Build more railroads?

[forsmant]

Trains are three times more fuel efficient than trucks. With the record high oil prices and the over regulation of airplanes, railroads might have a good chance to take on more of the nations freight. This airplane companies are merging and will raise prices soon making it more expensive to travel by air. Commuter trains could prosper if given the right opportunities to take on new costumers. Leave the flying to the really rich people. Are railroads a good investment?

http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/releases/environment/2006/0428_fuel_economy.shtml

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837272

 

[Alex Libman]

Bah, hippie humbug! Let the free market decide!

If it wasn't for government regulation and subsidy of fuel and road infrastructure throughout the past century, we'd probably all be flying around in huge nuclear-powered RV's by now!

 

[Zippyjuan]

Time is money. Trains take longer to move items than airplanes do. Trucks have more flixibility in destinations they can get to but you could certainly use trains to transport goods to hubs where the trucks would complete the transit. Over longer distances trains can be faster and due to rising fuel costs, are being considered more to move goods. Libertarians would be in favor if it was a private endeavor based on the free market for trains.

Expanding the places trains run to is another question. You need space and rights of way to construct the tracks and that is difficult to get access to continuous land for rail track construction.

 

[forsmant]

The free market is deciding. Air planes cost too much and cannot haul as much. 400 miles to a gallon is good gas mileage.

 

[NMCB3]

The railroads are recipients of huge infusions of federal tax dollars and are over regulated to boot. Any cost savings are illusory since they suckle at the government teat.

 

[Kludge]

The railroads are recipients of huge infusions of federal tax dollars and are over regulated to boot. Any cost savings are illusory since they suckle at the government teat.

+1. Amtrak should not be in business....

 

[forsmant]

I think you guys are missing the point. Air travel is soon going to be unattainable for the average American. If the government were to cover up its tit and relax the rules a bit, The railroads would prosper. Even though none of that has happened yet, the stock price for the top six companies have gone up an average of 25% in the last twelve months. Passenger rail might become viable if the government abandoned Amtrak and allowed other companies to start moving people.

 

[NMCB3]

I think you guys are missing the point. Air travel is soon going to be unattainable for the average American. If the government were to cover up its tit and relax the rules a bit, The railroads would prosper. Even though none of that has happened yet, the stock price for the top six companies have gone up an average of 25% in the last twelve months. Passenger rail might become viable if the government abandoned Amtrak and allowed other companies to start moving people.

I agree but what`s the chance of that ever happening? As the economy worsens the call for additional government intervention grows louder not softer.

 

[Allen72289]

The only travel that's going to be affordable for the average joe until fiat is gone is going to be the bicycle at 653 mpg equivalent, even higher if you made bikes out of carbon fiber.

Carbon fiber bikes have records of 80+ mph.. downhill.

Weighing 60% less than their steel counter parts I suppose you could pedal to 25 mph given you have the correct gearing.

 

[Conza88]

Where is Dagny Taggart when you need her?

 

[CGMike]

Amtrak is around because the private sector failed and failed miserably. A look at the history of the merged railroads that formed Conrail/Amtrak show this clearly. I don't believe in this day in age the private sector can run passenger railroads and turn a profit. I do hate to say it, but Amtrak is one area the Federal government needs to remain in. Though I'll freely admit that Amtrak in its current form is flawed. I'd argue that if you wanted to get rid of Amtrak, then the government needs to do away with subsidies for roads and air as well.

**for further reading on the relationship between the railroads, Amtrak and ConRail I suggest the following books...

The Wreck of the Penn Central -- By Joseph R. Daughen and Peter Binzen
Erie Lackawanna: The Death of an American Railroad, 1938-1992 -- by H. Roger Grant
Merging Lines : American Railroads, 1900-1970 -- by Richard Saunders Jr.

 

[Kludge]

I'd argue that if you wanted to get rid of Amtrak, then the government needs to do away with subsidies for roads and air as well.

Nothing could make me happier.

 

[yongrel]

Nothing could make me happier.

I like the new siggy.

 

[Kludge]

I like the new siggy.

 

[FindLiberty]

There was a study that picked the BUS as the best passenger/MPG vehicle... but the free market should be free to pick. No gov funding or mandates to fund Amtrack, etc.

 

[Kludge]

I like the new siggy.

Even better now. Had to edit some wording to keep it under 500 characters

 

[yongrel]

Even better now. Had to edit some wording to keep it under 500 characters

I love it.

 

[NMCB3]

Amtrak is around because the private sector failed and failed miserably. A look at the history of the merged railroads that formed Conrail/Amtrak show this clearly. I don't believe in this day in age the private sector can run passenger railroads and turn a profit. I do hate to say it, but Amtrak is one area the Federal government needs to remain in. Though I'll freely admit that Amtrak in its current form is flawed. I'd argue that if you wanted to get rid of Amtrak, then the government needs to do away with subsidies for roads and air as well.

**for further reading on the relationship between the railroads, Amtrak and ConRail I suggest the following books...

The Wreck of the Penn Central -- By Joseph R. Daughen and Peter Binzen
Erie Lackawanna: The Death of an American Railroad, 1938-1992 -- by H. Roger Grant
Merging Lines : American Railroads, 1900-1970 -- by Richard Saunders Jr.

Yes just like minimum wage laws are here because private enterprise failed, and anti-trust laws protect us from evil monopolies in private industry...it`s all bunk. Private railroads were around and profitable until the Feds started messing around with them in the 1800`s. Believe me private enterprise can operate a profitable railroad if government would step aside.

Edit to add; and if they`re not a profitable enterprise then let them fail, we don't need them. Farming with Oxen is no longer profitable, but we don`t subsidize it. Thats the hallmark of socialism, propping up inefficient and failing industries with tax dollars, stifling innovation and productivity, and hurting the consumer.

 

[forsmant]

This thread was not to question whether railroads can survive without subsidies, but to see if it was a good investment. If you look at the charts, railroads have out preformed the stock market by a lot over the last twelve months.

Does anyone have a comment on the future of railroad investing and no bitch about government subsidies?

 

[NMCB3]

I already answered your question. No, they are not a good investment because of the fact they are dependent on the taxpayer. Any perceived gains are offset by increased taxes/ inflation to support the industry...its a net loss...whats so hard to understand? Not "bitching" about subsidies is like asking if a 3% return on a savings account is a good investment, but lets not bitch about 10% inflation.