Another argument about socialism is that it is only for the benefit of the masses....business prosper, too for what a socialistic enterprise can do: highways, waterways, airways, utilities, police departments, fire departments, etc. As is noted above,it is a term used in the negative when it is something someone fears will not benefit them at least, help someone else at someone else's supposed expense. If a train owned by a New York company is carrying coal for a West Virginia mining company from Denver to the Mississippi for use in a power plant owned by a Dallas power company in which electricity is generated for a town in the middle of Illinois and the government in Washington gives a million dollars for the rail section, who are the benificiaries?
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.
Because some companies do it for profit then the government should make a profit?
Private security guards make a profit. Police Departments do not. Which one would you rather call in an emergency? Would you like the police department to be organized to run in the black? Should the cost of the police department be born only by the people who actually call them?
Socialism is just a word that people use to argue against a service of which they don't approve. The core of our society is, and should be, capitalism but you do not want to live in a pure unregulated capitalist society. Money is power, and power corrupts. Unions and labor laws came about because the people with the money were making victims of the people who lived from paycheck to paycheck. Capitalism is good, but it is not the answer to every question. The economic crash we are trying to dig out from under was caused by capitalist greed. The desire to make as much money as possible regardless of the consequences.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet I don't understand this fascination with the argument that Amtrak should make money or break even. Almost no government entity makes money or breaks even. Virtually every service the government provides is taxpayer supported.
I don't understand this fascination with the argument that Amtrak should make money or break even. Almost no government entity makes money or breaks even. Virtually every service the government provides is taxpayer supported.
I'd settle for "not bleeding like a stuck pig".
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ndbprr Some fairly accurate assumptions: 1. The federal tax dollar take stays fairly consistent regardless of the rates so the pie can not be increased in size. 2. As a politician you need votes to stay in office. 3. As a business manager I need to maximize the productivity of my workers 4. Business travellers who need to travel last minute pay the bulk of the pricing. So in an extremely down economy which is goingto take at least ten years to correct the hou sing mess alone and as a politician where do you think HSR ranks with the general public? As a poltician what is going to get you votes? As a business person can you afford to use HSR from a productivity and cost standpoint? My answers are: 1. Lip service by the politicians to pick up a few votes 2. No way the general public wants it or would vote for it 3. No way my people are using it when planes will always beat the train to nearly any destination and anything under about 300 miles is company car territory Sorry but it is DOA.
Some fairly accurate assumptions:
1. The federal tax dollar take stays fairly consistent regardless of the rates so the pie can not be increased in size.
2. As a politician you need votes to stay in office.
3. As a business manager I need to maximize the productivity of my workers
4. Business travellers who need to travel last minute pay the bulk of the pricing.
So in an extremely down economy which is goingto take at least ten years to correct the hou sing mess alone and as a politician where do you think HSR ranks with the general public? As a poltician what is going to get you votes? As a business person can you afford to use HSR from a productivity and cost standpoint?
My answers are:
1. Lip service by the politicians to pick up a few votes
2. No way the general public wants it or would vote for it
3. No way my people are using it when planes will always beat the train to nearly any destination and anything under about 300 miles is company car territory
Sorry but it is DOA.
I won't quibble about most, of what you say, but you're missing the boat if you believe time riding a train is unproductive from a business standpoint. An aircard, a laptop and a cell phone and it is no different from being in the office at your desk. The success of the Acela, in large part is due to the nature of uninterrupted, productive time. It's why businesses are willing to pay the premium for their employees to ride.
Driving is 95% unproductive time. Flying - you may have bits and pieces of time, but most of it is without your cell phone and the WiFi isn't free (or even available...)
(The public DOES want more passenger rail -every time they are asked, they say yes. But, wanting and paying for it are two different things. Generally, extra taxes for urban transit pass voter muster more than half the time. I suspect bonds to build HSR funded from an increase in sales tax or gas tax would face a similar fate. Paying for a significant ongoing operating subisidy is a 'nother animal...)
The best known example of a socialist enterprise in this country is the Tennessee Valley Authority, and nobody is banging the drum to privatize that enterprise.
