V.Payne On Property Taxes: Property Taxes for NS are $113.4 Million per the STB R-1, Schedule 410, Line 614 “Property Taxes”. If they are not the STB might be a bit upset. Also per Schedule 450, Line 1, “Other than US Government Taxes”, they paid $202.9 million, which would include sales and the property tax above. From the same Schedule, Line 4, they paid $503.1 million in income taxes. Of course they also fully funded their workers retirement instead of Social Security’s situation but let’s set that aside.
On Property Taxes:
Property Taxes for NS are $113.4 Million per the STB R-1, Schedule 410, Line 614 “Property Taxes”. If they are not the STB might be a bit upset. Also per Schedule 450, Line 1, “Other than US Government Taxes”, they paid $202.9 million, which would include sales and the property tax above. From the same Schedule, Line 4, they paid $503.1 million in income taxes. Of course they also fully funded their workers retirement instead of Social Security’s situation but let’s set that aside.
Norfolk Southern, as per its Annual Report, as well as the STB R-1, accrued property taxes of $113.4 million in FY11. An accrual means that an estimate of property taxes payable was debited to an income expense account. The corresponding credit would have been to Deferred Property Taxes, which is different than a credit to Taxes Payable.
An accrued amount does not mean that the taxes were paid or will be paid. The accrual is management's best estimate of the property tax liability. It recognizes that property taxes, in fact all taxes, are subject to on-going litigation.
In 2011 Norfolk Southern had revenues of $11.2 billion. Income from railway operations was $3.2 billion, and net income was $1.9 billion. The property tax accrual for 2011 was 1.01 per cent of revenues, 3.54 per cent of operating income, and 6 per cent of net income.
The deferred property tax liability account (a credit balance) increased from $7.5 billion in 2010 to $7.9 billion in 2011. This is an increase of $441,1 million, which is where most of the 2011 property tax accrual, absent the ability to examine the company's tax books, probably was credited.
Schedule 450 is a tax reconciliation. It does not necessarily mean that the taxes shown were paid in FY11. Likewise, there is nothing in Line 1 of Schedule 450 to indicate that the taxes other than U.S. Government Taxes were property taxes. Lastly a comparison of taxes payable at the end of FY11 vs FY10 is $41,111. That is the amount of cash that the company actually handed over to the taxing authorities in FY11.
What do property taxes have to do with Amtrak or passenger rail? Nothing! As stated the host railroads are prohibited from passing any tax burdens through to Amtrak. There billings are audited by Amtrak's internal auditors as well as the external auditors.
Sam1Most Americans don't want to ride on a train or a bus or public transit. They don't want to sit beside someone who is shouting into a cell phone, hasn't had a bath for a week, or is hung over. Given an alternative most middle class Americans, that's 85 per cent of us. don't want public transport of any sort.
Actually, in New Jersey the statistics do not bear out this allegation. For New Jersey Transit rail ridership has quadrupled since the agency began. For the first quarter of fiscal 2013 (July through September, 2010) bus ridership is up 4 per cent and rail ridership is up 6 per cent. The rail ridership figure is especially significant because NJT recently imposed a 25 per cent increase on rail fares.
Having used public transit for all of my adult life I don't find conditions as bad as you do. I don't remember when I sat next to anyone who smelled bad. People with hangovers are not intrusive; at worst they simply doze off, something that is quite possible without a hangover. People with cell phones can be a real pain in the neck but our trains have quiet cars. The real cell phone problem is for people who talk while driving and increase the risk of an accident.
No doubt most Americans do commute by car. But the times are changing. And from what I read today the real leader in new rail transit is big "D" little "a" double "ll a s."
Sam1What do property taxes have to do with Amtrak or passenger rail? Nothing!
Property taxes do have a lot to do with Amtrak even though the direct costs cannot be passed on. As Mr. Payne so ably points out property taxes are a strong dis incentive to double track a railroad. Were that disincentive not present at least some--perhaps many--host railroads would better accommodate Amtrak trains which would then be better able to meet their schedules. In fact, Amtrak schedules could probably be speeded up.
To the extent that property taxes fund expenses related to roads freight railroads are required to subsidize competing trucking companies. Since trucking companies own no property almost all communities they pass through they get a real benefit in having no property tax liability along their route.
