BucyrusThe fact that they hire sub-contractors and pay them far more than the military cost for doing the same work might just as well be regarded as evidence of the relative inefficiency of government compared to the private business.
Paying a private subcontractor far more than the military (government) for the same work is actually a great example of the inefficiency of the private business compared to the government! Lower costs for the same work output is how business and everyone else define increased productivity, except with you in "bizarro world" where everything is backwards (special thanks to Seinfeld).
"Privatization" of former government run services got going with Reagan and was supposed to save money, but mostly it has been used to put it straight into the hands of companies with connections, like Haliburton, Blackwater, etc.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm BucyrusThe fact that they hire sub-contractors and pay them far more than the military cost for doing the same work might just as well be regarded as evidence of the relative inefficiency of government compared to the private business. Paying a private subcontractor far more than the military (government) for the same work is actually a great example of the inefficiency of the private business compared to the government! Lower costs for the same work output is how business and everyone else define increased productivity, except with you in "bizarro world" where everything is backwards (special thanks to Seinfeld). "Privatization" of former government run services got going with Reagan and was supposed to save money, but mostly it has been used to put it straight into the hands of companies with connections, like Haliburton, Blackwater, etc.
Mr. Berthold,
My point may seem upside down, but I think you should take a closer look at it.
Consider this example: The military pays a higher cost to a private contractor than what it would cost the military to do the same work itself.
On one level, it may seem logical to conclude that this proves that the public sector is more cost effective than the private sector.
But that conclusion from the example is faulty because, with that conclusion, the action of the example simply makes no economic sense. Why would you pay someone else more to do something than it would cost you to do it yourself? You could say that maybe the private contractor could get the job done faster. But then if it is worth spending more to get the job done faster, how is it a bad bargain? Faster delivery costs more.
In the final analysis, it is the military that decides whether going to a private contractor is worth it for whatever reason. If the military is spending four times more than they should be for no good reason, are they not an example of inefficiency and incompetence? How can the answer be anything but yes?
The Military shouldn't go after a private contractor to save money but to get the job done fast and or right. If the military has no expertise in say, changing out a defective valve, then call an outside plumber. However, our system has fostered the practice of the plumber knowing it is dealing with big pockets government so that the $10.00 valve from the hardware store is now $20 or $50 and the hourly rate is not $50 but at least $100 and the time is not one hour but a full eight hours and a wrench has to be bought for the job (even though it is already in the plumber toolbox) for another $75. Responsiblity and patriotism do not go hand in hand with making money evidently.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6The Military shouldn't go after a private contractor to save money but to get the job done fast and or right. If the military has no expertise in say, changing out a defective valve, then call an outside plumber. However, our system has fostered the practice of the plumber knowing it is dealing with big pockets government so that the $10.00 valve from the hardware store is now $20 or $50 and the hourly rate is not $50 but at least $100 and the time is not one hour but a full eight hours and a wrench has to be bought for the job (even though it is already in the plumber toolbox) for another $75. Responsiblity and patriotism do not go hand in hand with making money evidently.
The other is the practice of farming out work to contractors. The problem here isn't high cost, but lousy service. When the contract doesn't pay incrementally for carefully measured performance, you will get a contractor who just barely meets the letter of the contract (or even falls below and dares you not to pay) because the only way they can increase their profit is to cut costs.
This is a big part of the reason Chatsworth happened. The contract operator had no incentive whatsoever to perform at a high level. His maximum profit came at doing the absolute bare minimum. Taking employees out of service costs money and doesn't increase revenue a dime.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul MilenkovicFor one thing, we already are (cutting highway and airport development). If we are not cutting those things, we may be faced with cutting them on account of the same budget situation that makes funding for trains hard. A good measure why people are even thinking of HSR is California is that adding lanes to I-5 is considered to be a non-starter based on the shape of State and Federal budgets. But a good question to ask is whether HSR is a good subsitute for expanding I-5. The Amtrak/intercity portion of the NEC replaces, probably, one freeway lane in each direction, and that is the "densest" Amtrak route. Pacific Surfliner and Hiawatha are nowhere near that level of traffic. My back-of-the-envelope calculation for the projected ridership of 50 million passengers on the CA HSR suggests that it would substitute for multiple freeway lanes in each direction, and on that basis alone, the HSR is a good value. Some intuition tells me that those ridership projections are way over-projected. Someone mentioned that the NEC does 3 million passengers/year on Acela -- when you add in Regionals, does this bring things up to about 10 million? Mind you, Boston, New York City, Philly, and more recently DC have rail transit "feeder" networks into the NEC. OK, SF perhaps has rail transit on the level of DC, LA is getting there. But even so, I don't so how you have the supporting infrastructure in CA for the 50 million passengers. But there is the temptation to say, not only are we going to thave rains and train ridership by not building more expensive highways, but if we didn't have the highway system we have (Interstates), we could have more trains. Kind of like, OK, if we "train people" can't get funding for our train, we will oppose funding for that highway that "you highway people" want. I figure that kind of thinking is popular in some circles, but is that the way to "win friends and influence people" to get more trains. I don't say this just for idle discussion. The idea of not only advocating trains but opposing highways has worked its way into public pronouncements of our local passenger train advocacy group.
