Passenger Trains

[Anonymous]

Terry,

Why should I pay taxes to provide a passenger train option for y'all in the NEC (or anywhere else for that matter) when you are not paying taxes to provide one for me? If it is a right, as a public utility, then where is mine?

Sorry to have to be so blunt. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Terry and several of you other folks,

Why are the choices in this debate always limited to Amtrak or your car or a plane? Why will you not consider using the bus? Busses go everywhere! If some of y'all would take a bus then they would earn some more bucks and I could have my tax burden reduced. Emissions go down, traffic goes down and everyone wins. I imagine the ticket prices are less as well but I haven't checked. I never heard of congress bailing out Greyhound or Trailways.

Sorry if this seems offensive. That's not my intent. Just trying a little straight talk. - Ed

[BRAKIE]

Ed,Very good reply! The Graydog and Trailways go everywhere like you say.Even places Amtrak and planes don't go.I dare say they are cheaper then going by Amtrak and planes.

[Anonymous]

Tom Chmielewski, the editor of this widely observed magazine, whose bandwidth we pervade is putting webcams on trains: a start, as I see it, to less crashing.
"Lousy" is an interesting choice of operational descriptives for transport systems, extant or proposed. Here's hoping that this missive finds you able to evade most of the travel faux pas foisted on an ever-enduring public by Congress through SpAmtrak and the roadbuilders.
John Bradley

[herbster]

Ed
Let me say I couldn't agree with you more about buses as a need. It a very important part of the overall system as they go everywhere. But your statement about buses not being fed. fund is not true, its included in the highway tax. So don't worry about your tax burdon those in Wash allready took care of that.
Who knows the answer? We all have opinion and ideas, but what they need to do is find a solulion. I read the paper and the headline read, AMTRAK MAY SHUT DOWN BY TOMORROW if they don't get 220 million by Wed. On the third page of the paper United Airline ask congress for 2.2 billion the stay out of bankrupacy. What wrong with this picture? Then on another artical Washington gives 550 million to Africa and someone else for HIV education and study.
I don't know the answer on how to fix it but to destroy it is not. We need a National Rail System run or overseem by the goverment, as a service. Other countries do it why not us.

[Anonymous]

Up until the 1970s, there wasn't a user tax for airline tickets. All the construction before that time came from the federal purse. There are people who say the user taxes paid for the airports and runways, but they are wrong. Well, they have since the 1970s, but most of the runways and airport terminals were already built.....

Would it not be nice to have the federal purse pay for the infrastructure of high speed rail before the user fees kick in, just like the airlines?

Also today, United Airlines asked for another $1.8 billion.... Who says the airlines do not have their tin cups out?

[Modelcar]

The last message was well said....and now Tues. 25th their saying the new window for Amtrak closure is July 8th...

QM

[Anonymous]

Herb,

I consider the funds for the highway system, including the Hound and the 'Ways share, to be comming from the highway users not from Washington. This is because the highway construction and maintanence funds are collected from user taxes at the pump. The sad bit is that the lions share could be handled at the state level if somebody could cut through the politics.

As most of y'all know, I am against all the subsidy funding on the federal level for transportation (again the highway money is not what I consider a subsidy) but when you hear the stuff like the $500+ million for African AIDS education mentioned above it makes the Amtrak stuff sound like small potatoes (Yea, with an 'E'). At least we get something for the Amtrak money.

But I think that allowing Amtrak to perform as a private organization will ultimately lead to the best passenger rail system because that is the best model for accountability. Without that, the system will never be required to improve to meet customer demand. As long as it is controlled by congress, it is just a social experiment.

I believe the proper thing to do in the short run is to get with the states and regionalize Amtrak. I believe there is a sincere need for passenger rail service in the NEC. But I think the residents of that area should bear the cost. I don't care what mechanism they use to collect the funds because I don't live in the NEC states but if I did I would want the cost to be substantially carried by the users. There is something to be said for the benifit to the highway users since this takes commuters off the highways, but I think the impact of this is widely overstated in this forum.

Based on the news about airlines and Amtrak, it sounds like we may have too much transportation in this country since the supply is greater than the demand. Maybe if one of the players gets out of the game the others will be able to stay in. In this respect, it is a bad time for Gunn to be thinking of playing his trump card.

Finally, I don't buy the argument that 'They do it in Europe and Japan and ...' We have different market dynamics in this country so we need to find the solution that fits us. Mind you, I am not saying that because they do it in Europe it can't be good for us. I am just saying that we need the solution that is best for the US.

Thanks for indulging me in a small sermon. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Well said, Ed! Just when I was about to post, and I read your reply. Bravo.

Especially on that last point. Herb, if you are reading this, the point is, just because everyone else does something it doesn't mean we ought to.

What makes you think the TGV or Shinkasen model will even work here? I should point out that the density in Japan makes the NEC look like the Sahara. THE most dense population in the world! No real freeways in the sense that we know them, and cars are mostly puny and underpowered... just as most city streets are not suitable for high or medium speed auto use, and cater mostly to pedestrians.

Plus, gas and oil are prohibitively expensive in Japan.

