Cuts from 20% to 30%

[Ryan]

Dax pretty much hits it on the head.

I don't pretend to know the complications or legalities of this idea. I am simply wondering out loud if anything along this line might work. For one thing you would be eliminating government bureaucrats from everyday operational decisions that hamper the quality of equipment and service. You would eliminate the congress from complaining about what kinds of service the roads offered. You would hopefully end the boring cookie cutter sameness of every long distance train. You might actually get some new ideas for services in order for the roads to encourage ridership.

I think that what you would end up with would be exactly like Amtrak, with another layer of bureaucracy to add to the waste and slightly different standards/interpretations of the rules by each RR that would simply solidify the already-inconsistent Amtrak experience. I don't think that you'd ever get the roads to sign up for what would be a money losing experience, and so the future of passenger rail is in Amtrak (or some other form of government controlled entity).
I think that the root of our disagreement is that you see government as inefficient and bad and the free market as efficient and good. I see private industry as having their primary duty towards their shareholders and not consumers, whereas the government is at least nominally supposed to be operating with all of our best interests in mind. In reality, life is somewhere between the two - companies have to at least keep the consumers happy, and government can be very much as GML described above.

 

[Trogdor]

We want a self-less government staffed for self-less reasons, to do things for the betterment of everybody but itself. Name me 955 people (the absolute minimum number of people to run our constitutionally required government) that fit into that category. I can think of about five, and three of those are dead.

I agree with most of what you said (stop the presses!). I'll nit-pick this part, though. There are thousands of people out there who fit the above description (certainly more than five). The issue is that, for the vast majority of them, they are too intellectually honest to run a campaign that would enable themselves to get elected. The folks that get elected today are the ones who lie to the public by saying they can balance the budget, fix the economy, lower taxes, and not cut "important" programs.

The best quote I can think of to describe the problem comes from the late Douglas Adams in one of his hitchhiker books:

The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

Unfortunately, we have a large faction of elected officials who demonize the government (while failing to point out the irony that they are part of the government they are attacking; further, few citizens seem to realize that if they say government is incapable of doing this or that, they are essentially insulting themselves because it is their responsibility to vote and play a role in who is in government). These insults on government workers, other elected officials, etc., only serve to discourage those who are both smart and honest enough to make a difference. Therefore, they stay away. Those that do try and run stand no chance of being elected.

Think about it. Candidate A says, "Look. We're deep in debt. We obviously can't afford the standard of living to which we're all accustomed. We all need to make some sacrifices to get out of this mess. For the wealthy, that means giving up a bit more of your money in taxes to cover our budget. For others, it means accepting a bit less in services and benefits. It's not going to be pretty, but it's the only logical, sure way out of this mess."

Candidate B says, "SOCIALIST! He wants to take YOUR money and cut YOUR benefits. He wants to make government bigger by raising taxes, but refuses to cut wasteful spending and pork. Instead, he wants to get rid of stuff you need. I won't do either. I will keep your tax rates low, and won't cut any important programs. I'll go after the pork that the Washington Insiders waste your money on."

People are gullible enough to believe Candidate B, and obviously Candidate B's message is going to be more popular. It makes people feel good, it promises everything is going to be fine and dandy and nobody has to sacrifice anything. Anybody who is intellectually honest does not stand a chance against those who act like Candidate B. Further, virtually nowhere in the media do you hear people talking about the basic facts as presented in Candidate A's position. All you hear about are the "big spending" politicians and government waste (which never comes with a definition of what, specifically, is waste), and others who want to cut taxes. Then you've got those afraid that if we spend another dollar, the country will go insolvent tomorrow. They still don't have a real solution, just a bunch of whining and hand-wringing.

As long as people don't realize what the true problems are (which really are matters of basic arithmetic more than anything else), they will never see the need for a real solution.

 

[Ryan]

I'd like to nominate that for post of the year (the Douglas Adams reference puts it over the top).

Well done!

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I liked the way South Park said it better... but good job overall.

 

[Eric S]

What I am basically thinking is that if Republicans do indeed try to eliminate services or long distance trains that instead of leaving towns all over america in the lurch of no service, perhaps we should rethink the whole concept of the government saying they would provide passenger service. I realize your never going to relate to things pre amtrak and your basic assumptions are from todays operational standards, but there is a reason that the Santa Fe Railroad made amtrak stop using the Super Chief Name. The service and equipment no longer was up to their standards. I would say that was perhaps an exception, but most railroads in the west were still running trains that put any new consist amtrak has to shame in both service and quality of equipment. ( I know your going to rage on about the difference in times). So amtrak as you know it is as often said, a way to move people from here to there. But one of the first things they did was cut the already meager routes structure in half. To this day those links so important to passengers outside the east coast have never returned.

I don't pretend to know the complications or legalities of this idea. I am simply wondering out loud if anything along this line might work. For one thing you would be eliminating government bureaucrats from everyday operational decisions that hamper the quality of equipment and service. You would eliminate the congress from complaining about what kinds of service the roads offered. You would hopefully end the boring cookie cutter sameness of every long distance train. You might actually get some new ideas for services in order for the roads to encourage ridership.

