HSR under new scrutiny

[blownout cylinder]

BNSFwatcher

Ever do "The 401?".  Good training!!!

You "experienced" that lovely highway I see! lol!! The busiest stretch of highway in N.A, is between my "fair" city--London ON--and TO. This is caused by the Windsor/Detroit traffic and the Sarnia ON/ Pt Huron MI traffic from the 402 being funneled into each other here. This will soon be compacted by all the TO garbage traffic as well.

 There are 3 stretches along there that have a nasty habit of being closed or reduced in laneage for a long time. The 3 are--

1)--along the southern edge of London---Highway 4 and Col. Talbot Rd interchange to Veteran's Memorial Pkwy

2)--Between Ingersoll ON and Woodstock ON and ---

3)--anywhere from Drumbo Rd interchange and the Kitchener-Waterloo area.

Snowsqualls during the winter have been known to cause multi-vehicle pile-ups in no time flat!

[BNSFwatcher]

How do you put up with/justify the lunatic drivers in the DFW area?  They are crazier than those in New York, Illinois, and even Boston!  I'll even include New Orleans and Los Angeles in the mix.  Ontario might be a close second.  Ever do "The 401?".  Good training!!!

Hays

[henry6]

Oh I have driven all the highways I have mentioned at times being the only car on the road except for I80 in PA.  It can be done except Mondays after 3AM, other weekdays after 5AM city bound or after 3PM anyday outbound; Summer Fridays, ya better get the gas peddle to the floor by the end of the lunch hour or you'll not get there till almost midnight!  I don't think she understands how bad certain hours on main arteries can be these days.  I moved out of the area over 40 years ago and it ain't like it used to be.

[schlimm]

sam1:  Try driving from the Chicago area to somewhere in Michigan along the lake.  You have to go through a bottleneck of I 80 and I 94, with all their local and transcontinental traffic all squeezing together (and adding I 65 and I94 for fun).   I doubt if you'll find it as much of a breeze driving as on your Philadelphia journey.

[Anonymous]

henry6

Sam you've got to try driving I80 across NJ, PA, OH, IN and IL or I81 thorugh NY, PA, MD, VA into the South to understand congestion, 18 wheelers at 80+ mph side by side alongside (or being pushed by?) a Toyota.  Or be in a fogbound row of 35mph traffic across the NJTurnpike scuking in those diesel fumes....find out what traffic is really like.

As for the "compartmentlaizing" of Amtrak...it is historical, of course.  Routes and corridors compounded by union rules and long time railroad division points, rote operations, a fixed plant, and geography; and the individual cities and city pairs that devleoped in the 20th Century.  It is what Amtrak inherited or was given in hopes that it would all go away and big railorads would run big freight trains on thier private tracks while people would drive big cars on the Eisenhower Interstate.  It was a plan.  A plan that time changed, that time caught up with.  So here we are today.

And also, through these arguements and comments I get confused about being an American, about my patriotism.  What am I missing?  Why isn't something like Amtrak good for America and me as much as the highway, waterway, and airway systems?  I get the feeling it is pro American to support the three latter forms of transportation yet it is anti American to support a national rail system.  The most confusion comes when I think of the United States being a powerful and successful world power which so many here wants to take apart state by state less one gets the better of the other.  Who is a real American? what is a real American?  Is it patriotic to say you can't have something when you need it because I get nothing at this time?  Let's stop playing the game and start building a United States instead a group of parochially defined settings.

Having lived in the Northeast for nearly half of my 70 years, I am familiar with traffic in the areas you mention.  In fact, I drove in or near Philadelphia twice last year.  The traffic is no more challenging than the traffic in and near the major cities of Texas.  The passenger rail service, however, is much better.  I took the train on several occasions from Harrisburg to Philadelphia.

[Anonymous]

blue streak 1

Sam1

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.

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.

SWA got little at Dallas Love Field except a broken down terminal that no one else wanted.  It began operations in the early 70s.  Braniff did not go belly up until 1982.  I began flying SWA in 1975, when I moved to Dallas from the Northeast.  I remember walking into a terminal that looked and felt like a morgue.   

SWA got a deal on the gates, parking, etc. at Love Field.  But no one else wanted them.  It was the only deal that the city could get.  The facilities were lousy.  Flying Southwest during the early years gave a new meaning to budget airline. 

Southwest's management saw an opportunity to launch an intrastate air service that turned into a winner.  It has made it possible for millions of Americans, who otherwise could not afford to fly, to see their families half way across the country.  

Moreover, as Herb Keller has stated, we recognized that many people did not want to fly from a cow pasture between Dallas and Fort Worth to a cow pasture outside of Houston when they could fly from close-in airports.  Grabbing an opportunity like this is what makes the competitive market system so dynamic and, although it has its faults, has resulted in the highest living standards around the world.  Whoops, hopefully no one will consider this a political statement.  

SWA was put together by visionaries who understood the importance of competitive markets and were willing to bet the farm on their idea.  Had they failed, they would have lost everything. 

The Wright Amendment came along only after Braniff, American, Delta, etc. failed to run SWA out of business.  The SWA story is riveting.  It is capitalism at its best, and the story is one of the cases that are studied extensively at the Harvard Business School.

