NKP guy What Congressperson from outside the NEC could possibly support ending service to his or her state? And why? Amtrak was meant to be a national asset, not one that offers only Boston to Richmond day trains.
Amtrak was meant to be a national asset, not one that offers only Boston to Richmond day trains.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Just because of the labor provisions. I suspect any decision to abandon the LD trains would need to be approved by Congress and a supplimental appropriation granted to cover the labor provisions as well as shutdown costs. Pretty sure it would be in the Billions of Dollars and it's far beyond anything Amtrak management could do on it's own. Amtrak Managements hands are tied. They have to keep the LD trains running unless they get an agreement with special appropriation from Congress to cover the Labor Seperation Costs.
You'll note they will never terminate the Food Service or Commissary employees they will get them to quit via offering them another job they cannot possibly accept. Far cheaper that way and keeps Congress out of it. They cannot however do that to the LD network wholesale as Amtrak does not have anywhere near the budgeted or reserve funds to pay for all the related labor seperation payments and likewise they could not offer those same LD employees into new positions again because lack of funds.
So I don't see termination of LD trains ever happening. Current and past CEO's of Amtrak do not have the gumption to approach Congress with such a proposal and if they did one could see their hat being handed to them shortly thereafter.
Even the implied termination of the Southwest Chief would surplus too many Amtrak employees and they could not be absorbed back into the rest of Amtrak and that would trigger ginormous Labor Seperation Payments Amtrak would be hard pressed to meet financially.
Forget what Labor and Amtrak agreed to but I think they have to pay each employee seperated due to a train discontinuance several years pay and benefits according to the contract that was agreed to at Amtraks establishment. Someone could probably look up what the labor protection agreements are. With Congress as oversight.....you trigger one of those puppy's with a LD train discontinued and you will get Congress' unwanted attention fast just due to the money that would be burned through.
PJS1If Amtrak’s executives were allowed to manage Amtrak like the business it is supposed to be, it would cut the long-distance trains in a heartbeat.
Amtrak is a public service run by a quasi-governmental body; it is not a business. It is not expected to make a profit. Neither are school systems, Churches or the TVA, for example, although they use many business practices and principles.
Americans have consistently shown for almost a half-century that they want nationwide passenger train service and are willing to subsidize it.
To further CMStPnP's point, try imagining the effect on public opinion when they learn about the hundreds of millions of dollars of train equipment that would suddenly become redundant. The brand-new and expensive dining cars that even now are not being used for the purposes for which they were designed. This enormous fifty-year public financial investment would be just junked.
How many years would it take to amortize the costs of the labor, equipment, and goodness knows what else? Would even fifty years do it?
Out of this upheaval and huge waste the public gets less than nothing, but the principle of operating a business as it ought to be is upheld! All this destruction of the public good was justified after all!
Except no one asked the public, let alone made a convincing case of it.
This government just gave away 1.5 trillion dollars in tax cuts to people who were already millionaires and billionaires. How many years of Amtrak subsidies would that have covered? Where were the much-vaunted principles of business when businessmen rammed that tax bill through a compliant Congress and then down our collective throat?
Any concern for who pays for that?
NKP guy Any concern for who pays for that?
You know who is going to pay - and who isn't.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
NKP guy No company cuts its way to profitability.
No company cuts its way to profitability.
You might want to study the history of Conrail before making that statement. Or US Steel. Or GM in the last 10 years. Or, well there are a whole lot of examples of companies that have done just that.
An "expensive model collector"
NKP guyTo further CMStPnP's point, try imagining the effect on public opinion when they learn about the hundreds of millions of dollars of train equipment that would suddenly become redundant.
So this reminded me of a long ago issue at Amtrak's formation that still has me a little confused....
Maybe some of the old railroaders on this website would remember. There were some new safety rules that made Milwaukee Road Passenger equipment not acceptable without upgrades. It was primarily that reason vs. Amtrak standardizing on Budd (which it didn't, BTW, Amtrak selected passenger cars from other manufacturers and for a year or two accepted the Milwaukee equipment).
There was something in regards to safety that DQ'd most of the Milwaukee Road equipment in which Amtrak returned it back to the Milwaukee Road. It was U.S. Safety rules only because they were able to move some of the Milwaukee Road equipment to tourist lines in the United States as well as to Canada's CN ( from what I remember CN just took the Pullman built skytops, Pullman built Sleepers). Maybe it was just the Milwaukee Shops built passenger cars that were the issue? I don't know.
Now I remember the Cannonball derailment in Brookfield, WI in 1972 the Fire Department complained specifically of two items in the derailed Milwaukee Road cars. Use of regular glass instead of plastic (it shattered into shards). Also remember the FD complaining about propane tanks underneath the coach equipment. No idea what the Milwaukee Road used Propane for but the cars on that train were only Coaches they were not Snack or Cafe cars. Was propane used for the Air Conditioning units? I thought they were steam powered as well. Could they have possibly used propane to prevent the steam lines from freezing or when the cars were disconnected from the locomotives?
So I only remember those two safety concerns from that one derailment. Oh and the glass was used on interior windows and partitions it was not exterior window glass the FD was complaining about. Last time I brought this up someone got confused.
NKP guy PJS1 If Amtrak’s executives were allowed to manage Amtrak like the business it is supposed to be, it would cut the long-distance trains in a heartbeat. Amtrak is a public service run by a quasi-governmental body; it is not a business. It is not expected to make a profit. Americans have consistently shown for almost a half-century that they want nationwide passenger train service and are willing to subsidize it. To further CMStPnP's point, try imagining the effect on public opinion when they learn about the hundreds of millions of dollars of train equipment that would suddenly become redundant. The brand-new and expensive dining cars that even now are not being used for the purposes for which they were designed. This enormous fifty-year public financial investment would be just junked. How many years would it take to amortize the costs of the labor, equipment, and goodness knows what else? Would even fifty years do it? Out of this upheaval and huge waste the public gets less than nothing, but the principle of operating a business as it ought to be is upheld! All this destruction of the public good was justified after all! Except no one asked the public, let alone made a convincing case of it. This government just gave away 1.5 trillion dollars in tax cuts to people who were already millionaires and billionaires. How many years of Amtrak subsidies would that have covered? Where were the much-vaunted principles of business when businessmen rammed that tax bill through a compliant Congress and then down our collective throat? Any concern for who pays for that?
PJS1 If Amtrak’s executives were allowed to manage Amtrak like the business it is supposed to be, it would cut the long-distance trains in a heartbeat.
Amtrak is a public service run by a quasi-governmental body; it is not a business. It is not expected to make a profit.
Thoughts...
'And did we tell you the name of the game, boy? We call it "Riding The Gravy Train".' Pink Floyd
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." Ronald Reagan
"Simple fairness dictates that government must not raise taxes on families struggling to pay their bills." Ronald Reagan
"You can't be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy, and still be for the little guy." Ronald Reagan
"Whenever we lower the tax rates, our entire nation is better off." Ronald Reagan
"Today the Federal Debt is about $21,733,425,227,728.46
The amount is the gross outstanding debt issued by the US Dept. of the Treasury since 1790.
It doesn't include state and local debt.
And, it doesn't include so-called "agency debt".
And, it doesn't include so-called unfunded liabilities of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Federal Debt per person is about $66,606." usgovernmentdebt.us
I love trains, but I'm not in favor of spending good money after bad money.
If/when Texas Central becomes a reality (with its Japanese and Renfe partners among others), maybe the Amtrak football will be seen in a different light.
I am concerned about our country should the day of reckoning come.
The propane was used to power the air conditioners. As far as I remember, only two roads, Southern and Snta Fe, used steam-powered air conditioners. I believe most roads used electrically-powered air conditioning--and if the batteries were not kept up, there was little cooling, as on the SAL combines that ran between Wildwood and St. Pertersburg (the run was not long enough to fully charge the batteries and keep the cars cool)..
Johnny
GrampI love trains, but I'm not in favor of spending good money after bad money.
So is the unneeded $1.5 trillion tax cut is OK with you? Amtrak's puny subsidy is a waste of money and must be sacrified on the Altar of Sound Financial Principles, but the tax cut is OK?
My guess (from the quotations you cited) is that you supported the tax cut and the political party that wrote it.
The great fiscal guru Dick Cheny said that Ronald Reagan proved that in politics, "Deficits don't matter."
So why does the Amtrak subsidy matter so much that it must be ended along with the service to the American public which it provides?
I don't know about you, but I received very little recently in the way of tax relief, while the 1% got nearly all of it. But I do like, need, and use Amtrak, and you would take that away from your countrymen because it would increase the federal deficit?
What percent of the deficit, let alone the national debt, is Amtrak responsible for? I simply can't understand people who go along withe the tax cut and then cry poor mouth about Amtrak.
If Amtrak has to die for the sake of some Principle, then I want to see huge cuts in Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, Veterans Hospitals, etc., because the same Principle is involved.
Let's start by closing all the lighthouses. If people and businesses want them, let them pay for them, right?
NKP guy Amtrak is a public service run by a quasi-governmental body; it is not a business.
I don't necessarily think Amtrak should be profitable or break even but one statistic Amtrak frequently talks about financially is they cover, as of 2017, "94.7 percent of its operating costs with ticket sales and other revenues". The trend is that number has gone up every year and IMO that number should be 100%.
You can say Amtrak is a public service. The problem is this service isn't available to everyone. A lot of the country doesn't have access to Amtrak (within say 100 mile radius). Is it fair for someone living in Columbus, OH to pay tax money for Amtrak when they can't use it? Also, others have better service and more trains than others and it isn't always population based (Texas, Florida, and Ohio have relatively poor rail service).
NKP guy Americans have consistently shown for almost a half-century that they want nationwide passenger train service and are willing to subsidize it.
What Americans have shown with their pocketbooks for almost half-a-century is a preference for personal vehicles for short to intermediate trips and airplanes for long distance trips.
Less than one percent of intercity travelers go by train. A higher percentage of travelers along the NEC or one of the two or three other relatively high-density corridors use the train, but they are greatly outnumbered by motorists.
Abilene, Amarillo, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Harlingen, Lubbock, McAllen, Midland, Odessa, and San Angelo, all cities in Texas with populations of more than 100,000, don’t have any passenger train service. There is no real market demand for it. When these cities get passenger train service, along with every other city in the United States of equal size, I will buy the argument that Amtrak is a national system.
Passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors. The long-distance trains don’t make any sense. To throw one more dollar at them, irrespective of what the federal and state governments do with the taxpayer’s other dollars, is poor financial management.
Philly Amtrak Fan I don't necessarily think Amtrak should be profitable or break even but one statistic Amtrak frequently talks about financially is they cover, as of 2017, "94.7 percent of its operating costs with ticket sales and other revenues".
Philly Amtrak Fan I don't necessarily think Amtrak should be profitable or break even but one statistic Amtrak frequently talks about financially is they cover, as of 2017, "94.7 percent of its operating costs with ticket sales and other revenues". The trend is that number has gone up every year and IMO that number should be 100%. You can say Amtrak is a public service. The problem is this service isn't available to everyone. A lot of the country doesn't have access to Amtrak (within say 100 mile radius). Is it fair for someone living in Columbus, OH to pay tax money for Amtrak when they can't use it? Also, others have better service and more trains than others and it isn't always population based (Texas, Florida, and Ohio have relatively poor rail service).
But Philly those persons in the western states have to pay taxes for your waterways that they cannot use unless they go to those locations.
NKP guy Neither are ......or the TVA,
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is a corporate agency of the United States. Unlike Amtrak, it does not have any shares outstanding.
blue streak 1 But Philly those persons in the western states have to pay taxes for your waterways that they cannot use unless they go to those locations.
A key point is the importance of what people in one part of the country are being asked to support in another part of the country that is not likely to benefit them directly.
I am happy to have my federal tax dollars go to support the NEC, as well as several other high density corridors, because they are important or maybe even critical alternatives for mobility in those corridors.