For one thing, we already are (cutting highway and airport development). If we are not cutting those things, we may be faced with cutting them on account of the same budget situation that makes funding for trains hard.
A good measure why people are even thinking of HSR is California is that adding lanes to I-5 is considered to be a non-starter based on the shape of State and Federal budgets.
But a good question to ask is whether HSR is a good subsitute for expanding I-5.
The Amtrak/intercity portion of the NEC replaces, probably, one freeway lane in each direction, and that is the "densest" Amtrak route. Pacific Surfliner and Hiawatha are nowhere near that level of traffic.
My back-of-the-envelope calculation for the projected ridership of 50 million passengers on the CA HSR suggests that it would substitute for multiple freeway lanes in each direction, and on that basis alone, the HSR is a good value. Some intuition tells me that those ridership projections are way over-projected.
Someone mentioned that the NEC does 3 million passengers/year on Acela -- when you add in Regionals, does this bring things up to about 10 million? Mind you, Boston, New York City, Philly, and more recently DC have rail transit "feeder" networks into the NEC. OK, SF perhaps has rail transit on the level of DC, LA is getting there. But even so, I don't so how you have the supporting infrastructure in CA for the 50 million passengers.
But there is the temptation to say, not only are we going to thave rains and train ridership by not building more expensive highways, but if we didn't have the highway system we have (Interstates), we could have more trains. Kind of like, OK, if we "train people" can't get funding for our train, we will oppose funding for that highway that "you highway people" want. I figure that kind of thinking is popular in some circles, but is that the way to "win friends and influence people" to get more trains.
I don't say this just for idle discussion. The idea of not only advocating trains but opposing highways has worked its way into public pronouncements of our local passenger train advocacy group.
Your not looking at the whole picture and your analysis is narrowed to just a freeway comparison. I am pretty sure that HSR also competes to an extent with short haul flights on the airlines. Living in Texas in boom times a lot of flights used to exist between DFW and just San Antonio. It was like DFW was a unsinkable aircraft carrier just for Texas flights. Delta and American each had about 8-10 flights a day. Post 9-11 that traffic has subsided greatly (Delta exited and flights were otherwise reduced in frequency). Personally, I would rather see HSR between those cities then have to breath the smog or have to deal with the ridiculous congestion from a weather event delay, which impacts other parts of the Air Traffic Control system of the United States. Thats why I stated in earlier posts that nobody has done a really subjective analysis here on how HSR contributes to Productivity and GDP. I would like to see that done because these comparisons to other modes of transport are typically flawed in one way or another, IMO. I am fairly confident that HSR is a net plus to GDP vs a net loss, even with borrowing money to pay for part of it.
I flew 450k air miles in the late 1990's across 4-5 years up until 9-11. DFW and Love field both have a ridiculous amount of flights internally to internal Texas Cities. They are in fact taking the place of HSR now and we are paying for it in Texas via smog, time it takes to fly out of Dallas or Ft. Worth as well as dimished capacity at our airports for outstate flights. Also BTW, Sam1 never mentioned this but Southwest Airlines was adamantly opposed to HSR in Texas and lobbied to kill one of the past proposals. I would like to see HSR in Texas as a viable option on short hauls. I'm willing to pay for it via higher taxes if needed. It's comming eventually wether the obstructors and naysayers believe it or not. It's just a matter of time.
Anyhow, my two cents.
BucyrusIn the final analysis, it is the military that decides whether going to a private contractor is worth it for whatever reason. If the military is spending four times more than they should be for no good reason, are they not an example of inefficiency and incompetence? How can the answer be anything but yes?
