http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/frank-n-wilner/attacks-on-amtrak-serve-no-public-purpose.html?channel=&utm_source=WhatCounts+Publicaster+Edition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Bombardier+Skytrain+to+debut+next+week%3b+more+Sandy+relief+funds+released&utm_content=Full+Blog
c%c
Railway Age got it right.
agree
Great article! I especially agreed with the idea that if passenger rail should not get any Federal money, neither should car and plane transport.
Are there any stipulations in the enabling legislation for the Interstate System, Air Traffic Control System, or Inland Waterway System - that require those systems to 'turn a profit', such as has been written into the legistlation that enabled Amtrak?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDAre there any stipulations in the enabling legislation for the Interstate System, Air Traffic Control System, or Inland Waterway System - that require those systems to 'turn a profit', such as has been written into the legistlation that enabled Amtrak?
Are you kidding?
PS. I cannot find in the enabling legislation any requirement that Amtrak shall make a profit.. Do you know of any such reference?
Here you are, easily found through Google.
SEC. 301. CREATION OF THE CORPORATION.There is authorized to be created a National Railroad PassengerCorporation. The Corporation shall be a for profit corporation [my emphasis], thepurpose of which shall be to provide intercity rail passenger service, employing innovative operating and marketing concepts so as to fullydevelop the potential of modern rail service in meeting the Nation'sintercity passenger transportation requirements. The Corporation willnot be an agency or establishment of the United States Government.
https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/91-518/00005088.pdf
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
tomtom76 Great article! I especially agreed with the idea that if passenger rail should not get any Federal money, neither should car and plane transport.
I know that sounds like a good rationale for Amtrak's subsidy, but the reality is the subsidy per passenger mile for intercity travel has Amtrak at a 10:1 disadvantage. If we did away with all intercity passenger travel subsidies, air and auto travel would get just a bit more expensive, but Amtrak LD train fares would have to double.
Also, remember a good bit of the subsidy for air is balanced by taxes on tickets and a good bit of the highway subsidy is balanced by the fuel tax.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Quite right. Amtrak was created as a "for profit corporation." This does not say Amtrak will make a profit. It doesn't even say Amtrak is intended to make a profit. If refers only to the nature of the corporate structure. The title of section 301 is "CREATION OF THE CORPORATION." That refers to the way Amtrak is structured in the law rather than what it is intended to do. The title is helpful in understanding the section.
oltmannd know that sounds like a good rationale for Amtrak's subsidy, but the reality is the subsidy per passenger mile for intercity travel has Amtrak at a 10:1 disadvantage.
But Don, some people would argue that Amtrak's subsidy is comparable to highway subsidies. Consider for example this information from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/11/road-v-rail
The article considers not only the direct outlay for Amtrak but also a lot of externalities. You may disagree with the externalities but they do need to be addressed.
Finally, the last line of the article is worth considering. We need to look at the benefits we get from Amtrak in a decision about whether or not to keep it.
John
What if Amtrak had been set up by the federal government like the Federal Barge Line was in 1920?
http://www.encyclopediadubuque.org/index.php?title=FEDERAL_BARGE_
http://www.littleriverbooks.com/chap13.htm
But a barge line is quite different from a railroad. Barges operate on rivers and rivers are by an large free. Even where we build canals to connect them the canals connect free bodies of water. When we have all this transportation available why should we go to the expense of putting down a railroad?
SEC. 303. GENERAL POWERS OF THE CORPORATION.The Corporation is authorized to own, manage, operate, or contract for the operation of intercity trams operated for the purpose ofproviding modern, efficient, intercity transportation of passengers, andto carry mail and express on such trains, to conduct research anddevelopment related to its mission; and to acquire by construction,purchase, or gift, or to contract for the use of, physical facilities,equipment, and devices necessan to rail passenger operations. TheCorporation shall, consistent with prudent management of the affairsof the Corporation, call upon railroads to provide the employees necssary to the operation and maintenance of its passenger trains and tothe performance of all work incidental thereto, to theextent the railroads are able to provide such employees and servicesin an economic and efficient manner.
Of course, JWR's reading of this clause will also be the opposite the way it is written.
TITLE VI—FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCESEC 601. FEDERAL GRANTS.There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary in fiscalyear 1971, §10,000,000 to remain available until exhausted, for payment to the Corporation for the purpose of assisting in—(1) the initial organization and operation of the Corporation:(2) the establishment of improved reservations systems andadvertising;(3) servicing, maintenance, and repair of railroad passengerequipment;(4) the conduct of research and development and demonstration programs respecting new mil passengerservices;(5) the development and demonstration of improved rollingstock: and(6) essential fixed facilities for the operation of passengertrains on lines and routes included in the basic system over whichno through passenger trains are being operated at the time ofenactment of this Act, including necessary track connectionsbetween lines of the same or different railroads.
