Passenger Trains

[Anonymous]

Yes, government waste at it's best.

[Anonymous]

Now the question is, can we get anyone to do anything about it? The admin appears fully ready to stick by their approach to reform, but without Congressional support I don't know if we'll get anything but another delay out of this.

With no action due to Congressional heel dragging, the likelihood is that we'll be looking at this whole debate again this fall.... only this time the price tag will be in the billions.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

" To do the same for railroads, every Amtrak passenger would have to buy their own car (at a $1 million a whack, at least).  Unrealistic, at best. "

Sorry to disagree, Paul, but there is no MORE realistic option. This is the way it is in the rest of the modes.

Example:
Greyhound and Trailways own their own buses.
Example:
JB Hunt owns it's own tractors and trailers
Example:
US Air, Southwest, et al own their own airplanes.

So the analogy really would call for the passenger train OPERATOR owning their own equipment at $1 million per car. What's so unfair about that?

"Really?  Who built the original highways?  How far back does the fuel tax go?"

So waht are you suggesting? That we sink billions of dollars into a rail system without a trust fund, and then later enact this trust fund? So we should do the wrong thing twice?

No, sorry, the Fed was NOT the pioneer in road building. States were. Matter of Fact, my home Oregon was one of the first to produce modern highways. the Columbia River Highway predates the Lincoln Highway.

But anyway, what difference does this make? That is a CAPITAL expenditure, with which i have no problems. It is the OPERATIONAL subsidy I cannot support.

On Trust Fund etc... yes, the fuel tax RRs pay is stupid, stupid, stupid. If they should pay it then they should get something back out of it that benefits them. This is a basic fundamental principle of all fair taxation: no payments without (at least tangential) benefit.

" "We want a nationwide network, but we aren't going to pay you enough to run it.  Ha ha!" (Yes, I'm paraphrasing here) "

Well that would be more accurate if it said "we want a nationwide netwrok but don't want to build it."

Congress substituted operational susbidies and unrealistic demands, when it should not have given an operational dime. Instead, it should have provided significant capital spending and told Amtrak, "find some passengers that justify a train and we'll build you the system to run on."

But I maintain my point. All other modes, (except when Congress gets stupid(er) and bails them out, ala United,) recieve significant capital expenditure subsidies, but do NOT receive operational subsidies. And this OUGHT to be the rule for ALL modes.

Alexander Craghead

[Paul3]

>Why does it seem so hard to understand? It's
>not. Trucks and buses and cars ARE
>subsidized.... by their own taxes, which pay
>for infrastructure ONLY.

Really? Who built the original highways? How far back does the fuel tax go? Did you know that rail passengers did pay a tax (starting during WWII) on their tickets? Where do you think that money went? Right into the general fund. Right now, railroads are paying a tax on their diesel fuel. Where does that money go? Right into "deficit reduction". Railroads have never gotten their own "Trust Fund", and they should have. However, that is not the railroads fault, that is the fault of previous Congress' and administrations who thought that we don't need passenger trains anymore. They were and are wrong.

"There is NO OPERATIONAL SUBSIDY for roads!"

No public agency pays anyone to drive (except the MBTA does pay Peter Pan to run busses Boston to Worcester, as the commuter rail would otherwise kill them off in that market). And why would we? Every car/truck is privately owned. To do the same for railroads, every Amtrak passenger would have to buy their own car (at a $1 million a whack, at least). Unrealistic, at best.

>I see no reason why this model cannot be
>implimented in ANY mode.

Buy your own private passenger car, then we'll talk. :-)

>Course, I also see no reason why this isn't
>clear to everyone.... you can't imagine how
>POd I get when people compare Amtrak to the
>local freeway. I wi***hat they WERE on parity
>but the are NOT.

Yeah, Amtrak's been getting shafted for 31 years, and has never been fully funded for what the expectations have been from Congress. "We want a nationwide network, but we aren't going to pay you enough to run it. Ha ha!" (Yes, I'm paraphrasing here)

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
"Whom the Gods would recruit, they first tick off." - D. Weber, "Oath of Swords"
******************

[Anonymous]

Alexander'
I agreed 100% with your statement on interstates and airports. The public will never use long distance rail service. The Northeast Corridor and California are the only locations for anything more than city based commuter rail.

[Paul3]

>Are you being honest?

Yes, and I was also being sarcastic. I think it is possible to be both... :-)

>Do you want to have the subsidies for Amtrak
>stopped but you want the highway financing
>system replaced by this private system you
>outlined?

