BaltACDHow dare those retirees continue to live year after year. Do away with Healthcare and they will die quicker - is that a win win???????????????
Soylent Green anyone? Call in the scoops!
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
KielbasaHardly stealing.
The stealing part refers to the fact that the federal government has been using SS income and writing IOUs to the trust fund. The trust fund, insufficient as it is anyhow, consists of very little cash and a lot of securities.
There is no question that the "security" part of Social Security has changed character. It was, as you note, intended to ensure that, combined with a pension and/or personal savings, a retiree had some level of income that they could live on. The $1100 or so I get each month is hardly a "living wage," although all too many people try to survive on it.
Fortunately, I get an annuity from my former employer as well.
Nonetheless, the agreement was that I pay in, and when I'm eligible, they pay out.
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...
SS is part of my own families lifeblood also. My husband was disabled due to a very severe car accident about 17 years ago before I even met him. Without what he recieves for how hard he did work for as long as he did work we could not survive on my salary alone let alone afford his healthcare he does recieve medicare due to his conditions. Yes he will take out way more than he ever paid in however he gets less than a quarter of what he used to earn as a productive member of the workforce and everyday I can tell it hurts him. He went from earning 60K+ to getting 15K a year from the government. There are days he tells me he wishes he had never come home the weekend he got rearended.
Yes the Federal Budget and there are several agencies that I deal with on a weekly basis on both a state and federal level that could use about a 20% manpower and budget cut to start. I can name about 10 FMCSA regulators that all need to see walking papers off the top of my head. I can think of about 50 EPA regulators that all should be dragged out of their offices and shoved into the real world. Let alone the morons of the CARB that came up with some of the stupidist things to ever come out of Sacramento CA. The IRS has quite a few people that need to either learn the tax code or find a new freaking job. I've about lost my patience with NYS and between their Turnpike auth and Dept of Revenue trying to double bill us for HUT for miles on the turnpike we are exempt from paying that when we are on the tollway. They seem to think they can double bill us for those miles.
I'm so not looking forward to work on Monday why time for my quarterly brawl with Mass and how badly they screwed up our IFTA for last quarter. They say we owe them 22 Grand in fuel taxes and we only ran 2K miles for the quarter in that state for all trucks combined. So unless we get charged 71 bucks per gallon fuel tax when the rate there is 24 cents a gallon someone on their end screwed up. We burned 307 gallons total of fuel based on fleet MPG and bought 450 gallons in that state they owe us actually.
On Amtrak funding...
The number one thing thus far glossed over in this thread is how Amtrak is funded. Amtrak recovers the vast majority of its costs (around 75% IIRC), so it's just the remainder which needs to be subsidized.
You can break down Amtrak service into three categories: The Northeast Corridor, the State-Sponsored Routes, and the Long-Distance Trains.
The distinction is important, because operationally, the NEC trains, being the NE Regionals and Acela, make an *operating* profit. It is nowhere near enough to cover capital costs like the new locomotives or the track infrastructure, but at least the trains pay for themselves. What's more, the service works, providing a lot of people service in an area and in a capacity where there is gobs of demand. The airlines and roadways could take these people, too, but Amtrak and their regional partners on the NEC prove that short-distance urban and inter-urban transit is worthwhile subsidizing.
The State-Sponsored routes, which is everything outside the NEC which covers a distance of less than 750 miles, is completely outside the realm of Amtrak's subsidy because they don't recieve any federal subsidy. According to the law, the states cover all losses from operating these trains. Thus, if Amtrak's operating subsidy were to dissappear, the State-Supported trains shouldn't be effected, unless States decide to pull their support as well. So while these services lose $0.00 to $0.10 per passenger mile, they're not costing Amtrak anything really.
Meanwhile, the long-distance trains are huge capital drains sucking benjamins by the customer. Why? Because these trains lose $0.10 to $0.30 per passenger mile. That means the Federal Subsidy (since this is the Federal realm) for a passenger to ride the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle is a whopping $400. It would literally be cheaper to buy CHI-SEA passengers an airplane ticket and give it to them for free. The cheapest such Amtrak tickets are $200 coach-only. So it's basically 66% off full price!
