schlimm So Paul, what, if any, useful role do you envision for passenger rail in the US?
So Paul, what, if any, useful role do you envision for passenger rail in the US?
The question is not what useful role for passenger rail but what useful role for the passenger rail advocacy community.
What I propose is to advocate for the most effective use of the available subsidy dollar so one can build on that success and advocate for increased levels in funding.
I think this goes back to Don Oltmann's remarks about the 8 billion or so that came Amtrak's way with the Stimulus -- this was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to "do something", that there would be a lot more than the 8 billion anytime soon was dreaming, and that the advocacy community, based on our experience with riding trains and our interest in Amtrak and our observations, could contribute by looking at how the 8 billion was being spent. Also, once something was done with the 8 billion, there would have to be a narrative developed on "look an what this 8 billion was able to accomplish" for some unspecified time down the road coming back for more.
To borrow a worn phrase, maybe we can kick the can down the road whether there is a future for long-distance trains or not. But I think Don Oltmann's idea of prioritizing new train car purchases for new-and-improved corridor services and modding hand-me-down Amfleet cars for diners and baggage cars on long-distance trains that transit the NEC and other speed-accelerated corridors is a good idea, and to the extent that this idea is rejected or dismissed, I think that reflects some unrealistic ideas regarding how much money Amtrak is going to get anytime soon.
I also think there is a thread in the advocacy community "If only Amtrak were fully funded", "If only we had HSR", "If only there wasn't a conservative political party that wasn't skeptical of trains", "If only we could get 1 cent per gallon of gas tax money." I think there is another thread in train advocacy to insist on a national network of corridor and long-distance trains and to oppose any changes perceived as retrenchment, even if it is a shifting of priorities within Amtrak to discontinue some trains and put the available resources somewhere else. That is, there is a refusal to pick winners and losers and say, "Yes, let us increase train frequency over here" and "No, this train over there no longer makes sense in light of the available resources." We have been following those two threads since the inception of Amtrak, and I think a change in direction would be in order.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
henry6 But Sam, you are denying my assumption that if we started at say, 1920, and dealt equally with rail, air, water and highway, would we be having the same conversation today with the same statistics? I maintain that the statistics you quote, which I don't deny are accurate and make your case, would be different and possibly more equal in relation to each other...yes, even water transport! As for history and the present, I also claim that we must start from zero, all modes even, in planning and spending for the future because of land availability, fuel availability, evironmental concerns, and whatever other concerns are thrown into the pot. We are at a point where it can and has to be done.
But Sam, you are denying my assumption that if we started at say, 1920, and dealt equally with rail, air, water and highway, would we be having the same conversation today with the same statistics? I maintain that the statistics you quote, which I don't deny are accurate and make your case, would be different and possibly more equal in relation to each other...yes, even water transport! As for history and the present, I also claim that we must start from zero, all modes even, in planning and spending for the future because of land availability, fuel availability, evironmental concerns, and whatever other concerns are thrown into the pot. We are at a point where it can and has to be done.
I'm not so sure what "dealt equally" means. But, maybe we shouldn't have tried to separate the modes. What would things look like if the railroads had owned the airlines, bus, barge and trucking companies? That would be very different than the current US and EU, perhaps. Perhaps there would be several geographically overlapping, horizontally integrated companies where mode development was base solely on market and cost.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
henry6 But Sam, you are denying my assumption that if we started at say, 1920, and dealt equally with rail, air, water and highway, would we be having the same conversation today with the same statistics?
But Sam, you are denying my assumption that if we started at say, 1920, and dealt equally with rail, air, water and highway, would we be having the same conversation today with the same statistics?
But we have tested your assumption by dealing equally with rail, air, water, and whighway, and that experiment is called the E.U.. And we would have the same conversation regarding the high rate of subsidy required for the rail mode.
