I wonder how much revenue the Federal Gov. gets from leases and royalties that oil companies pay to
extract oil from offshore and from federal lands? Could some of these monies be applied to Amtrak?
But my point is that if you want to privatize Amtrak, then you should forget what Amtrak is and start over. Amtrak is a government creation born to relieve big business private railroads of operating passenger trains. A non governement entity would not have either burdon and be able to think an operate in thousands of different ways and not have to pay attention to what Amtrak was, is, and isn't. One of the problems is that there is a whole generation out there who only know passenger trains as being Amtrak, Another is there is a whole generation who remember what a passenger train was before Amtrak. And still another that doesn't know what a passenger train is or should be!
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.
DwightBranch Should Obama win a second term you can expect increased funding for Amtrak, including hopefully a guaranteed revenue source, perhaps derived from that part of fuel tax revenue paid by the railroads.
Should Obama win a second term you can expect increased funding for Amtrak, including hopefully a guaranteed revenue source, perhaps derived from that part of fuel tax revenue paid by the railroads.
As an Amtrak on-board rep pointed out to me once, the administrations that turned out to be hardest on Amtrak -- those on whose watch route miles were ruthlessly cut -- were Democratic, not Republican ... Carter's and Clinton's. So don't count on re-election of Obama to pull your chestnuts out of the fire.
To me, the enemy of amenities such as Amtrak -- not to mention the heroic enterprises that used to characterize America, such as space exploration -- are the resources-gobbling entitlements whose best friend is DwightBranch's preferred party.
henry6 But my point is that if you want to privatize Amtrak, then you should forget what Amtrak is and start over. Amtrak is a government creation born to relieve big business private railroads of operating passenger trains. A non governement entity would not have either burdon and be able to think an operate in thousands of different ways and not have to pay attention to what Amtrak was, is, and isn't. One of the problems is that there is a whole generation out there who only know passenger trains as being Amtrak, Another is there is a whole generation who remember what a passenger train was before Amtrak. And still another that doesn't know what a passenger train is or should be!
I just don't believe the idea that the reason Amtrak is "failing" is something intrinsic about the way in which it was formed. Start over from scratch and you will have the same problem: no system of public transportation anywhere makes money when you consider the cost of building and maintaining the right of way, and so all will need government funds in order to succeed. The problem with Amtrak is that it just has never received enough to build and operate a true national system like the interstate highways have. A truly "private" system of rail transportation, one that pays for acquiring right of way and maintaining it, and the cost of operating trains, is impossible. Any "private"system will be the privatization of operating profits with the socialization of the real money, building and maintaining the right of way. The people selling privatization are selling magic beans, no thanks.
dakotafred DwightBranch: Should Obama win a second term you can expect increased funding for Amtrak, including hopefully a guaranteed revenue source, perhaps derived from that part of fuel tax revenue paid by the railroads. As an Amtrak on-board rep pointed out to me once, the administrations that turned out to be hardest on Amtrak -- those on whose watch route miles were ruthlessly cut -- were Democratic, not Republican ... Carter's and Clinton's. So don't count on re-election of Obama to pull your chestnuts out of the fire. To me, the enemy of amenities such as Amtrak -- not to mention the heroic enterprises that used to characterize America, such as space exploration -- are the resources-gobbling entitlements whose best friend is DwightBranch's preferred party.
DwightBranch: Should Obama win a second term you can expect increased funding for Amtrak, including hopefully a guaranteed revenue source, perhaps derived from that part of fuel tax revenue paid by the railroads.
I support neither party, though as Bill Maher once said, the Democrats are what the Republicans used to be in the 50s and 60s, and the Republicans have run into the ditch of crazy world. Obama is essentially a Rockefeller Republican in terms of his policies. Or as (I think) Paul Krugman said, this election is essentially between Mitt Romney and his father George Romney (also a Rockefeller Republican). At any rate, I think you will either see the poorly funded zombie continue under Romney or, finally, quite a bit more funding under Obama.
A. McIntosh I wonder how much revenue the Federal Gov. gets from leases and royalties that oil companies pay to extract oil from offshore and from federal lands? Could some of these monies be applied to Amtrak?
At the risk of getting off topic, offshore oil leasing, rents, and royalties is a complex subject. A Department of Interior study explaining the dynamics of offshore revenues runs more than 70 pages. Having said that, from 1954 to 2004 it is estimated that the federal government realized $64 billion in bonuses, $3 billion in rentals, $89 billion in royalties, and $3 billion take-in kind in lieu of royalties. For that period the average take for the federal government is $3.18 billion per year. However, averages can be deceptive. My guess is the take has been greater since the 90s and 00s. Moreover, to get a better picture, one would need to know the take from 2004 through 2011.
Also, in 2011 the U.S. Department of the Interior realized $3.1 billion from onshore oil and natural gas activities. The budget for these items in 2013 is $3.0 billion.
Some of the monies are dedicated to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, and some of them go to the states. I don't know the transfers to the general fund, but any money going to the general fund can be used for general purposes.
