Amtrak may face worse service

[AlanB]

There's the best reason there could possibly be: the taxpayers don't want to pay for it! Talk all you want about how expensive roads are, about how deluded the taxpayers are, about how uninformed they are, blah blah blah... fact is, they don't want to pay for rail, and attacking the costs of roads (not that even that is going on) is probably not going to give rail a huge boost.

That's a pretty funny statement to make when one considers that during the 2008 elections the voters showed that they did indeed wish to pay for rail projects by an overwhelming majority. Voters in 16 states went to the polls and approved 24 out of 32 rail initiatives on the ballot that year which totaled almost $75 billion. That's a 75% approval rating for rail projects.

 

[Big Iron]

don't resort to name calling

the governemnt tit that you've been sucking on for far too long.

Pot, meet kettle. It's not name calling when it's true. Sometimes, the truth is painful.

Advocating any form of transportation on a purely economic basis is foolish. Moving stuff from point "A" to point "B" costs money no matter how you do it.

Ryan.....I'm confused. Tell me, in my prior post, what led you to believe I was suggesting public transportation, Amtrak or otherwise. be viewed "purely" based on economics?

 

[George Harris]

The problem with many / most / all of the statements on funding of rail transport is that they are made in a vacuum. No one seems to include the "what does it cost if you don't" option. The alternative to building a rail project is normally either building more roads, in the case of local rail, or airport improvements in the case of long distance rail, or increased traffic congestion if the "do nothing" alternative, and traffic congestion does have a cost. In fact, traffic congestion is the determining factor in the need for new roads, other than those politically determined. By the way, many are the roads that were a "road to nowhere" or bridge to nowhere" when proposed, designed, and built that are now approaching their capacity. Usually this mud is throw around to score political points, and no, I do not have a specific project in mind.

The Taiwan High Speed Railway is a very good example of a rail system that is doing exactly what it was supposed to do.

Big picture: The in-country service airport in Taipei, and the one airport in Kaohsiung were both approaching capacity. In fact, were already capacity constrained. The major service lane was between these two points with flights about every 15 minutes. Only a couple of flights a day remain. Since these are now mostly gone congestion at both these airports is greatly reduced, and: more service is provided to other places from Taipei, and there are quite a few more international flights out of Kaohsiung, where before, leaving the country required a trip to the main international airport near Taipei.

Other important benefits: For a country that imports every drop of oil it consumes, a significant reduction in oil used for transportation, less noise near airports, less air pollution.

Maybe it is worth ading: One of the companies that was big in the Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation owned two airline, one of them international and the other domestic. It appears that they determined that a project that significantly reduced the demand for their domestic airline was worth doing.

An aside: If you were to see the methods used to justify construction of any highway project, you would find that quite a bit of the econnomic benefit used to justify the project does not result in anybody getting a check that they were not getting before.

 

[Big Iron]

The problem with many / most / all of the statements on funding of rail transport is that they are made in a vacuum. No one seems to include the "what does it cost if you don't" option. The alternative to building a rail project is normally either building more roads, in the case of local rail, or airport improvements in the case of long distance rail, or increased traffic congestion if the "do nothing" alternative, and traffic congestion does have a cost. In fact, traffic congestion is the determining factor in the need for new roads, other than those politically determined. By the way, many are the roads that were a "road to nowhere" or bridge to nowhere" when proposed, designed, and built that are now approaching their capacity. Usually this mud is throw around to score political points, and no, I do not have a specific project in mind.
The Taiwan High Speed Railway is a very good example of a rail system that is doing exactly what it was supposed to do.

Big picture: The in-country service airport in Taipei, and the one airport in Kaohsiung were both approaching capacity. In fact, were already capacity constrained. The major service lane was between these two points with flights about every 15 minutes. Only a couple of flights a day remain. Since these are now mostly gone congestion at both these airports is greatly reduced, and: more service is provided to other places from Taipei, and there are quite a few more international flights out of Kaohsiung, where before, leaving the country required a trip to the main international airport near Taipei.

Other important benefits: For a country that imports every drop of oil it consumes, a significant reduction in oil used for transportation, less noise near airports, less air pollution.

Maybe it is worth ading: One of the companies that was big in the Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation owned two airline, one of them international and the other domestic. It appears that they determined that a project that significantly reduced the demand for their domestic airline was worth doing.

An aside: If you were to see the methods used to justify construction of any highway project, you would find that quite a bit of the econnomic benefit used to justify the project does not result in anybody getting a check that they were not getting before.

So true to consider the cost of the path not taken. Also need to consider the cost of doing nothing, or doing it too slowly.

To add to your aside, new people might not be getting checks but the existing ones are getting bigger checks.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Mr. Harris, I agree with all but your last paragraph.