Bucyrus: Let me try again. The answer lies in the policy of "privatization" a scheme started under Reagan under the pretext that since "'government is the problem", let's turn over as many government functions to private enterprise as possible. Sometimes it works out quite well. But there are many legitimate services that need to be done, such as in the military, that private companies won't touch unless they can tack on a big profit. Hence the military ends up spending much more for something they used to do themselves. Many people believe the real reasons for privatization are: 1. flexibility in staffing in return for paying much more for the privilege; and 2. more gravy for political supporters. All in all, there are some pluses and minuses, as in most situations in the real world, not all or nothing.
CMStPnPAlso BTW, Sam1 never mentioned this but Southwest Airlines was adamantly opposed to HSR in Texas and lobbied to kill one of the past proposals. I would like to see HSR in Texas as a viable option on short hauls. I'm willing to pay for it via higher taxes if needed. It's coming eventually whether the obstructors and naysayers believe it or not. It's just a matter of time. Anyhow, my two cents.
Also BTW, Sam1 never mentioned this but Southwest Airlines was adamantly opposed to HSR in Texas and lobbied to kill one of the past proposals. I would like to see HSR in Texas as a viable option on short hauls. I'm willing to pay for it via higher taxes if needed. It's coming eventually whether the obstructors and naysayers believe it or not. It's just a matter of time. Anyhow, my two cents.
You are shortchanging yourself! I'd say that post was worth a lot more than 2 cents!! Not too surprising that sam1 omitted that little detail about SWA. Although Texas is a huge state in area, it looks like there are a number of metro areas within the magic 500 miles of each other and would thus be a great candidate for several HSR routes?
schlimmBut there are many legitimate services that need to be done, such as in the military, that private companies won't touch unless they can tack on a big profit. Hence the military ends up spending much more for something they used to do themselves.
Well then why do they farm it out to private contractors if it costs more?
I understand your point that the specifics can vary and be an exception to the general rule. And it is true that private sector activity must include the cost of profit. But profit is a necessary component of the equation. Public sector has an advantage of being inherently non-profit, but they are burdened with other deficiencies such as a relative lack of accountability for costs compared to the private sector.
But if we are trying to compare the private and public sectors for their cost effectiveness in producing goods and services, the example of the military hiring private contactors versus doing the work itself is a highly flawed comparison. It does not compare the public and private sectors. Instead, it compares the public sector versus the public sector contracting through the private sector. So it is really only comparing two variations of the public sector.
Not only is that comparison illogical for reaching the conclusion, but also it is also simply unfair because it is being judged by one of the two participants being compared. The military has a powerful self-interest in saying that it could do the same work as the private sector at one quarter the cost. But how can that possibly be verified by any outside observer? It is a self-serving claim that nobody can verify.
If you want a fair and logical comparison, have a neutral third party judge the performance of public and private sectors producing the same goods or service.
As usual, you seem intent on ignoring the 800# gorilla. The military was forced to start contracting out a lot of work they used to do. Often there are very few potential contractors so you don't have (if one ever does) a free market. So they are stuck.
Bucyrus But how can that possibly be verified by any outside observer? It is a self-serving claim that nobody can verify. If you want a fair and logical comparison, have a neutral third party judge the performance of public and private sectors producing the same goods or service.
But how can that possibly be verified by any outside observer? It is a self-serving claim that nobody can verify.
Fair enough. So let's go to Iraq and have someone compare the cost of having the army transport a convoy of supplies by truck vs the cost of having Haliburton do it.
I have city water. It comes from a river and is processed through a water treatment facility before being piped to my home. My sister lives 4 miles from me. Her development has water supplied by a private company. It is untreated water from a central well. Her water bill is three times what mine is and everyone in the development gets bottled water to drink because the tap water tastes funny, though it has been tested and is safe.
I had another paragraph here, but elected to delete it because I am trying not to be political.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
schlimm As usual, you seem intent on ignoring the 800# gorilla. The military was forced to start contracting out a lot of work they used to do. Often there are very few potential contractors so you don't have (if one ever does) a free market. So they are stuck.
Who is forcing the military to go to more expense by using private contractors? You mentioned that Reagan began the process. Reagan was for privatization, but that was an anomaly, and it was a long time ago. I don’t see much push for privatization today. If anything, it is just the opposite. Today the government runs GM. You are going to need to identify your 800-pound gorilla.
