Phoebe Vet Companies are moving to Texas because Texas is paying them to move there. Ever since the first politician formulated the delusion that he could create jobs by giving money and tax breaks to wealthy businesses, the people who run those businesses, who are much smarter than politicians, have been making millions moving jobs from place to place.
Companies are moving to Texas because Texas is paying them to move there.
Ever since the first politician formulated the delusion that he could create jobs by giving money and tax breaks to wealthy businesses, the people who run those businesses, who are much smarter than politicians, have been making millions moving jobs from place to place.
Texas has offered some companies incentives to move to the Lone Star State. Every state, including North Carolina, plays the same game. Claiming that the incentives are the only motive to move to Texas or any other state is an over simplification. Climate, education, housing, medical services, transportation, business taxes, regulations, etc. all play a role. In fact, when looked at closely, the economic incentives, which usually take the form of a tax exemption, may be pretty far down the list of reasons to relocate.
I point that I was trying to make, however, was the long term (20 years) population projections for the NEC may not pan out. If my memory is correct, the NEC states have been growing at a relatively slow rate compared to many of the southern and mid-western states. Texas is just one example of where people seem to be going.
If the Sun Belt states, as an example, are growing at a faster rate than the NEC, why should the nation concentrate its limited resources for passenger rail money in the NEC? There are other areas of the country that may have an equal or greater need.
Texas is also a so-called "right-to-work" (anti-organized labor) state.
CSSHEGEWISCH Texas is also a so-called "right-to-work" (anti-organized labor) state.
That's correct. However, that does not mean that workers cannot organize a union or belong to a union. At my former employer - I am retired - the mine workers as well as some of the power plant operators and line persons were members of the union.
The employees of Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Greyhound, etc., as examples, also belong to unions. Having said that, Texas workers tend to shun union organizing attempts.
Two things come to mind: Amtrak owns or controls much of the NEC, so it stands to reason that much of the funds should have gone there. Another consideration is that state supported trains from Virginia and North Carolina, two rapidly growing states, rely on this infrastructure, as well as the LD trains to and from the southeast, also rapidly growing.
A faster route between New Haven and Boston or Providence is largely rail-banked by Connecticut, and it is the route of the famous "White Train" through Willamantic. South of New York, four tracks under the Hudson appear necesary, and the Bound Brook West Trenton route should be electrified and improved to take some of the load of the route through Trenton. Harrisburg and Pittsburgh trains would be routed that way and thus serve downtown Philadelphia. New Haven - New Rochelle remains a problem. Shell junction is the real choke point, A solution would be the east-of-station flyover plan I designed for Noah Caplin when he was a Metro North planner, using the old Harlem Shuttle track at New Rochelle station as the westbound main for trains bound for Penn Station, then reverse running towards Penn, possibly with another flyover to return to right-hand running.
Sam1 CSSHEGEWISCH Texas is also a so-called "right-to-work" (anti-organized labor) state. That's correct. However, that does not mean that workers cannot organize a union or belong to a union. At my former employer - I am retired - the mine workers as well as some of the power plant operators and line persons were members of the union. The employees of Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Greyhound, etc., as examples, also belong to unions. Having said that, Texas workers turn to shun union organizing attempts.
The employees of Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Greyhound, etc., as examples, also belong to unions. Having said that, Texas workers turn to shun union organizing attempts.
"Right-to-work" laws allow non-union members of the bargaining unit to retain all benefits of union representation without having to pay union dues (legalized theft of services?). Consequently, this discourages attempts to unionize and keeps the labor force cheap and docile.
CSSHEGEWISCH Sam1 CSSHEGEWISCH Texas is also a so-called "right-to-work" (anti-organized labor) state. That's correct. However, that does not mean that workers cannot organize a union or belong to a union. At my former employer - I am retired - the mine workers as well as some of the power plant operators and line persons were members of the union. The employees of Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Greyhound, etc., as examples, also belong to unions. Having said that, Texas workers turn to shun union organizing attempts. "Right-to-work" laws allow non-union members of the bargaining unit to retain all benefits of union representation without having to pay union dues (legalized theft of services?). Consequently, this discourages attempts to unionize and keeps the labor force cheap and docile.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
daveklepperA faster route between New Haven and Boston or Providence is largely rail-banked by Connecticut, and it is the route of the famous "White Train" through Willimantic
You mean 'shorter'. IIRC for any conceivable form of modern HSR that route will only be 'faster' with so many very heavy civil grade and curve abatements as to make the Long Island route look like a positive bargain. I believe we have discussed this on the forum in some detail.