I think that highways/rail/other transportation tend to have major economic benefit in areas where transportation is limited- but that it generally tends to be local. That is, if I build a highway that makes Podunk much more accessible than it is now, Podunk will benefit greatly from it since it becomes more attractive to business and residential alike. However, the game is more or less zero-sum.

The economic activity now present in Podunk has been filtered to Podunk from elsewhere. For every extra dollar Podunk sees, someplace else sees a dollar less.

However, the key, as you said, isn't whether there should be rail or not rail, but whether it should be additional rail between, say, Los Angeles and Las Vegas, or should we expand the highway connections between the two. Either way you spend money. I think that in high-volume circumstances, rail has proven itself to be more cost effective.

 

[TVRM610]

Amtrak has been very good at not providing service where there is no demand (and in deed the opposite is true too, where there is demand for service in many places, there is none). Needless to say, many people want to act like "no-one uses the trains so why should I pay for them" when in fact people use them and many of the Amtrak trains are operating near or at capacity on a daily basis. As long as people are using the service, weather it be an interstate, airport, or train, I support my tax dollars going towards it. I have never been to any of the Great National Parks out West (except through Glacier on the Empire Builder!) but people use them, so I am glad that my tax dollars can fund them. The same people who enjoy the Western National Parks probably have not gotten to go through the Smokies National Park as many times as I have... it all evens out as long as you don't get greedy and say "I never use it so I shouldn't pay for it!"

Now if the government is spending money needlessly on items that people do not use, then we have a problem... but Transit as a whole (Roads, Airports, Trains, Busses etc) needs more money IMHO in order for our country to work as best as it can.

 

[George Harris]

Mr. Harris, I agree with all but your last paragraph.
I think that highways/rail/other transportation tend to have major economic benefit in areas where transportation is limited- but that it generally tends to be local. That is, if I build a highway that makes Podunk much more accessible than it is now, Podunk will benefit greatly from it since it becomes more attractive to business and residential alike. However, the game is more or less zero-sum.

GML:

I think you missed the thing I am talking about in my last paragraph entirely.

In doing the economic benefit analysis to justify a road project, benefits include such things as reduced accident costs, including cost of injuries and loss of life. This last one is a very hot topic, but in everything done that has any real or perceived safety benefit, a monetary value must be placed on a life. If you do not, then you get to absurdity of infinity time N, with N being any number you choose is still infinity. Let's say that you have $5 million to spend: You can redo a dangerous piece of road that has had 9 fatailities in the last 10 years or one that has had 3 fatailities in the last 10 years. Without a value on life, both are equal, but the obvious reality is that you do the one that saves the most lives. Where the math gets fuzzy is that you also consider values for major injuries and property damage in the equation, and the reality is that one might cost $2 million and thte other $5 million. Wtihout an infinite amount of money you must get the greatest benefit for each dollar spent. It gets to be like sausage making. You need the product, but seeing how it is made may be unpleasant.

There are also delay cost issues as well as safety issues. Such stuff as, does adding a passing lane on a mountain grade reduce the nominated value of delay hours sufficiently to make it worth building?

Notice that there is nothing here about improving the relative advantages of different locations. It is NOT a zero sums game.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

Perhaps this issue will resolve itself over the next few weeks and months.

As the "oil hurricane" starts to hit Louisiana and Katrina, and we get video of fish, alligators, birds, and Emeril Lagasse covered in oil, more and more Americans will realize that maybe we should cut back a little on our oil consumption.

I've already seen this on other transportation forums - many people across the country are starting to bike to work this month to cut back on their carbon footprint and gasoline consumption. Hopefully, more and more will ride the trains for the same reason.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Point taken, Mr. Harris. You know my opinion on the subject of saving lives, so we just won't go there.

Perhaps this issue will resolve itself over the next few weeks and months.
As the "oil hurricane" starts to hit Louisiana and Katrina, and we get video of fish, alligators, birds, and Emeril Lagasse covered in oil, more and more Americans will realize that maybe we should cut back a little on our oil consumption.

I've already seen this on other transportation forums - many people across the country are starting to bike to work this month to cut back on their carbon footprint and gasoline consumption. Hopefully, more and more will ride the trains for the same reason.

Your opinion of American's feelings of anything but their own self-interest is way too high. They'll feel that way until they see the price tag for doing it, then change their mind abruptly. Doing the right thing is fine, so long as it is free, you see.

 

[jis]

There are also delay cost issues as well as safety issues. Such stuff as, does adding a passing lane on a mountain grade reduce the nominated value of delay hours sufficiently to make it worth building?