If freight railroads were relieved of the burden of property taxes Amtrak would be a lot better off.
I think it is of some concern that at least one railroad has accrued/deferred property taxes as much as NS. What of the others? And sam1 says they may never pay. But we have no such means at our disposal.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
John WR As Mr. Payne so ably points out property taxes are a strong dis incentive to double track a railroad. Were that disincentive not present at least some--perhaps many--host railroads would better accommodate Amtrak trains which would then be better able to meet their schedules.If freight railroads were relieved of the burden of property taxes Amtrak would be a lot better off.
As Mr. Payne so ably points out property taxes are a strong dis incentive to double track a railroad. Were that disincentive not present at least some--perhaps many--host railroads would better accommodate Amtrak trains which would then be better able to meet their schedules.If freight railroads were relieved of the burden of property taxes Amtrak would be a lot better off.
John WR Sam1Most Americans don't want to ride on a train or a bus or public transit. They don't want to sit beside someone who is shouting into a cell phone, hasn't had a bath for a week, or is hung over. Given an alternative most middle class Americans, that's 85 per cent of us. don't want public transport of any sort. Actually, in New Jersey the statistics do not bear out this allegation. For New Jersey Transit rail ridership has quadrupled since the agency began. For the first quarter of fiscal 2013 (July through September, 2010) bus ridership is up 4 per cent and rail ridership is up 6 per cent. The rail ridership figure is especially significant because NJT recently imposed a 25 per cent increase on rail fares. Having used public transit for all of my adult life I don't find conditions as bad as you do. I don't remember when I sat next to anyone who smelled bad. People with hangovers are not intrusive; at worst they simply doze off, something that is quite possible without a hangover. People with cell phones can be a real pain in the neck but our trains have quiet cars. The real cell phone problem is for people who talk while driving and increase the risk of an accident. No doubt most Americans do commute by car. But the times are changing. And from what I read today the real leader in new rail transit is big "D" little "a" double "ll a s."
New Jersey is not the center of the universe. Since we are talking about the United States, which is considerably more than the NEC, the focus should be on national numbers. The same criteria applies to Texas, much as we hate to admit it.
Be careful of what you read. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has invested more than $4.5 billion in its light rail projects. As a result approximately three to five per cent of the Metroplex population (my calculation) uses it. In FY11 the ridership on the light rail system was 22.3 million passenger trips, and the average subsidy was $4.23 per passenger per trip. By comparison the HOV lanes, which DART built and operates, accounted for 48 million commuter trips at an average subsidy of 22 cents per passenger.
Stating that ridership has quadrupled since agency began is meaningless. From what? If it started with a low base, quadrupling it is a no brainer.
The key numbers are what percentage of the residents use public transit. And equally important, how many of them are captive riders? The tables that I cited show that nationwide roughly five per cent of people use public transit to get to work, with a much lower percentage using it for other in-town trips.
Since you asked, the American Public Transit Association says that public transit ridership for the whole country "surged" in the first quarter of 2012 with an increase of 5 per cent. Cities all over the map contributed to that increase.:http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2012/Pages/120604_Ridership.aspx
Surfing around I found that in Denver 45 per cent of commuters use public transit while 39 per cent drive their cars. While you observe "New Jersey is not the center of the universe" this sneering comment cannot be made about Denver. I know you disagree with Dallas' decision to spend all that money on public transit. But clearly you do not speak for the consensus.
New Jersey's rail transit system began before the Civil War. We have some of the oldest railroad suburbs in the nation. Planners call them "pearls on a string." Relative to other places in the US we had a very large number of people who commuted by train when New Jersey Transit started. It has quadrupled from a high base.
John WR http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2012/Pages/120604_Ridership.aspx . While you observe "New Jersey is not the center of the universe" this sneering comment cannot be made about Denver. But clearly you do not speak for the consensus. New Jersey's rail transit system began before the Civil War. We have some of the oldest railroad suburbs in the nation. Planners call them "pearls on a string." Relative to other places in the US we had a very large number of people who commuted by train when New Jersey Transit started. It has quadrupled from a high base.
http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2012/Pages/120604_Ridership.aspx
. While you observe "New Jersey is not the center of the universe" this sneering comment cannot be made about Denver. But clearly you do not speak for the consensus.
