I have to agree with some of the thoughts in the last comment. But why does Amtrak run money-loosing long distance trains that do not make a huge impact on traffic congestion or airport congestion? Because a majority of the USA citizens think this benefits the country, and I happen to agree with these fellow citizens, since it provides far better mobility for the handicapped and elderly, sujppports internal and external tourism, and provides back-up ememrgency transportation when airplanes are grounded. It is also fair. Traffic congestion and lack of available land force us to subsidize the business traveler in corridors and commuter lines. Fairness says we should also subsidize the handicapped and the elderly and the internal tourist who uses rail once a year or once a lifetime, as will as the businesman who uses rail twice a day or once a week.
If the people in a representative republic a passenger rail system, it is their option. They should be prepared to pay for it. Ideally, the users of all modes of transport would pay the full cost of each mode at the price point, i.e. ticket counter, fuel taxes, etc. This includes intercity passenger rail. However, given the politics of transportation, this is not likely to happen. So all modes of transportation in most countries will be supported by a complex array of hidden subsidies. This does not, however, preclude an alternative to the government run monopoly called Amtrak.
A better model than Amtrak would be to bid out segments of the system to the lowest effective cost bidder. This is what the Australians did with their most prominent national intercity trains, i.e. Indian Pacific, The Ghan, and The Overland. With contract renewal hanging over their heads, the contractors have a big incentive to operate a competitive, market oriented, customer focused passenger rail service. Amtrak has no similar incentive. All it has to do is pander to the politicians.
Sam1 According to the Energy Institute at UT, "to date, oil and gas regulators and other experts in groundwater protection have found little evidence of a direct link between fracing and groundwater contamination, but no comprehensive study of the technology and its effects has been conducted." UT's studies to date have found some environmental problems with fracing, but in many instances they appear to be similar to the problems associated with the traditional methods of oil and gas exploration, i.e. surface water contamination because of poor well head practices. UT is collaborating with Syracuse University, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the EPA, as well as others, to help determine the long term consequences of fracing. This is their spelling and apparently is interchangeable with fracking. More information can be found at the Institute's website. What this has to do with Amtrak, by the way, escapes me?
According to the Energy Institute at UT, "to date, oil and gas regulators and other experts in groundwater protection have found little evidence of a direct link between fracing and groundwater contamination, but no comprehensive study of the technology and its effects has been conducted."
UT's studies to date have found some environmental problems with fracing, but in many instances they appear to be similar to the problems associated with the traditional methods of oil and gas exploration, i.e. surface water contamination because of poor well head practices. UT is collaborating with Syracuse University, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the EPA, as well as others, to help determine the long term consequences of fracing. This is their spelling and apparently is interchangeable with fracking. More information can be found at the Institute's website. What this has to do with Amtrak, by the way, escapes me?
This UT study you quote may be good for Texas but it doesn't hold up in PA where water has been contaminated so bad people have had to sell their properties and move, the water is undrinkable and the enviroment has reduced foliage or damaged others, animal life has had negative effects. And the damned gas companies paid $3 an acre. This only part of the scam these thugs have pulled in the east. NJ has said no to fracking, New York City has determined they can't have it in their watershed, and the rest of us in the State look over the boarder into PA and say we don't want it either. The more we learn, the worse it sounds. The worse it sounds, the more we realize that we have been lied to and don't want fracking by these greedy thugs from Texas or anywhere else to ruin our land and our lives. I'm gonna stop now, before I really get started about this....
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.
Good discussion all around, although on the subject of the long-distance trains I think we sometimes forget that these are the reason for Amtrak's very existence. They are why Amtrak is here. Moreover, I think you can argue convincingly that they are no LESS necessary than they were going into 1971, shorn of most of their mail and running around the country half-empty. (Faint praise, I know.)
"Corridors" are nice and I am in favor of more of them. But Amtrak's MANDATE, until Congress says otherwise, is long-distance trains. Those who like to ride them, even while deploring their lack of economy, should be able to make their peace with that.
First, Dave, you sound like a CPA bottom liner: everything has to have a profit or be eliminate. This not taking into account a system as a whole which either has to provide the service to feed the rest of the system or to uphold a certain amount of public responsiblity to maintain their charter agreement.
And Sam, you say that a service must be paid for by those who use it. So, in the case of Amtrak and long distance trains (presumably the target is the Empire Builder across the Northern Tier to the Northwest), government ownership of Amtrak to provide that service is the payment.
