Too Hot to Post?!

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....Who in privatization is going to come running with a billion dollars to rebuiltd the inffrastructure of the NEC...Of course, no one. I believe we know where this kind of blather comes from.

I have a good feeling that the fool who started this column, is in Congress **** up to his eyeballs.
Of course who's going to come up with the money to rebuild the system? the citizens and the private sector. Does anyone want to pay to service others? Not really. Yeah, I do wonder how this *** came up with such armchair rubbish.

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

Well, I first hinted that the argument contained in ***'s post was dubious; now I am just going to come right out and say it.

Futuremodal, thank you for spelling out my inference.

(1) I dislike the article because it bases its entire argument about Amtrak on the NEC, which is like saying the Interstate Highway System doesn't work and is falling apart because every time I drive through Indiana I hit pot holes. And, as has been suggested, I doubt the NEC is in quite as bad of shape as the author suggests.

(2) I completely agree with Randy's point about the Madrid bombings. Not only is it illogical I find it morally wrong and distasteful. I can't stand it when people stand on the backs of the dead to practice their zealotry when the incident in question has little if any fair relation to their zealotry.

I have previously made known my position that I feel as though there are problems with Amtrak and the current state of Amtrak is better explained by political momentum than rational decision-making. However, that doesn't necessarily mean we should get rid of Amtrak, and it certainly doesn't mean we should substitute irrational political momentum for an equally irrational paradigm that bases its argument on such unsound premises.

Gabe

I wonder why others think that Amtrak should be run in other way and break its back on re-construction costs rather than fix equipment. Fools!! . . .

[DaveBr]

What about solving 2 or 3 of the problems at once? 1. This country has over 8 million
illigals.Take 2 million and start the W.P.A. 2.Paying these illigals would not cost as much as the regular workers and would be helping them get away from their proverty
and get the railroad straightened out .2.Use the Army Corp of Engineers to manage and do the surveying that needs it. Havn't they built bridges ,tunnels and other things
for the publics use? Just a talking point. Dave Br.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

I just spent some time at the Ivy City terminal and was impressed by the condition of the infrastructure. The Amtrak employees that I spoke with had very little complaint about the way things were being run on the RR. The trains I rode performed well and I saw no real areas for concern. Using the Madrid bombings as an example is irresponsible . No matter what kind of infrastructure you have it is not immune from a terrorist attack. I see two real choices: get rid of Amtrak , or accept that it is not going to make money. If passenger trains made money the class 1s would still have them.
Randy
BTW.. I'm getting really sick of all these armchair expert railroaders putting their worthless 2 cents in just to sensationalize a foolish issue.

Agree with Randy 100% - Wonder if Ian Murray would agree to stop funding the airline, trucking and barge systems as well (or give them the same amount as they give Amtrak)

[banghead][banghead][banghead]

It would be nice that the airline, trucking and barge systems would pay their share AND get the same funding as Amtrak.

Sterling, is there an equivalent of Amtrak in the airline, trucking, or barge systems? I am not aware of any other national passenger service in the form of those modes.

BTW.. I'm getting really sick of all these armchair expert economists putting their worthless 2 cents in just to sensationalize a foolish rebuttal.

[PNWRMNM]

Lets see, Amtrak is the monopoly railroad. They must be making monopoly profits.

But by gosh, here is a problem open access is sure to fix!

Mac

[Randy Stahl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Lets see, Amtrak is the monopoly railroad. They must be making monopoly profits.

But by gosh, here is a problem open access is sure to fix!

Mac

A monopoly that consistantly loses money... Who cares, even with open access I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Randy

[PNWRMNM]

Randy,

Nor would any rational person.

Mac

[Junctionfan]

How about a 10.5 foot pole?[:D]

[Randy Stahl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

How about a 10.5 foot pole?[:D]

Are you bragging Andrew?[^]
Randy

[jeaton]

Shortly after he joined Amtrak, Dave Gunn was interviewed by Jim Leher on PBS' Evening News. After Gunn spoke about the large investment that would be needed to get Amtrak in good working order, Leher asked about the idea of privatising. Gunn noted that he had the authority to sell Amtrak and asked if Leher might be interested. At the end of the interview, Leher said "I'll get back to you on that."

Let's assume the Federal Government would be willing to sell Amtrak for one dollar. Does anyone know of an individual or company willing to invest a couple of billion dollars to fix the property, just for the privilege of loosing maybe a half billion a year?
If so, please let me know, because I have a couple other business ideas that could probably loose even more money.