The government procurement process is not comparable to either a department operation or private industry. Both private industry and government agencies are under the gun for containing expenses and to work with a budget; but that has never stopped individuals and small groups from embezzling or defrauding either an agency or company.
A private contractor usually is sought because of the transient nature or lack of core competency for the goods or service being sought. At it's best, and ideally, a qualified and responsible contractor making the low bid wins; and at worst, corruption interferes.
The problem for high speed rail is that the hundreds of millions in contracts make tempting targets for the unscrupulous that can derail subsequent phases of a project.
I know the Feds bought a big piece of GM to keep them solvent, but do you seriously think that the Federal Government is RUNNING GM? I bet the Board of Directors would disagree with you.
You think a private does everything better than the Governemnt? Get 3 birthday cards for your Aunt Tilly in Walla Walla, Washington. Take one to FedEx, one to UPS, and one to the Post Office. How do the costs compare?
Not that this minutia has much to do with rail; but the Army contracted civilian food service workers at least as far back as 1968. Troops still did KP here; but locals provided that too over in Viet Nam where our job was warfare 24/7.
schlimm CMStPnP Also BTW, Sam1 never mentioned this but Southwest Airlines was adamantly opposed to HSR in Texas and lobbied to kill one of the past proposals. I would like to see HSR in Texas as a viable option on short hauls. I'm willing to pay for it via higher taxes if needed. It's coming eventually whether the obstructors and naysayers believe it or not. It's just a matter of time. Anyhow, my two cents. You are shortchanging yourself! I'd say that post was worth a lot more than 2 cents!! Not too surprising that sam1 omitted that little detail about SWA. Although Texas is a huge state in area, it looks like there are a number of metro areas within the magic 500 miles of each other and would thus be a great candidate for several HSR routes?
CMStPnP Also BTW, Sam1 never mentioned this but Southwest Airlines was adamantly opposed to HSR in Texas and lobbied to kill one of the past proposals. I would like to see HSR in Texas as a viable option on short hauls. I'm willing to pay for it via higher taxes if needed. It's coming eventually whether the obstructors and naysayers believe it or not. It's just a matter of time. Anyhow, my two cents.
Although Southwest Airlines gets the lion's share of the blame for opposing the proposal to develop a high speed rail line between DFW and San Antonio, most of the other airlines, as well as the state's bus companies also weighed in against the proposal. They opposed the use of state monies to support the proposed system.
The proposal was predicated on a private/public relationship. The project sponsors recognized that the system would never cover its costs; therefore, they wanted the Texas legislature to put up a significant amount of money to help fund it. At the end of the day the members of the legislature, who are elected by mostly conservative constituents, rejected the proposal. Most of the members did not think that the proposal was viable in a state where the over whelming majority of the people prefer to drive. And at the time highway congestion in Texas was not a major problem. To claim that the project was defeated exclusively by Southwest Airlines is to state a clear lack of understanding of Texas politics.
The founders of Southwest Airlines, who put together what is arguably the most successful airline in the world, did not receive any government support for their airline. In fact, they faced substantial government and competitor opposition. Having overcome significant opposition to their proposed intrastate airline, it is little wonder that they did not want government money used to launch a high speed rail system that had no possibility of covering its costs but would bleed off some of its passengers.
Yes, but Southwest Airlines didn't have to build and maintain their own air traffic control system, navigational aids, and pay property tax to every political entity that it overflies.
I bet that helped a lot in their quest to be profitable.
Southwest had to build maintenace and storage buildings, rent or own office space, and purchase airplanes. They did not have to build airports as various governments and government agencies have already done that. They have thier own scheduleing and dispatching personnel for sure, but traffic control is done by a U.S. government agency. They did not have to build a fixed plant, i.e. right of way and substructure. And their research and development was all done under Federal Military contracts for war planes, etc. And bus and trucking companies have the same situations. Most everything connected with Amtrak was built or contracted for through private enterprises with reasearch and devlopement by private enterprise. And I don't think Amtrak is a 501.3.C. company either.
Phoebe Vet Yes, but Southwest Airlines didn't have to build and maintain their own air traffic control system, navigational aids, and pay property tax to every political entity that it overflies. I bet that helped a lot in their quest to be profitable.
The thing is about the passenger train advocacy community is being stuck back in the 1960's or even the 1950's and not having read the Trains Magazine article "Who Shot the Passenger Train."
This is not about Government Good-Free Market Bad, Government Bad-Free Market Good debates, commentary on which political party favors trains more than some other political party, or any such thing.
