Inadequate Funding=Broken Bridges

[Anonymous]

Amtrak bridge still stuck; repairs under way
(The following article by Ethan Rouen was posted on the Day website on January 20.)

NEW LONDON, Conn. -- The aging Thames River Amtrak railroad bridge has been stuck in the down position for a week, preventing some marine traffic from passage on the Thames River.

Also, on Wednesday, a cable snapped on the Old Lyme railroad bridge, but Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager for the first Coast Guard district, said that bridge should be repaired quickly.

A bearing on the Thames River bridge, which was built in 1918, cracked last Thursday, Kassof said. The replacement part needs to be built and will not be ready until the end of the month at the earliest, he said.

An attempt to temporarily repair the bridge Tuesday night was thwarted by an electrical problem, but engineers attempted to weld a temporary fix again Wednesday night.

Boats more than 30 feet tall are unable to pass under the bridge. A coal barge and a ferry are currently waiting to get through, Kassof said.

A spokeswoman for Amtrak said after the temporary repair the bridge will open on a schedule instead of when a request is made. She said she did not have any information about scheduled openings. She also said she was not aware of problems with the Old Lyme bridge.

The bascule Thames River bridge opens like a drawbridge, using a 4-million-pound counterweight to raise one end of the 188-foot span. The bridge opened 2,100 times in 2003, including 15 times a month to let submarines pass.

A two-year, $45 million plan to replace the bridge is currently in jeopardy, as is much of Amtrak's $570 million plan to improve infrastructure. The rail company asked the U.S. government for $1.8 billion, but President George W. Bush has recommended giving half that amount.

From the BLET site

[jeaton]

Gunn has noted many times that the Thames River Bridge needs to be fixed. I have considered the impact on NEC passenger operations if the bridge fails, however I have never actually looked at its specific location in context with water traffic.

I wonder what the DOD and The Department of the Navy would do if the waterway was blocked. Precision bombing?

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton



I wonder what the DOD and The Department of the Navy would do if the waterway was blocked. Precision bombing?

The CB's would either fix the bridge or blow it up in a couple of hours.

[edbenton]

What Gunn needs to do is tell congress that Amtrak needs the ca***o replace the bridge so the Ohio class Subs can get out of harbor otherwise they are just 2.5 billion targets that could be destroyed in harbor that should free up the cash needed to fix or replace the bridge in question[8]. It also would put Bush on the defensive since his precious military toys aka men and ships can not do the job he wants them to do next. From his speech today sounds like either North Korea or Iran is next my guess is on Iran since we already have the troops there.

[AntonioFP45]

I respect the President, but he really needs to get a serious grip! His inaugaration is costing us $40,000,000. ( How many passenger cars and locomotives could be overhauled with that amount?!)

The NEC is heavily utilized by passengers. The complaint from his Transporatation "flunky" Norm Mineta is that Amtrak's long distance trains are too expensive and the whole system needs an overhaul. O.K fine and dandy, but we have a bridge that needs repairs right away! If the mayors of the towns along this section of the Northeast Corridor ganged up and raised a stink, something could happen.

Though I am conservative, after doing a lot of reading I am more and more convinced that corporate America does not wi***o see a resurgence in passenger rail travel. As much as we (me too) poke fun at California, this state has proven that passenger rail does work!

The day that Norm Mineta leaves or retires will be a day to celebrate!

[Anonymous]

A couple of considerations here:
1) When DOD operations are hampered by obstacles that are fixable, the private corporation or owner usually gets them fixed quickly. The nature of the fix is usually long enough to get DOD through whatever it is they are doing- be it the transit of an Ohio class submarine, or the channel blockage of Pearl Harbor by the skipper of the garbage scow that runs aground.

2) I have heard the 40 mill number bandied about a lot concerning the innauguration. I also heard that something on the order of 150 corporations made significant contributions to the festivities. Which leads to the question: How much taxpayer money is getting spent here? How much would have been spent regardless of who was elected? The uniformed services and Homeland Security would still have been placed on alert; there still would have been a million Inaugural balls; the guest list would still be huge.

3) I know about the towns affected here. The mayors of those towns are much more concerned about the safety of I-95 bridges than the railroad, which has a minimal effect on them. Those who use the NEC to travel from New York to Boston don't vote in those towns. Electric Boat operations and the US Coast Guard Academy don't rely on rail passenger service to do their jobs. The concern over proper function of a bridge over a waterway will bother the locals only when they can't drive over it, or when their livelihood is harmed because of it.

