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......
Interesting. According to UT-Austin:
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
IN 90% OF THE WORLD'S CASES, PASSENGER RAIL IS NOT A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.
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.
daveklepper IN 90% OF THE WORLD'S CASES, PASSENGER RAIL IS NOT A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.
Yep! The United States is a different culture. So what! The argument that we should be like the other countries, with which we may not have a lot in common, and some of which may be hostile to our national interests, is akin to saying my family needs to spend itself into bankruptcy because the family two doors down is doing it.
I have evolved to the point where I favor privatizing Amtrak. It is a commercial enterprise, albeit government sponsored, that competes with private airlines, bus companies, etc.
Private, competitive enterprises do a better job of using scarce resources to achieve their ends. If the executives and managers don't get off their backsides, they lose their jobs. If government employees don;t get off their backsides, what happens to them? In most instances nothing. Or they hire more staff to figure out what needs to be done. And when they don't get off their backsides, what happens to them? Nothing!
If Amtrak was the proper response to the passenger rail problem in the United States, should the government also have bailed out Pan American Airlines, People Air Express, Trailways, United States Lines, etc.? Other than for political reasons, why did the federal government have an obligation to bail out passenger rail?
Most people recognize that all modes of transport involve some risk and consequences. People traveling can be injured or killed. Property can be damaged or destroyed. There is a cost associated with the consequences.This is nothing new.
As demonstrated by their behavior Americans have accepted the risks and consequences of motor vehicles and airplanes. Mercifully, the fatal injury accident rates have been falling dramatically. For example, between 1980 and 2011, as per Table 2-18, National Transportation Statistics, the number of motor vehicle fatalities has fallen from 51,091 to 32,069, and the rate has fallen from 6.92 to 2.54 per 100 million miles. Over the same period Vehicle Miles Traveled increased from 1.5 trillion miles to 2.9 trillion miles. Likewise, over the same period, as per Table 2.2 of the same source, highway related injuries fell from 3.2 million to 2.2 million.
Traffic experts have been highlighting the cost of motor vehicle accidents for decades. One of the desired results has been safer vehicles, roadways, etc., which in turn have helped bring about the reduction in highway fatalities and injuries as per the preceding paragraph.
When adjusted for constant dollars, as well as qualitative improvements in health care, vehicles, etc., the cost to the nation of highway accidents probably was no greater in 2011 than in 1980.
Often ignored by those who emphasize the cost of driving and flying are the benefits. Apparently most Americans have decided that they far outweigh the costs. And studies have shown that they do many times over. To just focus on the cost without including the benefit side of the equation presents only one side of an issue.
People probably are not going to get out of their cars in large numbers to sit on a train or transit vehicle. Not as long as they have a reasonable choice! That is the way it is. Scare tactics have not change their behavior. It is not likely to do so in the near future.
Sam1The United States is a different culture. So what! The argument that we should be like the other countries, with which we may not have a lot in common, and some of which may be hostile to our national interests, is akin to saying my family needs to spend itself into bankruptcy because the family two doors down is doing it.
Eliminate merely the oil depletion allowance (approximately $1 bil. annually) and you would cover ~3 years of Amtrak's government paid for subsidy, even if LD trains are retained). You say our culture is so different from the rest of the world? Perhaps living in TX, you might well think so, but there are plenty of other areas in the US that would like to have the options for transportation afforded to citizens in other modern nations. People in some states have been and are willing to continue to pay for those corridor services.
schlimm Sam1The United States is a different culture. So what! The argument that we should be like the other countries, with which we may not have a lot in common, and some of which may be hostile to our national interests, is akin to saying my family needs to spend itself into bankruptcy because the family two doors down is doing it. Eliminate merely the oil depletion allowance (approximately $1 bil. annually) and you would cover ~3 years of Amtrak's government paid for subsidy, even if LD trains are retained). You say our culture is so different from the rest of the world? Perhaps living in TX, you might well think so, but there are plenty of other areas in the US that would like to have the options for transportation afforded to citizens in other modern nations. People in some states have been and are willing to continue to pay for those corridor services.
My comment had more to do with the form of ownership of a commercial enterprise - Amtrak - than whether we should have transport options. We should. But they should be driven by the market place, i.e. what people demonstrate a willingness to pay for in an arms length transaction.
