There are people with medical dissabilities who cannot handle more than an hour or two in an automobile or bus and cannot use airplanes and who can use Amtrak handicapped rooms.
schlimm Perhaps that is your experience as a lay person, but not mine as a professional for 30 years who did evals in such facilities, nor the shared knowledge of friends and relatives who work the nursing side, nor my experience with two parents. Skilled nursing care and rehab facilities do a great job, but there are distinctions within such facilities. Many of the residents in the long term wings could be taken care of very well at home, with various combinations and levels of care including live-ins and come-and-go caretakers, if only Medicaid covered those expenses, and at a lower cost. In fact, many are taken care of in that way by choice because they can afford to pay out of pocket.
Perhaps that is your experience as a lay person, but not mine as a professional for 30 years who did evals in such facilities, nor the shared knowledge of friends and relatives who work the nursing side, nor my experience with two parents. Skilled nursing care and rehab facilities do a great job, but there are distinctions within such facilities. Many of the residents in the long term wings could be taken care of very well at home, with various combinations and levels of care including live-ins and come-and-go caretakers, if only Medicaid covered those expenses, and at a lower cost. In fact, many are taken care of in that way by choice because they can afford to pay out of pocket.
I mean, who am I going to believe, you, or my lying eyes? And the experience of my parents. And grandparents. And what the nurses and aides in various "levels" of long-term care facilities have told me, And the social workers and ombuds-persons. And physicians and neurologists to my parents. And the scholars at the flagship research university in my state who study public policy relating to health care and to seniors.
I guess I am just a lay person, a scholar in an unrelated field but a public enough person to comment under my own name, offering anedoctal and personal observations. And yes, I know that "nursing homes" vary in the level of skill and quality of care, and that who is in a nursing home can vary geographically and with wealth level given the restrictions on Medicaid not paying for nursing home alternatives. And I have seen all of the permutations of skilled-nursing facilities, "assisted living" (Wisconsin calls them Community Based Residential Facilities), hospice care in and out of specialized hospice facilities, live-ins, come-and-go in-home caretakers, I have seen instances of all of the above.
And I have seen first hand how other-than-skilled-nursing-long-term-care can result in "outcomes" reflecting a lower level of care than a proper skilled-nursing facility -- there is a great desire on the part of family members to keep their loved one's out of a nursing home if at all possible, especially when the finances allow the alternatives, but the reality can be that a nursing home can be the better setting. Even when one has sufficient financial resources that one is not at the mercy of what Medicaid does and doesn't pay for, there are choices in how to care for a family member that can be challenging and quite difficult. All of the professional in the field of care for the infirm aged I have come in personal contact with, indeed, have been extremely compassionate in their understanding of this difficulty.
I don't have this personal experience, but I am told this by two persons whom I have close relationships and trust who had such personal experience, that the various in-home care options, even of the people who can afford them, are not the simple "Oh, that person doesn't need to be in a long-term care institutions, just have come-and-go or live-in caregivers in their home!" If you are reproducing the services of a nursing home, you are in effect running your own private nursing home with all of the management-of-personnel challenges that entails.
So what is my point in all of this relating to transportation policy and trains? First of all, whatever we believe about the "political opposition" in this country, there is a great deal of compassion in this country (the U.S.) for the aged and the infirm and the disabled, and in at least my state (Wisconsin), there is a serious effort to provide various forms of social services, including transportation, so people don't live shut-in, and this hasn't all gone away under our current Governor who doesn't like passenger trains.
Secondly, there is a distinction between disability and dependency. There are people with profound levels of disability who are able to (largely) care for themselves in their own residential settings, with the proper appliances and accomodations, and many of such people can ride Amtrak, as another Forum participant just reminded us. There are also people with profound levels of dependency, who not only are disabled but also require levels of supervision and assistance but also personal care, who in my opinion are not candidates for travel by Amtrak but who instead would require a Learjet ambulance were they to be transported any appreciable distance.
Just because someone is in a wheelchair and can be transported from their nursing home to a doctor's office in a wheelchair van doesn't mean they can safely ride in an Amtrak sleeping car.
There is also a tendency in passenger train advocacy to seek an "all-of-the-above" strategy in advancing reasons to provide public money for passenger trains. Trains will solve (or at least ameliorate in some sense) the highway and airway congestion crisis, trains will solve the imported oil usage crisis, trains will solve the highway death-toll and injury crisis, trains will solve the Climate Change Crisis, and trains, I guess, are supposed to solve the mobility for an aging and infirm population crisis. Oh, and trains promote economic development in a unique way.
Yes, trains have all of this intrinsic goodness, and we in the advocacy community have been saying all of this and more for the past 40 years or more since the founding of NARP, the inception of Amtrak, or even earlier. But people don't seem to be listening to us or believing us if they are listening? I mean, where are the trains? There must be evil or stoopid people out there thwarting us, no? Maybe in our enthusiasm, we are hurting the cause by overstating the case for trains? Maybe we could make more progress is engendering public support for trains if we better understood the arguments of the critics? Could understanding both the advantages and the limitations of trains lead to better support?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sam1 ........ The areas along the Sunset route that are being double tracked are basically scrub land and probably levy very low property taxes. ....................... Trucking companies own office buildings, warehouses, lay down yards, fuel depots, way stations, etc. They pay fuel taxes that are intended to cover their proportional use of the highway, although there are convincing arguments that the biggest trucks don't cover the full cost of the wear that they impose on some roadways. However, as pointed out in the Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study (HCAS) 1982, which was replicated in 2000, it depends on the truck, speed, weight, roadway structure, etc. Levying a property tax on a highway would be akin to laying a property tax on city hall, public schools, police stations, firehouses, churches, etc. I have never heard any official make such a suggestion, although I have taken to paying less and less attention to politicians as time goes on. Road taxes are designed to take the place of real taxes; they are surrogates for rights-of-way taxes.
