Decades of drawing fantasy maps and trying to drum up political support for marginal routes haven’t made the U.S. a world leader in passenger rail. Rather than doubling down on something that hasn’t worked and probably never will, why not try something that actually has a chance of being successful?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
The counter argument is that Amtrak provides a much needed service to rural communities off the coasts outside of the large cities. Another article that I can't remember the source on noted that only 10% of people take the Empire Builder the entire length of the trip. Several of the small rural communities Amtrak serves don't have other public transit options such as a bus or a airport within 2 or more hours.
Yes, the NEC is a very competitive route and needs lots of work including realignment of the right of way to get truly high speed service. It also suffers from the greatest amount of deferred maintenance in the bridges and tubes.
At the same time, there is the also the "other" Amtrak that serves the public good, much like the interstate highway system.
Written like a true Trakkie, Jonathan. (That's OK. I'm one too.) The days when the PRR held the unofficial 51st senate seat in the State House at Harrisburg are long gone, unfortunately some might say. From what I can tell, today's national rail situation regularly proves that modern politics and passenger trains don't play well together, on the Corridor or off.
- Mike
I suppose the question is: Is Amtrak a for profit company as Bloomberg suggests, or is it a public service just like roads and bridges, or is it both?
There are obvious "must do" upgrades such as the repair or replacement of the tunnels connecting NJ and NYC. They are 100 + years old and flooded just a few years ago shutting down the NEC. I would think that this must be among Amtrak's first infrastructure priorities.
Once the "must do" projects are done, what's next? It is a tough issue that will be debated for many years. NH Joe
It's been debated for 50 years so far. I don't see an end in sight. Some might say the debate predates Amtrak with the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965.
I would think the number one priority would be the Hudson River tubes as well. They flooded more than a few years ago. Hurricane Sandy 2012. The third tube would have been really helpful as it would have been in service by now allowing for closure of one tube for renovations and still having two tracks in and out of NYC.
Often was is missing in these discussions is what a small percentage of Amtrak funding actually goes towards non NEC funding. The NEC is an expensive stretch of track to maintain to start and without straightening some of the curves will never be truly HSR qualified. The Southwest Chief runs faster on parts of it's route with a 90 mph limit than parts of the NEC.
Mike is there anything that modern politics is compatible with? 
J 611,
You need to define "Hasn't Worked" in your terms. What hasn't worked? Was it supposed to unseat the airlines? Why does it need to be world class?
Most of us who've lived through the 50 years of Amtrak have heard at least 50 different "plans". So many that I doubt anyone could say precisely what the current one is, or any previous one was for that matter.
(If we all knew what Amtrak was assigned to do, the plan was dictated clearly, and it stayed largely constant over intervening years, we'd probably be able to answer my questions rather easily.)
M.H.M.
This Wendover guy on youtube does a good job explaining why amtrak needs to maintain service outside their busy corridors. https://youtu.be/dSw7fWCrDk0. Mostly due to political support. Most midwest politicians would not be happy putting most of the money into a corridor thats serves only the northeast. I completely agree the northeast corridor needs a lot of updating. The bridges on the ct shorline are from 1910 and often get stuck open or closed.
An NPR story on Amtrak's proposed 2035 map is quite interesting. Adding lots of connections between cities that don't presently exist.
Just my opinion but, as a taxpayer, I firmly believe that the U.S. Government needs to get out of the passenger train "business". Many current "young people" keep trying to compare our country to Europe and/or China & Japan as "world class passenger service". Many, MOST seem to forget that our country is essentially based around the automobile and it's industry, with extremely long distances between cities. Our citizens don't seem to desire "duding trains", regardless of speed, instead prefer their own automobile.
Also, remember that hauling passengers is a loosing proposition, as passenger trains can not turn a profit!
The freight railroads have their own ROW and make a profit.
So, let's take Bloomberg to the max extent.
Privatize most transportation. All controlled access highways become toll roads AND pay taxes.
Privatize airports and the air traffic control system. And have those pay taxes. I think Charles Lindbergh was against government monies for airlines.
Shipping lanes and ports become "toll roads". Same with taxes.
Get rid of most of the gas tax (need it for local roads.), special taxes for air/ports, ET. AL. That will produce true winners and losers.
I don’t know the answer, but one thing I know for certain, if there were TGV level speeds in use from the Washington metro area to Florida, I would absolutely choose that over flying. Air travel post-9/11 is the worst.
@Scotie posted:An NPR story on Amtrak's proposed 2035 map is quite interesting. Adding lots of connections between cities that don't presently exist.
And every one of them will lose money. 
As would roads, airlines, and ships when funded at similar levels for the infrastructure they utilize. In this case not really arguing one way or the other about which is better, however when put on an even playing field the cost / profit scenario could and would likely play out differently.
Regardless of how we feel personally, this conversation is always a losing argument and always will be for both sides.
Do public schools, fire departments or the military make profits? They are utilities for the public good. Could not Amtrak be thought of in the same light? I agree with rplst8, flying is a miserable experience, only ameliorated by the pain being relatively brief. If Amtrak would not take about the same time as a Conestoga Wagon, I would use it, too.
I voted against hi-speed rail here in California for one simple reason: The trains weren't going to go where people need them to go. As suspected, there are cost overruns, problems with rights-of-way, and the practical problem of lower cost to fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco. They would have been better served following a commuter model between the suburbs and the major cities (now a moot point with everyone discovering the viability of tele-working)
Sadly, small rural towns don't have a traffic demand which would limit ridership and raise the cost per passenger for tickets absent subsidies due to the cost of operating the trains. A regional model, placing stations centered between rural communities might work (and I'm sure has been tried), but the question of demand still exists.
While I like trains personally, I suspect robotic cars will replace trains for shorter passenger trips (a few hundred miles or less) and some higher technology passenger transport will eventually replace them for longer trips (500-thousands of miles). Air travel will remain the major way of going 500-3000 miles for most people for the near future. The infrastructure is already in place for cars and airplanes, as it is for rail travel throughout the rest of the world, but not in the USA.
Kinda like Howard Dean's commuter line from Charlotte, VT to Burlington, VT. To have "mass transit" one first needs "mass".
If you've never been to Charlotte, VT... it has one flashing yellow light, a post office, a General Store and a firehouse. Maybe two dozen homes. Makes Mayberry look like a teeming metropolis.
On the other hand, much like the Norfolk Southern Thoroughbred concept, for a National passenger rail network to succeed, it needs feeder lines from Medium Markets to move people onto the bigger interstate trains at the major market hub. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, DC, Chicago and L.A. all do this with commuter rail lines.
But to really succeed, markets like Scranton, Youngstown, Columbus, etc need to be connected to the National network in some meaningful way.
HOW this would be done given the depleted infrastructure, and the fact that infrastructure bills spend less than 10% of the monies on infrastructure remains to be seen.
Jon 
@AGHRMatt posted:I voted against hi-speed rail here in California for one simple reason: The trains weren't going to go where people need them to go. As suspected, there are cost overruns, problems with rights-of-way, and the practical problem of lower cost to fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco. They would have been better served following a commuter model between the suburbs and the major cities (now a moot point with everyone discovering the viability of tele-working)
Sadly, small rural towns don't have a traffic demand which would limit ridership and raise the cost per passenger for tickets absent subsidies due to the cost of operating the trains. A regional model, placing stations centered between rural communities might work (and I'm sure has been tried), but the question of demand still exists.
Matt hit on the key problem. The pandemic has had a seismic shift in how companies get work done. No longer is tele-commuting a niche of the American office. Many companies are not even going to have main offices any longer and will instead keep most or all of their work forces remote. I live on Long Island, take a look around NYC on any given weekday, its empty. Obviously this model will not work for all but the trends are there.
That being said, I think a high speed NEC can be the economic driver to keep Amtrak afloat. None of these plans will work until the tunnels connecting NJ, NYC, and LI are fixed. Amtrak owns them but they are used by all of the commuter RR's that serve NYC. The latest estimates were around $ 4 B IIRC.
If the NEC can be even close to cost neutral, then Amtrak would be able to maintain more of the regional services that link many smaller cities.
Bob
To straighten tight curves for higher speeds sounds very expensive and next to impossible especially where the track runs along the edge of a river or along private property, which will start legal battles for the people that don't want to sell.
The light blue colored lines show all the new routes. The line of interest to myself is Detroit to Toronto. Will this train leave the new Michigan Central Station and enter the Detroit Railroad Tunnel and then proceed to Toronto, Ontario.
The tunnel portals are adjacent to the Michigan Central Station. The Detroit Free Press has had reported that negotiations have been underway to use the railroad tunnel. The main issue to be resolved is the ventilation in the tunnel, be able to keep the air safe for passengers.
I would also enjoy riding the new routes around Lake Erie.
Gary 🚂
@Rich Melvin posted:And every one of them will lose money.
Probably, but passenger rail travel was a money-loser long before Amtrak.
But don't count out changing ethos: if your private car becomes a memory because of taxation or some other legal restriction, all of a sudden rail travel regains viability. Such a future is in the plans of more than a few visionaries. . . .
This has all the earmarks of another giant taxpayer financed boondoggle! You add routes where there's demand, not just because the lines look good on a map!
Pallalin, You left the air quotes off "visionaries".
Jon
Gary,
If Detroit to Toronto is a viable route, then why wouldn't VIA be running it already?
Jon
@gunrunnerjohn posted:This has all the earmarks of another giant taxpayer financed boondoggle! You add routes where there's demand, not just because the lines look good on a map!
Long distance rail travel is an anachronism. It just doesn’t fit in today’s times. It is people clinging to the past, wishing for the “good old days” of rail travel. It is also a tremendous burden on all taxpayers, when only a tiny fraction of those taxpayers actually use the service.
There is a place for rail travel today, but it is in big-city commuter traffic and high density corridors, like the NEC. But if I’m going to travel more than a hundred miles, it sure won’t be on a train.
I was a free lance corporate pilot for any years. I really enjoyed flying the King Airs I flew for various companies, but I absolutely hated to fly commercial. Even so, if I need to travel from Ohio to the west coast some day soon, I’ll do it in three hours on a plane, not three DAYS on a train.
@Dave Zucal posted:To straighten tight curves for higher speeds sounds very expensive and next to impossible especially where the track runs along the edge of a river or along private property, which will start legal battles for the people that don't want to sell.
As of right now, this is not Amtrak's plan. The plan is not for bullet train/NEC style service along all of these new corridors. The 40 new routes/enhanced corridors proposed will utilize existing freight trackage and all of the new routes were chosen in talks with local government officials because there was a stated purpose in bringing service to these cities.
@AGHRMatt posted:I voted against hi-speed rail here in California for one simple reason: The trains weren't going to go where people need them to go. As suspected, there are cost overruns, problems with rights-of-way, and the practical problem of lower cost to fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco. They would have been better served following a commuter model between the suburbs and the major cities (now a moot point with everyone discovering the viability of tele-working)
Sadly, small rural towns don't have a traffic demand which would limit ridership and raise the cost per passenger for tickets absent subsidies due to the cost of operating the trains. A regional model, placing stations centered between rural communities might work (and I'm sure has been tried), but the question of demand still exists.
CA High Speed Rail is either going to be considered as a visionary decision or one of the biggest "bridges to nowhere" ever. Unfortunately, once something like this gets up and running, it is almost never shut down if it fails.
The cities of central CA such as Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton, etc., are no longer small farming towns. They have become major population centers. The highways connecting them to Sacramento in the north and LA in the south are already at capacity.
Most CA transportation planners believe that the age of the private car is gone. They are forcing cities to build housing without parking, etc. Planners believe that public transportation is the future in nearly all cities and between cities. The public transportation focus is the reason they are supporting CA high speed rail.
I strongly disagree. I think that private vehicles will remain the primary transportation choice for most people. Building apartments, homes and shopping centers without parking is a huge mistake.
