No problem.MDRailfan said:
'Amtrak may finally be at the end of the line'
- Thread starter Save Our Trains Michigan
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
Allen Dee
Lead Service Attendant
There have been many posts on this forum recently concerning government subsidies to the various modes of transportation. The United States of America is not a totally capitalistic society. We are, in fact, a carefully balanced mix of capitalism and socialism.
Public transportation falls directly into this mix. It is well documented that urban bus and rail transit cannot operate at a profit and needs to be subsidized at taxpayer expense. Also, the Interstate Highway System, which greatly benefits the trucking industry, does not operate at a profit. Most of the major airlines serving America's cities are in or near bankruptcy. These same airlines are on the receiving end of the heavily federally-funded FAA, without whose services they could not operate. Greyhound has been discontinuing service to many communities for decades. The freight railroads, which also host Amtrak long-distance routes, have seen their revenues and profits skyrocket over the last few years. These companies receive almost no government subsidy, other than to those who operate or allow passenger service over their rights-of-way.
While it is true that Amtrak has been seriously mismanaged in the past, squandering billions of dollars in federal government subsidies, it seems to be heading toward the right track at the present time. Much of the same can be said about the Interstate Highway System and the FAA. Look at the congestion on our roads and at our airports; there is no improvement in sight. With Amtrak there was light at the end of the tunnel until the Bush Administration came up with its zero funding proposal for Amtrak.
But this was not a flat out zero funding proposal. The Bush Administration promised to match whatever funding each individual state put forth. This works quite well here in the Golden State of California. Of the three intrastate corridors, two (the Capitols and the San Joaquins) are fully funded by the state. These trains’ equipment is also owned by the state (CDTX). The Pacific Surfliners are funded 50/50 by the state and Amtrak. Their equipment is owned by Amtrak. All of the corridor trains within the state are crewed by Amtrak.
On some of these corridors, up to 70% of the passengers use Amtrak Thruway Bus Service as part of their trip. This is a big shot in the arm to the intercity bus industry in the state. The twice-daily round trips that Orange Belt Stages operates between Visalia and Santa Maria as a mixed-mode service would not exist without the subsidy from Amtrak California. The same can be said for the four dedicated round trips between Santa Barbara and Bakersfield operated by Silverado Stages. Greyhound has never operated any direct service between the two city pairs. The total number of buses that are operated for Amtrak California over the I-5 (The Grapevine) between Bakersfield and the various Southern California locations far exceeds those operated by Greyhound.
All looks well here in California, but I can foresee some problems in some other states, though. One state that immediately comes to mind is Nebraska. I cannot imagine the residents of that great state wanting to finance two trains that pass through their state at ungodly hours of the night and not-so-much on time. Perhaps an exception could be made for those passengers boarding or detraining at Lincoln or Omaha.
Public transportation falls directly into this mix. It is well documented that urban bus and rail transit cannot operate at a profit and needs to be subsidized at taxpayer expense. Also, the Interstate Highway System, which greatly benefits the trucking industry, does not operate at a profit. Most of the major airlines serving America's cities are in or near bankruptcy. These same airlines are on the receiving end of the heavily federally-funded FAA, without whose services they could not operate. Greyhound has been discontinuing service to many communities for decades. The freight railroads, which also host Amtrak long-distance routes, have seen their revenues and profits skyrocket over the last few years. These companies receive almost no government subsidy, other than to those who operate or allow passenger service over their rights-of-way.
While it is true that Amtrak has been seriously mismanaged in the past, squandering billions of dollars in federal government subsidies, it seems to be heading toward the right track at the present time. Much of the same can be said about the Interstate Highway System and the FAA. Look at the congestion on our roads and at our airports; there is no improvement in sight. With Amtrak there was light at the end of the tunnel until the Bush Administration came up with its zero funding proposal for Amtrak.
But this was not a flat out zero funding proposal. The Bush Administration promised to match whatever funding each individual state put forth. This works quite well here in the Golden State of California. Of the three intrastate corridors, two (the Capitols and the San Joaquins) are fully funded by the state. These trains’ equipment is also owned by the state (CDTX). The Pacific Surfliners are funded 50/50 by the state and Amtrak. Their equipment is owned by Amtrak. All of the corridor trains within the state are crewed by Amtrak.
