How to claim great ideas and blame someone else for their failure

[Limitedclear]

Then it appears that we agree.  I am all in favor of eliminating direct subsidies and letting businesses sink or swim on their own two feet.

Ow! What a mixed up metaphor...

LC

Or, like my wife likes to say, "I can see it clear as a bell."

Good one Pop! DING! DING!

LC

[Poppa_Zit]

Then it appears that we agree.  I am all in favor of eliminating direct subsidies and letting businesses sink or swim on their own two feet.

Ow! What a mixed up metaphor...

LC

Or, like my wife likes to say, "I can see it clear as a bell."

[Datafever]

Well, maybe.  Does it really matter if a subsidy is direct or indirect?  The net costs and benefits are the same either way.

Not quite.  Direct subsidies benefit one business in particular - the company that receives that subsidy.  Indirect subsidies provide the same benefit to anyone who wants to get into the game.

I have no problems with indirect subsidies.  In some cases, even rather large indirect subsidies.

I guess what public transportation boils down to is this:  Do you want to look at it as a business and have it play by the same rules as any other business, or do you want to consider it to be a government service (with all that that implies)?

What it implies depends on how you set up the game and how you measure success!  Post Office?  Amtrak?  Marines?  Army Corp. of Engr.? Port Authority?  School system? National Parks?  All have different methods of funding and different measures for success (except maybe Amtrak) and the implications that come with......

w.r.t. public transportation, there may be better ways of setting up the game of such government services that will give better results.  Amtrak is truly broken in this regard (and likely a lot of other public agencies, as well)  I think if you can build in profit motive you'll get more bang for the subsidy $$ (direct or indirect).  The trick is how?

How?  No clue!

But my preferred route would be to convert the direct subsidy that Amtrak receives to some form of indirect subsidy (how?) that would allow the class ones and the major regionals to enter the competition if they so chose to do so.

[oltmannd]

Well, maybe.  Does it really matter if a subsidy is direct or indirect?  The net costs and benefits are the same either way.

Not quite.  Direct subsidies benefit one business in particular - the company that receives that subsidy.  Indirect subsidies provide the same benefit to anyone who wants to get into the game.

I have no problems with indirect subsidies.  In some cases, even rather large indirect subsidies.

I guess what public transportation boils down to is this:  Do you want to look at it as a business and have it play by the same rules as any other business, or do you want to consider it to be a government service (with all that that implies)?

What it implies depends on how you set up the game and how you measure success!  Post Office?  Amtrak?  Marines?  Army Corp. of Engr.? Port Authority?  School system? National Parks?  All have different methods of funding and different measures for success (except maybe Amtrak) and the implications that come with......

w.r.t. public transportation, there may be better ways of setting up the game of such government services that will give better results.  Amtrak is truly broken in this regard (and likely a lot of other public agencies, as well)  I think if you can build in profit motive you'll get more bang for the subsidy $$ (direct or indirect).  The trick is how?

[Datafever]

Then it appears that we agree.  I am all in favor of eliminating direct subsidies and letting businesses sink or swim on their own two feet.

Ow! What a mixed up metaphor...

LC

[Limitedclear]

There is no money to be made moving people anywhere, at any time, by any means, anywhere in the world.

Yes, there is -- but it is made by the businesses and industries that benefit from a mobile public. The business revenues generated by subsidized travel trickles down to the community in the form of real estate taxes, rent, taxes and happy vendors, et al.

In the town where I live, there is a rubber-tired trolley that cruises the central shopping/restaurant/entertainment district from about 8:30 a.m. to 1 a.m. It is free to riders, subsidized by the merchants who have seen a whopping increase in traffic -- and profits -- by allowing consumers to be more mobile than if they had to move about by leg power. Plus, the parking situation downtown stinks during busy times, which would have forced us many times to go somewhere more convenient had they not offered the free trolley service.

I understand this is but a small model, but I'd say the principles are the same.

