HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO THIS TO AMTRAK EMPLOYEES

[Anonymous]

Maybe Bush should donate the $30+ million being used for his "I get to be president again" party to Amtrak, as a gesture of goodwill. [:p]

[daveklepper]

It would do more for energy independence than anything he has proposed so far!

[dharmon]

Cool...just what the trains forum needs...more politician bashing!

[espeefoamer]

I am a Republican who supports Amtrak. If Hillary gets elected, we're all in deep doo-doo.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

Cool...just what the trains forum needs...more politician bashing!

Nah........ we're just trying to figure out why things are the way they are, because politics don't always add up, or make sense.
If there's a way, I'd love to see more Amtrak service in Utah, instead of the two trains that stop in Salt Lake City at ungodly times of the morning. Of course I don't know if there's enough potential Amtrak riders to justify the increased service, and Amtrak doesn't have the funding for such an experiment anyway.

[StillGrande]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cspmo

QUOTE: Free enterprise is the backbone of this country. The freedom to pull your own weight,

Why do the Taxpayers have to pay for building, maintaining airports? shouldn't the people use them pay for it?

Unfortunately it is not that simple. Users are not necessarily the only ones benefiting from something the government provides. Do the people employed by the airport, its venders, their suppliers, etc., who don't fly not derive a benefit from the airport? Do people who do not have kids not derive some benefit from the school system through the education of the children? Lots of people don't drive, but they still gain access to goods and services because of the roads.

Close up the airports and see how many people are affected? Close a highway and how many people lose the benefit of the road activites? Now close the Amtrak station and how much of the community would notice? If you can prove to a city that the trains are important, more people will want them around, whether they use them or not. Mass transit works the same way. I don't use it, but I am glad we have it here.

[daveklepper]

Again, I voted for Bush and I don't mean to bash him, just his ideas on transportation and energy, which don't make sense if his goal is energy independence. I think he is honest. But I think he has been gvien bad advice just as Geroge Alpert was with:

Buy these additional diesel electric locomotives and you can pull down the catenary east of Stamford and close Cos Cob.

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cyb0rg
But in my mind, Amtrak is a waste of government spending, aka tax dollars, aka my money.

It's no longer your money once you pay the taxes. (That would be like your employer saying it doesn't want its employees spending net pay on internet service providers--that's not what the wages/salaries are for).
Now if you disagree on the spending decisions of your elected officials...then vote for new congressmembers next time election day rolls around.

[Anonymous]

With a train running only 3 times a week, or even once a day you're right. Close the depot and no one will notice. But if we had a real service with many departures, that a properly funded and operated rail service would provide and you'd have a different story.

Mitch

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

What I can't figure out is why congress hates Amtrak so much that they want it to fail but can't do it right away and official? What is the point that they are trying to make if any?

AMTRAK was 'designed' during the Nixon Administration as a means to relieve the Private railroads of the requirements to operate passenger service which had become a money loosing proposition for nearly every carrier that still operated any service at all.

Congress had, and still has, the vision that the passenger train is an anachrisim in the 20th and now 21st Centrury with the ready availablity of road and air means of transport. With that vision, Congress designed AMTRAK to ALWAYS have to feed at the public money trough with the expectation that in the short run any and all demand for the passenger train would go away as Congres knew then, and knows now, they are not funding AMTRAK at anywhere near the level required for AMTRAK to present a truly sales worthy product.

AMTRAK's continued existance is a testament to the 'RAILROADERS' ability to do the job, no matter how meager the resources.

Unless and until Congress decides that AMTRAK will not die and blow away, AMTRAK will always have trouble obtaining anywhere near adequate funding.

Our TAX dollars have provided corporate welfare the the road builders and airlines to amouts hundereds of times the 37 Billion that has been allocated to AMTRAK over the 30+ years of its existance.

Congress being a political entity will never directly kill AMTRAK as that would be 'bad politics'; however the feel 'starving' AMTRAK and the proclaiming that it is not profitable and will never be profitable hides their aim of killing AMTRAK.

AMTRAK is just another spelling of Politics.

