9 ms·

In the end, the mechanisms at fault here are core to American identity: individualism and blind trust in the free market, even where these fail — so I don‘t thi

In the end, the mechanisms at fault here are core to American identity: individualism and blind trust in the free market, even where these fail — so I don‘t think this decline can be changed. Free market, because first, rail leads itself to monopolies. Rail infrastructure is expensive, and you need significant area coverage until you can get enough customers. So if you built one, you as a rail provider will go at extracting the most possible value, since you don‘t have competition. Classic free market failure. The solution here would be to have at least four (proven number to avoid oligopolies) private train providers competing on public infrastructure. Since Americans shudder already at the word „public“, that‘s a significant hurdle. Individualism because in the US, people have a propensity to not share rides with others. Same fear of „public“ IMHO, as long as public transportation is thought of existing solely for poor people until they can afford a car, nothing is going to change.

Reason077 7y ago
> "Free market, because first, rail leads itself to monopolies." There's no reason why train operators should also own the fixed infrastructure. Truck companies don't own the interstate highway system, and airlines don't own all the airports. Why not have private train operators (passenger & freight) bid for routes / slots / capacity on a publicly-owned rail network? Lucrative routes between major cities will return significant profits, while regional routes will require support/subsidy. But in either case, competition between operators promotes cost efficiency, innovation, and a focus on service quality.
- japanoise 7y ago
  We have that in the UK, and unfortunately it doesn't work very well. Obviously the UK is different to the States in a number of ways, but you might want to watch Shaun's video on the subject: https://youtu.be/nP95Frc0v4k https://youtu.be/nP95Frc0v4k
  - Reason077 7y ago
    Yes, the UK model isn't perfect. For the most part, it doesn't result in true competition because train operating companies are awarded monopolies over regions and routes rather than actually competing against other. The few routes that really do have competition between operators (like London-Birmingham) are also the routes that have the most competitive fares! One solution would be to auction off packages of "slots" on the most profitable, and capacity constrained, routes (eg: east & west coast main lines) rather than franchise them as single monolithic entities. As for "not working very well", those who remember the days of government-owned-and-operated British Rail will attest that the current system is a significant improvement!
  - jen20 7y ago
    Italy has the concept of competition on the same route - at least on long distance routes, Italo compete with TrenItalia. The result is cheap, pleasant long distance service. It's a much nicer model than the UK has, certainly.
    - klez 7y ago
      "Pleasant" is subjective. In the last couple years I had to do Venice-Rome relatively often. It's a 3.5 hours trip, if everything goes well. Usually it's been 4, and in a couple of occasions 6.
    - michaelt 7y ago
      What happens if you're booked on a train from Company A and it doesn't run, and the next train is from Company B? Do you have to let it pass and wait for a Company A train, as that's all you've got tickets for?
      - imjustsaying 7y ago
        the same thing as when it happens with your airline
      - Reason077 7y ago
        > "What happens if you're booked on a train from Company A and it doesn't run, and the next train is from Company B?" In the UK, you can buy expensive, flexible tickets which are valid on any train and any reasonable route, or you can buy cheaper tickets with various restrictions, typically one or more of: - Valid only on a particular route/operator - Valid only on off-peak services - Valid only on a specific train/time - Must be purchased a certain period in advance (usually by the previous day) However, in the event of significant disruption, and trains are running late or cancelled, an announcement is usually made relaxing the cheap ticket restrictions. At the very least, if you have a cheap advance ticket and your train is cancelled or delayed, then you're allowed to use it on the next available service, regardless of operator.
  - kmlx 7y ago
    > We have that in the UK, and unfortunately it doesn't work very well. the problem isn't the model as Japan has the best trains in the world and runs on a similar one. " As of April 2015, 211 companies and entities were registered with MLIT as railway operators in Japan.3 A number of these are involved in multiple activities, combining operations of both railway and other transportation services. " https://www.eubusinessinjapan.eu/sites/default/files/railway_market_in_japan.pdf https://www.eubusinessinjapan.eu/sites/default/files/railway...
pfdietz 7y ago
Or maybe, the free market is just delivering a judgment you don't like.
- onetimeposter1 7y ago
  It's always funny when people criticize the state of American rail based on their preferences and hand wave a solution into existence, as if it's all that simple. Cars are much more practical for travel in the US largely because the cost of fuel is much lower than in Europe, Canada, etc. Perhaps in Europe cars would be used more if they were a more affordable option.
  - Noos 7y ago
    There's so much wishing and hand waving based on ideology here that it honestly is annoying to read many articles.
  - dantheman 7y ago
    Cars are heavily used in Europe, too. And so are flights. Trains are great for people from America on vacation because it's a novelty and most of destinations are near each other. I loved riding trains in the EU but often would need to rent a car or fly.
GarrisonPrime 7y ago
This reads like a teenager’s angsty speech, or the death-bed fever rantings of a socialist parasite.
gok 7y ago
> The solution here would be to have at least four (proven number to avoid oligopolies) private train providers competing on public infrastructure It's mostly privately owned, but you are basically describing the current state of the current US rail network. The United States has an extremely extensive intercity rail network, with dozens of operators. This was basically all built by the dreaded free market, by the way. The trouble is that the large railroads are only moving freight, because of the misguided decision to nationalize 20 passenger rail systems under Amtrak. We should have just continued to subsidize passenger service under the private operators.
- imjustsaying 7y ago
  >free market just a nitpick but land ownership-based industries, in which you get a license from the government to own and lease out monopolies on land, are inherently far from free markets. ive always wondered if land ownership could be made to be more free market-like.
- howard941 7y ago
  As I remember it subsidies weren't on the table. When Penn Central tanked politics limited the universe of solutions to either nationalization into Amtrak and Conrail, or death.

