blue streak 1 wrote:Other than car mile related costs, extra fuel, cleaning, sometimes an extra conductor why isn't all the out of service cars used to increase loads? That is an economies of scale return that Bush doesn't want. No increase in train miles makes sense for this in the short term. Again The better use of operative cars is also a necesity. ie using Carolinian cars on the Cresent from Charlotte - Wash and excess Palmeto cars on silver service Florence - Wash.
Two reasons why not. Neither have anything to do with Bush.
One is that the incremental cost is really pretty high - a couple bucks a car mile or so - particularly how Amtrak goes about their business.
The other is what's in it for Amtrak as a whole or the Amtrak employees? Do they get any extra pay? Does Amtrak get to keep the extra money to do new routes next year? No. All it gets them is extra work and effort and no benefit. Why bother? Would you - except out of the goodness of your heart?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
blue streak 1 wrote:AMTRAK CANNOT increase passenger miles very much. No equipment. Most trips are sold out two - three days before the trip. Last minute travelers would probably try the next time to go AMTRAK. Not increasing train miles would keep operating cost increases down. Maybe some commuter agencys could lease some of their equipment for short haul trips. (I hate this idea but the gas crisis is getting worse by the day. GA gas 3.79 - 3-92 gallon. A supplemental appropriation to add equipment through the whole supply chain is probably the only way to get this idea moving.
If the incremental revenue from adding cars to exisiting trains isn't enough to pay to put OOS Amfleet/Superliners back in service, then that's a sad commentary on the efficiency of Amtrak's operation - IMHO.
No supplemental $$ needed if you can pay for the work out of the revenue.
I suspect that the reason that European countries are so ahead of us in technology is because with the exception of defense contractors, Europeans spend their energy finding a way to do things, and we spend our energy finding reasons why we can't, or shouldn't do things.
Think about what Amtrak could acomplish with the money we spend on just one B2 bomber, or with just the money that we have lost track of in Iraq. Not what we are spending there, just the money that we have no idea where it went.
It's just a matter of priorities.
This is not intended to be a discussion on the Iraq war, but rather an attempt to point out that if Lockeed wants a 100 billion dollars to develop a new fighter jet, congress will write the check so fast it will leave friction burns under the pen, but if your particular city wants 10 million dollars to replace a bridge, it won't happen unless your local congressman slips it in as a "member item".
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
oltmannd:
Agree except you need the money up front. ie parts, salaries, extra utilities, etc. But every OOS car should be in beech grove or wilmington getting ready yesterday. Bet a supplemental appropriation for that would be vetoed. No politics but some people do not want AMTRAK to show a successful use and demand.
or with just the money that we have lost track of in Iraq
Er, reduce oil imports by about 1 percent (I am basing this on the budget of the Vision Report, their numbers on ridership/auto substitution in response to their proposed spending and also on their assumptions regarding energy savings with trains).
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
DMUinCT wrote: Well Phoebe Vet, your lucky. and so was I. I started my working years in 1955 at $1.95 an hour --- Gas was .17 cents per gallon. One hours pay bought 11 1/2 gallons of gas. My first NEW car cost $2,000. When I retired 47 years later with a six figure salary gas was about $2.50 a gallon. An hours pay would buy 23 gallons of gas. BUT what about today's Entry Level Employee? At $7 an hour he can't even buy 2 gallons of gas for an hour's labor. I will not pay to work if he must drive. Recessions/depressions start at the bottom of the income ladder and spread up.
Well Phoebe Vet, your lucky. and so was I.
I started my working years in 1955 at $1.95 an hour --- Gas was .17 cents per gallon. One hours pay bought 11 1/2 gallons of gas. My first NEW car cost $2,000. When I retired 47 years later with a six figure salary gas was about $2.50 a gallon. An hours pay would buy 23 gallons of gas.
BUT what about today's Entry Level Employee? At $7 an hour he can't even buy 2 gallons of gas for an hour's labor. I will not pay to work if he must drive. Recessions/depressions start at the bottom of the income ladder and spread up.
DMUinCT,
You analysis of the economic situation is SPOT ON!!!!
