Amtrak funding

[Anonymous]

Why don't you look north of our border. VIA rail, the Canadian national passenger railroad, is upgrading its tracks and buying new engines and cars for their passenger trains to be finished by 2004.

Of course, they have killed their transcontinental train. BC is still running trains in BC, but VIA operates now mostly east of Toronto. Notice that it is Amtrak that runs trains to Boston, Detroit, and to New York City from Montreal and Toronto.

Is Canada attempting to run a train to everyone? Not any longer. Nevertheless, Canada is still offering passenger trains to more than 75 percent of its people.

Amtrak should think in the same light.

[Anonymous]

Whether you take the new controlled access turnpike, or take the old highway from Laredo to Monterrey, for example, you will pay a toll....It is the same south of Juarez, and south of Nogales. You cannot go far in Mexico without paying a toll....

[Anonymous]

Ed, the federal cabinet office is the Department of Transportation, not the Department of Highways. Why? It says in the Consitution that the government is reponsible for post offices and post roads. Without this clause, there would be no federal spending or case to build highways, airports, canals, and railroads....But since the clause is there, the case is made.....

As long as the federal government owns the track of the northeast corridor, there will be some sort of Amtrak. It will never be sold to private enterprise.....

As long as we have an Amtrak, it might as well be the envy of the world......

[Anonymous]

Amtrak runs two trains today that are not welcomed on Union Pacific tracks, the Texas Eagle and the Sunset Limited. It seems like there isn't enough room for either train along UP's lines. It is interesting to note that the Eagle between Dallas and Fort Worth has had to detour at times using the former Rock Island line north of the former Texas and Pacific line. DART and the T, run the Trinity River Express on the former Rock Island line, which is single railed, while the UP mainline is double railed. But having double rail doesn't mean much when UP hog laweds it.

[Anonymous]

Alexander,And all who have posted here.A quote from David Gunn,found in June/July issue of Amtrack ink,an employee newsletter, semi-magazine.
"First,I cannot imagine our nation without a national passenger railroad system.Second,the basic Amtrak model can and should work.Thrid,no passenger system in the world operates without some form of goverment subsidy. That means that Amtrak will never be profitable,and will always need,just like every other mode of transportation,some form of public investment,or subsidy".
Mr.Gunn also went on to say; "No amount of counsils or commissions will find a painless answer to what to do about Amtrak.Recent proposals to privatize or restructure are exercises in problem avoidance.The federal goverment must decide what role rail should play,just as it does highways and air,even waterways".
Also; "I have found in life that anything wothwhile comes about through realistic goals,dedecation,initiative and loyalty,not by wishing it so.In pursuing self-sufficiency,the company tried too many initiatives simultaneously,and pursued an array of financing arrangements to make up for budget shortfalls.The debt the company now carries is just under $4 billion and is unsustainable.Obviously,we cannot rewrite history.What we can do is learn from our mistakes,get back to basics,and move forward.I will return Amtrak to the basics of running a railraod".
Some blunt,honest,and in my opinion true statements from a man who inherited leadership of a railraod in dire straights.

[Anonymous]

Terry,

I don't agree with your comparrison between highways and passenger rail. I do agree with your comparrison between passenger rail and airline infrastructure. I would rather see them take money away from airlines and spend it on Amtrak, if they would hold the total spending on the two constant. But that's not the way things appear to work in Congress. But the better solution to both those problems is to get the federal government out of that particular business.

I'm surprised you care how long the thread is. I agree, Alexander has been a real trooper here. But the idea is not to state my opinion and walk away. My participation here is intended to illustrate that the federal government is not the solution to the problem. Amtrak serves a different segment of the public from the airlines and bus companies. BTW, I firmly believe the reason people are willing to drive so far is so they have a car when they get to the other end. I haven't rented a car, but I have heard it is quite expensive. If people want a car on the other end, no improvement in rail service except substantial autotrain use is going to change that.

Do you realy want to debate highway funding with me further or shall we give that one a rest? - Ed

[Anonymous]

Well, they could gripe about it, yes. But as long as the company holds the Amtrak charter, they have a Federally protected right over the freight roads. I do not know how extensive this trackage right is, but I do know that Amtrak has scrubbed routes and then re-instated them years later.

This is the one -- and probably only -- asset that Amtrak owns which is invaluable, and which makes it an attractive purchase. That, and the NEC and other minor corridors which have operating profits or meet their ops cost in the very least. But the huge debt the road has incurred makes it a stinker as a privatization or semi-privatization project. Or heck, even as a fully Federal project. That debt need to be cleaned up, immediately, or even if Congress bails out the road, lenders will not finance new equipment, etc... etc...

Why do they need lender's cash anyway? Getting cash out of Congress takes too long, and is too political. So if they want, say, a second Acela train set, they could petition Congress, wait 18 months, and then have it either lost in a joint committee or in political bickering or a veto, or they can go to the bank and have a loan within 60-90 days, and spend it as they see fit.

So getting that debt load down will be very important for the long term viability of Amtrak, or any successor which wants the Amtrak charter.

Alexander

[mnwestern]

Ed,
Your same arguments apply to highways and airlines. Why do we have interstates across North Dakota and South Dakota? Why do we subsidize airline connectors into towns of 30,000? Why do we built airports for millions of dollars, like the one in my hometown of 13,000, which are 90 percent state and federally funded, for a handful of airplane enthusiasts (not more than about three dozen in our town)?
A national rail system makes a whole lot more sense than those.
As for this being the longest string ever, it should be. Alexander has kept it going by being nearly half the entries himself and he still doesn't make any sense. Geez, cut to the chase — you don't support further federal funding for Amtrak, but perhaps state support for regional and commuter operations. There! You need say no further.

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

With regard to the long-distance trains, I was thinking along the lines (no pun!) of if a train is removed from the schedule, the freight railroads may, in the futre, say, 'Ah, well, you haven't run trains along this line for x years, and so, we have used your paths, so I'm afraid we have not got space or you'. Is this likely?

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Jason:

If the long distance trains get cut, they won't need a new route some day, if reinstated, as these routes are always active freight lines.

As for developing the depot, etc... the US is a big country. We don't have many of the development pressures you have, except in a few select places. Where I live we are fairly "progressive" and have an urban growth boundary, but even then, these sorts of structures remain empty and undeveloped. And for places that are out in the country, almost certainly so.

Cutting the unprofitable routes..... wel let us say, the hemorraging at the rail carrier has to stop. So either cut them, reduce their costs somehow, or tell the states who ebenfit from them to pony up the difference between the ticket revenues and the costs, so they don't drag the system into bankruptcy.

But they cannot continue to operate in the manner they do now. They will kill Amtrak one day.

Lastly, I agree. Coach is not as attractive as sleeper, and also, if I remember correctly, you can't pencil out coach very easily. 1st class is the only place you could conceivable make significant returns over costs.

Best, Alexander

[Anonymous]

If you removed the majority of the long-distance trains, there would be even greater areas of the country without train services than now. You would als have the problem of removing from future transport and land-use planning the use of rail systems. Imagine that a town were to loose it's train service. Pressure would be on to convert the station and associated tracks into housing, business etc. What happens in 20 years time when some bright spark decides to run trains again? Suddenly they have to find a new route! At great expense.

I don't know about anyone else, but, if I were going coast-to-coast, I'd want a sleeper, not a coach.

I don't agree that tri-weekly schedules are useful. It means that you have to add and extra day into your trip at least just to account for non-running of trains.

Also, I don't agree that all non-profitable routes should be axed. For many years, the route from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth was not making money, but it was important, particularly for students at weekends. Now, we are one of the best routes in the Wales and Borders franchise (they call it 'Alphaline'). We lost one route, and only just held onto the other, but most agree that it is worth it.

Remember, highways systems generally don't run at profit. If you use tolls, people are going to get fed up paying for every time they use the road. This would have several effects: i.) people will find non-toll roads to travel on, hence causing congestion; ii.) there may be long court battles over whether tolls are 'right'; iii.) over time, people may shift their job and home to be nearer one another. Hence, you might find a light-rail system would be needed.

Jason.

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Don:

These concepts I outlined were under study up here even before the revenue shortfalls. It was more a matter of their eyes being bigger than their wallets. Now it has only gotten worse.

As for the property value trick, we passed a measure up here that limits valuation increases not related to new construction to 3%.

Now, to roads in Mexcio- I am not familiar with these. Can you enlighten me, non-Amtrak tho it is? (We'll say it affects public transportation policy.)

AC

[Anonymous]

This year has not been a good year for the federal, state, and local levels at generating tax revenues, both sales and gas. All of the governments are having shortfalls, and are talking increasing taxes and fees. The state of Texas DOT has said it will not be building any more new freeways, it has its hands full maintaining the freeways that already exists. Therefore, any new freeway will be a tollroad. Previously, if a turnpike paid itself off, it became a freeway. The state of Texas DOT has said it will no longer free a turnpike again, it misses the revenues. And this if from the second largest state in the union, and one of the fastest growing states to boot. Makes you wonder about states that are not growing as fast.....

As for DART, most of its rail construction was paid for with federal funds, as were most of its buses. The reason DART is in such good shape financially is the one cent sales tax. Maybe Amtrak would operate better if there was a one cent sales tax at the national level on every freight and passenger railroad invoice.

I do not see any one or any company that has the resources needed to fund a national high speed rail network. In fact, I do not see any one or any company that has the resources needed to fund a local rail and bus network either. Most of them are funded with federal funds too. This is where you and I differ, I think.

You see private enterprise funding airlines and Greyhound. Yes, they are private enterprises but they operate on government funded airports and highways. Without the airport and highways, neither enterprise would be successful.

You see airport terminals as being funded with local funds, but this is far from the truth. Dallas does not charge a landing fee at DFW, the federal government does. And it is the federal government which funded the airport in the first place.

The railroad companies could not turn a profit on slow passenger trains. Private enterprise might have the resources to operate high speed trains. though I could agree with this. But the problem lies here: only the national government has the resources to build the high speed rail network. Think of it as being similiar to highways and airports.

[Anonymous]

Sales taxes this year have not met expectations anywhere. In Texas, and in Dallas, for example, there is talk of tax and fee increases to make up the lost sales tax revenues. Another trick is to increase the value of your property, thereby increasing your property tax even though it is not being increased. Yet, they want to increase the property tax too.

One only has to look at Mexico for example to see how many roads can have tolls, and not just necessarily, multi-lane controlled access turnpikes.

[Anonymous]

OK, Ed, I am going to try and answer this one.

(Man that was a long post. Did you compose it elsewhere and then copy and paste it? Yikes. But I digress.)

Item, close down all routes with no "profit"- I assume you use a loose definition here. And we are discussing operational profits only, not over capital costs, sorrect?

So now you are down to, as you put it, mostly the NEC, plus perhaps the Cal Trans trains and the Cascades on the West Coast. Now you go to your meeting, probably with the state governors, and you'd come out of that with the NEC as your only Multistate, and with the Cascades being run entirely by Washington, with no PDX-Eugene Train, and the Cal Trans still operating, and probably an extra three Talgo sets from Oregon and from a few train cuts in WA to make it fit the budget.

I like your approach to the NEC states. Gutsy. It's probably how Hill or Harriman would've handled it. Direct- put up and I come to town sooner, otherwise, I'll take my show on the road to states that do want me.

And guess what? It works- how many cities bend over backwards in order to get the new _____ plant. We do it all the time up here. Right now Portland is liking Danish boot in order to get a windmill, er, turbine maker to move into here.

But I am looking at this from the finance stance, as in order to succesfully privatize, you have to have a profit plan for recovering costs and genreating a return above cost of living increases and inflation, when there is any.

If the govs say no, what do you do them? Problem with NEC is it's a capital costs drain. Are you proposing to be the NEC operator, or owner too? If you own, then you pay property taxes, adn you are burdened with track maintenance. Your killer problem will be getting those capital dollars.

