V.Payne ...... The price tag for crashes comes at a heavy burden for Americans at $871 billion in economic loss and societal harm. This includes $277 billion in economic costs – nearly $900 for each person living in the United States based on calendar year 2010 data — and $594 billion in harm from the loss of life and the pain and decreased quality of life due to injuries."
...... The price tag for crashes comes at a heavy burden for Americans at $871 billion in economic loss and societal harm. This includes $277 billion in economic costs – nearly $900 for each person living in the United States based on calendar year 2010 data — and $594 billion in harm from the loss of life and the pain and decreased quality of life due to injuries."
As per the executive summary of The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010, which has nothing to do with passenger trains, public revenues paid roughly 9 per cent of all motor vehicle crash costs. They were approximately $24 billion. Approximately 5 per cent was paid from federal funds, with 3 per cent paid from state funds and local funds. One per cent was paid from indeterminate public resources.
Unlike the polls that have been cited, the aforementioned study used a proper statistical sampling techniques. Thus, when projecting the results of a statistical sample to the population as a whole, the proper technique is to state the results as a range together with the confidence level, tolerable error rate, confidence parameters, etc. Stating the outcome in an absolute number is incorrect.
As per Table 14.1 approximately 84 per cent of the medical costs were paid by Medicare, private insurance, self insured, Medicare, etc. Medicaid paid approximately 16 per cent of the costs. Medicare is a government insurance program paid for by the beneficiaries over their working lives. This is a far different cry than the implication that all or most of the aforementioned costs fell on the public purse.
Some of the economic costs are probably soft dollar costs. For example, approximately 20 years ago I was injured in a motorcycle accident, and I was off work for a week. That would have been classified as an economic cost, i.e. I was not working although I was being paid. However, when I returned to work, I caught up on the work that was waiting for me. It is in these areas that measuring the impact of motor vehicle crashes gets a bit shaky.
It is interesting to note that some of the estimated medical costs stem from data compiled as far back as 1996. That is pretty old for a study that purports to show the results in 2010. Moreover, the outputs are a function of statistical sampling. I have a high degree of confidence in the federal governments data sources, including its understanding of property statistical methodologies, but the outcomes should have been stated in ranges as opposed to absolute numbers.
I did not read the whole study. It is 306 pages long. I have better things to do. But I did run a couple of searches on it to get the results shown above.
IN 90% OF THE WORLD'S CASES, PASSENGER RAIL IS NOT A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.
V.Payne Are the people "choosing" ACA health plans at the lower end of the income spectrum truly choosing or having a choice made for them for all practical purposes due to the free money (for now) behind the ACA, and the taxes on the private medical suppliers? The same type of deal was in place (and mostly still is) for alternatives to intercity rail in the post WW II time period, the money would be spent, by leveraging taxes on use of the existing local road system and paying for serious accidents out of general taxes, only if you "choose" highways, all the while taxing railroads (15 then 10% ticket and waybill tax) till the industry is destroyed. There certainly is a financial side to the shift that is still there in the fuel tax finances. It would seem that the polls first mentioned in this post string by DFM are fairly accurate for the purpose as they only cover one district, so the population size is small relative to the sample size. Check out the first post and the complete poll PDFs linked therein if you joined the discussion late. I will post some other polls in a while.
Are the people "choosing" ACA health plans at the lower end of the income spectrum truly choosing or having a choice made for them for all practical purposes due to the free money (for now) behind the ACA, and the taxes on the private medical suppliers?
The same type of deal was in place (and mostly still is) for alternatives to intercity rail in the post WW II time period, the money would be spent, by leveraging taxes on use of the existing local road system and paying for serious accidents out of general taxes, only if you "choose" highways, all the while taxing railroads (15 then 10% ticket and waybill tax) till the industry is destroyed. There certainly is a financial side to the shift that is still there in the fuel tax finances.
It would seem that the polls first mentioned in this post string by DFM are fairly accurate for the purpose as they only cover one district, so the population size is small relative to the sample size. Check out the first post and the complete poll PDFs linked therein if you joined the discussion late. I will post some other polls in a while.
You don't seem to understand the poll results. Only 34 per cent of the people contacted in the Texas poll even responded, which is a low response rate. Moreover, the poll did not use valid statistical sampling, so the results cannot be projected to the population as a whole. The only thing that the pollsters can said is that a certain per cent of the respondents said such and such. That is markedly difference from saying that the public or the people said such and such.