Even if substantial grades are permitted as 'momentum grades' (I recall seeing up to 8 to 10% discussed in SNCF track analyses in the mid-'70s) there is no possible way the necessary vertical curve transitions can be arranged between the ridges on the ex-NY&NE. So 'without a jar or roll or antic' has a sterner meaning even for medium-speed HSR on that route, let alone 220mph peak.
Not so, checked the railbank map a rail proponant in CT sent, and the grades and curves are not that severe. Where did you get your information? About 35% of the route is operated by various short lines for freight service today. But admittadly, a lot of grading and general upgrading would be essential, but still a lot less expensive than an all-new route. My friend agrees. But you would be right in that a lot of earth would have to be moved, still a lot less than an all-new route.
The Long Island route could be justified if there were other economic reasons for twin freight and passenger tunnels at the east end of the island. That would be the major cost. The Greenpoint RoW of LIRR is easy to improve, a lot easier than either Metro North or NY&NE, and besides, with NY&NE, you still have to contend either with Metro North or the old Maybrook line and then either reactivate the Putnam with huge construction issues or four-track the Harlem Division and then figure out how to get to Penn from there. But then there is the idea of bypassing NY completely for Boston or Boston and Profidence to Philly and south traffic by reactivating the Poughkeepsie Bridge. All these solutions do have new problems.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/william-vantuono/high-higher-speed-rail-the-real-story”.html?channel=
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/william-vantuono/high-higher-speed-rail-the-real-story”.html?channel=
I read the NY Times article and the Time article. The Times article, in many respects, was over the top, but the Time article also makes some statements that are as shallow as many of those in the Times.
At the risk of pulling a statement out of context, here is a quote from the Time article that appears to support my contention, i.e. that the Administration tried to spread the investment monies over too many projects:
"It’s also true that the Administration’s spread-it-thin strategy, featuring incremental improvements in 32 states, is hard to justify in a vacuum. You need to walk before you can run, but it doesn’t make much sense to upgrade trains from slow speeds to semi-slow speeds if they’re never going to be able to compete with cars or planes."
Walking before running is desirable. But having too many walkers is not a good strategy. As noted in a previous post, successful businesses focus on doing a few things really well as opposed to trying to be all things to all people.
"But in any case, Amtrak’s fare-box recovery ratio is above 80%. That’s also pretty darn good."
If Amtrak were a business, which it is, a fare-box recovery ratio of 80 per cent or thereabouts would eventually put it out of business. If the Norfolk Southern only recovered 80 per cent of its expenses through its pricing mechanism, how long does one believe it would stay in business? However, the 80 per cent fare-box recovery ratio for Amtrak is not correct.
In FY13 Amtrak recovered 86 per cent of its fully allocated operating expenses from the fare-box. However, after adding OPEBS, depreciation, and interest expenses, the recovery ration dropped to approximately 57 per cent.
All too often passenger rail proponents focus on the so-called above the rail expenses, which is not a correct accounting term, and ignore the fixed costs as if somehow they don't count. Unfortunately, given the level of understanding most people have of accounting and finance, it is not hard to understand how they get away with it.
OPEBS = ?
I doubt if it is possible to run a passenger service at a profit, if all infrastructure costs are included, by rail, in the air or with buses.
schlimmOPEBS = ?
Other Post-Employment Benefits. Things like retiree health costs.
Read down to "The ABCs of OPEBS" in this article.
Overmod schlimmOPEBS = ? Other Post-Employment Benefits. Things like retiree health costs. Read down to "The ABCs of OPEBS" in this article.
Thank you. I dislike and strive to avoid jargon and acronyms, though my profession has more than most.
This is a good article. It does a pretty good job of explaining OPEBS in the public sector.
Amtrak's is a capital stock corporation and, therefore, unlike a public entity, i.e. government, school district, state university system, follows GAAP accounting rules as opposed to government accounting standards.
Amtrak's OPEBS expense is the present value of its actuarial obligations for post retirement benefits. Part of it represents an accrued expense and part of it represents a cash outlay. If I remember correctly, the unions took Amtrak to court to force it to fund adequately the OPEBS. They won.
CMStPnPIncentives are not the whole package that convinces companies to move to Texas, put this in your pipe and smoke it: 1. Houses on a square footage basis are probably 40-50% cheaper in Texas than most Northern states. 2. City Hall works for the most part in Texas. You can actually call City Hall down here in Texas and actually get immediate response or action to your concerns. Unlike the Northern states where response is based on income level and how much you contributed to past political campaigns. 3. Texas Rangers. Kill a cop in Texas and the Rangers are after you and they usually always get their fugitive. No other state has them. 4. Government does not try to become an unwanted partner in the running of small business. Texas attempts to simplify small business formation as well as regulation in an attempt to increase employment.....and it works. 5. Texas is a Law and Order state along with respect your LEO state. If you break the law habitually or disrespect an officer in uniform your typically going to do time behind bars. Really that's how it should be everywhere but some states would rather side with the habitual criminal and their rights.
