4 ms·

Here's a brief history of railroads in the US: 1) The federal government gave railroads massive amounts of land completely free of charge. 2) The federal gove

Here's a brief history of railroads in the US: 1) The federal government gave railroads massive amounts of land completely free of charge. 2) The federal government applied some regulations, including around transporting passengers. The automobile and plane hadn't been invented yet, so it wasn't that oppressive to railroads. Passengers were making them money. 3) The world changed and passenger service became massively unprofitable. Amtrak was formed to keep the trains running without the private railroads having to bear the losses. All Amtrak asked for was a few hours a day of clearance to run their trains. 4) Fast forward to today, and the railroads aren't complying with their obligations, that were granted in exchange for immense value. A handout and a bailout later, and you want the taxpayers to give the railroads even more money? (These original benefactors still exist today. Union Pacific was around when this was all happening. The "N" in BNSF is one of the original benefactors as well. It's pretty amazing to see companies around 160 years after their formation. Pretty generous government grants throughout their history didn't hurt.)

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Not completely free of charge. The deal was that they had to carry the US mail at a rate that was beneficial to the US government and less than beneficial to the railroads. That added up over a few decades. The railroads bought themselves out of that part of the deal during World War II, when the government was eager to take short-term money even if it was long-term a bad idea. I've seen one set of calculations that the railroads lost quite a bit of money on the deal. It's been decades since I saw it, though, so I can't give you specifics.
noahtallen 4y ago
Completely agreed, and to expand even further: 1. It’s not like the delays are minor. On the line from Portland to Seattle, it’s common for the train be delayed for multiple hours by freight. In what world can a transit service be considered a viable option when even boarding is 2 hours late? Freight is having a really massive negative impact. 2. Massive amounts of land is surprisingly even an understatement! Union Pacific railroad alone was given 12 MILLION acres in this grant: https://www.loc.gov/item/75690778/ https://www.loc.gov/item/75690778/.
- eternalban 4y ago
  This is all TIL for me. That pink strip in your map is wild. So these guys got 10 square miles per 1 mile of track. And then they went and leased that land to towns and businesses! All those Western movies finally make sense. Why 10 miles? We always get treated to 'wild west' stories but it sounds like Washington DC was pretty wild itself. Many steaks were consumed and cigars chomped. Here's your land grant.
Aloha 4y ago
Between usurious property tax at the state level, and the machinations of the former ICC, whatever value that the Railroads got for that land has largely if not completely paid back in public goods. Furthermore those landholdings are largely long gone too. Consider how long railroads were required to offer service that was unprofitable, underutilized, or forced to price itself in an uncompetitive way - all in the name of the public good. While I think both BNSF and UP (as well as CSX and NS) have an obligation to make sure Amtrak can run on time an under a reasonable schedule. Also, if the railroads dont like it, the alternative is being forced to resume operating the passenger trains they were operating in 1971, and continue to operate that or a similar network in scale and size for at least 10 years without subsidy. The interesting thing about Amtrak is, if USPS had continued to route first class mail by train, Amtrak might not exist, it was the removal of the indirect subsidy - which turned passenger trains from a break even proposition, which helped generate goodwill for the company to a solid money loser - at a time when the railroads were least able to afford such things. So in exchange the feds agreed to directly subsidize passenger rail via Amtrak, and the railroads were removed of obligation to run passenger trains. This is the obligation at question in this case. In any case, I dont think they owe the public something anymore because of those land grants. The debt to us from that has been long paid off.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

Not completely free of charge. The deal was that they had to carry the US mail at a rate that was beneficial to the US government and less than beneficial to the railroads. That added up over a few decades. The railroads bought themselves out of that part of the deal during World War II, when the government was eager to take short-term money even if it was long-term a bad idea. I've seen one set of calculations that the railroads lost quite a bit of money on the deal. It's been decades since I saw it, though, so I can't give you specifics.

noahtallen 4y ago

Completely agreed, and to expand even further: 1. It’s not like the delays are minor. On the line from Portland to Seattle, it’s common for the train be delayed for multiple hours by freight. In what world can a transit service be considered a viable option when even boarding is 2 hours late? Freight is having a really massive negative impact. 2. Massive amounts of land is surprisingly even an understatement! Union Pacific railroad alone was given 12 MILLION acres in this grant: https://www.loc.gov/item/75690778/ https://www.loc.gov/item/75690778/.

eternalban 4y ago
This is all TIL for me. That pink strip in your map is wild. So these guys got 10 square miles per 1 mile of track. And then they went and leased that land to towns and businesses! All those Western movies finally make sense. Why 10 miles? We always get treated to 'wild west' stories but it sounds like Washington DC was pretty wild itself. Many steaks were consumed and cigars chomped. Here's your land grant.

Aloha 4y ago

Between usurious property tax at the state level, and the machinations of the former ICC, whatever value that the Railroads got for that land has largely if not completely paid back in public goods. Furthermore those landholdings are largely long gone too. Consider how long railroads were required to offer service that was unprofitable, underutilized, or forced to price itself in an uncompetitive way - all in the name of the public good. While I think both BNSF and UP (as well as CSX and NS) have an obligation to make sure Amtrak can run on time an under a reasonable schedule. Also, if the railroads dont like it, the alternative is being forced to resume operating the passenger trains they were operating in 1971, and continue to operate that or a similar network in scale and size for at least 10 years without subsidy. The interesting thing about Amtrak is, if USPS had continued to route first class mail by train, Amtrak might not exist, it was the removal of the indirect subsidy - which turned passenger trains from a break even proposition, which helped generate goodwill for the company to a solid money loser - at a time when the railroads were least able to afford such things. So in exchange the feds agreed to directly subsidize passenger rail via Amtrak, and the railroads were removed of obligation to run passenger trains. This is the obligation at question in this case. In any case, I dont think they owe the public something anymore because of those land grants. The debt to us from that has been long paid off.