........ The areas along the Sunset route that are being double tracked are basically scrub land and probably levy very low property taxes.
.......................
Trucking companies own office buildings, warehouses, lay down yards, fuel depots, way stations, etc. They pay fuel taxes that are intended to cover their proportional use of the highway, although there are convincing arguments that the biggest trucks don't cover the full cost of the wear that they impose on some roadways. However, as pointed out in the Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study (HCAS) 1982, which was replicated in 2000, it depends on the truck, speed, weight, roadway structure, etc.
Levying a property tax on a highway would be akin to laying a property tax on city hall, public schools, police stations, firehouses, churches, etc. I have never heard any official make such a suggestion, although I have taken to paying less and less attention to politicians as time goes on. Road taxes are designed to take the place of real taxes; they are surrogates for rights-of-way taxes.
I earlier pointed out that although the scrub land probably has a very low assessed value, the railroad right-of-way and structures will almost certainly have a much higher assessed value. You may well find a very high percentage of the county budget comes from the railroad, especially if there is little else available to tax.
I'm glad you recognized the biggest trucks don't cover the cost of the wear they impose, although I believe the same is true even of lesser commercial vehicles. And as far as depending on the roadway structure, building them to accommodate those heavier vehicles increases the cost very significantly. One professional engineer some years ago told me it could be as much as 10 times the cost compared with designing only for automobiles. That may be extreme, but even if it is only 5 times, the trucking industry is not contributing much.
And I don't understand your comment that the road taxes are surrogates for rights-of-way taxes. They already are insufficient to cover the wear and tear of the road, so there is nothing left as the property tax surrogate. That is the accounting trickery the trucking lobbyists use. They attribute their taxes to each bucket independently. One forum has their taxes paying for a new stronger bridge; the next is adding a truck lane; and of course always their damage to the highway. But in fact it is the same dollars each time. I wish I could use the same dollars again and again, first to buy groceries, next pay the utilities, and so on. But once that dollar is spent I need an additional one for the next expense.
John
Paul M: It's your choice to believe whatever you want. Use of contemptuous expressions as you did above do nothing to address issues factually. Please do not dismiss so cavalierly another's personal and professional observations of a variety of skilled care nursing homes, assisted living, etc., some excellent, some not. You are an engineer; I don't dismiss your knowledge in your field, but you seem to not care to reciprocate. As I already said (which you repeatedly choose to overlook for some reason) nursing homes certainly have their place. However, many of the services they offer can be managed in a home setting. Such a system is what other nations use and cover under government plans or private.. Accessibility mobility, and a full range of levels of care all combined permit there to be a chance for seniors to continue residing in their own homes.Returning to rail: I do not know why you repeatedly seem to exhibit such a negative attitude toward rail passenger services, dismissing any and all in the advocacy community who espouse views differing from your particular viewpoint. You seem to think rail advocates err by making too many claims or exaggerated claims for the benefits of rail. That may be true in some cases, but in your zeal for some "purity" in claims for benefits, you run the risk of appearing to see no value in expanded passenger rail services. So what value do you see for passenger rail services, not what is wrong with claims?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Paul MilenkovicThere is also a tendency in passenger train advocacy to seek an "all-of-the-above" strategy in advancing reasons to provide public money for passenger trains. Trains will solve (or at least ameliorate in some sense) the highway and airway congestion crisis, trains will solve the imported oil usage crisis, trains will solve the highway death-toll and injury crisis, trains will solve the Climate Change Crisis, and trains, I guess, are supposed to solve the mobility for an aging and infirm population crisis. Oh, and trains promote economic development in a unique way.
America is a big country with a lot of people. If you look far enough you can find someone who will advocate any idea you can imagine no matter how crazy. But I don't hear people voicing the ideas that you seem to constantly encounter. What I hear is people saying we need diverse transportation options and passenger trains are one of them.
schlimm Paul M: It's your choice to believe whatever you want. Use of contemptuous expressions as you did above do nothing to address issues factually. Please do not dismiss so cavalierly another's personal and professional observations of a variety of skilled care nursing homes, assisted living, etc., some excellent, some not. You are an engineer; I don't dismiss your knowledge in your field, but you seem to not care to reciprocate. As I already said (which you repeatedly choose to overlook for some reason) nursing homes certainly have their place. However, many of the services they offer can be managed in a home setting. Such a system is what other nations use and cover under government plans or private.. Accessibility mobility, and a full range of levels of care all combined permit there to be a chance for seniors to continue residing in their own homes.Returning to rail: I do not know why you repeatedly seem to exhibit such a negative attitude toward rail passenger services, dismissing any and all in the advocacy community who espouse views differing from your particular viewpoint. You seem to think rail advocates err by making too many claims or exaggerated claims for the benefits of rail. That may be true in some cases, but in your zeal for some "purity" in claims for benefits, you run the risk of appearing to see no value in expanded passenger rail services. So what value do you see for passenger rail services, not what is wrong with claims?
My knowledge is questioned all of the time, about research engineering and all manner of other topics, here and in my professional capacity, interacting with students, colleagues, and scholarly peer review. It seems that arguments in advancement of trains, however, should never be questioned. Things don't work that way in science, of starting with a premise ("trains are a social necessity"), accepting any evidence in support of the premise, discounting any evidence the other way.
