Bush Budget to Scrap Subsidy for Amtrak

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

So, since the fed gas tax is collected on each gallon and then redistributed to the states to use for projects, it is even less a "user fee" than I thought.

States like NJ with many gallons of gas purchased, but with few federally funded highway projects are subsidizing states like Kansas, with fewer gallons purchased but massive Interstate reconstruction going on. Those NJ "users" are paying for those Kansas "consumers".

Also, down here in GA, the state gas tax only covers about 50% of the annual state highway budget - the rest comes from income & sales tax revenue - hardly a "user fee".

If a gas tax is an efficient way to fund and maintain roads, then so be it. But there is nothing sacred, true or even fair about money collected from one mode only being used for that mode. If the use is a true "public good" then the funding source should be irrelevant. Revenue source and expenditures can be completely uncoupled. The only issues would be the "fairness" of contribution and "public good" of the spending.

oltmannd, I don't follow your logic. You say that a tax collected from one mode and returned for use for that mode is not "fair". You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you'r completely off base when analyzing the attributes of fairness. User fees are the fairest form of taxation there is because the payer is also the primaray beneficiary. "Progressive" income taxation is the most unfair, because it forces one segment of society to pay most of the benefits of another segment with little guarantee of a beneficial return. Most general taxes (flat taxes, sales taxes, property taxes) lie somewhere in between, with each payer recieving at least a portion of a benefit in return.

If our nation ever takes an active course in tax reform, the first thing to do would be to identify those sectors in which a user fee can be implemented. The "pay as you go" system is the most accountable form for determining if people are willing to pay for things such as passenger rail services.

[oltmannd]

So, since the fed gas tax is collected on each gallon and then redistributed to the states to use for projects, it is even less a "user fee" than I thought.

States like NJ with many gallons of gas purchased, but with few federally funded highway projects are subsidizing states like Kansas, with fewer gallons purchased but massive Interstate reconstruction going on. Those NJ "users" are paying for those Kansas "consumers".

Also, down here in GA, the state gas tax only covers about 50% of the annual state highway budget - the rest comes from income & sales tax revenue - hardly a "user fee".

If a gas tax is an efficient way to fund and maintain roads, then so be it. But there is nothing sacred, true or even fair about money collected from one mode only being used for that mode. If the use is a true "public good" then the funding source should be irrelevant. Revenue source and expenditures can be completely uncoupled. The only issues would be the "fairness" of contribution and "public good" of the spending.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

To: Osogrande.
Amtrak Carried 25 Million People last Year, Amtrak is not Dead at all. If Congress gave Amtrak money like the Highway and Airlines 35 Billion for Highways and 15 Billion for Airlines this Year 2005. Amtrak would be in Great Shape. [:)][:D]

Congress does not "give" 35 billion to highways. The Federal government takes money from highway users and redistributes it. The federal highway budget is 100% user fee financed. Most of the highway user fees are spent on highways but some goes to other modes including rail.

However, a subsidy for one mode does not justify a subsidy for another mode. If it did perhaps we should subsidize roller skates.[:o)]

If something is user fee supported, shouldn't it be able to make it as a free enterprise?

What of all the fed gas tax collected on gas that is not burned on fed highways? Is that truly a "user fee"?

Isn't the gas tax just a tax like my property tax?

Should there be a relationship of some sort between where tax is collected and where it's spent?

WWI was paid for with an income tax - what's the relationship?

Where I live, a sales tax is used to build new schools. A property tax is used to pay teachers. A lottery is used to pay for colleges. I don't see any relationship between source and sink in any of these.

I just want to get the most for what I pay in taxes. Which hand Uncle Sam uses to collect it and which pocket he stores it in matter not a bit to me.

There are no Federal owned highways in the public highway system. The highways, roads and streets are owned by the states and local government. The Federal government collects federal user fees and re-distributes the money to the states to be used for highway, road and street projects.

A small amount of the revenue does come from equipment not used on the highway system (highways, streets, and roads) but fuel used in off-road equipment ( farm tractors, contractors equipment, railroad locomotives, etc) is exempt from the highway user fees.

A small amount of the revenue also comes from fuel burned while on on private roads, but there are very few vehicle users who never use a public highway.

There actually are some Federally owned roads. They are in national parks, national forests, national monuments, and military bases. Although owned buy the govermment, they are technically private roads not public highways. They are usually not funded from the budget of the owning agency, not highway taxes.

The Federal Highway taxes are not just another tax they are user fees specifically designated for transportation funding.

"What Is the Highway Trust Fund?
The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was created by the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 (Pub. L. 84-627), primarily to ensure a dependable source of financing for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and also as the source of funding for the remainder of the Federal-aid Highway Program. Prior to the creation of the HTF, federal financial assistance to support highway programs came from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. While federal motor fuel and motor vehicle taxes did exist before the creation of the HTF, the receipts were directed to the General Fund, and there was no relationship between the receipts from these taxes and federal funding for highways. The Highway Revenue Act authorized that revenues from certain highway-user taxes could be credited to the HTF to finance a greatly expanded highway program enacted in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. In the original Highway Revenue Act of 1956, the crediting of user taxes to the HTF was set to expire at the end of fiscal year 1972, but since then, legislation has been passed to extend the imposition of the taxes and their transfer to the HTF through September 30, 2005.
Like other federal trust funds, the HTF is a financing mechanism established by law to account for tax receipts that are collected by the federal government and are dedicated or "earmarked" for expenditure on special purposes. Originally, the HTF focused solely on highways, but later Congress determined that a portion of the revenues from highway-user taxes dedicated to the HTF should be used to fund transit needs, resulting in a 5 cent increase in the gas tax (to 9 cents), of which 1 cent would go towards transit, to help fund the new account. As a result, the Mass Transit Account was created within the HTF effective April 1, 1983. Although never formally described and named, the portion of the Highway Trust Fund outside the Mass Transit Account has come to be called the Highway Account and receives all HTF receipts not specifically designated for the Mass Transit Account.
How is the HTF funded?
Tax revenues directed to the HTF are derived from excise taxes on highway motor fuel and truck-related taxes on truck tires, sales of trucks and trailers, and heavy vehicle use. The Mass Transit Account receives a portion of the motor fuel taxes, usually 2.86 cents per gallon, as does the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, usually 0.1 cent per gallon. The General Fund receives 2.5 cents per gallon of the tax on gasohol and some other alcohol fuels plus an additional 0.6 cent per gallon for fuels that are at least 10 percent ethanol. The Highway Account receives the remaining portion of the fuel tax proceeds.
How are the Taxes Collected?
Most excise taxes credited to the trust fund are not collected directly by the federal government from the consumer. They are, instead, paid to the Internal Revenue Service by the producer or importer of the taxable product (except for the tax on trucks and trailers, which is paid by the retailer, and for the heavy vehicle use tax, which is paid by the heavy vehicle owner.). Hence, the 18.3-cent federal gasoline tax and the 24.3-cent diesel tax included in the price at the pump are, in effect, a reimbursement to the producers and distributors for taxes they have already paid. "

This is the link to the Federal site where more up to date info may be found.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

To: Osogrande.
Amtrak Carried 25 Million People last Year, Amtrak is not Dead at all. If Congress gave Amtrak money like the Highway and Airlines 35 Billion for Highways and 15 Billion for Airlines this Year 2005. Amtrak would be in Great Shape. [:)][:D]

Congress does not "give" 35 billion to highways. The Federal government takes money from highway users and redistributes it. The federal highway budget is 100% user fee financed. Most of the highway user fees are spent on highways but some goes to other modes including rail.

However, a subsidy for one mode does not justify a subsidy for another mode. If it did perhaps we should subsidize roller skates.[:o)]

If something is user fee supported, shouldn't it be able to make it as a free enterprise?

What of all the fed gas tax collected on gas that is not burned on fed highways? Is that truly a "user fee"?

Isn't the gas tax just a tax like my property tax?

Should there be a relationship of some sort between where tax is collected and where it's spent?

WWI was paid for with an income tax - what's the relationship?

Where I live, a sales tax is used to build new schools. A property tax is used to pay teachers. A lottery is used to pay for colleges. I don't see any relationship between source and sink in any of these.

I just want to get the most for what I pay in taxes. Which hand Uncle Sam uses to collect it and which pocket he stores it in matter not a bit to me.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

To: Osogrande.
Amtrak Carried 25 Million People last Year, Amtrak is not Dead at all. If Congress gave Amtrak money like the Highway and Airlines 35 Billion for Highways and 15 Billion for Airlines this Year 2005. Amtrak would be in Great Shape. [:)][:D]

Congress does not "give" 35 billion to highways. The Federal government takes money from highway users and redistributes it. The federal highway budget is 100% user fee financed. Most of the highway user fees are spent on highways but some goes to other modes including rail.

However, a subsidy for one mode does not justify a subsidy for another mode. If it did perhaps we should subsidize roller skates.[:o)]

No, but you might be able to make a case for bike and cart paths......

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

US Congress should take 5 cent out of the Federal Gas Tax to help amtrak out, I think the federal tax is 24 or 25 cent Now or give amtrak 10 or 20 cent of the gas taxes?[8D]

Over 15% (FIFTEEN) of the Federal Gas Tax (user fee) is allocated to the Mass Transit portion of the Highway Trust Fund. Because there are other user fee that go into the Trust Fund, overall the Mass Transit account gets about 5% of the money paid by motorists (5.1% in 1995 for instance) While the Mass Transit Account is not limied to rail, a substantial portion of it is allocated to rail.

In my opinion, this is good policy. Building mass transit is often more cost effective than building additional urban interstate lanes. It still is a mystery to me why urban interstates get an 80% Federal match while transit only gets 50% match.

[Anonymous]

It's the same stupid decision taken by menem in Argentina during the 1990's: the consequences were the massive closing of nearby all the industries related with the railways and the shops of passenger equipment, lost of the job for thousands of specialized workers, de-population of small towns who relyed heavily in railways for communication with the rest of the country.
Province-owned passenger trains were underfinancied, so their services were slow, scarce and unpleasant, not competence for the bus.
Today, the Argentine Goverment wants to run again interprovince trains, but hasn't the money and the once proud railway industry not longer exists, so as today the few intercity trains that runs are very, very few, and for the near future the Goverment is searching for second-hand passenger materiel around the world!
I hope this didn't happen to you.
From Buenos Aires, The Greekest

[Modelcar]

....Don't forget cuts in education.

[Anonymous]

Well, we've seen our gov't. asking for another $68 Billion for Iraq and Afgahanistan (<--- spell check please). Anyways, that would have been about 68 years of funding for Amtrak. Never a hesitation to find funds to go elsewhere, but, inside of our home country, we see: program cuts, social security questions, health care, and so on and so on.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

To: Osogrande.
Amtrak Carried 25 Million People last Year, Amtrak is not Dead at all. If Congress gave Amtrak money like the Highway and Airlines 35 Billion for Highways and 15 Billion for Airlines this Year 2005. Amtrak would be in Great Shape. [:)][:D]

Perhaps Amtrak would be in great shape if it carried as many passengers (or passenger miles) as the airlines, busses, or cars on highways.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by osogrande

If Amtrak carried 250 million passengers a year, it would still loose MONEY. The railroads that Amtrak has rights over, the Transportation Unions and the Bureaucrats would see to it. Well run companies don't loose money and when they do, they cut off loosing operations. How many times have you ridden Amtrak and how far? Don't let your "love" for trains cloud the facts! Amtrak (and light rail and commuter systems) is a looser and will always be one!

Union trainmen get $22,000 plus in benefits and start at roughly $45,000 an year. Simply mutiply number of employees times labor cost, add equipement, fuel and "rights" cost, etc.; then subtract fares paid and you get losses.

Fares will never cover the costs!

Operation costs are normal. There are alot of businesses with high paying jobs and yet they still manage to turn up a giant profit. Amtrak in theory should have been able to start to reduce the need of its own government funding if the government wasn't their sole investor. I like government own enterprises; I don't like butt-backwards irresponsible government own ones. CN and Ontario Hydro are examples of governments not doing their job right and screwing it up for its employees and the public (or customers) it serves.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

To: Osogrande.
Amtrak Carried 25 Million People last Year, Amtrak is not Dead at all. If Congress gave Amtrak money like the Highway and Airlines 35 Billion for Highways and 15 Billion for Airlines this Year 2005. Amtrak would be in Great Shape. [:)][:D]

Congress does not "give" 35 billion to highways. The Federal government takes money from highway users and redistributes it. The federal highway budget is 100% user fee financed. Most of the highway user fees are spent on highways but some goes to other modes including rail.

However, a subsidy for one mode does not justify a subsidy for another mode. If it did perhaps we should subsidize roller skates.[:o)]

[Anonymous]

If Amtrak carried 250 million passengers a year, it would still loose MONEY. The railroads that Amtrak has rights over, the Transportation Unions and the Bureaucrats would see to it. Well run companies don't loose money and when they do, they cut off loosing operations. How many times have you ridden Amtrak and how far? Don't let your "love" for trains cloud the facts! Amtrak (and light rail and commuter systems) is a looser and will always be one!

Union trainmen get $22,000 plus in benefits and start at roughly $45,000 an year. Simply mutiply number of employees times labor cost, add equipement, fuel and "rights" cost, etc.; then subtract fares paid and you get losses.

Fares will never cover the costs!

[conrailman]

To: Osogrande.
Amtrak Carried 25 Million People last Year, Amtrak is not Dead at all. If Congress gave Amtrak money like the Highway and Airlines 35 Billion for Highways and 15 Billion for Airlines this Year 2005. Amtrak would be in Great Shape. [:)][:D]

[Anonymous]

Let AMTRAK die! The American people voted out passenger service in this country in the 1920's. When the car became affordable to the average family, they started leaving the trains. The American people also rejected trains for planes when fares became "cheap" and time of travel time became "important". Passenger trains survived only by carrying the U.S. Mail. When mail went to planes and trucks, the trains died.

If AMTRAK was free, the majority would still not ride it. AMTRAK's first class service is too expensive for most people and coach class service is poor at best. AMTRAK is a welfare program for railroads and railroaders whom can not do anything else. If passenger trains could make money, there would be a rush of companies to get into the business.

Now, all of that said, I believe we should treat ALL forms of transportation equally. Lets take taxpayers money out of airlines (they get it in terminals, FAA services, etc.), highways (everyone knows this one) and water transportation (locks, dams, dredging, etc.). Why water transportation? Move bulk freight back to railroads and let those profits be used to offset passenger losses, if railroads ever chose to run passenger trains again. None of these things will ever happen, as long as politicians play trainmen. Ask any of them when the last rode a train that was not for a photo op?

Lets scrap AMTRAk and let the local taxpayer fund local light rail (until they figure out its real cost). The days of long-haul passenger trains are dead, may they rest in peace or in the pages of Trains.

[BNSFGP38]

You guys crack me up. Here your are talking about goverment subsidies and Amtrak fiscal funding on Valentines day. Go romance your wives instead of the keyboard!


And yes I realize the irony of me posting this today, gotta do something when she is in the shower.[:D]

[Anonymous]

We need to truly come together to support our railroads. If we all began to "use" Amtrak as our first or second mode of transportation we would then be able to demand, through our increased usage, a better quality product. If it is welded rails and improved beds, or easier access to the product, we need to urge many people to use the product. And, of course, write [in mass numbers] our Congressmen/Reperesentatives and demand immediate help to this cause. Imagine being able to drive to a train station, walk a few feet from the parking garage to the train, and be at another major city [within 500 miles] in the time it took just to wait to board an airplane. Sell the ability to walk around, the view, the fact you can load your car, and take it with you and have transpotation once you get there instead of havng to rent a car or be picked up....
We need support for our freight handlers. Express to the American public the joy of the train for freight handling, it would relieve our major interstates of the overwhelming truck traffic. The ATA [truck lobby] sells the convenience of the trucker and his freight, when in actuality, for the long haul you cannot compare it to the amount of freight the train can handle. How many trucks would it take to move a large amount of freight from Miami to the Northwest? Talk in terms of fuel costs and consumption. There are many ways we can win this battle to get a better AMTRAK. One thing that comes to mind, is to return to privatize it, or allow competition against it to raise the bar/quality of the service. Someone made a point earlier that was a great point, if we need to move mass, and for some reason a 9-11 type event occurs and theplanes are grounded,then what. we're screwed!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by motor

QUOTE: Now, I don't know about potential stops in between Allentown and Philly, but is about sixty miles distance so we'll say it takes an hour to get to Philly.

