Regarding the subsidies for small town airports, the fact is, they still exist and probably always will exist. I've lived in communities served by the commuter airlines and I could buy a ticket to a major city for the same price as if I flew direct from hub to hub. It's like getting 2 legs for the price of one. But subsidies for small markets would not even be in my main argument in comparing Amtrak's funding with aviation. My main argument would be the expensive airports and the air traffic control employees, security, etc. Not just the JFKs, LAXs and DFWs of the country but the small municipal airports in virtually every decent sized city on America. I'm pretty sure the govt pays for these facilities. These tiny small town airports mostly benefit 2 groups; the rich aircraft owners/visitors and the often struggling flight school industry. Sometimes the operators pay landing fees, sometimes they don't. There is a trickle down effect that does benefit the communities so I want to make clear that I am not attacking the little airports. The little airports contribute to their communities for a price and so does Amtrak. The main difference is that Amtrak is accessible to the public at a very reasonable price. America is getting a solid product for the money. It makes my head want to explode when I see Amtrak being the focus of political attacks when I think of ALL the things that are funded with federal dollars. We give approximately 11 billion to Africa just so the warlords can take the aid and use it for their personal gain. 11 billion a year would conservatively be 8 years of Amtrak funding with change left over to buy new equipment.
Romney's plan for Amtrak
- Thread starter D.P. Roberts
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
While this seems to be largely true, here's the funny part. The things that some Republican's seem to support, roads & buses, require many more union workers than do trains. For example, out in Salt Lake City, their bus division required 1,023 workers in 2009 while the light rail division required 314 workers. And it's not like the buses are moving two or three times more people to warrant a larger staff. In fact the buses barely move 7 million more rides than light rail did.
They needed 1 employee for every 20,192 rides provided on a bus and 1 employee for every 42,627 rides provided by light rail. A Republican wanting a smaller union would actually be better off voting for more rail.
Some great points being made here. Our foreign aid bill comes out to about $25-$30 billion US tax dollars per year. The list of countries that get US foreign aid include Egypt, Pakistan,the Palestinians and even Russia. Yet we have those that complain about Amtrak. Is Amtrak really the cause of the federal deficit? There is something wrong with this picture when we chose to prioritize funding the radical Muslim fanatic movement before our passenger rail travelers.
nr272
Service Attendant
When will the GOP experiment with someone who isn't a Bond villain in disguise?
Shawn Ryu
Conductor
Romney is saying this to please the Republican core base.
Hes not gonna try to go through with this.
Hes not gonna try to go through with this.
Ispolkom
Engineer
I think it will continue to exist, the way many federal programs exist, because the supporters of the program are far more interested in its continuance than the detractors. See sugar price supports, etc.
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
Um, so which part is the funny part again?
Hate to say it, but most every airport, large and small, are NOT taxpayer subsidized. Large airports make money from landing fees, car rentals, parking fees, food and vendor leases. Smaller airports also charge a small landing fee for charters and things. They make money off fuel fees, tie downs, and hangar fees and rentals. The businesses on the property, also pay the airport so it can run. I'm not saying that no airport has never received taxpayer dollars because many have gotten grants for various runway projects or navigational aide installation, because they have, but to say that your llttle airstrip down the road is receiving lots of taxpayer dollars is simply not true.
Salt Lake City is about to embark in a large terminal rebuild project, and it will use ZERO taxpayer dollars. DFW's new Terminal D was funded on it's own and through selling bonds.
Again, not saying that no airport hasn't received a tax subsidy, becuase many have. And I do know that the FAA is taxpayer supported which includes ATC services. But airports themselves are generally self-sustaining entities.
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
Go back to the beginning of commercial aviation and add up all the time, effort, and inflation-adjusted dollars it took to get where we are today. Then add up all the landing fees, parking fees, rental fees, vendor licenses, PFC's, fuel fees, and 9/11 charges. Then subtract all the billions in collections siphoned off to pay for sports arenas, convention centers, concert halls, and the like. It doesn't even come close to adding up. Maybe if you pretend all this infrastructure just materialized out of thin air one day you can make the numbers work, but that's not what I'd call an honest position.
Full disclosure: I have worked for a company that has participated in building and upgrading commercial airports.
G
Gord
Guest
Ill say. Try getting sleeping accomodation on the CONO in March. A good part of the month is sold out.
