Passenger rail service seems to best serve commuters. In the NEC, Amtrak has revenues of about 56 cents per passenger mile, which contrasts with about 15 cents per passenger mile on their long distance trains.
IMO, if Amtrak is to survive, it must focus on what it does best, get rid of dead weight, and fight for commuter dollars by being the best alternative.
The long term capability to sustain a transportation mode should not be selectively excised from any formulation as far as investing or subsidizing in it. The present mode of evaluating the return on capital costs makes investment in a Stanley Steamer appear to be a prudent use of funds. The inability to analyse trending when reductionism is the point of the exercise is a short sighted shot in the foot.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
. . . Heritage Foundation. . . . far right these clowns are . . .
I take issue with discounting a point of view because it comes out of Heritage Foundation, and I take issue with characterizing that viewpoint as "far right" and the people who write articles for Heritage Foundation as "clowns."
Heritage Foundation has a rather predictable view of Amtrak and proposed high-speed rail; the views expressed by NARP are opposed but equally predictable. Also, "far right" has a meaning for a kind of politics that goes beyond traditional conservative or laissez-faire beliefs towards the politics of social and ethnic elites (think Jean-Marie LePen in France), and to characterize an argument regarding the appropriate funding level for Amtrak as representing those politics is unfair.
Finally, to be dismissive of Heritage Foundation as "clowns" may feel good and be accepted among those of us who disagree with their policy recommendations regarding Amtrak, but what they are saying on Amtrak is not that far off from what most people out there across a broad political spectrum who are not railfans or passenger-rail advocates think about Amtrak, otherwise there would have been political support for higher level of funding. They may be very laissez-faire and libertarian about public spending on anything (I imagine they are equally critical of sports stadiums), but their position on Amtrak spending is pretty close to the political center while their position on sports stadiums is somewhat parsimonious with the public purse.
Let's accept for a moment the Heritage argument that planes and trains pay their way though the various user-fee mechanisms. There are some places where highways turn a profit -- are cheaper to build and bring in much gas-tax revenue, and places where the highways are run at a loss -- highway construction is prohibitively expensive relative to traffic on them (think urban freeways, although urban freeways cost a bundle, they are heavily travelled, and one would have to get the facts on this). In other words, even though the system turns a profit, parts of the system turn a loss, and there is cross-subsidy. We don't shut down highways with little traffic, and we build expensive urban freeways (actually, maybe we don't build those freeways -- that is part of why urban freeways are jammed up).
A case could be made that even though owing to what people are willing to pay to ride a train and lose the flexibility of having their car, and owing to labor costs, a train will require subsidy, but the train could provide congestion relief at less cost than building the equivalent freeway lanes or airport capacity, especially in the NEC or in California. If we build freeways in congested areas, those freeways may run "at a loss", not because no one will use them, but because land costs too much in those congested areas. A case could be made for cross subsidizing trains from gas tax to the extent that the equivalent freeway would also be cross subsidized. We in fact have such a system in place that provides substantial transfer of gas tax money from cars to urban transit but not to Amtrak.
But if we make that case, we have to accept the consequences. I have heard it said that a "proper" revamping of the NEC would costs 30 billion. Suppose an additional pair of highway lanes came in at 30 billion and had more capacity than what the NEC is able to attract in ridership? Will be argue the case on the merits or will revert to calling people who disagree with us names?
Also, there is little argument in favor of the LD trains and perhaps most of the state corridor trains at current levels of traffic in terms of congestion relief. There may be an argument in terms of public accomodation, but that argument takes you to the I.G. Mead report (the dreaded footnote to the Heritage Foundation essay) that argues against offering first-class service. You either have to argue that Amtrak is cooking its books, as URPA does, or pretty much accept the I.G. Mead recommendations -- where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that a wealth person (able to afford sleeping car fares) is entitled to hundreds of dollars in federal subsidy to take a long-distance Amtrak trip? I have a feeling that a lot of people in the rail-advocacy community talk corridors and gas prices and congestion relief, but what they are really most worried about is losing the first-class (dining car and sleeping car) travel experience on the long-distance trains.
