I C Rider The last tyhing Congress will concern itself with is a rail system the majority of Americans do not care about except the corridors. however when the weather makes hghways ipassible and airports shut down
I C,
I pretty much agree with you. However, it seems reasonable to point out that Congress does concern itself with Amtrak. Whether we agree or disagree with Congress about Amtrak the concern is there.
John
Look we can policize the railroad but what it all boils down to with Amtrak is it a government entity operating within the private sector that doesn't want it in there so they obviously will not peak up for it. people who support passenger rail cannot muster up enough suppoerter to make a difference until there is grdlock within the other modes of transport. Greyhound ant one time took up the slack by going places that airlines or railroads didn't go now there are communities that they too have abandoned because of costs. . ight now this nations road and bridges are in need of major repairs.Major Airports are at or near capacity. The ATC system is in need up a overhaul. highways in major cities are overcrowded . The last tyhing Congress will concern itself with is a rail system the majority of Americans do not care about except the corridors. however when the weather makes hghways ipassible and airports shut down we beg and borrow railcars from all over to meet the needs. we run our passenger sevices really bad and expect it to bail us out we everything else can't function
I C RiderWe are fifty states one country and one federal government.
Sometimes I'm not sure. Sectionalism seems as important today as it has always been.
We are fifty states one country and one federal government. The are different countries with different governments and the area they cover in most cases are less than the area of our largest states. and each is basiclly responsible for their own areas
Schlimm,
Cruises do not only happen on the ocean. They also happen on our inland water ways. There the government has constant projects to maintain the rivers' suitability for navigation.
TSA is at airports and you pay with your ticket, in part. ditto at docks. Same with ICE and customs. My point, which seems to be missed is that the government does not help pay for your ticket on the cruise liner. Cruises are not basic transportation; neither is riding in a sleeper on a 39 hour land cruise. passenger rail transportation is probably limited to a 5-6 hour distance.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Yes, local docks are usually paid for by the city they are in and the lines pay docking fees. However, the cruises are not subsidized and that was the analogy.
Yes, local docks are usually paid for by the city they are in and the lines pay docking fees. However, the cruises are not subsidized and that was the analogy.
The government does pay for their security.
Railroad to Freedom
schlimm ontheBNSF schlimm The eventual goal should be the gradual building/improving of the appropriate (under 500 mile) corridors for HSR and/or less than HSR (110 mph). In the meantime, long distance trains have to be retained, even though they are not primary transportation, more like cruise liners. As such, the amount of subsidy should be reduced, as no one expects we should subsidize folks who want to take a Caribbean or Mississippi river cruise. This can be done by reducing costs of sleeper and dining services and raising fares for those passengers. Actually cruise ships do receive subsidies from the government. Oh really? And what is your source for that claim? Most cruise lines are foreign-flagged.
ontheBNSF schlimm The eventual goal should be the gradual building/improving of the appropriate (under 500 mile) corridors for HSR and/or less than HSR (110 mph). In the meantime, long distance trains have to be retained, even though they are not primary transportation, more like cruise liners. As such, the amount of subsidy should be reduced, as no one expects we should subsidize folks who want to take a Caribbean or Mississippi river cruise. This can be done by reducing costs of sleeper and dining services and raising fares for those passengers. Actually cruise ships do receive subsidies from the government.
schlimm The eventual goal should be the gradual building/improving of the appropriate (under 500 mile) corridors for HSR and/or less than HSR (110 mph). In the meantime, long distance trains have to be retained, even though they are not primary transportation, more like cruise liners. As such, the amount of subsidy should be reduced, as no one expects we should subsidize folks who want to take a Caribbean or Mississippi river cruise. This can be done by reducing costs of sleeper and dining services and raising fares for those passengers.
The eventual goal should be the gradual building/improving of the appropriate (under 500 mile) corridors for HSR and/or less than HSR (110 mph). In the meantime, long distance trains have to be retained, even though they are not primary transportation, more like cruise liners. As such, the amount of subsidy should be reduced, as no one expects we should subsidize folks who want to take a Caribbean or Mississippi river cruise. This can be done by reducing costs of sleeper and dining services and raising fares for those passengers.
Actually cruise ships do receive subsidies from the government.
US cruise line terminals are tax payer funded - mostly local for 'economic development' purposes.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
According to the Congressional Budget Office in 2007 the government spent $356 billion on water transportation in the United States. About half was spent by states and the other half by the Federal Government. The Federal half came from general tax levies on the taxpayers.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21902
Right now in the USA our infrastructure is crimbling because we are waiting on government funds to tix it .Roads and bridges are in dire need of repair and airports are at near capacity and the air traffic controll system id old and outdated The railroads however are improving. Why because they do not depend on goverment funds for infrastructuture. the government is constantly telling railroads how to be safer but they don't put any money into it. The do fund or subsidize all other modes of transportation and they can't seem to find the funds to keep it up dated. If airlines had to pay for ATC and airports nthey too would be non profit making. Tax payers pay for tit and they may never fly but we pay. the problem with Amtrak is that the the government doesn't ride the trains at least the long distance ones and they do not realize that if they do nothing to keep Amtrak viable we will see gridlock. Today they re talking about laying off ATC workers a lot of people will be lookin g at the railroads but it too may be too crowded.
