Digital G:
If it were true that the highways generated "tons" of money, as you say, then they wouldn't need additional funds in the form of highway subsidies, and the surplus profit from highway operations would be available to fund other endeavors. The fact is, they don't pay for themselves. Highway deterioration, maintenance, and replacement needs outpaces any revenue from them by a wide margin. Your argument falls on its face.
Tom
ACY Digital G: If it were true that the highways generated "tons" of money, as you say, then they wouldn't need additional funds in the form of highway subsidies, and the surplus profit from highway operations would be available to fund other endeavors. The fact is, they don't pay for themselves. Highway deterioration, maintenance, and replacement needs outpaces any revenue from them by a wide margin. Your argument falls on its face. Tom
CMStPnP:
By statute, Amtrak, and therefore Auto Train, is a passenger carrier. The automobiles are the property of the passeners on the train, and are equivalent to passengers' baggage. So the Auto Train is not a mixed passenger-freight train, in spite of the efforts of some folks to define it that way. Trailers are often handled in the carriers, and I have even seen boats loaded on trailers. The Auto Train has traditionally gone the extra mile to accommodate whatever business it can sensibly handle, but the interior dimensions of the carriers are limiting factors.
Not being a lawyer, I don't know whether hauling long distance commercial trucks on the Auto Train (a passenger train by definition) would be legal. Frankly, I doubt that a large semi would fit into one of the carriers. If it was narrow enough, it certainly wouldn't fit between the two decks of the Auto Carriers. So some carriers would have to be specially modified for the purpose. I also don't know whether the ramps would bear the weight. Since Amtrak has no spare money for experimentation, I am sure the Company would be happy to have you underwrite the expenses involved, if there is a market and if it's legal or possible in the first place.
There were a huge number of hidden costs that Mica did not include for buses and air, and I trust Moreman to come up with the right answer.
+ 1
BaltACD RE #3 - Bovine Excrement to the MAX! MARC & VRE get all possible priority on CSX. I KNOW because I gave it to them before I retired - it was my job! RE #1 there is not incentive to be late - arrive early and you worked less time for the same pay, arrive late you are working longer for the same pay.
RE #3 - Bovine Excrement to the MAX! MARC & VRE get all possible priority on CSX. I KNOW because I gave it to them before I retired - it was my job!
RE #1 there is not incentive to be late - arrive early and you worked less time for the same pay, arrive late you are working longer for the same pay.
+1 Same is true on NS. I've seen dispatchers do amazing things trying to keep the Amtrak trains moving when all else was lost.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Has anyone else noted the irony that the states that will be losing their Amtrak service are almost exactly match the states that went for Trump?
ACY Opinions about what is wasteful and what is a wise use of public funds are about as varied as the people who hold those opinions. A few observations: Every time Trump takes one of those vacations for which he criticized Obama (and said he'd be too busy to take), the local Florida airport shuts down. This causes a great loss of local revenue for employers and employees, and serious inconvenience to travelers. Is this efficient? Trump says the highways are in disrepair. The party that has controlled Congress (i.e., the purse strings) for several years has failed to do anything about it. Does Trump expect that Party to do a 180 and suddenly do what it has failed to do in the past? Get real. The number of commercial intercity bus routes and frequency of service has steadily declined for over a generation, rendering that option less and less viable. Many small towns have no other practical commercial connection to the outside world. Minimum wage workers either can't afford a car, or can't afford a car that they can trust on a long trip. Is it fair for a government, whose professed purpose is to serve the people, to deny them the opportunity to travel? Those of us who are older know that commercial air travel does not have to be the onerous experience it is today, but the steady trend is to make it even more inhospitable. The only ones who can escape it are the few who can afford their own planes. Since income disparity has steadily increased over the past several years and shows no sign of abating, air travel is becoming an unacceptable nightmare. I won't get into the discussion of Federal funds spent on highway and airport construction and maintenance, the costs of air traffic control and highway law enforcement, the loss of tax base and/or productive land when highways and airports are built, etc. because that's been argued to death and nobody can agree. My conclusion: If the role of Government in a free Society is to serve the needs of the people, then a balanced approach to Transportation issues makes the most sense. This means making it possible and reasonable for there to be free travel by as many modes as possible, by as many routes as possible, to as many destinations as possible. All of it may not be perfectly efficient, but the resultant comprehensive Transportation network will be worth that small sacrifice. Tom
Opinions about what is wasteful and what is a wise use of public funds are about as varied as the people who hold those opinions. A few observations:
Every time Trump takes one of those vacations for which he criticized Obama (and said he'd be too busy to take), the local Florida airport shuts down. This causes a great loss of local revenue for employers and employees, and serious inconvenience to travelers. Is this efficient?
