Amtrak is not an unfunded liability. At least not in the sense that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military retirement, federal retirement, student loans, etc. are unfunded.
Amtrak is funded annually. Whether it is adequate is another question. he problem is that it cannot cover its costs out of the fare box and, therefore, it contributes to the national deficit, albeit a small percentage of the total. Nevertheless, as I noted, add up all the small amounts, each of which is driven by passionate constituents, and they come to more than half a trillion dollars.
The debt is a dollar and cents problem. Just take a look at Europe. And then envision the same thing happening here in a few years. Solving the problem has political overtones. But at the end of the day, whether by fiscal policy or monetary policy or a combination thereof, we the people will have to deal with it. And it will hits folks in the pocketbook one way or the other.
Since its inception Amtrak has run up accumulated losses of more than $28 billion. If this has not contributed to the debt, I must have missed something in my accounting, finance, and economics courses, all of which add up to more than 90 hours of study, as well as more than 40 years working for Fortune 250 corporations.
All nations, including this one, have limits. To this extent the total spend matters. But for each item, i.e. the amount that should be spent on Amtrak, the total is irrelevant. The key question is what does society get back for the spend? What are the priorities or what should they be? Is Amtrak a priority investment that benefits the public good or are their higher priorities? Should those who favor passenger rail urge the users to pay for it or should they ask the taxpayers to support what the users will not pay for out of their pockets?
Venture capitalists and other investors invest when they see an opportunity to earn a reasonable return. If passenger rail presented them with the potential for a reasonable return, the money for it would be there in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, there is no return in passenger rail, at least not now in this country. So it is dependent on the taxpayers to prop it up. I hope the Italian experiment in private passenger rail shows us another way. Whether it will remains to be seen.
According to the U.S. 2010 Census, 14 per cent of Americans live in poverty. And 21 per cent of the nation's children suffer the same fate. These facts lead me to this question. Should we spend $3 billion a year (Amtrak's approximate 2011 operating subsidy and capital expenditures) on a national passenger rail system that is used by less than one per cent of intercity travelers or should we spend it on programs designed to help lift the poor, especially the children, out of poverty? Amtrak's annual subsidy, including the ARRA capital expenditures, would provide a lot of school lunches or training programs for people who need to be retrained for the jobs of the future or better said today's jobs.
Being non profit is not being a ward of any government; and it is not a charity case by any means. If it doesn't want the stirngs that come with any money, it can either renegotiate or walk away. It will have its own managers and own board of directors and doesn't have to nor should take direction from anyone. Sam, you are assuming it will be a heavily subsidized non profit but it probably won't be. It could be contracted with a government or agency to do something but that is not a subsidy, it is a payment for service. This is private enterprise. But this is a private enterprise which has decided that its excess money will go back into the company for maintenance or expansion for the sake of the company and not for the sake of stockholders or investment bankers.
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.
There is no reason to think that all nonprofit corporations are subsidized or rely on donations, unless one has no knowledge about that topic.. In the case of hospitals (62% in the US are nonprofits) some are affiliated with a religious group, though most are not. Many are connected to, but not actually a part of prominent universities. In any case, they are not subsidized and most do not rely on donors. As henry wrote, the difference between gross revenues and gross costs and expenses is reinvested in the operation to upgrade and/or expand. The do not pay federal corporate income taxes (also true of some corporations) and are supposed to help their communities in various ways in return and limit executive salaries. Although some have questioned that, here is a link to a fairly recent IRS study:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/execsum_hospprojrept.pdf
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm There is no reason to think that all nonprofit corporations are subsidized or rely on donations, unless one has no knowledge about that topic...
There is no reason to think that all nonprofit corporations are subsidized or rely on donations, unless one has no knowledge about that topic...
We are talking specifically of passenger rail. Are you saying a non-profit replacement carrier would not need a subsidy, or as Henry6 calls it "payment for service" ?
