BR&P wrote:Those who support such frivolous malarkey - if their minds are at all open - would do well to read, and re-read, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. (the heroine is even a railroad VP). In a nutshell, as burdens and obligations imposed for the "public good" become ever heavier, businesses close and their owners vanish. With each loss, those who remain bear an ever increasing share of the load. Exactly what this state is seeing every day.AMEN!
Railroad Forums
Uplifting Rochester News?
- Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New York State.
Moderator: Otto Vondrak
BR&P for Governor!Do I get to be "Client #10", or do I have to fly to Argentina?
"And if elected, I pledge a chicken in every pot and TWO cars on every siding!"
BR&P wrote:SURE!!! RR employers are excluded from the scandals in govt system!!! So u can do whatever u want to do while holding the public office!BR&P for Governor!Do I get to be "Client #10", or do I have to fly to Argentina?
"And if elected, I pledge a chicken in every pot and TWO cars on every siding!"
Is it Falls Road that would theoretically be able to connect with the Rochester Industrial track over near Lee Rd. ? I would think that Falls Road could make a case for CSX giving them the right to purchase the intervening 12 miles or so, because Conrail cut that connection probably to avoid it ever becoming a competing line. That way Falls Road could serve industries in the western part of Rochester and it would give a detour for CSX if their line ever suffered a shutdown. Just some thoughts. It may be that this thread is going the way of Rochester industry...
So we're against environmental laws. Check. Not going to argue that point anymore. Apparently no one here saw the Passaic River back in the day. Figured Rochester might have had some pollution problems in the past, too.
We're also against high speed rail? That surprises me.
BTW- "Atlas Shrugged" is classified under fiction in my library. We can draw conclusions from literature if we wish, and I'll give you that Ms. Rand was provocative and spoke to the ideals of capitalism with some eloquence, but perhaps we should look towards economists (and not writers of fiction) for our economic opinions. Try Adam Smith's works. Not really my cup of tea, either, but knowledge is a good thing, whether you agree with it or not...
Dealing in the world around us as it is happening, the question was whether or not there was any uplifting news from Rochester. Whether or not you think environmental laws are a good thing or a bad thing, I think it would be best to deal with the situation we are in rather than argue ideals. Fact is the President and both Houses of Congress are far more likely to pass environmental laws now than they were a few years ago. Whether you think that's a good thing or not is not really all that important when considering what is going to happen. What you'd like to have happen is something entirely different than what is going to happen.
What is going to happen is that we're probably going to have new environmental laws. Everyone can write about government burdens and whatever else they please, but the plain fact is that this administration has the environment as one of its priorities and they probably aren't all that concerned about arguements supporting lower taxes and fewer federal controls. Their philosphy was on the winning side of the most recent rounds of elections.
And it would seem that what is going to happen is that the Empire Corridor is going to get some money thrown at it for passenger rail. And this is a bad thing? Using federal money/taxes (burdens) for passenger rail is "frivilous malarky" whereas imposing those burdens to fix roads and freight rail infrastructure is desirable? Sort of a schizophrenic libertarianism, no? If you're talking about government waste and you think the project is wasteful, I can understand the point, but to go on about burdens and obligations for supposed public goods (whereas it applies to high speed rail) and then advocate burdens and obligations for the supposed public good (whereas it applies to fixing highways and freight rail) seems a little odd. I mean, I agree with you that we should be investing in our roads and rail freight too, but it doesn't seem a very valid arguement.
Rochester would most certainly benefit from increased mobility and access. Of course high speed rail isn't going to improve upon your decent highways with large truck access.
Rochester airport is underserved. Mind you, it's been a long time since I've been there so I could be wrong. I flew in a few times in the past and have almost no opinion of the facility, good or bad. Another transportation option in high speed rail would allow alternatives to travel. Being an outspoken capitalist one would assume you would argue for increased competition to better the travel marketplace. Perhaps governmental competition isn't really the best form of competition (in some people's opinions), but it is competition. More options and supply (as the theory goes) would drive prices down.
If the rail freight system is a shadow of its former self due to lack of demand then where is the problem in reducing supply through the reutilization of rights of way? Not really an answer about the greater manufacturing question, but an answer (in question form) nonetheless.
If high speed rail were to happen tomorrow, I guess no one really knows. Ike didn't foresee what the interstates would do. Lincoln couldn't have fully imagined just what the transcontinental railroad would do. Truman had no idea what the Japanese would do after the second bomb was dropped. I would have to fall back on the arguements of Keynes. The Chinese invest in their infrastructure (including passenger rail) and they're growing at 8%.