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.
henry6 My claims are that Amtrak was a political device to rid the freight railroads of the passenger train with the idea that the passenger train could be eliminated entirely freeing freight railroads to pursue purely freight products. As time progressed freight railroads realized that there might be value in passenger rail in that some got some major track improvements which allowed for higher speeds and efficiencies for freight. And Amtrak paying a "fair" share of their track use is another manipulation of numbers for one's own benefit. Passenger rail is expensive to produce but will give greater fuel and environmental efficienciesl and can carry more passengers per mile than highways. I maintain that if passenger rail received the comperable funding to highway and air from say, 1920 we would not be having this conversation. Hell, when it comes to moving people buses are also losing money as well as air companies who could not survive without huge amounts of government aid.
My claims are that Amtrak was a political device to rid the freight railroads of the passenger train with the idea that the passenger train could be eliminated entirely freeing freight railroads to pursue purely freight products. As time progressed freight railroads realized that there might be value in passenger rail in that some got some major track improvements which allowed for higher speeds and efficiencies for freight. And Amtrak paying a "fair" share of their track use is another manipulation of numbers for one's own benefit. Passenger rail is expensive to produce but will give greater fuel and environmental efficienciesl and can carry more passengers per mile than highways. I maintain that if passenger rail received the comperable funding to highway and air from say, 1920 we would not be having this conversation. Hell, when it comes to moving people buses are also losing money as well as air companies who could not survive without huge amounts of government aid.
In FY10 the federal operating subsidy per passenger mile for Amtrak was 21.13 cents. The comparable federal subsidy for the airlines and highways, which includes bus operators, was less than a penny a mile. How this translates into huge amounts of government aid for the airlines and bus companies is challenging to understand. The numbers can be found in the FAA, DOT, and Homeland Security budgets and performance reports.
In FY10 the nation's major commercial airlines had a combined operating profit of $6.6 billion and net income of $2.2 billion. They were profitable in 2007 but lost money in 2008 and 2009 in large part because of the recession. These numbers can be found in DOT Transportation statistics. I have not looked at the financials for the few intercity bus operators, but they have to cover their costs or go out of business.
Prior to retiring in 2005 I too thought Amtrak was under funded. I would have agreed that it had been treated unfairly. After retirement I had the time to look at the numbers closely. I came to the conclusion, based on reviewing the relevant federal budget and performance reports, as well as historical documents, that Amtrak is not under funded.
People who don't understand statistics or don't want to under stand them or don't like the outcomes of statistical analysis claim that liars figure and figures lie. However, they seldom offer contrary statistics to disprove the presenting statistics.
The federal government has invested heavily in transportation infrastructure. Those who complain about federal government investment in highways and airways, most of which has been paid back by the users, fail to remember that federal and state governments were heavily involved in helping to underwrite the cost of the nation's rail system.
Whatever the government has or has not done to promote highways, airways, and railways is history. The monies are sunk costs. Moreover, whatever the government spends on highways, airways, railways, education, etc. is irrelevant to this key question: what investment should be made in passenger rail?
schlimm IMO, one of the problems the US has had with passenger service was the steady and sharp decline of decent service in the 1960's on routes that were short enough to have the potential to be reasonably competitive with air. I'm thinking of the northeast (not only the NEC, but also other routes from PC) and routes between the east coast and midwest (also PC) and within the midwest (ICG, BN). Also, the west coast routes of the SP. The railroads that were running a pretty good service up to the end were largely on LD routes that geographically could never be air-competitive (SR, BN, AT&SF, SCL).
IMO, one of the problems the US has had with passenger service was the steady and sharp decline of decent service in the 1960's on routes that were short enough to have the potential to be reasonably competitive with air. I'm thinking of the northeast (not only the NEC, but also other routes from PC) and routes between the east coast and midwest (also PC) and within the midwest (ICG, BN). Also, the west coast routes of the SP. The railroads that were running a pretty good service up to the end were largely on LD routes that geographically could never be air-competitive (SR, BN, AT&SF, SCL).
