Paul Milenkovic BaltACD There is no form of transportation in this country that has not benefitted from some form of tax monies This is leading to what I call the "just give (me/us) the money" school of passenger train advocacy. Trains receive public money, but every other form of transportation receives public money, so one cannot seek that trains be cost effective, or if trains are expensive to try to better understand the cost structure or the underlying technical or cultural reasons, or if trains are expensive, to apply them where they do the most public good? Or are you going to talk about how "this government program wastes money" and "this other government program wastes money" so "how dare anyone complain but the efficient use of money by Amtrak?" Is that the gist of it? And if all forms of transportation receive public money, does this end any discussion of how much money? Whether highways, say, receive more money in absolute terms but receive less money per passenger mile or other unit of work product? Or is this a sibling rivalry version of fairness, that if highways get 40 billion, trains deserve 40 billion, end of any further discussion?
BaltACD There is no form of transportation in this country that has not benefitted from some form of tax monies
There is no form of transportation in this country that has not benefitted from some form of tax monies
This is leading to what I call the "just give (me/us) the money" school of passenger train advocacy. Trains receive public money, but every other form of transportation receives public money, so one cannot seek that trains be cost effective, or if trains are expensive to try to better understand the cost structure or the underlying technical or cultural reasons, or if trains are expensive, to apply them where they do the most public good?
Or are you going to talk about how "this government program wastes money" and "this other government program wastes money" so "how dare anyone complain but the efficient use of money by Amtrak?" Is that the gist of it?
And if all forms of transportation receive public money, does this end any discussion of how much money? Whether highways, say, receive more money in absolute terms but receive less money per passenger mile or other unit of work product?
Or is this a sibling rivalry version of fairness, that if highways get 40 billion, trains deserve 40 billion, end of any further discussion?
No - I am going to say government money is a red herring. Government sees fit to spend money on the services that it believes it's populace needs. Fighting for those funds is a free for all - always has been and always will be and each mode will advance the arguments they believe will get them the funds at the expense of all the other competing modes.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Folks the government is not going bankrupt any time soon. The money process works like this the government needs money so they issue bonds, the federal reserve calls up the treasury who prints money and buys the bonds and loans us the money at interest, this money is put into the government's bank account which then in turn makes into the hand of government employees, and finally this money eventually makes into commercial banks who then through the magic of fractional reserve banking loan it out 10 times multiplying it, and because you don't want to be a bad citizen and go to prison all this money is paid in income taxes which doesn't actually go toward paying for government services but rather the taxes give the government money value and pay the interest on the debt. If the government really wanted to they could build a state of the art rail system and employ thousands of people. Money is not an issue at all since it as all fake to begin with.
Railroad to Freedom
oltmanndBut the problem is, Amtrak is what we have and the political conversation is stuck on the operating subsidy. If it could be reduced a good bit and Amtrak appeared to be trying to operate efficiently, then maybe the conversation could be turned.
Don,
This is a very good point. Amtrak's most successful venture is Acela. Acela actually makes a profit. And, as you say, when it comes to discussing Acela in Congress the subject is turned. However, Amtrak's critics argue that the government has no place in a profit making venture and Acela should be sold off to a private company.
Do you think it should be?
John
John WR oltmanndBut the problem is, Amtrak is what we have and the political conversation is stuck on the operating subsidy. If it could be reduced a good bit and Amtrak appeared to be trying to operate efficiently, then maybe the conversation could be turned. Don, This is a very good point. Amtrak's most successful venture is Acela. Acela actually makes a profit. And, as you say, when it comes to discussing Acela in Congress the subject is turned. However, Amtrak's critics argue that the government has no place in a profit making venture and Acela should be sold off to a private company. Do you think it should be? John
I don't think it matters. I also don't think anybody would consider "sell off" just Acela. You'd have to take the whole Amtrak NEC operations and pay rent to the infrastructure owners.
Think there would be any takers?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ontheBNSF If the government really wanted to they could build a state of the art rail system and employ thousands of people.
At the expense of something else. The US workers can only produce so much stuff. If you have them make railways, what is the trade off?
We could have everyone dig ditches and fill them in, too.
oltmannd don't think it matters. I also don't think anybody would consider "sell off" just Acela. You'd have to take the whole Amtrak NEC operations and pay rent to the infrastructure owners. Think there would be any takers?
don't think it matters. I also don't think anybody would consider "sell off" just Acela. You'd have to take the whole Amtrak NEC operations and pay rent to the infrastructure owners.
If the price were right I think there could be some interest. Railroad history includes lines that were financially shaky or even bankrupt while the managers personally did well for themselves.
ontheBNSFIf the government really wanted to they could build a state of the art rail system and employ thousands of people
Just as when the government wanted to it built an interstate highway system and employed hundreds of thousands. To get the government to do that you have to say the secret word: "defense."
ontheBNSFI say those benefits out weigh the cost of making money out of thin air or a small increase in taxes,
I hate to repeat myself but the secret word is "defense." If you can link "defense" to a new rail system all of the people in the Congress who now say we can't afford it will suddenly start just shoveling money at it. And we will have it.
