I have to get in on the train topic:D

There are a lot of reasons why America doesn't have many efficient rail networks, not the least of which is the country's size (and yes, I'm aware that Russia was primarily dependent upon rail transport for a long time, and still is in many ways)

The fact of the matter is that it is simply not cost-effective nor efficient to build rail transport networks here for the time being. Rail costs in excess of 1.5 million dollars per mile to lay for a private industry (although the Dallas Area Rapid Transit network has managed to make it cost a lot more than that, and they're building light rail:nope: )

Another problem that the rail industry faces on a daily basis is the lack of freight capacity due to the expense of new rail construction. It's all we can do to handle the freight demands, let alone those of passenger rail networks like the spectacular failure that is Amtrak.

Perhaps if the state would excuse us from paying property tax on railroad land, it would be feasible to expand, but for the time being we have to cling to the land-patents and tax exemptions we were granted back in the pioneer days, because it is the only profitable way to operate.
---------

As far as the OT goes, I predict that the steps Obama has outlined, if they are, indeed implemented, will actually make state infrastructure less effecient.

While we all hate the idea of congressmen tacking millions of dollars of spending onto bills for state projects, those projects are usually something the state actually needs or wants. It is an inefficient process, but it's a damn sight more efficient than having the federal beauracracy decide what your state needs and wants.

The real question should be why this money passes through federal hands at all. It is an uneccesary and wasteful step that is also unconstitutional on most occasions.

The federal government is granted absolutely no authority to create policy relating to economics (other than minting currency) or energy, or transportation (mostly, damn the provision to regulate interstate commerce) , or welfare by the constitution. Its' powers are clearly restricted by our constitution and we have seen time and time again their failure to solve social issues by abusing what power they have been given. Why not minimize their role altogether? Surely, we could all benefit more in a nation where the states collect most of the taxes, thus giving us 50 options instead of 1 (and 2 in election years), as to how public funds are collected and spent.

I honestly don't know how President-elect Obama's administration will be seen by history. After all, I was decisively wrong as to his chances for being elected. But, I can assure you that in four years time, I'll have a list of federal failures that is a lot longer than the list of successes.:shifty:

I agree that the only way to have a modern passenger rail system, in the U.S. today, is to have it nationalized. Whether it is reliable and modern is another matter entirely.

My preference is to relegate the authority to create mass transit to the states entirely. It's a win-win situation. If some states manage to create good passenger rail networks, others may emulate their example and citizens who want such things can move to those states. Other states will emulate their success or fall behind. If, on the other hand, such systems fail, as they generally have in America, people can avoid those states, and those states will have to change their policy to attract residents and the accompanying tax base.

Personally, I am against any form of subsidized industry, no matter what form it may take, but if we were to leave the power to the states, people would have a choice. After all, isn't the freedom to succeed or fail much better than the potential to fail entirely and waste untold amounts of money, as our federal government has proved so capable of doing on a regular basis?

The U.S. rail industry, as a whole is in a difficult situation because it generally fails to provide adequate service for an acceptable cost. Most of the customers that we have in the freight industry are hostages. It is simply too expensive for them to move their industries elsewhere, and they need the massive amounts of goods and raw material that only rail freight can provide. The industry is allowed to continue under this standard because nationalized rail service has proven to be so, so much worse, as evidenced by Conrail and AMtrak.

Also, most rail lines, and especially the land they occupy, is protectd from taxation by legislation that dates back to the 1860's and before. The result is a state sponsored-monopoly. It is simply too expensive for private industry to found and maintain new rail networks. The property taxes alone would make their profitability marginal at best.

As with competition amongst states, competition amongst railroads could only benefit the consumer and the employees. If a new entrepeneur could buy land, lay rail, and deliver goods, simply waiting for the day when his venture becomes profitable, competition would be more widespread. But, under the current system, such a person is likely to be crippled by debt before they could ever establish a customer base.

The only nationalization I can think of that might be beneficial would be a communal system of railway networks where any railroad can use any other railroad's track, although such a system would be extrodinarily difficult to devise or implement, so I tend to shy away from it altogether. The main problems would be maintenance responsibilities and traffic control. Believe me, I have pondered the possibility, and it would always be very possible that a railroad could take advantage of the system.

On the other hand, f the government were to stay away from property and corporate taxation, as well as refraining from the industry as much as possible (only enforcing some safety standards and quotas) the industry would be free to grow and compete. That means competition for customers and employees. Modern private railroads here come pretty close to the wage paid by union railroads, because people won't do such a dangerous job for less. If there was to be an influx of railroad development and investment, such employees would be in short supply, driving wages up.

Of course, as with all facets of capitalism, this is not a permanent solution. Eventually the supply or demand will glut, be it in raw materials or transport industries or employees, but the market can always fix that in short order. The system is very adaptive, unlike a state system that requires a lot of politicians and experts who, more often than not, have absolutely no understanding of the industry. If nothing else, when a private industry fails, only the failures pay, but when a state industry fails, everyone pays.

The other consideration is environmental impact, which is still the subject of much debate. While an overwhelming majority of evidence suggests that the globe is warming, relatively little evidence exsists to suggest that humans are causing it.
And even if humans are causing global warming, there is a lot of evidence to support the theory that state intervention harms economic productivity, and poor nations are not likely to invest in green technologies like efficient passenger rail.

IMO, the best course of action is to remove state interference and let the market decide. Still I would like to hear some good arguments for why a state system would be better, and how it wouldn't be a drain on the economy.

Sorry for the long answer, but you did ask for it:p

The problem may solve itself, maybe.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/...bel-auto_N.htm
Just more tax dollars will get burned in the process, to slightly delay the ultimate ending, and to give political actionism a temporary shine.