DwightBranch I just don't believe the idea that the reason Amtrak is "failing" is something intrinsic about the way in which it was formed. Start over from scratch and you will have the same problem: no system of public transportation anywhere makes money when you consider the cost of building and maintaining the right of way, and so all will need government funds in order to succeed. The problem with Amtrak is that it just has never received enough to build and operate a true national system like the interstate highways have. A truly "private" system of rail transportation, one that pays for acquiring right of way and maintaining it, and the cost of operating trains, is impossible. Any "private"system will be the privatization of operating profits with the socialization of the real money, building and maintaining the right of way. The people selling privatization are selling magic beans, no thanks.
Amtrak is not failing in its initial goal: to insulate private industry, freight railroads from having to run passenger trains. Some say the goal went so far as to believe that the passenger train would have been abolished, along with Amtrak, within a few years. Amtrak is failing to live up to the romantic American concept of passenger trains and transportation service. It was designed to run trains and not provide service, in fact.
So, if we were to start a new passenger operating railroad here, lets get rid of government rules, regulations, and oversight and set our sights on providing rail passenger service and services and not just run trains. We will contract with private freight railroads where and when necessary and own and operate our own tracks and trains where available. WE ARE TOTALLY PRIVATE, NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, NOT RELYING ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND MONEY, CONGRESS IS NOT OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOR BANKERS. Therefore, we can't think and operate in the same terms and philosophies as Amtrak, but more like IBM, GM, or even GE and not like Democrat or Republican or Souttherner or Easterner or Westerner or Northerner. We are a business owner and operator whose goal is to provide rail passenger services.
henry6 So, if we were to start a new passenger operating railroad here, lets get rid of government rules, regulations, and oversight and set our sights on providing rail passenger service and services and not just run trains. "Regulation" means "confirmation", someone other than the entity for whom spending on safety is a "loss" confirming that they are following safe practices and not cheating customers etc.. I don't see lack of regulation as a plus, it would be like buying viagra on the internet. We will contract with private freight railroads where and when necessary and own and operate our own tracks and trains where available. When this idea was floated during the Nineties (after "contract with America") the Republicans found out the hard way that the freight railroads don't want dozens of independent contractors using their tracks, both for competitive reasons (they don't want experiments in "open access" so that they end up having competitors for freight service on their tracks) but also it would be a logistical nightmare. Would these new companies be cutting corners on equipment, crew training, supervision, etc., trains breaking down on the main, etc.. And for what? You are likely to get a polite "no" from the freight railroads when asked, and if you try to mandate it the way that Amtrak is mandated they will tell you that they like it the way it is now, one company, one set of organizational practices, professional (union) crews, relatively new equipment, etc. When the company running the Ski-Train between Denver and Winter park (in front of my house in South Boulder Canyon at the time) pulled out, Iowa Pacific tried to take it over. The only way to do it was to ask Amtrak (which has authority to run on that line and crews for the CZ) and they were not interested either, IP intended to use old equipment including F-9s and neither Amtrak nor UP wanted any part of it. And that is WITH subsidies from the city of Denver (that owns Winter Park ski resort) and a guaranteed passenger base running full almost every trip. Now, I am sure that a freight railroad will do it for the right price, but as I am already dubious that a passenger train can earn a "profit" (that is, without some sort of tax subsidy or tax write-off) I am especially dubious that you will have enough to bribe the freight railroads and still earn a profit. WE ARE TOTALLY PRIVATE, NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, NOT RELYING ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND MONEY, CONGRESS IS NOT OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOR BANKERS. Therefore, we can't think and operate in the same terms and philosophies as Amtrak, but more like IBM, GM, or even GE and not like Democrat or Republican or Souttherner or Easterner or Westerner or Northerner. We are a business owner and operator whose goal is to provide rail passenger services. As I said, I don't think the problem is "philosophies" or "lack of imiagination", I think it is that public transportation is an area where tax dollars need to be spent in order to get a reliable system, and to this point we just haven't spent the money (less for national rail transportation since 1971 than we spent on highways last year).
So, if we were to start a new passenger operating railroad here, lets get rid of government rules, regulations, and oversight and set our sights on providing rail passenger service and services and not just run trains.
"Regulation" means "confirmation", someone other than the entity for whom spending on safety is a "loss" confirming that they are following safe practices and not cheating customers etc.. I don't see lack of regulation as a plus, it would be like buying viagra on the internet.
We will contract with private freight railroads where and when necessary and own and operate our own tracks and trains where available.
When this idea was floated during the Nineties (after "contract with America") the Republicans found out the hard way that the freight railroads don't want dozens of independent contractors using their tracks, both for competitive reasons (they don't want experiments in "open access" so that they end up having competitors for freight service on their tracks) but also it would be a logistical nightmare. Would these new companies be cutting corners on equipment, crew training, supervision, etc., trains breaking down on the main, etc.. And for what? You are likely to get a polite "no" from the freight railroads when asked, and if you try to mandate it the way that Amtrak is mandated they will tell you that they like it the way it is now, one company, one set of organizational practices, professional (union) crews, relatively new equipment, etc.
When the company running the Ski-Train between Denver and Winter park (in front of my house in South Boulder Canyon at the time) pulled out, Iowa Pacific tried to take it over. The only way to do it was to ask Amtrak (which has authority to run on that line and crews for the CZ) and they were not interested either, IP intended to use old equipment including F-9s and neither Amtrak nor UP wanted any part of it. And that is WITH subsidies from the city of Denver (that owns Winter Park ski resort) and a guaranteed passenger base running full almost every trip. Now, I am sure that a freight railroad will do it for the right price, but as I am already dubious that a passenger train can earn a "profit" (that is, without some sort of tax subsidy or tax write-off) I am especially dubious that you will have enough to bribe the freight railroads and still earn a profit.