No, I do not want the subsidies stopped for Amtrak. I do not want the highways replaced by all toll roads. I did say, if you want Amtrak to survive purely on ticket revenue, lets make highways and airlines do the same.

And no, I do not consider the gas tax the same. I buy gas for my garden tractors, rototillers, shredder, lawnmowers, snowblower, etc., and these will never be even on a public road, much less on a highway. Yet I am paying taxes that supports the roads by buying gas for these devices that will never use any roads. Why should I have to do that?

What about our own Big Dig? I never drive into Boston (I take the MBTA), yet my taxes are rising to pay for this. What gives?

>Do you realy think this proposed financing
>system is more efficient than the taxes
>collected at the pump and more equitable as
>well?

No, it is not more efficient. However, it would be more equitable (I never drive on MA Rt. 2, why should my gas taxes go to support it?). Let the user pay, let the non-user not have to pay. Simple, right? After all, that's exactly what you want Amtrak to do... :-)

>Do you also think that the subsidies paid to
>airlines are as appropriate as the subsidies
>paid to Amtrak and that these are superior to
>the fuel taxes as well?

Actually, I am in favor of airline subsidies, just like I am in favor of Amtrak subsidies and highway subsidies. We need all three modes in this country. At the very least, airlines for long distance, Amtrak for medium distances, and roads for short distances, with some blurring of the lines where appropriate. Note: I do not advocate bottomless pits of money for anybody who wants it. Set up an acceptable level of service, then fully fund it. As yet, nobody has done this for Amtrak.

>There appears to be an intellectual disconnect
>here. The highway users pay taxes to build and
>maintain highways.

Non-highway users are *also* being taxed to build and maintain highways (see tractor example above). Just like non-Amtrak users are being taxed to build and maintain Amtrak.

>If you don't buy fuel for your car, you are not
>supporting construction of the highways. All I
>am recommending is for Amtrak and airline users
>to do the same.

Airline passengers, IIRC, are taxed as well. I just don't know the particulars.

>Right now, I have to support the airlines and
>Amtrak regardless of how much I use it. There
>is no comparison to the highway funding model
>here.

Right now, I have to support the highways regardless if I use them or not, just like the airlines and Amtrak.

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
"...and he raised his head to glare at the low clouds.
'Why me?' he demanded. 'Why is it always being *me?!*'
The clouds returned no answer, and he snarled at their silence." - D. Weber, "Oath of Swords"

[Paul3]

>When you say there are several NE states that
>own part of Amtrak, are you refering to the
>track or everything?

Well, the states in question own the Right of Way, which obviously is the land. Not so obvious is, does this include all structures built on the land? I can only assume that it does, or that the states are being paid (would you allow somebody to build anything on your land without compensation, or you owning a piece of it?).

>Does Amtrak have to rent the track from the
>state the way they rent track from the major
>railroads?

I don't know for certain. You'd have to ask either the MBTA, M-N, or Amtrak. Amtrak does pretty much what it wants to do on the MA portion of the NEC, in my experience. Meanwhile, M-N barely tolerates Amtrak (IMHO). (shrug)

>This is interesting considering my thesis that
>the system should be run by the benificiary
>states.

The problem you don't see is that, for the most part, the states don't interfere with each other in their operations because they don't really intermix their operations. Rhode Island cooperates with the MBTA because it now wants service, but not that long ago, there was no commuter rail in Rhode Island because they wouldn't pony up the cash.

CT and NY cooperate because they have the common goal of getting people to NYC.

But MA/RI and CT/NY *don't* have a common goal, and if they took over the NEC, there would be conflicts. Each agency wouldn't want to mess up the commuter rail for an Express (more local people, ie. voters, on the commuters), and I can see them fighting over slots during the rush hours so they don't have to deal with it. And all it would take to totally mess things up for intercity service is for one state to have a budget shortfall, and all service would come to a crashing halt.

The NEC needs a single company/agency running the whole thing (owning/maintaining track, cars, engines, stations, the works). I don't care if it's Amtrak, M-N, or the Feds. It must be a seemless operation for the best possible performance, IMHO, where the primary consideration is the Express, not the commuter.

>P.S. Did they get this track when Conrail was
>split up, from another railroad (pre Conrail)
>or did they build it themselves?

I think they (MA, CT & NY) got theirs during the Penn Central bankruptcy proceedings. Amtrak got the rest of the NEC from Conrail...

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and that all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus of "Babylon 5"
******************

[Anonymous]

Jason:

Sorry! Whenever I say (or think) Europe, I never include the UK... it's just habit. Mentally, I cannot picture GB / Scotland/ Etc as being European.

