Amtrak - Using too much money?

[Willy2]

On the Amtrak website I saw that Amtrak is planning to do some " Money Costing things " in the near future. Some of those things include fixing tracks, making their coaches better, getting trains in on time etc. etc. I think that Amtrak should wait for their next " fiscal payment " ( which may not come ) before using more money. If they don't get their payment because of the money being used fixing their things up they would be farther down in money sooner, which means shutting down sooner. What are your opinions on this subject? I hope this isn't a silly subject! [:D]

Willy
12 years old [:)]

[Willy2]

On the Amtrak website I saw that Amtrak is planning to do some " Money Costing things " in the near future. Some of those things include fixing tracks, making their coaches better, getting trains in on time etc. etc. I think that Amtrak should wait for their next " fiscal payment " ( which may not come ) before using more money. If they don't get their payment because of the money being used fixing their things up they would be farther down in money sooner, which means shutting down sooner. What are your opinions on this subject? I hope this isn't a silly subject! [:D]

Willy
12 years old [:)]

[JoeKoh]

no willy it isn't a silly subject.whats silly is the way amtrak is run right now.Look at the big cities like New york Chicago L.A. where would they be without the subways and trains to transport all those people.Can Mr.Gunn get it done?Time will tell.
stay safe
joe

[JoeKoh]

no willy it isn't a silly subject.whats silly is the way amtrak is run right now.Look at the big cities like New york Chicago L.A. where would they be without the subways and trains to transport all those people.Can Mr.Gunn get it done?Time will tell.
stay safe
joe

[Anonymous]

Willy, the horrible thing is that, if Amtrak goes, so does meaningful rail passenger service in this country.
POP

[Anonymous]

Willy, the horrible thing is that, if Amtrak goes, so does meaningful rail passenger service in this country.
POP

[Walter Moretz]

The arguments are by now familiar--at least to those of us concerned with American railroading: all other forms of transportation, either freight or passenger, are heavily subsidized by the government--directly or indirectly. Example: as handy as our highways may be for ordinary car travelers: they still are a vast and continuing subsidy to the trucking industry (especially the Interstates). The Army Corps of Engineers has altered rivers and built canals and locks so as to susidize the barge industry. In numerous ways, the Federal government has continually susidized the always-limping airline industry: direct bailouts, upkeep of the air-traffic control systems, susidizing or building airports, etc. BY COMPARISON, THE MONEY SPENT ON AMTRAK IS A RELATIVE PITTANCE!! And yet certain ignorant and posturing members of Congress continue to keep Amtrak on intravenous feeding, rather than giving it sound and reliable fiscal nutrition. May Gunn prevail over these Congressional obstacles!

[Walter Moretz]

The arguments are by now familiar--at least to those of us concerned with American railroading: all other forms of transportation, either freight or passenger, are heavily subsidized by the government--directly or indirectly. Example: as handy as our highways may be for ordinary car travelers: they still are a vast and continuing subsidy to the trucking industry (especially the Interstates). The Army Corps of Engineers has altered rivers and built canals and locks so as to susidize the barge industry. In numerous ways, the Federal government has continually susidized the always-limping airline industry: direct bailouts, upkeep of the air-traffic control systems, susidizing or building airports, etc. BY COMPARISON, THE MONEY SPENT ON AMTRAK IS A RELATIVE PITTANCE!! And yet certain ignorant and posturing members of Congress continue to keep Amtrak on intravenous feeding, rather than giving it sound and reliable fiscal nutrition. May Gunn prevail over these Congressional obstacles!

[wabash1]

I keep reading that Most of the fans here say railroads are subsidised and the trucking industry also . exsplain how this is done in trucking and how freight roads are subsidised.

[wabash1]

I keep reading that Most of the fans here say railroads are subsidised and the trucking industry also . exsplain how this is done in trucking and how freight roads are subsidised.

[edblysard]

Hi Willy,
One of the major reasons the interstate highways was built was to increase commerce, not just so Americans could drive from NY to LA, but so trucks could. It created comptition for railroads, but also created jobs, lots of them, and increased trade between cities, which was what it was designed for in the first place. One of the main reasons railroads were not, and are not now, subsidised by the federal goverment is because that would allow the federal goverments to excerise even more control over our business than they have now. Since the begining, railroads have been run as a for profit business, not a public utility, and because the didnt accept federal money, they didnt have to play by any rules other than their own. During the expansion to the west, the goverment did, in essence, give the railroads the property for their right of way, and several acres on either side of it, but the plan was that, if the railroads went west, so would the people. They did, in huge numbers, and opened up the west, building the cities and towns along the railroad tracks. Giving the railroads this property might be considered a way the railroads were subsidised, but it benifited both the railroads, and the states that gave them the land, in that it increased trade, moved population into those states, and generaly helped out everyone. Outside of the land grants, railroads have been very leery of accepting federal money, beyond the federal safety funds, they didnt want it. The staggers act in the 1980 did away with the fixed rates the goverment forced railroads to charge, and allowed more of a free compition between railroads, and you are seeing the end result now, in that the well managed railroads, those who planed for the future, are making money, improving the physical plant, things like that. Railroads wanted to do away with passenger service way back in the 60s, it never made them a profit, and rarely earned back the cost of running the trains. Count on this, if there was a dollar to be made from it, the railroads would be looking at it in a big way. But there isnt, so they dont want them to come back, it cost them in lost revenue every time they have to handle a Amtrak train, so they try hard not to.
Now, trucks use the interstate, your local turnpike and freeways, and local streets, and all they "pay" for that roadbed is a small fuel tax, which amounts to almost nothing in the cost of building and repairing the roads they use. You too, pay for the roads, every time you purchase fuel, one or two pennies per gallon go to the highway fund, but that also, amounts to a pittance. You do pay for the entire cost though, when you pay your federal and state income taxes in april. We, the taxpayers, sibsidise the trucks by paying for their roadbed, building and maintaining the interstate, state and local highways and local streets. Railroads, on the other hand, do pay for most of their right of way, and bear the full cost of maintaince of it, and, along with having to pay that little fuel tax, they pay property taxes on their right of way too. Yet the railroads receive none of the benifits of the fuel tax.
Trucks use our public roads, yet pay little, if any, of the cost of repair, even though the road surface is degraded faster because of the increase in truck traffic. Most of the current roads and highways we have were not designes to carry the weight of todays 18 wheelers, and the road surface suffers. You, the taxpayer, repair the damage, so you can use the road too, yet trucks pay nothing towards this maintaince.
This is how we sibsidise the trucking industry. Imagine if, every time a three or four axle truck entered the freeway where you live, they had to pay $5.00 to use the road?
Count the number of 18 wheelers you see on you way to and from work, and multiply by $5.00. Wow.
Amtrak shouldnt be here. When Congress allowed railroads to do away with their passenger service, they created Amtrak as a peaceful, easy way to allow rail passenger service to die, after all, we had this great big, new interstate highway system, and except for commuter rail, no one rode trains anymore. If you wanted to go from Chicago to LA, you flew, quicker and cheaper. We sibsidise airlines the same way we do trucks, the land for the airport is given to a netural authority, free, to build a airport, which, unlike railroads, pays no land or property taxes. The city where the airport is pays for the construction, and maintainance of the buildings and runways, as a way of inticeing the airlines to service their city. The airlines pay nothing to use you local airport, you pay for it all.
Amtrak was designed to fail from the beginning, no one ever intended passenger train to be around by 1980. But the population of the USA grew a lot faster than anyone projected, and our roads were clogged, often the new highways were obsolete by the time they were finished. Some, like IH45 here in Texas, between Houston and Galveston, have never been finished. They have been working on it , modifying it, repairing it, and expanding it since 1968, and they have never stopped, and most likley never will.
But surprise, people still ride the trains, and after 9/11, most airlines have dived into the red ink big time. The feds to the rescue, with a big bailout. No one really expects airlines to pay their way, like the passenger train, they are viewed as a public service, but unlike the passenger train, no one expects them to pay for themselves.
No one expected Amtrak to pay for itself either, but, through failry astute management, lots of good luck, and sheer persistance, it managed to survive over 30 years.
Note that most other goverments have nationalized both their airlines, and their passenger rail service, because they decided that both, just like your local city bus service, were modes of public transportation, not for profit companies.
Should frieght railroads accept federal moneies to improve the physical plant? Probaly not, we are privately owned for profit companies, and free enterprise and comptition should drive and goveren how we do business.
Should Amtrak accept federal money? Absolutly, it never should have been anything else but a form of public transportation. The very fact it survived this long should alert our politicians that the need, and desire for it is still there.
The real question is, would you pay for it?
If so, let your congressman or congresswoman know!
Really good question, willy,
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Hi Willy,
One of the major reasons the interstate highways was built was to increase commerce, not just so Americans could drive from NY to LA, but so trucks could. It created comptition for railroads, but also created jobs, lots of them, and increased trade between cities, which was what it was designed for in the first place. One of the main reasons railroads were not, and are not now, subsidised by the federal goverment is because that would allow the federal goverments to excerise even more control over our business than they have now. Since the begining, railroads have been run as a for profit business, not a public utility, and because the didnt accept federal money, they didnt have to play by any rules other than their own. During the expansion to the west, the goverment did, in essence, give the railroads the property for their right of way, and several acres on either side of it, but the plan was that, if the railroads went west, so would the people. They did, in huge numbers, and opened up the west, building the cities and towns along the railroad tracks. Giving the railroads this property might be considered a way the railroads were subsidised, but it benifited both the railroads, and the states that gave them the land, in that it increased trade, moved population into those states, and generaly helped out everyone. Outside of the land grants, railroads have been very leery of accepting federal money, beyond the federal safety funds, they didnt want it. The staggers act in the 1980 did away with the fixed rates the goverment forced railroads to charge, and allowed more of a free compition between railroads, and you are seeing the end result now, in that the well managed railroads, those who planed for the future, are making money, improving the physical plant, things like that. Railroads wanted to do away with passenger service way back in the 60s, it never made them a profit, and rarely earned back the cost of running the trains. Count on this, if there was a dollar to be made from it, the railroads would be looking at it in a big way. But there isnt, so they dont want them to come back, it cost them in lost revenue every time they have to handle a Amtrak train, so they try hard not to.
Now, trucks use the interstate, your local turnpike and freeways, and local streets, and all they "pay" for that roadbed is a small fuel tax, which amounts to almost nothing in the cost of building and repairing the roads they use. You too, pay for the roads, every time you purchase fuel, one or two pennies per gallon go to the highway fund, but that also, amounts to a pittance. You do pay for the entire cost though, when you pay your federal and state income taxes in april. We, the taxpayers, sibsidise the trucks by paying for their roadbed, building and maintaining the interstate, state and local highways and local streets. Railroads, on the other hand, do pay for most of their right of way, and bear the full cost of maintaince of it, and, along with having to pay that little fuel tax, they pay property taxes on their right of way too. Yet the railroads receive none of the benifits of the fuel tax.
Trucks use our public roads, yet pay little, if any, of the cost of repair, even though the road surface is degraded faster because of the increase in truck traffic. Most of the current roads and highways we have were not designes to carry the weight of todays 18 wheelers, and the road surface suffers. You, the taxpayer, repair the damage, so you can use the road too, yet trucks pay nothing towards this maintaince.
This is how we sibsidise the trucking industry. Imagine if, every time a three or four axle truck entered the freeway where you live, they had to pay $5.00 to use the road?
Count the number of 18 wheelers you see on you way to and from work, and multiply by $5.00. Wow.
Amtrak shouldnt be here. When Congress allowed railroads to do away with their passenger service, they created Amtrak as a peaceful, easy way to allow rail passenger service to die, after all, we had this great big, new interstate highway system, and except for commuter rail, no one rode trains anymore. If you wanted to go from Chicago to LA, you flew, quicker and cheaper. We sibsidise airlines the same way we do trucks, the land for the airport is given to a netural authority, free, to build a airport, which, unlike railroads, pays no land or property taxes. The city where the airport is pays for the construction, and maintainance of the buildings and runways, as a way of inticeing the airlines to service their city. The airlines pay nothing to use you local airport, you pay for it all.
Amtrak was designed to fail from the beginning, no one ever intended passenger train to be around by 1980. But the population of the USA grew a lot faster than anyone projected, and our roads were clogged, often the new highways were obsolete by the time they were finished. Some, like IH45 here in Texas, between Houston and Galveston, have never been finished. They have been working on it , modifying it, repairing it, and expanding it since 1968, and they have never stopped, and most likley never will.
But surprise, people still ride the trains, and after 9/11, most airlines have dived into the red ink big time. The feds to the rescue, with a big bailout. No one really expects airlines to pay their way, like the passenger train, they are viewed as a public service, but unlike the passenger train, no one expects them to pay for themselves.
No one expected Amtrak to pay for itself either, but, through failry astute management, lots of good luck, and sheer persistance, it managed to survive over 30 years.
Note that most other goverments have nationalized both their airlines, and their passenger rail service, because they decided that both, just like your local city bus service, were modes of public transportation, not for profit companies.
Should frieght railroads accept federal moneies to improve the physical plant? Probaly not, we are privately owned for profit companies, and free enterprise and comptition should drive and goveren how we do business.
Should Amtrak accept federal money? Absolutly, it never should have been anything else but a form of public transportation. The very fact it survived this long should alert our politicians that the need, and desire for it is still there.
The real question is, would you pay for it?
If so, let your congressman or congresswoman know!
Really good question, willy,
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[mudchicken]

Very, very well stated Ed....Unfortunately the trucking lobby in congress makes sure that the 5 watt-er's like the bunch attempting to kill Amtrak by underfunding it and re-build more highway. In addition to the relative free ride, the civil engineers (ASCE & ASHTO) have stated openly that the roads and interstates built before 1985 were seriously under-designed because planners severely underestimated the allowable truck weights and number of trucks turned loose on the nations highways. Nobody says a thing when they allow trucks (highway trucking lobby supported) to keep getting longer and heavier. County and city fathers around here are howling that their roads and arterials are all but shot with no replacement funding in sight (especially for bridges).....

Also used to be railroads built industry side tracks just to see them sit idle. Industry was playing railroads against regulated trucking for the lowest rates and the industry was using that empty sidetrack as a "big stick". Trucking now is much more deregulated, and so heavilly taxpayer funded (for roads, etc.) that you don't see industry playing trucks vs. railroads too much.

I would differ from your views on funding only in that shortlines ought to be getting grants to level the playing field for a decade or two. (grants, not loans like what is pushed now where the little rr guy has to sign over the farm to get very little) and that congress ought to fund what they approve for railroad safety upgrades and infrastructure improvement. A lot of rural small towns would still have a rail service option instead of being captive to trucks.

(as stated many times before, they fund bike paths, beautification, etc. under Istea/TEA21/SafeTEA which benefit few and never fund the money for infrastructure that the bills were originally for that would benefit exponentially more.....as a side benefit, those mis-directed M&M boys would shut-up and hopefully go away as more crossing protection and grade separations could finally be built)

[mudchicken]

Very, very well stated Ed....Unfortunately the trucking lobby in congress makes sure that the 5 watt-er's like the bunch attempting to kill Amtrak by underfunding it and re-build more highway. In addition to the relative free ride, the civil engineers (ASCE & ASHTO) have stated openly that the roads and interstates built before 1985 were seriously under-designed because planners severely underestimated the allowable truck weights and number of trucks turned loose on the nations highways. Nobody says a thing when they allow trucks (highway trucking lobby supported) to keep getting longer and heavier. County and city fathers around here are howling that their roads and arterials are all but shot with no replacement funding in sight (especially for bridges).....

Also used to be railroads built industry side tracks just to see them sit idle. Industry was playing railroads against regulated trucking for the lowest rates and the industry was using that empty sidetrack as a "big stick". Trucking now is much more deregulated, and so heavilly taxpayer funded (for roads, etc.) that you don't see industry playing trucks vs. railroads too much.

I would differ from your views on funding only in that shortlines ought to be getting grants to level the playing field for a decade or two. (grants, not loans like what is pushed now where the little rr guy has to sign over the farm to get very little) and that congress ought to fund what they approve for railroad safety upgrades and infrastructure improvement. A lot of rural small towns would still have a rail service option instead of being captive to trucks.

(as stated many times before, they fund bike paths, beautification, etc. under Istea/TEA21/SafeTEA which benefit few and never fund the money for infrastructure that the bills were originally for that would benefit exponentially more.....as a side benefit, those mis-directed M&M boys would shut-up and hopefully go away as more crossing protection and grade separations could finally be built)

[kenneo]

A couple of notes on funding:

Weight-Mile and Fuel Taxes recover something like 8%-12% of the cost of repairs that trucks cause. The State of Oregon did a study about 15 yers ago to justify increasing the truckers contribution to highway maintainence and discovered that, except for use of studded tires and/or chains, automibles did zero damage to the highway structure. Trucks did it all. So, depending on your states cost recovery methods, the automible dirver has the priviledge of paying 88%-92% of maintainence and 100% of construction.

Some airports actually do cover their costs and they do this through landing fees, space rent in terminals and land leases for buildings such as warehouses, hotels and so on. Most, however, seldom come close to break-even even though they do charge landing fees and such. They justify this by being able to have air service. Once upon a time, the passenger train served the function, but no more.

Passenger trains once did make money. Starting about 1930 with the rise of the automible and "good highways", people left all forms of "public" transportation for the auto. The railroads could still fill trains and with revenue head-end traffic, could make ends meet for most runs into the middle 1950's -- until the 707 and DC8. And that was it for the freight railroads with people moving.

Land Grants - This is the single most contentious public issue ever for railroads. There are two good books out on building the transcontinental railroad - the one by Ambrose detailing the UP from inception to about 1890 gives a very accurate but ugly inside view of the corruption that pervaded Western Roads management, the forced bankruptcies designed to have the share holder and supplier fund the building and the owner to never have to pay them. The echo's of those days loudly reverberate still today in the publics attitude toward railroads and the problems in funding Amtrak.

As for Federal funding of railroad infrastructure, why not. Take the I-95 corridor. Freeway parallels NS. Designed and built 100 years apart, the rail road is single track (mostly), crooked, slow. The freeway is "straight" (in comparrison), and DOT figures that - round numbers - the feds could fund two tracks for the price of one freway lane - and they would need two freeway lanes. The idea is to move trucks off the highway except for the local part of their runs.

[kenneo]

A couple of notes on funding:

Weight-Mile and Fuel Taxes recover something like 8%-12% of the cost of repairs that trucks cause. The State of Oregon did a study about 15 yers ago to justify increasing the truckers contribution to highway maintainence and discovered that, except for use of studded tires and/or chains, automibles did zero damage to the highway structure. Trucks did it all. So, depending on your states cost recovery methods, the automible dirver has the priviledge of paying 88%-92% of maintainence and 100% of construction.

Some airports actually do cover their costs and they do this through landing fees, space rent in terminals and land leases for buildings such as warehouses, hotels and so on. Most, however, seldom come close to break-even even though they do charge landing fees and such. They justify this by being able to have air service. Once upon a time, the passenger train served the function, but no more.

Passenger trains once did make money. Starting about 1930 with the rise of the automible and "good highways", people left all forms of "public" transportation for the auto. The railroads could still fill trains and with revenue head-end traffic, could make ends meet for most runs into the middle 1950's -- until the 707 and DC8. And that was it for the freight railroads with people moving.

Land Grants - This is the single most contentious public issue ever for railroads. There are two good books out on building the transcontinental railroad - the one by Ambrose detailing the UP from inception to about 1890 gives a very accurate but ugly inside view of the corruption that pervaded Western Roads management, the forced bankruptcies designed to have the share holder and supplier fund the building and the owner to never have to pay them. The echo's of those days loudly reverberate still today in the publics attitude toward railroads and the problems in funding Amtrak.

As for Federal funding of railroad infrastructure, why not. Take the I-95 corridor. Freeway parallels NS. Designed and built 100 years apart, the rail road is single track (mostly), crooked, slow. The freeway is "straight" (in comparrison), and DOT figures that - round numbers - the feds could fund two tracks for the price of one freway lane - and they would need two freeway lanes. The idea is to move trucks off the highway except for the local part of their runs.

[mudchicken]

Passenger trains once did make money. Starting about 1930 with the rise of the automible and "good highways", people left all forms of "public" transportation for the auto. The railroads could still fill trains and with revenue head-end traffic, could make ends meet for most runs into the middle 1950's -- until the 707 and DC8. And that was it for the freight railroads with people moving.

Land Grants - This is the single most contentious public issue ever for railroads. There are two good books out on building the transcontinental railroad - the one by Ambrose detailing the UP from inception to about 1890 gives a very accurate but ugly inside view of the corruption that pervaded Western Roads management, the forced bankruptcies designed to have the share holder and supplier fund the building and the owner to never have to pay them. The echo's of those days loudly reverberate still today in the publics attitude toward railroads and the problems in funding Amtrak.

[mudchicken]

Passenger trains once did make money. Starting about 1930 with the rise of the automible and "good highways", people left all forms of "public" transportation for the auto. The railroads could still fill trains and with revenue head-end traffic, could make ends meet for most runs into the middle 1950's -- until the 707 and DC8. And that was it for the freight railroads with people moving.

Land Grants - This is the single most contentious public issue ever for railroads. There are two good books out on building the transcontinental railroad - the one by Ambrose detailing the UP from inception to about 1890 gives a very accurate but ugly inside view of the corruption that pervaded Western Roads management, the forced bankruptcies designed to have the share holder and supplier fund the building and the owner to never have to pay them. The echo's of those days loudly reverberate still today in the publics attitude toward railroads and the problems in funding Amtrak.