Gord
Ozark Southern
Lead Service Attendant
Interesting information. Too bad it doesn't fit their "trains are a waste of money, m'kay?" mantra.
sldispatcher
Train Attendant
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 78
As a fiscal and social conservative, I am repeatedly ashamed at the efforts of BOTH sides to use Amtrak as a punching bag to forward a particular viewpoint on unions, free enterprise etc.
I was hoping that the ® nominee would not take the get rid of passenger rail stance. However, I know why they do take that stance. I actually understand it. It makes absolute sense to cut Saturday delivery from the postal service, but you would think you were killing the sacred cow in some quarters.
I have also hoped that someone out there can see that the costs of benefits in the union environment can and do negatively affect the bottom line in a variety of operations on the train.
Something has to give. Compromise has to be reached or we will stay in this quagmire. It's all about priorities.
We spent over 1.5 billion dollars in buying cell phones and minutes for "poor" people last year in this country. What could Amtrak have looked like with 2/3's of that money? One program. One change of direction of funds. How many new rail cars/routes for AMTRAK could have been opened with the atrocious waste of high speed rail funds doled out over the past two years?
Imagine if AMTRAK/Unions/government made it easy/affordable for a third party to institute/maintain sleeping car service/dining service and leave coach and a modified slumbercoach service for the Amtrak side? What would the Coast Starlight look like then?
In the end, I don't see Romney making any changes in Amtrak if elected......no matter which side of the aisle you stand on, making no change might be the biggest disappointment of them all.
My 2 cents. :hi:
I was hoping that the ® nominee would not take the get rid of passenger rail stance. However, I know why they do take that stance. I actually understand it. It makes absolute sense to cut Saturday delivery from the postal service, but you would think you were killing the sacred cow in some quarters.
I have also hoped that someone out there can see that the costs of benefits in the union environment can and do negatively affect the bottom line in a variety of operations on the train.
Something has to give. Compromise has to be reached or we will stay in this quagmire. It's all about priorities.
We spent over 1.5 billion dollars in buying cell phones and minutes for "poor" people last year in this country. What could Amtrak have looked like with 2/3's of that money? One program. One change of direction of funds. How many new rail cars/routes for AMTRAK could have been opened with the atrocious waste of high speed rail funds doled out over the past two years?
Imagine if AMTRAK/Unions/government made it easy/affordable for a third party to institute/maintain sleeping car service/dining service and leave coach and a modified slumbercoach service for the Amtrak side? What would the Coast Starlight look like then?
In the end, I don't see Romney making any changes in Amtrak if elected......no matter which side of the aisle you stand on, making no change might be the biggest disappointment of them all.
My 2 cents. :hi:
Ryan
Court Jester
Not really, it's all about politics.
[citation needed]
What would Amtrak look like if the cost of the war in Iraq were poured into it? What did the American people get for that war? What makes the rail funding passed out in the last two years "atrocious waste"?
That will never work. The Coast Starlight wouldn't exist in your scenario, as Amtrak wouldn't be able to run it without the revenue from the sleeping cars. Privatizing the profits and socializing the losses is just a giveaway to the rich. I'll pass, thanks. There are no barriers to entry. If private industry wants to run passenger trains, there is absolutely nothing to stop them.
In the end it doesn't matter. I have as much of a chance at getting elected President in 2012 as Romney does.
RCrierie
Train Attendant
So what? By that argument, we can add in all the government support for railroads, from exclusive monopolies in that market in the early days of railroading on the Eastern Coast, to spending huge sums of money to complete the Transcontinental Railroad(s) via land grants and payouts to incredibly corrupt companies; to regulating the Railroads, via testing and mandating increasingly large amounts of safety equipment; to ultimately running the railroads themselves, and ordering large quantities of standardized locomotives and rolling stock during WWI....etcetcetc
Same thing with Canals; the US subsidized a very large canal building program and intracoastal waterway program.
The government also is heavily subsidizing "private" spaceflight. How do you think Elon Musk will fly someone into space? He'll use the NASA Commercial Crew program to pay for the design of Dragon Manned, and then turn around and resell that design to paying customers.
Etc etc.
The Davy Crockett
Engineer
The "So what?" is that Amtrak is getting singled out as a "waste of taxpayer dollars" by so many politicians. When, in fact, passenger rail is more efficient, and less costly to the taxpayer, than auto and air transportation in so many ways.
RCrierie
Train Attendant
The problem goes back to how Amtrak was created.