PZ   

Vancouver, British Columbia.  Water taxis are privately owned and take people from here and there (Granville Market comes to mind), and each is privately owned.  I don't think the operators are doing it pro bono.

Do they own the terminals at each end?  Do they maintain the waterways?  Who will come rescue them if they start to sink and how is that paid for? 

Sorry, but by that criteria, one could claim that no business in the world is profitable.  Let's stick with the actual costs of doing business, please.  If the government or other entity chooses to provide services that a business then does not need to pay for, it does not mean that the business is incapable of making money without those services.  Taking "advantage" of infrastructure is part of what any good entrepreneur would do.

Sure.  By the rules of the game in place in the 1960's, railroads were an unprofitable venture.  By the rules in place in 2006, they are a profitable venture. 

So, if someone can take a subsidy, direct or indirect, and make a net profit, more power to them!  I think that's what we've all been saying is missing at Amtrak - no profit motive.  Time to change the rules of the game!

Then it appears that we agree.  I am all in favor of eliminating direct subsidies and letting businesses sink or swim on their own two feet.

Ow! What a mixed up metaphor...

LC

[Datafever]

Well, maybe.  Does it really matter if a subsidy is direct or indirect?  The net costs and benefits are the same either way.

Not quite.  Direct subsidies benefit one business in particular - the company that receives that subsidy.  Indirect subsidies provide the same benefit to anyone who wants to get into the game.

I have no problems with indirect subsidies.  In some cases, even rather large indirect subsidies.

I guess what public transportation boils down to is this:  Do you want to look at it as a business and have it play by the same rules as any other business, or do you want to consider it to be a government service (with all that that implies)?

[oltmannd]

There is no money to be made moving people anywhere, at any time, by any means, anywhere in the world.

Yes, there is -- but it is made by the businesses and industries that benefit from a mobile public. The business revenues generated by subsidized travel trickles down to the community in the form of real estate taxes, rent, taxes and happy vendors, et al.

In the town where I live, there is a rubber-tired trolley that cruises the central shopping/restaurant/entertainment district from about 8:30 a.m. to 1 a.m. It is free to riders, subsidized by the merchants who have seen a whopping increase in traffic -- and profits -- by allowing consumers to be more mobile than if they had to move about by leg power. Plus, the parking situation downtown stinks during busy times, which would have forced us many times to go somewhere more convenient had they not offered the free trolley service.

I understand this is but a small model, but I'd say the principles are the same.

PZ   

Vancouver, British Columbia.  Water taxis are privately owned and take people from here and there (Granville Market comes to mind), and each is privately owned.  I don't think the operators are doing it pro bono.

Do they own the terminals at each end?  Do they maintain the waterways?  Who will come rescue them if they start to sink and how is that paid for? 

Sorry, but by that criteria, one could claim that no business in the world is profitable.  Let's stick with the actual costs of doing business, please.  If the government or other entity chooses to provide services that a business then does not need to pay for, it does not mean that the business is incapable of making money without those services.  Taking "advantage" of infrastructure is part of what any good entrepreneur would do.

Sure.  By the rules of the game in place in the 1960's, railroads were an unprofitable venture.  By the rules in place in 2006, they are a profitable venture. 

So, if someone can take a subsidy, direct or indirect, and make a net profit, more power to them!  I think that's what we've all been saying is missing at Amtrak - no profit motive.  Time to change the rules of the game!

Then it appears that we agree.  I am all in favor of eliminating direct subsidies and letting businesses sink or swim on their own two feet.

Well, maybe.  Does it really matter if a subsidy is direct or indirect?  The net costs and benefits are the same either way.

Should RRs in the 1960s have been allowed to sink?  There were no direct subsidies to them in the 1960s and there are none now, yet the game change significantly - as have the results.

Trucking receives no direct subsidy, yet we can vary the fuel and property tax on them - or speed limits - or hour of service rules - or weight limits, changing their "buoyancy".