Maybe I should have said Continental Europe, aka France, Germany, etc....

[Anonymous]

The UK does have mortgages - I know I have got one.

We also have a tax system - I would much prefer to have someone in London set my taxes than someone in Brussels or Frankfurt!

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Well said, Ed! Just when I was about to post, and I read your reply. Bravo.

Especially on that last point. Herb, if you are reading this, the point is, just because everyone else does something it doesn't mean we ought to.

What makes you think the TGV or Shinkasen model will even work here? I should point out that the density in Japan makes the NEC look like the Sahara. THE most dense population in the world! No real freeways in the sense that we know them, and cars are mostly puny and underpowered... just as most city streets are not suitable for high or medium speed auto use, and cater mostly to pedestrians.

Plus, gas and oil are prohibitively expensive in Japan.

And conditions in Europe? Ok, point made. Nuff said.

When I started this circus with The First Post, (and please don't be offended- I consider myself part of said circus-) my entire point was that any solution MUST take into account the special conditions that only exist in the US.

Supply and demand are the rules of the marketplace. I cover transportation for a local market pub, and I worked this particular topic quite recently- air use is down almost 15% nationally, much more regionally. Only a few carriers are making profits or even covering their costs.

(Southwest is! Alaskan is!)

If the airlines are not doing well... it's cause there are too many flights, too many planes, too many carriers. Shut some down! Don't just hand them some tax dollars, pat them on the head, and say, "good boy, next time you make a bad biz decision, just call on Uncle Sugar"!

We should not reward failure.

So, too, for rail. If a route cannot cover it's OPERATIONAL costs, let it go... or let the local community decide if they want to make the social decision to subsidize it. But DON'T impose arbitrary political routes from the floor of the US Congress.

[Anonymous]

Herb,

I consider the funds for the highway system, including the Hound and the 'Ways share, to be comming from the highway users not from Washington. This is because the highway construction and maintanence funds are collected from user taxes at the pump. The sad bit is that the lions share could be handled at the state level if somebody could cut through the politics.

As most of y'all know, I am against all the subsidy funding on the federal level for transportation (again the highway money is not what I consider a subsidy) but when you hear the stuff like the $500+ million for African AIDS education mentioned above it makes the Amtrak stuff sound like small potatoes (Yea, with an 'E'). At least we get something for the Amtrak money.

But I think that allowing Amtrak to perform as a private organization will ultimately lead to the best passenger rail system because that is the best model for accountability. Without that, the system will never be required to improve to meet customer demand. As long as it is controlled by congress, it is just a social experiment.

I believe the proper thing to do in the short run is to get with the states and regionalize Amtrak. I believe there is a sincere need for passenger rail service in the NEC. But I think the residents of that area should bear the cost. I don't care what mechanism they use to collect the funds because I don't live in the NEC states but if I did I would want the cost to be substantially carried by the users. There is something to be said for the benifit to the highway users since this takes commuters off the highways, but I think the impact of this is widely overstated in this forum.

Based on the news about airlines and Amtrak, it sounds like we may have too much transportation in this country since the supply is greater than the demand. Maybe if one of the players gets out of the game the others will be able to stay in. In this respect, it is a bad time for Gunn to be thinking of playing his trump card.

Finally, I don't buy the argument that 'They do it in Europe and Japan and ...' We have different market dynamics in this country so we need to find the solution that fits us. Mind you, I am not saying that because they do it in Europe it can't be good for us. I am just saying that we need the solution that is best for the US.

Thanks for indulging me in a small sermon. - Ed

[Modelcar]

The last message was well said....and now Tues. 25th their saying the new window for Amtrak closure is July 8th...

QM

[Anonymous]

Up until the 1970s, there wasn't a user tax for airline tickets. All the construction before that time came from the federal purse. There are people who say the user taxes paid for the airports and runways, but they are wrong. Well, they have since the 1970s, but most of the runways and airport terminals were already built.....

Would it not be nice to have the federal purse pay for the infrastructure of high speed rail before the user fees kick in, just like the airlines?

Also today, United Airlines asked for another $1.8 billion.... Who says the airlines do not have their tin cups out?

[herbster]

Ed
Let me say I couldn't agree with you more about buses as a need. It a very important part of the overall system as they go everywhere. But your statement about buses not being fed. fund is not true, its included in the highway tax. So don't worry about your tax burdon those in Wash allready took care of that.
Who knows the answer? We all have opinion and ideas, but what they need to do is find a solulion. I read the paper and the headline read, AMTRAK MAY SHUT DOWN BY TOMORROW if they don't get 220 million by Wed. On the third page of the paper United Airline ask congress for 2.2 billion the stay out of bankrupacy. What wrong with this picture? Then on another artical Washington gives 550 million to Africa and someone else for HIV education and study.
I don't know the answer on how to fix it but to destroy it is not. We need a National Rail System run or overseem by the goverment, as a service. Other countries do it why not us.