Cars as we know them today will be gone. I think that by mid-century most new cars will be electric and self-driving. Self-driving cars will make the roads much more efficient and increase their capacity because human mistakes such as driving too slow or fast will be eliminated. Accidents will be rare.
It would be interesting to see how CA high speed rail works out. The PRR and NH railroads electric mainlines built in the early 20th century were also visionary. The basic infrastructure built then is still in use today. NH Joe
@KOOLjock1 posted:Gary,
If Detroit to Toronto is a viable route, then why wouldn't VIA be running it already?
Jon
Hi Jon:
VIA Rail has been running trains from Windsor, Ontario to Tornado for years. With the new Michigan Central Station coming online in about two years. The Ford Motor Company, the owners of the Michigan Central Station would like to see the trains come into the Michigan Central Station using the railroad tunnels,
The way it is set up now we have to drive to Windsor to catch the train. With Covid-19 still being an issue. (sidebar) The USA & Canadian Border is closed. Only open for essential traffic.
Gary 🚂
@trainroomgary posted:The way it is set up now we have to drive to Windsor to catch the train. With Covid-19 still being an issue. (sidebar) The USA & Canadian Border is closed. Only open for essential traffic.
Long before that route would be active, COVID-19 will be in the rear view mirror.
I guess I am the odd man out. I have always supported passenger rail service and by default, Amtrak. I am excited to see them attempt to expand services and I wish them the best.
Just my opinion and my thoughts. I hope everyone is having a good Monday!
@trainroomgary posted:Hi Jon:
VIA Rail has been running trains from Windsor, Ontario to Tornado for years. With the new Michigan Central Station coming online in about two years. The Ford Motor Company, the owners of the Michigan Central Station would like to see the trains come into the Michigan Central Station using the railroad tunnels,
The way it is set up now we have to drive to Windsor to catch the train. With Covid-19 still being an issue. (sidebar) The USA & Canadian Border is closed. Only open for essential traffic.
Gary 🚂
I'll be waiting for Byron MacGregor to report it on 20/20 News!
Jon
Even if you have self driving cars, still a traffic jam. there are just to many vehicles on our roads now, and getting more each day..cars will be like trucks good for the last delivery mile.
It’s virtually impossible to realign the NEC for higher speeds. A better solution would be to replace and repair bridges and ROW infrastructure that cause slow orders. Upgrade the signal system and re-assess traffic management.
The culmulative effect across the length of the NEC would reduce transit times substantially.
@AGHRMatt posted:I voted against hi-speed rail here in California for one simple reason: The trains weren't going to go where people need them to go. As suspected, there are cost overruns, problems with rights-of-way, and the practical problem of lower cost to fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco. They would have been better served following a commuter model between the suburbs and the major cities (now a moot point with everyone discovering the viability of tele-working)
Sadly, small rural towns don't have a traffic demand which would limit ridership and raise the cost per passenger for tickets absent subsidies due to the cost of operating the trains. A regional model, placing stations centered between rural communities might work (and I'm sure has been tried), but the question of demand still exists.
I also voted against it, every time, when I as a California resident. The problem is insidious. It is not to make trains to nowhere, it is to make trains to somewhere that does not exist today. Specifically, huge sprawling suburbs in the Central Valley. Turn as much of the Central Valley agricultural land into suburbs as possible. Developers are just drooling over all the money they will make. Farmers fight it as much as they can.
It will be quicker for someone living in a new suburb of Fresno to get to downtown LA than someone living in Pasadena today, once it gets there. Grow baby grow.
You may ask why are they building the middle to nowhere first? Political strategy. Spend the money they have on something useless first. Once that part is done they will go back again and again incrementally and say we need more money to actually make go somewhere useful. And California voters will go for it.
The Altamont Commuter Express or ACE has proved the point in Northern California. They are private, profitable and cannot expand service because the UP won't allow them to. The waiting list to use the service was over a year in 2016. The pandemic has changed that significantly as more work from home but...
@Rich Melvin posted:AMEN!
Long distance rail travel is an anachronism. It just doesn’t fit in today’s times. It is people clinging to the past, wishing for the “good old days” of rail travel. It is also a tremendous burden on all taxpayers, when only a tiny fraction of those taxpayers actually use the service.
There is a place for rail travel today, but it is in big-city commuter traffic and high density corridors, like the NEC. But if I’m going to travel more than a hundred miles, it sure won’t be on a train.
I was a free lance corporate pilot for any years. I really enjoyed flying the King Airs I flew for various companies, but I absolutely hated to fly commercial. Even so, if I need to travel from Ohio to the west coast some day soon, I’ll do it in three hours on a plane, not three DAYS on a train.
Well, everyday more and more of the people around me would rather drive a thousand miles than fly if there is a choice. And it is more airports than it is actually flying. Voluntarily checking your self into a concentration camp is something they are willing to do less and less. They'd rather drive their car or rent an RV and spend a day or two driving than spend hours in a prison. If I can't drive or take a train I rather stay home.
I swear if I hear "FAA regulations require your compliance..." one more time I might become felon. There are good reasons incidents of craziness in airports and on planes is on the rise.
I agree with both points of view. If I have to go a few hundred miles, I'd rather drive than fly. If I have to go a few thousand miles, I'll suck it up and deal with the major inconvenience of the ridiculous regulations now in place to fly.
I'm like Rich, I really miss my airplane and having the ability to take off from SE-PA and be in Denver long before the sun sets. No security idiots to deal with, no hurry up and wait in various lines, etc. 
Having rode Amtrak many times from PA to NY and Boston, and I can drive to NY or Boston as fast as the train will get me there, and I have my car when I get there.
I grew up in a small town. I have lived in small cities and towns all my life. The large cities on Amtracks routes intimidate me. I had no desire to go into these center cities before and less now. and That is where trains go, right into the center cities. with all the crime and riots and looting and shootings I hear about every day on the news, call me a coward but I am very frightened of these big center cities. so Amtrak has no use for me. They don't go anywhere I want to go and they are very inconvenient.
@Rich Melvin posted:AMEN!
Long distance rail travel is an anachronism. It just doesn’t fit in today’s times. It is people clinging to the past, wishing for the “good old days” of rail travel. It is also a tremendous burden on all taxpayers, when only a tiny fraction of those taxpayers actually use the service.
There is a place for rail travel today, but it is in big-city commuter traffic and high density corridors, like the NEC. But if I’m going to travel more than a hundred miles, it sure won’t be on a train.
I was a free lance corporate pilot for any years. I really enjoyed flying the King Airs I flew for various companies, but I absolutely hated to fly commercial. Even so, if I need to travel from Ohio to the west coast some day soon, I’ll do it in three hours on a plane, not three DAYS on a train.
Rich,
I'm in general agreement, but I'd like to replace your 100 mile limit with 250.
Living in the Detroit area, and having frequent business in Chicago (prior to the pandemic), I'd much rather take the train.
My late father-in-law used to talk about the days, in the late 50's and early sixties, when a flight between the two cities took only 45 minutes takeoff to touchdown, with lunch or dinner served en-route. In those days getting into and out of airports was quick and easy so, at most, between driving in at the departure end and driving out at the arrival end you probably had an hour to an hour and fifteen minutes.
When skyjacking reared it's ugly head the need for security added substantial time to this -- about an hour on the departure end. Airport growth and congestion, including moving the rental car lots and parking to remote sections of the airport grounds, added another 30 to 45 mins, on each end.
Last but not least, in the aftermath of 911 we've all been advised to arrive at least two hours early for domestic flights.
All of this makes our "high-speed" link between Detroit and Chicago competitive with air travel, as long as there are few freight delays. When bad weather threatens rail is clearly ahead. I've beat my boss home from Chicago many times when he elected to stick with his airline tickets as thunderstorms or snowstorms came through.
Here's an important point for business travelers: The in-the-air time above 10,000 ft. while flying (when you can get out your laptop and get some work done while traveling) is only 30 mins max. You might get another 30 mins in on the ground while waiting for departure.
On the train I'm working the whole way, aside from a little break here and there -- for a better-than-airline meal and a beverage.
Is is cost effective to the country, and to the Midwest, to offer this service? I don't know but I'll take the train to Chicago, and back, any day.
Mike
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...here-train-available
France is proposing a law to ban airplane flights less than a certain distance.
Dan Weinhold
@gunrunnerjohn posted:This has all the earmarks of another giant taxpayer financed boondoggle! You add routes where there's demand, not just because the lines look good on a map!
California Hi-Speed Rail, I rest my case.
@Doug W. posted:California Hi-Speed Rail, I rest my case.
That's the one I was thinking of.
We no longer need ocean liners to take us to Europe or Asia yet cruise lines flourish. The problem isn't necessarily with passenger rail making money but with the mentality in which it is viewed. The majority of the comments here objecting to it or seeing it as a "boondoggle" view rail as a point to point means of travel. I think rail becomes viable again when the trip is seen as the destination rather the point at which it ends.
@Hot Water posted:Just my opinion but, as a taxpayer, I firmly believe that the U.S. Government needs to get out of the passenger train "business". Many current "young people" keep trying to compare our country to Europe and/or China & Japan as "world class passenger service". Many, MOST seem to forget that our country is essentially based around the automobile and it's industry, with extremely long distances between cities. Our citizens don't seem to desire "duding trains", regardless of speed, instead prefer their own automobile.
Also, remember that hauling passengers is a loosing proposition, as passenger trains can not turn a profit!
Agreed, 💯
@Hot Water posted:Just my opinion but, as a taxpayer, I firmly believe that the U.S. Government needs to get out of the passenger train "business". Many current "young people" keep trying to compare our country to Europe and/or China & Japan as "world class passenger service". Many, MOST seem to forget that our country is essentially based around the automobile and it's industry, with extremely long distances between cities. Our citizens don't seem to desire "duding trains", regardless of speed, instead prefer their own automobile.
Also, remember that hauling passengers is a loosing proposition, as passenger trains can not turn a profit!
Unless current social and cultural trends reverse, my sons' generation (I hope I will be dead by then) will see the predominance of the personal automobile come to an end. Recreational travel is being increasingly described as unnecessary privilege, and commercial travel is losing ground to electronic presence. In any case, social pressure is working hard to make such travel uneconomical for anyone. The citizens that you and I know (and are!) are dying off and losing economic and political clout.
I will surprised if my (yet-to-be-born) grandchildren have any more idea what it means to own a personal vehicle than I have any idea what it means to own a horse and buggy.
(Just to be clear: I reject categorically any notion that this issue has anything to do at all with political parties and discourage any attempt to make any partisan hay out of my perspective. I reserve the right to adjust the timeline, however.)
I'm always surprised that a forum filled with train enthusiasts seems to be predominantly anti-Amtrak.
Here is my rhetorical question of the day: why does Amtrak need to make a profit? The airline industry certainly does not (if all costs are included--just ask the Europeans about their privatized air traffic control system), nor does the bus system or shipping industry.
All forms of transportation are subsidized--the main difference is that Amtrak is a direct bill whereas other forms of transportation are subsidized indirectly, such as the FAA, highway spending, waterway management, etc.
The cost to subsidize Amtrak is roughly $5 to $10 per taxpayer per year, if I remember the calculations I made from a previous post correctly. If you (or I) had to directly pay the true cost of flying or driving every time we bought an airline ticket or got in the car, then we would likely do substantially less flying and driving.
Additionally, we maintain a national rail network for other reasons than entertainment. Just as the Civil Reserve Air Fleet is available for military contingencies, so is the national passenger rail network.
Also, aircraft cannot use other types of fuel since the energy density requirements are so high. Trains can, without the very expensive process of converting coal to oil. A 737 size aircraft uses about 800 gallons of fuel per block hour, and fuel prices fluctuate substantially (remember 2008, $150 per barrel of crude).
The willingness to pay for the time convenience of flying quickly disappears when ticket prices escalate even slightly with increases in fuel costs.
@IC EC posted:All forms of transportation are subsidized--the main difference is that Amtrak is a direct bill whereas other forms of transportation are subsidized indirectly, such as the FAA, highway spending, waterway management, etc.