I ride a commuter bus to work.  My county has to pay 75% of the cost of my ride in direct subsidy to the operation.  So, the bus operation should sink?  What about the cost to build 50 miles of interstate highway capacity that the bus operation currently provides?  Take the capital for that, invest it in a passbook savings account and the interest alone would pay for the bus subsidy many times over.  In that case the cost of the indirect subsidy to me to drive my car to work would cost more than the direct subsidy to provide a bus.

[Datafever]

There is no money to be made moving people anywhere, at any time, by any means, anywhere in the world.

Yes, there is -- but it is made by the businesses and industries that benefit from a mobile public. The business revenues generated by subsidized travel trickles down to the community in the form of real estate taxes, rent, taxes and happy vendors, et al.

In the town where I live, there is a rubber-tired trolley that cruises the central shopping/restaurant/entertainment district from about 8:30 a.m. to 1 a.m. It is free to riders, subsidized by the merchants who have seen a whopping increase in traffic -- and profits -- by allowing consumers to be more mobile than if they had to move about by leg power. Plus, the parking situation downtown stinks during busy times, which would have forced us many times to go somewhere more convenient had they not offered the free trolley service.

I understand this is but a small model, but I'd say the principles are the same.

PZ   

Vancouver, British Columbia.  Water taxis are privately owned and take people from here and there (Granville Market comes to mind), and each is privately owned.  I don't think the operators are doing it pro bono.

Do they own the terminals at each end?  Do they maintain the waterways?  Who will come rescue them if they start to sink and how is that paid for? 

Sorry, but by that criteria, one could claim that no business in the world is profitable.  Let's stick with the actual costs of doing business, please.  If the government or other entity chooses to provide services that a business then does not need to pay for, it does not mean that the business is incapable of making money without those services.  Taking "advantage" of infrastructure is part of what any good entrepreneur would do.

Sure.  By the rules of the game in place in the 1960's, railroads were an unprofitable venture.  By the rules in place in 2006, they are a profitable venture. 

So, if someone can take a subsidy, direct or indirect, and make a net profit, more power to them!  I think that's what we've all been saying is missing at Amtrak - no profit motive.  Time to change the rules of the game!

Then it appears that we agree.  I am all in favor of eliminating direct subsidies and letting businesses sink or swim on their own two feet.

[oltmannd]

There is no money to be made moving people anywhere, at any time, by any means, anywhere in the world.

Yes, there is -- but it is made by the businesses and industries that benefit from a mobile public. The business revenues generated by subsidized travel trickles down to the community in the form of real estate taxes, rent, taxes and happy vendors, et al.

In the town where I live, there is a rubber-tired trolley that cruises the central shopping/restaurant/entertainment district from about 8:30 a.m. to 1 a.m. It is free to riders, subsidized by the merchants who have seen a whopping increase in traffic -- and profits -- by allowing consumers to be more mobile than if they had to move about by leg power. Plus, the parking situation downtown stinks during busy times, which would have forced us many times to go somewhere more convenient had they not offered the free trolley service.

I understand this is but a small model, but I'd say the principles are the same.

PZ   

Vancouver, British Columbia.  Water taxis are privately owned and take people from here and there (Granville Market comes to mind), and each is privately owned.  I don't think the operators are doing it pro bono.

Do they own the terminals at each end?  Do they maintain the waterways?  Who will come rescue them if they start to sink and how is that paid for? 

Sorry, but by that criteria, one could claim that no business in the world is profitable.  Let's stick with the actual costs of doing business, please.  If the government or other entity chooses to provide services that a business then does not need to pay for, it does not mean that the business is incapable of making money without those services.  Taking "advantage" of infrastructure is part of what any good entrepreneur would do.

Sure.  By the rules of the game in place in the 1960's, railroads were an unprofitable venture.  By the rules in place in 2006, they are a profitable venture. 

So, if someone can take a subsidy, direct or indirect, and make a net profit, more power to them!  I think that's what we've all been saying is missing at Amtrak - no profit motive.  Time to change the rules of the game!

[Datafever]

There is no money to be made moving people anywhere, at any time, by any means, anywhere in the world.

