This article may interest some of you-
Will the Senate Raid the Treasury for Amtrak?
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.
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 .
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: 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...
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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
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.
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.
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.
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.
At least Great America turns a profit.
Datafever wrote: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
ie ARE YOU WILLING TO HAVE YOUR TAXES RAISED $XXX PER YEAR, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE RETURN OF SERVICE?
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.
nanaimo73 wrote: 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
TheAntiGates wrote:ie ARE YOU WILLING TO HAVE YOUR TAXES RAISED $XXX PER YEAR, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE RETURN OF SERVICE?
Ummm... No, not really.
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.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
.....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
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."
. . . 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?
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.
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.
Paul m.
Sorry that you are offended by my opinionated characterization of that group. I did use rather harsh terms and probably violated a liberal principal that name calling doesn't advance discussions of an issue. Of course, the use of the phrase "Raiding the Treasury" has no emotional connotations. Right?
You have stated your position rather well, however I am just going to say that I don't agree and cop out of further discussion.
futuremodal wrote:Isn't the federal outlay for Amtrak less than the current federal outlay for freight rail assistance?
Why FM, are you trying to suggest that it shouldn't be? ( if in fact, it is)
I already replied to Paul's criticism of long distance service and particularly first class long distance service on earlier threads. But he may not have read what I wrote.
1. All discussion on this thread so far neglects the cost of LAND USE. Land taken for additional highway lanes, new highways, and airports may charge user fees and get tax money for upkeep, but this does not replace the real estate taxes paid by other uses of the land nor the taxes from income that other uses of the land provides. This element of land use costs has been totally neglected in transportation planning for about the last eighty years. The classic textblooks (one coauthored by an ex-classmate of mine and with the observation "Investment in public transportation does not make economic sense because it is not self-supporting from the fairbox.") don't even mention this loss to the economy. Improvement of long distance passenger rail in general does not take land.
2. Long distance trains service with firstclass service is part of a civilized society in America. Just like your theatre has handicapped access and a hearing-impaired listener sound system, often requring a paid operator's presense. Without such service, access to the continental USA by a large number of handicapped and elderly is denied them.
3. It should be of a quality (and in certain cases even now it is of that quality) to promote foreign tourism in the USA and appreciation of the beauties of the country.
daveklepper wrote:I already replied to Paul's criticism of long distance service and particularly first class long distance service on earlier threads. But he may not have read what I wrote.1. All discussion on this thread so far neglects the cost of LAND USE. Land taken for additional highway lanes, new highways, and airports may charge user fees and get tax money for upkeep, but this does not replace the real estate taxes paid by other uses of the land nor the taxes from income that other uses of the land provides. This element of land use costs has been totally neglected in transportation planning for about the last eighty years. The classic textblooks (one coauthored by an ex-classmate of mine and with the observation "Investment in public transportation does not make economic sense because it is not self-supporting from the fairbox.") don't even mention this loss to the economy. Improvement of long distance passenger rail in general does not take land.2. Long distance trains service with firstclass service is part of a civilized society in America. Just like your theatre has handicapped access and a hearing-impaired listener sound system, often requring a paid operator's presense. Without such service, access to the continental USA by a large number of handicapped and elderly is denied them.3. It should be of a quality (and in certain cases even now it is of that quality) to promote foreign tourism in the USA and appreciation of the beauties of the country.
1. Airlines do not pay income tax in the states where flights originate?
2.So is healthcare, but that doesn't mean it is the taxpayer's job to pay for the affluent to get poked, prodded, and probed 4 times per year
3. Ahhh, so in order to lure the tourist's into this country, so Mel's diner can make a cool $8 on a $30 meal, it's the taxpayers responsibility to lose $135 on the train trip to get them there?
What about all the restaurants located away from rail destinations? does the taxpayer owe a subsidy to Greyhound, or is that a job for (subsidized) light rail?