I think I am envisioning a way to transfer what the government said it would run and never seems able to so without constant problems to people that probably know a lot more about it. I really wondered if a major percentage of the cost en cured by the railroads couldn't be a tax break for them to offset the cost instead of the tax payers paying it directly to the government with its inherent problems. I have no doubt that some sort of railroad regulation board would have to be put back in place to provide basic guide lines for operations of the services in a way that would prevent the railroads from repeating the "unfriendly" policies many did adopt when they wanted out of the service in the first place. That seems a stretch, but as you all say, times have and are changing. Gas on its way to 5.00 a gallon (partly thanks to our administration) is changing the publics perception of passenger rail and its option in getting places. It might be the right time for some competition if properly run and hopefully expanded might not have a chance of providing better service with better equipment at some point and keeping the cost lower than in the end days of privatized service.

The Canadian/VIA Rail model might be somewhat instructive here. It's my understanding that Canada essentially tried what you are suggesting in the 1970s, subsidizing CN & CP to provide passenger service. (I realize that CN was not private at the time, but CP was and is.) However, all parties (government, CN, CP) eventually found the Amtrak/VIA Rail model (separate semi-public ownership & operation of passenger service) to be preferrable.

 

[Larry H.]

I realize [you're] never going to relate to things [pre-Amtrak] and your basic assumptions are from [today's] operational standards, but there is a reason that the Santa Fe Railroad made [Amtrak] stop using the Super Chief Name. The service and equipment no longer was up to their standards.

I'd say the Amtrak service with slow and generic but actually functioning trains is a far better standard than a ghost train that never runs anymore. You seem to be confusing private vs. government operation with the massive changes in options and demographics that occurred during the demise of the golden age of passenger rail. I don't want Amtrak to become a tiny sliver of a railroad that only runs in the North East. Nor do I want Amtrak to become a nostalgic tourist railroad that runs ridiculously opulent trains for the wealthy anywhere they care to go. I want Amtrak to evolve into a world-class passenger network capable of competing with the best that other nations have already built. Maybe you miss the long forgotten Super Chief but I miss the fast and efficient trains that run today in places like Japan and Germany. I don't see Super Chief levels of customer service coming from any national network today. Nor do I see old world service and luxury oozing out of today's enormous freight conglomerates here in America. Which is just as well I suppose since I see no interest from them for restarting nationwide passenger service, tax funded or otherwise.

So, to recap...

+ Super Chief style service isn't coming back. It was a product of a completely different age.

+ Rather than focusing on opulence and variety we should focus on speed and efficiency.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a return to old world service and charm from several different lines all doing their best to stand out from the crowd. But that day is done. No other country of any size or significance seems to have pulled off what you're suggesting and I don't see a huge cry for it from current or potential customers either.

My point is simply based on the prospect that if they were to follow though on a threat to end passenger rail on most of the system would a possible way be found to return the obligation to what now are freight rail roads. I don't think I am asking for nor suggesting tourist trains, or luxury service, but service that extends to more places with comfortable trains.. You all seem so bent on defending what has become a rather boring and stagnate system that any suggestions that don't meet a cookie cutter government system are dismissed. I find it very difficult to figure out where when I proposed that we should have widely expanded systems to only wishing limited service. If anything I have consistently lobbied for a net work that serves many more locations in more directions than the current very inconvenient system. How one could think that amtrak meets that criteria is beyond me? As to my point of the Super Chief it was in response to Rayans contention that amtrak is better than the existing trains they took over. Variety again is a matter of consideration of something that would perhaps come as it does with airlines from each having its own distinctive interiors or exteriors. Not something meant to be extravagant.

I am not saying this is something is likely, I am only posing a question of which is worse, no service or trying to find a way to return operation to the railroads with requirements to maintain current or better levels of service.

 

[Ryan]

As to my point of the Super Chief it was in response to Rayans contention that amtrak is better than the existing trains they took over.

Woah, hold on a second. Lets make sure that we're on the same page here (and again, Amtrak's nearly 10 years older than I am, so I'm going on what I've read). I certainly realize that in some limited cases (the Super Chief being one of them) that Amtrak is a step down from what existed in the late '60's, and is certainly a step down from the passenger trains from the golden age of rail transport. However, from everything that I've read, it's a vast step up from most of what was running in the 5 years before A-Day. True statement?

 

[Trogdor]

To answer Larry H's question, I'll say there is absolutely no way whatsoever that you would ever see the freight railroads mandated to provide passenger service on their own dime (without subsidy). There is no way in hell they would accept such a mandate. Further, the politicians that generally want to cut Amtrak service tend to also be those that are in favor of large corporations, and would not burden them with the requirement of a money-losing operation.

The quality of the service provided, either today or 40 years ago, or the blandness/attractiveness of the trains themselves doesn't have anything to do with it. The economics of passenger transportation are such that there is no incentive for the railroads to get into the business on their own. Those that are in the passenger business (such as BNSF/UP with their commuter contracts) receive subsidies to operate the service. Clearly, if a politician wants to shut down passenger rail to save money, they're not going to just redirect that money to someone else to provide the same service.