I have stated my position on passenger train advocacy several times. The "all-of-the-above" reasons for why trains are good, the "if you are critical of trains, what are you doing on this forum", the "all modes of transportation get subsidy and the government wastes money on so many other things, just give Amtrak the money it needs", these have been tried for the last 40 years. We need another model.
I am not alone on this forum in questioning the main-stream approach to passenger train advocacy, the reason I am here is that unlike other train advocacy settings I have participated in, this place is heterodox in its spectrum of opinions, and this forum is the one place that I think holds out any hope for hammering out a synthesis of a fresh approach to passenger train advocacy.
But "there (I) go again, Mr. Milenkovic", I used the word "heterodox" -- last time I called (myself, people, not others, myself) a "heretic", I got "called out" for using offensive words, religiously offensive words! This time, I asked, who should I believe, a professional in health care (with the bedside manner of a neurologist who called me out as HCPOA for authorizing a transport to an ER of a person with a DNR on their AD and HCF admit form, "what part of do-not-rescusitate do you not understand, Mr. Milenkovic? What do you think 'they do' when you bring someone to the ER?), or my "lying eyes", not someone else's lying eyes, my own lying eyes, get it, self-deprecating but maybe subversive humor that it had been suggested to me (read the earlier posts) that I don't know what I am talking about (as a family-member/consumer in the health-care system).
But maybe advocacy is different than science and engineering. There is "the other side" to deliver the anti-arguments, so we here as advocates deliver only the pro-arguments. Just like the legal system, the political system is entirely adversarial, and a passenger train advocate doesn't go off all Richard Feynman all of a sudden ("if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.") and suggest weaknesses in the arguments in favor of trains, there are plenty of other people to do that, and let the Congress or the voters choose what side they are on.
Well, I don't know. There is evidence that the adversarial/advocacy model is crossing over into important science controversies, and maybe certain issues are too important and the stakes are too high to do otherwise, but then it is no longer science. As Richard Feynman said about another Federally funded transportation system, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
But what do I know, maybe there were a lot of people who just plain didn't like Richard Feynman, because he was an imperious so-and-so?
(Speaking of the imperious, the PCP stopped referring that patient to the MD in question.)
John WR Paul MilenkovicThere is also a tendency in passenger train advocacy to seek an "all-of-the-above" strategy in advancing reasons to provide public money for passenger trains. Trains will solve (or at least ameliorate in some sense) the highway and airway congestion crisis, trains will solve the imported oil usage crisis, trains will solve the highway death-toll and injury crisis, trains will solve the Climate Change Crisis, and trains, I guess, are supposed to solve the mobility for an aging and infirm population crisis. Oh, and trains promote economic development in a unique way. America is a big country with a lot of people. If you look far enough you can find someone who will advocate any idea you can imagine no matter how crazy. But I don't hear people voicing the ideas that you seem to constantly encounter. What I hear is people saying we need diverse transportation options and passenger trains are one of them.
If I look far enough, I can find people "advocating any idea you can imagine no matter how crazy." I don't need to look far, by the way, just here on this forum. Tell me that trains being a response to
Highway and airway congestion,
The demand for imported oil in the U.S.,
Reduction in CO2 to head off Climate Change,
Mobility for an aging and infirm population,
Real estate and other economic development around new train routes.
hasn't been advanced on this forum?
As to hearing "people saying we need diverse transportation options and passenger trains are one of them.", I haven't heard much of anyone saying such a thing, apart from this forum and other places where NARP members gather.
Mostly, if you ask a person about passenger trains outside of enthusiast circles you get, "Dunno, I guess a train would be kewl." One time I brought up my interest in trains around a first-time Amtrak long-distance traveller, "It was my son's idea for a family vacation, my son the train nut! Call that a vacation? What do they call the railroad company on whose tracks Amtrak was on, the tracks that had the wash out, something like See-ess-ex? Never again! You won't get me to ride a train!"
Paul M:
"As to hearing "people saying we need diverse transportation options and passenger trains are one of them.", I haven't heard much of anyone saying such a thing, apart from this forum and other places where NARP members gather. Mostly, if you ask a person about passenger trains outside of enthusiast circles you get, "Dunno, I guess a train would be kewl." [he repeats the latter phrase for about the 12th time!]
Maybe you should try getting out of your little world a bit. You just might hear some opinions that would surprise you. Then again, maybe not.
I am not saying that every disabled or elderly person can be happy in the Amtrak handicapped room. But there are mahy who can be and who cannot crosso the conotinent in comfort any other reasonable way.
Not any hearing handicapped person can enjoy a concert or show because the subsidized hard of hearing system has been installed and not every physically handicapped person can make it to a seat in that auditorium because space that might have been used for commercial purposes is now used for handicapped access ramps and elevators, but majy can do so and enjoy the concert or show.
schlimm Maybe you should try getting out of your little world a bit. You just might hear some opinions that would surprise you. Then again, maybe not.
My little world is having a Dad from Croatia, a Mom from Serbia, and Dad having a colleague from Roumania who invented a widely used rail/truck intermodal system and who would have advanced a high-speed rail/auto intermodal system if he hadn't died in a small plane crash.
My little world is having toured every last sewage treatment facility in Illinois Cook and Lake Counties as Mom was a "clean lakes" advocate, who was instrumental in organizing political support for the expansion of the Clavey Road water treatment facilities, and who was publically demonized for wanting to "poison our kids" by the NIMBYs on account of the combustion of methane from the digesters as an excuse not to build the plant. I looked up that Clavey Road has in recent times won awards as being a scientifically advanced water treatment facility. She didn't design the plant, she didn't build it, but I can tell you that as a determined advocate, Mom made Clavey Road "happen."
