S
SUNSETLIMITED02
Guest
Uh.......... Guys I don't know if you know this but this bill got approved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rep. Gene Taylor a few days ago.
Thanks for the update--haven't been following the news lately (only what's posted here on this board), so please keep us updated!Uh.......... Guys I don't know if you know this but this bill got approved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rep. Gene Taylor a few days ago.
thI got this information from the google group known as Sunset Un-limited.
"Lighter" I could give you, less frequent? Depends on where you are standing, there are some places in Europe with one freight a week, but stand at Erstfeld in Switzerland, Or Dijon in France or anywhere along the Rhine Valley in Germany and you are very wrong.European freight rail is much lighter and less frequent so lighter cars can survive in that enviroment.
Is there any subject you don't think you know everything?The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety exists for the purposes of reducing accident costs. Not saving lives.
They are a group supporting the restoration of the Sunset Limited. They helped formed SMART (Sunset Marketing And Revitalization Team). Go on google groups and type this in exactly (Sunset Un-limited).I got this information from the google group known as Sunset Un-limited.
:blink:There is a huge volume of subjects on which I think I don't know everything, or even a great deal about them. In such instances, drawing on my fine command of the English language, I say nothing.
Let me put it another way: If I don't think I'm qualified to argue, discuss, or coherently debate, I don't, and perhaps even ask questions. You do notice that I do ask questions as well as state opinions, yes?:blink:There is a huge volume of subjects on which I think I don't know everything, or even a great deal about them. In such instances, drawing on my fine command of the English language, I say nothing.
Correct me if I am wrong, this vote is high enough to over-ride a veto, right?Passed in the House of Representatives this afternoon by a vote of 311 Yeas to 104 Nays.
That is correct. The vote was veto-proof on the house side. First time in a while for Amtrak if memory serves me. All the more reason to put pressure on your state senators to shoot for a veto-proof vote on that side as well.Correct me if I am wrong, this vote is high enough to over-ride a veto, right?Passed in the House of Representatives this afternoon by a vote of 311 Yeas to 104 Nays.
Ofcourse we would still need a senate vote of 67 senators to also be high enough to beat a veto.
My analysis:Correct me if I am wrong, this vote is high enough to over-ride a veto, right?Ofcourse we would still need a senate vote of 67 senators to also be high enough to beat a veto.
It all depends how much the private operator has to contribute towards the debt that has been incurred building the NEC. If the answer is $0, or even industry standard trackage rights fees, it's quite possible that this would be a government handout to whatever individuals happen to own the company that runs this business, if Amtrak has to pay for all of the construction costs out of profits from selling tickets for trips on worn out trainsets.The most likely sticking point is that the House bill says Amtrak MUST allow private operators to be able to compete to run their own passneger service on the NE Corridor. This was definitely a factor in getting plenty of G.O.P. House votes onboard with this bill.
Heh. I say let that provision stay in there. I am reminded of when I do my income taxes, there is a blurb in the instructions that spells out what steps you should take if you would like to make a donation to the federal government towards the public debt. It seems this provision is cut from the same cloth: the federal government is excited to announce a new way for you to lose money! I am sure the business community will be all over it. And if some entrepreneur does somehow manage to run a more attractive service than Amtrak, well, the passenger wins.
I didn't read the bill, but I'm very confident that such a private operator's costs could only include those above the rails, plus perhaps these trackage rights fees. Certainly they wouldn't pay for capital improvements and maintenance on the NE Corridor.It all depends how much the private operator has to contribute towards the debt that has been incurred building the NEC. If the answer is $0, or even industry standard trackage rights fees, it's quite possible that this would be a government handout to whatever individuals happen to own the company that runs this business, if Amtrak has to pay for all of the construction costs out of profits from selling tickets for trips on worn out trainsets.
I'm not sure how much risk there is of any trainsets bought by such a company becoming useless if the price of those trackage rights suddenly went up by a lot, but I suspect the trainsets would have some value to some commuter rail system somewhere in the country.
But Amtrak is also expected to pay the interest and principal on the loans that Amtrak took out years ago to make those capital investments, right? I'd expect that on the NEC, the number of dollars of the average Amtrak ticket that goes to pay off those capital investments may exceed the trackage fees that a new corporation would have to pay from their ticket sales. And if that's the case, this is a handout from taxpayers to that private corporation.I didn't read the bill, but I'm very confident that such a private operator's costs could only include those above the rails, plus perhaps these trackage rights fees. Certainly they wouldn't pay for capital improvements and maintenance on the NE Corridor.
Your analysis is not precisely correct on this, Amtrak does not pay for construction costs on the Corridor out of earnings from ticket sales, either. Those costs are funded out of their capital budget, which is kept separately in their books and is appropriated separately by Congress.
For NEC track improvements under NECIP they were all straight grants. No loans and hence no interest payments at least for that part.But Amtrak is also expected to pay the interest and principal on the loans that Amtrak took out years ago to make those capital investments, right?
Some railroads got land grants (e.g. UP) and others did not (e.g. GN, predecessor of BNSF), and either way even those that got land grants have mostly met the obligations that were placed on them in the way of doing land development along the rights of way granted, and indeed it is the US Government and by implication the nation that has really done well as a result of those deals. So I don't think the argument holds much water.You could argue that if Amtrak is currently paying the freight railroads less than industry standard trackage rights (which may or may not be the case), that might also be unfair, but then again, the initial builders of those rights of way often got handouts from the government to begin with, and then went bankrupt, and the current railroad generally hasn't paid off the full private costs that were incurred constructing that railroad, so it may be the case that the current freight railroads are getting a much, much better deal than they would have been getting if they didn't have to let Amtrak operate over their tracks but they'd had to pay to construct the tracks completely from scratch on land that had never previously had a railroad.
Enter your email address to join: