Next time I see Stan I have to congratulate him; he really knows how to get people talking. That said, having met Mr. Feinsod and having been present for his excellent presentation at the Railway Age conference I may say with confidence that a new era in transportation is dawning in this country. Already, the private passenger train operators carry more people than Amtrak each year with their numbers growing. The year is no longer 1960 and paradigms are changing. Mr. Feinsod was kind enough to give us a fore gleam into this future. Everyone else may read about it after-the-fact in the pages of Trains.
Next time I see Stan I have to congratulate him; he really knows how to get people talking.
That said, having met Mr. Feinsod and having been present for his excellent presentation at the Railway Age conference I may say with confidence that a new era in transportation is dawning in this country. Already, the private passenger train operators carry more people than Amtrak each year with their numbers growing. The year is no longer 1960 and paradigms are changing. Mr. Feinsod was kind enough to give us a fore gleam into this future. Everyone else may read about it after-the-fact in the pages of Trains.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Sam1 No matter where the discussion leads in our forums, no one wants to talk seriously about the $64 question. Well, actually, its a $15.3 trillion question at the federal level, plus another $2.5 trillion at the state and local level, not to mention $48 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Its call the debt problem. And it gives rise to this question. Were are we going to get the money for the grand schemes envisioned my some folks?
No matter where the discussion leads in our forums, no one wants to talk seriously about the $64 question. Well, actually, its a $15.3 trillion question at the federal level, plus another $2.5 trillion at the state and local level, not to mention $48 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Its call the debt problem. And it gives rise to this question. Were are we going to get the money for the grand schemes envisioned my some folks?
AND :
"The headline is also utter nonsense. Intercity Rail (Amtrak) is a government monopoly carrying on a business model that had clearly failed by 1960. I can not immagine any private operator being so stupid as to think they can make money on intercity passenger transportation anywhere in the US whether in "competition" with ATK or if given an exclusive franchise on one or more routes.."
Basically, what I am saying is that if these two statements, along with the worry about whether I am a capitalist or socialist, are at the forefront of any thought of planning our transportation infrastructure and service structure, then nothing can be accomplished. All is dead in the water or in its own tracks. Determine the needs, determine the mechanics, the benefits and the benefactors then design and plan it. Then allocate the costs as need be. If it is all private enterprise, fine. If it is all government, fine. If it is a combination of private enterprise and government, fine. But if you worry about the end before you determine the end product, you'll never get an answer or structure or plan from which to work. I think I know the answer will be a combination of private enterprise and governments; just like it has been in this country since 1776.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
This whole discussion is, and has been from the begining total nonsense. It started with no clear statement other than that some guy, who none of us seems to know anything about, said something Henry liked.
The headline is also utter nonsense. Intercity Rail (Amtrak) is a government monopoly carrying on a business model that had clearly failed by 1960. I can not immagine any private operator being so stupid as to think they can make money on intercity passenger transportation anywhere in the US whether in "competition" with ATK or if given an exclusive franchise on one or more routes..
Mac
D.Carleton Sam1: D.Carleton: Sam1: There may be some lessons in history, although I am doubtful that we learn from them. Which leaves history as an interesting topic for discussion as long as we recognize that most of it is irrelevant to solving today's problems. Please tell us this was written in the spirit of facetiousness. This reply makes no sense. Question answered, thank you.
Sam1: D.Carleton: Sam1: There may be some lessons in history, although I am doubtful that we learn from them. Which leaves history as an interesting topic for discussion as long as we recognize that most of it is irrelevant to solving today's problems. Please tell us this was written in the spirit of facetiousness. This reply makes no sense.
D.Carleton: Sam1: There may be some lessons in history, although I am doubtful that we learn from them. Which leaves history as an interesting topic for discussion as long as we recognize that most of it is irrelevant to solving today's problems. Please tell us this was written in the spirit of facetiousness.
Sam1: There may be some lessons in history, although I am doubtful that we learn from them. Which leaves history as an interesting topic for discussion as long as we recognize that most of it is irrelevant to solving today's problems.
Please tell us this was written in the spirit of facetiousness.
This reply makes no sense.
Question answered, thank you.
Don't misinterpret me. Your reply and the link make no sense.
Sam1 D.Carleton: Sam1: There may be some lessons in history, although I am doubtful that we learn from them. Which leaves history as an interesting topic for discussion as long as we recognize that most of it is irrelevant to solving today's problems. Please tell us this was written in the spirit of facetiousness. This reply makes no sense.
blue streak 1 PNWRMNM: Henry, You can answer one simple question. Do you favor free enterprise solutions or statist solutions. It is an either or question. Pick one. Mac I will address your question as you can take both sides. Why not let the class 1s take a tax abatment on all infrastructure and maintenance for HrSR that is passenger rail specific? Also meet the PRIIA on time goals with obvious mitigation of unforseen problems. This was the practice for many years on the GA RR ATL - Augusta although that was an unacceptable mixed train service. another question is how can this country get an integrated transportation system. The system that has come into service in Switzerland may be the closest to a template. That is you can drive or walk to a bus or light rail then take light rail to intercity train station in Zurich, Geneva , or other city and then reverse to final destination.It appears that France and Germany both are copying this type of service with inter country service also to SU. Now the UK is trying to so the same thing.