In that way Amtrak loses around $500 Million per year running long distance trains, serving almost nobody. Very few people actually get meaningful transportation from the LDRs, most passengers being tourists who are on the train because it is a train...yet they aren't paying their way.
All this is to say that many (including I) question the validity of Amtrak's long-distance route subsidy. I recognize the NEC's strategic importance in the transportation system. I do not see how one train a day each way on these LDRs has any meaningful impact, besides the cozy feelings of station attendants across the land.
Sorry, it surely isn't personal. But I'd much rather see that $500M annually redirected to giving the NEC some of the funds it needs to continue to simply operate, to meaningfully move tens of thousands per day at break even instead of a couple thousand at a huge loss. From a practical and financial standpoint, the LDR trains just aren't worth it.
Meanwhile, I think the SSRs have a great future, as States continue to invest as they see worthwhile. These corridor services can and do serve meaningful transportation, and are continuing to improve. It has been the states the last ten years who have been innovating and driving ridership growth through WiFi, Bikes, and more frequent service: not mainline Amtrak.
It's time to cut the dead wood of Amtrak and let it suceed at what there is to suceed at. It'll give the freight railroads more capacity and free up capital at Amtrak. It just makes sense.
It is unknown if I'm thinking of something else or not, but it seems the last time funding for Amtrak was attacked the attackers discovered it would cost a whopping amount of money in severance pay just to shut down Amtrak. Is that the way it is now or am I thinking of something else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
K. P. Harrier It is unknown if I'm thinking of something else or not, but it seems the last time funding for Amtrak was attacked the attackers discovered it would cost a whopping amount of money in severance pay just to shut down Amtrak. Is that the way it is now or am I thinking of something else?
No it is still that way.
Amtraks problem is lack of a perm funding source and it lives year to year off the general revenue fund and an up or down vote by Congress. So compared to other more perm programs with established year to year budgets...... it is much easier to cut.
I very much doubt anyone would be able to reduce Amtrak to just the NEC as that would take serveral acts of Congress and the Senate not just one. The biggest possibility is they cut 2 maybe 3 Long Distance trains.......at the most.
This rovision can be repealed at any time, and it should be as part of elimination of ATK beyond the NEC.
PNWRMNM K. P. Harrier It is unknown if I'm thinking of something else or not, but it seems the last time funding for Amtrak was attacked the attackers discovered it would cost a whopping amount of money in severance pay just to shut down Amtrak. Is that the way it is now or am I thinking of something else? This rovision can be repealed at any time, and it should be as part of elimination of ATK beyond the NEC.
You sound like Mr. Potter.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
PNWRMNMThis rovision can be repealed at any time, and it should be as part of elimination of ATK beyond the NEC.
This isn't a Union featherbedding issue as many presume.... in this case they are correct as this is simple supply and demand on the labor markets and it had to be done to attract good quality employees.
Think about it for a moment because the provisions were put in there for a reason. Your eliminating a large section of Amtrak and at the same time eliminating a provision that works across all of Amtrak (not just the LD Trains) which guarantees payments and job security provisions in case Congress eliminates your job on a whim.
How do you attract future quality Amtrak employees to what remains in the area of Amtrak salaried positions if you just..........#1 Cut the Amtrak system dramatically and then #2 Eliminated all the future job security provisions. Thats a pretty big sign to future job applicants they have no future if they sign on with Amtrak and that they could be on the street at any moment no matter how they perform.
Good Luck with employee retention or even attracting employees with non-criminal backgrounds in that type of environment. I predict a massive staffing problem on the NEC if you attempt that.
So no you can't eliminate that provision. It's pretty much pay-up or don't cut. Or cut and decimate Amtrak and fight it out in the court system for years.
"In that way Amtrak loses around $150 Million per year running long distance trains,....."
In 2016 the long distance trains lost $492.4 million before capital charges (depreciation, interest, etc.). The loss per passenger mile before capital charges was 19 cents. They carried approximately 4.7 million passengers, which was approximately 14.8 percent of Amtrak's total.