John WR Since you asked, the American Public Transit Association says that public transit ridership for the whole country "surged" in the first quarter of 2012 with an increase of 5 per cent. Cities all over the map contributed to that increase.:http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2012/Pages/120604_Ridership.aspx Surfing around I found that in Denver 45 per cent of commuters use public transit while 39 per cent drive their cars. While you observe "New Jersey is not the center of the universe" this sneering comment cannot be made about Denver. I know you disagree with Dallas' decision to spend all that money on public transit. But clearly you do not speak for the consensus. New Jersey's rail transit system began before the Civil War. We have some of the oldest railroad suburbs in the nation. Planners call them "pearls on a string." Relative to other places in the US we had a very large number of people who commuted by train when New Jersey Transit started. It has quadrupled from a high base.
Have you looked at the figures presented by the DOT's National Transportation Statistics? The DOT does not have a dog in the hunt. The same cannot be said about APTA.
The fact remains that from 1999 through 2009, the latest audited figures, approximately five per cent of the people use public transit to get to and from work. There has been no significant change in the numbers for more than a decade. An increase in use for a quarter does not make a trend. I have provided Table references, but apparently that has not been persuasive.
What methodologies did the APTA use to derive its facts?
You have no idea whether I disagree with Dallas decision to spend money on public transit. In fact, I was a member of the Dallas Public Transit Citizens Advisory Board. Amongst other things we lobbied successfully for the referendum that made DART possible.
Your are correct. I don't speak for anyone other than myself. The national numbers speak loud and clear for anyone who cares to consult them. You consistently make claims, i.e. it has quadrupled from a high base, without any data to support your claim.
blue streak 1 John WR http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2012/Pages/120604_Ridership.aspx . While you observe "New Jersey is not the center of the universe" this sneering comment cannot be made about Denver. But clearly you do not speak for the consensus. New Jersey's rail transit system began before the Civil War. We have some of the oldest railroad suburbs in the nation. Planners call them "pearls on a string." Relative to other places in the US we had a very large number of people who commuted by train when New Jersey Transit started. It has quadrupled from a high base. John i would add to the NJ types 1. Boston 2. New York 3. PHL 4. WASH 5. MIA - West palm not yet but going that way 6. Chicago 7. SEATTLE 8. San Francisco [[[ don't expect much rise in city itself because it is near saturation but suburbs is different story. 9. Los Angeles ( includes portion from Santa Barbara - San Diego and inland empire ) --- going fast main constraint is parking at public transportation stations. Note LAX area is one place that i and most others thought would never work.
Denver is not the center of the universe. Neither is Dallas or Houston or Los Angeles or New York. The center of the American universe is America. If you want to know what is happening in the country as a whole, you need to look at the data for the entire universe. Not just one piece of it!
blue streak 1 John WR As Mr. Payne so ably points out property taxes are a strong dis incentive to double track a railroad. Were that disincentive not present at least some--perhaps many--host railroads would better accommodate Amtrak trains which would then be better able to meet their schedules.If freight railroads were relieved of the burden of property taxes Amtrak would be a lot better off. Very iportant point. NY state taxes on RRs used to be and may still be amost confiscatory. for example NYC was able to reduce its running trackage property taxes almost in half by removing 2 tracks on the water level route. a solution is no additional taxes on a second or third track if at least 2 round trips every day are allowed on a taxable segment. If less than 2 round trips are in operation on a segment then the RR has to wait for the abatement. If freight traffic is over a certain figure then a prorated tax can be invoked on a sliding scale. On Time metrics should also be required basedon the segment's allowed track speed ? This should also apply to infrastructure improvements such as PTC, MORE INTERLOCKINGS, grade separation, etc
Looking at the whole of the US is a meaningless endeavor. Why? Pretty obviously only metro areas would ever have a need for public transit. Certainly small town and rural America do not. And only in metro areas where a comprehensive transit system exists is it possible for people to use transit. But the numbers of metro areas offering such services have grown in recent years, as have the scope of transit modalities available within them. I am sorry that sam1 has had such an unpleasant experience with public transit, i.e. sitting by people with poor hygiene, people shouting into cell phone, etc. But for many of us who have used public metropolitan transit regularly or less often, that is not the rule.