The charge that Amtrak has to turn a profit is a charge that all involved know is unobtainable and unfair. But rather that working with Amtrak, or allowing Amtrak to work, they fight it on political grounds using money and not economics as their arguement. Again I say, Amtrak should be legislativly restructured to allow for more long term planning and financeing. Management can only do the job they are restricted to doing. Day to day, month to month, year to year, congressional session to congressional session. Even the best managers cannot do what has been suggested here because they are handcuffed by the politics and Congressional strings attached to Amtrak. To achieve what you want, it has to be redifined.
henry6 Don, how and why do you thing Amtrak got to be what it is today? Congress has them on a bungee cord or yo-yo and plays with the funding. It will not allow for normal business long term planning and funding. Amtrak does what it can from one Congressional session to the next..
Don, how and why do you thing Amtrak got to be what it is today? Congress has them on a bungee cord or yo-yo and plays with the funding. It will not allow for normal business long term planning and funding. Amtrak does what it can from one Congressional session to the next..
I think in large measure, they were maneuvered into the position they now occupy by Congress. But, to a very large degree, they did little to keep from getting there. In fact, they seem to gone willingly hand - in - hand with Congress. And, now, they have almost lost their grip on reality.
An example? The $170B "new" NEC project they spend lots of time and money on. Really. $170B? What planet are they living on? There is no doubt the NEC needs lots of TLC and, over time, chucks replaced with new alignments for higher speeds, but to roll the whole thing out there with that price tag just invokes laughter.
Why laughter? Because of their track record. Primarily because of the economics of the LD trains and the "tail wagging the dog", 4" too wide, Acela debacle (see Don Phillip's latest column).
The last innovation on LD trains? Long crew pools - from the Claytor era. Before that? Increasing passenger density with Superliners - an idea that came from the 1950s ATSF. Since then? China or plastic? To grill or not to grill? Really? That's it?
OK. How about high speed train operation? You need this to develop new corridors.
How long has Amtrak been working on ITCS in Michigan? It's closing in on 20 years now and they have finally gotten the speeds up to 110 mph. The hardware's been there for a decade.
ACSES signal system on the NEC? Developed in a vacuum by Amtrak. Not compatible in any general way with the industry effort toward PTC. It's confusing layered system of multi-carrier frequency cab signals and track transponders. Not compatible with ITCS, either. And ITCS is not compatible with PTC.
Amtrak, somehow, hired over 200 new staff people over the past several years. Not operational support, which you might need as ridership increases - to some extent. Staff people. Then there was all the histrionics over staff cuts - of about 200 people. Hmmmm.
And, I'll leave you with "did Congress make them buy baggage cars?"
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Don...check out the history of Amtrak...it was created by Congress with the public idea of alleviating freight railroads the burden of providing passenger service, It set up a format of political appointments and congressional favorite routes. It was called upon to make a profit. But the real problem was that short term planning and funding from an ever politically chaning Congress did not allow for proper administrating and operating. It has not evolved as much as it has exisited from hand to mouth, day to day. Airline executive, business entrapeneurs, railroaders, and politicians and political administrators have all had turns at the helm...but they have not had full reign becausef of Congressional and political restraints.
SantaFeJoe Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years!!!! We have more oil than all of the arab states combined. In addition oil is a renewable resource!!!!!!!! Many of the oil wells that were thought to have been pumped dry have new crude in them. We are awash in oil. It is a great fuel and hundreds of years of resources that can be potentially be used. In that time I am sure we can find alternatives BUT we derive so many benefits from oil that contribute so much to our way of life. Trains lead the way in using continually more fuel efficient engines. We have all kinds of technology that make exhaust emissions almost minimal. ...
Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years!!!! We have more oil than all of the arab states combined. In addition oil is a renewable resource!!!!!!!! Many of the oil wells that were thought to have been pumped dry have new crude in them. We are awash in oil. It is a great fuel and hundreds of years of resources that can be potentially be used. In that time I am sure we can find alternatives BUT we derive so many benefits from oil that contribute so much to our way of life. Trains lead the way in using continually more fuel efficient engines. We have all kinds of technology that make exhaust emissions almost minimal. ...
