Passenger Trains

[Modelcar]

Correction...."aisle".

[Anonymous]

Well, the freight railroads very nearly did lose their traffic 100% to trucks.... right now, they only survive on captive traffic that cannot be easily moved to truck, such as grain and coal, and on traffic that is hard won against trucking... by competition.

As for land grants.... one could argue this proves the point of a partially privatized system, with a private operator and a public financier... however, even so, not all railroads received these land grants. It should be noted that during the financial panic of 1893, every major rail player went bus- but one: James Hill's Great Northern, which had not taken a dime in grant or subsidy.......

[Anonymous]

Don,

You are proving everything I have been saying.

1) Make it private.
2) Build only after a study shows the ridership is there.
3) Consider it part of a regional system and fund it that way.

I imagine the DART organization will expand further in your area. I think that is great. I wish Roger luck out in LA as well.

I would like to go back and point out one thing from what you said. Y'all built that DTW system which covers 32ish miles (?) for two billion. An earlier post said we could build a national system for $200 billion. This just doesn't add up. That is another part of why I don't think it is realistic to commit government funds to a new HSR Amtrak system. I think the cost would be so much greater than the $200 billion that has been thrown out that you couldn't charge enough for the tickets to break even.

Good story. I will use it to support my point of view in the future. Thanks - Ed

[Anonymous]

Don,

I don't think we will every have the population density of Europe anywhere but in the NE. Americans love their cars and their space.

I still believe you need a certain population density to make passenger rail profits. The only places I know of in the US where it does make a profit, there is significant population density. Actually, your example of the DFW area is the only one I have heard that makes a profit. The NEC come close according to what I have heard but nobody outside Amtrak know for sure. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Ed:

Our Portland light rail system is an example of your points.

We did NOT attempt to ake it private, and instead issued general ob. bonds and the like... never overwhealmingly received...

So what now? The latest expansion traded publicly held land leases to a private company in exchange for the private company, a SF based developer, building the light rail line to the airport?

Result? The design has many flaws, including no long term park & rides.... however, it didn't cost us more property taxes! I still think it's a ridiculous system but I am much more at peace with it for it's funding.

And now, altho some die hards will not let go of an expansion proposal, the future appears to be in- yup- commuter rail! You know, built on existing freight tracks, co-existing with them, not costing immense fortunes to build!

Privatization is certianly a lesson that we need to learn up here! But we're getting there.

[Anonymous]

Don,

The conditions that existed back in the 1800s were different from those today with regard to new railroad construction. I am uninformed about the construction of Texas railroads so I can't say if it were good or bad that these were land grant roads.

The original (rail)roads built in this country were private ventures with only government charters to provide emminent domain privilages to the rail companies. There was a rudimentary transportation network for these companies to use to help them construct their lines. They even had barges and steamboats transport materials for them before they put those jokers out of business. Life is strange that way.

Out west, things were very different. Not only was there no existing transportation system, there was no labor, towns or anything before the railroads came along. I believe the reason the railroads were given land grants were to help overcome these obstacles and because the land wasn't worth anything to the US government either until the railroads were built. If you don't already have a copy, I recommend you read the book 'Nothing Like it in the World - The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad' by Stephen Ambrose.

I also think there is a dramatic difference between a one time land grant and the annual payments being made to Amtrak with no end in sight. - Ed

[Modelcar]

Passenger Rail's D-day is this coming Wednesday [26th]....according to our paper today. Wonder who's section of the country they will begin to shut down...? Denns Hassert [Speaker], just passed it off as no one's riding it so we might as well do away with it....Not much concern in his voice...Wonder if he does that when the Water ways, Airlines, etc. are in trouble and need attention. His reply to a question [Paraphrasing], on Meet The Press this morning.

QM

[Anonymous]

Well, the NEC will probably go last, as it has the most political support. However, Gunn says everything goes, all at once.

It is in the NEC that the most mayhem will occur... for most of the country, Hastert, (who I did not see this morning,) is right. There are no places, really, outside the NE that Amtrak cannot be replaced by something else.