You may be correct. The RRs began charging for checked baggage, requiring earlier train bag checking, reservation fees, cancellation fees, serving only peanuts, etc ( that really gets passengeers agitated; sound famaliar on todays airlines ?? )
IMO, one of the problems the US has had with passenger service was the steady and sharp decline of decent service in the 1960's on routes that were short enough to have the potential to be reasonably competitive with air. I'm thinking of the northeast (not only the NEC, but also other routes from PC) and routes between the east coast and midwest (also PC) and within the midwest (ICG, BN). Also, the west coast routes of the SP. The railroads that were running a pretty good service up to the end were largely on LD routes that geographically could never be air-competitive (SR, BN, AT&SF, SCL). When Amtrak took over, the political and other factors involved in the selection of routes stretched its limited resources, so that in most cases, no real service (as henry says, with fast, comfortable, convenient and frequent trains) could be developed.
schlimm,
I do not think the railroads wanted ATK at all. Period. As usual they did not get what they wanted.
I think many railroad presidents, probably including Lou Menk, thought Congress would grow tired of funding ever money loosing passenger trains within a few years. They were wrong.
The question for you on the advocay side is what to do today. I would be willing to bet that the freight carriers would happily support a program of ATK trying to run and upgrade the NEC along with discontinuance of all LD trains with no one having any basis to demand less than market rates for passenger train slots. The fact that this would be reasonable and rational public policy is a side benefit.
Mac
Henry,
ATK got some of the passenger burden off the carriers back but it is still an important hidden tax on the railroads as it pays no where near the market rate for the train slots it consumes. If the government played fair and ATK paid a market rate, my only complaint would be as a taxpayer over throwing money down a rat hole. My real complaint is ATK's virtual stealing from the freight carriers. Obviously I have two complaints.
I will ask you the same question I asked schlimm, what is the point of the claims you are making?How does do these claims advance your obviously pro passenger train agenda today? I honestly do not get it.
As for your politicians, railroaders, and railfans (all unnamed) why should we think any of the railrans knew anything. Were they insiders too, along with the steno? Why should we think that the politicians had any knowledge of what they were doing. Sec Trans Volpe obviously did not.
The railroad's position was simple, "We can not afford to keep supporting thim money loosing service. If we do not get relief we will shut down." That was the simple truth of the matter. What is illegal immoral or fattening about the carrier's position?
Mac: So you don't believe the freight lines wanted Amtrak to fail? OK, that is your belief and it may or may not be true. Others believe to the contrary. Neither side has a lock on the truth or evidence, as is common in these matters.
Unlike henry6, I don't think that is the primary reason for Amtrak's failure. On the whole, I agree with your analysis, with the addendum that far too much of Amtrak's route structure was determined by log-rolling congressmen, like Staggers and others, with trains that served almost nobody. And I have been in agreement with sam1 going back many threads that LD routes should be discontinued.
PNWRMNM Henry, You have quuite a talent for slinging what you perceive as perjoritave terms about the freight carriers. I will comment on only a few.
You have quuite a talent for slinging what you perceive as perjoritave terms about the freight carriers. I will comment on only a few.
Mac, you have quite a talent for making assumptions and accusations about a person whose background you know nothing about. I will comment: I was around at the time and conversant with politicians, railroaders, and railfans and the consensus I stated was that which I witnessed and heard. Amtrak is not successful because it was designed then...and this is my experience not Rush Loving's...to relieve freight railroads of the burden of carrying passengers and not as a favor to rail passengers. If you didn't live in the 50's, 60's and 70's with the people I did, then don't make accusations or other disparaging remarks to me or about me. If you don't like what I said or don't believe what I said, say so, but don't attack me
"General consensus" - Is that like the general consensus on global warming?
"ATK was a bone to freight railroads" - If so, a position that does not stand up to close scrutny, it is a poison bone that is still stuck in their throat. Sounds yummy! Rational public policy would have been to let the carriers discontine their money loosing trains OR directly subsidize whatever service the government decided it wanted to buy. I could make as compelling a case that ATK was a make work project for the rail unions, except that it is not worth the effort.