Agree... people who loathe the public funding of rail transportation conveniently overlook the untold billions (trillions?) that have been spent on roads - nearly all on taxpayer dime. While partially driven by fuel tax, deriving some "fee for use" arguments, it's my understanding that the fuel taxes don't cover the total costs. Additionally - what happens when I make a car that runs on solar power?
Now, I'm not saying we should bet the farm on Amtrak, but I think the spending so far has been pretty modest when you look at the benefits. I also enjoy driving my car on our highways on a nice sunny day with the windows down - but that doesn't mean other's should be deprived the right to move about simply because we want to pay for our roads and nothing else.
There was an interesting comparison of why air travel is more profitable (less of a money pit?) than rail travel - and it mostly had to do with labor costs - that in the end boiled down to "trains slower - more labor hours - more cost". If I can find it, I'll share. With self-driving cars afoot - and PTC being the mandate everywhere - I could see a lot of jobs being cut out of the rail industry (for better or worse) and the costs falling enough to make it profitable, outright.
I'm pretty sure there are examples of trams all over the place (ironically at airports) that have no operator - or maybe just one watching over the system remotely.
I don't understand where all this comes from. There is federal mandatory spending and discretionary spending. Here is the breakdown of each percentage wise:
The transportation spending falls under the 30% discretionary spending. Of that 30% the breakdown for transportation is as follows:
How does that translate into wasted tax money? I love the railroads and would like to see more spent on it and less on some of the really bloated budgets.
John
@palallin posted:Unless current social and cultural trends reverse, my sons' generation (I hope I will be dead by then) will see the predominance of the personal automobile come to an end. Recreational travel is being increasingly described as unnecessary privilege, and commercial travel is losing ground to electronic presence. In any case, social pressure is working hard to make such travel uneconomical for anyone. The citizens that you and I know (and are!) are dying off and losing economic and political clout.
They'll have to wait for me to die before all the personal automobiles come to an end.
If you have the thought that if I don't use it then I should not have to pay for it. Well then let's get rid of the schools first.
I think that viewpoint is very short-sighted, Kind of like corporations need not pay at all because "they" never use anything!
@IC EC posted:I'm always surprised that a forum filled with train enthusiasts seems to be predominantly anti-Amtrak.
Here is my rhetorical question of the day: why does Amtrak need to make a profit?
I know you said rhetorical, but I have to weigh in with my two cents
Why does Amtrak need to make a profit?
It doesn't - and that is part of the problem. Losing money is a sign of waste and inefficiency and Amtrak manages to do that WITH the subsidies afforded to it. The real question is, "Do we really need high-speed rail with the other options that are more attractive?" Speed over long distance is covered by the air and customization is covered by motor vehicles. Passenger rail travel is stuck in between - it's not fast enough (even HSR), and it can't go everywhere that everyone wants to go. The NEC may be an exception as it has critical mass, so it could possibly make sense to invest there, but in a time that remote work is transforming the traditional workplace, there is no doubt that ridership will decline. Do we really want to invest all of that money into something with a downward trajectory?
If we, as a nation, had a better than balanced budget and our national debt was not $28 TRILLION at 130% of GDP, then we could start talking about projects that don't really produce an ROI. At this point, we as Americans really need to consider whether our not our taxpayer dollars are spent in a way that makes sense. HSR would not produce a net economic benefit to the overall economy. Rail is really good at moving freight efficiently and we can maintain that freight moving about the country efficiently is a benefit to society as a whole. HSR for passenger travel can't make that same claim.
HSR lines are not essential and do not indicate our ranking in the world. China has the most HSR lines of any country by a long shot with approximately 16,695 miles while the US has 33 miles of HSR. https://www.eesi.org/papers/vi...evelopment-worldwide. In 2014, 88% of American households owned a vehicle while only 17% of Chinese households owned a vehicle. https://www.statista.com/stati...-vehicle-by-country/ Which country would you rather live in now or the next 100 years?
We are nearing a point where our national debt is threat to our own national security. One might say that the HSR infrastructure is a drop in the bucket, but when someone says that about every single project/program, it snowballs into what we have now. As someone in his mid-30s and raising a family, I think it is unconscionable to be leaving the generations to come with the mess of national debt that will severely hinder their opportunity for growth.
With that said, I love the idea of rail travel and have been on a number of excursions and love the extra room and romance of it all. The bottom line, and where the adults in the room need to land is, HSR just doesn't makes sense, sadly as it may be.
"We are nearing a point where our national debt is threat to our own national security. "
Deficits are the difference between revenue and expenditures. 2020 was a year of record breaking revenue loss due to Covid.
Did you notice that all discussions about the national debt only focus on expenditures?
John
Most of us can't spend what we don't have!
Quote:
"As someone in his mid-30s and raising a family, I think it is unconscionable to be leaving the generations to come with the mess of national debt that will severely hinder their opportunity for growth."
End Quote.
Well, for the record, I'd like for it to be known that I'm retired, yet the wife and I managed to amass enough savings (401k), and earn good enough retirements, that we live nicely. We have a home that is paid for, all our vehicles are paid for, etc. Not one red cent of that was granted/given via "entitlement"/whatever by the government.
In fact, we've never received any entitlements over the decades we were in the workplace, and that includes zero "unemployment" checks. WE learned how to manage our funds and take care of business. I think you'll find that there a LOT of "Baby Boomers" that did likewise, thus we get to enjoy our final years in retirement.
The problem isn't the Baby Boomers/etc. No, the problem is strictly the fault of some 500+ individuals that selfishly, carelessly, and stupidly spend OUR income tax. (This includes BOTH parties.) Those individuals are members of Congress, the Executive, and Judiciary branches of the US government. They spend OUR money like it's candy to be passed out, as if there's a never ending flow of YOUR money.
THERE is where the problem lies. NOT at the feet of hard working Americans that worked their azzes off to get where they're at today. WE (responsible Americans) know how to manage our personal funds. THEY don't.
Andre
The government spends lots of money on projects that I don't approve of. The government spends lots of money on projects I approve of, including projects which help me conduct my business, that I am sure others do not approve of. Arguments that start out "As a taxpayer" don't usually hold water with me. They smack of that line from National Treasure 2: "Oh look. My tax dollars at work, coming to arrest me." What matters more are some basic questions: 1) Does it make sense, given the goals of those who are promoting the project? 2) Who benefits and what real benefits are actually provided? 3) Who will be harmed by the project? 4) Are there better ways to accomplish the same goals? 5) Do those alternatives result in those who benefit from the project bearing a greater portion of the cost than the proposal? 6) Will pursuing the project close the door to pursuing other projects, and if so which will provide greater short and long term benefits?
Whether you are pro-mass transit or against it, whether you are pro-Amtrak or against it, some of these projects don't make sense under these tests. True high speed rail service along the Northeast Corridor falls in this category. It makes more sense to be upgrading the existing rail infrastructure along this route so the benefits of existing higher speed trains could be achieved, than it does to rebuild it or build a parallel system for high speed rail.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Most of us can't spend what we don't have!
That is exactly how they frame it. "Most of us" should not be generating the needed revenue to offset endless cuts to infrastructure and the other things that fall under the pittance they dwell on just for the sake of privatizing every last thing. Look again at the pie graphs I posted above.
Here is who gets a free pass while the rest of us pay the price in losses in healthcare, infrastructure, education, and the ultimate target - the Social Safety Net particularly for the elderly. Not everyone lost during the pandemic (like the small model train stores did). Some got rich off of it and continue to do so while being protected as a class. While we fight over the crumbs that are left and who should get more crumbs than the rest.
https://www.newyorker.com/news...pay-for-our-recovery
EDIT: Hopefully this thread doesn't get political and therefore deleted. I think I am done commenting for that reason alone. I have more in common with everyone than not so I would like to keep it that way.
Regards,
John
@Dominic Mazoch posted:The freight railroads have their own ROW and make a profit.
So, let's take Bloomberg to the max extent.
Privatize most transportation. All controlled access highways become toll roads AND pay taxes.
Privatize airports and the air traffic control system. And have those pay taxes. I think Charles Lindbergh was against government monies for airlines.
Shipping lanes and ports become "toll roads". Same with taxes.
Get rid of most of the gas tax (need it for local roads.), special taxes for air/ports, ET. AL. That will produce true winners and losers.
Interesting proposal, but I suspect a lot of people if you did this would be complaining. If the Airline industry had to pay for full use of airports, if they had to pay the cost of the air traffic control systems, the cost of air travel would skyrocket and people who fly wouldn't be happy. If roads were all privatized and we got rid of road use taxes, simply charged tolls, the trucking industry wouldn't be happy, the road use fees they pay now and the tax on diesel fuel doesn't anywhere nearly cover the cost trucks cause in terms of road wear and tear,private toll road operators would charge them full cost +. What privatization would do is unmask the many hidden subsidies out there. If oil and gas companies had to pay fair use when they lease federal land for drilling, the kind of fees a private land owner would want, oil and gas would not be nearly as economically viable as they are at the moment. The difference with Amtrak is that its subsidies/spending are publicly out there, as part of a budget, people see the x billions to upgrade the NEC, they don't see the Y billions in hidden subsidies the airline industry gets, etc, etc.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:I agree with both points of view. If I have to go a few hundred miles, I'd rather drive than fly. If I have to go a few thousand miles, I'll suck it up and deal with the major inconvenience of the ridiculous regulations now in place to fly.
I'm like Rich, I really miss my airplane and having the ability to take off from SE-PA and be in Denver long before the sun sets. No security idiots to deal with, no hurry up and wait in various lines, etc.
Having rode Amtrak many times from PA to NY and Boston, and I can drive to NY or Boston as fast as the train will get me there, and I have my car when I get there.
If traffic is good, yeah, but with the state of the roads I would argue that one, the traffic on most of the highways at peak times are not good, including endless construction (Connecticut should just put up huge signs they never take down "Our highways stink, drive at your own risk). Doesn't mean that driving doesn't make sense (when I visit my son in Boston from here in Northern NJ, I drive. ).
On the other hand, the Boston/NY/Washington corridor for air travel is a nightmare, it is heavily travelled (in normal times), traffic to the airports is a mess. If I had to go to Boston on business, flying is not easy, for like an hour flight you have to get to the airport several hours early, which means leaving home much earlier to drive there, then you have the fact that most airline flights on that corridor are not on time, then the hassle on landing, then getting into the city.
If you had Amtrak NE service that was better than acela, you are going city center to city center, no TSA. If I had to go from one of the NY airports, I would have to drive, and even Newark, which is relatively close, by the time I drive there, get parking, and get to the terminal, it is prob close to an hour. I can get to Penn Station from my house in an hour and fifteen minutes via NJ Transit, the train itself is like 4 hours and I am in Boston city. If I fly to logan I have an hour to get to the terminal (2 hours before flight time), I cool my heels for the time after TSA, hopefully the flight takes off on time, that is another hour for flight (so up to 4 hours), then have to get off the plane, get transport to Boston and get there, it comes out to be a dead heat (and given how screwed up flights are on that corridor, this is being optimistic). I have done this, and it came out the same way, driving would be roughly the same time.
Imagine if Amtrak had true high speed rail to Boston, maybe 3 hours, and it would be quicker than flying, without the hassles.
I am also a pragmatist, that doesn't mean that long distance passenger travel makes sense, but as others have said, the idea that if it was profitable private business would do it doesn't always hold, there are a lot of businesses that rely on hidden and not so hidden subsidies to operate. As some have pointed out, on long distance train travel a lot of people rely on shorter hops, to get from here to there, and it might be valuable.
You know what be really valuable with train travel? To have real studies done on things like where the costs are in Amtrak, where the need is, the value of providing the service, to have real numbers. The ones I have seen generally are poor or are deliberately slanted, like the claim that the NE corridor doesnt subsidize the rest of the network or does. Problem is, getting funding to actually do an impartial study.
