Inadequate Funding=Broken Bridges

[Junctionfan]

Canada is one big duopoly; CN or CP. The great thing is that it will likely never be a monopoly because neither railroad likes each other. Fortunately for some industries in Southern Ontario, the choice can also be NS or CSX.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton


We have on the other hand a forum member who clearly believes the idea that the free market will solve all. However, he has for some time been arguing that anti-trust laws have not been enforced and government should establish open access on rail lines. Like those aren't social programs?

Jay, I don't mind if someone exaggerates a particular view out of context from time to time, but please don't misrepresent what I've stated. I do believe in the free market, but I also recognize that if we are to have a civilized society we have to have a government to keep market power from ending up in too few hands, as well as providing a safety net for those in temporary insustainability.

If we leave the current rail industry soley to the forces of the free market, then we will end up with one giant nationwide rail monopoly. The same is true for most capital intensive industries. We have already lost the perfect harmony of the "three or more" rule on the East and West Coasts, where rail services are now in the hands of duopolies. The ostensible reason we have the social programs known as the STB/FRA/Consolidated Rail, etc. is to prevent actions and occurances that will have a net negative impact on consumers. Since de facto duopolies (which when broken down into certain regional contextualizations have resulted in monopolies in some areas) now exist, the only constitutional way to ameliorate this situation is to utilize anti-trust ideals and establish a split-up of Class I railroad assets into infrastructure and transporting companies.

In other words, open access wouldn't even be an issue if the STB had used its muscle to maintain rail service competition throughout all areas of the nation.

So, yes, the STB and the Justice Department are social programs, but enforcement of legal ideals is not a social program but a government action. Since the STB and Justice Department already exist, for them to take action to ameliorate ostensible market abuses would not result in the creation of a new social program.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....And the beat goes on...and on. Rip out 50 million from a rebuild Iraq budget and apply it to doing something for us in this counrty. Maybe it will have some left over bucks when the bridge is repaired so apply the rest of it to the phone cards for Service folks at the Rehab. units to call home. Some of this budget cutting subject gets really disgusting. As does where we're spending some of it too.

I think Amtrak will wait until after the 3rd World War. I have heard the words Iran, China, freedom and North Korea in the same sentences and am not thrilled of the consequences if I understood correctly.

If all goes according the the Bush doctorine, our nations along with the other NATO countries will be arming for war against China, Iran and North Korea within four more years.[V] Wonderful, I'm going to be a consript.........

FOFLMAO...

Andrew, you need to learn a LOT about obeying orders and less random free thinking if you hope to survive boot. Believe me, the service knows how to chew up and spit out nonconformists...

LC

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan



If all goes according the the Bush doctorine, our nations along with the other NATO countries will be arming for war against China, Iran and North Korea within four more years.[V] Wonderful, I'm going to be a consript.........

Well look on the bright side..at least you'll finally have some non simulated experience to post about.....

If I'm alive to tell it and you're alive to hear it, I suppose so. Some things are better left a simulation.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE:

Some folks will counter and say there are "externalities" that are not included in the profit/loss figures. "Externalities" are the last refuge of scoundrals. Externalities can rarely be indentified or quantified. The costs and benifits are unassignable.

Gee, a perjorative. How nice! You sound like a typical hard-headed southerner. Now we're even![:D]

"Externalities" are can be HARDER to define and assign than direct costs and benenfits, but that does not make them less real.

An example:

The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example.

Another example more to the current point:
You have a congested commute that take 90 minutes. There is a proposal to make the road a toll road at a cost to you of $40 a week in order to fund the extra highway capacity to reduce your commute to 30 minutes. There is another proposal to collect a toll of $10/week from you that would eliminate some of the existing traffic so that your commute would be 30 minutes, but it would involve investing the toll somewhere else.

Same benefit to you, but different cost. The cheaper one involves "scoundrals". Which would you pick?

Why is the state the "right" level of gov't to access taxes for public infrastructure? People in Crescent City CA will NEVER benefit from SF/LA/SD train service. Why should they have to pay? (You can make a sound arguement here, but you'd have to be a bigger scoundral than I am)

Actually, I'm a hard headed midwesterner. Hell of a snow comming down right now and it's 17 F outside. I eat this stuff up!

"Externialities" are much HARDER to define, identify and assign as to cost/benifit. That's why I don't trust them. I do accept the polution example. The air and water were free and were consequently used reclesly. I don't get your tollway example. It seems in both your options the benifits are going to the toll payers - which is the good match that elimates externality.

The only valid reason for using taxpayer dollars to support any transportation, including passenger trains, is this "externality" claim. Otherwise, the only people who should pay for the service are the people who directly use the service.