Erik

[greyhounds]

You know, this is a broken drawbridge. A part has to be specially made to repair it. That's all it is.

Drawbridges fail to open/close on a somewhat ongoing bases and require repair.

A labor union chose to make this in to a political issue in an effort to get their hands further into the taxpayers' pockets. I don't know why anyone thinks Amtrak should have a perpetual claim on the Federal Treasury - the people who ride those trains should pay for the trains. They shouldn't be looking to other folks to pick up part of their transportation costs.

As to the $40 million--
1) It's mostly from private donations
2) It's less than Clinton spent in 1996

[jeaton]

The ultimate fate of the bridge doesn't matter. It can be rebuilt, removed, abandoned to fall in the river or collapse under the weight of a train, but the money to take care of the disposition is not going to come from internally generated Amtrak funds.

If you have a plan that would allow the money to come from a passenger train operation, send your resume to Secretary Mineta. You'll have a job in a heartbeat.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

The Thames River is a navigable river so the money to fix the draw bridge will be found. Having the Thames River bridge's moveable span in reliable operating condition is especially crucial since the Coast Guard Academy's training ship the Eagle has to get out to sea, but I don't know if a submarine can clear that bridge if its moveable span is closed.

The Thames River Bridge is one of several bridges on the Northeast Corridor that will have to either be repaired or replaced. The Northeast Corridor is essential. The Susquehanna River Bridge is another bridge that is older than the Thames River Bridge and needs to be replaced. The Susquehanna River Bridge has a swing moveable span. If at all possible the Thames River Bridge should be rebuilt that it is high enough to clear the masts of any river craft

I read an article in the Washington Post last November that The Department of Transportation's Inspector General criticized Amtrak for spending money on repairing sleepers instead of spending money on maintaining and repairing its infrastructure.

According to all reports about the FY 06 budget it will even be more austere than the FY 05 budget what with more tax cuts and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan so like it or not Amtrak not get every thing it asks for in its FY 2006.budget request It will have to make some hard decisions.

[Anonymous]

I guess the IG would accept serviceable infrastructure regardless of whether or not ATK has anything to RUN over it![banghead][banghead][banghead] Sounds like the highway construction mentality is alive and well.

Perhaps they should consider buying 100,000 desks. Nobody to sit at them and work, but if the whim to hire ever materializes, they'll sure be ready!

OH! Wait a minute! You mean we need a revenue stream to help amortize that empty infrastructure??????[(-D][(-D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

You know, this is a broken drawbridge. A part has to be specially made to repair it. That's all it is.

Drawbridges fail to open/close on a somewhat ongoing bases and require repair.

A labor union chose to make this in to a political issue in an effort to get their hands further into the taxpayers' pockets. I don't know why anyone thinks Amtrak should have a perpetual claim on the Federal Treasury - the people who ride those trains should pay for the trains. They shouldn't be looking to other folks to pick up part of their transportation costs.

As to the $40 million--
1) It's mostly from private donations
2) It's less than Clinton spent in 1996

Busboy-

No labor union wrote this story. It was a newspaper writer if you read it carefully. The BLET merely posted it on their site as news.

Second, like it or not the NEC serves a vital transportation need. If we want to have it we should expect to pay for it.

As to the costs of the inauguration, I'd love to see the details of how private donations were used to pay the salaries and overtime of the hundreds of law enforcement folks from Federal and local levels who were providing security. I'd love to see how you figure that the costs were "mostly" borne by private donors.

LC

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton


I wonder what the DOD and The Department of the Navy would do if the waterway was blocked. Precision bombing?

Sit there and wait for the DOT, Amtrak, the State of Connecticut and the twenty thousand environmental groups who come out of the workwork to protect a previously unknown now suddenly endanged northeastern bridge cockroach to come to terms with fixing it.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

What Gunn needs to do is tell congress that Amtrak needs the ca***o replace the bridge so the Ohio class Subs can get out of harbor otherwise they are just 2.5 billion targets that could be destroyed in harbor that should free up the cash needed to fix or replace the bridge in question[8]. It also would put Bush on the defensive since his precious military toys aka men and ships can not do the job he wants them to do next. From his speech today sounds like either North Korea or Iran is next my guess is on Iran since we already have the troops there.

What he'll get is a permanently open bridge followed by a letter of recommendation for his next job. What everyone to the north will get is no Amtrak.