I think the NEC should be a distinct organization supported in part by the States it serves. This is an ideal spine railroad that can and does provide links to several State capitals. The distances are manageable, driving the 95 corridor isn't anyone's idea of fun so the travel time is competitive. Long distance rail, especially those trains that are once daily or even worse thrice weekly are worthless IMO as travel options. Those communities can be better served with a bus. I don't think we need a national passenger rail service but we may benefit from unique regional systems with adequate population and travel demands.
@prrjim posted:I grew up in a small town. I have lived in small cities and towns all my life. The large cities on Amtracks routes intimidate me. I had no desire to go into these center cities before and less now. and That is where trains go, right into the center cities. with all the crime and riots and looting and shootings I hear about every day on the news, call me a coward but I am very frightened of these big center cities. so Amtrak has no use for me. They don't go anywhere I want to go and they are very inconvenient.
You may not, other people might. I also could point out that your small town in your state likely is getting benefit from things other people pay for and don't get anything out of, often things like local schools may have been built thanks to federal block grants earmarked for school building, the electric power that people in your town have was likely paid for by Uncle Sam running the wiring, the infrastruture bills they are proposing ( and already was in place ) is wiring rural areas and small town for high speed broadband internet connections that also likely will be subsidized to make it affordable. I get a little tired of people saying "I am only willing to spend money on what benefits me", when likely they themselves have benefitted from it, when you went to school the school taxes your parents paid likely didn't cover the full cost, people without kids pay those same taxes, or parents who send their kids to private school, etc.
@palallin posted:Unless current social and cultural trends reverse, my sons' generation (I hope I will be dead by then) will see the predominance of the personal automobile come to an end. Recreational travel is being increasingly described as unnecessary privilege, and commercial travel is losing ground to electronic presence. In any case, social pressure is working hard to make such travel uneconomical for anyone. The citizens that you and I know (and are!) are dying off and losing economic and political clout.
I will surprised if my (yet-to-be-born) grandchildren have any more idea what it means to own a personal vehicle than I have any idea what it means to own a horse and buggy.
(Just to be clear: I reject categorically any notion that this issue has anything to do at all with political parties and discourage any attempt to make any partisan hay out of my perspective. I reserve the right to adjust the timeline, however.)
Things change, that is very true. We all grew up in the post WWII generation where the car became kind, prior to WWII a lot of people didn't have cars, they lived close to where they worked, prior to WWII the suburbs weren't what they were afterword. I think reports of the demise of the private car are premature, but it is possible it will happen at some point that you need to go somewhere, you order a self driving car . Younger people don't have the passion we did to drive, that I can tell you, which way it all goes, who knows? Covid is going to change things, the only thing no one knows is how much. It certainly will cut down business travel, but it won't totally eliminate it I am pretty sure, same way I am not sure the remote work model is going to be sustained to this level (I have been working from home since mid march, 2020), but there are reasons why I think it likely isn't going to work the same way people think, virtual offices have their problems...I think hybrid models will happen, which will cut down commuting levels, but won't eliminate it, lot of people don't want to work from home (some do, of course). I don't think leisure travel is going to die off or be made illegal (have heard that one), I don't see any indication of that. Put it this way, in the middle of this mess, the minute restrictions are lifted a bit, you see a surge in people flying and such. Society in 1940 was very different than society in 1950. Some things change, in the 1950's tv was the scourge of the world, now we have the internet and streaming (ok, somethings don't change). With Amtrak, one thing the train potentially can do is cut down pollution, if they are running electric engines with the power generated by potentially less polluting sources, be much less pollution than a jet plane puts out..does that mean that is going to happen? No way to know, just saying the future is going to unfold the way it always has, it likely won't be close to what people predicted it would be.
What ever happened to Elon Musk inventing a bullet train?-
Would the argument change if new technology finally arrived and you could go cross country in an hour?
Use the first dollars for Amtrak to keep the bathrooms clean and hire more polite waiters in the dining car!
One thing we that taxpayers pay for for both air travel and train travel is the TSA. They are only doing their job but in airports they make it a non starter for me. At train stations it is usually 2 guys and dog who spend most of their time keeping people away from trying to pet or say hi to the dog. One woman once was told please don't disturb her she's working to which she said then why can we talk to you, aren't you working?
@barry perlin posted:Use the first dollars for Amtrak to keep the bathrooms clean and hire more polite waiters in the dining car!
There are still dining cars on Amtrak?
@prrhorseshoecurve posted:There are still dining cars on Amtrak?
There’s a cafe car I know on The Pennsylvanian which my wife surprised me with tickets on from Johnstown to Altoona around the Horseshoe Curve.
@Former Member posted:What ever happened to Elon Musk inventing a bullet train?-
Elon is still working on his train.
Would the argument change if new technology finally arrived and you could go cross country in an hour?
It would depend on the cost. The Concorde flew from NY to London in 3 hours but only the very wealthy or corporations could afford it. NH Joe
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Most of us can't spend what we don't have!
Actually, most Americans can and do spend more than they have. This is the reason that the average American has $8 to $10 thousand in credit card debt at high interest rates. It is also the reason that the average family struggles if they have an unexpected expense of more than $400. The expensive vacation to wherever on credit is more important than dollars in their savings accounts.
Our elected leaders are just like the rest of us. They spend more than comes in both in their private and public lives. They are us. Politicians also support over spending to preserve jobs and get votes.
There are many "good causes" out there that people think should be funded and new "good causes" are discovered every day. This includes the FAA, airports and Amtrak. There are always competing interests for money for each "good cause" or group.
Politics is the art of the deal. I will vote for your Amtrak as long as you vote for my little airport.
NH Joe
I thought the article was pretty good.
I think viable rail service in the NEC is something everyone who is familiar with the NEC agrees is essential. The question seems to be how are the costs divvied up between the federal government, the states of the NEC, and the users.
So here is a wild idea I'd like to throw out there for discussion. The gov subsidizes the airports and pretty much pays for the roads (with some direct tax subsidies), right? But the users of this infrastructure are private. Can the gov build high speed corridors that do not use freight lines and then turn the running of passenger service over to private entities? Is this feasible?
The real structural issue I see outside of the NEC is that most of the sprawling urban areas in the south and west were built for the automobile. We are, after all a young country. The other wild card is, what will travel be like post pandemic and with increasing pressure to address climate change. Will commuting ever go back to pre-Covid levels. Will air travel become even less attractive? I think we have already seen the demise of short air hops. Those are the corridors that could benefit from better rail service. Chicago-Detroit. Dallas-San Antonio. etc.
Signed up here a few weeks ago but have been reading for years.
This is my favorite thread so far. Everyone here loves trains for their own reasons. I have mine.
Both sides of the political spectrum have made good points here.
Trains from A to B places are what built America in between A and B.
Poster rundiii said this about the CA one.
It is not to make trains to nowhere, it is to make trains to somewhere that does not exist today. Specifically, huge sprawling suburbs in the Central Valley. Turn as much of the Central Valley agricultural land into suburbs as possible. Developers are just drooling over all the money they will make. Farmers fight it as much as they can.
Towns grew up along the rails in America not the other way around.
My opinion, the NEC should be completely eliminated to keep the lobbyists and shillsters far away from the "public servants" in Washington DC.
@prrhorseshoecurve posted:There are still dining cars on Amtrak?
Full "traditional" dining car services return on west of Chicago trains in May. No announcement on Eastern trains yet.
Jon
@Will posted:The gov subsidizes the airports and pretty much pays for the roads (with some direct tax subsidies), right? But the users of this infrastructure are private. Can the gov build high speed corridors that do not use freight lines and then turn the running of passenger service over to private entities? Is this feasible?
Here is the problem with "the private sector can do it better".
Wall Street Analyst Encouraged Rail Company to Lobby Against Train Safety Rules
John
EDIT: I know. I said I was done commenting, but this thread didn't get political which is really nice.
@Craftech posted:Here is the problem with "the private sector can do it better".
Wall Street Analyst Encouraged Rail Company to Lobby Against Train Safety Rules
John
EDIT: I know. I said I was done commenting, but this thread didn't get political which is really nice.
I see your point, but the right of way would be government maintained and the train sets would have to be built and operated under strict regulation. Perhaps this takes the incentive out of it.. The airlines have a very good safety record and the FAA keeps them on a leash and will not hesitate to ground a plane.
One problem I see is multiple airlines can compete for business on the same route. Trains did that in the passenger era. I'm not sure how that is possible in the scenario proposed.
@Will posted:I see your point, but the right of way would be government maintained and the train sets would have to be built and operated under strict regulation. Perhaps this takes the incentive out of it.. The airlines have a very good safety record and the FAA keeps them on a leash and will not hesitate to ground a plane.
The most recent report says otherwise:
The FAA ignored safety issues ahead of deadly crashes, cozied up with companies it was supposed to regulate Business Insider
John
@Craftech posted:The most recent report says otherwise:
John
Okay, touche. But that link doesn't work, btw.
@Will posted:Okay, touche. But that link doesn't work, btw.
OK sorry. It was in Business Insider - I'll try to fix the link, but here is the actual report:
Committee Investigation Report Aviation Safety Oversight December 2020
I think the link is fixed now
John
I'd take a train from Boston to Toronto; currently there isn't one. I know it would be slow, but I don't want to fly and that's a long drive for me.
You may find it interesting that Amtrak, while it begs the government for assistance, not only charges a lot but has a horrible penalty for cancellation. While the airlines not only have better prices and no change fees, Amtrak shows just how pitiful it is. I had booked the Silver Meteor one-way from DE to FL, hoping to experience what I knew would cost more than flying, about 4 times more ($487). But then AA offered a fare sale, offering a RT for $182! AA easily allowed me to modify my original one-way ticket from FL back to Philly, but when I went to cancel the Amtrak reservation, they stung me with a $116 cancellation charge! They claim you can only cancel for free if you do it at least 121 days before your trip! Huh? At this point, I'd like to see Amtrak die the death that it should have a long time ago. Like other forgotten railroads on my layout, Amtrak should join the list!
@howardih posted:You may find it interesting that Amtrak, while it begs the government for assistance, not only charges a lot but has a horrible penalty for cancellation. While the airlines not only have better prices and no change fees, Amtrak shows just how pitiful it is. I had booked the Silver Meteor one-way from DE to FL, hoping to experience what I knew would cost more than flying, about 4 times more ($487). But then AA offered a fare sale, offering a RT for $182! AA easily allowed me to modify my original one-way ticket from FL back to Philly, but when I went to cancel the Amtrak reservation, they stung me with a $116 cancellation charge! They claim you can only cancel for free if you do it at least 121 days before your trip! Huh? At this point, I'd like to see Amtrak die the death that it should have a long time ago. Like other forgotten railroads on my layout, Amtrak should join the list!
I don't know when you booked that, but if it was anytime within the last year or so, the airlines are offering incredibly low prices because they are hurting for customers thanks to Covid. I have done enough flying, and airlines in general are anything but flexible, if you want a ticket that can be changed without paying a stiff fee they generally were more expensive, a lot of tickets are non refundable even if something changes (or had been). The airline industry right now is hanging on because of government subsidies (and I don't object, it isn't their or the their employees fault we are in the middle of a global pandemic).
Not going to say Amtraks policies are great, though you can get great deals on train travel , and sometimes if you factor in all the costs of airline travel, like parking your car at the airport, then needing transport from the airport to the city, etc, it can be cheaper at times. Again, I will add that the airlines pre covid form the most part (Southwest was one of those who made it easy to change plans) were just as aweful with cancellations or changes, and they nickle and dime you to death with everything , from flights where if you want to take a carry on even they charge extra, charging 25 bucks for luggage you check, all the stuff like that. And i hate to say it but with as crammed in as you are on planes these days, a train is a heck of a lot more comfortable, planes are flying cattle cars, and the next generation is likely even to be worse, thanks to the FAA approving even less space for seating.