Yep!
Sam1Amtrak's OPEBS expense is the present value of its actuarial obligations for post retirement benefits. Unlike a public entity, which can, as the article explains, pay as you go, Amtrak is required to fund a percentage of the obligation in the current period. Part of it requires a cash outlay.
Between that and direct labor, Amtrak is in a difficult position. I don't really want to open a can of worm, but some of those expenses are higher than other transportation industies
schlimm I doubt if it is possible to run a passenger service at a profit, if all infrastructure costs are included, by rail, in the air or with buses.
I would be happy if intercity passenger rail broke even.
If Amtrak could dump the long distance trains, and fob off the subsidies associated with the State Supported and Other Short Distance Trains to the states, which it is doing, it would be able to generate an operating profit. If it could keep its capital expenditures at below the current depreciation expense, which means capital improvements could not exceed current depreciation, it probably could reach a break even point - cover all of its costs - in time. This is basically what the Japanese and French have done with the two high speed lines that cover all of their costs.
If an airline or intercity bus company does not cover all of its expenses and generate a return for the shareholders, it goes out of business. The business graveyard is full of failed bus companies and airlines.
One can argue that buses, airlines, and cruise lines - I am throwing cruise lines in since I have recently become hooked on cruising - don't pay their fair share of the common infrastructure that they use. It is a difficult argument to prove.
The nation's large airports, as an example, are economic engines that generate millions of dollars of tax revenues, i.e. terminal vendors, parking concessionaires, taxi franchisees, etc. They flow to the national, state, and local treasures, and they probably cover most if not all of the monies that flow from the general fund to the airports.
schlimm Sam1Amtrak's OPEBS expense is the present value of its actuarial obligations for post retirement benefits. Unlike a public entity, which can, as the article explains, pay as you go, Amtrak is required to fund a percentage of the obligation in the current period. Part of it requires a cash outlay. Between that and direct labor, Amtrak is in a difficult position. I don't really want to open a can of worm, but some of those expenses are higher than other transportation industies
It is not a can of worms. You may remember that a year or so ago I showed a comparison of Amtrak's labor costs, as a percentage of its expenses and revenues. against Southwest Airlines, First Group (Greyhound) and Stagecoach (Megabus).
Amtrak's staff expenses were approximately 50 per cent of expenses and nearly 70 per cent of revenues. For First Group they were 46 per cent of expenses but only 43 per cent of revenues. For Stagecoach they were 42 per cent of operating costs and 41 per cent of revenues. Southwest Airlines had considerably lower ratios than Amtrak, but I took it out of the comparison because it does not really compete with Amtrak in most markets.
Someone can, of course, claim that this is not a fair comparison because of the amenities and different classes of service offered by Amtrak, e.g. lounge cars, dinning cars, sleeping cars, etc. But it certainly suggests that Amtrak's ground based, short haul competitors, have a better handle on their labor costs.
CMStPnP3. Texas Rangers. Kill a cop in Texas and the Rangers are after you and they usually always get their fugitive. No other state has them. 5. Texas is a Law and Order state along with respect your LEO state. If you break the law habitually or disrespect an officer in uniform your typically going to do time behind bars. Really that's how it should be everywhere but some states would rather side with the habitual criminal and their rights.
5. Texas is a Law and Order state along with respect your LEO state. If you break the law habitually or disrespect an officer in uniform your typically going to do time behind bars. Really that's how it should be everywhere but some states would rather side with the habitual criminal and their rights.
This explains why I'm glad I don't live in Texas.
Sam1The nation's large airports, as an example, are economic engines that generate millions of dollars of tax revenues, i.e. terminal vendors, parking concessionaires, taxi franchisees, etc. They flow to the national, state, and local treasures, and they probably cover most if not all of the monies that flow from the general fund to the airports.
You are using the "sports stadium" argument. You're missing the bigger point.
The economic development around airports that is just support for the airport is no better than a wash. If you didn't have the airport, the effort could go into something else in the local economy.
What the airport or highway or rail line does is that is a plus is economic development beyond the existing local economy. It is the thing a region needs (among other things) to attact business to locate - factories and offices, to allow conventions to occur, to improve tourism, etc. Stuff that brings money and commerce in from outside.