Is the replacement something better? No, defintely NOT. Greyhound can't touch the Talgos to Seattle.... no doubt CalTrans service is better too.

But as long as the NEC stays running, how many people will really become concerned with Amtrak? There just aren't enough riders out there.

[Modelcar]

For my part, if some of it has to be shut down...I want it ALL shut down. I hope Gunn sticks to his "guns" on that one. As for Hastert, he impressed me with not caring very much at all what happens to it. Almost brushed it away.

QM

[Paul3]

>So the NEC states don't have to pay for
>even part of the system, but we do have to
>pay for part of ours.

Some of the NEC states actually own their parts of the NEC. MA owns the NEC in MA, CT owns from NY to New Haven, and NY owns from CT to New Rochelle. Rt. 128, Back Bay & South Station here in MA are all state owned. If nothing else, this relieves Amtrak of a large financial burden that would normally come out of Amtrak's pocket (see: Penn Station). Do the Pacific Northwest states do the same, or is it BNSF?

>As for the expenses on NEC, for one,
>electrification should have been dropped
>long ago for exactly the reason you state.

It is too expensive for all new catenary to be paid for by a single state (look at Rhode Island). However, it can be *maintained* by single states (see: CT and Metro-North).

BTW, the dropping of the wires would be a huge mistake on the NEC. Diesels just don't cut it in super heavy commuter rail, as the acceleration on a conventional diesel train is pathetic compared to a string of MU's. We're talking about a triple and quaduple track railroad here with very short headways. You may not be aware of the huge numbers of people who ride the rail to NY, but I assure you that electrification is absolutely needed on the NEC.

>Unfortunately it is the economies of inertia
>here.

More like the economies of moving large quantities of people to and from NY, Phila., etc. :-)

>And now with investments in Acela it
>garauntees at least another decade of
>overheads.

Try practically forever. The wire will never be dropped until someone invents "Star Trek"-type devices, as railroads are *the* most effective way to move mass quantites of people (provided they all want to go to the same destination).

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
"Finally, after months of delay, we have the administration's model for the future of rail passenger service in America," said Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), his voice dripping with sarcasm. "It was not worth the wait."
******************

[Paul3]

>A minority of us are saying let it sink or swim
>on its own. I imagine most of y'all know it
>will not swim.

I'll agree to let Amtrak "sink or swim" when everything else does the same. No car or fuel taxes to support the highway lobby, make every highway a toll road so that it could be a privately owned road (just like the 1700's). Airlines? No taxes for them either. Let the passenger pay the full cost everytime they fly. Rapid transit lines? Forget that $1 token. Let's jack that up so the rider can pay for the real cost of his ride, as well. After all, only those that use the system should have to pay for it, right?

Let's see how far I can go Libertarian: We should go back to the old days in firefighting, when no taxes were used to pay for fire protection. Private fire companies had to be hired if you wanted to save your house from buring. If you didn't pay, too bad. Because after all, you said "I believe the 100% private system is best..."

BTW, I do believe the British rail passengers would disagree with you about that...

>Nobody weeps for the buggy whip makers
>displaced by an automobile industry.

It's funny, but I do recall great hordes of people crying when a certain "big 3" auto maker was about to go down the tubes due to Japanese competition and their own shoddy products. Didn't some rich personage come around and bail them out? Oh yeah, that's right, it was Uncle Sam...

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
"B-52's: We take the 'fun' out of fundimentalism." - J. Ringo
******************

[Anonymous]

But why? If NEC is so vital as earlier stated, ought it not continue?

Don't get me wrong... Cascades Corridor service is attractive and appealing, and I will be sorry I never got a chance to go to Seattle on board.

And I don't want the EB to stop either. But if that is what is necessary to keep Amtrak going in NEC so we don't end up with some kind of half-baked commuter crises, so be it.

Then maybe we'll have bought enough time for some debate on the Senate floor. Ok, maybe that isn't a good thing, on second thought...