My little world is a workplace that includes friends and colleagues from the far reaches of the planet.
My little world is my avatar, a picture taken by a grad student from one of those far places who was on smoking break, a person who as you could see understood the art of framing a photo, of me standing next to an automobile that I had been told by the voice of authority didn't exist anymore because all examples had been scrapped in a grand conspiracy by General Motors against electric automobiles.
My little world is my workplace that once had a building leveled in what could be called an act of domestic terrorism because the community wasn't showing enough enthusiasm in opposition to The War. And one of the perpetrators currently has a small business serving food to my fellow employees from a lunch cart. His compatriot would have his five minutes every year on an episode of America's Most Wanted.
My little world is my workplace where Senator Edward Kennedy was once shouted down and not allowed to speak on account of being "for The War."
My little world included representing a passenger train advocacy group with an exhibit at a major regional model train show and getting feedback from train enthusiasts not part of the advocacy community, with a range of expressed opinions from support to indifference to opposition. My little world is placing my wonkish poster next to a train layout of the Talgo, outlining the role of the ARRA "stimulus", the role of President Obama and then Governor Doyle in bringing train service to Madison, WI, with bullet points on the technical features for the Talgo and how they address service and accessibility, and having that exhibit adorned with a banner in three foot-high letters "America Needs Trains (exclamation point)" in case people couldn't read the poster.
My little world is having a passenger train advocacy person from Illinois talk to us Wisconsin hay seeds "how it is done", snark at me about wanting "passengers riding in gondolas" at my suggestion of using Metra bilevels to meet the student-community weekend demand peak on the new Illinois train service, only later to have the passenger-train specialist from WisDOT tell me and my advocacy colleagues, "I have scoured the country for more coaches on the Hiawatha Service. There is a shortage of cars. If 'you people' want a second Chicago-St Paul train, you are going to have to get creative. Have people thought about using surplus bi-levels?"
My little world includes attending a June, 2010 meeting at the Middleton, WI Public Library, where said advocacy group went all "Tea Party" on a person from WisDOT on acccount of the Mayor of Madison, the DOT Secretary, and the then Governor advancing a plan that wasn't exactly what we wanted.
My little world includes at present a small model train club populated by train enthusiasts, where the opinions on passenger trains run the spectrum from support to skepticism. My little world includes this virtual place, where for the most part people posting here support passenger trains, but there remains some diversity of opinion of how best to move forward.
My little world is being a charter member of NARP at age 11, saving my money from cutting neighbor's lawns, and setting aside part of would get spent on Atlas #4 switches for the dues. My little world is doing the usual tourist visit to D.C., and taking a detour to visit NARP Headquarters, thinking it was some large operation on account of the large number of "honorary board members" on the NARP newsletter masthead, to encounter Anthony Haswell alone in the office wondering why a 13-year-old is at the door of the rented space paid for by grass-cutting money, and being sent on my way with a packet of press releases.
My little world is one in which I am patronized for having opinions and observations that reflect a narrow life experience, and one in which I am called out for being uncivil for responding. It's a little world out there.
Interesting life, no doubt, but almost entirely off-topic. You seem to largely point out what is wrong with any and all proposals of and rationales for of increased passenger train services. So once again I ask a very simple question: What services do you favor and why?
Paul Milenkovic As to hearing "people saying we need diverse transportation options and passenger trains are one of them.", I haven't heard much of anyone saying such a thing, apart from this forum and other places where NARP members gather.
With all due respect for your learning and accomplishments not all equally learned and accomplished people agree with you. I can well understand why you would find yourself at odds with NARP members. However, not all of us who believe in diverse transportation options belong to NARP. I myself do not. But I do respect NARP members as equal citizens of the country with the same right to there opinions that I have and that all of us have. To dismiss any large group of people because we disagree with their opinions is, in my view, a mistake.
Paul Milenkovic If I look far enough, I can find people "advocating any idea you can imagine no matter how crazy." I don't need to look far, by the way, just here on this forum. Tell me that trains being a response to Highway and airway congestion, The demand for imported oil in the U.S., Reduction in CO2 to head off Climate Change, Mobility for an aging and infirm population, Real estate and other economic development around new train routes.
In re the last point:
"A new multi-modal train station in Normal and promise of 110-mph service has attracted more than $200 million in private investments to its downtown area, an example of how rail investment attracts economic growth. Future rail investments along the Chicago to St. Louis corridor will spur additional economic activity across Illinois in towns where new or newly-renovated stations are under development or in the planning stages."
Already so much economic development in just one city along the route. But I guess that's just another silly idea.
t:
schlimm Paul Milenkovic If I look far enough, I can find people "advocating any idea you can imagine no matter how crazy." I don't need to look far, by the way, just here on this forum. Tell me that trains being a response to Highway and airway congestion, The demand for imported oil in the U.S., Reduction in CO2 to head off Climate Change, Mobility for an aging and infirm population, Real estate and other economic development around new train routes. In re the last point: "A new multi-modal train station in Normal and promise of 110-mph service has attracted more than $200 million in private investments to its downtown area, an example of how rail investment attracts economic growth. Future rail investments along the Chicago to St. Louis corridor will spur additional economic activity across Illinois in towns where new or newly-renovated stations are under development or in the planning stages." Already so much economic development in just one city along the route. But I guess that's just another silly idea. t:
Paul's great issue is that us train people usually have the tail wagging the dog. The order of events goes like this:
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
schlimm "A new multi-modal train station in Normal and promise of 110-mph service has attracted more than $200 million in private investments to its downtown area, an example of how rail investment attracts economic growth. Future rail investments along the Chicago to St. Louis corridor will spur additional economic activity across Illinois in towns where new or newly-renovated stations are under development or in the planning stages." Already so much economic development in just one city along the route. But I guess that's just another silly idea.