Samantha and others are looking from the point of view of already established mid-career professionals, not the vast middle that is struggling to make ends meet. Yes most people who take mass transit put up with or more accurately ignore the slight unpleasantries of fellow riders who have questionable hygiene and bad cellphone and iPod manners because mass transit is the best deal for our transportation dollar.
What do you do when the cost of a good brand new midsize, in reality compact, such as a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry cost as much as alot of people's annual income??? Kind of like when during the the Pennsylvania presidential primary debate Charlie Gibson thought making $200,000 a year makes you middle class.
blue streak 1 wrote: oltmannd:Agree except you need the money up front. ie parts, salaries, extra utilities, etc. But every OOS car should be in beech grove or wilmington getting ready yesterday. Bet a supplemental appropriation for that would be vetoed. No politics but some people do not want AMTRAK to show a successful use and demand.
Amtrak has access to the capital market and should be able to secure capital to do rehab work - provided it had a positive ROI.
I suspect that Amtrak does not do this now because the the incremental revenue DOESN'T cover the incremental costs. The utilization of the additional equipment is likely too low and Amtrak's costs of operation are too high.
GP40 wrote: DMUinCT wrote: Well Phoebe Vet, your lucky. and so was I. I started my working years in 1955 at $1.95 an hour --- Gas was .17 cents per gallon. One hours pay bought 11 1/2 gallons of gas. My first NEW car cost $2,000. When I retired 47 years later with a six figure salary gas was about $2.50 a gallon. An hours pay would buy 23 gallons of gas. BUT what about today's Entry Level Employee? At $7 an hour he can't even buy 2 gallons of gas for an hour's labor. I will not pay to work if he must drive. Recessions/depressions start at the bottom of the income ladder and spread up. DMUinCT,You analysis of the economic situation is SPOT ON!!!! Samantha and others are looking from the point of view of already established mid-career professionals, not the vast middle that is struggling to make ends meet. Yes most people who take mass transit put up with or more accurately ignore the slight unpleasantries of fellow riders who have questionable hygiene and bad cellphone and iPod manners because mass transit is the best deal for our transportation dollar. What do you do when the cost of a good brand new midsize, in reality compact, such as a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry cost as much as alot of people's annual income??? Kind of like when during the the Pennsylvania presidential primary debate Charlie Gibson thought making $200,000 a year makes you middle class.
The "vast middle" does not include people making $7/hr. That would be the low income group.
$200,000/yr household income would be at the upper edge of middle class, but it's still the middle. In the large cities, it's not unusual at all for a two income household to have an income at that level. Of course, that would be two adults with college educations....
I person making $7 /hr is stupid if he looks for housing 20 miles from his job! An stupider yet if he's out shopping for a new car.
In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,200.00 according to the US Census Bureau, the newest numbers I could find. That is a far cry from $200,000.
Only 19% of all households had incomes above $100,000.
I could not find a figure for percentage with incomes above $200,000 but I would bet it is a single digit.
20% of all households had incomes below $20,000.
Only the rich people in congress and the white house think $200,000 is middle class.
Phoebe Vet wrote: oltmannd:In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,200.00 according to the US Census Bureau, the newest numbers I could find. That is a far cry from $200,000.Only 19% of all households had incomes above $100,000.I could not find a figure for percentage with incomes above $200,000 but I would bet it is a single digit.20% of all households had incomes below $20,000.Only the rich people in congress and the white house think $200,000 is middle class.
The people with household income of $200,000 think they are upper middle class. I'm not one of them, but I would agree with them.
$7/hr puts you in the bottom 20% which is low income -agree?
$200,000 income in suburban NY or SF puts you in a 2000 sq ft home. Add in the other cost of living those areas and the tax burden - these folk are doing well, but certainly not what anyone would call "rich". These are the people next to you in line at Lowes or Macy's.
Transit may be cheaper, but it is heavily subsidized.
Boy, Paul:
Talk about missing the point.
I can only deduce from your reply that you feel only the rich deserve health care and cars.
Nowhere in my post did I say anything about taxing the rich to provide anything for the poor. I only pointed out that only delusional people think the $200,000 a year is middle class.
