Passenger

Sam:

I have to disagree.  A commercial enterprise is privately owned and operated for profit.  If it's run by the government, it is not a commercial enterprise, whether or not it operates in the black.

The fact that a commercial enterprise serves a similar function is not the test.  Blackwater Security (by whatever name they are known this week) and Kellogg, Brown, and Root are commercial enterprises that are carrying guns, transporting supplies, and engaging in firefights in a war zone.  That does not mean that the US Army is a commercial enterprise.

The Feds own and operate the airways.  The airlines do not pay to use them.  Fees imposed by airports are separate and are imposed by the owner of the airport.

The Feds own and operate the roads.  With just a few exceptions, the truck and bus companies do not pay to use them.

The railroads must purchase, build and maintain their own ROW and even pay property tax on them.

Fuel and use taxes paid by the airlines, truck, and bus companies do not pay anywhere near the entire cost of the infrastructure they use to operate.

Comparing their profitability is not an apples to apples match.

What is holding Amtrak back is their attempt to do too much with too little.  To be a viable transportation option they need to be frequent, fast, and run more or less on time and go to the destinations to which the tavelers want to go.  The NEC meets that test.  Most of the rest of the system does not.

Phoebe Vet:

Sam:

I have to disagree.  A commercial enterprise is privately owned and operated for profit.  If it's run by the government, it is not a commercial enterprise, whether or not it operates in the black.

The fact that a commercial enterprise serves a similar function is not the test.  Blackwater Security (by whatever name they are known this week) and Kellogg, Brown, and Root are commercial enterprises that are carrying guns, transporting supplies, and engaging in firefights in a war zone.  That does not mean that the US Army is a commercial enterprise.

The Feds own and operate the airways.  The airlines do not pay to use them.  Fees imposed by airports are separate and are imposed by the owner of the airport.

The Feds own and operate the roads.  With just a few exceptions, the truck and bus companies do not pay to use them.

The railroads must purchase, build and maintain their own ROW and even pay property tax on them.

Fuel and use taxes paid by the airlines, truck, and bus companies do not pay anywhere near the entire cost of the infrastructure they use to operate.

Comparing their profitability is not an apples to apples match.

What is holding Amtrak back is their attempt to do too much with too little.  To be a viable transportation option they need to be frequent, fast, and run more or less on time and go to the destinations to which the tavelers want to go.  The NEC meets that test.  Most of the rest of the system does not.

I sure wish you would have talked to my accountant about my three trucks not paying taxes for running on the highways. To clear up one thing at a time first the feds only maintain the federal highway system and the states maintain the state highway system. When I purchased new trucks I paid federal excise taxes on the tires and the sales tax was collected by the state for there general fund. Each time I purchased new tires for my trucks more excise tax and that also applied to recaps. Every gallon of fuel that went into the trucks had to be accounted for. Each state wanted the taxes for the amount of fuel your truck consumed while crossing there state. And the feds wanted there share for road use taxes from this same fuel. Most states you operated in required permits to operate within that state. On top of that there was license fee for trucks based on the value of your truck each year in most states. Some states also have a tax based on the tonnage your truck is licensed for with most trucks based on 80,000 lbs. So I really do not want to hear that trucks don't pay to use the highways. My accountant would be the first to disagree with you.And remember most trucks don't get 10mpg. When I first began driving 3mpg was considered good today most get between 6mpg and 8mpg. And then people wonder why trucking is not a very glamorous and few drivers that own there own trucks last more than a few years at it.   

Al - in - Stockton   

Points of accuracy: 

1.  The federal government not only contributes heavily to interstate highway maintenance, it also paid 90% of construction and re-construction costs.  I am not aware of much of a government contribution outside the NEC and Conrail for trackage in the last 100 years.

2.  All of us who own vehicles also contribute directly to roads through taxes on fuel and tires.  However, few of us are able to use these expenses as a deduction to reduce our income taxes.  I also doubt that my sedan causes even 1% of the damage to roads inflicted by heavy trucks.

schlimm:

Points of accuracy: 

1.  The federal government not only contributes heavily to interstate highway maintenance, it also paid 90% of construction and re-construction costs.  I am not aware of much of a government contribution outside the NEC and Conrail for trackage in the last 100 years.

2.  All of us who own vehicles also contribute directly to roads through taxes on fuel and tires.  However, few of us are able to use these expenses as a deduction to reduce our income taxes.  I also doubt that my sedan causes even 1% of the damage to roads inflicted by heavy trucks.

 

Your sedan is about 1/3000th as damaging to the pavement as an 80,000 lb. truck.  Pavement damage varies as the 4th power of the weight on the axle.

RWM

Al:

Build, maintain, and pay property tax on your own roads and then I will accept that you are playing on a level field with the railroads.

I am well aware of the permits and taxes trucks pay, I used to check trucks for those permits.  We all pay taxes on our fuel, tires, etc.  We all pay sales tax when we buy our vehicles.  The reason for the permits is that those are mostly state taxes on the fuel, and having huge fuel tanks enables trucks to buy fuel in the states where the taxes are the lowest, so the other states in which you drive don't get their fuel tax.  I am aware it is an accounting nightmare.