In 2010 the long distance trains lost $575.6 million before capital charges. The loss per passenger mile was 21 cents. They carried approximately 4.5 million passengers, which was approximately 15.6 percent of Amtrak's total.
Amtrak does not allocate its capital charges by type of service, but they could increase the losses on the long distance trains by another 10 to 15 percent.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Amtrak may be a money losing enterprise, but it is also a strategic resource. If a major national or international catastrophe occurs, such as World War, we need the additional transportation capability provided by passenger rail resources. Think of the enormous and essential function the railroads provided during World War II. The subsidies provided to Amtrak are minor compared to the vast waste present in the government at large. For example, the Inspector General recently released a financial audit which outlined over $500 billion in accounting errors at the Office of Housing and Urban Development. https://www.hudoig.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017-FO-0005.pdf
With this level of abuse, I seriously doubt cutting Amtrak is going to save the budget.
The highways and airports are all also heavily subsidized. The Federal Aviation Administration is a multibillion dollar enterprise that must be present for the airlines to function. The sky is most definitely not "free" as the video suggests.
IC EC
CMStPnP PNWRMNM This rovision can be repealed at any time, and it should be as part of elimination of ATK beyond the NEC. This isn't a Union featherbedding issue as many presume.... in this case they are correct as this is simple supply and demand on the labor markets and it had to be done to attract good quality employees. Think about it for a moment because the provisions were put in there for a reason. Your eliminating a large section of Amtrak and at the same time eliminating a provision that works across all of Amtrak (not just the LD Trains) which guarantees payments and job security provisions in case Congress eliminates your job on a whim. How do you attract future quality Amtrak employees to what remains in the area of Amtrak salaried positions if you just..........#1 Cut the Amtrak system dramatically and then #2 Eliminated all the future job security provisions. Thats a pretty big sign to future job applicants they have no future if they sign on with Amtrak and that they could be on the street at any moment no matter how they perform. Good Luck with employee retention or even attracting employees with non-criminal backgrounds in that type of environment. I predict a massive staffing problem on the NEC if you attempt that. So no you can't eliminate that provision. It's pretty much pay-up or don't cut. Or cut and decimate Amtrak and fight it out in the court system for years.
PNWRMNM This rovision can be repealed at any time, and it should be as part of elimination of ATK beyond the NEC.
+1
Very true but some folks want the whole thing either "privatized" or scrapped.
If all forms of transportation had to pay their full, comparable share, we'd all be staying home most of the time.
Imagine if the airlines had to pay for their "lanes" through the sky and the dispatching to ensure that happened, or if bus companies had to build their own roads...
What follows is my opinon and precisely worth what you paid for it:
Many other countries subsidize mass transportation at the expense of other forms of such. The price of auto fuel is higher than a kite in some countries but that is planned in order to subsidize rail. Americans would, rightfully in my mind, scream if they had to pay $10.00 for a gallon of gas simply because of the urban sprawl that does not exist in Europe. Our population is spread further than those of some countries and here, driving may be the better option. In Europe, and some other areas, rail and mass transit is the winner.
Norm
schlimm CMStPnP PNWRMNM This isn't a Union featherbedding issue as many presume.... in this case they are correct as this is simple supply and demand on the labor markets and it had to be done to attract good quality employees. Think about it for a moment because the provisions were put in there for a reason. Your eliminating a large section of Amtrak and at the same time eliminating a provision that works across all of Amtrak (not just the LD Trains) which guarantees payments and job security provisions in case Congress eliminates your job on a whim. How do you attract future quality Amtrak employees to what remains in the area of Amtrak salaried positions if you just..........#1 Cut the Amtrak system dramatically and then #2 Eliminated all the future job security provisions. Thats a pretty big sign to future job applicants they have no future if they sign on with Amtrak and that they could be on the street at any moment no matter how they perform. Good Luck with employee retention or even attracting employees with non-criminal backgrounds in that type of environment. I predict a massive staffing problem on the NEC if you attempt that. So no you can't eliminate that provision. It's pretty much pay-up or don't cut. Or cut and decimate Amtrak and fight it out in the court system for years. +1 Very true but some folks want the whole thing either "privatized" or scrapped.
CMStPnP PNWRMNM This isn't a Union featherbedding issue as many presume.... in this case they are correct as this is simple supply and demand on the labor markets and it had to be done to attract good quality employees. Think about it for a moment because the provisions were put in there for a reason. Your eliminating a large section of Amtrak and at the same time eliminating a provision that works across all of Amtrak (not just the LD Trains) which guarantees payments and job security provisions in case Congress eliminates your job on a whim. How do you attract future quality Amtrak employees to what remains in the area of Amtrak salaried positions if you just..........#1 Cut the Amtrak system dramatically and then #2 Eliminated all the future job security provisions. Thats a pretty big sign to future job applicants they have no future if they sign on with Amtrak and that they could be on the street at any moment no matter how they perform. Good Luck with employee retention or even attracting employees with non-criminal backgrounds in that type of environment. I predict a massive staffing problem on the NEC if you attempt that. So no you can't eliminate that provision. It's pretty much pay-up or don't cut. Or cut and decimate Amtrak and fight it out in the court system for years.
PNWRMNM
It always amazes me how some people THINK they are the ONLY ONE that works for a living and should be paid a living wage. All others only deserve minimum wage and no benefits, or go on UNemployment rolls if they haven't been done away with - YET! Talk about 'ENTITLED' thinking.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
JPS1 "In that way Amtrak loses around $150 Million per year running long distance trains,....." In 2016 the long distance trains lost $492.4 million before capital charges (depreciation, interest, etc.). The loss per passenger mile before capital charges was 19 cents.
In 2016 the long distance trains lost $492.4 million before capital charges (depreciation, interest, etc.). The loss per passenger mile before capital charges was 19 cents.
That's what I get for writing so late...I know the $500 Million number but apparently my fingers did not!
Anyways, $500 Million is a lot of money and as we know, is sorely the type of funding needed for the NEC.
Norm48327 What follows is my opinon and precisely worth what you paid for it: Many other countries subsidize mass transportation at the expense of other forms of such. The price of auto fuel is higher than a kite in some countries but that is planned in order to subsidize rail. Americans would, rightfully in my mind, scream if they had to pay $10.00 for a gallon of gas simply because of the urban sprawl that does not exist in Europe. Our population is spread further than those of some countries and here, driving may be the better option. In Europe, and some other areas, rail and mass transit is the winner.
Back in the early 1980's NARP used to claim that Americans would scream if they had to pay $4 a gallon for gas in the United States........guess what? They paid it post 2000 with not much of a peep.
I think they need to boost the gasoline tax and inflation adjust the tax. Table the whole rail and rail passenger issue. They need to do that to move road and mass transit infrastructure back to a defined budget and get it off the general revenue fund area. Understood the argument about electric vehicles and high fuel efficiency, etc. So what. Index the damn gasoline tax so it is not decreasing over time. It's common sense. Same with Diesel Fuel taxes.
In reality if one considers inflation, the price of gas has not risen much. The inflation calculator I looked at, assuming it is ballpark correct says it would take $ 100 today to equal what $10 would by in 1950. It's the rasult of the feds devaluing the dollar. Gas in the fifties was about $.25. Today it is about $2.50.
Back in 1960, I was a pump jocky at a Sunoco station in Cincinnati and gas was $0.25 /gallon. And I would clean your windows and check your oil. Today, I pay $2.58/ gal and I have to pump it myself.
Electroliner 1935 Back in 1960, I was a pump jocky at a Sunoco station in Cincinnati and gas was $0.25 /gallon. And I would clean your windows and check your oil. Today, I pay $2.58/ gal and I have to pump it myself.
Electroliner 1935 ...and I have to pump it myself.
Unless you're in NJ - Last time I was there, self-service was a no-no. You wanna see someone hustle, get out of your car and start to pump the gas yourself...
I also was one in 1961. But back then there was no OPEC, other countries in the world were not using anywhere near as much oil as they do today,no additives for localized gas,and no EPA plus many other government regulations all of which add significantly to the cost of gas today. Keping all of this in mind and that gas today costs about what it did in the 50's when adjusted for inflation, I'm actually surprised with today's gas prices. I don't mind pumping my own gas and cleaning my own windows if that's what it takes to maintain this level of gas pricing. My niece from NJ came to PA for college in 2000. Since NJ is the one state that disallowed pumping your own gas, she had never did it before. It took her all of one try to learn how to do it and I remember well her saying how easy it was and why did NJ still require attendents? (Answer: Politics).
As for Amtrak, its time that its management starts compromising with congress. A good start would be to franchise out its food service operations where the high cost of Amtrak salaries & benefits is far removed from the real world of food service operations. Another place to start is having the Amtrak employees at the major stations selling tickets, etc be employed by a 3rd party. Changing the retirement law from the Federal RR Retirement System to another more currently normal Defined Contribution system for AMTRAK's remaining non-operating employees would also help. After what happened in Indiana I definitely think allowing private companies to take over totally without interference from AMTRAK is worth a shot so change the law that says only AMTRAK can handle interstate rail passengers. Maybe put some routes up for bid-if Amtrak is the only one that bids on it they get it. But if a private company underbids them then AMTRAK is out of that picture. Its easier said then done but you have to start somewhere, sometime. And for all those that keep mentioning Europe's passenger rail service--forget it. The USA is never going to have what they have for reasons of both geographic regions and political differences.
[/quote]
alphas Electroliner 1935 Back in 1960, I was a pump jocky at a Sunoco station in Cincinnati and gas was $0.25 /gallon. And I would clean your windows and check your oil. Today, I pay $2.58/ gal and I have to pump it myself.
alphas I also was one in 1961. But back then there was no OPEC, other countries in the world were not using anywhere near as much oil as they do today,no additives for localized gas,and no EPA plus many other government regulations all of which add significantly to the cost of gas today. Keping all of this in mind and that gas today costs about what it did in the 50's when adjusted for inflation, I'm actually surprised with today's gas prices. I don't mind pumping my own gas and cleaning my own windows if that's what it takes to maintain this level of gas pricing. My niece from NJ came to PA for college in 2000. Since NJ is the one state that disallowed pumping your own gas, she had never did it before. It took her all of one try to learn how to do it and I remember well her saying how easy it was and why did NJ still require attendents? (Answer: Politics). As for Amtrak, its time that its management starts compromising with congress. A good start would be to franchise out its food service operations where the high cost of Amtrak salaries & benefits is far removed from the real world of food service operations. Another place to start is having the Amtrak employees at the major stations selling tickets, etc be employed by a 3rd party. Changing the retirement law from the Federal RR Retirement System to another more currently normal Defined Contribution system for AMTRAK's remaining non-operating employees would also help. After what happened in Indiana I definitely think allowing private companies to take over totally without interference from AMTRAK is worth a shot so change the law that says only AMTRAK can handle interstate rail passengers. Maybe put some routes up for bid-if Amtrak is the only one that bids on it they get it. But if a private company underbids them then AMTRAK is out of that picture. Its easier said then done but you have to start somewhere, sometime. And for all those that keep mentioning Europe's passenger rail service--forget it. The USA is never going to have what they have for reasons of both geographic regions and political differences. Electroliner 1935 Back in 1960, I was a pump jocky at a Sunoco station in Cincinnati and gas was $0.25 /gallon. And I would clean your windows and check your oil. Today, I pay $2.58/ gal and I have to pump it myself.
The year is 2017. The wages of 1960 are not relevant. That was 57 years ago.
Amtrak employees have fought too long and hard for decent working conditions, wages, and retirement to have it frittered away by those in today's political establishment, many of whom have mostly shown that they wouldn't know a solid day's work if it fell on them. In many, many conversations here and elsewhere, I have found that those who complain that Amtrak workers are treated too generously usually have no real idea just what the jobs entail, the working hours and conditions, the actual rate of compensation, the actual terms of the railroad retirement plan, or much of anything else about the realities of Amtrak employment.
We've been over this territory before. You won't get qualified peple who will put up with the long hours and difficult working conditions of onboard service without providing decent pay and benefits. Amtrak tried to contract out (was it Burger King?) and had to abandon the project because the contractor couldn't come through consistently. That's an oversimplification, but it gets the idea across.
