 |
Re: Restored Amtrak Service To Vegas? Don't Hold Your Breath!
Author: Holly Gibson
Date: 07-05-2010 - 02:12
Holly Gibson's earlier comments in italics
Bobby Johnson's comments encased in quotation box
Holly Gibson's follow up reponses in normal font
I think there was probably a moment in time when L&N and SAL made money solely off their passenger revenues. It may have been a long time ago, but I would venture to say that it probably did happen. Shortly after they were constructed, most railroads found it very worth their while to operate passenger service. There are very few railroads that were built with freight-only status and always remained that way.
Agreed, but the point I was trying to make was that, at one time, railroads could make a buck off passenger service. That may not be the case in this day and age, for a variety of reasons. And, if that is true, it doesn’t necessarily mean we should scrap the service. As you admit, airlines and other modes of transport are subsidized. This subsidization functions as a way of “cooking” their accounting books and, even though they may CLAIM to occasionally report a profit, they really aren’t operating profitably. Strip away the subsidies and watch them quickly collapse.
Why can’t we consider Amtrak and other forms of transportation that are receiving public subsidies as a “social service”? Many countries operate their various transportation modes under heavy subsidization (and an absence of profit), but view such services as essential to serving their populations. Until NdeM was broken up and privatized (the wisdom of which can be debated, depending on one’s viewpoint), it operated many branchlines that had no freight service – only a passenger train that provided what was considered an essential service to the local population. Is a concept such as that so horrific?
The only reason Conrail turned a profit was because it took the Penn Central system and a handful of other bankrupt roads and “cherry picked” the very best of what those roads had to offer and abandoned a tremendous amount of track and infrastructure. Conrail was just a bare-bones “core system” of what the contributing railroads were. It essentially became an east-west railroad and walked away from performing any north-south service offerings. If you were a shipper along one of their north-south routes that they walked away from (such as Chicago – Indianapolis – Cincinnati), you were up excrement creek. True, Conrail turned around what was a very dismal scene in the northeast, but at a high price. A lot of track was abandoned, a lot of shippers were left high and dry, and a lot of traffic switched to trucks because Conrail had an entirely different business model than PC and the other predecessor roads.
And it probably never will. And we probably should never expect it to. The airlines don’t operate at a profit (if they claim to, it’s only because of their subsidies). Our highways don’t operate at a profit either.
So are you saying that, in your opinion, it’s “okay” to subsidize the airlines and highways because, by your standards, they’re more efficient than Amtrak? You very likely may be able to drive your car faster across northern Montana and North Dakota than what the Empire Builder requires to cover the distance. Some of the towns in that region have heavily-subsidized air service. Those circumstances alone should not be reason enough to discontinue the train. It performs an essential service in that region and is heavily patronized. As a nation, it makes a lot of sense to have a balanced transportation system and not place all of our eggs in one basket – or make that TWO baskets. The highway basket and the airline basket.
No, you probably won’t. Let me repeat one more time: Highways do not cover all their costs and require government subsidies. Airlines do not cover all their costs and require government subsidies. All I’m suggesting is this: Don’t expect Amtrak to miraculously pull a rabbit out of its hat and operate at a profit and meet all of its operating costs when highways, bus operators and airlines can’t manage to meet that threshold either.
Personally, if given a choice, I’d rather have my tax dollars going to support **yes, shudder the thought** non-profitable inter-city rail passenger service rather than a lot of other areas where taxpayer dollars “wasted.” For example, one of the most ludicrous examples of taxpayer dollars being spent unwisely is enhancements to detention centers where illegal aliens are housed prior to deportation. Under this new proposal, detainees will be treated to more variety in their dining hall menus and have self-serve beverage and fresh vegetable bars. They will enjoy movie nights, bingo, arts and crafts, dance and cooking classes, tutoring and computer training. In short, supporting Amtrak is money well spent when compared to the above example. And that example is just one of thousands that are equally absurd.