The argument that the airlines didn't have to build their own facilities, never mind that the airlines do "build their own facilities" through taxes on airline tickets and jet fuel, that argument had been made a very long time ago. That argument is why we have Amtrak. Yes, Amtrak pays fees to host railroads for passage of Amtrak trains, but those fees are a small portion of Amtrak costs or even a small portion of the Amtrak subsidy.
The idea behind Amtrak was that passenger operations be separated from the whole railroad infrastructure. The train would become a kind of bus or airliner operating on someone elses infrastructure. "If only the passenger train weren't burdened with the railroad's archaic fully-allocated cost formula", "if only the passenger train were like the airliner without all of that trackage expense" went the refrain. So, we got Amtrak, freed from the burdens of being the railroad (apart from the NEC, but that is a whole 'nother story).
Guess what. Even when freed from the burden of infrastructure, passenger trains require subsidy, high levels of subsidy. Efforts to "reform" Amtrak to deal with this situation are dealt with as a plot from the Concrete Lobby.
The Amtrak enterprise has failed, failed on the basis that when given a "level playing field" with Southwest Airlines, it failed to come anywhere near Southwest's balance sheet. How do we in the advocacy deal with this failure? With scapegoating. Trains are never profitable. That trains are held to a standard of turning in an operating profit is a plot of Republicans in Congress/Heritage/Cato/the Concrete Lobby. Amtrak is not given a chance because it is underfunded. Excuse on top of excuse, the advocacy community blaming everyone for this state of affairs apart from ourselves, in the manner of how we have influence this effort.
We really as an advocacy community have to get past the "trains are the poor step child that get no respect" excuse and look more critically at what we are advocating, that is if we want to get off dead center and have more trains.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sam1the members of the legislature, who are elected by mostly conservative constituents, rejected the proposal. Most of the members did not think that the proposal was viable in a state where the over whelming majority of the people prefer to drive.
What choice other than air have they had for the last 40 years? You cannot predict with any accuracy what even Texans will do if they have a viable passenger rail network as an option.
Paul MilenkovicThe idea behind Amtrak was that passenger operations be separated from the whole railroad infrastructure.
Revisionism? For starters, I would respectfully suggest you look again at the real purpose on Amtrak from the beginning (the Budd statement). I would also suggest that SWA has never had to deal with un-business-like problems like having Congressional mandates to run pointless planes to nowhere at big losses as Amtrak has with trains.
schlimmSam1the members of the legislature, who are elected by mostly conservative constituents, rejected the proposal. Most of the members did not think that the proposal was viable in a state where the over whelming majority of the people prefer to drive. What choice other than air have they had for the last 40 years? You cannot predict with any accuracy what even Texans will do if they have a viable passenger rail network as an option.
Sam1 was referring to the reported perceptions at the time, regardless of validity. California was thought to be auto-centric as well.
Again, what makes sense from a cost-benefit perspective? On the society value of mobility for all?
The real reason Amtrak was formed was to relieve the burdon of operating passenger trains off the shoulders of private corporate railroads. It was hoped, and believed, that passenger trains would thus dissappear and never have to be dealt with again. Private railroads, thus, were not going to be the boogie man by not being involved with the passenger train's dissapearance. What was not counted on at that time were incerasingly choking air pollution, grid lock traffic congestion, lack of inner city parking capacity, and high costs of petroleum and gasoline and other fuels. Plus, private rail thought that by getting rid of the passenger train they would have track capacity which would be totally filled by freight traffic. Well, there did become an underutilized freight system instead before there became an under capacity system: they first took away track then have scrambled to put the infrastructure back in place. In some places, under utilized track provide an opportunity to reposition a passenger service to take up the slack; in other places government paid for track improvements can be made for passenger trains in exchanged for better utilization by freight trains. All in all our transportation system has been poorly thought out and planned over many decades. It has been piecemeal, as needed when needed if needed, a hodgepodge of systems, hardware, technologies, philosophies, uses, non-uses, and an economic and political football. It is time to stop playing games of words and conflicting philosophies, roll up our sleeves, and produce a total, rationalized, useful, transportation system.
