Lithonia OperatorYes, in Jim Thorpe the (extremely picturesque) business district is right there. We ate at an Irish pub about 50 yards from the depot. And it was good food.
Let the Mayor know you were there because of the Lehigh Gorge RR and you spent money in town that you would not have if the Lehigh Gorge RR was not operating.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDLet the Mayor know you were there because of the Lehigh Gorge RR and you spent money in town that you would not have if the Lehigh Gorge RR was not operating.
But be careful not to send the wrong message: that you spent a lot of money because of the Lehigh Gorge. Then they'll think that a leetle more admission price for their tiny nominal amusement tax per ride is easily in your budget...
Whether or not the tourist train is an amusement, or not, is immaterial. Local jurisdictions are able to tax tourist operatons such as amusements, hotels, and yes, transportation (look at your rental car taxes/fees) and airports.
Answering both posts. The railroad has the upper hand in this case. They have not been providing the passenger service to earn money. The money comes from the freight business. They have been providing it as a service for the community to benefit the economy of the coummunity, and to have some fun themselvres.
The taxes you mention on are facilities that earn money. The airport fees and rental-car fees at airports also serve in a manner of renting property and paying for services the profitable operation uses.
The railroad has every right to simply shut down the passenger operation that they were providing as a public service transportation mode to and from a scenic location. As far as back taxes, where are the dated invoices of have received notice of being taxed?
The railroad provided transportation, not amusement. The amusement was provided by Mother Nature, and I would call it education, not amusement.
Regarding where the 10 year tax bill figure came from, many states have a 10 year look back limit on tax collections. I'm guessing that is the case in PA. Something could have been happening for 20 years or more, but the maximum that can be collected on is 10 years.
daveklepper They have not been providing the passenger service to earn money.
I honestly doubt that. While they may not be getting rich off of it, I doubt it's a charity case.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
daveklepperThe railroad provided transportation, not amusement. The amusement was provided by Mother Nature, and I would call it education, not amusement.
And a roller coaster's amusement comes from gravity. So I guess they shouldn't be taxed, either?
With all due respect, you are really reaching for some of these points, Dave.
Local residents, and businesses that cater to them, pay local taxes. Municipalities also tax tourist businesses additionally to capture some money from tourist to pay for services provided to them such as police, fire, EMT, roads, parking, parks, water, sewer, garbage, administrative costs, etc. Most successful secinic railroads seem to have an interesting anchor town to be based out of. For example Lake Placid, Saratoga, Durango/Silverton, Banff/Jasper, and yes-- Jim Thorpe. I doubt he would get as much business based out of Penn Haven Junction.
As far as the scenic portion goes, there is no wild land left in the continental US. Everything is developed or protected in some way. Either as a government reserve, or by a landowner who wants it kept natural and pays the taxes. In many states, the state or federal government pays a "swamp tax" to help support local government services. Mr. Klepper seems to think the scenery was provided free, and that the railroad should not have to pay for this, as they are just providing a nice amusement passtime for the passengers. I wonder what the park ranger would say if he used that arguement to try to bring a bus-load of friends into a national park for free.
Penn Haven Junction is accessible (barely) only by a rough cinder road from the northwest (aside from the Lehigh Gorge State Park's rail-trail). But neither is a public road.
White Haven - northern end of the Lehigh River Gorge - would prove your point better. More easily accessible off I-80 (and PA 940) than Jim Thorpe, and a nice little town (borough, technically), it doesn't have near as much 'cachet' as JT. But I don't know if RBM&N has rights that far north, or if it's NS only (little rusty on things that far upstate).
- PDN.
Median Mike, you are 100% wrong:
Viewing scenery is not an amusement. It is education. Otherwise we would not have the Nastional Park System and all the Government-funded facilities to view Nature's wonders.
The specific railroad is in business to provide transportation. It earns money from freight transportation. Obviously the extent of the subsidization of the transportation of passsengers to view the scenery would require detailed analysis of the books of the railroad, but it is very clear that the passenger operation was not a money-maker and was provided as a service and contribution for and to the community.
And the railroad pays real-estate taxes and other taxes to the community to support the services it and its employees receive. Additional expenses to the town due to railroad operations are not only supported by those taxes, but also by the additional taxes received because of the increased business in all sectors of the town the railroad has made possible.
There is no precedent of any railroad operating an excursion passenger service that was successfully taxed with an amusement tax.