"free to make huge sums of money" The carriers were then on the brink of bankruptcy. PennCentral and a herd of others in the Northeast were already over it. Rock Island would be soon as would the MILW. Since they could not make any money in railroads virtually all managements were trying to live up the their fiduciary duties to their stockholders and diversifying out of railroading. Illinois Central and CNW did the best jobs. Most of the carriers are still not revenue adequate, which means they are not making enough to attract new capital to the business. Even after Staggers partially deregulated freight rates and services in 1980, a decade after ATK, the carriers are not making huge sums even today. If they were making huge sums, more power to them I say.
Calling Menk an insider in terms of crafting ATK legislation is as laughable as calling a steno clerk in some meeting about ATK is laughable.
The reason ATK is not successful is the same reason that the railroads were not in the 1960's. They can not sell enough tickets at a high enough price to cover their capital and operating costs. Basic economics, not complicated and nothing to do with Lou Menk, Ben Biagianni or Bill Brosnan.
I agree that the passenger rail business model is broken. It was first broken in the 1920's when model T cars on dirt roads wiped out the local passenger business in the course of that decade. It was broken for long haul trains with the interstate highway system and jet airplanes flying everywhere. This is the same fundamental problem that the stagecoaches had when the railroads came along. The competition is some combination of cheaper, better, faster.
The only reason I occasionally comment on a few of your posts, and a few others, is to try to expose the kids on this forum to the notion that just because a story is often repeated does not make it true.
This topic and this part of the topic has been discussed many, many times here the the general consensus before and after Rush Loving was that Amtrak was a bone thrown to Class one Freight Railroads to relieve them of the burden of operating passenger trains and eventually remove the term from the American landscape, the concept from the technological and service manuals of railroads, and the cars and services from the rails entirely with the hopes that out of sight would be out of mind as far as the public knew and that freight railroads would be free to make huge sums of money moving freight. This was a feeling most railfans, professional railroaders, and politicians had at the time. Menk was a high official of a Class One railroad and had a hand in determining what the Amtrak plan would be. He therefore would have had to be an insider as much as anyone from the President of the US down to the scribe who copied notes at the meetings during the process. This is the accepted history of Amtrak's beginning and continuous problems at being successful in anyway.
True, Sam1 said that there are folks out there who push this Nixon conspircay theory. You are the one who jumped on it and tried to make a big deal out of it. That is not an attack, it is a statement of fact.
If Menk was an insider, that what are Nixon and Volpe? There is no way Menk had the influence that Volpe did. Volpe was an insider, Menk was not. Menk may have tried to influence the legislation, but that does not make him an insider. The fact that ATK exists means to me that Menk was ignored and that he failed.
If words mean anything we all have to be careful about what they mean. The same term can not be reasoably attached to Volpe and Menk.
I would like to see what Fortune claims Menk said. Remember, Fortune is no more a complete record than the Congression Digest.
The only "conspiracy" I see is that Menk assumed Congress would soon come to its senses and quit funding ATK. Clearly he was as wrong about that as Volpe was about passenger trains being self supporting in the era of Interstate highways and the jet airplane.
Mac: Try reading with more accuracy next time before you attack others:
on page 4, item 1
from sam1: "Several people who post to these forums claim that the sponsors of Amtrak designed it to fail. To know that they would have to have access to the minds of the individuals involved. Which means they would need access to the individuals thoughts, which could only be captured by a personal interview or on written documents, i.e. diaries, letters, Congressional Record, etc. "
My post came in response to hers. She got it going, not me.