The Bakken oil reservoir is indeed a giant field and may someday surpass the Prudhoe Bay, Alaska field. It's size and accessibility seems to have brought out a lot fortune seekers. The reserves guesstimated at 100s of years of use have been making the rounds on the internet for a few years. The consensus of some of the larger drillers, of recoverable reserves, is about 20 billion barrels.
http://www.worldoil.com/May-2012-Bakken-Three-Forks-Infrastructure-takeaway-woes-only-threats-to-high-activity.html
Present US consumption is about 19 million barrels per day.
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2
That works to a little over a 1000 days, or about 3 years worth of US consumption. Even if technology allows twice the amount of reserves to be produced, that still would be only about 1/100 th of the 700 year claim.
As a geologist with decades of experience in Oil & Gas, I wanted to say few things about wells being pumped "dry": When a successful well is first drilled, oil may produce at a fast rate. But as pressure is depleted and the oil must travel further thru the porous rock toward the wellbore, production drops off until the rate is so slow, it becomes uneconomical to produce (rather than being totally dry.) If the well is shut in for years, formation water pressure will continue to push some of the remaining oil toward the wellbore. If the well is reopened, production may recover for a time, but will soon go back to the slow rate. This is not new oil, but just what was left of the old. Oil fields take millions of years to naturally develop, and can not be considered a renewable resource.
But like you say, passenger diesel use the fuel efficiently, and being that there are so few passenger trains, they are not a big drain on the reserves that we do have.
I don´t know what´s ahead for AMTRAK - any idea on that is somehow like looking into a crystal ball. As long as AMTRAK´s mandate is to provide some sort of long distance passenger rail service, it will just do that, within the budgetary framework assigned by Congress.
We all know that this is no way to properly run a railroad, let alone to develop it into a modern passenger carrier. To do that, AMTRAK would require a different mandate, different organization, maybe different management, but also different funding.
What I got out of the cover story is that
1) Boardman had the chance to shine but he dropped the ball on two issues:
a) He let Union Pacific get away with extortion, plain and simple. How do you let the railroad toss a $1 billion claim without challenging it to the STB? Also, if what the sources said about Paul Vilter’s efforts to challenge UP’s data are spot on, then, it is Boardman’s fault that he was not allowed to.
b) How can anyone defend Boardman’s unwillingness to convert the last triweekly Eastern train to daily status? After CSX gave Amtrak the silent treatment on this simple task, CSX inaction was one-upped by Amtrak inaction. Inexcusable!
2) with these quotes…
Sam1 If I were Boardman, Mr. Frailey would not be welcome at the corporate headquarters or anywhere else on the property.
If I were Boardman, Mr. Frailey would not be welcome at the corporate headquarters or anywhere else on the property.
dakotafred Amtrak has neither the political power to abandon the long-distance routes (as some here advocate) nor the money to increase frequencies over the routes and provide a real "service" (as others want). I suppose it could shed the sleepers and go back to sandwiches and plastic in the dining cars, but then you're running buses on rails and still losing money, if not quite so much. This being an imperfect world -- "What the heck, I'll take it anyway," as Hobbes said to Calvin, in the comic strip -- I'll take Amtrak as it is, warts and all. Its cost? Give me a break. Washington spills more than that 365 days of the year -- before noon.
Amtrak has neither the political power to abandon the long-distance routes (as some here advocate) nor the money to increase frequencies over the routes and provide a real "service" (as others want). I suppose it could shed the sleepers and go back to sandwiches and plastic in the dining cars, but then you're running buses on rails and still losing money, if not quite so much.
This being an imperfect world -- "What the heck, I'll take it anyway," as Hobbes said to Calvin, in the comic strip -- I'll take Amtrak as it is, warts and all. Its cost? Give me a break. Washington spills more than that 365 days of the year -- before noon.
…it’s quite apparent to me that the bulk of the rail community is stuck in its old ways. As passenger rail moves from merely surviving to having to deal with possible competition, advocates are still blindly defending much of what Amtrak is doing—even if it’s outdated or promotes the company’s continued mediocrity when it should be developing a long-term plan that involves real expansion as a way to combat other companies targeting Amtrak routes.
Sir Madog I don´t know what´s ahead for AMTRAK - any idea on that is somehow like looking into a crystal ball. As long as AMTRAK´s mandate is to provide some sort of long distance passenger rail service, it will just do that, within the budgetary framework assigned by Congress. We all know that this is no way to properly in a railroad, let alone to develop it into a modern passenger carrier. To do that, AMTRAK would require a different mandate, different organization, maybe different management, but also different funding.