I put out the idea of a nonprofit corporation because they work very well in some applications. I don't know if the concept would have any merit for a national passenger rail corp. My entire point is that there are other ways of doing things besides for-profit corps and government units that have a proven record of success. I would hope folks on this forum are open-minded enough to at least consider alternatives. sam with her 90 hours of coursework seemed to think nonprofits are only about subsidies. Ditto with the German Rail posting and environmental impacts. I posted,but predictably on cue Paul M. dismisses it because it differs from his bias toward hybrid cars like the Prius, and says that German Rail is basically reposting disinformation. Around here it seems that most have a siege mentality and engage in dichotomous thinking, so that any idea that differs from the same ol' same ol' is dismissed out of hand. Why even bother?
henry6 Sam, you are assuming it will be a heavily subsidized non profit but it probably won't be.
Sam, you are assuming it will be a heavily subsidized non profit but it probably won't be.
I did not say anything about non-profits as far as I can remember. Every regularly scheduled passenger railroad in the world, as far as I know, is subsidized in one way or another. There is no reason to believe that passenger rail in the United States could survive without subsidies irrespective of the form of ownership.
Nonprofits or not for profits are beset with many problems. They don't get a free pass. Again, no one has said why the United States should subsidize passenger rail to the extent that it does. The subsidies required for passenger rail are many times those afforded to commercial air and commercial highway users.
What is so scared about passenger rail that the country needs to prop it up, especially the long distance trains that serve a very small percentage of intercity travelers? And especially in light of the many other needs besetting the country?
Sam1 schlimm: Non-governmental, non-profit corporations operate very successfully in the field of hospitals and healthcare, and they operate in an environment in which there are many for-profit and some government players. They end up being competitive on price, provide a competitive, often superb service, and pay their staffs at or (usually) above the prevailing rate. They do not pay dividends or issue stock. The model works quite well. Why not consider it for a quasi-utility such as a National Rail Service? Their motivation for cost containment and excellence does not depend on profit, but it can work. But we are talking railroads or at least public transport companies. Case in point! Canada had a government owned railroad (Canadian National) and an investor owned railroad (Canadian Pacific) that operated over similar territories for years. Although not exactly alike, they were similar. For years the Canadian Pacific ran circles around the Canadian National. Then, low and behold, the Canadian government had a Thatcher moment. It spun off the Canadian National and privatized it. What has been the result? Today the Canadian National is one of the prime railroad players in North America, in large part because it was unshackled from government bureaucrats.
schlimm: Non-governmental, non-profit corporations operate very successfully in the field of hospitals and healthcare, and they operate in an environment in which there are many for-profit and some government players. They end up being competitive on price, provide a competitive, often superb service, and pay their staffs at or (usually) above the prevailing rate. They do not pay dividends or issue stock. The model works quite well. Why not consider it for a quasi-utility such as a National Rail Service? Their motivation for cost containment and excellence does not depend on profit, but it can work.
Non-governmental, non-profit corporations operate very successfully in the field of hospitals and healthcare, and they operate in an environment in which there are many for-profit and some government players. They end up being competitive on price, provide a competitive, often superb service, and pay their staffs at or (usually) above the prevailing rate. They do not pay dividends or issue stock. The model works quite well. Why not consider it for a quasi-utility such as a National Rail Service? Their motivation for cost containment and excellence does not depend on profit, but it can work.
But we are talking railroads or at least public transport companies. Case in point! Canada had a government owned railroad (Canadian National) and an investor owned railroad (Canadian Pacific) that operated over similar territories for years. Although not exactly alike, they were similar. For years the Canadian Pacific ran circles around the Canadian National. Then, low and behold, the Canadian government had a Thatcher moment. It spun off the Canadian National and privatized it. What has been the result? Today the Canadian National is one of the prime railroad players in North America, in large part because it was unshackled from government bureaucrats.
How is it that CN after being unshackled from the government was able to leapfrog CP while CP which never had the burden of being run by the government is currently considered the worst class 1 railroad out there. clearly the Canadian government was doing something right and handed off a very good system that has been exploited.