@Will posted:I see your point, but the right of way would be government maintained and the train sets would have to be built and operated under strict regulation. Perhaps this takes the incentive out of it.. The airlines have a very good safety record and the FAA keeps them on a leash and will not hesitate to ground a plane.
One problem I see is multiple airlines can compete for business on the same route. Trains did that in the passenger era. I'm not sure how that is possible in the scenario proposed.
The idea that the private sector always works better, operates more efficiently, etc has been blown out of the water. Yes, it is true that competition can provide better services, often at lower cost, but it also has a downside, that companies always try to avoid competition , they love monopoly or oligopoly because they decide what a customer gets (want a classic example? 3 rail O gauge trains, we complain about quality, because of lack of any real competition it isn't going to change; in the car industry, your quality is bad you buy another car company's products). The dark side of private business is that it often spends a lot of money to be able to duck safety regulations or get them otherwise done so they can save money. With some industries, the regulators often become a cheering section for the industry, the USDA allows packing plants and the like to self inspect now, the FAA is not auditing safety records the way they should (my dad worked in that sector, both military and civilian, for a number of years, there are all kinds of regulations around aircraft maintenance and safety, timetables of when parts have to be swapped out with replacement parts and the pulled out parts tested and certified as being good, procedures when a plane runs into problems. In recent years the FAA has allowed airline companies a a lot of leeway in that they don't audit the maintenance logs, airlines are skirting rules that could lead to a disaster. The Boeing 737 Max disaster happened because issues with the plane were not reported,the FAA never audited the design which might have shown a critical safety system some marketing whiz decided to make an expensive addition. The airline industry does have a good safety record, in part because they know crashes are bad for business, but there is a lot of pressure on airlines thanks to 'activist investors' (I won't tell you what i think of them on here, it is unprintable) and there has been severe pressure on regulators like the FAA to 'let the business do their thing, they have every reason to want to be safe' (would love for them to explain to me the 737 MAX disaster, then, I think Boeing is going to spend a lot of time and money trying to rebuild their reputation after their stupidity, it was bad design from the start, a kluge to begin with, and it went downhill from there, including the FAA letting it fly).
@Will posted:I see your point, but the right of way would be government maintained and the train sets would have to be built and operated under strict regulation. Perhaps this takes the incentive out of it.
The British tried this. It hasn't worked out. Maintenance by the government was just as bad as most infrastructure projects are. This is the reason we have bad roads and other infrastructure. Governments worldwide don't do maintenance well because it isn't a priority for voters.
The private trains that run on the government tracks in Britain are also bad. You can look online at all the complaints about poor service from the various British railroad companies. NH Joe
A note on the airlines’ free rides & subsidies
The airlines do take a BIG hit for both cancellations & delays. After all possibilities are exhausted and we have to cancel, there’s up to 180 hotel rooms (on my plane) to be purchased if it’s a maintenance related problem. If it’s weather related, no hotels, but the ripple affect of people not getting to where they’re going is present for days...I always feel like a target with the uniform on.
A big factor for us is on time performance. The DOT monitors our out and in times, and levies fines for repeat offenders.
I get the unique pleasure of visiting my chief pilot if I’m ONE minute late leaving, and the DOT records it. If I’m more than fourteen minutes late arriving, again the DOT records it. This is why the forty minute flight from JFK to DCA is blocked for two hours...
And don’t even get me started on the “tarmac delay” ruling from a few years ago, that states a HUGE payout is due to every passenger affected. Now we just cancel, blame the weather, and everyone gets screwed...but it avoids the fines.
Lastly,
The airlines pay a LOT of money in landing and gate & parking rental/fees at every airport we operate to. Updating and maintaining their respective terminals, etc. The major metropolitan cities have eye watering levels of fees associated with operations Then there’s the ‘slots’ available for departures & arrivals to/from that airport that are both limited, and expensive to maintain. This is a big reason the smaller airlines (Southwest or Spirit) can usually only operate in smaller cities
While the technically ‘free’ FAA is a taxpayer burden, their role in the airline’s operations are limited. The FAA’s purpose is everyone’s safety. From the manufactures, to the airports, ATC, and qualifications/standards for everyone involved. Even the guy outside raking his leaves under the approach path in to the airport. Don’t believe me? Look at some underdeveloped nations & their safety records.
Not a rant, just my .02
Tom
Ok, Amtrak is a money-losing proposition.
There is some new thinking on national debt vs. GDP. The thought is that the old ratios, which predicted immenent financial collapses, the collapses never occurred. The current US national debt to annual GDP ratio is 102%, according to the WSJ Sept 2, 2020. Japan's ratio is 230%, has been for maybe 30 years, and they still have not collapsed. Much of our debt is held by China, the UK, and Japan, as opposed to the WWII era, when almost all debt was held by US citizens. Guess the thought is that we could welch on our debts, and it wouldn't hurt America. Plus we control our currency and can produce new currency as needed. Believe all of this falls into "Modern Monetary Theory". See "US debt at a record high, but the risk calculus is changing", by Jo Craven McGinty, in todays WSJ. Other commentators have said "this will work.......until it doesn't" !! I am only an observer, biting my nails.
The USA has military personnel and bases in 160 countries, of the 195 named countries on earth. We spend $760B directly on our military, additional sums for the CIA, which is a closely aligned activity to our military plus we provide military aid to a fair number of countries. It all totals around $1T per year. Perhaps that is an area of expenditure worth scrutinizing. All the while we are building bombs and weapons, waging utterly pointless wars around the world and there are members of our political class and commentariat who are thumping the tub for a military confrontation with China over Taiwan, and Russia over Ukraine........all the while, China is building roads, hospitals, ports and railroads all over the world. The Chinese just opened a 7500 mile railroad to the UK, linking Europe directly to China for trade. We are rapidly heading to the dustbin of history.
Think Amtrak is the least of our problems.
In 2020 we had the outbreak of the pandemic and forced closures to deal with it. The panic in Washington and in the corporate press came not with the small business closures, the 47,000 infected citizens, rising death, and historic job losses. The panic came when the stock market closed more than 35 percent off its peak, continuing an epic slide that had started a month earlier.
The Federal Reserve announced on March 23 that it would start direct purchases of corporate debt an unprecedented rescue of corporate America and Washington passed the "Cares" Act to bail out the investor class instead of the citizens.
Between March 23 and April 30, the Dow skyrocketed nearly 6,000 points, a jump of nearly 31 percent, creating over $7 trillion in capital wealth. The April gains were the largest one month jump since 1987.
The same month, 20.5 million Americans lost their jobs.
Since then, the stock market has risen over 30 percent, corporate bond funds have recovered, and companies have saved tens of billions in borrowing costs. Thanks to this massive government subsidy, large companies like Boeing, Delta Airlines, and Carnival Cruises were able to avoid taking money directly — and sidestep requirements to keep employees on — by instead issuing bonds.
One year into the pandemic, it's not clear whether the $54 billion the U.S. Treasury used to prop up airlines during the pandemic was the right move, or just an expensive gift to a politically favored industry.
@New Haven Joe posted:The British tried this. It hasn't worked out. Maintenance by the government was just as bad as most infrastructure projects are. This is the reason we have bad roads and other infrastructure. Governments worldwide don't do maintenance well because it isn't a priority for voters.
The private trains that run on the government tracks in Britain are also bad. You can look online at all the complaints about poor service from the various British railroad companies. NH Joe
It isn't just governments. Many private companies looking to cut expenses to boost the bottom line will cut maintenance as well. How many times have we recently seen comments about railroads cutting maintenance costs on this forum. (rhetorical) It is a long standing problem. There are complaints about the effects of railroads failing to adequately maintain their lines from the 1800s. There are similar complaints from private toll road companies.
@mark s posted:Much of our debt is held by China, the UK, and Japan, as opposed to the WWII era, when almost all debt was held by US citizens.
The public holds over $21 trillion, or almost 78%, of the national debt.
Well, I never expected my post to draw such interest! Thank you all for a wonderful discussion. My point really was: can't Amtrak simply put that "penalty" into a travel bank for use on a future trip? Living here in DE, the NEC is practically in my back yard and I have taken the Acela on many occaisions. That would be a perfect place to use a "credit," especially as the railroad is trying to entice passengeres to return. But for those who still think about the comforts and ease of the train ride, consider this: on my many Acela trips from Wilmington to New Haven, why should the bathrooms on a train that has originated in DC and stopped only once in Baltimore be so filthy and smelly in Wilmington? It brings me to think of the old Yiddish adage that trying to make Amtrak "work" is about as useful as cupping a corpse. Of course, I have two senators and now a president who think Amtrak is more important than a Tastykake French Apple Pie!
@bigkid I basically agree with you. but let's not tread into the political. I don't want to see this thread get yanked. And that goes doubly for you @mark s. We can all agree that everything the gov spends money on doesn't have to turn a profit and leave it at that.
To return to the topic, looking at the map Amtrak released, from where I am sitting in NE PA, the lines from Scranton and the Lehigh Valley to NYC look like a no brainer (to me) for a relatively small investment. There have been plans, proposals and studies for bringing rail service back to the area almost from the day they ripped up the tracks on the Lackawanna cut off in about 1985. And yet nothing gets done. Right now it is a bus or a drive to Dover or taking in your car. The bus is basically an monopoly and expensive and its far cheaper for one person to drive to Dover and take the train than drive in. The problem is it takes forever.
Since this crosses three states, maybe this is the perfect route for Amtrak (ie. the fed gov) to get involved in. Personally I am obviously rooting for this.
@Bill N posted:It isn't just governments. Many private companies looking to cut expenses to boost the bottom line will cut maintenance as well. How many times have we recently seen comments about railroads cutting maintenance costs on this forum. (rhetorical) It is a long standing problem. There are complaints about the effects of railroads failing to adequately maintain their lines from the 1800s. There are similar complaints from private toll road companies.
I know you said it was rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway. It's not maintenance based, but right here in South Florida, privately run Brightline suspended service once the pandemic hit and has yet to resume service a year plus later, constantly pushing back the re-start dates. Publicly run Tri-Rail stopped service then resumed service like all other transit providers. Transporting people no matter the cost is doing a public good. Closing up shop because of an economic downturn is what private companies do because profit is the only motive. Some folks here have soured on Brightline because of this and wondering if in the future they plan on stopping service whenever things turn bad. Same thing applies to bus lines. If a certain route provides a critical service to its users, a publicly run transit agency runs the route. If the ridership doesn't reach a certain level, a privately run company will be quick to cancel the route faster than a public company would. Note, public transit bus routes do get pulled up.
@FlyPlanes-PlayTrains posted:A note on the airlines’ free rides & subsidies
The airlines do take a BIG hit for both cancellations & delays. After all possibilities are exhausted and we have to cancel, there’s up to 180 hotel rooms (on my plane) to be purchased if it’s a maintenance related problem. If it’s weather related, no hotels, but the ripple affect of people not getting to where they’re going is present for days...I always feel like a target with the uniform on.
A big factor for us is on time performance. The DOT monitors our out and in times, and levies fines for repeat offenders.
I get the unique pleasure of visiting my chief pilot if I’m ONE minute late leaving, and the DOT records it. If I’m more than fourteen minutes late arriving, again the DOT records it. This is why the forty minute flight from JFK to DCA is blocked for two hours...And don’t even get me started on the “tarmac delay” ruling from a few years ago, that states a HUGE payout is due to every passenger affected. Now we just cancel, blame the weather, and everyone gets screwed...but it avoids the fines.
Lastly,
The airlines pay a LOT of money in landing and gate & parking rental/fees at every airport we operate to. Updating and maintaining their respective terminals, etc. The major metropolitan cities have eye watering levels of fees associated with operations Then there’s the ‘slots’ available for departures & arrivals to/from that airport that are both limited, and expensive to maintain. This is a big reason the smaller airlines (Southwest or Spirit) can usually only operate in smaller cities
While the technically ‘free’ FAA is a taxpayer burden, their role in the airline’s operations are limited. The FAA’s purpose is everyone’s safety. From the manufactures, to the airports, ATC, and qualifications/standards for everyone involved. Even the guy outside raking his leaves under the approach path in to the airport. Don’t believe me? Look at some underdeveloped nations & their safety records.