We may be motivated to be rail advocates because we are also railfans, but we have a special affection for trains that may be lost on the general public. If we attempt to persuade the general public to support trains on utilitarian grounds based on our personal love of trains, we need to be prepared to debate the utilitarian arguments in favor of trains. Getting frustrated with people who don't agree with us is not effective.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
One has to wonder what segment of the population they are targeting, the business traveler immediately comes to mind when references are made to proposals for high speed rail. If the point of the exercise is to capture a market where speed is a valuable commodity in order to capture a higher farebox return on capital investment as would a private enterprise target, isnt this segmentation also based on a higher capital cost while ignoring practical utility when if the point of the exercise is to decrease auto usage, how does this impact the most usage by utility ie: running everyday errands? Is a suburban housewife going to use this to buy groceries, go to soccer practice, pick up dry cleaning, go to the workplace via high speed rail? It's a pig in a poke. You would be better off following the current trend toward development being phased via urban planning in conjunction with the construction of light rail lines. More bang for the buck. Property values increase.
The following is a dated quote from a 1994 study but it is still apt.
"Whether or not people will "give up" their cars, the current transportation system provides no alternatives to the personal automobile for the vast majority of people. Clearly, the current price of gasoline will have to rise. As it does, however, no easy substitutes for the car are readily available. The 20 - 25% of personal income that is currently dedicated to the car will, of necessity, increase. Our jobs, lives and life-styles are inextricably linked to an unsustainable form of transportation."
.....Exactly what I've been expressing for some time of the A G proposal, do it right {Amtrak}, or not at all....
Sure, vote on it....If taxes would buy us something reasonable at a reasonable price...Not all of us would be afraid of that.
Quentin
I would add further to Antigates comment by pointing out the purchasing power of a dollar in terms of the heyday of a comprehensive rail passenger network made what appears to us to be very affordable, was in fact, more often than not, an expensive propostion especially in terms of premium services. If you convert those ticket prices to todays valuation, you may want to consider filling up your tank instead. Especially in terms of purchasing power when viewed against escalating costs. One inescapable irony is the promotion of establishing premium aka high speed lines...(added mph=increased capital cost) when you consider, that in the heyday, there were proverbially 10 milk runs for every name train. One has to wonder why does every proposed service have to be a state of the art tour de force? As one familiar with the history of supposedly cheaply built interurban services that provided often high speed services with lightweight cars..often to the heart of urban areas and country hamlets..before the advent of state and federal highways, perhaps the answer is less gold plate and more affordibility.
TheAntiGates wrote:ie ARE YOU WILLING TO HAVE YOUR TAXES RAISED $XXX PER YEAR, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE RETURN OF SERVICE?
ie ARE YOU WILLING TO HAVE YOUR TAXES RAISED $XXX PER YEAR, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE RETURN OF SERVICE?
Ummm... No, not really.
nanaimo73 wrote: This article may interest some of you-Will the Senate Raid the Treasury for Amtrak?
This article may interest some of you-
Will the Senate Raid the Treasury for Amtrak?
When I hit the link, I saw that it was a Heritage Foundation. They argue against any Federal expenditure for virtually every project related to commerce. Of course expenditures for anything they do not like is a "raid" on the Federal Treasury.
Just to give you an idea as to how far right these clowns are, they produced a paper arguing that all expenditures for the construction, operation and maintenance of public highways should be born by the states. (Poster's view: As if there aren't enough potholes now).
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Datafever wrote:At least Great America turns a profit.
At least Great America turns a profit.
I wonder what it would take, costwise, to restore Passenger rail to the level of service that was available in 1964.
Restore the routes, bring back the trains, open the ticket offices, and run the business?
Someone should find out, and put a vote in front of the american public
And then live with whatever outcome is the result.
Either do it right, or do away with it entirely. But stop the tom foolery of doing it all half axed.
TheAntiGates wrote: So, there is some validity in looking at the cost compared in a "customers served" frame of reference, just like some amusement ride at a Great America theme park.
So, there is some validity in looking at the cost compared in a "customers served" frame of reference, just like some amusement ride at a Great America theme park.
CG9602 wrote:One major issue with the this footnote: It measures profit and loss in terms of "per passenger" basis. Profitability and loss are measured with much more accuracy on the basis of Revenue Passenger Miles*, and Passenger-Miles per Train-Mile . As long as profit or loss are measured by the "per passenger" basis, the numbers produced are suspect and inaccurate. * as defined by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
I felt exactly the same way at first, until I thought about it some more.
If Amtrak were truly a logistics company, then I would agree whole heartedly.
They are not though. they are a political construct, designed to pacify the public (the segement who cared about passenger rail) while unburdoning the freight RR's of the losses that passenger was costing them.
Only the first part of that explanation remains material to this day.
The amount of traffic on those frequencies used by cellphones combined with a lack of funds, equipment and personnel makes having a conversation monitored possible, but highly unlikely.
No one forces a person to use a cellphone; they are merely a convenience.