And your citation of my definition of insider is not what I said. Not at all. In this case, an insider would be someone like Menk, who had unofficial knowledge and influence on the setting up of Amtrak behind closed doors, not someone outside government (like you or me) who simply read the official publications of the proceedings. And I hope you do not believe that if it wasn't published in the Cong. Digest (especially back then, but still true today with either party), it didn't happen. If I can get hold of the original Fortune article where Menk was first quoted, I'll try to scan and post (not available online). perhaps Menk was just blowing smoke, but I doubt it, given his position as well as a lack of motivation for him to do so.
PNWRMNM schlimm If we accept your definition that an insider is an outsider that knows something relevant, then what do you call the real insiders? We all, as citizens, have the right to petition the government. If a citizen who happens to know something of the facts petitions his government then he is an insider by your definition. Sorry, ain't buying that one. More to the point you are the one that got this "origins of ATK going" in this thread, see page 4 item 3 where you introduced a Trains article that made that claim. Now, after a page and a half of arguement, you say it does not make any difference. Nice dancing. Mac
schlimm
If we accept your definition that an insider is an outsider that knows something relevant, then what do you call the real insiders? We all, as citizens, have the right to petition the government. If a citizen who happens to know something of the facts petitions his government then he is an insider by your definition. Sorry, ain't buying that one.
More to the point you are the one that got this "origins of ATK going" in this thread, see page 4 item 3 where you introduced a Trains article that made that claim. Now, after a page and a half of arguement, you say it does not make any difference. Nice dancing.
Go Mac!
More to the point you are the one that got this "origins of ATK" going in this thread, see page 4 item 3 where you introduced a Trains article that made that claim. Now, after a page and a half of arguement, you say it does not make any difference. Nice dancing.
Mac: You think only cabinet members and members of Congress are in the loop? Insider here = someone not in government, yet with influence and/or inside knowledge regarding the legislative and/or decision process in a specific area of concern. I have no idea of how examining the origins of Amtrak advances passenger train advocacy. Not the issue.
Schlimm,
You are having a hard time with the facts here. Menk was not an insider, he was President of Burlington Northern. You have to have a position of influence in the government to be an insider. Menk certainly did not pull any strings. If Menk had his way the railroads would have been allowed to abandon their money loosing passenger trains. Period, end of story.
Volpe, as Sec Transportation, was an insider. According to the material on Volpe that another poster on this thread kindly provided, it was Volpe that convinced Nixon that the Feds should be in the passenger railroad business. Volpe even convinced himself that passenger trains would be profitable if only he cut them enough. Fourty consecutive years have proved him wrong.
I am still searching for an explanation of how claiming that Nixon conspired to design ATK to fail advances the cause of passenger train advocates.
schlimm #1 Once again you avoid the point that Menk was an insider, not just some fringe player.. I cited the reference. Check the article for yourself at a library. Of course, you tend to dismiss articles that you don't like, all the while you trumpet your experience as expertise in almost every post. Secure individuals have no need to pull out their work experience, credentials, majors, places of residence, etc. in an attempt to bolster their argument. #2 I'll repeat: "It is naive [especially if you spent time in DC] to believe that only congressmen and the Nixon Administration had input into the beginnings of Amtrak. Powerful interests and their lobbyists write much of the legislation passed by Congress. There have been volumes written on the topic, easily available at your library." #3 Perhaps you didn't read my words carefully? "...as usual you devalue anyone who disputes your pronouncements" is quite a different statement than your statement: "If I disagree with you or anyone else, I am devaluing you or your point of view" My statement was a comment on your methods of argument. Yours has a different meaning.
#1 Once again you avoid the point that Menk was an insider, not just some fringe player.. I cited the reference. Check the article for yourself at a library. Of course, you tend to dismiss articles that you don't like, all the while you trumpet your experience as expertise in almost every post. Secure individuals have no need to pull out their work experience, credentials, majors, places of residence, etc. in an attempt to bolster their argument.
#2 I'll repeat: "It is naive [especially if you spent time in DC] to believe that only congressmen and the Nixon Administration had input into the beginnings of Amtrak. Powerful interests and their lobbyists write much of the legislation passed by Congress. There have been volumes written on the topic, easily available at your library."