We all know that this is no way to properly in a railroad, let alone to develop it into a modern passenger carrier. To do that, AMTRAK would require a different mandate, different organization, maybe different management, but also different funding.
BINGO! That's what a lot of us have been saying for decades!!!
KRTrveler: You are right about the bulk of the rail community...and the US...is stuck in its old ways. Cars move people, trains move goods, bankers move money, congress moves slow or not at all. With Amtrak being an toy of Congerss, the railroad gets a different signal with each session, and a different book of rules with each Congress. In many respects Joe Boardman has had much success bieng president of Amtrak if only because he has been able to weave in and out of the political maze. Boardman came up through the goverenment/public service side of the game rather than through the business or even railroad ranks. He started as bus and trasnsportaiton managers to NYS DOT head to the FRA and then to Amtrak...so he has been able to last because he knows the political maze and how to maneuver through it rather than try to knock down the walls to go in a straight line. He has made achievements for Amtrak that other's haven't. It's like Kenny Roger's song, The Gmbler: you've got to know when to hold up, know when to fold up, There may have been better railroaders or businessmen in the seat before, but none of them have lasted and been able to have as broad or general accomplishment than Boardman, all have been narrow achievements, althought important in their own rway.
Sam keeps repeating that if people use a service, they should pay for it.
Sam, if I remodel an old defunct theatre, I am obligated to install all kinds of measures, special elevators, ramps, hard of hearing devices, just so handicapped, blind, deaf, and elderly people can enjoy the shows I present/ All this investment, and some matters also involve operating costs, does not bring in near the income this necessary compliance with the Dissabled etc. acts require of me. So I am forced, even though I paid for the threatre and own it, to subsidize these deaf, blind, handicapped, and elderly people. The American people have decided that is fair.
Just like long distance trains for the same population and internal tourism.
Now, Great Britain went the bidding process of specific routes route . The results have been generally better service in most cases, but worse in some and some loss of connectivity, but a huge increase in subsidy costs, even acounting for inflation. Why? Because of loss of economies of scale.
The British readers of this thread can verify my comment.
Another point Dave, is that even if I don't use a service but should (and do) pay for it through taxes or whatever is alright because I get a benefit in that perhaps point E to M in that system moves a certain item in the manufacture of cars or food or whatever and I can buy that product because of teh transportation. Or by taking automobiles off the road, it makes it easier for truckers to get through. We don't seem to be able to accept universal or social benifits from something. I don't fly. But my county pays huge amounts of money to pay for an airport comlex and its employees. But businesses benefit from air freight in and out, their management and sales staffs able to travel, and their customers even can visit or sales people can come in. So the business can operate, thrive, employ people and pay taxes.
I guess what I am saying is that you really can't draw a line or maybe that you have to draw a line, to figure out who benefits and who doesn't But then what would that tell you, what would that decided?
henry6 In many respects Joe Boardman has had much success bieng president of Amtrak if only because he has been able to weave in and out of the political maze. It's like Kenny Roger's song, The Gmbler: you've got to know when to hold up, know when to fold up, There may have been better railroaders or businessmen in the seat before, but none of them have lasted and been able to have as broad or general accomplishment than Boardman, all have been narrow achievements, althought important in their own rway.
In many respects Joe Boardman has had much success bieng president of Amtrak if only because he has been able to weave in and out of the political maze. It's like Kenny Roger's song, The Gmbler: you've got to know when to hold up, know when to fold up, There may have been better railroaders or businessmen in the seat before, but none of them have lasted and been able to have as broad or general accomplishment than Boardman, all have been narrow achievements, althought important in their own rway.
Henry; you have hit the nail on the head. just now Congress in its infinite wisdom cut the AMTRAK operating budget exactly the amount that they saved from the year before. Now what incentative does that give management to become more efficient?
One strange reported item that I haven't been able to confirm yet is that the house appropriated a $500 M item for bridge and tunnel repairs on top of the operating budget ? That seems to this poster that Congress is still not decided on AMTRAK.
daveklepper Sam keeps repeating that if people use a service, they should pay for it. Sam, if I remodel an old defunct theatre, I am obligated to install all kinds of measures, special elevators, ramps, hard of hearing devices, just so handicapped, blind, deaf, and elderly people can enjoy the shows I present/ All this investment, and some matters also involve operating costs, does not bring in near the income this necessary compliance with the Dissabled etc. acts require of me. So I am forced, even though I paid for the threatre and own it, to subsidize these deaf, blind, handicapped, and elderly people. The American people have decided that is fair. Just like long distance trains for the same population and internal tourism. Now, Great Britain went the bidding process of specific routes route . The results have been generally better service in most cases, but worse in some and some loss of connectivity, but a huge increase in subsidy costs, even acounting for inflation. Why? Because of loss of economies of scale. The British readers of this thread can verify my comment.