In FY13 the State Supported and Other Short Distance Trains lost $180.8 million before depreciation and interest. The loss was partially offset by state capital payments of $37.3 million.
Through June FY14 the State Supported and Other Short Distance Trains had lost approximately $62 million, offset by state capital payments of approximately $51 million. The difference could be due to timing. Also, I am not sure that all of the short distance trains are state supported.
At the end of the day, however, it does not matter whose pocket the money comes out of. The State Supported and Other Short Distance Trains don't cover their operating costs. Whether the federal government takes my money or Texas takes it, I don't have it.
Sam1 schlimm Sam1The United States is a different culture. So what! The argument that we should be like the other countries, with which we may not have a lot in common, and some of which may be hostile to our national interests, is akin to saying my family needs to spend itself into bankruptcy because the family two doors down is doing it. Eliminate merely the oil depletion allowance (approximately $1 bil. annually) and you would cover ~3 years of Amtrak's government paid for subsidy, even if LD trains are retained). You say our culture is so different from the rest of the world? Perhaps living in TX, you might well think so, but there are plenty of other areas in the US that would like to have the options for transportation afforded to citizens in other modern nations. People in some states have been and are willing to continue to pay for those corridor services. My comment had more to do with the form of ownership of a commercial enterprise - Amtrak - than whether we should have transport options. We should. But they should be driven by the market place, i.e. what people demonstrate a willingness to pay for in an arms length transaction.
schlimmfrequently trot out the federal debt [as above] as reason to not spend a penny on Amtrak.
I do that, too.
The point isn't what we should or shouldn't do so much as the reality that the growth of entitlement programs and debt service is going to dry up all discretionary spending in the very near future if there is any serious attempt to deal with the national debt.
So, if you want to be an advocate for this or that, you have to keep that in mind. It's much more than "we spend $$ on XYZ, so we should be able to spend $ on ABC."
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd schlimmfrequently trot out the federal debt [as above] as reason to not spend a penny on Amtrak. I do that, too. The point isn't what we should or shouldn't do so much as the reality that the growth of entitlement programs and debt service is going to dry up all discretionary spending in the very near future if there is any serious attempt to deal with the national debt. So, if you want to be an advocate for this or that, you have to keep that in mind. It's much more than "we spend $$ on XYZ, so we should be able to spend $ on ABC."
schlimmHad you read the entire post, or the previous one, you would see I am talking about choices, not justifying money spent on Amtrak because we spend $X on widgets. I mentioned the $1 bil. in tax credits given annually to oil producers and the annual Amtrak subsidy which is about 1/3 of that. Taxpayer voters should inform their reps. which of those two seem the wiser, more utilitarian. Eliminate that oil depletion credit and use that money saved for Amtrak and debt reduction. That is only one example. There are many more discretionary expenditures and tax credits and tax loopholes that should be examined, one by one.
That's not the point. We won't have ANY choices going foward because debt service and entitlements are going to eat all the tax revenue plus some. There will be ZERO discretionary spending.
That's why it's so critically important to spend wisely with the dribs and drabs that are handed out now.
...and it's not been happening.
At the surface, it looks like we threw $11B down a rathole. (although some of it will bear some fruit, eventually)
Don't ask why should the USA be like other countries that regard passenger rail as a social necessity rather then a commercial enterprise. It is today the USA being the USA. 95% of both the capitol and operating funds for passenger rail are for commuter and transit. So corridor and long distance is just like commuter and transit, operated as a social necessity and not as a commercial enterprise. Sorry folks, that happens to be the way it is.
Corporations don't pay taxes. They usually flow through to the people who buy their goods and services. If the corporation lacks the pricing power to pass them onto their customers, they may be worn by the shareholders and/or workers. If a tax allowance or credit is eliminated, the cost of doing business increases. The consequences will flow through to the customers, although the shareholders and workers may also be impacted.
The accelerated depreciation and write-off provisions accorded big oil should be eliminated. They are no longer necessary. However, how they flow back is not as straightforward as it may seem.