Remember that the 1970 act that created created Amtrak, created it as a private entitity that was chartered by the government (not an unusual concept, look at the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War), which would have have large and broad exemptions from regulations and acts, that "normal" railroads would not have; like not being bound by regulations for abandoning lines, for one; and some worker contract stuff.
If they had simply created Amtrak as the National Railroad Passenger Agency (NRPA) buried somewhere in the Department of Transportation; things would be much different, but they didn't do that.
Since it's the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (NRPC), an ostensibly private entity, it really rubs a lot of people the wrong way for a private corporation to keep running year after year in the red, relying on government support to simply stay alive.
Remember that the 1970 act that created created Amtrak, created it as a private entitity that was chartered by the government (not an unusual concept, look at the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War), which would have have large and broad exemptions from regulations and acts, that "normal" railroads would not have; like not being bound by regulations for abandoning lines, for one; and some worker contract stuff.
If they had simply created Amtrak as the National Railroad Passenger Agency (NRPA) buried somewhere in the Department of Transportation; things would be much different, but they didn't do that.
Since it's the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (NRPC), an ostensibly private entity, it really rubs a lot of people the wrong way for a private corporation to keep running year after year in the red, relying on government support to simply stay alive.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, you are implying that the GOPers want the buses to run, either. In a lot of places, bus service is a joke as well and there are a fair number of folks who don't want either service in their area (one of the arguments that apparently flew up in conversation against The Tide in Virginia Beach was not wanting an easy ride from certain parts of Norfolk to the nicer parts of Virginia Beach), and they barely tolerate the bus as the cheapest option they have to let run.
Mind you, on the Peninsula, the issue seems somewhat non-partisan: It's GOP support getting us that possible new train station (and we need one, if only for the parking...it's near impossible to find a space there enough of the time anymore) and the member of our city council pushing light rail is a Republican.
I suspect that the big rub with commuter rail in at least some cases is the sheer startup cost. Assuming that the two modes cost the same net amount to operate, a rail system can swallow a few billion dollars easily enough. Even a local match on 10% of that will eat up the cost of replacing buses for years, and that makes a lot of folks blink.
The Davy Crockett
Engineer
If that's the way the anti-Amtak politicians were framing this arguement, what you are saying would be valid, but they are not. Instead, they rant about taxpayer money going to support passenger rail and that if it was PRIVATIZED, rather than being run by a quasi-government bunch of blood sucking
liberals , things would be sooooo much better.Well many seem to prefer the buses. Perhaps if there were no rail, then they would oppose buses at that point, I can't say for sure. But again, one of the most common arguments that I get is that buses cost less so we should do that instead.
Yes, I have no doubt that's a big problem for many, that is to say that they suffer from sticker shock when they hear the startup costs. And the news media doesn't help when they tout those numbers without publishing any reference points. Most people have no idea what it costs to run a bus, but they can find the price of a new bus and therefore think it cheaper.
What they don't realize is that it takes many more buses to get the job done. On average 5 to 7 buses are required to move what 1 railcar moves in this country. And buses last 10 to 12 years, whereas railcars average 30 to 40 and even longer in many cases. So you need to buy 3 entire fleets of buses to provide the same amount of service.
Finally, buses cost more to operate than any form of rail. On average in this county it costs 40 cents per passenger mile for heavy rail (subways & El's) and commuter rail. It costs 70 cents per passenger mile for light rail.
Put that passenger on a bus and it costs 90 cents per passenger mile.
Looking at it another way, out in Salt Lake City they started building their first light rail line in 1996. Coincidentally that is also the first year that the National Transit Database started publishing public reports on their website. So I went back and added up the capital costs for both buses & light rail, added that to the operating costs for a 12 year period from '96 through 2007. I then subtracted revenues collected from both totals.
When the dust settled, SLC taxpayers had spent $1.009 Billion all in on buses. They had spent $715.04 Million, with an M, all in on light rail. The dreaded train had cost the taxpayers nearly $300 Million less!
Now to be fair, SLC embarked on a major expansion of light rail in 2008. As of 2009, the expenses from that have now pushed LRT slightly into the lead. The 2010 & 2011 numbers will make that worse. But once construction finished later this year, the huge disparity in operating costs will quickly push the buses back into the lead $106M vs. $28M. Assuming no other new construction is started, I'd say with 5 to 6 years the buses will once again be back in the lead.
And after the final new line opens later this year, LRT will be carrying more passengers than the buses. They were already closing in back in 2010, having moved only 7 million fewer rides than the buses.