What part of "Paul Milenkovic supports economic development as a justification for (near) high-speed passenger trains" did I fail to communicate in numerous posts on the subject? That all I have been talking about for the last two years is how I sided with the (then) Mayor of Madison, the WisDOT Secretary, and the Governor for the Downtown train station and against the local advocacy group?
That I have argued that the fuel savings and congestion relief of intercity trains were meaningless . . . unless . . . the trains catalyzed major shifts in living patterns? The Downtown train station was a pure "economic development" play whereas the advocacy group was for, I guess, having a train station with a park-and-ride mode of access, which makes that train a kind of slower moving airliner.
I guess it is my own fault, letting my ego and personal feelings get the better part of me when long-term care of the aged somehow got dragged into the discussion of the need for public modes of transportation. I need to admit that my personal experiences and observations as a family member/consumer of the health care system for the aged are a narrow window that may not encompass the geographical and socio-economic breadth of care for the aging with failing bodies and failing minds along with successes with nursing-home alternatives.
But the suggestion that I misunderstand the level of care required for persons with progressive neurological disorders, those are "fightin' words." Those weren't your words, but glib statements about people with Alzheimer's or other dementias needing "only custodial care", well, it is nothing like working parents arranging for child care for their kids, it is more like parents dealing with a child with autism, profound developmental disability or major mental illness, with a frail body and physical ailments of aging added to the mix.
Do I snark in my posts? Well, yeah, maybe a little bit . . . when provoked, and I shouldn't respond in kind to provocation. But I think economic development (the 200 million in Normal, which is just a start, but needs to be viewed in proportion to the cost of the train too) can be advanced without scolding people for not acknowledging it.
Paul,
Re: the downtown Madison station plan. The reaction of one of my brothers, who lives on the west side of Madison, who likes to take the Hiawatha from the Milwaukee Airport when he or he and his family go to Chicago... But there's no parking there!
I understood it that the Madison-Milwaukee "shovel-ready" stimulus was to be a step towards realization of the Midwest Rail Iniative, the hub and spoke midwest plan. A downtown station didn't fit with the Initiative.
For midwestern railfans, why not unite around and with the creation of the MRI?
http://www.miprc.org/Advocacy/MidwestRegionalRailInitiative/tabid/88/Default.aspx
Paul M: These were your somewhat convoluted words on this thread, which don't match your expression now of seeing rail as a stimulant to economic development:
"There are a lot of reasons advanced in support of public modes of transportation including Amtrak, some of them may indeed be valid, and yes, I also believe them to be correct although I may not have evidence to back it up (I believe in "economic development" as a reason, but carefully quantifying that effect is well beyond my skills), some may be correct but I have a vague feeling of skepticism that I can't support with a strong case from my limited experience, and some of them I know to be flat-out wrong but NARP and others keep repeating the same arguments."
"If I look far enough, I can find people "advocating any idea you can imagine no matter how crazy." I don't need to look far, by the way, just here on this forum. Tell me that trains being a response to Highway and airway congestion, The demand for imported oil in the U.S.,Reduction in CO2 to head off Climate Change, Mobility for an aging and infirm population, Real estate and other economic development around new train routes hasn't been advanced on this forum? As to hearing "people saying we need diverse transportation options and passenger trains are one of them.", I haven't heard much of anyone saying such a thing, apart from this forum and other places where NARP members gather. Mostly, if you ask a person about passenger trains outside of enthusiast circles you get, "Dunno, I guess a train would be kewl." "
However, your last point about nursing care is simply wrong and personally very offensive:
"But the suggestion that I misunderstand the level of care required for persons with progressive neurological disorders, those are "fightin' words." Those weren't your words, but glib statements about people with Alzheimer's or other dementias needing "only custodial care", well, it is nothing like working parents arranging for child care for their kids, it is more like parents dealing with a child with autism, profound developmental disability or major mental illness, with a frail body and physical ailments of aging added to the mix."
My statements were not glib, sir. I speak from a position of inside knowledge of many skilled care nursing facilities, both from observation as a professional, many conversations with nursing staff, and the personal experience of helping my two parents. At the risk of being verbose, I will share some of my experience helping two parents with the ends of their lives.
In my mother's case with serious physical infirmities, the choice of what was the best course was easy. She was of sound mind, had experiences of being in two different nursing homes for surgery rehab, and knew she wanted to stay in her own home if we could arrange the necessary care as she declined. We found her a fine live-in, who cooked meals, assisted with personal care, etc. As my mom's condition declined after a stroke and she was told she had 2-3 months left we were able to arrange through Hospice full home health care of daily physician visits, a live-in nurse and all necessary medical equipment as needed the last 3-4 weeks of her life. This was what she wanted to have and so I attempted to accede to her wishes within the realm of what made sense medically. I was fortunate to be able to spend most of her last 10 days with her, 24/7, including as she passed. This was not inexpensive, but manageable. My father's case, four years earlier, the situation with Alzheimer's Dementia brought a different set of challenges as the disease progressed. For the first 18 months after a diagnosis could be made, he was able to stay at home, with a live-in and a 3x/week personal care attendant. But as the dementia progressed to paranoid delusions and aggression in his case (not the most common course) it became evident that he needed to be in a nursing facility that handles Alzheimers case of that type. Nine months later he passed, by then almost unrecognizable as the father I had known for 52 years. In the occasional moments of lucid thought, he pleaded with me to 1., take him home, and 2. get Dr. Kevorkian to help him.