Trump says the highways are in disrepair. The party that has controlled Congress (i.e., the purse strings) for several years has failed to do anything about it. Does Trump expect that Party to do a 180 and suddenly do what it has failed to do in the past? Get real.
The number of commercial intercity bus routes and frequency of service has steadily declined for over a generation, rendering that option less and less viable.
Many small towns have no other practical commercial connection to the outside world.
Minimum wage workers either can't afford a car, or can't afford a car that they can trust on a long trip. Is it fair for a government, whose professed purpose is to serve the people, to deny them the opportunity to travel?
Those of us who are older know that commercial air travel does not have to be the onerous experience it is today, but the steady trend is to make it even more inhospitable. The only ones who can escape it are the few who can afford their own planes. Since income disparity has steadily increased over the past several years and shows no sign of abating, air travel is becoming an unacceptable nightmare.
I won't get into the discussion of Federal funds spent on highway and airport construction and maintenance, the costs of air traffic control and highway law enforcement, the loss of tax base and/or productive land when highways and airports are built, etc. because that's been argued to death and nobody can agree.
My conclusion: If the role of Government in a free Society is to serve the needs of the people, then a balanced approach to Transportation issues makes the most sense. This means making it possible and reasonable for there to be free travel by as many modes as possible, by as many routes as possible, to as many destinations as possible. All of it may not be perfectly efficient, but the resultant comprehensive Transportation network will be worth that small sacrifice.
+1
Although I strongly believe LD train concept needs radical transformation, this is not the right approach. One can see cognitive dissonance at work here: train lovers who are also Trump supporters. Which force prevails? So far it appears that ideology "trumps" passion and historical common sense.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm ACY Opinions about what is wasteful and what is a wise use of public funds are about as varied as the people who hold those opinions. A few observations: Every time Trump takes one of those vacations for which he criticized Obama (and said he'd be too busy to take), the local Florida airport shuts down. This causes a great loss of local revenue for employers and employees, and serious inconvenience to travelers. Is this efficient? Trump says the highways are in disrepair. The party that has controlled Congress (i.e., the purse strings) for several years has failed to do anything about it. Does Trump expect that Party to do a 180 and suddenly do what it has failed to do in the past? Get real. The number of commercial intercity bus routes and frequency of service has steadily declined for over a generation, rendering that option less and less viable. Many small towns have no other practical commercial connection to the outside world. Minimum wage workers either can't afford a car, or can't afford a car that they can trust on a long trip. Is it fair for a government, whose professed purpose is to serve the people, to deny them the opportunity to travel? Those of us who are older know that commercial air travel does not have to be the onerous experience it is today, but the steady trend is to make it even more inhospitable. The only ones who can escape it are the few who can afford their own planes. Since income disparity has steadily increased over the past several years and shows no sign of abating, air travel is becoming an unacceptable nightmare. I won't get into the discussion of Federal funds spent on highway and airport construction and maintenance, the costs of air traffic control and highway law enforcement, the loss of tax base and/or productive land when highways and airports are built, etc. because that's been argued to death and nobody can agree. My conclusion: If the role of Government in a free Society is to serve the needs of the people, then a balanced approach to Transportation issues makes the most sense. This means making it possible and reasonable for there to be free travel by as many modes as possible, by as many routes as possible, to as many destinations as possible. All of it may not be perfectly efficient, but the resultant comprehensive Transportation network will be worth that small sacrifice. Tom +1 Although I strongly believe LD train concept needs radical transformation, this is not the right approach. One can see cognitive dissonance at work here: train lovers who are also Trump supporters. Which force prevails? So far it appears that ideology "trumps" passion and historical common sense.
