New Rail Study
#46
The 17 or 1800s is where a lot of the conservatives I know profess to want to be. 35 Bob
James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Reply
#47
Russ Bellinis Wrote:
Bob C Wrote:Russ, i can't argue with or accept the $3000/seat cost, but anyone who travels other than main terminal cities knows the air fare to somewhere has no relation to the distance traveled, but with how many seats are filled (or not) on the plane, and a bunch of other seemingly nonsensical criteria. Fill a Wide-Body, and you can afford to fly cheaply per seat - even better if it's 3, 4, or more flights on the same route (and returns to another "popular" destination) - crew and equipment costs, a larger divisor on fuel costs, some freight $$$ to those busy terminals, etc. Try flying to somewhere off the business/vacation/ airline's hub list - WOW, it can run you OVER $1.00 per air mile (close to the cost you quoted). Trains can't gain by skipping stops, they don't have an established clientele to judge how many seats they need on what trip at what time (large variances), and you have to take your seats most of the route, full or not for the whole trip, costing fuel crew and equipment. Rail is different, and the last time it "worked", it had little competition (I won't even mention trolleys/interurbans - which might be part of the solution we're looking for), let alone government subsidized modes. The "high-Speed Rail" thing is "sexy" - but only possible, let alone realistic and viable in a few areas/situations. The "BUZZ" will get the $$$ for some folks by generating "studies" for consultants at outrageous costs, and they'll just tell the subscriber what he wants to hear. The size of the US and Canada, our suburban sprawl and vast rural and wilderness areas to cross between service centers, the competitive environment, the conditional desires of potential users, makes a near-term cost effective, un-subsidized passenger rail solution elusive, at best, and "High-Speed" rail, at distances where it can be more than a proof-of-concept or civic competitive pride showpiece, little more than expensive smoke and mirrors. And remember, the other modes aren't standing still, and those rubber tires are squealing already! Icon_lol Bob C.

The point I was making is that it is very popular for politicians, particularly for conservative politicians to make much of the Amtrak subsidy as being a drag on our economy and an example of government waste. In fact virtually every form of transportation in this country is subsidized by the government in one way or another, and Amtrak's is probably the smallest subsidy of the bunch. Folks may argue about the size of Amtrak's subsidy or not, but to somehow decry it as "socialism" is to miss the point that our entire transportation infrastructure is an example of pure socialism in action. Eliminate socialism and we go back to the 1700's or whenever the time before the Erie Canal and Cumberline Gap Road were first built.

I would have to disagree. We are, in fact, one of the only nations with multiple, competing airlines instead of the standard national airline. That isn't socialism by a long shot. AMTRAK is, in fact, grossly over-subsidized in order to maintain a service for a relatively small percentage of the commuting public, primarily the Eastern Corridor. I say let AMTRAK either meet it's own operating expenses or go under, just as thousands of other businesses and hundreds of old railroads have done. But if tax dollars are used, then I want full AMTRAK service in my town, and in the towns of every single other taxpayer as well.
Reply
#48
MountainMan Wrote:
Russ Bellinis Wrote:The point I was making is that it is very popular for politicians, particularly for conservative politicians to make much of the Amtrak subsidy as being a drag on our economy and an example of government waste. In fact virtually every form of transportation in this country is subsidized by the government in one way or another, and Amtrak's is probably the smallest subsidy of the bunch. Folks may argue about the size of Amtrak's subsidy or not, but to somehow decry it as "socialism" is to miss the point that our entire transportation infrastructure is an example of pure socialism in action. Eliminate socialism and we go back to the 1700's or whenever the time before the Erie Canal and Cumberline Gap Road were first built.

I would have to disagree. We are, in fact, one of the only nations with multiple, competing airlines instead of the standard national airline. That isn't socialism by a long shot. AMTRAK is, in fact, grossly over-subsidized in order to maintain a service for a relatively small percentage of the commuting public, primarily the Eastern Corridor. I say let AMTRAK either meet it's own operating expenses or go under, just as thousands of other businesses and hundreds of old railroads have done. But if tax dollars are used, then I want full AMTRAK service in my town, and in the towns of every single other taxpayer as well.

You overlook the fact that those multiple "competing airlines" are all lined up at the same Federal "trough", sucking back millions more in taxpayer dollars than Amtrak could ever hope to see. Not calling it socialism doesn't change its true nature: the Government using your tax dollars for what your elected representatives deem to be "in the greater social interest".

One of the oddities that struck me about the 9/11tragedy was that none of those 'planes was at anywhere near its passenger capacity (I suppose a small mercy in light of the events), an indicator of the overcapacity and inefficiency that dog most so-called "socialist" endeavours. ".

A rose by any other name...