Talk supply sided economics all you want. One day another administration will take over that will be attuned to those theories. Then, a few years after that, someone will come along and do the opposite again. Right now, in 2009, taxes probably aren't going to go down. Supply sided economics aren't going to be applied by people who don't subscribe to the theory. Heck, they weren't applied by the people who supposedly did subscribe to the theory.
Manufacturing is almost dead in our country. That is not a good thing, but it is what is happening. Doesn't seem to matter who is in charge, one side or the other. Jobs are leaving the country. Since this became a problem we've had governments who have cut taxes and governments who have raised taxes. Doesn't seem to be making all that much of a difference. We're losing jobs. Ayn Rand's little books aside, perhaps we should be discussing the situation as it is, rather than the situation as some of us would like it to be.
"What we need is serious and significant tax relief to retain the businesses we have and attract new ones."
Fine...I disagree. Seems like almost everyone who's been governing for the past few decades disagrees, too.
What we need is to not trade with nations that unfairly tax our goods without similarly taxing (tariffs) theirs.
What we need is to not trade with nations that let their people starve on slave wages while our workers require decent wages.
What we need is a national concensus on our priorities as a nation. Are cheap sneakers and electronics more important than American jobs?
I would doubt that anyone here wants to see jobs lost in America. What our path to economic success should be is certainly up for debate. I think investment in our infrastructure, including high speed rail, is a good thing.
We're also against high speed rail? That surprises me.
BTW- "Atlas Shrugged" is classified under fiction in my library. We can draw conclusions from literature if we wish, and I'll give you that Ms. Rand was provocative and spoke to the ideals of capitalism with some eloquence, but perhaps we should look towards economists (and not writers of fiction) for our economic opinions. Try Adam Smith's works. Not really my cup of tea, either, but knowledge is a good thing, whether you agree with it or not...
Dealing in the world around us as it is happening, the question was whether or not there was any uplifting news from Rochester. Whether or not you think environmental laws are a good thing or a bad thing, I think it would be best to deal with the situation we are in rather than argue ideals. Fact is the President and both Houses of Congress are far more likely to pass environmental laws now than they were a few years ago. Whether you think that's a good thing or not is not really all that important when considering what is going to happen. What you'd like to have happen is something entirely different than what is going to happen.
What is going to happen is that we're probably going to have new environmental laws. Everyone can write about government burdens and whatever else they please, but the plain fact is that this administration has the environment as one of its priorities and they probably aren't all that concerned about arguements supporting lower taxes and fewer federal controls. Their philosphy was on the winning side of the most recent rounds of elections.
And it would seem that what is going to happen is that the Empire Corridor is going to get some money thrown at it for passenger rail. And this is a bad thing? Using federal money/taxes (burdens) for passenger rail is "frivilous malarky" whereas imposing those burdens to fix roads and freight rail infrastructure is desirable? Sort of a schizophrenic libertarianism, no? If you're talking about government waste and you think the project is wasteful, I can understand the point, but to go on about burdens and obligations for supposed public goods (whereas it applies to high speed rail) and then advocate burdens and obligations for the supposed public good (whereas it applies to fixing highways and freight rail) seems a little odd. I mean, I agree with you that we should be investing in our roads and rail freight too, but it doesn't seem a very valid arguement.
Rochester would most certainly benefit from increased mobility and access. Of course high speed rail isn't going to improve upon your decent highways with large truck access.
Rochester airport is underserved. Mind you, it's been a long time since I've been there so I could be wrong. I flew in a few times in the past and have almost no opinion of the facility, good or bad. Another transportation option in high speed rail would allow alternatives to travel. Being an outspoken capitalist one would assume you would argue for increased competition to better the travel marketplace. Perhaps governmental competition isn't really the best form of competition (in some people's opinions), but it is competition. More options and supply (as the theory goes) would drive prices down.
If the rail freight system is a shadow of its former self due to lack of demand then where is the problem in reducing supply through the reutilization of rights of way? Not really an answer about the greater manufacturing question, but an answer (in question form) nonetheless.
If high speed rail were to happen tomorrow, I guess no one really knows. Ike didn't foresee what the interstates would do. Lincoln couldn't have fully imagined just what the transcontinental railroad would do. Truman had no idea what the Japanese would do after the second bomb was dropped. I would have to fall back on the arguements of Keynes. The Chinese invest in their infrastructure (including passenger rail) and they're growing at 8%.
