blue streak 1 Henry; affter reading much of sam's posts it seems that the gist comes from the play book of the lobbiying outfit of ALEC.
Henry; affter reading much of sam's posts it seems that the gist comes from the play book of the lobbiying outfit of ALEC.
You don't have a clue about my politics. Now, just what factual evidence to do you have to refute which point?
henry6 Just stepped in in a moment of boredom and read thru some ot the stuff here. I will take back my statement about Sam having all the answers. If everyone steps back and reads all arguements presented Sam it is apparent she does not have all the answers but the only answer...at least the only one she'll accept. The rest of you guys are wasting a lot of keyboard strokes trying to change her mind or win one single concession. There is a counter statement to everyone's statements and a refusal to accept anyone's observations or statements...That's why I got frustrated and gave up.
Just stepped in in a moment of boredom and read thru some ot the stuff here. I will take back my statement about Sam having all the answers. If everyone steps back and reads all arguements presented Sam it is apparent she does not have all the answers but the only answer...at least the only one she'll accept. The rest of you guys are wasting a lot of keyboard strokes trying to change her mind or win one single concession. There is a counter statement to everyone's statements and a refusal to accept anyone's observations or statements...That's why I got frustrated and gave up.
The counter statement only comes when the presenting statement is wrong, i.e. wide sweeping generalizations without any supporting evidence. My arguments are almost always buttressed with verifiable financial data and statistics. That is not going to change.
...and so the truth lies somewhere in the middle...and it just may be closer to Sam1's points than some like.....oh well, oops....
I still think city pairs would work. And only city pairs...one way...offer bonds....
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Henry; affter reading much of sam's posts it seems that the gist comes from the play book of the lobbying outfit of ALEC.
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.
Sam1 The reason to question the subsidies paid to Amtrak is because of the amount per passenger mile. They are the highest transport subsidies by as much as 20 times those for other modes of transport. That's in my spread sheets.
The reason to question the subsidies paid to Amtrak is because of the amount per passenger mile. They are the highest transport subsidies by as much as 20 times those for other modes of transport. That's in my spread sheets.
My first reaction was to doubt the 20 times figure but as I thought more about it, it began to pass my "smell test". Common sense suggests that there's a relationship between usage and the subsidy per passenger mile. The higher the usage, the lower the subsidy and conversely, as in the case of Amtrak, the lower the usage, the greater the subsidy per passenger mile.
Since you've already done the analysis, would you consider sharing with us what your spread sheets show to be the subsidy per passenger mile for the different modes of transport? These data should put to rest many of the arguments (my own included) presented on this and the other locked thread which are based on emotion and snippets of knowledge.
Sam1 Amtrak runs long distance trains that carry less than one per cent of intercity travelers, which is not the best allocation of the country's resources.
Amtrak runs long distance trains that carry less than one per cent of intercity travelers, which is not the best allocation of the country's resources.
Few passengers ride LD trains their entire route from from one end point terminal to the other (NEC excepted). The vast majority ride between intermediate stops or from an intermediate stop and an end point terminal. This suggest to me that perhaps we should think of LD trains as being akin to Essential Air Service (EAS). My knowledge of EAS is limited to its objective which I believe is to establish or maintain air transport to smaller cites that might otherwise be neglected by the airlines in favor of their more densely travelled and therefore more profitable routes. If the data is available it would be interesting to see a comparison of the subsidy per passenger mile paid for EAS vs that paid for LD Amtrak service.
Sam1 Since its inception Amtrak has lost more than $28 billion. This information can be found in the Amtrak FY11 financials if you want to verify it.
Since its inception Amtrak has lost more than $28 billion. This information can be found in the Amtrak FY11 financials if you want to verify it.
After adjustments for inflation doesn't the data show a reduction in yearly Amtrak losses that corresponds with the increases in ridership in recent years?
Sam1 The key question is where does passenger rail make sense? What should it look like and how should it be funded?
The key question is where does passenger rail make sense? What should it look like and how should it be funded?
I totally agree!! This should be the basis for any further discussions.
As always, thank you, Sam, for your insightful comments and for the work you have done to develop the information on which they are based. Any comments on the points I have brought up in this reply would likewise be appreciated.
