I didn't get my trains maz for july yet. I can't wait to read about Amtrak.
conrailman I didn't get my trains maz for july yet. I can't wait to read about Amtrak.
Sign up for the digital version, and you will get it the first of every month. That's how I get mine and, as I have posted in another thread, I love it. Took an issue or two to get use to the format and how to navigate it, but it is a winner. I canceled the chopped tree version.
Here is another benefit if you have young children or grand children. They will think that you are absolutely cool if you read it on-line.
Sam1 conrailman: I didn't get my trains maz for july yet. I can't wait to read about Amtrak. Sign up for the digital version, and you will get it the first of every month. That's how I get mine and, as I have posted in another thread, I love it. Took an issue or two to get use to the format and how to navigate it, but it is a winner. I canceled the chopped tree version. Here is another benefit if you have young children or grand children. They will think that you are absolutely cool if you read it on-line.
conrailman: I didn't get my trains maz for july yet. I can't wait to read about Amtrak.
I sometime spend too much time on the Computer, i don't want to read a 70 pg plus maz.. I love the Paper stuff in my hands every month in the mail.
I think those of us who have known Boardman were very excited and expected a lot from him. He is capable, very capable. But what I was afraid of Frailey alludes to for Boardman and others: having to deal with Congress. Boardman, perhaps, understands that you can't plan but rather must react because of Congress. He doens't have a plan because he knows he can't have one and not get bogged down with political assults that would slow down if not erase any program. By Frailey's own statements, Boardman has had many successes, his plans are working. The other half of Congress is the Republican business wing in the form of big business railroads like UP, CSX, etc. Boardman is playing their game as well. If it is not discussed, planned, or otherwise in public, then nothing can be said or done to negate it. I get the impression that Boardman is playing his cards extremely close to the vest, something both big business and Washington is not used to doing nor not used to seeing in a D.C. based job. In a world of micromanagers and millions of opinions, I think Joe Boardman is working the crowd(s) very well after all. And I think Frailey gives him is just due. Boardman is probably the first Amtrak president to not make headlines, thus he does not make many waves. Frailey lists his accomplishment and his program, all a lot more than I had been led to believe by newsmedia and political statements. Boardman's accomplishments, so far, appear to be more in line with what I expected than what I have been told they are. And I don't think Boardman hold any ill toward Frailey nor can he. As for Frailey himself, I must congratulate him on writing a very fair and balanced article, something most American don't see very often in any medium.
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.
I have not yet read the article, perhaps it will come today, but I think you have given a fair and accurate appraisal. I also think Boardman is doing the very best job possible under very difficult circumstances, considering the possibility of Romney as President and what he has said about Amtrak. (Amtrak may not be the major issue in determining whom I vote for, and I do not wish this to become a political discussion. I just wish to remind everyone that if Romney should become President, hopefully Boardman will be able to educate him as to some facts about Amtrak, specifically that the subsidy for Amtrak on the per journey basis is far less than any other rail passenger service in North America and less than the vast majority of urban bus systems as well.) I think if that case, passenger advocates may consider ourselves lucky it is Boardman that has to deal with the situation.
Let just hope for the best for Amtrak.
daveklepper I just wish to remind everyone that if Romney should become President, hopefully Boardman will be able to educate him as to some facts about Amtrak, specifically that the subsidy for Amtrak on the per journey basis is far less than any other rail passenger service in North America and less than the vast majority of urban bus systems as well.) I think if that case, passenger advocates may consider ourselves lucky it is Boardman that has to deal with the situation.
I just wish to remind everyone that if Romney should become President, hopefully Boardman will be able to educate him as to some facts about Amtrak, specifically that the subsidy for Amtrak on the per journey basis is far less than any other rail passenger service in North America and less than the vast majority of urban bus systems as well.) I think if that case, passenger advocates may consider ourselves lucky it is Boardman that has to deal with the situation.
Are we going to educate Mr. Romney that .1 percent of U.S. passenger miles take place on Amtrak and that if Amtrak were gone, rather than the apocalypse of pollution and congestion that few would notice its absence?
This thing about educating politicians is that the case in favor of trains is not self-evident and an immediate near-term crisis if we don't have them. The favoring of trains vs the not favoring of trains involves values, and in advocating for trains, I think there needs to be some recognition that not everyone shares our values with respect to the metrics by which we assign importance to trains. We can speak to the advantages of trains, why we like trains, make the public aware of trains, but there will be people who don't much care for them: such people are not evil, the are not stupid, and in many cases they are not ignorant; they simply assign different values to different things.
When I worked literature tables at model train shows in advocacy of passenger trains, people would come up to me, people with enough interest in railroading to spend bucks to get into the model train exhibition, and tell me of their opposition to trains. I didn't argue, I didn't scold, I didn't attempt to educate. I thanked them for expressing their views on the matter and explained that part of what I was doing was promoting public awareness of passenger trains as a public choice, and that both sides, pro and con, needed to be heard as part of the political process because yes, getting the train would require public money.
So why am I arguing, scolding, attempting to educate advocacy people? It is because I believe that the advocacy community is stuck in neutral advancing the cause of passenger 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?
Paul, I think I understand your frustration...but it isn't going to go away until we stop thinking our father's and grandfather's choo choo's. To replicate the past is suicidal in so many ways. We've got to learn and educate in modern terms of usablity, economics, envornment, and stress management understanding over congestion of roads, high costs of fuels (and their scarceties), best land and air usage, enviornmental impact on land and water and inhabitants other than human. The view of what rail services, especially passenger services, is skewed by memory and tourist lines, unfortunately. I laud the saving of a line or an engine or car or station or what have you. But when masked men pull up on horses and invade the cars and take the loot; when grandpa waxes nostalgic of the good old days, when every sentence begins with, "Trains used to..." or "We used to..." or "The way it used to be..." I cringe knowing that railroads, trains, especially passenger trains, are being put in the trash barrel of the past and not the recyle barrel of the present and future; it make it difficult for planners and politicians to make their case for the train. Advocacy people get it as wrong as the 30 year old who never rode a train and takes his five or ten year old on a toursit line ride. We don't teach progressive history...if there even is such a thing...but history as something we did or happened in the way distant past and should be forgotten.
The ability to see North America in comfort for internal and foreign tourism, the need for a back-up transportation system, and retention of the ability of the handicaped and elderly to access the continent remain, for me, the best argumentns for retaining long distance trains. C orrdior investment and subsidy are other matters and pay off in reducing the need for additional land and additional construction to expand highways and airports. A national route structure should give a sence to all Americans, even those that never use the trains and consider them only as emergency back-up, a snesse that they are getting something for their subsidy dollars. These are arguments for today, not for nostalgia.
I agree he damned him with faint praise, for sure.
The re-org, the Sunset deal, the lack of gumption in trying to reduce labor costs.
He also made it sound like he worsened moral in an organization that wasn't very motivated to begin with. His description of how and why Amtrak lost commuter contracts - basically Amtrak local mgt. just didn't care - was particularly telling.
Frailey did a good job of explaining Amtrak's current economic condition, showing, once again, the problem of the LD trains.
A good leader would lay out for the employees exactly what the company is, what it's trying to do, and how it plans on getting there. There some of this going on, but is sounds rather scattershot and isolated.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Here in Chicagoland CSX has been running ads promoting the facts that it is cheaper to ship by Train
and very few gallons of fuel are used per mile traveled. Also what we need to look at are why the
the Europeans support their rail services and it seems so natural for them to take trains in their
travels both business, leisure, and holiday. Whenever I visit in Germany, Italy, England and France
I always come away excited asking myself why we don't do it here in "The States'. We have so much
potential. I think it would be good to look at what is being done right in Europe and what is
going on here. I don't understand why the (R's) do what they can to destroy rail travel I don't get it>
I think the power of "The Unions"and its gangster like stranglehold on commerce and the
the transportation system in the USA has something to do with it
Aside from vast geographical differences between the US and Europe, the key reason seems to be an unwillingness to use tax money to build up a modern network of rail services and to continually support it. Subsidies for trains are regarded as "un-American" or even "socialistic", whereas subsidies for airports and highways are truly "American" - whatever this is.
Yes, I agree to you - the US have a great potential for state-of-the-art trains , but it requires a change in thinking and politicians with a slightly longer vision then just 4 years.
Sir Madog Aside from vast geographical differences between the US and Europe, the key reason seems to be an unwillingness to use tax money to build up a modern network of rail services and to continually support it. Subsidies for trains are regarded as "un-American" or even "socialistic", whereas subsidies for airports and highways are truly "American" - whatever this is. Yes, I agree to you - the US have a great potential for state-of-the-art trains , but it requires a change in thinking and politicians with a slightly longer vision then just 4 years.
For the amount of tax money Amtrak receives, the taxpayers get very little value - and Amtrak's mgt does not seem to care much. In fact, they seem to spend quite a bit of time trying to shore up their entrenched position rather than actually improve or provide needed service.
oltmannd Any way you'd like to count it, the subsidy per passenger for the long distance trains is obscene - and Amtrak has never been particularly motivated to do anything about it. The only time the do or try anything is when Congress gets on their back. For the amount of tax money Amtrak receives, the taxpayers get very little value - and Amtrak's mgt does not seem to care much. In fact, they seem to spend quite a bit of time trying to shore up their entrenched position rather than actually improve or provide needed service.
Any way you'd like to count it, the subsidy per passenger for the long distance trains is obscene - and Amtrak has never been particularly motivated to do anything about it. The only time the do or try anything is when Congress gets on their back.
Not trying to be a smart aleck, Don, but I'd really like to know what Amtrak could have done differently (aside from all those new baggage and baggage-dorm cars!).
Amtrak has neither the political power to abandon the long-distance routes (as some here advocate) nor the money to increase frequencies over the routes and provide a real "service" (as others want). I suppose it could shed the sleepers and go back to sandwiches and plastic in the dining cars, but then you're running buses on rails and still losing money, if not quite so much.
This being an imperfect world -- "What the heck, I'll take it anyway," as Hobbes said to Calvin, in the comic strip -- I'll take Amtrak as it is, warts and all. Its cost? Give me a break. Washington spills more than that 365 days of the year -- before noon.
b[quote user="SantaFeJoe"]
Here in Chicagoland CSX has been running ads promoting the facts that it is cheaper to ship by Train CSX, BNSF, and NS do advertise on radio, tv, and papers nationally and escpecially in markets where there are key businesses or key congressional seats.
going on here. You can put most of Europe into the Northeast corner of the US, it is compact, cities close together, and a variety of geography to match. Rail and high speed rail is often a better choice for travel than air and even for highway. There are four lanes like our Interstate system but not as dense.
I don't understand why the (R's) do what they can to destroy rail travel I don't get it>
Sorry about the statement about Unions. I didn't want the discussion to to move toward Unions .I do agree they have helped in the past to improve many things for workers and working place safety.
I do challenge you about fuel resources. Are you aware here in the USA we have vast crude oil reserves.
Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years!!!! We have more oil than all of the arab states combined. In addition oil is a renewable resource!!!!!!!! Many of the oil wells that were thought to have been pumped dry have new crude in them. We are awash in oil. It is a great fuel and hundreds of years of resources that can be potentially be used. In that time I am sure we can find alternatives BUT we derive so many benefits from oil that contribute so much to our way of life. Trains lead the way in using continually more fuel efficient engines. We have all kinds of technology that make exhaust emissions almost minimal.
***
I do think gov't has a role in promoting the common good of our nation and it should subsidize railservice to a degree that allows passenger service to exist. Out in California the passenger service that services the state from top to bottom is successful & profitable. TRAINS had an article about it a couple years ago. This last Spring for Spring break I rode it with a couple of my kids and it was great.
Yes we have to promote a rethinking of passenger service. I have always believed in the American "can-Do" spirit. I know we can make our rail service great and I agree there are so many obstacles to overcome. BUT if we approached this like a Manhattan Project or Like the going to the moon project think of all the jobs, and excitement it would create. Not to mention all the technological benefits.
dakotafred Not trying to be a smart aleck, Don, but I'd really like to know what Amtrak could have done differently (aside from all those new baggage and baggage-dorm cars!).
Not Amtrak but the advocacy community. Why does Amtrak run the money-losing long-distance trains? Because of Congress. Why does Congress insist on this? Because the advocacy community lobbies for it.
The comment "I'll take Amtrak as it is, warts and all. Its cost? Give me a break. Washington spills more than that 365 days of the year -- before noon." sums up the main course of opinion in advocacy circles, as I have observed it both in online and bricks-and-morter advocacy circles.
How about this example? The local bricks and morter advocacy group has been advocating for since forever for the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MRRI) in general and a Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago train service or more optimistically a St Paul-Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago train service. Back in the day when the MRRI still enjoyed some measure of bi-partisan political support, Amtrak announced that they were pulling "The Three Rivers", and our group went ballistic -- write to the Amtrak president, write our congressional delegation!
The Three Rivers was largely a creature of the Amtrak initiative to get "express" freight business, and the discontinuance of that train was part of Amtrak deciding to get out of the express business because 1) it didn't make any money either, 2) it annoyed their host railroads, and 3) it tied up passenger trains with the switching in and out of express cars or the loading and unloading of same if the consist was kept intact. But the other thing, if what we were "about" was the MRRI and also getting a train to Madison, why was Amtrak deciding to pull The Three Rivers such a priority item? It wasn't that Amtrak was getting its subsidy cut; it was at the level of Amtrak management deciding how to best use their resources, and we were "about" running interference on that. So Congress is the villain in Amtrak running trains that don't make sense? How about the advocacy community putting pressure on Congress to engage in this kind of micro-management.
It is not about the cost as in "Congress gives us (Amtrak) so little money for trains as who is worried about the cost." It is about whatever amount of money you get, be it the 1 billion+ in annual appropriation that keeps Amtrak limping along or the 8 billion in ARRA money, which many thought was "seed money" for a national HSR network and now looks to be a one-shot deal as to how the politics all worked out. Whatever money you are able to get flowing into Amtrak, there are choices as to what you do with the money, and how many tax-paying passengers and potential passengers you can please with that money, which can lead to more grants down the line.
There is never enough money for anyone to do everything they want. The whole Federal budget is this group over here on a starvation budget and that other group over there being "inadequately funded", and pretty much all of that adds up to Senator Dirkson's "real money." As to all of the money said to be wasted on the military, good luck getting the money from any "peace dividend" if it ever comes to that. There are many other worthy, underfunded activities and trains will have to take a number and stand in line.
It is not a question of "taking Amtrak, warts and all", it is a question of the advocacy community having had an active role in shaping Amtrak and being responsible for a lot of the warts.
People don't take the train because the train doesn't go where and when they need.
On the northeast corridor the trains are fast, frequent, and on time. LOTS of people take those trains.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
dakotafred oltmannd: Any way you'd like to count it, the subsidy per passenger for the long distance trains is obscene - and Amtrak has never been particularly motivated to do anything about it. The only time the do or try anything is when Congress gets on their back. For the amount of tax money Amtrak receives, the taxpayers get very little value - and Amtrak's mgt does not seem to care much. In fact, they seem to spend quite a bit of time trying to shore up their entrenched position rather than actually improve or provide needed service. Not trying to be a smart aleck, Don, but I'd really like to know what Amtrak could have done differently (aside from all those new baggage and baggage-dorm cars!). Amtrak has neither the political power to abandon the long-distance routes (as some here advocate) nor the money to increase frequencies over the routes and provide a real "service" (as others want). I suppose it could shed the sleepers and go back to sandwiches and plastic in the dining cars, but then you're running buses on rails and still losing money, if not quite so much. This being an imperfect world -- "What the heck, I'll take it anyway," as Hobbes said to Calvin, in the comic strip -- I'll take Amtrak as it is, warts and all. Its cost? Give me a break. Washington spills more than that 365 days of the year -- before noon.
oltmannd: Any way you'd like to count it, the subsidy per passenger for the long distance trains is obscene - and Amtrak has never been particularly motivated to do anything about it. The only time the do or try anything is when Congress gets on their back. For the amount of tax money Amtrak receives, the taxpayers get very little value - and Amtrak's mgt does not seem to care much. In fact, they seem to spend quite a bit of time trying to shore up their entrenched position rather than actually improve or provide needed service.
What different? Tons. Too long a list for now - more later.
Phoebe Vet People don't take the train because the train doesn't go where and when they need. On the northeast corridor the trains are fast, frequent, and on time. LOTS of people take those trains.
So, knowing this, Amtrak tried to replicate this success....almost nowhere. California was instigated by the state. The Empire Service improvement of the 1970s and 80s were pushed by the state. Amtrak has been talking about improved corridors but has moved so slowly over the years on Chicago - Detroit and Chicago - StL they might as well not bothered.
The Southeast has grown leaps and bounds since 1971. Other than what NC is doing (mostly on their own) what has Amtrak accomplished in terms of improved service? Nil.