After a long anf faithful career, employees ought to be able to retire with dignity, a reasonable income, and reasonable security. That's not too much to ask for any employee, whether he or she works for Amtrak or anybody else. Taken to its logical conclusion, your plan would treat Amtrak employees as disposable commodities. If you don't want that for yourself, don't suggest imposing it on any other hard working person. It's insulting.
I retired from Amtrak service almost three years ago. I get by on my pension, but if you think I'm the beneficiary of a golden parachute, you're delusional.
Others on this forum know I've been over this too many times before, and I find no joy in revisiting it.
Tom
A note of accoracy. Current prices in Europe are about half that - $5.57/ gal. in Germany.
If Europe is closer to the Middle East why do they have to pay more? Most of that must be taxes to pay for the rail system based on a socalist model economy.
alphas .... As for Amtrak, its time that its management starts compromising with congress. A good start would be to franchise out its food service operations where the high cost of Amtrak salaries & benefits is far removed from the real world of food service operations. ...
....
As for Amtrak, its time that its management starts compromising with congress. A good start would be to franchise out its food service operations where the high cost of Amtrak salaries & benefits is far removed from the real world of food service operations. ...
Amtrak is far removed from the real world of static food service operations, However, since their food service is not in a static location, the comparable situation would be with flight attendants, whose average compensation is $40-$70K /year plus air travel benefits.
Saturnalia That's what I get for writing so late...I know the $500 Million number but apparently my fingers did not! Anyways, $500 Million is a lot of money and as we know, is sorely the type of funding needed for the NEC.
No problem! Been there; done that!
JPS1 Saturnalia That's what I get for writing so late...I know the $500 Million number but apparently my fingers did not! Anyways, $500 Million is a lot of money and as we know, is sorely the type of funding needed for the NEC. No problem! Been there; done that! As noted above the operating loss on the long distance trains decreased 14.5 percent for 2010 through 2016. The loss per passenger mile decreased approximately 9.7 percent. Over the same period the operating profit of the NEC increased from $51.5 million to $478.7 million or by 829.5 percent. The operating profit was 3 cents per passenger mile in 2010 vs. 24 cents in 2016. Amtrak does not reveal how it allocates its capital expenses. The NEC probably draws the lion’s share of the these expenses, primarily because of the large capital investments to upgrade the infrastructure between New Haven and Boston, as well as the acquisition of the Acela train sets, and the recent purchase of 70 electric locomotives. These expenses probably put the NEC in the red on a fully allocated cost basis. If Amtrak could redirect the $500 million plus that it loses annually on the long distance trains, it would have a substantial pool of money for NEC capital improvements. Doing so makes sense. The NEC is the one segment of Amtrak’s business that has the potential to cover all of its expenses over time.
The demand that public transportation turn a profit is unrealistic, and shouldn't ever be a real barometer. From one form to another, transportation of passengers is going to be subsidized, from public funding of airports and roads to commuter and intercity rail. The obvious question is what all is worth subsidizing?
That's where I make the argument that parts of Amtrak's business, namely the Long Distance Routes, aren't worth our subsidy. They require huge subsidy, and we get very little return. The State-Supported Routes are ultimately a question for the states, but by and large those are small subsidies for a modest public benefit: the net benefit certainly increases when density is increased, as with the Hiawatha, Lincoln and Wolverine Services. Then the NEC requires a huge subsidy but provides a HUGE gain in public benefit by really slashing air and road travel between the major metro areas in New England. So while it is a very expensive piece of infrastructure, it is well worth the cost.
You always know a political hack when they claim public transportation should turn a profit or get cut. It's a crappy stand-by argument which maks no sense unless they're a true libertarian and want the gov't 100% out of air, water, road and rail transportation. It's unfortunate, because the argument they're using isn't the agrument they want to make, but I don't think anybody has ever pointed out to them logic and analysis along the lines as above, which would serve the same line of thinking in an actually beneficial way.
I think the pro-passenger rail lobby would like to use that analysis for the SSRs and NEC, but of course it blows a hole right through the LDRs so I doubt they'd really try to push it.