I think there are two main reasons it is assumed that Amtrak should make money. One is that railroads in our country are supposed to be private enterprise (i.e., earn a profit or die); Amtrak is a railroad; therefore Amtrak should make money. The other is the fear of the term Socialism. In socialism the government subsidizes an endeavor for the benefit of the masses rather than actually putting (investing) enough money to make it a viable (break even at best, make a profit even better. We fear it is the dreaded socialism eating away and therefore only throw a few pence in its direction in hopes it might just go a way, dieing a natural death.
Believing in a product and taking a risk is important...FedEx, etc. samples above. What has been proven but "dissed" in passenger rail is the success of properly designed and marketed services (services not running trains) as in the Downeast trains, ACELA, and corridors. It is more than a Field of Dreams, it is a meadows where ideas are sown and nurtured to fulfillment and rewards are harvested. It don't happen just thinking about it or talking about it or believing only the negative about it.
The public as a whole is served by a good public transportation system, whether or not a particular individual uses it. City buses don't make money, but cities need them. In fact, most cities should have more of them. Effective mass transit is a much better option than constantly widening roads and trying to find places to park all those cars in city centers. I, for one, prefer to travel to cities where I don't have to drive to get where I need to go.
schlimm oltmannd: Did you read the High Speed rail article in Trains last year and catch the part about the TGV trains being unable to make the usage payments to the federal authority that owns and maintains the ROW? This in a country that is more urbanized than the US. On the other hand, the German DB system seems to make money on their ICE services.
oltmannd: Did you read the High Speed rail article in Trains last year and catch the part about the TGV trains being unable to make the usage payments to the federal authority that owns and maintains the ROW? This in a country that is more urbanized than the US.
Did you read the High Speed rail article in Trains last year and catch the part about the TGV trains being unable to make the usage payments to the federal authority that owns and maintains the ROW? This in a country that is more urbanized than the US.
On the other hand, the German DB system seems to make money on their ICE services.
The more limited German approach seems more sane than the Chinese and California approach. Of course, we'd need to twist the FRA's arm to get that here.
Very little of the ICE network is new 155/186 mph HSR line. Most is upgraded existing line for 100 or 125 mph operation.
Does "make money" mean cover operating costs or does it cover the capital, too?
WJM2223 Just ride high speed trains in Spain, France, Germany and Japan, oh and now China. Watch for the opening this spring or summer of the 800+/-mile Beiging - Shainghai line that will be covered downtown to downtown in just over 4 hours with not a drop of imported fuel oil or the insults of security searches. And this doesn't evern begin to consider the frustrations of airport access or the environmental concerns of effluent belching aircraft engines. High speed rail is simply civilized, convenient, comfortable, fast, safe and environmentlly clean in that it burns no fuel oil. What more do we need to justify it?
Just ride high speed trains in Spain, France, Germany and Japan, oh and now China. Watch for the opening this spring or summer of the 800+/-mile Beiging - Shainghai line that will be covered downtown to downtown in just over 4 hours with not a drop of imported fuel oil or the insults of security searches. And this doesn't evern begin to consider the frustrations of airport access or the environmental concerns of effluent belching aircraft engines. High speed rail is simply civilized, convenient, comfortable, fast, safe and environmentlly clean in that it burns no fuel oil. What more do we need to justify it?
Would love to have all that. Let's look at your justifications:
1. frustrations of airport access: Compared to what? Frustrations of getting to the new, isolated HSR stations that would have to be built? Many US cities have lousy transit meaning the throngs flocking to HSR would have the same parking and traffic troubles as at airports. New HSR trains, at present, cannot share trackage with exiting commuter/Amtrak trains, so new, expensive terminals would have to be constructed. HSR trains that can share trackage, like Acela, aren't so fast and aren't so fuel efficient.
2. environmental concerns of effluent belching aircraft engines: High bypass aircraft engines do a good job on combustion and are nearly as fuel efficient per seat mile as Amtrak and driving. What, exactly do they belch other than CO2 and water vapor?
3. High speed rail is simply civilized, convenient, comfortable, fast, safe: What makes it comfortable is seat pitch, which is not intrinsic. There is nothing stopping a HSR operator from going to 2+3 seating as in Japan HSR, with airline style seat pitch. Safe? Safer than flying? Convenient? Only if it takes you to a city where you don't need to rent a car to get to your final dest. Otherwise, it's no better than flying or driving.