There is nothing stopping BNSF from operating their own Southwest Chief/Super Chief today. Nothing, that is, except the fact that BNSF tends not to like to do things that lose them tons of money.

 

[Larry H.]

Ryan,

I think from going back an checking that you said "I would doubt that "better service" would be one of the results," I will say that many railroads were not crazy or supportive of passengers and I rode and have told stories about quite a number of them. But they did still for the most part operate a first class pullman operated section. For the most part they still had food prepared on board, often better and sometimes worse that what is now available. They normally ran trains with sufficient equipment to fill passenger needs and not be constantly forcing passengers to buy room months in advance to be able to get one. The prices were the same to all not dependent on constant changes in price depending on load factors so you always knew how much it cost to go from point A to point B. Much of the equipment was very customized so that taking a name train meant something and made the trip more of a pleasure. Many trains on long distance routes had both a coach and first class lounge. Weather cancelations were much rarer. On time performance was something many prided them selves in maintaining. Those are just some of the things that even at the end of service were pretty much offered, at least in western and east coast runs, and probably the crescent, panama limited, city of los angles, empire builder, super chief, twentieth century limited, silver star, national limited, and many others.

I was on board the Empire Builder the week they put up the notice of pending end of service and turning the train over to Amtrak. It was totally beautifully run with pride. But the company had none the less a penchant for discouraging ridership. Thus trains that might have actually had a passenger demand were running nearly empty. We tried to book a room out of Seattle and were told it was sold out. That was the day before it ran. After several tries the ticket man in Vancouver told us to buy a ticket to just outside seattle and when the train arrived to ask the conductor for a room. When we boarded the train we found an almost empty train with no less that four sleepers. It was practice of the company evidently to tell customers there were no available space in order to make the trains look like no one wanted to ride them.. It was very telling. But even with those points, the level of many trains service was still operating as the above paragraph. Yes some had lousy food and dirty cars with no water, I rode those too. Sure amtrak was an improvement to those. However for many it been a slow slide from where they were to where they are now.

 

[Larry H.]

To answer Larry H's question, I'll say there is absolutely no way whatsoever that you would ever see the freight railroads mandated to provide passenger service on their own dime (without subsidy). There is no way in hell they would accept such a mandate. Further, the politicians that generally want to cut Amtrak service tend to also be those that are in favor of large corporations, and would not burden them with the requirement of a money-losing operation.

The quality of the service provided, either today or 40 years ago, or the blandness/attractiveness of the trains themselves doesn't have anything to do with it. The economics of passenger transportation are such that there is no incentive for the railroads to get into the business on their own. Those that are in the passenger business (such as BNSF/UP with their commuter contracts) receive subsidies to operate the service. Clearly, if a politician wants to shut down passenger rail to save money, they're not going to just redirect that money to someone else to provide the same service.

There is nothing stopping BNSF from operating their own Southwest Chief/Super Chief today. Nothing, that is, except the fact that BNSF tends not to like to do things that lose them tons of money.

Indeed I was suggesting a tax write off for much of the cost to the railroads so that they would not be burdened with excessive cost. Government has tended to privatize things when it suits them. I do however disagree about the "blandness/attractiveness" argument. I just read a report about the fact that for most airlines on the continent that they had indeed made them more of a one class system to save or make money. But that nearly any airline wishing to attract business for long distance overseas routes was offering luxury or comfortable accommodations such as sleeping compartments in order to compete for that business. I am not inclined to agree that the kind of service, and quality of surroundings don't make a possible difference in passenger load or return business. Sure with prices of gas higher you can fill the small train consist or maybe even some larger ones with people wishing to save money. But my guess is that the customers who are looking for something a bit nicer are not riding or when they do are not returning. Cruise Ships are not creating ever fancier surroundings for no reason. People are still customers and the most basic of service will not ever carry as many people as one that appeals to all.

 

[Anderson]

As I understand it, that's about right...and it's probably quite a good bit better than what was running during the Penn Central disaster, when all of the nicer trains the NY Central had been running got dropped. The problem is that the railroads spent the 1960s trying to dump a lot of passenger services, in no small part because they couldn't raise fares to cover costs (and then because the mail contracts got dropped under LBJ).

The truth is that the only thing that probably should have been done differently that arguably could have been is that Amtrak should've been given the rights to a lot of routes that were dropped in the 1960s. There are a lot of railroads that probably would've swallowed that without too much complaint given the situation...and a lot of those routes were cut back in an attempt to reduce the cost of joining Amtrak (the trains to Des Moines fall into this category, as does the mess that the Sunset Limited has been...though in the latter case, Southern Pacific was trying to kill that route for a long time, and its successors don't seem to have given up on that).

Amtrak has two main problems. The first is that they more or less have to beg their way onto new tracks and pay an arm and a leg for it, and the second is that they have to focus on impractical objectives to keep the public interested. Would a 225 MPH train from somewhere to somewhere else be nice? Sure, but it's not practical in terms of value for money.

