Its been reported that in China air transportation is already feeling the pinch of competitive and more user friendly, high speed rail!
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.
Sam1The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a government sponsored insurance plan designed to insure private pensions. The participants, including United Airlines, pay premiums to cover their defined benefit pension plans. If the participating organization declares bankruptcy, the PBGC assumes responsibility for the pension. Any participant, including a railroad, would be treated equally in case of default. United Airlines received no more favorable treatment than any other company insured by the PBGC. Some of the folks who participate in these forums appear to think that the way to promote passenger rail in the U.S. is to neuter the airlines. It is not going to happen anymore than American's are going to give up their cars in most instances to take a train or bus. Air travel is the only practicable form of transport for business travelers, as well as many others, for distances greater than 250 miles. I believe that there is a market for rapid, frequent passenger rail in high density corridors up to 250 miles, but beyond that most people who are time constrained - most of us are - will fly.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a government sponsored insurance plan designed to insure private pensions. The participants, including United Airlines, pay premiums to cover their defined benefit pension plans.
If the participating organization declares bankruptcy, the PBGC assumes responsibility for the pension. Any participant, including a railroad, would be treated equally in case of default. United Airlines received no more favorable treatment than any other company insured by the PBGC.
Some of the folks who participate in these forums appear to think that the way to promote passenger rail in the U.S. is to neuter the airlines. It is not going to happen anymore than American's are going to give up their cars in most instances to take a train or bus. Air travel is the only practicable form of transport for business travelers, as well as many others, for distances greater than 250 miles.
I believe that there is a market for rapid, frequent passenger rail in high density corridors up to 250 miles, but beyond that most people who are time constrained - most of us are - will fly.
I also looked at the PBGC web site. I understand it is insurance, sponsored by the federal government. I understand that companies (including rails) pay premiums ($34 per employee participant/year) and if they go bankrupt, as United and Eastern did, PBGC picks up part of the liability. Unfortunately, the program's net position is a net deficit of $21.95 Bil. The future looks none too bright: PBGC's estimate of its exposure due to underfunding by plan participants is $168 Bil. I wonder where this all will come from?
There is nothing wrong with having a viable air transport system. I fly quite a bit too. Frankly, there is often no alternative. My point is that passenger rail for distances of 250 - 400 miles, if fast (maximum 2 to 4 hours), convenient services are offered would be more than competitive with the air and take some of the pressure off our overcrowded airports/airspace.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm "A bankruptcy judge in Chicago ruled Tuesday that a federal agency can take over United Airlines' pension plans, allowing the carrier to walk away from nearly $10 billion in unfunded liabilities, the largest pension default in U.S. history.It helps United clear one of the biggest financial hurdles in its 29-month effort to exit bankruptcy protection. The airline's pension funds are short $9.8 billion, but the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. will pick up only $6.6 billion of that, meaning current and former employees will lose more than $3 billion in retirement benefits."
"A bankruptcy judge in Chicago ruled Tuesday that a federal agency can take over United Airlines' pension plans, allowing the carrier to walk away from nearly $10 billion in unfunded liabilities, the largest pension default in U.S. history.It helps United clear one of the biggest financial hurdles in its 29-month effort to exit bankruptcy protection. The airline's pension funds are short $9.8 billion, but the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. will pick up only $6.6 billion of that, meaning current and former employees will lose more than $3 billion in retirement benefits."
UlrichIndeed..and almost all of that travel is really non essential. 100 years how many flights were there? And how much high speed rail was there? Apart from some medical advances and progress on gender and racial equality, the quality of life 100 years ago was as good as or better than it is today.
Relative quality of life between 1909 and 2009 would be a topic in and of itself. Folks living on "subsistance" farms (where you raise what you need to live and little more) might consider our lives today a little better.
The fact is, regardless of how "essential" the travel is, it's occuring. We would do well to find ways to do it better, which may well involve high speed rail.
For that matter, there was plenty of "non-essential" rail service even in 1909. The Raquette Lake Railroad was built almost exclusively to carry the rich and famous of the day in their private cars to their great camps in the Adirondacks. Granted, it was built with private money, but I'm not so sure it would have existed without an infusion of money from both its original builders or the NYC, which took it over soon after it was built.