Jay[}:)][}:)][}:)]

[tree68]

Another cloud in the issue is the "rates" that the airlines issue. For every $99 round trip ticket to somewhere, there is somebody paying $400 for the priviledge of sitting next to you. While there are myriad reasons for doing so, the fact is that the airline is mainly worried about getting an average price of $X for each seat, so the $99 averages out with the $400 to give them the $250 the seat really costs. In effect, my business travel "subsidizes" my leisure travel. I don't think a similar structure exists on Amtrak...

[Anonymous]

Item 1. Is the writer of the story, in reference to "Trains that no one rides" himself refering to the long distance western trains that are full and need a three month in advance reservation to ride?
Item 2. "The trains run through relatively un-populated areas." So what. The thing is full. And some day that area too will be populated.
It's a shame that the American Passenger Train operations culture was completely lacerated over the last three decades.
Mitch

[Anonymous]

The Congress, Senate, and WH are all controlled by conservatives, so why doesn't the National Review simply get one of it's conservative friends to introduce a straight up bill abolishing Amtrak? It would be real interesting to get everyone on the record with a roll-call vote. Then perhaps a serious debate could take place.

IIRC it was the Nixon admin that gave us Amtrak, maybe we're looking at this all wrong and Amtrak is really nothing more than a subsidy for the freight railroads?

[Anonymous]

In some respects I have to agree with the initial post. I love trains, but I think we ought to kill off AMTRAK. Here's why:
1) Privately owned, or state/metropolitan funded railroads are better capable of representing their needs to local government. Most passenger service is commuter style service offering customers a competitive, economic and stress free alternative to an automobile (or a bus). A state or municipal government is better able to recognize local needs and requirements- and fund them.
2) Federal tax dollars invite questions over parochial concerns. Why should a Georgia resident pay for someone from Massachussetts to ride a train to New York? Or Washington? Especially when a lot of programs are being cut back that have an immediate effect on, well, me? (Like education...)
3) Railroads outside the NEC are best suited for moving bulk cargo long distances. Let them do their job. When you force passenger service on a freight railroad, you aggravate already bad capacity problems, "regulate" their operations (by negotiating higher speed limits, track requirements, and other operational concerns), at a cost not only to the taxpayer who isn't riding the train but to the private corporation that has to accomodate it.
4) I agree that airline subsidies are probably unfair, but the original article waved the national security flag. Moving people by aircraft is a viable national defense concern between cities (or countries). It's fast and gets a person to destination in some semblance of ability to function. Yes, I am aware of weather concerns... there will be times when aircraft can't fly, but a train will get through. Those times are fairly short in duration and don't justify year round funding for a service that won't be used "in national defense." There aren't any troop trains running around... but there is a lot of military freight to be hauled.

Any sane discussion of federal funding to the railroads- either directly, in the form of subsidies, or indirectly, in the form of tax cuts or tax incentives- for reasons of "national security" ought to concentrate on doing what railroads do best for the country: move freight.

Erik

[StillGrande]

Amtrak is anything but a monopoly in moving people. It is competing with air, bus, car and even other commuter trains (especially the the NE). It may have a lock on long distance rail, but not long distance people moving.

Even commuter rail systems (and bus systems for that matter) are not self sufficient. The Washington Metro continues to limp along and has to beg money from 3 jurisdictions (DC, Maryland and Virginia) and according to the Washington Post is toying with deferring maintenance on some stations (some of the stations are starting to look like the tunnels in Boston with leaks) and railcars (They have never provided 8 car trains on any route I am aware of, though the system was designed for such and could use them during the rushes). I don't understand the argument that long distance trains can pull their own weight but it is okay for commuter trains to be subsidized.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikthered

In some respects I have to agree with the initial post. I love trains, but I think we ought to kill off AMTRAK. Here's why:
1) Privately owned, or state/metropolitan funded railroads are better capable of representing their needs to local government. Most passenger service is commuter style service offering customers a competitive, economic and stress free alternative to an automobile (or a bus). A state or municipal government is better able to recognize local needs and requirements- and fund them.
2) Federal tax dollars invite questions over parochial concerns. Why should a Georgia resident pay for someone from Massachussetts to ride a train to New York? Or Washington? Especially when a lot of programs are being cut back that have an immediate effect on, well, me? (Like education...)
3) Railroads outside the NEC are best suited for moving bulk cargo long distances. Let them do their job. When you force passenger service on a freight railroad, you aggravate already bad capacity problems, "regulate" their operations (by negotiating higher speed limits, track requirements, and other operational concerns), at a cost not only to the taxpayer who isn't riding the train but to the private corporation that has to accomodate it.
4) I agree that airline subsidies are probably unfair, but the original article waved the national security flag. Moving people by aircraft is a viable national defense concern between cities (or countries). It's fast and gets a person to destination in some semblance of ability to function. Yes, I am aware of weather concerns... there will be times when aircraft can't fly, but a train will get through. Those times are fairly short in duration and don't justify year round funding for a service that won't be used "in national defense." There aren't any troop trains running around... but there is a lot of military freight to be hauled.

