bobw

It's quite possible that I misremember (or misunderstood) what I heard about the CDMA/TDMA tradeoffs back in the '80s.

The difference in conditions between Europe and the USA holds, though. I know someone who is a product manager for cell phone equipment for a European company. When she started working with American customers she learned that the tradeoffs really are different here.

Brent

I used to agree with this sentiment, but I'm not sure it works well overall. An umpire is supposed to be neutral. Governments, by the sheer size of what they can do, aren't neutral at all. You can think of a dozen examples: bus and subway systems compete against private taxis and town cars, the postal service competes against FedEx and UPS, road building competes against passenger rail, tax incentives favor one business over another, Medicare competes against health insurers, the Tennessee Valley Authority runs the entire electricity franchise in its region, etc.

Government ought not generally be in private business, but where one draws that line is really hard. Passenger rail will certainly affect private businesses, but many governmental actions do that, so the argument doesn't quite decide the issue. Instead, I think one has to look at the function of the project and ask whether it's the sort of thing only government can do. With rail the answer is yes: the scale of the projects, the investment time horizon, and the ability to condemn land all point to it being a government project. Even the original "private rail" buildout of the 19th century was essentially a governmental project -- tracks for land.

Of course, if you just don't like trains, then no matter what the costs won't be justifiable. But I think they're wonderful and necessary and quite worth the costs.

bobw

And so you illustrate my point.

dpeilow

There's no point in waiting three weeks and then going around the same arguments in the hope that they've been forgotten.

So what you are saying is that all the routes outside of the planned HSR system are loss making. If they weren't, then there would be nothing to worry about.

As I have said above, we have a good HSR system in Europe, from Sweden down to Spain, but as yet it only covers a minority of routes. It hasn't stopped low cost airlines previously thriving in the good times and still winning out against the flag-carriers in the current economic climate (some have made losses in the last six months, but the incumbents have made bigger losses).

Airlines like Ryanair have been ruthless in culling unprofitable or unsubsidised routes and I'm sure SWA would do the same. If those routes weren't profitable, they would have gone by now. Therefore I am sure that they will survive, even if HSR takes others away. The airlines' gross profits may be hit a little, but the routes will still be there to serve people with no choice.


Government needs to step in when there is market failure. If you think that air travel can continue to grow unchecked and all that matters is driving down the cost to the end consumer, then you probably don't think there is market failure. If you think that we need to move to lower-carbon transport and that the status quo of the airline industry and big oil is preventing that, then you probably think that intervention is necessary.

And you seem to have missed or chosen to ignore the point in post #95.

• By your own words it is ok for governments to subsidise the capex for airports.
• By your lack of words I presume there is no disagreement over the government subsidising highways to the tune of tens of billions per year.
• We've heard no disagreement over the government subsidising 'essential' air routes.
• Yet, for some reason it is wrong for rail to receive any seed money, capex subsidy or operational subsidy.

I don't follow the logic.

Brent

Italy gets new private train to run in competition with the state-run system on at least one route:

New High-Speed Rail Service in Italy - In Transit Blog - NYTimes.com

The article doesn't say, but I'd guess the train will use state-built facilities, including tracks. As such, this idea doesn't seem all that different from Greyhound Bus using state-built highways to deliver passengers.

Brent

The NY Times looks at California' High Speed Rail project:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/ma...1&ref=magazine

vfx

Phoenix does it right.

Video: Phoenix’s Brand New Light Rail Has 60% More Users than Expected : TreeHugger

__________________
.
.
.
.
.
.
The world loves to be deceived.

dpeilow

dpeilow

China's Super-Ambitious High-Speed Rail Plans

doug

It should be noted that much of that is possible due to the differences between our systems of government. People in some of the more affluent cities of the (SF Bay Area) Peninsula are protesting CA high speed rail projects because of NIMBYism. Whereas in China they can even relocate people as they see fit. (cf. the Three Gorges Dam project.)



.