by kato
I doubt there's ever enough demand for a non-stop express between Syracuse and Buffalo though.
Railroad Forums
Moderators: mtuandrew, gprimr1
amtrakowitz wrote:the others being government interference (with all forms of transportation)Or sometimes the lack of it. I'd argue that a lack of "government interference" e.g. in the lack of common-access regulations for rail infrastructure might hinder re-emerging passenger rail in the USA for example. That's mostly an ideological question though.
kato wrote:I see you haven't attributed "lack of regulation" to anything that gets in the way of passenger rail, though; that's a requirement if you're going to argue anything past a rhetorical statement. And no, it's not ideological. Have you looked at the regulations and seen how they increase costs for passenger rail? If not, then please do so.amtrakowitz wrote:the others being government interference (with all forms of transportation)Or sometimes the lack of it. I'd argue that a lack of "government interference" e.g. in the lack of common-access regulations for rail infrastructure might hinder re-emerging passenger rail in the USA for example. That's mostly an ideological question though.
The new Italo – the first privately operated high-speed train in Europe – is a train like no other, claims Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, chairman of Ferrari and boss of NTV, the firm challenging the state service.http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... rain-italo
Mobbed by press at the inaugural journey from Rome Tiburtina, the flamboyant Montezemolo purred: "I'm addicted to speed. Speed and risk. Economic risk."They have started high speed rail service with 4 round trips per day from Milan to Rome continuing to Naples. That schedule will be doubled to 8 round trips per day between Milan and Rome beginning May 26th. More trains will be added after June 29th, ultimately becoming 17 round trips between Milan and Rome (20 between Bologna and Rome). http://www.italotreno.it/EN/timetables- ... rview.aspx
There are no travel "classes", NTV insists, only different "ambiences" – albeit differentiated by bigger seats, at-seat dining and pricier tickets.
"Remember, you're in the cheap seats!" cried Montezemolo, to the press in carriage seven (ambience: "Smart"). He stressed that "our prices are super-competitive despite the services we offer", which include free Wi-Fi, live TV, films in a cinema carriage and comfortable leather seating.
jstolberg wrote:If passenger rail were doomed, the private sector wouldn't be getting involvedThat's government contracts. Not the same thing.
amtrakowitz wrote:Can you clarify? According to Mr. Di Montezemolojstolberg wrote:If passenger rail were doomed, the private sector wouldn't be getting involvedThat's government contracts. Not the same thing.
We are in high speed because, in Italy, it is the only sector that has become open to competition. For us, this is a 100% market operation: we are committing our equity and we are not receiving any state subsidy or protection, in the event that we do not meet our objectives. In other words, we do not have a safety net – just our equity, values and ideas.http://www.alstom.com/Global/Transport/ ... GB_def.pdf
kato wrote:Well, most RR lines in the US are privately owned. It's not government's place to force private property owners to let their tracks, many of which are already congested with significant freight traffic, let other trains run on them.amtrakowitz wrote:the others being government interference (with all forms of transportation)Or sometimes the lack of it. I'd argue that a lack of "government interference" e.g. in the lack of common-access regulations for rail infrastructure might hinder re-emerging passenger rail in the USA for example. That's mostly an ideological question though.
amtrakowitz wrote:Take a closer look. There's no free market for any member of the European Union; it's the social market economy, imposed by law. What you're seeing there is just another form of the failed faux-"privatization" model that Britain tried out. NTV doesn't own its own stations or tracks, and SNCF (France's state railroad) owns a 20 percent stake so now you've got French taxpayers subsidizing its startup.In the same way that NTV doesn't own stations or tracks, US airlines don't own runways or terminals, and the federal government handles the dispatching (air traffic control). US airlines don't own parking lots and airports don't pay property taxes, which leaves US taxpayers subsidizing their startup and operations.
Very slick PDF, BTW.
David Benton wrote:there are also parrallels in the telecommunications and electricity industries , where private companies are forced to let competitors use their lines .I preferred the British Rail set-up. But it was starved of funds. Hence it ran its services very efficiently, the most economical system in Europe. Investment was difficult. They did electrify the East Coast mainline and a few other lines, but it turns out rather too cheaply as the overhead tends to blow down during gales.
I dont understand how allowing more competition is somehow a "socialist idea " . and so what if it is anyway . you simply think if you can label something socialist , then its a bad idea , regardless of its merits .
David Benton wrote:there are also parrallels in the telecommunications and electricity industries , where private companies are forced to let competitors use their lines .The problem is the added competition is being added to already congested and soon to be over-congested private freight rail lines. It's one thing to add competition on an entirely new rail line, but another when it directly impacts the host railroad that is allowing the competition. What we're saying is that we have no problem with competition, provided the government doesn't burden the private carriers by requiring them to host that competition.
I dont understand how allowing more competition is somehow a "socialist idea " . and so what if it is anyway . you simply think if you can label something socialist , then its a bad idea , regardles of its merits .