Eliminate Amtrak
TCS has an article, excellent as usual, about why the costs of rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina justify the elimination of Amtrak. I agree with pretty much the whole article, but there's one section I want to highlight:
As many of you know (mainly because I never shut up about it), I spent last summer in England, and to a lesser degree in Europe. A lot of my travel was by train, and I can honestly say that the best trains over there were the ones that were operated by private companies. In particular, I remember taking a train on the Virgin rail network (the one owned by billionaire lunatic Sir Richard Branson). Bar none, the train was newer and nicer, and save for a couple of rude passengers, and the overall service was better.
In Europe, things are compact enough within individual countries and adjacent countries to allow for travel by train, and enough people do it in certain areas to make it cost effective; even so, the private sector does a better job in Europe, and is in higher demand as a result, than public train services. America is not Europe, and the dedication the federal government seems to have to this money pit is astounding. When you consider that Europe is roughly the size of the States (at least, the scale of the U.S. is closer to Europe than to individual nations in Europe), you can get a better understanding of the issue. If you're using Europe as an example, consider this.
Hypothetically speaking, say that I live in Edinburgh, Scotland. Well, better yet, let's say I live in Orkney. I have a business meeting, or a wedding, or holiday time, and I'm headed to Firenze, Italia (Florence). In order to travel this distance, I need to cross through no less than two other countries (England and France), dependng on my routing. I'm an average European. How do I travel? It's simple. I don't waste two days sitting on a train and in train stations. If I'm in Orkney, I take the ferry to Scotland, then I drive or take the train to Inverness or Edinburgh, and then I fly to Rome or Florence. The most train travel I would expect would be two or three hundred miles, from Thurso to Inverness (or maybe Edinburgh), and Rome to Florence. Almost without exception, Europeans would fly across Europe, not take the train.
So why should we expect Americans to do it, when the distances are often greater than the distances that Europeans aren't travelling by train? Aside from that, the train systems in Europe aren't universal and normalized. You can expect trains in Greece or Italy to be of poorer overall quality and reliability than trains in richer countries like England or Germany; the Rail Europe system is nothing more than an administrative amalgamation of existing national rail networks.
I'm all for mass transit and rail travel, and I'm all for emulating Europe when Europe has good ideas (and that happens from time to time). However, blindly following everything Europe does not only isn't the American way, it's not smart (just look at French and German unemployment rates if you don't believe me). If we want people to buy into national mass transit, it must be privatized; otherwise, it's one more money pit, like Social Security or the TSA, to suck in your tax dollars. Particularly if we're going to spend $200,000 per person to rebuild New Orleans, we can't afford to keep doing this, particularly when not enough Americans care about it to make it worthwhile.
The trains in Europe that are run by private companies are the ones gaining the most customers, a result of companies providing higher quality and lower prices to stay ahead of market contenders. Such competition inspires them to be more innovative and imaginative.
As many of you know (mainly because I never shut up about it), I spent last summer in England, and to a lesser degree in Europe. A lot of my travel was by train, and I can honestly say that the best trains over there were the ones that were operated by private companies. In particular, I remember taking a train on the Virgin rail network (the one owned by billionaire lunatic Sir Richard Branson). Bar none, the train was newer and nicer, and save for a couple of rude passengers, and the overall service was better.
In Europe, things are compact enough within individual countries and adjacent countries to allow for travel by train, and enough people do it in certain areas to make it cost effective; even so, the private sector does a better job in Europe, and is in higher demand as a result, than public train services. America is not Europe, and the dedication the federal government seems to have to this money pit is astounding. When you consider that Europe is roughly the size of the States (at least, the scale of the U.S. is closer to Europe than to individual nations in Europe), you can get a better understanding of the issue. If you're using Europe as an example, consider this.
Hypothetically speaking, say that I live in Edinburgh, Scotland. Well, better yet, let's say I live in Orkney. I have a business meeting, or a wedding, or holiday time, and I'm headed to Firenze, Italia (Florence). In order to travel this distance, I need to cross through no less than two other countries (England and France), dependng on my routing. I'm an average European. How do I travel? It's simple. I don't waste two days sitting on a train and in train stations. If I'm in Orkney, I take the ferry to Scotland, then I drive or take the train to Inverness or Edinburgh, and then I fly to Rome or Florence. The most train travel I would expect would be two or three hundred miles, from Thurso to Inverness (or maybe Edinburgh), and Rome to Florence. Almost without exception, Europeans would fly across Europe, not take the train.
So why should we expect Americans to do it, when the distances are often greater than the distances that Europeans aren't travelling by train? Aside from that, the train systems in Europe aren't universal and normalized. You can expect trains in Greece or Italy to be of poorer overall quality and reliability than trains in richer countries like England or Germany; the Rail Europe system is nothing more than an administrative amalgamation of existing national rail networks.
I'm all for mass transit and rail travel, and I'm all for emulating Europe when Europe has good ideas (and that happens from time to time). However, blindly following everything Europe does not only isn't the American way, it's not smart (just look at French and German unemployment rates if you don't believe me). If we want people to buy into national mass transit, it must be privatized; otherwise, it's one more money pit, like Social Security or the TSA, to suck in your tax dollars. Particularly if we're going to spend $200,000 per person to rebuild New Orleans, we can't afford to keep doing this, particularly when not enough Americans care about it to make it worthwhile.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home