WE ARE TOTALLY PRIVATE, NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, NOT RELYING ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND MONEY, CONGRESS IS NOT OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOR BANKERS. Therefore, we can't think and operate in the same terms and philosophies as Amtrak, but more like IBM, GM, or even GE and not like Democrat or Republican or Souttherner or Easterner or Westerner or Northerner. We are a business owner and operator whose goal is to provide rail passenger services.
As I said, I don't think the problem is "philosophies" or "lack of imiagination", I think it is that public transportation is an area where tax dollars need to be spent in order to get a reliable system, and to this point we just haven't spent the money (less for national rail transportation since 1971 than we spent on highways last year).
But Dwight, I am not suggesting public transport (stop thinking Amtrak) but rather private carrier. Also this is 2012, not the nineties or even earlier. Land space is at a premium, air space is either polluted or on the way of being polluted; in many areas the air can no longer take any pollutants for the safety of the population. And, while freight railroads didn't want to accept passenger trains in the past, and many still don't, there are abandoned and underused lines and rights of way which might be available, and useful, for private carriage use. We are picking up the baton of a private carrier based on the premise that there will no longer be a government Amtrak Also, it should be noted the density of traffic in the West and in the Rockies is far less than in the East, Midwest, Praries, and West Coast and through the South. Perhaps a train through the Feather River Canyon or through the Rockies isn't the kind of "service" we will be providing or is one that our reasearch says no to anyway.
henry6 But Dwight, I am not suggesting public transport (stop thinking Amtrak) but rather private carrier. Also this is 2012, not the nineties or even earlier. Land space is at a premium, air space is either polluted or on the way of being polluted; in many areas the air can no longer take any pollutants for the safety of the population. And, while freight railroads didn't want to accept passenger trains in the past, and many still don't, there are abandoned and underused lines and rights of way which might be available, and useful, for private carriage use. We are picking up the baton of a private carrier based on the premise that there will no longer be a government Amtrak Also, it should be noted the density of traffic in the West and in the Rockies is far less than in the East, Midwest, Praries, and West Coast and through the South. Perhaps a train through the Feather River Canyon or through the Rockies isn't the kind of "service" we will be providing or is one that our reasearch says no to anyway.
I am using "public transportation" in a broad sense (which I believe is correct) to include highway transportation (you in your own private car on a road), aircraft transportation, water transportation, etc, essentially any way we (the public) transport ourselves from place to place. And none of these "makes a profit" or even comes close to breaking even: highways don't make money, airports don't make money, rivers don't make money, etc. once you subtract the cost of building and maintaining them. And it seems to me that a lot of the privatization ideas for passenger rail transportation suffer from the "square peg in a round hole" problem: attempting to replicate highway and airline transport (multiple individual vehicles owned by many different individuals or companies operating on a right of way owned by someone else) in a medium in which it would present enormous problems. For example, one can get on and off the highway without telling anyone or asking anyone's permission, and even the airports can handle far more takeoffs and landings per day than even a multiple track main line can. Replicating such a system with passenger-only railroad rights of way would cost TRILLIONS.
Dwight. Lets define public transportation as that which is provided by government be it highway, air or intercity and commuter rail. And lets define our excercise here as private enterprise. And that the latter has nothing to do with the former and the former has nothing to do with the latter. We must also understand that at this point we know nothing about costs, etc. because it has not been done since Amtrak was formed, we are not replicating Amtrak nor past operations, Costs right now mean nothing because we haven\'t planned anythng, bought anything nor know what contracts we will be getting into, if any. Maybe a trillion, maybe a billion, maybe a zillion; we don't know if only because what we are about to do has not been done here in the USA yet.
MidlandMike YoHo1975: Sam1: The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains. The inference that I have gotten from some of the posts in this thread is that since the long distance train's cost are 6 times more per passenger than corridor trains, then they are that much more wasteful of taxpayers dollars. However, there does not seem to be any passenger-miles component in the figures. Since many LD routes are 6 times longer than corridor routes, if you look at costs per passenger mile they may possibly be comparable. Do we know the average passenger trip length on the different types of service?
YoHo1975: Sam1: The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
Sam1: The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
The inference that I have gotten from some of the posts in this thread is that since the long distance train's cost are 6 times more per passenger than corridor trains, then they are that much more wasteful of taxpayers dollars. However, there does not seem to be any passenger-miles component in the figures. Since many LD routes are 6 times longer than corridor routes, if you look at costs per passenger mile they may possibly be comparable. Do we know the average passenger trip length on the different types of service?
This discussion has seemingly run on for ever. Finding this post was time consuming.
Per my calculations, which assume that 80 per cent of Amtrak's depreciation, interest, and other expenses are allocable to the NEC, with the remaining 20 per cent being allocable equally to the state corridor trains, mostly state supported, and the long distance trains, the average loss per passenger mile for the NEC in FY10 was 20.8 cents vs. 16.5 cents for the state trains and 23.1 cents for the long distance trains. Unfortunately FY11 numbers are not available as explained in another post. In any case, the argument that the cost (loss) per passenger mile to run the long distance trains is not much greater than the NEC appears to be true.