[Anonymous]

Why would a country want to kill the alternative to roads and air travel. I personally would not have wanted to be flying over this holiday season. I would have gone crazy with the delays at the airports and the lost luggage. At least, even though it is definitely not the fatest mode of travel, there is an alternative to driving and flying.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

What I can't figure out is why congress hates Amtrak so much that they want it to fail but can't do it right away and official? What is the point that they are trying to make if any?

AMTRAK was 'designed' during the Nixon Administration as a means to relieve the Private railroads of the requirements to operate passenger service which had become a money loosing proposition for nearly every carrier that still operated any service at all.

Congress had, and still has, the vision that the passenger train is an anachrisim in the 20th and now 21st Centrury with the ready availablity of road and air means of transport. With that vision, Congress designed AMTRAK to ALWAYS have to feed at the public money trough with the expectation that in the short run any and all demand for the passenger train would go away as Congres knew then, and knows now, they are not funding AMTRAK at anywhere near the level required for AMTRAK to present a truly sales worthy product.

AMTRAK's continued existance is a testament to the 'RAILROADERS' ability to do the job, no matter how meager the resources.

Unless and until Congress decides that AMTRAK will not die and blow away, AMTRAK will always have trouble obtaining anywhere near adequate funding.

Our TAX dollars have provided corporate welfare the the road builders and airlines to amouts hundereds of times the 37 Billion that has been allocated to AMTRAK over the 30+ years of its existance.

Congress being a political entity will never directly kill AMTRAK as that would be 'bad politics'; however the feel 'starving' AMTRAK and the proclaiming that it is not profitable and will never be profitable hides their aim of killing AMTRAK.

AMTRAK is just another spelling of Politics.

Again sir, a good and most knowlegable statement, I'm envious. - Piouslion

[arbfbe]

QUOTE:

cyb0rg,
It seems there is a bit of political bias in the second part of the definition. Even with that please note no where in the definition does it say communism requires a big government or is there a definition that says any big government is communistic. I am not expousing a communist agenda here but your statement ignored the obvious.

If you want to get into higher level theoretical economics a true application of capitalism and a true application of communism would both maximize their outputs. In capitalism, each individual is trying to maximize their individual situation. When everyone in the economy is at their max then there is no more the economy can grow, therefore the entire economy is maxed out. In communism, everyone is trying to max out the entire economy. When that goal is reached then there is no more the economy can do for any of the members as individuals of the economy. It has the same result as the capitalism model but just comes in from the other way.

It is unfortunate no large economy has ever come close to the pure communistic model. It would be an interesting study. Our capitalistic economy is about as close as it can get to the pure model but still needs some tinkering to reach purity. The capitalization necessary to complete large scale projects somewhat distorts the model as it is applied. That is probably not bad in the long run.

Alan

[Anonymous]

And just to think all this started with one AMTRACK (soon to be former) that got mad at Trent Lott. Will wonders never cease?

[arbfbe]

It is hard to be facing long term or permanent job loss. That has been traditional in the railroad industry as well as most industries. When you plan on reducing output there will not be the need for the current nuber of employees needed. If you like your job it hurts to be let go. Financially, it can mean upheaval or ruin. My heart goes out to all those AMTK and other employees who will be forced to move on unexpectedly. I know I couldn't live with that threat every budget cycle especially when the politacal party in power had a substantial number of members in Congress who wanted to see your employer go away. I would have gone to a freight railroad some time ago.

Alan

[cspmo]

QUOTE: Close up the airports and see how many people are affected?

I'm not saying close the Airports I'm saying Airlines should pay for them through ticket price.

QUOTE: It's more ecomonical to fly than it is to travel by train

Please explain.

[andrewjonathon]

Despite all of the various arguments for and against Amtrak in this thread, I still believe Amtrak needs to differentiate between short and medium services versus long distance services in order to make a credible argue that passenger trains contribute to the overall good of society. With the proper investment and high speed trains I think it is reasonable to make such a case but only for short and medium distance trains.