#3 Perhaps you didn't read my words carefully? "...as usual you devalue anyone who disputes your pronouncements" is quite a different statement than your statement: "If I disagree with you or anyone else, I am devaluing you or your point of view" My statement was a comment on your methods of argument. Yours has a different meaning.
It is really simple. Just point me to the prima fecie evidence. One solid piece of evidence that shows that the framers of Amtrak intended it to fail.
Stating my experience in our legislative office in Washington was intended to counter your assertion, which was without any evidence, that I am naive regarding legislative processes. How in the world could you know anything about my experiences and what I have or have not learning as a result?
schlimm sam1: Instead of dismissing the validity of the notion that Amtrak was designed to fail based merely on what I said, go look at Rush Loving's article in the March 2009 Trains. I didn't make it up, only cited it, but as usual you devalue anyone who disputes your pronouncements based on one or another of your claims of expertise. I never claimed I have any edge on how DC or government works. Your living in DC for several years gives you no special expertise either. But it is naive to believe that only congressmen and the Nixon Administration had input into the beginnings of Amtrak. Powerful interests and their lobbyists write much of the legislation passed by Congress. There have been volumes written on the topic, easily available at your library.
sam1: Instead of dismissing the validity of the notion that Amtrak was designed to fail based merely on what I said, go look at Rush Loving's article in the March 2009 Trains. I didn't make it up, only cited it, but as usual you devalue anyone who disputes your pronouncements based on one or another of your claims of expertise.
I never claimed I have any edge on how DC or government works. Your living in DC for several years gives you no special expertise either. But it is naive to believe that only congressmen and the Nixon Administration had input into the beginnings of Amtrak. Powerful interests and their lobbyists write much of the legislation passed by Congress. There have been volumes written on the topic, easily available at your library.
I don't keep the back issues of Trains, and I don't plan to buy another copy to check Loving's article. Is Loving quoting from source documents or is he relying on others or what he has heard. Please cite the reference.
Here is a simple question. Does Loving have any documents from any of the Administration and Congressional decision makers involved in the start-up of Amtrak stating that it was their intention to destroy it or cause it to fail? This is different from saying that they thought the probability of its succeeding was low. The documents would include personal diaries, memos, reports, statements entered into the Congressional Record, taped interviews, video tapes, etc. If there are no documents, which I suspect is the case, then was Loving told by one of the key decision that it was his or her intention to destroy or help destroy Amtrak? Who were they? What was their role in the decision making processes? Otherwise, he is reporting hearsay or quoting some else who is relying on hearsay.
Do you have any prima facie evidence regarding the intent of the key Amtrak decision makers to destroy Amtrak or help ensure that it fails. Undoubtedly, there are hundreds if not thousands of articles by conspiracy theorists claiming that was the intent of the decision makers. Unfortunately, they have not provided any prima facie evidence to support their theory.
Lets see if I have you perspective right. If I disagree with you or anyone else, I am devaluing you or your point of view. And although I worked in our Washington, D.C. legislative affairs office on special occasions, I am naive regarding the national government. Is that about the size of it?
From what I've read, there were apparently two schools of thought in the Nixon admin. One was that of the DOT sec. Volpe who pushed hard for Amtrak and believed it would succeed (if it could shed some LD trains and add corridors) and the other was held by Nixon's staff. Apparently, Volpe pretty much carried the ball and persuaded Nixon to let him get legislation in place - over the objection of others (Ehrlichman & Schulz).
Some info here: http://www.trainweb.com/travel/stevelog/sg_tr_sw.htm (excerpt from Volpe bio)
I've never really seen anything written that Amtrak was "created to fail", although there is quite a bit of evidence that many thought there never should have been and Amtrak, that it was going to fail and that would be just fine.
