• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

Glinda said:
I've read Cox's essay. I'm unable to find the place where he produces his research/data/methodology/documentation that proves "rail actually increases traffic" - i.e. that the mere availability of rail travel in a given locality increases the number of vehicles on the road.

*sigh* This is ridiculous.

Let me know if you ever come up with an unbiased, independent study that proves "rail actually increases traffic."
Click to expand...

Just think of the great rail system the U.S. could have had if we hadn't blown up money in misbegotten military adventures of the last 50 years.
 
And the thing about trains is that it brings people together, rather than isolating them in cars. It's better for community.
 
Glinda said:
Let me know if you ever come up with an unbiased, independent study that proves "rail actually increases traffic."
Click to expand...

That's impossible. Any study that I'm going to find you'll just consider biased, whereas when you show a study by a rail advocacy group it's somehow okay. Let me know if you ever come up with a reasonable debate style.
 
phattonez said:
That's impossible. Any study that I'm going to find you'll just consider biased,
Click to expand...

You've yet to produce an independent study. All you've offered in defense of your claim that "rail actually reduces traffic" is a critique of an existing study, offered by someone who is verifiably in the pocket of the road-building industry.

Beyond this, if it's true that "rail actually increases traffic," there must surely be at least ONE study by an independent agency or organization (that doesn't employ Mr. Cox) that documents/proves this. Surely....

phattonez said:
whereas when you show a study by a rail advocacy group it's somehow okay.
Click to expand...

TTI isn't a rail advocacy group.

The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) in College Station, Texas is the largest transportation research agency in the United States. Created in 1950, primarily in response to the needs of the Texas Highway Department (now the Texas Department of Transportation), TTI has since broadened its focus to address all modes of transportation–highway, air, water, rail and pipeline. TTI is a state agency and a member of the Texas A&M University System. TTI’s cooperative relationship with the Texas Department of Transportation has helped the Institute develop and implement work for numerous other sponsors.

TTI researchers participate in and lead over 250 local, state and national organizations. Approximately 100 TTI researchers publish papers and give presentations at the Transportation Research Board (TRB) annual meeting, with around 40 serving on TRB committees. Since the inception of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) over 40 years ago, TTI has led over 70 NCHRP projects, more than any other participant in the program. TTI researchers serve as objective transportation experts, providing an important resource to local, state and national agencies and groups.
Click to expand...

phattonez said:
Let me know if you ever come up with a reasonable debate style.
Click to expand...

Here's how debate works:

Step 1
Person A makes an assertion. ("Rail actually increases traffic.")

Step 2
Person B challenges that assertion. ("I can't find anything that proves that, but I did find something that refutes it.")

Step 3
Person A is then required to offer proof of his original assertion, or lose the debate.


You're floundering at step 3.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Just think of the great rail system the U.S. could have had if we hadn't blown up money in misbegotten military adventures of the last 50 years.
Click to expand...

Think of the great railsystem we could have in the US if the private sector was allowed to operate that system and succeed, or fail, based on their ability to offer an attractive service.
 
apdst said:
Think of the great railsystem we could have in the US if the private sector was allowed to operate that system and succeed, or fail, based on their ability to offer an attractive service.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the government needs to lay more rails, just like it builds roads, in order to make the system comprehensive enough to be a viable alternative to travel by automobile.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Yes, but the government needs to lay more rails, just like it builds roads, in order to make the system comprehensive enough to be a viable alternative to travel by automobile.
Click to expand...

But, is there enough demand to make it worth spending the money? Are we going to lose $64 per passenger after building all those new rail lines? Will there be too large of a negative effect on the rest of the transportation industry? A negative effect on the private sector that is invested in the transportation industry?
 
apdst said:
Think of the great railsystem we could have in the US if the private sector was allowed to operate that system and succeed, or fail, based on their ability to offer an attractive service.
Click to expand...

You should read up on the history of rail transport in the US...
 
apdst said:
But, is there enough demand to make it worth spending the money? Are we going to lose $64 per passenger after building all those new rail lines? Will there be too large of a negative effect on the rest of the transportation industry? A negative effect on the private sector that is invested in the transportation industry?
Click to expand...