It's why one shouldn't get so hung up on profit and loss for transportation facilities. The focus should be on cost/benefit for the region.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Sam1Someone can, of course, claim that this is not a fair comparison because of the amenities and different classes of service offered by Amtrak, e.g. lounge cars, dinning cars, sleeping cars, etc. But it certainly suggests that Amtrak's ground based, short haul competitors, have a better handle on their labor costs.
I'm sure some folks will do just that. What it shows me is that one of the reasons the LD trains are particularly high on expenses. Namely, they are too labor intensive with "lounge cars, dining cars, sleeping cars" which do not generate sufficient offsetting revenue the way business and first class fares on airlines do.
I seem to recall a thread in which the wages of Amtrak operating personnel were seen to be higher than those of the freight railroads.
oltmannd You are using the "sports stadium" argument. You're missing the bigger point. The economic development around airports that is just support for the airport is no better than a wash. If you didn't have the airport, the effort could go into something else in the local economy. What the airport or highway or rail line does is that is a plus is economic development beyond the existing local economy. It is the thing a region needs (among other things) to attact business to locate - factories and offices, to allow conventions to occur, to improve tourism, etc. Stuff that brings money and commerce in from outside. It's why one shouldn't get so hung up on profit and loss for transportation facilities. The focus should be on cost/benefit for the region.
+1
oltmannd Sam1The nation's large airports, as an example, are economic engines that generate millions of dollars of tax revenues, i.e. terminal vendors, parking concessionaires, taxi franchisees, etc. They flow to the national, state, and local treasures, and they probably cover most if not all of the monies that flow from the general fund to the airports. You are using the "sports stadium" argument. You're missing the bigger point. The economic development around airports that is just support for the airport is no better than a wash. If you didn't have the airport, the effort could go into something else in the local economy. What the airport or highway or rail line does is that is a plus is economic development beyond the existing local economy. It is the thing a region needs (among other things) to attact business to locate - factories and offices, to allow conventions to occur, to improve tourism, etc. Stuff that brings money and commerce in from outside. It's why one shouldn't get so hung up on profit and loss for transportation facilities. The focus should be on cost/benefit for the region.
Telling someone that he is missing the point or implying that he has not read whatever he should have read - you did not do the latter - is a put down. I don't understand people who feel compelled to denigrate other people because they disagree with their point of view. You can make your point without putting people down.
Without commercial aviation, as well as its support services, there would be no need for the large airports and the support activities. Aviation drives the need.
I have never said that the infrastructure should make a profit. It doesn't. It should cover its costs from the users. Hopefully, the users are making a profit. That is the key question.
The point that I was addressing is that no commercial activity makes money hauling passenger. That's not true. Just take a look at the current financials for the nation's airlines, bus companies, cruise ship lines, van services, taxi companies, etc. The margins are very thin, to say the least, but to say that they don't make money is incorrect.
People who want to refute this notion claim that the carriers are only able to make money because they don't pay for the infrastructure that they use. That's not true. Whether they pay their fair share is arguable.
Users of the airways, highways, and waterways have one advantage that the railroads don't have. They are used by many different users and, therefore, the fixed costs can be spread over many users as opposed to a few.
The taxes paid by the airport vendors, as well as the support providers, probably offset any so-called subsidies for the airlines. Moreover, the airlines, as well as bus companies and cruise ship lines, don't receive direct cash subsidies from anyone. Only passenger rail requires a direct cash subsidy.
The bottom line (profit) is a score card for a commercial activity. It helps drive efficiency. Without it there is little incentive to be at the top of your game. If it is not important, why did the Japanese and French work so diligently to turn a profit on their high speed lines and, subsequently, privatize them?
If the market does not determine the cost/benefit of an activity, i.e. people decide in an arms length transaction what is worth paying for, the decision is driven by politics. And that tends go produce some wild distortions.
The best and brightest business executives are motivated to generate a return for their stakeholders. It is a passion with them. It was a passion with me. I never met a top business executive or entrepreneur who would work for an organization that consistently loses money. Which makes me wonder? What kind of an executive or senior manager goes to work for an Amtrak? Getting up every morning knowing that you are with a loser cannot be very motivating.
OK, you didn't miss the point but seem to be muddying them.
Sam1 1. People who want to refute this notion claim that the carriers are only able to make money because they don't pay for the infrastructure that they use. That's not true. Whether they pay their fair share is arguable. My point is that the taxes paid by the airport vendors, as well as the support providers, probably offset any so-called subsidies for the airlines. Moreover, the airlines, as well as bus companies and cruise ship lines, don't receive direct cash subsidies from anyone. Only passenger rail requires a direct cash subsidy. 2. The bottom line (profit) is a score card for a commercial activity. It helps drive efficiency. Without it there is little incentive to be at the top of your game. If it is not important, why did the Japanese and French work so diligently to turn a profit on their high speed lines and, subsequently, spin them off into market based companies?