While that may be a nice Republican- or Libertarian goal to strive for, it has not traditionally been practiced. It probably never will be practiced. It probably never should be practiced. The U.S. Post Office is economically beneficial but it basically is not profitable. It has to staff and operate post offices in places like Nome, AK and Wells, NV. It provides essential services to the people who live in those areas.
You and I are in agreement here. I’d just rather have my tax dollars going toward supporting Amtrak instead of things like movie nights, bingo, arts and crafts, dance and cooking classes, tutoring and computer training for illegal aliens. Eliminate the thousands of clearly ludicrous expenditures of government dollars like that one, and then, if the budget still can’t be balanced, maybe place Amtrak in your crosshairs.
Are they? That’s certainly debatable. They’re certainly not more fuel efficient. From a fuel consumption and efficiency standpoint, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to shoot a 737 up to 30,000 feet and back down again on a short haul flight from, say, Chicago to St. Louis. Years ago, Hughes Airwest used to fly a DC9 from San Francisco to Oakland. TWA used to operate a 707 across the Los Angeles basin from Ontario airport to LAX. Even certain airline execs are saying publicly that rail should be used for medium to short hauls, and that would free up landing and take-off slots for longer haul air service.
Again, this goes back to the argument that we should have a balanced transportation system and not just promote highways and air service, even though some people, such as yourself, perceive those two modes as being the most efficient and profitable.
Some very important decisions about the planning of our transportation infrastructure were determined by (and continue to be determined by) intense lobbying efforts by certain special interest groups. We all know about the scandal involving Standard Oil, General Motors and Firestone Tires where they bought up streetcar and interurban rail lines and deliberately junked them so they could be replaced by buses. We came very, very close to getting a high speed bullet train built between Dallas and Houston, but intense lobbying efforts by Herb Kelleher and his Southwest Airlines made sure it didn’t happen. Wouldn’t you know, the Dallas-Houston corridor is one of Southwest’s most popular markets. Even the taxi cab lobby has made sure that the Metro Green Line gets close to LAX, but not actually on the property. Ditto for the monorail in Las Vegas.
Here’s another idea: Let’s eliminate the taxpayer subsidies to airports such as the one profiled in the above ABC News report and let’s eliminate the perks being extended to illegal aliens being held in detention centers. Let’s shut down public schools and fire and police protection. Let’s charge water consumers the TRUE cost of their water. Do you have any idea how many taxpayer dollars were used to build the California Aqueduct and the Tennessee Valley Authority dams? I don’t know whether or not they operate at a profit. If they do, it may be a little while before any revenues come anywhere near covering their enormous construction and start-up costs. Where was private enterprise when it came time to build Oroville Dam? If the Government did it, isn’t that a little socialistic? My Gawd! That’s almost as un-American as socialized medicine!
I don’t think I am. Look at the money that was spent on the construction of Interstate 5. Look at the money that was spent building the new airport in Denver. Why do you feel its okay to use government funds for those projects but not Amtrak?
Well, for us to raise the speed to over 100 mph, it’s going to take some big government bucks. I say it’s money well spent. The project to re-hab the Prairie Line in Washington State between Tacoma and Nisqually is a good start. That will shave off quite a few minutes of running time.
Bobby Johnson's comments encased in quotation box
Holly Gibson's follow up reponses in normal font
I think there was probably a moment in time when L&N and SAL made money solely off their passenger revenues. It may have been a long time ago, but I would venture to say that it probably did happen. Shortly after they were constructed, most railroads found it very worth their while to operate passenger service. There are very few railroads that were built with freight-only status and always remained that way.
Quote:That was before airlines and major roads. It was also before the average American household owned more than one car.
Agreed, but the point I was trying to make was that, at one time, railroads could make a buck off passenger service. That may not be the case in this day and age, for a variety of reasons. And, if that is true, it doesn’t necessarily mean we should scrap the service. As you admit, airlines and other modes of transport are subsidized. This subsidization functions as a way of “cooking” their accounting books and, even though they may CLAIM to occasionally report a profit, they really aren’t operating profitably. Strip away the subsidies and watch them quickly collapse.