...I'm just getting warmed up.
oltmannd Phoebe Vet: People don't take the train because the train doesn't go where and when they need. On the northeast corridor the trains are fast, frequent, and on time. LOTS of people take those trains. So, knowing this, Amtrak tried to replicate this success....almost nowhere. California was instigated by the state. The Empire Service improvement of the 1970s and 80s were pushed by the state. Amtrak has been talking about improved corridors but has moved so slowly over the years on Chicago - Detroit and Chicago - StL they might as well not bothered. The Southeast has grown leaps and bounds since 1971. Other than what NC is doing (mostly on their own) what has Amtrak accomplished in terms of improved service? Nil. ...I'm just getting warmed up.
Phoebe Vet: People don't take the train because the train doesn't go where and when they need. On the northeast corridor the trains are fast, frequent, and on time. LOTS of people take those trains.
First, Amtrak can only improve when Congress gives it the money and a program that will make it happen. Say "do it" and not provide the funds or allow for a reasonable program to accomplish any given need means nothing but words. And states have to come to the plate with something on it, too. NC has seen that but the politically conservative states will not. And despite the growth, it is still open country and not megopolis congestion like the Corridor. Either Congress should fund Amtrak with the same amounts of money they fund highway, air, and water, or they should set it up like the Postal Service, or even go so far as to set it up like they did Conrail. Amtrak, by design, moves at the speed of government.
SantaFeJoe Sorry about the statement about Unions. I didn't want the discussion to to move toward Unions .I do agree they have helped in the past to improve many things for workers and working place safety. I do challenge you about fuel resources. Are you aware here in the USA we have vast crude oil reserves. But fuel resources are not forever...the line the oil and gas companies have been giving is to get support for fracking (using chemical solutions pumped into the ground to crack shale and release gas and oil while polluting ground, ground water, air, and using precious water). Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years!!!! We have more oil than all of the arab states combined. In addition oil is a renewable resource!!!!!!!! Many of the oil wells that were thought to have been pumped dry have new crude in them. We are awash in oil. It is a great fuel and hundreds of years of resources that can be potentially be used. In that time I am sure we can find alternatives BUT we derive so many benefits from oil that contribute so much to our way of life. Trains lead the way in using continually more fuel efficient engines. We have all kinds of technology that make exhaust emissions almost minimal. *** Here you are talking about states getting involved in solving the problem of moving people and not the Federal Government and Amtrak. This is good, but there are many states who don't have the congestion problem or are very politically conservative, and are not going to get into supporting publicly funded rail passenger projects: I do think gov't has a role in promoting the common good of our nation and it should subsidize railservice to a degree that allows passenger service to exist. Out in California the passenger service that services the state from top to bottom is successful & profitable. TRAINS had an article about it a couple years ago. This last Spring for Spring break I rode it with a couple of my kids and it was great. Yes we have to promote a rethinking of passenger service. I have always believed in the American "can-Do" spirit. I know we can make our rail service great and I agree there are so many obstacles to overcome. BUT if we approached this like a Manhattan Project or Like the going to the moon project think of all the jobs, and excitement it would create. Not to mention all the technological benefits.
I do challenge you about fuel resources. Are you aware here in the USA we have vast crude oil reserves. But fuel resources are not forever...the line the oil and gas companies have been giving is to get support for fracking (using chemical solutions pumped into the ground to crack shale and release gas and oil while polluting ground, ground water, air, and using precious water).
Here you are talking about states getting involved in solving the problem of moving people and not the Federal Government and Amtrak. This is good, but there are many states who don't have the congestion problem or are very politically conservative, and are not going to get into supporting publicly funded rail passenger projects:
Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years
I would love to see where you got THAT statistic.
Phoebe Vet Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years I would love to see where you got THAT statistic.
Based on everything we have been preached by the oil lobby, I certainly doubt this claim...it is too big a turnaround from all that is said..
henry6 Phoebe Vet: Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years I would love to see where you got THAT statistic. Based on everything we have been preached by the oil lobby, I certainly doubt this claim...it is too big a turnaround from all that is said..
Phoebe Vet: Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years I would love to see where you got THAT statistic.
Oh, the claim is true. What's not said is that a big chunk of it isn't economic to get out and most of the rest is beyond current technology at any cost. A very small chunk is being extracted now.
henry6 oltmannd: Phoebe Vet: People don't take the train because the train doesn't go where and when they need. On the northeast corridor the trains are fast, frequent, and on time. LOTS of people take those trains. So, knowing this, Amtrak tried to replicate this success....almost nowhere. California was instigated by the state. The Empire Service improvement of the 1970s and 80s were pushed by the state. Amtrak has been talking about improved corridors but has moved so slowly over the years on Chicago - Detroit and Chicago - StL they might as well not bothered. The Southeast has grown leaps and bounds since 1971. Other than what NC is doing (mostly on their own) what has Amtrak accomplished in terms of improved service? Nil. ...I'm just getting warmed up. First, Amtrak can only improve when Congress gives it the money and a program that will make it happen. Say "do it" and not provide the funds or allow for a reasonable program to accomplish any given need means nothing but words. And states have to come to the plate with something on it, too. NC has seen that but the politically conservative states will not. And despite the growth, it is still open country and not megopolis congestion like the Corridor. Either Congress should fund Amtrak with the same amounts of money they fund highway, air, and water, or they should set it up like the Postal Service, or even go so far as to set it up like they did Conrail. Amtrak, by design, moves at the speed of government.
oltmannd: Phoebe Vet: People don't take the train because the train doesn't go where and when they need. On the northeast corridor the trains are fast, frequent, and on time. LOTS of people take those trains. So, knowing this, Amtrak tried to replicate this success....almost nowhere. California was instigated by the state. The Empire Service improvement of the 1970s and 80s were pushed by the state. Amtrak has been talking about improved corridors but has moved so slowly over the years on Chicago - Detroit and Chicago - StL they might as well not bothered. The Southeast has grown leaps and bounds since 1971. Other than what NC is doing (mostly on their own) what has Amtrak accomplished in terms of improved service? Nil. ...I'm just getting warmed up.
So, Amtrak is supposed to sit there like a bump on a rock and do absolutely nothing until some congressman says, "Hey! Lets see about developing the Chicago - Detroit corridor"?
Baloney.
You are Amtrak, you take the lead and lobby to get funding for projects. But, you have to show value and credibility with what you've been given so far.
What Amtrak does is lobby to get protective legislation and negotiate "poison pill" labor deals.
Don, how and why do you thing Amtrak got to be what it is today? Congress has them on a bungee cord or yo-yo and plays with the funding. It will not allow for normal business long term planning and funding. Amtrak does what it can from one Congressional session to the next..
oltmannd henry6: Phoebe Vet: Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years I would love to see where you got THAT statistic. Based on everything we have been preached by the oil lobby, I certainly doubt this claim...it is too big a turnaround from all that is said.. Oh, the claim is true. What's not said is that a big chunk of it isn't economic to get out and most of the rest is beyond current technology at any cost. A very small chunk is being extracted now.
henry6: Phoebe Vet: Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years I would love to see where you got THAT statistic. Based on everything we have been preached by the oil lobby, I certainly doubt this claim...it is too big a turnaround from all that is said..
There are some there who think fracking...hydro fracturing...is the panacea to open all the available petroleum and gas to pass into their bank accounts. But the truth is that the damage fracking does to the environment, ecologoy, geography, and society is far more damaging than the value of the product.
According to the Energy Institute at UT, "to date, oil and gas regulators and other experts in groundwater protection have found little evidence of a direct link between fracing and groundwater contamination, but no comprehensive study of the technology and its effects has been conducted."
UT's studies to date have found some environmental problems with fracing, but in many instances they appear to be similar to the problems associated with the traditional methods of oil and gas exploration, i.e. surface water contamination because of poor well head practices. UT is collaborating with Syracuse University, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the EPA, as well as others, to help determine the long term consequences of fracing. This is their spelling and apparently is interchangeable with fracking. More information can be found at the Institute's website. What this has to do with Amtrak, by the way, escapes me?
I just returned from Alpine, Texas, which is the gateway, at least according to the locals, to the Big Bend country. It is a stop and crew change point for the Sunset Limited. The station has a brand new station platform, which Amtrak had built with a portion of its ARRA funds. It is a dandy. Looks great. But it seems a bit over the top for a thrice a week train.
As I frequently do when I am in Alpine, I just happened to be at the station when Number 2 came through Monday night. Wow, I thought, getting on and off the train will be much better from the new platform. Before it was constructed, people were directed to board the train from the middle of the street, which the train blocks while it is changing crews.
There is a sign on the east end of the new station platform instructing passengers not to board the train beyond the yellow line, i.e. don't go beyond the edge of the platform into the cross street. Not to worry about warning signs. The train crew detrained and entrained the sleeping car passengers in the middle of the street. Just like they did before the new platform was commissioned. So much for the new platform.
As noted in another post, Amtrak's management doesn't seem to get it. Allowing the crew of the Sunset Limited to board sleeping car passengers from the middle of the street is just one example. The real problem with Amtrak lies in the fact that the CEO is bureaucrat who has spent most of his life in a non-competitive agency environment where customer service is pretty low on the totem pole.
The tone for an organization starts at the top. If the CEO doesn't understand competitive markets and customer service, it is not likely to trickle down the organization. Amtrak has some effective employees, but it has too many lackadaisical folks who don't understand customer service. Until that changes, Amtrak does not have a terribly bright future.
I have to agree with some of the thoughts in the last comment. But why does Amtrak run money-loosing long distance trains that do not make a huge impact on traffic congestion or airport congestion? Because a majority of the USA citizens think this benefits the country, and I happen to agree with these fellow citizens, since it provides far better mobility for the handicapped and elderly, sujppports internal and external tourism, and provides back-up ememrgency transportation when airplanes are grounded. It is also fair. Traffic congestion and lack of available land force us to subsidize the business traveler in corridors and commuter lines. Fairness says we should also subsidize the handicapped and the elderly and the internal tourist who uses rail once a year or once a lifetime, as will as the businesman who uses rail twice a day or once a week.
If the people in a representative republic a passenger rail system, it is their option. They should be prepared to pay for it. Ideally, the users of all modes of transport would pay the full cost of each mode at the price point, i.e. ticket counter, fuel taxes, etc. This includes intercity passenger rail. However, given the politics of transportation, this is not likely to happen. So all modes of transportation in most countries will be supported by a complex array of hidden subsidies. This does not, however, preclude an alternative to the government run monopoly called Amtrak.
A better model than Amtrak would be to bid out segments of the system to the lowest effective cost bidder. This is what the Australians did with their most prominent national intercity trains, i.e. Indian Pacific, The Ghan, and The Overland. With contract renewal hanging over their heads, the contractors have a big incentive to operate a competitive, market oriented, customer focused passenger rail service. Amtrak has no similar incentive. All it has to do is pander to the politicians.
Sam1 According to the Energy Institute at UT, "to date, oil and gas regulators and other experts in groundwater protection have found little evidence of a direct link between fracing and groundwater contamination, but no comprehensive study of the technology and its effects has been conducted." UT's studies to date have found some environmental problems with fracing, but in many instances they appear to be similar to the problems associated with the traditional methods of oil and gas exploration, i.e. surface water contamination because of poor well head practices. UT is collaborating with Syracuse University, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the EPA, as well as others, to help determine the long term consequences of fracing. This is their spelling and apparently is interchangeable with fracking. More information can be found at the Institute's website. What this has to do with Amtrak, by the way, escapes me?
This UT study you quote may be good for Texas but it doesn't hold up in PA where water has been contaminated so bad people have had to sell their properties and move, the water is undrinkable and the enviroment has reduced foliage or damaged others, animal life has had negative effects. And the damned gas companies paid $3 an acre. This only part of the scam these thugs have pulled in the east. NJ has said no to fracking, New York City has determined they can't have it in their watershed, and the rest of us in the State look over the boarder into PA and say we don't want it either. The more we learn, the worse it sounds. The worse it sounds, the more we realize that we have been lied to and don't want fracking by these greedy thugs from Texas or anywhere else to ruin our land and our lives. I'm gonna stop now, before I really get started about this....
Good discussion all around, although on the subject of the long-distance trains I think we sometimes forget that these are the reason for Amtrak's very existence. They are why Amtrak is here. Moreover, I think you can argue convincingly that they are no LESS necessary than they were going into 1971, shorn of most of their mail and running around the country half-empty. (Faint praise, I know.)
"Corridors" are nice and I am in favor of more of them. But Amtrak's MANDATE, until Congress says otherwise, is long-distance trains. Those who like to ride them, even while deploring their lack of economy, should be able to make their peace with that.
First, Dave, you sound like a CPA bottom liner: everything has to have a profit or be eliminate. This not taking into account a system as a whole which either has to provide the service to feed the rest of the system or to uphold a certain amount of public responsiblity to maintain their charter agreement.
And Sam, you say that a service must be paid for by those who use it. So, in the case of Amtrak and long distance trains (presumably the target is the Empire Builder across the Northern Tier to the Northwest), government ownership of Amtrak to provide that service is the payment.
The charge that Amtrak has to turn a profit is a charge that all involved know is unobtainable and unfair. But rather that working with Amtrak, or allowing Amtrak to work, they fight it on political grounds using money and not economics as their arguement. Again I say, Amtrak should be legislativly restructured to allow for more long term planning and financeing. Management can only do the job they are restricted to doing. Day to day, month to month, year to year, congressional session to congressional session. Even the best managers cannot do what has been suggested here because they are handcuffed by the politics and Congressional strings attached to Amtrak. To achieve what you want, it has to be redifined.
henry6 Don, how and why do you thing Amtrak got to be what it is today? Congress has them on a bungee cord or yo-yo and plays with the funding. It will not allow for normal business long term planning and funding. Amtrak does what it can from one Congressional session to the next..
I think in large measure, they were maneuvered into the position they now occupy by Congress. But, to a very large degree, they did little to keep from getting there. In fact, they seem to gone willingly hand - in - hand with Congress. And, now, they have almost lost their grip on reality.
An example? The $170B "new" NEC project they spend lots of time and money on. Really. $170B? What planet are they living on? There is no doubt the NEC needs lots of TLC and, over time, chucks replaced with new alignments for higher speeds, but to roll the whole thing out there with that price tag just invokes laughter.
Why laughter? Because of their track record. Primarily because of the economics of the LD trains and the "tail wagging the dog", 4" too wide, Acela debacle (see Don Phillip's latest column).
The last innovation on LD trains? Long crew pools - from the Claytor era. Before that? Increasing passenger density with Superliners - an idea that came from the 1950s ATSF. Since then? China or plastic? To grill or not to grill? Really? That's it?
OK. How about high speed train operation? You need this to develop new corridors.
How long has Amtrak been working on ITCS in Michigan? It's closing in on 20 years now and they have finally gotten the speeds up to 110 mph. The hardware's been there for a decade.
ACSES signal system on the NEC? Developed in a vacuum by Amtrak. Not compatible in any general way with the industry effort toward PTC. It's confusing layered system of multi-carrier frequency cab signals and track transponders. Not compatible with ITCS, either. And ITCS is not compatible with PTC.
Amtrak, somehow, hired over 200 new staff people over the past several years. Not operational support, which you might need as ridership increases - to some extent. Staff people. Then there was all the histrionics over staff cuts - of about 200 people. Hmmmm.
And, I'll leave you with "did Congress make them buy baggage cars?"
Don...check out the history of Amtrak...it was created by Congress with the public idea of alleviating freight railroads the burden of providing passenger service, It set up a format of political appointments and congressional favorite routes. It was called upon to make a profit. But the real problem was that short term planning and funding from an ever politically chaning Congress did not allow for proper administrating and operating. It has not evolved as much as it has exisited from hand to mouth, day to day. Airline executive, business entrapeneurs, railroaders, and politicians and political administrators have all had turns at the helm...but they have not had full reign becausef of Congressional and political restraints.
SantaFeJoe Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years!!!! We have more oil than all of the arab states combined. In addition oil is a renewable resource!!!!!!!! Many of the oil wells that were thought to have been pumped dry have new crude in them. We are awash in oil. It is a great fuel and hundreds of years of resources that can be potentially be used. In that time I am sure we can find alternatives BUT we derive so many benefits from oil that contribute so much to our way of life. Trains lead the way in using continually more fuel efficient engines. We have all kinds of technology that make exhaust emissions almost minimal. ...
Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years!!!! We have more oil than all of the arab states combined. In addition oil is a renewable resource!!!!!!!! Many of the oil wells that were thought to have been pumped dry have new crude in them. We are awash in oil. It is a great fuel and hundreds of years of resources that can be potentially be used. In that time I am sure we can find alternatives BUT we derive so many benefits from oil that contribute so much to our way of life. Trains lead the way in using continually more fuel efficient engines. We have all kinds of technology that make exhaust emissions almost minimal. ...
The Bakken oil reservoir is indeed a giant field and may someday surpass the Prudhoe Bay, Alaska field. It's size and accessibility seems to have brought out a lot fortune seekers. The reserves guesstimated at 100s of years of use have been making the rounds on the internet for a few years. The consensus of some of the larger drillers, of recoverable reserves, is about 20 billion barrels.
http://www.worldoil.com/May-2012-Bakken-Three-Forks-Infrastructure-takeaway-woes-only-threats-to-high-activity.html
Present US consumption is about 19 million barrels per day.
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2
That works to a little over a 1000 days, or about 3 years worth of US consumption. Even if technology allows twice the amount of reserves to be produced, that still would be only about 1/100 th of the 700 year claim.