If big oil loses a tax deduction or tax credit, it will try to reflect it in the price of its products. Given the relative inelastic price/demand curve for oil, especially gasoline, the price increases probably would stick. Most people would have less money to spend on other items, i.e. clothing, restaurants, travel vendors, etc.The incomes of these businesses would go down, which would result in lower tax payments.
The oil companies claim that the elimination of their tax preferences would cause them to cut back on exploration and reduce their workforce. If the workforce is reduced and the workers cannot find like kind jobs or any job, their tax payments to the national and state treasuries would be reduced or eliminated.
Those in favor of eliminating the tax preferences for big oil claim that it would result in an increase in tax revenues. That's probably true, but for the reasons stated above it is not likely to be a one for one exchange. If the price of oil went up significantly, and the oil companies terminated a large number of employees, tax revenues might not change at all or change marginally.
I favor spending government taxpayer money for infrastructure improvements where there is a reasonable probability of a payoff. But I don't favor doing so where there is little if any potential payoff. Trains in relatively short, high density corridors, as per Amtrak's current financial statements, have the potential, with some changes in revenue and cost variables, of recovering all of their costs. The long distance trains, which serve so few people as to not even move the intercity transport needle, based on 40 years of experience, have no potential of recovering the investment that has been made in them.
oltmannd schlimmHad you read the entire post, or the previous one, you would see I am talking about choices, not justifying money spent on Amtrak because we spend $X on widgets. I mentioned the $1 bil. in tax credits given annually to oil producers and the annual Amtrak subsidy which is about 1/3 of that. Taxpayer voters should inform their reps. which of those two seem the wiser, more utilitarian. Eliminate that oil depletion credit and use that money saved for Amtrak and debt reduction. That is only one example. There are many more discretionary expenditures and tax credits and tax loopholes that should be examined, one by one. That's not the point. We won't have ANY choices going foward because debt service and entitlements are going to eat all the tax revenue plus some. There will be ZERO discretionary spending. That's why it's so critically important to spend wisely with the dribs and drabs that are handed out now. ...and it's not been happening. At the surface, it looks like we threw $11B down a rathole. (although some of it will bear some fruit, eventually)
Your correct. Cutting the long distance trains or ceasing to spread money around with little prospect of a real success will not solve the debt problem. But every little bit helps.
Its not just saving money on Amtrak or wasteful expenditures under the guise of high speed rail. It is heaps of other programs as well, PBS, NPR, subsidized crop insurance, etc. Add them all up, and it becomes serious money.
daveklepper Don't ask why should the USA be like other countries that regard passenger rail as a social necessity rather then a commercial enterprise. It is today the USA being the USA. 95% of both the capitol and operating funds for passenger rail are for commuter and transit. So corridor and long distance is just like commuter and transit, operated as a social necessity and not as a commercial enterprise. Sorry folks, that happens to be the way it is.
In the US we indeed do treat intercity passenger rail as a social necessity, otherwise we would not be funding it at all. But the funds to support Amtrak are competing with many other social necessities. But these other things are government waste, you say, and the money should "come to us." There are many advocates for the other government programs, some who look at what we want as "waste" if not a much lower social priority.
If you are conceding that passenger trains can never succeed as a commercial enterprise, it does not mean that Amtrak does not need to compete. It indeed needs to compete with other programs supported by the government.
As advocates, that passenger trains should be a priority is obvious to us, but the central part of advocacy is persuasion. Too many of us are quick to brand persons who don't see it our way as uninformed, in the pay of special interests, or "in love with their automobile." As advocates we need to persuade, and scolding is not effective persuasion.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I agree that Amtrak should be more efficient, should reduce operating subsidy, and certainly dining cars are one area where there should be both fiscal and quality improvement at the same time. The fact that ridership still increases despite the terrible blows to on-time performance resulting from freight congestion shows me that LD trains should stick around. The Lake Shore route is one the best to begin the sure-to-be-successful extended multiple corridor approach, and I doubt speeds higher than 110mph max are required to make it work.
daveklepper ...shows me that LD trains should stick around.
...shows me that LD trains should stick around.
Don't worry Dave!
Ignoring for the moment the searing logic for my case to discontinue the long distance trains and use the resources for corridor trains, it is not going to happen. If I am alive 10 years from now - I just turned 75, I expect to see the long distance train network pretty much as it is today.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.