John WR oltmannd know that sounds like a good rationale for Amtrak's subsidy, but the reality is the subsidy per passenger mile for intercity travel has Amtrak at a 10:1 disadvantage. But Don, some people would argue that Amtrak's subsidy is comparable to highway subsidies. Consider for example this information from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/11/road-v-rail The article considers not only the direct outlay for Amtrak but also a lot of externalities. You may disagree with the externalities but they do need to be addressed. Finally, the last line of the article is worth considering. We need to look at the benefits we get from Amtrak in a decision about whether or not to keep it. John
oltmanndA major chunk of "highway" driving is commuting, not intercity transport. No doubt rush hour travel in urban areas is what contributes most to the external costs (crashes, pollution, etc.)
The interstate highway system is very large. Certainly, especially around cities, rush hour commuting contributes to the traffic. It could be helpful to have some actual data on how much.
However, it is not clear to me that rush hour commuting adds significantly to crashes or pollution per person mile traveled. No doubt there is more pollution and more accidents at these times but there is also a lot more people using the highway to account for them. Even if we pulled out all of the commuters it might not make much of a difference to the per person mile statistics.
I do suspect maintenance costs for highways per person mile are highest in rural areas because relatively few people use those highways and a lot of maintenance problems arise because of deterioration even though the highways get less actual wear.
John WRI do suspect maintenance costs for highways per person mile are highest in rural areas because relatively few people use those highways and a lot of maintenance problems arise because of deterioration even though the highways get less actual wear.
The percentage of truck traffic is higher. Impact on highway structure is a function of axle loading to the 5th power.
As for pollution...the impact is greatest in areas where the air quality is low. I-70 has to have a near zero effect on health in rural Kansas. There is only a minute change in air quality and there is no one there for it to effect.
oltmanndThe percentage of truck traffic is higher. Impact on highway structure is a function of axle loading to the 5th power.
I certainly agree that trucks degrade highways far more than cars do. But that leads to another analysis which is really more than I can handle right now.
John WR I certainly agree that trucks degrade highways far more than cars do. But that leads to another analysis which is really more than I can handle right now.
John WR oltmanndThe percentage of truck traffic is higher. Impact on highway structure is a function of axle loading to the 5th power. I certainly agree that trucks degrade highways far more than cars do. But that leads to another analysis which is really more than I can handle right now.
The implication is that cars are cross subsidizing trucks on the intercity portion of the interstate network. It is likely that, absent trucks, the interstate highways might be self sufficient on the existing federal gas tax.
blue streak 1 John WR I certainly agree that trucks degrade highways far more than cars do. But that leads to another analysis which is really more than I can handle right now. John just look at the no truck roads in the New York area. Some have gone 40+ years wih no major pavement repairs.
Or, in NJ, the "non toll section" of the GSP Parkway from the Turnpike up towards Newark. No trucks. Original concrete lasted from the early 1950s into the 1980s.
blue streak 1John just look at the no truck roads in the New York area. Some have gone 40+ years wih no major pavement repairs.
Streak,
I live a few miles from the Garden State Parkway (exit 154). Within 20 miles in either direction is at least one place where lanes are shut down for road work. But I don't know that this is repairs; more likely it is to widen the highway. So all things considered, I'll take your word for it.
But what we are talking about here is an analysis that argues on the whole the society contributes just as much to roads as it does not Amtrak on a per passenger mile basis although the direct costs of Amtrak are more.
oltmanndThe implication is that cars are cross subsidizing trucks on the intercity portion of the interstate network. It is likely that, absent trucks, the interstate highways might be self sufficient on the existing federal gas tax.
Don,
As I think about it I would contend the issue is whether or not road users have a greater claim on society's resources than Amtrak uses or, for that matter, freight rail users. I don't see that using social resources to haul freight over the roads or to commute to work really makes a lot of difference.
JohnWR: I don't remember all and it may be changed now but when I was in New York state any road called a parkway was plackarded as no trucks. Now buses were allowed on some but some that I remember were Grand Central
Grand Central., Jackie Robinson,`Hutchinson, Sawmill, Bronx, Merrit ( ? ) Of cours some may have changed but last time on them they had original pavements for the most part except where there was some weather damage.
I live in New Jersey, not New York, and while I have a general sense of New York it isn't like I drive there every month. However I understand as you do that park ways do not allow trucks on them. I have driven on the Merit Parkway; its lanes are quite narrow and I doubt it could accommodate a large truck or even a large bus.
Today buses do operate on the Garden State Parkway. Trucks are prohibited and do not operate there. The northern section of the New Jersey Turnpike has 2 roads in each direction. One is restricted to cars; The other is for trucks although cars can drive on it too.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.