You need to borrow Mr. Peabody's Waybac machine to do this. [:D] SEPTA trains come no closer to Allentown than Lansdale, which is about halfway between Allentown and Philly, per http://www.septa.org/maps/click_map.html . Service north of Lansdale was discontinued in the summer of 1981. It actually had gone up to Bethlehem which is next to Allentown.

Conrail had extended the service to Allentown in the late 70s but it only lasted a few years.

[Anonymous]

I am sure the A-380 will be an engineering tour de force and all possible energy will be brought forward to achieve nearly perfect reliability. But near-perfect is not perfect. The risk that is being taken by the manufacturer and purchasers of these very large aircraft seems like a reverse-lottery -- while the chances of disaster are very small, the penalty would be very high. It will be interesting to see how the public reacts if one of these with a full passenger load falls from the sky. Who knows -- the public might just shrug. But if they don't, a sizeable investment could be wiped out. That's not a risk I'd undertake with equanimity. Considering that the net profit of the entire airline business to date is $0.00, I guess either the A-380 buyers fatalistically think they have nothing more to lose, or else we're getting more insight into why the profit to date is $0.00.

What was the source for the airport expenditures to accommodate the A-380? I'd be interested in reading the full discussion.

OS

[CG9602]

The amount of misinformation regardinging Amtrak, in this thread, from certain Elected Representatives, and from the media, is amazing. What people choose to believe or ignore is also mind boggling as well. A few points need reitieration:

1. Passenger rail is a money LOSER everywhere. If it weren't, UP, CSX, etc. would still be in the business. I.e. we cannot have intercity passenger rail without some source of external financing to cover these losses.

2. Long distance passenger trains through rural areas are not lightly patronized. They are significant generators of passenger miles and passenger revenue. Many outperform short-haul corridor services. As a matter of fact, trains generate business BECAUSE of the stops along each route. Trains stop along each route to embark and disembark passengers. This is different than aircraft, because aircraft and air routes are designed with the end of each route being the sole generator of business. This is a crucial factor.

3. One can espouse preference for reliance upon free enterprises as opposed to state-owned operations. However, one cannot advocate this for transportation without acknowledge government's - and government policy's - role in establishing modal preferences. In other words, both highway and air transportation benefit from public subsidies. No airline has built any airports and no trucker has built its own highways.

Railroads, which own their right-of-way are at a competitive disadvantage, as a result. Not only must they maintain their track, but they must oay taxes on it. The high costs drove them out of the passenger business and the weakened state of their infrastructure creates additional costs for Amtrak.

4. There may be better ways to organize the U.S. intercity passenger system. Creating a separate entity to manage and maintain the NEC might make sense if it means Amtrak can concentrate on train operations. Competition could bring benefits in terms of service innovations and managing operations - i.e. a better or more efficient product.

No matter what happens, we have to have some sort of long term dedicated funding. That's right, something like a Trust Fund - or some other source of funding. The current set-up is poor, and allows for all of the shenanigans like what we are expereinceing right now.

[Modelcar]

...Very well stated...Did anyone see the hour long program on the design and building of the A-380 Air Bus plane Sunday evening...It was presented on the Discovery channel. What a bulk of an airplane and If I heard it correctly in one configuration it would have a capacity of 800 and some passengers...! Seems to be a questionable risk to put that many passengers in the air in one machine...and the money involved in all aspects of it are mind bogging...

[passengerfan]

Reading an article in the local paper this AM as to the costs to bring U.S. airports up to standards for the new A-380 Airbus that is due to begin operating next year. The planes 261 foot wingspan alone precludes it from all but three or four airports in the US and its weight of 1.2 million pounds eliminates operation from many other airports. Only San Francisco International is equipped to handle the new plane, and it has the new terminal building for it. But when landing or taking off the airport can only use one runway at a time and some of the taxiways will have to be shut down for the new planes to get to and fropm the runway. At the very most maybe six A-380 planes a day will use SFO and the costs associated with the new planes are estimated at 6 Billion just to bring a few Airports up to standards to accomodate the new 555 passenger planes. Those Airports are Chicago O'Hare, New Yorks JFK, Atlanta's Hartsfield, Miami International, SFO and Los Angeles International. For those airports that will be designated emergency fields for the new plane and their are few interested the costs will never be justified. And who is going to pay for maybe twelve planes a day to land in the US the hard pressed American taxpayer. If the total passenger load in and out per day is only going to be 13, 320 then where is the justification for the new airport expansions. Now if the taxpayers want to get their monies worth put 6 billion into capital improvements for Amtrak and watch the return on investment. Amtrak certainly carries more than 13, 320 passengers daily and the money would be far better spent in turning passengers away from the beloved Interstate that in many places is fast becoming a paved parking lot with daily gridlock for miles in almost every direction around many American cities.

[Modelcar]

....So I wonder why it continues to be so difficult to fund our system each time of the year when budget time rolls around. Several Presidents tried to stop it and now especially this current one thinks he is actually going to get it done this time....

[Anonymous]

Polizi: Yes, including dozens of them in the U.S. They are mostly categorized as tourist railroads; short lines looking for cash flow; companies that do not expect the passenger train to contribute to its share of track costs, capital costs, and overhead; and companies where the passenger train serves something such as a public-relations purpose or another purpose where the benefits are something other than pure contribution to profit.

But a large system that totally sits on its own without any significant government subsidy in any form? No. They all get one, in some form or another, and it's usually immense. Most people in most countries don't care -- I include the U.S. in that -- because they perceive the value they receive to outweigh the demand on their tax bill it creates.

OS

[Anonymous]

Thanks OS I needed some clarity on that, But here is another question is there any Railroad offering passenger service in the world that makes money and is not using government subsidies?

[Anonymous]

Polizi:

In the simplest possible terms: NO.

The railroads "not wanting" to run passenger trains was because the losses were inevitably driving them into bankruptcy. Amtrak was formed to keep the railroads from going bankrupt and ending all service, passenger AND freight. The legal requirements a railroad had to operate passenger trains ended for most railroads on May 1, 1971. For four others it ended by 1983 or earlier. For commuter trains it ended in the 1970s for all roads. If Amtrak was shut down tomorrow the requirement would not revert. If the government were to try to force the issue anyway, it would essentially mean tearing up the U.S. Constitution.

OS

[Anonymous]

Ok correct me if I am wrong here but, was not Amtrak basicly formed because the Railroads didnt want to perform passenger service any longer. I believe the government made this happen for them. So is it not possible that if the government allows Amtrak to (worse case) go under wouldnt that old agreement mean that the Railroads would have to pick up passenger service again? I do not think with the political clout that the Railroad has they would let this happen. Do you?

[PNWRMNM]

Junction,

You are confusing me. I thought you were a socialist. That being true you should desire outrageous government expenditures for any purpose, especially American Govt which you do not have to pay for but I do. What is happening to you??

Mac

[Junctionfan]

Personally I think the government should go out of business and the properties be liquidated. Government is becoming a financial joke at taxpayer's expense. The government hasn't made any smart financial growth or investment as of late. For business owners out there, don't you wish you could be just as financially irresponsible and get away with it as they do?

[Anonymous]

You hit the nail on the head. There aren't enough sleepers, Superliners or Viewliners..... They are usually booked at least a month in advance..... I'm tired of hearing that the big o US government doesn't have the ca***o double their Amtrak's sleeper fleet..... And the diners and the cafe cars on the east coast are so old, not to mention their dome and coach cars........you wonder how the Viewliner sleepers were built......

But why stop there? Frankly, all of Amtrak's fleet of cars is obsolete compared to European standards......the only exception being the Acela fleet of cars.......but then again, the tracks of the NEC aren't up to speed.......

THE PROBLEM WITH AMTRAK IS ITS LACK OF CAPITAL FUNDING! Damaged much needed cars not being repaired, the roadbed allowed to fall into disrepair, and a complete failure to maintain the speeds necessary to double, triple, or ten fold its load capacity...... ITS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE IN BUSINESS IF ONE DOESN'T GROW SIGNIFICANTLY, YOU DIE!

[passengerfan]

I penned a diatribe in the Classic trains forum that should have been here. I am that person who complained about the amtrak reservation system it stinks to put it mildly. Especially if one is handicapped.

I do not enjoy flying as a regular airline seat for someone confined to a wheelchair is most uncomfortable for anything over about 1-1/2 hours. First class is better but still not enjoyable for anything over about two or three hours at the maximum.

The Superliner Sleepers are all equipped with one handicapped room per car and I am unable to reserve this very expensive space even five months in advance it is always sold out that far in advance. It's either sold out or the Amtrak reservations people are saying that to discourage riders. I understand they can get more for the space by selling it to a family than they can a couple who one being handicapped need the space for any long distance travel.

I am seriously considering bringing a lawsuit against Amtrak for violating the ADA act. I can't believe that all space in July is sold out on the Coast Starlight this far in advance. And if it is all sold out the problem with Amtrak is they should be running two twenty car Superliner equipped Coast Starlights every twelve hours to meet the demand for space.

But better yet I will bring suit against Amtrak to expose the poor treatment of those American's that are confined to wheelchairs. I have never looked for any special treatment just what they advertise as being available for the handicapped.

I have to admit that the airlines I have travelled on have done an excellent job of getting me from point A to point B, but I would like to make the trip part of the vacation and a bus is certainly out of the question. Amtrak is completely ignoring the handicapped or at least that is the impression I am left with. And yes I will be contacting lawyers just as soon as monday gets here.

[Anonymous]

[quote.
We could list industry after industry where the beloved freight rail industry has lost out market share to trucks.
Why? Trucks are a lot faster. Plus most shippers don't want the extraordinary longer transit times provided by freight rail.

[motor]

QUOTE: Now, I don't know about potential stops in between Allentown and Philly, but is about sixty miles distance so we'll say it takes an hour to get to Philly.

You need to borrow Mr. Peabody's Waybac machine to do this. [:D] SEPTA trains come no closer to Allentown than Lansdale, which is about halfway between Allentown and Philly, per http://www.septa.org/maps/click_map.html . Service north of Lansdale was discontinued in the summer of 1981. It actually had gone up to Bethlehem which is next to Allentown.

QUOTE: Unless everyone got attacked with a case of the stupids

I imagine that's what happened to SEPTA back then.

You can read about this if you can find a copy of Trains, Trolleys & Transit: A Guide to Philadelphia Area Rail Transit by Gerry Williams. The story of Bethlehem-Philly service on RDG/SEPTA is on page 83 thereof. According to Williams's book, the fastest Bethlehem-Philly train took 90 minutes to cover the 57 miles.

At the same time SEPTA ended trains to Bethlehem, it killed off service to Reading, cutting that line back to Norristown. Twenty-five years ago I took a train from Reading to Philly, a distance similar to Bethlehem to Philly. It took 2 hours (30 minutes longer than scheduled). The Reading-Philly trains actually originated in Pottsville.

There is talk from time to time of taking the Norristown-to-Reading ROW and making it a light rail line called the Schuylkill Valley Line. I don't know the status of the project right now. As for the stations that were abandoned, the one in Royersford (about midway between Reading and Philly) still stands, all boarded up. As for the Pottstown (not to be confused with Pottsville) station, when I drove by there in 1996, it had become a bank IIRC. And the Valley Forge station, when I saw it in 1997, had become some kind of equipment shed (it's near Washington's headquarters in Valley Forge NHP).

motor

[DSchmitt]

The Highway subsidy Myth.

Direct user fees pay for only 60% of the road system. However the Federal share of the cost for Highways is 100% user fee.

States pay their share with 80% user fees (including what they get from the Federal government.).

Local roads are only 26% user fee (including what they get from the Feds and State) While the local streets and roads are not paid for by user fees, they are paid for by the people who use/and or benefit them.

<Until well after 1900, farmers in many parts of the country paid all or part of their property tax by building and maintaing the county road system. There were few autos to pay user fees but the roads were still needed.>

<Streets in the cities also pre-exist the auto and the the highway user fees.>

<In California new local roads are built by developers at theit expence. Upgrades to existing roads are often done by developers or paid for by developer fees. Some Highway (including Freeway) upgrades are paid for by developers too. This of course increases the developers cost, which they hope to recoup from customers, but it releaves the taxpayer of some of the direct costs for the road system.>

States and locals use some highway user fee revenue for non-highway puropses. They also use other revenue for highway purposes so the overall picture is very complicated

Taking all this into account, the highway subsidy is no where near 40%. It may even be in reality non-exsistent since Highway user fees are also used for non-highway purposes.

[CG9602]

What?! I don't want to subsidize somebody else private flights. If they want to fly, let them pay the full cost of the airport facilities. I say, lets privatize all transport in the US, then we'll see who the real bargain is. I've written this before, and I'll write it now: Privatize all of the Federal highways & Interstates. Get rid of the Federal portion of the gas tax and the Federal highway trust fund. Privatize all of the airports and the ATC system - no municipal airports ! - and get rid of the Airline trust fund. Then let's see how much transport really costs.

[Anonymous]

Yes, and hopefully our Congressmen won't let us down in this fight when it comes to some of these proprosed crucial cuts.

[Modelcar]

...I have heard the words "cut Amtrak" budget only once in the media since this word was brought to light on here by you {BRF}....Almost seems they, the government, is trying to keep it low key but now that the budget is out today we'll hear a bunch more and other programs as well....One being veterans benefits and others as well. This will be a fight to be remembered.

[daveklepper]

Again, take a look at the effective subsidies for private plane owners and the numbers of people involved. You may be shocked!

[Anonymous]

Well, Bush's $2.57 trillion budget was released today. In a CNN article it does mention cuts for Amtrak, but no figures on it that I've seen yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/bush.budget.ap/index.html

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garr

Keep in mind Amtrak's size in relation to the total amount of intercity travel in the US. Amtrak's share is less than 1% of the total. Amtrak was dealt a bad hand when created and it has not gotten much better since 1971. It has basically been the "train set under the Christmas tree" for most of our Congressmen.
Jay

I actually agree on this: actions have consequences.

Imagine if airlines BY LAW were ordered to have ONLY ONE FLIGHT out of major terminals a day, or flights to only certain areas.
Or if the highway system was developed only as a skeletal system with few choices for most of the traveling public. Most people live outside of the existing rail corridors.
There would be a lot less air and highway travel.

Amtrak hasn't really been given the funding to compete effectively. If you only get crumbs in terms of funding, you can't expect it to increase its routes (offerings to the public) and see larger market share.

Amtrak is constantly attacked from hostile lawmakers and so-called experts who only want to destroy the system. "Amtrak reform" is code for gutting trains.

I like how our hypocritical lawmakers willl lash-out at Amtrak for its low market share yet they'll interfere with it so it can't possibly grow.

Examples:

Years ago an appropriations bill would have added needed Superliners and Viewliners. Sen. McCain, the so-called free-market advocate, stepped in and stripped the bill of that language. Think how such equipment would have helped Amtrak today if Congress hadn't interfered.

Amtrak's often told to be profitable, yet the feds under Carter, Reagan, Clinton and others have ordered the system to cut routes. We lost CHI-Florida, CHI-OKLA-HOU , DEN-SEA, DEN-VEGAS-LA and many other solid trains.
Those trains weren't cut by Amtrak. They were cut by the feds who wanted to save money.

Government meddling and inaction has hurt passenger rail.

[Junctionfan]

Don't get me wrong sir, I agree that long distance travel isn't faster than planes but it isn't supposed to be anymore. I don't think the Canadian (Toronto to Vancouver in 3 days) is better than a Westjet or Air Canada flight for quickness.

People would take the train more for leisure if it was more convienient. The Canadian has been as long as 40 cars and only 2 bagage cars. We make a good amount of profit off of that really long "tourism train".

Empire Builder, Southwest Chief, Palmeretto, Silver Star and so much more; are examples of various types of tourist trains. The Cascades and NEC are the only real commuter/ on-time performance trains. There is alot of money to be made in tourism though and so it should be marketed as such.

Do you agree that a Zoo isn't always profitable but still necessary to keep? If so why is that? Like a library, a statue, a piece of history is worth keeping. What better way to preserve the history of American rail travel than to keep the old Santa Fe, Northern Pacific, Seaboard et al routes and attract internal and external revenues and marketing. Maybe for some reason, a large billionaire comes into the U.S to ride an Amtrak and is so impressed with the service, he decides to invest in the economy and builds up a large business employing hundreds of Americans. Now that of course is an off-the-wall possibility but not really. Business people take clients out for lunch and generally kiss their butt all the time. Amtrak is lunch for the world. The Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore, Yellowstone Park, Grand Canyon and many other things that make America America, is really a big butt kiss to attract economic growth and maintain American moral; why should Amtrak not be included in as such?