Again, I come back to a central question that no one wantsto address. What is it about intercity passenger rail that suggests that it should be a ward of the state, i.e. a government agency or a heavily subsidized non-profit? Why is it OK for the airlines to rise or fall on their ability to cover their costs or Greyhound to do the same, but we have to pour billions of dollars into subsidies for passenger rail? Like another participante in our forums, I wish it weren't so. But it is!
Again, I come back to a central question that no one wantsto address. What is it about intercity passenger rail that suggests that it should be a ward of the state, i.e. a government agency or a heavily subsidized non-profit? Why is it OK for the airlines to rise or fall on their ability to cover their costs or Greyhound to do the same, but we have to pour billions of dollars into subsidies for passenger rail?
Like another participante in our forums, I wish it weren't so. But it is!
Essential Air service isn't a subsidy?
Granted it's a much smaller outlay, but it is a subsidy none the less.And a subsidy which serves 100% the exact same purpose as interstate passenger trains.
Somebody tell me, does Greyhound pay the same level of taxes and fees for use of the highway system that interstate truckers do? I honestly don't know.
Sam1 Amtrak is not an unfunded liability. At least not in the sense that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military retirement, federal retirement, student loans, etc. are unfunded. Amtrak is funded annually. Whether it is adequate is another question.
Amtrak is funded annually. Whether it is adequate is another question.
Okay, you got me, It isn't an unfunded liability, it is funded and then not paid for.
The problem is that it cannot cover its costs out of the fare box and, therefore, it contributes to the national deficit, albeit a small percentage of the total. Nevertheless, as I noted, add up all the small amounts, each of which is driven by passionate constituents, and they come to more than half a trillion dollars. The debt is a dollar and cents problem. Just take a look at Europe. And then envision the same thing happening here in a few years.
The debt is a dollar and cents problem. Just take a look at Europe. And then envision the same thing happening here in a few years.
Europe's problems, such as they are have nothing to do with anything in the US, because the US has common currency AND common government.
But at the end of the day, whether by fiscal policy or monetary policy or a combination thereof, we the people will have to deal with it. And it will hits folks in the pocketbook one way or the other.
No, Amtrak has accumulated losses that the federal government has paid for by issuing debt instead of with revenues. The lack of tax revenue to pay for the funding the government authorized is what caused the debt, not Amtrak. Amtrak can only spend what it's been given.
The problems Amtrak corrdor intercity trains solve are hihgway and airport congestion and the inability to expand highways and airports without very disruptive landtaking that would result in continiued expense much greater than the rail subsidies.
The problems the long distance trains solve are access to most of the USA for hadicapped, wounded , and elderly, tieing th ecorridors into a national system, standby and emergency operation for disasters and airline shutdowns, providing for internal and overseas tourists.
Subsidy and contract service are two different things. With a contract service one agrees to provide a service at an agreed to or contracted price. Period. A subsidy is where one who is providing the service receives additional funding to cover losses for instance. A contracted service should pay the cost of the service plus a small amount more; once contracted, that's the price; if contract price isn't enough then no contract, no service. This non profit is not going to provide a service then ask for subsidies. It will either provide the service and recoup from the fare box or contract to provide the service for an agency or railroad for that matter.
daveklepper The problems Amtrak corrdor intercity trains solve are hihgway and airport congestion and the inability to expand highways and airports without very disruptive landtaking that would result in continiued expense much greater than the rail subsidies. The problems the long distance trains solve are access to most of the USA for hadicapped, wounded , and elderly, tieing th ecorridors into a national system, standby and emergency operation for disasters and airline shutdowns, providing for internal and overseas tourists.
There are a few areas in the United States where the cost of expanding the airways and highways is cost prohibitive. This is where passenger trains make sense.
Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington. It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity in New York and Washington as well as ops separations during bad weather. This is what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs.
If the justification for the long distances trains is as you state, then every community in the United States with a population of more than 25,00, which is admittedly an arbitrary number, should have long distance passenger trains. Or having equipment standing by in case of an emergency or shutdown of the air system. Of course, given the cost constraints, this is out of the question.