Likewise, I would support using some of my state tax dollars to support better passenger rail service along the I-35 corridor between DFW and San Antonio, even though I would not be able to use it that much.
But I don't want my tax dollars going to support once a day, often late running long distance trains, that could go away tomorrow and very few people would miss them. They are not critical transport for but a tiny fraction of the nation's population.
It is a matter of priorities.
PJS1 blue streak 1 But Philly those persons in the western states have to pay taxes for your waterways that they cannot use unless they go to those locations. A key point is the importance of what people in one part of the country are being asked to support in another part of the country that is not likely to benefit them directly. I am happy to have my federal tax dollars go to support the NEC, as well as several other high density corridors, because they are important or maybe even critical alternatives for mobility in those corridors. Likewise, I would support using some of my state tax dollars to support better passenger rail service along the I-35 corridor between DFW and San Antonio, even though I would not be able to use it that much. But I don't want my tax dollars going to support once a day, often late running long distance trains, that could go away tomorrow and very few people would miss them. They are not critical transport for but a tiny fraction of the nation's population. It is a matter of priorities.
We have become a nation of I don't give a sh.t or a tax dollar if I don't benefit from it.
Service is Service.
The movie 'Cars' gives a insight to what happens when 'service' is put on another route. Former US 66 fading into dust with the establishment of I-40.
Of course this all takes place in 'fly over' territory so no one cares and what happens in fly over country is of no priority. LD Amtrak service's fly over country, for those that don't fly and don't drive - they are tax paying citizens too!
[quote user="Philly Amtrak Fan"]A lot of the country doesn't have access to Amtrak (within say 100 mile radius). Is it fair for someone living in Columbus, OH to pay tax money for Amtrak when they can't use it?
Quite right! No, it isn't fair. Those unserved taxpayers ought to be demanding that Amtrak serve their towns, too, by expanding.
Is it fair that citizens in states unaffected by hurricanes have to subsidize people who live in those zones by underwriting or subsidizing insurance for those who do? If people want to live on the beach or in hurricane-prone areas, why should (for example) Ohioans subsidize that?
Also, for years folks in northern states paid taxes to build the TVA. Subsequently, the cheaper costs of electricity in TVA areas was a lure or strong incentive to take businesses from the North and have them relocate in the South. Was that fair to Northerners?
I can't quite get over railfans (! ?) being in favor of abolishing Amtrak, for whatever reason. I also notice no one here (yet, anyway) mentioned the $1.5 trillion tax cut as making sense, while Amtrak's subsidy doesn't.
To quote a former Congressman: "Beam me up, Scotty."
NKP guy I don't know about you, but I received very little recently in the way of tax relief, while the 1% got nearly all of it. But I do like, need, and use Amtrak, and you would take that away from your countrymen because it would increase the federal deficit?
NKPguy, I can't take time now to address your questions fully. I do prepare tax returns as part of my livelihood. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed last December for all intents and purposes doesn't go into effect until 2018. Except for the IRS change of withholding tables last winter, you likely haven't experienced an impact from the act one way or the other. If you require it, I hope you have kept an eye on your withholdings to make sure enough has been paid in during the year. We think many people will have smaller refunds or owe this time around, because they've gotten more money in their paychecks during the year, and haven't adjusted their withholdings. The act changes will be reflected with the upcoming 2018 returns. We usually don't start considering the tax changes as being "written in stone" until Christmas week, because Congress or the IRS always make changes at the last minute. Last year, even after "the last minute". Many people had to amend their returns because they had already filed. The actual forms for 2018 will be much different than previous years.
BaltACD PJS1 A key point is the importance of what people in one part of the country are being asked to support in another part of the country that is not likely to benefit them directly. I am happy to have my federal tax dollars go to support the NEC, as well as several other high density corridors, because they are important or maybe even critical alternatives for mobility in those corridors. Likewise, I would support using some of my state tax dollars to support better passenger rail service along the I-35 corridor between DFW and San Antonio, even though I would not be able to use it that much. But I don't want my tax dollars going to support once a day, often late running long distance trains, that could go away tomorrow and very few people would miss them. They are not critical transport for but a tiny fraction of the nation's population. It is a matter of priorities. We have become a nation of I don't give a sh.t or a tax dollar if I don't benefit from it. Service is Service. The movie 'Cars' gives a insight to what happens when 'service' is put on another route. Former US 66 fading into dust with the establishment of I-40. Of course this all takes place in 'fly over' territory so no one cares and what happens in fly over country is of no priority. LD Amtrak service's fly over country, for those that don't fly and don't drive - they are tax paying citizens too!
