Re-privatize Amtrak?

[micmac99]

Riding the Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle out of Tucson earlier this week I couldn't help but notice the HUGE amount of freight trains on the Union Pacific line, several of them long trains with at least 2 or 3 locomotives.

1. how much money does Union Pacific actually make? I haven't looked at their numbers, but if they are turning a good profit, why not require them to give a portion of their proceeds to Amtrak to help support Amtrak financially, so Amtrak can do things like, oh, I don't know, have more capacity during a holiday weekend????

2. Would a re-privatization of Amtrak help service? I am generally against the movement to privatize that which government is already doing, but I can't help but wonder...If Union Pacific re-assumed responsibility for passenger routes operating in its service area (with the same and/or increased federal subsidy Amtrak is currently getting), would levels of service improve? On-time performance, on-board experience? Would UP hire airline people to help do this? And would they paint the Superliners yellow? : )

 

[Walt]

I would worry that any freight company would see their major profits coming from, well, freight, and passenger service would be second. A distant second.

With near total focus on freight, passenger service would become worse than it is even today. Old box cars would become the new 1st class sleepers (just throw some straw down, and call it a bed).

Just think about it. Why hasn't FedEx gone into the passenger business? They already have all the infrastructure to support it.

 

[Guest]

"why not require them to give a portion of their proceeds to Amtrak "

UnP is a private company, presumably paying taxes and being a corporate citizen like other corps. Here is a link to their financial statements on yahoo.finance, ticker UNP: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=UNP

Why would you want to disincentivize a corporation from making money? If they are not living up to the agreement regarding track usage as this forum suggests they should be made to do it through the channels in place. If Union Pacific has pricing power (which the railroads probably have at the moment) the method you suggest of scrounging from UNP to give to Amtrak (sounds like a redistribution of wealth to me, i.e., communism) would only result in higher costs to its customers who would then pass it on to you and me through all of this Chinese junk we're buying or through our utilities (railroads carry coal to utes who then get regulatory permission to pass costs on to us). Already, my power company is preparing its customers to accept the reality of increased costs for coal. I don't want to pay a higher electric bill so that people can ride Amtrak. Trains carry grains. I don't want to pay more for my food so that people can ride Amtrak.

Looking at it from UnP's side. What is in it for them do do as you suggest?

On #2. I've wondered if Amtrak is operating under similar restrictions as the Post Office was prior to their "incorporation" and how Amtrak would work if it were given more leeway. The USPO has an obligation of "universal delivery" (or some similar term). I'm not aware of Big Brown delivering on boats through the swamps of LA or in unprofitable remote locations. The USPO has that mandate. My (expensive) wish would be for a cooperation between Amtrak, freights, airports and bus for universal delivery of passengers and freight so that cars could be left parked and trucks used for short hauls only. Perhaps the highway funds could be restributed.

 

[Guest]

Just in case reading financial statements isn't your game, Union Pacific paid $1,154,000,000 in income taxes for the year ended 12/31/07. (See link above.). That's 1.154 billion dollars. Me thinks they're already paying their good citizen dues.

 

[micmac99]

"why not require them to give a portion of their proceeds to Amtrak "
UnP is a private company, presumably paying taxes and being a corporate citizen like other corps. Here is a link to their financial statements on yahoo.finance, ticker UNP: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=UNP

Why would you want to disincentivize a corporation from making money? If they are not living up to the agreement regarding track usage as this forum suggests they should be made to do it through the channels in place. If Union Pacific has pricing power (which the railroads probably have at the moment) the method you suggest of scrounging from UNP to give to Amtrak (sounds like a redistribution of wealth to me, i.e., communism) would only result in higher costs to its customers who would then pass it on to you and me through all of this Chinese junk we're buying or through our utilities (railroads carry coal to utes who then get regulatory permission to pass costs on to us). Already, my power company is preparing its customers to accept the reality of increased costs for coal. I don't want to pay a higher electric bill so that people can ride Amtrak. Trains carry grains. I don't want to pay more for my food so that people can ride Amtrak.

Looking at it from UnP's side. What is in it for them do do as you suggest?

On #2. I've wondered if Amtrak is operating under similar restrictions as the Post Office was prior to their "incorporation" and how Amtrak would work if it were given more leeway. The USPO has an obligation of "universal delivery" (or some similar term). I'm not aware of Big Brown delivering on boats through the swamps of LA or in unprofitable remote locations. The USPO has that mandate. My (expensive) wish would be for a cooperation between Amtrak, freights, airports and bus for universal delivery of passengers and freight so that cars could be left parked and trucks used for short hauls only. Perhaps the highway funds could be restributed.

Guest, with all due respect, there is a national need for passenger rail service in this country for various reasons, including arguably national security, that supercedes the right of a private company to conduct business as it sees fit. The reason for Amtrak in the first place stems from that recognition. My main point is that Amtrak is burning while Union Pacific (the largest landholder in the West and largest in the nation outside the federal government) is fiddling.