Sam1 Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington. It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity at the New York and Washington airports and separations during bad weather. This is exactly what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs. .
Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington. It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity at the New York and Washington airports and separations during bad weather. This is exactly what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs.
.
I sense some faulty reasoning here. A larger plane needs a larger runway or airport and therefor puts more financial burden on local governements who own and operate the airports. A larger plane is costlier to operate which might lead to fewer flights, less service or abandonment of service and giving over to much smaller aircraft. These problems could even happen between larger market airports, especially the fewer flights.
Sam1 Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington SAM1: NOT SO. 1. A 747-400 cannot operate at LGA because it is too heavy for the runway portions that are on the bridges over the bay both RW 22 & RW 13 . 2. A 747-400 cannot operate at DCA due to runway loading conditions. Heaviest plane allowed is B-767 3. use of a B747-400 would require additional separsation for take off and landing of twice the distance of a B737 so no passenger capacity is gained. 4. Try talking the Secret Service into allowing a B747 flying along the river at DCA. . It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity at the New York and Washington airports and separations during bad weather. This is exactly what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs. Again operations are limited at both airports but not at the above airports.. .
Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington SAM1: NOT SO. 1. A 747-400 cannot operate at LGA because it is too heavy for the runway portions that are on the bridges over the bay both RW 22 & RW 13 . 2. A 747-400 cannot operate at DCA due to runway loading conditions. Heaviest plane allowed is B-767 3. use of a B747-400 would require additional separsation for take off and landing of twice the distance of a B737 so no passenger capacity is gained. 4. Try talking the Secret Service into allowing a B747 flying along the river at DCA. . It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity at the New York and Washington airports and separations during bad weather. This is exactly what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs. Again operations are limited at both airports but not at the above airports..
Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington
SAM1: NOT SO.
1. A 747-400 cannot operate at LGA because it is too heavy for the runway portions that are on the bridges over the bay both RW 22 & RW 13 .
2. A 747-400 cannot operate at DCA due to runway loading conditions. Heaviest plane allowed is B-767
3. use of a B747-400 would require additional separsation for take off and landing of twice the distance of a B737 so no passenger capacity is gained.
4. Try talking the Secret Service into allowing a B747 flying along the river at DCA.
. It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity at the New York and Washington airports and separations during bad weather. This is exactly what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs.
Again operations are limited at both airports but not at the above airports..
EDIT: One additionaL problem is airspace. Last I knew airplanes between DCA and LGA are limited to 16,000 and 17,000 ft. B747 fuel useage per seat is much higher at those altitudes than a B737. Why do you think airlines do not like to fly at low altitudes?
henry6 Subsidy and contract service are two different things. With a contract service one agrees to provide a service at an agreed to or contracted price. Period. A subsidy is where one who is providing the service receives additional funding to cover losses for instance. A contracted service should pay the cost of the service plus a small amount more; once contracted, that's the price; if contract price isn't enough then no contract, no service. This non profit is not going to provide a service then ask for subsidies. It will either provide the service and recoup from the fare box or contract to provide the service for an agency or railroad for that matter.
First let me reiterate that I am all for exploring a non-profit model for Amtrak to see if it will help its viability. However it seems we're stuck on the semantics of money. In either case above we are talking about support from the gov't for costs not covered by the farebox or incidentals (has ATK started charging for baggage yet?) The gov't contracts out many billions $s for goods and services, and still has oversight (ever heard of cost overruns). My questions are how will the non-profit manage that oversight better than ATK, and what form of institutional governance will the non-profit itself have.
If a nonprofit hospital runs operates at a loss, they will need to cut costs or increase revenue, same as any for-profit venture. They cannot look to the government to cover a shortfall the way a quasi-government corporation like ATK routinely does. Big difference among several. They do not pay federal or state income tax, and usually (but not always) are exempt from property and sales taxes. They also generally reinvest any surplus into services and facilities and equipment, rather than paying it out to investors. They can issue bonds to raise capital, and these bonds may offer investors tax-exempt interest, which results in lower interest rates, thus saving the nonprofit interest expense.
Sam1 every community in the United States with a population of more than 25,00, which is admittedly an arbitrary number, should have long distance passenger trains.
every community in the United States with a population of more than 25,00, which is admittedly an arbitrary number, should have long distance passenger trains.
I agree, every community of 25,000 or more should have access to the national transportation network through whatever is the most effective means for that area. In the case of Towns not located near a viable route. That may mean EAS.
Also, the notion that we could just switch over to "Heavys" for all our air transportation needs is ridiculous. Though I'm sure the contractors that get the bid to expand all the runnways in the country would love for more 777s, 747s and A380s and there are a bunch of Oil executives that are wetting their pants in anticipation of the added fuel costs.
schlimm If a nonprofit hospital runs operates at a loss, they will need to cut costs or increase revenue, same as any for-profit venture. They cannot look to the government to cover a shortfall the way a quasi-government corporation like ATK routinely does. Big difference among several. They do not pay federal or state income tax, and usually (but not always) are exempt from property and sales taxes. They also generally reinvest any surplus into services and facilities and equipment, rather than paying it out to investors. They can issue bonds to raise capital, and these bonds may offer investors tax-exempt interest, which results in lower interest rates, thus saving the nonprofit interest expense.
Even given that they wouldn't go to the government to cover the shortfall, they could receive "grants" from the government to support certain "programs." Many not-profits and for-profits do this, not just quasi-independent government agencies.
I'd imagine in these scenario the federal government might provide grants for specific routes. (presumably the NewPass company would specify how much a route would cost and that would hopefully define the grant.
I have been following this thread with great interest and a lot of disbelief in what I had to read here. I won´t comment on individual contributions, instead I ´d like to suggest to watch this little video and understand the message in there.
Wheels of Steel
We are not talking replacing Amtrak. We are talking setting up a company, be it for profit or not for profit, to provide rail passenger service either by contract or by outright ownership of equipment and service. We are talking instead of Amtrak...Amtrak has nothing to do with this company in any way whatsoever. That does not mean it wouldn't contract with Amtrak if Amtrak were to be around and/or need its service. This company is focused on providing railpassenger service and not just run trains. It was suggested that it might be not for profit. Doesn't matter when it comes to contracting with railroads or governments to do the job; it might or might not own the equipment or rails for that matter.
Sir Madog I have been following this thread with great interest and a lot of disbelief in what I had to read here. I won´t comment on individual contributions, instead I ´d like to suggest to watch this little video and understand the message in there. Wheels of Steel
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Sir Madog. This video is about the PRR which hasn't been around for almost 50 years. We are not working on what has transpired in the past but on a new thing based on 21st Century philosophies, procedures. and needs, redifining rail passenger services and trains from one railroad private carrier like the PRR to all railroads, all markets, all needs. We've gotta throw out everything we used to do and figure out what we've got to do to make it germain to today's needs and politics. I don't know what you mean by reading in disbelief here because it is all speculative working from the ground up on a new company or plan to do a job nobody seems to be able to do or want to do at present. Forget the past, look to the future by thinking anew today.
Well, if that's the only Narrow topic of this thread, then wouldn't it be more profitable to start with Iowa Pacific's position and expand from that since they are proposing exactly that?
I mean, I'm not trying to say we can't come up with our own theories, just that that is an existing, real and operating passenger rail organization to base this discussion on.
Sam1 henry6: Sam, you are assuming it will be a heavily subsidized non profit but it probably won't be. I did not say anything about non-profits as far as I can remember.
henry6: Sam, you are assuming it will be a heavily subsidized non profit but it probably won't be.
I did not say anything about non-profits as far as I can remember.