Assuming Amtrak had to cover all its allocable costs through the fare box, it would have to raise the average fare per passenger on the NEC by $48.67 vs. $21.68 for the state trains and $144.15 for the long distance trains. Needless to say, average fare increases of this magnitude would drive away a significant per cent of the long distance train riders, as well as the NEC passengers, making the trains even less price competitive.
Contribution per passenger mile or seat mile is valuable for comparing mode efficiencies, especially between different modes of transport, but at the end of the day the deficits between revenues and costs have to be made up with real money. I see nothing in the figures to suggest that the argument for discontinuing the long distance trains is not valid, especially in light of the fact that less than one per cent of Americans choose the train for intercity trips of 50 miles or more, as per the 2009 National Transportation Statistics, which is published by the USDOT.
dakotafred To me, the enemy of amenities such as Amtrak -- not to mention the heroic enterprises that used to characterize America, such as space exploration -- are the resources-gobbling entitlements whose best friend is DwightBranch's preferred party.
Not to get off topic but,
The enemy of these amenities has been an absolute slashing of the Tax rates which has completely altered the revenue for the Federal Government.
http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_taxes_graph.gif
When NASA was spending money to go to the moon, the Top Marginal rate was around 70%. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if someone said we should go back to the Tax rate that got us to the moon?
All of these things don't exist in a vacuum. A mistake that far too many politicians forget or don't know.
henry6 Dwight. Lets define public transportation as that which is provided by government be it highway, air or intercity and commuter rail. And lets define our excercise here as private enterprise. And that the latter has nothing to do with the former and the former has nothing to do with the latter. We must also understand that at this point we know nothing about costs, etc. because it has not been done since Amtrak was formed, we are not replicating Amtrak nor past operations, Costs right now mean nothing because we haven\'t planned anythng, bought anything nor know what contracts we will be getting into, if any. Maybe a trillion, maybe a billion, maybe a zillion; we don't know if only because what we are about to do has not been done here in the USA yet.
Dwight makes a good point about the Freight railroads and one that hasn't changed since the 1990s. I think the first problem we face is figuring out how to convince the host railroads to let us operate. Even if we're no longer operating long distance trains. Amtrak has a federal mandate and years of proven track record backing it up.
How does a new company sell themselves to the Freight Railroads without that government mandate?
And if we're just talking about Corridor services, Well then it might certainly be that private organizations can provide better cost per passenger mile, but most proposals I've seen that say that still presuppose the might of the government forcing this issue.
It seems to me that the only true advantage that a private passenger service organization has is that they would not be beholden to congress for funding, they could secure their own debt and make decisions based on value.
But, in the end, that's only an advantage, because congress refuses to raise the revenue to support Amtrak.
If Congress is going to demand a specific route, then they ought to pay for it, not make the demand on one hand and refuse to pay for it on the other.
YoHo1975 henry6: Dwight. Lets define public transportation as that which is provided by government be it highway, air or intercity and commuter rail. And lets define our excercise here as private enterprise. And that the latter has nothing to do with the former and the former has nothing to do with the latter. We must also understand that at this point we know nothing about costs, etc. because it has not been done since Amtrak was formed, we are not replicating Amtrak nor past operations, Costs right now mean nothing because we haven\'t planned anythng, bought anything nor know what contracts we will be getting into, if any. Maybe a trillion, maybe a billion, maybe a zillion; we don't know if only because what we are about to do has not been done here in the USA yet. Dwight makes a good point about the Freight railroads and one that hasn't changed since the 1990s. I think the first problem we face is figuring out how to convince the host railroads to let us operate. Even if we're no longer operating long distance trains. Amtrak has a federal mandate and years of proven track record backing it up. How does a new company sell themselves to the Freight Railroads without that government mandate? And if we're just talking about Corridor services, Well then it might certainly be that private organizations can provide better cost per passenger mile, but most proposals I've seen that say that still presuppose the might of the government forcing this issue. It seems to me that the only true advantage that a private passenger service organization has is that they would not be beholden to congress for funding, they could secure their own debt and make decisions based on value. But, in the end, that's only an advantage, because congress refuses to raise the revenue to support Amtrak. If Congress is going to demand a specific route, then they ought to pay for it, not make the demand on one hand and refuse to pay for it on the other.
henry6: Dwight. Lets define public transportation as that which is provided by government be it highway, air or intercity and commuter rail. And lets define our excercise here as private enterprise. And that the latter has nothing to do with the former and the former has nothing to do with the latter. We must also understand that at this point we know nothing about costs, etc. because it has not been done since Amtrak was formed, we are not replicating Amtrak nor past operations, Costs right now mean nothing because we haven\'t planned anythng, bought anything nor know what contracts we will be getting into, if any. Maybe a trillion, maybe a billion, maybe a zillion; we don't know if only because what we are about to do has not been done here in the USA yet.