[Anonymous]

Are you being honest? Do you want to have the subsidies for Amtrak stopped but you want the highway financing system replaced by this private system you outlined? Do you realy think this proposed financing system is more efficient than the taxes collected at the pump and more equitable as well?

Do you also think that the subsidies paid to airlines are as appropriate as the subsidies paid to Amtrak and that these are superior to the fuel taxes as well?

There appears to be an intellectual disconnect here. The highway users pay taxes to build and maintain highways. If you don't buy fuel for your car, you are not supporting construction of the highways. All I am recommending is for Amtrak and airline users to do the same. Right now, I have to support the airlines and Amtrak regardless of how much I use it. There is no comparison to the highway funding model here. - Ed

[Anonymous]

I suspect that if the service in the rest of the nation is suspended, then federal support for Amtrak is over. Then the NEC states, or the riders themselves, will have to carry the full burden. That is why scaled back service is never given much thought. - Ed

[Anonymous]

When you say there are several NE states that own part of Amtrak, are you refering to the track or everything? Does Amtrak have to rent the track from the state the way they rent track from the major railroads? This is interesting considering my thesis that the system should be run by the benificiary states. - Ed

P.S. Did they get this track when Conrail was split up, from another railroad (pre Conrail) or did they build it themselves?

[mnwestern]

Alexander:
Have you driven any distance on our Interstate system lately? I was on it this past weekend. Roughest ride I've ever seen. Here in the Midwest, most of the I's are nearing 50 years old and are degenerating back to the wagon paths of our forefathers. Most of the damage is done by the trucking industry which is not coming near to covering the damage it does through its licensing fees and fuel taxes.
Have you flown lately? With security check points on each end, the very good chance your luggage with be lost, rifled by airport workers, or sent to Bangor, Maine when you are headed for Salt Lake City, the prospect of flying is not very attractive. In the NE, the short flights have basically given up the ghost. They can't compete with Amtrak on the runs between Washington, Philly, New York and Boston.
As for the Bush administration's latest plan, have you wondered who benefits if Amtrak goes away under this bogus set of requirements? Well, oil companies would love to see those millions of train riders have to go to cars and stop at their gas stations. Oh, do you know Bush has ties to oil?
Or how about the airlines, drowning in a sea of red (they were already on a glide path to a financial crash long before 9/11)? Don't you think they would love to gain those former rail passengers (but for many, flying's cost eliminates that option.) Talk about a poorly run industry. Even with all the benefits state and federal governments bestow on airlines and airports, they still screw things up.
The trains are still the best way to move passengers efficiently (both fuel-wise and cost-wise).
Oh, and, yes, I do think the trend is back to railroad travel. Have you checked out the undeniable growth in light and commuter rail systems in our major metro areas? Or how about the growing view that high speed corridors should be established for intermediate routes (Chicago to Minneapolis, K.C., St. Louis, Detroit, etc., for example.) The extension of that would be faster long distance trains. What if the Empire Builder or Southwest could travel 120 mph over its entire route and go from Chicago to the West Coast in little over a day instead of two days-plus at a infrequent top speed of 79 mph?
My wife and I have gone to Washington D.C. twice in the last six years to visit relatives. We flew once before that —— and are unlikely to fly again and that is even with two family members as flight attendants for a major airline. We also have gone to Milwaukee from the Twin Cities area. There is so much less hassle than flying.
As for making money, have you looked as the NASDAQ lately? There hasn't been much money made there for two years.

[Modelcar]

Exactly correct...Scaled back service across the country just kept driving nails in the Amtrak coffin....If it's not there as a nationwide system, it will wither and die. Furthermore tax payers across the nation surely won't want to support it to benefit the NEC only...!

QM

[mnwestern]

Alexander:
Read Gunn's lips — all Amtrak corridors lose money. The NEC is not a money-maker, but should it have to be. Think about the options. All those folks go back to cars on east coast freeways already jammed. Nice thought. Passenger rail is a public utility, and should be viewed as a necessary component of society like being able to turn on the water tap, flu***he toilet or the street outside your home. Few, if any, of those bring in money. But you wouldn't want to be without them.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, Ed!