Which is why I don't think the state government level is necessarily the right "level" to fund it. In the Chicago area the state formed a "Regional Transportation Authority" which included the counties surrounding Chicago. We folks in the "collar counties" majority voted not to be included, but Cook County (Chicago) overwhelmed our votes. The state had structured the deal so Cook County won. And, as a result, our taxes were increased.

Now we did get something for the extra tax expense. We got Metra, which I ride. And we got reduced road congestion. So there were "externalities" and we were taxed to pay for them. Is it worth it? I can argue that it subsidises racism. And, as the great George W. Hilton once wrote in Trains: "I can't think of a more regressive way to spend tax money than haulling the citizens of Barrington around." (Barrington being a very, very upscale suburb.)

But the "External Benifits" are narrow - to the extent that they do, in fact, accrue, they accrue to only the people living in the Chicago area. It wouldn't be "propper" to tax an Illinois citizen living in Rock Island to fund Metra. There are no benifits to someone living in Rock Island from Metra. So if the passenger trains were to be supported with dollars confiscated from working people, it was only "fitting and proper" that that confiscation be limited to the taxpayers who could concievably receive some form of benifit from the confiscation.

So no, I don't think that state level funding is necessarily right. (I'm certain that national funding isn't right.) In Rhode Island it would be good. But a citizen in western Pennsylvania shouldn't be taxed to pay for the NE corriodor, since his/her benifits will be insignificant at best.

I think that if it exists at all, public funding of transport should be very narrowly focused onto those in locations that can receive some actual benifit.

This emphatically means that the trains through Montana should be paid for by the people who use the trains, no one else. LA, New York, Chicago - we can think about it.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan



If all goes according the the Bush doctorine, our nations along with the other NATO countries will be arming for war against China, Iran and North Korea within four more years.[V] Wonderful, I'm going to be a consript.........

Well look on the bright side..at least you'll finally have some non simulated experience to post about.....

[jeaton]

Mark

Are you going to take all the fun out of the forum?

I am obviously one who supports Amtrak. Part of my support stems from the fact I am kinda in the same group as the little old lady with the umbrella. I don't have an umbrella so I write letters to my federal and state representatives. I am also a dues paying member of a rail passenger advocacy group. Sometimes I think an umbrella would be more effective.

Another part of my support stems from the fact that I am a blue state liberal tax and spend Democrat. We are sort out of vogue right now, but frankly I don't mind if people say about me "He never met a social program he didn't like".

So that is where I stand, but I know just saying that government should do everything possible for the public is not an argument, it's just ranting. We have on the other side, those who take the position that the government should do the least possible and stop taking money from people for taxes. After all, their rant goes, people are better judges as to where their money should spent, and the free market will solve all.

The truth of the matter is that we are operating and will continue to operate somewhere in between. Finding where that somewhere should be takes the study of facts, an excercise in logic, and some very hard thought about the consequences of adding or dropping a program. For example, from where I stand, I should agree that train crews should have gas masks. After all, protecting lives is a social imperative. However, some of the arguments presented convinced me that the idea does not have merit. So, I can take limits.

We have on the other hand a forum member who clearly believes the idea that the free market will solve all. However, he has for some time been arguing that anti-trust laws have not been enforced and government should establish open access on rail lines. Like those aren't social programs?

So, the arguments aren't going away. It would be nice if they were of better quality.

Jay

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....And the beat goes on...and on. Rip out 50 million from a rebuild Iraq budget and apply it to doing something for us in this counrty. Maybe it will have some left over bucks when the bridge is repaired so apply the rest of it to the phone cards for Service folks at the Rehab. units to call home. Some of this budget cutting subject gets really disgusting. As does where we're spending some of it too.

I think Amtrak will wait until after the 3rd World War. I have heard the words Iran, China, freedom and North Korea in the same sentences and am not thrilled of the consequences if I understood correctly.

If all goes according the the Bush doctorine, our nations along with the other NATO countries will be arming for war against China, Iran and North Korea within four more years.[V] Wonderful, I'm going to be a consript.........

[M636C]

Here in Australia we are in our 150th year of Government ownership of our railways. Not the passenger service, lock stock and barrel from the ground up. We celebrate the opening of the first government owned railway in the then British Empire in September. I'm old enough to clearly remember the centenary back in 1955. It was in the same class as the B&O celebration of 1927, as well as I can judge from the reports and photos of that celebration.

There were all of the expected problems and inefficiencies with a government operation, and a few that might not have been, such as changes of rail gauge at all but one state border (or effective state border, in the case of South Australia and Western Australia). The railways were run by the state governments - we didn't have a federal government until 1901 (I'll allow you advocates of smaller government to consider if we were better off before or after).