As a geologist with decades of experience in Oil & Gas, I wanted to say few things about wells being pumped "dry": When a successful well is first drilled, oil may produce at a fast rate. But as pressure is depleted and the oil must travel further thru the porous rock toward the wellbore, production drops off until the rate is so slow, it becomes uneconomical to produce (rather than being totally dry.) If the well is shut in for years, formation water pressure will continue to push some of the remaining oil toward the wellbore. If the well is reopened, production may recover for a time, but will soon go back to the slow rate. This is not new oil, but just what was left of the old. Oil fields take millions of years to naturally develop, and can not be considered a renewable resource.
But like you say, passenger diesel use the fuel efficiently, and being that there are so few passenger trains, they are not a big drain on the reserves that we do have.
I don´t know what´s ahead for AMTRAK - any idea on that is somehow like looking into a crystal ball. As long as AMTRAK´s mandate is to provide some sort of long distance passenger rail service, it will just do that, within the budgetary framework assigned by Congress.
We all know that this is no way to properly run a railroad, let alone to develop it into a modern passenger carrier. To do that, AMTRAK would require a different mandate, different organization, maybe different management, but also different funding.
What I got out of the cover story is that
1) Boardman had the chance to shine but he dropped the ball on two issues:
a) He let Union Pacific get away with extortion, plain and simple. How do you let the railroad toss a $1 billion claim without challenging it to the STB? Also, if what the sources said about Paul Vilter’s efforts to challenge UP’s data are spot on, then, it is Boardman’s fault that he was not allowed to.
b) How can anyone defend Boardman’s unwillingness to convert the last triweekly Eastern train to daily status? After CSX gave Amtrak the silent treatment on this simple task, CSX inaction was one-upped by Amtrak inaction. Inexcusable!
2) with these quotes…
Sam1 If I were Boardman, Mr. Frailey would not be welcome at the corporate headquarters or anywhere else on the property.
If I were Boardman, Mr. Frailey would not be welcome at the corporate headquarters or anywhere else on the property.
dakotafred Amtrak has neither the political power to abandon the long-distance routes (as some here advocate) nor the money to increase frequencies over the routes and provide a real "service" (as others want). I suppose it could shed the sleepers and go back to sandwiches and plastic in the dining cars, but then you're running buses on rails and still losing money, if not quite so much. This being an imperfect world -- "What the heck, I'll take it anyway," as Hobbes said to Calvin, in the comic strip -- I'll take Amtrak as it is, warts and all. Its cost? Give me a break. Washington spills more than that 365 days of the year -- before noon.
…it’s quite apparent to me that the bulk of the rail community is stuck in its old ways. As passenger rail moves from merely surviving to having to deal with possible competition, advocates are still blindly defending much of what Amtrak is doing—even if it’s outdated or promotes the company’s continued mediocrity when it should be developing a long-term plan that involves real expansion as a way to combat other companies targeting Amtrak routes.
Sir Madog I don´t know what´s ahead for AMTRAK - any idea on that is somehow like looking into a crystal ball. As long as AMTRAK´s mandate is to provide some sort of long distance passenger rail service, it will just do that, within the budgetary framework assigned by Congress. We all know that this is no way to properly in a railroad, let alone to develop it into a modern passenger carrier. To do that, AMTRAK would require a different mandate, different organization, maybe different management, but also different funding.
We all know that this is no way to properly in a railroad, let alone to develop it into a modern passenger carrier. To do that, AMTRAK would require a different mandate, different organization, maybe different management, but also different funding.
BINGO! That's what a lot of us have been saying for decades!!!
KRTrveler: You are right about the bulk of the rail community...and the US...is stuck in its old ways. Cars move people, trains move goods, bankers move money, congress moves slow or not at all. With Amtrak being an toy of Congerss, the railroad gets a different signal with each session, and a different book of rules with each Congress. In many respects Joe Boardman has had much success bieng president of Amtrak if only because he has been able to weave in and out of the political maze. Boardman came up through the goverenment/public service side of the game rather than through the business or even railroad ranks. He started as bus and trasnsportaiton managers to NYS DOT head to the FRA and then to Amtrak...so he has been able to last because he knows the political maze and how to maneuver through it rather than try to knock down the walls to go in a straight line. He has made achievements for Amtrak that other's haven't. It's like Kenny Roger's song, The Gmbler: you've got to know when to hold up, know when to fold up, There may have been better railroaders or businessmen in the seat before, but none of them have lasted and been able to have as broad or general accomplishment than Boardman, all have been narrow achievements, althought important in their own rway.
Sam keeps repeating that if people use a service, they should pay for it.
Sam, if I remodel an old defunct theatre, I am obligated to install all kinds of measures, special elevators, ramps, hard of hearing devices, just so handicapped, blind, deaf, and elderly people can enjoy the shows I present/ All this investment, and some matters also involve operating costs, does not bring in near the income this necessary compliance with the Dissabled etc. acts require of me. So I am forced, even though I paid for the threatre and own it, to subsidize these deaf, blind, handicapped, and elderly people. The American people have decided that is fair.
Just like long distance trains for the same population and internal tourism.
Now, Great Britain went the bidding process of specific routes route . The results have been generally better service in most cases, but worse in some and some loss of connectivity, but a huge increase in subsidy costs, even acounting for inflation. Why? Because of loss of economies of scale.
The British readers of this thread can verify my comment.
Another point Dave, is that even if I don't use a service but should (and do) pay for it through taxes or whatever is alright because I get a benefit in that perhaps point E to M in that system moves a certain item in the manufacture of cars or food or whatever and I can buy that product because of teh transportation. Or by taking automobiles off the road, it makes it easier for truckers to get through. We don't seem to be able to accept universal or social benifits from something. I don't fly. But my county pays huge amounts of money to pay for an airport comlex and its employees. But businesses benefit from air freight in and out, their management and sales staffs able to travel, and their customers even can visit or sales people can come in. So the business can operate, thrive, employ people and pay taxes.
I guess what I am saying is that you really can't draw a line or maybe that you have to draw a line, to figure out who benefits and who doesn't But then what would that tell you, what would that decided?
henry6 In many respects Joe Boardman has had much success bieng president of Amtrak if only because he has been able to weave in and out of the political maze. It's like Kenny Roger's song, The Gmbler: you've got to know when to hold up, know when to fold up, There may have been better railroaders or businessmen in the seat before, but none of them have lasted and been able to have as broad or general accomplishment than Boardman, all have been narrow achievements, althought important in their own rway.
In many respects Joe Boardman has had much success bieng president of Amtrak if only because he has been able to weave in and out of the political maze. It's like Kenny Roger's song, The Gmbler: you've got to know when to hold up, know when to fold up, There may have been better railroaders or businessmen in the seat before, but none of them have lasted and been able to have as broad or general accomplishment than Boardman, all have been narrow achievements, althought important in their own rway.
Henry; you have hit the nail on the head. just now Congress in its infinite wisdom cut the AMTRAK operating budget exactly the amount that they saved from the year before. Now what incentative does that give management to become more efficient?
One strange reported item that I haven't been able to confirm yet is that the house appropriated a $500 M item for bridge and tunnel repairs on top of the operating budget ? That seems to this poster that Congress is still not decided on AMTRAK.
daveklepper Sam keeps repeating that if people use a service, they should pay for it. Sam, if I remodel an old defunct theatre, I am obligated to install all kinds of measures, special elevators, ramps, hard of hearing devices, just so handicapped, blind, deaf, and elderly people can enjoy the shows I present/ All this investment, and some matters also involve operating costs, does not bring in near the income this necessary compliance with the Dissabled etc. acts require of me. So I am forced, even though I paid for the threatre and own it, to subsidize these deaf, blind, handicapped, and elderly people. The American people have decided that is fair. Just like long distance trains for the same population and internal tourism. Now, Great Britain went the bidding process of specific routes route . The results have been generally better service in most cases, but worse in some and some loss of connectivity, but a huge increase in subsidy costs, even acounting for inflation. Why? Because of loss of economies of scale. The British readers of this thread can verify my comment.
The owners of Dell Diamond, which is located in Round Rock, TX and is the home field for the Round Rock Express, which is the Texas Rangers AAA minor league baseball team, must comply with a variety of safety and ADA regulations. At the end of the day, however, the patrons pay for these requirements. The cost is embedded in the ticket price. The taxpayers do not pick-up the tab.
To the extent that the true cost of a service is not reflected in the price paid by the customer, i.e. ticket price, fuel taxes, user fees, etc., the users are not fully aware of the cost of their choices and, therefore, may over use or under use a service, product, commodity, etc. One of the best examples of this is found in the price of gasoline in the United States, which does not reflect the true cost of driving, e.g. cost of local streets, county roads, etc. As a result Americans have tended to buy large, gas guzzling SUVs and pick-ups. If the true price of driving were reflected in the price paid at the pump, they may have chosen more fuel efficient vehicles. For this reason I have argued that each mode of transport should stand on its own feet, i.e. no subsidies, with the possible exception of low cost, government loans to develop infrastructure that would be paid back by the users. This would mean, of course, that outside of a few high density corridors passenger rail probably would be dead in the water.
I don't buy your argument that the taxpayer has an obligation to support long distance trains because they promote tourism, which is a dubious assertion, or to provide transport options for the disabled. If this argument had merit, then the United States should offer passenger rail service to every community in the United States with a population of 25,000 or more, which is out of the question. The country, which has a combined national, state, and local debt in excess of $19 trillion, could not afford it.
Properly regulated, competitive markets will always trump government run commercial enterprises. Why wouldn't they. Government enterprises, which are usually monopolies, have little incentive to do things better, faster, cheaper. The operative word is better.
In 1990 most major businesses in Australia were owned by the government or very tightly regulated. Included in this model were the nation's airlines, railways, banks, telecommunication companies, electric utilities, etc. Then the Australians decided to go for more open, competitive, properly regulated markets. They privatized a slew of commercial activities. Today, as a result, along with some good luck, Australia has one of the most vibrant economies of any OECD country. Far more than the U.S. economy.
By now it is no secret that I believe markets are a better vehicle for the allocation of scarce economic resources.And that includes passenger rail. If it cannot stand on its own, it should be allow to wither. Having said that, if all transport subsidies were eliminated, passenger rail probably could survice in relatively short, high density corridors. But the operators would have to be allowed to implement modern work practices, up to date technologies, and relevant marketing strategies. As noted in a previous post, a group of Italian business persons are giving it a go. I hope that they succeed.
I think that bridge and tunnel money, Blue Streak, is to be sunk in the NJ Meadows for replacing two tracked, century old Portal Bridge and add two bores under the Hudson. That's the politics of Amtrak. This is not money for Amtrak but for NJ and NY who need to get employees and tourists in and out of the city as well as keeping an open track between Times Square and Union Station in Washington.
But Sam, this arguement of one paying for what he uses or not paying for what he doesn't use has been around and has been circled with government programs and business and government partnerships so much, that it won't go away here...we will kill each other...really, we will, there will be read bloodshed and murder here...if the same were to be tried here as in Austrailia. I'll even toss the first volley: American businesses have not proven they can be trusted...every time we deregulate something, or turn our heads on oversight, we meet economic chaos and near disasters. And niether the business men nor the politicians nor the people learn so we keep repeating our mistakes and misfortunes without addressing what causes them.
henry6 I'll even toss the first volley: American businesses have not proven they can be trusted...every time we deregulate something, or turn our heads on oversight, we meet economic chaos and near disasters.
I'll even toss the first volley: American businesses have not proven they can be trusted...every time we deregulate something, or turn our heads on oversight, we meet economic chaos and near disasters.
Couldn't have been said any clearer by Joseph Stiglitz in Freefall.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm henry6: I'll even toss the first volley: American businesses have not proven they can be trusted...every time we deregulate something, or turn our heads on oversight, we meet economic chaos and near disasters. Couldn't have been said any clearer by Joseph Stiglitz in Freefall.
henry6: I'll even toss the first volley: American businesses have not proven they can be trusted...every time we deregulate something, or turn our heads on oversight, we meet economic chaos and near disasters.
Quite a sweeping generalization. In 2008 there were 5,847,221 corporations in the United States. Most of them were S Chapter corporations. Of that number 3,183,821 had reportable taxable income as per the IRS. It must take a super coordinated effort by the heads of the nation's businesses to show that they cannot be trusted.
Are you lumping the heads of the nation's railroads, including Amtrak, amongst those who cannot be trusted or are you giving them a pass?
Lets face it, Sam1, today's big business and its managment does not appear to be anything but greedy with a wont to run ramshod over the American public disavowing laws and regulations. They cut jobs while eliminating or downsizing products and services or reduce quality. At the same time they appear to take more money and perks for themselves. In the banking, investing, insurance sector, they continue the practice and procedures that brought us down in 2008. I will give you the point about railroad executives who have steered their idle time and excess dollars into improving their intrastructure and increase their inventory of locomotiives and equipment to ready for the return and upturn of business. But they appear to be the exception to the rule. CP presents a yellow flag where investors has overturned management because of poor performance and return. Whether this will present opportunities for increased productivity, efficiencey, and profits without dismantling of the property and dismissal of huge numbers of employees is yet to be seen.
Basically, the appearence of greed and disregard from the CEO's and companies which led us into the recession has tainted the air and made many of us suspicious of all. When we see a turnaround in their behavior and of our fate, then we may stop generalizing and pick on the offenders singely and by name.
Exactly, Sam, it is included in the ticket price. But the handicapped who benefit from the expensive hard-of-hearing systme in my theatre and the services of the sound system operator that has to be paid are subsidized by the ticket holders who have no nead of this service. Diitto the handicapped provisions.
In nearly all democratic societies, couples with many children pay less taxes than those with no children. Children get free education, paid f or by trax payers.
Education is important, and is funded by tax money. I happen to think long distance rail service is also important, even as part of education. Not as important as education, but mobility of the handicapped and elderly for the enitre country is important to me, if not for you.
When you use an elevator in an apartment house, store, or office building, you are getting absolutely free transportation. There is a difference in direction and scale, but it is sitll transportation!
daveklepper Exactly, Sam, it is included in the ticket price. But the handicapped who benefit from the expensive hard-of-hearing systme in my theatre and the services of the sound system operator that has to be paid are subsidized by the ticket holders who have no nead of this service. Diitto the handicapped provisions. In nearly all democratic societies, couples with many children pay less taxes than those with no children. Children get free education, paid f or by trax payers. Education is important, and is funded by tax money. I happen to think long distance rail service is also important, even as part of education. Not as important as education, but mobility of the handicapped and elderly for the enitre country is important to me, if not for you. When you use an elevator in an apartment house, store, or office building, you are getting absolutely free transportation. There is a difference in direction and scale, but it is sitll transportation!
Having general ticket buyers pay a very small premium to subsidize ADA compliance in a public venue is one thing. Having people without children pay for public eduction on the theory that society as a whole benefits is another thing.
Requiring single people to pay higher income taxes is unfair. Where is it written that they work less hard or have lower skills than married people. This feature in the tax code falls under the heading of politics of envy. Subsidizing intercity passenger railroad trains, especially the long distance trains that are used by less than one per cent of intercity travelers, makes no sense. No real intercity transport need is served. And if there is a need for commercial intercity service for the cities served by the long distance trains, it can be provided by commercial bus operators.
As I have said on numerous occasions, I am all for intercity passenger rail in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the airways and highways is prohibitive. I would like to see the users pay for the services. As noted in another post re: new station in Miami, hopefully we will get to a point where the short corridor services can be privatized, and the users will pay for the services through the fare box. The proposed private operations in Florida and Italy may show us how it can be done.
Needless to say, at this point we see the world differently and are not like to change our views.
henry6 Lets face it, Sam1, today's big business and its managment does not appear to be anything but greedy with a wont to run ramshod over the American public disavowing laws and regulations. They cut jobs while eliminating or downsizing products and services or reduce quality. At the same time they appear to take more money and perks for themselves. In the banking, investing, insurance sector, they continue the practice and procedures that brought us down in 2008. I will give you the point about railroad executives who have steered their idle time and excess dollars into improving their intrastructure and increase their inventory of locomotiives and equipment to ready for the return and upturn of business. But they appear to be the exception to the rule. CP presents a yellow flag where investors has overturned management because of poor performance and return. Whether this will present opportunities for increased productivity, efficiencey, and profits without dismantling of the property and dismissal of huge numbers of employees is yet to be seen. Basically, the appearence of greed and disregard from the CEO's and companies which led us into the recession has tainted the air and made many of us suspicious of all. When we see a turnaround in their behavior and of our fate, then we may stop generalizing and pick on the offenders singely and by name.
I disagree with your analysis. It is time to move on.
No, intercity motor coaches do not provide the same service, the total area per passenger is about half that provided by an intercity train before you even count the food service areas. Yes, I have and will probably use greyhound on occasion to catch up with my party though the last time was a bit much, I could see the lav tank fluid beneath the seat, no toilet bowl present.
And this is from a carrier that is using a facility built almost entirely by non users. It really isn't a good deal economically as you suppose.