First thing to remember if you are about to create a NEW passenger service. Existing freight railroads between the Origin-Destination pairs you would be operating are currently operating at near maximum capacity with the freight traffic they are handling. Freight railroads do not have 'excess capacity' to give up to a passenger operation. A passenger SERVICE will have to bring it's own trackage to the game, one way or another - either constructing it's own right of way or getting an agreement with existing freight carriers to build the capacity necessary along the freight route.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Railroads are tight on space for trafffic. On well used freight routes. So, why not look at unused freight routes? Today's railroads are mergers after mergers after mergers with still some duplication of parrllel routes and redundent properties. So there just might be room for passenger trains on some of these "unused" or secondary or even abandoned routes. And I admit, this is assuming that passenger routes may also not or don't necessarily, mirror freight routes and pairs. Some railroads may not want to admit excess space availability but might jump at the chance to fill an empty track space with an income of some kind.
As for the point concerning Congress not giving enough money for what is needed. Well, the idea is that our private sector railorad will set a goal of service with a corresponding goal of money to make the service viable or just not do it. The advantage of not kow towing to Congress is not just no pomp and circumstance but also the actual money in hand which should produce an income via a service where niether service nor income exist today.
Again, this is 2012. Just like 1970, 1990 is far different than today. To make assumptions and assertions and, thus, decsions based on 20, 40 or 50 years ago are things we can't do.
YoHo1975 Not to get off topic but, The enemy of these amenities has been an absolute slashing of the Tax rates which has completely altered the revenue for the Federal Government. http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_taxes_graph.gif When NASA was spending money to go to the moon, the Top Marginal rate was around 70%. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if someone said we should go back to the Tax rate that got us to the moon? All of these things don't exist in a vacuum. A mistake that far too many politicians forget or don't know.
Bingo. Or here is an even more stark chart. You will note that at 24% of GDP for tax revenues (and thus government services we are only above two Third World countries, Chile and Mexico. Or I should say, other Third World countries, as we meet the criteria to be a Third World country.
When people in the US (including my family) complain about the infrequent, understaffed service Amtrak offers (or anything else the State generally offers in advanced countries) I tell them the US is a Third World country, and so you can expect Third World services, until you stop falling for the "tax cuts on the rich will make us ALL rich" line. You get what you pay for, and Americans are notorious for wanting their cake and to eat it too, to get government services but not pay for them.
henry6 Railroads are tight on space for trafffic. On well used freight routes. So, why not look at unused freight routes? Today's railroads are mergers after mergers after mergers with still some duplication of parrllel routes and redundent properties. So there just might be room for passenger trains on some of these "unused" or secondary or even abandoned routes. And I admit, this is assuming that passenger routes may also not or don't necessarily, mirror freight routes and pairs. Some railroads may not want to admit excess space availability but might jump at the chance to fill an empty track space with an income of some kind. As for the point concerning Congress not giving enough money for what is needed. Well, the idea is that our private sector railorad will set a goal of service with a corresponding goal of money to make the service viable or just not do it. The advantage of not kow towing to Congress is not just no pomp and circumstance but also the actual money in hand which should produce an income via a service where niether service nor income exist today. Again, this is 2012. Just like 1970, 1990 is far different than today. To make assumptions and assertions and, thus, decsions based on 20, 40 or 50 years ago are things we can't do.
Henry we have to make assumptions or we don't have anything to talk about.
As for unused track. I think you may be overestimating the amount of rights of way available for this type of project. Pick a corridor, any corridor, let's choose a popular proposal out west which is LA to Las Vegas. There are absolutely no existing tracks between those to cities that are not in use.
We also have to deal with the route rationalization that Staggers and the mergers have given us.
To take another example, since I live in the Sacramento area. 20-30 years ago, Sac to Stockton or Sac to Oakland had multiple options for a routing some better some worse, but they were there. Today, many of these tracks have been pulled up and subdivisions built over the top. As a new operator in today's market, we would need to construct new tracks in many cases.
And how would you begin to build knew in the year 2012, for many of the corridor services we're discussing, there simply is very little realestate available at any price for these purposes. Unless you can convince the communities involved to allow eminent domain and then you get into those pesky governments and their legislators.
And even where tracks are available, life is not so simple.
When I was living in Oregon, there was clamor for an extension of the much maligned WES rail to McMinnville and maybe even a run out to the Indian Casino, but the PNWR west side line and Rex Hill would require millions in upgrades to meet basic operation needs much less safety requirements. The initial Capital outlay just to get the West side line up to snuff and install stations would make it nearly impossible to start service to say nothing of supporting ongoing Capex or Opex.
I think these are the stumbling blocks for thinking of services like these. Perhaps, the 3 scenarios are good ones to frame some thoughts around?
so rather than looking from the top down, Henry, do you have any thoughts on this?
If the goal is to use dedicated rights of way, how do those get built?
DwightBranch YoHo1975: Not to get off topic but, The enemy of these amenities has been an absolute slashing of the Tax rates which has completely altered the revenue for the Federal Government. http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_taxes_graph.gif When NASA was spending money to go to the moon, the Top Marginal rate was around 70%. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if someone said we should go back to the Tax rate that got us to the moon? All of these things don't exist in a vacuum. A mistake that far too many politicians forget or don't know. Bingo. Or here is an even more stark chart. You will note that at 24% of GDP for tax revenues (and thus government services we are only above two Third World countries, Chile and Mexico. Or I should say, other Third World countries, as we meet the criteria to be a Third World country. When people in the US (including my family) complain about the infrequent, understaffed service Amtrak offers (or anything else the State generally offers in advanced countries) I tell them the US is a Third World country, and so you can expect Third World services, until you stop falling for the "tax cuts on the rich will make us ALL rich" line. You get what you pay for, and Americans are notorious for wanting their cake and to eat it too, to get government services but not pay for them.