The one poll that really counts is whether American's ride passenger trains in sufficient numbers and at sufficient rates to cover their costs. With respect to the long distance trains in particular, the answer is a ringing no.
Amtrak has more than 40 years to figure out how to cover the costs of the long distance trains. They have failed miserably. Only someone who has never worked in business and does not understand it would argue that Amtrak, which is a commercial business, should continue to run the long distance trains.
schlimm MidlandMikeWestern LD trains tend to have twice as many cars as the average state-sponsored corridor train. I don't see how anyone can say that few use them. While some of the people in the sleepers may be on a rail cruse, I doubt many people sitting up in the coaches overnight probably think they are on anything resembling a luxury liner. And many of those small towns who take pride in maintaining their stations, even though the stop is in the wee hours, don't consider the service useless. The western LD trains carry a small percentage of Amtrak's total passengers (which is the mission) and a large majority of the deficit. The short corridors are new and/or developing and have a much smaller deficit but carry more passengers. To anybody but railfans, it makes no sense.
MidlandMikeWestern LD trains tend to have twice as many cars as the average state-sponsored corridor train. I don't see how anyone can say that few use them. While some of the people in the sleepers may be on a rail cruse, I doubt many people sitting up in the coaches overnight probably think they are on anything resembling a luxury liner. And many of those small towns who take pride in maintaining their stations, even though the stop is in the wee hours, don't consider the service useless.
The western LD trains carry a small percentage of Amtrak's total passengers (which is the mission) and a large majority of the deficit. The short corridors are new and/or developing and have a much smaller deficit but carry more passengers. To anybody but railfans, it makes no sense.
I was answering your original statement that few people ride LD trains. The point I was making is that the average LD train hauls as many passengers as an average state supported corridor train. They run more of these state corridor trains to produce the higher passenger numbers. According to Amtrak about 3 times as many passengers as LD trains, but when you take into account the longer distances of the LD trains, the passenger-miles are much closer.
As far as ATK is concerned, the state supported corridors have no deficit, as the states now pick up the deficits. Eliminating any LD trains will not produce any savings that could be used for state corridor service, but it would eliminate any connecting passengers. Besides being politically untenable for 40 years, eliminating the LD trains and shifting everything to the remaining states, would remove ATK's national franchise. This would precipitate an immediate suit by the freight RRs to invalidate ATKs existing trackage privileges. Combined with states such as Indiana, Wisconsin, NH, etc that have backed off passenger rail, I don't see anything to be enthusiastic about under your proposal.
V.Payne Once past this point I had a few other polls to post. But lets ask the negative question. Can one find a poll showing support for eliminating NRPC accross the electorate?
Once past this point I had a few other polls to post. But lets ask the negative question. Can one find a poll showing support for eliminating NRPC accross the electorate?
Professional pollsters know that asking a negative question biases the outcome and, therefore, it is an invalid technique. The idea is to keep the poll as bias free as possible. The best way to get there is through open ended questions that don't prompt a desired response.
The flaw in the polls that you referenced is they are not based on a valid statistical sample. Therefore, all the pollsters can say is that the respondents said this or that. That is different than being able to say that the public or the people or Americans said such and such.
If a pollster found that a majority of the respondents said that they wanted to eliminate Amtrak and, moreover, the poll was not based on a valid statistical sample, I would have the same problem with it as I have with attempting to project the results from a non-statistical sample to the population as a whole. Hopefully, the pollster would know to frame the question in terms of Amtrak, which many people would have difficulty identifying, but some would get it, as opposed to NRPC. Very few Americans know what NRPC means.
People say all kinds of things in a poll, especially if it is a telephone poll, and there is no follow-up, i.e. one on one interviews or focus groups. Moreover, as a rule, the pollsters don't really know who they are talking to and in most instances are unable to gauge the knowledge of the respondents.
At the end of WWII the nation's passenger railroads invested the equivalent of billions of dollars in new equipment. They fielded some fantastic trains. It was all for naught. By the middle fifties it was clear that people were deserting them in droves for planes and cars. That is the poll that counts. It is not what people say they will do; it is what they do.