[Anonymous]

Tom Chmielewski, the editor of this widely observed magazine, whose bandwidth we pervade is putting webcams on trains: a start, as I see it, to less crashing.
"Lousy" is an interesting choice of operational descriptives for transport systems, extant or proposed. Here's hoping that this missive finds you able to evade most of the travel faux pas foisted on an ever-enduring public by Congress through SpAmtrak and the roadbuilders.
John Bradley

[BRAKIE]

Ed,Very good reply! The Graydog and Trailways go everywhere like you say.Even places Amtrak and planes don't go.I dare say they are cheaper then going by Amtrak and planes.

[Anonymous]

Terry and several of you other folks,

Why are the choices in this debate always limited to Amtrak or your car or a plane? Why will you not consider using the bus? Busses go everywhere! If some of y'all would take a bus then they would earn some more bucks and I could have my tax burden reduced. Emissions go down, traffic goes down and everyone wins. I imagine the ticket prices are less as well but I haven't checked. I never heard of congress bailing out Greyhound or Trailways.

Sorry if this seems offensive. That's not my intent. Just trying a little straight talk. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Terry,

Why should I pay taxes to provide a passenger train option for y'all in the NEC (or anywhere else for that matter) when you are not paying taxes to provide one for me? If it is a right, as a public utility, then where is mine?

Sorry to have to be so blunt. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

This thread is becomming a quilt.

Sorry, I don't have the capitol, but if I did I would consider in building a railroad. I am a civil engineer so I have some knowledge to contribute to the team. Later - Ed

[Anonymous]

Well, Ed, I agree that any fund administered by the fedgov is not as efficient... but consider this: Amtrak never had the financial responsibility to do this on thier own, and so lost nearly ALL of those (potential) funds. If the USDOT had imposed a system such as you described at least tha 80% would've made it back.... that'd be an improvement!

Always a pleasure. Want to start a railroad with me?

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Don,

All highway construction, as far as I am aware, is funded by taxes collected from highway users. Whoever told you anything otherwise was either uninformed or dishonest. I don't think the taxes charged on airline tickets cover the construction costs of airports, so that is a different matter.

Thanks for the cost data. I will take a better look at it when I have the time. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

Let me kow what you think of this comparison:

If Amtrak were funded using the 'highway model' then beginning back in '70 every passenger ticket would include a 'User Tax' dedicated to raising funds for building and maintaining roadbed. This money would be forwarded to the federal government who would establish minimum criteria for a region to qualify for an 80% matching fund for new construction. If a region met the criteria then a project would be authorized for construction. Then the federal government would send some of the collected tax money back to pay for 80% of the construction cost. Why not all of the tax money? The federal government spent some of it running this new department and reviewing applications for the money.

This is why I think Amtrak should have set aside a portion of their own revenue to build it themselves; no losses due to federal government overhead. But if they won't do it on their own, then the 'highway funding model' could be used for Amtrak and administered by the federal government. This means ticket prices will go up!

Regards - Ed

[Anonymous]

John:

Tom C? Webcams? I must've missed something... care to fill me in?

On your other comment, yes. It makes no sense to offer an OPERATIONALLY (not capitally-) subsidize mode of ANY transport, just because "one (Congress) can".

NEC is a prime example. It can be, and in many places IS profitable or at least break even on OPERATIONS. This is all I ask. The infrastructure is another matter.

If the truth is that an air ticket would cost $4000 if it had to cover operational expenses.... then it should cost $4000! Why creat an artificial market? So we can subsidize my trip to Disneyland?

Reality is, someone, (namely Southwest,) would figure a way to scare up a profitable and cheap airline and prove everyone wrong.

Where is the SW for rail? As long as Amtrak is around playing boogey-man and holding onto it's monopoly, there will be none.

I am as certain that passenger rail can be OPERATIONALLY profitable as I am that any other business can.

Or maybe I should put it this way: In this country, of all countries, with our ingenuity, wouldn't it be strange if we could NOT make a profit running a few lousy trains? Or at the very least, not hemoraging to death doing so?