Mark
schlimm "Include an analysis of the statistical methodogy used to obtain the information. I don't find anything too tedious to go through as long as it is factual and based on relevant methodology; 2007 data is five years old." Yes, sam1, perhaps you might do the same thing with your information that you command others to do with theirs?
"Include an analysis of the statistical methodogy used to obtain the information. I don't find anything too tedious to go through as long as it is factual and based on relevant methodology; 2007 data is five years old."
Yes, sam1, perhaps you might do the same thing with your information that you command others to do with theirs?
The statistical information that I present speaks for itself and does not require further elaboration, i.e. the number of corporations in the U.S. with a tax liability is 3.5 million. If someone wants to verify that number, they can do so by going to the IRS statistics website. Or that 2.8 per cent of business start-ups receive some form of government funding. Again, the number speaks for itself. If someone wants to verify this fact or wants more information, they can find it on the SBA website.
JohnWR said wrongly that U.S. businesses received $93 billion in subsidies in 2001, which he then corrected to 2007. I'll take the number although it is out of date. I don't need to drill into it any further. It is a very small percentage of the U.S. economy. If he believes that it is sufficient information to support henry6's contention that all businesses in the U.S. are subsidized, that is his choice. If he believes that the Cato Institute is a better source of information than the BEA and SBA primary databases, that too is his choice. I disagree with him and you.
If you have any questions regarding the data and are unable to navigate the websites, feel free to ask them. I confess that it takes a background in accounting, finance and statistics to unravel some of the data.
uuummmm...we ALL pay some sort of tax/subsidy whatever. Yes, even your necessary other...the business person. None are exempt...
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
John WR I made a typo, Sam. The date is 2007, not 2001. But Cato reports there are similar amounts every year. Frankly, I think we are a complex society and the entanglements of the public and private sectors taken as a whole do after all give us our $15.1 trillion economy so I find it hard to go to the mat to oppose these entanglements. That is why I refer to an organization like Cato. You had rebuked Henry for his lack of facts. The Cato site is the closest I could come to add some facts to the discussion which is why I used it. But I can understand that you find it pretty tedious to go through. If, as you suggest, 93 billion is pretty small potatoes compared to the whole economy it is hard for me to see a good reason to go after Amtrak.
I made a typo, Sam. The date is 2007, not 2001. But Cato reports there are similar amounts every year.
Frankly, I think we are a complex society and the entanglements of the public and private sectors taken as a whole do after all give us our $15.1 trillion economy so I find it hard to go to the mat to oppose these entanglements. That is why I refer to an organization like Cato.
You had rebuked Henry for his lack of facts. The Cato site is the closest I could come to add some facts to the discussion which is why I used it. But I can understand that you find it pretty tedious to go through.
If, as you suggest, 93 billion is pretty small potatoes compared to the whole economy it is hard for me to see a good reason to go after Amtrak.
The first post dealt with fuel taxes paid by truckers vs. the property taxes paid by the railroads.The author claimed that excluding the diesel burned by the nation's railroads did not constitute a subsidy. I don't recall saying anything about Amtrak.
Summarize what Cato said. Include an analysis of the statistical methodogy used to obtain the information. I don't find anything too tedious to go through as long as it is factual and based on relevant methodology; 2007 data is five years old. Less dated than 2001, but still getting long in the tooth.
I seldom rely on the data published by a partisan institution, i.e. Cato, Brookings, NARP, etc. I almost always go to the primary data base, i.e. IRS, Amtrak, FRA, DOT, Highway Trust Fund, etc., download the data into a spreadsheet, and slice and dice it. That way I get the data without having it filtered by a partisan organization.
In part, because of these subsidies, Amtrak runs long distance trains that carry less than one per cent of intercity travelers, which is not the best allocation of the country's resources. Moreover they add up. Since its inception Amtrak has lost more than $28 billion. This information can be found in the Amtrak FY11 financials if you want to verify it.