Quote:You can't compare a transportation corporation (yes, Amtrak is a corporation although government owned) to public services such as schools, law enforcement, fire department etc...
Why can’t we consider Amtrak and other forms of transportation that are receiving public subsidies as a “social service”? Many countries operate their various transportation modes under heavy subsidization (and an absence of profit), but view such services as essential to serving their populations. Until NdeM was broken up and privatized (the wisdom of which can be debated, depending on one’s viewpoint), it operated many branchlines that had no freight service – only a passenger train that provided what was considered an essential service to the local population. Is a concept such as that so horrific?
Quote:Amtrak was created with intentions that it would turn a profit just like Conrail. Conrail eventually turned a profit . . .
The only reason Conrail turned a profit was because it took the Penn Central system and a handful of other bankrupt roads and “cherry picked” the very best of what those roads had to offer and abandoned a tremendous amount of track and infrastructure. Conrail was just a bare-bones “core system” of what the contributing railroads were. It essentially became an east-west railroad and walked away from performing any north-south service offerings. If you were a shipper along one of their north-south routes that they walked away from (such as Chicago – Indianapolis – Cincinnati), you were up excrement creek. True, Conrail turned around what was a very dismal scene in the northeast, but at a high price. A lot of track was abandoned, a lot of shippers were left high and dry, and a lot of traffic switched to trucks because Conrail had an entirely different business model than PC and the other predecessor roads.
Quote:Amtrak has never turned a profit.
And it probably never will. And we probably should never expect it to. The airlines don’t operate at a profit (if they claim to, it’s only because of their subsidies). Our highways don’t operate at a profit either.
Quote:As stated before I can fly from one location of the country or drive and be at my destination the same day. Amtrak's top speed through most of the country (excluding the NEC) is 79mph with numerous speed restrictions. The interstate speed limit through most of the country is 75mph with few speed restrictions.
So are you saying that, in your opinion, it’s “okay” to subsidize the airlines and highways because, by your standards, they’re more efficient than Amtrak? You very likely may be able to drive your car faster across northern Montana and North Dakota than what the Empire Builder requires to cover the distance. Some of the towns in that region have heavily-subsidized air service. Those circumstances alone should not be reason enough to discontinue the train. It performs an essential service in that region and is heavily patronized. As a nation, it makes a lot of sense to have a balanced transportation system and not place all of our eggs in one basket – or make that TWO baskets. The highway basket and the airline basket.
Quote:Make Amtrak competitive against the automobile and and the airlines (yes I know they are government subsidized) and you will turn a profit.
No, you probably won’t. Let me repeat one more time: Highways do not cover all their costs and require government subsidies. Airlines do not cover all their costs and require government subsidies. All I’m suggesting is this: Don’t expect Amtrak to miraculously pull a rabbit out of its hat and operate at a profit and meet all of its operating costs when highways, bus operators and airlines can’t manage to meet that threshold either.
Personally, if given a choice, I’d rather have my tax dollars going to support **yes, shudder the thought** non-profitable inter-city rail passenger service rather than a lot of other areas where taxpayer dollars “wasted.” For example, one of the most ludicrous examples of taxpayer dollars being spent unwisely is enhancements to detention centers where illegal aliens are housed prior to deportation. Under this new proposal, detainees will be treated to more variety in their dining hall menus and have self-serve beverage and fresh vegetable bars. They will enjoy movie nights, bingo, arts and crafts, dance and cooking classes, tutoring and computer training. In short, supporting Amtrak is money well spent when compared to the above example. And that example is just one of thousands that are equally absurd.
Quote:Look at your president, until he grows a pair and tells unwanted guests they are unwanted then you are going to continue having this and just because money is thrown at stupid ideas doesn't mean we need to throw it at another. I am not saying Amtrak as a whole is stupid. You either pay up and invest in the projects you think will be most economically beneficial and profitable or you kill it.