If you're really paranoid about being location-monitored by Big Brother, go to a camera store, buy a lead film bag for about $8 and stick your cellphone into it. Then you won't have to wear an aluminum foil hat driving home with the Brinks bag you found.
TheAntiGates wrote: zardoz wrote: Most likely for worse.Zardoz, absolutely. While my overly dramaticized example was some what of a lampoon, there is still a kernel of truth at the core. Look at the way that the federal law enforcement people were requisitioning security camera "tape loops" from ATM's, liquor stores, adjacent office buildings, etc to sift for clues on the Oklahoma city bombing. They are surprisingly good at piecing together evidence. The biggest barrier being the amount of effort required to assemble all that data (which is what it is at it's core, just "data"). They currently go to all the trouble, only for substantial cause . As computers become more robust, software more sophisticated, and the network ever more pervasive, the ability to mine diverse sets of data becomes easier, and harvesting specifically desired info becomes a real possibility. The naysayers that poo poo the likelihood of such intrusiveness ever becoming possible, are only fooling themselves. Just look at Lonworks for an example . buildings that talk to one anotherPerhaps I'm not famous now, so no one would give a rats _ _ _ about what I'd do. Perhaps as well, I'd like to keep it that way .
zardoz wrote: Most likely for worse.
Most likely for worse.
Zardoz, absolutely. While my overly dramaticized example was some what of a lampoon, there is still a kernel of truth at the core.
Look at the way that the federal law enforcement people were requisitioning security camera "tape loops" from ATM's, liquor stores, adjacent office buildings, etc to sift for clues on the Oklahoma city bombing. They are surprisingly good at piecing together evidence.
The biggest barrier being the amount of effort required to assemble all that data (which is what it is at it's core, just "data"). They currently go to all the trouble, only for substantial cause . As computers become more robust, software more sophisticated, and the network ever more pervasive, the ability to mine diverse sets of data becomes easier, and harvesting specifically desired info becomes a real possibility.
The naysayers that poo poo the likelihood of such intrusiveness ever becoming possible, are only fooling themselves.
Just look at Lonworks for an example . buildings that talk to one another
Perhaps I'm not famous now, so no one would give a rats _ _ _ about what I'd do. Perhaps as well, I'd like to keep it that way .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Red highlights are mine)
Much worse.
Federal police may monitor the locations of Americans by constantly tracking their cell phone signals without providing evidence of criminal activity, a magistrate judge has ruled.
In a surprise ruling that differed from recent decisions by three other judges, Gorenstein said his reading of federal wiretapping law and the Patriot Act permitted police to obtain location-tracking orders without any evidence of wrongdoing.
Gorenstein also said that because the cell phone user's location is only available to police when a call is in progress, and because the location information is only a rough estimate, such tracking is permissible under the Fourth Amendment. That amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, prohibits "unreasonable" searches and monitoring.
The Justice Department has argued that it should be allowed to monitor Americans without having to show "probable cause"--that is, at least some evidence of criminal behavior. Instead, federal prosecutors say, all police need to claim is that the information obtained might in some way be "relevant" to a criminal investigation.
http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+Judge+lets+Feds+track+cell+phones/2100-1028_3-6006453.html
zardoz wrote: marcimmeker wrote: Are you sure there is no energy left in it? Because even if it is "off" they can track you...Better make sure there is no chip and battery in it.greetings,Marc ImmekerWould you explain this, please? I was led to believe that when it is "off", it really is off. How does the system track an unpowered device?
marcimmeker wrote: Are you sure there is no energy left in it? Because even if it is "off" they can track you...Better make sure there is no chip and battery in it.greetings,Marc Immeker
Are you sure there is no energy left in it? Because even if it is "off" they can track you...
Better make sure there is no chip and battery in it.
greetings,
Marc Immeker
Would you explain this, please? I was led to believe that when it is "off", it really is off. How does the system track an unpowered device?
Because it isn't unpowered as long as the chip is in contact with the battery...
nanaimo73 wrote:This article may interest some of you-Will the Senate Raid the Treasury for Amtrak?
The information included at one of the footnotes identifying Amtrak's operating costs versus revenue was VERY interesting, thanks
zardoz wrote:Most likely for worse.
jeaton wrote: While this thread is getting way off topic you just have to read the article at this link.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16725294/?GT1=8921 FOFLMAO
While this thread is getting way off topic you just have to read the article at this link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16725294/?GT1=8921
FOFLMAO
Gee, how nice of the dolt to bring his son along with. Nothing like some good "quality time" with one's offspring.
TheAntiGates wrote: Moral of the story: eventually all those tiny incremental encroachments upon our annonymity become aggregate. For better or for worse.