1. People who want to refute this notion claim that the carriers are only able to make money because they don't pay for the infrastructure that they use. That's not true. Whether they pay their fair share is arguable. My point is that the taxes paid by the airport vendors, as well as the support providers, probably offset any so-called subsidies for the airlines. Moreover, the airlines, as well as bus companies and cruise ship lines, don't receive direct cash subsidies from anyone. Only passenger rail requires a direct cash subsidy.
2. The bottom line (profit) is a score card for a commercial activity. It helps drive efficiency. Without it there is little incentive to be at the top of your game. If it is not important, why did the Japanese and French work so diligently to turn a profit on their high speed lines and, subsequently, spin them off into market based companies?
1. When people say the airlines don't pay for infrastructure, they mean they do not come close to paying fully for the costs of the portion they use. What collateral components pay in taxes is a red herring.
2. Those privatized HSR networks do not pay to cover the infrastructure costs, so they turn a profit on operations. But in the NEC, the model of what Amtrak should be, operating expenses are more than covered. As far as I can see, infrastructure should be built and maintained by a quasi-government agency. Operations should be contracted out to bidding operators. Some services will require subsidies to operate, probably from states and federal sources.
Sam1The best and brightest business executives are motivated to generate a return for their stakeholders. It is a passion with them. It was a passion with me. I never met a top business executive or entrepreneur who would work for an organization that consistently loses money. Which makes me wonder? What kind of an executive or senior manager goes to work for an Amtrak? Getting up every morning knowing that you are with a loser cannot be very motivating.
In health and most research in physics and the other sciences as well as medicine, the best and brightest work for not-for-profits organizations and non-profit universities. The lack of striving for a profit doesn't seem to be a barrier there to high motivation.
schlimm OK, you didn't miss the point but seem to be muddying them. Sam1 1. People who want to refute this notion claim that the carriers are only able to make money because they don't pay for the infrastructure that they use. That's not true. Whether they pay their fair share is arguable. My point is that the taxes paid by the airport vendors, as well as the support providers, probably offset any so-called subsidies for the airlines. Moreover, the airlines, as well as bus companies and cruise ship lines, don't receive direct cash subsidies from anyone. Only passenger rail requires a direct cash subsidy. 2. The bottom line (profit) is a score card for a commercial activity. It helps drive efficiency. Without it there is little incentive to be at the top of your game. If it is not important, why did the Japanese and French work so diligently to turn a profit on their high speed lines and, subsequently, spin them off into market based companies? 1. When people say the airlines don't pay for infrastructure, they mean they do not come close to paying fully for the costs of the portion they use. What collateral components pay in taxes is a red herring. 2. Those privatized HSR networks do not pay to cover the infrastructure costs, so they turn a profit on operations. But in the NEC, the model of what Amtrak should be, operating expenses are more than covered. As far as I can see, infrastructure should be built and maintained by a quasi-government agency. Operations should be contracted out to bidding operators. Some services will require subsidies to operate, probably from states and federal sources.
Oh, muddying them! Another put down! If people disagree with you, it is because they don't understand or they are muddying the issue. What a wonderful way to promote discussion, which is the objective of these forums.
Having the government build infrastructure is fine. But the users should pay for it. Historically, this has been the case. The government recovered the cost of the transcontinental railroads, as an example, from the users. And until 2007 it recovered the cost of the Interstate Highway System from the users. Since 2007 it has required an infusion of funds from the general fund because the politicians have refused to raise the user fees (fuel taxes, etc.) to cover the cost of maintaining and expanding the system.
Where are the support numbers for your points 1 and 2? Many people make the claim, but few if any have come up with good numbers. Here is one of the reasons.
To determine the source of the revenues for each of the nation's 547 airports served by commercial air, one would have to first pull the financials for each of them. I have looked at all the financial reports for the airports in Texas. None of them set out in the financials the source of their revenues, i.e. commercial air carriers, air taxis, general aviation, military operations, etc. The reporting authority has the information, but it does not, as a rule, publish it in the annual financial report.
To get the information one would have to ask for the revenue sub-ledgers for each airport, which in Texas would require exercising an Open Records Request, and go through each one of them. Once that task was completed, the next step would be to match the expenses (operational and capital) to each revenue source. And so forth and so forth. It would be a daunting task. This is why I have seen little if any hard evidence to support the notion that the air carriers don't pay their fair share of the aviation infrastructure that they use.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.