As it stands, a lot of the states willing to subsidize service should consider using eminent domain to get Amtrak increased access easements to workable routes (Bakersfield-LA leaps to mind as a candidate here, as does the daily Sunset Limited). I think this can be sold as being cheaper than the ED for building or widening a comparable freeway, and more viable than bus service (I read an article touting Megabus from Iowa City to Chicago instead of the train that's going in, and it mentioned the $1 tickets...while conveniently omitting the limited number of those tickets available and that those prices are far more variable and far harder to change if you miss a connection)...it's certainly what the pitch is coming across as in Virginia in a few cases (the Lynchburger in particular has received this treatment...partly because "option B" would be pouring money into Rt. 29).

The other thing Amtrak needs to focus on is raising average speeds where it can...that extra 10 MPH on the Acela's top speed is a waste of money compared to, say, straightening out 50-60 MPH stretches on the same route. The money they're looking to spend on faster Acelas is a relative waste of resources compared to comparable spending either expanding the fleet with more or less extant designs (where capacity is an issue) or with relatively simple improvements to trackage...or building/buying trackage they own outright or in conjunction with local transit companies, in some cases.

Is there room for service improvement? Yes, definitely, particularly along the NEC (where you've got the Boston-Newport News and New York-Savannah runs with the same meal service as the Washington-New York runs) and attached routes (the ones to Canada leap to mind), and probably on some other medium-distance runs. I think the problem here is probably not having a "mid-distance" category that has slightly improved service (even if it's just an expanded cafe service) over the short runs and the really long runs. They're adding WiFi on their routes over the next few years, which is another big upgrade. The other thing would be some sort of ability to change trains to the Acela on the same ticket...I know why this is the case, but even simply raising the "buffer" time for a guaranteed connection to an Acela those tickets or only guaranteeing connections from the Acela.

Another note I'll make: I take a sleeper WAS-CHI when I'm going to Iowa. If I had to do that run in coach strictly on a heated meatball sub? That run would not happen, and I'd either drive (unpleasant in the winter) or fly (unpleasant, period). The availability of comfortable accommodations makes a big difference.

While I'm at this wall of text, I figure I'll make another point: One of the big reasons that railroads aren't going to get back into the passenger business is that even if they were guaranteed break-even operating subsidies for upgraded lines, the sheer cost of upgrading the relevant long distance lines plus buying the equipment involved would run into the billions of dollars. A competent business is not going to spend billions of dollars to do all of this for a very weak return on investment plus added union hassles.

With that said, there's actually talk coming out of Carlos Slim down in Mexico of investing in a rebuilt passenger system there. That suggests that at least something is possible, and it's not impossible that Amtrak could link into that system if it gets built (much as they did with the old system via El Paso...and right there, you could sell the service on a smoother customs operation than you get at the border or the airport in most cases...not less invasive, but smoother).

 

[Larry H.]

Thanks for a thoughtful reply.. Very interesting.

One thought, Why did the railroad purchase all that rather attractive equipment after the war if passengers were something they didn't want? Why were there ads in all the magazines about which lines to ride for the best service and equipment or scenery?

Sure the bottom fell out as mentioned partly due to airlines and partly due to the highway system. But if were truly rail advocates then this is the time when the possible may be about to return in terms of the desire of passengers to again use rail service. The ridership has grown yearly for some time now, yet equipment has not kept up. We know why, no argument there, but it might be at some point with the price of gas and totally dysfunctional air service that well run trains might indeed create a new demand, maybe ones they built those new trains for?

 

[Anderson]

Thanks for a thoughtful reply.. Very interesting.

One thought, Why did the railroad purchase all that rather attractive equipment after the war if passengers were something they didn't want? Why were there ads in all the magazines about which lines to ride for the best service and equipment or scenery?

Sure the bottom fell out as mentioned partly due to airlines and partly due to the highway system. But if were truly rail advocates then this is the time when the possible may be about to return in terms of the desire of passengers to again use rail service. The ridership has grown yearly for some time now, yet equipment has not kept up. We know why, no argument there, but it might be at some point with the price of gas and totally dysfunctional air service that well run trains might indeed create a new demand, maybe ones they built those new trains for?

In the immediate post-war era, railroads were expecting a return to travel patterns either in the immediate prewar era or similar to that of the 1920s. They planned accordingly. Mind you, many of the services were at least breaking even as late as the early 60s, when the mail contracts got dropped...you could make up for a lot of losses in the passenger department with profitable mail service. That said, there was a general expectation that services would at least "hold their ground". When this didn't happen, those investments became a problem.

There's another side to this, too: A lot of those upgrades replaced older equipment that had to be phased out...notably steam engines. The Depression and WW2 caused a lot of upgrades to be put off, much as was the case in Britain...we just didn't have the track maintenance problems added on top (I've got one estimate that the maintenance backlog in Britain was £11 billion by 1945...at least in current pounds), so the system didn't collapse outright. But those fancy new diesel trains were replacing older steam models, and the railroads presumably went for "this will sell to the public" while doing those delayed upgrades to their systems.