Union Pacific has a near-monopoly on freight rail in this country. What UP does is critical to the economy. And its right to do so is protected and allowed by government. Why can't passenger rail have that same protection? Why can't passenger rail be subsidized on a fair basis in comparison to commercial aviation and the Interstate highway system? And why does much of the rest of the industrial world have passenger rail systems not only competitive with aviation and highways but blow Amtrak out of the water in terms of service and customer satisfaction?

 

[Guest]

...should have condensed these posts.

Before you quote any number above, check that it is the same as the official version that publically traded corporations must report to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Look for a Form 10k for the year ended 12/31/07 in the Edgar database of the SEC for UNP (Union Pacific Corporation). I occasionally find mistakes in the financial information of 2nd hand sources such as Google and Yahoo.

 

[Guest]

"Union Pacific has a near-monopoly on freight rail in this country"

Please back this up with facts and sources. Value Line Investment sources recently covered the railroads, as they do in frequent rotation. For some reason I didn't write down the numbers for UnP, CSX or too many domestic railroads, but it covers the railroads in such detail that I CAN (irrelevantly) tell you that the Canadian Pacific RR (ticker: CP) carries a mix of 21% grain, 13% coal, 29% intermodal and 37% other and that Burlington Northern (ticker: BNSF) carried 21% coal, 37% consumer products, 18% (?) ag, etc. Value Line is available free through my local library and may be through yours or your college alumni pass to your university's library.

"including arguably national security"

I've seen this statement before on this forum but not seen anything to back up that opinion. Check it out before quoting, but I thought President (General) Eisenhower put in the interstate highway system to be able to move troops and equipment quickly. Asphalt gives out more quickly than steel tracks would, so, no doubt other considerations such as economic development were a part of the decision.

It was a CSX train that came through a local community earlier this month or last loaded to the gills with armor and humvees, etc. FYI: CSX paid $706 million in income taxes for the year ended 2007.


presumably heading for a port. I don't doubt that the train would have traveled on whatever tracks it needed, to get where it needed to go but it was on CSX. Aren't those NS tracks that go by the Army Depot at Anniston, AL?

I recall seeing old buildings in a large metro area with the words, "War Asset" on them years ago. In a situation where assets are required for national security there is probably some ability of the government to appropriate them, including commodities, when needed. And, you may have had passed down to you as it was to me, government rationing went on during WWII so that the troops were supplied. Sugar was rationed. Gasoline was rationed....on and on. Subsequent generations (ours! we need a lot of cheese to go with our whine) would probably have great difficulty with such sacrifice. And, of course, my father road a troop train to California (through what I wonder might be the Techapi Pass after reading Whooz's trip report) to meet his ship to the South Pacific.

So, are you referring to railing passengers in a national emergency such as might have been beneficial in the New Orleans situation or something else?

"Why can't passenger rail be subsidized on a fair basis in comparison to commercial aviation and the Interstate highway system"

It can be, but those who pass the laws necessary for this to happen have to be pressed without ceasing with intelligent arguments by the electorate. They appear to need wind beneath their wings and to me, it looks like the time is ripe with airlines floundering and gas prices soaring. But they HAVE to hear it from the masses and as you know many people have no clue that Amtrak exists.

"Union Pacific has a near-monopoly "

How do you think it got this way?

 

[Guest]

One more remark:

I doubt that we knew how we were going to get to the moon in the early 1960's (to occur before the decade was out), we just knew we were.

Make it clear to the candidate of your choice that you want passenger rail. And (on a more personal note) those of you who are whining about your attendant not paying you enough attention, give it up. Please DON'T write your congressional reps about such. There's a difference between having transportation and having it to your exacting standards at an affordable cost.

 

[meatpuff]

"Union Pacific has a near-monopoly on freight rail in this country"
Please back this up with facts and sources. Value Line Investment sources recently covered the railroads, as they do in frequent rotation. For some reason I didn't write down the numbers for UnP, CSX or too many domestic railroads, but it covers the railroads in such detail that I CAN (irrelevantly) tell you that the Canadian Pacific RR (ticker: CP) carries a mix of 21% grain, 13% coal, 29% intermodal and 37% other and that Burlington Northern (ticker: BNSF) carried 21% coal, 37% consumer products, 18% (?) ag, etc. Value Line is available free through my local library and may be through yours or your college alumni pass to your university's library.

A few points. Trying not to get dragged too deep into this discussion.

One, it is definitely not true that UP has a monopoly on freight rail as a whole in this country. But in fact, each of the freight railroads has a monopoly of sorts in the territory it operates. If I'm a farmer in the middle of nowhere, I sell my crops at the grain elevator in town. Now, it will not be the case that CSX, UP, CN, NS and BNSF tracks will all converge at that grain elevator and compete for my business. There will be one railroad that goes through town that I have to choose from, and I will have to meet their price or else get my grain to market some other way. Each of the big RRs has a territory, which overlap little, so they each have a monopoly of sorts over most of their territory.