On some of these corridors, up to 70% of the passengers use Amtrak Thruway Bus Service as part of their trip. This is a big shot in the arm to the intercity bus industry in the state. The twice-daily round trips that Orange Belt Stages operates between Visalia and Santa Maria as a mixed-mode service would not exist without the subsidy from Amtrak California. The same can be said for the four dedicated round trips between Santa Barbara and Bakersfield operated by Silverado Stages. Greyhound has never operated any direct service between the two city pairs. The total number of buses that are operated for Amtrak California over the I-5 (The Grapevine) between Bakersfield and the various Southern California locations far exceeds those operated by Greyhound.
All looks well here in California, but I can foresee some problems in some other states, though. One state that immediately comes to mind is Nebraska. I cannot imagine the residents of that great state wanting to finance two trains that pass through their state at ungodly hours of the night and not-so-much on time. Perhaps an exception could be made for those passengers boarding or detraining at Lincoln or Omaha.
One thing that needs to be explained to W is that the money the federal government gets COMES FROM THE STATES. HELLO??!! Where does he think we citizens live? Mars? ... "State participation"? The money he's got in his hands (most of which he's shoveling out the door to Iraq as fast as he can move it) comes from us, THE CITIZENS, and we live IN THE STATES!!! He and his flunky Mineta act like federal money comes from someplace other than the States in the first place. And if we, the citizens, say we want Amtrak, and that we want a national passenger rail system, (as ALL the polls that I'm aware of say), then where the heck does he get off telling us we don't?
Maybe we need to just have Amtrak re-incorporate as the "Iraqi National Passenger Railroad" and list their corporate address as Iraq. They'd probably be knee-deep in federal money inside of a week.
Maybe we need to just have Amtrak re-incorporate as the "Iraqi National Passenger Railroad" and list their corporate address as Iraq. They'd probably be knee-deep in federal money inside of a week.
Shinkansen1966
Train Attendant
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 17
I'm a Brit living here in the UK and read with great interest the White House budget plans and Amtrak coming to an end. Until 1995, we had 'British Rail', nationalized publicly owned railway. Then the governent started raill privitization. Do you want hear what happened? It make depressing reading.
Yes, I agree with you. I'm very surprised that no one in the White House are listening to privating British meltdown.Shinkansen1966 said:
We should re-write e-mails, letters, or whatever, to let US president, senators, and representatives know about the gigantic mistakes by British gov't on passenger railroads.
Thanks for reminding me, Shinkansen1966.
G
Guest
Guest
I dont think the administration is looking for any survival of national rail passenger service. Local and regional maybe, through "the states".
That would leave automobiles and airlines as the only way to travel the country, with no alternatives. Any remaining infrastructure would disappear.
That would leave automobiles and airlines as the only way to travel the country, with no alternatives. Any remaining infrastructure would disappear.
G
Guest
Guest
First off, please tell me of a single federal agency that doesn't need overhauling. Nuff said.
I have recently had e-mail with the author of that piece, we agree to disagree. I wrote:
Dear Mr. Brancatelli,
Most modern day travel experiences are destination oriented. A rare
few are mainly experiential voyages, i.e. not point A to point B, but
all about what's in between. Your lack of knowledge or "experience"
available on Amtrak's various routes and services displays a lack of
understanding of the subject matter. Talk to the average North Dakotan
about how they get back home from their training in St. Paul. Talk to
the student who commutes to his/her college in Chicago from 60 miles
out. Speak with the millions of folks who take the train out of fear of
flying.
You failed to mention the billions granted the US airlines (35 billion).
You failed to mention the fact that every other nation subsidizes their
own rail networks. Tony Blair has issued $5 billion per year to their
equivelent of Amtrak, in a country the size of Jersey?
You need to understand that if we lose this, like Humpdie, we will not
be able to put it back together again.
Frank
And he replied:
Frank-
"Well, if nothing else, you should know that I am at least as adamently against airlines getting money from the government. They are private businesses. I opposed the 2001 bailout and all the subsequent bailouts.
As for the folks who are afraid to fly, explain to me, in clear language, why they deserve to be subsidized? If that is the rational for keeping trains, it doesn't cut it.
And I guess you didn't read my story. I tried RIGHT AT THE TOP to explain that I not only ride commuter rails, I am prepared to pay for them. You tell me who of those Chicago-area folks taking 60-mile train rides are benefitting from Amtrak."
This guy has a chip on his shoulder. I don't think he realizes that there's a hundred billion dollars ready every year for bus line depots and hiway maintenaince. And 35 billlion for airports and airlines and such. And I'm sure he doesn't get that $1.8 billion is nothing to what other countries pay for national rail systems.
I'm getting tired of the fight.
Frank
I have recently had e-mail with the author of that piece, we agree to disagree. I wrote:
Dear Mr. Brancatelli,
Most modern day travel experiences are destination oriented. A rare
few are mainly experiential voyages, i.e. not point A to point B, but
all about what's in between. Your lack of knowledge or "experience"
available on Amtrak's various routes and services displays a lack of
understanding of the subject matter. Talk to the average North Dakotan
about how they get back home from their training in St. Paul. Talk to
the student who commutes to his/her college in Chicago from 60 miles
out. Speak with the millions of folks who take the train out of fear of
flying.
You failed to mention the billions granted the US airlines (35 billion).
You failed to mention the fact that every other nation subsidizes their
own rail networks. Tony Blair has issued $5 billion per year to their
equivelent of Amtrak, in a country the size of Jersey?
You need to understand that if we lose this, like Humpdie, we will not
be able to put it back together again.
Frank
And he replied:
Frank-
"Well, if nothing else, you should know that I am at least as adamently against airlines getting money from the government. They are private businesses. I opposed the 2001 bailout and all the subsequent bailouts.
As for the folks who are afraid to fly, explain to me, in clear language, why they deserve to be subsidized? If that is the rational for keeping trains, it doesn't cut it.
And I guess you didn't read my story. I tried RIGHT AT THE TOP to explain that I not only ride commuter rails, I am prepared to pay for them. You tell me who of those Chicago-area folks taking 60-mile train rides are benefitting from Amtrak."
This guy has a chip on his shoulder. I don't think he realizes that there's a hundred billion dollars ready every year for bus line depots and hiway maintenaince. And 35 billlion for airports and airlines and such. And I'm sure he doesn't get that $1.8 billion is nothing to what other countries pay for national rail systems.
I'm getting tired of the fight.
Frank
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,508
The entire proposed FAA budget for FY 2006, including both the air traffic control system and airport grants, is just under $14 billion. Of that, nearly $13 billion is funded directly from airline ticket and avaition fuel taxes and fees. Only $1.1 billion comes from the general treasury to the FAA and commecial aviation.Guest said:
Commercial aviation in not nearly as heavily subsidized as most Amtrak supporters think.
How much do federal state and local subsidies in the form of airports and airport roads factor in? Many airports have extensive traffic infrastructure around them. Some, like Dulles, have entire freeways leading up to them.
In other words, do airline fees for airports cover the cost of the airports and the surrounding infrastructure, or is there subsidy at that level as well?
In other words, do airline fees for airports cover the cost of the airports and the surrounding infrastructure, or is there subsidy at that level as well?
Airline fees do not cover the costs of operating airport infrastructure. Without mega local funds and billions in federal support, the entire operation would grind to a halt.musher said:
It may be true that of the 14 billion that comes from federal support having some 13 billion from fees paid by the airlines, let it be known that there is plenty more coming from the federal government to benefit airlines and airports, and not a cent of it is offset by airlines paying fees or by ticketed passengers. And costs are rising especially when you factor in the new security measures. Also consider the funds airports receive from municipalities, some of which can be matched with state and federal money.
G
Guest
Guest
There is a clear and distinct difference between projects like Amtrak and junk like the following.
1. $17 billion a year in subsidies to agribusiness – the mythical family farmer
2. $50 billion in free radio spectrum to local TV broadcasters (just about everyone else pays for spectrum)
3. $50 billion a year is export subsidies (declared illegal by the WTO).
4. $11 million a year to manufacturers of bows and arrows
5. $15 million a year to the California Prune Board
6. $16 billion a year in tax breaks to SUV buyers
7. $400 thousand a month to Ahmed Chalabi
How is Amtrak different from stuff like these? Simple: Amtrak benefits the public at large. If Amtrak disappears, what are those who live off oxygen bottles supposed to do? What about those who are afraid to travel? What about those whose religious beliefs prevent them form air travel? What about those who live hundreds of miles from an airport? My suggestion: take the yearly SUV subsidies and give it to Amtrak – problem solved.
1. $17 billion a year in subsidies to agribusiness – the mythical family farmer
2. $50 billion in free radio spectrum to local TV broadcasters (just about everyone else pays for spectrum)
3. $50 billion a year is export subsidies (declared illegal by the WTO).