And conditions in Europe? Ok, point made. Nuff said.

When I started this circus with The First Post, (and please don't be offended- I consider myself part of said circus-) my entire point was that any solution MUST take into account the special conditions that only exist in the US.

Supply and demand are the rules of the marketplace. I cover transportation for a local market pub, and I worked this particular topic quite recently- air use is down almost 15% nationally, much more regionally. Only a few carriers are making profits or even covering their costs.

(Southwest is! Alaskan is!)

If the airlines are not doing well... it's cause there are too many flights, too many planes, too many carriers. Shut some down! Don't just hand them some tax dollars, pat them on the head, and say, "good boy, next time you make a bad biz decision, just call on Uncle Sugar"!

We should not reward failure.

So, too, for rail. If a route cannot cover it's OPERATIONAL costs, let it go... or let the local community decide if they want to make the social decision to subsidize it. But DON'T impose arbitrary political routes from the floor of the US Congress.

[Anonymous]

The UK does have mortgages - I know I have got one.

We also have a tax system - I would much prefer to have someone in London set my taxes than someone in Brussels or Frankfurt!

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Jason:

Sorry! Whenever I say (or think) Europe, I never include the UK... it's just habit. Mentally, I cannot picture GB / Scotland/ Etc as being European.

Maybe I should have said Continental Europe, aka France, Germany, etc....

[Paul3]

>When you say there are several NE states that
>own part of Amtrak, are you refering to the
>track or everything?

Well, the states in question own the Right of Way, which obviously is the land. Not so obvious is, does this include all structures built on the land? I can only assume that it does, or that the states are being paid (would you allow somebody to build anything on your land without compensation, or you owning a piece of it?).

>Does Amtrak have to rent the track from the
>state the way they rent track from the major
>railroads?

I don't know for certain. You'd have to ask either the MBTA, M-N, or Amtrak. Amtrak does pretty much what it wants to do on the MA portion of the NEC, in my experience. Meanwhile, M-N barely tolerates Amtrak (IMHO). (shrug)

>This is interesting considering my thesis that
>the system should be run by the benificiary
>states.

The problem you don't see is that, for the most part, the states don't interfere with each other in their operations because they don't really intermix their operations. Rhode Island cooperates with the MBTA because it now wants service, but not that long ago, there was no commuter rail in Rhode Island because they wouldn't pony up the cash.

CT and NY cooperate because they have the common goal of getting people to NYC.

But MA/RI and CT/NY *don't* have a common goal, and if they took over the NEC, there would be conflicts. Each agency wouldn't want to mess up the commuter rail for an Express (more local people, ie. voters, on the commuters), and I can see them fighting over slots during the rush hours so they don't have to deal with it. And all it would take to totally mess things up for intercity service is for one state to have a budget shortfall, and all service would come to a crashing halt.

The NEC needs a single company/agency running the whole thing (owning/maintaining track, cars, engines, stations, the works). I don't care if it's Amtrak, M-N, or the Feds. It must be a seemless operation for the best possible performance, IMHO, where the primary consideration is the Express, not the commuter.

>P.S. Did they get this track when Conrail was
>split up, from another railroad (pre Conrail)
>or did they build it themselves?

I think they (MA, CT & NY) got theirs during the Penn Central bankruptcy proceedings. Amtrak got the rest of the NEC from Conrail...

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and that all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus of "Babylon 5"
******************

[Paul3]

>Are you being honest?

Yes, and I was also being sarcastic. I think it is possible to be both... :-)

>Do you want to have the subsidies for Amtrak
>stopped but you want the highway financing
>system replaced by this private system you
>outlined?

No, I do not want the subsidies stopped for Amtrak. I do not want the highways replaced by all toll roads. I did say, if you want Amtrak to survive purely on ticket revenue, lets make highways and airlines do the same.

And no, I do not consider the gas tax the same. I buy gas for my garden tractors, rototillers, shredder, lawnmowers, snowblower, etc., and these will never be even on a public road, much less on a highway. Yet I am paying taxes that supports the roads by buying gas for these devices that will never use any roads. Why should I have to do that?

What about our own Big Dig? I never drive into Boston (I take the MBTA), yet my taxes are rising to pay for this. What gives?

>Do you realy think this proposed financing
>system is more efficient than the taxes
>collected at the pump and more equitable as
>well?

No, it is not more efficient. However, it would be more equitable (I never drive on MA Rt. 2, why should my gas taxes go to support it?). Let the user pay, let the non-user not have to pay. Simple, right? After all, that's exactly what you want Amtrak to do... :-)

>Do you also think that the subsidies paid to
>airlines are as appropriate as the subsidies
>paid to Amtrak and that these are superior to
>the fuel taxes as well?

Actually, I am in favor of airline subsidies, just like I am in favor of Amtrak subsidies and highway subsidies. We need all three modes in this country. At the very least, airlines for long distance, Amtrak for medium distances, and roads for short distances, with some blurring of the lines where appropriate. Note: I do not advocate bottomless pits of money for anybody who wants it. Set up an acceptable level of service, then fully fund it. As yet, nobody has done this for Amtrak.