And yes, transit discussion should be on the Transit forum, but what's so terrible about this thread crossing that line? After all, both are concerned with transporting people by a public agency. And in the case of some commuter lines, the distance rivals intercity: NYP-Montauk; NYGC-NH; CHI-Kenosha; CHI-Elburn, to name a few.
schlimm -- maybe a better measure would be to break down areas and see what each type area has in percentage of transit riders
ie
1. over 2M
2. Over 1 M
3. over 500 K
4. OVER 100 K
5. OVER 50 K
6. UNDER 50 K
ALL of these groups are just suggestions. Population densities come into any equation of determining ridership percentages..
schlimm Looking at the whole of the US is a meaningless endeavor. Why? Pretty obviously only metro areas would ever have a need for public transit. Certainly small town and rural America do not. And only in metro areas where a comprehensive transit system exists is it possible for people to use transit. But the numbers of metro areas offering such services have grown in recent years, as have the scope of transit modalities available within them. I am sorry that sam1 has had such an unpleasant experience with public transit, i.e. sitting by people with poor hygiene, people shouting into cell phone, etc. But for many of us who have used public metropolitan transit regularly or less often, that is not the rule. And yes, transit discussion should be on the Transit forum, but what's so terrible about this thread crossing that line? After all, both are concerned with transporting people by a public agency. And in the case of some commuter lines, the distance rivals intercity: NYP-Montauk; NYGC-NH; CHI-Kenosha; CHI-Elburn, to name a few.
Agree that public transit is more relevant in major metropolitan areas than in the outback. Nevertheless, as I noted with respect to Dallas, with which I have more than a passing understanding, only three to five per cent of the population use public transit. Moreover, of the modes of transit services offered by DART, more people use the HOV lanes than any other form of public supported commuting to and from work.
Here is what it is like to take transit in Texas. Keep in mind that I rode the bus to work in Dallas for more than 30 years. In the winter, waiting for a bus, even is one can time it reasonably well, is a bone chilling experience. The wind comes whipping off the plains and sends a cold blast of air through every layer of clothing that you can put on. And in the summer, when the temperature hits 90+ degrees every day by noon, waiting in the sun for a bus, especially when it is running late, which is frequently, is like being in a sauna. This is why a relatively small percentage of Texans use public transit. And of those who do in Dallas, at least, according to the figures supplied to me by DART, 45 per cent of the bus riders have no other option and 23 per cent of the light rail riders are in the same boat.
So, with respect to the largest metropolitan areas of the U.S., i.e. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, etc., what per cent of commuters use public transit to get to and from work. Even more interesting, what percentage have a choice? That is to say, do they have an alternative mode of transit or is their only option a bus, train, etc.
I trave extensively. Amongst other things I am in San Francisco six times a year. It has an excellent public transit system. Nevertheless, I am impressed by the number of cars that pass my hotel each morning and evening. It is located on VanNess near Lombard. Admittedly, this is not a analytical analysis.
As to the argument that only metro areas need public transit, every city in Texas with a population of more than 75,000 has a modicum of public transit. Shoot, my hometown of Altoona, PA has a taxpayer, supported bus system. The only people who use it are aged, infirm, and relatively poor.
Some of might not have picked up from the context that I am an Engineer, who is currently practicing in the field. Yet even still it has taken me the better part of a decade to figure some of what I write about as it is a largely unwritten Economic/Financial construct set out in the late 1950’s to justify the interstates. Some of this is well hidden. There have been others who have written about aspects of the question like Winston (1980’s), Symes (1950’s), and Salter (1930’s) but the loudest voices out there tend to be misrepresenting the situation for their gain.
I will give you two good zinger USDOT definitions to illustrate the point and then answer more questions in separate posts.
Equity Ratio:
Normalized User Class Revenue over User Class Cost divided by Total User Revenue over Total Costs, not User Class Revenue over User Class Costs. So a constructed example might look like ($6.1/$10) / ($60/$100) = 1.02 instead of 0.61, tricky. Several people have misused the “equity ratio”, including a USDOT author in congressional testimony and various think tanks, to suggest that roadways are not subsidized without looking into the definition of the ratio. It is a bit misleading!
Highways:
All roads, including the one located in front of your house your child plays on. Not exactly the English common language definition! This is defined this way so the Federal HTF costs can be spread over multiple road classes that are not financed by the HTF.
Lobbyist Claims to Congress.
The American Trucking Association, bless their hearts, claim that they now have an equity stake in the Interstates since “they helped pay for them”. This quote came out in the most recent discussion about raising the weight limits in the last reauthorization bill. So they contend you can’t put a toll on commercial vehicles without their say so. However, everybody else knows that maintenance costs to host them are a lot more than they pay but they usually have a representative on the MPOs to make their case. It seems they also deploy paid bloggers during key votes that aren’t factual.
The American Bus Association, bless their hearts as well, claim that their mode is the safest by a lot. Well, at least they did till the recent curbside crashes. Wow you say, but when you look at the “graph” you realize they used vehicle miles not passenger miles as the denominator, they have the smallest common carrier vehicles, so less people can theoretically be hurt. Silly, but this was in their congressional testimony at one point. True, they can be partners, but there is a limit to the trip length.
It seems a lot of this distortion occurs as there is really no advocate for passenger or freight rail in the USDOT, other than one hand behind the back Amtrak. I have seen nothing in my reconstruction of costs that suggest with added revenue car capacity on the longer distance trains that the long run variable operating cost (equipment and terminals included) could not be in the $0.04 to $0.06/Passenger mile range.
Reason for the Thread
I originally began this thread to bring to light problems with the Volpe hypothesis from the 1970’s, that only corridor trains had worth as a congesting fighting measure. USDOT’s Volpe did not recognize that intercity roadways had a cross-subsidy at least as late as the 1977 USDOT’s National Transportation Trends & Choices, despite pretty effective testimony to the ICC starting in the 1950’s. This is a USDOT policy conflict not a financial reality.
My main argument is that the financial cross-subsidy is what killed the longer distance passenger train not any superiority for all trips of the passenger car. The private intercity carriers in the last decade were the ones operating high-capacity intercity trains. If you look at the results of the 1968 ICC study you can tell that solely related deficits were $0.015 / PM ($2009) until 1966 (mail cancellations) for the whole industry. After subtracting solely related terminal and passenger facility property taxes, the better operator’s solely related operations were slightly above breakeven until 1971.
The problem then and today is the skewing of the transportation marketplace. The additional problem today is too little PM capacity upon which to spread fixed costs. If you want to befinancially efficient by the PM metric, capacity expansion on existing trains and multiple frequencies on the same route is the answer, not necessarily short corridors based on highway congestion. Some might know that the original 1960’s ICC reports defined the future intercity rail market to be for trips of less than 1000 miles even in the jet age. This was perhaps more of a recognition that automobiles were the true competitor. At some point this was confused with the three to four hour rule to change the trip length definition of a corridor service. Financial proofs otherwise are accepted.
As to taxes, the AAR says that they paid $625 million in property taxes in 2008. I am no tax accountant, but I don't see them fibbing about this. That would roughly be what I quoted just for NS on an industry wide scale.
http://www.ncrr.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Jennifer_Macdonald.pdf
blue streak 1 schlimm -- maybe a better measure would be to break down areas and see what each type area has in percentage of transit riders ie 1. over 2M 2. Over 1 M 3. over 500 K 4. OVER 100 K 5. OVER 50 K 6. UNDER 50 K ALL of these groups are just suggestions. Population densities come into any equation of determining ridership percentages..
NEW STANDARDS:
area sq miles % Population %of non-ruralMetropolitan 1089 25.3% 232,579,940 82.6%Micropolitan 690 20.3% 29,412,298 10.5%Non-core-based 1362 54.4% 19,429,668 6.9%
schlimm Looking at the whole of the US is a meaningless endeavor. Why? Pretty obviously only metro areas would ever have a need for public transit. Certainly small town and rural America do not. And only in metro areas where a comprehensive transit system exists is it possible for people to use transit...
Looking at the whole of the US is a meaningless endeavor. Why? Pretty obviously only metro areas would ever have a need for public transit. Certainly small town and rural America do not. And only in metro areas where a comprehensive transit system exists is it possible for people to use transit...
I live in the backwoods of northern Michigan, where a lot of real estate is state or national forest land. Even so, my county and most other counties I am aware of have dial-a-ride-transit systems. Small buses complete with wheelchair lifts cover the county and connect with adjacent counties. Gauging by the number of buses I see, I would guess it's less than 5% of passenger trips.
MidlandMikeI live in the backwoods of northern Michigan, where a lot of real estate is state or national forest land. Even so, my county and most other counties I am aware of have dial-a-ride-transit systems. Small buses complete with wheelchair lifts cover the county and connect with adjacent counties.
This a a new rational for public transit that has not previously existed. As our population ages more and more people are no longer able to drive. And there is increasing concern for people with mobility impairments who used to be forgotten if not shut away. Yet what almost all of these people want is to be able to stay in their own homes rather than living in an institution. Providing public transit for these people is usually fairly expensive. However, putting them in an institution where Medicaid would pay for their care is expensive too--actually much more expensive. When the expense of public transit is considered it is not usually balanced against the cost of Medicaid. So the debate rages on.
John WR MidlandMikeI live in the backwoods of northern Michigan, where a lot of real estate is state or national forest land. Even so, my county and most other counties I am aware of have dial-a-ride-transit systems. Small buses complete with wheelchair lifts cover the county and connect with adjacent counties. This a a new rational for public transit that has not previously existed. As our population ages more and more people are no longer able to drive. And there is increasing concern for people with mobility impairments who used to be forgotten if not shut away. Yet what almost all of these people want is to be able to stay in their own homes rather than living in an institution. Providing public transit for these people is usually fairly expensive. However, putting them in an institution where Medicaid would pay for their care is expensive too--actually much more expensive. When the expense of public transit is considered it is not usually balanced against the cost of Medicaid. So the debate rages on.
John WR Sam1What do property taxes have to do with Amtrak or passenger rail? Nothing! Property taxes do have a lot to do with Amtrak even though the direct costs cannot be passed on. As Mr. Payne so ably points out property taxes are a strong dis incentive to double track a railroad. Were that disincentive not present at least some--perhaps many--host railroads would better accommodate Amtrak trains which would then be better able to meet their schedules. In fact, Amtrak schedules could probably be speeded up. To the extent that property taxes fund expenses related to roads freight railroads are required to subsidize competing trucking companies. Since trucking companies own no property almost all communities they pass through they get a real benefit in having no property tax liability along their route. If freight railroads were relieved of the burden of property taxes Amtrak would be a lot better off.
Outside of the major corridors, i.e. NEC, California, and Illinois, I can think of only one area were Amtrak's trains are being delayed because of capacity constraints. The Sunset Limited suffered from capacity constraints on the line from LA to El Paso. That line is being double tracked irrespective of the property taxes paid by the UP to accommodate the road's freight trains. Most of the double tracking is taking place between major terminals, i.e. El Paso, Tucson, etc., which already have multiple tracks. The areas along the Sunset route that are being double tracked are basically scrub land and probably levy very low property taxes.
The other double tracking efforts that I can think of that might benefit passenger rail are in Illinois, Michigan, and North Carolina. These projects are owned by a state government, i.e. North Carolina, that is prohibited from taxing one of its own sub-entities, or the funding is being provided directly or indirectly by the federal and state government. It is unclear whether any of the host railroads that are having their right-of-way improved by government financing will see an increase in its property tax liability. In any case, neither Amtrak or any of the nation's commuter railroads will be taxed as a result of the improvements. Property taxes are not preventing the sponsoring governments from expanding the rights-of-way of railroads that host or might host passenger trains.
Trucking companies own office buildings, warehouses, lay down yards, fuel depots, way stations, etc. They pay fuel taxes that are intended to cover their proportional use of the highway, although there are convincing arguments that the biggest trucks don't cover the full cost of the wear that they impose on some roadways. However, as pointed out in the Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study (HCAS) 1982, which was replicated in 2000, it depends on the truck, speed, weight, roadway structure, etc.
Levying a property tax on a highway would be akin to laying a property tax on city hall, public schools, police stations, firehouses, churches, etc. I have never heard any official make such a suggestion, although I have taken to paying less and less attention to politicians as time goes on. Road taxes are designed to take the place of real taxes; they are surrogates for rights-of-way taxes.
Richard Feynman teased his friend, colleague, fellow Nobel Laureate, and rival Murray Gell-Mann for "believing everything he read in the newspaper" except when an article reports on recent finding in high-energy physics where Dr. Gell-Mann fumes, "The didn't check with me, and they got every last fact, wrong!"
There are a lot of reasons advanced in support of public modes of transportation including Amtrak, some of them may indeed be valid, and yes, I also believe them to be correct although I may not have evidence to back it up (I believe in "economic development" as a reason, but carefully quantifying that effect is well beyond my skills), some may be correct but I have a vague feeling of skepticism that I can't support with a strong case from my limited experience, and some of them I know to be flat-out wrong but NARP and others keep repeating the same arguments.
So keeping people out of costly and spirit-breaking old-age institutions is a reason for supporting public transit, and by extension, also Amtrak? There are a lot of things in this vast world that I know little about, but long-term care for the aged is not one of them.
The only institutions covered by Medicaid are long-term care facilities providing skilled nursing for seniors and other persons with specific medical conditions, commonly known as nursing homes. Furthermore, Medicaid only pays for nursing home care when a person, or their family unit, usually that person and their spouse, spend down their savings and other financial resources to some government mandated level, although most people are not wealthy enough to have a large level of savings in relation to the level of expense, comparable to sending a kid to an Ivy League college, so many if not the majority of persons in a nursing home are supported on Medicaid.
In this day and age when there are community services for seniors, such as "senior centers", MidlandMike's paratransit where he lives, everyone in a nursing home is there because of medical necessity. No one is in a nursing home because they are "neglected by their family", "warehoused there out of indifference", or the family or community wants to "keep seniors out of sight." There is a gamut of "assisted living" facilities who serve the needs of seniors who "just need a little help with living tasks", facilities, by the way, that do not receive reimbursement from Medicaid.
Some people with the same level of dependency are cared for at home rather than a nursing home, but those home-care situation reproduce the level of care provided in a nursing home, or at least they need to not to subject a person to unnecessary suffering and medical risk, often at considerable expense by bringing in a rotation of caregivers into the home. This kind of in-home care is sometimes provided to persons living in an "independent living apartment" facility for seniors, but setting up and managing this level of care for a family member is almost like running a private nursing home.
There are people with medical conditions or manner of disability permitting them to travel Amtrak but not allowing airline travel, and people have commented to this effect here on this Web site. I suppose if someone has some permanent disability resulting from an injury, this may well be the case. For many of us who as we age acquire some slow or not-so-slow degenerative condition resulting from progressive neurological disease, a leading cause of how we eventually pass on as medical science makes progress on other fronts, there is probably some narrow window in which we no longer can fly but could take Amtrak.
The sort of condition that requires nursing home care, I don't see how that person could travel on Amtrak except with a suite of sleeping car rooms and two or three helpers, physically able and trained in performing "transfers" safely on a person that ill. It is one thing to take a person from their home or from a skilled nursing facility, transfer them to a wheel chair, safety-belt them in their chair into a para-transit van for a short journey, and then going to a doctor's office where nurses and other assistants can help with the needed care; it is another thing to take Poppa on an Amtrak trip in that condition.
So effecting savings in state Medicaid budgets is now a argument for supporting Amtrak? I think that people are really reaching for reasons to pay for 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?
The buses have wheelchair lifts just like many other public buses and are used by people of all abilities and ages, just like metro buses. My guess is that more people take the bus because of lack of access to a car rather than infirmity.
Paul M: I believe your view of who is in nursing homes is not an accurate one. [continued] By that I mean many folks are there by "medical necessity" of course under Medicaid, but their conditions of age (Alzheimers, other dementias, etc.) could well be managed in their own familiar home with home heathcare, companions etc. better and cheaper than in a nursing home in a majority of cases, if the Medicaid structure were changed.
( Deleted Duplicate )
Sam1 ... The other double tracking efforts that I can think of that might benefit passenger rail are in Illinois, Michigan, and North Carolina. These projects are owned by a state government, ...
...
The other double tracking efforts that I can think of that might benefit passenger rail are in Illinois, Michigan, and North Carolina. These projects are owned by a state government, ...
I had not heard that they were thinking of double tracking in Michigan. Of the 3 ATK routes, only the "Blue Water" is on a high density freight line, and CN single tracked the line about 20 years ago. The "Wolverine" route to Detroit is the only line with multiple passenger round trips, and that was single tracked also about 20 years ago after Conrail moved thru freights off of the line. Eventually NS tried to spin-off this local freight route, but ATK objected, and the state recently bought the line to expand 110mph operation. They are also thinking about commuter operation at the Detroit end. It would be nice if densities increased to the point where they needed to (re)double track the line.
MidlandMike quote user="Sam1"] The other double tracking efforts that I can think of that might benefit passenger rail are in Illinois, Michigan, and North Carolina. These projects are owned by a state government, ...
quote user="Sam1"]
In Illinois the ROW is owned by the UP, not IDOT. Double tracking is in the plans for the future.
Paul MilenkovicThe only institutions covered by Medicaid are long-term care facilities providing skilled nursing for seniors and other persons with specific medical conditions, commonly known as nursing homes. Furthermore, Medicaid only pays for nursing home care when a person, or their family unit, usually that person and their spouse, spend down their savings and other financial resources to some government mandated level,
Actually a great many (if not most) people in nursing homes are there because they need custodial care. That is, they need assistance preparing their food, getting dressed, getting around and similar things. They do not have a medical condition that requires skilled nursing care. These people often could live at home with some assistance and many in fact do. However, others have no care giver and are therefore in a nursing home.
Medicaid is a needs based program. It has a resource limitation which I think is about $3,000 and there is a provision to set aside money for a funeral. People must also use their own income to pay the nursing home to the extent that they have income. A great many people have spent down their income and Medicaid pays a large part of their bill.
When I spoke about people who live in their own homes but who need transportation to get to the doctor and do similar things I was speaking of things like dial a ride services and not Amtrak. However, since you mention it, Amtrak is prepared to transport people with mobility impairments and it does that.
schlimm Paul M: I believe your view of who is in nursing homes is not an accurate one. [continued] By that I mean many folks are there by "medical necessity" of course under Medicaid, but their conditions of age (Alzheimers, other dementias, etc.) could well be managed in there own familiar home with home heathcare, companions etc. better and cheaper than in a nursing home in a majority of cases, if the Medicaid structure were changed.
Paul M: I believe your view of who is in nursing homes is not an accurate one. [continued] By that I mean many folks are there by "medical necessity" of course under Medicaid, but their conditions of age (Alzheimers, other dementias, etc.) could well be managed in there own familiar home with home heathcare, companions etc. better and cheaper than in a nursing home in a majority of cases, if the Medicaid structure were changed.
I have spend about the last 12 years of my life around nursing homes, I have sat around the dinner table with the residents in nursing homes and gotten to know who they are and why they are there. The Book of Ruth offers up as a model "Where you go, I will follow" and I have had those years to reflect on the life journey that involves progressive neurological disease in various manifestations and where it is that I may be following.
A lot of people are unfamiliar with the level of care provided in a skilled-nursing facility just as a lot of people have the impression that their doctor doesn't "do much" in a 15 minute office visit, with all of the paper and book work your doctor has to do on your medical record taking place behind the scenes. A lot of what some think requires only "custodial care" that can be provided "better and cheaper than in a nursing home" can be substandard care leading to emergency room visits, emergency surgery, or worse.
Tell me I misunderstand trains or that I misunderstand transportation subsidies, but I have had my "lay-person clinical rotation in progressive neurological disease" to know the many effects on the body that I won't get into here to know the difference between in-home healthcare visits and 24-7 care in a nursing home.
Perhaps that is your experience as a lay person, but not mine as a professional for 30 years who did evals in such facilities, nor the shared knowledge of friends and relatives who work the nursing side, nor my experience with two parents. Skilled nursing care and rehab facilities do a great job, but there are distinctions within such facilities. Many of the residents in the long term wings could be taken care of very well at home, with various combinations and levels of care including live-ins and come-and-go caretakers, if only Medicaid covered those expenses, and at a lower cost. In fact, many are taken care of in that way by choice because they can afford to pay out of pocket.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.