Amtrak fares too low?

[Anonymous]

Amtrak fares too low? Where do you live, on this planet.

[daveklepper]

Contrary to Mineta's garbage, I believe the USA taxpayer does get his money's worth from the tax dollars spent on Amtrak in terms of

1: Lowered congestion in corredors

2: Access to most of the country for handicapped and elderly

3, Reduction of land grabbing for addional runways, airports, highways, and lanes

4. Standby protection for emergencies

5. Reduction in imported oil, for energy independence, not because of energy saving per se, but rather far more flexibility in fuels used, specifically in the electcrified NE corridor.

6. Facilitating coordination and economies of scale for commuter lines that share tracks.

7. Possiblities for government support for capacity expansion that will benefit freight service as well.

Two billion a year is cheap considering the real (including hidden) subsidies to other transportation.

[Anonymous]

Very interesting about the Philadelphia streetcars dave - i didn't know the exact details.

My feelings about Amtrak are that: obviously they'll never compete anymore on speed, so they have to either compete on price - more people paying less... or offer something that airlines/a roadtrip couldn't. Is it time to bring luxury back to the rails? (obviously, with price increase).

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

Does anyone have information for European train subsidies to compare with Amtrak subsidies

How do travel costs compare with peoples income in the Europe and in the US?

I've done some Internet searches, but aven't found the answers.[:(]

I found this regarding subsidies for lines in the North of England in a magazine I had:

"On some lines to be included in the Northern franchise, taxpayer support was up to 93% though Blackpool North - Manchester Victoria was 53%. Each passenger journey on the Durham Coast line cost the taxpayer £11.50.($21)" (Rail Magazine 476)

[DSchmitt]

It may be true that many communities would be better off today had rail transit been perpetuated, but in the 1950's the political and economic climate generally did not lend itself to spending money to maintain, let alone, upgrade, or expand rail transit., even on lines that were making money. Just because a line was "proffitable" doesn't mean the profit is enough to make spending money worth while.

The people wanted "modern" transit. Trains were "old fashioned". They were "inflexible in routing, didn't provide good service, the equipment and infrastructure were worn out and the trains got in the way of the automobile".

Most transit companies didn't think it was economically worth while to rebuild even if they could come up with the money to do so. Most politicians would not dare propose that tax payer money be used.

Its's true GM promoted conversion to buses, but they did not consider their advice to be "bad".

[daveklepper]

There is SOME truth to the conspiracy theory, in that certain streetcar lines would have remained profitable and would have given far better service for their passengers, but GM ownership nixed that possibility. Particular examples were in Philadelphia, where the city would have encouraged continued streetcar operation on certain additional lines that could have been rerouted to the trolley subway on Market Street, and of course Willow Grove. Roy Chalk wanted streetcars to continue in Washington DC but Congress forced the conversion of the remaining lines to bus. The proof of the conspiracy theory in certain specific cases, again Philadelphia, was modern PCC cars being kept in the back of the carhouse while clunkers provided the service. In some cases, GM or National City management was more enlightened and did continue streetcar service until track or PCC's wore out, for example Baltimore and St. Louis. GM was known for giving bad advice that cost companies money. Third Avenue Transit was forced by New York City to put buses on all Manhattan lines directly after the war, but the original thought with Slaughter Huff;s management was that the modern cars released from Manhattan, with poles applied, would replaced the older cars in the Bronx, and streetcar service would then be retained on the profitable heavy lines. A new management was convinced by GM to bus the whole system, much of the investment in reasonably good track and in modern cars was lost, and the system went bancrupt prettyt quickly. Similarly, we know about the de-electrification of the New Haven's freight service and its restoration using the ex Virginian rectifier locomotives. So, there is some truth to the conspiracy theory, but I would say it affected only about 7% or 8% of the operating subsidiaries, or about 21% of the total ridership.

[Anonymous]

My wife recently went from Basltimore to Hartford. She took Southwest airlines. It took only one hour and cost $39.00. Amtrak fares too low? Not yet!

Tom Fredricks

[FThunder11]

Amtrak, is better

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bob-Fryml
I-80 vs. N.J. TRANSIT: My friends back east tell me that I-80 is so choked with traffic into and out of Manhattan that the State of New Jersey recently reached a crisis point. Apparently some careful economic analysis has led the State to conclude that the cost of modernizing their heavy rail commuter system, extending it further west, increasing service, and subsidizing the whole operation with a portion of their gasoline taxes is actually cheaper than adding lanes to the Interstate and then having that much more highway to maintain. Let's hope that such economic findings aren't really a fantasy and that more urban centers embrace this enlightened idea!

They keep talking about rebuilding the Lackawanna Cutoff line. There's a lot of people who work in NYC and NJ that live in northeast PA.