PNWRMNM: Henry, You can answer one simple question. Do you favor free enterprise solutions or statist solutions. It is an either or question. Pick one. Mac
Henry,
You can answer one simple question. Do you favor free enterprise solutions or statist solutions. It is an either or question. Pick one.
I will address your question as you can take both sides. Why not let the class 1s take a tax abatment on all infrastructure and maintenance for HrSR that is passenger rail specific? Also meet the PRIIA on time goals with obvious mitigation of unforseen problems. This was the practice for many years on the GA RR ATL - Augusta although that was an unacceptable mixed train service.
another question is how can this country get an integrated transportation system. The system that has come into service in Switzerland may be the closest to a template. That is you can drive or walk to a bus or light rail then take light rail to intercity train station in Zurich, Geneva , or other city and then reverse to final destination.It appears that France and Germany both are copying this type of service with inter country service also to SU. Now the UK is trying to so the same thing.
I am going to San Francisco next week. After getting my bag at the airport, I will take a short walk to the BART station, where I will board a train for the Civic Center station. I will walk back one or two blocks and jump on one of the Van Ness Avenue buses for a short ride to my hotel. I can do the same thing in New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington, Dallas, etc. My point? We have a lot more integration in public transport in the United States than many people realize.
D.Carleton Sam1: There may be some lessons in history, although I am doubtful that we learn from them. Which leaves history as an interesting topic for discussion as long as we recognize that most of it is irrelevant to solving today's problems. Please tell us this was written in the spirit of facetiousness.
PNWRMNM Henry, You can answer one simple question. Do you favor free enterprise solutions or statist solutions. It is an either or question. Pick one. Mac
Whether I do or don't has nothing to do with the solution or the planning and discussion of the transportation of the future. It is one of those items I maintain has to be ignored until after what is needed and how it will work is determined.
Sam1There may be some lessons in history, although I am doubtful that we learn from them. Which leaves history as an interesting topic for discussion as long as we recognize that most of it is irrelevant to solving today's problems.
But I hve answered your question. One, I stated that there is no magic involved. Two, and this has been my mantra for several years, is that the present and the past, politics and emotion, all have to be set aside and discussion centred around planning a transportation system from the start. What more can I say?
You have not answered my question.
Sam1 henry6: Actually Bluestreak states an understanding of the US problems in addressing transportation needs very well. We've got to put aside all concepts, precepts, history, "this is the way we've alway's done it"'s, how much is it gonna cost, who's gonna pay for its, etc. and say "what do we need, how does it work, what do we have to plan. It like the couple who wants to get married but is waiting until it is financially wise, etc. If you keep waiting, it will probably never happen but if you do it, you'll find a way to make it work. That is the way the US has to approach the issues of integrated, intermodal, transportation at this time. Find out what is needed, figure out the mechanics and logistics. Then ascertain and assign fiscal need appropriately as can be achieved. What's needed? The best way to make that determination is through markets where people have choices. Not bureaucrats in Washington and Austin deciding. What's needed? Just try to get consensus in a focus group. Or here is the analogy that I like. Put two transportation economists in a room and in a half hour you will have three different opinions on how to move forward with a transportation issue.
henry6: Actually Bluestreak states an understanding of the US problems in addressing transportation needs very well. We've got to put aside all concepts, precepts, history, "this is the way we've alway's done it"'s, how much is it gonna cost, who's gonna pay for its, etc. and say "what do we need, how does it work, what do we have to plan. It like the couple who wants to get married but is waiting until it is financially wise, etc. If you keep waiting, it will probably never happen but if you do it, you'll find a way to make it work. That is the way the US has to approach the issues of integrated, intermodal, transportation at this time. Find out what is needed, figure out the mechanics and logistics. Then ascertain and assign fiscal need appropriately as can be achieved.
Actually Bluestreak states an understanding of the US problems in addressing transportation needs very well. We've got to put aside all concepts, precepts, history, "this is the way we've alway's done it"'s, how much is it gonna cost, who's gonna pay for its, etc. and say "what do we need, how does it work, what do we have to plan. It like the couple who wants to get married but is waiting until it is financially wise, etc. If you keep waiting, it will probably never happen but if you do it, you'll find a way to make it work. That is the way the US has to approach the issues of integrated, intermodal, transportation at this time. Find out what is needed, figure out the mechanics and logistics. Then ascertain and assign fiscal need appropriately as can be achieved.