Everyone seems pretty quick to the draw to tie everything to a military or national defense issue....so I'd say if that's the case......1.4 Billion for Amtrak..hmmmm or 1.4 billion in useful globally deployable airlift capacity to support all these coming wars we're apparently destined to get into......then I'd guess it'd be bye bye Amtrak. I wouldn't want to be the one to press to test that one.

[Puckdropper]

Amtrak obviously needs to ask for a lot more than it needs. How about 3.6 billion in unallocated money? That way it could get its 1.8 billion to run.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Puckdropper

Amtrak obviously needs to ask for a lot more than it needs. How about 3.6 billion in unallocated money? That way it could get its 1.8 billion to run.

Getting discretionary funding or any unallocated funds is going to be pretty tough over the next couple of years. Every agency and department is taking hits or reallocations.

[Junctionfan]

That was an old bridge. Good shelf life actually but now requires a replacement. What perplexes me is if Amtrak Acelas use this, I'm a little surprised that they would allow the bridge to crack without making repairs or planning to replace it before it was a safety problem.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon


Getting discretionary funding or any unallocated funds is going to be pretty tough over the next couple of years. Every agency and department is taking hits or reallocations.

Except DOD.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon


Getting discretionary funding or any unallocated funds is going to be pretty tough over the next couple of years. Every agency and department is taking hits or reallocations.

Except DOD.

"or reallocations" Funds going someplace other than the intent are funds that are lost.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

That was an old bridge. Good shelf life actually but now requires a replacement. What perplexes me is if Amtrak Acelas use this, I'm a little surprised that they would allow the bridge to crack without making repairs or planning to replace it before it was a safety problem.

Andrew.

The plans are there. Everybody in congress and the administration has been made aware of the situation. To this point no money has been made available.

The need here is just chump change compared to the overall need to repair transportation infrastructure. The Federal Highway Administration says that there is a $50 billion backlog on maintanence of the federal highway system. A good chunk of that is for needed highway bridge repair. Mostly we have our head in the sand on these things and nothing will happen until the bridge becomes inoperable. Of course, at that point the cost for handling the situation on an emergency basis will be far greater than following a rational plan to make whatever fix is called for now.

Jay

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

The ultimate fate of the bridge doesn't matter. It can be rebuilt, removed, abandoned to fall in the river or collapse under the weight of a train, but the money to take care of the disposition is not going to come from internally generated Amtrak funds.

If you have a plan that would allow the money to come from a passenger train operation, send your resume to Secretary Mineta. You'll have a job in a heartbeat.

Well, I certainly wouldn't want the bridge to collapse under a train but....

I've already proposed a plan for Amtrak. Effective May 1, 2006 no money from the Federal Govt. will be allocated to Amtrak. That's my plan.

Transporting people and goods is an economic activity. Economic activities are measured as to wether they improve the welfare of people or harm the welfare of people. This measurement is wether the actvity produces more wealth than it consumes (it makes money) or consumes more wealth than it creates (it looses money.)

Economic activities that consume more than they produce should be discontinued since their overall impact on people is negative. Now, not everything is an economic activity - but, as I said, transportation is an economic activity and should be treated as such.

Some folks will counter and say there are "externalities" that are not included in the profit/loss figures. "Externalities" are the last refuge of scoundrals. Externalities can rarely be indentified or quantified. The costs and benifits are unassignable.

Given that, a national passenger train network can not be economically justified, and since it is an ecnomic activity, it should be scrapped.

Passenger trains may have some justification in locations such as the Northeast and California. But the benifits from those services are not national - they are regional. Now, if the folks in the Northeast and California want to tax themselves to cover any "external" costs that can not be born by the passengers themselves they can certainly do it.

But there are no net positive national benifits (and no constitutional authority) for a Federally funded passenger train system.

And BTW, DOD is taking budget hits just like all the other Federal agencies. You do know that the most recent winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics was critical of the Bu***ax cuts - he said they were not big enough.

[jeaton]

Well let me see. Since freight railroads are the only transportation activity that produces wealth, everything else should be discontinued. No problem, I am only a few blocks from the nearest rail line so I can always walk over to the team track to get my groceries.

I guess I was wrong about the budget cuts. The last I heard was that domestic spending was the area that was going to have to take the hit. It would seem to me that if the DOD gets cut, it would be harder for them to make their contribution to the spread the freedom effort.

Did the Nobel Prize winner actually explain how the cost of the government's services would be paid?

Anyway, this is going a little beyond the scope of the topic. My point is simply this. The cost of the disposition of the bridge is not going to be covered by funds internally generated by Amtrak. I don't know who will pay for it, but if you do have it figured how Amtrak will pay for it, drop a note to Mineta, I'm sure he will be happy to have the advice.

[Anonymous]

What if the bridge had been stuck in the other position, up! The thousands of Amtrak and commuter rail passengers unable to get to their intended destinations on the railroad.... The cry of thousands of passengers would be heard much louder by the Congress than by a few maritime companies and the navy....

For those who are opposed to government funding of transportation, and who have starved Amtrak into obsolescence, you may soon have your wish.... Nevermind the Constitution in which it says the congress has the authority to fund and build post roads, (ports, railroads, highways, and airports)..... None earn a profit..... Economic activity indeed......

In every poll, America supports Amtrak by landslide margins..... Americans do want a selection of travel modes.....by sea, air, road, and rail..... And yes, Americans will support by landslide margins a ten or twenty year plan to build an updated, state of the art, High Speed Rail system in America too..... Where HSR exists in the world, no one is attempting to kill it for economic reasons......

[jchnhtfd]

for Junctionfan -- that poor old bridge is not unsafe, nor was it unsafe with the broken part; it just wouldn't open, that's all. Which is not to say that the bridge shouldn't be repaired -- it should be. As a number of folks have pointed out, though, the question is where is the money supposed to come from? The only real reason that particular bridge looms large is that in the closed position it blocks access up the Thames River from New London to a variety of marinas the Coast Guard Academy, and the US Navy submarine base upstream.

Now that it is operable, after a fashion, on a schedule, I doubt that either the Coast Guard or the Navy will have much problem with it (someone mentioned the submarines deploying, but that can be accomplished within a scheduled setting -- it's not as though you can get a submarine ready to go to sea in 5 minues flat, like we used to with the B-52s!). So the yelling is going to be from the moneybags tied up at the marinas -- and that may be enough. We'll see.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE:

Some folks will counter and say there are "externalities" that are not included in the profit/loss figures. "Externalities" are the last refuge of scoundrals. Externalities can rarely be indentified or quantified. The costs and benifits are unassignable.

Gee, a perjorative. How nice! You sound like a typical hard-headed southerner. Now we're even![:D]

"Externalities" are can be HARDER to define and assign than direct costs and benenfits, but that does not make them less real.

An example:

The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example.

Another example more to the current point:
You have a congested commute that take 90 minutes. There is a proposal to make the road a toll road at a cost to you of $40 a week in order to fund the extra highway capacity to reduce your commute to 30 minutes. There is another proposal to collect a toll of $10/week from you that would eliminate some of the existing traffic so that your commute would be 30 minutes, but it would involve investing the toll somewhere else.

Same benefit to you, but different cost. The cheaper one involves "scoundrals". Which would you pick?

Why is the state the "right" level of gov't to access taxes for public infrastructure? People in Crescent City CA will NEVER benefit from SF/LA/SD train service. Why should they have to pay? (You can make a sound arguement here, but you'd have to be a bigger scoundral than I am)

[oltmannd]

I think Nixon's "silent majority", which is largely moderate, still exists, but the extremes are more entertaining, so we hear from and about them more often.

I think you are dead right about the Amtrak supporter and opponents. Neither side seems to want to budge an inch.

You ask a supporter if he is willing to let even a single long distance train die, or restructure or even rename Amtrak in order to get funding for multiple corridors and the answer is almost always "no".

Even if 90% of Americans wanted to pay $100 a year extra in income taxes to keep a Amtrak as a kinetic art form, the opponents couldn't swallow that either.

Only if the moderates get noisy will the status quo change. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm hopeful something will change over the next couple of decades.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill


For those of you that want Amtrak to go away: you're wasting your breath. If you truly value the ideals you espouse, try offering Amtrak's supporters an alternative that makes more sense to them.

All we want is for those who actually use Amtrak to pay a ticket price that covers the costs of providing that service. Hardly a radical demand!

If the people of a certain region feel the need to subsidize Amtrak riders, then let them pay the tax for it at the state level, and take it out of the hands of the nation at large. If the blue states of the NEC want the special treatment of having the nation's only high speed passenger rail service, then for crying out loud, let them pay for it.

Finally, I have yet to find a pro-Amtrak type (or even an alleged neutral bystander like MWH) who has addressed why the nation needs a federally funded national passenger rail service, but not a federally funded national passenger bus service, nor a federally funded national passenger riverboat service, nor a federally funded national passenger airship service,.......

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example.

On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance.

If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated.

It is only an externality if there is no choice.

• Reply
• Edit