In fact, one page earlier you said: "What is it about intercity passenger rail that suggests that it should be a ward of the state, i.e. a government agency or a heavily subsidized non-profit?"
blue streak 1 Sam1: Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington SAM1: NOT SO. 1. A 747-400 cannot operate at LGA because it is too heavy for the runway portions that are on the bridges over the bay both RW 22 & RW 13 . 2. A 747-400 cannot operate at DCA due to runway loading conditions. Heaviest plane allowed is B-767 3. use of a B747-400 would require additional separsation for take off and landing of twice the distance of a B737 so no passenger capacity is gained. 4. Try talking the Secret Service into allowing a B747 flying along the river at DCA. . It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity at the New York and Washington airports and separations during bad weather. This is exactly what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs. Again operations are limited at both airports but not at the above airports.. . EDIT: One additionaL problem is airspace. Last I knew airplanes between DCA and LGA are limited to 16,000 and 17,000 ft. B747 fuel useage per seat is much higher at those altitudes than a B737. Why do you think airlines do not like to fly at low altitudes?
Sam1: Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington SAM1: NOT SO. 1. A 747-400 cannot operate at LGA because it is too heavy for the runway portions that are on the bridges over the bay both RW 22 & RW 13 . 2. A 747-400 cannot operate at DCA due to runway loading conditions. Heaviest plane allowed is B-767 3. use of a B747-400 would require additional separsation for take off and landing of twice the distance of a B737 so no passenger capacity is gained. 4. Try talking the Secret Service into allowing a B747 flying along the river at DCA. . It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity at the New York and Washington airports and separations during bad weather. This is exactly what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs. Again operations are limited at both airports but not at the above airports.. .
This 4,000 plus hour pilot who holds every license (ground and air) the FAA issues knows that everyone of the points you raise could be addressed and resolved. If nothing else the shuttle could be switched from LGA to Kennedy and Dulles or other area airports or a combination thereof. The key question is whether it would be cost effective to do so or whether investment in better ground technology would be the better investment.
Melbourne had the same load problems with the B747. The airport managers strengthened the runways. The cost of doing so, amortized over the expected life of the runways, was minimal.
How many hours as pilot in command have you logged? And on what type of aircraft under what conditions?
YoHo1975 Well, if that's the only Narrow topic of this thread, then wouldn't it be more profitable to start with Iowa Pacific's position and expand from that since they are proposing exactly that? I mean, I'm not trying to say we can't come up with our own theories, just that that is an existing, real and operating passenger rail organization to base this discussion on.
If this is what you have in mind as a model for a rail passenger service operator, tell us more about it and how it is set up and works. We are narrow only by what we know and so that's what we put in...this is the first we've heard of Iowa Pacific' but we don't know what it is. It is up to you to tell us and explain it to us. Don't accuse us of something when we are ignorant of its existance. It might be just the model we should be looking at or it might be something based on the past and needs some changes...don't know until we know.
henry6 Sir Madog: I have been following this thread with great interest and a lot of disbelief in what I had to read here. I won´t comment on individual contributions, instead I ´d like to suggest to watch this little video and understand the message in there. Wheels of Steel I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Sir Madog. This video is about the PRR which hasn't been around for almost 50 years. We are not working on what has transpired in the past but on a new thing based on 21st Century philosophies, procedures. and needs, redifining rail passenger services and trains from one railroad private carrier like the PRR to all railroads, all markets, all needs. We've gotta throw out everything we used to do and figure out what we've got to do to make it germain to today's needs and politics. I don't know what you mean by reading in disbelief here because it is all speculative working from the ground up on a new company or plan to do a job nobody seems to be able to do or want to do at present. Forget the past, look to the future by thinking anew today.
Sir Madog: I have been following this thread with great interest and a lot of disbelief in what I had to read here. I won´t comment on individual contributions, instead I ´d like to suggest to watch this little video and understand the message in there. Wheels of Steel
henry6,
if you read between the lines, you´ll detect the pride those railroad men and women had in doing their duty. It was way more than just a job. Now transfer that to today´s Amtrak staff. How can you develop pride if you are constantly being told you contribute to the national debt?
