daveklepper I think the comparison with the local library is useful and informative . A transcontinental train trip for those who have not done it already is quite an education in the geography, economy, and even the population of the United States. an education that can also be had with far greater discomfort by a transcontinental bus trip. or possibly as a passenger, but not a driver, on a transcontinental auto trip. And, continuing the comparison, only a minority of the people in a given location use the public library, actually a very small minority. (Geting to know the population is helped by friendly conversations with new friends in the dining and lounge cars.) Further, is the public library really necessary with Google and the Internet and Wikepedia? I think it is. And most people in a neighborhood would agree: I may never use it but I would fight to keep it open.
I think the comparison with the local library is useful and informative . A transcontinental train trip for those who have not done it already is quite an education in the geography, economy, and even the population of the United States. an education that can also be had with far greater discomfort by a transcontinental bus trip. or possibly as a passenger, but not a driver, on a transcontinental auto trip. And, continuing the comparison, only a minority of the people in a given location use the public library, actually a very small minority. (Geting to know the population is helped by friendly conversations with new friends in the dining and lounge cars.) Further, is the public library really necessary with Google and the Internet and Wikepedia? I think it is. And most people in a neighborhood would agree:
I may never use it but I would fight to keep it open.
A public library is not a commercial enterprise. It does not sell (commercialize) information, i.e. books, music, internet services, etc. as a regular line of business. Amtrak is a commercial enterprise. It competes with airlines, bus companies, personal vehicles, etc. Comparing the two is to compare apples and oranges.
It is in the "public interest" is used by every proponent of an activity or cause that cannot sustain itself in the market place. If the users won't pay for it, lets fob it off on the taxpayers. Whether its Amtrak, subsidized crop insurance, public power, symphony orchestras, etc., it is only a little bit more money and it is in the public interest is the clarion call of those seeking to raid the public trough.
Amtrak is not the worst example. The owners of the professional sports teams in Texas, at least, have used the public interest argument to wring billions of dollars out of local taxpayers to build sports venues. Many of the taxpayers cannot afford to attend the sporting events played in the public interest venues or have no interest in doing so.
It is in the public interest is one of the reasons, albeit not the only reason, why the U.S. national debt is more than $15 trillion. This figure does not include massive unfunded federal liabilities or state and local debt.
Sam1 A public library is not a commercial enterprise. Most of its clients cannot afford to buy books from Amazon or Barnes & Noble or whoever.
A public library is not a commercial enterprise. Most of its clients cannot afford to buy books from Amazon or Barnes & Noble or whoever.
Although I agree with you and Paul M. concerning the lack of wisdom in continuing long distance passenger rail services, your comment about public libraries displays a lack of knowledge suggesting you are out of touch with that aspect of American life.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I visit our local public library two or three times a week. A better name for it would be public information center, since many of the people who go there use the library's computers or other information sources as opposed to checking out a book.
If Amtrak had not operated its long distance passenger trains in FY2010, it would have had avoidable cost of $575.5 million before depreciation and interest. Outside of the NEC Amtrak's depreciation and embedded interest is relatively low. These items apply only to its equipment, which in most instances is fully depreciation or nearly so. The savings during the first year of discontinuance would be less than the potential savings because of severance packages and associated discontinuance costs.
Moreover, if Amtrak had increased its average ticket price by $12.95 for its short corridor services, or $7.41 spread across the NEC and short corridor services, it would have broken even before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges, assuming application of the NEC operating profit to the short corridor losses. And Amtrak would have begun to look like a real business.
Libraries do compete with commercial book stores that sell and rent books and with profit-making internet suppliers. I think the comparison of long distance Amtrak trains with libraries is a useful comparison that makes sense. It does not make sense to compare with a horse and buggy, because the horse and buggy could not provide a comfortable and civilized way of learning about the geography and population of the USA, which Amtrak long distance trains can and do. The horse and buggy might better be compared with the book store before Guttenberg invented the printing press!
Sam1 Moreover, if Amtrak had increased its average ticket price by $12.95 for its short corridor services, or $7.41 spread across the NEC and short corridor services, it would have broken even before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges, assuming application of the NEC operating profit to the short corridor losses. And Amtrak would have begun to look like a real business.
That really puts things in perspective. I don't think Amtrak necessarily needs to look like a business, but it does need to efficiently serve the greatest number of people in ways that make sense. That means serving the NEC and other short corridors, including others to be developed, not wasting large somes of money on running LD trains that serve few.
schlimm Sam1: Moreover, if Amtrak had increased its average ticket price by $12.95 for its short corridor services, or $7.41 spread across the NEC and short corridor services, it would have broken even before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges, assuming application of the NEC operating profit to the short corridor losses. And Amtrak would have begun to look like a real business. That really puts things in perspective. I don't think Amtrak necessarily needs to look like a business, but it does need to efficiently serve the greatest number of people in ways that make sense. That means serving the NEC and other short corridors, including others to be developed, not wasting large somes of money on running LD trains that serve few.
Sam1: Moreover, if Amtrak had increased its average ticket price by $12.95 for its short corridor services, or $7.41 spread across the NEC and short corridor services, it would have broken even before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges, assuming application of the NEC operating profit to the short corridor losses. And Amtrak would have begun to look like a real business.
Did anyone read the Trains blurb (http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2011/12/Amtraks%20management%20buyouts%20take%20effect.aspx) a few days ago about their layoffs? Mostly, it went on about how they needed to back fill safety related jobs. It used the Cal Zephyr's road foreman as an example. What struck me was that there were THREE road foreman's jobs just between Chicago and Salt Lake City! Three of them - for 1600 route miles, one train a day. That's 2 road train crew starts per road foreman per day. As a benchmark, NS has more than 6 times the road crew starts per day per road foreman - and that's not counting locals the guys also have to supervise!
Why are the LD trains such losers? This is just another small example....
Solutions? Make the Road Foreman jobs travelling jobs and have them cover more territory. How about one road foreman for Chicago to Denver and Chicago to Havre. All BNSF. That would get the total close to the NS average. It's more for them to know, but, hey, they are getting paid a good nickel.
Or, pay the BNSF to handle the road foreman work on a contract basis.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
This greatest number of users is a lot of nonsence. The school kid who once in a lifetime crosses the USA by rail and thus gets to the country first hand at an early age is just as important as the daily Baltimore to Washington commuter who works for the Federal Government and saves money by not using his car. Ditto the wounded veteran with his yearly trip Alber=querque - Dallas via Chicago. Much of this discussion has been purely done from an accountants point of view with complete lack of understanding of exactly what long distance trains really mean to the USA today.
Providing an opportunity for heart-warming anecdotes, as inspiring as they are, cannot be the basis for running a passenger train service. Whether run by the government or by private enterprise, serving large numbers of people is the essential criterion.
Right, but ridership figures distort the picture. In my book the person who uses Amtrak twice going and coming on vacation is just as important as the corridor user who has a daily commute. And the annual subsdidy for the vacationer is obviously a lot smaller than an Amtrak daily commuter.
But I will agree, corridors are for transportation, long distance trains are for Americam civilization, like National Parks and Public Libraries. And they are just as important.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.