Moral of the story: eventually all those tiny incremental encroachments upon our annonymity become aggregate. For better or for worse.
For worse:
BETHLEHEM, Pa. (AP) - An elderly man who wrote in a letter to the editor about Saddam Hussein's execution that "they hanged the wrong man" got a visit from Secret Service agents concerned he was threatening President Bush.
The letter by Dan Tilli, 81, was published in Monday's edition of The Express-Times of Easton, Pa. It ended with the line, "I still believe they hanged the wrong man."
Tilli said the statement was not a threat. "I didn't say who - I could've meant (Osama) bin Laden," he said Friday.
Two Secret Service agents questioned Tilli at his Bethlehem apartment Thursday, briefly searching the place and taking pictures of him, he said.
The Secret Service confirmed the encounter. Bob Slama, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Philadelphia office, said it was the agency's duty to investigate.
The agents almost immediately decided Tilli was not a threat, Slama said
"We have no further interest in Dan," he said.
Tilli said the agents appeared more relaxed when he dug out a scrapbook containing more than 200 letters that he has written over the years, almost all on political topics.
"He said, 'Keep writing, but just don't make no threats,'" Tilli said of one of the agents.
It wasn't Tilli's first run-in with the federal government over his letter writing. Two FBI agents from Allentown showed up at his home last year about a letter he wrote advocating a civil war to unseat Bush, he said.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070121/D8MPS8RO1.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, it's a good thing we still live in the land of the "free".
Done in my best German accent: "Ve haf ways ov meking you talk. Your papers, please".
I suppose I'll get a visit just for posting this.
TheAntiGates wrote: zardoz wrote: Of course, if you have your cell phone on, you are carrying your own personal beacon..... True, but I don't use one . Not for that reason though, I got tired of the thing always ringing, and having other people disguised under the mask of friendship, try to persuade me that what I was doing was not as important as what they thought I should be doing. People see that cell phone hanging there on my belt and always ask for the number, and then act hurt unless they got it. So, the day I hung up for the last time was in effect the day that I promoted myself to master of my own destiny.
zardoz wrote: Of course, if you have your cell phone on, you are carrying your own personal beacon.....
Of course, if you have your cell phone on, you are carrying your own personal beacon.....
True, but I don't use one .
Not for that reason though, I got tired of the thing always ringing, and having other people disguised under the mask of friendship, try to persuade me that what I was doing was not as important as what they thought I should be doing.
People see that cell phone hanging there on my belt and always ask for the number, and then act hurt unless they got it.
So, the day I hung up for the last time was in effect the day that I promoted myself to master of my own destiny.
Poppa_Zit wrote:Another brilliant comeback.
Another brilliant comeback.
I've found that 'playing to the audience' often saves me time.
TheAntiGates wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Still wearing your tin foil hat, AG? It was intended in satire, not that I'm particularly surprised it was over your head.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Still wearing your tin foil hat, AG?
Still wearing your tin foil hat, AG?
It was intended in satire, not that I'm particularly surprised it was over your head.
Poppa_Zit wrote:Still wearing your tin foil hat, AG?
Datafever wrote:I started laughing so hard, I began choking. (That's what I get for trying to read humor while nibbling on food.)
I started laughing so hard, I began choking. (That's what I get for trying to read humor while nibbling on food.)
Glad you might find a moment's joy
TheAntiGates wrote: Some day a bag of money might just fall off that Brinks truck, and with my luck an observation camera at an ATM will see me pick it up and get into the green pickup truck, the RFID toll device will track me to my suburb, a redlight camera will just happen to glance my plate while recording someone else's violation, and those homeland security computers (designed to make me "safe") will put all the pieces together , and some one will come knocking at my door.Moral of the story: eventually all those tiny incremental encroachments upon our annonymity become aggregate. For better or for worse.
Some day a bag of money might just fall off that Brinks truck, and with my luck an observation camera at an ATM will see me pick it up and get into the green pickup truck, the RFID toll device will track me to my suburb, a redlight camera will just happen to glance my plate while recording someone else's violation, and those homeland security computers (designed to make me "safe") will put all the pieces together , and some one will come knocking at my door.
TheAntiGates wrote:Some day a bag of money might just fall off that Brinks truck, and with my luck an observation camera at an ATM will see me pick it up and get into the green pickup truck, the RFID toll device will track me to my suburb, a redlight camera will just happen to glance my plate while recording someone else's violation, and those homeland security computers (designed to make me "safe") will put all the pieces together , and some one will come knocking at my door.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.