I haven't studied the issue that closely, but in my opinion rail travel is superior on so many levels, both societal and as a solution to our future energy crisis. The only way to make it work would be for government to lay the infrastructure, just as they did for the automobile in the last century.

The rail system is practically non-existent out West where I live. It's pathetic. Rail has the potential to be powered electrically and not be dependent on liquid fuels like the auto. Making an electric train is much more feasible than an electric auto. Liquid fuels are our biggest problem we face in the future when oil reserves start falter. We need to plan for this by laying more rails.
 
Last edited:
MyOwnDrum said:
I haven't studied the issue that closely, but in my opinion rail travel is superior on so many levels, both societal and as a solution to our future energy crisis. The only way to make it work would be for government to lay the infrastructure, just as they did for the automobile in the last century.

The rail system is practically non-existent out West where I live. It's pathetic. Rail has the potential to be powered electrically and not be dependent on liquid fuels like the auto. Making an electric train is much more feasible than an electric auto. Liquid fuels are our biggest problem we face in the future when oil reserves start falter. We need to plan for this by laying more rails.
Click to expand...


There's no potential if there's no demand.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Looks like we disagree on this subject.
Click to expand...

There's nothing to disagree about. Obviously, you can't spend millions of dollars on something that produce any return on the investent. Passenger rail is losing money, already. That's not a good reason to expand the passenger rail system.
 
apdst said:
There's nothing to disagree about. Obviously, you can't spend millions of dollars on something that produce any return on the investent. Passenger rail is losing money, already. That's not a good reason to expand the passenger rail system.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should dump the interstate freeway system too?
 
apdst said:
Do you even know why the interstate system was built?
Click to expand...

Ahhh enlighen me as to your POV......

BTW did ya look at that link on the history of the rail system?
 
winston53660 said:
Ahhh enlighen me as to your POV......

BTW did ya look at that link on the history of the rail system?
Click to expand...

Ill save time:

It was a military expenditure; there i said it!
 
winston53660 said:
Not a stimulus package for the auto and truck manufactures? LOL
Click to expand...

Or the entire aspect of US commerce. (How do the majority of people get to the mall/walmart/store/strip club/drug dealers house? Definitely not by train!)
 
winston53660 said:
Ahhh enlighen me as to your POV......

BTW did ya look at that link on the history of the rail system?
Click to expand...

It's not a point of view, it's historical fact, that the interstate system was built to create a network of large volume highways that would allow the US military to deploy to different parts of the country, more rapidly, in the event of an invasion. So, scrapping the interstate system might be a tad bit of a bad idea.
 
apdst said:
There's nothing to disagree about. Obviously, you can't spend millions of dollars on something that produce any return on the investent. Passenger rail is losing money, already. That's not a good reason to expand the passenger rail system.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you and see no point is reexplaining my point again.
 
apdst said:
It's not a point of view, it's historical fact, that the interstate system was built to create a network of large volume highways that would allow the US military to deploy to different parts of the country, more rapidly, in the event of an invasion. So, scrapping the interstate system might be a tad bit of a bad idea.
Click to expand...

I agree that it would be a horrible idea. Not only from a national security standpoint, but from an economic standpoint as well. We need trucks to be able to efficiently move stuff, whether it is a basket of finished goods to walmart, or slag to a construction site (those in the trucking industry might find this ironic:) ).
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I disagree with you and see no point is reexplaining my point again.
Click to expand...

Oh, I understand your point. You want to use government controlled industries to push your political agenda.
 
Now do not get me wrong; there is nothing profoundly negative about a larger network of rails connecting passengers to far away cities. But the results point towards some sort of industry cost that is implicit, and therefore cannot be reduced (efficiently) via pricing.

This is a biiiig country. Never in my life will i sit on a train for 5 hours unless it takes me from Chicago to LA in that amount of time. Not to mention having to be around fat Americans and their fat crying children;)

I'd rather drive myself; and if it is too far, i take a ****ing airplane!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom