Trains.com

Amtrak to be Number One Locked

9130 views
36 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
Moderator
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: London ON
  • 10,392 posts
Posted by blownout cylinder on Tuesday, December 4, 2012 1:57 AM

This has been a political thread all along, guys. 

Time to lock it up ....

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/

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Monday, December 3, 2012 8:16 PM

I've long thought it should be obvious to a fool that the LD passenger train cannot compete with the auto for convenience (90 percent of the intercity market) or with the jet for economy (most of the other 10 percent).

We've had the Empire Builder, et al., for the last 40 years because of a kind of mystical tie between America and the railroads that built it that isn't going away anytime soon.

Heathens like Florida's Mica rage against Amtrak in vain, so why can't the green-eyeshade types among us -- alleged friends of the passenger train -- get over it?

If America can't afford $1.5 billion a year for its spiritual relationship with LD passenger trains -- in light of $3.5-trillion budgets, largely devoted to other forms of welfare -- then too bad for us; we have become a pitiful shadow of our former selves. 

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Monday, December 3, 2012 7:49 PM

Paul,  

I am not an advocate for anything.  I'm just a guy trying to make some sense of a transportation system that is irrational in many ways.  

I'm not sure what you mean by "advocacy community."  The closest I can think of is NARP.  Is that what you mean?  If it is what about the "advocacy community" for cars like the American Automobile Association.  If people can join AAA shouldn't they be equally free to join NARP?  

You suggest taking trucks of our highways as a cost effective way to cut highway costs.  We can't legally do that.   My state, New Jersey, tried to exclude trucks from State Route 31, a 1930's 2 lane road, which with SR 202 connects I 95 in Ewing (just north of Trenton) to I 287 (just north of Flemington).  The 2 lane part runs for about 20 miles and it is the only way to connect with these two Interstates.  A lot of truckers take it because the alternative, the New Jersey Turnpike, is a toll road.  The truckers went to court and won; as long as New Jersey allowed trucks making local deliveries to use the road the state has to allow all trucks to use the road.   

It does seem to me that before we get in high dudgeon about Amtrak subsides being more more that road subsidies we should have evidence that in fact Amtrak does get a higher subsidy.  If the facts are that road subsidies are such convoluted things that we cannot even agree on what they are, well then there just is not a showing that Amtrak subsidies are higher.  And the reason a person like Representative Mica has to resort to his "Holy Jihad" argument is because even he with the Congressional Research Staff to assist him cannot come up with those facts.  

You say you want to pay more attention to what makes passenger trains so expensive.  I take you at your word; you are not looking to get rid of passenger trains; rather you want to better understand the economics of them.  I'm not an economist and I don't pretend to understand the economics of railroad operations.  However, based on what I read in the newspapers the single most economically successful part of Amtrak is also the most expensive:  Acela.  Perhaps there is a lesson in that.  

You begin with a charming story about a child who wants a pony and go on to talk about drawing a boundary around highways costs.  But of course my point is that neither you nor I nor anyone as far as I know has really been able to draw a boundary around highway costs.  That is the difficulty.  

John

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, December 3, 2012 12:25 PM

Paul Milenkovic

Someone on this forum, someone who is interested in a favorable comparison of Amtrak to highways costs, selects a subset of the highway system and draws a boundary around a set of costs (accidents) that are usually disregarded or regarded as a private instead of a public cost, and comes up with a number.

That number shows that Amtrak is still about 2-3 times more expensive in the subsidy rate per passenger mile as a highway alternative.  And furthermore, there are other commentators here who are saying we are overstating the cost of providing highways to rural areas, that more of the cost of the (rural) Interstates should go in the trucking ledger, that cheaper types of highways than interstates can be constructed for low usage routes. 

This is EXACTLY why Amtrak needs to do better.

If you cry "level the playing field" and someone does (and the methodology will never satisfy everyone, just "most everyone"), AND the the results show Amtrak's subsidy to LD trains is 300% too high - as is likely is, then all you will have left is righteous indignation.  

The trains will disappear.   

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Monday, December 3, 2012 10:57 AM

John WR

Paul,  

I believe that all transportation modes should be placed on a level playing field.  

The problem is that the playing field is not level and it never has been level.  As Sam has pointed out, when it comes to roads all layers of government have simply taken money from whatever sources they had and used it in various ways.  This continues.  It means that what the individual road user pays is not related to the amount of road use he or she gets.   

I can understand why this happened and I don't want to be a harsh critic of elected officials who do it.  For example, a couple of years ago there was a severe snow storm.  My town sent plows out to plow the Garden State Parkway, a toll road.  In an ideal world Parkway management would have taken care of this but they didn't and the storm was severe, so severe that people actually died in it.  So elected officials did what they had to do in the face of a life threatening emergency.  In addition all kinds of costs for law enforcement such as police salaries and pensions and court salaries and benefits are strongly related to road operation but they come from other taxes unrelated to road use.  Then there are the costs of pollution.  That is the way it is and always has been.  

If we are going to hold Amtrak accountable then it seems to me we need to develop techniques to quantiy exactly how much of a subsidy we give to roads.  If we did that then we could hold Amtrak to the same standard.  

If we first knew how much roads actually cost we could actually have car owners pay the true cost of operating their cars.  If we did that there is no question in my mind that many would make rational decisions about whether to use public or private transportation.  And that would be as it should be.  

John

This is like the joke about the kid with the optimistic disposition given a room full of straw for Christmas.  The kid was not dissuaded by this mistreatment, shouting, "I am getting a pony!  I am getting a pony!"  There has to be (subsidies) to highways not taken into account!  There has to be (subsidies) to highways not taken into account!

Someone on this forum, someone who is interested in a favorable comparison of Amtrak to highways costs, selects a subset of the highway system and draws a boundary around a set of costs (accidents) that are usually disregarded or regarded as a private instead of a public cost, and comes up with a number.

That number shows that Amtrak is still about 2-3 times more expensive in the subsidy rate per passenger mile as a highway alternative.  And furthermore, there are other commentators here who are saying we are overstating the cost of providing highways to rural areas, that more of the cost of the (rural) Interstates should go in the trucking ledger, that cheaper types of highways than interstates can be constructed for low usage routes. 

To the extent that trucks may be the biggest expense in maintaining long-distance highways, this is an argument for building up our freight railroads and not burdening them with the Amtrak long-distance trains.  Maybe taking trucks of the highways (no offense to our OTR forum members) is a more cost effective use of the rails to achieving congestion relief, cost savings, and reduced fuel consumption?

I am not advocating for the Amtrak subsidy to be cut to 500 million per year.  What I am saying is be careful getting what you wish for when you advocate for Amtrak based on "a level playing field."  Someone like Congressman Mica would be all too happy to listen to what you are saying and give you a level playing field of 500 million for Amtrak.

If the advocacy community is content with Amtrak representing "the best of all possible worlds" in how they operate trains and provide trains service, be happy with the about 1.5 billion per year that Amtrak gets to provide about 6 billion passenger miles per year.  Be happy that the Congressman Mica's of the world huff and puff about this state of affairs, but they are not able to blown this rickety house down (yet).

Go ahead and celebrate the Vision Report, that a consortium of state DOT people propose spending half a trillion dollars as 10 billion over 50 years on trains as reason to cheer, sit there as 8 billion dollars pops out of the Stimulus and that the chances of a second 8 billion coming out of the Federal budget in the next 10 years are about zero.

My position remains that the high rate of subsidy of Amtrak along with the lack of evidence of "economy of scale" for Amtrak or other passenger train systems is a serious impediment to growing Amtrak to making a more meaningful contribution to the transportation picture.  It is my opinion that paying more attention to what it is that makes passenger trains so expensive is important to advancing the cause of more 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?

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Sunday, December 2, 2012 10:38 PM

John,

My comment about who benefits was in regards to a rural Interstate Highway (limited access, no traffic lights, grades limited to 4%, roadbed capable of handling heavy trucks) as opposed to a "plain" highway (few limitations on access, traffic lights and stop signs, steep grades) which would provide most of the benefits to a rural driver as provided by an interstate. The Interstate is much more expensive to build than a "plain" highway.

- Erik

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Sunday, December 2, 2012 7:21 PM

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of benefits to different kinds of drivers, Erik.  Certainly the long distance trucker does get a benefit.  He earns his living by driving a truck over an interstate highway.  But what about the person traveling by car when there is no public transit alternative?  We cannot measure a visit to a family member in dollars and cents as we can with the trucker but there is certainly a benefit.  Or the driver may be attending college or may need health care and have no other way to get there.  Certainly there are benefits there too but I don't know how to compare then.  

One thing is clear to me, though.  Heavy trucks cause more damage to interstates than cars do.  

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Sunday, December 2, 2012 3:17 PM

Paul Milenkovic

On the other hand, one of our forum participants sharpened a fistfull of pencils and came up with a more realistic cross-subsidy figure for the more sparsely traveled rural interstates and hence more capital-intensive-per-vehicle-mile roads that are the main alternative to Amtrak.  That number also added the "cleanup of broken cars and broken people" for medical expenses as something to add to the highway side of the balance sheet.  That number came out to about 11 cents per vehicle mile, which I reasoned works out to about 8 cents per passenger mile.

I'd still wonder if the cost and hence subsidies are properly allocated. I can think of five classes of users for a subsidized rural interstate, one being people who drive from one urban area to another (one set of potential Amtrak customers), a second people who ride a bus between urban areas (also potential Amtrak customers), a third is people who drive to/from rural areas that would not be served by Amtrak, fourth being long distance truckers who driving between urban areas and fifth being truckers who deliver to/from the rural areas. I would contend that the long distance trucker is the one who gets the greatest relative benefit from the rural interstate as well as being the dominant cost driver in setting standards of curvature, gradient and pavement strength for the interstates.

For the previous paragraph, "urban area" is an community with a population larger than 50,000.

- Erik

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Sunday, December 2, 2012 2:21 PM

Paul,  

I believe that all transportation modes should be placed on a level playing field.  

The problem is that the playing field is not level and it never has been level.  As Sam has pointed out, when it comes to roads all layers of government have simply taken money from whatever sources they had and used it in various ways.  This continues.  It means that what the individual road user pays is not related to the amount of road use he or she gets.   

I can understand why this happened and I don't want to be a harsh critic of elected officials who do it.  For example, a couple of years ago there was a severe snow storm.  My town sent plows out to plow the Garden State Parkway, a toll road.  In an ideal world Parkway management would have taken care of this but they didn't and the storm was severe, so severe that people actually died in it.  So elected officials did what they had to do in the face of a life threatening emergency.  In addition all kinds of costs for law enforcement such as police salaries and pensions and court salaries and benefits are strongly related to road operation but they come from other taxes unrelated to road use.  Then there are the costs of pollution.  That is the way it is and always has been.  

If we are going to hold Amtrak accountable then it seems to me we need to develop techniques to quantiy exactly how much of a subsidy we give to roads.  If we did that then we could hold Amtrak to the same standard.  

If we first knew how much roads actually cost we could actually have car owners pay the true cost of operating their cars.  If we did that there is no question in my mind that many would make rational decisions about whether to use public or private transportation.  And that would be as it should be.  

John

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: South Dakota
  • 1,592 posts
Posted by Dakguy201 on Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:45 AM

Paul Milenkovic

{snip}

So, are we in the advocacy community and especially on this forum all OK with a reduction in the Amtrak subsidy to about the 500 billion to 750 billion/year range?  President George W Bush floated that "offer" for Amtrak funding as part of a much large government cost cutting measure.

{snip}.

I believe Mr. Milenkovic intended to say 500 to 700 million.  Sometimes the numbers get so large it doesn't really matter.   Sad

  

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:21 AM

John WR

the problem with cars is that there are costs economists call externalties and the car owner does not pay these costs except for a tiny part.  The whole society pays these costs.  We agree on one thing:  "Transportation options [and all options] should be placed on a level platform."  

Are we even close to agreement on that one thing, that transportation modes "should be placed on a level" playing field?

The view that the Highway Trust Fund largely pays for highways through the gasoline tax "user fee" arguably gives a "low ball" estimate of the public cost of providing that mode. 

On the other hand, one of our forum participants sharpened a fistfull of pencils and came up with a more realistic cross-subsidy figure for the more sparsely traveled rural interstates and hence more capital-intensive-per-vehicle-mile roads that are the main alternative to Amtrak.  That number also added the "cleanup of broken cars and broken people" for medical expenses as something to add to the highway side of the balance sheet.  That number came out to about 11 cents per vehicle mile, which I reasoned works out to about 8 cents per passenger mile.

So, are we in the advocacy community and especially on this forum all OK with a reduction in the Amtrak subsidy to about the 500 billion to 750 billion/year range?  President George W Bush floated that "offer" for Amtrak funding as part of a much large government cost cutting measure.  I am sure that number wasn't pulled "out of thin air" but was arrived at by considering the level of subsidy and cross-subsidy in other parts of the transportation system?

We would have been OK with that "deal", no?  It would have leveled the playing field, putting the Amtrak subsidy at the same rate as our figures for the highway subsidy?  I even think that Congressman Mica or Congressman Schuster could embrace that compromise as well?

Let's unwind this a bit.  This thread reported how Amtrak President Boardman called out Transportation Committee Chair John Mica, with many of us on this thread being heartened by Boardman's tough talk in confronting a main Amtrak critic, others of us asking whether tough talk of this kind really advances the cause of passenger trains and of Amtrak, and the tough talk faction not wanting to back down even a fraction of an inch from "tough talk" being the way to go to advocate for trains.

What if, in some alternative reality and bizarro United States, that Mr. Boardman appeared before Chairman Mica's committee and opened with, "Mr Chairman, I have prepared a list of 10 projects for Amtrak requiring action from your Committee, and you have been given the report in advance and I have some charts to show in my presentation.  Each of these 10 projects is demonstrated to be more effective in the use of tax dollars to provide transportation services to the American people in these 10 markets across our great nation, more effective than a highway-construction alternative."  In that bizarro United States, public works-happy Republicans (cough "Bud" Schuster cough) might even embrace Amtrak.

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, December 2, 2012 8:23 AM

John WR

Certainly, Sam, we agree that most of us drive and all of us pay for the costs of driving.  But we do not pay proportionally.  Some people drive a lot and pay little; some drive a little and pay a lot and a few don't drive at all but still pay.  Shouldn't each of us pay his or her actual costs of driving?  Isn't that what you mean by "level platform?"

John 

As I noted, upper income motorists subsidize lower income motorists. If the full cost of driving were reflected at the pump, the price of fuel would increase significantly.  A significant portion of the cross subsidization of driving would be eliminated.  Many lower income people probably could not afford to drive, or at least drive as much, and would look for alternative modes of transport.  It probably will never happen.

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Sunday, December 2, 2012 12:47 AM

Certainly, Sam, we agree that most of us drive and all of us pay for the costs of driving.  But we do not pay proportionally.  Some people drive a lot and pay little; some drive a little and pay a lot and a few don't drive at all but still pay.  Shouldn't each of us pay his or her actual costs of driving?  Isn't that what you mean by "level platform?"

John

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, December 2, 2012 12:29 AM

There are approximately 223 million Americans over the age of 18. According to National Transportation Statistics, there are approximately 210 million motorists in the U.S., which means that most Americans over 18 have a driver's license. They pay for personal vehicles, roadways, insurance, traffic accident investigations, etc. Ultimately, they even pay for the environmental damage done by their vehicles. But they don't see the full cost of driving at the pump. I have argued that they should, but it is a political non-starter.    

Motorists pay income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, fuel taxes, license fees, etc. These monies go to a dedicated fund, i.e. fuel taxes to highway funds, or they go to a general fund. To the extent that the fuel taxes don't cover the cost of driving, monies are withdrawn from the general fund(s) to cover the shortfall. Although federal and state highways are funded for the most part by fuel taxes, license fees, vehicle taxes, sales taxes, etc., local streets and county roads are funded for the most part from property taxes, sales taxes, etc., which are paid directly or indirectly by practically everyone.

Car owners pay the costs of driving. Given the numbers of motorists, as a percentage of the population, where do those who argue that they don't pay the cost of driving think that the money comes from?  Ultimately, its comes from the majority of the people who own and operate personal vehicles. However, there is a form of cross subsidy in motoring.

In FY09, which is the latest year for complete IRS data, 46 per cent of Americans filing a federal income tax return did not pay any federal income tax.  Accordingly, they did not contribute any monies to the general fund from which funds were drawn to cover the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund. The monies for the general fund(s) came from those who paid federal income taxes, with a significantly higher percentage coming from those with Adjusted Gross Income of more than $100,000.  Moreover, as an example, high income people pay more in most other taxes, i.e. property, sales, excise, etc., than folks who are not so well off. This is the reason they are subsidizing driving for lower income people, i.e. more money for local streets, county roads, traffic policing, etc.  And yes, more money for cleaning up the environmental damage caused by the pollution generated from vehicles.

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Saturday, December 1, 2012 11:44 PM

I went back and changed the offending sentence, Sam, because the problem with cars is that there are costs economists call externalties and the car owner does not pay these costs except for a tiny part.  The whole society pays these costs.  We agree on one thing:  "Transportation options [and all options] should be placed on a level platform."  Technologies certainly have changed.  I'm not sure the new ones are necessarily superior.  Today in my state, New Jersey, we now have more cars than people.  Do we really need all those cars?

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, December 1, 2012 8:50 PM

"But in America we have a problem that people can and do whatever they want to as long as they can pay for it."  

A problem?  I am under the impression that the founders of our republic believed that the people should decide, within reason, what is in their best interest, and that their doing so is not a problem. Their informed judgments are the cornerstone of our republic.  

I have never bought into the notion that the demise of public transport (passenger trains, streetcars, etc.) was brought about by a conspiracy of greedy industrialists and conniving politicians. Oh, they played a minor role in the total scheme of things, but the major driver behind the changes were superior technologies and changing lifestyle needs.  

Transportation options should be placed on a level platform, although the probability of that happening is remote, given the current political environment, and the people should decide what is in their best interest.  

Too many self-appointed experts believe that they know what is best for the people. And if the people don't get it, it needs to be laid on them. This is not my view.

Amtrak is a good fit in a few areas, i.e. relatively short, high density corridors. It is not now or is it likely to be the number one choice of Americans for intercity travel. The car and the airplane are likely to be the modes of choice for most Americans for intercity travel, whether it is fifty miles down the road or across the country.

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:11 PM

Paul,

Perhaps Joe Boardman's statement about Amtrak becoming the top choice for intercity travel was about public relations rather than a realistic assessment of the situation.  And perhaps ultimately his statement will backfire and the general public will see his statement as ridiculous.  But I doubt it.  

There is a saying in politics:  "Say whatever you want about me.  Just be sure you spell my name right."  I think Amtrak is in a situation were the problem is in getting the general public to spell its name right, to know that it even exists and can be used.  I am not an engineer.  But I do know that powerful objective arguments can be made for passenger trains, especially for distances of up to 500 miles.  But in America we have a problem that people can and do whatever they want to as long as they can pay the bill for it.  Even when much larger costs are evaded.  Costs like polluting the air we all need to breathe.  We all know that many people make irrational decisions in their own life.  Yet there lives usually go on.  How then do we persuade people to act rationally in a lot of areas?  That is a rhetorical question; I don't expect that you have an answer any more than I have an answer.  But remember, we are a country where increasing numbers of people don't want to vaccinate their children against childhood disease and prefer the advice of a former porn star to the advice of their own physicians.  

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 2,593 posts
Posted by PNWRMNM on Saturday, December 1, 2012 1:25 PM

Paul,

But congress can be fooled for decades if not centuries. Physics is a place with real consequences. In politics the consequences usually show up after those who voted for it are out of office AND a constituency has developed to protect the status quo, which by definition gives someone an advantage they would not otherwise have. That advantage is alway at the expense of the tax payers or rate payers and is seldom rational public policy.

Mac

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Saturday, December 1, 2012 11:48 AM

John WR

Let me try again to answer you, Paul.  

Certainly Joe Boardman knows the House of Representatives has a Republican majority and they can zero out Amtrak any time they want and Amtrak would then be driven to bankruptcy.  But I think he is giving us his vision for Amtrak to stand against John Mica's vision.  And I think that we have to choose between those two visions of Amtrak.  

You would not express yourself this way and neither would I but we are not politicians.  Politicians are elected to make policy.  Joe Boardman is trying to do that.  I prefer that he try and fail rather than not try at all.  

(I don't expect Amtrak to take us to glory.  If it gets us around the United States that will do).

John

Yes, you are correct.  I am a research engineer and not a politician or political leader, so I don't know how this "game" is played.

But a scientist of much greater professional accomplishment than I once remarked about another nationally funded transportation system contemporaneous with Amtrak:

"Reality must take precedence over public relations, because nature cannot be fooled."

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Friday, November 30, 2012 5:59 PM

Actually Joe Boardman was brought to Washington by a Republican President to manage the FRA before moving over to Amtrak.  Before D.C. he worked a the pleasure of several New York State Governors as head of the DOT here, including George Pataki.  Joe has overseen a lot of public transportation agencies and operations for many year, in all levels of government and with all persuasions of political bents.  One of the strong points for Boardman, in fact, is his knowledge of politics and politicians coupled with his transportation experience.  

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.

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Friday, November 30, 2012 4:38 PM

Let me try again to answer you, Paul.  

Certainly Joe Boardman knows the House of Representatives has a Republican majority and they can zero out Amtrak any time they want and Amtrak would then be driven to bankruptcy.  But I think he is giving us his vision for Amtrak to stand against John Mica's vision.  And I think that we have to choose between those two visions of Amtrak.  

You would not express yourself this way and neither would I but we are not politicians.  Politicians are elected to make policy.  Joe Boardman is trying to do that.  I prefer that he try and fail rather than not try at all.  

(I don't expect Amtrak to take us to glory.  If it gets us around the United States that will do).

John

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Friday, November 30, 2012 10:19 AM

Paul Milenkovic

 But when I was a child, I believed in trains as a child, I reasoned as a child, I advocated for trains as a child.  But over 40 years later, I seek to put the ways of childhood behind me and advocate for trains on a solidly factual and plausible basis.

Paul, I so feel your pain. That is why (when I'm not working for a for-profit passenger railroad) I edit This Week at Amtrak. We can choose to drink the NRPC/NARP "Kool-Aid" or we can cut through the political blather and try to get to the reality of the situation. More and more private companies are looking to or working to establish privately owned passenger trains. The market is there and growing.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Friday, November 30, 2012 9:24 AM

schlimm

Agreed that Mica is just showboating.  But I fail to see how a such a ludicrous statement by the head of Amtrak helps.  Frankly he just lost whatever credibility he had.

It really makes him sound like he has no clue.  For a little perspective, in 2011 Amtrak carried just over 30 million people, Southwest Airlines carried 104 million. 

http://www.southwest.com/html/about-southwest/history/fact-sheet.html

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, November 30, 2012 8:22 AM

Paul Milenkovic
But when I was a child, I believed in trains as a child, I reasoned as a child, I advocated for trains as a child.  But over 40 years later, I seek to put the ways of childhood behind me and advocate for trains on a solidly factual and plausible basis.

Big Smile  ...said "Paul".

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Friday, November 30, 2012 7:39 AM

John WR

Paul Milenkovic
Why do people in the advocacy community, and now the head of Amtrak, believe that they have to engage in exageration and weakly supported claims in order to advance the cause of Amtrak?

Because, Paul, you ain't holdin' the hearing.  Congressman MIca is.  And the Congressman has made his position abundantly clear.  

Yes, the Republicans term-limit their committee chairs so as has been pointed out, Mr. Mica won't be holding those hearings for long either.

And yes once more, Congressman Mica has made a position critical of Amtrak if not anti-Amtrak quite clear.  So how does that answer my question?  

It is encouraging that there are advocates of passenger trains who are intensely dedicated to the cause .  I and two close friends saved our lawn-cutting and paper-route money to be dues paying members of NARP when we were 11 years old.  But when I was a child, I believed in trains as a child, I reasoned as a child, I advocated for trains as a child.  But over 40 years later, I seek to put the ways of childhood behind me and advocate for trains on a solidly factual and plausible basis.

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, November 30, 2012 7:30 AM

BaltACD

John WR

Paul Milenkovic
Why do people in the advocacy community, and now the head of Amtrak, believe that they have to engage in exageration and weakly supported claims in order to advance the cause of Amtrak?

Because, Paul, you ain't holdin' the hearing.  Congressman MIca is.  And the Congressman has made his position abundantly clear.  

 

As he exits the Chairmanship of the committe when this session closes -

Schuster replaces him.  Things won't change much.   It's like replacing a bit bull with a German shepherd.

Also, these hearings are like magic shows.  There is no dialog, just diatribe.  The only things you can learn are from listening to what's NOT said.

If you want truth, watch what they do, not what they say.  

I don't have a problem with Boardman standing up to Mica.  He should.  He needs to stand up like that when he gets back to his office, too.  That's where the trouble is.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, November 30, 2012 6:44 AM

John WR

Paul Milenkovic
Why do people in the advocacy community, and now the head of Amtrak, believe that they have to engage in exageration and weakly supported claims in order to advance the cause of Amtrak?

Because, Paul, you ain't holdin' the hearing.  Congressman MIca is.  And the Congressman has made his position abundantly clear.  

 

As he exits the Chairmanship of the committe when this session closes -

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:25 PM

Agreed that Mica is just showboating.  But I fail to see how a such a ludicrous statement by the head of Amtrak helps.  Frankly he just lost whatever credibility he had.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:51 PM

Paul Milenkovic
Why do people in the advocacy community, and now the head of Amtrak, believe that they have to engage in exageration and weakly supported claims in order to advance the cause of Amtrak?

Because, Paul, you ain't holdin' the hearing.  Congressman MIca is.  And the Congressman has made his position abundantly clear.  

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy