What does Bush and parts of the US not understand about Amtrak and the national passenger rail?

[Sterling1]

There's generally one thing about politicians we can all relate to . . .

They're made of flour . . . and dust . . .

I'm sure Bush has his use in his last term in office . . .

[daveklepper]

I read I don't see a lot of Bush supporters. I happen to have been one. I believe Bush is, hopefully WAS, mistaken about Amtrak, about some other things as well. But I think he is a far more honest person than Kerry. Kerry for good public transportation? Look at the record. He had his chance with the Big Dig. The North Station South Station connector is deperately needed for both commuter travel and Amtrak. What he did after being discharged from the Navy and his suppression of what he did indicates to me that Bush is a more honest person. That is why I voted for Bush and I am not shy about the matter in the least.

I have written Bush emphasizing the points made earlier: standby in emergencies, accessability for most of the country for most of the handicapped and elderly, congestion relief in corridors, tourism. You who agree should also write him. I think his mind can be changed on the issue, particularly with Amtrak's own plan for reform on the table.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The difference in energy usage isn't solely based on the difference between diesels and gas turbines. A Super Constellation with four Turbo Compound radial piston engines also consumed a lot of energy. Flight in itself requires more energy to be expended than rolling a train or truck over the ground.

[Anonymous]

I have to differ.... Airlines have to man every airport with a number of personnel, from the ticket agents to the baggage handlers to the maintenance workers on top of its flight crews, whereas Amtrak mans in comparison only a few stations and depots with a single ticket agent even though Amtrak has more personnel on its trains.

Its not the number of passengers, its the number of passenger miles that count. Outside the NEC Amtrak trains run around a thousand miles a day.... However, in the NEC Amtrak trains do a number of 300 miles runs in both directions. From my naval engineering days, diesels consume less energy than jet turbines.... A Lot Less! IF TURBINES WERE CHEAPER, WHY AREN'T ALL OF THE EIGHTEEN WHEELERS POWERED BY JET TURBINES?

Therefore its not so easy to compare labor costs. Quite the contrary labor costs for Amtrak per passenger is less than the labor costs for airline passenger, on top of lesser fuel costs per passenger..... Airlines have pilots and which earn up to $300,000 a year, many over $100,000 per year, not to mention the high salaries of co-pilots. Don't just slip in that brand new upstart commuter airline pilots earn less..... Over a career of 30 years, I can guarantee you that they'll be earning twice that small amount.....

[Anonymous]

Everything

[Anonymous]

I belive that Amtrak has Higher Labor costs then the airlines. Commuter Airline pilots only make 40,000 a year. Amtraks works there people 12 hours to carry 200 passengers,The airlines can carry three times that many people in the same time frame using the same amount of labor

[Anonymous]

I the last quarter, Southwest was the only airline that turned a profit.... If it wasn't for the mulit-year fuel deal which has lessened its costs for fuel, a very wise move for Southwest , Southwest would have been another airline with its tin cup out.....

In the last quarter the spiral of fuel costs finally did in AirTrans and JetBlue.... Except for Southwest, all of the airlines lost money...... The day is reckoning when Southwests fuel deal ends.......

In this age when just about every airline is losing money, somehow, remarkably, Amtrak is supposed to turn a profit...............

[mnwestern]

From reading this, I don't see a lot of Bush supporters. So how did this clown get re-elected in the first place? Don't people consider his actions, or do this just listen to the dribble?

[dthede]

Paul Milenkovic recently said, among other things in his posting titled "Slightly off topic":

"To say that GM builds 10 cars and needs to sell 6 of them to pay their pension costs might be a tad misleading. That kinda suggests that 60 percent of the cost of a car goes to pensions, and I find that hard to believe. I think what it means that if GM builds 10 cars, the profits on 6 of them go into the pension fund and the profits on the remaining 4 go to the shareholders. Pensions may be large compared to profits, ..."

You should not worry about what you find hard to believe. That is a criterion for nothing, just as my finding something hard to believe is not a standard of anything useful. Many of these issues have progressed beyond the grasp of common sense. You should simply become more informed by following the various corporate Annual Reports to stockholders, the Union negotiations news, and so on. Go to primary sources where you can -- i.e., not this or that news reporting company, but rather to the information published by the various parties themselves. Follow the money trail.

Generally it is true that the Automotive industry as well as the Airline industry have been paying out huge sums in pensions, have been looking for any and every way to unburden themselves of these costs -- ethical or otherwise -- and have extended the ploy of getting the Unions to "give back" in order to help the company survive, to being taken over or bought out, or even merged, whereby the penions can be reduced substantially, into the latest tactic: simply defaul on the pensions.

The economic and financial analysis done by corporations appears to be astonishingly poor or remarkably astute, -- given their forked tongue support of self-sufficiency virtues on the one hand, and their willingness to solicit (perhaps demand) government bailouts on the other.

What Bush and parts of the US _do_ understand about Amtrak and the national passenger railroad, is that it has no connection between family values, right-to-life, international swagger-ability, statistically significant vote blocks, and the next election. The President of NARP and the President of Amtrak do appear to understand the bind that they are in: chronically short funding to preclude substantial capital investment in infrastructure, but funding which is just sufficient to keep Amtrak's head on the radar -- namely enough to keep it operating and thereby _to_have_ the usual periodic messes occur (derailments, disc brake spoke failure, the list goes on and on...). The stable owners needed some broken-down cars along the highway, to make their alternative look more appealing, analogous to Baltimore's light rail advertising on billboards along the I-83 commuter road: "You'd be there by now..."

A likely fact is that if Congress just let Amtrak collapse and go broke on its own, private enterprise would _not_ pick up the pieces and make a go of it, without substantial Federal guarantees, inducements, and a capital reinvestment "package" over the next 20 years that would equal what has been paid into the national highway system over the last 20 years, and a firesale "auction" price to boot. Would Bombardier own and operate it? TGV? Virgin?

There simply has been no national committment to passenger or freight railroad transport on anything like the scale directed toward the national highway system. With the cost of gasoline at $2.51/gal between Cleveland & Baltimore, it is now a different calculation to decide to drive it, vs. bus or train it, than it used to be.
--Didrik

[dthede]

Chris, Denver CO, recently said:

"And even though I've cruised at 125 and more, I don't think I'd care to do it on a Freeway with other drivers, no matter how good the roads are. Traveling at that speed is deadly. Doing it with the number of American drivers that would try it if we had it? Suicide."

Ironically, Amtrak would be hard pressed to send a passenger train cross-country at near that speed. SF to D.C. is approx. 2510 miles. At 125 mph, one is talking, say, 21 hours, plus acceleration & slowdown, layover, crew change, etc. Say a day. What is Amtrak's current cross-country schedule show? About 71-1/2 hours, or about 3 times longer. Looked at in terms of mph, we're back to 41 mph, or slower than the speed limit on the Northern State Parkway into NYC in 1952.

A fact is (not "the fact is...") that the petroleum, construction, and auto manufacturing political interests far outweighed the RR political interests. Part of the legacy of the "RR barons" is a deep-seated association between monopoly and rip-off from railroads, steel, associated unions, and politicians in bed with some or all of these. After WWII, "Detroit" promised us a way to "go where we wanted to go, do what we wanted to do" via automobiles -- and of course the infrastructure which had to be funded thereafter: highways.

Perhaps the bottom line is that our society simply said: yes, we want to fund roads, not "railroads," as it is now saying, "no, we do not want to fund education; it is not a priority." In both cases, the question will be how the U.S. can weather the long-term effects of these short-sighted exercises in wastefulness, before it collectively comes to its senses and realizes it has become a "third world" nation" in the new sense: "had everything, wasted much of it, failed to learn from the mistakes of others." (These are all marks of hubris: the behavior that we're better than the rest of the world, that it can't happen here; that, like France, there is a life-exception for us.)

While it has often been stated the other way round, Europe is, in some ways, a laboratory from which the U.S. might learn some things. Unfortunately, blinded by its own exceptional, short-term historical perspective, the U.S. is not receptive to learning from others. Like the post-teen, young adult, it is too intent on teaching others, to have time or vision to acknowledge its own ignorance.
--Didrik

[jeaton]

I think there is ample evidence that the American public will leave the car behind if other forms of transport will provide a competitive level of service. However, with our desire to move toward the larger open spaces, aka urban sprawl, we have put ourselves in a situation that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to build the competitive service at anything close to a reasonable cost.

Of course, that does not reconcile the question of why the size of the car owned often far exceeds the size of the car that is needed. I suspect that if the bill for the car payment, the gas credit card, the auto insurance and the registration fee all arrived on the same day, there would be a lot of down-sizing.

Jay

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

We dont do a thing about it...

They do.

All we should do is buy the product that best fits our needs and wants...its up to the guys who makes the cars to find a way to supply the buyer with what they want.

And its up to the airline to find a way to supply seat at a price the consumer is willing to pay, to a place the consumer is will to go...and make a profit.

If that means buying and flying only one type of aircraft, and offering a no frills service, well, if that’s what it takes to make your company profitable, then that’s what your stock holders expect you to do!

It’s not up to you, me or the government to bail them out, it’s up to the company to adapt and change to fit the times.

Ed

Well stated, Ed. After all that's what they said early on about Amtrak, and passenger trains.

Mitch

[Sterling1]

I'm wondering US residents are too well glued or is it welded to their vehicles?

[edblysard]

We dont do a thing about it...

They do.

All we should do is buy the product that best fits our needs and wants...its up to the guys who makes the cars to find a way to supply the buyer with what they want.

And its up to the airline to find a way to supply seat at a price the consumer is willing to pay, to a place the consumer is will to go...and make a profit.

If that means buying and flying only one type of aircraft, and offering a no frills service, well, if that’s what it takes to make your company profitable, then that’s what your stock holders expect you to do!

It’s not up to you, me or the government to bail them out, it’s up to the company to adapt and change to fit the times.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Ed, thanks for the reply, I agree that the problems are the companies own making. But now there is the problem, so what do we do about it? Thanks again for the reply,
Brad

[Paul Milenkovic]

Slightly off topic.

To say that GM builds 10 cars and needs to sell 6 of them to pay their pension costs might be a tad misleading. That kinda suggests that 60 percent of the cost of a car goes to pensions, and I find that hard to believe. I think what it means that if GM builds 10 cars, the profits on 6 of them go into the pension fund and the profits on the remaining 4 go to the shareholders. Pensions may be large compared to profits, but I think a lot of other costs are large compared to profits -- profits are typically a thin margin after all expenses are paid in a mature, competitive industry. That said, pensions are still a concern because the car company has to pay out at least some profits unless we decide to subsidise car making (you know, airplane makers get subsidies in the form of defense contracts, and a person has gotta have a car, and a lot of jobs are at stake to make cares in the U.S. -- at some point the government may have to take over auto manufacturing from the Big 3 and institute the National Automobile Manufacturing Corporation and be prepared to subsidise it).

Another issue is the effect of the oil/gas squeeze on auto profits. What I don't understand is the Ford World magazine comes in the mail, and the headline was "SUV and truck sales down -- we think it has to do with high gas prices." It is largely believed that one of the choke points on gas prices is refinery capacity because no one wants a refinery in their back yard (think northern Indiana or much of New Jersey). Doesn't someone at GM and at Ford do the math -- gee, there is so much gasoline refining capacity, and SUVs use so much gas, and we won't be able to sell more SUVs then there are refineries to keep their tanks full? Is anyone minding the store over there or do they just make cars and trucks and hope for the best?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by passengerfan

But Southwest Airline's is smart enough to own only one type of aircraft the Boeing 737 and they do not have galleys. They only have to maintain a parts inventory for that one type of aircraft. United on the other hand has at least eight different typoes of Aircraft and must maintain parts inventory for all. Personally I have never seen happier airline employees than those that work for Southwest.
Just because the guy flew a 747 for twenty years did that make him worth the $300, 000 he was receiving in pay and benefits. The plane only transports 350 passengers in most versions. No Amtrak engineer makes anywhere near that amount of money for carrying the same passenger load and is just as responsible for the safety of the passengers as the airline captain is. What's wrong with this passenger.

Not to mention suburban train engineers that work 6 days a week and can carry upwards of 1400 souls on one trip. If he works 4 trains a day, and makes $200 for that, in essance when he arives at the depot with his first train carrying all those folks, safely and on-time, he's handed a crisp $50 bill for his efforts.

Mitch

[passengerfan]

But Southwest Airline's is smart enough to own only one type of aircraft the Boeing 737 and they do not have galleys. They only have to maintain a parts inventory for that one type of aircraft. United on the other hand has at least eight different typoes of Aircraft and must maintain parts inventory for all. Personally I have never seen happier airline employees than those that work for Southwest.
Just because the guy flew a 747 for twenty years did that make him worth the $300, 000 he was receiving in pay and benefits. The plane only transports 350 passengers in most versions. No Amtrak engineer makes anywhere near that amount of money for carrying the same passenger load and is just as responsible for the safety of the passengers as the airline captain is. What's wrong with this passenger.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by passengerfan

Just finished reading an article that said GM builds six of ten cars just to meet the employee retirement and benefit packages. And people wonder why the cost of automobiles are what homes sold for in some parts of thr country during the 1960's.
And if United goes under inspite of there dumping the retirement on the government that could very easily be like a falling stack of blocks. How solvent is AMR parent of American, Delta, Northwest, and US Air. Probably the survivors will be the discoiunt airlines such as Southwest.

Employees' retirement and benifit packages. Does that include those of the CEO, COO, CFO, and The VP in Charge of Looking Out the Window? If it does, that's where a huge chunk o' dough is draining.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

Also, remember that the airline industry was heavily regulated, and then deregulated just as the railroads were. High cost structure. Flying used to be expensive - many people couldn't afford to fly. Being new, Southwest and others have been able to pick and choose without the burden of the heavy past.

[passengerfan]

Just finished reading an article that said GM builds six of ten cars just to meet the employee retirement and benefit packages. And people wonder why the cost of automobiles are what homes sold for in some parts of thr country during the 1960's.
And if United goes under inspite of there dumping the retirement on the government that could very easily be like a falling stack of blocks. How solvent is AMR parent of American, Delta, Northwest, and US Air. Probably the survivors will be the discoiunt airlines such as Southwest.

[edblysard]

Brad,
It easy to point the finger at the UAW, or unions in general, and say that’s where the blame lies...
They make an easy villain, and on the surface, it looks like they are greedy...
But trust me; a retired UAW member makes no more in retirement benefits than just about any other person retired from a company with a pension plan.

Take the railroad and the retirement board, which we, the employees, fund.

If I manage to live long enough to retire, and I want my full payment, I have to work, full time, until I am 68.
Because my wife works, and by then will be drawing her measly $726.00 a month SS payment, I get less than if she had stayed at home, and never worked.

Where you should place blame is squarely on the shoulders of the people who deserve it, the financial management and risk cost management.
You cant tell me the financial managers and the top executives at these companies cant do the simple math needed to figure out that, on any given date in the future, X number of employees are going to be retiring, X number of employees will already be retired, and they will need X number of current employees, being productive at a given rate, to cover the cost of the retired workers and earn the company money.

Insurance companies do this every single day!
Actuary tables are not that hard to grasp!

With today’s current computer technology, and almost instant world wide communication, the ability to figure this stuff is simple.

The big problem for GM, United, and companies like that is they gambled, and lost.
I can tell you straight up that at the last contract negations, the UAW didn’t ask for anything new, or any more perks or money.
In fact, all they were hoping for was to maintain the status quo...no changes.

Which is pretty much what the BLE and UTU are hoping for this time around with the railroads, but it looks like we will lose at least one more crew member this time.
So crew consist will change, even though, in the 1985 contract, the carriers, as part of a legal binding contract, agreed to never attempt to change crew consist, as long as any pre 1985 man was employed, in exchange for the then current and very deep cuts in employee benefits.
Those cuts include, but are not limited to, increased employee payment towards health insurance, lower COLAs, smaller percent in the staggered raises....thanks to the "greed" of the UTU, I now earn, because of my last "raise" enough to buy a large cup of Star Bucks coffee, every other day.
Of course, I pay more towards my health insurance now too, so in reality, my last raise cost me, about one hundred bucks a month.
To bring it into perspective for you, my UPS driver earns more take home pay on a daily basis than I do.

You want to blame someone for GMs problem; blame GM, same as United.
Management at both companies do have a crystal ball of sorts, they can project how many people will use or buy their products in the near future.

Could anyone project, the 9/11 disaster?

No, but you want to know something?

The insurance companies figured that a given number of people will be flying in airplanes today; May 12th, 2005...they figured this number out in 2000.
In fact, they have the projected numbers for every single day, based on data updated daily, on any date you choose.

And surprise...no one quit flying.

That’s right, the projected number, figured out in 2000, for today’s number of airline passengers, is accurate, to within 1%.

Guess what?

GM knows how many pick ups it will sell next year, and the year after, barring any disaster.

They have the knowledge to project that, and they still did nothing but continue business as usual.

I would hold the 1980s Chrysler corp. up as a good example of how to survive...
Before you scream the government bailed them out, (it did and didn’t) understand this...what Chrysler asked for, in simple terms, was for the government to issue them guaranteed loans, at fixed interest rates.
They then did something GM, and Untied, failed to do.

They changed the way they did business, and the product they sold.

Chrysler dumped the old school concept of the American automobile.
The went front wheel drive with a vengeance, because their competitors were destroying the American market with low cost, well built front wheel drive cars, that looked good and sold great.

GM and Ford didn’t, until well into the 1980s, and by then Chrysler had paid back the government loans, on time, with interest, and had managed to change the way they build cars enough to capture enough of the market to survive, and survive well today.

They also did something you don’t see to often.
They went to the UAW, and the other unions they have to deal with, and honestly stated the facts.
To survive, this is the bottom line on what we can pay perks and all.
If you want the jobs, great, we want the skilled workers.
If you don’t want the jobs at this rate, we will close the plant and move it, or close the company.
The unions are not as dumb and greedy as you might think, and they did the smart thing.

Never doubt for an instant that United didn’t know this point was going to be reached, and when it would happen.
They stated so in all the news reports that they had been looking for some resolution for years...
What they will not tell you is they manipulated their numbers to look a lot better than they were, (GM does that too) hoping the government would somehow fix the industry, which the government is still trying to do.
Remember when everyone was proclaiming that the airline industry was dead due to 9/11...no one would ever get on a plane again..
Didn’t happen.

Tell you what, if United goes belly up, I will feel sorry for the employees, but not for the industry.

Here’s why.

They refuse to change, to adapt to the current market requirements.
People who fly for business will still fly...they will pile into an old Ford Tri-motor if that’s all there is.
Tourist will fly the cheap seats.
The "executives" and what is termed first class passengers will find some way to travel, first class has never paid for itself (sound familiar).
So, if they refuse to become lean and mean, they go out of business.
And you know what?
Someone like Southwest will step in, offer a basic service, and fill in the gap.
That’s how business works, adapt or fail.

United (and GM) have failed to adapt.
They had all the info needed to see this coming.
They refused to change they way they did business.

Paying your CEO a 4.5 million pension for 2 years of service, while defaulting on the pensions of all your workers who put 20 plus years into you business is not a good way to stay in business, nor does it point to a enlightened management.

Ed

[daveklepper]

Do you suppose that GM might be more profitable today if they had run with the fuel conservation issue after 11.09.01 and borrowed some Electro-Motive Division technology for their cars and come up with Hybrids that would have been even more effiicient than the first Japanese Hybrids? I happen to think that would have guaranteed their success. And I think they had the ability to do so and consciously avoided doing so. It is not that they are out just to maximize oil profits, but rather it is taxes on petroleum that pay for highway expansion which is what GM spends money for politically by contributing to the pressure groups and think tanks that promote highway expansion. This repeats the history of their reaction to the first "compact revolution" when they first lost market share to VW and Toyotta (and MG).

[Anonymous]

what is the key to all that? Union jobs... At my work, I have a 401K, and since it is in my name, I can take it with me if I go to another place. If the company I work for goes under, Yes I will lose part of the money they put in, (since it is in company stock), but the rest will ber there. Because of the unions, United, Ford, GM, are all barely making it. There is a reason that all those jobs that were in Michigan have gone to Mexico. So you have a choice to give up part of your retirement, or have no job. Plus you get the job of giving up a bunch of your salary in union dues. If you are a republican, you are doubly spat on as they will be campaigning against everything that you believe in as well with your money.
Brad

[Anonymous]

Kerkorian recently took a 4% ownership of GM. Has offered to buy to 9%. Split off GMAC from GM manufacturing plus pension plus healthcare liabilities. Kind of reminds you of the "railroads" that became "industries" during the 60's.

[Modelcar]

....Not only the high cost of pension fund staring GM in the face but among others is the higher than normal cost of building their vehicles per vehicle....AND then we still have the enormous cost of HEALTH CARE.....It is a shame....GM is really up against reality like they haven't been for who knows when...Sad. They gave away too much in contracts agreements and now it's catching up with them. Somehow....Can't imagine how.....But somehow they will have to lower costs or we may see something we would have never guessed could happen....We loose GM as we know it.....!
GM is not the only one in such a serious situation but we have another....FORD. and it all goes on......On top of that is both those Co's. are loosing market share to the Japaneese Co's....And that continues to happen without a way of stopping it in sight...!
Chrysler Corp. has been purchased by the Germans....Can't remember when our own auto Co's have been in such state of affairs....Again, Sad.....

[Paul Milenkovic]

QUOTE:
Just remember, when Clinton lied, thousands of Serbs died. BTW, have we rebuilt the Serbian rail network yet? After all, first bombed, first served.

Yeah? Tell me all about Serbs. That Blagojevich fellow is completely out of control. First off, I wanted to return to my homeland, but when I crossed the border I got hit up for a dollar at each toll station instead of 40 cents. And then he wants to back out of paying his share of the Hiawatha train.

[edblysard]

Thanks, Hugh,
I couldnt remember if it was millions or billions...all those zeros get me confused!
Either way, it still ought to scare everyone!

Ed

[Hugh Jampton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

If I remember correctly, last night on ABC evening news, the feds said the pension fund guarantee was 23 million in the red already... yet a few years ago; it was 10 million in the black.

I saw a retransmission of that and it was Billions they were talking about

[Anonymous]

Oh, unfunded liabilities. Do you think enough US citizens will figure out that eventually there's a reckoning when you borrow, borrow, borrow for your wants, wants, wants, and think somebody else is really paying the bill? Hark, do I hear "monetize the debt"?

[edblysard]

If I remember correctly, last night on ABC evening news, the feds said the pension fund guarantee was 23 million in the red already... yet a few years ago; it was 10 million in the black.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

Ed-

From this mornings AP Wire.

LC

"United Can Dump Four Pension Plan

(AP) United's unions reserve the right to strike if contracts change.
The shift to a federal benefits plan inflames the unions and prompts some in Congress to warn that the Fed's pension agency may need a bailout."

[kevarc]

Yes, but look at the population density for the routes in California as compared to just about anywhere else. The NEC is the only other place where the density compares.

[passengerfan]

Is California the only state that realizes the importance of rail travel, don't the others get the message. Oh well California always leads the nation, the others eventually wake up and follow suit.

[Anonymous]

Ed-

From this mornings AP Wire.

LC

"United Can Dump Four Pension Plan

(AP) United's unions reserve the right to strike if contracts change.
The shift to a federal benefits plan inflames the unions and prompts some in Congress to warn that the Fed's pension agency may need a bailout."\

[edblysard]

The pension guarantee fund was set up as a tool of last resort...to be used only after a business was completely closed, as a buffer for the former employees.

It does not guarantee 100% payment on the pension; a lot depends on the contributions of the employer.

If, and that’s a suspicious if, the feds let United dump their pension, the problem will be that all major corporations in financial trouble will line up at the door to dump theirs.

Imagine you, the tax payer, having already "paid" for GMs pension fund as part of the purchase price of your new GM vehicle, now having to pay for the fund outright.

Pissed off yet?

Well, say your a United employee, worked there 25, 30 years, and are a month from retirement.

You put in your time, worked your fanny off, and surprise, when you retire, not only is there a very real chance your wont get a dime of your pension, if you do get anything, it might be as low as 50 cents on the dollar.

If that happened to you, I would bet that, instead of worrying what the impact on the rest of the industry would be, you would be screaming for the feds to bail out the fund...after all, you are now looking at not only losing almost 50 to 75% of your retirement funds, but are facing the certainty of having to remain full time employed the remainder of your life, just to keep even with your survival needs, and any chance of enjoying the fruits of your years of hard work are gone...

I think you are looking at the beginning of the end in the way major US companies conduct business.

I mean, look at this.

GM stock is reduced to junk status, not because they make a bad car, but because their managed to miss-manage their businesses.

They sell EMD in an attempt to hold off debt, and it still doesn’t work.

Over 1/2 of every dollar they make in profit has to go to the pension fund.

For every person on the GM pension fund, GM has to employee two full time workers on the current payroll just to pay the bills of day to day operations.

One of those employees are doing nothing more that earning the company enough (in productivity) to pay the pension fund debt.

A bare bones ratio would be one employee being productive enough to not only pay for his or her own pension, and keep the company solvent, but to also to retire the pension debt on at least one employee already retired.

That’s a very, very dangerous ratio.
Workable, but dangerous.

GM is way past that, United is also.

Many other airlines are either in the same condition, or so close as to not matter much.

Ought to scare the crap out you....

Ed

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Actually, UAL is just the latest firm to fob off its pension plans on Uncle Sam by way of Chapter 11. The precedent was set by Bethlehem Steel and other steel firms in the late 1980's and early 1990's. From here, it looks like United is headed for a Chapter 7 liquidation so the PBGC will get stuck with the pension plans in any case.

[Anonymous]

OK. United may shut down account of a work stoppage generated by the pension fund problem. All the airlines are booked. Where are the people gonna go?

By the way, and I may not understand this correctly, but it looks like the government is going to have to fund the United pension program at a reduced payout to employees.

When it comes to airlines there seems to be no end to the funds available to a "private concern."

Mitch

[daveklepper]

Kevin: I think the elderly and handicapped have a right to travel because when they were working they paid the taxes so you can drive your car and fly. Again, a think two billion dollars a year to insure that most elderly and handicapped have access to most of the country is worth it. To continue to releave highway congestion in corridors is worth it. To provide backup in most places in various time of emergency is worth it. To give people choices instead of locking them to auto transportation and nothing else in particular communities is worth it. To eventually provide money for capacity expansion at rail choke points to benefit both passsenger and freight is worth it. To provide a tourist amenity that foreign visitors expect in any civilized country is worth it.

You may not agree and you have a right to your opinion, but considering the hundreds of billions (total) spent each year on highways and airports, I think two billion a year for Amtrak is worth it.

Of course then there are the billions that have been spent on fuel-cell-Hydrogen research . Which will not buy the people a single thing regarding transportation. One big scam by the hihgway-auto-petroleum people so they can keep oil profits high while doing nothing practical about USA energy independence.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by paugust

Yawn, just another NeoCon obsessed with Clinton. _!_

So, on the one hand I have paugust calling me a NeoCon, and on the other I have Larry Kaufman calling me a communist. I guess that puts me smack dab in the middle of the ole' Bell Curve.