Look at Canada, do you really think CN built that big tower with an observation deck just to transmit radio waves. Radio towers don't need restaurants and souvenir shops.

[Anonymous]

Our states are different than your provinces. At least their supposed to be. The federal government got way too powerful, but that's a different subject.

You can come up with all sorts of schemes and plans, but two things will always remain: Long distance rail travel is 1) unflexible and 2) time consuming.

Let's use your Allentown to Chicago idea.

Now, I don't know about potential stops in between Allentown and Philly, but is about sixty miles distance so we'll say it takes an hour to get to Philly. Unless everyone got attacked with a case of the stupids, they'll have to schedule things so that the Allentown-Philly train arrives with plenty of time for it to be late into Philly but still give the passengers enough time to get to their train. Let's say half an hour. So the trip is now running 90 minutes long.

We leave Philadelphia on schedule at, say, 3:00PM heading for Pittsburgh. Nothing delays us and we arrive there at 10:10 PM. It has now been eight hours, forty minutes since we departed Allentown. Twenty minutes later, the train leaves Pittsburgh. After running all night, we arrive in Chicago at 7:45 the next morning. Our total travel time is 18 hours, 45 minutes, not including the small amount of time spent getting to the Allentown station and from the Chicago station to where-ever you're staying..

Let's drive the same distance: From Allentown, you get on I-476 and take that for 40 miles. Then you get on I-80. 689 miles later, you're in Chicago. 11 hours give or take 30 minutes (its 10.6 hours at 65 mph the whole way).

If I want to trust my fate to someone else, USAirways can depart from the airport in Allentown fly aboard one of (at least) ten flights a day to Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, or (for some reason) Charlotte, North Carolina (I guess this is why they're bankrupt) to change planes for the bigger leg to Chicago. Assuming everything goes on time, which it won't becuase its USAirways, and I take the flight that takes me completely out of my way to North Carolina, I can be in Chicago in five hours. The much more sane Allentown-PIttsburgh-Chicago flight is only three hours fifteen minutes.

Driving it is stupid. It takes too long and would require either a stop to sleep or a second driver. But its flexibility can't be beat. I can depart from anywhere at any time and even choose my route on the fly. Plus I don't have to worry about renting a car when I get to my destination. Taking the train is nice because you don't have to worry about actually doing anything and you can eat and sleep while still traveling. Except that if you only want to go to Chicago for a few days or are only going there for business, you're looking at dedicating FOUR DAYS to it.

Let's suppose there was a show of some kind Saturday night in Chicago that you wanted to see and it was the only US performance. You'd have to depart on Friday afternoon, arrive Saturday morning, go to the show, leave sunday morning, and arrive sometime on Monday morning at home. Driving wouldn't be much better, but at least you'd get home on sunday night. Or you could fly out Saturday morning, go to the show, stay over night, and be back in Allentown before noon on Sunday.

Also, I didn't like when I took the train home once that when I got home, I didn't have my car and couldn't do anything because we don't have mass transit out in the country and never will because it doesn't work out there.

[Junctionfan]

We have Provinces too. Provinces and Federal Government pay for GO which is a Toronto based commuter services which extends all the way now to Barrie, near Oshawa, Hamilton and other parts of Ontario. The federal government pitches in because it is in the best interest to make Toronto (our largest city) prosperous as it will attract more business and more people to the city therefore increasing the amount of taxes the government can collect.

Toronto's economy is good if people can get to their work quick and avoid the gridlock on the roads.

Now maybe it doesn't quite work for you but say if I live in Allentown,PA and want to take a train to say Chicago. If I take a commuter train (Amtrak maybe) to get to Philadelphia and it allows a connection to the Chicago bound train, the train is useful now. Another example. If there is commuter train service that runs say a few RDCs between Erie, PA to Buffalo and I want to take the Lakeshore Limited to Chicago, I can take that to Buffalo Depew and then wait for the Lakeshore Limited to get to Chicago. You go when you want and don't have to wait too long in the process.

Passenger (cross corridor) and commuter trains often work very well together if it is co-ordinated that way. In Ontario, the Niagara to Toronto train stops at Toronto Union where it turns into the Toronto to Ottawa train in a half hour. We couple onto the Toronto to Montreal train which I believe was a Windsor to Toronto train before. That is efficient. It cuts down on money to lease time on running trains on the busy CN line and is works well for a crew change too. Things like that reduces VIA's inefficient uses of money and so we keep it.

Amtrak should have tried something like that. An other example, if a few Amtrak trains do some commuting with a few cars, the few trains can merge into a long train that can turn into a Philadelphia to Chicago train. Just like a few locals classified at a marshalling yard becomes a large freight train.

There are a number of ways to make something efficient and cost reducing if not profit making without getting rid of something right away. As far as not wanting to spend money in California, well that is up to your conscience if you don't want to not help out your fellow Americans to help the country as a whole prosper, there is nothing I can really say to get you to think about the big picture.

[garr]

ohlemeier,

Packages were picked up at the depot by customers when there was a passenger train network that allowed REA to provide that service. One of the reasons REA went bankrupt was because of all the train-offs during the 1960's. I recommend reading "Ten Turtles to Tucumcari" for great inside stories on the REA from its heyday to its end.

A large number of these type packages are still shipped by rail. Look at the hottest intermodal train on any of the class ones. You will normally see UPS, Schneider, and other LTL carriers' trailers on these trains. And to top it off, UPS and the truckers save the customer a trip to the depot since the package is brought to the customer's door.

Amtrak has tried the package business. I have posters from the late '70s or early '80s advertising this service. Also, this business was promoted heavily in the late '90s/early '00s. It was promoted so successfully, some Amtrak trains began to remind me of the Georgia Railroad mixed trains I rode as a teenager in the 1970's. But after review, the profit was not there. Passengers were inconvienced. The service was cancelled.

The ExpressTrak service, which hauls produce/fruits, is only being operated because of a nonexpired contract. If memory serves me right, approximately a year ago, "Trains" had a sidebar story about the legal wranglings over this contract.

Like I have said in a number of my posts on this thread, I love to ride Amtrak and see its trains go by. But, my neighbors, friends, and total strangers, who don't use Amtrak, shouldn't be funding Amtrak's operating deficits thru their federal tax dollars. Find a way for the users to pay, then let the passenger trains roll.

As far as the freight railroads are concerned, I am not aware of any large federal government subsidies being paid to them. (If you consider tax breaks or incentives subsidies, then every taxpayer in the US is receiving a subsidy since we all take a standard deduction or have Schedule A deductions.) I would like to see them do well, and, if you have been keeping up with the monthly reports on the "Trains newswire", it looks like '04 was a record year. Since they are not dipping into the federal government's, thus taxpayers', pockets, I see no reason to bring them into this argument.

Jay

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

US Congress should take 5 cent out of the Federal Gas Tax to help amtrak out, I think the federal tax is 24 or 25 cent Now or give amtrak 10 or 20 cent of the gas taxes?[8D]

Over 15% (FIFTEEN) of the Federal Gas Tax (user fee) is allocated to the Mass Transit portion of the Highway Trust Fund. Because there are other user fee that go into the Trust Fund, overall the Mass Transit account gets about 5% of the money paid by motorists (5.1% in 1995 for instance) While the Mass Transit Account is not limied to rail, a substantial portion of it is allocated to rail.

[DSchmitt]

While it is dated (this document is from Sept 2003) it is worth reading.

The Past and Future of US Passenger Rail Service.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4571&sequence=0

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by radivil

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Canada is rather distributed too. Not all of our population centres around southern Ontario and Quebec. VIA does have a great deal of passenger service concentrated on the Windsor Corridor route but there is also dense population in both West and East. There are a few trains that are centred in just those areas with a set going cross corridor (Ocean, Canadian). Most is targeted for tourism which is quite profitable to us.

But its all in one band across the southern border. The US is a series of belts and that prove most difficult to connect with inflexible or low service rail lines. You can't travel from the south half of my state to the north half by rail at all. And that's two seperate population belts.

QUOTE: The U.S is quite fortunate in that everywhere is potentially a great passenger service. You have the east (NEC already), the west (Cascades et al already), the south (Texas to Florida), the North (Boston to Chicago to Seatle) and Centreal.

And there's more than plenty of places outside those that don't need or can't justify passenger rail at a national level. The corridors are all good and fine for the people that live there. But why should I be helping to finance communter rails in California? That's the job of California's government.

QUOTE: The U.S has the greatest amount of major cities in the world as far as I know and so the commuter possibilities should be profitable enough. The U.S has great amount of scenery including the Rocky Mountains which our nations share. The tourism possibilities should be profitable enough.

Great for all those places. They should have to fund it themselves.

QUOTE: There is so much lucrative possibilities with Amtrak and not enough brains in the White House to see it.

The White House does not set policy. And if they were so lucrative, this situation wouldn't be happening in the first place..

PA is no more impassable than B.C. We have CP line and then the CN line; both are really busy with everything from unit commodities to intermodal. VIA and the Rocky Mountaineer manage to get access no problem.

PA is a little more easy to get around with CSX and NS. There is also routes of potential with the BLE, W&LE and other shortlines using former Conrail tracks. VIA runs a train on Goderich and Exeter line between Brampton and London, Ontario.

If you are an American and Californians are Americans and Amtrak is American own as it is an American transportation entity, of course you and other Americans should pay for it. VIA runs some trains that just stay in B.C or in Quebec. Do I complain? No. Why? Because it is owned by the people and it doesn't make a heck of alot of money so it might as well at least be convienient and get Canadians wherever they need to get to. It is not so much a money thing that a convient alternative to driving without taking bus that might get delayed on a busy highway or spend lots of money waiting for a slow and delaying Air Canada flight at Pearson Airport. It is much more convienient for me to take a train to Toronto than a Bus depending on where I'm going. The train doesn't get slowed from an accident on the highway which closes the highway down to two lanes from 6 or 8. I get to where I want with in an hour and not several plus if I need to use the bathroom, the LRC cars have decent ones. Who has bathrooms in their cars?[:D]

The lines through Pennsylvania, particularly the western half as that's what I know best, aren't designed for passenger train speeds. Going 35 mph isn't going to sell many tickets. "You mean it'll take me TWICE as long to get there?" Plus passenger rail died there before there was even an interstate system. There's nothing there because no one wants to use it. And hasn't for decades. There are few towns. Everyone lives all spread out in teh country. If I'm going to have to drive an hour to a station to get on a train to ride for three hours to get where I need to go and its only a two hour drive to begin with, why even bother with the train?

I don't want to pay for California because I live in Pennsylvania. We have states for a reason. If Philadelphia wants something, ok go for it. They're in my state. I know it sounds stupid, but that's the way I think. They're part of my local group. Its why we have states in teh first place.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by radivil

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Canada is rather distributed too. Not all of our population centres around southern Ontario and Quebec. VIA does have a great deal of passenger service concentrated on the Windsor Corridor route but there is also dense population in both West and East. There are a few trains that are centred in just those areas with a set going cross corridor (Ocean, Canadian). Most is targeted for tourism which is quite profitable to us.

But its all in one band across the southern border. The US is a series of belts and that prove most difficult to connect with inflexible or low service rail lines. You can't travel from the south half of my state to the north half by rail at all. And that's two seperate population belts.

QUOTE: The U.S is quite fortunate in that everywhere is potentially a great passenger service. You have the east (NEC already), the west (Cascades et al already), the south (Texas to Florida), the North (Boston to Chicago to Seatle) and Centreal.

And there's more than plenty of places outside those that don't need or can't justify passenger rail at a national level. The corridors are all good and fine for the people that live there. But why should I be helping to finance communter rails in California? That's the job of California's government.

QUOTE: The U.S has the greatest amount of major cities in the world as far as I know and so the commuter possibilities should be profitable enough. The U.S has great amount of scenery including the Rocky Mountains which our nations share. The tourism possibilities should be profitable enough.

Great for all those places. They should have to fund it themselves.

QUOTE: There is so much lucrative possibilities with Amtrak and not enough brains in the White House to see it.

The White House does not set policy. And if they were so lucrative, this situation wouldn't be happening in the first place..

PA is no more impassable than B.C. We have CP line and then the CN line; both are really busy with everything from unit commodities to intermodal. VIA and the Rocky Mountaineer manage to get access no problem.

PA is a little more easy to get around with CSX and NS. There is also routes of potential with the BLE, W&LE and other shortlines using former Conrail tracks. VIA runs a train on Goderich and Exeter line between Brampton and London, Ontario.

If you are an American and Californians are Americans and Amtrak is American own as it is an American transportation entity, of course you and other Americans should pay for it. VIA runs some trains that just stay in B.C or in Quebec. Do I complain? No. Why? Because it is owned by the people and it doesn't make a heck of alot of money so it might as well at least be convienient and get Canadians wherever they need to get to. It is not so much a money thing that a convient alternative to driving without taking bus that might get delayed on a busy highway or spend lots of money waiting for a slow and delaying Air Canada flight at Pearson Airport. It is much more convienient for me to take a train to Toronto than a Bus depending on where I'm going. The train doesn't get slowed from an accident on the highway which closes the highway down to two lanes from 6 or 8. I get to where I want with in an hour and not several plus if I need to use the bathroom, the LRC cars have decent ones. Who has bathrooms in their cars?[:D]

[conrailman]

US Congress should take 5 cent out of the Federal Gas Tax to help amtrak out, I think the federal tax is 24 or 25 cent Now or give amtrak 10 or 20 cent of the gas taxes?[8D]

[CG9602]

QUOTE: Originally posted by slotracer

I'm fine with Gov't subsisdy on highway and air, it needs to be due to it's natture, and teh fact PEOPLE WANT TO USE THEM. Othere than a tiny portion of the population, PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO RIDE PASSENGER Trais any longer.

Sure there are buffs of steam powered tractors, icebozes that use ice and not electicity and the amish love their horse and buggies, but these people are specail interest tiny fragments of the population.

Gov't subsidies for modes of transportation people want and are efficient in todays world is fine, gov';t subsidies to keep a model t afloat to keep a niche group of teary eyed nostolgia buffs is a waste.

I hate to inform some, but fo the most part, John Q Public moved away from rail passenger use en masse about a half century ago. It's over teh past is the past, care to wake up and smell teh coffee ?

I repeat what I have written in other threads: To a large extent, this apparent choice reflects a necessary response to pro-highway Federal policies. These policies have, for decades, encouraged State and local decisions that foster reliance upon the car. States are influenced in selection of transportation projects by the Federal funding available for these projects. States can get the federal gov't to foot around 80 % or so of the bill. There are no matching funds for rail or Amtrak. So, states recieve no incentive to develop intercity rail projects, in part because they would have to foot the entire bill themselves. The general publics' interest in more travel options in the marketplace is demonstrated by numerous polls (one poll conducted in June 21 - 23, 2002 comes to mind), as well as increases in ridership and Revenue Passenger Mileage over the past five years. IOW, it looks as though people want passenger rail, which contradicts your first assertion above. People moved away from one form because our elected officials rigged the system against rail, and then made auto travel appear cheaper, on an out-of-pocket basis, than it actually is.

Sources: "Twelve anti-transit myths," by Paul Weyrich and William S. Lind,
and also " Debunking Common Amtrak Myths," found here: http://www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=resources%2Ehtm
click on "More Resources."

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by slotracer

I'm fine with Gov't subsisdy on highway and air, it needs to be due to it's natture, and teh fact PEOPLE WANT TO USE THEM. Othere than a tiny portion of the population, PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO RIDE PASSENGER Trais any longer.

Sure there are buffs of steam powered tractors, icebozes that use ice and not electicity and the amish love their horse and buggies, but these people are specail interest tiny fragments of the population.

Gov't subsidies for modes of transportation people want and are efficient in todays world is fine, gov';t subsidies to keep a model t afloat to keep a niche group of teary eyed nostolgia buffs is a waste.

I hate to inform some, but fo the most part, John Q Public moved away from rail passenger use en masse about a half century ago. It's over teh past is the past, care to wake up and smell teh coffee ?

Great logic here. DISCRIMINATION.
Give special favors to certain groups over others. Makes sense right???

If passenger rail is going to take a beating by so-callled RAILFANS on this board, let's apply the same logic to freight RRs.

We'll ignore all the benefits the trucking industry gets by cheap use of the roadways. Claim those taxes are "user fees."