I apologise if I offended some of you. That was not my intent.
I do have respect for elmost everyone in the railroad industry. I have several friends that are engineers, conductors, and dispatchers and I know they work very hard on some obscene late hours. I do have respect for them.
Now some of you want to play armchair CEO without looking at end result or numbers. The experts had 40 years to fix these issues. They all failed. And we all know the definition of Insanity.
Quitefrankly a lot of those Midwest routes would still lose money with 100% occupancy. And the fact that ticket subsidies per passenger exceed $250 is not something that can not be sustained or fixed. Roads airlines buses etc don't even come close to those kind of subsidies. Railroads have always struggled with passenger income. That is a fact that is worsened by the Interstate system and proliferation of cars as.well as the loss of.mail. we all know this.
But nobody wants to.sacrifice the golden cow. I say kill it to make Amtrak stronger for the future. I want Amtrak to be stronger. I don't want equipment breakdown because they don't have spare funds. But I also do you want to pay the obscene subsidy per passenger when better alternatives exist. That is money we don't have as a nation.
As to income and cost of roads the subsidies are much lower. But ancellary income.to business has a huge payout much more than the cost of the roads. And that is why we have interstates.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
In all fairness to the armchair CEO's, those experts you refer to are elected officials. If this budget holds, Wick and his aspirations for Amtrak may be sidelined.
I agree with a statement above that LD trains need some form of transformation, but Amtrak unfortunately is a government step child with one too many foster parents.
If my beloved Lake Shore Limited, as well as all other LD trains, has to die, for any reason, you can bet I will work as hard as I can to kill all the rest of Amtrak. Why on earth would Ohioans pay one cent in subsidies to run trains on the East Coast? No, sir.
Either Amtrak is a national system, or it's nothing. Ohio's Congressmen, mostly Republicans, would be hard pressed to justify de-funding trains that serve Ohio in order to repair or bolster train service for the blue states along the coast.
We learned this week that GOP plans to cut Medicare and Medicaid will throw some $12 or $14 billion dollars worth of costs onto Ohio's already very shaky finances. In such an environment where would any money for anything come from? Simply put, it wouldn't.
No LD trains? Then no Amtrak. Period. That's what I'll be telling my Congressmen, and I'm sure I won't be alone.
[quote user="DigitalGriffin"]
I do have respect for elmost everyone I. The railroad industry. I have several.friends that are engineers, conductors, and dispatchers and I know they work very hard on some obscene late hours. I do have respect for them.
[/quoagoI an not sure why any one would think now, 40 years ago or 50 years ago that long distances passenger train would be profitable. If they could be then the railroads themselves would be still operating them,so let's put aside the notion that Amtrak or its ld trains can be profitable. Just won't happen.
I'm not trying to be an " arm chair " CEO. Long distances trains operate for the " public good". Just like rural road's, air ports, the post office and countless other programs funded by the federal government, directly or Thur creative tax deductions woven into our tax codes benifiting or targeting certain income groups.
These trains provide an alternative transportation options for a wide group of folks, including seniors, business travelers, students and vacationers. I fully understand that when I buy a Amtrak ticket that a certain percentage of the trip is being subsidized by both the federal and maybe a state government.
I also understand that when I board an air plane, trying to find the best vaule for my buck, that my ticket cost doesn't fully pay all the freight. I know the airports and parts of it operation are paid for by the " government " , traffic control another government expenses I don't like it but willingly pay for because it for the public good.
When I jump in the car I am not foolish enough to think that the gas taxes i pay cover all the expenses related to highway and road construction maintenance.