YoHo1975: Not to get off topic but, The enemy of these amenities has been an absolute slashing of the Tax rates which has completely altered the revenue for the Federal Government. http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_taxes_graph.gif When NASA was spending money to go to the moon, the Top Marginal rate was around 70%. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if someone said we should go back to the Tax rate that got us to the moon? All of these things don't exist in a vacuum. A mistake that far too many politicians forget or don't know.
With respect to taxes, tax rates, and government services, are you disrespecting the President of the United States?
The Speaker of the House prior to the 2010 election wanted to let the "Bush tax cuts" sunset, i.e. expire. In a static revenue analysis, that action would have pretty much plugged the "deficit hole" that everyone is worried about. That action would have been a broad-based tax increase on just about everyone, and given the sluggish economic recovery, it is not clear whether there would have been even more pain in terms of people being unemployed for longer periods of time.
The President, famously, didn't want that. He campaigned on only letting taxes rise on the wealthiest Americans but retaining or extending tax cuts to the middle class. He didn't get that plan either, but that plan would have raised only 1/4 the needed revenue.
With respect to taxing the rich, it is not that many of us have any serious aspirations or pretentions of becoming rich. There are two concerns. One is the definition of rich is that you have a certain amount of economic power that the rest of us don't have. Since the rich have wealth far beyond their basic needs, there are all kinds of games the rich can play with regard to how much of their wealth is in a taxable form and how much is not. The 70% tax rate during the 60's is kind of a mirage as that the truly wealthy had various ways of not subjecting their money to that rate. The second concern is that with the general level of inflation, a lot of people, admittedly at the upper end of "middle class" and people who don't think of themselves as rich, get boosted into those tax brackets and tax categories intended for the very rich. Without having the financial power to dodge those taxes they way the very wealthy can.
So why worry about taxing the rich if they can dodge taxes? One, the financial manipulations that avoid taxes can hurt the rest of us through depressed economic growth. Secondly, because the rich are, rich, meaning have financial power, they have ways of passing on their increased costs of running their businesses, so taxing the rich may turn out to be a trickle-down tax on the poorer among us who are consumers. You may not believe in a trickle-down theory that handing the rich big tax breaks will help the rest of us. Do you not believe in the trickle-down theory that the rich will always be rich and will figure out ways to pass on the costs if their taxes are greatly increased?
Finally, is scolding the American people that they are not doing what we think they should want, i.e. having very high consumption taxes that raise the cost of just about everything -- VAT, high gasoline tax -- so we can have the European system of trains, is that a wise advocacy strategy to get broad-based public agreement on more funding for Amtrak?
Every side of the political spectrum has their scolding, the American people are spoiled and don't know what is good for them mode. The Right Wing is into the big scold-mode regarding public employee pensions (i.e. police, fire fighters, teachers, municipal workers) and Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. My prognostication for what it is worth is that the Right Wing will get their back side handed to them in the 2012 election, much as the President got his shellacking (his words) in the 2010 election. It is just that I don't think we should put passenger train advocacy in the middle of all of this.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
YoHo1975 henry6: Railroads are tight on space for trafffic. On well used freight routes. So, why not look at unused freight routes? Today's railroads are mergers after mergers after mergers with still some duplication of parrllel routes and redundent properties. So there just might be room for passenger trains on some of these "unused" or secondary or even abandoned routes. And I admit, this is assuming that passenger routes may also not or don't necessarily, mirror freight routes and pairs. Some railroads may not want to admit excess space availability but might jump at the chance to fill an empty track space with an income of some kind. As for the point concerning Congress not giving enough money for what is needed. Well, the idea is that our private sector railorad will set a goal of service with a corresponding goal of money to make the service viable or just not do it. The advantage of not kow towing to Congress is not just no pomp and circumstance but also the actual money in hand which should produce an income via a service where niether service nor income exist today. Again, this is 2012. Just like 1970, 1990 is far different than today. To make assumptions and assertions and, thus, decsions based on 20, 40 or 50 years ago are things we can't do. Henry we have to make assumptions or we don't have anything to talk about. As for unused track. I think you may be overestimating the amount of rights of way available for this type of project. Pick a corridor, any corridor, let's choose a popular proposal out west which is LA to Las Vegas. There are absolutely no existing tracks between those to cities that are not in use. We also have to deal with the route rationalization that Staggers and the mergers have given us. To take another example, since I live in the Sacramento area. 20-30 years ago, Sac to Stockton or Sac to Oakland had multiple options for a routing some better some worse, but they were there. Today, many of these tracks have been pulled up and subdivisions built over the top. As a new operator in today's market, we would need to construct new tracks in many cases. And how would you begin to build knew in the year 2012, for many of the corridor services we're discussing, there simply is very little realestate available at any price for these purposes. Unless you can convince the communities involved to allow eminent domain and then you get into those pesky governments and their legislators. And even where tracks are available, life is not so simple. When I was living in Oregon, there was clamor for an extension of the much maligned WES rail to McMinnville and maybe even a run out to the Indian Casino, but the PNWR west side line and Rex Hill would require millions in upgrades to meet basic operation needs much less safety requirements. The initial Capital outlay just to get the West side line up to snuff and install stations would make it nearly impossible to start service to say nothing of supporting ongoing Capex or Opex. I think these are the stumbling blocks for thinking of services like these. Perhaps, the 3 scenarios are good ones to frame some thoughts around? so rather than looking from the top down, Henry, do you have any thoughts on this? If the goal is to use dedicated rights of way, how do those get built?