And we all know that passenger service has never been much of a money maker. The only industry on the RLRR was some limited logging and ice cut from the lakes during the winter.
The RLRR quit in 1933, by which time folks could reach the Raquette Lake area by automobile.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
n012944 schlimm BaltACDAs it stands now, airlines are receiving a subsidy from all forms of government to sustain their operations....subsidies that are not acknowledged for what they are. Very true...of course this forum's resident accountant disputes that b/c of claiming the airlines only should be responsible for 30% of all the government funding.. And if that is so, then we sure are heavily subsidizing corporate business jets. 35% is a better number: "On any given day, more than 87,000 flights are in the skies in the United States. Only 35 percent, or just over 30,000 of those flights are commercial carriers, like American, United or Southwest. On an average day, air traffic controllers handle 28,537 commercial flights (major and regional airlines), 27,178 general aviation flights (private planes), 24,548 air taxi flights (planes for hire), 5,260 military flights and 2,148 air cargo flights (Federal Express, UPS, etc.). At any given moment, roughly 5,000 planes are in the skies above the United States. In one year, controllers handle an average of 64 million takeoffs and landings. " http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/bythenumbers.msp#1
schlimm BaltACDAs it stands now, airlines are receiving a subsidy from all forms of government to sustain their operations....subsidies that are not acknowledged for what they are. Very true...of course this forum's resident accountant disputes that b/c of claiming the airlines only should be responsible for 30% of all the government funding.. And if that is so, then we sure are heavily subsidizing corporate business jets.
BaltACDAs it stands now, airlines are receiving a subsidy from all forms of government to sustain their operations....subsidies that are not acknowledged for what they are.
Very true...of course this forum's resident accountant disputes that b/c of claiming the airlines only should be responsible for 30% of all the government funding.. And if that is so, then we sure are heavily subsidizing corporate business jets.
35% is a better number:
"On any given day, more than 87,000 flights are in the skies in the United States. Only 35 percent, or just over 30,000 of those flights are commercial carriers, like American, United or Southwest. On an average day, air traffic controllers handle 28,537 commercial flights (major and regional airlines), 27,178 general aviation flights (private planes), 24,548 air taxi flights (planes for hire), 5,260 military flights and 2,148 air cargo flights (Federal Express, UPS, etc.). At any given moment, roughly 5,000 planes are in the skies above the United States. In one year, controllers handle an average of 64 million takeoffs and landings. "
http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/bythenumbers.msp#1
Indeed..and almost all of that travel is really non essential. 100 years how many flights were there? And how much high speed rail was there? Apart from some medical advances and progress on gender and racial equality, the quality of life 100 years ago was as good as or better than it is today.
An "expensive model collector"
henry6 What are "essential" airline routes and how do they differ from "essential" railrouts, both freight and passenger? Where are the hooters who always show up here denouncing the subsidy a train might get? Wouldn't this subsidy be just as foolish?
What are "essential" airline routes and how do they differ from "essential" railrouts, both freight and passenger? Where are the hooters who always show up here denouncing the subsidy a train might get? Wouldn't this subsidy be just as foolish?
Yes they are just as foolish, The big difference is that of the couple of thousand domestic flights out of the lower 48 that operate every day, only 107 of them get the goverment essential subsidy to operate. I would love to see ONE Amtrak route that does get a subsidy.
What are "essential" airline routes and how do they differ from "essential" railrouts, both freight and passenger? Where are the hooters who always show up here denouncing the subsidy a train might get? Wouldn't this subsidy be just as foolish? Or do we concede there is no level playing field when trains and boats and planes and trucks are concerned?
aegrotatio I was sitting in a restaurant and the TV had a news piece that detailed airline subsidies of unprofitable routes. One 300-mile trip, with a ticket cost of $220, had a subsidy of $4,200 per seat. This was on Fox News Channel, if I recall correctly. That's a $4,550 airplane trip between city pairs in the backwater midwest. Now THAT's a subsidy.
I was sitting in a restaurant and the TV had a news piece that detailed airline subsidies of unprofitable routes. One 300-mile trip, with a ticket cost of $220, had a subsidy of $4,200 per seat.
This was on Fox News Channel, if I recall correctly. That's a $4,550 airplane trip between city pairs in the backwater midwest.