While that may be a nice Republican- or Libertarian goal to strive for, it has not traditionally been practiced. It probably never will be practiced. It probably never should be practiced. The U.S. Post Office is economically beneficial but it basically is not profitable. It has to staff and operate post offices in places like Nome, AK and Wells, NV. It provides essential services to the people who live in those areas.
Quote:I support the swift deportation and imprisonment of all illegal aliens no matter what there circumstance is. This is my country, pay up or get out. Most ICE guys I work with don't treat illegals very nicely.
You and I are in agreement here. I’d just rather have my tax dollars going toward supporting Amtrak instead of things like movie nights, bingo, arts and crafts, dance and cooking classes, tutoring and computer training for illegal aliens. Eliminate the thousands of clearly ludicrous expenditures of government dollars like that one, and then, if the budget still can’t be balanced, maybe place Amtrak in your crosshairs.
Quote:Yes, I know we subsidize airlines. Airlines are also more efficient than the trains we have.
Are they? That’s certainly debatable. They’re certainly not more fuel efficient. From a fuel consumption and efficiency standpoint, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to shoot a 737 up to 30,000 feet and back down again on a short haul flight from, say, Chicago to St. Louis. Years ago, Hughes Airwest used to fly a DC9 from San Francisco to Oakland. TWA used to operate a 707 across the Los Angeles basin from Ontario airport to LAX. Even certain airline execs are saying publicly that rail should be used for medium to short hauls, and that would free up landing and take-off slots for longer haul air service.
Again, this goes back to the argument that we should have a balanced transportation system and not just promote highways and air service, even though some people, such as yourself, perceive those two modes as being the most efficient and profitable.
Quote:America's interstate highway system was built because of this country's geography. We did not decide to build high speed rail instead like a lot of other countrys chose. Remember we tore up most of our mass transit systems when personally owned cars became prevelant because people stopped using them.
Some very important decisions about the planning of our transportation infrastructure were determined by (and continue to be determined by) intense lobbying efforts by certain special interest groups. We all know about the scandal involving Standard Oil, General Motors and Firestone Tires where they bought up streetcar and interurban rail lines and deliberately junked them so they could be replaced by buses. We came very, very close to getting a high speed bullet train built between Dallas and Houston, but intense lobbying efforts by Herb Kelleher and his Southwest Airlines made sure it didn’t happen. Wouldn’t you know, the Dallas-Houston corridor is one of Southwest’s most popular markets. Even the taxi cab lobby has made sure that the Metro Green Line gets close to LAX, but not actually on the property. Ditto for the monorail in Las Vegas.
Quote:Lets raise taxes so we can all ride trains because your not going to pay for them any other way.
Here’s another idea: Let’s eliminate the taxpayer subsidies to airports such as the one profiled in the above ABC News report and let’s eliminate the perks being extended to illegal aliens being held in detention centers. Let’s shut down public schools and fire and police protection. Let’s charge water consumers the TRUE cost of their water. Do you have any idea how many taxpayer dollars were used to build the California Aqueduct and the Tennessee Valley Authority dams? I don’t know whether or not they operate at a profit. If they do, it may be a little while before any revenues come anywhere near covering their enormous construction and start-up costs. Where was private enterprise when it came time to build Oroville Dam? If the Government did it, isn’t that a little socialistic? My Gawd! That’s almost as un-American as socialized medicine!
Quote:Again you are comparing apples to oranges.
I don’t think I am. Look at the money that was spent on the construction of Interstate 5. Look at the money that was spent building the new airport in Denver. Why do you feel its okay to use government funds for those projects but not Amtrak?
Quote:I just stated the small intercity corridors with high ridership are beneficial to society. Let me also rephrase the following: "With all that traffic on I-5 it is still faster to drive while maintaining the speed limit and it always will be until the train speed limit is raised to over 100mph."
Well, for us to raise the speed to over 100 mph, it’s going to take some big government bucks. I say it’s money well spent. The project to re-hab the Prairie Line in Washington State between Tacoma and Nisqually is a good start. That will shave off quite a few minutes of running time.