John WR If, as you say, private businesses do not receive subsidies to cover annual losses, Sam, perhaps the reason is that the subsidies are paid earlier which allows the businesses to show profits. At least the Cato Institute thinks so. Cato argues the Federal Government in 2001 subsidized businesses with $93 billion. And that is typical. Here is a link to a long list of Cato reports: http://www.cato.org/search_results.php?q=subsidized+businesses&btnG.x=-581&btnG.y=-11&btnG=Search&site=cato_all&client=cato-org&filter=p&lr=lang_en&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=cato-org&proxyreload=1&getfields=summary
If, as you say, private businesses do not receive subsidies to cover annual losses, Sam, perhaps the reason is that the subsidies are paid earlier which allows the businesses to show profits. At least the Cato Institute thinks so. Cato argues the Federal Government in 2001 subsidized businesses with $93 billion. And that is typical. Here is a link to a long list of Cato reports:
http://www.cato.org/search_results.php?q=subsidized+businesses&btnG.x=-581&btnG.y=-11&btnG=Search&site=cato_all&client=cato-org&filter=p&lr=lang_en&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=cato-org&proxyreload=1&getfields=summary
I was pushing back on the argument that all businesses are subsidized. I also noted that in select instances businesses receive tax advantages that do not flow to other businesses and could be classified as a subsidy.
Moreover, as I noted in another post, one can argue that barge lines receive a subsidy in that the marine diesel taxes that they pay do not provide sufficient funds to cover the cost of maintaining the inland waterways locks. This would be a valid argument if one assumes that the dams that blocked navigation of the inland waterways were constructed purely for the benefit of the barge operators. That would be a difficult argument to support.
Frankly, if you find the Cato argument persuasive, please summarize it. If you cannot do that, don't expect me to chase it. Moreover, $93 billion in an economy of more than $15.1 trillion is hardly what one schooled in economics would call significant. Assuming the number is valid, it would be 62/100s of one per cent of GDP, which represents the value of the goods and services produced by commerce in the United States. Whoops, I overlooked the date. The year for your figures is 2001, which is my math is correct is 11 years ago. Makes for pretty stale data.
Now to the main point. What does this have to do with passenger trains? Or Amtrak? Its time to get back to focusing on Amtrak, since it is and is likely to remain the U.S. intercity passenger train operator.
henry6 undoubtedly committed the 'cardinal sin' of referring to "all corporations" being subsidized [very little in the real world falls into the "all or none" or "always or never" dichotomies]. Nevertheless, through indirect subsidies and externalized costs (eg., environmental) that are not part of the cost of business but passed on to the government and us taxpayers, he may be not so far off the mark.
Yeah I lie a lot and make up stories. Maybe I'm trying to break through your inpenetrable wall of knowing it all. Oh, I am checking out of this discussion with you because you've got all the answers and don't accept anybody elses answers or knowledge. So why bother. SUbsidies are bad, Amtrak is bad and I am bad.
schlimm The ideas expressed should be able to stand on their own merit without the constant appeals to authority, i.e., credentials.
The ideas expressed should be able to stand on their own merit without the constant appeals to authority, i.e., credentials.
I am not seeking your support for my views. Accordingly, don't pay any attention to my credentials and experience.
schlimm "I graduated from Penn State, Columbia, and SMU with degrees in economics, accounting, and finance. I am widely read in those subjects. I just finished reading Keynes General Theory for the second time." Occasional examples of how the DB (or the Northern Rail in the UK) run passenger service is far more germane to postings on the passenger forum than your recitation of your degree(s). An accurate analogy would be if I simply mentioned riding the DB without giving specifics of their practices. Along the lines of my comments on the DB, you give frequent and useful comments concerning your many trips on Amtrak as well as Australian systems. You ask for evidence on the subsidy question. I have no opinion, but since you ask, I wonder what your evidence is?
"I graduated from Penn State, Columbia, and SMU with degrees in economics, accounting, and finance. I am widely read in those subjects. I just finished reading Keynes General Theory for the second time."
Occasional examples of how the DB (or the Northern Rail in the UK) run passenger service is far more germane to postings on the passenger forum than your recitation of your degree(s). An accurate analogy would be if I simply mentioned riding the DB without giving specifics of their practices. Along the lines of my comments on the DB, you give frequent and useful comments concerning your many trips on Amtrak as well as Australian systems.
You ask for evidence on the subsidy question. I have no opinion, but since you ask, I wonder what your evidence is?
About what? That not all 3.5 million plus businesses in the U.S. receive subsidies as was stated by henry6, except that he stated all businesses.
Wanna know where the 3.5 million figure comes from. Look it up in IRS statistics. There is a slew of them. It helps to have some expertise in the tax code to fully understand them. Accountants tend to have that expertise. Just like our engineer friends by stating or implying their backgrounds give me greater comfort in their discussion of technical issues.