Now THAT's a subsidy.
Again one has to look at the facts. I am going to go out on a limb as say that the above route was an Essential Air Service route.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service
http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-50%20Role_files/essentialairservice.htm
With the exception of the Alaska routes, EAS routes are nothing but Congressional pork.
blownout cylinder aegrotatio I was sitting in a restaurant and the TV had a news piece that detailed airline subsidies of unprofitable routes. One 300-mile trip, with a ticket cost of $220, had a subsidy of $4,200 per seat. This just illustrates the rediculous business model that the airline industry is now following. If you looked across that sector there are very few airlines that are 'profitable' enough to stay out of the ICU. At one time one had to pay a princely sum to get an airline ticket. With the business model now in place you could get from here--being London ON to ----oh--say- Winnipeg MB for under $140. How is anyone going to make money on that without some kind of a taxpayer sponsered subsidy?
aegrotatio I was sitting in a restaurant and the TV had a news piece that detailed airline subsidies of unprofitable routes. One 300-mile trip, with a ticket cost of $220, had a subsidy of $4,200 per seat.
This just illustrates the rediculous business model that the airline industry is now following. If you looked across that sector there are very few airlines that are 'profitable' enough to stay out of the ICU.
At one time one had to pay a princely sum to get an airline ticket. With the business model now in place you could get from here--being London ON to ----oh--say- Winnipeg MB for under $140. How is anyone going to make money on that without some kind of a taxpayer sponsered subsidy?
Not just how rediculous a business model there is in the airline industry, but also how rediculous the arguement is against passenger trains subsidies!
As a note, so that I don't duplicate a post, see my post in the Passenger Train discussin board thread about Don Phillips where I speak about comparing European and Asian railroading with US railroads.
aegrotatioIncidentally, why would you schedule a passenger train to follow a long drag heavy freight, anyway? You'd schedule the train when it wouldn't be doing that.
I've noticed that too. They build a third track to the city only to run the stopping train 5 mins before the express, then the express uses the extra track to pass the local at rush hour. Other then that trains just run once an hour. They needed third track for that ? And worse they won't run passenger trains on other lines until they get 3rd track there too.
Do all readers of this thread know what the major USA (also possibly Canadian, definitely Israel, I believe some other "developed" coutries, but probably not Switzerland or Holland) are? It happens to be what happens on the highways. And for that reason alone I support High Speed Rail. And for that reason alone, my Christmas card mailing to my many USA friends is going to include an adaption of something I downloaded from this Forum a number of years ago:
A Christmas Message from a North American Rail Freight Conductor
YOU MIGHT WANT TO USE IT ALSO! WITH LOVE
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/
Edblysard, while I agree in principle about single-track lines constraining speeds, in actuality it is very untrue. I remind us about passing sidings and CTC scheduling that make passenger trains actually go faster than freight on the same line. Even the shoestring local commuter lines here in DC have spent mililons to build sidings and triple-track segments to make trains, for the most part, blow right past the freight.
Incidentally, why would you schedule a passenger train to follow a long drag heavy freight, anyway? You'd schedule the train when it wouldn't be doing that.
Interesting-
My Mustang had slapper bars to keep the thing from burning all the rubber off'n the dang tires, remember the issues around Mustangs and no weight in the rear?---never mind the ever popular wheelie on Main Street. That 440 Wedge I thought was always a good looking and running engine. I had a 1969 Charger with it---and, yes, you did have that right---wasn't really much for roundy round trips but, boy, could she hustle.
Yeah?
My original 71 Challenger got 10, maybe 12...440 Wedge with a 3/2 set up....looked like crap, ran like a bat out of ....you didnt really steer it, you just pointed it in a straight line, stomped the pedal, and prayed no one got in the way!
Gotta love the old lead sleds...and real Hi Octane.
23 17 46 11
n012944 BTW I would like to thank you for driving your small 45 MPG car, as it keeps gas prices down so I can still drive my 22 MPG Mustang GT.
BTW I would like to thank you for driving your small 45 MPG car, as it keeps gas prices down so I can still drive my 22 MPG Mustang GT.