But all things being equal, it's obvious that some things are worth more than others due to their overall effectiveness within our massive transportation networks. It's unfortunate that the management decisions are often made by political hacks without an ounce of real understanding, instead of industry experts who could really put a pointer on where to give or take capital from. Dirty rotten shame, but I guess that's part of the price we pay for a Constitutional Republic.
Norm48327 I watched that till the narrator said 1.7 gallons per mile for the airliner. At that point I knew the rest of the video would be BS.
I watched that till the narrator said 1.7 gallons per mile for the airliner. At that point I knew the rest of the video would be BS.
150-seat Airbus weighing 200,000 lbs in flight and traveling 500 MPH? 20:1 lift-to-drag ratio for latest generation airframe? Jet achieving 1 lb of thrust per .55 lb of fuel burned for latest generation engines?
200,000 lbs divided by the lift-to-drag ratio requires 10,000 lbs thrust (i.e. "tractive effort", and this is at cruise and not the much higher "starting tractive effort" at takeoff) or 5500 lbs fuel/hour. Jet A (halfway between gasoline and #2 Diesel) weighs 6.5 lbs/gallon giving 846 gallons/hour or just about 1.7 gallons/mile?
Yes, these are cruise conditions, not taking into account takeoff and climb let alone taxi (where the engines are turbines and use close to cruise-level fuel per hour).
But you are not going to watch the rest of the video because you are upset by these calculations?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Saturnalia The demand that public transportation turn a profit is unrealistic, and shouldn't ever be a real barometer. From one form to another, transportation of passengers is going to be subsidized, from public funding of airports and roads to commuter and intercity rail. The obvious question is what all is worth subsidizing? That's where I make the argument that parts of Amtrak's business, namely the Long Distance Routes, aren't worth our subsidy. They require huge subsidy, and we get very little return. The State-Supported Routes are ultimately a question for the states, but by and large those are small subsidies for a modest public benefit: the net benefit certainly increases when density is increased, as with the Hiawatha, Lincoln and Wolverine Services. Then the NEC requires a huge subsidy but provides a HUGE gain in public benefit by really slashing air and road travel between the major metro areas in New England. So while it is a very expensive piece of infrastructure, it is well worth the cost. You always know a political hack when they claim public transportation should turn a profit or get cut. It's a crappy stand-by argument which maks no sense unless they're a true libertarian and want the gov't 100% out of air, water, road and rail transportation. It's unfortunate, because the argument they're using isn't the agrument they want to make, but I don't think anybody has ever pointed out to them logic and analysis along the lines as above, which would serve the same line of thinking in an actually beneficial way. I think the pro-passenger rail lobby would like to use that analysis for the SSRs and NEC, but of course it blows a hole right through the LDRs so I doubt they'd really try to push it. But all things being equal, it's obvious that some things are worth more than others due to their overall effectiveness within our massive transportation networks. It's unfortunate that the management decisions are often made by political hacks without an ounce of real understanding, instead of industry experts who could really put a pointer on where to give or take capital from. Dirty rotten shame, but I guess that's part of the price we pay for a Constitutional Republic.
Auto passenger miles to airline passenger miles to Amtrak passenger miles are in the ratio of 1000:100:1.
Amtrak receives 1.5 billion in subsidy? Tell me where airlines receive 150 billion in subsidy and autos receive 1.5 trillion in subsidy?
A person can speak of a "dirty rotten shame" and question, as Tom Friedman at the New York Times did whether we would be better off with an authoritarian government as in China. But the "they (roads, air) get subsidy, why can't we (trains) get our share" is not an effective argument because trains are particularly expensive from the standpoint of subsidy. Wanting to get good passenger-mile yield for subsidy is not "Libertarian" -- it is just good government. The Amtrak subsidy is forever the Perils of Pauline tied to the tracks by the bad guy on account of this.
Calling people "political hacks without an ounce of real understanding", I hear this argument online and in bricks-and-morter advocacy circles, it is expressing frustration, but it doesn't address this fundamental problem. Trains are expensive and to move foreward with them, that expensive mode has to address transportation concerns that cannot be addressed any other way.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.