Reason077 7y ago

> "Free market, because first, rail leads itself to monopolies." There's no reason why train operators should also own the fixed infrastructure. Truck companies don't own the interstate highway system, and airlines don't own all the airports. Why not have private train operators (passenger & freight) bid for routes / slots / capacity on a publicly-owned rail network? Lucrative routes between major cities will return significant profits, while regional routes will require support/subsidy. But in either case, competition between operators promotes cost efficiency, innovation, and a focus on service quality.

japanoise 7y ago
We have that in the UK, and unfortunately it doesn't work very well. Obviously the UK is different to the States in a number of ways, but you might want to watch Shaun's video on the subject: https://youtu.be/nP95Frc0v4k https://youtu.be/nP95Frc0v4k
- Reason077 7y ago
  Yes, the UK model isn't perfect. For the most part, it doesn't result in true competition because train operating companies are awarded monopolies over regions and routes rather than actually competing against other. The few routes that really do have competition between operators (like London-Birmingham) are also the routes that have the most competitive fares! One solution would be to auction off packages of "slots" on the most profitable, and capacity constrained, routes (eg: east & west coast main lines) rather than franchise them as single monolithic entities. As for "not working very well", those who remember the days of government-owned-and-operated British Rail will attest that the current system is a significant improvement!
- jen20 7y ago
  Italy has the concept of competition on the same route - at least on long distance routes, Italo compete with TrenItalia. The result is cheap, pleasant long distance service. It's a much nicer model than the UK has, certainly.
  - klez 7y ago
    "Pleasant" is subjective. In the last couple years I had to do Venice-Rome relatively often. It's a 3.5 hours trip, if everything goes well. Usually it's been 4, and in a couple of occasions 6.
  - michaelt 7y ago
    What happens if you're booked on a train from Company A and it doesn't run, and the next train is from Company B? Do you have to let it pass and wait for a Company A train, as that's all you've got tickets for?
    - imjustsaying 7y ago
      the same thing as when it happens with your airline
    - Reason077 7y ago
      > "What happens if you're booked on a train from Company A and it doesn't run, and the next train is from Company B?" In the UK, you can buy expensive, flexible tickets which are valid on any train and any reasonable route, or you can buy cheaper tickets with various restrictions, typically one or more of: - Valid only on a particular route/operator - Valid only on off-peak services - Valid only on a specific train/time - Must be purchased a certain period in advance (usually by the previous day) However, in the event of significant disruption, and trains are running late or cancelled, an announcement is usually made relaxing the cheap ticket restrictions. At the very least, if you have a cheap advance ticket and your train is cancelled or delayed, then you're allowed to use it on the next available service, regardless of operator.
- kmlx 7y ago
  > We have that in the UK, and unfortunately it doesn't work very well. the problem isn't the model as Japan has the best trains in the world and runs on a similar one. " As of April 2015, 211 companies and entities were registered with MLIT as railway operators in Japan.3 A number of these are involved in multiple activities, combining operations of both railway and other transportation services. " https://www.eubusinessinjapan.eu/sites/default/files/railway_market_in_japan.pdf https://www.eubusinessinjapan.eu/sites/default/files/railway...

pfdietz 7y ago

Or maybe, the free market is just delivering a judgment you don't like.

onetimeposter1 7y ago
It's always funny when people criticize the state of American rail based on their preferences and hand wave a solution into existence, as if it's all that simple. Cars are much more practical for travel in the US largely because the cost of fuel is much lower than in Europe, Canada, etc. Perhaps in Europe cars would be used more if they were a more affordable option.
- Noos 7y ago
  There's so much wishing and hand waving based on ideology here that it honestly is annoying to read many articles.
- dantheman 7y ago
  Cars are heavily used in Europe, too. And so are flights. Trains are great for people from America on vacation because it's a novelty and most of destinations are near each other. I loved riding trains in the EU but often would need to rent a car or fly.

GarrisonPrime 7y ago

This reads like a teenager’s angsty speech, or the death-bed fever rantings of a socialist parasite.

gok 7y ago

> The solution here would be to have at least four (proven number to avoid oligopolies) private train providers competing on public infrastructure It's mostly privately owned, but you are basically describing the current state of the current US rail network. The United States has an extremely extensive intercity rail network, with dozens of operators. This was basically all built by the dreaded free market, by the way. The trouble is that the large railroads are only moving freight, because of the misguided decision to nationalize 20 passenger rail systems under Amtrak. We should have just continued to subsidize passenger service under the private operators.

imjustsaying 7y ago
>free market just a nitpick but land ownership-based industries, in which you get a license from the government to own and lease out monopolies on land, are inherently far from free markets. ive always wondered if land ownership could be made to be more free market-like.
howard941 7y ago
As I remember it subsidies weren't on the table. When Penn Central tanked politics limited the universe of solutions to either nationalization into Amtrak and Conrail, or death.