but they dont want to and the public transportation system is good enough they can make that choice. Ridership in recent years is up in every sector of Amtrak, proving beyond doubt that many more people would ride if they had the option. We need elected officials that are forward thinking beyond their next election cycle and look to the future of the country and the world and make the decision to fund passenger rail systems at a sustainable and ongoing level.
so to keep their bodies warm and to prevent them from going into shock