Anything we can do to give freight rail a black eye. We'll also do it in the name of being A RAILFAN.

Clearly, trucking has "outmoded" freight rail's purpose, since AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SHIPPERS prefer to use trucks. Itt's been that way for years.

We could list industry after industry where the beloved freight rail industry has lost out market share to trucks.
Why? Trucks are a lot faster. Plus most shippers don't want the extraordinary longer transit times provided by freight rail.

People used to go down to their depot and pick up packages shipped by rail. A teacher of mine told me he did that when I was in school in the mid-70s. How often do you get personal packages by rail now? Do I hear OUTMODED prejudiciously used here?

Look at fruits and vegetables. They used to go to these big-city terminals exlusively by rail. Anyone remember the banana boxes shipped by rail and iced lettuce? See all the overgrown tracks full of weeds or asphalt near produce terminals?
That's obviously a sign of failure. Outmoded, right???

*BTW, produce is making a comeback on rail, ironically, being pulled on the end of speedy Amtrak trains and on a few freights. The freight RRs apparently can't handle something as simple as produce. Or livestock. Or race horses (Seabiscuit showed this) Or thousands of other things.

Yet RAILFANS will curse Amtrak at the drop of the hat here and blame the giant for all ills afflicting the world...

HINT: passenger rail has been making a comeback in recent years. But don't tell that to RAILFANS. THey don't want to hear it. Doesn't fit with their prejudices.

Do I hold vitriolic feelings against the freight railroads? Certainly not.

But this is how it looks to this railfan. You can't be a railfan and hate trains. Period.

Besides, I think the freight RRs may have been one of the gunmen in the shooting of the passenger train in the back, along with governments. Per a famous 1959 Trains Magazine article.

[slotracer]

I'm fine with Gov't subsisdy on highway and air, it needs to be due to it's natture, and teh fact PEOPLE WANT TO USE THEM. Othere than a tiny portion of the population, PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO RIDE PASSENGER Trais any longer.

Sure there are buffs of steam powered tractors, icebozes that use ice and not electicity and the amish love their horse and buggies, but these people are specail interest tiny fragments of the population.

Gov't subsidies for modes of transportation people want and are efficient in todays world is fine, gov';t subsidies to keep a model t afloat to keep a niche group of teary eyed nostolgia buffs is a waste.

I hate to inform some, but fo the most part, John Q Public moved away from rail passenger use en masse about a half century ago. It's over teh past is the past, care to wake up and smell teh coffee ?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by slotracer

Nothing visionary here. It's 30 years overdue. Long haul passenger rail service was outmoded 40-50 years ago, Amtrack should have been tried for a few years in the 70's and if it succeeded at all fine, continue, but since it has been a miserable failure, it should have been cut decades ago. L

Miserable failure? By who? The idiots at the Heritage and Cato foundations? And other loud-mouthed critics who never lift a finger to IMPROVE rail service. All they ever do is take cheap shots at it.

Their solution has always been to cut funding or elminate trains. Makes a lot of sense to me: to improve a situation, you;ve got to kill it before it grows...

I guess this miserable failure won't last long, judged on passenger boardings.

If you didn't hear the news, AMTRAK HAD RECORD HISTORICAL RIDERSHIP this past year. Those 25 million people must be losers who don't know any better.

(I know and I'm ready to hear the nay-sayers blather on how that's not important and how it doesn't mean anything. One told me the facts don't matter. He wouldn't care if Amtrak increased its business by 100%. He was so prejudiced that no facts would change his mind. This so-called "railfan" hated Amtrak and would hear nothing that convinced him otherwise.

Just tell that BS to some business that had record sales. Doesn't mean a thing, right?)

Guess all those passengers that rode Amtrak this past year - and kept the LD trains full during peak seasons - should be herded into cramped airplanes or be forced to drive. Kind of like the backward-thinking president who supposedly wants to promote freedom overseas all the while restricting HIS OWN people's freedom of movement by offering them FEWER travel choices.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Cris Helt

If the Bush Administration actually does eliminate Amtrak's subsidy and Amtrak goes belly up, you can bet that the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys will somehow blame this on the Democrats. LOL! [;)]
That's the neo-cons for you.

Well put. I had to laugh when that talk-radio blowhard, NEAL BOORTZ, claimed he wasn't being subsidized when he - and few others - got a special ride on the famous Blue Angels jets that travel across the country and perform stunts at air shows.

Boortz claimed he didn't get a benefit - some callers apparently had criticized his hypocrisy 'cause he often rails against subsidies - and of course, gigantic Amtrak which is a threat to all known life on this planet <g>

Boortz claimed since the air show costs were privately financed, he didn't get subsidies. However, he conveniently ignored the costs of training for the pilots at the Air Force academcy (ANOTHER HIDDEN SUBSIDY GIVEN TO THE AIR INDUSTRY< SINCE IT HAS LONG PROVIDED TRAINING FOR PILOTS WHO LATER GO INTO PRIVATE AIR JOBS.

Amtrak service in ATLANTA - with its one train - is lousy. Likely due to politicians in that part of the woods who have long cursed Amtrak and all its so-called (by comparison) subsidies, and glorifying their beloved capitalism, all the while taking BILLIONS in fed funds for highway and airport construction and maintenance. So who's the real COMMIES there, the one bitching about Amtrak or the ones guzzling the billions of highway and air dollars?

What a bunch of hot-air from types like Boortz, Limbaugh, Hannity, Gingrich, McCain, Ishtook and now Mineta and Bush.

[garr]

Richard of the UK,

The first part of your post sounds like the US railroads in the 1970's. 1st came Amtrak in 1971, then Conrail in 1976, and finally deregulation in 1979-1980.

Amtrak was created to get the money losing passenger operations off the railroads backs. The freight railroads had lost a lot of precious capital needed to maintain and improve freight operations to this passenger subsidy. Imagine where trucking companies would be today if they had to buy gas and pay part of the purchase price for the driving publics' cars that share the highways with their trucks. (This is equivalent to what the railroads were doing.) This passenger train subsidy by the shareholder-owned railroads created an unfair operating environment for the railroads. In an unusual act of farsightedness, the government changed things before the entire US rail network started down the path to nationalization.

The infrastructure of the entire US railroad network was probably at its worst during this decade. Conrail was a needed government bailout of the Northeast's bankrupt railroads. Deregulation came along and Conrail's, as well as most of the other freight railroad's, fortunes improved.

All the Class One railroads in the US are shareholder owned. The vast majority of Amtrak's network is on these railroads. Even if Amtrak shuts down these routes will not disappear as long as there is freight to be hauled.

As you probably know, the US is a very large country in comparison to most European nations. It would virtually banktupt our federal government if TGV, Chunnel, or Bullet Train service was placed throughout the US. So "World's Best" is not going to be the adjectives to describe US passenger train service in my lifetime or probably anyone else's reading this forum.

Who benefits? The US taxpayer and world-wide investors. Cut the federal subsidy to Amtrak and the 1000's of other wasteful government programs and the US has a balanced or surplus budget (if the elected officials can keep from spending the savings elsewhere).

Keep in mind Amtrak's size in relation to the total amount of intercity travel in the US. Amtrak's share is less than 1% of the total. Amtrak was dealt a bad hand when created and it has not gotten much better since 1971. It has basically been the "train set under the Christmas tree" for most of our Congressmen.

Jay

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Well;....it's your country and you can do whatever the hell you want with it but hey......
you will be the only 1st class nation to not have a passenger train network.

Now that's pioneering progress.

The United States is the only 1st class nation (with or without a passenger train network.) [swg]

[CG9602]

QUOTE: Originally posted by slotracer

Long haul rail travel was relegated to the list of the obselete and outmoded when air travel became efficient and economical. Today rail service is spotty, unrelaible, ineffienct, slow and for the most part offers no cost savings vs air so why would anyone want to take it ?

Air travel become efficient and economical in large part due to the large financial incentives offered by the US federal governemtn in the form of bonds and a trust fund. The "choice" and development here reflect in large part a response to the generous Federal Matching funds (Fed picks up 80 % of the tab). One big reason there are nowhere near the number of passenger rail projects is that there never has been any federal matching funds for Amtrak! Not one single penny! Oh, no generous Trust Fund for passenger rail either. What would the Air industry in the US look like if they had to privatize and fully pay for the ATC and all of the (taxpayer-supported) municipal airports?

As for the statement that air travel is alwasy cheaper, anyone with a computer can look up & find a train fare that is much cheaper than air fare, or quite the opposite. It should be noted that the walk-up railfare is often much lower than walk-up airfare.

It should be pointed out that, unlike airlines, trains generate much of their business activity and traffic volume by making stops along the way to their endpoints. Trains generate business activity by picking passengers up at mid-points of a route, and then dropping them off at other route midpoints. Airlines, OTOH, generate business strictly from the endpoints of each route. These are two different things.

QUOTE: Long haul passenger trains were nice once, in a completely different world, but they, along with the horse and buggy, vacume tube television sets, rotary telephones and the sopwith camel are obsolete, there is no rational reason to waste millions on them in 2005

Some folks would look at the financial situation of several of the US airlines and say similar things - their finances don't look so hot either. Anyone read Delta's finances lately, or USAir's? What do you think those finances would be if every airline had to pay for its own airport & traffic control everyplace it served?

[CG9602]

Slotracer,
Any place there is a strong passenger rail presence, as in the NEC, NYC - Albany, the train dominates the airlines and offers a significant alternative to car travel. amtrak has handled as much as 50 % of all, repeat ALL, NYC - DC airline + rail traffic. This includes Newark/JFK/La Guardia & Reagan nat'l / Dulles airports, as well as Stamford, New Rochelle, NYC, Newark, Metropark, New Carollton, D.C., Alexandria, Manassas,
Woodbridge, and Fredricksburg. As travel volume increase in the future, and construction of new airports & highways becomes more and more impractical, the need for such services will only increase. In rural areas, where Amtrak's infrastructure costs are insignificant, passenger rail is often the only alternative to auto travel.

See also the following thread: http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=30167

The author of that post makes a few good points regarding the long-distance trains, specifically the ones like the Empire Builder. notice how some numbers suggest that there is demand, but not enough capacity to meet it.

See also the Midwest HSR link I posted in an earlier post.

[Anonymous]

Greetings.

From this side of the pond, what I read is somewhat familiar. After 1948 when we took over our rail networks our Goverment found out just how worn out they where. Much money later, we got an operational railway that went a bit faster than yours. Then we cut back on funding... more money to be made from car and fuel taxes thro the 80,s and 90's. Unlike our continental neihbours who invested continuiously.

New Goverment, new veiw. Rail important...speeches made. Only no one had bothered to cost how much it was going to cost to replace all the worn out assets from the first time round. Stock being 30- 50 yrs old.

So now we have a situation where to save wearing out assets we run smaller trains, slower speeds and less services. It saves money. Upgrades are in the main over buget and late.

Seems you are to make the same mistakes as us. You should be aiming for the worlds best. Is,nt that what Americans do? By all means look at cost effective options but for Gods sake don,t permit shutdowns .For once the route has gone, hell will freeze over for you get it back. Anyway who will gain from all this? Are you supposed to walk or reserect the wagon train?

Richard of the UK.

[slotracer]

Nothing visionary here. It's 30 years overdue. Long haul passenger rail service was outmoded 40-50 years ago, Amtrack should have been tried for a few years in the 70's and if it succeeded at all fine, continue, but since it has been a miserable failure, it should have been cut decades ago. Long haul rail travel was relegated to the list of the obselete and outmoded when air travel became efficient and economical. Today rail service is spotty, unrelaible, ineffienct, slow and for the most part offers no cost savings vs air so why would anyone want to take it ? Long haul passenger trains were nice once, in a completely different world, but they, along with the horse and buggy, vacume tube television sets, rotary telephones and the sopwith camel are obsolete, there is no rational reason to waste millions on them in 2005

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Canada is rather distributed too. Not all of our population centres around southern Ontario and Quebec. VIA does have a great deal of passenger service concentrated on the Windsor Corridor route but there is also dense population in both West and East. There are a few trains that are centred in just those areas with a set going cross corridor (Ocean, Canadian). Most is targeted for tourism which is quite profitable to us.

But its all in one band across the southern border. The US is a series of belts and that prove most difficult to connect with inflexible or low service rail lines. You can't travel from the south half of my state to the north half by rail at all. And that's two seperate population belts.

QUOTE: The U.S is quite fortunate in that everywhere is potentially a great passenger service. You have the east (NEC already), the west (Cascades et al already), the south (Texas to Florida), the North (Boston to Chicago to Seatle) and Centreal.

And there's more than plenty of places outside those that don't need or can't justify passenger rail at a national level. The corridors are all good and fine for the people that live there. But why should I be helping to finance communter rails in California? That's the job of California's government.

QUOTE: The U.S has the greatest amount of major cities in the world as far as I know and so the commuter possibilities should be profitable enough. The U.S has great amount of scenery including the Rocky Mountains which our nations share. The tourism possibilities should be profitable enough.

Great for all those places. They should have to fund it themselves.

QUOTE: There is so much lucrative possibilities with Amtrak and not enough brains in the White House to see it.

The White House does not set policy. And if they were so lucrative, this situation wouldn't be happening in the first place..

[Junctionfan]

Canada is rather distributed too. Not all of our population centres around southern Ontario and Quebec. VIA does have a great deal of passenger service concentrated on the Windsor Corridor route but there is also dense population in both West and East. There are a few trains that are centred in just those areas with a set going cross corridor (Ocean, Canadian). Most is targeted for tourism which is quite profitable to us.

The U.S is quite fortunate in that everywhere is potentially a great passenger service. You have the east (NEC already), the west (Cascades et al already), the south (Texas to Florida), the North (Boston to Chicago to Seatle) and Centreal.

The U.S has the greatest amount of major cities in the world as far as I know and so the commuter possibilities should be profitable enough. The U.S has great amount of scenery including the Rocky Mountains which our nations share. The tourism possibilities should be profitable enough.

There is so much lucrative possibilities with Amtrak and not enough brains in the White House to see it. If it can't fire bullets or shells, it's not worth the time to the U.S is pretty much the attitude of the Whitehouse right now. Since the majority of the people voted for the dummy, I can't really feel to sorry for them if they start to realize that their government has abandoned them in their time of need. That goes for anything to do with Amtrak.

I got an email from the democratic party as I was interested in the Kerry platform because it sounded remarkable in comparison to the N.D.P platform only with an American flavour. The Democratic Party had issues with his funding including the No Children left behind bill but unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done short of finding a legitamate grievance to empeach him.

Problem is, the people wanted Amtrak to go so well done to those who wanted it gone, your wish has come true. Democracy prevailed or Republican......whatever you call your government.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

you will be the only 1st class nation to not have a passenger train network.

We're also teh only first world nation with populaces so distributed.

[Junctionfan]

Well;....it's your country and you can do whatever the hell you want with it but hey......
you will be the only 1st class nation to not have a passenger train network.

Now that's pioneering progress.

[garr]

jeaton,

If I had the power, I would first freeze federal spending at the 2004 level for at least 3 years. There would be no adjustment up for inflation,except for Social Security (I'm 42 so this doesn't benefit me).

The first area to look at cutting would be the 1,000's of Pork Barrel projects Congressmen and Senators have put or want in place. Then the social programs. Then Defense and any other Constitutionally mandated programs.

If Amtrak could survive thru this process, let it be. But any serious look at reforming federal spending would surely eliminate Amtrak funding as it now stands.

Jay

[jeaton]

Let see. If $1.2 billion is the bench mark for limping along and $385 million is being offered, that is a reduction of $815 million or 68%. That is a really big item for DEFICIT REDUCTION!!! Going from $400 billion to $399.15 billion SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED!

Now, if we could get a 68% drop in the defense budget...

Jay

[Modelcar]

....A reliable rail passenger mode of transportation in this well to do country..{that seems to want to cure all other Ill's in the world}, doesn't seem too over the top to me to provide for it's citizens.

[CG9602]

One minor quibble with that, garr: Trains, planes, automobiles and busses have their profits or losses measured on a Revenue Passenger Mile basis, as the "per-passenger" metric has long been thought to produce unreliable and inaccurate numbers.

Amtrak could probably get away with raiseing some of their fares. In fact, I seem to recall an announcement that they did just that not two weeks ago. I couldn't tell you what the average fare paid was, though. All the while, Amtrak is on track to have one of their highest ridership years ever.