Could ld trains be replaced by a cheaper form of Transportation? Most likely. Should they be probably not. They have endured since 1971 because they are supported by a wide group of benefactors, for the public good. Thier plenty of fat in the budget, let's be creative and real.
Given the upgrades of the NEC infrastructure, the purchase of the Acela trainsets, and the new electric locomotives, it probably wears 70 to 90 percent of Amtrak’s capital charges (depreciation, interest, etc.). Let’s call it 80 percent with 10 percent each for the State Supported and Other Short Corridor trains and the long distance trains. Under this assumption the fully allocated loss for the NEC would have been approximately $225 million or averages of 12 cents per passenger mile and $19.22 per passenger. The fully allocated losses for the State Supported and Other Short Corridor trains was $252 million or averages of 16 cents per passenger mile and $17.17 per passenger. The full allocated losses for the long distance trains under this scenario was 22 cents per passenger mile and $133.54 per passenger.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Watergate!
If Nixon hadn't been politically forced to resign he would have presided over the burial of Amtrak after a 5 year experiment, which was the original intent of the formation of Amtrak. Amtrak was never intended to survive.
The fact that Amtrak still exists 46 years after it's formation on capital budgets that would have sunk less skillful players of the political games necessary to continue in operation is a testament to the skill of the Amtrak officials.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Watergate! If Nixon hadn't been politically forced to resign he would have presided over the burial of Amtrak after a 5 year experiment, which was the original intent of the formation of Amtrak. Amtrak was never intended to survive. The fact that Amtrak still exists 46 years after it's formation on capital budgets that would have sunk less skillful players of the political games necessary to continue in operation is a testament to the skill of the Amtrak officials. Never heard Amtrak managers being described as skillful or even competent, but you are correct.. The last 46 years have been rough.
oltmannd Has anyone else noted the irony that the states that will be losing their Amtrak service are almost exactly match the states that went for Trump?
Perhaps they know their Amtrak service is secure regardless of the proposed budget.
ACY CMStPnP: By statute, Amtrak, and therefore Auto Train, is a passenger carrier. The automobiles are the property of the passeners on the train, and are equivalent to passengers' baggage. So the Auto Train is not a mixed passenger-freight train, in spite of the efforts of some folks to define it that way. Trailers are often handled in the carriers, and I have even seen boats loaded on trailers. The Auto Train has traditionally gone the extra mile to accommodate whatever business it can sensibly handle, but the interior dimensions of the carriers are limiting factors. Not being a lawyer, I don't know whether hauling long distance commercial trucks on the Auto Train (a passenger train by definition) would be legal. Frankly, I doubt that a large semi would fit into one of the carriers. If it was narrow enough, it certainly wouldn't fit between the two decks of the Auto Carriers. So some carriers would have to be specially modified for the purpose. I also don't know whether the ramps would bear the weight. Since Amtrak has no spare money for experimentation, I am sure the Company would be happy to have you underwrite the expenses involved, if there is a market and if it's legal or possible in the first place. Tom
Well what I was thinking was a CSX - Amtrak partnership, CSX hauls the trailers and tractor cabs on flatcars, Amtrak the truck drivers. I know it is unrealistic to expect any Class I to form a partnership with Amtrak given the past history so it was more a hypothetical. The current Amtrak Auto-Train consist is too long in my opinion as it is......I don't think extending it is a good idea, you would need a seperate train.
ROBERT WILLISON BaltACD Watergate! If Nixon hadn't been politically forced to resign he would have presided over the burial of Amtrak after a 5 year experiment, which was the original intent of the formation of Amtrak. Amtrak was never intended to survive. The fact that Amtrak still exists 46 years after it's formation on capital budgets that would have sunk less skillful players of the political games necessary to continue in operation is a testament to the skill of the Amtrak officials. Never heard Amtrak managers being described as skillful or even competent, but you are correct.. The last 46 years have been rough.
Living 41 years beyond your 'preordained' death requires skills.
CMStPnP oltmannd Has anyone else noted the irony that the states that will be losing their Amtrak service are almost exactly match the states that went for Trump? Perhaps they know their Amtrak service is secure regardless of the proposed budget.