Not a rant, just my .02
Tom
The FAA's role in airline operations is not limited, in the sense that they are involved in deciding things like how far apart planes can take off and land, the density in an air traffic corridor that directly affect operations. They are responsible for auditing airlines maintainence and safety protocols, they also are responsible for certifying aircraft for flight readiness. The FAA also runs the air traffic control system which is pretty expensive, in terms of personnel and the equipment itself, and airline fees and whatnot don't even begin to cover the cost of this. Not saying it isn't as it should be, just want people to be aware of the hidden subsidies that could directly be charged. Same way with landing fees and the gate fees and the like, they don't cover the full cost of operations at the airports, as expensive as it may seem. It is much like the trucking industry, the amount of wear and tear they cause to the roads, the cost of maintainence associated with them, is way, way more than the fees paid through diesel taxes and road use taxes (put it this way, take a look sometime at roads that only allow car traffic, like the parkways in NYC, and compare that to roads that allow trucks...it is visually easy to see, not to mention the constant road repair on roads that handle trucks...not surprising, given a fully loaded truck is 40 tons and a typical car is 1.4-2 tons.
Again, doesn't mean I think the airlines should be paying more or paying for the full cost of the FAA, just saying that it enjoys subsidies, and the public enjoys airfares that are relatively cheap because of it.
@mark s posted:Ok, Amtrak is a money-losing proposition.
There is some new thinking on national debt vs. GDP. The thought is that the old ratios, which predicted immenent financial collapses, the collapses never occurred. The current US national debt to annual GDP ratio is 102%, according to the WSJ Sept 2, 2020. Japan's ratio is 230%, has been for maybe 30 years, and they still have not collapsed. Much of our debt is held by China, the UK, and Japan, as opposed to the WWII era, when almost all debt was held by US citizens. Guess the thought is that we could welch on our debts, and it wouldn't hurt America. Plus we control our currency and can produce new currency as needed. Believe all of this falls into "Modern Monetary Theory". See "US debt at a record high, but the risk calculus is changing", by Jo Craven McGinty, in todays WSJ. Other commentators have said "this will work.......until it doesn't" !! I am only an observer, biting my nails.
The USA has military personnel and bases in 160 countries, of the 195 named countries on earth. We spend $760B directly on our military, additional sums for the CIA, which is a closely aligned activity to our military plus we provide military aid to a fair number of countries. It all totals around $1T per year. Perhaps that is an area of expenditure worth scrutinizing. All the while we are building bombs and weapons, waging utterly pointless wars around the world and there are members of our political class and commentariat who are thumping the tub for a military confrontation with China over Taiwan, and Russia over Ukraine........all the while, China is building roads, hospitals, ports and railroads all over the world. The Chinese just opened a 7500 mile railroad to the UK, linking Europe directly to China for trade. We are rapidly heading to the dustbin of history.
Think Amtrak is the least of our problems.
That was true, and China and the Saudis do hold a lot of US debt, but by far the biggest holder of Treasury debt is the social security administration. SS is not a locked box, it isn't a trust fund per se anymore. Back in the early 80's they increased SS contribution rates on businesses and individuals, to create a 'buffer' in the fund for when the boomer generation started retiring, basically taking in a lot more than they needed. What happened was when the government started running large budget deficits in the 80's onward (to give you an idea, in 1980 the budget deficit was like 50 billion), in a couple of years from then it was like 250 B). What happened was the government used excess funds in SS to cover for the deficit (so remember when I said the deficit was 250m? More like 300M, but the 50m or whatever they borrowed from SS masked the deficit), they actually count SS funds they 'borrow' as tax revenue. So every time they took the excess, they left treasury notes as an IOU. The T notes pay interest, which goes to SS, but if that was excess, got siphoned off. It is why SS owns so much debt.
@mark s posted:Plus we control our currency and can produce new currency as needed. Believe all of this falls into "Modern Monetary Theory". See "US debt at a record high, but the risk calculus is changing", by Jo Craven McGinty, in todays WSJ. Other commentators have said "this will work.......until it doesn't" !! I am only an observer, biting my nails.
There are essentially 3 ways for a nation to approach debt: 1 reduce fiscal deficits; 2 achieve higher economic growth (i.e., GDP outpaces debt); and 3 using central banks to print money and monetize debt (MMT proponents likes to focus here).
The funny thing about theories like MMT, is that it fails to take into account historic realities of attempts to print away debt and how citizens and businesses react when in an overly indebted nation. Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Germany tried to print their way out of debt post World War I and it ended in epic hyperinflation. At a certain point, a nation's debt is no longer attractive at near zero interest rates and investor's (creditors) require higher rates of return - which becomes a higher and higher annual expenditure. Raising taxes beyond a competitive level causes those with means and corporations to flee to lower tax jurisdictions (at least under current tax law) - i.e., smaller tax base. A long but interesting read: https://www.nationalaffairs.co...dern-monetary-theory
The current Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, has been quoted saying, “The U.S. debt path is completely unsustainable under current tax and spending plans,” and that it is “something that most people don’t understand and I see very little evidence of concern about it.”
I don't think the US is at risk today, but it's definitely moving in the wrong direction and unsustainable if it continues. Maybe Amtrak/HSR isn't a hill to die on, but what I am saying is we should demand more from our government spending (across the board) because it does matter in the long-run. One of my economics professors used to say, "In the long-run, we're all dead," which is true, but hopefully we can be good stewards of the greatest nation the world has ever known so we can pass it on to the next generation.
One of the fundamental notions out there I think is that somehow government is a business, it isn't, for a lot of reasons. Businesses operate to make money for their investors and as such, are very parochial, their orbit is basically "what is good for my business ie the owners and the investors". Yeah, I studied management too, and they loftily talked about "stakeholder management", but especially these days, that is as dead as the quill pen. The government by its very nature is supposed to do things that benefit the country, state, locality, they basically are an entity with many, many stakeholders. The government example funded a lot of basic research, one that didn't have ROI built into it, something the private sector is quite loathe to do. The government can and does provide services where the private sector won't (and often attempts to privatize what had been a government service fail because of the gulf between the 2). Government wired rural areas for electricity because no utility would do it, the same way today they are paying to lay in fiber to rural areas, because the private companies would never get back the cost of wiring a farm 10 miles out of town. Sometimes the private sector works with the government to provide an essential service, the bus I rode every day is a private company but they are paid by the state to operate it, along with what I pay in fares.
Sometimes the private sector benefits from government activity. Think of Conrail, they took over bankrupt, failed railroads (and not without a lot of squawking and complaining that freight railroads in those areas weren't needed, trucks were the answer, etc). The government from what i know ultimately lost money on conrail if you factor what they sunk into it in infrastructure repairs, modernizing freight operations, dropping routes that simply made no sense, yet they ended up selling a railroad to private companies that thanks to all that spending, is profitable for them. If private companies do things better, how come they didn't buy any of the bankrupt railroads? Even assuming still going railroads had a crack in their belly and couldn't, how come businesses that were doing well couldn't do what the government did, buy the lines, invest money, and turn it into an efficient,money making operation? The answer is simple, a private company would look at the cost and say "no way I can get ROI on it". The government looked and said "trains in that region are critical infrastructure, there are people who depend on those trains to ship stuff or the people who work for the ralroad for a living", said they couldn't let it fail, and ended up leaving a working business that the private sector would buy.
So okay, what about Amtrak and passenger rail in general? It comes down to the same thing, who are the stakeholders and what is the value of keeping it versus dropping it, but more importantly, rather than look at it as it is today (kind of like Conrail c1975), looking and saying "what could it be?". The current Amtrak model in many ways is lacking, because no one as far as I know has come up with any plans for it that to me tell me they ask that question. Among politicians, some could care less, others are of the mindset that 'trains are the past, the car is freedom, airlines are the best thing since sliced bread', others quite honestly are kind of rail fans who see Amtrak as a kind of giant layout (I appreciate that thought, of course). On the one hand you do kind of have to be a dreamer to ask "what can trains do?", you have to be pragmatic and say "there are places they make no sense", and put it together, something no one has done. Envisioning a nationwide high speed rail system that can compete with airlines is pie in the sky, envisioning a rail system that fits into current and future needs , HST where practical, regular in other places, that meets needs makes sense. Eisenhower sold the interstate highway system to skeptics as a civil defense need,which shut up the crowd who said "let the states or private industry do it, it is a boondoggle", knowing full well that as a civil defense system it was bupkus, his administration knew the economic benefits of it (I am sure Charley Wilson, ex head of GM, was dreaming of scores of GM buses, cars and trucks using those roads).
@JD2035RR posted:There are essentially 3 ways for a nation to approach debt: 1 reduce fiscal deficits; 2 achieve higher economic growth (i.e., GDP outpaces debt); and 3 using central banks to print money and monetize debt (MMT proponents likes to focus here).
The funny thing about theories like MMT, is that it fails to take into account historic realities of attempts to print away debt and how citizens and businesses react when in an overly indebted nation. Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Germany tried to print their way out of debt post World War I and it ended in epic hyperinflation. At a certain point, a nation's debt is no longer attractive at near zero interest rates and investor's (creditors) require higher rates of return - which becomes a higher and higher annual expenditure. Raising taxes beyond a competitive level causes those with means and corporations to flee to lower tax jurisdictions (at least under current tax law) - i.e., smaller tax base. A long but interesting read: https://www.nationalaffairs.co...dern-monetary-theory
The current Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, has been quoted saying, “The U.S. debt path is completely unsustainable under current tax and spending plans,” and that it is “something that most people don’t understand and I see very little evidence of concern about it.”
I don't think the US is at risk today, but it's definitely moving in the wrong direction and unsustainable if it continues. Maybe Amtrak/HSR isn't a hill to die on, but what I am saying is we should demand more from our government spending (across the board) because it does matter in the long-run. One of my economics professors used to say, "In the long-run, we're all dead," which is true, but hopefully we can be good stewards of the greatest nation the world has ever known so we can pass it on to the next generation.
Your economics professor is a plagiarist, that quote came from John Maynard Keynes when arguing with economists who said that the great depression would end itself in the long term, so no need to go into deficit spending.....
The reason we don't have hyperinflation is because we didn't print more money, we just keep printing debt. As long as people are willing to buy that debt at a reasonable interest rate, you don't get into what is called crowding out, where to attract buyers they have to either sell the bonds at deep discount or a higher nominal rate, to bring the yield to where people will buy it. Treasury debt, because it is considered solid gold, is the base rate for any kind of debt..and you get the idea.
without getting into specifics, we will definitely need to deal with the debt and deficits in the long term. eventually if we ever equal spending to revenue with taxes, over time the debt as the economy grows will make that less and less onerous. In the meantime, though, given the nature of the federal budget, you also can't ignore real world needs. Our infrastructure by any measure is in bad shape in this country, it is a pressing need, and what I would say to that is "if we can't afford it now, what will happen when we face bridges collapsing and roads unusable and pipelines broken and electrical grid failing, how much will it cost them?". You can always argue against something, plenty of those on the left and right called the space program a boondoggle, yet it paid off in so many ways, in ways few realize (you wanna know how much of modern tech wizardry was created by kids back then inspired by the space program? Not to mention the tremendous number of products that came right out of the space program and the research it generated?). It is kind of like saying "the car needs an oil change, but I won't use a credit card to pay for it, I'll wait until I have cash" and the engine seizes because the oil got too dirty and clogged the oil ports.
Not saying that spending a ton of money on Amtrak is that kind of spending, just saying that the notion that because of deficits you shouldn't spend money on anything is very narrow focus, we can't just strip everything to the bone so we can balance the budget and then 10 years from now say "okay, now we can spend". What I really wish is that decision making was being based on real data and real information, not on what people believe it is, any kind of policy, whether it is spending, tax revenue/revenue reduction, etc.