Talk supply sided economics all you want. One day another administration will take over that will be attuned to those theories. Then, a few years after that, someone will come along and do the opposite again. Right now, in 2009, taxes probably aren't going to go down. Supply sided economics aren't going to be applied by people who don't subscribe to the theory. Heck, they weren't applied by the people who supposedly did subscribe to the theory.
Manufacturing is almost dead in our country. That is not a good thing, but it is what is happening. Doesn't seem to matter who is in charge, one side or the other. Jobs are leaving the country. Since this became a problem we've had governments who have cut taxes and governments who have raised taxes. Doesn't seem to be making all that much of a difference. We're losing jobs. Ayn Rand's little books aside, perhaps we should be discussing the situation as it is, rather than the situation as some of us would like it to be.
"What we need is serious and significant tax relief to retain the businesses we have and attract new ones."
Fine...I disagree. Seems like almost everyone who's been governing for the past few decades disagrees, too.
What we need is to not trade with nations that unfairly tax our goods without similarly taxing (tariffs) theirs.
What we need is to not trade with nations that let their people starve on slave wages while our workers require decent wages.
What we need is a national concensus on our priorities as a nation. Are cheap sneakers and electronics more important than American jobs?
I would doubt that anyone here wants to see jobs lost in America. What our path to economic success should be is certainly up for debate. I think investment in our infrastructure, including high speed rail, is a good thing.
Be well. Do good work.
Semperfidelis
Semperfidelis
Well said, SemperFidelis.
SemperFidelis wrote: "What we need is serious and significant tax relief to retain the businesses we have and attract new ones."We're in a deep hole. Defending continued digging by pointing to the depth of the whole is not rational. It's never wrong to stop making a mistake even if you've been making the mistake for decades.
Fine...I disagree. Seems like almost everyone who's been governing for the past few decades disagrees, too.
If you think I'm full of crap, consider two things: that the Staggers act reduced considerable taxes (not all of them monetary) on railroads. And that when disused railroads get ripped up, it's not because the steel is valuable. It's because the land is being taxed as highly as if it were being used.
What we need is to not trade with nations that unfairly tax our goods without similarly taxing (tariffs) theirs.You need to talk to more economists. A nation that taxes its imports hurts itself, not us.
What we need is to not trade with nations that let their people starve on slave wages while our workers require decent wages.Where do I start with this sentence? First, we don't trade with nations. We trade with PEOPLE in other nations, just as we trade with people in other regions, other states, other counties, other towns, and our next-door neighbor. The nature of trade doesn't change when the border being crossed is a national border.
Second, if people are starving by working in factories making goods for us, then clearly they have taken those jobs because they would starve WORSE by not doing so.
Third, "slave wages" are any wages that a socialist doesn't like. Yes, there are people who are genuinely coerced to work. Not clear that not trading with them makes them any better-off.
Fourth, consider the principle of competitive advantage. If you do what you're best at, and I do what I'm best at, and we trade, we're better-off than if I did some of what I'm good at and some of what you're better-at, and vice-versa.
Fifth, who decided that "our workers" require decent wages? I'm not a slave-holder, and I doubt that you are. Thus it's completely improper to speak of owning workers using the possessive "our".
What we need is a national concensus on our priorities as a nation. Are cheap sneakers and electronics more important than American jobs?No, what we need is less political interference with our economics.
Semper,
I agree with most of your post, in theory..
but I dont agree with:
everyone can get where they want to go perfectly fine right now..
even the poorest residents in the inner city have no problems getting anywhere..
the bus system is fine, it goes all over the county...
not only the "city proper" but all the surrounding suburbs as well..
(and yes, I have taken city busses! I used to take one from the Park Ave neighborhood to work up at Kodak park
at times..when my car was OOS..yes, its slower than a car, but it still works perfectly fine..)
and 95% of the population has a car..
Rochester has almost no traffic issues at all..except for minor construction delays..
but when no construction is going on, "Rush hour" in Rochester lasts about 15 minutes,
and "bad traffic" at 8am might slow down your drive to work by 5 minutes or so..
Rochester has the "best traffic" of virtually any city its size..and WAY better than any larger city!
so..as a Rochester resident for the last 16 years..I see zero need for "increased mobility and access"..