Many folks with severe medical conditions including some sub-types of Alzheimer's need the wonderful care available in nursing homes. But many do not ever or not until near the end of their lives if creative approaches can be found. So in the future, Paul M., please do not put words in others' mouths or denounce others' perspectives and experiences as somehow meriting your "fightin' words" and contemptuous language.
Like Paul, I was also at the June 2010 meeting, only to show support, and also voice my concerns regarding the complete absence of any public relations for the Madison Hiawatha extension. I was dismayed by others in the local advocacy group. We lost the PR battle right at the start, as the name alone lead the wider non-railfan, unfamiliar-with-railroads, general public to think that the train operated only between Madison and MKE, that it wasn't "High Speed," and that it was a "boondoggle" that no one was going to ride. No mention was made of connecting at either Chicago or Saint Paul with over 1000 different locations. Many in the MKE paper disputed, and refused to understand that trains make several stops, and create ridership based upon those numerous stops.
Any future efforts must include other demographic groups who use trains, and also include a public relations campaign to drum up support.
I think those of us who are seeking passenger rail expansion had best seek PR that does not focus on the opinions and attitudes, etc. of local "advocacy" groups. The membership often consists of "foamers" and modelers, who may lead other members of the community to conclude that the rail projects are for the benefit of enthusiasts and modelers, rather than the general community..
I brought some comments from another poster over to this discussion as they are on topic here. You will find them at the end of this post. I am happy to address them as the original reason I posted the draft paper at the head of this discussion was to collect the various spins out there on accounting for road costs that exist with the interested public.
The greatest misinformation out there is the “average low cost of roadways” argument. It proceeds by minimizing attributable costs and maximizing attributable system use. On a humorous side note, I once read an analysis that was trying to count convenience store sales tax (including liquor) toward funding the roadway user revenue gap as they contended those sales taxes were solely auto related. Only in America…
For those looking for the short answer, here it is, the denominator is still wrong if you want to find the direct Federal General Fund subsidy per mile. You cannot include the full Federal Aid ELIGIBLE route miles as though they were fully funded by the General Fund. They are not, these routes are generally existing higher volume local, county, and state routes picked based on the hierarchical street classification and put on a map as eligible for Federal funding for upgrades, or at least they were in the past, I believe MAP 21 did away with the distinction. Urban roads also shouldn’t be counted. Please read the Incremental Revenue and Total Costs header below for more information.
Preventing a Disorganized Unraveling:
There is a lot of misinformation out there that once served the roadbuilders and land developers alone, or at least it did until the cities and the broad base of roads the Federal aid system is leveraged from declined from decades of neglect. My goal is stability, to keep me employed for three more decades gainfully. What is needed is an accepted idea of the financial costs of the road system that can make sense to the roadbuilder’s lobbyists. An enjoyable side benefit to me is considering how this affects intercity rail in the marketplace as I believe there is a market for such service, perhaps only 6 or 8% or so of total intercity travel, but many times greater than today.
Believe me the roadbuilders will be a much more hostile audience than this board but their future business is threatened as well by what I am describing. If you can keep the incremental financial cost to user revenue ratio reasonable for new limited access road projects, things can move forward in an organized manner. So layoffs can be avoided and business is consistently expanding.
But to do that you must know what the ratio is by comparing past, current, and future project specific costs. Roughly speaking, for limited access roads, the historical incremental (each new route mile in service) cost to user revenue ratio was 8 to 10:1 but has now gone to about 20:1 (5% incremental user revenue to cost). I advocate for setting up the past ratio as the limit, in other words a recognized Cross-Subsidy or Shadow Toll. You don’t want to stop any development just put a reasonable test on it. This would apply to both intercity highways and intercity rail both rail and freight.
Direct General Fund Subsidy or the Question of the Denominator:
Continuing on to find the direct General Fund subsidy for grins, not a Project Specific Cross-Subsidy which is the real answer, there is another important distinction. Taking the reduced $11.4 Billion of direct Federal General Fund subsidies from the quoted post below, one has to realize that those funds are now going to new build or expanded exurban and rural projects as they are the cheapest to build right now. These projects are the ones that are incremental, people could change their routing to do without. To a significant degree we are letting the urban interstate and arterial segments sit and decay due to a lack of long term funding, which can only go on so long. It will be very expensive to fix eventually. I will give an example to show this from I-35 near Austin, TX in a later post.
So probably the closest probable denominator might be a quarter of the Rural Interstate travel, but let’s use the full amount of around 245 Billion VM (Autos and Trucks) per the FHWA VM-1 table at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/vm1.cfm I am sure everybody knows that Rural Interstate VM peaked in 2002 at 280 Billion VM per FHWA VM-202 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/vm202.cfm Remember, urban roads are already mostly paid for locally through local General Funds or private developers spending against your mortgage.
$11.4 Billion / 245.6 Billion Rural VM = $0.046VM
+ $0.03/VM Government borne accidents
= $0.076 VM direct Federal General Fund deficit
A reasonable person might add the government borne accident costs as I did above, which flow from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security deficits from the Federal General Fund at around $0.03/VM. Spending on “autopilot” federal programs of this type is after all the biggest driver of overall federal deficit. So even with the “low average” method we are still at about $0.07 to $0.08/VM of direct Federal General Fund deficit which I fully expect could be bested by expanded revenue consist intercity trains. The way we operate intercity rail right now is like flying around a four turbine regional jet, it needs to be optimized by capacity expansion.
Now, some of you are probably uncomfortable with how I just picked a number out of the air based on experience as the VM use denominator. I am too, that is why the only accurate way to do the analysis is to do a project specific analysis. There is no sampling then, the values are known as historical fact other than future traffic use.