Just to head further taxation "off at the pass" (Short-Line RR Association, are you listening?), riding an historic train is not an amusement. It is education. It teaches the kind of transportation our granfathers and grandmothers and those who "Settled the West" had when they were alive and active. Rick Laubscher, of San Francisco's Market Street Railway Association, coined the term "Museums in Motion" to describe the E and F streetcar lines' and Cable Car lines' vehicles. This also obviously applies to vintage trains. And museums are not taxed with amusement taxes. They are providing education. And Steamtown is part of the National Parks System.
A circular railroad in an amusement park is not a common carrier. It usually is more of a characterization of a real train than anything that could provide education of what trains in the steam era were reaily like, although there are exceptions. In any case, there the train ride and only the train ride is the object.
But railroads that operate excusion trains have other reasons for passengers riding than just the ride: scenery, history, rare mileage and the campaign to restore passenger service, promomotion of a area or facility, such as athletics (Winter Park Ski Train, trains to the ballpark), etc.
I should also point out, as a general matter, that when a poster writes "Mr. ___ seems to think..." the writer is converting an issue into a personal issue, not a question of just which fact or opinion is correct.
And in this case I did point out in previous posts that the railroad does pay other taxes. So (1) the scenergy isn't for free, and (2) it's the freight, not the scenery, that provides a living for the railroad and its employees. And for both the scenery and the frieght, the railroad provides transportation, not amusement.
daveklepperViewing scenery is not an amusement. It is education. Otherwise we would not have the Nastional Park System and all the Government-funded facilities to view Nature's wonders.
Citation on that one?
daveklepperThere is no precedent of any railroad operating an excursion passenger service that was successfully taxed with an amusement tax.
Did you not see my link to Maryland Midland's enterTRAINment operation?
Zug, I love 'ya man, I learn a lot from your inputs, and I saw the Maryland Midland link. But did you see what happened to the enterTRAINment operation when the locals tried to put the tax squeeze on it? It's gone! They killed it! AND the equipment was scattered to the four winds, never to return.
Here's the thing, Andy Mueller doesn't have to run passenger trains at all, to any location on or affilated with the Reading & Norther. He does so because 1) He's a railfan, and he enjoys running passenger trains and 2) I'd assume he does make money on them, but more than likely a fraction of what he makes running freight.
Only he knows for sure.
It wouldn't be the first time the R&N stopped running excursions. They had a pretty lively excursion business going back in the 90's until their growing freight business made it impractical and they had to give it up. Honestly I was pleasantly surprised to see it return.
I'm wondering if the town of Jim Thorpe is facing a budget shortfall and hitting the railroad for money is just a quick n' easy way to try to make up for it? Only the mayor and town council know that for sure as well.
I wonder what the citizens of Jim Thorpe have to say about this, especially the merchants?
I wonder if Muller would be willing to let the town look at his books. If it is indeed true (realistically, none of us here know) that the passenger train makes no profit, then maybe the town would relent.
Assumedly, the other businesses paying the tax do make profits on their operations, unless some of then also have another, profit-making division to draw off of. But I can't think of what kind of businesses would fit that model, other than the railroad.
I am guessing the town is cutting off its nose to spite itself. But what do I know? Maybe the money brought into town that's directly attributable to the exisence of the passenger train is not that significant in the grand sceme of things. But I will say this: during our brief stay an Irish pub got about $25, and the city got a buck or two via a parking meter. Whereas the railroad got zip from us. And we went to JT for the sole purpose of seeing the train. Seeing, not riding.
zugmannDid you not see my link to Maryland Midland's enterTRAINment operation?
Where is the link? I can't find it. Can you supply it again?
Personally, I think it's hard to say that a scenic train ride is not an amusement. It is one. But if it's the only amusement in town that makes no profit, while simultaneously generating business for the other amusements, then it ought to get a dispensation.
I do not agree with the guy in the news video that thinks that the word "amusement" is an issue. The issue here is not semantics. The issue here (and this is a first in the history of Western Civilization!) is money.
Does Trains have an online archive where subscibers can read articles from issues they received in print form?
Now seeing these developments, I would love to re-read the recent article about RBMN. I don't save magazines.
Regards - Steve
Lithonia OperatorWhere is the link? I can't find it. Can you supply it again?
Sorry, it was in one of the other threads. Here it is again:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1995-04-20-1995110156-story.html
OK. In your definition, not mine, a train ride can be an amusement. I agree if it is only a train ride. But in this case there is a destination. The scnenic Gorge. And the train ride provides transportation to and from that destination.