Dakguy201 The California Zephyr has not run east of Denver for two or three weeks now, although I believe it is scheduled to resume shortly. It would be interesting to study what effect, if any, its absence has has on the communities along the line. Also, Amtrak was bussing Zephyr passengers to/from the Chief in Colorado, and I wonder what numbers chose that alternative.
The California Zephyr has not run east of Denver for two or three weeks now, although I believe it is scheduled to resume shortly. It would be interesting to study what effect, if any, its absence has has on the communities along the line. Also, Amtrak was bussing Zephyr passengers to/from the Chief in Colorado, and I wonder what numbers chose that alternative.
In a few of instances it may have been a hardship. But not many. For most communities it would have had the same impact as the failure for a once a day long distance train to show-up in Abilene, Big Spring, Midland, Odessa, and Monahans. Oops, come to think of it, it has been decades since a passenger train stopped at any of those communities. And they are doing just fine.
Just think what would happen if the airlines went down for two or three weeks. Or the highways were closed for a similar period. It would be a major hardship. But few if any folks outside of train buffs would miss the shutdown of the long distance trains.
daveklepper And Privatize the Interstate Highways and I am with you.
And Privatize the Interstate Highways and I am with you.
The interstate highways system is infrastructure. It is not an operation. And in fact, although the federal government helps fund it, i.e. collects taxes and fees, the states oversea the building and maintenance of the roadways.
The users pay for the interstate highways. In fact, when considering the amount of federal taxes, as well as state taxes in some instances, that are transferred for other purposes, i.e. mass transit, deficit funding, education, etc., the users appear to have more than paid for it.
Today in many parts of the country segments of the interstate roadways are being built by private companies. Why? Because they are more efficient and effective, so say some, than the federal government.
schlimm The reason Menck would probably know is that he was head of one of the major players involved in the formation of Amtrak. If you honestly think that only members of Congress and the Nixon Administration had anything to do with the NRPC's beginnings, and that all of the decision process is on the public record, then you are ignorant of how Washington generally works.
The reason Menck would probably know is that he was head of one of the major players involved in the formation of Amtrak. If you honestly think that only members of Congress and the Nixon Administration had anything to do with the NRPC's beginnings, and that all of the decision process is on the public record, then you are ignorant of how Washington generally works.
What specific role did Menck play in the formation of Amtrak. And where did he write down his knowledge that Amtrak was formed with the intent of destroying it?
Lots of industry people were involved in recommending that the government take over the operation of the nation's intercity passenger trains. But they were not the decision makers. Menk may have believed that the enterprise would fail. Did he write that down or are his thoughts simply hearsay?
We are talking about history. Historians can only determine what people thought about a subject if they wrote it down, left an oral history, or it was incorporated into historical documents.
You just cannot help throwing barbs. And using inflammatory words like ignorant. What makes you think that you have an edge on how Washington works? I lived in Washington off and on for several years, whilst I worked in our company's D.C. government affairs office.
Schlimm
Menk was then President of BN and had previously been Presidnt of Northern Pacific. He was never part of the Government. IIRC BN, like some other railroads got stock in ATK. Like all the others BN wrote the stock off as valuless.
I do not get the point of the claim that the Nixon Administration "designed ATK to fail" for a couple of reasons. First the thing is still here, having been funded by congress every year for 40 years. If the evil Nixon designed ATK to fail he did a poor job of it.
Second fact that no one seems to mention is that the railroads collectively were loosing 100s of millions of dollars per year running passenger trains that few rode. On ATK's first day they cut train miles by about 50%, clearly demonstrating that the US Govt was not going to waste quite as much money as it had been forcing the railroads to do.
Did Menk and/or Nixon and a lot of other folks that knew what was going on think that Congress would figure out at some future time that ATK was not an effective way to buy votes and quit funding it? Of that I have no doubt, but a shared conclustion based on publically available facts is not a conspiracy.
To restate by question clearly "What point do ATK advocates think they are advancing by claiming that Nixon, or Menk, or anybody else 'designed ATK to fail'"?
Mac McCilloch
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.