John WR ontheBNSFI say those benefits out weigh the cost of making money out of thin air or a small increase in taxes, I hate to repeat myself but the secret word is "defense." If you can link "defense" to a new rail system all of the people in the Congress who now say we can't afford it will suddenly start just shoveling money at it. And we will have it.
You are right if you say something is for defense you can pretty much get away with spending as much money as you want.
OK guys, you're getting heavy into politics here. Bring the conversation back to the subject of the thread without going into politics.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
jeffrey-wimberly OK guys, you're getting heavy into politics here. Bring the conversation back to the subject of the thread without going into politics.
When discussing a entity that was created by political action and continues to be funded in major part by political sources, how can any discussion of it not be political. Railroads and politics have been entwined since the 2nd day after the decision was made in 1827 to build the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad - as opposed to the more politically desired canal system from Baltimore West. ANY thread that discusses any aspect of the operation of ANY passenger service is by definition - POLITICAL. By having a forum category devoted to PASSENGER, Trains is seeking political discussions.
I do have to side with the Wim-meister on this one. When he says 'getting heavy into politics' he didn't mean Amtrak politics.
Discussing Amtrak politics -- even vituperatively -- is one thing. But this is starting to get into mocking 'defense' spending, or making cheap shots about highway money. Can we please keep it on the facts?
RME
OvermodCan we please keep it on the facts?
Geez, just facts? What fun is that?
Getting back to the "privatize the NEC" thing. John suggests that some sort of robber baron might appear and milk the operation dry for his own benefit and then get out. For that to work, there have to be assets worth something to milk. If you are just the "train runner" who purchased some middle-aged to old train sets, what's to milk?
Is this what Sir Richard is doing with Virgin Rail in the UK?
Privatizing the operations puts at least part of the game into the profit motive world. Maybe a private operator could figure out how to deliver a hamburger to a traveler for less than $15 and a can of Coke for less than $4?
Still, at best, its not much more than a game of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Some arrangements may be better than others for a short while, but the boat will still sink. If you subsidize the ROW so the rents are low enough for the operator to turn a profit, the ROW owner takes a bath. If you raise the rents to cover the ROW costs (including capital), the operators take a bath. This is the quandary France finds itself in. (and Germany, of late?)
Jeffery,
I have no desire to violate your guidelines but to be frank I don't always know what they are. Here I seem to be pushing against the boundary if I haven't actually broken through it.
I do think Balt makes a very good point. Given that Amtrak is a government entity any meaningful discussion of it really has to be political. But how, on a forum about trains, can we not discuss the main passenger train system in the country?
I could clarify my own position to both Don and Overmod but I suspect you might find that transgresses your guidelines so I will reserve my comments until (I hope) I may get some further clarification from you.
You introduced the magic word "defense" twice, I believe, which has nothing to do with Amtrak, not even tangentially.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Also this talk of "fixing Amtrak" is bogus. Amtrak was designed to fail it was broken from the the off set. There is nothing to fix. Amtrak was designed to gradually end passenger service its original equipment was meant to be converted for freight usage. The water gate scandal trial revealed Nixon has received contributions from airlines such as american airlines. If Nixon really wanted to help passenger rail he should have reduced regulations and done away with the ICC but he did not. How is something that is not only heavily regulated supposed to compete with entities that are not only subsidized but have less regulations. Either it is the government's role to run transportation or it isn't. IF passenger rail's competitors aren't expected to pay for themselves then neither should passenger rail. my .02
Amen to that!!
There was not a great push for transportation de-reg in the time period when the Rail Passenger Service Act was enacted. It should also be remembered that the passenger airlines were also heavily regulated by the Civil Aeronautics Board, especially in regard to routes and fares.
CSSHEGEWISCH There was not a great push for transportation de-reg in the time period when the Rail Passenger Service Act was enacted. It should also be remembered that the passenger airlines were also heavily regulated by the Civil Aeronautics Board, especially in regard to routes and fares.