The NSC data cited and linked above is solid statistical evidence of the cost of automobile disability accidents, in the profession a variation of this it is often used to rank various road designs by the rate of occurrence of six categories of accidents and statistically show the relative cost of accidents (when anybody even bothers to do such an analysis).
Another method is to use the NHTSA data set, which does a better job of explaining the payment source of the accident costs and goes on to estimate the costs of lost wages, loss of function, etc which would be the higher economic measurement of disability. The divergence in the $200 Billion cost estimate might spring from the fact that after two years on the Federal disability program, one is eligible for Medicare, so it thus become causative. The previous comments dealt with a limited aspect of such (Federal expenditures) and probably could be fine tuned a bit, but the wider cost is much larger as explained below and is certainly not assigned to be paid off highway user revenue.
"The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) today (5/2014 update to 2000 study; Ed.) released a new study that underscores the high economic toll and societal impact of motor vehicle crashes in the United States. The price tag for crashes comes at a heavy burden for Americans at $871 billion in economic loss and societal harm. This includes $277 billion in economic costs – nearly $900 for each person living in the United States based on calendar year 2010 data — and $594 billion in harm from the loss of life and the pain and decreased quality of life due to injuries."
Lets see, there are we will say up to 2900 Billion vehicle miles, so that comes out to about $0.23/passenger mile, is anybody paying that much for automobile insurance? Well of course not, as in an automobile accident you lose out over the mistakes made, but in a common carrier accident you get a jury award for the economic losses.
For certain, there should be a greater degree of study of such costs of automobile accidents to the Federal deficit, and the fact that there is not seems to indicate a unwillingness to actually address the problem. The assumption that everybody is insured for the loss is just not correct. The current amount of this author's disability policy is $110/month, my agent indicated that the vast majority of peole are not funded anywhere near what they need, but instead have some minimal amount.
The default posisition is to fall back on the Federal programs by declaring bankruptcy it would seem. As an example, ask your automobile insurance agent to write $1 million in medical coverage on your auto insurance, no such product exists at the major carrier I use, they just write to your medical insurance deductible so that the costs are spread out into the broad pool of all of society and when you really get injured you become a charity case.
It strikes this author as odd that a relative cost (accident and disability) bought through a NPRC ticket is somehow not relevant for discussion when the same cost is foisted on the general tax payers through the decades into the future offset deficits in the Federal programs that I will have to pick up as either tremendous debt IOU's or reduced services. Common business sense says that not including costs will change the ultimate uptake of a product.
V.Payne The CBO numbers were from the WSJ article directly linked in my earlier post written by the "deputy assistant Treasury secretary in the Reagan administration", click on the red text. Maybe the difference is a denominator of spending versus revenue? The source would seem reliable. My broader point is that non-discretionary spending is going to eat the US budget. Federal health and benefit costs are a much larger worry than discretionary spending and automobile caused disability in particular is an "operating" expense that is off the automobile "books" but rail accidents are on the NRPC books. As to determining automobile disability costs, start with NSC, then multiply 52 by the number of automobile deaths by the disability costs, as there are 52 disabling accidents per death on average (there are others ways I have posted before as well). I got a significant portion (3/4) of the $200 Billion noted by the author above. As is typical this is a discussion about the relative value of passenger rail, so automobile accidents seem germane.
The CBO numbers were from the WSJ article directly linked in my earlier post written by the "deputy assistant Treasury secretary in the Reagan administration", click on the red text. Maybe the difference is a denominator of spending versus revenue? The source would seem reliable.
My broader point is that non-discretionary spending is going to eat the US budget. Federal health and benefit costs are a much larger worry than discretionary spending and automobile caused disability in particular is an "operating" expense that is off the automobile "books" but rail accidents are on the NRPC books.
schlimm I think if you had read the remainder of my post, you would note a research cautionary note: Much lower response rates can yield results that are only marginally less valid in terms of demographic representativeness within the range examined than the traditionally higher rates regarded as robust.
I think if you had read the remainder of my post, you would note a research cautionary note: Much lower response rates can yield results that are only marginally less valid in terms of demographic representativeness within the range examined than the traditionally higher rates regarded as robust.
I understand your point. However, the study was not based on a valid statistical sample and, therefore, the results cannot be projected to the population as a whole. This, in effect, is what the researchers said. They noted in their topical sentence to the study that what they measured and could report on were the results of the people surveyed. That is significantly different from saying they gathered their data from a valid statistical sample and, therefore, could project the results to the population as a whole.