Thanks for your reply Paul. I agree that we ought to consider what the writer is saying, rather than attack his position or beleived position. One of the worst problems of becoming politicized is that intelligent discussions are never considered. it becomes a yes or no proposition. Either you're against Amtrak or for it which is damaging to everyone involved, not least of which is amtrak. A coupel fo things form my perspective:
1) It's important to note that amtrak was created for a number of reasons. To keep the Pennsy NEC alive and to act almost as a rail version of the PBGC. Let's face it, it was created so that railroads could stuff as many unwanted assets and unneeded employees (and strong rail unions had made sure there were plenty of those) into amtrak as possible. amtrak was a frankenstein. With that in mind, changing it's fundamental structure is what it needs. it was never created to do anything well, just to exist. Over the years things have improved (in the beginning train employees didn't even work directly for Amtrak, incidents had to be reported to their freight bosses). Warrington almost killed it, and Gunn brought it back from the dead. I do believe there is an element of truth that Gunn was unable to run it more like a private company since he had little experience with it.
2) Whether or not rail makes money anywhere is irrelevant to whether or not Amtrak runs an efficient operation. If 80% of its losses are form long distance AND it's inefficient, how much could it improve? If it were to improve, how much more service woudl we get for capital dollars?
3) the NEC seems to be managed to keep ridership constant. prices are constantly raised rather than trains added. I've noticed this over years of ridership on it. Moreover, Amtrak trains are expected to recover a portion of the cost even while they share their rail at cost to commuter rail. In effect, NEC amtrak riders help subsidize state commuter services. Would the corridor make as much or more at lower prices if all trains were market dictated?
4) IMO, rail needs to get out of its stuck in the past mentality. historical routes are nice, but decisions should be made based on today's needs not yesterday's failures.
5) High speed rail is a good idea for a number of reasons. One, it offers people a benefit they can't get in their cars...fast travel. the only route not on the NEC that has fairly fast travel speeds is the Keystone route. It remains to be seen what the long term impact is, but ridership and revenues are way up. I agree that the first step to high speed rail is get more routes up to the current maximum. However, successful routes like the Hiawathas shoudl be considered for speed upgrades. Where are you going to do more for the environment than taking people off the road twice a day, five days a week? and if the equipment is there for that, then you can justify running off peak services and weekends at lower costs. It shouldn;t be a question of either or, both transit and high speed, intercity rail are benefits. I do question the benefits of light rail. If you live in a major city, light railseems an imperfect solution. it's cheaper than heavy rail but it's benefits are far more limited. It is probably a good idea for smaller cities, esp where dedicated ROW's exist or can be created.
daveklepper wrote:I already replied to Paul's criticism of long distance service and particularly first class long distance service on earlier threads. But he may not have read what I wrote.1. All discussion on this thread so far neglects the cost of LAND USE. Land taken for additional highway lanes, new highways, and airports may charge user fees and get tax money for upkeep, but this does not replace the real estate taxes paid by other uses of the land nor the taxes from income that other uses of the land provides. This element of land use costs has been totally neglected in transportation planning for about the last eighty years. The classic textblooks (one coauthored by an ex-classmate of mine and with the observation "Investment in public transportation does not make economic sense because it is not self-supporting from the fairbox.") don't even mention this loss to the economy. Improvement of long distance passenger rail in general does not take land.
And just how do you propose to take into account lost revenues due to land use? Particularly when you take into account that having a good transportation system - and that will include airports and freeways - will help grow the economy and raise property values. One could easily argue that any lost revenue from converting land to highways or airports is more than recovered by the boost that the economy receives, and that the housing market receives, from having a functional transportation system.
I think land valuation is a very broad brush that is too large a generalization to fit into a basis of evaluation unless it is on a case by case basis. It is a case of reductionism that may be a positive factor or may not be in promoting a case for high speed rail. Is the rail line on existing right of way or a new one? What is the basis of taxation, zoning, and local economy? New private development may require an increase in taxes for additional infrastructure or new public facilities. Fare box recovery as a basis of valuation of investment needs a basis of comparison in terms of long term sustainibility of competing modes of transportation and the indirect but attributable costs of enviromental damage, which may be a greater cost than land valuation in of itself. Light rail is more than capable of long distance transportation if one looks at history. The Red Devils of the CL&E, the Highspeeds of the Indiana Railroad, The Cincinati Car Co curved side lightweight cars, etc ran between Louisville and Indianapolis, and other long routes. A good read of Middleton's books would dispell this perception.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.