Here are a few links for the forum members' consideration:
http://www.unitedrail.org/documents/numbers.htm
http://www.unitedrail.org/documents/longdistancedemand.htm
http://www.unitedrail.org/news/200204braymer.html
http://www.unitedrail.org/pubs/corridors.htm
http://www.midwesthsr.org/promote_National.htm

Last but not least: http://www.midwesthsr.org/pdfs/MRR12n3.pdf

[garr]

ralphm,

If Amtrak is cut to the point where only the NE corridor remains, then the governments in that region of the country should cover any deficits for what is basically a commuter railroad. It's not a conservative vs. liberal issue to me. It just falls in line with my belief that the user should pay and the federal gov't shouldn't.

Jay

[garr]

CG9602,

Quick calculations using the raw numbers of an annual $1.2 billion subsidy needed for current operation levels and the latest annual passenger count of 24 million show a shortfall of $50.00 per ticket.

I don't know the average price paid for an Amtrak ticket, but it would probably be hard to charge a ticket tax or increased fare of $50.00 and not expect that 24 million ridership number to go down drastically. Otherwise, hopefully, Amtrak would have already raised the fare since it is such a deceivingly low deficit when "boiled down" to a per passenger basis.

Jay

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by garr

amtrak-tom,

By what is in the original story, the Northeast corridor doesn't seem to be in danger. This being the case, if what is proposed comes to be, most of the funding should be shifted form the federal gov't to states in that region.

Jay

The NEC runs thru 9 states (counting DC), 10 if you count the VA extenstion to Richmond as a functional part of the NEC. Do you have any idea how ridiculously hard it would be get all 9 to agree on a funding formula?

It's a big enough mess that Metro North controls the NEC from New Rocelle (Shell) to New Haven.

It would be similar to the toll road network that was building before the interstate system. You could go almost seamlessly from Boston to Chicago, but there were pieces that each state would never build because it wouldn't help them directly (like I-90 between the NY state line and Cleveland, for example)

I didn't read every posting here, and its only implied here, but I don't think that anyone brought up the question of what support will there be among the non-NEC members of Congress for funding even the $350M that Bush proposes for the NEC infrastructure. I don"t think Trent Lott or Kay B. Hutchenson will support the NEC when they kill the trains in their states.

This is a bone to the Neo-cons, and they will bark at it for weeks, but without a nationwide support system, there will be no support anywhere.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd


There three points of view one could take regarding highway funding:

One, interstate highways are regarded as an incremental investment on top of an existing network of local roads that would exists as-is with or without intercity highways

Another view would be that ALL roads should be lumped together.

A third would be a combination. WIthout interstates, auto dependency and sprawl would be much less, so much of local road infrastructure would never have needed to be built.

Perhaps,

An argument that has been going on for over 30 years that I know of is:

"Do we need to build highways because of sprawling development or do we have sprawling development because we built the highways?"

[CG9602]

DScmidtt, futuremodal, & oltmannd: I appreciate your providing some real "meat" (i.e., facts & figures supported by sources & documentation) to this discussion. Please continue to do so. It's refreshing to read statements which are supported by documentation.

However, I reiterate my posts regarding the Higways & Airports: let's see our Elected representatives privatize every last inch of these, and then we'll see just what things really cost. For many folks, flying or driving just seem cheaper due to that fact that the out-of-pocket costs don't seem like a whole lot.

Fellow members of the forums: If you don't want passenger Service to recieve a direct subsidy in its current form, how would you go about setting up a "Trust Fund," something along the lines of what the U.S. has for the highways & airports? Would it be possible to issue U.S. bonds to help capitalize this fund? What form would this Passenger Rail Trust Fund take?

How would you set up the "user fee" ? Would you bring back a ticket tax?

Would there be any sort of government matching funds?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

In 2001, 41 % of the U.S. $133 billion spent on highways came from payments other than the gas tax, toll, & vehicle registration fees. Much of that money came from general fund appropriations, bond issue proceeds, investment income, other taxes, and property taxes. While most of this is at the state & local levels, federal policy encourages this by offering generous funding matches for highway investments but NO match - none, zero - for intercity rail investments or intermediate-range rail corridor development. Funding from fuel taxes have been rising slower than program costs for 3 decades, as some elected officials have become more and more reluctant to raise the fuel taxes to offset inflation. One result of this is that the responsibility for raising the funds is being shifted to the local governments. Voter approved referendums, for the most part, aren't based upon user fees. (Source: "Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance," by Martin Wachs, Brookings Institue Series on Transportation Reform, April 2003).

Highways don't pay for themselves. The gas taxes don't cover the costs of the highways. Does the gas tax cover the cost of the related police and emergency services? Does the gas tax cover the cost of the snow plows in the northern climates? In the example that DSchmidt related above, are those roads maintained exclusively with private funding? Are the roads owned by a private, for-profit entity? While they may have been built with private funds, I think not. California has been mentioned in an above post. While that may be true, most other states don't have that sort of arrangement.

Your post sent me scurrying to the internet to check the 41% from other sources. I did not find the figures for 2003 but did find some for 1994/5 at

www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=320&sequence=7

Total Revenues (Federsl+State+Local):
In 1994 revenues used were 56.5% Highway user fees, 4.2% tolls (I consider this a user fee), 4.7% other (includes interest earned on Highway trust fund money), 7.7% misc (including Hwy Trust Fund reserves), 8% bonds, 31.3% other .

The 31.3% is definately not user fees. The others are indeterminate. It is noted that $4.3 billion in bonds were issued in 95 of which 82.4% were intended to be paid by user fees


Federal Financing:
The document states "Funding provided by the federal goverment for highways comes from taxes imposed on highway users. Those taxes flow into the federal Highway Trust Fund. From there, the goverment aportions funds to states according to complicated formulas ans subject to annual limits imposed in the Congressional appropriation process." .... "At the federal level highway users are the source of all revenues that go to finance highways" <Many posters seem to believe that the federal money is a subsidy. It is not. It comes from user fees>

State financing: 57.4% user fee, 25.7% FHWA (user fee) 7.8% general sources, 6.8% bonds, 2.3% other

Local financing: 5.3% user fees, 21.1% State highway user, 0.8% FHWA (highway user), 9.1% bonds, 63.7% other

The study also states that the trend is that user fees are pay ing a declining percentage of highway costs.


The individual states own the State and Interstate Highways. In 1995, they were 80+% financed with useer fees. The local roads owned by cities and counties were only 26% financed by user fee.

My conclusion: The claim of 41% non user may be fee justified. However, I do not believe that this justifies the claim that automobiles are subsidized by the government since most of the non-user fee money is spent on local road systems.

Well said!

What some pro-Amtrak folks try to muddy-up is the difference between the federal share of highway funding vs the state and local share.

It's hard to "muddy up" a pig sty!

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Has anyone taken a look at the subsidies for private aircraft? Remember that an Aircraft Controller uses as much energy and time on a small plane as on a large one. I suspect that if anyone does an in-depth analysis, you'll find that private aircraft are far more subsidized that Amtrak passsengers. Of course, this is not an "operating subsidy" unless one counts air traffic control as operations . Which it probably should be. We could link these two subsidies and say if one is cut so should the other, and if oen continues ot be funded, soshould the other. Possibly the total dollar amount is more signifigant too!

Private aircraft - sounds like subsidization of a hobby!

....and don't forget the military uses air traffic control, too! (and pays for it!)

[Modelcar]

....One bit of action I would like to see.....The moment and if it happens...that is, no money to operate and service Amtrak...I hope the same day Dave Gunn pulls the plug and shuts it ALL down...Including the NEC. Let someone else figure out how to pay the commitments under contract. Wonder who the blame would go to then.

[daveklepper]

Has anyone taken a look at the subsidies for private aircraft? Remember that an Aircraft Controller uses as much energy and time on a small plane as on a large one. I suspect that if anyone does an in-depth analysis, you'll find that private aircraft are far more subsidized that Amtrak passsengers. Of course, this is not an "operating subsidy" unless one counts air traffic control as operations . Which it probably should be. We could link these two subsidies and say if one is cut so should the other, and if oen continues ot be funded, soshould the other. Possibly the total dollar amount is more signifigant too!

[Anonymous]

If the Bush Administration actually does eliminate Amtrak's subsidy and Amtrak goes belly up, you can bet that the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys will somehow blame this on the Democrats. LOL! [;)]
That's the neo-cons for you.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

In 2001, 41 % of the U.S. $133 billion spent on highways came from payments other than the gas tax, toll, & vehicle registration fees. Much of that money came from general fund appropriations, bond issue proceeds, investment income, other taxes, and property taxes. While most of this is at the state & local levels, federal policy encourages this by offering generous funding matches for highway investments but NO match - none, zero - for intercity rail investments or intermediate-range rail corridor development. Funding from fuel taxes have been rising slower than program costs for 3 decades, as some elected officials have become more and more reluctant to raise the fuel taxes to offset inflation. One result of this is that the responsibility for raising the funds is being shifted to the local governments. Voter approved referendums, for the most part, aren't based upon user fees. (Source: "Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance," by Martin Wachs, Brookings Institue Series on Transportation Reform, April 2003).

Highways don't pay for themselves. The gas taxes don't cover the costs of the highways. Does the gas tax cover the cost of the related police and emergency services? Does the gas tax cover the cost of the snow plows in the northern climates? In the example that DSchmidt related above, are those roads maintained exclusively with private funding? Are the roads owned by a private, for-profit entity? While they may have been built with private funds, I think not. California has been mentioned in an above post. While that may be true, most other states don't have that sort of arrangement.

Your post sent me scurrying to the internet to check the 41% from other sources. I did not find the figures for 2003 but did find some for 1994/5 at

www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=320&sequence=7

Total Revenues (Federsl+State+Local):
In 1994 revenues used were 56.5% Highway user fees, 4.2% tolls (I consider this a user fee), 4.7% other (includes interest earned on Highway trust fund money), 7.7% misc (including Hwy Trust Fund reserves), 8% bonds, 31.3% other .

The 31.3% is definately not user fees. The others are indeterminate. It is noted that $4.3 billion in bonds were issued in 95 of which 82.4% were intended to be paid by user fees


Federal Financing:
The document states "Funding provided by the federal goverment for highways comes from taxes imposed on highway users. Those taxes flow into the federal Highway Trust Fund. From there, the goverment aportions funds to states according to complicated formulas ans subject to annual limits imposed in the Congressional appropriation process." .... "At the federal level highway users are the source of all revenues that go to finance highways" <Many posters seem to believe that the federal money is a subsidy. It is not. It comes from user fees>

State financing: 57.4% user fee, 25.7% FHWA (user fee) 7.8% general sources, 6.8% bonds, 2.3% other

Local financing: 5.3% user fees, 21.1% State highway user, 0.8% FHWA (highway user), 9.1% bonds, 63.7% other

The study also states that the trend is that user fees are pay ing a declining percentage of highway costs.


The individual states own the State and Interstate Highways. In 1995, they were 80+% financed with useer fees. The local roads owned by cities and counties were only 26% financed by user fee.

My conclusion: The claim of 41% non user may be fee justified. However, I do not believe that this justifies the claim that automobiles are subsidized by the government since most of the non-user fee money is spent on local road systems.

There three points of view one could take regarding highway funding:

One, interstate highways are regarded as an incremental investment on top of an existing network of local roads that would exists as-is with or without intercity highways

Another view would be that ALL roads should be lumped together.

A third would be a combination. WIthout interstates, auto dependency and sprawl would be much less, so much of local road infrastructure would never have needed to be built.

Perhaps,

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

In 2001, 41 % of the U.S. $133 billion spent on highways came from payments other than the gas tax, toll, & vehicle registration fees. Much of that money came from general fund appropriations, bond issue proceeds, investment income, other taxes, and property taxes. While most of this is at the state & local levels, federal policy encourages this by offering generous funding matches for highway investments but NO match - none, zero - for intercity rail investments or intermediate-range rail corridor development. Funding from fuel taxes have been rising slower than program costs for 3 decades, as some elected officials have become more and more reluctant to raise the fuel taxes to offset inflation. One result of this is that the responsibility for raising the funds is being shifted to the local governments. Voter approved referendums, for the most part, aren't based upon user fees. (Source: "Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance," by Martin Wachs, Brookings Institue Series on Transportation Reform, April 2003).

Highways don't pay for themselves. The gas taxes don't cover the costs of the highways. Does the gas tax cover the cost of the related police and emergency services? Does the gas tax cover the cost of the snow plows in the northern climates? In the example that DSchmidt related above, are those roads maintained exclusively with private funding? Are the roads owned by a private, for-profit entity? While they may have been built with private funds, I think not. California has been mentioned in an above post. While that may be true, most other states don't have that sort of arrangement.

Your post sent me scurrying to the internet to check the 41% from other sources. I did not find the figures for 2003 but did find some for 1994/5 at

www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=320&sequence=7

Total Revenues (Federsl+State+Local):
In 1994 revenues used were 56.5% Highway user fees, 4.2% tolls (I consider this a user fee), 4.7% other (includes interest earned on Highway trust fund money), 7.7% misc (including Hwy Trust Fund reserves), 8% bonds, 31.3% other .

The 31.3% is definately not user fees. The others are indeterminate. It is noted that $4.3 billion in bonds were issued in 95 of which 82.4% were intended to be paid by user fees


Federal Financing:
The document states "Funding provided by the federal goverment for highways comes from taxes imposed on highway users. Those taxes flow into the federal Highway Trust Fund. From there, the goverment aportions funds to states according to complicated formulas ans subject to annual limits imposed in the Congressional appropriation process." .... "At the federal level highway users are the source of all revenues that go to finance highways" <Many posters seem to believe that the federal money is a subsidy. It is not. It comes from user fees>

State financing: 57.4% user fee, 25.7% FHWA (user fee) 7.8% general sources, 6.8% bonds, 2.3% other

Local financing: 5.3% user fees, 21.1% State highway user, 0.8% FHWA (highway user), 9.1% bonds, 63.7% other

The study also states that the trend is that user fees are pay ing a declining percentage of highway costs.


The individual states own the State and Interstate Highways. In 1995, they were 80+% financed with useer fees. The local roads owned by cities and counties were only 26% financed by user fee.

My conclusion: The claim of 41% non user may be fee justified. However, I do not believe that this justifies the claim that automobiles are subsidized by the government since most of the non-user fee money is spent on local road systems.

Well said!

What some pro-Amtrak folks try to muddy-up is the difference between the federal share of highway funding vs the state and local share. Furthermore, it is appropriate to differentiate between spending on interstate and intrastate corridors vs spending on local and residential roads. If we focus only on the primary corridors, the federal share is almost wholey made up of user fees. The state and local share of corridor funding is more varied, some from user fees, some from bonds, some from federal EDC grants, etc. If the states opted to, they could just raise their share of corridor funding from user fees, but they choose not to for reasons that deal with their own funding principles.

Therefore, if we are going to compare Amtrak funding with interstate and intrastate movement of passengers on highways, it is irrefutable that federal highway passenger funding comes from user fees, while federal Amtrak funding comes from the big pot in DC. Now it looks as though the states are going to have to poney up for continued rail passenger operations, while federal aid will be limited to providing a portion of infrastructure funding. The latter will be hard to finagle, since most of the rail lines currently used by Amtrak are privately owned by the Class I oligarchy. The question then is will a federal agency keep the right of access to private rail lines for use by rail passenger service providers, or will that option also be eliminated?

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

In 2001, 41 % of the U.S. $133 billion spent on highways came from payments other than the gas tax, toll, & vehicle registration fees. Much of that money came from general fund appropriations, bond issue proceeds, investment income, other taxes, and property taxes. While most of this is at the state & local levels, federal policy encourages this by offering generous funding matches for highway investments but NO match - none, zero - for intercity rail investments or intermediate-range rail corridor development. Funding from fuel taxes have been rising slower than program costs for 3 decades, as some elected officials have become more and more reluctant to raise the fuel taxes to offset inflation. One result of this is that the responsibility for raising the funds is being shifted to the local governments. Voter approved referendums, for the most part, aren't based upon user fees. (Source: "Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance," by Martin Wachs, Brookings Institue Series on Transportation Reform, April 2003).

Highways don't pay for themselves. The gas taxes don't cover the costs of the highways. Does the gas tax cover the cost of the related police and emergency services? Does the gas tax cover the cost of the snow plows in the northern climates? In the example that DSchmidt related above, are those roads maintained exclusively with private funding? Are the roads owned by a private, for-profit entity? While they may have been built with private funds, I think not. California has been mentioned in an above post. While that may be true, most other states don't have that sort of arrangement.

Your post sent me scurrying to the internet to check the 41% from other sources. I did not find the figures for 2003 but did find some for 1994/5 at

www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=320&sequence=7

Total Revenues (Federsl+State+Local):
In 1994 revenues used were 56.5% Highway user fees, 4.2% tolls (I consider this a user fee), 4.7% other (includes interest earned on Highway trust fund money), 7.7% misc (including Hwy Trust Fund reserves), 8% bonds, 31.3% other .

The 31.3% is definately not user fees. The others are indeterminate. It is noted that $4.3 billion in bonds were issued in 95 of which 82.4% were intended to be paid by user fees


Federal Financing:
The document states "Funding provided by the federal goverment for highways comes from taxes imposed on highway users. Those taxes flow into the federal Highway Trust Fund. From there, the goverment aportions funds to states according to complicated formulas ans subject to annual limits imposed in the Congressional appropriation process." .... "At the federal level highway users are the source of all revenues that go to finance highways" <Many posters seem to believe that the federal money is a subsidy. It is not. It comes from user fees>

State financing: 57.4% user fee, 25.7% FHWA (user fee) 7.8% general sources, 6.8% bonds, 2.3% other

Local financing: 5.3% user fees, 21.1% State highway user, 0.8% FHWA (highway user), 9.1% bonds, 63.7% other

The study also states that the trend is that user fees are pay ing a declining percentage of highway costs.


The individual states own the State and Interstate Highways. In 1995, they were 80+% financed with useer fees. The local roads owned by cities and counties were only 26% financed by user fee.

My conclusion: The claim of 41% non user may be fee justified. However, I do not believe that this justifies the claim that automobiles are subsidized by the government since most of the non-user fee money is spent on local road systems.

[Anonymous]

In reference to the World trade Centre disaster, guess who carried congressional members to the site - Amtrak.

[daveklepper]

A subsidy is a subsidy. It is the subsidies in airports, in air traffic control, and in security that permit airlines to operate without operating subsidies. If Bush wants to drop Amtrak operating subsidies he should be FORCED by popular opinion to sell off airports to be charged with real estate taxes and all else like any private business, to make the air traffic control system self supporting, etc., etc. The peculiar nature of the railroad business means that subsidies that go to highway transportation and air transportation and water transportation that are NOT operating subsidies must be matched by operating subsidies for Amtrak if there is truly to be a fair and level playing field.

Also, even MIT's alumni magazine admits that we cannot burn oil at the present rate indefinitely, and the future is increased use of electricity from coal and nuclear power. No more meantion of that safety hazard and boon doggle fuel cells - Hydrogen.

The USA has to keep a going national railroad system going. Otherwise in the future it will have to be put back at far greater expense and with far greater turnoil in doing so.

Like the streetcar tracks on Howard Street Baltimore and Canal Street New Orleans that had to be put back some 40 years after they were removed.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

In 2001, 41 % of the U.S. $133 billion spent on highways came from payments other than the gas tax, toll, & vehicle registration fees. Much of that money came from general fund appropriations, bond issue proceeds, investment income, other taxes, and property taxes. While most of this is at the state & local levels, federal policy encourages this by offering generous funding matches for highway investments but NO match - none, zero - for intercity rail investments or intermediate-range rail corridor development. Funding from fuel taxes have been rising slower than program costs for 3 decades, as some elected officials have become more and more reluctant to raise the fuel taxes to offset inflation. One result of this is that the responsibility for raising the funds is being shifted to the local governments. Voter approved referendums, for the most part, aren't based upon user fees. (Source: "Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance," by Martin Wachs, Brookings Institue Series on Transportation Reform, April 2003).

Highways don't pay for themselves. The gas taxes don't cover the costs of the highways. Does the gas tax cover the cost of the related police and emergency services? Does the gas tax cover the cost of the snow plows in the northern climates? In the example that DSchmidt related above, are those roads maintained exclusively with private funding? Are the roads owned by a private, for-profit entity? While they may have been built with private funds, I think not. California has been mentioned in an above post. While that may be true, most other states don't have that sort of arrangement.

I wish I'd read your post before I wrote mine. Well put.[:)]

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garr

amtrak-tom,

By what is in the original story, the Northeast corridor doesn't seem to be in danger. This being the case, if what is proposed comes to be, most of the funding should be shifted form the federal gov't to states in that region.

Jay

The NEC runs thru 9 states (counting DC), 10 if you count the VA extenstion to Richmond as a functional part of the NEC. Do you have any idea how ridiculously hard it would be get all 9 to agree on a funding formula?

It's a big enough mess that Metro North controls the NEC from New Rocelle (Shell) to New Haven.

It would be similar to the toll road network that was building before the interstate system. You could go almost seamlessly from Boston to Chicago, but there were pieces that each state would never build because it wouldn't help them directly (like I-90 between the NY state line and Cleveland, for example)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

If Amtrak is cut, ALL transportation funding should be cut.Make the airlines maintain and operate the airports and the air traffic control system.

How about the $5 BILLION the administration GAVE the airlines after the WTC destruction? Just because the airlines were grounded for 3 whole days?

[Anonymous]

NightCrawler: thank you for your nice response, and, name calling.

garr: yes, the northeast states contributing has been brought up before, but, the states are asking "where do you expect us to come up with the money?" Seems all of the states are in a financial crisis.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

Highway users pay virtually 100% of their operating costs.
Transit users pay 20% of their operating costs.

At the federal level approximately 15% of the user fees paid to the Federal Highway Trust Fund by highway users is allocated to mass transit (which includes rail). Look at my post on page 2 of this topic regarding the Highway Trust Fund.

The State of California has highway user fee rates comparable to the federal rates. I have not checked on the % but California also allocates Highway fee money to mass transit but suspect it is at least as much as the Federal.

In California approximately 85% of highway infrastructure costs (including maintenance) are paid by Highway users through user fees (highway related taxes State and Federal).

In California land developers (based on the principal that they increase the need for highways) pay a substantial portion of the costs to build roads and highways that are not covered by user fees. The costs to build now local roads are virtually always borne by developers. I have even seen several freeway interchanges built by developers, and others built by local agencies that were primairly funded using fees paid by developers.

To me it doesn't look like the automobile is geting a free ride. They pay most of their costs and most of the transit riders cost too.

Looks like the tax on gasoline pays for about 2/3 of the HTF. A GAO report from years ago stated that heavy trucks do >90% of the wear and tear to the interstate highway system. So, it looks like the automobile as cross subsidizing truckers, too. (not to mention the extra cost of construction to accomodate trucks compared to autos)

I can understand paying for transit with the HRT since it is generally cheaper than laying more asphalt and concrete, but the imbalance between truck and auto contribution to the HRT is not defendable IMHO.

Also, quite a bit of the operating costs of the federal highway network is not covered by the HTF. Local feeder roads (which are paid for by local sales taxes here in GA) and police and fire come to mind - I'm sure there's more. Somewhere, I read a study that had the HTF contribution at 40-50% of the total highway construction and operatings costs. What was included and excluded, I can't remember.

I DON'T think Amtrak, in it's current form is defensible in terms of return on taxpayer dollars. But, I don't think that a reason to kill it. Amtrak has so many internal and external contraints placed on it, that it can't really succeed in any meaningful way. But, it has a constituency and is not along among gov't programs in not providing a good ROI, and Conrgress is apparently comfortable with the status quo, so that's what we get!

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the gov't looked at integrating highways, air and rail travel into a single network rather than each mode as it's own entity with it's own ends so that we could have the greatest possible mobility at the least possible overall cost to society - regardless of the source of the money.

[eolafan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garr

eolafan,

I think futuremodal was referring to the red state/blue state division of the US by the media in illustrating the election results. Red being Bush. Blue being Kerry.

Jay

[:I]OK, now I get it. Yes, paint my green stars blue (wasn't there a song title like that back in the Seventies?).

Oh, by the way, I am more ticked off than ever since last night when King Bush spoke of messing with my social security benefits (when I am ready at age 62).

[conrailman]

Well on tonight NBC news King Bush is giving 350 million Dollars to Israeli to help them rebuild from all the fight between them Two people. Give more aid away king Bush.[V][V][:(!]

[garr]

CG9602,

As stated by others in previous posts, the big difference between Amtrak subsidies and highway subsidies is that the federal gov't subsidizes not only Amtrak's infrastructure but also its operating deficit. Highway vehicle owners pay 100% of their operating expense. Airlines, except in the last 3 years, have usually covered there operating expenses. True, in both cases there are federal infrastructure subsidies, but Amtrak has always needed operating subsidies as well.

Jay

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

well... i don't know what to say...

He's the president, and was voted so.

[^]I can proudly say in response...I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM, EITHER TIME!

[#ditto] I did everything in my power to stop him too.

Keep in mind that Presidents have said a lot of things that have not come to pass. Why should this time be any different?

The White House only proposes policy, Congress spends the money. Of course this Congress is loaded with Bush "yes-men" like one of my Senators, Norm Coleman, and my Representative Mark Kennedy, both of whom I voted against at each opportunity.

Bottom line, if you feel strongly about this, write to your Congress person and Senator, but don't forget to send lots of money with your letter, it's the only way to get their attention anymore. [:0][B)][}:)][:(!][V][:(][xx(]

P.S. Here's a happy thought, mid term elections are less than 2 years away. Political advertising should begin resume, shortly. Have a nice day.[swg]

[CG9602]

In 2001, 41 % of the U.S. $133 billion spent on highways came from payments other than the gas tax, toll, & vehicle registration fees. Much of that money came from general fund appropriations, bond issue proceeds, investment income, other taxes, and property taxes. While most of this is at the state & local levels, federal policy encourages this by offering generous funding matches for highway investments but NO match - none, zero - for intercity rail investments or intermediate-range rail corridor development. Funding from fuel taxes have been rising slower than program costs for 3 decades, as some elected officials have become more and more reluctant to raise the fuel taxes to offset inflation. One result of this is that the responsibility for raising the funds is being shifted to the local governments. Voter approved referendums, for the most part, aren't based upon user fees. (Source: "Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance," by Martin Wachs, Brookings Institue Series on Transportation Reform, April 2003).

Highways don't pay for themselves. The gas taxes don't cover the costs of the highways. Does the gas tax cover the cost of the related police and emergency services? Does the gas tax cover the cost of the snow plows in the northern climates? In the example that DSchmidt related above, are those roads maintained exclusively with private funding? Are the roads owned by a private, for-profit entity? While they may have been built with private funds, I think not. California has been mentioned in an above post. While that may be true, most other states don't have that sort of arrangement.

[garr]

amtrak-tom,

By what is in the original story, the Northeast corridor doesn't seem to be in danger. This being the case, if what is proposed comes to be, most of the funding should be shifted form the federal gov't to states in that region.

Jay

[Anonymous]

why do all you sore loser left wing nutjobs always have to turn every Amtrak thread into a "lets bash bush" thread?

how hard is it for you to understand that every president has tried to cut amtrak? and if a democrat were in office, they would still be buying new helicopters an spending money to rebuild Iraq?

is it that hard to keep these threads on topic?

[Anonymous]

Well, I've said it here before----shut us down! I'll only focus on the northeast corridor, since I've heard it before "amtrak doesn't go through my state, la la la". I can't wait to see the traffic jam from Washington DC to Boston, MA when and if this happens. And, to see what effect all of those travelers, who now will have to take to the highways and burn more gasoline, will have on all the states in the U.S.A.

Amtrak was created by an act of Congress, but, was never funded properly to succeed, as is still the case. Maybe this time next year, we can all visit a museum to see an HHP-8 and the Acela High Speed Trainsets sitting on display, while those commuters who will now be driving burn up more gasoline and give the oil companies another "excuse" to jack up the price for a gallon of gasoline even more.

It has been already said that with so many of our American jobs going over to China, the Chinese are able to buy cars and now they're starting to put some strain on an already tight oil market. Oh....and lets not forget how many billions of $$$ has been slated to rebuild and improve the Iraqi Railroad system!!

Why is it the USA can come up with so much $$$$ for other countries, and easily cut the throats of their own?? Why is it Ok, and blessed by a gov't. tax incentive, to unemploy Americans by "exporting" American jobs??!!

[garr]

piouslion,

Don't yell--you're hurting my eyes!

Jay

[Anonymous]

HEY GUYS----(1) THE ELECTION IS OVER (2) POLITICS IS POLITICS (3) THIS WILL CHANGE AND (4) LET'S GIVE THIS ONE A REST

[garr]

eolafan,

I think futuremodal was referring to the red state/blue state division of the US by the media in illustrating the election results. Red being Bush. Blue being Kerry.

Jay

[eolafan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

well... i don't know what to say...

He's the president, and was voted so.

[^]I can proudly say in response...I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM, EITHER TIME!

You might ask Bergie if he can change the color of your three stars from green to blue[:(][:(][:(]!!!

Why, I am not "blue" as in sad, I am really happy that I was not one of those who voted for King Bush either of the two times he has run. I voted for Gore and Kerry. [:)][:D][:I][8)]

[mustanggt]

QUOTE: well... i don't know what to say...

He's the president, and was voted so

ditto. And on to AMTRAK. I don't care unless I have to pay taxes, which is about oh, 2010 or so[:D]

[garr]

Who one voted for in the last election is not that relevant in the overall picture. Neither of the '04 candidates were/are fiscally conservative. Regardless of who is in office, the day to pay the Piper is fast approaching. This day only changes by a few years regardless of which candidate was elected.

The projected cost of gov't social program spending along with the necessary Constitutionally mandated spending in the near future will make the Amtrak budget a mute point. The money will not be there.

We are only arguing the inevitable sooner than later.

Jay

[DSchmitt]

Highway users pay virtually 100% of their operating costs.
Transit users pay 20% of their operating costs.

At the federal level approximately 15% of the user fees paid to the Federal Highway Trust Fund by highway users is allocated to mass transit (which includes rail). Look at my post on page 2 of this topic regarding the Highway Trust Fund.

The State of California has highway user fee rates comparable to the federal rates. I have not checked on the % but California also allocates Highway fee money to mass transit but suspect it is at least as much as the Federal.

In California approximately 85% of highway infrastructure costs (including maintenance) are paid by Highway users through user fees (highway related taxes State and Federal).

In California land developers (based on the principal that they increase the need for highways) pay a substantial portion of the costs to build roads and highways that are not covered by user fees. The costs to build now local roads are virtually always borne by developers. I have even seen several freeway interchanges built by developers, and others built by local agencies that were primairly funded using fees paid by developers.

To me it doesn't look like the automobile is geting a free ride. They pay most of their costs and most of the transit riders cost too.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

well... i don't know what to say...

He's the president, and was voted so.

[^]I can proudly say in response...I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM, EITHER TIME!

You might ask Bergie if he can change the color of your three stars from green to blue[:(][:(][:(]!!!

[eolafan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

well... i don't know what to say...

He's the president, and was voted so.

[^]I can proudly say in response...I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM, EITHER TIME!

[garr]

conrail man and CG9602,

I am of the libertarian principles radivil mentions above. I believe the gas tax and ticket tax are probably the best and fairest ways to subsidize transportation, be it highways, airports, or passenger railways. This way the user pays his/her part of the infrastructure that he/she is using. If one drives a lot, he buys more gas and pays more taxes with each gallon purchased. Someone who doesn't drive, buys no gas and pays no direct taxes for the highways. However, if this nondriver buys a bus, train, or plane ticket or an item at the store, he pays a ticket tax or indirectly pays a gas tax in the price of goods bought at the store. With the gas and ticket tax, the federal/state/local governments don't have to set up a bureaucracy of toll takers--the suppliers/retailers send the collected money to the proper department of government.

The key here is that the user pays. Most of the cost is shifted from the federal taxpayer to the actual users of that infrastructure or service.

In turn, the Federal government has an obligation to use the "saved" taxes ($XX billion of user taxes on transportation vs. general fund taxes) as true spending cuts or tax cuts. Otherwise, the government is "spinning its wheels".

My earlier point was that the arguing between constituents about "he got his and I want mine" is what got the Federal Government into the current financial mess. This probably started with the earliest election process but has grown exponentially since and needs to stop.

Amtrak's subsidy is truly small potatoes vs. the overall federal budget ($1 Billion subsidy = roughly $8.00 per taxpayer). However, Amtrak, in its current form with <1% of intercity transportation, is not a vital link in the overall transportation equation. Add up the 1,000's of other small potato programs the federal government subsidizes like Amtrak, eliminate them all and real cost/tax savings will be realized.

