Bush Budget to Scrap Subsidy for Amtrak

[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]

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

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..

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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."

[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]

[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]

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[daveklepper]

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

[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.

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

[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.