Project Specific Costing the Accurate Denominator
A project specific cost can be done by looking at the Interstates as a system, since good public records were kept, or taking a new project’s Financial Management Plan and calculating the values yourself, or by looking at a newer toll road rates and the source of funds. I have done all three personally to develop the values in the draft paper.
But the management plan is a little hard to come by for the interested public. If you don’t belong to the agency doing the project you could file a FOIA with the FHWA or maybe just call the right person and ask for a specific new project’s Financial Management Plan.
Climbing up the Cost Curve:
A lot of the Think Tank hubris borne of the 1990’s and early 2000’s was from the relative position then of having expended large amounts of money earlier from a Federal tax on the existing local road system before that system became deficient.
From the FHWA directly. The chart doesn't calculated it but we are heading back up.
Remember, incremental fuel taxes have only been $0.03/VM to $0.013/VM for automobiles. Where did the extra money come from in prior years and today? It came from a Federal tax on the existing urban system not paid for by the HTF. This is the Cross-Subsidy that I speak about. Now both systems are deficient and we are in a hole that requires a different direction to exit. We are climbing up the cost curve and it is going to get steeper without action.
Incremental Revenue and Total Costs (Federal, State, and Local Capital and Maintenance):
Exhibit 6-1 Government Revenue Sources for Highways, 2008
Source
Highway Revenue, Billions of Dollars
Percent
Federal
State
Local
Total
User Charges*
Motor-Fuel Taxes
$26.2
$30.0
$1.5
$57.7
29.9%
Motor-Vehicle Taxes and Fees
$4.7
$21.4
$1.1
$27.2
14.1%
Tolls
$0.0
$7.5
$1.8
$9.3
4.8%
Subtotal
$30.8
$59.0
$4.3
$94.2
48.9%
Other
Property Taxes and Assessments
$8.3
4.3%
General Fund Appropriations
$10.6
$6.8
$23.0
$40.4
21.0%
Other Taxes and Fees
$0.5
$7.0
$5.0
$12.4
6.5%
Investment Income and Other Receipts
$17.5
9.1%
Bond Issue Proceeds
$14.3
$5.7
$19.9
10.3%
$11.1
$38.7
$48.8
$98.6
51.1%
Total Revenues
$41.9
$97.7
$53.1
$192.7
100.0%
Funds Drawn From (or Placed in) Reserves
($1.9)
($7.1)
($1.6)
($10.7)
-5.5%
Total Expenditures Funded During 2008
$40.0
$90.6
$51.5
$182.1
94.5%
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2010cpr/chap6.htm
So only $57.7 + $9.3 = $67 Billion (37%) of the $182.1 Billion in total government capital and maintenance spending is incremental revenue. Typically, a VM prorated share of incremental revenue is what is assigned to intercity highways as local needs must be met first.
So $115.1 Billion is non-variable with respect to mileage and of that amount $98.6 Billion is from non-users. This $98.6 Billion plus Private residential road construction plus Government borne accident costs plus local fuel sales tax offsets makes up the Cross-Subsidy which mostly goes to intercity type roads. These are real budget dollars; we haven’t even begun to count pollution or such.
So each time we spend for new road infrastructure we are digging ourselves deeper into the hole as incremental revenue will not compensate for the incremental costs and highways don’t beget people. Whereas, expanding the intercity capacity within a train will indeed improve the financial performance as the incremental revenue is greater than incremental costs. Further the average cost will eventually drop below the average intercity road costs.
Who doesn’t Drive?
A mere 19% of 20-24 years olds do not have licenses. But only 0-5% of the Baby Boom generation do not have licenses which explains the perception amongst that group that everybody drives. See FHWA Table DL-20 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/dl20.cfm
Of course these figures do not count people who can drive and own an automobile but might not be comfortable driving say after dark due to declining eyesight or might find it uncomfortable over longer distances due to health reasons.
Again, just looking for equitable financial treatment and the chance to operate at a reasonable level of capacity, nothing special.
Begin Quote...
“The average federal subsidies per passenger mile and vehicle miles traveled were reversed. It should have read .012 for highways and .009 for commercial air.
According to "Highway Statistics 2010, Table HM-20", as presented by the American Road and Transportation Builders, federally funded (directly and directly) highways consist of the Interstate Highway System (1.2%), the National Highway System (2.9%), and other federal-aid highways (20.4%). These percentages add to 24.5% of the total.
According to National Transportation Statistics for 2010, total vehicle miles traveled were 2,966 billion or nearly 3 trillion miles. Of these 963.8 billion (32.4%) of the vehicle miles traveled were on federally funded highways.
During FY10 the federal government transferred $14.7 billion to the Highway Trust Fund. After adjustment for HTF internal transfers for mass transit and other activities, it appears that approximately $11.4 billion benefited federal highway users in directly. In addition, I calculated an annual proforma benefit to federal highway users because of the TIFIA loans and added it to the transfer amounts. I did not attempt to assign a value to any externals that are difficult to estimate under the best of circumstances. Other than in the minds of some economists, it is impossible. Thus, the net transfer appears to be approximately $11.4 billion. Dividing this number by the estimated federal highway vehicle miles traveled generates .012 cents per vehicle mile traveled.
These are relatively high level estimates; one could refine them if he had access to all the relevant data bases as well as sufficient time and computer horse power to work with the numbers.