Your empathy for those making less than you is heartwarming. If only those poor people would stop wasting their money on food and rent, and use it go to college all would be well. You are aware, I presume, that college tuition is more than many people earn. If only those poor people would move into the city so they don't have to commute instead of living way out in the boondocks where they can actually afford the rent on that mobile home.
People driving 10 year old pickup trucks have to pay the same amount for gasoline as the rest of us.
The fact that my doctor makes over $200,000 is a good example why even large corporations can't afford to provide health insurance anymore.
We have gotten too far off topic.
Without conceeding, I withdraw.
I only pointed out that only delusional people think the $200,000 a year is middle class.
As to the original point of "Why US (Passenger) Trains Aren't Taking Off", that so many delusional people are part of the advocacy community or could be sympathetic to the cause may be part of the problem.
200k is middle class !?! lol, boy, I could use some of that "middle class".
Yes, that 200K is "middle class" is indeed risible.
But is it serious to be connecting passenger train advocacy and increasing Amtrak funding to increasing taxes on people starting at the level, who are increasingly an influential Democratic Party and no longer strictly Republican Party constituent group?
Mailman56701 wrote: 200k is middle class !?! lol, boy, I could use some of that "middle class".
If you believe 200k is middle class, I have a bridge to sell you.
My dad worked for the telephone company, middle (at the most) mgmt when he retired in the late 80's.
He made no where near 200k, even in late 80's dollars, and we were most definately middle class; nice house, two-three cars, kids in college, etc.
Give me 200k a year and I can assure you, my family won't be living "middle class.
Another beltway bimbo totally out of touch with reality.
Mailman56701 wrote: If you believe 200k is middle class, I have a bridge to sell you. My dad worked for the telephone company, middle (at the most) mgmt when he retired in the late 80's. He made no where near 200k, even in late 80's dollars, and we were most definately middle class; nice house, two-three cars, kids in college, etc. Give me 200k a year and I can assure you, my family won't be living "middle class. Another beltway bimbo totally out of touch with reality.
Most $200K households are dual income professionals. Engineers, right out of college these days, are getting $50-$60K, for example. I know a couple, one a chemical engr, one an electrical engr, mid 20's with a household income north of $150K. This is not abnormal. They drive used cars and live in an apartment. They have lots of student loans to pay back. No silver spoon in their mouths!
$100k today, adjusted for inflation, would have been $55K in 1988. Bet your dad made pretty close to that. If your mom had worked a similar job, then you'd have had $200,000 in 2008 bucks Q.E.D.
Which bridge? I think I'd like Hell Gate...
oltmannd wrote: Mailman56701 wrote: If you believe 200k is middle class, I have a bridge to sell you. My dad worked for the telephone company, middle (at the most) mgmt when he retired in the late 80's. He made no where near 200k, even in late 80's dollars, and we were most definately middle class; nice house, two-three cars, kids in college, etc. Give me 200k a year and I can assure you, my family won't be living "middle class. Another beltway bimbo totally out of touch with reality.Most $200K households are dual income professionals. Engineers, right out of college these days, are getting $50-$60K, for example. I know a couple, one a chemical engr, one an electrical engr, mid 20's with a household income north of $150K. This is not abnormal. They drive used cars and live in an apartment. They have lots of student loans to pay back. No silver spoon in their mouths!$100k today, adjusted for inflation, would have been $55K in 1988. Bet your dad made pretty close to that. If your mom had worked a similar job, then you'd have had $200,000 in 2008 bucks Q.E.D.Which bridge? I think I'd like Hell Gate...
My mom never worked a day in her life. And 100k doesn't equal 200k, and thats even assuming your inflation math is correct.
You're welcome to your bridge. As I said, give me 200k, and I most definately won't be living middle class.
We're doing that, quite comfortably, on much, much less.
My politically-incorrect thoughts, however, don't really have much effect on the fundamentals of why US passenger trains aren't taking off.
Paul:
I can save you a lot of ink.
Just write "I've got mine, and therefore believe that anyone who isn't in my tax bracket just isn't trying".
