While its true that federally funded inland waterways have crippled the
railroads in this region there are other factors working against rail
transport nationwide. As
I understand, railroads have been at a relative disadvantage because they
must pay the full cost of roadbed maintenance, property taxes on every
square foot of ground, and are unable to expand lines by `emminent
domain.'
The railroad industry has also been hurt by unions as well as the
corporate need to stick to the bottom line, leading many to concentrate on
exploiting their landholdings (a la BN's massive clearcutting in the name
of Plum Creek) and recently corporate mega-mergers.
I think what we need might be to nationalize the major railways and
grant rights to users, somewhat like how our national highway system
works. Deep pockets can get new lines built (just like major freeways).
We could make it work so that passenger and freight can share lines.
They've done it Europe for over 100 years.
But alas, I fear I'm in fantasy land. Thanx for indulging me.
DAve
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, John Danahy wrote:
> Perhaps I am mistaken but I don not think that the "rails" were "heavily
> subsidized" by the federal government. However, the downfall of our rail
> system in this country can be directly traced to the federal government
> building amd ,aintianing the inland waterways. The locks, dams, etc that
> help make Lewiston a seaport spelled the end of frieght shipments by rail.
>
> John Danahy
> jdanahy@turbonet.com
>
>