Wayne
Reply
#49
Russ Bellinis Wrote:The point I was making is that it is very popular for politicians, particularly for conservative politicians to make much of the Amtrak subsidy as being a drag on our economy and an example of government waste. In fact virtually every form of transportation in this country is subsidized by the government in one way or another, and Amtrak's is probably the smallest subsidy of the bunch. Folks may argue about the size of Amtrak's subsidy or not, but to somehow decry it as "socialism" is to miss the point that our entire transportation infrastructure is an example of pure socialism in action. Eliminate socialism and we go back to the 1700's or whenever the time before the Erie Canal and Cumberline Gap Road were first built.

mountainman Wrote:I would have to disagree. We are, in fact, one of the only nations with multiple, competing airlines instead of the standard national airline. That isn't socialism by a long shot. AMTRAK is, in fact, grossly over-subsidized in order to maintain a service for a relatively small percentage of the commuting public, primarily the Eastern Corridor. I say let AMTRAK either meet it's own operating expenses or go under, just as thousands of other businesses and hundreds of old railroads have done. But if tax dollars are used, then I want full AMTRAK service in my town, and in the towns of every single other taxpayer as well.

doctorwayne Wrote:You overlook the fact that those multiple "competing airlines" are all lined up at the same Federal "trough", sucking back millions more in taxpayer dollars than Amtrak could ever hope to see. Not calling it socialism doesn't change its true nature: the Government using your tax dollars for what your elected representatives deem to be "in the greater social interest".

A rose by any other name...

Wayne


What comes around goes around. Multiple competing railroads were lined up in the mid through late 1800s... In the first half of the 20th century, Canadian railroads (especially CNR) were given a social mandate (serve Canadians) as well as their business mandate, and consequently not allowed to abandon routes.

I have a copy of the 1931 Royal Commission report on the state of transportation in Canada. To that point (more or less a period of a couple of decades), CNR and its pre-existing component railways (Grand Trunk, Intercolonial, Canadian Gov't Railways, etc) had been given in excess of $2 BILLION dollars in large part to support passenger service (i.e. their social mandate). That's nearly $25 billion today - what could VIA do with that? Icon_lol

Andrew
Reply
#50
I don't have the figures, so I'll ask...what is the annual budget for the FAA (major portion of the $$ to plan/operate/maintain the safety of the airways - no trains, trucks, boats allowed - and no private business w/o a license) - More than Amtrak's subsidy? That doesn't count state, county and local facilities - land removed from tax rolls and possibly it's owners (eminent domain), constructed and maintained on the "promise" of service, jobs, etc. at the whim of the "Private" competitive air carriers. Pittsburgh built a beautiful, modern, first rate international terminal with hub and maintenance facilities for US Air, only to have them dump out on this huge expenditure, move their functions elsewhere, and leave the taxpayer (local, county, state and federal) holding the bag and scratching for revenue. Granted, this is anecdotal, but is also exemplary of the "subsidy" of the airline industry - and even with all this "help", the airlines are perpetually on the financial edge, and merging/going bankrupt, effectively heading for that Monopoly of One Air Carrier which will do as it wishes, private or government run, until broken up (at taxpayer expense) to start the dance again. ...and I'm not going to even mention the subsidy those entrepreneurial Trucking Companies and their bottomless pit of regulation/infrastructure expenses I pay ( I MUST be Rich, huh ???? ) Bob C
James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Reply
#51
We have skirted around it, but there is also the issue of direct costs.

Hershey's chocolate syrup is made in the USA...Nestle is made in Canada. The US subsidizes corn syrup; Canada doesn't. Hershey's syrup uses corn syrup while Nestle uses sugar. The same can be said about many other products. My tax dollars artificially lower the price of corn syrup which causes Hershey to use it rather than sugar. So when I go to Kroger and purchase Nestle's, I'm paying the actual cost (thank you NAFTA!) to produce and ship it. On the other hand, the Hershey syrup is actually more expensive than the price tag...I've already paid for the corn to be grown, the processing facility to turn it into syrup, and the bureaucracy to oversee the subsidies...so I've already paid part of the cost through my taxes. Up until this year, Nestle's had a lower price tag than Hershey's...but the price of Nestle's has gone up. So a person looking for the cheapest option will now purchase Hershey's, even though it is actually more expensive once you factor in the taxes...as the government has hidden many of the costs and cause us to make economically poor decisions by lowering the perceived price.

The government does quite a bit of this with the airlines, professional sports teams, and various other things. The cost to take Amtrak is, I believe, much closer to the real cost. I'd love to see a study comparing the true costs for planes vs. trains. vs. cars.

I am not attempting to explain subsidies, which have been discussed here, but rather to focus more on direct (perceived) and indirect (actual) costs.

Btw, the Nestle syrup, imo, is much better than the Hershey syrup. Goldth
Michael
My primary goal is a large Oahu Railway layout in On3
My secondary interests are modeling the Denver, South Park, & Pacific in On3 and NKP in HO
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/">http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#52
nkp_174 Wrote:The government does quite a bit of this with the airlines, professional sports teams, and various other things. The cost to take Amtrak is, I believe, much closer to the real cost. I'd love to see a study comparing the true costs for planes vs. trains. vs. cars.