4. burns no fuel oil. Correct. As in China, it will use electricity created by burning coal. Lot's of belching of nasty stuff. Want a side of mercury with that HSR? Yum.
5. insults of security searches: If HSR gets to be popular, what's to stop it from being a terrorist target and the TSA from imposing the exact same security measures? Given that gang thought it was a good idea to fully screen pilots, who are allow to carry guns, not to mention actually control the flight of the plane, I wouldn't put anything past them!
I'm not saying HSR doesn't have a place here, I'm just saying that people who don't think so aren't necessarily as stupid as you'd like to make them out to be.
Do you want better passenger rail service or do you just want to go around proclaiming how right you are? One is hard work, the other is more fun. You pick.
Some of those long distance routes could be incorporated into some shorter routes. If I can again cite something done here in NC...
NC runs three round trips a day between Charlotte and Raleigh, serving several communities along the way. The Piedmont Leaves Raleigh in the AM, and that equipment returns at noon. At noon, another train leaves Raleigh. That equipment returns in the early evening. The opposing direction train in the morning and evening is actually provided by the Carolinian, which continues on to NYP via the NEC. The Carolinian only runs once a day in each direction.
A similar arrangement could be used on the other long distance corridors. If a single long distance train was continued, but the corridor was filled out with more frequent shorter service among the cities along the way. Most people using the long distance corridor are not traveling end to end. Number and frequency of trains could be tailored to the needs of intermediate city pairs. The LD train on it's way through could be one of those trains.
There are always a lot of professional naysayers who will find 100's of reasons to not do anything bold. Sometimes they are right, but sometimes not, and their naysaying is to advance other agendas. I guess figuring that out is wisdom.
Clearly there are some good reasons to develop a better passenger rail service. The devil is in the details. And we should not let the failures of Amtrak be our only guide to what should be done. But clearly Amtrak is what we have and if we are to advance the goal of better service, reform should start with Amtrak. If LD routes make little sense as part of a viable service, discontinuation must be considered.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Successful people are the ones who find a way to do things while everyone else is telling them all the reasons that it can't, or shouldn't, be done.
One example: Fred Smith who founded FedEx. Everyone told him there were not enough people willing to pay that much money for overnight delivery.
Lowell Paxson had difficulty convincing investors and cable companies that people would actually sit around and watch his Home Shopping Network waiting for them to show something they actually wanted to buy.
I tend to not give too much credence to the people who say things can't be done and those who say "we have gotten along just fine without that until now".
oltmannd Did you read the High Speed rail article in Trains last year and catch the part about the TGV trains being unable to make the usage payments to the federal authority that owns and maintains the ROW? This in a country that is more urbanized than the US.
WJM2223 High speed rail is simply civilized, convenient, comfortable, fast, safe and environmentlly clean in that it burns no fuel oil. What more do we need to justify it?
High speed rail is simply civilized, convenient, comfortable, fast, safe and environmentlly clean in that it burns no fuel oil. What more do we need to justify it?
We still need these items in order to justify it:
1) A non-coal source of electricity to power it.
2) The demand to justify the social funding.
3) The ability to fund it.
4) Routing that does not interfere with the freight railroads.
5) A power distribution system for the non-coal electricity.
vsmith Meanwhile in China....
Meanwhile in China....
Sure. High population, High density, urbanized population with low auto ownership an not many roads - this is what you get.
Does it make sense in the US? Some places, perhaps.
henry6 But what I am suggesting is that governnment and business and whatever other group should, is sit down and plan something. There is no Amtriak, FAA, CAA, FRA, DOT, highway lobby, oil lobby, air lobby, but enconomists and planners who will poise the questions, come up with answers, and produce a transportation system.
But what I am suggesting is that governnment and business and whatever other group should, is sit down and plan something. There is no Amtriak, FAA, CAA, FRA, DOT, highway lobby, oil lobby, air lobby, but enconomists and planners who will poise the questions, come up with answers, and produce a transportation system.
Not a bad idea, until you get actual humans involved.
But, our real world is full of all those well entrenched institutions. What's the best we can get given they exist? Can some be bent to works at common causes? What are they?