The owners of Dell Diamond, which is located in Round Rock, TX and is the home field for the Round Rock Express, which is the Texas Rangers AAA minor league baseball team, must comply with a variety of safety and ADA regulations. At the end of the day, however, the patrons pay for these requirements. The cost is embedded in the ticket price. The taxpayers do not pick-up the tab.
To the extent that the true cost of a service is not reflected in the price paid by the customer, i.e. ticket price, fuel taxes, user fees, etc., the users are not fully aware of the cost of their choices and, therefore, may over use or under use a service, product, commodity, etc. One of the best examples of this is found in the price of gasoline in the United States, which does not reflect the true cost of driving, e.g. cost of local streets, county roads, etc. As a result Americans have tended to buy large, gas guzzling SUVs and pick-ups. If the true price of driving were reflected in the price paid at the pump, they may have chosen more fuel efficient vehicles. For this reason I have argued that each mode of transport should stand on its own feet, i.e. no subsidies, with the possible exception of low cost, government loans to develop infrastructure that would be paid back by the users. This would mean, of course, that outside of a few high density corridors passenger rail probably would be dead in the water.
I don't buy your argument that the taxpayer has an obligation to support long distance trains because they promote tourism, which is a dubious assertion, or to provide transport options for the disabled. If this argument had merit, then the United States should offer passenger rail service to every community in the United States with a population of 25,000 or more, which is out of the question. The country, which has a combined national, state, and local debt in excess of $19 trillion, could not afford it.
Properly regulated, competitive markets will always trump government run commercial enterprises. Why wouldn't they. Government enterprises, which are usually monopolies, have little incentive to do things better, faster, cheaper. The operative word is better.
In 1990 most major businesses in Australia were owned by the government or very tightly regulated. Included in this model were the nation's airlines, railways, banks, telecommunication companies, electric utilities, etc. Then the Australians decided to go for more open, competitive, properly regulated markets. They privatized a slew of commercial activities. Today, as a result, along with some good luck, Australia has one of the most vibrant economies of any OECD country. Far more than the U.S. economy.
By now it is no secret that I believe markets are a better vehicle for the allocation of scarce economic resources.And that includes passenger rail. If it cannot stand on its own, it should be allow to wither. Having said that, if all transport subsidies were eliminated, passenger rail probably could survice in relatively short, high density corridors. But the operators would have to be allowed to implement modern work practices, up to date technologies, and relevant marketing strategies. As noted in a previous post, a group of Italian business persons are giving it a go. I hope that they succeed.
I think that bridge and tunnel money, Blue Streak, is to be sunk in the NJ Meadows for replacing two tracked, century old Portal Bridge and add two bores under the Hudson. That's the politics of Amtrak. This is not money for Amtrak but for NJ and NY who need to get employees and tourists in and out of the city as well as keeping an open track between Times Square and Union Station in Washington.
But Sam, this arguement of one paying for what he uses or not paying for what he doesn't use has been around and has been circled with government programs and business and government partnerships so much, that it won't go away here...we will kill each other...really, we will, there will be read bloodshed and murder here...if the same were to be tried here as in Austrailia. I'll even toss the first volley: American businesses have not proven they can be trusted...every time we deregulate something, or turn our heads on oversight, we meet economic chaos and near disasters. And niether the business men nor the politicians nor the people learn so we keep repeating our mistakes and misfortunes without addressing what causes them.
henry6 I'll even toss the first volley: American businesses have not proven they can be trusted...every time we deregulate something, or turn our heads on oversight, we meet economic chaos and near disasters.
I'll even toss the first volley: American businesses have not proven they can be trusted...every time we deregulate something, or turn our heads on oversight, we meet economic chaos and near disasters.
Couldn't have been said any clearer by Joseph Stiglitz in Freefall.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm henry6: I'll even toss the first volley: American businesses have not proven they can be trusted...every time we deregulate something, or turn our heads on oversight, we meet economic chaos and near disasters. Couldn't have been said any clearer by Joseph Stiglitz in Freefall.
henry6: I'll even toss the first volley: American businesses have not proven they can be trusted...every time we deregulate something, or turn our heads on oversight, we meet economic chaos and near disasters.