The other problem was the ICC: Fixed rates made sense when inflation wasn't a long-term issue, which was more or less the case up until WW2. You'd have gyrations in prices, but in general, your only big price shift in the period was during WW1 (when inflation got a bit out of hand just about everywhere...but the railroads were also largely nationalized and prices raised during this period, anyway). Postwar, a fixed $20 fare from A-B steadily lost value...especially from '45-'53, when inflation averaged about 5%. The ICC simply didn't let the fares keep up. For what it's worth, airlines were also slapped by this...airline deregulation was in no small part a result of the inability of authorized fare hikes to keep up with galloping inflation.

Actually, this brings up a practical question: With as much money as the post office is losing, I'm wondering if it wouldn't make sense for them to return to contracting with Amtrak and start phasing out at least part of their fleet of aircraft and scaling back truck operations. The wild gyrations in fuel cost have to be killing them, and there's no sign that things will improve on that front...and first class mail could (as much as I hate to say) probably drop in speed without losing much business considering that just about anything important either gets emailed or sent priority anyway. The main "problem" would be sacking thousands of postal employees...but they're getting to that point as it is, even without this option.

As to the current system, the problem is that in spite of the relative costs for building highways, it is easier to explain putting two lanes on an expressway than it is to explain "you drive to the station and then a train takes you to where you're going". Some of this is people wanting their cars on hand, but some is also a bit of cognitive dissonance...we're starting to get to the point that the train is cheaper than gas for driving an average car on some routes, full stop (At a $124 round trip, RVR-NYP breaks even for me at about $3.50/gal once you throw in all of the trolls). I think the subsidy to get the Lynchburger going compared favorably to a mile or two of new expressway, for another example, but somehow having the government spend $100 million on a road is "worse" than spending $20 million on a train.

This itself creates a sort of dissonance that never hit me before: It is to our advantage not to have automotive fuel economy standards improved, as inefficient cars will push people back to the train in at least some instances. As best I can tell, in an Escape hybrid, that break even point moves from $3.50 (in a Crown Victoria) to $4.75.

 

[Trogdor]

We go over this every couple of months. Amtrak is not a cruise. Cruise ships go for extravagance because the experience is all they sell. For the most part (there are a few exceptions, just as everything else in life) cruise ships are not transportation. You start at point A, and when you're done, you're back to point A.

There already are rail-based land cruises in North America. These are privately run. Some make a profit. Others have gone out of business. Running regularly scheduled luxury service was tried a few years ago, tacking some of those ex-American Orient Express cars onto the back of Amtrak trains (a private company ran those cars). They didn't make any money at it, and the service was stopped.

Long-haul airliners charge boatloads of money for their luxury first-class service. Those fares are generally paid by business people on expense accounts, for whom the cost of the fare is but a blip in their/their company's bank account. These folks, in general, aren't going to spend three days going across the country on Amtrak when they could spend six hours on a plane.

What the railroads did in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s isn't really that relevant, because yes, the world has in fact changed (significantly) since then. They offered high-quality service back then because they had to do so to differentiate themselves from the competition. Fares were regulated back then, so they couldn't compete on price. They had to compete on something else. The same was true for the airlines back then. Both have since been deregulated. In the airline industry, the fares have dropped like a rock, and so has service. Few airlines trying to offer a high-quality domestic experience have succeeded in doing so. One-by-one, the domestic airline perks were dropped in favor of lower fares.

On the rail side, had Amtrak not been created (and pretending, for a moment, that the railroads had somehow managed to continue running passenger trains, and actually wanted to do so, neither of which is true), the same would have happened on trains. Whatever perceived luxury that existed would be cut to save a buck, and you'd eventually wind up with something similar to Amtrak today anyway. A utilitarian service, with basic sleeping accommodations on overnight trains, basic food service, and relatively low fares.

Of course, it's impossible to speculate exactly how that would all have played out, because it's a history that did not happen based on assumptions that clearly weren't true.

In order to get the railroads to operate Amtrak's long-distance network, you would have to compensate them for their losses. If you give them tax credits (they would have to be fully refundable tax credits, not "tax deductions" like other charitable contributions are), then, mathematically, you are essentially paying them the same as you'd be paying Amtrak to do exactly the same thing.

On top of all that, today's railroads do not have any experience in the passenger business (except, as I mentioned earlier, for a couple of railroads that contract with commuter operators; and even then that is limited to providing engineers and conductors, and maybe some maintenance). They do not have a reservation/ticketing system. They do not have a customer service department set up to handle individual complaints. They have little in the way of an on-board service staff (the railroads own business cars that are staffed, including chefs, but that is far from having an entire department full of people dedicated to providing service to customers). They don't have a mechanical department set up to maintain anything except engines and boxcars (with the exception, again, of a small staff that work on their tiny fleet of business cars, and I'm assuming they don't contract that out to someone else). Maintaining a passenger car takes a considerably different type of expertise than maintaining a freight car.

Now, each railroad would have to duplicate each of those functions, providing even more overhead costs, which would add even more to the required subsidy. Then again, I suppose they could get together and create some kind of consolidated company to handle reservations, customer service, equipment maintenance, etc., so they don't have to duplicate each of those functions on a limited basis. Wait, we already have that. It's called Amtrak.