Have fun with your trains
schlimm Bucyrus: I understand you are opposed to HSR because you prefer the federal government to not be involved in programs that compete with the private sector. That is a philosophical position about the role of government that is a reasonable one, although I do not agree. However, your argument is greatly weakened by your suggestion that HSR is a costly mistake or boondoggle. Definitions of boondoggle: 1. a wasteful or impractical project or activity often involving graft. 2. a project funded by the federal government out of political favoritism that is of no real value to the community or the nation. 3. a scheme that wastes time and money. If you had ever actually used such a service in countries like France or Germany that have it, you would see that it is a valuable, essential and very popular service, hardly a boondoggle.
Bucyrus: I understand you are opposed to HSR because you prefer the federal government to not be involved in programs that compete with the private sector. That is a philosophical position about the role of government that is a reasonable one, although I do not agree. However, your argument is greatly weakened by your suggestion that HSR is a costly mistake or boondoggle. Definitions of boondoggle: 1. a wasteful or impractical project or activity often involving graft. 2. a project funded by the federal government out of political favoritism that is of no real value to the community or the nation. 3. a scheme that wastes time and money.
If you had ever actually used such a service in countries like France or Germany that have it, you would see that it is a valuable, essential and very popular service, hardly a boondoggle.
schlimm,
Well, boondoggle is just something that tends to gravitate toward public sector projects rather than private sector projects. It is the natural consequence of bureaucratic empire building, the pull of unions, and the expenditure of public funds. And also, if a boondoggle occurs, and yet does not kill a project, it is not necessarily evident in the final performance of the project.
So European HSR would be capable of impressing the users with its service and usefulness, while at the same time, be bleeding the funds of the population through the shortfall of what it cost to build and operate versus what it takes in through fares. So I don’t use the term boondoggle to be inflammatory, but only to identify a trend that generally attaches to public sector work.
But perhaps there is a larger concern, in that you seem to misunderstand the reason behind my view on government projects versus private sector projects. I am not concerned about the public sector competing with the private sector. In other words, I am not concerned about the government depriving the private sector of work projects. I think that that sort of injury to the private sector is self-limiting in that the government only tends to take on work that the private sector has already determined to be a non-viable investment.
The real point of my concern about public versus private sector is that the public sector is not just a neutral entity that objectively does only what needs to be done to serve the public, as way too many people believe. Instead, the public sector has its own self-motivation just like any corporation does. So they will actively seek to promote and build railroads and other projects whether they are needed or not. In that regard, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. The private sector does not enjoy that same luxury.
So my concern is about the public sector competing with the public, and not about the public sector competing with private sector business.
Schlimm,
The high speed rail services you enjoy riding are never profitable. They cost more than people are willing to pay. They destroy wealth. Sounds like a boondogle to me.
Amtrak is in the same position, only more so. It is subsidized by both the government and the freight railroads. It can not charge fares sufficient to cover its operating costs, let alone its full costs. The reason is that we have chosen to invest untold billions in highways and airports for which we undercharge the operators, whether airlines or drivers.
Another point relevant to highway competition is that drivers do not count their full cost when they make their modal choice. If you ask what it costs to drive from here to there and back, most will quote you a figure based on gas and oil, say 10 to 15 cents per mile. Even the IRS, not a charitable institution, allows a 55 cent per mile deduction without any proof. Conclusion; highways are a boondogle too but most of us use them every day. Solution raise the gas tax and make the truckers pay far more.
The past congress and current administration are aiming us over the cliff of insolvency. If congress does not put on the brakes the country will crash like Thelma and Louise. Cuts will hurt because we have grown addicted to more spending than we are willing to pay for in taxes.
The federal government has very few constitutional functions. Defense and protecting the border are clearly Federal Functions. We have to cut all extra constititional spending and eliminate the nonessential. Amtrak is both extra constitutional and nonessential. It should be defunded, shut down, and killed.
Mac
henry6 The US is the home of the mass debate...we can talk and talk and talk and talk...doesn't matter what we say, we just talk and talk and talk and talk. Then wonder why the rest of the orld goes by...on the ground...at 200+ miles per hour! Sooner or later somebody is bound to do something instead of talk. He will end up with the power while the rest debate whether he is right or not.
The US is the home of the mass debate...we can talk and talk and talk and talk...doesn't matter what we say, we just talk and talk and talk and talk. Then wonder why the rest of the orld goes by...on the ground...at 200+ miles per hour! Sooner or later somebody is bound to do something instead of talk. He will end up with the power while the rest debate whether he is right or not.