That said, I was not advocating for any changes, I was just making the point that Amtrak is not trying to operate as a for profit commercial enterprise.  It is a government service that benefits more than just the actual passengers.

I believe that someone with enough money and a few good ideas could make a profit in passenger rail.  After all, why do people pay thousands of dollars to cross the Atlantic on the QE2 when USAir will fly them there faster for a few hundred dollars?  Why do people pay FedEX rates to get a package delivered over night when the Post Office will deliver it to more addresses in 2 or 3 days for less than half the price?

Phoebe Vet:

Al:

Build, maintain, and pay property tax on your own roads and then I will accept that you are playing on a level field with the railroads.

I am well aware of the permits and taxes trucks pay, I used to check trucks for those permits.  We all pay taxes on our fuel, tires, etc.  We all pay sales tax when we buy our vehicles.  The reason for the permits is that those are mostly state taxes on the fuel, and having huge fuel tanks enables trucks to buy fuel in the states where the taxes are the lowest, so the other states in which you drive don't get their fuel tax.  I am aware it is an accounting nightmare.

That said, I was not advocating for any changes, I was just making the point that Amtrak is not trying to operate as a for profit commercial enterprise.  It is a government service that benefits more than just the actual passengers.

I believe that someone with enough money and a few good ideas could make a profit in passenger rail.  After all, why do people pay thousands of dollars to cross the Atlantic on the QE2 when USAir will fly them there faster for a few hundred dollars?  Why do people pay FedEX rates to get a package delivered over night when the Post Office will deliver it to more addresses in 2 or 3 days for less than half the price?

I do agree with you that some operators can make a profit on passenger rail. Among them are the ARR and the tour operator out of Vancouver to Calgary and Edmonton. I also would like to see the figures for Via Rails Canadian. Not all of Via Rail but just the Canadian. I don't think Acela is paying its way yet and they charge a premium for not much faster service than the Northeast Direct trains provide. Even the Amtrak California services do not come close to breaking even. I personally wonder if much of Amtraks problems is not enough money has been spent on new equipment over the years and I for one think the heritage equipment was retired far to soon. If Via Rail can still successfully operate the Budd equipment than I see no reason that Amtrak could not have properly rebuilt that equipment and put in retention toilet systems as Via Rail has. I personally find the ride on the Canadian very comfortable. For one thing the mattresses are thicker and beat those on Amtrak. The Superliners are comfortable and I personally think Amtrak needs about twice as many as they already have. I personally do not think Amtrak should purchase any additional Viewliners as they are very noisy and do not have as comfortable a ride as the former Budd 10-6 sleepers had. As I have mentioned before I think Amtrak should look at the double deck cars operated by New Jersey transit for eastern long distance equipment I am sure they could put just about any interior desired in that equipment. For the west additional California car for short corridor services and more Superliners for the western long distance services. If the old Budd Diners built for the NP North Coast Limited have soldiered on this long reliably then I see no reason they cannot be rebuilt like the Via Rail cars.

Al - in - Stockton

ARR makes a profit on passenger rail?  I need to see how they calculate that.  Grants provided by the federal treasury to the ARR since 1996 total $795.4 million, including $105 million in 2009. 

RWM

Al:

I ride the "Autumn Train" excursion from the NC Transportation Museum in Spencer, NC to Charlottesville, VA and back. We ride upstairs in an old restored Vista Dome car.  It is a very pleasant trip and everyone socializes.  There is a car attendant in each car that tells everyone about the car and sees to everyone's needs.  The view from the dome is a lot different from the view out the window of a standard Amtrak coach.  I think it was a mistake to stop using those cars.  A for profit carrier would have to pay more attention to passenger comfort and entertainment.  They need more bar and lounge cars.  Perhaps a car with some coin operated video games for the youngsters.  How about a Wi-Fi hot spot?  A GPS annunciator or even a GPS map display that shows the next station, the train speed, and the current location.  Perhaps Starbucks would be interested in paying the RR to pull a car belonging to them.  Just thinking outside the box.

Then advertise.  When I tell people we took a train from Charlotte to (wherever), the most common response I get is:  "We have Amtrak in Charlotte?  Where is the station?"

 RWM:

Thanks for the engineering info.  I only wish I paid 1/3000th of the fuel tax per gallon as a coomercial truck!

Phoebe Vet:

A for profit carrier would have to pay more attention to passenger comfort and entertainment.  They need more bar and lounge cars.  Perhaps a car with some coin operated video games for the youngsters.  How about a Wi-Fi hot spot?  A GPS annunciator or even a GPS map display that shows the next station, the train speed, and the current location.  Perhaps Starbucks would be interested in paying the RR to pull a car belonging to them.  Just thinking outside the box.

Then advertise.  When I tell people we took a train from Charlotte to (wherever), the most common response I get is:  "We have Amtrak in Charlotte?  Where is the station?"