Privatization may or may not be the answer. It is a question of what kind of rail service the nation needs now and in the future. When that question is answered, than you can start to think about how to finance it. IMHO, you need people with a vision to give the answer, not just a bunch of controllers (of which I am one by profession) who look at short term returns.
henry6 I sense some faulty reasoning here. A larger plane needs a larger runway or airport and therefor puts more financial burden on local governements who own and operate the airports. A larger plane is costlier to operate which might lead to fewer flights, less service or abandonment of service and giving over to much smaller aircraft. These problems could even happen between larger market airports, especially the fewer flights.
Not always! Take a look at the engineering performance curves for a Boeing 737-700 compared to a B737-300. The 700 carries 189 passengers when it is configured for Southwest whilst the 300 carries fewer passengers. It is one of the reasons Southwest is phasing out the earlier models.
Take off and climb to altitude are a function of numerous variables. The thrust to weight ratio is a major factor. If a "heavy" (767, 777, etc.) is going oversea, i.e. LAX to Sydney, it needs a lot more runway because it is taking off with a maximum fuel load. On the other hand, if a heavy was being used between relatively close in cities, i.e. LAX to SFO or LGA to National, it could operate with a fraction of its normal fuel load, thereby reducing the amount of runway required to take-off and land, not to mention the load bearing capability of the runways.
Now there is no need to operate heavies between any city pairs in the United States. But if we get to a point where airport capacity and airways capacity is an issue, the aircraft and the airways capacity can be expanded. Moreover, by the time we get there the aircraft industry is likely to come up with a variety of larger, more fuel efficient birds that will be able to meet the traffic demands.
Whether larger planes are costlier to operate depends on numerous variables. It is not a given. The seat mile cost of a Boeing 737-800 is considerably less than the seat mile cost of a 737-300, which is a smaller airplane.
One of the weaknesses of the passenger train advocacy group is an implied assumption that the technologies of competing modes of transport are locked and will not advance. As I have said repeatedly, I would not count on it.
henry6 YoHo1975: Well, if that's the only Narrow topic of this thread, then wouldn't it be more profitable to start with Iowa Pacific's position and expand from that since they are proposing exactly that? I mean, I'm not trying to say we can't come up with our own theories, just that that is an existing, real and operating passenger rail organization to base this discussion on. If this is what you have in mind as a model for a rail passenger service operator, tell us more about it and how it is set up and works. We are narrow only by what we know and so that's what we put in...this is the first we've heard of Iowa Pacific' but we don't know what it is. It is up to you to tell us and explain it to us. Don't accuse us of something when we are ignorant of its existance. It might be just the model we should be looking at or it might be something based on the past and needs some changes...don't know until we know. .
YoHo1975: Well, if that's the only Narrow topic of this thread, then wouldn't it be more profitable to start with Iowa Pacific's position and expand from that since they are proposing exactly that? I mean, I'm not trying to say we can't come up with our own theories, just that that is an existing, real and operating passenger rail organization to base this discussion on.
I posted the link on page 8 of this thread. It apparently was missed. It is also in the La Junta Sub thread in the general forum. I'll post the link to the power point again.
http://www.transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2012/Iowa%20Pacific%20Sandhouse%20Gang%20presentation.pdf
I can't provide anything more than that link, because that's all I know.
schlimm Sam1: henry6: Sam, you are assuming it will be a heavily subsidized non profit but it probably won't be. I did not say anything about non-profits as far as I can remember. In fact, one page earlier you said: "What is it about intercity passenger rail that suggests that it should be a ward of the state, i.e. a government agency or a heavily subsidized non-profit?"
Sam1: henry6: Sam, you are assuming it will be a heavily subsidized non profit but it probably won't be. I did not say anything about non-profits as far as I can remember.
Good catch! I'll revise the question. What is it about intercity passenger rail that suggests it should be a ward of the state or not be required to compete on a level playing field with alternate modes of at least commercial transport?
How do you quantify EAS and state and local funding for Air services, the Highway fund and every other aspect of government transportation funding into that assertion that Intercity rail service isn't competing on a level playing field?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.