 

[George Harris]

Meanwhile, the Republicans just added hundreds of billions to the deficit by extending tax cuts for the wealthy

At the risk of being too political for this site, but this thread so far is almost pure politics, this "tax cuts for the wealthy" is one of the phoniest straw men in the whole discussion. Look u pand find out what percentage of the total this really means. It is very small. Getting serious about fraud in the various welfare programs would do a lot more to really improve the government's financial picture.

A big problem is also balance of payments. If we could cut our imports in petroleum alone in half the benefits would be huge. Second, start looking at the "made in whereever" on the back of the things you are buying. If you can't find US, at least go for something made in Canada, Mexico, or some other country where the money would be of more positive benfit to our onw interests.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

At the risk of being too political for this site, but this thread so far is almost pure politics, this "tax cuts for the wealthy" is one of the phoniest straw men in the whole discussion.

According to the figures I read the only people who would suffer a net increase in their tax liability from the most recent round of extended tax "cuts" were individuals making less than $20K and households making less than $40K. But feel free to call them "tax cuts for the poor" if it makes you feel better George. If you think the amount we could tax the rich is "small" then maybe you should post whatever number you think it is so we can decide for ourselves if it's small or not. You talk about welfare waste, and I agree that's important. Personal welfare benefits were cut during both the Clinton and Bush years so maybe we should start with all the corporate welfare that hasn't been seriously cut in at least a generation or two. I'd love to be buying American as much as possible but it turns out that most American distributors and retailers have apparently decided I don't really need that option anymore, at any price. Oh well, I'm sure they had a good reason to export our jobs just as I'm sure our government had a good reason for rewarding their outsourcing initiatives and off-shore addresses with tax reductions and regulatory loopholes. But please don't stop the music George, I'm almost nostalgic for the funky beats and hilarious vocals of the Trickle-Down Voodoo Blues.

 

[Anderson]

I am going to hazard a counterpoint to what Trogdor mentioned. Starting in the mid-1960s, I believe there was a concerted effort to kill off passenger rail by a number of the lines. I can cite the Sunset Limited situation in particular (service was cut back to vending machines in an attempt to drive down ridership and then they asked to drop the line), and I'd be shocked if it was an outlier. It's true that there were a couple of routes that were retained post-Amtrak (the Denver-SLC run and the Crescent being the two most prominent examples) out of either pride or the fact that there were some runs that, if not profitable, provided enough prestige to justify their presence, but these were exceptions.

There were four things that brought the system crashing down:

1) The most obvious is the drop in ridership due to competition from the highway system and airlines. No surprise there; a lot of that was coming no matter what.

2) The least obvious is the fare situation. This problem forced airline deregulation in the 70s, so it's not shocking that it was part of the problem with the railroads.

3) Somewhat non-obvious but mentioned above is the attempt by the railroads to force some losing lines out of existence. I think you can make a case that these moves made the drop in ridership substantially higher than it would have been otherwise...mind you, I'm talking about the floor being 18-20m rather than being in the 15m range, not enough to save the system.

4) In the middle of all of this is the well-known Penn Central cluster-you-know-what. The Pennsylvania/NY Central merger could possibly have worked on its own (there are no guarantees here), but when the NYNH&H got thrown on top of the heap, the system's fate was sealed. Of course, even the Penn Central's presence resulted in the killing of a number of luxury trains because it removed most of the East Coast-Chicago competition.

Now, if we turn to the prospect of some sort of private system, I think there are three cases that might work on paper:

1) The NEC. There's been talk, at least in passing, of splitting the NEC into its own company. I strongly suspect that splitting won't happen because of its impact on Amtrak as a whole, and nobody else is going to jump in because Amtrak has the economies of scale in the region to push anyone else out.

2) Las Vegas-Los Angeles. Let's ignore the Desert Express nonsense for a moment and assume that you were to run a direct LA-LV limited, with maybe one or two more stops in the LA area. This line actually has theoretical potential, particularly if you could negotiate casino sponsorships and so on. The risk, of course, is that Amtrak would run its own train and then you'd get into a competition between a government-sponsored line and a non-sponsored line. This would not end well for anyone.

3) NEC-Chicago service. This is the other exception, but you'd need to shave a couple of hours off the trip each way to make it work...I think you'd need to knock the old 16 hour Limited service down to 14-15 hours to make it a really good sell for businesses today (15 hours translates into 14 hours on a clock westbound and 16 eastbound due to the timezone change). Again, this would be up against Amtrak right now, and you would need to nearly double fare revenues to get close to break-even after the current PIPs are enacted.

Honestly, let's call the combined NEC services and Chicago services ConTrak (after Amtrak and Conrail). ConTrak could work on its own with at least some of the losses on the Chicago-bound routes covered by profits on the NEC, but you're still looking at a net loser. With another few years of increasing ridership on the non-NEC routes attached (the Capitol Limited, Lake Shore Limited, etc.), CenTrak might even get to the point that it would be barely viable with some subsidy help...but this would exclude the remainder of Amtrak's system, which would still be chalking up now-expanded losses due to dropping its most profitable segment. I bold to get across the point that this would be deckchair rearrangement on the losses, not an actual improvement. So in essence, we're left with one route that might work in a very big country. One exception does not a policy make.