Quite a sweeping generalization. In 2008 there were 5,847,221 corporations in the United States. Most of them were S Chapter corporations. Of that number 3,183,821 had reportable taxable income as per the IRS. It must take a super coordinated effort by the heads of the nation's businesses to show that they cannot be trusted.
Are you lumping the heads of the nation's railroads, including Amtrak, amongst those who cannot be trusted or are you giving them a pass?
Lets face it, Sam1, today's big business and its managment does not appear to be anything but greedy with a wont to run ramshod over the American public disavowing laws and regulations. They cut jobs while eliminating or downsizing products and services or reduce quality. At the same time they appear to take more money and perks for themselves. In the banking, investing, insurance sector, they continue the practice and procedures that brought us down in 2008. I will give you the point about railroad executives who have steered their idle time and excess dollars into improving their intrastructure and increase their inventory of locomotiives and equipment to ready for the return and upturn of business. But they appear to be the exception to the rule. CP presents a yellow flag where investors has overturned management because of poor performance and return. Whether this will present opportunities for increased productivity, efficiencey, and profits without dismantling of the property and dismissal of huge numbers of employees is yet to be seen.
Basically, the appearence of greed and disregard from the CEO's and companies which led us into the recession has tainted the air and made many of us suspicious of all. When we see a turnaround in their behavior and of our fate, then we may stop generalizing and pick on the offenders singely and by name.
Exactly, Sam, it is included in the ticket price. But the handicapped who benefit from the expensive hard-of-hearing systme in my theatre and the services of the sound system operator that has to be paid are subsidized by the ticket holders who have no nead of this service. Diitto the handicapped provisions.
In nearly all democratic societies, couples with many children pay less taxes than those with no children. Children get free education, paid f or by trax payers.
Education is important, and is funded by tax money. I happen to think long distance rail service is also important, even as part of education. Not as important as education, but mobility of the handicapped and elderly for the enitre country is important to me, if not for you.
When you use an elevator in an apartment house, store, or office building, you are getting absolutely free transportation. There is a difference in direction and scale, but it is sitll transportation!
daveklepper Exactly, Sam, it is included in the ticket price. But the handicapped who benefit from the expensive hard-of-hearing systme in my theatre and the services of the sound system operator that has to be paid are subsidized by the ticket holders who have no nead of this service. Diitto the handicapped provisions. In nearly all democratic societies, couples with many children pay less taxes than those with no children. Children get free education, paid f or by trax payers. Education is important, and is funded by tax money. I happen to think long distance rail service is also important, even as part of education. Not as important as education, but mobility of the handicapped and elderly for the enitre country is important to me, if not for you. When you use an elevator in an apartment house, store, or office building, you are getting absolutely free transportation. There is a difference in direction and scale, but it is sitll transportation!
Having general ticket buyers pay a very small premium to subsidize ADA compliance in a public venue is one thing. Having people without children pay for public eduction on the theory that society as a whole benefits is another thing.
Requiring single people to pay higher income taxes is unfair. Where is it written that they work less hard or have lower skills than married people. This feature in the tax code falls under the heading of politics of envy. Subsidizing intercity passenger railroad trains, especially the long distance trains that are used by less than one per cent of intercity travelers, makes no sense. No real intercity transport need is served. And if there is a need for commercial intercity service for the cities served by the long distance trains, it can be provided by commercial bus operators.
As I have said on numerous occasions, I am all for intercity passenger rail in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the airways and highways is prohibitive. I would like to see the users pay for the services. As noted in another post re: new station in Miami, hopefully we will get to a point where the short corridor services can be privatized, and the users will pay for the services through the fare box. The proposed private operations in Florida and Italy may show us how it can be done.
Needless to say, at this point we see the world differently and are not like to change our views.
henry6 Lets face it, Sam1, today's big business and its managment does not appear to be anything but greedy with a wont to run ramshod over the American public disavowing laws and regulations. They cut jobs while eliminating or downsizing products and services or reduce quality. At the same time they appear to take more money and perks for themselves. In the banking, investing, insurance sector, they continue the practice and procedures that brought us down in 2008. I will give you the point about railroad executives who have steered their idle time and excess dollars into improving their intrastructure and increase their inventory of locomotiives and equipment to ready for the return and upturn of business. But they appear to be the exception to the rule. CP presents a yellow flag where investors has overturned management because of poor performance and return. Whether this will present opportunities for increased productivity, efficiencey, and profits without dismantling of the property and dismissal of huge numbers of employees is yet to be seen. Basically, the appearence of greed and disregard from the CEO's and companies which led us into the recession has tainted the air and made many of us suspicious of all. When we see a turnaround in their behavior and of our fate, then we may stop generalizing and pick on the offenders singely and by name.