Yes, there is -- but it is made by the businesses and industries that benefit from a mobile public. The business revenues generated by subsidized travel trickles down to the community in the form of real estate taxes, rent, taxes and happy vendors, et al.

In the town where I live, there is a rubber-tired trolley that cruises the central shopping/restaurant/entertainment district from about 8:30 a.m. to 1 a.m. It is free to riders, subsidized by the merchants who have seen a whopping increase in traffic -- and profits -- by allowing consumers to be more mobile than if they had to move about by leg power. Plus, the parking situation downtown stinks during busy times, which would have forced us many times to go somewhere more convenient had they not offered the free trolley service.

I understand this is but a small model, but I'd say the principles are the same.

PZ   

Vancouver, British Columbia.  Water taxis are privately owned and take people from here and there (Granville Market comes to mind), and each is privately owned.  I don't think the operators are doing it pro bono.

Do they own the terminals at each end?  Do they maintain the waterways?  Who will come rescue them if they start to sink and how is that paid for? 

Sorry, but by that criteria, one could claim that no business in the world is profitable.  Let's stick with the actual costs of doing business, please.  If the government or other entity chooses to provide services that a business then does not need to pay for, it does not mean that the business is incapable of making money without those services.  Taking "advantage" of infrastructure is part of what any good entrepreneur would do.

[oltmannd]

There is no money to be made moving people anywhere, at any time, by any means, anywhere in the world.

Yes, there is -- but it is made by the businesses and industries that benefit from a mobile public. The business revenues generated by subsidized travel trickles down to the community in the form of real estate taxes, rent, taxes and happy vendors, et al.

In the town where I live, there is a rubber-tired trolley that cruises the central shopping/restaurant/entertainment district from about 8:30 a.m. to 1 a.m. It is free to riders, subsidized by the merchants who have seen a whopping increase in traffic -- and profits -- by allowing consumers to be more mobile than if they had to move about by leg power. Plus, the parking situation downtown stinks during busy times, which would have forced us many times to go somewhere more convenient had they not offered the free trolley service.

I understand this is but a small model, but I'd say the principles are the same.

PZ   

Vancouver, British Columbia.  Water taxis are privately owned and take people from here and there (Granville Market comes to mind), and each is privately owned.  I don't think the operators are doing it pro bono.

Do they own the terminals at each end?  Do they maintain the waterways?  Who will come rescue them if they start to sink and how is that paid for? 

[wallyworld]

If the analogy applies to Amtrak, as one who has managed federal funds and received a fee for same on the behalf of my employer, there is a reasonable amount of money to be made.
Competition needs to be applied to Amtrak, and I have few doubts the taxpayer will save some money. I have had continuous quality improvement theory drilled into my head, and the one lesson I've learned, if any, is that the folks who actually do the work know best how to improve a process, rather than politicians or remote bureaucrats.

[selector]

There is no money to be made moving people anywhere, at any time, by any means, anywhere in the world.

Yes, there is -- but it is made by the businesses and industries that benefit from a mobile public. The business revenues generated by subsidized travel trickles down to the community in the form of real estate taxes, rent, taxes and happy vendors, et al.

In the town where I live, there is a rubber-tired trolley that cruises the central shopping/restaurant/entertainment district from about 8:30 a.m. to 1 a.m. It is free to riders, subsidized by the merchants who have seen a whopping increase in traffic -- and profits -- by allowing consumers to be more mobile than if they had to move about by leg power. Plus, the parking situation downtown stinks during busy times, which would have forced us many times to go somewhere more convenient had they not offered the free trolley service.

I understand this is but a small model, but I'd say the principles are the same.

PZ   

Vancouver, British Columbia.  Water taxis are privately owned and take people from here and there (Granville Market comes to mind), and each is privately owned.  I don't think the operators are doing it pro bono.

[oltmannd]

There is no money to be made moving people anywhere, at any time, by any means, anywhere in the world.