 

[Ryan]

Look u pand find out what percentage of the total this really means. It is very small.

Yet the proportion of income that they make (and therefore the portion of taxes revenues) are ridiculously large. The top 1% of Americans control approximately 1/3 of all the wealth in this country. The next 19% account for nearly half, leaving bottom 80% of us to split up the remaining 1/6th of the wealth (and the gap is growing by leaps and bounds).

Getting serious about fraud in the various welfare programs would do a lot more to really improve the government's financial picture.

How much money is wasted in welfare fraud, and how does that compare to the size of the deficit? If you're going to complain about it, I'll assume that you know what you're talking about.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Ryan,

I think from going back an checking that you said "I would doubt that "better service" would be one of the results," I will say that many railroads were not crazy or supportive of passengers and I rode and have told stories about quite a number of them. But they did still for the most part operate a first class pullman operated section. For the most part they still had food prepared on board, often better and sometimes worse that what is now available. They normally ran trains with sufficient equipment to fill passenger needs and not be constantly forcing passengers to buy room months in advance to be able to get one. The prices were the same to all not dependent on constant changes in price depending on load factors so you always knew how much it cost to go from point A to point B. Much of the equipment was very customized so that taking a name train meant something and made the trip more of a pleasure. Many trains on long distance routes had both a coach and first class lounge. Weather cancelations were much rarer. On time performance was something many prided them selves in maintaining. Those are just some of the things that even at the end of service were pretty much offered, at least in western and east coast runs, and probably the crescent, panama limited, city of los angles, empire builder, super chief, twentieth century limited, silver star, national limited, and many others.

I was on board the Empire Builder the week they put up the notice of pending end of service and turning the train over to Amtrak. It was totally beautifully run with pride. But the company had none the less a penchant for discouraging ridership. Thus trains that might have actually had a passenger demand were running nearly empty. We tried to book a room out of Seattle and were told it was sold out. That was the day before it ran. After several tries the ticket man in Vancouver told us to buy a ticket to just outside seattle and when the train arrived to ask the conductor for a room. When we boarded the train we found an almost empty train with no less that four sleepers. It was practice of the company evidently to tell customers there were no available space in order to make the trains look like no one wanted to ride them.. It was very telling. But even with those points, the level of many trains service was still operating as the above paragraph. Yes some had lousy food and dirty cars with no water, I rode those too. Sure amtrak was an improvement to those. However for many it been a slow slide from where they were to where they are now.

Sure. And in the 1950s, many of those same railroads had cars where in our own President couldn't ride with the majority of passengers. Cadillacs came with 400CI V8s. GM was the largest company on earth. People believed that Russia had some reason to simply launch nuclear weapons into suburbia to vaporize us all. (Thus eliminating any attraction for conquering us- doh!) And my dad walked to school, barefoot, in the snow, uphill both ways.

Times change. The world changes. Ways of doing things change, now and forever. We don't travel that way, Larry.

Amtrak is more luxurious, more customer service oriented, and more individual than ANY of our domestic airlines. You want more? What do you want Amtrak to be, Larry, a time capsule? A theme park to some delusional remembrance of the idealism of the 1960s? Remember to include a Woodstock car for free lovers, and add pot and LSD to the menu options!

The world you are talking about never existed. You are looking to bring back small, selected good portions about it, none of the bad, and to the expense of practicality and reason.

Today isn't worse than yesteryear, Larry. It is merely different. I might not travel on super luxury trains, but I freely am friends with quite a few people who are of different ethnic origin than myself.

 

[sunchaser]

Are you trying to say that balancing the federal budget and paying off our national debt is going to improve the lives of your family members? If so, how?

If we reduce our debt, it should bring down inflation. It certainly won't hurt us to reduce it. As inflation continues to rise, all of us pay more for everything we use. That means we have less to spend. If inflation is low, you have more to spend, more purchasing power. As prices go up, we are spending more money for less items, including food. That means there is less money for other things, clothing, gas, travel, etc. This also works for your Employer. They have to figure inflation into things, too.

Sunchaser, I think it's only prudent to stop you here and ask just what exactly you think the current inflation rate is?

Wow! I'm agreeing with you again! Will wonders never cease! Not totally, of course, but no worries. I do hope that nothing bad happens to Amtrak, but I'm not going to worry about it. There are far too many other things that need fixing too & soon.

Wait, I thought we were going to hear about this 20% raise for government workers thing you said you were going to explain to us?

Do you really care what I think the inflation rate is? Or are you just trying to pull my chain?

The official inflation rate may show very low, but every time we go to the store, it costs more than it did last time. We pretty much buy the exact same things every time, so it's not like we're getting luxury items.

We actually spent more for Christmas this year & got way less.

After looking over lots of info in between my normal routines, I didn't locate the link I was looking for. However,

I did find this one. It requires personal info from the person looking for their pay increase. Add in the 'pay raise' on top.