You've not proven yourself, you're just the NEC's current owner/operator, no track record. The banks won't finance you without a track record. No improvement to NEC, then no new construction either. So your threat to take your show elsewhere doesn't have enough teeth.

So the big question in your theory is, how do you rebuild the NEC, and with whose money?

[Anonymous]

Don:

Surface streets are built at the city government level. So they are paid, at least here, through property tax. Dunno what you use for revenue there.

However: many cities have wanted to massively expand their road capacity- despite the fact their residents don't want thier roads any wider, thank you very much. But they plow ahead with plans for 6 and 8 lane surface streets. I kid you not.

But they can't afford it! So what do they want? A fee for every time you leave your driveway, or a frontage tax in addition to what you pay, or a meter on your car, or yet more gas tax, or a fee based on how many cars you have, tacked onto your water bill, or.....

You get the point. Your comment about paying some private company just got to me, cause it looks like some of our local councils are just as bad.

And yes, I knwo what you'll say- bad traffic can't be fixed with capacity. Wish i could convince them too. But it looks like I'll have to kis another 20 feet of my yard away instead.

Later, Alexander

[Anonymous]

Don:

I agree that funds are misappropriated but I think the reason is simple: Airports and bus systems, etc... are in the realm of cities. Cities like building things, especially bigger, more expensive things than their neighbors.

Whereas states often do not have one cohesive culture- NY, CA, heck even OR & WA have major urban/rural divides and major rivalries between cities in some cases. It's harder to get a state to agree on some capital project and then go after fed funds.

Lobbyist. There is a major inlfuence upon the DOT spending by lobbyists in the travel & tourism city booster field, the contractor field, the LRT construction field (read Bomberdier), etc... A train is too spread out, it's a bigger project.

And BTW transit is not unopposed or welcomed with open arems in all cases. There are strong anti-transit factions, who's grounds are mostly on wasteful spending. Sounds like the system you got didn't give much traction to the opposition as you actually made it on time and under budget. But, true, even amongst this opposition, there is no questioning of whether there should be public or private buses.

However, over the river, in WA, they have a public/private system which works light years better than ours. And we used to have a private system that worked and made a profit, as long as the dang city didn't charge them ridiculous franchise fees. Instead we drove them out of biz, shut them down, and then built a bunch of freeways in places we now wi***hey weren't- we actually tore one up- and design them with stop lights in the middle of some of them, which is just great at rush hour!

[Anonymous]

Don,

The reason I was under the impression that a rail project down in Texas made money was because some earlier posts made it sound that way. I was just taking the writer at his word. Based on your research, it appears that they are losing money hand over fist. Now if the local government wants to cover that thinking they are benefiting by not having those folks on the road, I am all for it. The money is all in the locality where it should be. This is the same reason I think the NEC operations should be handled by a regional authority representing the NEC states. Keep the dollars local, and you have more accountability where it should be.

As for the highways, I regret that I have to keep restating the point. Highway users are supporting the construction of their own roadway through user taxes at the pump. Some of the tax revenues go to DC and some go directly to your state legislature. DC puts this money in the hands of DOT and FHWA to build transportation. The money comes back to the states in matching funds when the FHWA approves a project. My only gripes have to do with waste along the way. It is the best model I can find for funding the highway program. So, in my opinion, there is little need for toll roads since the road construction has been paid for by the users already.

BTW Don, check out my recent post tonight to Alexander below. He challenged me to outline a plan for a functioning Amtrak. It has elements of your proposal, but I propose to do it without government involvement wherever possible. Also remember, we both want the same thing I think; a sucessful Amtrak system. We just have different ideas of how that should be accomplished. - Ed

[Anonymous]

You are right. The goverment does not have to provide a train service.

Yet, in the constitution, the government does have to provide for post offices and post roads. It would take a constitutional amendment to change this.

Here is the kicker. The government by no means have to provide this service for free. It can and does charge for stamps, tolls on turnpikes, and fares for trains. Not one of these services make a profit. Furthermore, neither do airports.

The question remains, does the public want the service? Does the public want the service for free, or as cheaply as possible to their own pocketbook?

Another kicker. Does the public want to pay some private enterprise to drive their car off of their own driveway?

One can carry private enterprise to the extreme. But most of us like having public roads, airports, buses, and trains.........

[Anonymous]

Do you think local trains and buses make money? Again, let us visit DART's web pages.

2001 Annual Operating Budget
$264.2 million

Total Employees
2,849 full- and part-time

Systemwide Ridership
95.7 million passenger trips

Total Revenue
(Bus & Rail)
33.8 million

Notice total revenues from bus and rail is $33.8 million, and buget is $264.2 million. It is the one cent sales tax that keeps DART afloat.

From your reasoning, we should sell DART to a private company or shut it down. Yet, I don't know of any one or any company that wishes to lose $200 million a year....

But one new under construction High 5 interchange at I-635 and US-75 will cost the state $261 million......With your thinking we should have a toll on this interchange, or for that matter every road the state builds.......

Or better yet, sell the roads to private enterprise and let them charge us a toll.....

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

Yea, you hit me where it hurts on that one ... "Give me (us?) a scenario for making a passenger system- any speed, any length- that'd be a profitable model."

But then you saved me with the post following. Like you, I think Amtrak should cut, or threaten to cut, everything that doesn't make a profit. I would make up a list by specific route name with everything I plan to cut and take it to the legislature(s) and put that on the table. If you want any of these routes, here's what it will cost you to keep it.

That would generate much weeping and knashing of teeth and I may be an asphalt and feather blob outside DC five minutes later but that is what I think would be the first step. Now, let's assume the worst case (the one I advocate BTW) happens and they tell me to "Shove It". Based on what they say here and my own impressions, all I have left is the NEC.

Then I inventory all my equipment and put the best stuff up there and operate for a year while I do market research on where a profitable line could be built. Meanwhile, I go to the govenors of the NEC states and tell them how it is. If they are interested in helping me out in the short term thinking we have a common interest, then I might build new up there earlier than I would have on my own.

But like you say in your other post, eventually another line becomes attractive, like from DC to Richmond VA through Fredricksburg and NoVa. When the market research shows it works, I build it to 150 mph standards wherever possible and include plans to upgrade the rest to 150 mph when the ridership is there. One problem is that I don't see much opportunity to get out of the NEC beyond Richmond, partly because I am not familiar with that part of the world.

In theory, I extend the tree from the 'Root Ball' in the NEC in a similar manner. In addition, I look for places where I can upgrade the service in the NEC since that is where the lion's share of the revenue will come from in the short term.

Now eventually, the NEC is going to demand a train to Florida. That's where part two of my plan comes in. I establish a bus service to serve the majority of the country. Newer buses which are linked to the rail network. In this way, I provide an intermodal network to the whole country and I can fill trains. How does this involve Florida? Initially I take all the yankees to Richmond and load up a few buses for the remainder of the trip. If the ridership on this route justifies it, I extend the line south to NC, then SC then Atlanta then Talahassee and finally Tampa and Miami.

Likewise, my bus system operates everwhere else possible. Eventually, I will be able to build a 150 mph line out of Phily headed west like maybe Chicago. Everybody in the NEC headed west can get to Phily and then ride a 150 mph train to Chicago. Then I put them on my bus headed to Denver or wherever.

One of the big benifits of this system is that it takes into account the best feature of our highway network (the fact that it already goes everywhere) and matches it to the best feature of the railroad (it is highly effecient once you have a full train load) and marries them together. It essentially emulates our airline hub model which allows them to make the biggest profit. If the coaches aren't full and operating on a regular schedule, then you are not going to make money. I don't think anything less than daily service in both directions is going to cut it.

Now, after the initial cries from congress and the people when I cut all the noproductive service, the next thing you will hear is the bus companies hollerin' because my model makes a serious impact on their business. This is because I can go anywhere they go, probably quicker, and with more luxury when my customers are on the train. If I can provide this service at or near the cost of a bus ticket, they are gone.