Oh, I do need to make a minor qualification on the figures. The number of businesses that had taxable income in 2009. If one counts the number of businesses without taxable income, it is over 5 million.
Or that only 2.8 per cent of start-up businesses in the U.S. with employees receive government (SBA) financial assistance. Check it out.
I have presented more factual information in my posts than most of the people who write to these forums. Again, I don't appreciate your comments on my style. Please keep your comments to the subject at hand. You are not the moderator of these forums.
henry6 I don't have the exact citations available...but I am not lying or making anything up...I hope my integrity on these issues and historical knowledge will carry me here Suffice it to say that the D&H story was part of a dinner conversation between Mr. Sterzing and a close friend of mine with my friend on Mr. Sterzing's left and me on his right during a banquet celebrating the railroad's 150th Anniversary.
I don't have the exact citations available...but I am not lying or making anything up...I hope my integrity on these issues and historical knowledge will carry me here Suffice it to say that the D&H story was part of a dinner conversation between Mr. Sterzing and a close friend of mine with my friend on Mr. Sterzing's left and me on his right during a banquet celebrating the railroad's 150th Anniversary.
I did not think or say that you were making it up. But without any verifiable facts, as per the questions that I raised, it is testimony.
schlimm Most credible people from whatever field do not have such a frequent need to tout their credentials over and over to essentially the same audience.
Most credible people from whatever field do not have such a frequent need to tout their credentials over and over to essentially the same audience.
Sometimes it is helpful to establish a basis of creditability. One way to do that is by reference to experience. It helps clarify the basis for the factual information in my posts. The data can be verified. My expertise is in accounting and finance with a strong under ping in economics.
You consistently make reference to your travels in Germany where you have become, I presume, familiar with the German railway system. At least you imply that your travels have given you important insights into how the German railway system operates. And how some of the features could be transferred to America. Your travels in Germany are experience.
So if you think I am wrong with respect to the percentage of small businesses that get government support or that every business in the United States does not get a subsidy, where is your evidence?
I don't appreciate your lectures on my style. Keep your comments to the subject at hand.
henry6 Agri-business, Sam...it gets money for not raising crops, for supporting prices. Some direclty, others, like the Food Stamp program, not so directly...I am sure someone will come up with others....Oh, aircraft manufacaturing gets R&D money from the government to develop aircraft which they often adjust for commercial use. A lot of other industries have college research often paid for by the government which leads to new or improved products. No, they don't cover the losses but they make sure there are no losses. Waterways and airways are administered and operated by government agencies and often don't receive as much in return as it costs to operate...lets rehash this again, again.
Agri-business, Sam...it gets money for not raising crops, for supporting prices. Some direclty, others, like the Food Stamp program, not so directly...I am sure someone will come up with others....Oh, aircraft manufacaturing gets R&D money from the government to develop aircraft which they often adjust for commercial use. A lot of other industries have college research often paid for by the government which leads to new or improved products. No, they don't cover the losses but they make sure there are no losses.
Waterways and airways are administered and operated by government agencies and often don't receive as much in return as it costs to operate...lets rehash this again, again.
Businesses don't pay taxes and they don't receive subsidies. The taxes, with a few exceptions, are paid by the people who buy the goods and services. By the same token, tax code advantages flow back to them, although not always in perfect correlation. It depends on the elasticity of the demand/price curve.
I spent more than 40 years working for Fortune 250 corporations. More than 30 of those years were in senior management positions. I graduated from Penn State, Columbia, and SMU with degrees in economics, accounting, and finance. I am widely read in those subjects. I just finished reading Keynes General Theory for the second time. I have a reasonably good idea of how business works, especially the banking and electric utility businesses.
I never heard any creditable source claim that every business in the United States is subsidized. Never! Your views of business are unsupported by any verifiable facts. Moreover, they have nothing to do with Amtrak.
There are more than 3.5 million corporations in the United States. Most of them are small, S-Chapter corporations. This does not include sole proprietorships partnerships, etc. Under the tax code they deduct their business expenses to derive net income. In one way or the other they pay tax on that net income.