I C Rider We cannot approach passenger rail, even HST in this counrty the way they do in Europe or Japan. Why, you ask. If you places all the different countrie in Europe together they are about the size of the USA. They are basically a bunch of Northeasr corridors and each country is financing their own rail. If we (the USA) had the area they have we wouldn't have a problem. Maybe if we had the corridors trains separated from the long distant and overnighters we may be able to solve the problem. Maybe if trains like the Empire Builder , Sunset Limited, and other 'cruise trains' were operated independant of the others we may find solutions. Each of these services require a different level of attention and service. I don't think that it is fair to judge the winners and losers when tthe funds for each type of service is intermingled. No European country is quite as diversified as ours. Affter all we have quite a bit more ifrastructure than they do. the railroad especially the western roads cover quite a bit more territory than those in Europe and are not government funded. maintaining a single line ins quite costly so if Germany or France were as large as the USA I'll bet they would have problems too with high speed rail
We cannot approach passenger rail, even HST in this counrty the way they do in Europe or Japan. Why, you ask. If you places all the different countrie in Europe together they are about the size of the USA. They are basically a bunch of Northeasr corridors and each country is financing their own rail. If we (the USA) had the area they have we wouldn't have a problem. Maybe if we had the corridors trains separated from the long distant and overnighters we may be able to solve the problem. Maybe if trains like the Empire Builder , Sunset Limited, and other 'cruise trains' were operated independant of the others we may find solutions. Each of these services require a different level of attention and service. I don't think that it is fair to judge the winners and losers when tthe funds for each type of service is intermingled. No European country is quite as diversified as ours. Affter all we have quite a bit more ifrastructure than they do. the railroad especially the western roads cover quite a bit more territory than those in Europe and are not government funded. maintaining a single line ins quite costly so if Germany or France were as large as the USA I'll bet they would have problems too with high speed rail
Why not like Europe and Japan? We have been waiting years to build it why not just build it already? The states of the United States are about the same size as European countries. The Contiguous US is about the same size as Europe. You don't necessarily need to offer long distance service just connect a variety of different corridors. Though HSR can work over long distances China has proven this in fact HSR gains in efficiency from not having to stop as much. A trip from Chicago to New Orleans would be well served by HSR or Chicago to New york.
BaltACDCongress expected Amtrak to die. The fact that Amtrak (and rail commuter - which Congress never even looked at during Amtrak formation) continues to operate and is developing a increasing impact in the areas served is a testament to the people of Amtrak and also the people of the rail commuter agencies.
Balt,
Hasn't it been ever thus? It seems to me that the best railroads have ever been able to hope for from government is malignant neglect. And often they have gotten much worse. Ultimately they did almost die out but now they have arisen like a phoenix from their own ashes.
Paul Milenkovic BaltACD And all policies and practices have a history associated with them - all that history and who caused it to happen ends up being where we are today. Future policies and practices that get politically debated today affect where we will be tomorrow. That the terms of the debate about the future affects the future, I could not agree more. So tell me, what was being said about trains by people like us in the early 1970's during the transition to Amtrak? Has Amtrak been on an upward or downward slope since then? How much impact has Amtrak had on highway and airport congestion, pollution, oil usage, living patterns, accomodation of people who cannot or prefer not to use the other modes? Keep in mind that Amtrak has .1 percent (about 1 part in 1000) of total passenger miles in the U.S., 5 percent (1 part in 20) in Europe. What are we saying now that is different from the early 1970's? If we are saying the same thing, what can we expect by the year 2050?
BaltACD And all policies and practices have a history associated with them - all that history and who caused it to happen ends up being where we are today. Future policies and practices that get politically debated today affect where we will be tomorrow.
And all policies and practices have a history associated with them - all that history and who caused it to happen ends up being where we are today. Future policies and practices that get politically debated today affect where we will be tomorrow.
That the terms of the debate about the future affects the future, I could not agree more.
So tell me, what was being said about trains by people like us in the early 1970's during the transition to Amtrak? Has Amtrak been on an upward or downward slope since then? How much impact has Amtrak had on highway and airport congestion, pollution, oil usage, living patterns, accomodation of people who cannot or prefer not to use the other modes? Keep in mind that Amtrak has .1 percent (about 1 part in 1000) of total passenger miles in the U.S., 5 percent (1 part in 20) in Europe.
What are we saying now that is different from the early 1970's? If we are saying the same thing, what can we expect by the year 2050?