Regardless of the amount of the subsidy amount, I have a hard time believing the arguments that long distance passenger trains are a necessary service that will help give the US energy independence and as a by-product help to solve world terrorism. (By the way according to some sources planes have a fuel consumption of about 38 passenger miles per gallon which isn't too far below a passenger trains fuel efficiency)

It has been suggested that people would use the service if the frequency was increased sufficiently but if that is true then why did people desert trains to begin with. Didn't they originally have the majority of the market and therefore mulitple frequencies etc? It seems to me that the evidence is the world simply evolved beyond the long distance passenger train. Even in Europe, the supposed oasis of passenger trains it is difficult to find people (beyond backpackers) travelling on them for very long distances. For example, go to beaches of Spain and Portugual and try to locate Briti***ourists that arrived by train. Alternatively, checkout the number of airlines and flights going from any number of British cities to an equivalent number of sunny destinations on the Mediterrean. I do understand that there are a few people who would rather travel 45 hours on Amtrak from Seattle to Chicago in order to avoid a couple of hours at the airport or because they can't handle the air cabin pressure. But does the constitution guarantee them a train ticket just because it is more comfortable than Greyhound and happens to have a diner and lounge car?

Another point that has been brought up is that if gasoline cost $4-5 per gallon we would automatically have enough money to fund all of our transportation needs. The European experience is interesting in that in the early 1970's average mpg per car were only slightly higher than the US. Over the intervening years the high price of fuel has driven (pardon the pun) Europeans to become more and more fuel efficient. Thus today while the US still has an average mpg of around 22.5 mpg, Europe's average mpg is approaching 45 mpg. This is great for the environment and energy independence but it also means that the tax revenue collected is far less than one might expect since on average the Europeans consume half as much gas 'when' they drive. I don't have the figures but I wouldn't be surprised if they drive a lot less as well thus reducing the expected revenues further. As note of interest, Japan is even more fuel efficient than Europe is with average mpg around 50 per car.

[Anonymous]

A couple of things occur to me as I read this thread:

1) it's been said (by who, i forget) that "A man's sole capital is the hours of his life"
(or words to that effect)

2)Railroads are best at handling heavy volumes of traffic with relatively little incremental labor cost. (translation: a few people can handle the driving for a lot of ____(fill in the blank))

3) in a mobile culture and economy such as the one we live in, a mode of transportation must be 'random access' to be effective at meeting the needs of its users.

I therefore submit that rail travel is not an effective means of getting people between widely scattered points, because :
1) it takes too long;
2) there is insufficent demand for travel between any two points at any given time at the speeds rail can cover long distances (arbitrarily >500 miles, say) to leverage rails' advantage in traffic density; and
3) it's hard to change the route of a railroad.

put another way, passenger rail (as much as I'd love to see it thrive) has the disadvantage that is killing the legacy air carriers, with none of the speed. To wit: the hub-and-spoke route topology.

The business traveller wants big miles-per-hour. The Vacationer wants cheap flexibility. And so rail, as currently configured, can't supply either market. (I don't know if any amount of subsidy or investment can change that. Rail is inherently fixed-route in a way no other mode of transportation is.)

Now, Commuter Rail is different: you have a large number of people who need to travel the same route day in and day out, to a destination-rich endpoint, usually all at the same time. That spells 'Predictable Traffic Density,' and that's something railroads are well-equipped to handle. And so Commuter rail thrives where distance rail withers.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon

Despite all of the various arguments for and against Amtrak in this thread, I still believe Amtrak needs to differentiate between short and medium services versus long distance services in order to make a credible argue that passenger trains contribute to the overall good of society. With the proper investment and high speed trains I think it is reasonable to make such a case but only for short and medium distance trains.