----and here I had a 1968 Mustang Fastback with a 429CJ, back in the 1970's, that was, shall I say, modified---doing 12mpg---
And the sky is falling---
schlimm "A bankruptcy judge in Chicago ruled Tuesday that a federal agency can take over United Airlines' pension plans, allowing the carrier to walk away from nearly $10 billion in unfunded liabilities, the largest pension default in U.S. history.It helps United clear one of the biggest financial hurdles in its 29-month effort to exit bankruptcy protection. The airline's pension funds are short $9.8 billion, but the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. will pick up only $6.6 billion of that, meaning current and former employees will lose more than $3 billion in retirement benefits." [Chicago Tribune, May 11, 2005] I guess this was a "small subsidy." We've been around and around on this, but let's face it, all modes of passenger transport are getting some form of subsidy. It comes down to efficient use of resources. I drive a small car that gets 45 mpg. and am tired of paying high prices for imported oil because others want to drive gas guzzlers getting 1/3 of that. In effect, I am paying a price for their greed, as is our nation in its dependence on foreign oil. One man's freedom of choice is someone else's avoidable burden.
[Chicago Tribune, May 11, 2005]
I guess this was a "small subsidy." We've been around and around on this, but let's face it, all modes of passenger transport are getting some form of subsidy. It comes down to efficient use of resources. I drive a small car that gets 45 mpg. and am tired of paying high prices for imported oil because others want to drive gas guzzlers getting 1/3 of that. In effect, I am paying a price for their greed, as is our nation in its dependence on foreign oil. One man's freedom of choice is someone else's avoidable burden.
It is nice that you failed to mention that the PBGC is NOT funded by tax money.
http://www.pbgc.gov/
"PBGC receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums set by Congress and paid by sponsors of defined benefit plans, investment income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the plans"
United did not get anthing that other bankrupt companies are able to get. Calling the United pension transaction a "subsidy" to prove your point about passenger transportation subsidys is disorting the facts.
You are not paying high gas prices because of the kind of car someone else drives...you are paying that price simply because the guys that control the crude charge what they want to for their produce.
If small cars = low gas prices, then why in the world are the Brits and Aussies and Canadians paying the equal of 5 to 6 dollars a gallon american for gas?
Last time I was over there, a "big" gas guzzler was what we here call a mid sized to small sedan.
By the way, I drive a 2009 Dodge Hemi Challenger that gets 25 mpg freeway.
And as for the electric railroad idea...any single track line is limited to the maximum speed the slowest train that uses it travels..so mixing freight and passenger on the same single line means the passenger train can only go as fast as the freight, and unless you can convince the general public that chlorine, LPG, ammonia and other fun stuff like that is safe at 100+mph, your pretty much stuck.
schlimmI drive a small car that gets 45 mpg. and am tired of paying high prices for imported oil because others want to drive gas guzzlers getting 1/3 of that. In effect, I am paying a price for their greed...
Maybe those people in their big cars are not driving as many miles as you drive in your small car.
schlimmI drive a small car that gets 45 mpg.
On the other hand, I do see a fair number of people who drive a large SUV who rarely (if ever) fill it to capacity.
schlimmI guess this was a "small subsidy." We've been around and around on this, but let's face it, all modes of passenger transport are getting some form of subsidy. It comes down to efficient use of resources. I drive a small car that gets 45 mpg. and am tired of paying high prices for imported oil because others want to drive gas guzzlers getting 1/3 of that. In effect, I am paying a price for their greed, as is our nation in its dependence on foreign oil. One man's freedom of choice is someone else's avoidable burden.
It would be nice if we had everyone drive exactly the same kind of car--except some of us use our vehicles for a bit more than a grocery getter. I have a neighbour who has a Smart for2 as their chief mode of transportation. He will not drive the thing on a major highway. In our case we use a smaller size SUV so I can take my disabled wife around on yard sale hunts----I have a neighbour who uses a large SUV because he does a lot of service calls--being self employed in home reno work does that kind of thing. I do not presume to know that others drive their big gas guzzlers simply out of greed----
"A bankruptcy judge in Chicago ruled Tuesday that a federal agency can take over United Airlines' pension plans, allowing the carrier to walk away from nearly $10 billion in unfunded liabilities, the largest pension default in U.S. history. It helps United clear one of the biggest financial hurdles in its 29-month effort to exit bankruptcy protection. The airline's pension funds are short $9.8 billion, but the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. will pick up only $6.6 billion of that, meaning current and former employees will lose more than $3 billion in retirement benefits."