@bigkid posted:Not saying that spending a ton of money on Amtrak is that kind of spending, just saying that the notion that because of deficits you shouldn't spend money on anything is very narrow focus, we can't just strip everything to the bone so we can balance the budget and then 10 years from now say "okay, now we can spend". What I really wish is that decision making was being based on real data and real information, not on what people believe it is, any kind of policy, whether it is spending, tax revenue/revenue reduction, etc.
Did you see the pie charts I posted above. How many times does corporate owned media ever show anything like that when they invite an endless stream of talking heads arguing opposite sides of verifiable data.? Whomever is the loudest is telling the truth. Whomever they let have the last word is telling the truth. "He said, but she said.............................................." is an actual substitute for the "data and real information" you are referring to. "We'll agree to disagree" is a substitute for data. "Listen to what so and so said........[roll tape]". The more simplistic the story the more newsworthy.
Try this:
1. Pick any cable news hour long show.
2. Make two columns on a piece of paper. Label the left column "Words, Tone, and Optics" and the right column "Substance". Put a check mark in the appropriate column for each segment of an hour show.
3. After the hour is over compare the two columns.
John
Absolutely beautiful Clem. But tell me, where's the middle rail?
John
Clem - Byers Canyon? Can't beat the scenery.
The bottom line is neither Amtrak nor the USPS will ever be profitable because Congress will not allow them to be. Amtrak was profitable for a couple of years when they were running mixed trains but the private sector whined to Congress so they were told to stop. My favorite Amtrak trip was and always will be on the 3 Rivers from Chicago to Philadelphia. 33 cars long (limited by the railroad) but only 4 of them carried passengers. Shippers loved it.
And so long as the USPS has to continue rural delivery they won't be profitable either.
@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:Rich,
I'm in general agreement, but I'd like to replace your 100 mile limit with 250.
Living in the Detroit area, and having frequent business in Chicago (prior to the pandemic), I'd much rather take the train.
My late father-in-law used to talk about the days, in the late 50's and early sixties, when a flight between the two cities took only 45 minutes takeoff to touchdown, with lunch or dinner served en-route. In those days getting into and out of airports was quick and easy so, at most, between driving in at the departure end and driving out at the arrival end you probably had an hour to an hour and fifteen minutes.
When skyjacking reared it's ugly head the need for security added substantial time to this -- about an hour on the departure end. Airport growth and congestion, including moving the rental car lots and parking to remote sections of the airport grounds, added another 30 to 45 mins, on each end.
Last but not least, in the aftermath of 911 we've all been advised to arrive at least two hours early for domestic flights.
All of this makes our "high-speed" link between Detroit and Chicago competitive with air travel, as long as there are few freight delays. When bad weather threatens rail is clearly ahead. I've beat my boss home from Chicago many times when he elected to stick with his airline tickets as thunderstorms or snowstorms came through.
DigiHUD for Android -- 111 MPH (107 avg), just west of Kalamazoo, MI; 7/19/2017
Here's an important point for business travelers: The in-the-air time above 10,000 ft. while flying (when you can get out your laptop and get some work done while traveling) is only 30 mins max. You might get another 30 mins in on the ground while waiting for departure.
On the train I'm working the whole way, aside from a little break here and there -- for a better-than-airline meal and a beverage.
Is is cost effective to the country, and to the Midwest, to offer this service? I don't know but I'll take the train to Chicago, and back, any day.
Mike
Good news today seen in the Detroit News, following on this thread, and on my comments back in April:
Amtrak gets OK for 110 mph trains in an (additional) part of Michigan
Another chunk of the Detroit to Chicago route will be upgraded to 110 MPH as of 5/25/2021. Travel time is coming down -- the more the better.
M.H.M.
@rdunniii posted:And so long as the USPS has to continue rural delivery they won't be profitable either.
Are you suggesting that any rural residents just don't need mail service?
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Are you suggesting that any rural residents just don't need mail service?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the USPS switched to post office boxes on more rural routes.
I used to ride Amtrak several times per year between northern Indiana and either Washington, DC or Harrisburg. Generally, the trains were on time, the service was decent and the staff was friendly or at least tolerable. The last trip I took was miserable, the staff was very rude on the return leg from Harrisburg to South Bend and the trip took over 26 hours because of a Norfolk Southern derailment on the line west of Pittsburgh. I can fly between Ft. Wayne and Philly in 90 minutes, non stop. I will probably not take the train again. There is only one train each way each day between those points and you have to board the outbound after 10pm which is just not convenient, especially if it is running late. Amtrak seems to be adding and subtracting routes every few years depending upon who is in office. People just cannot rely on something that is here today, gone tomorrow. Just my opinion.
Yes. Isn't it odd that Amtrak is celebrating it's 50th Anniversary this year. They, and the host freight railroads, certainly must have annoyed a huge number of people in the same fashion over that time. You'd think that it would've been gone by May of 1972.
(I've noticed that people have become increasingly impatient as time goes on -- no more room to cut a little slack here or there. One bad day and your out. "The last Ford I bought, a 1981 Crown Victoria, was a piece of junk. I haven't bought another one since, and I won't ever again" ...)
M.H.M.
@rdunniii posted:The bottom line is neither Amtrak nor the USPS will ever be profitable because Congress will not allow them to be. Amtrak was profitable for a couple of years when they were running mixed trains but the private sector whined to Congress so they were told to stop. My favorite Amtrak trip was and always will be on the 3 Rivers from Chicago to Philadelphia. 33 cars long (limited by the railroad) but only 4 of them carried passengers. Shippers loved it.
And so long as the USPS has to continue rural delivery they won't be profitable either.
In 2006, Congress and President Bush signed into law The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act which forced the USPS to pay in advance for the health and retirement benefits of all of its employees for at least 50 years, and stipulated that the price of postage could not increase faster than the rate of inflation. It also mandated the USPS to deliver six days of the week.
It got very little corporate media attention at the time or since. Instead corporate media have given a platform to the lies about the plight of the USPS instead which is why so many people have no idea about any of this. That makes corporate owned media complicit in the lies surrounding the financial problems of the USPS.
Now, the US House is introducing 2021 Postal Service Reform Act a watered down but at least an attempt at undoing the damage to the agency caused by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. Guess what? IT TOO is getting little or no corporate owned media attention reaffirming their complicity in the lies surrounding the actual reasons for the financial problems of the USPS. Now if your favorite corporate owned cable news station is talking about any of it, I will stand corrected.
John
@mark s posted:Ok, Amtrak is a money-losing proposition.
There is some new thinking on national debt vs. GDP. The thought is that the old ratios, which predicted immenent financial collapses, the collapses never occurred. The current US national debt to annual GDP ratio is 102%, according to the WSJ Sept 2, 2020. Japan's ratio is 230%, has been for maybe 30 years, and they still have not collapsed. Much of our debt is held by China, the UK, and Japan, as opposed to the WWII era, when almost all debt was held by US citizens. Guess the thought is that we could welch on our debts, and it wouldn't hurt America. Plus we control our currency and can produce new currency as needed. Believe all of this falls into "Modern Monetary Theory". See "US debt at a record high, but the risk calculus is changing", by Jo Craven McGinty, in todays WSJ. Other commentators have said "this will work.......until it doesn't" !! I am only an observer, biting my nails.
The USA has military personnel and bases in 160 countries, of the 195 named countries on earth. We spend $760B directly on our military, additional sums for the CIA, which is a closely aligned activity to our military plus we provide military aid to a fair number of countries. It all totals around $1T per year. Perhaps that is an area of expenditure worth scrutinizing. All the while we are building bombs and weapons, waging utterly pointless wars around the world and there are members of our political class and commentariat who are thumping the tub for a military confrontation with China over Taiwan, and Russia over Ukraine........all the while, China is building roads, hospitals, ports and railroads all over the world. The Chinese just opened a 7500 mile railroad to the UK, linking Europe directly to China for trade. We are rapidly heading to the dustbin of history.
Think Amtrak is the least of our problems.
Actually, a lot of our debt is still held internally, I believe the single highest owner of treasury debt is the Social Security Administration, because for 40 years the government had been taking the excess payments in SS (designed to be a bubble for baby boomer retirees), and they leave treasury notes.
@Will posted:@bigkid I basically agree with you. but let's not tread into the political. I don't want to see this thread get yanked. And that goes doubly for you @mark s. We can all agree that everything the gov spends money on doesn't have to turn a profit and leave it at that.
To return to the topic, looking at the map Amtrak released, from where I am sitting in NE PA, the lines from Scranton and the Lehigh Valley to NYC look like a no brainer (to me) for a relatively small investment. There have been plans, proposals and studies for bringing rail service back to the area almost from the day they ripped up the tracks on the Lackawanna cut off in about 1985. And yet nothing gets done. Right now it is a bus or a drive to Dover or taking in your car. The bus is basically an monopoly and expensive and its far cheaper for one person to drive to Dover and take the train than drive in. The problem is it takes forever.
Since this crosses three states, maybe this is the perfect route for Amtrak (ie. the fed gov) to get involved in. Personally I am obviously rooting for this.
Yeah, they have been talking about this for years, with people moving to PA and commuting. Some of the delay that I understand was that the projected cost of commuting would be so high it would be cheaper to drive. Some of it is the cost, of for example getting the Paulinskill Viaduct back into action. A lot of it quite honestly was silliness, all these claims that they would use the lackawanna cutoff for 'garbage trains' or toxic waste trains going to dump sites in Pennsylvania. It is silly because the grades on the cutoff are such that freight trains would likely not use it.
The biggest factor was who would pay for it, if PA and NJ would pay for it, the feds. The other question now will be will it be needed, will people be working from home and not going in, and right now that is a big if.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Are you suggesting that any rural residents just don't need mail service?
The real question is the nature of that service. In rural areas the cost of delivery is expensive given how far people live apart, it is the same way that having post offices in every town was expensive. One suggestion was that people living in rural areas would have to go to town to get mail, that it isn't cost effective to deliver mail like that. The problem has been made worse with the surge in deliveries from Amazon and the like, the USPS in rural areas is the 'last leg of the journey'.
Only thing I will point out is if we want to maintain rural delivery then we need to be willing to find a way to pay for it, whether it is government subsidies or raising rates. It is much the same as Amtrak, many of those complaining about Amtrak or the USPS, saying they should be abolished, are often the same people squawking when they talk about cutting back service to areas they come from. The problem isn't rural delivery or Amtrak service, it is recognizing the value of it, especially for people who live in the affected areas.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Are you suggesting that any rural residents just don't need mail service?
I live in the country and am all for rural delivery and don't mind if the post office loses money. It is a service.
In Canada, they have a bank of maybe 50 locked boxes that serves an entire neighborhood. You have to get in the car or take a little walk to get your mail. I suppose that is no different than having a post office box- which we used to. This could be in our future in certain places.
I have to say I am spoiled by having my mailbox at the foot of my front steps. Even my neighbors have to come down and get theirs. (private road)
@Will posted:In Canada, they have a bank of maybe 50 locked boxes that serves an entire neighborhood. You have to get in the car or take a little walk to get your mail. I suppose that is no different than having a post office box- which we used to. This could be in our future in certain places
I live in a townhouse community and we have a central neighborhood mail building. It's different going 1/4 of a mile to get the mail than going 10 miles to get the mail! So, that's my reality right now.
@Will posted:To return to the topic, looking at the map Amtrak released, from where I am sitting in NE PA, the lines from Scranton and the Lehigh Valley to NYC look like a no brainer (to me) for a relatively small investment. There have been plans, proposals and studies for bringing rail service back to the area almost from the day they ripped up the tracks on the Lackawanna cut off in about 1985. And yet nothing gets done. Right now it is a bus or a drive to Dover or taking in your car. The bus is basically an monopoly and expensive and its far cheaper for one person to drive to Dover and take the train than drive in. The problem is it takes forever.