I disagree with your analysis. It is time to move on.
No, intercity motor coaches do not provide the same service, the total area per passenger is about half that provided by an intercity train before you even count the food service areas. Yes, I have and will probably use greyhound on occasion to catch up with my party though the last time was a bit much, I could see the lav tank fluid beneath the seat, no toilet bowl present.
And this is from a carrier that is using a facility built almost entirely by non users. It really isn't a good deal economically as you suppose.
But the cost of renovation of my theatre was increased by 35% (and you can check on this by contacting architects who have done theatre rernovation projects) and the cost of operation, including special elevators and the hard of hearing systems operators salary by 15%, and this subsidizes 2 or 3% of the ticket holders who need the services of the handicapped ramps, special elevators, and hard of hearing system.
So you believe subsidies are OK for the handicapped and elderly when they go to a theatre and are part of somewhat private industry (but the theatre could also have been the Municipall theatre or auditorium, and many inadequate technically poor ones were constructed under WPA in ther 1930's and modernized in 1970-90 with tzx money), but want to discriminate against them and deny them access to the breadth of the country in transportation.
My case is simiple. We have to subsidize the corridors, either in capitol costs, or operating costs or both. Otherwise, gridlock in airports and or highways. But it is unfair to subsidize the user of the corridor and not subsidize the elderly and handicapped who require the long distance trains.
The 1? (or even less) per cent of people who use long distance trains is based ON PASSENGER JOURNEYS AND NOT ON THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER YEAR USING THE SERVICE. That is obvious and well known. The elderly or handicapped person who uses the long distance train once a year, will be counted as two, one for each direction of a round trip. The business passenger who commutes five days a week for say fifty weeks a year will be counted as 500. Sam says it is OK to subsidize the business passenger but not the once a year vacationer. I think that is extremely, extremely unfair.
Sam and I have had this argument over and over again. Neither side convinces the other. To say "people should pay for the costs of the services they get" is a useful mantra in many ways, but not, in my opinion, with in total with regard to ground transportation under present circumstances with the history of specific investments, encouragemen of specific industries, land taking, even n ational defense and emergency requiprements, and much else.
Sams arguement on each mode of transportation paying for itself without subsidy is a recipe for the United States to become a third world country. It's pure nonsense and hopefully will forever be treated as such. The fact is the United States is competing on a world stage with countries that are pouring billions into their ifrastructure and very little of it based on user fees. For the U.S. to flip entirely to a unsubsidized model in that environment would mean an EPIC FAIL in economic competitiveness of this Country. Further apart from the Countries we are competing against.....our transportation system cannot be supported entirely by user fees without significantly and negatively impacting year to year Economic growth. We tried it with our Private Freight railway industry and look where we are now, we have a freight rail system feverishly trying to add capacity BUT is limited by the amount of capital it has on hand, we have shippers suing the same industry for attempting to cover their true capital costs of carrying the freight, eventually the government is going to have to step in and fund some large scale freight rail projects (and they already have) because the private railroads cannot handle the entire burden financially. Even the ones earning their full cost of capital do not have enough money to do so.
It's interesting reading Sams posts but his theories have already been proven NOT to work in practice in this country, they would be a disaster if applied today for our economic competiveness against other countries.......none of which are following his "model".
The US is a Republic but also a Social Democracy where private interests and government work together for each's greater good. We have been that way since the beginning. I don't use the California Coast Highway or Route 80 across Nevada nor the port facilities in the states of Oregon or Washington nor the Intercoastal Waterway from Maine to Key West. Should they all be abandoned because I pay but don't use? We are not built on usage but on broad benefits for all. Private enterprise has always, is now, and forever will call on governments to kick in to help make things occur for the enterprise and the people.