Most of the tax code deductions flow to all qualifying businesses. For example, the R&D credit is available to any business with a qualifying R&D expenditure or expense. This is not a subsidy. If a business gets a tax break that does not flow to other businesses or industry, claiming that it is a subsidy may be appropriate.
Most businesses are born of a hopefully good idea. They offer goods and services that people are free to buy in an arms length transaction. If people don't step forth in sufficient numbers to buy them, the business fails. According to the Small Business Administration, 56 per cent of business start-ups fail within four years. And approximately 70 per cent, according to the SMU Entrepreneur Program, of which I am a graduate, are gone within 10 years. Hardly the hallmark of all businesses get subsidies.
Unlike Amtrak, which is dependent on direct government cash payments, businesses have to raise capital in the private markets. Some businesses may qualify for Small Business Administration Loans, but fewer than 2.8 per cent of start-ups with employees receive government backed (SBA) funding.
Outside of Amtrak, I cannot think of any business that receives an annual direct cash payment from the federal government to cover its losses. And has done so for more than 40 years.
ALL BUSINESSES get subsidies or government aid of some kind. Low business loans, tax reliefs when siting, product price supports for agricultural products (this is what food stamps is about more than feeding the poor), tax breaks for hiring minorities and internships or youth or college or whoever or whatever program, the highway interchange a quarter mile from their dock, the county industrial agency which bought the railroad track and hires a company or individual to run it, the water and sewer and power and police and fire protection that keeps insurance rates down. Railroads have always been chartered, given easments and eminent domain powers for rights of way acquisition, bonding and subscription authority to raise money, out right land gifts from municipalities and land grants fromthe Federal government (paid back with cheap US mail transportation prices and troop movements). In our country business and government are so intertwined no one really knows where private enterprise stops and public support begins...but they all complain about socialism and subsidies as a one sided event..
You make a good point, Henry, that even freight railroads get subsidies. No doubt this is true. In fact I know it is true because I did a little surfing around and found examples.
Traditionally freight railroads have been cited as the classic example of a business which not only pays its own way but also pays for certain public needs. As time goes on it seems to me that we evolve into a more complex society and one aspect is that government and the private sector become increasingly entangled with one another. Some individuals seek political advantage in this by throwing out red meat to the public labeled "subsidy." The suggestion is that you and I and others are being taxed for things that we neither need not want in order to enrich others who are able to manipulate government. But the truth is a lot nearer to the idea that this entanglement is driven by a society which is becoming more productive and enriches all of us and that as individuals we would be ultimately worse off in that our standard of living will decline if we decide to go backward. If we look at Europe we see countries with much greater social expenditures than the US which also maintain higher standards of living for their citizens. One home made example I like is lettuce. I am told and the conventional wisdom is that farms in my home state of New Jersey cannot compete in growing lettuce with Central and South America because the cost of labor is so much lower there. Yet I can go to my local supermarket and buy lettuce gown in the Netherlands an shipped by air to the U. S. If a New Jersey or New York farmer within 100 miles of me cannot grow lettuce profitably how can it be possible for a farmer in the Netherlands, thousands of miles away with higher labor costs than the U. S. has to do do? Yet it clearly is possible because it happens.
I have a neighbor who argues that we should not be required to pay taxes to plow snow on local streets. I have a snow blower and, were the town to stop plowing my snow, I could handle the part in front of my house pretty easily; I could even help out some neighbors. And yes, not plowing local streets would reduce my property taxes. But supposing, as a result, I get in one accident? The costs of even a fender bender would exceed my tax savings for a long time and I could be injured or even killed.
I am not inclined to join the snarling pack of taxpayers running after the red meat some shrewd politician calls "subsidy." Not for things I need and not for things other people need either.
..
How much money did D&H get from New York State? How much did the federal taxpayers contribute on behalf of Amtrak? What impact did these payments have on Amtrak's rental payments to the D&H as well as its subsequent assigns? How much better freight train performance did the D&H get, and what was the economic benefit? Did the improvements generate more freight traffic, more freight revenue, more customer satisfaction?
These are the questions that would have to be determined to know whether the freight carrier realized a net benefit over time.