That would be a whole lot of math and statistics that nobody will believe anyway, unless it re-enforces their agenda. And there are plenty of other examples of things that are subsidized so that people don't pay the "full" cost of. For us in southern arizona, water is an excellent example. The infrastructure was all paid for through tax dollars, but only the operating costs are what you see in your water bill. If we were required to pay back all the dams, canals, and wells through our water bills, we would be paying dollars per gallon rather than cents per gallon.
--
Kevin
Check out my Shapeways creations!
3-d printed items in HO/HOn3 and more!
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.shapeways.com/shops/kevin-s-model-train-detail-parts">https://www.shapeways.com/shops/kevin-s ... tail-parts</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#53
According to the standards shown here, every activity in America is "subsidized" in one way or another. AMTRAK is merely another pig at the trough, but quite expensive in view of it's limited service mandate.

I still say let it fail if it can't keep up. The same goes for the airlines. Failure and the re-birth of new industries and services is the way we have always done it, and it has worked quite well. We got into trouble when the government began propping up the failures.
Reply
#54
MountainMan Wrote:I still say let it fail if it can't keep up. The same goes for the airlines. Failure and the re-birth of new industries and services is the way we have always done it, and it has worked quite well. We got into trouble when the government began propping up the failures.

"Creative Destruction". No need to protect the buggy whip manufacturers when everyone prefers the Model T! Cheers
Michael
My primary goal is a large Oahu Railway layout in On3
My secondary interests are modeling the Denver, South Park, & Pacific in On3 and NKP in HO
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/">http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#55
nkp_174 Wrote:
MountainMan Wrote:I still say let it fail if it can't keep up. The same goes for the airlines. Failure and the re-birth of new industries and services is the way we have always done it, and it has worked quite well. We got into trouble when the government began propping up the failures.

"Creative Destruction". No need to protect the buggy whip manufacturers when everyone prefers the Model T! Cheers


Hmmmm, OK, but what is the Model T in our scenario if AMTRAK and the airlines are the buggy whip?
Ralph
Reply
#56
Ralph Wrote:Hmmmm, OK, but what is the Model T in our scenario if AMTRAK and the airlines are the buggy whip?
Ralph

Come on Ralph! You know better...haven't you seen Star Trek? Transporters! Icon_lol
Michael
My primary goal is a large Oahu Railway layout in On3
My secondary interests are modeling the Denver, South Park, & Pacific in On3 and NKP in HO
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/">http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#57
Beam me up! Goldth
Reply
#58
Quote:Beam me up!
Yup, that works.
But, you can only stay "high" on bourbon, for a limited time.

:oops: :oops: Oh!, you meant "that" kind of "beam". 357
We always learn far more from our own mistakes, than we will ever learn from another's advice.
The greatest place to live life, is on the sharp leading edge of a learning curve.
Lead me not into temptation.....I can find it myself!
Reply
#59
Guys,What gets me is the continuance of the "Big Lie of 1970"..Billions of dollars has been pour into Amtrak over the last 39 years and still it needs more money even though ridership is up-thanks to air lines cutting their short flights.Even as we speak Amtrak would like to electrify their track from Maine to Miami-more Government funding on a high risk move on lines that sees freight trains..

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08346/934350-155.stm">http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08346/934350-155.stm</a><!-- m -->


Isn't it time to scrap Amtrak and try another approach?
Larry
Engineman

Summerset Ry

Make Safety your first thought, Not your last!  Safety First!
Reply
#60
I'd like to see a level playing field...no hidden costs.

Most highway funding does come from fuel taxes, not subsidies...but still a substantial portion isn't built into the price at the pump.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p10.htm">http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p10.htm</a><!-- m -->
Of course, that is a decade old.

This technical paper appears to give the total cost of air travel, but I don't quite feel like logging in with my university account to access it. I don't know how much of the costs are covered by the various fees. I'm sure that some flights are money losers and some are money makers...but I wouldn't be surprised if the losers aren't kept around for other reasons...much likely a number of railroads used to do.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://ideas.repec.org/p/nex/wpaper/fullcostairtravel.html">http://ideas.repec.org/p/nex/wpaper/ful ... ravel.html</a><!-- m -->

If Amtrak is not as cost efficient as the alternatives, I agree with Brakie. Marshall the cars in a strategic reserve, and wait to see what happens. If it is actually cheaper than some of these other forms, than I'd prefer to see it expanded...pour the money into there rather than into air/highway transportation. If government is preventing market decisions (which I believe it is), try to mitigate this and prevent government from picking the winners and losers.
Michael
My primary goal is a large Oahu Railway layout in On3
My secondary interests are modeling the Denver, South Park, & Pacific in On3 and NKP in HO
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/">http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/</a><!-- m -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)