Why does it seem so hard to understand? It's not. Trucks and buses and cars ARE subsidized.... by their own taxes, which pay for infrastructure ONLY.

There is NO OPERATIONAL SUBSIDY for roads!

I see no reason why this model cannot be implimented in ANY mode.

Course, I also see no reason why this isn't clear to everyone.... you can't imagine how POd I get when people compare Amtrak to the local freeway. I wi***hat they WERE on parity but the are NOT.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Terry:

Sorry. Rail is not a public utility, as you assert. We gave up that idea about, oh, 80 years ago, whenh the USRA was disbanded instead of made permanent.

Will there be a major road impact in the NEC if it shuts down? You bet. Does that mean that the rest of the country ought to pay to subsidize that trafic flow? And a bunch of trains accross the rest of the continent that less than 1% of people use?

That's a question that Amtrak's critics and skeptics are more than willing to debate. Amtrak supporters, on the other hand, seem intent on putting their hands over their ears and yelling for more cash and fewer questions.

Whatever your viewpoint, the era of re-regulation and nationalization is over.

[Anonymous]

Terry:

Oh, where to begin?

I'll keep this short.

1.) Amtrak only is a serious drain on air in the NEC. The majority of air routes are not seriously threatened by rail, and so, the majority of airlines could care less.

2.) NASDAQ? Are we in a depression? Are people starving in the streets? No more than usual. We are still the largest, richest, and most succesful capitalist country.

3.) Oil lobby conspiracy???????????? I am speechless. Ok, by providing an analysis of the partisan sit, I may have asked for it... but lets keep this on topic.


4.) Air is in trouble. Yes. I agree. It received bail outs from Congress. It should not have. If a company goes bankrupt, it ought to be liquidated, not nationalized.

5.) Trains are efficient. Yes, they are, IF they go where people actually WANT to go. If not, then they are no more efficient than a horse drawn dogcart.

6.) Return of rail? Even in those places where large rail systems are being built- (and note these are not cross-country systems, but commuter and light rail, thus not comparable to Amtrak or airlines-) they still serve a MINORITY of passengers. Well over 80% of people still use the auto and the airplane.

Until something better comes along and competes the heck out of them, this will remain the same.

7.) As for trucking damage? This is due to one factor, and one factor only.... the interstates were NOT built to last this long!

(And frankly, should not have been built to begin with.... they created the very demand that now requires them.)

I hope I have not in any way offended you. I tried not to be harsh- rudeness solves nothing- but if I was, I apologize.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

The high speed rail associations, and the engineering experts who are planning new metropolitan commuter lines, have mention the price of building double track rail lines as $20 to $30 million a mile...... At least that is how much it is costing DART to build its new electrified double track. Obviously, the experts have an idea how much materials, labor, land, and construction costs.....

My new high speed rail system suggestion includes new right of way from New York City to Chicago, Chicago to Denver, Chicago to Dallas, Chicago to Atlanta, Dallas to Atlanta, and Washington DC to Atlanta, Atlanta to Miami, and Los Angeles to San Francisco basically.... My Road Atlas says the miles are in order: 821, 1011, 928, 716, 792, 632, 661, and 380 miles. Grand total of new high speed electrified rail is 5941 miles....To make the math easier, let us round this off to 6000 miles..... The total cost is somewhere between $120 billion to $180 billion. Keep in mind that DART is building new track in a metropolitan area where real estate is more expensive. I dare say the feds would be building track in rural areas where the real estate will be cheaper.....

The House subcommitte passed legislation to spend $59 billion to build the new high speed rail on existing track..... However, in testimony before the Senate subcommittee, the President of the Railroad Association, the big four, CSX, NS, BNSF, and UP, told the Senate subcommittee not to build high speed rail on existing freight track, saying it would be UNSAFE and a NIGHTMARE to operate high speed passenger trains and slow freights on the same track.