4. $11 million a year to manufacturers of bows and arrows
5. $15 million a year to the California Prune Board
6. $16 billion a year in tax breaks to SUV buyers
7. $400 thousand a month to Ahmed Chalabi
How is Amtrak different from stuff like these? Simple: Amtrak benefits the public at large. If Amtrak disappears, what are those who live off oxygen bottles supposed to do? What about those who are afraid to travel? What about those whose religious beliefs prevent them form air travel? What about those who live hundreds of miles from an airport? My suggestion: take the yearly SUV subsidies and give it to Amtrak – problem solved.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,508
All major airports are operated independent of local tax contributions, with that financial separation often written into law. The day-to-day operating costs and debt service on local revenue bonds are more than covered by airline landing fees, gate leases, concession fees and leases, and parking. Almost all big airports are huge cash cows for the owner authority (the exception being special problem child facilities where a large terminal was built primarily for a single airline tenant and that tenant either walked or filed Chapter 11; i.e. Pittsburgh). The primary problem for day to day financing of large airports is not the need to tap local taxes, but it is the temptation for the local municipality to tap excess airport revenue to fund unrelated needs. Such cross-subsidization is prohibited.lepearso said:
Local highway and transportation improvements at airports generally come from both airport revenue and federal and state transportation funds. Internal improvements (roadways, parking) are paid by the airport. External can go either airport or public or both. A good example of airport financing of external transportation is the Newark Airport station on the NEC. This station was built by the Port Authority of NY & NJ (owner of EWR) and was funded by the PA through partial application of PFC’s (Passenger Facility Charges on tickets dedicated to local landside airport projects). The station was built at no cost to either Amtrak or New Jersey Transit.
But, what about those other billions? As for the TSA security, the cost of aviation security measures (about $4 billion) is 90% paid by security fees on the airlines and the 9-11 security surcharge on tickets. What about that infamaous airline bailout? The post 9-11 bailout was in 2002 and 2003 ($5 billion direct grants plus a maximum of $10 billion in loan guarantees of which about $3 billion was actually committed) and is long gone (even though the airlines wish it was still around). Other than that, I have no idea about the other mysterious billions that are funding commercial aviation.
Despite all beliefs to the contrary, airports are almost all financially self-sufficient.
I'm a dairyman (calf raiser). It's not a junk program. It's an effort to keep the produce (milk, wheat, corn, beef, etc.) prices low so that the consumers can afford to buy without going hunger. Produce prices haven't raised the price to meet with the inflation since 1900s. Gov't funds are to be used on depressed price or natural disaster such as drought, hailstorm, etc. If we get a really good year, then we can afford ourselves. It's just like a gambling, far worse than Las Vegas!Guest said:
If the program was slashed, you'll have two choices- keep that price low which lead the farmers go out of business in a mass drive or accept to raise the produce price in order to keep the farmers alive (similiar to complaining of high fuel costs). Farmers represent 2% of US population, so we're on a hanging thread.
I don't know how much price on gallon of milk, $2.75 on today's price, will be if the gov't program will be slashed. Maybe $5. Milk price for the farmer to sell is approx. $14 per hundreweight (14 cents per pound) in average. Others goes to manufacturer, grocery store, & freight.
Of course the Port Authority then reneged on it's agreement to provide service to the station for free. After collecting millions of dollars in PFC's to build the monorail extension, they then turned around and decided to charge $5 per passenger to ride the monorail from the train station to the airport, $7 if you're coming from NY.PRR 60 said:
So now anytime a passenger from NJ takes the monorail from the train, they are paying 8 bucks to run the monorail, $5 for the ticket to get through the turnstyles from the train to the monorail and the $3 PFC charge for the monorail that is still being collected from every passenger at all 3 NYC airports. Those coming from NY are paying $10, in addition to their rail ticket.
Those hefty fees discourage many people from taking the train to the airport, especially families who could easily drop $48 or more just to ride the monorail to/from the airport.
Sorry to head slightly off topic here, but this injustice just gets on my nerves and I needed to rant a bit.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,508
Point well taken.AlanB said:
And it is even a little worse than that. If you are traveling off-peak when NJT round trip fares are valid, NJT does not offer that discount to EWR. From Hamilton, the NJT off-peak RT fare to Newark is $11.00. But, absent the off peak option, a round trip to EWR is $24.60. That is a $14.60 premium to ride to the airport off-peak. Off course, you could just buy the NWK RT, get off at EWR and buy the Airtrain ticket there, but why should you have to do that?