Since this crosses three states, maybe this is the perfect route for Amtrak (ie. the fed gov) to get involved in. Personally I am obviously rooting for this.
Will,
NJT has laid track down in sections for Phase I. This being said, they are missing track in several sections: The Port Morris Wye, Route 602 Crossing and curve, 2nd curve west of Port Morris, & Roseville Tunnel to Andover Station. They awarded the contract to restore the Roseville Tunnel a few months ago (work will start Oct. 2021).
Re: you statement about Dover station. There are several stations before Dover: Mt. Arlington, Lake Hopatcong, Netcong, Mt. Olive & Hackettstown. However, if you want hourly trains then Dover is the place to be.
Looking at the new 2021 Amtrak map, they are proposing new services to Scranton. Perhaps the feds will get involved. I personally am a fan of a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 split of costs between NJ, PA, and the Feds. I know for a fact that the State of New Jersey is looking to kick the bill for Phase II elsewhere (Andover to Slateford Junction section) since the Viaducts are both in this phase. The good news is that costs are much lower than initially predicted (Lackawanna Cut-off Commuter Rail Study).
@bigkid posted:Yeah, they have been talking about this for years, with people moving to PA and commuting. Some of the delay that I understand was that the projected cost of commuting would be so high it would be cheaper to drive. Some of it is the cost, of for example getting the Paulinskill Viaduct back into action. A lot of it quite honestly was silliness, all these claims that they would use the lackawanna cutoff for 'garbage trains' or toxic waste trains going to dump sites in Pennsylvania. It is silly because the grades on the cutoff are such that freight trains would likely not use it.
The biggest factor was who would pay for it, if PA and NJ would pay for it, the feds. The other question now will be will it be needed, will people be working from home and not going in, and right now that is a big if.
I don't know if you have seen the latest cost estimate for the cutoff but it has drastically gone down (Please see above link for Study)
The 2006 study estimated ~$551M to replace the 21 miles of missing track from Port Morris to East Stroudsburg and upgrade the two viaducts. The newer study estimates it will cost ~$289M since the status of the viaducts are in much better condition than they originally predicted. The issue then becomes, who will pay for this? NJ, PA, or the Feds?
Bryce
The Hudson River tunnel(s) are the sticking point for all the NE corridor. Until that gets done it will be a patchwork bottleneck and if the existing tunnel fails (at the wrong time) it will be as bad as 9/11. Obama and Trump and Biden have all said split it evenly between NJ, NY and the Feds. NJ says no every time they're not paying anything. I guess they're waiting to see who will blink first.
Thanks, Bryce for the update. It's understandable why NJ balks, since they would get nothing from a route from PA to NY. That's why the Federal Government needs to be involved. I little thing called interstate transport. They could put a station in Blairstown again, but that is a sprinkling of people. ( I used to live there)
The problem with the stations west of Dover is lack of service as you said. (Not to mention an interminable trip), but I will have to check them out again. Either way, I still have to get in a car and drive a distance to a station, so the extra few miles to Dover is no big deal.
Now if Manhattan implements congestion pricing for mid-town access, that could shake things up.
@Will posted:Thanks, Bryce for the update. It's understandable why NJ balks, since they would get nothing from a route from PA to NY. That's why the Federal Government needs to be involved. I little thing called interstate transport. They could put a station in Blairstown again, but that is a sprinkling of people. ( I used to live there)
The problem with the stations west of Dover is lack of service as you said. (Not to mention an interminable trip), but I will have to check them out again. Either way, I still have to get in a car and drive a distance to a station, so the extra few miles to Dover is no big deal.
Now if Manhattan implements congestion pricing for mid-town access, that could shake things up.
Now this is a small world. Where did you live in Blairstown? That is my neck of the woods, I went to North Warren for high school.
NJT is planning to re-open Blairstown Station in Phase II with ~250 parking spaces to cut down on I-80 congestion. A lot of locals are not too happy about this since Blairstown will become a commuter station. I frankly don't mind since the station is on Hope Rd. and not directly on Route 94. The influx of commuters will also help local businesses which is a great thing. However, easy access to major cities means more people will move out here. Many are worried that Race Farm will sell some of their land to developers for condos/apartments once the line is complete, I am one of these people with that concern. I'm okay with commuters who drive here and go home at the end of the day but, I draw the line at major development. I'd be happier with the cut-off being used for freight but people around here go nuts when I bring it up.... The toxic freight myth rears its ugly head.
If the feds and Amtrak gets involved with the cut-off restoration, a lot of questions come into my head:
- As I said previously, who will foot the bill for Phase II? NJ, PA, or the feds?
- Will PA fund Phase III in upgrading the line? Will the feds help too?
- Will Amtrak run trains? If yes, what trains will Amtrak run? Local or express trains?
- Who has priority on the line? Amtrak or NJT?
- Will the Delaware-Lackawanna allow for passenger use on their line? (VERY important)
- On the Delaware-Lackawanna section of the line, who will have priority? Passenger or freight?
- Is running Amtrak and NJT at the same time, on the same line, economically feasible?
- Will NJT allow the Delaware-Lackawanna to run freight trains on the cut-off during off-hours?
Assuming Amtrak does have a train on the new cut-off, I would love if they named the Scranton to NYC run as the "The Pocono" as an homage to the region and the former DL&W train, "The Pocono Express."
As you know, NJT is doing it on the cheap and not electrifying the line, my guess is that Amtrak will most likely use their new Charger locos. It'd also be really cool if Amtrak made a few trainsets with their new Siemens Venture cars.
Anything after Dover is "Limited Service" per NJT's website.
A few things as food for thought:
- If this project is ever completed and connects Manhattan to Scranton, I predict that trains will be more frequent at these limited service stations (Mt. Arlington, Lake Hopatcong, Netcong, Mt. Olive & Hackettstown)
- Assuming Manhattan implements congestion pricing for mid-town access, trains will become much more popular with commuters.
- NY Penn Station and the North River Tunnels... The tunnels need to be repaired and upgraded. Penn Station needs to be rebuilt or made much more efficient (especially if the congestion pricing happens). I am a big fan of combining Rebuild Penn Station's and ReThinkNYC's plans (rebuild the old PRR station and make it a through-running station). The issue then becomes, who will pay for this? NYC, NY State, the Feds? All three?
Bryce
If they are going to do the Lackawanna cutoff and Amtrak uses it, it will be some combination of federal financing, NJ and PA DOT as well, there is no doubt. For example, who owns the old lackwanna cutoff line, that currently is a rail trail? If that was owned by the DLW, then technically I assume it was owned by Conrail when that line was absorbed in, so is that owned by the remnant of Conrail, or is it owned by CSX? If it was owned by conrail I assume that they could shift ownership to Amtrak, so they would own the rails (and folks, this is pure speculation and guess work). It is possible NJ transit already owns the trackage in NJ, they may have gotten that when they started looking at this.
Personally I think the contributing factor will be how much traffic post covid they anticipate commuting into NYC, right now that is really up in the air, dreams of totally virtual offices are as unlikely as NYC commuting pre Covid will return, what the balance will be, who knows? As a result I suspect this project won't even begin to happen until next year or 2023, so they can see if it is cost justified.
@bigkid posted:If they are going to do the Lackawanna cutoff and Amtrak uses it, it will be some combination of federal financing, NJ and PA DOT as well, there is no doubt. For example, who owns the old lackwanna cutoff line, that currently is a rail trail? If that was owned by the DLW, then technically I assume it was owned by Conrail when that line was absorbed in, so is that owned by the remnant of Conrail, or is it owned by CSX? If it was owned by conrail I assume that they could shift ownership to Amtrak, so they would own the rails (and folks, this is pure speculation and guess work). It is possible NJ transit already owns the trackage in NJ, they may have gotten that when they started looking at this.
Personally I think the contributing factor will be how much traffic post covid they anticipate commuting into NYC, right now that is really up in the air, dreams of totally virtual offices are as unlikely as NYC commuting pre Covid will return, what the balance will be, who knows? As a result I suspect this project won't even begin to happen until next year or 2023, so they can see if it is cost justified.
I am hopefully for an even split of costs but, NJ tends to play hardball and doesn't like to pay for anything.
Your speculation and guess work is somewhat accurate. Conrail operated the line until 1979. They sold the line to for $2M to Jerry Turco, a NJ developer in the 1980s. He setup several corporations for (liability reasons) in each town that the cut-off ran through. In 2001, the NJDOT purchased the entire cut-off via eminent domain. Starting in 2011, the state started buying properties/land adjacent to the future track and planning restoration service. Example: Land around the Blairstown station was owned by a private entity. The state wants to a large commuter parking lot, so the private entity sold it to the state for a pretty penny, many locals were NOT happy about that. Around 2015, the state erected barriers on both sides of the Paulinskill viaduct to prevent people from going up there and they started fencing sections of the cut-off where major work needs to be done.
As stated above, Phase I (Port Morris to Andover) has track laid own in several sections. Work started on the line in 2011. There were a few environmental issues that took up a lot of time and money (all resolved now) and the Roseville Tunnel restoration is set to start this October. NJT predicts that Phase I can be in operation by 2023.
On the other side of the river, the state of PA also acquired the sections of the cut-off that weren't being used by the Delaware-Lackawanna around 2002.
If I know the state of NJ, they won't hand anything over to anyone for free. They will probably charge Amtrak to operate on their track. Or, it will be some agreement like the NEC: Amtrak owns the track and NJT owns the stations. Ownership and trackage rights will be the hot topic for Phase II since it includes both viaducts.
Good point. I don't know how big of an impact post-COVID commuters to NYC will be, it could be enormous or very small. Many large companies in Manhattan are planning to go back full-time to work and the city is opening up. Only time will tell.
Bryce
@Oscale_Trains_Lover_ posted:Now this is a small world. Where did you live in Blairstown? That is my neck of the woods, I went to North Warren for high school.
Bryce
Bryce I lived in Marksboro and both my kids graduated from NWRHS. What year did you graduate?
Thanks for all the detailed info on the proposed plans and progress. I don't know how much a Blairstown station would affect development. I would think it would skip Blairstown in favor of the Poconos as it currently does. Plus, after Covid, I see less actual commuting in our future. People will move even further from the city if they only have to go in occasionally. This is is already happening in places like the Catskills.
@Will posted:Bryce I lived in Marksboro and both my kids graduated from NWRHS. What year did you graduate?
Thanks for all the detailed info on the proposed plans and progress. I don't know how much a Blairstown station would affect development. I would think it would skip Blairstown in favor of the Poconos as it currently does. Plus, after Covid, I see less actual commuting in our future. People will move even further from the city if they only have to go in occasionally. This is is already happening in places like the Catskills.
I know Marksboro very well! The Marksboro deli has a great prime rib sandwich. I graduated NWR in 2018 and currently go to college in NY state.
No problem! I honestly don't think Blairstown station would really impact development, the issues have always been about the viaducts. I would be very happy if trains ran on the cut-off once again.
Bryce
@Oscale_Trains_Lover_ posted:I know Marksboro very well! The Marksboro deli has a great prime rib sandwich. I graduated NWR in 2018 and currently go to college in NY state.
No problem! I honestly don't think Blairstown station would really impact development, the issues have always been about the viaducts. I would be very happy if trains ran on the cut-off once again.
Bryce
Wow, Bryce, you are a young train enthusiast. I am very happy to see young people interested in trains. My kids graduated in '98 and '06, so another whole generation, lol. I left Marksboro in 1993 and moved over to PA in 1997, so it's been a long time. ( I started visiting my wife's family there in 1975, moved there part time in 1981 and we bought our farm in 1984. I'm an old timer.
I remember very clearly when they tore up the tracks on the cut off and sent them to Japan I think. About 1985. Our farm was actually on the Susquehanna ROW which straddled our property. There was the foundation of the old creamery and across the road was where the station stood. My (ex) wife's grandfather used to take the train from NYC and get off there. Near the old mill if you know where that is.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