Ah, ha! 

A for profit carrier figures out how to earn another nickel, they get to keep it.  Amtrak earns another nickel and their subsidy goes down a nickel.

So, why in the world would anybody at Amtrak ever bother to come up with an idea how to earn the company another nickel. All it would bring is more work and trouble.

Boardman has stated that the attitude of some employees is not what it ought to be.  Let's see what he comes up with to fix the problem. "What's in in for me?" is a good place to start.

(there is plenty of room on my soap box)

 

Phoebe Vet:

Al:

I ride the "Autumn Train" excursion from the NC Transportation Museum in Spencer, NC to Charlottesville, VA and back. We ride upstairs in an old restored Vista Dome car.  It is a very pleasant trip and everyone socializes.  There is a car attendant in each car that tells everyone about the car and sees to everyone's needs.  The view from the dome is a lot different from the view out the window of a standard Amtrak coach.  I think it was a mistake to stop using those cars.  A for profit carrier would have to pay more attention to passenger comfort and entertainment.  They need more bar and lounge cars.  Perhaps a car with some coin operated video games for the youngsters.  How about a Wi-Fi hot spot?  A GPS annunciator or even a GPS map display that shows the next station, the train speed, and the current location.  Perhaps Starbucks would be interested in paying the RR to pull a car belonging to them.  Just thinking outside the box.

Then advertise.  When I tell people we took a train from Charlotte to (wherever), the most common response I get is:  "We have Amtrak in Charlotte?  Where is the station?"

A couple of notes:  Amtrak was born in the airline era whose leaders believed you sat down, buckled your seat belt, downed a belt and either read a magazine or watched a movie; who looked out a window?  Also, broken windows were liabilities, so, make the small and maybe nobody will get hurt.  Most of all, keep it as bland and user unfriendly as possible and they'll go away.  As for advertising: why?  It only brings attention to you and might mean enough people will show up to make you successful, and they didn't want that to happen.  Boardman is right in that he has to get rid of the politicals and get real railroaders in there.

henry6:

A couple of notes:  Amtrak was born in the airline era whose leaders believed you sat down, buckled your seat belt, downed a belt and either read a magazine or watched a movie; who looked out a window?  Also, broken windows were liabilities, so, make the small and maybe nobody will get hurt.  Most of all, keep it as bland and user unfriendly as possible and they'll go away.  As for advertising: why?  It only brings attention to you and might mean enough people will show up to make you successful, and they didn't want that to happen.  Boardman is right in that he has to get rid of the politicals and get real railroaders in there.

A couple more comments:

The Metroliner was designed right smack dab in the middle of the push to go to the moon.  Jetliner travel was less than a decade old.  The LAST thing you wanted a train to be was a train.  Making a train as "sexy" as a jetliner was a good thing.  The Metroliner tried to be exactly that.  As a space program enthused young teen, I thought Metroliners were very cool!

As for Boardman's judgment of employees, it wasn't "politicals vs. railroaders", it was about "survival vs growth" in Amtrak's headquarters.  http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=4642 

He said, "There are a whole host of people here who don't know whether to believe," he said. "People are going to have to get on the train. We will make some judgments very soon."

Those people could care less about finding new market niches or exploiting the exisiting ones.  That's just too much work.  It's hard enough just trying to make yesterday happen again today.

passengerfan:

I personally find the ride on the Canadian very comfortable. For one thing the mattresses are thicker and beat those on Amtrak.

I agree with Al. The mattresses in the sleepers on the Canadian are, if not the original, so much like the original Pullman mattresses that they are equivalent (I have slept in Pullman roomettes, bedrooms, and a drawing room). The first time I rode in a Superliner "deluxe bedroom" (as it was called then),I noticed that the "mattress" on the upper is little more than a thick pad, and the "mattress" on the lower was a much thinner pad spread over the seat cushion. Since, I have spent many nights in both Superliner and Canadian cars (also, I have spent three nights in Renaissance cars; I prefer even the Viewliner). I ws not surprised to find the "mattress" in what Amtrak now calls a "roomette" to be little different from the "mattress" in a slumbercoach.

Johnny

Phoebe Vet:

"We have Amtrak in Charlotte?  Where is the station?"

I wish it were still on Trade Street, just a few blocks from Tryon (and it was about a block and a half from the bus station). I loved that station, but there was quite a bit of congestion on Trade whenever a passenger train was worked. I have come in to, and left from, the current station three times. It will take me a while to count how many times I used the old station, which was much more convenient to the center of town.

Johnny

Deggesty:

I wish it were still on Trade Street, just a few blocks from Tryon (and it was about a block and a half from the bus station). I loved that station, but there was quite a bit of congestion on Trade whenever a passenger train was worked. I have come in to, and left from, the current station three times. It will take me a while to count how many times I used the old station, which was much more convenient to the center of town.

Johnny

Then you will be happy to know that they are working on building the new Charlotte Gateway Station on that exact site.

 

http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/CATS/Rapid+Transit+Planning/Gateway+Station/Home.htm