Two others: The EWR P3 parking went from $12 per day pre-Airtrain to $20 per day now. And in Philadelphia, SEPTA charges peak Zone 5 fares all day to the airport even though the airport is geographically in Zone 2.
Let's gouge the poor traveler. It is a time-honored tradition.
EXACTLY!!!!!!! What you said!!!!! Here Here... amen and amen!!!AmtrakWPK said:
It's been the same thing over an over again. Cut federal funding for education, transportation, and generally everything except for "defense" (ie. pre-emptive self defense) then the states have to pick up the tab. Guess what folks the funding is still coming from us. The same thing happened in California with the "Gropenfuher" when he was selected to replace the former governor. He made a campaign promise to refund and cut the increased vehicle registration fees when he did that the financial sitution of "Calleefoorneea" was made worse because there was a greater deficit because of the refunds (which became borrowed funds... borrowed money for for tax/fee refunds? That sounds awfully familiar on the national scene too.) As a result local programs such as education, fire and police protection, roads and public transportation in many cases had to cut services and raise their county and city sales taxes to maintain service levels. Public services such as Fire and police, education and even roads and Amtrak all cost money and provide a valuable service and the funds for those services have to come from somewhere.
I will happily pay taxes for services even if I never use them. I don't mind paying federal taxes that may go to subsidize the building of a freeway through Podunk Kansas or may subsidize an amtrak train or an airport. I don't have a problem with it because I know that someone in Mississippi will be paying a small percentage of some project that benefits me in my area. We really should stop regionalizing issues based on taxes. Some people feel because they don't use a service that they shouldn't have to pay for it, how selfish. Projects especially transportation projects (all transportation rail, roads and otherwise) make it possible to move goods, services and people from place to place creating jobs on multiple levels. Construction workers, truck drivers, rail construction and employees all benefit from me paying my taxes. Taxes pay people to work. Taxes improve our lives. That being said I'm not a never ending tap of funds. I live in the state with the 5th highest tax burden in the country (Utah... yup Republican Right wing Utah and the state to give DUB the greatest margin of victory and the only state where Clinton came in 3rd behind Ross Perot twice) has some of the highest combined taxes in the country (as a reference California is ranked 26th) Tax Burden by State
To close as this has gone on long enough... Every year there is fighting for continued funding for Amtrak. Could you imagine if the presidents plan to pass off the cost of Amtrak to the states passed? You would have exactly the same thing that we have now except it would be happening in every state with Amtrak service, so it would be 45 times worse as each state would have their own budget battle concerning funding of Amtrak. And what happens when a state has a shortfall?? The Dubya plan is perfect for his goal to kill passenger rail but ill-conceived for the rest of us.
Now that is what I've been waiting to hear! Everyone complains, 'why should I pay for something I don't use?" That is a very arrogant thing to say. There are so many things I pay for that I don't use either. But I benfit from it indirectly. Sales tax, social security, welfare....I never see the benefits from paying for that. Yet my children get an education so they take care of me when I'm old. I could could go on, but I'll leave it at that.SavetheCZ said:
G
Guest
Guest
You know it! Trains in Nebraska SUCK! It's too bad they don't have a train that goes from Chicago to Denver and offsets when the Zephyr goes through. Then at least we wouldn't have to board at such crazy times.Allen Dee said:
You know when the Zepyhr had a boulder on the track in January and they only did Chicago to Denver? I experienced only a slight delay (less than an hour). I think having that shorter service would make times more convenient and also cut down on some of the delays.
The other problem is, it's often cheaper to fly Southwest from Omaha to Chicago and it cuts the travel time WAY down.
Omaha to Chicago on April 6th (random date) is $70 on Amtrak and $45 on Southwest. Southwest also has six departure times throughout the day and the flight is only 1 hour and 10 minutes. Amtrak has one departure time (5:43 a.m.) and the travel time is a little under 10 hours and that's if it isn't delayed.
Latest posts
-
-
Long Distance (LD) fleet replacement RFP discussion 2024 H1- Latest: Paniolo Man
-
-
St. Paul, Milwaukee, Chicago (TCMC) second daily service
- Latest: Metra Electric Rider
-
-
-
-