But the cost of renovation of my theatre was increased by 35% (and you can check on this by contacting architects who have done theatre rernovation projects) and the cost of operation, including special elevators and the hard of hearing systems operators salary by 15%, and this subsidizes 2 or 3% of the ticket holders who need the services of the handicapped ramps, special elevators, and hard of hearing system.
So you believe subsidies are OK for the handicapped and elderly when they go to a theatre and are part of somewhat private industry (but the theatre could also have been the Municipall theatre or auditorium, and many inadequate technically poor ones were constructed under WPA in ther 1930's and modernized in 1970-90 with tzx money), but want to discriminate against them and deny them access to the breadth of the country in transportation.
My case is simiple. We have to subsidize the corridors, either in capitol costs, or operating costs or both. Otherwise, gridlock in airports and or highways. But it is unfair to subsidize the user of the corridor and not subsidize the elderly and handicapped who require the long distance trains.
The 1? (or even less) per cent of people who use long distance trains is based ON PASSENGER JOURNEYS AND NOT ON THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER YEAR USING THE SERVICE. That is obvious and well known. The elderly or handicapped person who uses the long distance train once a year, will be counted as two, one for each direction of a round trip. The business passenger who commutes five days a week for say fifty weeks a year will be counted as 500. Sam says it is OK to subsidize the business passenger but not the once a year vacationer. I think that is extremely, extremely unfair.
Sam and I have had this argument over and over again. Neither side convinces the other. To say "people should pay for the costs of the services they get" is a useful mantra in many ways, but not, in my opinion, with in total with regard to ground transportation under present circumstances with the history of specific investments, encouragemen of specific industries, land taking, even n ational defense and emergency requiprements, and much else.
Sams arguement on each mode of transportation paying for itself without subsidy is a recipe for the United States to become a third world country. It's pure nonsense and hopefully will forever be treated as such. The fact is the United States is competing on a world stage with countries that are pouring billions into their ifrastructure and very little of it based on user fees. For the U.S. to flip entirely to a unsubsidized model in that environment would mean an EPIC FAIL in economic competitiveness of this Country. Further apart from the Countries we are competing against.....our transportation system cannot be supported entirely by user fees without significantly and negatively impacting year to year Economic growth. We tried it with our Private Freight railway industry and look where we are now, we have a freight rail system feverishly trying to add capacity BUT is limited by the amount of capital it has on hand, we have shippers suing the same industry for attempting to cover their true capital costs of carrying the freight, eventually the government is going to have to step in and fund some large scale freight rail projects (and they already have) because the private railroads cannot handle the entire burden financially. Even the ones earning their full cost of capital do not have enough money to do so.
It's interesting reading Sams posts but his theories have already been proven NOT to work in practice in this country, they would be a disaster if applied today for our economic competiveness against other countries.......none of which are following his "model".
The US is a Republic but also a Social Democracy where private interests and government work together for each's greater good. We have been that way since the beginning. I don't use the California Coast Highway or Route 80 across Nevada nor the port facilities in the states of Oregon or Washington nor the Intercoastal Waterway from Maine to Key West. Should they all be abandoned because I pay but don't use? We are not built on usage but on broad benefits for all. Private enterprise has always, is now, and forever will call on governments to kick in to help make things occur for the enterprise and the people.
CMStPnP Sams arguement on each mode of transportation paying for itself without subsidy is a recipe for the United States to become a third world country. It's pure nonsense and hopefully will forever be treated as such. The fact is the United States is competing on a world stage with countries that are pouring billions into their ifrastructure and very little of it based on user fees. For the U.S. to flip entirely to a unsubsidized model in that environment would mean an EPIC FAIL in economic competitiveness of this Country. Further apart from the Countries we are competing against.....our transportation system cannot be supported entirely by user fees without significantly and negatively impacting year to year Economic growth. We tried it with our Private Freight railway industry and look where we are now, we have a freight rail system feverishly trying to add capacity BUT is limited by the amount of capital it has on hand, we have shippers suing the same industry for attempting to cover their true capital costs of carrying the freight, eventually the government is going to have to step in and fund some large scale freight rail projects (and they already have) because the private railroads cannot handle the entire burden financially. Even the ones earning their full cost of capital do not have enough money to do so. It's interesting reading Sams posts but his theories have already been proven NOT to work in practice in this country, they would be a disaster if applied today for our economic competiveness against other countries.......none of which are following his "model".
My views are not unlike those of Milton Friedman, Joseph Schumpeter, Martin Feldstein, etc. They may differ from yours, but they are not nonsense. Calling other view points nonsense does little to add to or further a discussion.
I studied with Milton Friedman when I was an undergraduate at MIT 1949 - 1953 (one Semester economics course). You are right, they arre not nonsense and are applicable to a wide variety of manufacturing, farming, and service industries. They may have been applicable to transportation at one time, but the massive government interference that you object to already occured and it furthered highway and air transportation massively over rail transportation. YOu will find NO reasonably sized developed country in the world that does not subsidize rail transportation, including passenger rail transportation to some extent today. I am not a Socialist. I am definitely in favor of free market capitalism where there is a level playing field. But railroads, and particularly passenger railroading, does not have a level playing field. The massive government capital investment in interstate highways and airports has already occured, and private capital expecting a decent return, did not make the investment. Governments at vairous levels did that and are happy to get the bonds paid off or even just make operating costs.
The kind of automation and advanced thinking that produced the machanical sorting of mail at major post offices could have just as well been applied to make railway post offices far more efficient, and the USA would have far better mail service today. It really was the removal of the post office business that finally put passssenger train service into a money loosing tailspin. The conversion to post office automation was a government investment.
daveklepper I studied with Milton Friedman when I was an undergraduate at MIT 1949 - 1953 (one Semester economics course). You are right, they arre not nonsense and are applicable to a wide variety of manufacturing, farming, and service industries. They may have been applicable to transportation at one time, but the massive government interference that you object to already occured and it furthered highway and air transportation massively over rail transportation. YOu will find NO reasonably sized developed country in the world that does not subsidize rail transportation, including passenger rail transportation to some extent today. I am not a Socialist. I am definitely in favor of free market capitalism where there is a level playing field. But railroads, and particularly passenger railroading, does not have a level playing field. The massive government capital investment in interstate highways and airports has already occured, and private capital expecting a decent return, did not make the investment. Governments at vairous levels did that and are happy to get the bonds paid off or even just make operating costs. The kind of automation and advanced thinking that produced the machanical sorting of mail at major post offices could have just as well been applied to make railway post offices far more efficient, and the USA would have far better mail service today. It really was the removal of the post office business that finally put passssenger train service into a money loosing tailspin. The conversion to post office automation was a government investment.
Nothing that you have said means that some or all of the current approach could not be reversed to some extent. In Texas new toll roads are being funded, at least in part, by private investors, some times with government incentives, with good outcomes. Moreover, there is nothing to say that some areas of the country could not or would not support privately funded passenger rail.
Private developers probably could not afford to build the whole system. But they might be able to pay their fair share of an existing railway, i.e. just as truckers, bus operators, etc. pay a share of the highways, which they argue is a fair share. This is what the south Florida experiment is all about. Well see how it goes.
I spent most of my working life in the electric utility business. As one of the last bastions of regulated monopolies everyone said that industry could not be opened to competition. They were wrong. It has been done in Texas and Australia as well as several other areas. I was part of the driving force that brought it about in Texas. It was like pulling teeth. But we got it done.
What they do in other countries, especially European countries, may be the best fit for the problems facing those countries. Given the disastrous outcomes stemming from the European debt crisis, I hardly think that we want to emulate them. What they do in Australia, where I lived for more than five years, has been good for Australia. They may have some good practices there that we should consider, but at the end of the day we should craft solutions that fit our problems within the context of our culture.
For the last 60 years or so Europe has had a lot of money for various amenities, thanks to the United States attending to most of their defense needs for them. (To appreciate how much we saved them, consider that, at the height of the Cold War, defense -- ours and theirs -- consumed up to 50 percent of our national budget.)
As for freight infrastructure, Don Phillips in the August TRAINS shows how much better off the rails are these days, largely attending to their own needs, than barges and trucks, who have to wait on Uncle Sam.
dakotafred For the last 60 years or so Europe has had a lot of money for various amenities, thanks to the United States attending to most of their defense needs for them. (To appreciate how much we saved them, consider that, at the height of the Cold War, defense -- ours and theirs -- consumed up to 50 percent of our national budget.) As for freight infrastructure, Don Phillips in the August TRAINS shows how much better off the rails are these days, largely attending to their owns needs, than barges and trucks, who have to wait on Uncle Sam.
As for freight infrastructure, Don Phillips in the August TRAINS shows how much better off the rails are these days, largely attending to their owns needs, than barges and trucks, who have to wait on Uncle Sam.
What an interesting way to rationalize our paranoid defense spending and posture.
Phoebe Vet dakotafred: For the last 60 years or so Europe has had a lot of money for various amenities, thanks to the United States attending to most of their defense needs for them. (To appreciate how much we saved them, consider that, at the height of the Cold War, defense -- ours and theirs -- consumed up to 50 percent of our national budget.) As for freight infrastructure, Don Phillips in the August TRAINS shows how much better off the rails are these days, largely attending to their owns needs, than barges and trucks, who have to wait on Uncle Sam. What an interesting way to rationalize our paranoid defense spending and posture.
dakotafred: For the last 60 years or so Europe has had a lot of money for various amenities, thanks to the United States attending to most of their defense needs for them. (To appreciate how much we saved them, consider that, at the height of the Cold War, defense -- ours and theirs -- consumed up to 50 percent of our national budget.) As for freight infrastructure, Don Phillips in the August TRAINS shows how much better off the rails are these days, largely attending to their owns needs, than barges and trucks, who have to wait on Uncle Sam.
That's grownup, Dave -- our being paranoid about a peaceable, non-expansionist Soviet Union. Tell that to a fool -- also to Europe, which scampered happily under our umbrella after what had happened to their brothers in Eastern Europe.
Let any trigger-happy moderator reflect that my comment was on Europe having lots of money for railroad things, like passenger subsidies and freight infrastructure -- money that, on the U.S. side, was otherwise committed.
Yes, Sam, but reputable research says that truckers pay only about 50% of the total maintenance costs of highways that their usage requires, and this says nothing about land use and equitable division of the tax load. The point is not only that the massive investment in competition to railroads was made by government, but government prevented railroads from using their natural efficiency and postponed the intermodel revolution until after the Interstates were complete and long distance trucking became a major industiry.
If Government had not interfered, starting 90 or 100 years ago, we would now have a healthy freight railroad system without anyone considering long distance trucking as anything but a specialty case. The competition would be between many competing railroads, and they would be proud to show potential freight shippers with the excellence of service they can provide by sterling long distance passenger trains with losses considered as first class advertizing.
daveklepper Yes, Sam, but reputable research says that truckers pay only about 50% of the total maintenance costs of highways that their usage requires, and this says nothing about land use and equitable division of the tax load. The point is not only that the massive investment in competition to railroads was made by government, but government prevented railroads from using their natural efficiency and postponed the intermodel revolution until after the Interstates were complete and long distance trucking became a major industiry. If Government had not interfered, starting 90 or 100 years ago, we would now have a healthy freight railroad system without anyone considering long distance trucking as anything but a specialty case. The competition would be between many competing railroads, and they would be proud to show potential freight shippers with the excellence of service they can provide by sterling long distance passenger trains with losses considered as first class advertizing.
Whether truckers pay their fair share of the roadway system has been debated and will continue to be debated for year. What is missing in so many of these arguments are the grants and benefits bestowed on the railroads. For example, truckers pay hefty fuel taxes, which contribute a disproportionate percentage of revenues to the highway trust fund whilst the railroads pay no fuel taxes because they are classified as off road users. Whether these offset the property taxes is unclear. At the end of the day, however, it does not matter. We are where we are; the key question is what are the best solutions for America's future transport needs.
As an article in this week's or last week's Time made clear, America's freight railroads are on a roll. For 2011 America's freight railroads had a median return on sales of 15.8%; on assets of 6.5%; and on equity, which is the most important indicator of profitability, of 19%. In addition, CN, which is a Canadian company with significant operations in the United States, had corresponding returns of 27.4%, 9.9%, and 23 %, and CPR, also a Canadian company with significant U.S. operations, had returns of 12.5%, 4.8%, and 13.9% in the listed categories.
For comparative purposes, the median return on sales for the Fortune 500 (America's freight railroads are Fortune 500 companies) was approximately 5% and the median return on equity was 14.3%, which was significanty above the historical return of 12%. As these numbers show, at least from a financial perspective, America's freight railroads are performing substantially above the financial medians for America's largest corporations.
This discussion, as tends to be true for most of our discussions, has strayed off the presenting issue: What's Ahead for Amtrak? In my view it will muddle along without any significant changes until the United States hits the impending financial wall, i.e. overseas investors stop buying our bonds or demand a significant risk premium. Then we will see an outcome similar to what is being experienced in Europe, and real change likely will happen.
I am sick and tired of hearing about the "grants and benefits" bestowed upon the railroads. The railroads paid deeply with free or low cost transportation for the Government including mail into the middle of the 20th Century (it was posted somewhere here the other day what it would have cost the Government to pay transportation costs while waging WWII if it had not been for the government grants and benefits). If the railroads were never built there would have been either no or so slow population growth in the west, lack of ability to move natural resources out, and to serve the agricultural industry. Add to that the losses railroads incurred in running passenger trains so that a few post cards could be delivered. The railroads were being repaid by not being able to curtail unprofitable services nor create rates that would be profitble and competitive. Rails paid and the Government and its people reaped well...probably second only to Seward's purchase in value.
As to the future of Amtrak, we need to see what future passenger rail will have in the US. From what I h ave seen, and what others have commented, passenger rail's future will lie in short haul corridors in three regions of the country: Eastern seaboard from Maine to North Carolina, upper midwest corridors radiating from Chicago, and west coast corridors. With the possible exception of Auto Train and maybe one or two others, long distance passenger trains are dead. Air travel is just too efficient. With this in mind, the states in these regions should name six of the nine directors to serve on Amtrak's board. The other three can be selected to represent the freight railroads, Congress, and the President, respectively. The states will have to take center stage here, particularly if the Republicans prevail in Nov.
A.McIntosh...the future of passenger rail in this country is at least cloudy but undefined. Yes there are the corridors you mentoned, but others, too, and still others emerging. What there isn't is a definition of what is going to emerge. Could be an intact Amtrak or one totally altered in appearance and operation. Could be in just defined corridors or regions with or without oun inter connections. Could be HSR as defined by Japan and France or HSR as defined by the US. Or it could be mass modifications and improvements on what we already have. As long as the highway lobby is in the heads of Congress and the public, not much will happen that will be noticable.
The "Good Roads" movement was begun, even before autos, by bicyclist. President Eisenhower saw the effectiveness of German autobahns as a general, and signed the Interstate Highway Act.
Railroad regulation came about because citizens were so outraged by various practices that they pushed their representatives into passing legislation. Democracies tend to cause "government interference". Admittedly, sometimes these good intentions morph into misguided consequences, but then they were brought back into line with the Staggers Rail Act. To say that without interference we would now have a healthy freight rail system is a best case scenario, and it may just have likely turned out that the rail companies would have morphed int trucking or airline companies,
Sam1 Whether truckers pay their fair share of the roadway system has been debated and will continue to be debated for year. . For example, truckers pay hefty fuel taxes, which contribute a disproportionate percentage of revenues to the highway trust fund For comparative purposes, the median return on sales for the Fortune 500 (America's freight railroads are Fortune 500 companies) was approximately 5% and the median return on equity was 14.3%, which was significanty above the historical return of 12%. As these numbers show, at least from a financial perspective, America's freight railroads are performing substantially above the financial medians for America's largest corporations.
Whether truckers pay their fair share of the roadway system has been debated and will continue to be debated for year. . For example, truckers pay hefty fuel taxes, which contribute a disproportionate percentage of revenues to the highway trust fund
sam1; To say that trucks are paying their fair share of the roadway system is incorrect. as our poster mudchicken has cited trucks wear out the interstate system not cars.
to cite a few examples Ga DOT just finished repaving I-85 from about mile post 36 to mile post 57. It took 2-1/2 years to complete on an in service road. The outer lanes of concrete were pot holed and rough ( main lane of heavier trucks ). 8" concrete was replaced with 12 - 14 " 8000# concrete. Now I-85 ( 2 lanes each way ) from mile post 0 to mile post 36 is slated for replacement in a couple years with the right lanes cracked and pot holed.
Henry6 can cite several NY parkways built in the 1960s around NYC thah have always banned trucks and have never had to be even repaved.
Maybe RRs do have a better ROI now but look at all the lean years that they did not have such ??
[quote user="blue streak 1"]
Sam1: Whether truckers pay their fair share of the roadway system has been debated and will continue to be debated for year. . For example, truckers pay hefty fuel taxes, which contribute a disproportionate percentage of revenues to the highway trust fund For comparative purposes, the median return on sales for the Fortune 500 (America's freight railroads are Fortune 500 companies) was approximately 5% and the median return on equity was 14.3%, which was significanty above the historical return of 12%. As these numbers show, at least from a financial perspective, America's freight railroads are performing substantially above the financial medians for America's largest corporations.
Maybe RRs do have a better ROI now but look at all the lean years that they did not have such ?? /quote]
Most transport experts understand that heavy trucks do more damage to the highways per vehicle mile traveled than light trucks and cars. Studies from the Texas Transportation Institute show this to be true. I did not agree or disagree with their findings. I alluded to the fact that the question of whether they are paying their fair share is being debated and probably will continue to be debated or words to that effect.
Heavy truck operators pay considerably more in vehicle taxes and user fees (primarily diesel) than light truck and car owners. In addition, the overwhelming majority of heavy trucks is operated by for profit common carriers (J.B. Hunt, Roadway, etc.) or private carriers (Ashley Furniture, Walmart, Frito-Lay, etc.) Most of these firms pay federal, state, and local income taxes, inventory and property taxes, etc. A portion of these taxes flow to highway development and maintenance. Accordingly, the key question is whether the incremental taxes and fees paid by heavy truck operators, as well as their corporate taxes, cover the incremental maintenance costs caused by their trucks.
If Henry can point to verifiable data that the Taconic Parkway in New York, as well as the Merit Parkway in Connecticut, as examples, have never been resurfaced, I'll believe it, although it has nothing to do with determining whether truckers pay the incremental cost of maintaining the highways that they use. Otherwise, having driven these parkways, both of which appear to have been resurfaced at least once, I will remain a skeptic. By comparison, you can look up the data that I presented regarding the financial performance of the nation's freight railroads. The annual reports of the reporting railroads is a good place to start, except in the case of the BNSF the data has to be dug out of Berkshire Hathaway's financial data.
As the figures shown in my previous post show, the nation's freight railroads are outperforming their Fortune 500 counterparts. And not just by a little bit. Prior to the regulatory reforms implement by the Stagger's Act, the returns was less than what they could have gotten from a passbook savings account. That was then. This is now.
I come back to what I have said and will continue repeat. Whether the railroads were treated unfairly in comparison to alternative modes of transport or are being treated fairly is irrelevant. We ain't going back! Americans are not going to give up the technological, commercial, and convenience advantages delivered by cars, planes, and trucks. It just is not going to happen. Which leaves us with this question: what is the role for passenger rail in the nation's bag of transport options?
MidlandMike Admittedly, sometimes these good intentions morph into misguided consequences, but then they were brought back into line with the Staggers Rail Act. To say that without interference we would now have a healthy freight rail system is a best case scenario, and it may just have likely turned out that the rail companies would have morphed int trucking or airline companies,
Admittedly, sometimes these good intentions morph into misguided consequences, but then they were brought back into line with the Staggers Rail Act. To say that without interference we would now have a healthy freight rail system is a best case scenario, and it may just have likely turned out that the rail companies would have morphed int trucking or airline companies,
We would have integrated transportation companies - not morphed railroads. The railroads would have poured their capital into integrating trucking and air travel into their railroad network. The roads would have merged down to 3 or 4 and served everyone, everywhere.
Also Sam, we have a two fold public relations/image problem One is several generations who have no concept of what passenger service (again, I say service and not trains) is all about. Talking to them about rail travel is akin to explaining space travel to our grandparents whose concept is Buck Rogers and Flash Gorden and not Niel Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. And second is the older generation who don't understand that the train left the station decades ago, today's railroads are not the same as those who took us through WWII and the Korean War with troop trains and billions of tons of freight. Say "choo, choo" in front of them and they remember steam locomotives belching through the night. Say "choo, choo, in front of a contemporary person and they say, "Ggesundhiet!" to you. That's why we have to start planning a transportation system for this into the next century starting from scratch, forgetting the past and the present, more than just thinking outside the box but thinking as if there was never a box at all. Therein lies the future of Amtrak and not in the timetables of the past.
Phoebe Vet What an interesting way to rationalize our paranoid defense spending and posture.
I suppose on this anniversary of our great nation's founding, I could take personal offense at that remark, especially in light of two persons who would later become my parents being independently granted refugee status to come to this country in the aftermath of WW-II and not forced to be repatriated with a newly Communist country.
But what bothers me more about such remarks is that damage is done to the cause of passenger train advocacy. Yes, being for or against public spending on passenger trains roughly correlates with the Liberal/Conservative political divide. But even in the Liberal camp there is not universal enthusiasm for trains, and given the close division of the American electorate along the main ideological lines, advancing the cause of trains is going to require support from both Liberals and Conservatives, as well as from people who question our defense spending and posture and those who unabashedly support it (not cleanly split along Liberal and Conservative lines either).
How are we going to build this broad coalition in support of trains if advocacy people go around offending people either in that coalition or who could be in it? And I have experienced this not only here but in the bricks-and-morter advocacy circles as well.
Furthermore, let's stipulate that all of this is going to change, peace is going to break out all over, and there will be this enormous peace dividend coming. It is a real stretch to think that passenger trains are going to be first in line for that money. For example, the Recovery Act (Stimulus bill) was roughly 800 billion for various worthwhile non-defense expenditures, and passenger trains got 8 billion, about 1 percent, and from an Administration who has as strong a passenger advocate (the Vice President) as you are going to ever get in high places. 8 billion dollars may not be a lot of money compared to the need and the passenger-train wish lists, but from the high-speed baggage car thread, it is not clear that money is being spent for maximum impact, it is not clear to me that the advocacy community took seriously the one-time-window-of-opportunity nature of that money.
So if not trains, what is ahead of us (besides defense) claiming Federal money? Health care for one. I had suggested in another thread that the broadening of who is covered by health insurance is going to require more money and is an important social priority, and a certain person laid into me as being a Right-wing shill for suggesting that. There are certain things about the social climate of this forum that I simply don't get.
Education is also a priority. Having enough men and women as police and firefighters and municipal workers is also a priority. Somewhere down the list are trains, probably at the one-part-in-one hundred level of the stimulus bill, given the most favorable political environment as you are going to get for this sort of thing.
The other thing that bothers me is that as soon as anyone introduces anything remotely approaching a Free Market argument in passenger advocacy circles, there is this piling on regarding the virtue as well as necessity of passenger train subsidies. The amount of subsidy Amtrak receives is just a rounding error in the Federal Budget, but then too, contrary to some vehement denials by the way, the Amtrak contribution to moving people around outside of the NEC is a footnote entry in the Department of Commerce transportation statistics.
Advocacy business-as-usual hasn't gotten us off dead center since Amtrak's inception over 40 years ago. I welcome the people who challenge the passenger-train orthodoxy on this forum because we need new ideas, and such were certainly not expressed in the bricks-and-morters circles I frequented, or if you were (a published railroad historical book author!) speaking as much, you ended up blacklisted in not being invited back for not keeping to the party line.
Paul:
I'm not sure how you got all of that from my reply that claiming that we have been forced to expend all of our resources defending all the other nations of the world because they have chosen not to defend themselves is an interesting rationalization.
I only replied to someone who made that claim. I have no intention of making it a protracted debate. Such a debate would be totally political and in violation of the rules of the forum.
oltmannd MidlandMike: Admittedly, sometimes these good intentions morph into misguided consequences, but then they were brought back into line with the Staggers Rail Act. To say that without interference we would now have a healthy freight rail system is a best case scenario, and it may just have likely turned out that the rail companies would have morphed int trucking or airline companies, We would have integrated transportation companies - not morphed railroads. The railroads would have poured their capital into integrating trucking and air travel into their railroad network. The roads would have merged down to 3 or 4 and served everyone, everywhere.
MidlandMike: Admittedly, sometimes these good intentions morph into misguided consequences, but then they were brought back into line with the Staggers Rail Act. To say that without interference we would now have a healthy freight rail system is a best case scenario, and it may just have likely turned out that the rail companies would have morphed int trucking or airline companies,
Yes, that also might have happened, but also an integrated company might also have decided that the rail portion was not lucrative enough and spun it off as a depleted shell. Also I prefer airline companies to be focused on air safety. Plus I think that all transportation to be controlled by 3 or 4 integrated companies would be too close to transport oligarchy to be good for the country.
I disagree completely with the above post. because rail transportation is far more effficient for freight than any kind of highway or air transportation, and the only reason the airlines and truckers could compete was because of the massive intervention of government, both in ivestment and regulaation. If integrated transportaton companies had emerged, and the government would not have interfered, we would proabably have integrated power and rail companeis, with elelctrification widespread, with abandonmennt of little used branch lines beause of the wide availableiltiy of intermodal transfer points. We might have had double-sttack trains (with catenary high enough to handle them) on some routes before WWII, s a logical development of what the PRR wanted to do in 1931. Instead Firestone-GM-Texaco owning most of the USA's transit systems thorugh Naitonal City Lines, the power companies would have continiued owning most of the larger ones that were not municipally owned, and in many places where there are now new light rail lines, these would have grown logically from the existing streetcar systems, where heavy trunk routes would have been upgraded, and minor ones converted to buses. Regarding mergers, of course the Hill lines would have emerged long ago, the PRR, N&W, and Southern, and possibly the ACL, with the Seabord, NYC, B&O, and C&O forming the maor competitor in its territory. Probably WP-D&RGW-MP-TP and possibly RI. Of course, all these railroads would probably own trucking companies with most freight, as today, either intermodal or unit trains. The two competing technologies would have been container on flatcar, pioneered by PRR at a major, and trailer on flatcar. But long distance truckiing and air-freight would have been specialty situations for freigiht not adaptable for intermodal or unit train operation. Loose car railroading would be a minor part of the freight business, about parallel with long-distance trucking and air-freight. We would have been better prepared for WWII. and less dependent on mideast oil after!
Phoebe Vet Paul: I'm not sure how you got all of that from my reply that claiming that we have been forced to expend all of our resources defending all the other nations of the world because they have chosen not to defend themselves is an interesting rationalization.
Um, could it have been because you characterized U.S. 'defense spending and posture' as 'paranoid'?
Which it is.
It is "interesting" how conservative-leaning folks, such as sam1, greyhounds, the dakotas, to name just a few, express their ideas freely. Yet if they are challenged, that challenge is labeled as "political" or a personal attack.
schlimm It is "interesting" how conservative-leaning folks, such as sam1, greyhounds, the dakotas, to name just a few, express their ideas freely. Yet if they are challenged, that challenge is labeled as "political" or a personal attack.
You might want to be careful with labels. In 2008 I supported President Obama. Not only did I vote for him, I used my own money to fly to North Carolina to campaign for him during the primary season. I knew that he did not have a chance in Texas, so I decided not to waste a lot of time in what was sure to be a losing cause.
I am not labeling Sam's attack on long distance passenger trains as political. I am simply stating that he won't look at their general usefulness to the USA pulbic in general and won't address the issue of what massive government spending for the cojmpetition and massiver railway overregulation did to the industry.
It is like the new office manager who get extremely concerned about wastage of paper clips and neglects the simple fact that mental energy and time devoted to saving paper clips is diverted from the main effort of the parlticular business.
The conceptf the unit train isn't new. Ore and coal moved in what were effectively unit trains 90 years ago. But until Staggars railroads could not use the efficiency of unit trains in pricing. A lot fewer pipelines would have been constructed. It was government regulation that forced power companies to sell their transportation subsidiaries, and National City Lines, owned by GM, Texaco,a nd Firestone, was glad to buy them. Of course, today, if railroads owned truck companies and took full advantage of intermodel technology, the question would be what percent of the successful short lines would continue to be successful? And some of those that might fall victim to railroad-owned trucking competition might be some of our tourist passenger operations!
Well it is political and even personal when words like "paranoid" are thrown around. With regard to the "free marketers", has "sam1" ever used language that could even remotely be construed that way?
daveklepper I am not labeling Sam's attack on long distance passenger trains as political. I am simply stating that he won't look at their general usefulness to the USA pulbic in general and won't address the issue of what massive government spending for the cojmpetition and massiver railway overregulation did to the industry.
Answer me this. Amtrak receives funding from the Federal government and pays out money to the host railroads for use of the tracks. Amtrak has to operate stations, but let us assign the cost of the stations to municipalities that benefit from train service, although Sam1 tells me airports recover at least some of their costs from users, i.e. airlines.
So the argument is one of a level playing field. Why cannot a long-distance train operate as a "bus on steel wheels", that is, pay all of its costs above the rail-wheel contact patch? In fact, there is that one advocacy group that claims that the long-distance trains indeed cover such costs, namely United Rail Passenger Alliance (URPA) and their leader named Seldon. The argument is that Amtrak doesn't separate out costs of operating individual routes and spreads vast amount of overhead costs over the network.
Now I know that the Amtrak overhead money needs to come from someplace and that arguments that long-distance trains are being penalized in this regard may be rather thin. Looking more carefully at URPA's press releases and position papers, I am also wondering if they have hard numbers or if they are just flapping their arms. I once pressed an officer in our local advocacy group about URPA's claims of cost shifting, and the suggestion was that URPA's Seldon had "a person inside Amtrak feeding him numbers, and that's why he can't give them out." Really.
Again, I have gotten stern criticism from a certain party around here that you can't separate overhead from "direct costs", that the bills all have to be paid. But Trains Magazine famously claimed in the 1960's that a 727 jet had the Denver Zephyr beat on direct operating costs by a sizable margin. If a train were at least competitive with other modes on at least some measure of costs, any measure of cost, you could argue economy of scale, that if Amtrak received more funding and were a little larger, the overhead would be spread over more trains, and more passenger miles would be generated per subsidy dollar.
The sense I get is that trains and especially long-distance trains have high costs however you draw system boundaries around the operation (to get a level playing field with other modes). This is not a comparison to counting paper clips; this is an analogy to the higher-ups spending the shareholder earning buzzing around in corporate jets (or private railway cars?) rather than going commercial.
There are a lot of claims made by the advocacy communities over the years. In the pre-Amtrak NARP days, the claim was that passenger trains were covering their expenses but that railroad management was cooking the books to get their train-off petitions approved by the ICC. NARP's Anthony Haswell went as far as to suggest that railroad companies were purposefully sabotaging their operations to get rid of passenger trains, suggesting in the newsletter that if a certain railroad "would just answer the phone, their train would have ridership."
Well, we (the advocacy community) "got" Amtrak to keep the passenger trains, Amtrak answers the phone, and I am told long-distance trains operate near capacity. And they lose money hand over fist.
I guess what I am asking, is there any assertion, claim, or position issued by the advocacy community that is even "falsifiable" in the sense of Karl Popper's description of how science works? Was Haswell's remark about "answering the phone" falsifiable in that Amtrak works hard to serve customers, the trains are full, but they still lose money, so maybe we have to go back to the drawing board regarding how trains fit into the transportation picture?
Is there any metric that can be applied to say, yes, the taxpayers are getting good value for their money with this train, but that other train over there is a failing proposition and we should move on? Or is the advocacy community position that trains have such inherent social goodness that whatever level of subsidy it takes should be paid, and wouldn't you know how the United States Navy spends money like the drunken sailors that they are, so just give us the money? But there are limits placed on even the Defense program and big-ticket spending programs get canceled all the time.
I think you have not carefully read my previous posts, because you have not addressed the basic issue, which is this:
Taking all costs together, capitol, infrastructure, equipment, payments to railroads, payments to communities as or in lieu of taxes, and above-the-rail operating costs, the corridors, mainly the NEC, but others as well, have recevied far more taxpayer money than long distance trains. If we look just at the number of passengers carried, the long distance trains seem extremely uneconomical, will expenditures greater than the corridor trains on a seat-mile basis or just on a journey basis. But this standard metric is unfair.
The corridor trains are used primarily by businessmen and each will ride between twice and ten times each week, for between 100 and 500 trips a year.
The long distance trains are mainly for vacations and tours and visiting family, and the travelers using them ride between twice and 24 times a year, very very few making a trip more than once a month.
Taxpayer money for the corridors is what prevents the needed greater expenditures to increase highway and airport capacity, which would indeed be even more expensive than what Amtrak does. IIN some cases, the corridor taxpayer expensses have been necessary just to keep some urban communities functioning. Spending taxpayer money for the second group of riders that is disproporionary high on a seat-mile basis but at the same time disproportionatly low on an individual citizen basis seems appropriate to me. Tourism, emergencies, handicapped and ellderly, these to me are the reasons for subsidizing long distance passenger trains.
I'll add a motive question to Paul's.
There is this other thought that it is the LD trains, i.e. the "national network" that are responsible for the political "oomph" that keeps Amtrak in subsidy every year, and, if that network would to unravel down to jus the corridors, that Amtrak would lose the broad support, particularly in the Senate, that they need to keep going.
So, if this is true, why in the world would Amtrak "shift" costs onto the LD trains, making their economics so vulnerable to criticism and ridicule. (e.g. "you could give everyone on the Sunset a door to door limo ride for what it costs"...etc.)? Politically, wouldn't Amtrak want the LD trains to look as good as possible?
daveklepper Tourism, emergencies, handicapped and ellderly, these to me are the reasons for subsidizing long distance passenger trains.
Tourism, emergencies, handicapped and ellderly, these to me are the reasons for subsidizing long distance passenger trains.
This leaves me a bit queasy. I don't think I could make this argument to anyone with a clear conscience. For the same total subsidy, we could accomplish this for many, many more folk with MCI buses and hotels.
On one hand I understand your queasyness, Oltmannd; and I fully understand what davelepper is saying. But what both of you are missing is that since the majority of Americans really don't have that choice of convenient passenger rail service, niether statement can be wholly accepted. We don't know what majority of people under the age of, what, 40?, would choose for several reasons beyond availability,too. Even those under 50 or 60 have been bombarded with pro automobile and only continental air schedules, how and why would they even think about a train. And if they do menton "train" the nay sayers, those with bad experiences, those who think in the same reflection as Dave presented, etc. peer pressure puts them in the air or behind the wheel on the six lane dodging trucks at 80+ mph. But that is what society has given them, what has been marketed as American transportation. It isn't until they come back from Europe or Japan that they start realizing what the US has been missing in modern and contemmporary transportation.
henry6 On one hand I understand your queasyness, Oltmannd; and I fully understand what davelepper is saying. But what both of you are missing is that since the majority of Americans really don't have that choice of convenient passenger rail service, niether statement can be wholly accepted. We don't know what majority of people under the age of, what, 40?, would choose for several reasons beyond availability,too. Even those under 50 or 60 have been bombarded with pro automobile and only continental air schedules, how and why would they even think about a train. And if they do menton "train" the nay sayers, those with bad experiences, those who think in the same reflection as Dave presented, etc. peer pressure puts them in the air or behind the wheel on the six lane dodging trucks at 80+ mph. But that is what society has given them, what has been marketed as American transportation. It isn't until they come back from Europe or Japan that they start realizing what the US has been missing in modern and contemmporary transportation.
It is not a question of whether people will ride the trains. If you build it, they will come -- people are riding the trains.
The problem is that the trains cost too much. Was the editorial staff of Trains Magazine "counting paper clips" back in the day when the article "Who Shot the Passenger Train" was published and when it was disclosed that the new 727 jet airliner beat the Denver Zephyr on direct operating cost?
The trains also cost too much "over there" -- the expenditure is on the order of our Federal Highway budget for the train market share of 5 percent of passenger miles. So, the Interstate System is cross-subsidized, gets a lion share of gas tax revenue for carrying 20 percent of passenger miles. So then it is a minimum of four times more cost effective than trains.
The problem, as I see it, is there is a main faction in the advocacy community that does not want to address the question of cost -- everyone else is getting government funding, so why not we, and anyone who questions our view of passenger trains being meritorious of public money is part of the political opposition.
The questioning of corridors vs long-distance, paper plates vs china, crew dorms vs service districts, brand new high-speed baggage cars vs convert-Amfleet has to do with the cost question. Those of us in the advocacy community are in aggregate as technically knowlegable as any one person at Amtrak, and I see a role for the advocacy community to gain some insights into the engineering and economic trades in providing train service. But there is a large segment of the advocacy community who likes trains the way they are and just wants the government funding coming in.
What part, if any, of the advocacy community do you find to be asking the right questions, making valid assumptions and pursuing reasonable goals with an effective strategy? If none, what might you propose?
But Paul, trains cost so much because there are so few of them. If we had fewer roads or fewer airports, those forms of transportation would cost more too. Passenger rail cost so much because it is a government service of minimal support. If it received the same amount of money per mile of track or number of cars and locomotives or on some other scale other than per passenger mile, then the comparison would be different that what is given us. If we had as many passenger track miles as we do super highways or airways, then we migh get a better idea of what rail can do against them You can't ride a train to so many places where you can drive or even fly, so how can you say it is more expensive? It might only be more expensive because you have to either drive, take a bus, or fly to take a full journey. After that, it is marketing, marketing, marketing....and providins service instead of running trains.
Don't know where this came from. I'd like to be shown where, on this thread or elsewhere, I have cried "politics" or "personal attack."
Conversely, I suppose if I accused Schlimm of making it up as he goes along, that would be a personal attack.
Not what I said. Try re-reading.
daveklepper I disagree completely with the above post. because rail transportation is far more effficient for freight than any kind of highway or air transportation, and the only reason the airlines and truckers could compete was because of the massive intervention of government, both in ivestment and regulaation. If integrated transportaton companies had emerged, and the government would not have interfered, we would proabably have integrated power and rail companeis, with elelctrification widespread, with abandonmennt of little used branch lines beause of the wide availableiltiy of intermodal transfer points. We might have had double-sttack trains (with catenary high enough to handle them) on some routes before WWII, s a logical development of what the PRR wanted to do in 1931. Instead Firestone-GM-Texaco owning most of the USA's transit systems thorugh Naitonal City Lines, the power companies would have continiued owning most of the larger ones that were not municipally owned, and in many places where there are now new light rail lines, these would have grown logically from the existing streetcar systems, where heavy trunk routes would have been upgraded, and minor ones converted to buses. Regarding mergers, of course the Hill lines would have emerged long ago, the PRR, N&W, and Southern, and possibly the ACL, with the Seabord, NYC, B&O, and C&O forming the maor competitor in its territory. Probably WP-D&RGW-MP-TP and possibly RI. Of course, all these railroads would probably own trucking companies with most freight, as today, either intermodal or unit trains. The two competing technologies would have been container on flatcar, pioneered by PRR at a major, and trailer on flatcar. But long distance truckiing and air-freight would have been specialty situations for freigiht not adaptable for intermodal or unit train operation. Loose car railroading would be a minor part of the freight business, about parallel with long-distance trucking and air-freight. We would have been better prepared for WWII. and less dependent on mideast oil after!
Your are preaching to the choir when you say that rail is the most efficient mode, at least in a physical context . Nevertheless, many shippers consider time as part of efficiency, and rail corporations may consider the efficiency of capital to trump the rest. Depending on circumstances, rail may not always come out the winner.
I presume that when you talk of gov't interference with integrated power and rail companies, you are referring to the Public Utility Holding Company Act. This prevented regulated monopoly electric companies from mixing costs and profits with their transit companies. While the divestiture opened the door for Firestone-GM-et al. to buy up unwanted trolley lines, your theory fails to gain traction because the largest example of a traction line, the PE, was owned by the SP rather than a utility, and still suffered the same fate.
As a citizen, I feel it is the governments job to intervene where appropriate, in situations where its citizens have pointed out an obvious injustice. To lay out all these problems of the railroads as caused by our overarching socio-political institution, ie. the government, sounds like trying to find blame a place to stick to.
schlimm Not what I said. Try re-reading.
Done, same result. Try rewriting.
dakotafred schlimm: Not what I said. Try re-reading. Done, same result. Try rewriting.
schlimm: Not what I said. Try re-reading.
Perhaps this is clearer?
It is "interesting" how conservative-leaning folks, such as sam1, greyhounds, the dakotas, to name just a few, express their ideas freely. Yet if they (plural, members of that group, not necessarily YOU specifically) are challenged, that challenge is labeled as "political" or a personal attack (again, not necessarily by you).
Let me address myself to a particular recent comment: I am absolutely to be counted among those who don't give a darn about the cost of Amtrak service, especially the long-distance trains, and just want that money coming in. Guilty as charged.
I'll say this again: No long-distance trains will equal no Amtrak. Period. No Congressman is going to vote any subsidies for a service his state has just lost.
The total amount of money Amtrak gets from the Feds is pathetically inadequate and a mere tiny fraction of the Federal budget. There's always money for everything else. I heard on the news yesterday that the amount of money to fly supplies to our troops in Afghanistan, because the road connection has been blocked at the Pakistan border for a year, is an extra 1 billion dollars per day! Or, to my way of thinking, that's about one year's Amtrak subsidy every two days (forgive me if my figure is wrong; you take my point, I hope).
Don't tell me that it all adds up, don't repeat the Dirksen quote; I'm familiar with all of that. I'm a railfan: I want more trains and especially more passenger trains. If there's that kind of money every day for a war no one wants, and for banks that are too big to fail, I bet we can afford a national passenger rail program in this country.
What sort of "railfan" wants to see Amtrak destroyed?
henry6 But Paul, trains cost so much because there are so few of them. If we had fewer roads or fewer airports, those forms of transportation would cost more too. Passenger rail cost so much because it is a government service of minimal support. If it received the same amount of money per mile of track or number of cars and locomotives or on some other scale other than per passenger mile, then the comparison would be different that what is given us. If we had as many passenger track miles as we do super highways or airways, then we migh get a better idea of what rail can do against them You can't ride a train to so many places where you can drive or even fly, so how can you say it is more expensive? It might only be more expensive because you have to either drive, take a bus, or fly to take a full journey. After that, it is marketing, marketing, marketing....and providins service instead of running trains.
There is no evidence that Amtrak has ANY economies of scale.
I looked to see if economies of scale showed up when Amtrak and Illinois doubled the frequency on a couple of routes several years back. There was none.
Also, Amtrak has had a nice boost in ridership over the past couple of years. Look to see how much of that made it to the bottom line. Not very much - and it should have almost ALL made it there.
Amtrak added over 200 management jobs in the past several years while adding zero trains to the network. The "big cuts" this past year were about 200 jobs. Hmmm.
Perhaps there SHOULD be economies of scale. Amtrak does not seem interested in finding them.
NKP guy Let me address myself to a particular recent comment: I am absolutely to be counted among those who don't give a darn about the cost of Amtrak service, especially the long-distance trains, and just want that money coming in. Guilty as charged. I'll say this again: No long-distance trains will equal no Amtrak. Period. No Congressman is going to vote any subsidies for a service his state has just lost. The total amount of money Amtrak gets from the Feds is pathetically inadequate and a mere tiny fraction of the Federal budget. There's always money for everything else. I heard on the news yesterday that the amount of money to fly supplies to our troops in Afghanistan, because the road connection has been blocked at the Pakistan border for a year, is an extra 1 billion dollars per day! Or, to my way of thinking, that's about one year's Amtrak subsidy every two days (forgive me if my figure is wrong; you take my point, I hope). Don't tell me that it all adds up, don't repeat the Dirksen quote; I'm familiar with all of that. I'm a railfan: I want more trains and especially more passenger trains. If there's that kind of money every day for a war no one wants, and for banks that are too big to fail, I bet we can afford a national passenger rail program in this country. What sort of "railfan" wants to see Amtrak destroyed?
I don't. That's why I want them to do better. They do so little with the money they get they are almost impossible to defend. Yes, it's not much of the Federal budget, but we should give them more so they can do what? But more baggage cars? Hire more managers? Lobby congress more? Buy Popsicles and let them melt in the road?
Don't we want more and better service? Let's start holding them accountable for that! THEN see about them getting more money.
Right on target, Don.
Ever since its "conception", AMTRAK has provided some sort of passenger rail service, with a focus on running trains and hardly any focus on the word "service". It will continue to do so, unless a few substantial things are changed.
Change of mandate: AMTRAK´s congressional mandate should reflect a service orientation, based on current, but also future needs of the US society.
Change of funding: Not based on what´s left in the budget, but what is needed.
Change of management: Railroads are strange animals. You need to have an excellent understanding of railroading to be able to run that business properly. In Germany, German Railways was run for some years by a guy who thought he could run it just like an airline. It´s costing billions of Euros to correct the mistakes he made.
Change in attitude: Trains are not "old-fashioned" choo-choos, but a viable option of modern transport.
Need people to introduce change - I may volunteer
But that would all be too logical. Something similar to that should, but probably won't happen here.
Here is a better plan:
1. Discontinue long distance trains.
2. Open the routes where passenger trains could be commercially viable to competitive bidding and award contracts to the lowest effective cost bidder.
3. Establish performance standards with appropriate incentive payments. Contracts run for five years; renewable for another five years if performance standards are met.
4. Require contractors to have effective organization, management, technology and employee (labor) practices. Keep most Amtrak employees, but make it clear that the game in Dodge has changed.
5. Implement effective customer service training for contract employees. Implement performance based compensation system for all employees.
6. Sell Amtrak's infrastructure to an independent operator that will allow any operator who meets the standards to run trains on it. Infrastructure rents set to capture cost of infrastructure operations and maintenance.
6. Provide federal subsidies for a reasonable transition period, i.e. five years.
7. Phase out small federal subsidies for other modes of transport and encourage the states to do the same.
Each of these steps would need to be fleshed out in a white paper. Moreover, I have just jotted them down off the top of my head. I am sure there are some more features that should be built into the model.
The key to improved performance is competition. Without it there is little incentive to do things better, faster, cheaper, with the operative word being better. Amtrak has tried most of the things that have been suggested in our forums. None of them have worked very well.
Australia, where I lived for five years, went from being one of the most heavily regulated and statist economies in the OECD to one of the most competitive economies in less than 15 years. What has been the result? Today it is one of the shinning stars in the OECD. It is outperforming the United States and most European countries on the key economic indicators, i.e. unemployment, exports, currency valuation, GDP and GNP growth, etc.
What is the probability that we will allow market forces to drive passenger train service in the United States? None! But's its fun to thing about what could have been the outcome if Volpe's plan (Amtrak) to saving the dying intercity passenger trains had been shot down. Which it should have been!
I disagree on the notion that Amtrak's economy scale isn't proven or provable. Commuter trains, buses, and airlines should prove the concept; even the wistful "build it and they will come" points in that direction. We either want to drive cars or ride trains is the attitude I get here and from the general population. If that is the case, the close Amtrak and give the money to the big oil companies, auto makers, concrete purveyors, and others who you think would benefit from Amtrak, and passenger service, demise. Why argue anymore? At least the invading Russian Army won't have a means of moving troops and Beech Grove Shops can be used either as a concentration camp or to build tanks with sickle and hammer emblems! Go ahead and fall in behind those who follow that logic since Dole was DOT Sec. and Ron and Nancy Reagan ran the White House. Sam 1's plan is just another in a series of delaying plans rather one of positive action. If whatever traffic, environmental, efficiency, and economic data has been assembled so far isn't enough to act on, then a ten point plan is only to created buracracies and delay decsions. Lets just build up or bail out. Now.
henry6 I disagree on the notion that Amtrak's economy scale isn't proven or provable. Commuter trains, buses, and airlines should prove the concept; even the wistful "build it and they will come" points in that direction.
I disagree on the notion that Amtrak's economy scale isn't proven or provable. Commuter trains, buses, and airlines should prove the concept; even the wistful "build it and they will come" points in that direction.
The problem isn't that passenger rail has no economies of scale, it's AMTRAK that has the problem. Amtrak has to be fixed or improved before there will be much forward progress.
Sir Madog Ever since its "conception", AMTRAK has provided some sort of passenger rail service, with a focus on running trains and hardly any focus on the word "service". It will continue to do so, unless a few substantial things are changed. Change of mandate: AMTRAK´s congressional mandate should reflect a service orientation, based on current, but also future needs of the US society. Change of funding: Not based on what´s left in the budget, but what is needed. Change of management: Railroads are strange animals. You need to have an excellent understanding of railroading to be able to run that business properly. In Germany, German Railways was run for some years by a guy who thought he could run it just like an airline. It´s costing billions of Euros to correct the mistakes he made. Change in attitude: Trains are not "old-fashioned" choo-choos, but a viable option of modern transport. Need people to introduce change - I may volunteer
Yes. Expect it, measure it and then reward results.
One factor that is consistently overlooked or ignored is that Amtrak is a political creature and has to maintain some sort of support in Congress, whether we like it or not. Because of this political factor, discontinuance of the Western long-haul trains is about as likely as discontinuance of the Essential Air Service program. If the long-haul trains are dropped (and I agree with the idea that they should be dropped), it's going to be a lot harder to gain support for the various short-haul and corridor services that at least fill a reasonable need.
Why Australia? Because it has private contractors? Why not adapt something more like the German model?
CSSHEGEWISCH One factor that is consistently overlooked or ignored is that Amtrak is a political creature and has to maintain some sort of support in Congress, whether we like it or not.
One factor that is consistently overlooked or ignored is that Amtrak is a political creature and has to maintain some sort of support in Congress, whether we like it or not.
But who is driving the politics? For the average everyday person, Amtrak and long-distance trains aren't even on the radar screen. The politics is you, me, everyone on this forum, and everyone else who rides trains or has an interest in trains.
One of the infamous "modest proposals" was the Inspector General Kenneth Meade report, that got the advocacy community so upset about everything that one couldn't even discuss the proposal. The idea was not to discontinue the long-distance trains. The idea was that over 50 percent of the train was serving maybe 20 percent of the passengers -- the first-class sleeping car passengers.
The automatic assumption is that sleeping car service charges such high fares in relation to coach that it has to be contributing to the bottom line, and the idea that we are subsidizing patrons of a premium service at the level of hundreds of dollars per trip couldn't be right.
So the idea was to remove one of the locomotives, the baggage, crew dorm, the diner, the lounge car, and the sleepers from the long-distance trains -- a long-distance trains would then have a consist of a locomotive and about 4-6 coaches, just like a corridor train. There were numbers presented in the report that it could cut the long-distance train subsidy in half while serving at least 80 percent of the passengers -- most trips on these trains are in coach and most trips don't go the whole distance but instead originate and terminate at intermediate stops.
When this report came out, you could hear the cries of "oh, the Humanity" from our bricks-and-morter advocacy community, and the report was so toxic that one couldn't even speak of it around here without getting the thread locked out.