That is all fair. I think there's a secondary concern in a lot of areas...namely, that to get the same level of accessibility with rail that you have with buses, you need to put a lot more into the rail system for dedicated alignments. To take an example, the VRE uses a pre-existing alignment (in that case, the old RF&P Main, run by CSX, for the Fredericksburg line; and the NS main for the Manassas Line). However, to go beyond those lines and put a VRE line in somewhere else would be far more expensive (witness the Silver Line). In Norfolk, while The Tide was able to more or less take advantage of an existing alignment and some workable space (as I understand it), there are plenty of places that you simply can't get a line going without removing lanes on highways or knocking through neighborhoods.Well many seem to prefer the buses. Perhaps if there were no rail, then they would oppose buses at that point, I can't say for sure. But again, one of the most common arguments that I get is that buses cost less so we should do that instead.
Yes, I have no doubt that's a big problem for many, that is to say that they suffer from sticker shock when they hear the startup costs. And the news media doesn't help when they tout those numbers without publishing any reference points. Most people have no idea what it costs to run a bus, but they can find the price of a new bus and therefore think it cheaper.
What they don't realize is that it takes many more buses to get the job done. On average 5 to 7 buses are required to move what 1 railcar moves in this country. And buses last 10 to 12 years, whereas railcars average 30 to 40 and even longer in many cases. So you need to buy 3 entire fleets of buses to provide the same amount of service.
Finally, buses cost more to operate than any form of rail. On average in this county it costs 40 cents per passenger mile for heavy rail (subways & El's) and commuter rail. It costs 70 cents per passenger mile for light rail.
Put that passenger on a bus and it costs 90 cents per passenger mile.
Looking at it another way, out in Salt Lake City they started building their first light rail line in 1996. Coincidentally that is also the first year that the National Transit Database started publishing public reports on their website. So I went back and added up the capital costs for both buses & light rail, added that to the operating costs for a 12 year period from '96 through 2007. I then subtracted revenues collected from both totals.
When the dust settled, SLC taxpayers had spent $1.009 Billion all in on buses. They had spent $715.04 Million, with an M, all in on light rail. The dreaded train had cost the taxpayers nearly $300 Million less!
Now to be fair, SLC embarked on a major expansion of light rail in 2008. As of 2009, the expenses from that have now pushed LRT slightly into the lead. The 2010 & 2011 numbers will make that worse. But once construction finished later this year, the huge disparity in operating costs will quickly push the buses back into the lead $106M vs. $28M. Assuming no other new construction is started, I'd say with 5 to 6 years the buses will once again be back in the lead.
And after the final new line opens later this year, LRT will be carrying more passengers than the buses. They were already closing in back in 2010, having moved only 7 million fewer rides than the buses.
Also, on SLC, how much was supplemented by federal funding (or is that included there)? In most cases, local (and state) governments simply can't fork over the full tab for a rail line (in fact, absent meeting the criteria for federal funding, it's bluntly stated that nothing will be happening on the Peninsula).* Part of that could be, perhaps, chalked up to an unwillingness to raise taxes below the federal level...but I will note that if I was faced with New York City-level taxes (for example, though those are probably the most egregious ones I can think of), I would be seriously looking at moving elsewhere.
*I'll avoid a lengthy rant and just say that there's something to be criticized in the form of how many things states simply can't afford without federal funding.
sldispatcher
Train Attendant
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 78
I give you two citations....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/technology/15cell.html?_r=1
I knew someone would flame me regarding a political item such as the wars, etc. I think there has been huge waste there as well. But that is a common fallback each time on this board. I can't change that by winding back the clock. I can point out to something AS AN EXAMPLE of one program that makes you sit back and think ?what??? You can list many programs in the aviation industry, healthcare, etc.
The high speed rail funding....9.95 billion allocated to California for the first part of a 89 billion dollar railway. That 9.95 billion is enough to buy 66 million..MILLION one way $150 tickets between San Fran and LAX. That's enough to send 3000 people a day one way on the route for the next 60 years....by air.
I'm not saying I don't think California should get high speed rail. But ultimately 89 billion?
Personally, I am all for getting the NEC up to tip top shape. If I were Romney, instead of talking about defunding AMTRAK, I would be pushing to get the NEC up to speed, so to speak..as a service to the millions who use the BOS/NYC/WAS corridor. I think that's reasonable and certainly a goal we should all be aiming for. Why? Show how well it works, here in the US (don't point to foreign situations)....have enough people access it..
Again, that 9.95 billion could have gone quite a long way in rehabbing Amtrak/bolstering equipment level/service frequency, etc. People have worked very hard for years against very bad odds to make progress up to this point.
(I don't live in the Northeast by the way.)
As far as Coast Starlight situation "never working". Sure it would. There is always a way. It's called joint ventures/numbers game. If you provide a product that people will want and feel like they are getting a consistent value, they'll line up for it. That "never work" attitude is what has kept the passenger rail system right where it is today. People are more than willing to pay for a top dollar experience. Are they getting it currently? The answer is definitely not. My "solution", if you wish to call it that, does just the opposite of what you propose. Let the sleeper service help fund the entire service. But again, as I stress, it would require a multi-lateral agreement. The Coast Starlight was an example I pulled because of the one night journey time. That makes the idea of a slumbercoach arrangement very palatable. It makes the price point on a true sleeper service attainable. BUT, you must remove the current Amtrak culture to make the sleeper service a success. I won't apologize for that viewpoint.
Bottom line is that passenger rail has to be subsidized. Show a third grader the info and they could figure it out. We, the people, have let our country slip behind others in the passenger rail department because of politics on BOTH sides. There is no immediate benefit seen by large segments of the population outside of major metropolitan areas for rail service. People don't complain as much about road and air because the people "footing the bill" use those services regularly...it's in front of them. Keep the system in its current format and you will never reach out to those footing the bill.
(Okay, maybe that was just 1 cents worth)
Phoenix just built an entire 20 mile long light rail line without using an existing ROW. Yes, no doubt that's why their line cost more per mile than did The Tide. But still the point remains that already it costs less to move people by light rail. Yes, right now overall costs still show light rail as the most expensive, but it is rapidly making inroads on the bus numbers. Already as of 2010, it opened right at the very end of 2008 so it's first full year was 2009, it costs Phoenix taxpayers $1.96 for the average ride on light rail and $3.74 for the average ride on a bus.
None of this is to suggest that buses should just be tossed away. That's not practical either. The key is to have a balanced system with buses feeding rail options. This is the only, and best way, to keep the overall costs to taxpayers low.
The numbers supplied include all expenses without regard to where the money came from to pay said expenses.
By the way, while I suspect that my taxes here in NYC are greater than your's, NYC isn't the worst. In fact, it's not even in the top 10 for most "egregious" tax rates, per this list.
While I wouldn't argue that putting that money into the NEC would have helped it immensely, unfortunately the political realities would never have permitted that to happen. Already far too many people think that all of their tax dollars go into the NEC, or at the very least a disproportionate amount goes into the NEC. This is one reason that it is harder to get politicians in other areas of the country to support Amtrak.
As for pointing to the NEC as a success, that won't work at all. In some sense the NEC is already a success. It does turn an operating profit, especially Acela. And the typical response from a person in California who is opposed to HSR when one brings up the NEC is, "well we don't have that kind population density here. So it won't work here!"
Most opposed aren't going to accept any examples, save their losing the battle and having the line built and proving them wrong. And even then, some will still look for excuses as to why it's not really working like the numbers show.
Just thought I'd point out two things. One, as the NY Times articles states, that "free cell phone" program is a Reagan-era program set up to ensure that all people have access to telephone service. Would it be less objectionable if it was still restricted to landline phones?
Second, the $9.95 billion is CA state funding (bonds) authorized for the CAHSR system. It could not be spent on the national Amtrak system. It is not part of the federal HSIPR funds that have been distributed to many states (including something like $6 billion to CA).
sldispatcher
Train Attendant
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 78
Doesn't matter if it was Reagan, Carter, Nixon, or James Madison. I'm not trying to point A SPECIFIC program, but rather support versus handout. I don't care whether it is individual or corporate. Free in most cases is wrong and doesn't promote responsibility. There are certainly areas where government needs to provide. I'm all for it. Safety nets are good things. But the pendulum has swung way too far in one direction is all I'm saying.
And how much track will be laid in the next 10 years for that 9.95 billion? AGain, I'm not necessarily outright opposed.. Heck, I'll be on high speed rail in the UK and Netherlands later this year. I'm choosing to do so.
Is it the project that makes the most sense?
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
Amtrak video: "We're Becoming a Transportation Powerhouse"- Latest: Steve's Wanderlust
-
-
New high speed service between Berlin and Paris (2024)
- Latest: Metra Electric Rider
-
-