Yes, there is -- but it is made by the businesses and industries that benefit from a mobile public. The business revenues generated by subsidized travel trickles down to the community in the form of real estate taxes, rent, taxes and happy vendors, et al.

In the town where I live, there is a rubber-tired trolley that cruises the central shopping/restaurant/entertainment district from about 8:30 a.m. to 1 a.m. It is free to riders, subsidized by the merchants who have seen a whopping increase in traffic -- and profits -- by allowing consumers to be more mobile than if they had to move about by leg power. Plus, the parking situation downtown stinks during busy times, which would have forced us many times to go somewhere more convenient had they not offered the free trolley service.

I understand this is but a small model, but I'd day the principles are the same.

PZ   

I agree!  The benefit does not always accrue to the direct supplier, but it is a benefit all the same.  In your example, if you draw bright lines around the trolley, it's a money loser, but if you expand those line to the district the tolley severs, there is a net +. 

It is very narow-minded to selectively extract individual line item expenses and examine them on their own merit while ignoring the big picture. Or, the people who practice this propaganda technique are only twisting facts to fit their agenda.

Just like the NIMBYs in the other thead who are grasping for a life preserver to keep their toothless anti-light rail movement afloat. Lacking a solid reason, they resort to  scare tactics -- of "the toxicity of creosote on railroad ties, and the need to protect our children from these poisons." Gimme a break.

PZ 

Maybe we can just placate them with a donut.....or slap them.  One or the other.

[Poppa_Zit]

There is no money to be made moving people anywhere, at any time, by any means, anywhere in the world.

Yes, there is -- but it is made by the businesses and industries that benefit from a mobile public. The business revenues generated by subsidized travel trickles down to the community in the form of real estate taxes, rent, taxes and happy vendors, et al.

In the town where I live, there is a rubber-tired trolley that cruises the central shopping/restaurant/entertainment district from about 8:30 a.m. to 1 a.m. It is free to riders, subsidized by the merchants who have seen a whopping increase in traffic -- and profits -- by allowing consumers to be more mobile than if they had to move about by leg power. Plus, the parking situation downtown stinks during busy times, which would have forced us many times to go somewhere more convenient had they not offered the free trolley service.

I understand this is but a small model, but I'd day the principles are the same.

PZ   

I agree!  The benefit does not always accrue to the direct supplier, but it is a benefit all the same.  In your example, if you draw bright lines around the trolley, it's a money loser, but if you expand those line to the district the tolley severs, there is a net +. 

It is very narow-minded to selectively extract individual line item expenses and examine them on their own merit while ignoring the big picture. Or, the people who practice this propaganda technique are only twisting facts to fit their agenda.

Just like the NIMBYs in the other thead who are grasping for a life preserver to keep their toothless anti-light rail movement afloat. Lacking a solid reason, they resort to  scare tactics -- of "the toxicity of creosote on railroad ties, and the need to protect our children from these poisons." Gimme a break.

PZ 

[oltmannd]

There is no money to be made moving people anywhere, at any time, by any means, anywhere in the world.

Yes, there is -- but it is made by the businesses and industries that benefit from a mobile public. The business revenues generated by subsidized travel trickles down to the community in the form of real estate taxes, rent, taxes and happy vendors, et al.

In the town where I live, there is a rubber-tired trolley that cruises the central shopping/restaurant/entertainment district from about 8:30 a.m. to 1 a.m. It is free to riders, subsidized by the merchants who have seen a whopping increase in traffic -- and profits -- by allowing consumers to be more mobile than if they had to move about by leg power. Plus, the parking situation downtown stinks during busy times, which would have forced us many times to go somewhere more convenient had they not offered the free trolley service.

I understand this is but a small model, but I'd day the principles are the same.

PZ   

I agree!  The benefit does not always accrue to the direct supplier, but it is a benefit all the same.  In your example, if you draw bright lines around the trolley, it's a money loser, but if you expand those line to the district the tolley severs, there is a net +. 

[Poppa_Zit]

BTW - although Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, he did sponsor and push through the bill that allows private citizens to access it.

I was merely being sarcastic with that remark. In a March, 1999 CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

He probably meant that as a legislator he "facilitated" the growth of the Internet in this country, which he did, and therefore his supporters claim the above quote was taken out of that context. However, considering the massive ego of his ilk, and that he's also an educated person, he knew better than to use that phraseology. He knew exactly what he was saying -- in an effort to impress, influence or confuse voters. He could have chosen "propagating" instead of "creating."

So as far as I'm concerned, the quote stands alone.

PZ    

 

[Poppa_Zit]

There is no money to be made moving people anywhere, at any time, by any means, anywhere in the world.

Yes, there is -- but it is made by the businesses and industries that benefit from a mobile public. The business revenues generated by subsidized travel trickles down to the community in the form of real estate taxes, rent, taxes and happy vendors, et al.

In the town where I live, there is a rubber-tired trolley that cruises the central shopping/restaurant/entertainment district from about 8:30 a.m. to 1 a.m. It is free to riders, subsidized by the merchants who have seen a whopping increase in traffic -- and profits -- by allowing consumers to be more mobile than if they had to move about by leg power. Plus, the parking situation downtown stinks during busy times, which would have forced us many times to go somewhere more convenient had they not offered the free trolley service.

I understand this is but a small model, but I'd say the principles are the same.

PZ   

[oltmannd]

I think you will find the Administration is  less hostel to Amtrak now that the ideologue Mineta has left.  The Administration was behind the funding of the overhauling of some 22 mothballed Amtrak coaches for emergency evaculation purposes in New Orlean or other Gulf Area suffered another flood problem.

I agree.  That was all very strange when Mineta attacked Amtrak.  I'm very interested in what Kummant will do.  He's not an old time "run the trains" guy like Reistrup, Claytor and Gunn, nor is he some confused bureaucrat ala Downs and Warrington.  He's seems to be an industialist businessman who has some RR in his background.  Here's hoping he tries to make some sense out of Amtrak.

[wallyworld]

Perhaps a better way to perform management functions in terms of regional authorities identified as corridors rather than within state lines. Because of their multi-state legal enviroment, they could be soley an operating entity funded by a dedicated trust outside of highway funds allocated on a revenue sharing basis between states who also set agreements to pick and chose routes which have a consensus of need. This stand alone operating entity could be contracted out on a bid basis, who then in turn could negotiate with carriers directly or the carriers themselves could serve this function. I recently finished a mangerial stint with Hilton and we had to make the guest content as there is a 100% service guarantee in place with a fifteen minute turn around time to resolve any guest related problem. Imagine that applied to on board services. The mind boggles.

[oltmannd]

I think you could contract out some of the operations on a competitive bid basis.  I'm sure the class ones would get the trains over the road in similar manner as "bought" trains they have run for UPS, for example.  You could probably do train staffing, too.  I wonder if Marriott or Hilton would bite? 

But, somewhere, somehow, somebody has to take care of design and administration of a network.  Where are the people?  Where do they want to go?  How can we do it - contracts, asset deployment, capital investment?  I still think this is more of a national function than a regional one.   Or, maybe there are 3 regions, tops -  East, midwest and west - since we're talking about lanes up to 500 miles long with lots of overlap.

Except California, where some "true believers" managed to make things go based on pride, apparently, no one is looking at new markets.  FL and the south have grown like weeds since 1971 and there is not one new lane, corridor or market being served today that didn't have service in 1971 (in fact, I think there is less service since now) despite all kinds of highway congestion and air travel difficulties. 

[wallyworld]

I agree. Once a federal agency has been established, it's chief activity is to perpetuate itself. Empowering innovation by providing incentives within Amtrak is counterintuitive to the game of design by commitee but it is a hallmark of a competitive real world. Let the Regionals get competitive bids for operating, service, and administrative contracts with performance incentives if the tracks are directly owned by same. It is one possibilty.
Capacity trade offs for usage is another on private rails. This has been done many times. Some Class 1's have expressed an open mindedness to counterbid Amtrak for services. Open the field.