CMStPnP Sams arguement on each mode of transportation paying for itself without subsidy is a recipe for the United States to become a third world country. It's pure nonsense and hopefully will forever be treated as such. The fact is the United States is competing on a world stage with countries that are pouring billions into their ifrastructure and very little of it based on user fees. For the U.S. to flip entirely to a unsubsidized model in that environment would mean an EPIC FAIL in economic competitiveness of this Country. Further apart from the Countries we are competing against.....our transportation system cannot be supported entirely by user fees without significantly and negatively impacting year to year Economic growth. We tried it with our Private Freight railway industry and look where we are now, we have a freight rail system feverishly trying to add capacity BUT is limited by the amount of capital it has on hand, we have shippers suing the same industry for attempting to cover their true capital costs of carrying the freight, eventually the government is going to have to step in and fund some large scale freight rail projects (and they already have) because the private railroads cannot handle the entire burden financially. Even the ones earning their full cost of capital do not have enough money to do so. It's interesting reading Sams posts but his theories have already been proven NOT to work in practice in this country, they would be a disaster if applied today for our economic competiveness against other countries.......none of which are following his "model".
My views are not unlike those of Milton Friedman, Joseph Schumpeter, Martin Feldstein, etc. They may differ from yours, but they are not nonsense. Calling other view points nonsense does little to add to or further a discussion.
I studied with Milton Friedman when I was an undergraduate at MIT 1949 - 1953 (one Semester economics course). You are right, they arre not nonsense and are applicable to a wide variety of manufacturing, farming, and service industries. They may have been applicable to transportation at one time, but the massive government interference that you object to already occured and it furthered highway and air transportation massively over rail transportation. YOu will find NO reasonably sized developed country in the world that does not subsidize rail transportation, including passenger rail transportation to some extent today. I am not a Socialist. I am definitely in favor of free market capitalism where there is a level playing field. But railroads, and particularly passenger railroading, does not have a level playing field. The massive government capital investment in interstate highways and airports has already occured, and private capital expecting a decent return, did not make the investment. Governments at vairous levels did that and are happy to get the bonds paid off or even just make operating costs.
The kind of automation and advanced thinking that produced the machanical sorting of mail at major post offices could have just as well been applied to make railway post offices far more efficient, and the USA would have far better mail service today. It really was the removal of the post office business that finally put passssenger train service into a money loosing tailspin. The conversion to post office automation was a government investment.
daveklepper I studied with Milton Friedman when I was an undergraduate at MIT 1949 - 1953 (one Semester economics course). You are right, they arre not nonsense and are applicable to a wide variety of manufacturing, farming, and service industries. They may have been applicable to transportation at one time, but the massive government interference that you object to already occured and it furthered highway and air transportation massively over rail transportation. YOu will find NO reasonably sized developed country in the world that does not subsidize rail transportation, including passenger rail transportation to some extent today. I am not a Socialist. I am definitely in favor of free market capitalism where there is a level playing field. But railroads, and particularly passenger railroading, does not have a level playing field. The massive government capital investment in interstate highways and airports has already occured, and private capital expecting a decent return, did not make the investment. Governments at vairous levels did that and are happy to get the bonds paid off or even just make operating costs. The kind of automation and advanced thinking that produced the machanical sorting of mail at major post offices could have just as well been applied to make railway post offices far more efficient, and the USA would have far better mail service today. It really was the removal of the post office business that finally put passssenger train service into a money loosing tailspin. The conversion to post office automation was a government investment.
Nothing that you have said means that some or all of the current approach could not be reversed to some extent. In Texas new toll roads are being funded, at least in part, by private investors, some times with government incentives, with good outcomes. Moreover, there is nothing to say that some areas of the country could not or would not support privately funded passenger rail.
Private developers probably could not afford to build the whole system. But they might be able to pay their fair share of an existing railway, i.e. just as truckers, bus operators, etc. pay a share of the highways, which they argue is a fair share. This is what the south Florida experiment is all about. Well see how it goes.
I spent most of my working life in the electric utility business. As one of the last bastions of regulated monopolies everyone said that industry could not be opened to competition. They were wrong. It has been done in Texas and Australia as well as several other areas. I was part of the driving force that brought it about in Texas. It was like pulling teeth. But we got it done.
What they do in other countries, especially European countries, may be the best fit for the problems facing those countries. Given the disastrous outcomes stemming from the European debt crisis, I hardly think that we want to emulate them. What they do in Australia, where I lived for more than five years, has been good for Australia. They may have some good practices there that we should consider, but at the end of the day we should craft solutions that fit our problems within the context of our culture.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.