I am sorry Sam, but my statements are not generalitise...the D&H did get NYS and AMtrak to pay for the improvements to the Montreal line and got better freight train performance out of it. Any discussions of new Amtrak contracts contain language and concern for improvments an maintainence of the improvments to track and signal; the costs being part of the lease agreement and/or split between it and an upfront sum of some kind. And if, as you put it, the taxpayers bore the cost, it is attributed to Amtrak on the Federal level. And of course, as for the future, my point of view is that there has to be a reorganization of thoughts, procedures, and practices of operating our entire transportation systems as one operation or entit, integrated in applied uses instead of what is is and can't be changed.
henry6 Come on Sam, you know well that Amtrak pays for track and signal improvements in order to gain and maintain a route a route. I gave the example of how Amtrak paid for D&H improvements to Montreal for I think 55 mph passenger speeds and the railroad got 45-50 mph freight speeds instead of 35mph. And part of the railroad agreements is to maintain track for passenger speeds which are usually 10mph higher than freight speeds. Amtrak pays for that level of track either outright or through lease agreement. Some of these agreements go back to the beginning of Amtrak and the participating host railroads just as use of the Corridor agreements are based on Conrail's ownership and use before it was turned over to Amtrak. Yes, too much of Amtrak is stuck in tradition and "the way we've always done it" mentality. And that has to change. And it is often insinuated, even verified, that freight haulers believe Amtrak gets in their way and gives Amtrak sidings and red boards instead of keeping them going. Even Amtrak's allowing freight on their passenger railroad is different than when Conrail or PC or PRR owned the Corridor. Today's oversight agencies don't want freight an passenger services on the same track...some railroads don't want the two on the same right of way. We've got to get out of our own way before Amtrak passenger trains and private freight railroad trains can make weigh.
Come on Sam, you know well that Amtrak pays for track and signal improvements in order to gain and maintain a route a route. I gave the example of how Amtrak paid for D&H improvements to Montreal for I think 55 mph passenger speeds and the railroad got 45-50 mph freight speeds instead of 35mph. And part of the railroad agreements is to maintain track for passenger speeds which are usually 10mph higher than freight speeds. Amtrak pays for that level of track either outright or through lease agreement. Some of these agreements go back to the beginning of Amtrak and the participating host railroads just as use of the Corridor agreements are based on Conrail's ownership and use before it was turned over to Amtrak. Yes, too much of Amtrak is stuck in tradition and "the way we've always done it" mentality. And that has to change. And it is often insinuated, even verified, that freight haulers believe Amtrak gets in their way and gives Amtrak sidings and red boards instead of keeping them going. Even Amtrak's allowing freight on their passenger railroad is different than when Conrail or PC or PRR owned the Corridor. Today's oversight agencies don't want freight an passenger services on the same track...some railroads don't want the two on the same right of way. We've got to get out of our own way before Amtrak passenger trains and private freight railroad trains can make weigh.
Your response contains generalities without any verifiable facts. How much did Amtrak (taxpayers) contribute to upgrade the D&H? How much did the D&H contribute?. What adjustments in the rentals were made to reflect the benefits accruing to the freight railroad if any?
Without knowledge of the railroad's property accounting railroads, as well as Amtrak's, it is impossible to know how much the freight railroad contributed to the improvements for Amtrak, the amount the taxpayers contributed on behalf of Amtrak, and the extent to which the parties benefit.
Based on Amtrak's annual rental payments to the freight railroads, which were $123.4 million in FY11, the argument that Amtrak is not footing the real cost of hoisting its trains appears to have some traction. Net net I suspect the freight railroads are not being compensated adequately to hoist Amtrak's trains, although I don't know for sure because I don't access to their accounting records. And there is not sufficient information in the public reports (SEC) to answer the question.
You don't know whether the freight carrier capitalized the improvements and, therefore, you don't know how the cost flows through the accounting records. This information, which would be reflected in the rentals, is critical in determining the economic value of the improvements to all parties. The information could be obtained by filing a FOI request, which would cost $38 an hour, plus materials. Go for it!
Also, as I pointed out, Amtrak does not have any money to contribute to any capital improvements. The improvements were paid for by the taxpayers.
Where to you think Amtrak or any other operator will get the money to pay for "freight train free" rights-of-way? U.S. government debt (federal, state, and local) is more than $19 trillion. Add in another $46 trillion (the low estimate) for unfunded liabilities, and the United States is facing potential debts obligations of $66 trillion.
One thing is pretty clear. The capital markets are not likely to pony up the funds to build "freight free" railroads.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.