If this came to be, the average taxpayer could use the money saved from lower taxes alone to buy a ticket on one of the privately operated rail cruises.

Jay

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

well... i don't know what to say...

He's the president, and was voted so.

Nothing can be truer said than this, Mr. Bush is the elected president of the USA fair and square. He is the president of all the people, even those that did not vote for him. Pierre Trudeau (not sure on the spelling) gave a lesson on this kind of thing a while back in 1977 when J.C. Carter was the U.S. President on a state visit to Canada. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The citizens of Montreal were booing and a few were spitting at him. Mr Trurdeau noticing this came to the podium and simply said, Come on you guys, he is a guest of ours and a neighbor. Show him that in Canada we are a class act even if we could not not vote for him or against him he is still our guest.------------------------------------------I'm a Republican but don't particularly like Bush, but he is the President of the U.S. and is owed the respect of our citizenship in what is our home. In all this folks remember that in less than 48 months he will be out of office and as important as J.C. Carter, Bill Clinton, Bush 41, and Ford on the current affairs of nations, states, businesses and yes railroads.

[Anonymous]

To everyone out there who voted for Bush, I can now ask why?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

I have an idea: Since these conservatives are all in favor of privatization, let's have them put the money where the mouth is.

You're confusing conservatism with libertarianism. And there are libertarians and such that do want to do just that.

[Modelcar]

.....BRF: I've been wondering the same thing....My problem tonight is we have a Pacer ball game I must keep close watch on too....So, if you hear a few words uttered on the subject tonight by the Prez...please note it on here so those of us that might miss it might pick up on it.....

[Anonymous]

well... i don't know what to say...

He's the president, and was voted so.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

I have an idea: Since these conservatives are all in favor of privatization, let's have them put the money where the mouth is. I suggest we privatize every last inch of the Interstates & Federal highways - every last inch!! get rid of the Gas Tax, and get rid of the Highway trust fund. All users would have to do is pay a toll (or, if you like, pay "rent," or a "one time user fee") to use the stretch of highway in question. Every inch of the highway would be required to turn a profit, or else be turned into nature preserve. The tolls would be paid for on an out-of-pocket basis. Would any members of the forum care to guess as to how much the tolls would be? After all, you can bet that the road owners would want to charge as much as the market will bear, and not just cover their costs.

Same with the airlines. If someone in your city wants air service, then let him or her build their own airport, and charge a user fee. Each airline would have to purchase ownership of a particular airport if the airline wanted to fly there. All airports will be private airports - no municipal ownership of airports allowed! Get rid of the Airline trust fund, and completely privatize every single last inch of the Air Traffic Control system. Same with the TSA nonsense - let the users pay the fully allocated cost of operation. Guess how much it would cost to fly around then? I'd be willing to bet that a train trip would look like a bargain in comparison.

As long as we are talking of having all forms of transport be self-sufficient, I say we get serious and eliminate the policies and practices that have stacked the deck against rail and towards other modes of transport. After all, the Federal government's role is merely to regulate interstate commerce, not rig the system in favor of certain modes over others.

Oh, yeah. While I'm on the topic, let's make certain that all barges must pay the full cost of those locks, dams and the dredging of the navigable waterways. That would involve the use of tolls. As long as I'm on this leveling of the playing field streak, I want to be thorough.

All forms of transport, not just Amtrak alone, should make a profit and cover their costs. if I don't use a particular stretch of raod, I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to support it. Let's see our Elected Representatives practice what they preach, and privatize every last inch of transport.

Unbridled Private Capitalism lives, just think of the taxes that will be raised from private owners to the coffers of state and federal governments that are paid for by the users of that service. The other side is to think of the increased savings to us the tax payer that will come from lower taxation due to taxes no longer so dependant on Federal Income Taxes. Another benefit is the dismissal of about one half of the state DOT "Officials that will no longer be needed but will find employment in the private sector and begin making respectable livings for a change.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan.

Good......
At least I know where my tax money "WON'T" be going!

[#ditto]

[DSchmitt]

There is a lot of misinformation about Federal Transportation spending, the quote below is from the following document. While out of date (1998) the charts in the document are interesting. Especially the chart showing where the money comes from.

www.fhwa.dot.gov/aap/PRIMER98.PDF


"What Is the Highway Trust Fund?
The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was created by the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 (Pub. L. 84-627), primarily to ensure a dependable source of financing for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and also as the source of funding for the remainder of the Federal-aid Highway Program. Prior to the creation of the HTF, federal financial assistance to support highway programs came from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. While federal motor fuel and motor vehicle taxes did exist before the creation of the HTF, the receipts were directed to the General Fund, and there was no relationship between the receipts from these taxes and federal funding for highways. The Highway Revenue Act authorized that revenues from certain highway-user taxes could be credited to the HTF to finance a greatly expanded highway program enacted in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. In the original Highway Revenue Act of 1956, the crediting of user taxes to the HTF was set to expire at the end of fiscal year 1972, but since then, legislation has been passed to extend the imposition of the taxes and their transfer to the HTF through September 30, 2005.
Like other federal trust funds, the HTF is a financing mechanism established by law to account for tax receipts that are collected by the federal government and are dedicated or "earmarked" for expenditure on special purposes. Originally, the HTF focused solely on highways, but later Congress determined that a portion of the revenues from highway-user taxes dedicated to the HTF should be used to fund transit needs, resulting in a 5 cent increase in the gas tax (to 9 cents), of which 1 cent would go towards transit, to help fund the new account. As a result, the Mass Transit Account was created within the HTF effective April 1, 1983. Although never formally described and named, the portion of the Highway Trust Fund outside the Mass Transit Account has come to be called the Highway Account and receives all HTF receipts not specifically designated for the Mass Transit Account.
How is the HTF funded?
Tax revenues directed to the HTF are derived from excise taxes on highway motor fuel and truck-related taxes on truck tires, sales of trucks and trailers, and heavy vehicle use. The Mass Transit Account receives a portion of the motor fuel taxes, usually 2.86 cents per gallon, as does the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, usually 0.1 cent per gallon. The General Fund receives 2.5 cents per gallon of the tax on gasohol and some other alcohol fuels plus an additional 0.6 cent per gallon for fuels that are at least 10 percent ethanol. The Highway Account receives the remaining portion of the fuel tax proceeds.
How are the Taxes Collected?
Most excise taxes credited to the trust fund are not collected directly by the federal government from the consumer. They are, instead, paid to the Internal Revenue Service by the producer or importer of the taxable product (except for the tax on trucks and trailers, which is paid by the retailer, and for the heavy vehicle use tax, which is paid by the heavy vehicle owner.). Hence, the 18.3-cent federal gasoline tax and the 24.3-cent diesel tax included in the price at the pump are, in effect, a reimbursement to the producers and distributors for taxes they have already paid. "

This is the link to the Federal site where more up to date info may be found.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Michael27

Why destroy the only alternative to flying there is in this country(and I don't include driving as an alternative to flying because americans do it every day). This seems like deja vu all over again from George bu***he elder's only term in office. Let the USA go down the drain just to build up another country. Amtrak, imho, is very vital to our country. What private passenger trains in the USA made money in the long term after WW2? I hope our Representatives and Senators do fight Bush on this proposal.

On that matter I'm pretty sure you will get your wish.[tup]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

I Think Bush need to be out of Office Now, and Each Gov. of each state up put up a big fight to bush and Congress Needs to put bush in his place Now. War is 200 plus billion now and we give aid to Russia and other country every year like 80 to 100 Billion. We can't help are our own people out first, but we give aid away like its candy to other country . [V][V]

----------------------[B)][alien][banghead][X-)][%-)][sigh][#dots][zzz]-------------

[Anonymous]

Good......
At least I know where my tax money "WON'T" be going!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rgemd

We can spend 200billion dollars to destroy and then rebuild a country half a world away, but no money for the train.

They do seem to have some skewed priorities, don't they?

But then, look beneath the surface.. By Spending that wadd in Iraq, what they are (in concept) doing, is to invest money into an industry that is very profitable (oil)..... And you can "tra-la-la-la-laa" all day about the hype and propaganda claimed by the administration of "The importance of installing freedom for the iraqi people",...it's all just bunk trying to invoke a 'cause celebre' when in fact this entire fiasco is little more than service to big oil, and the companies that will rebuild and refinance the "new Iraq"

Whereas, and this will no doubt be unpopular here,....the decision to pull the plug on Amtrak is probably the (fiscally and physically) wise one....

Amtrak is nice if you happen to either live as close to a Passenger station as you do to an airport, or if you happen to be a transportation nostalgist.....but the fact of the matter is, most Americans are neither.

I like trains... i'd like to think that "there will always be passenger rail as an option", but that desire is based as much by my passion for the hobby, as it is on anything else, and there simply is a time where you have to look at sacred cows with a fresh eye.

Passenger rail would never have caught on in the firstplace, had it not been profitable. Why expect the system to carry the burden, on behalf of a minority of nostalgists? If passenger rail can't carry it's own weight, that tells you something significant, no matter how painful that may be to face.

Too bad the "abandonment" and "farming out to short line" craze has not stimulated entreprenurial imagination in the "passenger rail" venue. It is remotely possible that the continued existance of Amtrak has served as an inhibitor to that incentive,...though I suspect raw economics serves the greater detriment.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Key quote in this article:

"Amtrak should be treated like any other form of transportation and funded like any other form of transportation. The other forms don't get operating subsidies."

Finally, someone has discerned the difference between highway funding, airport funding, and Amtrak funding: It's the operating subisidies. It is also interesting that the Administration will continue to fund NEC infrastructure. This is consistent with basic federal transportation policy, it is apropos to fund transport infrastructure, not transport services.

The question now is if the federal guaranteed right of a passenger service to access the private Class I rail network will also be eliminated, or if it will be retained for transfer to state, regional, or private rail passenger service providers. If the latter is the case, Amtrak will evolve into a federal regulatory body, with the power of transfering access rights of proprietary rail lines to other entities, just as I have suggested over the years. If it is the former, a golden opportunity to reintroduce the concept of private rail passenger services will be gone forever (or until open access is instituted, whichever comes first).

Needless to say, Truth Spoken here[^]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....And the article indicates: NEVER MADE MONEY.....Wow.....what a surprise. Count up the losses over time for the airlines and see how well they''ve done.

Your gift for speaking the obvious is a credit to your observation - Pious

[Anonymous]

I'm curious to see if Bush even mentions it in his State of the Union address this evening.

[Anonymous]

I feel that they should be able to stand up on their own feet and walk by now. And before you bring up the airlines I think the same thing about them. We all use the roads. We don't all use Amtrack

[espeefoamer]

If Amtrak is cut, ALL transportation funding should be cut.Make the airlines maintain and operate the airports and the air traffic control system.

[Modelcar]

....Looks like we have many on both sides of the fence....Amtrak has been struggling to maintain service since it was concieved 30 plus years ago and many billions of dollars have gone to try to present a system of ground transportation in this country....I for one think we have the resourses to do a better job than has been done and think that better job shoud be done and provide that good service....Better service and more will come....We seem to spend money like water in other parts of the world trying to "make their lives better"....so what's the big issue in not doing some of this for ourselves.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

I have an idea: Since these conservatives are all in favor of privatization....

.....Guess how much it would cost to fly around then? I'd be willing to bet that a train trip would look like a bargain in comparison.

As long as we are talking of having all forms of transport be self-sufficient, I say we get serious and eliminate the policies and practices that have stacked the deck against rail and towards other modes of transport. After all, the Federal government's role is merely to regulate interstate commerce, not rig the system in favor of certain modes over others.

Oh, yeah. While I'm on the topic, let's make certain that all barges must pay the full cost of those locks, dams and the dredging of the navigable waterways. That would involve the use of tolls. As long as I'm on this leveling of the playing field streak, I want to be thorough.

All forms of transport, not just Amtrak alone, should make a profit and cover their costs. if I don't use a particular stretch of raod, I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to support it. Let's see our Elected Representatives practice what they preach, and privatize every last inch of transport.

I certainly have no basic disagreement with your concepts. Privatize airports and air traffic control, make the interstate system toll roads -- good ideas.

But I will quible about the cost. I think net transport costs would go down, not up, under such concepts.

[conrailman]

We need to fight Now before it is too late. Tell your friends, Family, and people you work with to tell Congress we need Amtrak in U.S.[:)]

[CG9602]

I have an idea: Since these conservatives are all in favor of privatization, let's have them put the money where the mouth is. I suggest we privatize every last inch of the Interstates & Federal highways - every last inch!! Get rid of the Gas Tax, and get rid of the Highway trust fund. All users would have to do is pay a toll (or, if you like, pay "rent," or a "one time user fee") to use the stretch of highway in question. Every inch of the highway would be required to turn a profit, or else be turned into nature preserve. The tolls would be paid for on an out-of-pocket basis. Would any members of the forum care to guess as to how much the tolls would be? After all, you can bet that the road owners would want to charge as much as the market will bear, and not just cover their costs.

Same with the airlines. If someone in your city wants air service, then let him or her build their own airport, and charge a user fee. Each airline would have to purchase ownership of a particular airport if the airline wanted to fly there. All airports will be private airports - no municipal ownership of airports allowed! Get rid of the Airline trust fund, and completely privatize every single last inch of the Air Traffic Control system. Same with the TSA nonsense - let the users pay the fully allocated cost of operation. Guess how much it would cost to fly around then? I'd be willing to bet that a train trip would look like a bargain in comparison.

As long as we are talking of having all forms of transport be self-sufficient, I say we get serious and eliminate the policies and practices that have stacked the deck against rail and towards other modes of transport. After all, the Federal government's role is merely to regulate interstate commerce, not rig the system in favor of certain modes over others.

Oh, yeah. While I'm on the topic, let's make certain that all barges must pay the full cost of those locks, dams and the dredging of the navigable waterways. That would involve the use of tolls. As long as I'm on this leveling of the playing field streak, I want to be thorough.

All forms of transport, not just Amtrak alone, should make a profit and cover their costs. [Slightly facetious mode *ON]If I don't use a particular stretch of road, I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to support it.[/Slightly facetious mode *OFF] Let's see our Elected Representatives practice what they preach, and privatize every last inch of transport.

[bnsfkline]

thats Bush for you "Screw Americas Economy, We have to help others"

[tpatrick]

So if the administration differentiates between infrastructure and operating subsidies, here is a proposal: $zero for Amtrak ops and a fund, say $15 billion, for infrastructure improvements. Under this proposal, the govt. would build and maintain new track to 110 mph standards on any route a private railroad would be willing to provide passenger service. Said railroad would also be free to operate freight traffic on a not-to-interfere basis on the new rails. I chose $15 billion because, if memory serves me, that is about the amount spent digging a hole in the ground to benefit one part of one city (Boston) and also is proposed for the enhancement of one airport - Chicago's O'Hare. I think it is also about half our annual expenditure on highways.

Does anybody think CSX would be able to profit on New York - Chicago service on a new line that costs them nothing to build or maintain? Would it it offer their freight operations enough to be an attractive idea? Can you think of any route on which such a plan might succeed? Would any railroad be willing even to operate on the NEC if all they had to do was to provide the trains and run them (and of course provide support like ticketing and baggage handling etc. same as the airlines)?

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan



Having said that and while bracing for the obvious onslaught of c--p from others on the forum, I will also add that it seems like a real disconnect to me (and hopefully to others here) that we Mr. Bush is advocating cutting Amtrak subsidies while spending over one billion dollars for a fleet of new Presidential helicopters (what, we need to ride in old train cars and in old planes while the older helicopters are not good enough for you, King Bush).

OK, helicopters only last so long - then they need to be replaced.

But, it's arguments like the one above that convince me that there is no argument for continuing Federal operating subsidies for Amtrak.

"Well he's gettin' new helicopers" is like a child whining for his parents to be "fair" with some candy.

Amtrak funding has nothing to do with these helicopters, with the war in Iraq, with our rate of taxation, or with "How Much the Airplanes Get". It's got to do with wether such expenditurs are: 1) constitutional and, 2) worthwhile.

I don't see them as either. Let's leave the constitutional issue aside. Just what is the case for subsidizing Amtrak's operating expenses? I've never seen anyone make such a case. I'm waiting.

[conrailman]

Well Jay,
Cut the Highways and the Airlines fund too, This year Airlines are getting 15 Billion and Highway is getting 33 billion this year.

[oltmannd]

I don't see much evil in the reform council. It was chocked full of pro-passenger rail folk - Carmicheal, Weyrich, Coston,...and the NARP guy, whose name I forget.