What's needed? The best way to make that determination is through markets where people have choices. Not bureaucrats in Washington and Austin deciding.
What's needed? Just try to get consensus in a focus group. Or here is the analogy that I like. Put two transportation economists in a room and in a half hour you will have three different opinions on how to move forward with a transportation issue.
I'd be happy if we could just get all federally funded transportation projects/operations held to the same standards for performance and funding.
Ever see a cost/benefit analysis for a highway project? Even a bad one would be better than none at all. Locally, $250 M was spent to replace a highway interchange. The primary stated goal was safety - the elimination of a left hand merge. In the previous 20 years the existing interchange was in place, there were ZERO fatalities. The new interchange is beautiful, but so is the Empire Builder - and neither are a particularly good allocation of scarce resources.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
There is no magic. What is needed is planning and ideas unencombered by politics, history, and practice.
henry6 Actually Bluestreak states an understanding of the US problems in addressing transportation needs very well. We've got to put aside all concepts, precepts, history, "this is the way we've alway's done it"'s, how much is it gonna cost, who's gonna pay for its, etc. and say "what do we need, how does it work, what do we have to plan. It like the couple who wants to get married but is waiting until it is financially wise, etc. If you keep waiting, it will probably never happen but if you do it, you'll find a way to make it work. That is the way the US has to approach the issues of integrated, intermodal, transportation at this time. Find out what is needed, figure out the mechanics and logistics. Then ascertain and assign fiscal need appropriately as can be achieved.
There are two ways this magic can be accomplished. Through a free or mostly free market, or by congress and the bureaucrats. Which do you want and why?
henry6 No, it doesn't matter, nothing really matters. And, no, we neverf learn from history or mistakes and only continiue our successes because it feels good. And the rhetoric is political when the main questions center around money and who's going to pay for it and how rather than what has to be done to make it work and us betterk how can we work it out.
No, it doesn't matter, nothing really matters. And, no, we neverf learn from history or mistakes and only continiue our successes because it feels good. And the rhetoric is political when the main questions center around money and who's going to pay for it and how rather than what has to be done to make it work and us betterk how can we work it out.
Identifying the problem, free of emotional rants, and developing solutions that work matters. It is called effective problem solving. And it is how successful businesses, as an example, stay in business. Nostalgia does little to identify the problem and nothing for the solution.
blue streak 1 Sam1: The key question is what is the role of passengers trains in the nation's transport mix? Nope: There is a much broader question that is not beiing addressed. "How can we most effectively get anyone or anything from any point A to any point B?" This calls for many metrics such as least time, least cost ( a very broad categorgy ) Going at convient time, comfort, impediments for people and freight going A to B, overnight considerations, upgrading infrastructure to improve the above, etc, etc. All the posts the last few years only scratch at the surface of this basic problem of definition. Just to cover the history of how the solutions have arrived would be a daunting task. Just take the decline in the 1920s due to the automobile and light trucks being faster than many short line RRs and interburbans. If they had been upgraded to faster speeds what then? Until there is a rational transportation policy the question is not answered. IMHO that is one major function of government. California has scratched the surface with its plans so far but has a long way to go.
Sam1: The key question is what is the role of passengers trains in the nation's transport mix?
The key question is what is the role of passengers trains in the nation's transport mix?
Nope: There is a much broader question that is not beiing addressed.
"How can we most effectively get anyone or anything from any point A to any point B?"
This calls for many metrics such as least time, least cost ( a very broad categorgy ) Going at convient time, comfort, impediments for people and freight going A to B, overnight considerations, upgrading infrastructure to improve the above, etc, etc.
All the posts the last few years only scratch at the surface of this basic problem of definition. Just to cover the history of how the solutions have arrived would be a daunting task.
Just take the decline in the 1920s due to the automobile and light trucks being faster than many short line RRs and interburbans. If they had been upgraded to faster speeds what then?
Until there is a rational transportation policy the question is not answered. IMHO that is one major function of government.
California has scratched the surface with its plans so far but has a long way to go.
I disagree.
The United States has had an evolving transport framework for transport since the beginning of the republic. It has shifted to accomodate new technologies and preferences, but it has served the nation well. Following WWII the emphasis was placed on highways and airways. That was what Americans wanted. And no it did not come about because of the highway or airway lobbys. As has been pointed out by others, Americans are not dupes. They understood straightaway that cars and airplanes were better options for most passenger transport, They also understood that trucks are better for many classes of freight than rail transport. To insinuate that Americans are dupes is an insult to them and to democracy.