Sam1 UChicagoMatt Travel will always be part of the equation. People enjoy travel and much business must be done face to face for closing lots of deals and for in-person inspection of materials and documents, etc. Lots of local commuting can be eliminated; certainly highway miles reduced with ride-sharing and more public transit options. High-speed rail is ideal for regional travel. It need not "make money" to actual make money by eliminating travel delays, soaring highway construction and maintainance costs, and flight delays---all cost money and productivity. Airlines are required to make money, or they go out of business, as per the large number of carriers that have folded over the past two decades. Bus companies, truck companies, barge companies, cruise companies, etc. are required to make money or they fold. What is it about passenger rail that exempts it from this economic model?
UChicagoMatt Travel will always be part of the equation. People enjoy travel and much business must be done face to face for closing lots of deals and for in-person inspection of materials and documents, etc. Lots of local commuting can be eliminated; certainly highway miles reduced with ride-sharing and more public transit options. High-speed rail is ideal for regional travel. It need not "make money" to actual make money by eliminating travel delays, soaring highway construction and maintainance costs, and flight delays---all cost money and productivity.
Travel will always be part of the equation. People enjoy travel and much business must be done face to face for closing lots of deals and for in-person inspection of materials and documents, etc. Lots of local commuting can be eliminated; certainly highway miles reduced with ride-sharing and more public transit options. High-speed rail is ideal for regional travel. It need not "make money" to actual make money by eliminating travel delays, soaring highway construction and maintainance costs, and flight delays---all cost money and productivity.
Airlines are required to make money, or they go out of business, as per the large number of carriers that have folded over the past two decades. Bus companies, truck companies, barge companies, cruise companies, etc. are required to make money or they fold. What is it about passenger rail that exempts it from this economic model?
All modes of transportation are required to provide a service. The profit is what comes from providing said service. The issue is in what manner they provide such service.
Now, if we can only figure out a way to not provide any service and still make money---boy----
BaltACD For the past several years the airlines have all be clamoring that they are financially at deaths door with the current fare/cost structure...a structure where the airlines are not paying fully allocated costs for either the terminal facilities (airports) or traffic control (air traffic control systems). Were those costs to be fully passed on to the airlines, very few people could afford to fly at the fares that would have to be charged. As it stands now, airlines are receiving a subsidy from all forms of government to sustain their operations....subsidies that are not acknowledged for what they are.
For the past several years the airlines have all be clamoring that they are financially at deaths door with the current fare/cost structure...a structure where the airlines are not paying fully allocated costs for either the terminal facilities (airports) or traffic control (air traffic control systems). Were those costs to be fully passed on to the airlines, very few people could afford to fly at the fares that would have to be charged. As it stands now, airlines are receiving a subsidy from all forms of government to sustain their operations....subsidies that are not acknowledged for what they are.
If you review the financial statements for the airlines, as well as the financial data from the FAA and OMB, you will see that the airlines receive a small federal subsidy compared to Amtrak. Moreover, if you study the financial data associated with the construction, maintenance, and operation of the roughly 525 airports served by commercial airlines, you will see that they receive a very small, if any, subsidy from the local authorities that own and operate them. The major exception is a few small airports, mostly in the west, that serve remote communities.
In 2008 the commercial airlines received an average federal subsidy of $3.35 per passenger or .42 cents per passenger mile compared to an average federal subsidy of $48.50 per passenger or 22.61 cents per passenger mile for Amtrak. Most of the nation's airports were funded with municipal bonds, which are not subject to federal tax, as well as some state taxes, which resulted in slightly lower construction costs, which are passed on to the airlines in the form of lower landing fees. Most of the nation's railroads received a variety of federal, state, and local subsidies that are probably have a net present value equal to or in fact surpass the local subsidies received by the nation's airports.
Paul_D_North_Jr And what is there that's different between this and Positive Train Control, for which the railroads are expected to shoulder most of the costs ? - Paul North.
And what is there that's different between this and Positive Train Control, for which the railroads are expected to shoulder most of the costs ?
- Paul North.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.