[daveklepper]

I think you will find the Administration is  less hostel to Amtrak now that the ideologue Mineta has left.  The Administration was behind the funding of the overhauling of some 22 mothballed Amtrak coaches for emergency evaculation purposes in New Orlean or other Gulf Area suffered another flood problem.

[oltmannd]

Amtrak has reinvented itself so many times that I have lost count. The business models have run the gamut from regional autonomy to centralized management, from operations orientation to tight line item constraints to politically based and back to operations again. All of this is due to putting five pounds in a one pound bag. Transit is labor and capital intensive. See anyone standing in line to privatize urban transit and make a profit? Amtrak was a last minute crazy quilt cobbling created in a reactionary frenzy to transition rail passenger services from private carriers to public financing. It is a typical inefficent third party federal entity run by comittee whose members are fraught with cross purposes. It has the head of a duck, the wings of a chicken and the body of a turkey. Save some tax money and put this Frankenstein to pasture. Do some federal revenue sharing from a rail transit fund as seperated from highway needs. Allocate these by annual funding requests with pre-established benchmarks by Regional or State Departments of Transportation. These, in turn either directly or contract with carriers to create operating entities. I love long distance trains but they need to go.

All of Amtraks reorgs have been within mkt and ops -rearragning the deck chairs on a voyage to status quo - but the fundamental business model has never been changed.  There is no overall incentive to improve operating efficiency - and certainly it doesn't filter down to individual managers.  Why would any of them ever voluntarily give up headcount or budget - except as a matter of personal pride?  What incentive is there to propose new service or to do a joint deal with a state (except when the state comes to them)? 

If the goal is to serve more people with faster, better, cheaper and more frequent service, then the "game" better be set up so that corporation and employees are rewarded when they deliver - just like in the real world!  Right now the "game" is "run these trains, adjust fares to maximize revenue, and try not to screw up!"

[oltmannd]

I have just one question here....are those donuts from Krispy Kreme?  (and I take my coffee leaded with cream and sugar)

All other kinds are not really donuts!

[wallyworld]

Amtrak has reinvented itself so many times that I have lost count. The business models have run the gamut from regional autonomy to centralized management, from operations orientation to tight line item constraints to politically based and back to operations again. All of this is due to putting five pounds in a one pound bag. Transit is labor and capital intensive. See anyone standing in line to privatize urban transit and make a profit?
Amtrak was a last minute crazy quilt cobbling created in a reactionary frenzy to transition rail passenger services from private carriers to public financing. It is a typical inefficent third party federal entity run by comittee whose members are fraught with cross purposes. It has the head of a duck, the wings of a chicken and the body of a turkey. Save some tax money and put this Frankenstein to pasture. Do some federal revenue sharing from a rail transit fund as seperated from highway needs. Allocate these by annual funding requests with pre-established benchmarks by Regional or State Departments of Transportation. These, in turn either directly or contract with carriers to create operating entities. I love long distance trains but they need to go.

[Anonymous]

Maybe if the Dems regain some control they'll craft a political compromise and rename Amtrak something else. That way the Repubs can say they got rid of it and the Dems can say they saved it   I've always hated the name anyway.

My mom has this unfortunate habit of listening to talk radio and then calling me up and insisting they passed some critical legislation, when all that really happened was some sub-sub-committee voted to add it to some bill knowing full well it would die for the 200th time somewhere up the line.

I too sometimes wonder which party is which. Repubs also gave us the 55mph speed limit and mandatory seat belt laws, while 10 years ago the Dems allowed the big media companies to buy up all the small ones under the guise of deregulation.

BTW - although Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, he did sponsor and push through the bill that allows private citizens to access it. There is a great deal of concern from both the right and left that Net Neutrality will die in the upcoming lame duck session of Congress. This is an issue worth looking into and writing your representatives about.

[anb740]

I have just one question here....are those donuts from Krispy Kreme?  (and I take my coffee leaded with cream and sugar)