Even today, political influence has a great and often undesirable influence on operation. The "Tangara" commuter trains are an example. These became a political initiative by the party in power, and style became more important than substance. An "Industrial Design" group (in England) was given a free hand in the design and the resulting train ended up with much more glass than a Milwaukee great dome. In the original design this two level car (laid out like a Bombardier car for Toronto or LA) had an all glass centre section. The whole car side was glass, curving into a dome like roof. The politicians were overjoyed with a train unlike anything else in the world, providing travel style and views available to every voter, emphasising they they were the party of the future.

The rail officials were appalled, but as political appointees kept a low profile and hoped it would go away. Unfortunately it didn't go away.

The car builders looked at the design, and took the English concept people aside and asked how they expected it should be built. After a while, the all glass centre went away. The upper deck still had glass curving into the roof line, and the stuctural steel between the upper and the lower deck windows was hidden behind dark glass to retain the appearance of the concept, an all glass centre. This resulted in a heavy structure and a high centre of gravity. These are electric multiple unit cars and the switch gear and control equipment are located above the single deck sections at the car ends. Even the pantograph had to be placed on the trailer car.

What with trying to build a train to match an unrealistic futuristic design, a couple of things slipped through. One was the safety "dead man's pedal", that had to be held by the driver's feet in a central position. If unloaded or forced down, it would provide an emergency brake application. This was a problem, since drivers can vary in size and weight, and it was discovered that a driver weighing more than 110 kg (242 lb) could pass out or otherwise become incapacitated and the weight of his legs could maintain the pedal in place. This was discounted, since the movement of the train would dislodge the driver's legs, and the train would stop.

About three years ago, on an early morning commuter run the holes in the "Swiss Cheese" safety model all lined up. Tangara G7, a prototype set with AC motors was running south out of Waterfall, south of Sydney. This was the start of a steep grade. The driver, recently returned from holidays, suffered a heart attack just after departing the station. The train accelerated rapidly downgrade until it hit a 60km/h curve at about 110km/h. The driver's weight, (about 250lb) kept the "dead man" pedal in the operating position until he fell from the train as it rolled over. The high centre of mass, possibly exacerbated by heavier AC equipment at roof level and lighter AC motors at axle level, took effect and the train rolled over, crossed the opposing track and took out a number of catenary supports, cutting track power. The curved upper deck windows that had attracted the politicians now fell out, allowing some passengers to fall to their deaths. The train guard, who should have applied the train brakes failed to do so because he was unprepared for an emergency, and didn't realise how serious the situation had become. Seven people including the driver were killed.

The rescue procedures were an entirely separate debacle, including the emergency phone operator refusing to believe the emergency call made by a male teenage passenger, assuming it to be a hoax. That organisation tampered with the phone recordings to hide that gaffe (without success).

Had normal "market forces" been operating, these expensive and impractical trains would not have been purchased.

The political influence is unfortunate, and this is an extreme example. I bring it up because I have just obtained the report of the Commision of Inquiry, and as is usual with such things I am completely appalled by the succession of events.

This is a warning that enforced economy isn't the worst outcome from political control. Sometimes, getting what you thought you wanted, as influenced by well meaning amateurs (politicians and industrial designers) could be worse!

Peter

[Modelcar]

....And the beat goes on...and on. Rip out 50 million from a rebuild Iraq budget and apply it to doing something for us in this counrty. Maybe it will have some left over bucks when the bridge is repaired so apply the rest of it to the phone cards for Service folks at the Rehab. units to call home. Some of this budget cutting subject gets really disgusting. As does where we're spending some of it too.

[jeaton]

MC

I think that Dave Gunn would agree with you, but I think he went to some pains to avoid suggesting that the previous Amtrak management made some really stupid moves.

(For those who don't get it-Why would a couple hundred million be spent buying high speeds trains that can't be operated at cruising speed because nothing is spent to maintain the track.)

Jay

[mudchicken]

While the hot stove league up in the cheap seats continues to second guess, all those bridge engineers that put this rascal together, long gone by now, did a fantastic job![bow][bow][bow] (ps- they expected it to have preventative maintenance & upkeep on a regular basis, beancounters be damned.)

I frankly wi***he bridge had gotten stuck in the "up" position so that the people who invested in shiny new toys could learn a fundemental lesson and the end users and politicians could squirm for a while dealing with reality.[}:)][}:)][}:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example.

On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance.

If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated.

It is only an externality if there is no choice.

• Reply
• Edit