The framework has generated arguably the best airway and highway systems in the world. Contrary to the comments of some of the people who post to these forums, the system is not falling apart. It is stretched at a the seems in some places, but they are being fixed. The greatest tribute to the system, however, is the extent to which the model, sans the rail piece, has been adopted in many other countries, although as I have said what they do in other countries has nothing to do with what we should or should not do in this country.
A framework, unlike a top down statist solution, i.e. centralized government generated plans that don't work in the long run because no one is smart enough to understand the big picture, allows lots of wiggle room. From time to time the framework needs to be corrected. This is the case with the question of where does passenger rail fit into the scheme. We know where cars, trucks, and airplanes fit into the picture. The question is where would passenger trains plug a hole that exists in the current picture. One does not need a start all over again picture from Washington to answer the question. Most grand schemes don't work. They collapse from their own bureaucratic weight. Just ask the Russians!
The federal government took control of the railroads in WWI. It was a disaster. Moreover, under a centralized regulator scheme, the ICC, as well as the FRA, exercised top down control over America's railroads. Centralized planning at its very best. As a result, because the bureaucrats did not get the picture, their policies, procedures, and practices nearly destroyed the railroads. Mercifully, at the stroke of midnight, Staggers saved the day. Centralized planning and rate setting were junked. The railroads were allowed to rationalized their system, i.e. abandoning thousands of miles of unused and underused track and shedding thousands of feather bedding employees. What was the result? Today America's major carriers have balance sheets and income statements that are the envy of the business community.
Sam1 The key question is what is the role of passengers trains in the nation's transport mix?
henry6 Amtrak's history is all published fact. Only the political interpretations and rants hide truths.
Amtrak's history is all published fact. Only the political interpretations and rants hide truths.
Does it really matter?
The key question is what is the role of passengers trains in the nation's transport mix? Today! And tomorrow! Not 50 or 60 or whatever number of years ago. What transport problem are we as a nation trying to solve and where is passenger rail the best solution? Who pays for it, what kind, how much, etc. are legitimate questions, but at the end of the day the history of how we got to this point does not really matter.
Oh, I majored in history and economics as an under graduate student at Penn State. And I have retained an interest in history ever since. There may be some lessons in history, although I am doubtful that we learn from them. Which leaves history as an interesting topic for discussion as long as we recognize that most of it is irrelevant to solving today's problems.
I don't know where the five-year notion came from. The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1971 locked Amtrak into its original routes until May 1, 1973 and the non-members had to maintain their existing service until May 1, 1975.
Schlimm, please note that I did not disallow the possibility of a "secret deal." What I objected to was the contention that the public and Congress were told at the time that Amtrak was for five years. That simply was not the case. You'll not find it even in Loving (whom I have also read).
fred: We may never know the truth of the beginnings of Amtrak. However, to dismiss the notion that there was a secret deal simply because you were not in the loop is no conclusive. After Fortune magazine exposed the manufactured mismanagement in 1974, Louis W. Menk, chairman of the Burlington Northern Railroad remarked that the story was undermining the scheme to dismantle Amtrak. Loving, Jr., Rush (March 2009). "Trains formula for fixing Amtrak". Trains.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
You bring out some interesting points about Amtrak legislation, how it had to be balanced to seem to help the big business freight railroads out of the passenger business, to keep operating unions, especially, placated about job losses, and to make the public feel they had passenger service and that it was a bargain for them. There were some railroaders and politicians who hoped the whole idea of passenger trains would fade away, that jet planes and big cars and evne trucks on the Eisenhower HIghways would so capture Americans so. It didn't happen; people still loved trains. They were needed to move people in crowded corridors. Even dying commuter trains got a new lease on life and services got more entrenched and expanded. That *** passenger train just wouldn't and won't go away. And it all ain't nostalgic either!
LNER4472 Amtrak itself was basically a "bag of goods" sold to Congress and the public: It was supposed to last five years. At least that's what legislators and the public heard. It was a "bail-out," not a never-ending annual operational outlay and further infrastructure and capital costs.
Amtrak itself was basically a "bag of goods" sold to Congress and the public: It was supposed to last five years. At least that's what legislators and the public heard. It was a "bail-out," not a never-ending annual operational outlay and further infrastructure and capital costs.
This is pure fabrication. I was a member in good standing of the "public" in the runup to Amtrak and an employee of a big passenger railroad. I promise you (and everybody else) there was no five-year talk for public consumption in those days, either from the Nixon administration or from Congress.
That may have been the covert plan of the Nixon administration, as claimed by some latter-day revelations; even a gentleman's agreement between the administration and a few key members of Congress (although I have seen no mention of that). But I'll bet you the store that most legislators never heard of it; there were enough friends of rail labor in Congress who would have screamed bloody murder.
Show us chapter and verse of "that's what legislators and the public heard." Or leave off your muddying of the waters.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.