Well airlines for years didn't really pay any user fees until 1971. Also ever since deregulation became the norm Amtrak was never able to benefit from it and airlines were.
ontheBNSF Also this talk of "fixing Amtrak" is bogus. Amtrak was designed to fail it was broken from the the off set. There is nothing to fix. Amtrak was designed to gradually end passenger service its original equipment was meant to be converted for freight usage. The water gate scandal trial revealed Nixon has received contributions from airlines such as american airlines. If Nixon really wanted to help passenger rail he should have reduced regulations and done away with the ICC but he did not. How is something that is not only heavily regulated supposed to compete with entities that are not only subsidized but have less regulations. Either it is the government's role to run transportation or it isn't. IF passenger rail's competitors aren't expected to pay for themselves then neither should passenger rail. my .02
Providing a subsidy (read: bribe) of ~$200 per passenger to folks who choose to ride in sleepers on land cruises is one of the things Amtrak could end tomorrow. If it is politically necessary to run LD trains, then at least make them coach-only, with a bistro car for food, thus reducing the labor-intensive nature of those trains as they are now, so that the savings can be used to develop real transportation services.
schlimm Providing a subsidy (read: bribe) of ~$200 per passenger to folks who choose to ride in sleepers on land cruises is one of the things Amtrak could end tomorrow. If it is politically necessary to run LD trains, then at least make them coach-only, with a bistro car for food, thus reducing the labor-intensive nature of those trains as they are now, so that the savings can be used to develop real transportation services.
Part of the problem, and it seems it's a dirty little secret, is Amtrak has all sorts of labor protection in their contracts. Cutting stuff means displaced workers still get paid for a number of years. A good deal if you work for them.
The trouble is, Amtrak mgt has absolutely no reason to try to negotiate for something more pliable. Labor protection = job security for mgt.
jeffrey-wimberlyOK guys, you're getting heavy into politics here. Bring the conversation back to the subject of the thread without going into politics.
Am I ever going to hear from you? It has been almost 24 hours since I asked for advice about your guidelines and I am waiting for your answer.
John,
The rule is you can not say anything negative about passenger trains. That is political. Advocating for them is not political, so you will be fine.
Mac
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/214201.aspx
When you start getting into current/previous governments and whose fault it is/was and get into hurling invective...although I have yet to see that here....that is when locks will be used.
If you have concerns about this you can always PM myself or Jeff.
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/
Blownout,
Thank you for responding to my question.
I can confidently say I don't call people names or engage in political invective. As far as I'm concerned people's politics are their own. I don't need to come here to give or look for political expression.
But I cannot be so confident when I talk about train related government policies. There is a lot of judgement in those cases and a lot of line drawing. I think many of us have problems with that issue. However, I will be aware of it and make a deliberate effort not to overstep the boundaries.
And all policies and practices have a history associated with them - all that history and who caused it to happen ends up being where we are today. Future policies and practices that get politically debated today affect where we will be tomorrow.
BaltACD And all policies and practices have a history associated with them - all that history and who caused it to happen ends up being where we are today. Future policies and practices that get politically debated today affect where we will be tomorrow.
That the terms of the debate about the future affects the future, I could not agree more.
So tell me, what was being said about trains by people like us in the early 1970's during the transition to Amtrak? Has Amtrak been on an upward or downward slope since then? How much impact has Amtrak had on highway and airport congestion, pollution, oil usage, living patterns, accomodation of people who cannot or prefer not to use the other modes? Keep in mind that Amtrak has .1 percent (about 1 part in 1000) of total passenger miles in the U.S., 5 percent (1 part in 20) in Europe.
What are we saying now that is different from the early 1970's? If we are saying the same thing, what can we expect by the year 2050?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic BaltACD And all policies and practices have a history associated with them - all that history and who caused it to happen ends up being where we are today. Future policies and practices that get politically debated today affect where we will be tomorrow. That the terms of the debate about the future affects the future, I could not agree more. So tell me, what was being said about trains by people like us in the early 1970's during the transition to Amtrak? Has Amtrak been on an upward or downward slope since then? How much impact has Amtrak had on highway and airport congestion, pollution, oil usage, living patterns, accomodation of people who cannot or prefer not to use the other modes? Keep in mind that Amtrak has .1 percent (about 1 part in 1000) of total passenger miles in the U.S., 5 percent (1 part in 20) in Europe. What are we saying now that is different from the early 1970's? If we are saying the same thing, what can we expect by the year 2050?
The Father's of Amtrak (Congress of the late 60's & 1970) viewed Amtrak like the promiscous High School girl - Sew wild oats on Friday & Saturday nights and pray for crop failure on Sunday.
Congress in passing the Amtrak legislation did it to 'bail out' the carriers of their continuing passenger operation losses. The prevailing thoghts at the time were that Amtrak would fail within the original authorization period and rail passenger operations in the USA would cease to exist and Congress could get on with it's prefered transportation programs of building highways and airports. Congress never intended rail passenger to have ANY EFFECT on highway and airport congestion, pollution, oil usage, living patterns, accomodation of people who cannot or prefer not to use the other modes. Congress expected Amtrak to die. The fact that Amtrak (and rail commuter - which Congress never even looked at during Amtrak formation) continues to operate and is developing a increasing impact in the areas served is a testament to the people of Amtrak and also the people of the rail commuter agencies. Amtrak is developing relevance - it is not 'there' now, but it is growing. With improved SERVICE in high traffic corridors it's relevance will continue to grow.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.