Paul MilenkovicThe thing is about the passenger train advocacy community is being stuck back in the 1960's or even the 1950's and not having read the Trains Magazine article "Who Shot the Passenger Train." This is not about Government Good-Free Market Bad, Government Bad-Free Market Good debates, commentary on which political party favors trains more than some other political party, or any such thing. The argument that the airlines didn't have to build their own facilities, never mind that the airlines do "build their own facilities" through taxes on airline tickets and jet fuel, that argument had been made a very long time ago. That argument is why we have Amtrak. Yes, Amtrak pays fees to host railroads for passage of Amtrak trains, but those fees are a small portion of Amtrak costs or even a small portion of the Amtrak subsidy. The idea behind Amtrak was that passenger operations be separated from the whole railroad infrastructure. The train would become a kind of bus or airliner operating on someone elses infrastructure. "If only the passenger train weren't burdened with the railroad's archaic fully-allocated cost formula", "if only the passenger train were like the airliner without all of that trackage expense" went the refrain. So, we got Amtrak, freed from the burdens of being the railroad (apart from the NEC, but that is a whole 'nother story). Guess what. Even when freed from the burden of infrastructure, passenger trains require subsidy, high levels of subsidy. Efforts to "reform" Amtrak to deal with this situation are dealt with as a plot from the Concrete Lobby. The Amtrak enterprise has failed, failed on the basis that when given a "level playing field" with Southwest Airlines, it failed to come anywhere near Southwest's balance sheet. How do we in the advocacy deal with this failure? With scapegoating. Trains are never profitable. That trains are held to a standard of turning in an operating profit is a plot of Republicans in Congress/Heritage/Cato/the Concrete Lobby. Amtrak is not given a chance because it is underfunded. Excuse on top of excuse, the advocacy community blaming everyone for this state of affairs apart from ourselves, in the manner of how we have influence this effort. We really as an advocacy community have to get past the "trains are the poor step child that get no respect" excuse and look more critically at what we are advocating, that is if we want to get off dead center and have more trains.
I'll just add that it was the intention of the creators of Amtrak that the route map would shed LD routes and gain short haul corridors AND the short haul corridors would generate enough cash to prop up the remaining LD routes.
Clearly, that never happened - for a whole host of reasons. Although things are starting to look more favorable for short haul corridors, it appears that the status quo is still powerful. Even Amtrak is talking about purchasing new sleepers and diners. If the country wants to prop up the status quo Amtrak, fair enough. But, lets at least play straight with the facts and stop making excuses.
One more thing about SWA vs Amtrak. SWA is low cost in part because it has an in-shop pilot's union, rather than ALPA. Amtrak has to contend with high union wages, like freight rails, which also consumes much of passenger revenue. Not sure about SWA's pension burdens, if any, but I bet it's a lot less than the pension burden Amtrak has.
Although I largely agree with both Paul and Don on the need to move forward, it is important to simply recognize (as Henry pointed out) the climate Amtrak has been mandated vs the rather free reign SWA has had to drop money losing operations.
I am confounded by Amtrak's compartmentalizing itself around the NEC and LD and lack of concern with the rest of the country. Where is the effort to develop a comprehensive corridors program if this was the vision? Then why dining cars and crew dormitory baggage cars? Why not bi-level cars for the NEC where station capacity is exceedingly costly? Where are the priorities and what is the vision that should precede the fleet plan?
We all should be grateful for the initiatives taken in California, the Northwest, Midwest, and Carolina; but where is Amtrak? Illinois, for instance, can't get to Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, or Tennessee without going through Indiana and Ohio. Chicago - Milwaukee is an interstate corridor in it's own right; but where's Amtrak? The USDOT seems to have been more active over the years with evaluations and proposals on a broad vision and opportunities; but there is a serious disconnect with both Congress and Amtrak.
schlimm One more thing about SWA vs Amtrak. SWA is low cost in part because it has an in-shop pilot's union, rather than ALPA. Amtrak has to contend with high union wages, like freight rails, which also consumes much of passenger revenue. Not sure about SWA's pension burdens, if any, but I bet it's a lot less than the pension burden Amtrak has.
For a long time I was under the impression that SWA's labor costs were considerably lower than those of the competition. Not so! Southwest pays the going rate, as I learned from a close friend who has been with the company as an executive for decades. However, they have one clear labor advantage. Their employees are or were more productive than the employees for their major competitors.
SWA does not have a legacy pension system. Their employees have had a 401k type plan from the get go. The company and the employee contribute to the plan. The company also has a very good stock option plan. Many of the ordinary people who risked all to help the company get started became millionaires many times over. And we not talking just executives. Many of the line people who got in on the ground floor with Southwest became very wealthy.
