Norm's idea might be a good thing,

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

Dave -- it isn't that the States might or might not have the money. They don't, in most cases, have any interest in spending it on mass transport unless a) they have to and b) there is a great big Federal matching grant, as is found in the highway programs. 50% might be enough of a match to fund some local service in areas where highways are really truly totally congested, and expansion is almost impossible (e.g. commuter service to New York or Chicago) but... anything beyond that? Forget it.

Further, may I second the point that has been made that the Federal Governent was set up, in part, to regulate and promote commerece between the several states; that is not an exact quote, but pretty close to it. It is choosing to not do its part in terms of rail transportation.

Both of these are political problems, and the solutions to them will be political.

Jamie,

I agree with you totally that the federal government's role regarding transportation is to promote and regulate interstate commerce. When you point out the lack of federal involvement in promoting rail transportation, you also know that there is a reason for that. It is because our primary rail system is a privately held owner operator network, controlled now by an oligarchy of 7 or so companies. The North American rail network is one of the few remaining examples of the owner-operator transportation network, and historical logic would dictate that such a characteristic is an anachronism. Every sense of logic would suggest that an open access system works best for the citizens interests; it works for waterways, airports, highways, even pipelines and transmission is heading in that direction.

Because of this economically perverse ownership fiefdom, there is only so much the federal government can do relative to what can be done for other transportation modes. Let's face some facts here: Highways are open access, and they host private passenger service providers. Airports and air corridors are open access, and they host private passenger service providers. Rivers and waterways are open access, and they host private passenger service providers. If you follow the logic, then it would be feasible to suggest that an open access rail system would also be able to host private passenger service providers.

It is kind of ironic that the only example of a publicly funded federal passenger service has or had its home on the only examples of privately held ROW's, while the public held ROW's host the private passenger service providers!

[jchnhtfd]

Dave -- it isn't that the States might or might not have the money. They don't, in most cases, have any interest in spending it on mass transport unless a) they have to and b) there is a great big Federal matching grant, as is found in the highway programs. 50% might be enough of a match to fund some local service in areas where highways are really truly totally congested, and expansion is almost impossible (e.g. commuter service to New York or Chicago) but... anything beyond that? Forget it.

Further, may I second the point that has been made that the Federal Governent was set up, in part, to regulate and promote commerece between the several states; that is not an exact quote, but pretty close to it. It is choosing to not do its part in terms of rail transportation.

Both of these are political problems, and the solutions to them will be political.

[Anonymous]

For those of you who say the states don't have the money to pay their fair share of passenger rail, I think it would be prudent to take a look at how many "third nipple" programs those states are already hosting. The states themselves often spend money on pointless programs, and some of these same "spend like there's no tommorrow" states are the same ones complaining about having to pony up for passenger rail, e.g. Illinois. Let's explore these states' current spending priorities before we automatically grant them sympathy for potentially having to support passenger rail.

[nslakediv]

A local school has tried and failed for the 3rd time to impose an operating levy. Federal funding to satates has been cut to the bone, how do they propose a state to pay for rail service (it would have to be profitable also) when it cant even fund a school district? The next decade will be interesting to see how we pay for all of this. And yes WE will pay for all of it. Get your Amtrak rides now.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S.



It's quite fascinating to see the federal government suggest with a straight face that states build consortiums when in fact the federal government already IS a consortium of states. What would be the benefit to anyone of building a parallel and inferior consortium?

OS

When real life starts to seem weird like this, I just pretend I'm in a sit-com!

So, we'd continue to have Federal subsidies for transit agencies, each of which are almost always entirely tied to one metro region in one state, but for interstate travel, it's pay as you go for each state. Isn't that BACKWARD?

I wonder if the states are even allowed to do such a thing - states aren't allowed to regulate interstate commerce, are they?

[Anonymous]

Richard: Not to worry; I wasn't taking it personally.

[richardy]

OS: You took my comment way to seriously (it was tongue in cheek) but thanks for the response, you make many good points.

Richard

[jsoderq]

Many states are already in more financial trouble than the feds and they can't print money like the feds. You will see very few if any states pay for rail service other than whats already in place.