I thought some of their proposals, like privatizing some operations, were not a very good idea, but I thought it could be used as a framework to actually get rail passenger investment going. Apparently, nobody in Congress is interested - they'd rather keep shelling out $1-2B a year for the status quo.

[garr]

I like riding Amtrak and watching its trains go by. However, the arguements for Amtrak are a perfect example of why we pay so much in taxes each year and the Federal Gov't gets larger each year. Everyone wants their favorite program to get funding because another similar or competing program is getting its funding. Multiply this by the 100's to 1,000's other similar funding proposals the federal gov't faces, and pretty soon you have a budget deficit.

Amtrak carrys, at the most, 1% of intercity travelers in the US. Would it be missed if its federal subsidy was cut? Yes, to those 1% of travelers and the 0.0009% of the general population that are railfans and the even smaller percent of the general population who work for Amtrak. But, in nearly all cases, no. The highways and airlines could easily absorb these travelers without a problem. Where a problem with this absorption exists, i.e. commuter operations, the local and state govenments should fund these operations with a small amount of federal money for infrastructure.

Some say save Amtrak for times of crisis such as post 9/11 or a fuel crisis. But Amtrak does not have the ability to quickly be a viable option in either case. The equipment, employees, capacity on contracting railroads, and other infrastructure is not there and would take years to acquire. Building and storing equipment for these emergencies is possible but prohibitively expensive and does nothing to address the capacity and staffing issues.

Keep Amtrak for my riding and viewing pleasure? I would like to say yes, however under current realities I would say no. The federal gov't needs to get smaller and focus on its true Constitional duties. I don't believe hauling people from point A to point B is one of these duties.

Jay

[Modelcar]

...You bet....The Reform Council's proposals are lurking at every turn this adminstration does looking at Amtrak. As proposed, it was turned down by people that know what has to happen to make it work but our adminstration is...damned, full speed ahead, get rid of this transportation mode....except when they want to clammer on one to ride to a campaign stop.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan

I know I am really going to catch alot of S---T here but here goes. Mark E,'s comments make me want to say just one thing in response..."God bless the unions for the situation he describes here". The unions had a real place back when they were formed and a little bit of value still comes from them today, but really, how much blood can they wring out of a stone before they put more companies out of business (which they have already done many times before)?. The company I work for employs over 800 people in WI factories while never having been unionized. The unions try and convince the workers every year that they need union protection and never, ever succeed. Why, because our associates are treated very well, paid well and are happy in their jobs...SO they don't need a union!

Having said that and while bracing for the obvious onslaught of c--p from others on the forum, I will also add that it seems like a real disconnect to me (and hopefully to others here) that we Mr. Bush is advocating cutting Amtrak subsidies while spending over one billion dollars for a fleet of new Presidential helicopters (what, we need to ride in old train cars and in old planes while the older helicopters are not good enough for you, King Bush).

OK, now you can sock me sqarely on the jaw. Fire away!

I wonder if the Reform Council's proposal to unbundle Amtrak didn't get at some of these issues indirectly (or directly, but unspoken!)

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
...as for FM, now I see that some kinds of subsidies are better than others? Operating subsidies are veboten, but hidden ones are OK, I suppose. If I have to spend $100/month on mortgage (capital) and $100/month on groceries (operations), and I only earn $100/month, I'd would be OK to subsidize my mortgage but not my groceries? What's the difference? $100 is $100!

...What the feds do is to support highways, waterways, and airports. e.g. infrastructure

....What the feds DONT do is to directly fund transporter services,

...Infrastructure historically does not do well under private ownership, thus the need for public funding,

...the U.S. rail network is kind of a freak of nature, and because of this private ROW ownership we have had rail retrenchment going on for nearly a century.

...there has been no retrenchment of any highways, waterways, or airports that I know of. I expect if other transportation ROW's were privately owned we also would have seen closures in those areas of infrastructure.

FM-

You need to dig a bit deeper and ask why these things are so. All of your statements are a result of value-based choices, not laws of physics. They are not reasons why things couldn't or should't be different.

Medicare is an example. Infrastructureless. Fully funded by gov't. Not paid for by user fees.

The government COULD have subsidized health care infrasturcture for seniors and let service providers use those facilities at a cut rate and funded this with a value-added tax on medical supplies.

I don't really care how gov't taxes me or what they call the tax. What I care about is how much they take, if the use aligns with my values and how efficiently they use it. Everything else is an artificial restraint.

If the ROI on investment in telecommuting is better than building new lanes on a highway, then let's subsidize telecommuting. If the ROI for building and opearting corridor trains is better than adding runways at the local airport, then spend let's run the trains. Which pocket Uncle Sam stuffed the tax (sales, payroll, capital gains, property, user fee, toll, donation, etc.) in is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan

I know I am really going to catch alot of S---T here but here goes. Mark E,'s comments make me want to say just one thing in response..."God bless the unions for the situation he describes here". The unions had a real place back when they were formed and a little bit of value still comes from them today, but really, how much blood can they wring out of a stone before they put more companies out of business (which they have already done many times before)?. The company I work for employs over 800 people in WI factories while never having been unionized. The unions try and convince the workers every year that they need union protection and never, ever succeed. Why, because our associates are treated very well, paid well and are happy in their jobs...SO they don't need a union!

Having said that and while bracing for the obvious onslaught of c--p from others on the forum, I will also add that it seems like a real disconnect to me (and hopefully to others here) that we Mr. Bush is advocating cutting Amtrak subsidies while spending over one billion dollars for a fleet of new Presidential helicopters (what, we need to ride in old train cars and in old planes while the older helicopters are not good enough for you, King Bush).

OK, now you can sock me sqarely on the jaw. Fire away!

Let me be the first to agree with you. I have seen many good company's relationships with their employees go right in to the dumpster when a union was brought in. Granted, in some isolated cases a union is still needed, but most of the time all the union does is create a "us vs them" atmosphere.

BTW, FYI: the war in Iraq is costing us $720,000 per MINUTE. To see how much it is costing your community, check out this site: http://costofwar.com/

[AntonioFP45]

It's funny, down here the Silver Service trains are full.

Amtrak has been threatened before. I'm skeptical as to this happening. It's the game of "If a states want Amtrak, they need to pay for it!"

Thos of you here that support Amtrak, contact your congressional rep. I intend to. Sitting quiet accomplishes zero. A large group leaves input, it does make a difference.

[eolafan]

I know I am really going to catch alot of S---T here but here goes. Mark E,'s comments make me want to say just one thing in response..."God bless the unions for the situation he describes here". The unions had a real place back when they were formed and a little bit of value still comes from them today, but really, how much blood can they wring out of a stone before they put more companies out of business (which they have already done many times before)?. The company I work for employs over 800 people in WI factories while never having been unionized. The unions try and convince the workers every year that they need union protection and never, ever succeed. Why, because our associates are treated very well, paid well and are happy in their jobs...SO they don't need a union!

Having said that and while bracing for the obvious onslaught of c--p from others on the forum, I will also add that it seems like a real disconnect to me (and hopefully to others here) that we Mr. Bush is advocating cutting Amtrak subsidies while spending over one billion dollars for a fleet of new Presidential helicopters (what, we need to ride in old train cars and in old planes while the older helicopters are not good enough for you, King Bush).

OK, now you can sock me sqarely on the jaw. Fire away!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n2cbo

I used to work Summers in Sunnyside yard back in the mid 70's when I was in college, and Let me tell you, I never saw so much WASTE in my life. I was a car inspector. Our work rules limited us to two cars/train and two trains/ day. My day began at 8:00 AM when We (the inspection crew) punched in. We then proceded to the diner on Queens Blvd. for breakfast. After about an hour, The Crescent came in for service (if it wasn't late out of Washington (it was always on time south of DC because Southern ran it there)). I inspected two cars, and if nothing was wrong, I was done until the Broadway came in about 1:00 PM. Once I went over two cars, I was done for the day unless there were problems that required repair or (God Forbid) shopping a car. So if nothing was wrong, I "Worked" a grand total of 45 minutes a day, but paid for 8 hours.

I don't know if any of this has changed (I left in 1998 when I finished College), but I can bet that there is still a lot of waste going on.

Look, I know that not ALL of AMTRAK runs like that, but maybe if it could work a little more efficiently, AND provide SOME G O O D Customer Service, It may even come close to breaking even on it's DIRECT operating costs.

I AM a supporter of AMTRAK, but it CAN'T just spend money like a drunken sailor either. (I am also MAD at how the Congress and the President are wasting our money elsewhere, after all it is OUR MONEY that is being wasted)


Mark E.

OOPS I should have typed that I left in 1978 when I finnished College (FAT FINGER)
It didn't take THAT long to do 4 years of school 8^)

Mark E

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
...as for FM, now I see that some kinds of subsidies are better than others? Operating subsidies are veboten, but hidden ones are OK, I suppose. If I have to spend $100/month on mortgage (capital) and $100/month on groceries (operations), and I only earn $100/month, I'd would be OK to subsidize my mortgage but not my groceries? What's the difference? $100 is $100!

Don,

The analogy is a bit off. What the feds do is to support highways, waterways, and airports. e.g. infrastructure through user fees and state/local discretionary spending, with additional moneys often coming from economic development grants and the like. What this does is to allow access by multiple service providers, mostly private, so that users of these pathways have options for transport. What the feds DONT do is to directly fund transporter services, which is why Amtrak has been such an anomoly of federal spending protocols. No AmAir, no AmShip, no AmBus, etc, but plenty of JFK's and I-5's.

Infrastructure historically does not do well under private ownership, thus the need for public funding, whereas service providers can and do do well as private entities competing with each other and via this competition improve the level of their services. In this vein, the U.S. rail network is kind of a freak of nature, and because of this private ROW ownership we have had rail retrenchment going on for nearly a century. Conversely, there has been no retrenchment of any highways, waterways, or airports that I know of. I expect if other transportation ROW's were privately owned we also would have seen closures in those areas of infrastructure.

What the Bush Administration is doing (I hope) is to take the feds out of the business of hauling people and instead engage in the practice of infrastructure upkeep whereby other service providers can utilize said infrastructure for the purpose of hauling the things Amtrak used to haul. With the current proprietary rail grid this is obviously difficult to do outside the NEC, so the next best thing is to maintain the rights of access currently used by Amtrak and hopefully transfer that right of access to state, regional, and private rail service providers, albeit limited to passenger services for the time being. I expect the Class I's will try and eliminate this access right if Amtrak transporting services are discontinued, so that is where the next big fight will occur.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n2cbo

I used to work Summers in Sunnyside yard back in the mid 70's when I was in college, and Let me tell you, I never saw so much WASTE in my life. I was a car inspector. Our work rules limited us to two cars/train and two trains/ day. My day began at 8:00 AM when We (the inspection crew) punched in. We then proceded to the diner on Queens Blvd. for breakfast. After about an hour, The Crescent came in for service (if it wasn't late out of Washington (it was always on time south of DC because Southern ran it there)). I inspected two cars, and if nothing was wrong, I was done until the Broadway came in about 1:00 PM. Once I went over two cars, I was done for the day unless there were problems that required repair or (God Forbid) shopping a car. So if nothing was wrong, I "Worked" a grand total of 45 minutes a day, but paid for 8 hours.

I don't know if any of this has changed (I left in 1998 when I finished College), but I can bet that there is still a lot of waste going on.

Look, I know that not ALL of AMTRAK runs like that, but maybe if it could work a little more efficiently, AND provide SOME G O O D Customer Service, It may even come close to breaking even on it's DIRECT operating costs.

I AM a supporter of AMTRAK, but it CAN'T just spend money like a drunken sailor either. (I am also MAD at how the Congress and the President are wasting our money elsewhere, after all it is OUR MONEY that is being wasted)


Mark E.

Why on earth would you leave a job like that? [:D]

It sounds like that isn't really the case anymore, in fact it sounds to me like the shop staff and car inspectors are spread fairly thin.

I do always wonder how so much money can be spent abroad, and yet the US is forced to cut back services for it's own citizens, the ones footing the bill none-the-less.

Oh well, it's not my Country, not my problem. [%-)]

[Anonymous]

I used to work Summers in Sunnyside yard back in the mid 70's when I was in college, and Let me tell you, I never saw so much WASTE in my life. I was a car inspector. Our work rules limited us to two cars/train and two trains/ day. My day began at 8:00 AM when We (the inspection crew) punched in. We then proceded to the diner on Queens Blvd. for breakfast. After about an hour, The Crescent came in for service (if it wasn't late out of Washington (it was always on time south of DC because Southern ran it there)). I inspected two cars, and if nothing was wrong, I was done until the Broadway came in about 1:00 PM. Once I went over two cars, I was done for the day unless there were problems that required repair or (God Forbid) shopping a car. So if nothing was wrong, I "Worked" a grand total of 45 minutes a day, but paid for 8 hours.

I don't know if any of this has changed (I left in 1978 when I finished College), but I can bet that there is still a lot of waste going on.

Look, I know that not ALL of AMTRAK runs like that, but maybe if it could work a little more efficiently, AND provide SOME G O O D Customer Service, It may even come close to breaking even on it's DIRECT operating costs.

I AM a supporter of AMTRAK, but it CAN'T just spend money like a drunken sailor either. (I am also MAD at how the Congress and the President are wasting our money elsewhere, after all it is OUR MONEY that is being wasted)


Mark E.

[jeaton]

oltmannd

I just took a survey of the dollars I have set aside for taxes. They are about 50-50 on the issue of capital vs. operations. I don't know...

Jay

[oltmannd]

$360M in the budget! That's just about the most ever included in a Republican Prez's budget. Nixon and Reagan usually had ZERO in their budget.

So, no real news.

Even when the Reps controlled the WH and Cong. before, Amtrak always got their money. Suspect more of the same now. In the end, Amtrak will get their $1B or so. ...and Amtrak will limp along for another year.

...as for FM, now I see that some kinds of subsidies are better than others? Operating subsidies are veboten, but hidden ones are OK, I suppose. If I have to spend $100/month on mortgage (capital) and $100/month on groceries (operations), and I only earn $100/month, I'd would be OK to subsidize my mortgage but not my groceries? What's the difference? $100 is $100!

[Anonymous]

Why destroy the only alternative to flying there is in this country(and I don't include driving as an alternative to flying because americans do it every day). This seems like deja vu all over again from George bu***he elder's only term in office. Let the USA go down the drain just to build up another country. Amtrak, imho, is very vital to our country. What private passenger trains in the USA made money in the long term after WW2? I hope our Representatives and Senators do fight Bush on this proposal.

[jokestre]

It is a sad state of affairs when the feds can waste our money 80b here 200b there, A highway here and there,a airport here and there. I have some dire feelings about the current administration and the road we are heading in. [:(!][V][xx(][:(] I would like to see some of our so-called Senators and Reps give Mr Bush a good fight on this issue.

[Modelcar]

....And the article indicates: NEVER MADE MONEY.....Wow.....what a surprise. Count up the losses over time for the airlines and see how well they''ve done.

[conrailman]

I Think Bush need to be out of Office Now, and Each Gov. of each state up put up a big fight to bush and Congress Needs to put bush in his place Now. War is 200 plus billion now and we give aid to Russia and other country every year like 80 to 100 Billion. We can't help are our own people out first, but we give aid away like its candy to other country . [V][V]

[Modelcar]

...Of course we don't yet know for sure if that will be the case...{not in the budget}, but it surprises me none at all if it comes to be true....! But I do still recognize we are spending our taxpayers money to rebuild the raiload in Iraq....Where is the justice....? Is something wrong here with this picture.....

[Anonymous]

We can spend 200billion dollars to destroy and then rebuild a country half a world away, but no money for the train.

[Anonymous]

Key quote in this article:

"Amtrak should be treated like any other form of transportation and funded like any other form of transportation. The other forms don't get operating subsidies."

Finally, someone has discerned the difference between highway funding, airport funding, and Amtrak funding: It's the operating subisidies. It is also interesting that the Administration will continue to fund NEC infrastructure. This is consistent with basic federal transportation policy, it is apropos to fund transport infrastructure, not transport services.

The question now is if the federal guaranteed right of a passenger service to access the private Class I rail network will also be eliminated, or if it will be retained for transfer to state, regional, or private rail passenger service providers. If the latter is the case, Amtrak will evolve into a federal regulatory body, with the power of transfering access rights of proprietary rail lines to other entities, just as I have suggested over the years. If it is the former, a golden opportunity to reintroduce the concept of private rail passenger services will be gone forever (or until open access is instituted, whichever comes first).