This is probably years away from happening though:
http://www.njtransit.com/an_cp_project019.shtml
http://www.njtransit.com/images/an_cp_proposed_lackawanna_cutoff.gif

[Bob-Fryml]

AMTRAK SUBSIDIES: A goodly number of years ago (maybe as far back as the W. Graham Claytor era) Amtrak asked for a penny-and-a-half-per-gallon gasoline tax that would be specifically earmarked for Amtrak. The idea was to line-up a multi-year, permanent source of funding rather than have Amtrak go hat-in-hand every year to Congress for more money. I'm surprised nobody contributing to this thread has brought up that issue. After all, President Clinton during the two years that he had a cooperative Democratic Congress was able to pass a 5.3-cents/gallon federal deficit reduction tax on gasoline. Would getting a penny-or-two/gallon for Amtrak really be all that difficult for our economy to absorb?

PACIFIC ELECTRIC vs. GENERAL MOTORS: Hey, gang, there are few bigger "Juice Phreaques" or members of the "Rapid Transit Lunatic Fringe" than I, but I'm sorry I cannot buy any of your dark conspiracy theories about how G.M. and Firestone/Goodyear/Cooper/et als did-in the traction industry. Have we all forgotten the long term issues that were brewing here for nearly 20-years? Consider...

1) Interurban and streetcar ridership was on a slow decline prior to the 1929 stock market crash.

2) 25% unemployment during much of the 1930s accelerated the industry's decline in ridership and revenue. And for those lines that were able to survive the Great Depression, how many piled up massive amounts of deferred maintenance?

3) So lets go into the War Years, 1942-1945. Yes, many traction companies were able to enjoy a few years of prosperity, but these were due to federally enforced economic disallocations such as gasoline and tire rationing. And then think about all of that infrastructure that was originally underbuilt with lightweight rail, now buried in pavements.

4) So now it's August 1945 and the War is over; and, after 16-years of economic depression and killer wartime traffic loads the physical plant is worn out. Many traction companies now need to replace rail, either buy new or massively overhaul their rolling stock, and many of them face obstinate, short-sighted politicians who regulate their fare structures with an eye on getting re-elected. So when fuel rationing is lifted and the electorate wants to enjoy cheap gas and the unmatched convenience of the automobile, do you think that they or their politico allies are going to tolerate streets being torn up so that those d@mn trolley cars can renew their tracks? And what about the public's short term attitudes of "Why should I have to pay higher fares to pay for all of that renewal? All the Big Red Cars do is tie-up traffic! Who needs their nuisance anyhow?" (Please know that I'm not just referring to Los Angeles here).

5) Subsidies for mass transit largely were unheard in the Truman and Eisenhower years. Large city leaders knew they needed mass transit, but they could not conceive of wanting to underwrite it with taxpayer dollars - and they certainly did not have the money to renew their worn out trolley systems. So along comes PRIVATE industry - namely G.M., "Big Tire," and a few oil companies - who offers to do the renewal job, but with new, more flexible technology, namely busses. They built the busses and financed their purchases at rates that made good economic sense for the times. So rapid transit is preserved, and the taxpayer isn't socked with a big expense. GENERAL MOTORS + BIG TIRE + BIG OIL didn't conspire to kill the trolleys, they saw an economic need and filled it like any rational set of cooperating companies would. I'm more inclined to believe that it was the politicians who contributed most to the death of this industry and they did it largely through a combination of short-sightedness and heavy handed regulation.

I-80 vs. N.J. TRANSIT: My friends back east tell me that I-80 is so choked with traffic into and out of Manhattan that the State of New Jersey recently reached a crisis point. Apparently some careful economic analysis has led the State to conclude that the cost of modernizing their heavy rail commuter system, extending it further west, increasing service, and subsidizing the whole operation with a portion of their gasoline taxes is actually cheaper than adding lanes to the Interstate and then having that much more highway to maintain. Let's hope that such economic findings aren't really a fantasy and that more urban centers embrace this enlightened idea!

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

I get your point but, if I turn it sideways a bit, I hear, "The IHS is great as long as you don't use it where people actually live!" [:D]

The Interstate Highway System was intended for travel between Cities, not 3 miles from home to the work place.

Urban freeways, on the other hand, are to decrease traffic on City streets serve neighborhoods and business areas. A better system would be to have the Interstates connect only to urban freeways (or in some cases with major conventional highways) instead of directly to the City street system.

One mistake often made is to build a freeway away from the congested area to move "through" traffic, then allowing so many interchanges that local traffic from new and/or existing developments soon clogs it.

[spbed]

Actually at one time the only way to obtain a car was BUY it. Could not afford it to bad. Then along comes leasing & boom the increase of traffic has overwhelmed what the engineers figured on. That is the reason for so much of the reason for congestion in urban areas. [:o)][:D]

Originally posted by oltmannd

Originally posted by DSchmitt
[

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

• Reply