Any sane discussion of federal funding to the railroads- either directly, in the form of subsidies, or indirectly, in the form of tax cuts or tax incentives- for reasons of "national security" ought to concentrate on doing what railroads do best for the country: move freight.

Erik

With all do respect sir, how do you think private owned passenger service will work better than public? If private was really attractive, wouldn't the railroads keep it going?

The answer is start over and design it in a way as so it won't be failure. Amtrak was designed by Congress to fail and it is accomplishing just that. If Congress wants something to succeed, it will so they need a swift kick in the butt and be made to stop doing expensive waste of money and time political nonsence ideas and actually get a successful federally funded passenger service like VIA Rail Canada.

Just because Amtrak is crap, doesn't mean that federally funded passenger service in general is. Redo it.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikthered

In some respects I have to agree with the initial post. I love trains, but I think we ought to kill off AMTRAK. Here's why:
1) Privately owned, or state/metropolitan funded railroads are better capable of representing their needs to local government. Most passenger service is commuter style service offering customers a competitive, economic and stress free alternative to an automobile (or a bus). A state or municipal government is better able to recognize local needs and requirements- and fund them.
2) Federal tax dollars invite questions over parochial concerns. Why should a Georgia resident pay for someone from Massachussetts to ride a train to New York? Or Washington? Especially when a lot of programs are being cut back that have an immediate effect on, well, me? (Like education...)
3) Railroads outside the NEC are best suited for moving bulk cargo long distances. Let them do their job. When you force passenger service on a freight railroad, you aggravate already bad capacity problems, "regulate" their operations (by negotiating higher speed limits, track requirements, and other operational concerns), at a cost not only to the taxpayer who isn't riding the train but to the private corporation that has to accomodate it.
4) I agree that airline subsidies are probably unfair, but the original article waved the national security flag. Moving people by aircraft is a viable national defense concern between cities (or countries). It's fast and gets a person to destination in some semblance of ability to function. Yes, I am aware of weather concerns... there will be times when aircraft can't fly, but a train will get through. Those times are fairly short in duration and don't justify year round funding for a service that won't be used "in national defense." There aren't any troop trains running around... but there is a lot of military freight to be hauled.

Any sane discussion of federal funding to the railroads- either directly, in the form of subsidies, or indirectly, in the form of tax cuts or tax incentives- for reasons of "national security" ought to concentrate on doing what railroads do best for the country: move freight.

Erik

With all do respect sir, how do you think private owned passenger service will work better than public? If private was really attractive, wouldn't the railroads keep it going?

Regarding private vs public passenger rail, here's a case in point. There are several private passenger rail ventures in the U.S. which cater to the tourist market. Granted, they have a hard time making ends meet, but that is due to a lack of access to larger markets. This is usually because they run mostly on Class II and Class III tracks, wherein Class I's won't cooperate. The Montana Rockies Rail tours recent announcement that they are cancelling the 2005 season is due to their inability to directly access Spokane WA over BNSF rails from their current terminus of Sandpoint ID 65 miles away on the western end of MRL's line. The inference in their cancellation statement is that if they could operate out of Spokane, they would have closer proximity to air passengers, thus a larger customer base.

This begs the question: If it is true that Class I's don't want to run passenger trains because as everyone knows you can't make money on passengers, then how is it this little private company apparently could make a go of it if only they could access the more logical terminal?

Yet another example of how open access could facilitate the assumed impossibility - the concept of a profitable rail passenger service.

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again: Why are the so-called rail passenger supporters so opposed to the concept of open access?

[jeaton]

According to an article in The Washington Times, December 10, 2004, Dave Gunn made a written response to DOT Inspector General Mead.

Key points: In FY 2004 Amtrak spent $15.7 million to fix long distance cars. The "vast majority" of the FY 2004 engineering budget of $387 million was spent on the Northeast Corridor. Performing more work on the Corridor would have seriously disrupted service. Amtrak continues to deal with years of deferred miantenance on the Corridor tracks.

The article is at http://washingtontimes.com/business/20041209-093110-5568r.htm

Jay

[Junctionfan]

In response to that, my motto is an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If the lines are falling apart and getting worse, better to deal with quickly now than wait till it gets even more expensive and disruptive to fix.