henry6: Railroads are tight on space for trafffic. On well used freight routes. So, why not look at unused freight routes? Today's railroads are mergers after mergers after mergers with still some duplication of parrllel routes and redundent properties. So there just might be room for passenger trains on some of these "unused" or secondary or even abandoned routes. And I admit, this is assuming that passenger routes may also not or don't necessarily, mirror freight routes and pairs. Some railroads may not want to admit excess space availability but might jump at the chance to fill an empty track space with an income of some kind. As for the point concerning Congress not giving enough money for what is needed. Well, the idea is that our private sector railorad will set a goal of service with a corresponding goal of money to make the service viable or just not do it. The advantage of not kow towing to Congress is not just no pomp and circumstance but also the actual money in hand which should produce an income via a service where niether service nor income exist today. Again, this is 2012. Just like 1970, 1990 is far different than today. To make assumptions and assertions and, thus, decsions based on 20, 40 or 50 years ago are things we can't do.
Truthfully, I don't care. What I am trying to do here is get people to think in terms of private enterprise instead of changing Amtrak. I am playing Devil's Advocate as much as possible to see what people can come up with, to see how different people think in terms of passenger trains, railroads, railroading, Amtrak, and history. Anything and everything is fair game except using Amtrak or government as the banker and board of directors. You have made some points here, yes. I do disagree with conclusions of anykind when no railroad has been approached with any idea of running passenger trains, no end points nor middle points (routes) have been discussed nor level of service determined. So both everything said is fair or not viable. I want to see how many can think outside Amtrak and government, outside what used to be, and who can perhaps envision what could happen. Keep those cards and letters coming in, folks.
The reason we have relatively low tax rates is not that we are starving the Federal Government.
It is that we have chosen to, so far, maximize individual choice and decision making by providing most goods and service through the private sector where both buyers and sellers can look after their interests relatively unhindered by the "elites" who know better than the "bitter clingers".
All we have to do to get to the nirvana of 40% tax rates is let the Government take over health care, which is 15-16% of GDP. That will get us out of the dreaded third world tax burdens, put us right there with the European Statists, and give us Amtrak like health care.
No one in their right minds would want to do that would they? What? Who? Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Barak Husein Obama you say?
Mac McCulloch
Just a friendly reminder of policy for all participating in this worthy discussion...
- No political discussions or signature messages. We know, railroads are sometimes affected by politics. However, we’ve found that political discussions almost always turn into arguments. We have a common thread of being interested in railroads. Don’t let that common bond be destroyed by political differences.
Trust me I know it's very tough not to get into "political discussions" when talking about such things but as long as we all keep it civil all is good. No complaints, just been reading the posts and thought a reminder was worth mentioning before something got out of hand in Right vs. Left conversations is all...
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
PNWRMNM The reason we have relatively low tax rates is not that we are starving the Federal Government. It is that we have chosen to, so far, maximize individual choice and decision making by providing most goods and service through the private sector where both buyers and sellers can look after their interests relatively unhindered by the "elites" who know better than the "bitter clingers". All we have to do to get to the nirvana of 40% tax rates is let the Government take over health care, which is 15-16% of GDP. That will get us out of the dreaded third world tax burdens, put us right there with the European Statists, and give us Amtrak like health care. No one in their right minds would want to do that would they? What? Who? Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Barak Husein Obama you say? Mac McCulloch
Mac, you cannot bring contemporary Democrats into this. Nor contemporary Republicans. Americans have railed (pu intended) agains railroad rates and prices since time began. The Grange was founded by farmers wishing to fight agains percieved collaboration and high rates by the railroads...this led to the forming of the ICC to regulate common carrier's and thier rates. John Jacob Astor built a subway in New York City around 1900 and charged a nickle per ride. The City Solons and the NY State Legislature did not allow that nickle fare to be raised until almost 1950, long after the City had to take over all lines in its boroughs. Farmers get their prices while the public pays far less than costs because of agriculture protective fees. The American public has always run to its government to protect them from raising prices on anything and everything. Railroad rates, passsenger fares, are not the only thing, And today is a culmination of 250 years of past. No one can play the political card on today. And our convesation is trying to build a private company devoid of government entrapments.
YoHo1975 As for unused track. I think you may be overestimating the amount of rights of way available for this type of project. Pick a corridor, any corridor, let's choose a popular proposal out west which is LA to Las Vegas. There are absolutely no existing tracks between those to cities that are not in use.
A bit OT, but there are a few rights of way that would be perfect for Amtrak (I am not sanguine about the privatization idea so I won't comment on that aspect):
1. UP west of Phoenix (currently not in use but track in place), buy it, fix it up to 90 MPH, charge UP to run trains on it (instead of heading east and then west on the mainline). It would add the biggest city in Arizona and would solve a problem for both UP and Amtrak concerning freight train interference/ speed differentials.
2. Former PRR Broadway Limited route between Chicago and Ohio, almost abandoned by Conrail, now RailAmerica and virtually devoid of trains, I am sure they would love some money for track repairs in exchange for passenger trains.