If one wants assumes that the vehicle miles traveled on federally funded highways is equal to the percentage of the federal highways to total highways, the average federal subsidy per vehicle mile traveled would be 1.6 cents. Better yet, if one takes the total vehicle miles for all roads, since the total road system is intertwined with the federal highway system, the federal transfer should be divided by the total vehicle miles traveled, which would produce a very small number. One can spin the numbers seven ways come Sunday, but no matter how a reasonable person does it, the average federal subsidy per passenger mile for Amtrak is many times greater than the average federal subsidy per vehicle mile traveled.
I did not use travel on all roads to calculate the estimated average federal subsidy per vehicle mile traveled on federally funded roads. By the same token I did not restrict it to just the Interstate Highway System, since the federal government provides funding for all federal highways.
It is important to keep in mind that most of the numbers for air travel and highway travel are a function of statistical sampling, whereas the numbers for Amtrak are taken off its audited financial and operating reports. For most transportation statistics the feds use a 90 per cent confidence level for their sampling construct. However, for traffic safety statistics they use a 95 per cent confidence level. This means is that there is a 10 per cent probability that the results of the sample will not be reflected in the population as a whole. Accordingly, what they should publish with respect to most outcomes, i.e. vehicle miles traveled, is a population range instead of a number. It is incorrect to project the results of a sample - a whole number - to the population. However, given the fear that many Americans have a mathematics, that would be a heck of a risk.
In addition, whereas federal subsidies for Amtrak go directly to the operator, most of the federal subsidies for air and highway, as well as waterways, go for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the facilities, thereby making them indirect subsidies. And making it difficult to determine who are the biggest beneficiaries.
Again, what has been consistently ignored by many, whenever it is convenient to do so, is the fact that the 210 million motorists in the U.S. pay all the costs for the highway system. The monies transferred from the general fund to the HTF came from the taxpayers, albeit more from upper income tax payers than low income motorists, as well as corporate taxpayers, that pump money into the general fund, which is then transferred to various agency funds, including the HTF. Even in the case of borrowed money, which the feds have been particularly adept at getting, the debt service is ultimately paid by the people, either directly or through monetization of the debt.”
End Quote.
One can make the case that the U.S. has over emphasized highways and presumably airways at the expense of passenger rail. Get over it. It is a done deal. The overwhelming majority of the people want cars, and they are not going back. Your position ignores political realities. It is a non-starter.
At the end of the day motorists pay for the highways that they use. Directly or indirectly they pay the costs.
The subsidies (real and imagined) for motorists, airline passengers, etc. have nothing to do with the key question. Where does an expanded investment in passenger rail make sense? If it made marketing sense, venture capitalists would rush in with money. It does not make sense in most markets; this is why it is a ward of the state.
When Southwest Airlines goes into a new market, the planners have a realistic marketing plan and financial plan. I don't see either plan for expanded passenger rail, other than a continuing raid on the national treasury.
I agree that the past is past, but there is more to it than just figuring out where new investment and operation make sense.
How does the LD subsidy rate compare with the EAS subsidy rate, considering the many small towns and cities these trains serve?
http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/target-11-investigates-essential-air-service/nSyb3/
http://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation-policy/small-community-rural-air-service/essential-air-service
jclass How does the LD subsidy rate compare with the EAS subsidy rate, considering the many small towns and cities these trains serve? http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/target-11-investigates-essential-air-service/nSyb3/ http://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation-policy/small-community-rural-air-service/essential-air-service
Is LD train service "essential"? They are knocking off the Crescent 4 days a week between Atlanta and NOL for a month with no "bustitution". ...hardly essentail
I doubt it'd "unstick" the debate - even if LD trains were similar to EAS. Amtrak needs to get on firmer ground.
schlimm jclass How does the LD subsidy rate compare with the EAS subsidy rate, considering the many small towns and cities these trains serve? http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/target-11-investigates-essential-air-service/nSyb3/ http://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation-policy/small-community-rural-air-service/essential-air-service It would be helpful if the reports gave the passenger miles flown along with the total subsidy of $225 million for EAS (which does NOT include the subsidy from ATC appotioned to these ~120 routes) so we could compare that number with the subsidy per passenger mile for Amrak LD services, especially on a route basis. Contrary to the abrupt dismissal of V. Payne's information posted above, an accurate comparison of the true subsidies, including cross-subsidies, between road, air and rail is useful, even essential, not to re-examine the past as though anyone believes it could be changed, but to be able to correctly plan for the future.
Sam1One can make the case that the U.S. has over emphasized highways and presumably airways at the expense of passenger rail. Get over it. It is a done deal. The overwhelming majority of the people want cars, and they are not going back. Your position ignores political realities. It is a non-starter.
It is not at all clear that the "overwhelming majority" or any people at all want to subsidize a national interstate highway system where the greatest use is by a relatively small number of people.
But then this is just the position of a guy you've decided is "obscene."
John WR Sam1One can make the case that the U.S. has over emphasized highways and presumably airways at the expense of passenger rail. Get over it. It is a done deal. The overwhelming majority of the people want cars, and they are not going back. Your position ignores political realities. It is a non-starter. It is not at all clear that the "overwhelming majority" or any people at all want to subsidize a national interstate highway system where the greatest use is by a relatively small number of people. But then this is just the position of a guy you've decided is "obscene."
"......subsidizing wealthy commuters, as well as first class travelers on Amtrak, strikes me as obscene." The comment refers to the practice. It does not refer to you or anyone else. It is a comment on a government policy.
Sam1"......subsidizing wealthy commuters, as well as first class travelers on Amtrak, strikes me as obscene." The comment refers to the practice. It does not refer to you or anyone else. It is a comment on a government policy.
But what is the reason for this "obscene" government policy? Isn't in place because those of us who ride the trains are only an "interest group?" And how can it be that the members of that "interest group" are not "obscene?"
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.