Regardless of the amount of the subsidy amount, I have a hard time believing the arguments that long distance passenger trains are a necessary service that will help give the US energy independence and as a by-product help to solve world terrorism. (By the way according to some sources planes have a fuel consumption of about 38 passenger miles per gallon which isn't too far below a passenger trains fuel efficiency)

It has been suggested that people would use the service if the frequency was increased sufficiently but if that is true then why did people desert trains to begin with. Didn't they originally have the majority of the market and therefore mulitple frequencies etc? It seems to me that the evidence is the world simply evolved beyond the long distance passenger train. Even in Europe, the supposed oasis of passenger trains it is difficult to find people (beyond backpackers) travelling on them for very long distances. For example, go to beaches of Spain and Portugual and try to locate Briti***ourists that arrived by train. Alternatively, checkout the number of airlines and flights going from any number of British cities to an equivalent number of sunny destinations on the Mediterrean. I do understand that there are a few people who would rather travel 45 hours on Amtrak from Seattle to Chicago in order to avoid a couple of hours at the airport or because they can't handle the air cabin pressure. But does the constitution guarantee them a train ticket just because it is more comfortable than Greyhound and happens to have a diner and lounge car?

Another point that has been brought up is that if gasoline cost $4-5 per gallon we would automatically have enough money to fund all of our transportation needs. The European experience is interesting in that in the early 1970's average mpg per car were only slightly higher than the US. Over the intervening years the high price of fuel has driven (pardon the pun) Europeans to become more and more fuel efficient. Thus today while the US still has an average mpg of around 22.5 mpg, Europe's average mpg is approaching 45 mpg. This is great for the environment and energy independence but it also means that the tax revenue collected is far less than one might expect since on average the Europeans consume half as much gas 'when' they drive. I don't have the figures but I wouldn't be surprised if they drive a lot less as well thus reducing the expected revenues further. As note of interest, Japan is even more fuel efficient than Europe is with average mpg around 50 per car.

Well put!

I think you can make a pretty good economic case for expanding medium and short haul passenger trains, but the case for long distance is totally different. You can make a social and political case for them, but that answers a totaly differnent question than the short/mediium haul.

The problem is that we are stuck with the status quo as long as Amtrak = Sunset Ltd. in the minds of many. If we want different, we have to embrace different. A "new world" of short/medium corridors might economically support long distance trains overlayed on their routes or bridging the gaps, but on their own.....

Your point about trip times and frequency of long distance trains in the past is right on! (and one that I've tried to make several times). The long distance trains lost out to crude autos and propeller driven airplanes in the 1950s. So, why should we expect different if we just recreate the past?

Your point about intercity rail travel having no measurable effect on energy or security is also is also right on. A ten-fold Amtrak sized might make measurable dent, but would create new problems. A train is externally vulnerable to attack over it's whole route. A plane is only vulnerable at the terminals.

I'd like to see a really large fuel tax phased in on all modes with the proceeds used to provide transportation improvements and alternatives that would provide the greatest long term good. The tax would create market forces that would incent manufacturers to improve the efficiency of their products (e.g. no heavy-handed CAFE regulation on automakers) and would shape consumer choices toward conservation and efficiency. Asking people to keep conservation/efficiency in mind when making transportation choices produces little. Forcing them just makes them mad. But, shaping markets produces results - people will always vote with their pockets.

[daveklepper]

The fact that trains are more efficent than private automobiles regarding fuel is pretty easy to establish. Of course if all autos in the USA used Hybrid technology, we probably could cut oil imports to the extent that could pressure oil producers to stop funding terror.

[Anonymous]

Wow! there are so many ideas here to discuss. Well, I guess I'll start with this one . . .

As mentioned above, Amtrak asked for $1.6 billion and only got $1.2 billion. I wonder how much my company would get from the government if they asked? Second, if Amtrak needs another $400 million to meet their plan for the year, why don't they raise the ticket fees and have the users pay for the service Amtrak wishes to provide at the $1.6 billion funding level?

I guess this thread will be killed soon. Probably a good idea.

[Anonymous]

I can speak only for myself, but after watching this go from a layoff from a job for funding reasons and feeling insult and injury by a politician that knows better manners to a discussion of the what fors, where bys and what ifs of wandering discussion, I agree with cablebridge, let's shoot this thing before it gets wilder.

[jabrown1971]

BANG

[jeaton]

Don- I'll go with what you say.