3. Old Big Four between Cincinnati and Chicago, without trains in place and run by RailAmerica and KB&S in others. Could be part of a route to Florida.
4. BNSF across Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico, keeping it open would keep passenger trains from putting freight in the hole on the Transcon, it could be fixed up to run 90MPH as it used to be. And BNSF would have an overflow route.
5. Old Rock Island between Chicago and Omaha, could also be used as a route to Peoria IL. More trains on it now but IAIS would be happy to accept signal work in exchange for passenger trains, they have said so.
What is required for this to happen? Government money, perhaps as much as $100 million for each, more for the BNSF line because it is longer.. And there is no way a private entity could do that without federal money. But all of these, if properly financed, could increase timekeeping (very few freight trains). And the money is a pittance in comparison to what we spend building highways each year.
Dwight...you are talking my language...well, almost. You found some lines that used to be private railroads, some even with passenger services. So what are we going to do about it? As a private passenger railroad service we'll have to do our market research, see if there is a need or possilbe use of passenger service, for starters. Maybe we have to form another company, a sudsidiary company, to buy and operate the track; maybe operate the service, maybe subcontract back to our main company to operate. But we don't want government money to purchase or rebuild, or even operate. At least not yet. We might talk some government or governments to contract with us to operate so that our costs are covered and a profit of some kind is earned (even if non profit, we'll need money to put into the company for growth projects).
DwightBranch YoHo1975: As for unused track. I think you may be overestimating the amount of rights of way available for this type of project. Pick a corridor, any corridor, let's choose a popular proposal out west which is LA to Las Vegas. There are absolutely no existing tracks between those to cities that are not in use. A bit OT, but there are a few rights of way that would be perfect for Amtrak (I am not sanguine about the privatization idea so I won't comment on that aspect): 1. UP west of Phoenix (currently not in use but track in place), buy it, fix it up to 90 MPH, charge UP to run trains on it (instead of heading east and then west on the mainline). It would add the biggest city in Arizona and would solve a problem for both UP and Amtrak concerning freight train interference/ speed differentials. 2. Former PRR Broadway Limited route between Chicago and Ohio, almost abandoned by Conrail, now RailAmerica and virtually devoid of trains, I am sure they would love some money for track repairs in exchange for passenger trains. 3. Old Big Four between Cincinnati and Chicago, without trains in place and run by RailAmerica and KB&S in others. Could be part of a route to Florida. 4. BNSF across Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico, keeping it open would keep passenger trains from putting freight in the hole on the Transcon, it could be fixed up to run 90MPH as it used to be. And BNSF would have an overflow route. 5. Old Rock Island between Chicago and Omaha, could also be used as a route to Peoria IL. More trains on it now but IAIS would be happy to accept signal work in exchange for passenger trains, they have said so. What is required for this to happen? Government money, perhaps as much as $100 million for each, more for the BNSF line because it is longer.. And there is no way a private entity could do that without federal money. But all of these, if properly financed, could increase timekeeping (very few freight trains). And the money is a pittance in comparison to what we spend building highways each year.
YoHo1975: As for unused track. I think you may be overestimating the amount of rights of way available for this type of project. Pick a corridor, any corridor, let's choose a popular proposal out west which is LA to Las Vegas. There are absolutely no existing tracks between those to cities that are not in use.
"A hundred million here, and a hundred million there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money."
Four projects at 100 million dollars each, and the BNSF line, maybe 200 million. A total budget of 600 million dollars?
There is a document known as the Vision Report. It offers cost estimates for the kind of thing being proposed. A 100 million dollars gets you 20 route miles of this kind of upgrade.
Here's a link to a paper examining costs for building HSR in various countries. I post without comment for informational purposes.
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12397/1/MPRA_paper_12397.pdf
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
But HSR is an entirely different topic and should not enter into our deliberations. Yet.
However, it gives an idea of costs for building lines. Cheaper for lower speed lines, of course, or upgrading some of those unused lines like the ones Dwight mentioned above. And there are others.
Henry, the value of that HSR link isn't to talk about HSR, but because it offers something akin to a pricing for construction and since Dwight pulled a number out of his nether regions and Paul correctly called him on it, it is worth discussing.
For the record, quickly skimming that report, it looks like it calculates 17.5 million Euros per kilometer of track as an average cost and the range is 6 million to 45 million. Doesn't list the median which would be most interesting.
And for those interested that works out, given what google tells me the current exchange rate is, to ~$37 million per mile of track for HSR.
Of course we're not building HSR here, but Dwight is I think very wrong on the costing here. Most of the lines he mentions are probably at best good for 25mph service. To get them to 90MPH would be a significant cost to say nothing of the various passenger platforms and PTC and everything else involved.
As an example, Trimet's WES service in the Portland Suburbs includes max speed of I think 60 MPH, PTC and upgraded signalling, a couple new bridges, station work, a Servicing facility and 3.5 DMUs. The entire length was 14.7 miles. The price tag for that was $166 Million. Even removing the cost overruns with Colorado railcar and the bailout Trimet provided, that works out to quite a princely sum for 14.7 miles of 60MPH track.
Although I do think that the Arrangement that WES operates under with PNWR providing the operations for the service is worth discussing as it relates to this topic.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.