Another thing that should be taken into account is the induced economic activity which would not take place were the infrastructure not built, and which results in additions to the tax base. It is very illuminating to do an overall calculation for projects like the RiverLINE that the budget hawks of the day like to fulminate about, taking that into account. The fact that it has transformed the Delaware coast on the NJ side and what is the economic value of it should be part of the calculation of overall cost benefit analysis.

 

[George Harris]

There are also delay cost issues as well as safety issues. Such stuff as, does adding a passing lane on a mountain grade reduce the nominated value of delay hours sufficiently to make it worth building?

Another thing that should be taken into account is the induced economic activity which would not take place were the infrastructure not built, and which results in additions to the tax base. It is very illuminating to do an overall calculation for projects like the RiverLINE that the budget hawks of the day like to fulminate about, taking that into account. The fact that it has transformed the Delaware coast on the NJ side and what is the economic value of it should be part of the calculation of overall cost benefit analysis.

Exctly.

1972 to 1978 time frame I spent 6 years working on the WMATA system in the DC area. The general noise consisted of variations on several themes:

1. It will be a useless white elephant with no real ridership.

2. It costs way too much to build.

3. Why is the building going so slow?

4. It has negative impacts wherever it goes.

5. It is obsolete technology. It should be maglev, monorail, or some other science fiction technology of the month.

Can anyone picture how the DC area would operate today without the system? The size of the system is already beyond that planned in the 1970's.

1990 to 1995 time frame I spent 5 years working on the Taipei, Taiwan MRT (rail rapid transit) sytem).

Heard all the same arguements again, except 4 and 5.

Likewise, the change on the traffic situation it the city is huge and no one can imagine how the city ever managed without it. And: some lines have been extended beyond their originally planned terminal plus the dotted in maybe someday in the distant future lines are under construction.

 

[Ryan]

As someone that commutes on the Washington Metro daily, the city couldn't function without it. In fact, when we got the massive snowstorms this winter, the Federal Government closed until WMATA was able to return to something approximating full service.

 

[MikeM]

Point taken, Mr. Harris. You know my opinion on the subject of saving lives, so we just won't go there.

Perhaps this issue will resolve itself over the next few weeks and months.
As the "oil hurricane" starts to hit Louisiana and Katrina, and we get video of fish, alligators, birds, and Emeril Lagasse covered in oil, more and more Americans will realize that maybe we should cut back a little on our oil consumption.

I've already seen this on other transportation forums - many people across the country are starting to bike to work this month to cut back on their carbon footprint and gasoline consumption. Hopefully, more and more will ride the trains for the same reason.

Your opinion of American's feelings of anything but their own self-interest is way too high. They'll feel that way until they see the price tag for doing it, then change their mind abruptly. Doing the right thing is fine, so long as it is free, you see.

Speaking of which... it's been interesting the last 48 hours watching lots of "fiscal conservatives" run out of the closet to ask for federal support, assistance, and the like as a result of the BP well explosion in the gulf. Meantime, BP is running as fast as it can away from any liability it can, trying for instance to make $5K payments to residents along the gulf if they will waive any legal claims against the company, etc. The laws in force cap BP's liability at around 75M, and there's only $1.2B in the spill trust fund that is funded by drilling operations. So, in short, we're probably going to spend some multiple of Amtrak's annual funding to clean up a mess that was made by a private company which may well have not been following accepted safety practices, while those same politicians wring their hands in anguish over funding Amtrak, not to mention social services for the disabled, elderly, etc. It's like spending is only bad if it doesn't benefit powerful business interests sometimes, doesn't it?

 

[Guest]

... a private company which may well have not been following accepted safety practices...

Accidents happen, there is no need to insinuate that they were not operating safely without proof.

 

[Ryan]

... a private company which may well have not been following accepted safety practices...

Accidents happen, there is no need to insinuate that they were not operating safely without proof.

11 dead and millions of gallons of oil sounds like pretty convincing proof that something wasn't safe about the operation.

 

[JayPea]

Oh, and by the way: I agree that mass transit options should be explored more than they are and that those that want to starve Amtrak are misguided and the US would do good to explore other sources of energy and try to reduce their dependence on oil. In a rural area where I live, some of those options really aren't good, however. I live in a county with a population of 41,000 and is twice the size of Rhode Island. Mass transit and light rail here in our county and those in most of rural Eastern Washington is not necessary, save for the Spokane area and a few other ones that have localized bus service.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

... a private company which may well have not been following accepted safety practices...

Accidents happen, there is no need to insinuate that they were not operating safely without proof.

Operating Safely implies that things are done in a safe manner. Inspections of the pipes should be carefully inspected, thoroughly, on a regular basis. Apparently, whatever their basis was, it wasn't regular enough.