The Father's of Amtrak (Congress of the late 60's & 1970) viewed Amtrak like the promiscous High School girl - Sew wild oats on Friday & Saturday nights and pray for crop failure on Sunday.
Congress in passing the Amtrak legislation did it to 'bail out' the carriers of their continuing passenger operation losses. The prevailing thoghts at the time were that Amtrak would fail within the original authorization period and rail passenger operations in the USA would cease to exist and Congress could get on with it's prefered transportation programs of building highways and airports. Congress never intended rail passenger to have ANY EFFECT on highway and airport congestion, pollution, oil usage, living patterns, accomodation of people who cannot or prefer not to use the other modes. Congress expected Amtrak to die. The fact that Amtrak (and rail commuter - which Congress never even looked at during Amtrak formation) continues to operate and is developing a increasing impact in the areas served is a testament to the people of Amtrak and also the people of the rail commuter agencies. Amtrak is developing relevance - it is not 'there' now, but it is growing. With improved SERVICE in high traffic corridors it's relevance will continue to grow.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Blownout,
Thank you for responding to my question.
I can confidently say I don't call people names or engage in political invective. As far as I'm concerned people's politics are their own. I don't need to come here to give or look for political expression.
But I cannot be so confident when I talk about train related government policies. There is a lot of judgement in those cases and a lot of line drawing. I think many of us have problems with that issue. However, I will be aware of it and make a deliberate effort not to overstep the boundaries.
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/214201.aspx
When you start getting into current/previous governments and whose fault it is/was and get into hurling invective...although I have yet to see that here....that is when locks will be used.
If you have concerns about this you can always PM myself or Jeff.
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/
John,
The rule is you can not say anything negative about passenger trains. That is political. Advocating for them is not political, so you will be fine.
Mac
jeffrey-wimberlyOK guys, you're getting heavy into politics here. Bring the conversation back to the subject of the thread without going into politics.
Jeffery,
Am I ever going to hear from you? It has been almost 24 hours since I asked for advice about your guidelines and I am waiting for your answer.
schlimm Providing a subsidy (read: bribe) of ~$200 per passenger to folks who choose to ride in sleepers on land cruises is one of the things Amtrak could end tomorrow. If it is politically necessary to run LD trains, then at least make them coach-only, with a bistro car for food, thus reducing the labor-intensive nature of those trains as they are now, so that the savings can be used to develop real transportation services.
Providing a subsidy (read: bribe) of ~$200 per passenger to folks who choose to ride in sleepers on land cruises is one of the things Amtrak could end tomorrow. If it is politically necessary to run LD trains, then at least make them coach-only, with a bistro car for food, thus reducing the labor-intensive nature of those trains as they are now, so that the savings can be used to develop real transportation services.
Part of the problem, and it seems it's a dirty little secret, is Amtrak has all sorts of labor protection in their contracts. Cutting stuff means displaced workers still get paid for a number of years. A good deal if you work for them.
The trouble is, Amtrak mgt has absolutely no reason to try to negotiate for something more pliable. Labor protection = job security for mgt.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ontheBNSF Also this talk of "fixing Amtrak" is bogus. Amtrak was designed to fail it was broken from the the off set. There is nothing to fix. Amtrak was designed to gradually end passenger service its original equipment was meant to be converted for freight usage. The water gate scandal trial revealed Nixon has received contributions from airlines such as american airlines. If Nixon really wanted to help passenger rail he should have reduced regulations and done away with the ICC but he did not. How is something that is not only heavily regulated supposed to compete with entities that are not only subsidized but have less regulations. Either it is the government's role to run transportation or it isn't. IF passenger rail's competitors aren't expected to pay for themselves then neither should passenger rail. my .02
Also this talk of "fixing Amtrak" is bogus. Amtrak was designed to fail it was broken from the the off set. There is nothing to fix. Amtrak was designed to gradually end passenger service its original equipment was meant to be converted for freight usage. The water gate scandal trial revealed Nixon has received contributions from airlines such as american airlines. If Nixon really wanted to help passenger rail he should have reduced regulations and done away with the ICC but he did not. How is something that is not only heavily regulated supposed to compete with entities that are not only subsidized but have less regulations. Either it is the government's role to run transportation or it isn't. IF passenger rail's competitors aren't expected to pay for themselves then neither should passenger rail. my .02
CSSHEGEWISCH There was not a great push for transportation de-reg in the time period when the Rail Passenger Service Act was enacted. It should also be remembered that the passenger airlines were also heavily regulated by the Civil Aeronautics Board, especially in regard to routes and fares.
There was not a great push for transportation de-reg in the time period when the Rail Passenger Service Act was enacted. It should also be remembered that the passenger airlines were also heavily regulated by the Civil Aeronautics Board, especially in regard to routes and fares.
Well airlines for years didn't really pay any user fees until 1971. Also ever since deregulation became the norm Amtrak was never able to benefit from it and airlines were.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.