>There appears to be an intellectual disconnect
>here. The highway users pay taxes to build and
>maintain highways.

Non-highway users are *also* being taxed to build and maintain highways (see tractor example above). Just like non-Amtrak users are being taxed to build and maintain Amtrak.

>If you don't buy fuel for your car, you are not
>supporting construction of the highways. All I
>am recommending is for Amtrak and airline users
>to do the same.

Airline passengers, IIRC, are taxed as well. I just don't know the particulars.

>Right now, I have to support the airlines and
>Amtrak regardless of how much I use it. There
>is no comparison to the highway funding model
>here.

Right now, I have to support the highways regardless if I use them or not, just like the airlines and Amtrak.

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
"...and he raised his head to glare at the low clouds.
'Why me?' he demanded. 'Why is it always being *me?!*'
The clouds returned no answer, and he snarled at their silence." - D. Weber, "Oath of Swords"

[Anonymous]

Alexander'
I agreed 100% with your statement on interstates and airports. The public will never use long distance rail service. The Northeast Corridor and California are the only locations for anything more than city based commuter rail.

[Paul3]

>Why does it seem so hard to understand? It's
>not. Trucks and buses and cars ARE
>subsidized.... by their own taxes, which pay
>for infrastructure ONLY.

Really? Who built the original highways? How far back does the fuel tax go? Did you know that rail passengers did pay a tax (starting during WWII) on their tickets? Where do you think that money went? Right into the general fund. Right now, railroads are paying a tax on their diesel fuel. Where does that money go? Right into "deficit reduction". Railroads have never gotten their own "Trust Fund", and they should have. However, that is not the railroads fault, that is the fault of previous Congress' and administrations who thought that we don't need passenger trains anymore. They were and are wrong.

"There is NO OPERATIONAL SUBSIDY for roads!"

No public agency pays anyone to drive (except the MBTA does pay Peter Pan to run busses Boston to Worcester, as the commuter rail would otherwise kill them off in that market). And why would we? Every car/truck is privately owned. To do the same for railroads, every Amtrak passenger would have to buy their own car (at a $1 million a whack, at least). Unrealistic, at best.

>I see no reason why this model cannot be
>implimented in ANY mode.

Buy your own private passenger car, then we'll talk. :-)

>Course, I also see no reason why this isn't
>clear to everyone.... you can't imagine how
>POd I get when people compare Amtrak to the
>local freeway. I wi***hat they WERE on parity
>but the are NOT.

Yeah, Amtrak's been getting shafted for 31 years, and has never been fully funded for what the expectations have been from Congress. "We want a nationwide network, but we aren't going to pay you enough to run it. Ha ha!" (Yes, I'm paraphrasing here)

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
"Whom the Gods would recruit, they first tick off." - D. Weber, "Oath of Swords"
******************

[Anonymous]

" To do the same for railroads, every Amtrak passenger would have to buy their own car (at a $1 million a whack, at least).  Unrealistic, at best. "

Sorry to disagree, Paul, but there is no MORE realistic option. This is the way it is in the rest of the modes.

Example:
Greyhound and Trailways own their own buses.
Example:
JB Hunt owns it's own tractors and trailers
Example:
US Air, Southwest, et al own their own airplanes.

So the analogy really would call for the passenger train OPERATOR owning their own equipment at $1 million per car. What's so unfair about that?

"Really?  Who built the original highways?  How far back does the fuel tax go?"

So waht are you suggesting? That we sink billions of dollars into a rail system without a trust fund, and then later enact this trust fund? So we should do the wrong thing twice?

No, sorry, the Fed was NOT the pioneer in road building. States were. Matter of Fact, my home Oregon was one of the first to produce modern highways. the Columbia River Highway predates the Lincoln Highway.

But anyway, what difference does this make? That is a CAPITAL expenditure, with which i have no problems. It is the OPERATIONAL subsidy I cannot support.

On Trust Fund etc... yes, the fuel tax RRs pay is stupid, stupid, stupid. If they should pay it then they should get something back out of it that benefits them. This is a basic fundamental principle of all fair taxation: no payments without (at least tangential) benefit.

" "We want a nationwide network, but we aren't going to pay you enough to run it.  Ha ha!" (Yes, I'm paraphrasing here) "

Well that would be more accurate if it said "we want a nationwide netwrok but don't want to build it."

Congress substituted operational susbidies and unrealistic demands, when it should not have given an operational dime. Instead, it should have provided significant capital spending and told Amtrak, "find some passengers that justify a train and we'll build you the system to run on."

But I maintain my point. All other modes, (except when Congress gets stupid(er) and bails them out, ala United,) recieve significant capital expenditure subsidies, but do NOT receive operational subsidies. And this OUGHT to be the rule for ALL modes.

Alexander Craghead

[Anonymous]

Now the question is, can we get anyone to do anything about it? The admin appears fully ready to stick by their approach to reform, but without Congressional support I don't know if we'll get anything but another delay out of this.

With no action due to Congressional heel dragging, the likelihood is that we'll be looking at this whole debate again this fall.... only this time the price tag will be in the billions.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Yes, government waste at it's best.