Just remember, when Clinton lied, thousands of Serbs died. BTW, have we rebuilt the Serbian rail network yet? After all, first bombed, first served.

Well would you please make up your mind then.....Which is it? Are you a Neo-Con or a Clintonista???[;)]

I'm just an average joe who's proud to be an American.

Okay ..good enough for me.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by paugust

Yawn, just another NeoCon obsessed with Clinton. _!_

So, on the one hand I have paugust calling me a NeoCon, and on the other I have Larry Kaufman calling me a communist. I guess that puts me smack dab in the middle of the ole' Bell Curve.

Just remember, when Clinton lied, thousands of Serbs died. BTW, have we rebuilt the Serbian rail network yet? After all, first bombed, first served.

Well would you please make up your mind then.....Which is it? Are you a Neo-Con or a Clintonista???[;)]

I'm just an average joe who's proud to be an American.

[edblysard]

So, Dan,
You saying beer isnt just a breakfast food anymore?

Ed

[dharmon]

Fund it...make it good, reliable, seperated from freight traffic as much as possible, equipped with modern equipment and ideas...doesn't have to be run for profit, but stop running it like a coma patient on life support...

...or kill it and let the states pick up regional traffic in the corridors that make sense.

...and if they do kill it, I've got a study of fermented grain beverage induced flatulance that I think would make a good long term government funding project. <burp>

[edblysard]

First, I agree, Amtrak in its current form sucks...I rode it the year it was created, and swore I would never set foot on it again.
Santa Fe spoiled me!
But then, I rode it in the middle 90s, and was surprised at how much better it had become, and disappointed at how badly the freight railroads screwed it over.

Re-read my original idea...let the feds run it at a loss if needs be...but price it so the average Joe can afford it.

As for those who don’t live near a rail line..so.

How many don’t live near an airport?

My sister lives in Bandera, way out in the Texas hill country, at least 50 miles from SA, for her to fly anywhere outside of the south west takes a days worth of airport hopping just to make the connections.

Face it, no matter what form of national transportation system you design, you can’t please everyone all the time.

I am not saying take any funding away from the other types of transportation.

What I am says is let quit worrying if they make money, because none of them do.

Not in real, concrete measurable terms.

But they do allow us, the taxpayer, to use them to make us, private concerns, money.

The Mississippi flood control, the intercostal water way, the airports and the interstate don’t pay for themselves in cash back...but they do allow us to make enough in corporate profits to pay the taxes to keep them working.

Which is exactally what we expect from our federal goverment.

Apply the same concept to a passenger train.

Who cares if it makes money, as long as it moves a sufficient number of people from point A to point B, at a price they are willing to pay, then it works just as well as any airport, city bus line, or light rail.

Ed

[kevarc]

Singular point of view? Maybe. I looked at using Amtrak to visit my parents. I live on the Sunset Route and they live in Pittsburgh. After finding out the cost for my wife, son, and me, it was crazy. For what it would cost, I could have flown and still had a hunk of money left over. Then we get to the time - I could drive it faster, stay in a nice hotel and still have money left over. Kinda of a no brainer. The time was longer, and that is on the premise that Amtrak is on time. Fat chance on that. Then the layovers - New Orleans and then I had my choice of Washington or Chicago. None of them are what I would consider a garden spot to wait for 6 hours. Bah, I don't mind driving that much, even with the cost of gas.

I just don't see where Amtrak is worth the effort for most of the country. In certain corridor, yes, but let the states help pick up the cost like they do in California. If they want it that bad, let them pay for it.

Common good? For who? Those that live near a line? What about the rest of the country? Are we going to jam it down the RR's throat? Another bad idea. The government could always appropriate the tracks, right? But then who is going to compensate those that have an interest in the RR's, the stockholders and bond holders? I own RR stock, maybe not much, but enough that I would definatley be interested in filing a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit on any of the management and board that would agree to a deal with the government. Never forget how well the government did in WW1 and 2 in dealing with the RR's. Do you really want a repeat of that? They got lucky in Conrail that they had people who knew what they were doing.

[edblysard]

Kevin,
You appear to have a singular point of view...in that because Amtrak doesn’t affect you one way or the other, it should go away.
Well, I don’t ride buses...and I despise flying.
I figure if god had wanted me that high up, he would have given me wings, or put Houston on top of the Rockies...
So, from the position you present, airplanes and airports, and all city buses should be junked, because "I" don’t use them or benefit from their existence.
I also don’t get any direct benefit from the intercostals water way, or the Mississippi river, so they too should be cut off from federal funds?
As to allowing the states and local governments to use the funds at their discretion...well, last time I took IH10 across the bridge at Orange, I hit some of the cruddiest highway I have ever driven on. And then in the next parish, it was wonderful, so the patchwork spending of local governments has already been shown to produce a less than uniform and desirable product.
Now, I don’t plan on ever riding a barge up the intercostals, or rafting down the Mississippi, but I can see where traffic on both do benefit me…even though on the surface they both seem to compete with my business of railroading.
Some products don’t need to go by rail, or by truck, but fit quite well into a barge.

Shipping them any other way would increase my cost at the cash register.

Same thing applies to Amtrak.

By the way, for a failed entity, it sure draws a lot of riders ready to board at 2:00am in Houston, last time I was down there, I asked the ticket agent, 73 ticket sales, and they boarded a pretty crowded train.
Imagine if the thing was run right, and the first section of the Sunset Limited showed up at 2:00 pm in the afternoon?

I might never ride it again, but I can see where it would serve a large portion of the public.

To me, the direct benefit is I wouldn’t have to fly again.

The indirect benefit is that quite a few people would use it instead of driving or flying, lessening the crowding on the interstate and the crush at the airports.

An even better example, take New Orleans…now, from my point of view, anybody who builds a city on the third coast, below sea level, should expect to get drowned about once a year.

Hundreds, even billions of federal dollars are spent every year to keep the dikes and levees working, and to keep the city alive.

Why should I care if it sinks or swims?

I don’t even go there for Mardi-Gras, so I don’t receive any direct benefit.

So why are federal funds spent there?

Because the people who live there want them to be, and have managed to get their elected officials to help direct federal funds towards it.

All for the “common good” of the populace there.

I am pretty sure you could find a lot of folks in Oregon who dont even know where New Orleans is, and could care less if it sinks....but some of their mony is still spent there to keep it dry.

So why not spent some on the common good a national passenger rail system would create?

The funds have to be dedicated solely to Amtrak, and managed by a single, Federal entity, solely for Amtrak’s use, with broad enforcement and design powers.

Anything else is a pork barrel approach that we all know doesn’t work.

My concept is simple.

We own it already.
It is already there, and working, in a fashion.
Enough people want it to remain.

So.....

Ed

[kevarc]

Sorry, I did missread it.

It is easy to understand why certain projects get funded - PORK. Nothing more, nothing less. To them it is a big game to see how much they can bring to their district to get the votes to be re-elected. There is an old saying - all politics are local. While some of the emotional issues, abortion, for instance, may ring with Presidential elections, it is almost always local issues that play in every othere election. I know when I listen to the candidates for the Senate and House here, I don't care about the hot button issues, I want to know is it going to put money in my pocket and get government off my back. What is he/she going to do for local problems.

If you want to put Amtrak into the same catagory are NASA, what can I expect from them? NOTHING. Nothing amtrak does is going to improve the quality of life that many projects from NASA did and will continue to do. We have recieved tangible result. Research is good, subsidizing amtrak is bad. So you do want to compare the 2.

It is time to realize that amtrak is a failed entity and consign it to the dustbin unless major changes are made. Like I suggested above. Make transportation funds available to the states and let them decide whether to fund roads or trains or buses. We are the ones who must live with the decisions and considering that I only vote for 2 senators and 1 representive, why should the other idiots there tell us how and where to spend the money. I am still trying to figure out why some clown from Oregon knows what we need here in Louisiana better than what we know. (Nothing against Oregon, but they are far away from here)

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard


Humm,
Well, Kevin, I must not have expressed myself quite a clearly as I wanted to, or you didn’t quite understand what I was writing.

I wasn’t comparing NASA to any railroad...in fact, what I was pointing out is that almost no one expects NASA to be a for profit venture, in terms of a hard cash return on the investment.
Everyone does expect technological advances to be made, and for theses advances to work their way down into the public domain, based on the research NASA and its contractors do.

And almost everyone still lets Congress get away with the "for profit" concept of Amtrak.

What I was suggesting was that you place Amtrak in the same political concept as NASA, a long term government funded public project.

And I doubt any private citizen who gets served by one of the TVA projects really cares one bit about the source of the funding for it, as long as the lights are on, their happy.

My point was, it’s your money, your representative, your congress.
If you will sit there and allow them to fund snail darter research, or warthog mating research...well, why not demand they spend your money on something you want?

Personally, I have a pretty good idea that wart hogs get on with it the same way rabbits, skunks and some of the forum members(fill in the blank) get by...and as for snail darters...well...I don’t miss the dodo bird, or the pigeons that were hunted out of existence...and I don’t see any real reason we, the general public, need to pay to find out how warthogs manage to procreate or save a fi***hat isn’t a food stuff for some other animal, and plays no real part in the planets ecosystem.

But somehow, we allowed our leaders to fund a few hundred projects that do research such concerns.

On the other hand, I do miss having a nationwide passenger train service that works.

And I don’t mind spending the money to create such a thing.

I certainly do mind spending some of the ludicrous amounts on the wild and wooly pork barrel home state projects our congressmen and women manage to get away with...
And I certainly would be more that happy to remind them they hold their current position because I helped vote them in...And don’t mind voting them out if they don’t spend my money on what I want.

And, no, railroads are not public utilities, but they were treated so by our government, and forced to behave as such, for so long that the government almost regulated them out of existence.
The mega mergers everyone seems so bent about are not solely motivated by greed, in most instances; they are the last attempt by a hammered industry to survive.

Had deregulation come even 20 years earlier, almost all of your fallen flags would still be here, in some shape or form, and almost all of them would be profitable.

If you look closely, you will notice that most of the Class1s are dropping the short haul, local industry switching in favor of the long haul, unit and intermodel train...and leaving the close to home stuff to the short lines and locals.

And, look even closer, you will see that they are investing, and helping those short lines to progress, note the excellent obituary LC posted about his friend, who made a career out of helping NS create shorelines out of their spin-off tracks.

I know, I work for a "local" railroad that serves BNSF, UP, and KCS...at a profit both to us, and the shippers.
It’s flat out cheaper for us to work the ship channel, gather it all up, and interchange with the Class 1s than it is for the big guys to do it themselves.
It’s a win, win thing for all of us.

So, while all of us sit around griping about the latest paint scheme on a BNSF locomotive, BNSF is busy showing a short line in New Mexico how to make money serving a few small mines...NS is busy teaching a local line how to get business that went to trucks back, and KCS is dragging everything it can get its hands on out of Mexico and into the US, and at less cost than trucks can move it.

They are busy recreating a business structure that existed 80 years ago, and was destroyed by our government’s attitude that they should be treated like the light company...as a public utility.

They are not, never have been, and never will be.

But, Amtrak can be...it belongs to us already, lets just take the final step, and claim ownership.

It’s ours, so let’s make it work for us.

Ed

Ed,

A wonderfully planned response, and oen of the few on this board that might make me rethink my position a little bit. Thanks for the copius amount of thought and time that you put into it.

Chris
Denver, CO

[Anonymous]

Thanks for proving my point!

_|_

Paul

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by paugust

Yawn, just another NeoCon obsessed with Clinton. _!_

So, on the one hand I have paugust calling me a NeoCon, and on the other I have Larry Kaufman calling me a communist. I guess that puts me smack dab in the middle of the ole' Bell Curve.

Just remember, when Clinton lied, thousands of Serbs died. BTW, have we rebuilt the Serbian rail network yet? After all, first bombed, first served.

[edblysard]

Humm,
Well, Kevin, I must not have expressed myself quite a clearly as I wanted to, or you didn’t quite understand what I was writing.

I wasn’t comparing NASA to any railroad...in fact, what I was pointing out is that almost no one expects NASA to be a for profit venture, in terms of a hard cash return on the investment.
Everyone does expect technological advances to be made, and for theses advances to work their way down into the public domain, based on the research NASA and its contractors do.

And almost everyone still lets Congress get away with the "for profit" concept of Amtrak.

What I was suggesting was that you place Amtrak in the same political concept as NASA, a long term government funded public project.

And I doubt any private citizen who gets served by one of the TVA projects really cares one bit about the source of the funding for it, as long as the lights are on, their happy.

My point was, it’s your money, your representative, your congress.
If you will sit there and allow them to fund snail darter research, or warthog mating research...well, why not demand they spend your money on something you want?

Personally, I have a pretty good idea that wart hogs get on with it the same way rabbits, skunks and some of the forum members(fill in the blank) get by...and as for snail darters...well...I don’t miss the dodo bird, or the pigeons that were hunted out of existence...and I don’t see any real reason we, the general public, need to pay to find out how warthogs manage to procreate or save a fi***hat isn’t a food stuff for some other animal, and plays no real part in the planets ecosystem.

But somehow, we allowed our leaders to fund a few hundred projects that do research such concerns.

On the other hand, I do miss having a nationwide passenger train service that works.

And I don’t mind spending the money to create such a thing.

I certainly do mind spending some of the ludicrous amounts on the wild and wooly pork barrel home state projects our congressmen and women manage to get away with...
And I certainly would be more that happy to remind them they hold their current position because I helped vote them in...And don’t mind voting them out if they don’t spend my money on what I want.

And, no, railroads are not public utilities, but they were treated so by our government, and forced to behave as such, for so long that the government almost regulated them out of existence.
The mega mergers everyone seems so bent about are not solely motivated by greed, in most instances; they are the last attempt by a hammered industry to survive.

Had deregulation come even 20 years earlier, almost all of your fallen flags would still be here, in some shape or form, and almost all of them would be profitable.

If you look closely, you will notice that most of the Class1s are dropping the short haul, local industry switching in favor of the long haul, unit and intermodel train...and leaving the close to home stuff to the short lines and locals.

And, look even closer, you will see that they are investing, and helping those short lines to progress, note the excellent obituary LC posted about his friend, who made a career out of helping NS create shorelines out of their spin-off tracks.

I know, I work for a "local" railroad that serves BNSF, UP, and KCS...at a profit both to us, and the shippers.
It’s flat out cheaper for us to work the ship channel, gather it all up, and interchange with the Class 1s than it is for the big guys to do it themselves.
It’s a win, win thing for all of us.

So, while all of us sit around griping about the latest paint scheme on a BNSF locomotive, BNSF is busy showing a short line in New Mexico how to make money serving a few small mines...NS is busy teaching a local line how to get business that went to trucks back, and KCS is dragging everything it can get its hands on out of Mexico and into the US, and at less cost than trucks can move it.

They are busy recreating a business structure that existed 80 years ago, and was destroyed by our government’s attitude that they should be treated like the light company...as a public utility.

They are not, never have been, and never will be.

But, Amtrak can be...it belongs to us already, lets just take the final step, and claim ownership.

It’s ours, so let’s make it work for us.

Ed

[kevarc]

Some comments

Dave - the handicpped and elderly - to me that is a red herring meant to tug at our heartstrings. Sorry, that does not wash with me. Right to travel? Try getting on an airplane without a picture ID or pay for the ticket with cash and you will find yourselve in a small room answering a lot of questions. I check the Constitution and found no right to travel.

The TVA...ever hear some one who get their electricity from the dams gripe that the government spent money on that?

Or complain about the feds changing out a turbine or running new power lines?
Nope...it’s expected...

Well, not really. THE TVA still must answer to a lot of regulators - the EPA is hammering them for replacing turbine blades and other work done to plants. They must also answer to the FERC.

It would have been better, if from the beginning, they told the truth. But, alas, they prefered to put rose colored glasses on and say yep, it will be profitable. Dave - Trains Mag, both in the editoral columns and Don Phillip's columns have been saying for years that Amtrak would never be profitable. So it is hard for me to understand why you think that it can be or that we have a RIGHT to it. We don't and it never will.

Let the states have it with the matching funds like the Feds do for highways. This puts the onus on the people closest to the problem - the state and local officials. Let them decide whether to use the funds for highways or railroads. I could live with that a lot easier than trying to get the feds to do everything.

Train dispatchers as Fed employees like Air Traffic Controllers? This is really a bad idea.

Comparing NASA to railroads is like comparing apples to oranges. At least we do get something usefull from NASA. While we may not see money put into our pocket, the advances in weather prediction from it have saved lives. Hurricanes! We get nothing like that from amtrak.

You cannot make the RR's into a public utility. It already is, but it does not have the level of regulation that a utility does. Esp. since the end of the ICC. I am in the utiltiy business and I see a HUGE number of parallels between the RR's and the electric companies. Everything we do is a big ticket item. The cost for new transmission is staggering. It is as much, if not more, for a mile of transmission lines as it is for a mile of RR track. We need a wider right of way, the structures needed are as daunting as what a RR needs, and maintenence is just as costly.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Sounds like a Socialist-Clintonista, with severe Pavlovian leanings....



As for Amtrak...in my opinion, I wouldn’t blink an eye at Amtrak becoming a complete ward of the Feds...in fact, I think they should take it over, and run it like a public works project.

I doubt there is an adult here who seriously thinks a passenger train, outside of the NEC, can make enough profit to be self sufficient.

From what I have read, and the opinions of a few friends who were there, even back in the heyday or the Golden Years, the only railroad that consistently made money on their passenger service was Santa Fe, and only because they served a clearly cut, dedicated market, and employed people who loved, and I mean loved, their jobs.

Compare them to, say, Southwest Airlines.
They do the same thing; serve a small, dedicated market with a vengence.

They don’t offer anything beyond a seat, a soft drink and a bag of almonds, and the promise to get you there, when you want to get there, on time, and consistently.

Miss the 12:05 to Salt Lake?

No sweat, there is a 2:05 flight also...in fact; they fly more planes to their system points than anyone else, except UPS and FedEx...

Take away the myth that Amtrak can ever be profitable, it can’t.

Give real power to the guys running it...

Let them take a hard look at the population centers that need train service.

Give them the power of the Feds to seriously put the screws to any freight railroad that doesn’t clear a path for their trains, and reward handsomely those that do.

Get the Class 1s on the carpet; tell them that we are going to upgrade the routes the Feds want, from piddley 45 mph lines to 90mph drag strips, in exchange for their willingness to get out of the way.

Fine the crap out of them, and the dispatcher that doesn’t.
Better yet, make the dispatchers on those dedicated routes/lines Feds...

Sounds like I want to make it a public utility?
You bet.

Why?

Because I sit here and watch while the feds pay upwards of 20 billion dollars to turn a 20 mile stretch of I 10, the Katy Freeway, from a 4 lane each way overcrowded freeway into a super freeway, with eight lanes each way...and by the time they finish, in 2008, it will be too small!

They are building a super freeway to funnel all these autos into a downtown/ loop system that can’t handle the traffic that exists today.

No one bats an eye at that expense, in fact, you expect your government to build and maintain the interstate, for your use.

Do the folks in Nebraska complain about the cost of the Katy freeway expansion?
I doubt they even know about it. (Well, maybe Mookie knows, but Mookies knows everything!)

You don’t hear too many gripes about the NEC from down here in the swamp...

And I am pretty sure the people who ride it every day don’t miss a minute’s sleep worrying about where the funding for it comes from.

But remove it, and watch the fireworks start!

Not a one of us really complains about NASA, which is the most un-profitable venture you could imagine, and no one expect it to ever make money, but we all "profit" from the things it does.

New medicines, new research tools, weather prediction, cell phone tech...The list goes on and on, but hard cash back?

Not a dime!

The TVA...ever hear some one who get their electricity from the dams gripe that the government spent money on that?

Or complain about the feds changing out a turbine or running new power lines?
Nope...it’s expected...

So, as soon as you, me, and everyone else we can convince gets the idea that a national passenger rail system should make money out of our heads, and start to view it as a public service/utility, we can make it work.

Tell the people you elected this last time around you don’t care if it makes a dime, you want the service.
If they can spend a few million dollars on warthog mating habit research or a hundred million on saving the snail darter fish....they can figure out how to fund and run a passenger train from Chicago to LA on time, at a cost to the user, (you) that is affordable.

Tell your representatives that if they can’t figure it out, you plan on electing someone who can.

They understand votes more than anything else.


Ed

Bravo!
Now, perhaps we could get a private concern to run the food, beverage, and sleeping and parlor service on the trains, and leave the train running to the feds. that way we won't have diners that resemble a mess tent.

Mitch

[edblysard]

Sounds like a Socialist-Clintonista, with severe Pavlovian leanings....



As for Amtrak...in my opinion, I wouldn’t blink an eye at Amtrak becoming a complete ward of the Feds...in fact, I think they should take it over, and run it like a public works project.

I doubt there is an adult here who seriously thinks a passenger train, outside of the NEC, can make enough profit to be self sufficient.

From what I have read, and the opinions of a few friends who were there, even back in the heyday or the Golden Years, the only railroad that consistently made money on their passenger service was Santa Fe, and only because they served a clearly cut, dedicated market, and employed people who loved, and I mean loved, their jobs.

Compare them to, say, Southwest Airlines.
They do the same thing; serve a small, dedicated market with a vengence.

They don’t offer anything beyond a seat, a soft drink and a bag of almonds, and the promise to get you there, when you want to get there, on time, and consistently.

Miss the 12:05 to Salt Lake?

No sweat, there is a 2:05 flight also...in fact; they fly more planes to their system points than anyone else, except UPS and FedEx...

Take away the myth that Amtrak can ever be profitable, it can’t.

Give real power to the guys running it...

Let them take a hard look at the population centers that need train service.

Give them the power of the Feds to seriously put the screws to any freight railroad that doesn’t clear a path for their trains, and reward handsomely those that do.

Get the Class 1s on the carpet; tell them that we are going to upgrade the routes the Feds want, from piddley 45 mph lines to 90mph drag strips, in exchange for their willingness to get out of the way.

Fine the crap out of them, and the dispatcher that doesn’t.
Better yet, make the dispatchers on those dedicated routes/lines Feds...

Sounds like I want to make it a public utility?
You bet.

Why?

Because I sit here and watch while the feds pay upwards of 20 billion dollars to turn a 20 mile stretch of I 10, the Katy Freeway, from a 4 lane each way overcrowded freeway into a super freeway, with eight lanes each way...and by the time they finish, in 2008, it will be too small!

They are building a super freeway to funnel all these autos into a downtown/ loop system that can’t handle the traffic that exists today.

No one bats an eye at that expense, in fact, you expect your government to build and maintain the interstate, for your use.

Do the folks in Nebraska complain about the cost of the Katy freeway expansion?
I doubt they even know about it. (Well, maybe Mookie knows, but Mookies knows everything!)

You don’t hear too many gripes about the NEC from down here in the swamp...

And I am pretty sure the people who ride it every day don’t miss a minute’s sleep worrying about where the funding for it comes from.

But remove it, and watch the fireworks start!

Not a one of us really complains about NASA, which is the most un-profitable venture you could imagine, and no one expect it to ever make money, but we all "profit" from the things it does.

New medicines, new research tools, weather prediction, cell phone tech...The list goes on and on, but hard cash back?

Not a dime!

The TVA...ever hear some one who get their electricity from the dams gripe that the government spent money on that?

Or complain about the feds changing out a turbine or running new power lines?
Nope...it’s expected...

So, as soon as you, me, and everyone else we can convince gets the idea that a national passenger rail system should make money out of our heads, and start to view it as a public service/utility, we can make it work.

Tell the people you elected this last time around you don’t care if it makes a dime, you want the service.
If they can spend a few million dollars on warthog mating habit research or a hundred million on saving the snail darter fish....they can figure out how to fund and run a passenger train from Chicago to LA on time, at a cost to the user, (you) that is affordable.

Tell your representatives that if they can’t figure it out, you plan on electing someone who can.

They understand votes more than anything else.


Ed

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by paugust

Yawn, just another NeoCon obsessed with Clinton. _!_

So, on the one hand I have paugust calling me a NeoCon, and on the other I have Larry Kaufman calling me a communist. I guess that puts me smack dab in the middle of the ole' Bell Curve.

Just remember, when Clinton lied, thousands of Serbs died. BTW, have we rebuilt the Serbian rail network yet? After all, first bombed, first served.

Well would you please make up your mind then.....Which is it? Are you a Neo-Con or a Clintonista???[;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by paugust

Yawn, just another NeoCon obsessed with Clinton. _!_

So, on the one hand I have paugust calling me a NeoCon, and on the other I have Larry Kaufman calling me a communist. I guess that puts me smack dab in the middle of the ole' Bell Curve.

Just remember, when Clinton lied, thousands of Serbs died. BTW, have we rebuilt the Serbian rail network yet? After all, first bombed, first served.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

Cynacism is a cop-out. It is very easy to become cynical. Nothing good ever comes from cynacism.

Fighting cynacism with cynacism is no good, either. It just makes the world more cynical.

Arguing FOR what you believe is harder than knocking the other guy (or his idea) down with a hail of cynacism.

If you want the world to become a more dark and cynical, then pile on the cynacism!

If you want the world to become a better place, then stand up for what you beleive and get busy!

I wish I had your faith still. I lost it for awhile with certain folk and cliques although I see little bits of promise here in there, nothing concrete.[V]

[Anonymous]

Jim:

Pull in your horns - like YESTERDAY!

It is better to be an idiot and say nothing, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

MWH is there to rebuild the IRR from scratch and make it work. This has nothing to do with the morality of, and the morass of legal opinions behind, the second Gulf War.

Leave your opinions about GWB out of this. They are not relevant.

If the State Department would hire Canadians for this job, I would be over there working my heart out for Mark right now.

NAR Guy
Conductor and ex-soldier
Canada

[oltmannd]

Of course, now I have to practice what I preach![:I]

[oltmannd]

Cynacism is a cop-out. It is very easy to become cynical. Nothing good ever comes from cynacism.

Fighting cynacism with cynacism is no good, either. It just makes the world more cynical.

Arguing FOR what you believe is harder than knocking the other guy (or his idea) down with a hail of cynacism.

If you want the world to become a more dark and cynical, then pile on the cynacism!

If you want the world to become a better place, then stand up for what you beleive and get busy!

[Junctionfan]

You have to remember that politics and thinking for yourself doesn't work in most places (or is refused to work). Bush doesn't do anything without his political advisors and spin-doctors giving the greenlight. Politicians don't know or want to think for themselves because then they might actually have to do a good job.

Believe me when I say that the world sympathises as useless politicans are not just an American thing (Primeminister Paul Martin, Premier McGuinty), they are a plague on all nations.

[daveklepper]

Compared to the real subsidies, not the Mineta false accounting that leaves out, for example, the cost of highway police in most cases, and again I say ommission of real estate taxes is a hidden subsidy, the real subsidies for highway and air transportation, and don't forget the highly subsidized regional airports that make private and charter operations possible, $2Billion a year for Amtrak is peanuts. What does the USA get?

1. Highway congestion relief in corridors.

2. Better standby protection for emergencies.

3. Most elderly and handicapped having access to most of the nation

4. Eventually, after the repairs are made, a showcase for foreign and domestic tourism.

5. Pride in the nations heritage, since railroads unified the continent.

6. Eventually, some relief of rail capacity chokepoints to benefit both Amtrak and freight.

7. Better mobility in many points with choices, not just one service or none in many communities.

I think this is a bargain. Mark, what do you think?

If anyone agrees, make a manefesto of it and send it to NARP!

As an example of choices and mobility, let us look at the Phila-NY market.

One can use Acela or Metroliner on Amtrak and spend close to $100. The fastest service. About 65 or 70 minutes.

One can use the SEPTA R9(?) trian to the Airport, fly to Newark or LaGuagria, and use a variety of public or taxi transportation to Manhattan. Also about $100 and twice the total time. But there are those who LOVE flying. So they will take the plane. (in nice weather) Excuse me, counting security except on a low-travel day, four times the time!

One can use a regional Amtrak express with not much sacrifice in time and still have the advantage of a snack bar and comfortable seats, 80 - 95 minutes, about $45 depending on date?

One can use a SEPTA Trenton local with a same-platform change at Trenton to a NJTransit train, about $36, about 120 minutes. Sparten and no food service.

The through intercity bus does about as well, may shortening it to 90 minuts if there is not heavy traffic.

My choice: PATCO Franklin Bridge (great views) train to the Camden Transportation Center. The New Jersey Transit River Line (diesel interurban car, great scenery) upstairs on the street to Trenton on the street, using the right of way of the USA's third oldest railroad still seeing CSX freight service (Camden and Amboy). Then upstairs to an NJT or Amtrak train ot NY. About $24 total, and what a terrific railfan experience!

Variations on the theme: You can by your train ticket to Newark instead of NY, save a few bucks, and use PATH from Newark to New York, either the World Trade Center Station, or Christopher St, 9th St., 14th St. 23rd St. or 32nd St. and 6th Avenue.

In the past there was also direct service from Reading Terminal to Newark Penn Station via West Trenton, and the missing passenger leg from West Trenton to Newark may be restored soon.

Those are public transportation choices.

[Anonymous]

Jock,
What about BNSF, Amtrak, and FedEx getting together on a LD LA/Chic passenger/express train? Slide on containers similar to those used on FedEx planes could be carried in maybe all-door "baggage cars" (rather than intermodal which FedEx doesn't do). There would be major incentive to stay to schedule and high-value revenue to help make the train financially successful. Government mail contracts supported many trains years ago. Not thinking FedEx traffic would be handled at intermediate stops.

[jockellis]

G'day, Y'all:
On a personal note, Mark, Keep your head down!
We seem to have gotten off the track, so to speak, but in between the fighting, there have been some good points raised. AMTRAk will have a hard time "going 24 hours" because the freight railroads are so busy sending cars full of Chinese goods east from the left coast and empties back from the east so they can fill up again. At the present amount of track, where would they put more passenger trains without the staggering expense of new, dedicated, passenger routes? And that would really jack up the costs. Of course, the per passenger mile cost would go down if more trains were run, and in some places, that has been proved true (as stated above). But it would be hard to do that on a nation-wide basis. Remember, railroads in the 1800s learned somethig churches had known or centuries; people won't fill up the last 20 percent of a train or a sanctuary. so they have to build 25 percent more capacity than they use. (The 25 percent being one fourth more than the first 80 percent)
Personally, I think Pres. Bush sent this up as a trial balloon to see what would happen. The states became fighting mad because they don't have the money and the collective politicians will be looking for new jobs if they raise gas taxes to pay for it. Even pennies which people really wouldn't miss will get politicians beaten in November elections because people hate being taxed.
One thing I wi***he recent Trains Mag BNSF Transcon article had included - probably in sidebar form - is whether that heavy duty rail line could be used for passenger service and the 80 or so trains a day still use it. I doubt if BNSF would want to share, but who knows? When costs associated with getting merchandise from China get to the point where it not economically feasible to buy them over there but produce them here, BNSF might want another tenant.

Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

[jeaton]

I, for one, never said I wanted to take money off of highways and spend it on trains. We should have more money going for both. Of course, the problem is that we don't want to spend money on anything unless we are the direct beneficiaries of that expenditure. Either cheap or greedy, I can't decide which.

Thanks for the history of railroad passenger travel. That is probably useful for somebody that was born yesterday, but since I have been around since just before WW II, for me it is just old news. If it is just old news for you also, you might have a sense of how much the world has changed in the last half century of so. At least you might know how much has changed in the thirty some years since Amtrak was started. If not, let me assure you that the travel needs of the American public has under gone a dramatic increase. Barring something that causes a totally unexpected decline in population growth, the our need for expanded transportation facilities will continue to grow. We will be a very sorry place if we spend all of the money on highways.

I continue to see the statement on this forum that Americans are so much in love with their cars that they would never want to use any other form of transportation. That may have been almost universally true in the decade or so following WW II, but I'll bet big bucks that a survey now would show that most people would say a car is something the need, not just something they want. Big difference.

WMD's? None have been found and the search has been given up. Tough spot for the President, because now not so many are buying into the falling sky pleas.

Jay Eaton

[Paul Milenkovic]

The political reality is that Amtrak runs, primarily, a NY-Philly commuter operation with Boston and D.C. extensions plus this amorphous other known as the long-distance trains. The NY-Philly run is where Amtrak runs some fraction of a highway lane of traffic in each direction.

With the long, steady decline in rail passenger travel from the 1920's forward, with a brief increase in traffic during WW-II when you had to ride the train and a lot of people hated the service and the crowds and were ever so eager to get back into cars when the war was over, the powers that be decided that if there was one place where rail had a role and had a chance, it was in the Northeast Corridor -- Megalopolis as it was called. That was the one place the U.S. had European-style population densities to support European-style train service. The original Alan Cripe Turbo Train and Pennsy Metroliner were part of a U.S. D.O.T. demonstration that was supposed to spark a revival of passenger rail. The demonstration concentrated on enhanced corridor service, one with electric wires, the other without.

Part of the concept was that you needed population density to support the high fixed costs of rail, and the Northeast was the place. The term Megalopolis was to convey the idea that with the population of the suburbs, the swath from Boston to D.C. was becoming one continuous suburb. Part of what was overlooked that as the city populations headed out to the suburbs in the post WW-II housing boom, even though this was happening in the Northeast (along with the rest of the country), that population was becoming more dispersed so the questions was whether there are really that many end-to-end downtown NY to downtown DC trips.

The other thing that happened was the Penn Central disaster, tied into passenger rail because Pennsy, NY, and the sick child New Haven they were required to absorb as part of the merger, had some of the highest passenger operating losses (yeah, yeah, railroad accounting, but it was a factor). Following Penn Central was Conrail, and following Conrail was CSX and to a lesser extent NS with the NEC as a passenger-only railroad going to Amtrak.

The NEC is the only part Amtrak operates a railroad, and this came about almost by accident in the long, tortured aftermath of Penn Central. Everywhere else, Amtrak runs a kind of tour operation at the sufference of the host freight railroads. Back in 1971, Amtrak was created to relieve those freight railroads of their common carrier duties to carry passengers in exchange for whatever goodies they received back in the 19th century. Since then, there has been wholesale transportation deregulation of these freight railroads, who trimmed their physical plant to the cost-efficient minimum to support their freight operations, and the idea that the freight railroads have some kind of duty to run Amtrak trains on time to discharge their common carrier responsibility to carry passengers as part of the formation of Amtrak has gotten forgotten.

So you have two Amtraks, the NY-Philly commuter operation plus extensions, along with this tour operation running on the freight railroads -- kind of like passenger riverboats darting in and out among the barge tows. The NY-Philly operation is this black hole of government-funded capital expenditures, and the passenger riverboats actually makes a slim profit if it weren't for Amtrak's tortured accounting (those evil railroads weren't the only people to play such gains) -- they make a profit because they ride on rivers where someone else is paying for the locks and dams, but they get stuck behind those barge tows getting in and out of the locks, but I guess the riverboat clientel is on the riverboat for the entertainment or for health reasons, so they don't much care that they are hours upon hours late at times.

Maybe we have it all backwards with respect to corridors. Maybe corridors are just money pits and the amount of highway congestion relief is all in people's minds (hey, they say that if you build a new highway, it will only fill up -- maybe if you subsidize a railroad, the extra highway capacity also gets used up so there is no congestion relief either). Maybe the place for trains is the long-distance passenger train -- kind of like we now have cruise ships but the days of the Queens and the USS United States plying the seas between Manhattan and Southhampton are gone. Maybe these cruise ship trains can share the rails with freight and the people on these trains aren't in a hurry to get there or they would book airline flights and put up with the TSA. Maybe the profit margins are thin and they need government support, and the government funds national parks -- these trains are like rolling national parks.

But people still think the NEC is where trains belong, but if it gets a national subsidy, there has to be long distance trains because the Iowa farmer (you all from Iowa don't get mad at me) will be unhappy paying for those city folks to have their trains.

So President Bush decides to speak truth to all of the lazy assumptions and says, "Here is 300 mil to run that NY-Philly commuter line, and if the rest of you want trains, go to your state legislatures." Oh the humanity, and of course "Bush lied" (You all want to know that story? It turns out that the Germans had this Iraqi defector Tailor of Panama guy on ice who was feeding them the info on the WMD, which the Germans passed on to U.S. but the U.S. guys couldn't interview this dude. I got this story from a right-wing source called CNN. It is much easier to say "Bush lied" than get into, the dare I say, nuances of the situation.)

Back to trains. We Midwesterners are promoting the Midwest Regional High Speed Rail Initiative. It looks really great on paper and we are eager to get it. But then we hear of how many billions were spend on the NEC getting it up to the level of service we would like to have (110 MPH trains with some grad crossings -- the 150 MPH Acela is a stunt on a short section of track for marketing purposes), and we hear of the Acela woes, and if anyone wanted to stop us in our tracks from getting the Midwest Initiative, they could point to the NEC and assign an extrapolated price figure to what we are trying to do.

A person could take a conspiratorial view to all of this. Trains were done in by GM and the concrete lobby. Look how much subsidy highways get and how little trains get. Yes highways get a lot of subsidy -- try taking the lion's share of that subsidy out of highways, putting them into trains, and see how popular you are. Oh, but when gas gets to $3, $6, or even $10/gallon, people will want their trains. No they won't, they will want hybrid cars.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Elderly and handicapped people cannot cross the continent by air or by bus and many could not afford to hire a driver and comfortable limousine. They can tolerate a bus or pay a taxi for a two hour ride to the closest Amtrak statioh, or maybe even four hours.

Regarding open access, that is a different matter than the fact that highway and air do not pay real estate taxes and rail does. Don't confuse the two issues. Again, you talk about monopolistic freight pricing, but there is always highway and air freight transportation, so the monopoly isn't complete. I still maintain that this amounts to a vitual subsidy for the non-rail intercity public transportation.

Dave,

Under the current Amtrak routes, there are plenty of places out West, both small and large, which do not have access to Amtrak, and for which it would take more than a few hours ride by bus or car to access the nearest Amtrak station. Most Amtrak routes run east-west, what if the elderly or handicapped person in question needs to go north-south or NE-SW/NW-SE? How do the elderly in Boise get to Phoenix via Amtrak? How do the elderly in Billings get to El Paso via Amtrak? The point is, there just isn't enough saturation of point to point rail lines, let alone enough populace to support passenger rail between these types of cities, that they absolutely have to travel by non-rail modes to get to these places. If so, and if such trips are okay for these people, why not the same for those who may currently have the Amtrak alternative?

On the tax issue, because highways and airports are "owned" by cities, counties, and states, are you suggesting these entities tax themselves? Isn't that just taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another? Or are you suggesting what I have suggested, e.g. finding the true degree of user fees vs subsidies for these other modal infrastructures, and applying the same to railroads regardless of ownership? Like I've said before, if you are going to "equalize" the relative tax support structure among highways/airports/etc and railroads, then you better "equalize" the issue of rights of access among the various modes as well.

[Anonymous]

why does this have to go partisan? Mark is to be commended as a hero for going over to Iraq. Was the Intel bad for the war? Yes. But it was bad for all of us, France never once said they didn't have WMD's. Russia, Brittain, Germany all agreed that they thought that they had them. So why is it just the US intel that was wrong? Also, I think the stratagy was brilliant, they knew that the terrorists would then come in to fight them, and that is what they wanted. Why do you think that they haven't really closed the borders? It is much easier and better to draw out the enemy and kill them with your military, than to try and fight them at home. You may not agree with the war, and that is your right, but keep in mind under Saddam, he was financing the terrorist in Israel, as well as others. Plus because of his stealing of the money for food in the UN oil for Food program, he was killing a ton of people over there.
Brad

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman

To: LIMITEDCLEAR
Re your last response to Jim, "How was Canada. Jim???"
Recently an American soldier sought assylum in Canada,
He was an enlisted soldier with a great record in Afghanastan.
Hr yold the Canadian jdge he would be severely punished
if returned to the U.S. as he didn't want to go to Iraq.

The judge didn't buy his story and he is to be deported
sending a message to any other enlisted Americans
seeking assylum in Canada.

This judgement was generally well received by Canadians.

MM-

Thanks. I wasn't trying to cast aspersions on Canada today, but refer to the Vietnam era practice of some seeking to avoid Selective Service in the U.S. in connnection with Jim. I realize that Canada has effectively repudiated the former practice of accepting U.S. deserters.

LC

[daveklepper]

Elderly and handicapped people cannot cross the continent by air or by bus and many could not afford to hire a driver and comfortable limousine. They can tolerate a bus or pay a taxi for a two hour ride to the closest Amtrak statioh, or maybe even four hours.

Regarding open access, that is a different matter than the fact that highway and air do not pay real estate taxes and rail does. Don't confuse the two issues. Again, you talk about monopolistic freight pricing, but there is always highway and air freight transportation, so the monopoly isn't complete. I still maintain that this amounts to a vitual subsidy for the non-rail intercity public transportation.

[morseman]

To: LIMITEDCLEAR
Re your last response to Jim, "How was Canada. Jim???"
Recently an American soldier sought assylum in Canada,
He was an enlisted soldier with a great record in Afghanastan.
Hr yold the Canadian jdge he would be severely punished
if returned to the U.S. as he didn't want to go to Iraq.

The judge didn't buy his story and he is to be deported
sending a message to any other enlisted Americans
seeking assylum in Canada.

This judgement was generally well received by Canadians.

[Anonymous]

Yawn, just another NeoCon obsessed with Clinton. _!_

Paul (Obviously a Dinosaur)

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by paugust

I see this as a Quid Pro Quo. John McCain sold out to the Bushies, gave them his support. He would not do that without getting something in return. McCain has wanted Amtrak dead for years. Now, suddenly, he gets his way. Coincidence? Not in bush-world.

Bush has lied about everything else he's ever done. This is no different.

and to Mark, I hope you come home safe from Iraq. I don't necessarily admire what you are doing, but I do respect it. But you lost me with the democracy ain't cheap canard.

Since when do Trains = Democracy?

Paul

Paul,

Your insistence that Bush lied is the main reason your type is going the way of the dinosaur. You are either so stupid that you don't know the difference between a lie (e.g. "I never had sex with that women, Ms. Lewinsky.") and acting on poor international intelligence (as virtually all the Western nations concluded that Saddam had WMD's), or you are so disingenuously partisan that you must scrape the very bottom of the political barrel with your flaky tongue just to slake your embedded hatred of the foundations of this nation's.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill

QUOTE: Originally posted by amtrak-tom

$10 Billion for the Iraqi railroad......that's all I've got to say.

$10 billion! That would be wonderful news to the Iraq Republic Railway. The cash input it's actually getting is but 2.32% of that number, which is a drop in the bucket of the total need. Democracy isn't cheap.

mwh

I find it interesting, that Mark Hemphill a reporter of railroad news, backer of stock held railroading, is now the American overlord to a state run railroad. Its interesting to note, this current national administration has picked Mark.

Its also interesting to note, there are funds for Iraq's natioal railroad, and Mark's boss zeros out Amtrak.

Mark, again I'm asking you, just when was it that you sold out? This is the second time I've asked this question of YOU.

Jim - Lawton, NV MP236

Hey Jim -

WHO SOLD OUT? Mark or YOU. You are the only one on the board I hear denigrading those serving their country in a foreign war. Is there a Commie flag on the wall of your garage???

I'll just bet that your LTL buddies, many of whom are Vets themselves would LOVE to know the kind of scum they have to work with...

I asked you once if you have served, now I know the answer to that question. How was Canada, Jim???

YOU DISGUST ME.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033

The Mark said this:

"But I can't actually introduce you to Mr. Zoubaa. You see, he and his driver were asassinated by insurgents this morning as they drove to work. The Iraqi railwaymen I work with every day are pretty shook up"

Geuss he'd still been alive if we would not have gone to war with the third world that had nothing to do with 911

So, just when did you sell out?

Jim!

Mark is absolutely right. You are an idiot who needs professional help. Perhaps your union medical plan will even pay for it. Get lost LOSER.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I find two important points missing from this thread and they are also missing from any consideration so far by Bush and Mineta:

1. There are USA citizens who need Amtrak to be full citizens. They are the elderly and handicapped who cannot drive and who cannot fly but, in my opinion, are still entitled to have access to the entire country.

2. Airlines and interstate highways do not pay real estate taxes. Railroads do, and fees from Amtrak in part do pay part of those taxes. If all the land occupied by airports and interstate highways (only interstates, not any other highways) were evalautated for real estate taxes on realistic terms by local communities and counties, the total yearly tax bill would probably top $10billion, not $2Billion.

Dave,

You bring up two good points. Allow me to play devil's advocate...

1. What of the elderly and handicapped who currently not served by Amtrak? What about those elderly and handicapped who don't live anywhere near a railroad that could even support passenger rail? Conversely, if these elderly and handicapped can get around via highway oriented travel options, would not the same work for those who may currently utilize Amtrak?

2. It is the rail industry's choice to keep the ROW's under private closed access ownership. Anytime they want, they can give up that proprietary right to the public, and private/public consortium, or a tax-exempt private utility. Of course, if they do that then the transporter service providers must compete for each and every customer. It is the belief of rail industry leaders that the ability to extract monopolistic pricing from captive shippers under the property taxed closed access ROW system is preferable to having to compete for those same customers under a tax exempted open access ROW system. As everyone on this forum knows, I advocate the open access system, as it is my belief that profits would be enhanced by participating in a market based competitive situation via expanding customer volume, rather than limiting customers to those that can be exploited (and giving up the rest of the potential marktet to truckers, barge lines, and pipelines).

That being said, it is still imperative to discuss why we need a government run passenger rail service if all other modes only support privately run passenger services (albeit with varying degrees of public support for infrastructure). If it is concluded by the powers that be that we need to keep the current proprietary closed access rail system while forcing these same entities to accept a government run passenger service, why wouldn't it be perferable to have the government transfer that right of access to any potential private passenger service provider who wants to take a shot at trying to make money on passenger trains? Maybe it's true that running LD passenger trains with 1930's logistics will not result in any private sector imcome potential, but then again who knows what could come about under private enterprise if those entities focus on the more logical applications of passenger rail service, namely the concepts of overnight trains and/or tourist trains.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by paugust

I see this as a Quid Pro Quo. John McCain sold out to the Bushies, gave them his support. He would not do that without getting something in return. McCain has wanted Amtrak dead for years. Now, suddenly, he gets his way. Coincidence? Not in bush-world.

Bush has lied about everything else he's ever done. This is no different.

and to Mark, I hope you come home safe from Iraq. I don't necessarily admire what you are doing, but I do respect it. But you lost me with the democracy ain't cheap canard.

Since when do Trains = Democracy?

Paul

Paul,

Your insistence that Bush lied is the main reason your type is going the way of the dinosaur. You are either so stupid that you don't know the difference between a lie (e.g. "I never had sex with that women, Ms. Lewinsky.") and acting on poor international intelligence (as virtually all the Western nations concluded that Saddam had WMD's), or you are so disingenuously partisan that you must scrape the very bottom of the political barrel with your flaky tongue just to slake your embedded hatred of the foundations of this nation's.

[Anonymous]

I see this as a Quid Pro Quo. John McCain sold out to the Bushies, gave them his support. He would not do that without getting something in return. McCain has wanted Amtrak dead for years. Now, suddenly, he gets his way. Coincidence? Not in bush-world.

Bush has lied about everything else he's ever done. This is no different.

and to Mark, I hope you come home safe from Iraq. I don't necessarily admire what you are doing, but I do respect it. But you lost me with the democracy ain't cheap canard.

Since when do Trains = Democracy?

Paul

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033

The Mark said this:

"But I can't actually introduce you to Mr. Zoubaa. You see, he and his driver were asassinated by insurgents this morning as they drove to work. The Iraqi railwaymen I work with every day are pretty shook up"

Geuss he'd still been alive if we would not have gone to war with the third world that had nothing to do with 911

So, just when did you sell out?

Jim!

Somedays the deployments, the time away from home...just isn't worth it realizing the drivel some folks spout using the freedoms that we protect.

Jim ...how about a nice steaming hot cup of SHUT THE &*^% UP.

[jeaton]

SP9033

It appears that it is way beyond your ability to comprehend why thousands of people like Mark Hemphill have decided to voluntarily leave family, travel halfway around the world to tackle extroadinarily difficult problems while having their lives on the line. But I will try.

As much as anybody, I believe the decision to make pre-emptive strike against Iraq was made by people so narrow minded and egotistical that they could not even consider that the action they advocated could produce anything but a good outcome. At the least it could be said that the action was ill-advised, but I think that the resulting loss of human life, both military and innocent civilian, and the enormous cost to the American public makes the action an outragously immoral act.

As much as I and and people here and around the world think it was wrong, the war happened. In my mind we have a moral obligation to fix what we helped destroy. That in itself would be enough justification, but it is also clear to me that if we were to pull away and take our money with us, we would leave ourselves in far greater danger than we were before the war. Hemphill and the people working with him are trying to make do with a very small proportion of the $300 billion total cost of the war in a sincere effort to help the Iraqis rebuild and give them a chance to move on to more peacful lives.

I don't like the fact that we now have to spend the kind of money going to the war effort. I would like to see that kind of money and more spent on things like transportation infrastructure, schools, healthcare and many other things even much more needed than Amtrak. Given the popularity of tax cuts, it is pretty clear that the voting Americans will try anything to get out of paying for things that are needed for our welfare. For some, appearantly such as you, no government spending is to be allowed unless it is made directly to US citizens.

If you think that you, or for that matter, any other person in the world can avoid any interact with all the other political entities and people of the world, you had better start looking for a very deep hole in a very uninhabital part of the world.

In fact if you want to leave now, I'll pay to fill up the tank in your vehicle,

Jay Eaton

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033

The Mark said this:
...
So, just when did you sell out?

A moral man acts as his conscience dictates, not someone else's. In my mind, "selling out" is when you compromise your conscience. I see no evidence of this. On the contrary, from everything that I've read that MWH has written, he's shown himself to be a man of integrity, directness, and conscience. My impression is that he took the job believing he's sincerely doing a service for the beleaguered people of Iraq, at considerable risk to his own life and obviously not for the money. I wouldn't go there for any amount of money. He should be applauded instead.

[Anonymous]

The Mark said this:

"But I can't actually introduce you to Mr. Zoubaa. You see, he and his driver were asassinated by insurgents this morning as they drove to work. The Iraqi railwaymen I work with every day are pretty shook up"

Geuss he'd still been alive if we would not have gone to war with the third world that had nothing to do with 911

So, just when did you sell out?

Jim!

[Anonymous]

I was wrong.

Jim

[Anonymous]

Jim

[Anonymous]

jim

[daveklepper]

I find two important points missing from this thread and they are also missing from any consideration so far by Bush and Mineta:

1. There are USA citizens who need Amtrak to be full citizens. They are the elderly and handicapped who cannot drive and who cannot fly but, in my opinion, are still entitled to have access to the entire country.

2. Airlines and interstate highways do not pay real estate taxes. Railroads do, and fees from Amtrak in part do pay part of those taxes. If all the land occupied by airports and interstate highways (only interstates, not any other highways) were evalautated for real estate taxes on realistic terms by local communities and counties, the total yearly tax bill would probably top $10billion, not $2Billion.

[PNWRMNM]

Mark,

It is soo much more fun to make wild claims though. Keep up the good work.

Mac

[Anonymous]

"Whatcha gonna do when the gas runs out?]"

Most Amtrak trains run on diesel fuel (oil).
What? We can't electrify?

If the number of trains were trippled, there l would not be triple the ridership which would decrease their energy efficiency energy. How many passengers does it take to make a train more efficient than an auto?
When service was increased between Milwaukee and Chicago, the ridership in general went up. I saw it.


If we can get the wackos to allow nuclear power plants and get the distribution infrastructure set up autos can be made to run fine on hydrogen (we need electricity to get the hydrogen) and make the electric car viable for around town use even with
no improvement in range.

If we could get the whacko power companies to maintain their nuclear plants responsibly, no one would argue. I don't want to become a glow-in-the-dark statue."

I don't live where you live. Air France had no direct service to South Bend, 40 miles away. The airport itself was a hell to endure."

He couldn't catch a local flight from O'Hare? or catch a bus? As I said trips don't start and end at the airport or train station. If every rail line that existed in 1950 still existed and evey line had passenger service on it, the train still couldn't match the auto for speed and covenience in most of the country. In most of the county it couldn't match the airplane either. Time is money.

Time is money. that's getting old. To some but not all. Especially the majority of folks who use their cars long distance instead of the airlines. Just what my brother wanted to do. Schlep 6 bags from one terminal to the other in an airport the size of my town just to wait for another flight, go back in the air to land at South Bend for a car trip. then thee's people that live around here that want to fly to New York. They get into their car around 4pm, drive to O'hare and get a room for the night, and take a morning flight out. By the time they get to New York they could have taken the Broadway. Do you jog to work?



"Well, now you get my point about frequency and service. Two locals, one express."

Yeah, but the express doesn't stop and the locals schedule is all wrong for my needs. Besides they take at least 3- hour station to station. What is a 2-1/2 hour door to door auto trip then takes over 4 hours. My trip isn't station to station

An assumption on your part not seeing a sample schedule, or connections.

More trains, even with increased ridership, would likely mean greater loses and thus the need for more taxpayer as opposed to user money to keep the trains running.

I don't get that. Do we scrap the NEC account too many riders? Or reduce it to one round trip a day?


I do believe that communter rail is useful under the right circunstances of population distribution and density.

Regional rail such as being developed in California may have it's place too.

[red]But if you want to go 501 miles, ya better drive, or stay home!

As I have posted in other threads, sourse Victoria Transportation Policy Institute www.vtpi.org (which by the way not a pro-automobile site), the subsidy per passenger mile for rail is higher than the cost per vehicle mile for the automobile.

[red]Bully for Victoria's Secret.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Has anyone yet realized that Amtrak is operated using 1930's logistics? Show me any other mode where passenger service is using 70 year old logistical operations. For that matter, show me any other mode where the federal government is providing passenger services.

The nation's proprietary closed access rail system is built, operated, and maintained to run mile long 10,000+ ton consists at an average speed of 25 mph. Passenger service, regardless of mode, needs to be fast, frequent, and flexible. Trying to mix passenger services in with today's U.S. rail system is like trying to mix oil and water. It is completely nonsensicle.

Without a high speed rail system, one in which door to door transit times can beat door to door highway times regardless of the distance, the idea of passenger rail is a no go.

Dave,
I'm with you on the high speed rail thing, as opposed to running passenger trains on freight railroads.

Our question may be one of symantics. In saving Amtrak are we asking for the "same-o same-o" or asking for proper funding that would take Amtrak, or a funded, non-private rail service to a new level?

My only "wise-guy" remark to your comments is the interstate highway idea is as old as the first streamliners in that it came from the German Autoban. Limited access highways were planned in Chicago before WW II.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

The federal tax dollar revenues fund new construction only, with either new highways or rebuilding old highways...... Not one red cent goes to maintenance...... Maintenance funds come from the state and local governments......

The feds have spent over $1 trillion building new federally signed/marked highways in the past 50 years...... Its amazing how Amtrak's critics could possibly suggest that $24 billion over the past 40 years have been a huge tax boondoggle..... less than a quarter of one percent of the funds spent on new highways.....

Frankly, if the feds had instituted a one cent sales tax to fund passenger rail, we would have the best passenger rail network in the world, far surpassing the Europeans..... With a $7 trillion gross national product, a one cent sales tax would generate up to $70 billion a year to fund a national passenger railroad...... More than enough to build a new HSR network from New York City to Chicago, Washington DC to Miami, and from Chicago and Miami's corridors to Texas, a state with over 22 million people living in it.....not to mention a corridor in California linking northern and southern California..... IN ONE YEAR!

[jeaton]

In the category of be careful what you wish for. For those who wi***hat Amtrak will go away, you may also want to wi***hat you will not live long after your driver's license is not renewed because of disabilities brought on by old age.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone yet realized that Amtrak is operated using 1930's logistics? Show me any other mode where passenger service is using 70 year old logistical operations. For that matter, show me any other mode where the federal government is providing passenger services.

The nation's proprietary closed access rail system is built, operated, and maintained to run mile long 10,000+ ton consists at an average speed of 25 mph. Passenger service, regardless of mode, needs to be fast, frequent, and flexible. Trying to mix passenger services in with today's U.S. rail system is like trying to mix oil and water. It is completely nonsensicle.

Without a high speed rail system, one in which door to door transit times can beat door to door highway times regardless of the distance, the idea of passenger rail is a no go.

[Anonymous]

For those who believe gutting Amtrak will help corridors, short distance routes and mass transit...

These guys - supporters of light rail and the corridors - think Bush's wrong-headed plan is an attack on balanced transportation in general.

Corridors support needed LD trains. LD trains support and feed into corridors. What's needed is balance, with good regional air service and good highways as well. Passenger rail is far from outmoded. It does have a use in short and long distance travel Amtrak is at a record ridership level.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_amtrak_2005-03.htm

QUOTE.... "In its unprecedented proposal to shut down Amtrak intercity rail passenger service, the USA's Bush administration portrays its move as an effort to "save" corridor trains and bolster regional rail service. Certainly, regional corridors are a critical element in any program of intercity rail passenger service, but, as our various analyses of Bush's "zero funding" plan demonstrate, killing rail service to "preserve" or foster corridor service is at best an absurd oxymoron, and at worst a calculated deception to decimate regional and intercity rail public transport on a wide scale.

There is a veritable avalanche of evidence suggesting that long-distance passenger train services generate the greatest revenue per passenger, and that shorter-distance, purely "corridor" ridership is not the relatively ultra-remunerative traffic it's portrayed to be. Nevertheless, regional corridor ridership is certainly crucial, and a further essential interface with urban transit, both bus and rail. Yet there is a widespread misconception that decimating Amtrak's intercity operations will somehow bolster these corridor services and strengthen the financial performance of rail services (which, in the Bush proposal, include the fantasy of private-profit rail companies rushing to compete for supposedly lucrative, profitable rail passenger contracts).

But the evidence, and a thoughtful analysis of the Bush program, suggest that this vision of supposedly nurturing regional corridors by delivering a coup de grâce to Amtrak is nothing but a cruel hoax, designed to flummox the gullible. For those that naively buy into this flim-flam, what is particularly being misunderstood is that Amtrak already provides the basis for regional service – and, in fact, for a huge swath of the USA, Amtrak is the "regional rail service". In this respect, long-distance travel serves as "frosting on the cake" in terms of additional, lucrative revenue. "

[DSchmitt]

"Whatcha gonna do when the gas runs out?]"

Most Amtrak trains run on diesel fuel (oil).

If the number of trains were trippled, there l would not be triple the ridership which would decrease their energy efficiency energy. How many passengers does it take to make a train more efficient than an auto?


If we can get the wackos to allow nuclear power plants and get the distribution infrastructure set up autos can be made to run fine on hydrogen (we need electricity to get the hydrogen) and make the electric car viable for around town use even with
no improvement in range.

" I don't live where you live. Air France had no direct service to South Bend, 40 miles away. The airport itself was a hell to endure."

He couldn't catch a local flight from O'Hare? or catch a bus? As I said trips don't start and end at the airport or train station. If every rail line that existed in 1950 still existed and evey line had passenger service on it, the train still couldn't match the auto for speed and covenience in most of the country. In most of the county it couldn't match the airplane either. Time is money.



"Well, now you get my point about frequency and service. Two locals, one express."

Yeah, but the express doesn't stop and the locals schedule is all wrong for my needs. Besides they take at least 3- hour station to station. What is a 2-1/2 hour door to door auto trip then takes over 4 hours. My trip isn't station to station

More trains, even with increased ridership, would likely mean greater loses and thus the need for more taxpayer as opposed to user money to keep the trains running.



I do believe that communter rail is useful under the right circunstances of population distribution and density.

Regional rail such as being developed in California may have it's place too.

As I have posted in other threads, sourse Victoria Transportation Policy Institute www.vtpi.org (which by the way not a pro-automobile site), the subsidy per passenger mile for rail is higher than the cost per vehicle mile for the automobile.

[Anonymous]

]Originally posted by DSchmitt

"If a store is only open one hour a day, it won't sell enough product to make costs or profit. If it's open 3 hours a day it moves enough product to maybe break eevn. If it's open 24 hours it moves a lot of product."

False: If this was true every store would be open 24 hours a day. Longer hours mean higher costs. If the business is not there, the extra hours cost more money than they make. Even is business is good the aditional costs may exceed the aditional revenue.I didn't say you have to be open 24 hours to make a profit. Walmart is though. I think you get the drift in terms of service.

Even when trains were the best transportation alternative (the alternatives being stage coach, wagon, horse or walking) many routes did not have the ridership even close to justifingy the cost of running a train and even full trains were and are often overall money loosers. So we should have had Amtrak in 1930?

"As for America being too far flung in the wild west and there is no need for the service I must ask then why was an Interstate Highway run out there?"

While highways do cost money to build and maintain (as do railroads) the majority of the cost is paid by user fees (gas tax and other truck/auto related taxes and fees). The cost to the owner (government ) to operate highways is extremly low. There are no locomotives and cars to buy and maintain, no crew, no ticket sellers, , no dispatchers, no equipment cleaning and repair people, etc. to pay) The users pay for their own vehicles and operate them themselves.

The automobile provides much more flexible service to the user than any train system could.

Whatcha gonna do when the gas runs out?]

"I'm getting older, and I don't have the energy it takes to put in a 9 hour day driving the Interstate. I live far enough away from any airport to make air travel easy. Besides I don't think much of casting myself off into the blue yonder on a firey fusalage.
Everyone that I've ever spoken with on an Amtrak long distance train says the same thing. They wi***he service was a little better, and that there would be more trains. They weren't railfans. they think trains are a viable alternative."

I find it hard to believe that your brother couldn't have arranged to go to a closer airport.
By highway I can be to either of two different County airports in 10 minutes or less, a regional airport in 40 minutes, or an international airport in 2 hours. I don't live where you live. Air France had no direct service to South Bend, 40 miles away. The airport itself was a hell to endure.

Trips don' t start and end at the train station or the airport. Even in the pre-automoble days a road ststem was necessary to get to the train station. Thanks to good roads and the autmobile its easier than ever before.

I live two miles from a railroad line on which Amtrak runs but It's over 50 miles to the nearest train station.Well, now you get my point about frequency and service. Two locals, one express.

Mitch

[DSchmitt]

"If a store is only open one hour a day, it won't sell enough product to make costs or profit. If it's open 3 hours a day it moves enough product to maybe break eevn. If it's open 24 hours it moves a lot of product."

False: If this was true every store would be open 24 hours a day. Longer hours mean higher costs. If the business is not there, the extra hours cost more money than they make. Even is business is good the aditional costs may exceed the aditional revenue.

Even when trains were the best transportation alternative (the alternatives being stage coach, wagon, horse or walking) many routes did not have the ridership even close to justifingy the cost of running a train and even full trains were and are often overall money loosers.

"As for America being too far flung in the wild west and there is no need for the service I must ask then why was an Interstate Highway run out there?"

While highways do cost money to build and maintain (as do railroads) the majority of the cost is paid by user fees (gas tax and other truck/auto related taxes and fees). The cost to the owner (government ) to operate highways is extremly low. There are no locomotives and cars to buy and maintain, no crew, no ticket sellers, , no dispatchers, no equipment cleaning and repair people, etc. to pay) The users pay for their own vehicles and operate them themselves.

The automobile provides much more flexible service to the user than any train system could.

"I'm getting older, and I don't have the energy it takes to put in a 9 hour day driving the Interstate. I live far enough away from any airport to make air travel easy. Besides I don't think much of casting myself off into the blue yonder on a firey fusalage.
Everyone that I've ever spoken with on an Amtrak long distance train says the same thing. They wi***he service was a little better, and that there would be more trains. They weren't railfans. they think trains are a viable alternative."

I find it hard to believe that your brother couldn't have arranged to go to a closer airport.
By highway I can be to either of two different County airports in 10 minutes or less, a regional airport in 40 minutes, or an international airport in 2 hours.
Trips don' t start and end at the train station or the airport. Even in the pre-automoble days a road ststem was necessary to get to the train station. Thanks to good roads and the autmobile its easier than ever before.

I live two miles from a railroad line on which Amtrak runs but It's over 50 miles to the nearest train station.

[Anonymous]

I'm not saying "round-the-clock" service is the answer, but a logical frequency is.
I once said in frustration, in the seventies,"Instead of running an airline burlesque show, they (Amtrak) should get a few steam engines and paint the coches green and give a real train ride." It sure would get attention. Just think of 100mph trains between Milwaukee and Chicago behind MR 261. The tourism bureaus would love it.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

I'm not saying "round-the-clock" service is the answer, but a logical frequency is.
I once said in frustration, in the seventies,"Instead of running an airline burlesque show, they (Amtrak) should get a few steam engines and paint the coches green and give a real train ride." It sure would get attention. Just think of 100mph trains between Milwaukee and Chicago behind MR 261. The tourism bureaus would love it.

Mitch

[CopCarSS]

I don't know. While to you the idea of round the clock trains sounds modern, to me it just seems like trying to regain the 1940's. Converting Amtrak as it is now to a 24 hour a day operation would take a LOT of initial investment, and the end result that it would yield the kind of interest you say it would would be very risky.

If you were to propose it to a private corporation, I think you would have a very hard time selling it to potential investors. I don't see why the government would or should be the investor to take such a risk.

Maybe it should happen. The same kind of thing happened with Conrail, and look what a success that worked out to be. Conrail had deregulation on its side, though. I'm not sure what the hidden ace would be for a resurected Amtrak would be. Maybe there is a passenger base that would flock to it. I still think that the vast majority of American would much rather be in a plane, or in their cars, though.

And lets not forget Gomer the Motor Homer. Gomer is the #1 potential market, if you asked me. If Amtrak could offer the conveniences of a motor home at a decent rate to places like the national parks and other scenic wonders (and rails do travel near these oftentimes) I think Amtrak could potentially make a killing. Especially with gas prices as they are. I can't imagine what it costs to fuel one of those monsters right now. If Amtrak could sway those types away, and take away some of those noisy, ugly, big, pain in the neck RV's, and give me my campgrounds back, you would never hear me say a nasty word about them again! [;)][:P]

There's other markets that I think could flurish, too. The penultimate, that will never happen in today's world, but would still be really cool is a steam passenger train. Can you imagine traveling behind a real live steam locomotive across the country? Amtrak wouldn't be able to sell tickets fast enough. Of course, with insurance on steam excursions what they are, and the lack of supporting infrastructure for cross country steam, it would never be feasible, but oh how they could sell tickets!

Never the less, if Amtrak is to survive, it must change. I'm just still not sure I'd like to foot the bill.

Chris
Denver, CO

[Anonymous]

Chris,
If a store is only open one hour a day, it won't sell enough product to make costs or profit. If it's open 3 hours a day it moves enough product to maybe break eevn. If it's open 24 hours it moves a lot of product.
One train a day, 3/4 train of customers. 3 trains a day, 3 trains full of passengers. Hourly service, NEC. The place becomes a standard fixture of transportation.
Years ago there were 5 round trips by rail, Chicago to Seattle. Now there's only 1. But the population has increased. You can't tell me that a well run passenger service, with many departures won't start to cover its costs to a point. Add to that the fact that railroad work rules have changed creating better economies. A ticket agent open 8 hours for 2 trains is inefficient. Open for 3 trains is better.
There has been mention that the car has replaced the train, and which one is more modern. There were cars before passenger trains for centuries. We just called them wagons and pulled them with horses on lousey roads. That all got improved to where we are today iin the realm of automobiles. So do we say that an Amtrak train, not as refined as streamliners from the 50s is the state of the art, thereby halting all efforts to improve the product? They managed that overseas.
As for America being too far flung in the wild west and there is no need for the service I must ask then why was an Interstate Highway run out there? I don't think that was benevolence for the citizenry of Mandan, ND. No. It was so you could drive all the way to the coast.
I was just at Chicago's O'Hare Airport the other day to fetch my brother arriving from France. What a monster that airport is. I'm getting older, and I don't have the energy it takes to put in a 9 hour day driving the Interstate. I live far enough away from any airport to make air travel easy. Besides I don't think much of casting myself off into the blue yonder on a firey fusalage.
Everyone that I've ever spoken with on an Amtrak long distance train says the same thing. They wi***he service was a little better, and that there would be more trains. They weren't railfans. they think trains are a viable alternative.
When I worked Amtrak between Milwaukee and Chicago we had 7 departures a day and plenty of passengers. When the number of trains was cut by 1 round trip, the numbers decreased. then came the genius of having only 4 round trips one year account "funding." You could have carried the total nimber of passengers on a switch engine.

The store has to be open longer than one hour a day.

Mitch

[oltmannd]

If they do this "reform" thing even half-way right, we might wind up with a lot more for our money - and we might all agree it's better.

I'd hate to think that in 10 years we'd still have all the same routes, frequencies and equipment at roughly the same cost. That would be awful.

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

One train a day doth not a passenger service make. Three trains a day, with a variety of services and stops does. And that's the whole problem. To fund the thing meakly with the status quo will not serve any purpose. Properly funded it could resume a position of importance.
The question in the first place is "What does President Bush not understand about Amtrak." My answer, as it has been in other threads, is that railroading, and passenger trains in particular, went out of fashion, more than neccesity. As things turned from the mid 60s when passenger trains were a known commodity, to the late 60s when they were fading, into the Brady Bunch Era of Amtrak, where interest acctually increased, the subject has never been given a realist view, of its potentials, to the American public.
Right now I'm afraid the uninitiated American's view of passenger railroading has to do with slow-rolling dinner trains, poorly done theme restaurants, and um-pah bands. So it's easy to label this medium of transportation as a "dinosaur." What would Bush know from a passenger train? He's probably never ridden or even seen one outside of the NEC. He really is your average American when it comes to this topic.

Mitch

How much would it cost, though to run three trains a day on all of the routes? Let's say it happened, and Amtrak got a blank check to become a national carrier like you are envisioning. There's a few problems.

1) How long would it take to convince the public to ride of these three trains a day? There's a reason why rail passenger service died in the 50's-60's. Now we're going to convince an American Public even more dependent on trains and planes that they should be riding trains? Save for Thanksgiving and Christmas, your three trains a day would be empty on all but a couple routes.

2) So why not ditch everything buth those routes? Since the blank check was given by the whole of the American tax-payer base, it's certainly not fair to deny potential passengers on the lesser traveled routes merely because its not profitable. They paid the bill, too.

3) The freight railroads already don't like Amtrak. By tripling their inconvenience, I can envision some big time lobbying against any increase in service.

The beauty of making Amtrak become profitable or die is that it kills most of these problems. If they cut service to the popular routes, maybe they coudl focus on better service, which would give Amtrak a better look to Joe American, which would cause an increase in demand, and routes could be expanded based on need, rather than political necessity. If the routes were proven to be successful, you'd see a return by the freight railroads to run their own passenger service, which would eliminate point #3.

I still think this is all a big pipe dream, and American travel relies heavily on the airplane, and the automobile. Could a well-funded, changed Amtrak comete? I'd doubt it, but it's possible.

Chris
Denver, CO

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829
[ And if there were a tax-supported national high speed rail system, Montana wheat farmers would probably want the same frequency of service as the NEC.

If public transportation is a right and has to be subsidized, then the Montana wheat farmer has a right to the same quality of subsidized service as the New York stockbroker.

Not a right, but desired by the majority. Is that good enough? Of course, the majority could decide to rob the minority. Some would say that's what's been going on for years (not just the Amtrak subsidy)

[Anonymous]

The people who do know how important Amtrak service is is the elderly, especially those that have a hard time walking long distances...... Airports are a hassle, with very long concourses, one could drain the battery on their mover before reaching the plane.....and when they do get to the plane how do they store it?

This is where trains come in.... And as the average American is getting older, the trains will eventually win....... HSR trains are the future.......

[Anonymous]

$10 Billion for the Iraqi railroad......that's all I've got to say.

[Anonymous]

One train a day doth not a passenger service make. Three trains a day, with a variety of services and stops does. And that's the whole problem. To fund the thing meakly with the status quo will not serve any purpose. Properly funded it could resume a position of importance.
The question in the first place is "What does President Bush not understand about Amtrak." My answer, as it has been in other threads, is that railroading, and passenger trains in particular, went out of fashion, more than neccesity. As things turned from the mid 60s when passenger trains were a known commodity, to the late 60s when they were fading, into the Brady Bunch Era of Amtrak, where interest acctually increased, the subject has never been given a realist view, of its potentials, to the American public.
Right now I'm afraid the uninitiated American's view of passenger railroading has to do with slow-rolling dinner trains, poorly done theme restaurants, and um-pah bands. So it's easy to label this medium of transportation as a "dinosaur." What would Bush know from a passenger train? He's probably never ridden or even seen one outside of the NEC. He really is your average American when it comes to this topic.

Mitch

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

Well, Chris Stop spend on Airlines too 16 Billion a year and 35 Billion on Highways Too, Also 381 Billion on the Wars and aid to these other Country every costing Us 80 to 200 Billion in aid every Year, that a waste of are money, not Amtrak we need a fair transportion for Amtrak,Airplanes, and Highways. We More Amtrak not Less, Amtrak should bring Back Train like 25&26, 35&36, 60&61,and 40&41 that bring back another 4 millionpeople to Amtrak.[:D]

I won't touch war spending, because my comments are based around the transportation industry mainly. As for the billions being spent on the airline and highway portions of the transportation market, I still feel that its much more critical to the well being of the economy. If we lived in a true laissez-faire (sp?) capitalist country, there wouldn't be any government spending anywhere. Of course, we don't live in that hypothetical realm, so what do we have?

We have people that more or less want to either have speed, or freedom to their travels. Speed in North America means airline travel. So we need airlines. Freedom means automotive travel, so we need highways. Transcontinental Rail Service (Amtrak) is neither fast or personal. A cut to the spending here would yield little net effect to the economy. In fact, as has been pointed out, it could be beneficial to the railroads biggest concern, freight. And freight railroading is important to the economy. Freeing the freight railroads of the Amtrak albatross would be a good move in the overall economy picture, at least to me.

As always, its just my opinion. It's kind of an interesting discussion. It's an issue that I've struggled with myself for quite some time. I really enjoy traveling by train, and not just because I'm a railfan. To me, rail passengers are much more convivial. And the freedom to sleep, eat, talk, watch scenery go by in a comfortable environment can't be beat.

I don't enjoy the near strip searches of the TSA, or the sardine feeling I get on plane, so I only travel by plane when I have to be some where quick. I enjoy the freedom of driving, but sometimes it does get tiresome (I-80 in Nebraska is the being the prime example). While taking a break from I-80, and traveling US 30 is an option (and this is fun as a railfan), it does take up time. You couldn't pay me enough to go transcontinental on a bus. So I'm left with rail travel. If we could convince the rest of America that this is true, then maybe we'd be on the right track (pardon the pun) for Amtrak.

Chris
Denver, CO

[conrailman]

Well, Chris Stop spend on Airlines too 16 Billion a year and 35 Billion on Highways Too, Also 381 Billion on the Wars and aid to these other Country every costing Us 80 to 200 Billion in aid every Year, that a waste of are money, not Amtrak we need a fair transportion for Amtrak,Airplanes, and Highways. We need More Amtrak not Less, Amtrak should bring Back Train like 25&26, 35&36, 60&61,and 40&41 that bring back another 4 millionpeople to Amtrak.[:D]

[CopCarSS]

Additionally, thinking about it. If there is a profit to be made on Amtrak on routes like the CZ, this is Amtrak's golden oppurtunity to abandon the status quo, and focus on routes like that.

And should Amtrak fail to do so, and there is an oppurtunity for profit, there will be private interests that will see the oppurtunity. Maybe not as passenger rail as we know it today, but in some form, the Phoenix will arise out of its ashes.

Chris
Denver, CO

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark


Chris,
I ride the CZ to Grand Junction from time to time. Last time, last spring, the thing was packed. I was the only railfan aboard. No one was shaking their heads.

I worked Amtrak jobs a lot during the '70s. From Milwauke to Chicago or the Twin Cities. I was the only railfan aboard.

Mitch

I've had similar experiences on the CZ going east and west. But, in the grander picture, it still means very little to the transportation industry. 1 train a day each direction? How many flights take off and land at DIA every day? How many people travel on I-70? How many of those could you convince that Amtrak is not a waste of taxpayer money?

I still stand by my observation that Amtrak is a dinosaur, and while I would hate to see it go, I can't see spending the $1.8 Billion they requested to keep it alive.

Chris
Denver, CO

[Anonymous]

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829
[ And if there were a tax-supported national high speed rail system, Montana wheat farmers would probably want the same frequency of service as the NEC.

If public transportation is a right and has to be subsidized, then the Montana wheat farmer has a right to the same quality of subsidized service as the New York stockbroker.

[oltmannd]

I think the whole hornets nest stirred up by the Bush Admin surrounding Amtrak is political. Here's why:

For what we get, Amtrak costs a lot.

There are some conservatives and others who think killing Amtrak would be wise and put an end to wasteful spending. They are a minority of those in power now. These same folk generally believe that a "free market" generally produces goods and services most efficiently. Amtrak is currently the antithesis of this.

The Bush admin knows that killing Amtrak is not politically feasible. The national network just has too many supporters in Congress whose want to keep their trains in order to keep voter support back home.

So, how do you make both sides happy? You "reform" Amtrak. If you can bake in some "free market" ideas and keep the national network supporters happy, you can declare victory and walk away - whether or not it the net subsidy is more or less in the end.

But, you say, "He zeroed out Amtrak in his budget!" Well, it appears to me that it was a way to get everyones attention. Then he sends Mineta out with a half-baked plan with the promise of funding if Amtrak is reformed and, voila, everyone IS paying attention. Even Amtrak's board has come out with a reform plan.

If Bush had put, say, $1.2 B in his budget, it is likely that it would have been passed and Amtrak status-quo would have limped along for another year.

What's really interesting now is that most of the budget proposals for Amtrak to surface from Congress have been for what Amtrak has asked for ($1.8B) or more ($2.0B) and the Bush admin hasn't said "boo" about it. If they were really intent on killing Amtrak and thought they could do it, they would be saying rather loudly that it's too much money - but they have been silent so far.

If they do this right, we could wind up with better train service and a more efficient Amtrak plus a reliable funding source for intercity rail expansion. It looks like the most palatable model will be federal matching funds for state supported corridor work, but that's a good place to start!

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

QUOTE: Originally posted by CopCarSS

I just think that in Europe, the people get a better transportation system,
Public transportation works well when you don't have states like Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, etc. I.E. lots and lots of square miles with little or no market for public transportation.

I think the Bush administration realizes this, and this is the first push for a transportation system that would work (forcing Amtrak to become profitable or die is merely the first step in working towards high speed rail projects in corridors that need them).

So high speed projects would just spontaneously evolve? Funny how that scheme never worked when it came to building the Interstates or airports. The feds just poured BILLIONS into them without idiotically demanding they be profitable.

Bush's plan is like saying we'll improve the airways if we first bankrupt the FAA. All those free-marketers will come in and then run the highways, airports and trains. Right. He's living in a fantasy if he thinks anything remotely on that level would happen.

THe interstates weren't built only so the more densley populated states could have service. That's why Sterling, Colo., got the Interstate.
People drive back east like they do in the west. Dittos for train or bus travel.
You'd think someone from as geographically isolated as the Rocky Mountains would realize that. Denver is a popular Amtrak stop, even with only one train each direction.

The federal investment in infrastructure comes first - then the ridership. Neglecting Amtrak by both parties over its 30 plus years is what has caused its current troubles. Funny how highways and airways never have to beg for crumbs of funding like Amtrak.

I never said that it would be a spontaneous overnight evolution. I simply said this was the first step. As much as I like Amtrak, and I do ride the CZ between Denver and Chicago quite a bit, it doesn't make sense. It's as if we had a national conestoga wagon association begging for money to run wagon trains to the west.

Amtrak is the National Steel and Wire of the Rail Passenger world. For some reason, they're holding onto what worked a long time ago, and ignoring reality. The result is an operation that appeals to railfans, but basically makes everyone else shake their heads.

Bush would never be stupid enough to bankrupt the FAA. Because while bankrupting Amtrak would pretty much have no effect on the economy, a big shake up in the industry like that would be cataclysmic to the well being of the economy. And if it ever did happen, one of two things would occur: 1) The people of the US would vote for someone who realized that the airline passenger industry is an important one, or 2) Private industry would step in to the wake of an FAA collapse.

By the by, I think you'll find that I-76 wasn't created for Sterling, CO. I'm thinking it has a lot more to do with the fact that its an important link between two major E-W interstates, namely I-80, and I-76. The concept that I-76 was made for Sterling, CO is as silly as Denver being a "popular Amtrak stop." Come out to Denver some day, and I'll drive down to Union Station, and we can watch how many people get on and off of the CZ. Then, we can head out to DIA, and see how many people travel by air. I'd be willing to bet that the former wouldn't equal .01% of the latter.

Chris
Denver, CO

-Chris
West Chicago, IL
Christopher May Fine Art Photography

"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams

• Reply