What we know from the study referred to by Payne is that the Texans who responded to the survey expressed certain views about transportation in Texas, primarily along the I-35 corridor. Given the poor rate of response, I don't believe it is reasonable to conclude that the respondents are speaking for Texans as a whole. We don't even know the extent to which the researchers believe that the results of their non-statistical sample reflects the beliefs of the population. They did not go there.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Interesting. According to UT-Austin: Mail: 50% adequate, 60% good, 70% very good Phone: 80% good Email: 40% average, 50% good, 60% very good Online: 30% average Classroom paper: > 50% = good Face-to-face: 80-85% good On the other hand: "Holbrook et al. (2005) assessed whether lower response rates are associated with less unweighted demographic representativeness of a sample. By examining the results of 81 national surveys with response rates varying from 5 percent to 54 percent, they found that surveys with much lower response rates decreased demographic representativeness within the range examined, but not by much." There are many strategies employed to increase response rate, depending on the population and type of survey. The strategies used are not necessarily discussed in the article. More important than sample size (beyond 500) is its representativeness. This may be achieved through careful randomization (usually) or sometimes by using a stratified sample that probes only the relevant portion of the population, again depending on purpose and target.
Interesting. According to UT-Austin:
CSSHEGEWISCH daveklepper seems to denigrate the business traveler because he is a multiple rider compared to the long-distance rider who travels maybe once a year. The business traveler may be one person, but he is a repeat customer who probably contributes more in ticket sales than the once-a-year long distance traveler.
daveklepper seems to denigrate the business traveler because he is a multiple rider compared to the long-distance rider who travels maybe once a year. The business traveler may be one person, but he is a repeat customer who probably contributes more in ticket sales than the once-a-year long distance traveler.
That does raise an interesting alternative view. The frequent traveler in a corridor indeed contributes more in ticket sales. But if it is in a corridor which is subsidized, hidden or direct, each of his trips has a (small) subsidy. But in many cases, his annual total personal subsidy is going to be considerably higher than the person who takes one or two round trips on a long distance train. Decide for yourselves if that is fair or not.
As usual, statistics can get selected to conform with various viewpoints. Both types of trains serve necessary roles for the public good, and if a subsidy is required, so be it. But where the service is necessary, make sure it is truly usable so that people will use it as a viable option. Via is on a downward spiral as it cuts frequency to two or three trains a week.
John
I got to thinking about the poll results that have been cited in this thread. One post includes the phrase, "the results show the public........:
According to the method information cited by Professors Henson and Shaw, for their 2010 study, which is now more than four years old, they surveyed 2,000 Texans. It sounds impressive until one reads the fine print and realizes that only 34 per cent of those contacted responded.
Apparently the researchers did not have a substitution strategy for their sampling methodology. For a statistical sample to be valid, the construct must contain a substitution methodology. That is to say, if a telephone number selected for the sample cannot be contacted, the researchers must add another number and, moreover, change the sample size. Otherwise, they cannot project the results to the population as a whole or claim that the public said.
Based on the results of the poll, the results do not show what the public ....... they show what the respondents said. And that is different than claiming what the public said about the subject. Moreover, most researchers know that people who respond to surveys, polls, etc. don't always evidence the characteristics of the population as a whole. In other words, some folks are more inclined to respond to a telephone poll than others. Busy people frequently tell the pollsters to get lost, or as I do just hang up on them.
Here is the wording from the survey report: (TRA) - Austin - A wide-ranging study conducted by a research group at the University of Texas shows that an overwhelming majority of Texans surveyed......
daveklepper I have to say I strongly disagree with you, and when you say more passengers, you mean more passenger trips. The typical corridor passenger is a multi-ride person. He may use the service anywhere from weekly to daily, but very few are one-time riders. The average long-distance rider, on the other hand, rides once a year round trip or one every few months. Thus the long distance trains serve a proportionally much greater percentage of USA citizens than comparing rides would indicate. And the few trips the long distance rider takes are as important in his or her mind as the many trips the corridor rider takes. Too much of the thinking on this Forum has shown too much of acountant's mentality in total rather than thinking about what real needs are.