The numbers are real! All that is needed is a will and a vision to build high speed rail! And of course the money! Over a 20 year period, all we would need is something like $5 to $6 billion a year.....This is just a drop in the bucket as compared to highway and airport spending the feds undertake.....

But you are right, We couldn't charge enough on tickets to spend this money......But somehow we spend more than this for highways and airports without expecting a dime back!

[Anonymous]

Actually DART does not make money operationally. However, with the one cent sales tax as its foundation, we get one of the best bus systems in the country, and when the second phase of light rail is completed soon, one of the best commuter rails systems in the country too.

As I have posted before, if we were willing to spend $5 to $6 billion a year for high speed rail, we could have a pretty good intercity network in twenty years....

[Anonymous]

On that note, AP wire reports today were stating qoutes from the G-man that reform "along the lines of a transit model" (paraphrasing) would be welcome in his eyes. Largely Fed and some state Capital funds, all local operational funds. Ve-ery interesting.......

I could live with that!

[Anonymous]

Alexander:
And so to payload sizing, at long last. Not the way it used to be: with subsidies keeping everything blimpie and scaring up the ridership for the engine. No more, please.
Now it's time to size the engine to the ridership and to put some eyes out there, as Tom C., et al are beginning to do with their webcams.
John Bradley

[Anonymous]

John:

Tom C? Webcams? I must've missed something... care to fill me in?

On your other comment, yes. It makes no sense to offer an OPERATIONALLY (not capitally-) subsidize mode of ANY transport, just because "one (Congress) can".

NEC is a prime example. It can be, and in many places IS profitable or at least break even on OPERATIONS. This is all I ask. The infrastructure is another matter.

If the truth is that an air ticket would cost $4000 if it had to cover operational expenses.... then it should cost $4000! Why creat an artificial market? So we can subsidize my trip to Disneyland?

Reality is, someone, (namely Southwest,) would figure a way to scare up a profitable and cheap airline and prove everyone wrong.

Where is the SW for rail? As long as Amtrak is around playing boogey-man and holding onto it's monopoly, there will be none.

I am as certain that passenger rail can be OPERATIONALLY profitable as I am that any other business can.

Or maybe I should put it this way: In this country, of all countries, with our ingenuity, wouldn't it be strange if we could NOT make a profit running a few lousy trains? Or at the very least, not hemoraging to death doing so?

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

Let me kow what you think of this comparison:

If Amtrak were funded using the 'highway model' then beginning back in '70 every passenger ticket would include a 'User Tax' dedicated to raising funds for building and maintaining roadbed. This money would be forwarded to the federal government who would establish minimum criteria for a region to qualify for an 80% matching fund for new construction. If a region met the criteria then a project would be authorized for construction. Then the federal government would send some of the collected tax money back to pay for 80% of the construction cost. Why not all of the tax money? The federal government spent some of it running this new department and reviewing applications for the money.

This is why I think Amtrak should have set aside a portion of their own revenue to build it themselves; no losses due to federal government overhead. But if they won't do it on their own, then the 'highway funding model' could be used for Amtrak and administered by the federal government. This means ticket prices will go up!

Regards - Ed

[Anonymous]

Don,

All highway construction, as far as I am aware, is funded by taxes collected from highway users. Whoever told you anything otherwise was either uninformed or dishonest. I don't think the taxes charged on airline tickets cover the construction costs of airports, so that is a different matter.

Thanks for the cost data. I will take a better look at it when I have the time. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Well, Ed, I agree that any fund administered by the fedgov is not as efficient... but consider this: Amtrak never had the financial responsibility to do this on thier own, and so lost nearly ALL of those (potential) funds. If the USDOT had imposed a system such as you described at least tha 80% would've made it back.... that'd be an improvement!

Always a pleasure. Want to start a railroad with me?

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

This thread is becomming a quilt.

Sorry, I don't have the capitol, but if I did I would consider in building a railroad. I am a civil engineer so I have some knowledge to contribute to the team. Later - Ed