[Anonymous]

It's not that easy, sir. While the benefits of a building a transportation system on this route, whether rail or highway, accrue almost 100% to Nevada, the costs accrue almost 100% to other states -- especially if you consider how much wealth Nevada drains from California in consumer dollars for which no actual product returns to California, and in inventory tax losses. The State of Nevada will very reasonably conclude that as it already has an Interstate Highway system being funded by federal money -- Nevada receives vastly more in highway funds than its citizens pay out with fuel taxes -- so why would it want to tax its citizens to build a railroad system? That would be like saving your allowance to buy a stuffed dog from Toys R Us when your millionaire grandmother already showers you with the entire inventory of F.A.O. Schwartz on every occasion, plus a pony, a puppy, and an exclusive party at Disneyland.

This is the fundamental flaw in a state-funded rail passenger scheme: it might work for INTRAstate purposes. But almost never for INTERstate purposes. Rarely are interstate routes of equal benefit to each state in accordance with the costs, and in any event, the states see must measure they money they would put into a rail passenger fund against what in many states is a bounty of free federal highway money that favors low-population density states at the expense of high-population density states. And in the case at hand, Nevada is already being subsidized by the state of California with the costs of I-15. Now why would it want to rain on its own parade? (Note to Gov. Schwarznegger: have you considered erecting a toll booth at Baker?)

It's quite fascinating to see the federal government suggest with a straight face that states build consortiums when in fact the federal government already IS a consortium of states. What would be the benefit to anyone of building a parallel and inferior consortium? Unless the actual agenda of the federal government is the satisfaction of some unstated ideological agenda?

OS

[richardy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP57313

QUOTE: Originally posted by goduckies
and to Vegas from LA

Would love to see it but I don't expect it. UP's line is still argely single track, and the LA-area politicians don't want to spend taxpayer money to help the residents take their spending (gambling) money out of state. Maybe they'll spring for an LA-Cabazon or LA-Palm Springs service to serve those Indian casinos out there.

How about Nevada (or the City of Las Vegas) pay the whole 50 share of the Desert Wind from Salt Lake to LA and the whole cost of the siding extension posed by OS? Whenever I rode the Desert Wind it seemed I was a rare passenger because I did not detrain or board at Las Vegas.

[Anonymous]

K.P., I'm sure you meant, "not packed between Daggett and Las Vegas." L.A. to Daggett is packed, all right.

Between Daggett and Las Vegas, the railroad isn't packed as far as sheer numbers of trains, but the running times between sidings, which in some places are fairly long, and the nature of the freight traffic -- long, heavy, slow -- make the addition of fast passenger trains problematic.

One shooter each way daily would only be a minor disruption. Two shooters each way daily, because they'd be clustered in daylight hours, would probably cause not twice as much disruption but eight times as much. Four shooters each way daily in daylight hours would essentially force the freight traffic to hold at Yermo and Daggett around a twice-daily window, unless a number of sidings were extended.

This is why the original plan between Amtrak and UP to add Vegas service contemplated connecting the sidings on the west slope of Cima Hill to form a second main track up the hill. Without that, UP would either be dog-catching a lot of freights, or delaying a lot of passenger trains.

OS

[K. P. Harrier]

The line to Las Vegas from LA does not look packed to me.

But the thought about LA politicians makes sense.

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by goduckies
and to Vegas from LA

Would love to see it but I don't expect it. UP's line is still argely single track, and the LA-area politicians don't want to spend taxpayer money to help the residents take their spending (gambling) money out of state. Maybe they'll spring for an LA-Cabazon or LA-Palm Springs service to serve those Indian casinos out there.

[Anonymous]

If states pony up, they will get good rail service, with 50-50, some states, Like CA will now get great service. I think that WA, OR, and CA will be able to run the Starlight just fine with that amount of funding from the feds, and I bet that NV and CA, might be able to add trains to RNO from Oak, and to Vegas from LA, so this might be a good thing. Make the states pony up for their service, that way states that want it might be able to get service If they didn't have it yet. If Idaho and Wyoming stepped up, we might get the Pioneer back and what not. This could be a good thing if done right.
Brad