I have to say I strongly disagree with you, and when you say more passengers, you mean more passenger trips. The typical corridor passenger is a multi-ride person. He may use the service anywhere from weekly to daily, but very few are one-time riders. The average long-distance rider, on the other hand, rides once a year round trip or one every few months. Thus the long distance trains serve a proportionally much greater percentage of USA citizens than comparing rides would indicate. And the few trips the long distance rider takes are as important in his or her mind as the many trips the corridor rider takes.
Too much of the thinking on this Forum has shown too much of acountant's mentality in total rather than thinking about what real needs are.
I think you are missing my point. I am not concerned with trains making profits. What I am concerned with is using resources wisely. Amtrak's mission as a subsidized, quasi-government agency is to provide for transportation, not once-in-lifetime explorations, or land cruises or gratify some preferences of older riders or international visitors (the latter two make up a sizable component of the Amtrak LD patronage). The very nature of LD trains in terms of distance, time and ticket costs means it is not transportation to get to a place over 1000 miles away for most people: those individuals and families for whom distance and time is relevant (business and vacations); those individuals and families on budgets.
Why are the few patrons of LD trains worth spending so much of Amtrak's limited budget on when there are so many riders on the corridors who get by on far less?
I believe that a significant percentage of Amtrak's corridor passengers are multi-trip riders, i.e. they take numerous trips during the year. I also believe that the majority of long distance train riders are at least round trippers. But I don't really know. And neither does anyone else posting to these forums, at least as far as I know.
I have submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to Amtrak's Inspector General asking for the number of customers, as opposed to riders, for each of Amtrak's product lines, i.e. NEC, State Supported and Other Short Distance Trains, and Long Distance Trains. I have been waiting more than two months for a reply. I suspect I need to be very patient.
According to the CBO's infographic for 2013, the federal spend was approximately $3.5 trillion, of which $2.0 trillion was for mandatory programs, i.e. Social Security, Medicare, etc. This translates into 57 per cent of the federal spend in FY13. If the interest on the debt is included as a mandatory spend, which it is, since failure to pay the interest would throw the United States into default ala Argentina, the total mandatory spend is 62.8 per cent of total outlays.
Table S-4 of OMB's FY15 budget data, which includes actual numbers for FY13, shows a mandatory spend of $2.1 trillion or 60 per cent of total outlays of $3.5 trillion. Again, adding in the interest on the national debt raises the percentage of the mandatory spend, from my point of view, to 66.7 per cent of total outlays.
During FY 13, according to the Social Security and Medicare Trustee's report, the spend for the Disability Insurance Program, which is the federal government's primary disability insurance program that draws on taxpayer dollars, was $143.4 billion. This was for all disability payments, which cover all qualified disabilities, not just those stemming from vehicle accidents.
What is the source of the claim that automobile accidents are a major driver of disability costs that are uninsured? And what does any of this have to do with passenger rail?
When you hear that a former politician has gone to work at a "Think Tank", what do you suppose the average American believes his new job to be? Do they picture lots of smart people sitting around "thinking"? I wonder if they realize that it is just a propaganda mill?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Too much of the thinking on this Forum has shown too much of acountant's mentality in total rather than thinking about what real needs are. If I were to pick one long distance train that is as essential as any of the corridor trains, including the NEC, it would be the much distressed Empire Builder. Next in line would the Florida trains.
But the real solution for many of the LD routes is to develop them into extended corridors, which has been discussed with respect to the Lake Shore, There it is certainly practical, also for the Florida service, the Crescent, and the CZ. In other words Reno - Sacramento should have frequent fast service along with Omaha - Lincoln. Jacksonville - Savanna along with Florence - Petersburg. Birmingham - Atlanta along with Charlotte - Greenboro
blue streak 1 dakotafred The service had lost all economy of scale. Which is where Amtrak found itself on Day One on most routes -- exactly where the private railroads had left off! Little wonder it's been a slog. Wonder if anyone can provide the station costs per passenger for the European medium and LD stations per passenger and compare it to Amtrak ? Also other fixed costs per passenger ? How about Japan and China ?
dakotafred The service had lost all economy of scale. Which is where Amtrak found itself on Day One on most routes -- exactly where the private railroads had left off! Little wonder it's been a slog.
schlimm There are some potential corridors west of the Mississippi besides the NW, Cali and TX. The problem with the LD trains that take 40 hours to endpoints is time. The are undependable, stop in some intermediate cities at useless hours in the night and simply take too much time to be use as transportation. Instead they are used as the equivalent of a cruise. Amtrak is perpetuating 1940's technology to run trains that few use and which is not consistent with its charter mission of providing a transportation service.