You have to love people who are born on third base and think they have hit a tripple.
I hope for your sake that life never pulls the rug out from under you.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: My mom never worked a day in her life. Any stay-at-home mom reading this thread might want to jump in here. I don't know if your dad's salary paid for a full-time nanny, housekeeper, and a bunch of other jobs, and maybe your mom indeed never worked a day, but if you ever advance beyond advocacy circles to a broader political arena, one needs to be careful about saying such things.If you think that a 200K AGI (note I said AGI - taxes come off that gross) would put you on Easy Street and that you could afford substantial increases in your taxes to help pay for health care, education, transportation infrastructure, more trains for the rest of us, you are welcome to your opinion. On the other hand, a lot of people think that 200K makes them "rich" and that they have a lot of financial freedom to fulfil long-held dreams and ambitions at that income level, and they find themselves spending every dollar they make and then some through credit terms.As Don Oltmann pointed out, a lot of people with that kind of AGI are dual-income families, many of them living in large cities where professional jobs pay that scale, and many of them with sky-high housing expenses for meager quarters (think California, East Coast, even Chicago real estate prices).The reason I am beating this dead horse is that in large measure, passenger trains, whether transit or Amtrak, means some kind of subsidy and some kind of taxes on everyone to support the subset of everyone able and willing to take the train. There is enormous frustration in the advocacy community that "the politicians" or "the people" or whoever don't have the "political will" to "adequately fund trains", and that some of our trading partners are doing this makes it a "national shame." These words are not just selected quotes from this forum -- I hear these words constantly and repeatedly in bricks-and-morter advocacy circles. There is constant talk in our local advocacy group about the "tax cuts on the rich" and how that and a lot of expenditure side items have "left trains with nothing."All I am saying is that if you think households at or above 200K constitute a "rich" social class, with disposable income to tax at will for worthy social causes, including trains, well, you are welcome to your opinions and I wish you success getting funding for trains following the Huey Long social envy route.
My mom never worked a day in her life.
Any stay-at-home mom reading this thread might want to jump in here. I don't know if your dad's salary paid for a full-time nanny, housekeeper, and a bunch of other jobs, and maybe your mom indeed never worked a day, but if you ever advance beyond advocacy circles to a broader political arena, one needs to be careful about saying such things.
If you think that a 200K AGI (note I said AGI - taxes come off that gross) would put you on Easy Street and that you could afford substantial increases in your taxes to help pay for health care, education, transportation infrastructure, more trains for the rest of us, you are welcome to your opinion. On the other hand, a lot of people think that 200K makes them "rich" and that they have a lot of financial freedom to fulfil long-held dreams and ambitions at that income level, and they find themselves spending every dollar they make and then some through credit terms.
As Don Oltmann pointed out, a lot of people with that kind of AGI are dual-income families, many of them living in large cities where professional jobs pay that scale, and many of them with sky-high housing expenses for meager quarters (think California, East Coast, even Chicago real estate prices).
The reason I am beating this dead horse is that in large measure, passenger trains, whether transit or Amtrak, means some kind of subsidy and some kind of taxes on everyone to support the subset of everyone able and willing to take the train. There is enormous frustration in the advocacy community that "the politicians" or "the people" or whoever don't have the "political will" to "adequately fund trains", and that some of our trading partners are doing this makes it a "national shame." These words are not just selected quotes from this forum -- I hear these words constantly and repeatedly in bricks-and-morter advocacy circles. There is constant talk in our local advocacy group about the "tax cuts on the rich" and how that and a lot of expenditure side items have "left trains with nothing."
All I am saying is that if you think households at or above 200K constitute a "rich" social class, with disposable income to tax at will for worthy social causes, including trains, well, you are welcome to your opinions and I wish you success getting funding for trains following the Huey Long social envy route.
I never said that anyone making 200k has disposable income to tax at will, etc., etc.
Also, if anyone making 200k a year is having problems making ends meet, they need to take a serious look at their lifestyle/spending choices.
Especially the example given earlier of a couple in their 20's, who I assume don't even have kids.
http://www.charlotte.com/breaking_news/story/653619.html
From today's paper.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.