[Anonymous]

Alexander:
And so to payload sizing, at long last. Not the way it used to be: with subsidies keeping everything blimpie and scaring up the ridership for the engine. No more, please.
Now it's time to size the engine to the ridership and to put some eyes out there, as Tom C., et al are beginning to do with their webcams.
John Bradley

[Anonymous]

On that note, AP wire reports today were stating qoutes from the G-man that reform "along the lines of a transit model" (paraphrasing) would be welcome in his eyes. Largely Fed and some state Capital funds, all local operational funds. Ve-ery interesting.......

I could live with that!

[Anonymous]

Actually DART does not make money operationally. However, with the one cent sales tax as its foundation, we get one of the best bus systems in the country, and when the second phase of light rail is completed soon, one of the best commuter rails systems in the country too.

As I have posted before, if we were willing to spend $5 to $6 billion a year for high speed rail, we could have a pretty good intercity network in twenty years....

[Anonymous]

The high speed rail associations, and the engineering experts who are planning new metropolitan commuter lines, have mention the price of building double track rail lines as $20 to $30 million a mile...... At least that is how much it is costing DART to build its new electrified double track. Obviously, the experts have an idea how much materials, labor, land, and construction costs.....

My new high speed rail system suggestion includes new right of way from New York City to Chicago, Chicago to Denver, Chicago to Dallas, Chicago to Atlanta, Dallas to Atlanta, and Washington DC to Atlanta, Atlanta to Miami, and Los Angeles to San Francisco basically.... My Road Atlas says the miles are in order: 821, 1011, 928, 716, 792, 632, 661, and 380 miles. Grand total of new high speed electrified rail is 5941 miles....To make the math easier, let us round this off to 6000 miles..... The total cost is somewhere between $120 billion to $180 billion. Keep in mind that DART is building new track in a metropolitan area where real estate is more expensive. I dare say the feds would be building track in rural areas where the real estate will be cheaper.....

The House subcommitte passed legislation to spend $59 billion to build the new high speed rail on existing track..... However, in testimony before the Senate subcommittee, the President of the Railroad Association, the big four, CSX, NS, BNSF, and UP, told the Senate subcommittee not to build high speed rail on existing freight track, saying it would be UNSAFE and a NIGHTMARE to operate high speed passenger trains and slow freights on the same track.

The numbers are real! All that is needed is a will and a vision to build high speed rail! And of course the money! Over a 20 year period, all we would need is something like $5 to $6 billion a year.....This is just a drop in the bucket as compared to highway and airport spending the feds undertake.....

But you are right, We couldn't charge enough on tickets to spend this money......But somehow we spend more than this for highways and airports without expecting a dime back!

[Anonymous]

Terry:

Oh, where to begin?

I'll keep this short.

1.) Amtrak only is a serious drain on air in the NEC. The majority of air routes are not seriously threatened by rail, and so, the majority of airlines could care less.

2.) NASDAQ? Are we in a depression? Are people starving in the streets? No more than usual. We are still the largest, richest, and most succesful capitalist country.

3.) Oil lobby conspiracy???????????? I am speechless. Ok, by providing an analysis of the partisan sit, I may have asked for it... but lets keep this on topic.


4.) Air is in trouble. Yes. I agree. It received bail outs from Congress. It should not have. If a company goes bankrupt, it ought to be liquidated, not nationalized.

5.) Trains are efficient. Yes, they are, IF they go where people actually WANT to go. If not, then they are no more efficient than a horse drawn dogcart.

6.) Return of rail? Even in those places where large rail systems are being built- (and note these are not cross-country systems, but commuter and light rail, thus not comparable to Amtrak or airlines-) they still serve a MINORITY of passengers. Well over 80% of people still use the auto and the airplane.

Until something better comes along and competes the heck out of them, this will remain the same.

7.) As for trucking damage? This is due to one factor, and one factor only.... the interstates were NOT built to last this long!

(And frankly, should not have been built to begin with.... they created the very demand that now requires them.)

I hope I have not in any way offended you. I tried not to be harsh- rudeness solves nothing- but if I was, I apologize.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Terry:

Sorry. Rail is not a public utility, as you assert. We gave up that idea about, oh, 80 years ago, whenh the USRA was disbanded instead of made permanent.

Will there be a major road impact in the NEC if it shuts down? You bet. Does that mean that the rest of the country ought to pay to subsidize that trafic flow? And a bunch of trains accross the rest of the continent that less than 1% of people use?

That's a question that Amtrak's critics and skeptics are more than willing to debate. Amtrak supporters, on the other hand, seem intent on putting their hands over their ears and yelling for more cash and fewer questions.

Whatever your viewpoint, the era of re-regulation and nationalization is over.