I may have misread it somewhere.

Federal workers do make much more than the private sector, as you can read here. (Did I post this one before?)

I don't really care how much of a raise someone gets, as long as you're worth it.

My issue is that if we as a country are in a deep hole financially, why should Federal workers get raises? If it's that bad, nobody in the Govt employ should get any increase. Why higher than servicemen & servicewomen?

What about people on SSI, or the disabled, or the Veterans? They haven't gotten any increase for two years, (except for a check once) but Fed employees still got raises? I know, I know, it's because of the 'low inflation rate'.

Tell that to the ones who are trying to make ends meet, & can't work.

Sorry, I'm really trying not to be cranky.

I think I better stay off this subject for now.

 

[monorailfan]

"Ryan, all I can say is if you think all those graphs have any meaning and that inflation will not occur after the enormous amount of money the fed has thrown into the system, just hide and watch dude."

Ryan is correct here. Inflation is not the issue. The Fed has been printing tons of money, but it has been unable to keep up with withdrawal and destruction of credit. Credit destuction has been far more massive than what the Fed can repair via the printing presses - however, printing does cause other issues

The main problem is that the .gov will be unable to continue the deficit spending, like Greece, Ireland, and soon Portugal and Spain. Bond spreads will rise, and the .gov will find deficit spending simply too expensive. Raising taxes does little. Keep an eye on CA, IL, NY. The rich have options - they always did and always will. If my state raises taxes any further, I'm moving back to FL (and for more reasons than just the low/non taxes :->). If I do that, not only does my current state lose the tax 'increases' they hoped to get from me, they lose all of my tax $.

Regardless, this all leads to cuts. Austerity. And we can either get control of it now, or let things get bad enough to where it is forced upon us - just watch Europe. Europe is far more gone than the US......

It is much better for .gov agencies to make controlled/surgical cuts now, and I hope Amtrak does just that. I'll continue to vote for that.

 

[monorailfan]

'Benefits Apartheid' between government workers and everyone else who pays for the gov't workers. It's an ugly generalized term, but its true.

"What exactly are you talking about here?"

Ryan, you just asked George Harrison and others to essentially prove you wrong, throw tons of data, charts and research to you, but when you have a question you don't bother to look it up yourself?

Fine, I'll help you. Here is what Benefits Apartheid means

"At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.

The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year."

Maybe folks you know don't see this. I know some who do and don't, but that is irrelevant because no matter how many people anyone knows, it is too small a sample to be statistically significant.

As long as I am a taxpayer in the private sector, I will vote all I can to remove the 'Benefits Apartheid' and cut goverment. And sometimes, but not all the time, that also includes programs like AMTRAK. It sucks, but we all have far bigger priorities in life than AMTRAK.

 

[Ryan]

Do you really care what I think the inflation rate is? Or are you just trying to pull my chain?

The official inflation rate may show very low, but every time we go to the store, it costs more than it did last time. We pretty much buy the exact same things every time, so it's not like we're getting luxury items.

I suggest that you look into how the inflation rate is actually calculated. What you're saying literally cannot be true.
As far as the rest of it, I'm glad that you retracted your claim about 20% raises. Yes, government employees are well paid. Most of them live here in the DC area where the cost of living is freaking outrageous.

"Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade."

Much of that can be attributed to government wages having to "catch up" with civilian pay rates. In the 90's, the opposite occurred, while private sector wages increased drastically, federal wages lagged behind (part of the reason that Clinton left a budget surplus behind when he left office). The pendulum swings back and forth, that's just how these things go.

 

[Anderson]

Do you really care what I think the inflation rate is? Or are you just trying to pull my chain?

The official inflation rate may show very low, but every time we go to the store, it costs more than it did last time. We pretty much buy the exact same things every time, so it's not like we're getting luxury items.

I suggest that you look into how the inflation rate is actually calculated. What you're saying literally cannot be true.
As far as the rest of it, I'm glad that you retracted your claim about 20% raises. Yes, government employees are well paid. Most of them live here in the DC area where the cost of living is freaking outrageous.

"Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade."

Much of that can be attributed to government wages having to "catch up" with civilian pay rates. In the 90's, the opposite occurred, while private sector wages increased drastically, federal wages lagged behind (part of the reason that Clinton left a budget surplus behind when he left office). The pendulum swings back and forth, that's just how these things go.

Though I suspect that sunchaser is exaggerating the price situation he's facing, the methodology of the consumer bundle calculations can be a bit of a hash. All it takes for the inflation he faces and the official rate to differ is for his purchasing to differ from the consumer bundle in a substantial way.

 

[Ryan]

Though I suspect that sunchaser is exaggerating the price situation he's facing, the methodology of the consumer bundle calculations can be a bit of a hash. All it takes for the inflation he faces and the official rate to differ is for his purchasing to differ from the consumer bundle in a substantial way.

Sunchaser's a she, but that's a good point - the CPI is only representative of 80% of consumers and doesn't include rural consumers, so there's a 20% chance that she's in that group.