My understanding of this is that it was not an unusual and unprecedented situation that caused this. Thus, the problem that caused this is something that has been known to happen, and thus should have been prevented. I understand the Ixtoc spill- that was an unprecedented situation. This is not, there is no excuse, and BP should be responsible for cleaning up everything. EVERYTHING. If I pay an iota of my money to pay for this clean up, I am going to be at the front of the line for people stopping ALL BP drilling operations in North America.

Not that it will ever happen. Nobody actually gives a crap about this. They need the oil too badly. People care only about their self-interest. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person earth who doesn't follow Randian philosophy.

 

[Ryan]

If I pay an iota of my money to pay for this clean up, I am going to be at the front of the line for people stopping ALL BP drilling operations in North America.

With a $75 million dollar cap on damages, you may want to go ahead and find out where to queue up. If only the "little guy" had millions of dollars to buy and pay for laws, then we'd be on equal footing with the companies that get laws like that passed.

 

[jis]

BP's safety and due diligence record is not exactly stellar. See BP Safety Record Lags Sector Peers: Could Oil Spill Disaster Change How We Value ESG Risks? for example. Of course right now they are squealing like a stuck pig. This event will likely have consequences that far surpass the immediate effect of the oil spill, and will affect not just BP but the entire industry. This is something that could have been avoided for a mere half a million dollars, which is the cost of a remote shutoff valve, which BP chose not to install, and US Government under W and his oilmen cronies, chose not to make mandatory. This is something that is required by law in several other countries already.

 

[AlanB]

If I pay an iota of my money to pay for this clean up, I am going to be at the front of the line for people stopping ALL BP drilling operations in North America.

With a $75 million dollar cap on damages, you may want to go ahead and find out where to queue up. If only the "little guy" had millions of dollars to buy and pay for laws, then we'd be on equal footing with the companies that get laws like that passed.

Note, that $75M cap is for other damages, like fishermen who lose their livelyhood for several months because of the spill or closed beaches that result in lost revenue for local towns. BP has to pay the full costs of the cleanup no matter what that bill comes to. The taxpayer isn't on the hook for that money, only possibly for damages caused by the slick.

 

[Chatter163]

Moderator, may we please lock what has become a sad excuse for a thread?

I humbly put forth that this topic is relevant and might be productive. I'd rather let the mud fly a little longer, for my part.

Concur. If you don't enjoy the conversation, nobody's making you click on the thread and read it.

So, if one expresses his belief that a thread should be locked, must he be curtly reminded that if he does not like the thread, he should not read it? Is one not entitled to make such a request without be reprimanded for doing so?

 

[VentureForth]

It's nice to see that even with a favorable President and Congress that Amtrak is not losing their "Woe is Me" touch.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

If I pay an iota of my money to pay for this clean up, I am going to be at the front of the line for people stopping ALL BP drilling operations in North America.

With a $75 million dollar cap on damages, you may want to go ahead and find out where to queue up. If only the "little guy" had millions of dollars to buy and pay for laws, then we'd be on equal footing with the companies that get laws like that passed.

I don't want their dirty rotten money. I just think we have enough environmental problems with our own domestic oil producers. Why are we importing foreign producers to make additional damage while they take their profits back go GB?

So, if one expresses his belief that a thread should be locked, must he be curtly reminded that if he does not like the thread, he should not read it? Is one not entitled to make such a request without be reprimanded for doing so?

I'm not reprimanding you, just stating my opinion.

 

[Ryan]

Note, that $75M cap is for other damages, like fishermen who lose their livelyhood for several months because of the spill or closed beaches that result in lost revenue for local towns. BP has to pay the full costs of the cleanup no matter what that bill comes to. The taxpayer isn't on the hook for that money, only possibly for damages caused by the slick.

Good point to remember - still, there will be some financial hardship that BP will not be held accountable for, which really bugs me.

So, if one expresses his belief that a thread should be locked, must he be curtly reminded that if he does not like the thread, he should not read it? Is one not entitled to make such a request without be reprimanded for doing so?

I'm not reprimanding you, just stating my opinion.

Sure, make whatever requests you want, just don't get all offended when some people disagree with you.

 

[Hytec]

Why are we importing foreign producers to make additional damage while they take their profits back go GB?

We are not "importing foreign producers", BP merely offered the highest bid for that particular Federal Lease tract. Standard, Exxon, Shell, and a host of others, both foreign and domestic could have offered a higher bid, but apparently chose not to, it's that simple. Similarly, Exxon, Standard, and many other US companies have been, and are developing sites in Arabia, Iraq, Russia, North Sea, Borneo, and other areas around the Globe. Oil is a Global Industry that has no national boundries. Each company abides by the laws and regulations of the specific country, state, and area in which they are developing and producing. Sadly, the US has yet to enact and enforce the strict, and expensive drilling regulations that have been enacted by Norway and other environmentally conscientious countries.