From this point, you keep executing the plan by doing the market research and building the line from the tree when the numbers are there.

Probably some ranting but this is my basic concept. Cut it back to the ground. Create a bus line subsidiary and provide transportation to your customers. When your market research folks and engineering department say it is time to build a line, you build it to HSR standards wherever possible with plans to make it 100% HSR when you have the equipment. Two points which I emphasize though, as little (preferable none) government involved and build it for HSR dedicated operation. I don't want to be on the freight RRs track any more than they want me on their track. - Ed

[Anonymous]

I place all the credit to Roger Snoble. Some of his old television ads (quicktime) are still at the DART web site at http://www.dart.org
They will like him in LA too.

But did you notice that the federal government has paid for most of the DART construction? Part of that $7 billion each year DOT spends on buses and rail systems across America. What is bad though, is that some of these funds go to people mover systems at large airport terminals, on top of what the airports receive from DOT, you know, the $11 billion a year.

I bet if I checked out your Portland rail system's web site, it is probably being built with federal funds too. Why are some people against DOT building intercity high speed rail for the same amount of money each year that the DOT spends on innercity rail and buses?

Ed, where are you? The more one looks at how much DOT is spending elsewhere, one wonders why DOT don't spend more for intercity trains......and Amtrak......

Most of the opposition is against government ownership of intercity trains, yet, I hear nothing about innercity trains, and buses.....

I have only asked for $4-5 billion a year, I should be asking for the same $7 billion.

I do not think traveling 6 hours, 900 miles, by high speed trains is too long for most of us. As far as I am concerned traveling 12 hours by high speed trains is not too long to get to New York City? From Dallas, mind you. And that is about as far as my plan would take.....since this is the longest two sides of my high speed rail corridor parralegram..... I have driven further than 12 hours in a day....

[Anonymous]

Jason, the reason why Amtrak operates the Sunset Limited, Orlando to Los Angeles, as a trice weekly is become of its very long length. Amtrak operate 6 trainsets on this route, as it does for the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, and Southwest Chief. To provide everyday service on the Sunset Limited, Amtrak would need to operate 12 trainsets!

If you look carefully at the details of the Texas Eagles schedule, and the City of New Orleans schedule. you will notice that the Eagle's connection in San Antonio flows better westward, and the City of New Orleans' connection in New Orleans flows better eastward..... But that leaves Houston out in the dark both ways..... Another reason why there should be a local between Houston and Dallas!

Getting back to the first thought, if we eliminated these 24 trainsets on these two night long distance trains out west, can you imagine the frequency in service Amtrak could provide on the Cardinal, Capital Limited, City of New Orleans, and the Texas Eagle. The Cardinal currently has 2 trainsets, the Capital Limited, Texas Eagle, Coast Starlight, and City of New Orleans have 4 trainsets. 18 of the 24 trainsets could be used to double the frequency of these trains, notice that the Cardinal is a trice weekly train, we still have 4 more trainsets to provide this route a daily service with 2 trains which leaves us with just 2 Superliner trainsets left in reserve.

Today Amtrak could rework its long term stragedy. In my opinion Amtrak would be better off eliminating the two night trains, and attempt to turn around the one night trains east of the Rockies, and the Coast Starlight along the west coast. Providing another daily train 6 to 8 hours off their current schedule should improve ridership at stations when the trains today arrive after dusk and before dawn.

Interesting, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

"Then I went in the other room and slapped myself." - ROFL

And that is exactly my point. Since you can't trust both side to deal in good faith, you have to deal in cash. Otherwise, I have no problem with barter economics.

It's nice to have somebody hear who understands that even though I am not for a big government agency running a bloated Amtrak boondoggle(sp?), I am still pro-rail. Catch you on the flip side - Elvis II

BTW, when it hits 200, I will feel like The King. We spent several posts in this thread talking about how many posts there are and not the subject of Amtrak funding, so I am spotting you a few. But it looks like 200 will happen tonight.

[Anonymous]

Ed:

Hold on tight! Gale force winds coming!

You just know that, espousing privatization, you are going to hear those dirty words "Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossings, AOL-Time-Warner," etc..... Oh, and forgot, "Harkin". Lol.

OK, now I'll issue a challenge. Give me (us?) a scenario for making a passenger system- any speed, any length- that'd be a profitable model.

(Hee hee the $640billion dollar question....)

Alexander the Deposed

[Anonymous]

Ed:

I understand where you come from, but I'm not saying, don't keep track of the dollars. I'm just saying, don't write any checks.

Still, I take your point. I was about to say that as long as the government books are transparent that it'd work.

Then I went in the other room and slapped myself.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Jason:

The Tri-Weekly originated due to budgetary and equipment realted concerns at Amtrak. No, it isn't convenient. But if it weren't for Tri-weeklies, some of these trains wouldn't run at all, so to preserve the system, they cut them back to this schedule.

As for the Long Distance trains? Well eventually we might work towards putting something back there, but I would either contract them out and let it be someone else's financial headache- and that might not be implausible, where the scenery justifies tourism dollars- or cut them. Most riders aren't long distance riders anyway.

Where does that leave the white knuckle flyer with no car? In a Greyhound bus. Pretty? Nope. But it functions, and that's all that is required.

If you worry about system interface issues, national networks and such, Amtrak does run a supplemental bus fleet now. Perhaps this could be expanded for connections. However, my point is to be ruthless and cut what doesn't work, and concentrate on what does, and then grow back from there.

When you prune a tree, some branches just can't be saved, but you can cut them and then encourage new growth to replace them. I think that our current LD train system is too "diseased" that it is irreperable. But, perhaps, not unreplaceable. But it will take time to "grow" a new branch, er, train, back.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Alexander and William,

I thought the freight rails were paid for the use of their track, but at a rate determined by congress not the freight rails. I think it is better to handle it this way than to 'horse trade' as Alexander proposes because if you work in currency everyone can see the value of a particular proposal. If you work in barter system economics then it is hard to see if one side or the other is getting a better deal.

Working in ca***ransactions is a better way to compensate the freight rails. Tax breaks would be nice too but then that invites problems too. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Jason,

If we got rid of the long distance trains, people could drive, fly, take the bus or whatever else they would like to do. Your question implies that some have a right to ride a train wherever they want to go. And if someone has a right to a train, then others have an obligation to provide it. But that is not correct. Nobody in the US has an obligation to provide a train to anybody. As a matter of fact, many could argue that because Amtrak is federally funded it is obligated to provide everyone with a train wherever they would like to go. This is one more reason not to have a federally funded rail system. It is not economically possible to do so. Therefore, the best method for financing a rail transportation program is with private funds. Then let the free market decide where the lines should be built. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Don,

Are you argueing that there is plenty of demand for Amtrak and using the Texas Eagle as evidence since it is running full?

I doubt there are enough riders on the Texas Eagle to make a profit even if the two sleepers are full. A while back, Alexander and I looked at some numbers and it appears that Amtrak would need something like ten full sleepers on a single run to make a profit.

As I have said before, there is too little demand for Amtrak; not necessarily every run on every line, but in general not enough to support the current system. I believe this will continue to be the case until the skies fill up with so many aircraft that the only place to go is back on the ground. I am not argueing that Amtrak could never be a good thing. I am just saying the conditions don't exist today for it to work economically. It is because the air corridors are so clogged up in the NE that I think that is where Amtrak shows the most promise. This is also why I think the NEC states should be supporting the NEC portion directly without going through the Federal government. Amtrak appears to make sense given their congestion problems.

In my opinion, Amtrak should operate a run in each direction from a station every day, probably more like three or four, in order to justify having the station in the first place. I hear on this site that many stations only operate for a few hours three or four days a week. That sounds like it loses money. It also sounds like it is open because there is a vote in congress tied to that station being open.

Here's hoping for a brighter future - Ed