Should the Town ask bookstore owners to add an amusement tax to the price of any joke books or comic books they sell? Their business is selling books, not providing amusement.
The business of the railroad is providing transportation, not amusement.
Anyone want to say that the business of the National Paarks, other than preservation itself, is to provide amusement?
Watching an athletic event can be termed amusement. What about actively participating in athletics? I'm interested in your (plural) concept of how far the word "amusement" can be stretched. Does it not only cover railfanning, in its various forms, but boat racing, car racing, all hobbies of all kinds?
Historically, amusement taxes were levied only against theatres, circuses, etc.
With tongue firmly in my cheek, since I assume at least a portion of the ride is outside the town limits presumably the town's amusement tax was set on a prorated portion of the ticket price..........
Did Jim Thorp, the town, not the ball-player, have a streetcar system? Was there an amusement park located outside the town's borders, on land in an area not in any defined municipality. So could the streetcar system have to collect an amusement tax on fares to and from the amusemente park?
As to paying a town tax on a ticket that took the passenger out of the town, I do not think that the the town could levy a tax on the cost of transportation beyond the town limits. Back when Mississippi had a tax on intrastate tickets, there was no state tax on interstate tickets bought in the state.
Johnny
Everyone, including the town of Jim Thorpe, can interpret the word "amusement" any way they want.
But this is the way I see it. From what I can tell, the train rides are either 45 or 70 minutes long. That tells me that there is no time for people to get off the train and spend time in the gorge. There is also, I suspect, no provision for disembarking from one train, then returning later on another.
So people are getting on a conveyance, and the only option available is to get off precisely where they began. To me, that is not "transportation" in the normal sense. It is an outing (a diversion, an amusement, whatever) in which the ride itself is a primary part of the mission. You cannot go from A to B; only from A to A.
In any event, like I said above, to me it's not about semantics. It's about rasslin' over legal tender.
With all due respect to Dave, Andy Muller, and anyone else who sees this differently.
If the town does not work with Muller and find a solution, I am guessing they will regret it.
They'll regret it just like some business establishment landlords I've seen around here who jacked up the rents, causing the tenants move out, and had the stores (or buildings) sit vacant for lack of takers for two, three, four, or more years generating no income at all.
Smart. Real smart.
You can be right, or you can be happy. In conflict, rarely will you be both.
I think they will both regret it.
zugmann Yeah, we're getting married next month. Coming to the reception? I think you're looking at this with a 1960's nostalgic view of and excursion railroad, not a current day scenic, and yes, entertainment operation. People are not riding this from A->B. They are riding for the sake of riding. Like a roller coaster. And knowing you meant well, I'll excuse you for your remarks of my interest in the railroad industry this time.
Yeah, we're getting married next month. Coming to the reception?
I think you're looking at this with a 1960's nostalgic view of and excursion railroad, not a current day scenic, and yes, entertainment operation. People are not riding this from A->B. They are riding for the sake of riding. Like a roller coaster.
And knowing you meant well, I'll excuse you for your remarks of my interest in the railroad industry this time.
Actually, I would hazard a guess that people aren't riding it for the train...but to see the Lehigh Gorge, which makes it transportation, therefore not an amusement ride.
Also, Andy Muller himself basically said he makes his money from freight, not the passenger service, which tells me either he breaks even or has a small loss, but makes very little to no profit from it.
It sounds like the LGRY hasn't been keeping on top of paying the amusement tax when it is supposed to. That combined with the councilpeople of Jim Thorpe being unsupportive toward the railroad doesn't mix at all. It's a shame because the Lehigh Gorge Scenic Railroad has been one of the best tourist railroad operations in Pennsylvania. Many of the people who are riding the operation aren't just riding it only for the sake of the train ride. They are riding it because they want to enjoy nature. I had the fortune of riding the Lehigh Gorge Scenic Railroad bike train about a year ago and it was well patronized with bikers heading to White Haven. Coming back, I stayed on the train and it wasn't very crowded. Of course, there is a reason for that-many people wanted to bike back to Jim Thorpe.
It would be real interesting to do the math of average adult, child, etc. riders per trip times their respective rates times how many trips per day, and compare that to the typical costs of operating a locomotive with an engineer and a 4 or 5 person train crew (including conductor), plus something for track and equipment maintenance, etc.
I express no opinion on the likely result, other than it might be informative.
Comparison with other similar operations that make enough 'profit' after expenses would also be instructive.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.