Among the many criticisms of this proposal as to "why this would never work", the more interesting one was the voiced concern of "having only one locomotive"? I mean c'mon, apart from helper districts I suppose, such name trains as the Broadway Limited and Twentieth Century Limited ran with a single (steam) locomotive (OK, OK, the Pennsy used double-headed K4 locomotives, but they reverted to single T1 locomotives, at least for a while).
I mean, is Amtrak motive power maintenance so haphazard that you can't dispatch a long-distance train with one locomotive unit? Commuter and corridor consists run that way all the time. Do our long-distance trains traverse arid wastelands like the Karoo Desert that back in the day required condensing steam locomotives, that if you had a unit break down you would have passengers stranded without food and water in sweltering heat?
Among my bricks-and-morter colleagues, I made the suggestion that maybe we shouldn't dismiss this proposal out-of-hand. If we could have day trains in the style of the Cascades Talgo up and down the Mountain West, would that be a fair trade for the long-distance trains? How about the counter proposal of keep the level of subsidy where it is at, but provide twice-daily service along the long-distance routes, which functions for most of the passengers as a kind of linear network of corridors connecting intermediate stops?
I have come to a cynical view that passenger train advocacy is about a community of people who use sleeping car service to take cross-country trips on the long-distance trains. Not all of this is pleasure or vacation travel. I am beginning to realize why "the national network" figured so prominently in our talking points in that a number of our members of the local advocacy group took trains when they had to go someplace, trips that most of the rest of us would just make airline reservations -- if you had enough time on our hands and have arrangements for local transportation at each end, you can indeed get to most places using Amtrak.
I am saying that at the high-water mark in terms of getting a train to Madison, Wisconsin, one of the people, especially, in our local advocacy group was making a big deal of it everywhere he could, from op-ed pieces to thumbtacking a note on the bulletin board when you come in to Copp's Food Store on University Avenue. The Madison train was pointedly not "a commuter train to Milwaukee, it was a gateway to the 1000 destinations (on the Amtrak network)."
We also got our foundation garments all twisted up about Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz putting the Madison station downtown (Mayor Dave went on a fact-finding trip to Spain to see the Talgo in operation and was impressed with the car-less life style that downtown train service allowed -- our people wanted to hang on to their cars thank-you-very-much so they could drive and then park their cars to take their sleeping-car trips to the 1000 destinations, just like you drive and park your car at the Dane County Regional Airport). When we all calmed down, we got together our "list of demands" to take to a meeting with Mayor Dave's aides, which included that the station "had to have a national map showing the Amtrak system."
The way I see it is that if the Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago Talgo was about fostering economic development by turning Madison into a kind of longish commuter suburb of Milwaukee and Chicago, that is strong justification for the nearly one-billion dollar investment.
If what the Madison Talgo is about is those 1000 destinations on the Amtrak network, so that a small community of people with sufficient financial resources and time can flit about the country, and the rest of us with neither the financial resources nor the time are stuffed into Canadair Regional Jets (if you are traveling on University or State business, you go by the absolute cheapest way possible, and if teaching assistants are covering your classroom lectures, you don't tack days on to the trip by going to the West Coast on Amtrak). If that is what the Madison Talgo is all about, fuggetaboutit, you are taking the Lamars/Van Galder motor coach from Memorial Union straight to Chicago Union Station, and your complaints about the sparse leg room simply don't merit the nearly billion-dollar expenditure, and I don't care how much money is wasted in Afghanistan.
So why couldn't the Madison Talgo have been about both markets? Why not in deed, but when push-came-to-shove, when the rubber-met-the road, our advocacy people threw a tantrum, and now there is no Madison Talgo and neither market is being served.
So when people say, "Yeah, Amtrak could be improved, but it is constrained by politics," who do you think is writing the local newspaper op-eds and who is e-mailing Congress on this?
schlimm Why Australia? Because it has private contractors? Why not adapt something more like the German model?
Germany is doing more and more contracting out.
True, but the core is still DB (which is actually a joint-stock corporation) and some contractors are actually DB subsidiaries, like DB-Schenker, the freight service.
Local and long-distance passenger trains
412 million tons freight
25,532 per day Freight: 5261 per day
Paul Milenkovic But who is driving the politics? For the average everyday person, Amtrak and long-distance trains aren't even on the radar screen. The politics is you, me, everyone on this forum, and everyone else who rides trains or has an interest in trains. So why couldn't the Madison Talgo have been about both markets? Why not in deed, but when push-came-to-shove, when the rubber-met-the road, our advocacy people threw a tantrum, and now there is no Madison Talgo and neither market is being served. So when people say, "Yeah, Amtrak could be improved, but it is constrained by politics," who do you think is writing the local newspaper op-eds and who is e-mailing Congress on this?
Paul: A very interesting account of your frustrations with the advocacy group in Madison (the meetings sound about as silly as many departmental meetings I wasn't able to get out of in the past). But what to do for the future?
The key is competition. Not Australia! I happened to live through the Australian transition from a highly statist commercial environment to a competitive commercial environment, albeit properly regulated. It is a reference point.
As I have stated on other posts, I began my electric utility industry career with a major utility in Dallas. It was a regulated monopoly. It looked like the government, talked like the government, and walked like the government. Without getting into all the details, it was grossly inefficient. Then competition came to the TX electric utility business. And it changed dramatically. Long story short we dropped from more than 18,000 employees to fewer than 10,000 whilst increasing our customer base 25%, and the lights did not flicker once. Competition forces people to work better, faster, cheaper, with the operative word being better. Those who could not hack a competitive environment were let down gently. But they were let down.
Competition is not a panacea. But it forces people to pay attention to the entities key stakeholders, i.e. customers, employees, shareholders, etc. If they don't, they go out of business. In the case of a government managed enterprise, there is little in the way of a driving force to optimize results.
Lived through the process! Been there! Done it!
Paul Milenkovic CSSHEGEWISCH: One factor that is consistently overlooked or ignored is that Amtrak is a political creature and has to maintain some sort of support in Congress, whether we like it or not. But who is driving the politics? For the average everyday person, Amtrak and long-distance trains aren't even on the radar screen. The politics is you, me, everyone on this forum, and everyone else who rides trains or has an interest in trains. One of the infamous "modest proposals" was the Inspector General Kenneth Meade report, that got the advocacy community so upset about everything that one couldn't even discuss the proposal. The idea was not to discontinue the long-distance trains. The idea was that over 50 percent of the train was serving maybe 20 percent of the passengers -- the first-class sleeping car passengers. The automatic assumption is that sleeping car service charges such high fares in relation to coach that it has to be contributing to the bottom line, and the idea that we are subsidizing patrons of a premium service at the level of hundreds of dollars per trip couldn't be right. So the idea was to remove one of the locomotives, the baggage, crew dorm, the diner, the lounge car, and the sleepers from the long-distance trains -- a long-distance trains would then have a consist of a locomotive and about 4-6 coaches, just like a corridor train. There were numbers presented in the report that it could cut the long-distance train subsidy in half while serving at least 80 percent of the passengers -- most trips on these trains are in coach and most trips don't go the whole distance but instead originate and terminate at intermediate stops. When this report came out, you could hear the cries of "oh, the Humanity" from our bricks-and-morter advocacy community, and the report was so toxic that one couldn't even speak of it around here without getting the thread locked out. Among the many criticisms of this proposal as to "why this would never work", the more interesting one was the voiced concern of "having only one locomotive"? I mean c'mon, apart from helper districts I suppose, such name trains as the Broadway Limited and Twentieth Century Limited ran with a single (steam) locomotive (OK, OK, the Pennsy used double-headed K4 locomotives, but they reverted to single T1 locomotives, at least for a while). I mean, is Amtrak motive power maintenance so haphazard that you can't dispatch a long-distance train with one locomotive unit? Commuter and corridor consists run that way all the time. Do our long-distance trains traverse arid wastelands like the Karoo Desert that back in the day required condensing steam locomotives, that if you had a unit break down you would have passengers stranded without food and water in sweltering heat? Among my bricks-and-morter colleagues, I made the suggestion that maybe we shouldn't dismiss this proposal out-of-hand. If we could have day trains in the style of the Cascades Talgo up and down the Mountain West, would that be a fair trade for the long-distance trains? How about the counter proposal of keep the level of subsidy where it is at, but provide twice-daily service along the long-distance routes, which functions for most of the passengers as a kind of linear network of corridors connecting intermediate stops? I have come to a cynical view that passenger train advocacy is about a community of people who use sleeping car service to take cross-country trips on the long-distance trains. Not all of this is pleasure or vacation travel. I am beginning to realize why "the national network" figured so prominently in our talking points in that a number of our members of the local advocacy group took trains when they had to go someplace, trips that most of the rest of us would just make airline reservations -- if you had enough time on our hands and have arrangements for local transportation at each end, you can indeed get to most places using Amtrak. I am saying that at the high-water mark in terms of getting a train to Madison, Wisconsin, one of the people, especially, in our local advocacy group was making a big deal of it everywhere he could, from op-ed pieces to thumbtacking a note on the bulletin board when you come in to Copp's Food Store on University Avenue. The Madison train was pointedly not "a commuter train to Milwaukee, it was a gateway to the 1000 destinations (on the Amtrak network)." We also got our foundation garments all twisted up about Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz putting the Madison station downtown (Mayor Dave went on a fact-finding trip to Spain to see the Talgo in operation and was impressed with the car-less life style that downtown train service allowed -- our people wanted to hang on to their cars thank-you-very-much so they could drive and then park their cars to take their sleeping-car trips to the 1000 destinations, just like you drive and park your car at the Dane County Regional Airport). When we all calmed down, we got together our "list of demands" to take to a meeting with Mayor Dave's aides, which included that the station "had to have a national map showing the Amtrak system." The way I see it is that if the Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago Talgo was about fostering economic development by turning Madison into a kind of longish commuter suburb of Milwaukee and Chicago, that is strong justification for the nearly one-billion dollar investment. If what the Madison Talgo is about is those 1000 destinations on the Amtrak network, so that a small community of people with sufficient financial resources and time can flit about the country, and the rest of us with neither the financial resources nor the time are stuffed into Canadair Regional Jets (if you are traveling on University or State business, you go by the absolute cheapest way possible, and if teaching assistants are covering your classroom lectures, you don't tack days on to the trip by going to the West Coast on Amtrak). If that is what the Madison Talgo is all about, fuggetaboutit, you are taking the Lamars/Van Galder motor coach from Memorial Union straight to Chicago Union Station, and your complaints about the sparse leg room simply don't merit the nearly billion-dollar expenditure, and I don't care how much money is wasted in Afghanistan. So why couldn't the Madison Talgo have been about both markets? Why not in deed, but when push-came-to-shove, when the rubber-met-the road, our advocacy people threw a tantrum, and now there is no Madison Talgo and neither market is being served. So when people say, "Yeah, Amtrak could be improved, but it is constrained by politics," who do you think is writing the local newspaper op-eds and who is e-mailing Congress on this?
CSSHEGEWISCH: One factor that is consistently overlooked or ignored is that Amtrak is a political creature and has to maintain some sort of support in Congress, whether we like it or not.
Nobody in Congress will complain if Amtrak improves service and cuts costs. Well, almost nobody....depending how they do it.
I don't even think you have to whack the route structure, if that's what's politically required. Just flip everything into day trains by segment and have deals with hotels to shuttle passengers to and from the station at the split points.
Off the top of my head:
Empire Builder: Seattle to Glacier, Glacier to Minneapolis, Minneapolis to Chicago.
Cal Zephyr: SF to Salt Lake, Salt Lake to Denver, Denver to Chicago
SW Chief: LA to Albuquerque, Albuquerque to KC, KC to Chicago
Sunset:LA to El Paso, El Paso to Houston, Houston to NOLA
Starlight (rename Daylight): Split it at SF
City of NOLA: split at Memphis
Eagle: Day train from Memphis to SA
Crescent: split at Atlanta
Silver Service: Day train to Orlando (Meteor Route only). Day train Atlanta to Miami (replaces Star). Day train Jax - Orlando - Miami
Cardinal: Split at Cincy
Capitol and LSL: no split, just run with early morning departure with arranged lodging at destination.
Auto Train: Leave it alone. It is not part of the network and does well enough as is.
Benefits: Business model greatly simplified. You get completely out of the sleeper and diner business. No commissary, no laundry, no dormatory cars, etc. And, all the maintenance and logistics needed for all of that. You do food on the train from a cafe with tables. Sandwich and microwave fare - delivered to the train by the vendor. You stop serving major population centers in the dead of night and stop there when people are actually awake. You can convert or sell sleeper and diners (tour operators might want to ride your train...). Use the sale proceeds to buy more capacity and support increased frequency where the market is.
Route map looks the same, so politicians are happy. Slightly longer trip for those few travelers with destinations spanning split points - but if they wanted speed, they would fly. Tourist trade improved - all scenery during the day. Trains available to haul tour company equipment. Dead of night is available as a network "reset" period - every day starts out with all trains "on time".
Why doesn't something like this ever get off the starting blocks? I suspect it's easier to beg for money and not rock the boat. There is no reward in the system for Amtrak to do these kinds of things.
Paul Milenkovic ... Among my bricks-and-morter colleagues, I made the suggestion that maybe we shouldn't dismiss this proposal out-of-hand. If we could have day trains in the style of the Cascades Talgo up and down the Mountain West, would that be a fair trade for the long-distance trains? How about the counter proposal of keep the level of subsidy where it is at, but provide twice-daily service along the long-distance routes, which functions for most of the passengers as a kind of linear network of corridors connecting intermediate stops? ...
...
Among my bricks-and-morter colleagues, I made the suggestion that maybe we shouldn't dismiss this proposal out-of-hand. If we could have day trains in the style of the Cascades Talgo up and down the Mountain West, would that be a fair trade for the long-distance trains? How about the counter proposal of keep the level of subsidy where it is at, but provide twice-daily service along the long-distance routes, which functions for most of the passengers as a kind of linear network of corridors connecting intermediate stops? ...
I always liked the idea of connected corridors. Having twice-daily service about 12 hours apart would be great. As a railfan I would take a train during daylight hours to see everything. At night I would get off the train in some convenient city, stay comfortably (and probably for less than a sleeper) in a hotel, and continue my journey on the next train in the morning. Amtrak could offer to attach sleepers for a fee to tour companies that would bear all their own costs.
Split corridors of 2-5 pieces might be the way to make LD more viable, or at least reduce the hemorrhaging, while maintaining the route for political purposes. It has the added advantage of allowing more than one train each direction per day. While two trains a day is hardly service, it's more in that direction. Something overlooked is having a service where a potential traveler has some flexibility on shorter routes about when to depart and the possibility of returning the same day.
Good creative thinking by oltmannd, but I have two objections off the top.
1. I understand that people "in a hurry" are always going to fly. But one or more night-long interruptions would, I think, destroy the usefulness of the route for more through travelers than Don says. (Just elimination of the sleeper loses me, but I realize the bean counters among us would say, "Don't let the door," etc.) How many coach travelers need a hotel bill or two and extra meals on top of the cost of their fare? And how about the guy or gal whose destination is 100 miles the other side of the "split"?
2. We are basically talking buses on rails here, and how many of these new "corridors" actually need additional coach capacity of this straitened kind? On most of them, the planes and real buses run faster and more frequently. And a few, like Glacier-Seattle/Portland and Glacier-Minneapolis, look like non-starters to me.
In short, Don stands suspected of a stealth scheme to scuttle the long-distance passenger train in a politically correct way -- that probably wouldn't work.
dakotafred Good creative thinking by oltmannd, but I have two objections off the top. 1. I understand that people "in a hurry" are always going to fly. But one or more night-long interruptions would, I think, destroy the usefulness of the route for more through travelers than Don says. (Just elimination of the sleeper loses me, but I realize the bean counters among us would say, "Don't let the door," etc.) How many coach travelers need a hotel bill or two and extra meals on top of the cost of their fare? And how about the guy or gal whose destination is 100 miles the other side of the "split"? 2. We are basically talking buses on rails here, and how many of these new "corridors" actually need additional coach capacity of this straitened kind? On most of them, the planes and real buses run faster and more frequently. And a few, like Glacier-Seattle/Portland and Glacier-Minneapolis, look like non-starters to me. In short, Don stands suspected of a stealth scheme to scuttle the long-distance passenger train in a politically correct way -- that probably wouldn't work.
A night in an Amtrak sleeper is $200-500 a night on top of Amtrak's coach fare. A night in the Hampton about a mile from Union Station in Denver is about $160 and includes breakfast. Passenger gets cheaper trip. The few who are on the other side of the gap either enjoy their time in the city they are laying over or drive to that city (or take a connecting bus ala California). Let the market sort it out. The passengers you gain by not stopping at places at 3AM would be more than you would lose.
A trains IS a bus on steel wheels - everywhere it provides useful service, like all of Europe and Japan and the NEC. You got corridors? Trains work. As fast and frequent as you can figure out how to do and pay for.
Amtrak's current level of subsidies on a per passenger mile basis for LD trains are beyond silly. They need to be fixed if we are to ever have any hope of better train service in the US. And, they better hurry up. If the FEC manages to do their Miami to Orlando thing w/o any subsidy, Amtrak won't have a leg to stand on and the plug will be pulled. Then, we'll have the NEC and it's branches, the FEC in Florida, the Amtrak California corridors, the Chicago hub and nothing else.
You want that?
And, these are just things that have popped into my head. Not much study needed.
Why not:
Why not contract out locomotive overhauls? Amtrak doesn't own enough diesels to really need a backshop.
Why not contract out the coach cleaning to Merry Maids or similar?
Why not contract out sleeper operation to Marriott or Norwegian Cruise Lines?
Why not require conductors and trainmen on LD trains to help with "hospitality" ala flight attendants on airplanes?
Why not get your trains into the Expedia et. al. travel sites?
Why not code share with more Continental for a handful of flights?
Why not buy the DB web site and E ticketing and seat reservation system lock, stock and barrel?
oltmannd A night in an Amtrak sleeper is $200-500 a night on top of Amtrak's coach fare. A night in the Hampton about a mile from Union Station in Denver is about $160 and includes breakfast. Passenger gets cheaper trip.
A night in an Amtrak sleeper is $200-500 a night on top of Amtrak's coach fare. A night in the Hampton about a mile from Union Station in Denver is about $160 and includes breakfast. Passenger gets cheaper trip.
Don, again I would remind you: You have already dumped the First Class trade. What's left are coach passengers who never were going to pay that $200-500 -- and, in my opinion, aren't going to spring for a hotel room, either.
Why not contract out our Law-making to the Canadian Parliament ? They probably have some extra time.
Why not privatize the armed forces? We could hire the French or the Japanese to patrol for us. We already pay Blackwater for this service
Why not terminate the "socialistic" Veterans Administration? The USA has plenty of extra hospital space and spreading out the wounded and ill to private hositals is a no-brainer money-maker for community health-delivery systems.
Why not end Amtrak and give everyone who needs it a free Lear Jet?
Why not privatize the Supreme Court? We have tons of would-be legal experts here in this room who would glady do the Court's job for free.
Why not fire ALL the air traffic controllers this time? Pilots ought be be able to avoid crashes simply by being more observant.
I don't see any need for USDA food inspectors. Why not rely on the traditional caveat emptor system our great-grandparents used?
Why not have one big computer and one person do ALL the switching and dispatching in the USA? Or why not let VIA, CP, and CN do it for us? So much more efficient.
Why not fire all train crews? Railfans, at least those that don't hate trains, would likely do the job for free.
Why not pay railfans in other countries to post comments here? That would give about a half dozen men here untold extra hours to do something more useful with their lives.
Why not steeply fine or jail those perverse people who'd like to ride a train across the USA? Don't they know they must learn to love "corridors"?
Why not fire all the police and firemen in the country? We could let individuals patrol the streets with their precious guns (think George Zimmerman), and we could pay people not to have fires.
Let's privatize the Post Office. Surely UPS and Fed Ex can deliver the mail cheaper because they are private companies.
We could privatize the National Weather Service and let older folks in various parts of the country simply predict the weather by dint of their long experience or the size of the coats on wooly bears.
Why not simply jail or deport union members or people who expect to work in a secure, decent job, with reasonable pay? Why simply privatize all labor by re-introducing the very American tradition of chattel slavery? No benefits or health care system were needed in those halcyon days.
Why not change the name of this site, forum, and the magazine to more closely reflect the beliefs of seemingly so many here? I suggest "No long-distance passenger TRAINS", instead.
NKP guy Why not contract out our Law-making to the Canadian Parliament ? They probably have some extra time. Why not privatize the armed forces? We could hire the French or the Japanese to patrol for us. We already pay Blackwater for this service Why not terminate the "socialistic" Veterans Administration? The USA has plenty of extra hospital space and spreading out the wounded and ill to private hositals is a no-brainer money-maker for community health-delivery systems. Why not end Amtrak and give everyone who needs it a free Lear Jet? Why not privatize the Supreme Court? We have tons of would-be legal experts here in this room who would glady do the Court's job for free. Why not fire ALL the air traffic controllers this time? Pilots ought be be able to avoid crashes simply by being more observant. I don't see any need for USDA food inspectors. Why not rely on the traditional caveat emptor system our great-grandparents used? Why not have one big computer and one person do ALL the switching and dispatching in the USA? Or why not let VIA, CP, and CN do it for us? So much more efficient. Why not fire all train crews? Railfans, at least those that don't hate trains, would likely do the job for free. Why not pay railfans in other countries to post comments here? That would give about a half dozen men here untold extra hours to do something more useful with their lives. Why not steeply fine or jail those perverse people who'd like to ride a train across the USA? Don't they know they must learn to love "corridors"? Why not fire all the police and firemen in the country? We could let individuals patrol the streets with their precious guns (think George Zimmerman), and we could pay people not to have fires. Let's privatize the Post Office. Surely UPS and Fed Ex can deliver the mail cheaper because they are private companies. We could privatize the National Weather Service and let older folks in various parts of the country simply predict the weather by dint of their long experience or the size of the coats on wooly bears. Why not simply jail or deport union members or people who expect to work in a secure, decent job, with reasonable pay? Why simply privatize all labor by re-introducing the very American tradition of chattel slavery? No benefits or health care system were needed in those halcyon days. Why not change the name of this site, forum, and the magazine to more closely reflect the beliefs of seemingly so many here? I suggest "No long-distance passenger TRAINS", instead.
The idea is to privatize government run commercial enterprises, i.e. post office, Amtrak, airports, municipal sanitation (already done in my town) etc. No one ever suggested privatizing non-commercial activities, i.e. defense, legal systems, police, fire, etc. No one has ever suggested removing regulation, especially that dealing with health and safety. In fact, the key to privatization is smart regulation that ensures a level, safe, effective, competitive platform.
I agree with you, NKP. Privatizing is not the panacea for everything our government does. And private enterprise will agree with you on many things in this area, too. I have seen buracracies in private business that were role models for inefficiency, indolence, and self preservation before even admiting there might be a customer or a product to be conisdered. Waste and ignorance are not confined to government and its agencies. Yes, even some business will find contracting out services is better than providing or producing themselve. Wholesale outsourceing could be counter productive but can also be the perfect solution situtation by situation, product by product, company by company. A mixed bag would be janitorial services. Not a value added service but needed. Some corporations have just hired outside companies to do it all while some smaller companies have found that they can keep their staff on board by having them sweep floors and empty trash cans. Overall, outsourcing is not for every job and every company, but is an available and viable alternative in some cases.
Don: Along with contracting for the DB web site, why not sub-contract with DB (actually DBAG) to develop and run a passenger train network?
henry6 I agree with you, NKP. Privatizing is not the panacea for everything our government does. And private enterprise will agree with you on many things in this area, too. I have seen buracracies in private business that were role models for inefficiency, indolence, and self preservation before even admiting there might be a customer or a product to be conisdered. Waste and ignorance are not confined to government and its agencies. Yes, even some business will find contracting out services is better than providing or producing themselve. Wholesale outsourceing could be counter productive but can also be the perfect solution situtation by situation, product by product, company by company. A mixed bag would be janitorial services. Not a value added service but needed. Some corporations have just hired outside companies to do it all while some smaller companies have found that they can keep their staff on board by having them sweep floors and empty trash cans. Overall, outsourcing is not for every job and every company, but is an available and viable alternative in some cases.
Privatization of a government managed commercial enterprise and outsourcing select activities (non core) are different. The first removes the activity from government operational control. The second contracts ancillary competencies whilst keeping the core competencies in-house. Unless the company in a janitorial company, sweeping floors and emptying wastebaskets along with the mailroom, to the extent there still is enough snail mail to justify it, are the activities that are outsourced.
Indeed, competitive corporations can and do have wasteful practices. If they don't fix them in time, they are out of business, unless they can get the federal government to reward them for their mistakes (GM and Chrysler). Who or what puts an inefficient government organization, i.e. Amtrak, out of business because of wasteful business practices?
Accounting and HR have become outsourced areas for small to middling companies, since the contractors can often provide more skilled competencies than could be provided in-house without an expensive increase in staff.
I am not going to argue that contracting out say car supply, including design, capital lease, maintenance, and operations, might be a cheaper way of doing things. But WHO would do it with our current arrangement of maybe 1-2 years of funding. It seems like so many capital projects on the long distance network have been differed as there is no real idea of what will be operated in the next few years.
So if you could get a say 15-20 year guarantee that some level of passenger cross-subsidy will be provided to whoever operator is bidding on in say 5-year blocks then you might get some movement. But wasn't Amtrak itself directed by Congress to "in-source" operations for train crews and such on the long distance routes in the late 1970's or early 1980's, maybe the 1979 bill? Up until then it was a contracted operation with the investor owned railroads.
As to the idea of splitting the long distance trains into daylight corridors, I see this destroying a massive amount of utility. For the non-hub airport folks a long distance train into major city is a pretty good way to compete.
The point is Sam1, outsourcing and privitizing is not the answer to all the problems...probably will create more problems in fact. Be like the drug company...privatge enterprise mind you...when they no longer made the huge profit they wanted to with a certain cancer drug, they stopped making it despite they had a monopoly and millions suffered and were endangered because the drug was gone. Moral and social responsiblity is gone when private enterprise enters the picture 100%. I used to think different, but now I don''t trust private enterprise and free markets to do much for the future of our country. Scarey, ain't it?
V.Payne I am not going to argue that contracting out say car supply, including design, capital lease, maintenance, and operations, might be a cheaper way of doing things. But WHO would do it with our current arrangement of maybe 1-2 years of funding. It seems like so many capital projects on the long distance network have been differed as there is no real idea of what will be operated in the next few years. So if you could get a say 15-20 year guarantee that some level of passenger cross-subsidy will be provided to whoever operator is bidding on in say 5-year blocks then you might get some movement. But wasn't Amtrak itself directed by Congress to "in-source" operations for train crews and such on the long distance routes in the late 1970's or early 1980's, maybe the 1979 bill? Up until then it was a contracted operation with the investor owned railroads. As to the idea of splitting the long distance trains into daylight corridors, I see this destroying a massive amount of utility. For the non-hub airport folks a long distance train into major city is a pretty good way to compete.
You've got the crux of the problem...short term financing and planning, all at the whim of Congress which changes its mind and direction with every session and Congress. You hear the the business class in Congress saying it should be run like a business then choke off the funds so plans cannot be made in a business like fashion. Setting Amtrak up lke the U.S. Postal service or like the did Conrail (two entirely different things, I know, but niether are Amtrak) to get it out from under all the thumbs of Congress would be a good start. Once Amtrak was set up like that, then it might be able to make business or operating decision which would bring progress if not success.
henry6 V.Payne: I am not going to argue that contracting out say car supply, including design, capital lease, maintenance, and operations, might be a cheaper way of doing things. But WHO would do it with our current arrangement of maybe 1-2 years of funding. It seems like so many capital projects on the long distance network have been differed as there is no real idea of what will be operated in the next few years. So if you could get a say 15-20 year guarantee that some level of passenger cross-subsidy will be provided to whoever operator is bidding on in say 5-year blocks then you might get some movement. But wasn't Amtrak itself directed by Congress to "in-source" operations for train crews and such on the long distance routes in the late 1970's or early 1980's, maybe the 1979 bill? Up until then it was a contracted operation with the investor owned railroads. As to the idea of splitting the long distance trains into daylight corridors, I see this destroying a massive amount of utility. For the non-hub airport folks a long distance train into major city is a pretty good way to compete. You've got the crux of the problem...short term financing and planning, all at the whim of Congress which changes its mind and direction with every session and Congress. You hear the the business class in Congress saying it should be run like a business then choke off the funds so plans cannot be made in a business like fashion. Setting Amtrak up lke the U.S. Postal service or like the did Conrail (two entirely different things, I know, but niether are Amtrak) to get it out from under all the thumbs of Congress would be a good start. Once Amtrak was set up like that, then it might be able to make business or operating decision which would bring progress if not success.
V.Payne: I am not going to argue that contracting out say car supply, including design, capital lease, maintenance, and operations, might be a cheaper way of doing things. But WHO would do it with our current arrangement of maybe 1-2 years of funding. It seems like so many capital projects on the long distance network have been differed as there is no real idea of what will be operated in the next few years. So if you could get a say 15-20 year guarantee that some level of passenger cross-subsidy will be provided to whoever operator is bidding on in say 5-year blocks then you might get some movement. But wasn't Amtrak itself directed by Congress to "in-source" operations for train crews and such on the long distance routes in the late 1970's or early 1980's, maybe the 1979 bill? Up until then it was a contracted operation with the investor owned railroads. As to the idea of splitting the long distance trains into daylight corridors, I see this destroying a massive amount of utility. For the non-hub airport folks a long distance train into major city is a pretty good way to compete.
If Amtrak were out from under the sponsorship of Congress, it would be dead in the water in a heartbeat. It survives not because it is an effective business model but because it is a political animal.
Business is a relatively simply proposition. Offer goods or services that people will buy in an arms length transaction. Price them to cover the costs and provide a return to the shareholders. If the users won't pay the price to cover the costs, the business fails.
If the business provides a service that is critical to the well being of the nation, e.g. electric energy, and it cannot earn a return, one can make a viable argument that it should be run by the state or subsidized.
Intercity passenger trains are not critical to the well being of the nation. They may become so in the future because of increased congestion and environmental reasons. If they went away, which I would not like to see, few people, with the possible of those living along the NEC and southern California, would not miss them. In in those busy corridors there are viable alternatives. Think Megabus.
"Think Megabus." I guess that says it all. This is supposed to be a forum of Trains, for passenger trains, and yet this poster seems to think intercity buses are the answer, even in the NEC. If that is so, why post on this forum? Of course free speech allows that, but why continue when he clearly would like to see Amtrak or any other government passenger rail service replaced by a private bus company.
schlimm "Think Megabus." I guess that says it all. This is supposed to be a forum of Trains, for passenger trains, and yet this poster seems to think intercity buses are the answer, even in the NEC. If that is so, why post on this forum? Of course free speech allows that, but why continue when he clearly would like to see Amtrak or any other government passenger rail service replaced by a private bus company.
No, it does not say it all. You have taken the last phrase out of context.
One version of Megabus, but on a much smaller scale is one that one of our neighbours has put together that transports Amish/Mennonite families between London ON and places to the north of here.
I think privatization has its role here here as well.
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
And what is the context that magically changes the meaning of your statement? It does appear to have some problems with syntax, which makes it unclear, with internal contradictions.
Megabus is the answer to filling empty seats which would otherwise be empty on a bus between to points. Does not guarentee a similar price on return trip. More a markrting tool than a real rate. Also price starts at a buck and can move up, too.
Amtak has been able to fill trains with rates they've got. That is not the problem The problem is that with Congress being its bank and being the ones who hire and fire the President and its board according to it's whim and fancey, there is no stability. With an election coming up this November, no one who works under those circumstances is sure of his employment after January 2013. So, why bother plannng for Valentines Day when you may not be celebrating New Years?
schlimm And what is the context that magically changes the meaning of your statement? It does appear to have some problems with syntax, which makes it unclear, with internal contradictions.
Here is the paragraph: "Intercity passenger trains are not critical to the well being of the nation. They may become so in the future because of increased congestion and environmental reasons. If they went away, which I would not like to see, few people, with the possibility of those living along the NEC and in southern California, would not miss them. In those busy corridors there are viable alternatives. Think Megabus!"
Lifting Think Megabus out of the paragraph is akin to claiming that a movie trailer is the movie. Think Megabus was set in the context of intercity passenger trains not being critical to the well being of the nation. Just quoting "Think Megabus" is stating it out of context. Intercity buses, as well as other modes of transport (commercial and personal) are viable alternatives. Megabus is a viable alternative. And unlike Amtrak, it makes money. It either does so or it goes out of business.
We have beat this topic to death. It is time to move on.
Sam1 We have beat this topic to death. It is time to move on.
Sounds like Sam1 is locking the thread. I wish she wouldn't, because since the thread on California HSR got shut down, this is one of the few Forum discussions that isn't about grade crossings or train wrecks. (I know, if I'm not interested in those subjects, I don't have to read -- and I don't.)
dakotafred Sam1: We have beat this topic to death. It is time to move on. Sounds like Sam1 is locking the thread. I wish she wouldn't, because since the thread on California HSR got shut down, this is one of the few Forum discussions that isn't about grade crossings or train wrecks. (I know, if I'm not interested in those subjects, I don't have to read -- and I don't.)
Sam1: We have beat this topic to death. It is time to move on.
I don't have the authority to lock the thread. But I am moving on.
Sam1 Intercity passenger trains are not critical to the well being of the nation. They may become so in the future because of increased congestion and environmental reasons. If they went away, which I would not like to see, few people, with the possible of those living along the NEC and southern California, would not miss them. In in those busy corridors there are viable alternatives. Think Megabus.
I understand that airport congestion caused by the air shuttles between the major Northeast cities was a consideration for retaining the NEC. But since the airport take-off slots bare probably mostly filled by now, Megabus mat be the only alternative if you got rid of it. The question is, how many Megabus runs per day would it take to replace NEC service?
Any discussion must end at some point and I think this point has been reached.
Time to move on, folks!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.