Apparently you did not read my posting carefully. If it is important, i.e. a key link in the nation's transport scheme, using tax dollars to help it is approrpiate.
But how anyone could argue that the long distance trains, which carry less than one percent of intercity travelers in the U.S., is a critical link in the nation's transport system escapes me.
In the long run, however, if passenger rail cannot be sustained without massive federal and/or state subsidies, it should be put on the shelf.
People in flyover country get lots of federal dollars for things that are important. Look up federally subsidized crop insurance, price supports, and the Essential Air Service Program for openers.
NKP guy I can't quite get over railfans (! ?) being in favor of abolishing Amtrak.
Who mentioned anything about abolishing Amtrak. It makes sense in relatively short, high density corridors. The issue is whether it makes any sense, economic or otherwise, to run once a day long-distance trains that are used by less than one percent of intercity travelers?
TVA was funded by federal government and municipal bonds. It funds its projects at a lower cost than would have been the case if it had to borrow money in the open markets.
The average retail price of residential electric energy in the United States is 13.30 cents per kWh. The highest rates are found in the New England States, Middle Atlantic States, upper Midwest, California, Alaska, and Hawaii.
The rates in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Florida, for which the retail companies are able to wholesale power from the TVA, range from 11 to 14 cents per kWh. The average rates for Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia are the same. The cost of electric energy is a factor in deciding where to locate a facility, but it not the only one.
The TVA has paid back everything that it has borrowed and then some. Amtrak has never earned enough to pay back anything. More importantly, however, the TVA has nothing to do with the issue of how many taxpayer dollars should be directed to Amtrak and for what purposes.
PJS1If airlines, intercity bus companies, taxis, for hire limos, Uber, Lyft, etc. are expected to cover all of their costs or go out of business, why should passenger trains be exempt?
With the possible exception of airlines, none of those other passenger carriers cover all their costs. They use the roads, and user fees such as the gas tax don't cover all road costs, so they are also subsidized by taxpayers.
MidlandMike PJS1 If airlines, intercity bus companies, taxis, for hire limos, Uber, Lyft, etc. are expected to cover all of their costs or go out of business, why should passenger trains be exempt? With the possible exception of airlines, none of those other passenger carriers cover all their costs. They use the roads, and user fees such as the gas tax don't cover all road costs, so they are also subsidized by taxpayers.
PJS1 If airlines, intercity bus companies, taxis, for hire limos, Uber, Lyft, etc. are expected to cover all of their costs or go out of business, why should passenger trains be exempt?
Airlines come nowhere near covering ALL their costs. The don't end up paying full costs for either airports or the Air Traffic Control System. The number of bankrupt carriers that have developed over the years indicate covering the routine operating costs and 'turning a profit' is far from a sure thing.
PJS1 ... Amtrak rents space on its passenger trains to carry riders from one point to another. It is a commercial carrier, just like commercial airlines, intercity bus companies, taxis, etc. Whether it was intended to breakeven or earn a profit is unclear. But its books and financials are set-up like a business, which means it has the structure to record a profit. If it were a government agency, it would have a surplus account as opposed to a retained earnings account. Or as it turns out an accumulated deficit account, which stood at $34.6 billion at the end of FY17.
...
Amtrak rents space on its passenger trains to carry riders from one point to another. It is a commercial carrier, just like commercial airlines, intercity bus companies, taxis, etc. Whether it was intended to breakeven or earn a profit is unclear. But its books and financials are set-up like a business, which means it has the structure to record a profit. If it were a government agency, it would have a surplus account as opposed to a retained earnings account. Or as it turns out an accumulated deficit account, which stood at $34.6 billion at the end of FY17.
Amtrak may have been set up with good intentions to earn its own keep, and perhaps they continue the business structure as an expedience. Nevertheless, when the railroads tried to force the issue, the Supreme Court called the charade, and determined that Amtrak was an agency.
Maybe. All commercial carriers pay to help support the public facilities that they use. Whether they pay their fair share is another question. Needless to say, they argue that they do.
According to the CBO, revenues from fuel taxes, excise taxes, etc., which are levied directly on the operators, cover approximately 40 to 45 percent of the cost of building and maintaining the nation's roadways. The other monies come from property taxes, inventory taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, tolls, etc.
Greyhound, which is just one example, pays fuel taxes, excise taxes, etc. on its buses, tires, etc. It pays property taxes on its terminals, service facilities, storage yards, etc. In Dallas it owns a bus terminal, maintenance facility, and service yard. They all attract local property and inventory taxes. When its buses run on TX130, which is a toll road, it pays the tolls, albeit it gets a discount. It pays the Texas Margin Tax, which is a form of income tax, although we don't admit it, as well as state and federal corporate income taxes. Some of the funds from the last two sources eventually find their way into the transfers from the state and federal general funds to help build and maintain the nation's roadways.
None of the commercial carriers mentioned previously pay any taxes. They are paid by their customers. They are baked into the price of the airline, bus, limo, taxi, etc. fares.
MidlandMike Nevertheless, when the railroads tried to force the issue, the Supreme Court called the charade, and determined that Amtrak was an agency.
I believe the Court said that Amtrak acts like a government agency for regulator purposes. And if I remember correct the issue was remanded back to the lower court for re-consideration. It is still being litigated.
Nothing the court said changes of the nature of Amtrak's activities and structure. If you read its financials, etc. carefully, it behaves like a business. It is a commercial enterprise; it has all of the attributes of a business.
Most people don't read the financials, in large part I suspect because they don't understand them. And unless you are an accountant or financial analyst, they are boring.
BaltACD MidlandMike PJS1 If airlines, intercity bus companies, taxis, for hire limos, Uber, Lyft, etc. are expected to cover all of their costs or go out of business, why should passenger trains be exempt? With the possible exception of airlines, none of those other passenger carriers cover all their costs. They use the roads, and user fees such as the gas tax don't cover all road costs, so they are also subsidized by taxpayers. Airlines come nowhere near covering ALL their costs. The don't end up paying full costs for either airports or the Air Traffic Control System. The number of bankrupt carriers that have developed over the years indicate covering the routine operating costs and 'turning a profit' is far from a sure thing.
From what I read, airlines cover their airport costs with access fees. They pay their share of air control, while general avation seems to get a free ride. I think PJS1 covered the part about carriers going out of business.
However, I did forget to mention the Essential Air Service subsidy for small markets.
PJS1Nothing the court said changes of the nature of Amtrak's activities and structure. If you read its financials, etc. carefully, it behaves like a business. It is a commercial enterprise; it has all of the attributes of a business.
It behaves like a business? Can I quote you on that? It seems that many times previously you said that if Amtrak was a business it would have been out of business a long time ago.
PJS1According to the CBO, revenues from fuel taxes, excise taxes, etc., which are levied directly on the operators, cover approximately 40 to 45 percent of the cost of building and maintaining the nation's roadways. The other monies come from property taxes, inventory taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, tolls, etc.
Tolls assumingly go to the roads. Property taxs primarily go to schools, police, fire, etc., and local roads. Its the sales taxes and income taxes that come largely from the general population that is helping to subsidize part of buses, taxis, uber, etc.
DeggestyThe propane was used to power the air conditioners.
OK, so that clears up a mystery. I remember there was never an issue with heating nor AC on them both were reliable and the propane A/C is probably why. I know the Milwaukee preferred Waukesha Engine as a supplier as they were a shipping customer. I'll bet they supplied the A/C units I did a Google Search and found this.......
http://www.wehs.net/railway-ac-units.html
Never saw an axle generator on the Milwaukee Cars and I am not sure if they had batteries or not.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.