Comparing SWA against Amtrak or any other rail operation is dysfunctional. They are entirely different operations. Southwest was able to take advantage of a changing regulatory environment and make use of common facilities. It paid its share of those facilities, as it still does, through fuel taxes and a variety of fees.
I commented on SWA in large part because of the notion that it single handily killed the proposal for high speed rail in Texas. The proposal died because it was constructed poorly and was premature.
henry6 ..... All in all our transportation system has been poorly thought out and planned over many decades. It has been piecemeal, as needed when needed if needed, a hodgepodge of systems, hardware, technologies, philosophies, uses, non-uses, and an economic and political football. It is time to stop playing games of words and conflicting philosophies, roll up our sleeves, and produce a total, rationalized, useful, transportation system.
..... All in all our transportation system has been poorly thought out and planned over many decades. It has been piecemeal, as needed when needed if needed, a hodgepodge of systems, hardware, technologies, philosophies, uses, non-uses, and an economic and political football. It is time to stop playing games of words and conflicting philosophies, roll up our sleeves, and produce a total, rationalized, useful, transportation system.
Whether our transportation system has been planned poorly is debatable. The framework in America has stressed competitive markets, as opposed to overly centralized government solutions, with government supplied infrastructure monies when appropriate, but with an emphasis on local flexibility. Most of the governments that touted centralized planning have pulled back or are no longer in existence.
I have travelled extensively for more than 50 years. The percentage of delays that I have experienced has been minimal.
Recently I drove from Georgetown, Texas to Fort Myers, Florida and back. I ran into a bit of traffic congestion on I-621, which goes around Houston, because of heavy construction. And I ran into a minor traffic jam outside of Mobile, Alabama due to a traffic accident. Otherwise, it was smooth sailing.
Admittely, we have traffic congestion in our major cities, especially during the morning and evening rush hours. In these instances I believe the enhancement or development of existing rail facilities to relieve the congestion is an appropriate investment. But to imply that we are living in a land of transport gridlock because of poor planning does not square with my experience or that of my fellow Texans.
HarveyK400 schlimm Sam1the members of the legislature, who are elected by mostly conservative constituents, rejected the proposal. Most of the members did not think that the proposal was viable in a state where the over whelming majority of the people prefer to drive. What choice other than air have they had for the last 40 years? You cannot predict with any accuracy what even Texans will do if they have a viable passenger rail network as an option. Sam1 was referring to the reported perceptions at the time, regardless of validity. California was thought to be auto-centric as well. Again, what makes sense from a cost-benefit perspective? On the society value of mobility for all?
schlimm Sam1the members of the legislature, who are elected by mostly conservative constituents, rejected the proposal. Most of the members did not think that the proposal was viable in a state where the over whelming majority of the people prefer to drive. What choice other than air have they had for the last 40 years? You cannot predict with any accuracy what even Texans will do if they have a viable passenger rail network as an option.
I have a friend who was a member of the state legislature at the time the proposal for high speed rail was shot down. Moreover, I worked with the VP of our lobbing team in Austin on a variety of industry related matters. They have given me some insights into the proposal for high speed rail in Texas and why it failed. That is a bit more than reported perceptions.
Whether Texans would use an intercity rail system is indeed unknown. What is known, however, is crystal clear. They had abandoned a viable intercity passenger rail system by the end of the 1950s, which was long before Southwest came along.
Numerous public opinion polls have shown that a clear majority of Texans want better roads. Only a very small percentage of them have said that they want an expanded passenger rail system.
I would like to see a moderate speed passenger rail system between the major cities along the I-35 corridor, as well as between Dallas and Houston. But it should be able to cover its operating costs and, preferably, contribute significantly to the infrastructure cost required to support it.
Sam1The founders of Southwest Airlines, who put together what is arguably the most successful airline in the world, did not receive any government support for their airline.
Sam: Most of your statements are correct as I remember but this sentence is not. Remember SW started service out of Dallas airport (DAL) - Houston HOU Hobby). Fortunately for SW Braniff airlines whose main operating and maintenance base was at DAL (some at MIA for South America) went bankrupt and to fill all the infrastructure that BN vacated SWA got a sweet heart deal on the monorail, parking concessions, hangers, terminal, BN gate space, etc, then gate space that was vacated by all the major airlines that moved to DFW. I do not remember the deal at HOU when IAH was moved into by majors. I would believet that some sort of the same deals were proffered. The Wright ammendment also had some effect.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.