Now imagine how great the US freight rail system would be if government didn't siphon off billions of $$$ each year while at the same time subsidizing trucks.
This is not Joe Crackpot speaking, the thing is this:
- The rail corporations have to maintain their tracks and pay property taxes on their rights of way. The US used to have a lot more double-tracked and electrified sections but because those are taxed heavier the companies ripped them out wherever possible. Even where it made economic sense if it wasn't for taxes. Now it's just barren strips of land next to the single track.
- Trucks don't have to pay property taxes for roads. But wait, don't they pay fuel taxes? Yes, but the average truck damages the road about 1000 more than a passenger car (the number is from the industry itself). In addition the gas tax doesn't pay for the roads. Most of the gas tax is generated on local roads that aren't covered by it and spent on highways. But even then the federal highway trust fund requires yearly bailouts and it's not much better in many states.
In short, Republicans should be all for addressing this anti-business outrage and Democrats should wanna hug a tree, but both are too craven to face the lobbyists.
Each passenger train uses up the track time of six freights.
That was basically the idea behind China's high speed lines. Separate freight and high-speed traffic. They got side-tracked by the usual Chinese gigantomania, but the basic plan is sound. The problem is that you can't construct a sensible *mass transport* system in the US because North Dakota (no masses to transport) hates the idea of subsidizing New York even though New York pays billions each year to North Dakota for all kinds of shit (Interstates, agriculture, whatever) but they never make the connection. So you need "high speed" trains in the heartland where no one rides them. Amtrak would be profitable, too, if it didn't have to service all 50 states.