Family ranches in Texas

[ScoPro]

My brother owns the 100 acre farm in northwest Missouri that has been in our family since the 1870s.
It’s quite a money pit most years.

I own 25 agricultural acres about 300 yards from the Circuit of the Americas race track near the Austin Airport.
Inherited it from my Dad, who bought it 55 years ago.
I or my sons will sell it to a commercial developer some day.
A farmer leases it from me to raise hay, so it has an ag exemption.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by ChristieP

Only 1% of Texas’ power is generated by hydroelectric, and that is all on 6 dams owned by the LCRA. None of Texas’ rivers have sufficient flow rates to generate power. It’s unlikely that this will expand in the foreseeable future.

The Texas coast may become a ready source of tidal powered electrical generation.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...idal-power.php

Originally Posted by ChristieP

[1] Rail transportation of freight is great for overland/long distances, but for last-mile deliveries, it’s horrible. [2] The infrastructure is expensive to maintain, especially in urban areas, and offloading is difficult due to the equipment needed. “Rail served” warehouses are increasingly rare, and new ones are not being built anymore. [3] Also, the freight rail system is not reliable for just-in-time deliveries as the trains don’t run on any set schedule. Trucks are, and will continue to be, the vast majority of the American freight delivery system.

[1] At no time in the history of rail transport was it expected to provide last-mile (or last kilometer) service. Meaningless objection.
[2] Rail infrastructure is actually far cheaper than the paved road infrastructure, and was funded by PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. And rail infrastructure and rolling stock are far more resilient than the competition. And since government has been taxing rail to death, while subsidizing its competition, of course, no "new warehouses" are being constructed. But eliminate all the government meddling, then see which paradigm prevails.
[3] Again, arguing that government subsidized transportation is superior to government penalized transportation is moot. The bottom line is COST. It's no surprise that the USA suffers from a far higher energy consumption per capita than other "rail friendly" nations. Our whole political structure is warped by corruption.
"What's good for GM is good for America!" is NOT true... but it's how things are being operated.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/articles/52/
Daily gasoline consumption per capita (liters)
USA : 4.39
Kuwait : 2.84 (65%)
Saudi Arabia : 2.6 (59%)
Oman : 2.53 (58%)
United Arab Emirates : 1.99 (45%)
Switzerland : 1.35 (30%)
. . . .
The irony is that though the USA consumes the most gasoline per capita, it does NOT own the most automobiles per capita!
. . . .
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...er-capita.html
Per 1000 population
#1 Monaco (748)
#2 Iceland (667)
#3 Brunei (649)
#4 New Zealand (615)
#5 Puerto Rico (614)
#6 Italy (601)
#7 Germany (566)
#8 Australia (545)
#9 Switzerland (524)
#10 Austria (511)
::
#25 USA (439)
. . . .
Switzerland burns 70% less fuel but has more automobiles per capita.
In other words, they can maintain a HIGHER standard of living while consuming LESS fuel.
That spells higher prosperity - doing more with less so more can enjoy.
HOW?
By relying on an electric powered rail based transportation system - urban, suburban, long distance, funiculars, cog wheel, cable, and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_t...in_Switzerland

Switzerland has not only the world's most dense railway network (128.9 km/10^3 km^2, except for very small countries and city-states) despite the Alps covering about 60% of its surface, but it is also a world leader in kilometres traveled: 2,459 km (1,528 mi) per inhabitant (2015). Virtually 100% of its network is electrified... The share of commuters who travel to work using public transport (as main mode of transport) is 30%.

. . .
https://www.goeuro.com/buses/switzerland

Switzerland’s public transport system is recognised as one of the finest in the world, thanks to its dense network of road, bus and train lines. There aren’t any long-distance buses in Switzerland, as trains tend to provide more capacity, are faster, more reliable and also CHEAPER. Buses serve more as feeder routes that link train stations with out of the way destinations.

Conservation minded folks ("cheapskates") save a ton o'money using rail, and can afford to buy a car for those odd trips where rail doesn't fit the bill.


TEXAS RANCHERS WILL BENEFIT FROM THE TRANSITION BACK TO RAIL, TOO.

[ChristieP]

Trust me, no one in the USA is going back to rail as a primary means of transporting freight. It’s too slow when compared with trucks and air. If the currently looming rail strike does actually happen, things will get ugly.

Sure, there are gains to be made with commuter rail in the big cities, and maybe even in the suburbs, but it is totally impractical for commuting from smaller towns or rural areas. The cost per rider mile is simply too high, and then you have the “final mile” issue of how to get people from the train station to their actual place of employment.

Where will all of this electricity needed for electric cars and electric rail be generated? The current administration is shutting down coal-fired power plants without any plans to replicate their generating capacity. Wind and solar alone is not enough to make up for it. Unless we start building more nuclear or natural gas-fired power plants, we are soon going to exceed our electrical generating capacity. And that doesn’t even address the transmission issue of the power grid that is insufficient to charge an entire nation of electric cars.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

The Texas coast may become a ready source of tidal powered electrical generation.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...idal-power.php


[1] At no time in the history of rail transport was it expected to provide last-mile (or last kilometer) service. Meaningless objection.
[2] Rail infrastructure is actually far cheaper than the paved road infrastructure, and was funded by PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. And rail infrastructure and rolling stock are far more resilient than the competition. And since government has been taxing rail to death, while subsidizing its competition, of course, no "new warehouses" are being constructed. But eliminate all the government meddling, then see which paradigm prevails.

The bulk of trans-continental railroads were funded by gifts of land from the Federal government - one section of land(640 acres) for every mile of rail laid. Texas gave 16 sections of land per mile of track. So no, rail infrastructure was not entirely funded by private enterprise.