Light Rail has been talked about for Rochester for years..
the main problem with it is that no one needs it..
its a solution without a problem..
There are really no mobility problems here at all..
Scot
I agree with most of your post, in theory..
but I dont agree with:
Rochester would most certainly benefit from increased mobility and access.no one in Rochester needs increased mobility or access..
everyone can get where they want to go perfectly fine right now..
even the poorest residents in the inner city have no problems getting anywhere..
the bus system is fine, it goes all over the county...
not only the "city proper" but all the surrounding suburbs as well..
(and yes, I have taken city busses!
I used to take one from the Park Ave neighborhood to work up at Kodak parkat times..when my car was OOS..yes, its slower than a car, but it still works perfectly fine..)
and 95% of the population has a car..
Rochester has almost no traffic issues at all..except for minor construction delays..
but when no construction is going on, "Rush hour" in Rochester lasts about 15 minutes,
and "bad traffic" at 8am might slow down your drive to work by 5 minutes or so..
Rochester has the "best traffic" of virtually any city its size..and WAY better than any larger city!
so..as a Rochester resident for the last 16 years..I see zero need for "increased mobility and access"..
Light Rail has been talked about for Rochester for years..
the main problem with it is that no one needs it..
its a solution without a problem..
There are really no mobility problems here at all..
Scot
~ Scot Lawrence
Moderator: Lehigh Valley
Co-Moderator: Anthracite Railroads
Scot's railroad webpages
Moderator: Lehigh Valley
Co-Moderator: Anthracite Railroads
Scot's railroad webpages
SemperFidelis wrote: "Fine...I disagree. Seems like almost everyone who's been governing for the past few decades disagrees, too.I disagree Semper: we need to let industry operate without the choking effects of regulation and taxation. I run a small software company in Calif and we still have one employee in NYS and the amount of paperwork i have to fill out for that one employee is ridiculous. Our company has decided that all further growth will be offshore because of the regulatory requirements in CA and NY. I think if our elected officials would have to have made payroll for a business before they ran for public office we would probably see a business-friendlier environment. Sadly, most of our elected officials have no business experience and, worse yet, they're lawyers!
What we need is a national concensus on our priorities as a nation. Are cheap sneakers and electronics more important than American jobs?
On a BRIGHTER NOTE: Here in Northern California we are witnessing the rebirth of a formerly abandoned railroad: Norh Coast Railroad serving Marin, Sonoma, Napa and Mendocino counties. They are installing new bridges, signals and ties. It's a mammoth undertaking to re-establish freight service - but wait (!) the environmental wackos chased industry out years ago - so there won't be too many customers! Oh, well it's good to see a former Southern Pacific Line back in action! Cheers to everyone back home in Rochester!
Well good news for Northern Cali ! Interesting how they think they'll manage too survive without much industry. Time will tell.
Anyways, consider yourself "nine thousand, nine hundred & ninety nine hobbies" when & IF YOU DO COME BACK to NY. lol
Anyways, consider yourself "nine thousand, nine hundred & ninety nine hobbies" when & IF YOU DO COME BACK to NY. lol
I guess we can end this thread by concluding that there isn't any uplifting news about Rochester railroads and that there are still some folks who cannot make the connection between high taxes and the demise of industry and railroads.
First, we don't trade with nations. We trade with PEOPLE in other nations, just as we trade with people in other regions, other states, other counties, other towns, and our next-door neighbor. The nature of trade doesn't change when the border being crossed is a national border.Not really true. Yeah, we trade with people, but the rules are at the National (border) level. We don't care who the people are, you can't trade with Cuba, the nation. And our government cares very much what crosses that national border.
Until recently you couldn't by NY wine if you lived in another state (for example over the Internet). Sure, it was just people to people, but NY law cared about the border of NY.
Trade matters with EVERY border that is crossed. There are rules (or no rules) for every border crossed and it doesn't matter what people you want to trade with.
tenthousandhobbies wrote:I guess we can end this thread by concluding that there isn't any uplifting news about Rochester railroads and that there are still some folks who cannot make the connection between high taxes and the demise of industry and railroads.Well, not exactly Rochester, but the Barilla pasta plant is doing quite well, which translates to more carloads of incoming flour for the LA&L. Not long ago I saw them store 12 loaded hoppers in the Papermill Road siding. Here's the article, not sure how long the Democrap & Comical will leave it accessible.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/app ... 9907190320
I thought I also read somewhere that the Kraft plant was also doing well, but I can't find the article.