There are some potential corridors west of the Mississippi besides the NW, Cali and TX. The problem with the LD trains that take 40 hours to endpoints is time. The are undependable, stop in some intermediate cities at useless hours in the night and simply take too much time to be use as transportation. Instead they are used as the equivalent of a cruise. Amtrak is perpetuating 1940's technology to run trains that few use and which is not consistent with its charter mission of providing a transportation service.
Western LD trains tend to have twice as many cars as the average state-sponsored corridor train. I don't see how anyone can say that few use them. While some of the people in the sleepers may be on a rail cruse, I doubt many people sitting up in the coaches overnight probably think they are on anything resembling a luxury liner. And many of those small towns who take pride in maintaining their stations, even though the stop is in the wee hours, don't consider the service useless.
As the CBO puts it "Deficits are projected to increase later in the coming decade, however, because of the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt." not due to discretionary spending. Currently 80% of Federal spending is for autopilot benefits programs, of which about $200 Billion a year goes to the disability programs. Uncompensated automobile accidents are a very large cause of this type of disability, yet I bet no letters are going out on that topic.
Now, consider trip lengths. First, fully 60% of residents don't report making any long distance trips of any type, which is a bit surprising for those of us with internet access. But of those who do, the trip lengths are broken out as follows from this analysis of the 2001 NHTS in Table 8.21 (the link at the bottom of linked page).
Adding up the 500 mile to 1999 mile round trip passenger miles (180.7+178.6 = 359.3B-PSGM) (though you could argue that it would be the average of the two) , and using just NRPC (no long commuter runs) of say 5.5 B-PSGM (back dated to the 2001 era). I get 1.5% of the addressable passenger miles (Air, Auto, Bus, & Rail) on NRPC . This from a network with single frequencies on so many routes. This goes to the point that so little of actual travel on the often compared Interstates is actually interstate.
Sam1 ... You could do one thing to help the politicians deal with the national debt. Take pen in hand and write to your representative and senators. Tell them, as I do every six months, that you don't want any more money wasted on Amtrak's long distance passenger trains. I also tell them that passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors, where the cost to expand the airways and highways is prohibitive, and the federal government should facility the enhancement of the existing corridors and develop new ones where they make sense. ...
...
You could do one thing to help the politicians deal with the national debt. Take pen in hand and write to your representative and senators. Tell them, as I do every six months, that you don't want any more money wasted on Amtrak's long distance passenger trains. I also tell them that passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors, where the cost to expand the airways and highways is prohibitive, and the federal government should facility the enhancement of the existing corridors and develop new ones where they make sense.
Having Amtrak concentrate in hi-dense corridors might sound like good business sense, but passenger rail would not be politically sustainable without the long distance network. The corridors are mainly a state responsibility, and if you want to see the future of corridors look at Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, and even Wisconsin. And since state routes can still get significant federal help, (eg. Michigan got lots of fed $ to help purchase 100+ miles of DET-CHI corridor from NS) that funding could dry up as pork-barrel.
If every other developed country can support a national network, then I think we can figure it out here too.
PNWRMNM dakotafred Excellent post! Recalling that the railroads, pre-Amtrak, really began to bleed money on passengers when their entries were whittled down to only a handful of trains that had to bear the expense of stations, commissaries, laundries, etc., all by themselves. The service had lost all economy of scale. Which is where Amtrak found itself on Day One on most routes -- exactly where the private railroads had left off! Little wonder it's been a slog. Not quite. ATK was not so stupid as to believe theii own publicity. They cut about half the train miles perviously operated by the "evil" railroads on day one. Check your history. Mac McCulloch
dakotafred Excellent post! Recalling that the railroads, pre-Amtrak, really began to bleed money on passengers when their entries were whittled down to only a handful of trains that had to bear the expense of stations, commissaries, laundries, etc., all by themselves. The service had lost all economy of scale. Which is where Amtrak found itself on Day One on most routes -- exactly where the private railroads had left off! Little wonder it's been a slog.
Not quite. ATK was not so stupid as to believe theii own publicity. They cut about half the train miles perviously operated by the "evil" railroads on day one. Check your history.
Mac McCulloch
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.