[blue streak 1]

blue streak 1

IMHO there would never been voter approval of the California HSR if the voters had not seen the results of the afore mentioned CA projects. The most important item may ( I only say may) have been the voters awareness that there have been incremental improvements in all these services by the various authorities. Not the loss of service and timekeeping so prevelant by 1960. 

Now the northern New England rail group has announced that Feb 2010 ridership up 5% from 2009 (no cancellations?) even though a 3 day sold out weekend was cancelled because of the Feb storm. Conservative projections of those cancellations would put potential close to 10% increase assuming that some persons traveled after the cancellations. That seems to beg the question "does Downeaster trains need more coaches on some days?" Same old lack of equipment problem.

Question: Does this mean that the incremental improvements on the BOS - Portland are attracting passengers? The improvements are certainly different from the 1950s B&M decline. I cannot answer the question.

[Anonymous]

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.

One of the advantages befalling the airlines, as well as other common carriers, is their sharing of  common facilities.  That is to say, they don't pay the full cost of the facilities because they are not the exclusive users.  The same is true for Amtrak, which is a niche user on most of the rail systems that it runs its trains over.  The exception, of course, is the NEC, where Amtrak is the major but not exclusive owner.

With respect to property or other taxes, the following should be kept in mind.  "Pursuant to the provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code, Section 24-301, Amtrak is exempt from all state and local taxes, including income and francishe taxes that are directly levied against the Company.  Accordingly, there is no provision for state and local income or francishe taxes recorded in the consolidated financial statements....."  This statement is contained in the 2009 Financial Statements, which are included in Amtrak's Annual Report.

The nation's airlines pay federal and state income taxes, assuming that they had a profitable year, which clearly has not always been the case.  In addition, they pay franchise, inventory, and sales taxes.  For example, each year SWA takes down as much of its inventory as possible just before valuation of its inventories in Dallas in an attempt to mitigate its local inventory taxes.  The taxes are a significant burden.      

[Paul Milenkovic]

schlimm

Paul Milenkovic

The 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.

 

And who is it behind the Amtrak mandates that SWA lacks?  Could it be the advocacy community?  Would Amtrak, on balance, provide more and better service (although not our "pet" service -- cough, Sunset Limited, cough) if the advocacy community weren't lobbying Amtrak and lobbying Congress?:

[blue streak 1]

Sam1

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

That statement I can really believe. The lack of a detailed proposal submitted last fall would reinforce this statement. 

Some people might say the HSR proposal was planned that way but I won't go that far. However we are seeing the same thing here in Georgia.

 

 

 

[blue streak 1]

schlimm

Sam1

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. 

 

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.

Some of our older posters that have lived in southern California  have heard much the same arguments when the additional San Diego trains were being debated; then Metrolink and Santa Barbara service all that is now under Pacific Surfliner banner . I was there enough during all those times to hear this. Then later the Capitol corridor and the  San Joaquin service (which by the way in todays newswire said "San Joaquin ridership up 6+% in our down economy"). 

 IMHO there would never been voter approval of the California HSR if the voters had not seen the results of the afore mentioned CA projects. The most important item may ( I only say may) have been the voters awareness that there have been incremental improvements in all these services by the various authorities. Not the loss of service and timekeeping so prevelant by 1960. 

I almost forgot the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE). Although they only have run 4 round trips a day they are now getting feedback that they may need another round trip to fill in what some riders are having to deal with changed working hours. 

 

[henry6]

Sam you've got to try driving I80 across NJ, PA, OH, IN and IL or I81 thorugh NY, PA, MD, VA into the South to understand congestion, 18 wheelers at 80+ mph side by side alongside (or being pushed by?) a Toyota.  Or be in a fogbound row of 35mph traffic across the NJTurnpike scuking in those diesel fumes....find out what traffic is really like.

As for the "compartmentlaizing" of Amtrak...it is historical, of course.  Routes and corridors compounded by union rules and long time railroad division points, rote operations, a fixed plant, and geography; and the individual cities and city pairs that devleoped in the 20th Century.  It is what Amtrak inherited or was given in hopes that it would all go away and big railorads would run big freight trains on thier private tracks while people would drive big cars on the Eisenhower Interstate.  It was a plan.  A plan that time changed, that time caught up with.  So here we are today.

And also, through these arguements and comments I get confused about being an American, about my patriotism.  What am I missing?  Why isn't something like Amtrak good for America and me as much as the highway, waterway, and airway systems?  I get the feeling it is pro American to support the three latter forms of transportation yet it is anti American to support a national rail system.  The most confusion comes when I think of the United States being a powerful and successful world power which so many here wants to take apart state by state less one gets the better of the other.  Who is a real American? what is a real American?  Is it patriotic to say you can't have something when you need it because I get nothing at this time?  Let's stop playing the game and start building a United States instead a group of parochially defined settings.

[blue streak 1]

Sam1

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.

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.

[Anonymous]

HarveyK400

schlimm

Sam1

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. 

 

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?

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.  

[Anonymous]

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. 

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[HarveyK400]

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]

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.

[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.

[oltmannd]

Paul Milenkovic

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.

Wow. Really well put!

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.

[henry6]

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. 

[HarveyK400]

schlimm

Sam1

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. 

 

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]

Paul Milenkovic

The 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.

[schlimm]

Sam1

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. 

 

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 Milenkovic]

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.

[henry6]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.   

[HarveyK400]

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.

 

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.

[Phoebe Vet]

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?