In the past I, and many others have suggested that a serious jump in gas taxes, would not only bring highway system back to a state of good repair and increase capacity, but would also provide the revenue for significant improvements. If we talk about a move over some time from the current 17 cents to something on the order of 2 or 3 dollars per gallon, even with double the fuel economy and half the driving, there would still be a tremendous increse in gas tax revenue.

Of course, we might have to use the tax receipts to repair the damages from the riots.

Jay

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cablebridge

Wow! there are so many ideas here to discuss. Well, I guess I'll start with this one . . .

As mentioned above, Amtrak asked for $1.6 billion and only got $1.2 billion. I wonder how much my company would get from the government if they asked? Second, if Amtrak needs another $400 million to meet their plan for the year, why don't they raise the ticket fees and have the users pay for the service Amtrak wishes to provide at the $1.6 billion funding level?

I guess this thread will be killed soon. Probably a good idea.

There's CBO report on Amtrak that found that Amtrak ridership (in general) is very sensitive to ticket price. So much so, that raising ticket prices will produce less overall revenue (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4571&sequence=0&from=0#anchor)

BTW, what's the difference between a "user fee" and a "tax". How about we do law enforcement on a "user fee" basis? Or build local roads?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Don- I'll go with what you say.

In the past I, and many others have suggested that a serious jump in gas taxes, would not only bring highway system back to a state of good repair and increase capacity, but would also provide the revenue for significant improvements. If we talk about a move over some time from the current 17 cents to something on the order of 2 or 3 dollars per gallon, even with double the fuel economy and half the driving, there would still be a tremendous increse in gas tax revenue.

Of course, we might have to use the tax receipts to repair the damages from the riots.

Jay

You'd have to phase it in over 10-20 years since it would have such a huge effect on people's lifestyle planning - e.g. where to live vis a vis work, school, what vehicle to buy, etc. I can tell you my 25 mile each way solo commuting would stop!

You might even be able to arrange it such that it would vary to smooth out bumps in the price along the way.

I'm not too worried about any riots because I think this idea has a nearly zero chance of ever happening!

[jabrown1971]

I said it before on another thread, and I will say it here. To help stop the bleeding Amtrak could go the way of major sports teams. When it comes to stadiums......most have private sponsorship. RCA Dome here in Indy, Busch Stadium (new) in St Louis, the United Center in Chicago. Amtrak could have corporate sponsors for sleeper cars and diners. Amtrak would continue to own and maintain the cars, but hotels and restaurants could supply on board crews and services. Take the Cardinal-the train that runs through Indy-for example. The sleeper could be sponsored by Comfort Inn or someplace like that. They would set the pricing, supply all the on board necessities-pillow, blankets, car attendants, etc. Amtrak could do the same with food service, thus eliminating the need to purchase and store food, give entrepenures a chance to see if they have what it takes to make it in business, provide jobs for people, and I am sure not at railroad pay rates. Plus I'm sure these companies would be able to write off any losses on taxes. Sound crazy, to some yes. Also relieving Amtrak of the burden of operating all stations might help as well. Find an enterpsing travel agent in each town, or give someone the opprotunity to become one. Have them maintain the station and ticket agent, but be representatives of Amtrak, make them post a bond to insure legitimacy and even let them keep a share of all Amtrak tickets they sell-40%, thus having a commission agent. This will help in making sure that someone will work to get business. When that person tires of running the station or is not providing satisfactory service, bring someone else in there. Let the local community or a group own the building. Long distance trains will be paying for themselves in a heartbeat, Amtrak will make some money-let's face it they will never make a fortune, and someone not involved in the railroad business will be making good money too. Look around there are all kinds of things that can be done to help Amtrak help themselves. Trick is getting the plans in place.

[StillGrande]

There is a real nice picture in the February TRAINS of one of the Amtrak locos with a Toyota truck advertisement painted on it. The blurb also mentions some of the cars have ad-wraps on them. The sponsorship run may not be far away. How about adding TV monitors to the cars that play captive advertising like on the airlines? You could even have the monitor turned off in the quiet car and hang a sign on it that says "This monitor is off courtesy of Budweiser!!"

[Anonymous]

BANG, BANG, BANG. Really folks these are good topics that really do deserve a thread of their own.