Either show us the factual evidence that supports such a statement or emulate your hero and do a Trump (make stuff up).
[quote
[/quote]
Why transport the driver when you can have an equally qualified driver waiting at the other end of the line?
Trump’s budget is causing Chris Christie to remind everybody who killed the Arc tunnel.
http://nj.gov/governor/news/news/552017/approved/20170316a.html
wanswheel Trump’s budget is causing Chris Christie to remind everybody who killed the Arc tunnel. http://nj.gov/governor/news/news/552017/approved/20170316a.html
Nothing quite like political doubletalk.
NEC is hardly loosing money. Especially not Acela. Have you seen their ticket prices?That $120 loss per passenger is the result after the massive subsidies being handed to them for that route.The table below shows that if you sold 100% of the tickets, how much of that money collected would equal the operating expense of thet train. For example 50% collected on a train that cost $100 means they collected $50 in fair cost. So even if you fill that train to capacity you would still lose money.
BaltACDRE #3 - Bovine Excrement to the MAX! MARC & VRE get all possible priority on CSX. I KNOW because I gave it to them before I retired - it was my job! RE #1 there is not incentive to be late - arrive early and you worked less time for the same pay, arrive late you are working longer for the same pay. RE #2 If money is being 'diverted' it will continue to be diverted. Analogy - States sold gambling as providing additional funding for schools - reality, while gambling funds may go to schools, the 'general fund' funds that went to schools have gone elsewhere and schools are still struggling for funding.
Balt, You are spot on. Thanks for the truth.
Believe it or not the Twin Amtrak Tunnels to New York from NJ are on President Trumps Infrastructure program as a "National Security Priority" or "National Priority"........whatever the hell that means. I cracked up when I read it. Now we should start NEC Conspiracy Theory rumors of how the NEC is used in National Defense during or after an attack.
Redevelopment of Chicago Union Station and Washington DC Union Station is on there as well.
ROBERT WILLISONI wonder how any one could support Trump if they support Amtrak. The hand writing was on the wall. I wrote in earlier post, that under Trump their be only the regionals, state supported trains and the NEC left standing
The problem of course is you did not look at the Infrastructure Program where many big-ticket Amtrak projects were moved away from the Amtrak budget. It's a new philosophy that apparently many of the Forum readers here are clueless of. President Trump moved most of the individual agency transportation big ticket projects over to the Infrastructure Program. So while it is listed that light rail will suffer under the budget. Looking at the Infrastructure program.......Billions are going to be spent on Light Rail, if the Infrastructure program is approved. Dallas has two large transit projects on the Infrastructure program.
schlimmEither show us the factual evidence that supports such a statement or emulate your hero and do a Trump (make stuff up).
Your beyond hope. Even though I pointed you to the Chicago to Milwaukee Data and spoon fed most of it to you. You only found 1/3 the information and completely missed the attached EIS. So I learned from that experience and won't waste my time again. You can percieve someone that is more resourceful and intelligent than you are as "making stuff up". However, most rational people would at least Google first before making accusatory statements like that.
CMStPnP schlimm Either show us the factual evidence that supports such a statement or emulate your hero and do a Trump (make stuff up). Your beyond hope. Even though I pointed you to the Chicago to Milwaukee Data and spoon fed most of it to you. You only found 1/3 the information and completely missed the attached EIS. So I learned from that experience and won't waste my time again. You can percieve someone that is more resourceful and intelligent than you are as "making stuff up". However, most rational people would at least Google first before making accusatory statements like that.
schlimm Either show us the factual evidence that supports such a statement or emulate your hero and do a Trump (make stuff up).
Once again you put words in others' mouths. I never said a word about infrastructure, just your comment on the ending of LD service (that it would not happen). You are not only incapable of citing the sources for your remarks, you are dishonest in your attributions.
n.b.: As of Saturday morning, Trump's minions have yet to release any details of his infrastructure budget.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.