Well sure there is lots of talk, but talking is not all we have done. Look at everything we have built. Other nations might have built HSR, but that does not necessarily mean they have out-achieved us. It is possible that their HSR is a costly mistake for them and they have not yet realized it. Maybe they did not talk about it enough before they charged right into building it.
If we have talked enough to avoid the same mistake, then we have out-achieved them. Maybe all of our talking has paid off in minimizing our boondoggles.
Even if you limit the decisions to be made only by economists and planners, do you think they will all agree on one plan? Would you give them a blank check to fund whatever plan they do agree on, if they can agree on one?
oltmannd henry6: Your are right, Schlim...these other countries you refer to long ago rationalized their political and economic philosophies when it came to transportation and therefore do not hold rhetorical converstions like this one...they don't have to. And Oldman, what I am saying is that we've got to stop in our tracks right now and rationalize what we need and want asking the many questions I have suggested including your on emissions and imported oil. We have not hammered it out at all, but remain locked in rhtoric anchored in political and economic philosophies forged by our past. In political parlance: it is time for a change, not in rhetoric but in action. It might be time for all that, but I don't think it's a reasonable goal. How about we settle for something simpler?
henry6: Your are right, Schlim...these other countries you refer to long ago rationalized their political and economic philosophies when it came to transportation and therefore do not hold rhetorical converstions like this one...they don't have to. And Oldman, what I am saying is that we've got to stop in our tracks right now and rationalize what we need and want asking the many questions I have suggested including your on emissions and imported oil. We have not hammered it out at all, but remain locked in rhtoric anchored in political and economic philosophies forged by our past. In political parlance: it is time for a change, not in rhetoric but in action.
Your are right, Schlim...these other countries you refer to long ago rationalized their political and economic philosophies when it came to transportation and therefore do not hold rhetorical converstions like this one...they don't have to.
And Oldman, what I am saying is that we've got to stop in our tracks right now and rationalize what we need and want asking the many questions I have suggested including your on emissions and imported oil. We have not hammered it out at all, but remain locked in rhtoric anchored in political and economic philosophies forged by our past. In political parlance: it is time for a change, not in rhetoric but in action.
It might be time for all that, but I don't think it's a reasonable goal.
How about we settle for something simpler?
Here it is:
Amtrak stays. It gets held more accountable for performance - economic and customer service. Some of this is already happening now, believe it or not. (40 years too late, but better late than never....)
The LD trains stay on current routes -as is. They are a political necessity whether or not they are useful or efficient or a heritage display or just rolling wallpaper, or any other thing, good or bad.
Air service - status quo. Cities are happy to provide land for airports. Fees and taxes cover the shared expenses
Highways - raise the gas tax high enough to pay the interstates outside of urban areas and then some. Adjust it so that it covers wear and tear from trucks more fully. Give the urban/suburban interstates to the states. Let them figure out how to maintain and/or expand. They are primarily commuter roads. Maintain the existing network as is. Any expansion has to be judged on cost/benefit standard.
Rail - take a chunk of fuel tax and fund intercity rail corridor construction/expansion. All work to be judged on cost/benefit standard. Hire a contractor to bring equipment and run the service. Bid it out. Whoever you have to pay the least (or bids the most) wins. Winner gets to keep revenue.
All rail and highway project to be judged on single Fed DOT standard for new work.
Leave transit and commuter road, rail and bus to the states and local agencies.
But waving a magic wand is what American rhetoric indicates is expected on one side and argued against on the other. Something has to be said stern enough and often enough to get the attention of the powers that be to actually do something rather than just talk and argue. Me? I'm not in a position to impliment anything. Excecpt to say we've got to scrap all present and past thoughts based on the past 200 years of no rational or official transportation policy and start dialogue toward doing that without political or social or otherwise philosophical angle.
The simple truth is that neither you or anyone else is going to be able to implement any of your grandiose analyses because of the political and economic realities. They cannot be waved away with a magic wand even in this little forum. Why would you think for one second that would or should happen in the larger world?
Or should we just continue arguing conflicting philosophies, politics, and modes as we are doing now? Got to take some kind of step in some kind of direction to get something started.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.