Secondly, there is some public obligation that the RRs have that is written into the law, in spirit at least. Many of the RR rights-of-way were land grants from the government, i.e. handouts, especially routes in the West. Some RRs received no handouts, but still certainly got help in assembling these continuous rights-of-way thousands of miles long, right through the center of cities, where one landowner who refused to sell out would ruin the whole thing. The federal government always assumed that with these advantages (and also considering the economically critical role they performed) should come some public duties. Among these was having to offer passenger service. The government backed way off most of this with RR deregulation in the 1970s, but the fact that they have to allow Amtrak to run on tracks is one of the few surviving statutes in this vein. This legal responsibility is what prevents the RRs from telling Amtrak to take a hike. So, the question is where do you draw the line - the law to this day says that RRs do have some public responsibilities, and for now Congress draws the line at having to allow Amtrak to run.

Third, on the Interstate highway system: it was definitely partly a defense project. But it complements the RRs as far as moving war materiel. There is still nothing to this day that can top the RR for moving large amounts of heavy stuff quickly and efficiently. One of the reasons Eisenhower wanted to have the Interstate system as well was that he marveled at how someone could bomb the heck out of a four-lane highway but you could still just steer around the craters and keep stuff moving. Whereas one direct hit from an air strike would completely disable a rail line. The Interstate highway system makes defense logistics more fail-safe, it does NOT replace the RRs. (I would also caution you not to generalize about maintenance needs of highways versus rail without talking about things like level of usage, thickness of the pavement, etc. A well-built road that doesn't get driven on will last a LONG time; the roads the Romans built are still with us, for example.)

 

[haolerider]

One more remark:
I doubt that we knew how we were going to get to the moon in the early 1960's (to occur before the decade was out), we just knew we were.

Make it clear to the candidate of your choice that you want passenger rail. And (on a more personal note) those of you who are whining about your attendant not paying you enough attention, give it up. Please DON'T write your congressional reps about such. There's a difference between having transportation and having it to your exacting standards at an affordable cost.

What??

Who is talking about writing their representatives in Washington about service levels? I seem to see most members of this forum contacting Amtrak, as they should.

For the most part, the freight railroads are not interested in passenger rail service. There are a few instances where they may show interest, but not for major movements.

 

[jphjaxfl]

Having traveled frequently on trains operated by private railroads in 5 years immediately before Amtrak, most of the railroads did everything they could to discourage passengers from riding their trains. The first 8 years of Amtrak were great with fewer, but better trains and one passenger rail company for tickets and pricing rather than 10-15 or more private railraod companies each doing their own thing. If Amtrak had been set up 10-20 years earlier when lots more people took trains, it might have prevented the erosion that occurred. Returning to private railroad operation would likely kill the limited passenger train service we have now.

 

[Guest]

"Many of the RR rights-of-way were land grants from the government"

Just as an aside, land lotteries after about 1821 (Indian heave-ho time) were a means of resettlement of various states, at least in the South. So, the give- away to railroads wasn't totally unique. If you go back further, land grants from the King or Queen of England were given all along the coast (at least in Georgia) and in some unique cases are still in the original families.

[i]"maintenance needs of highways[/i]"

This observation comes from seeing buckled pavement that occurs in hotter part of the country from heavy trucks coming to a stop or rounding pavement and what seems like incessant paving in my part of the country. The comment is no deeper than that.

"writing their representatives in Washington about service levels"

...browse one of the other threads and that's listed in there somewhere.

"If Amtrak had been set up 10-20 years earlier when lots more people took trains"

Don't you think that the erosion had more to do with the cheapness of oil spurring the buildout of highways and the mass production of vehicles?

I, in general, dislike privatization and deregulation of necessaries. Some dereg. was delivered on the premise that choices would make cheaper costs. AT&T/Bell was broken up and is reassembling. I have to make choices about the source of my natural gas, etc. Costs are now up on all of the basics... Back to the rr's and Amtrak. Commodity booms go in multi year cycles. It is my understanding that we're somewhere in the middle of one with no end in site. Commodities travel most economically by train. Therefore, this conversation will be a mult-year conversation and at times resembles a bunch of people standing around a broken down vehicle trying to figure out how to make it go. I would like Amtrak to be treated like a regulated utility... and I'm a repub. AND, I would like an understanding of why I keep hearing that "the freights don't honor the contract and it makes Amtrak late". If they're (the freights) not honoring a contract, what's the real reason why? What prevents Amtrak from pursuing its enforcement?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Re-privatization of Amtrak would be a horrible disaster. Privatizing inherently non-profitable businesses is, conceptually, about as intelligent as the actions performed in the "Paying too much for car insurance isn't any smarter" commercials General Insurance Company (GeICo) ran a few years back.

That being said, Guest, you should be bloody ashamed of yourself. I hate when people do this. With limited knowledge of communism, the concepts behind it, what exactly it is, what it can be, and what it can do, you relate the concept of Facist Socialism under the banner of Communism. What's more, you tend to portray it as all evil, rotten, and so forth. Shame. on. YOU.

I spent many of my formative years growing up on an Israeli kibbutz. A kibbutz is what the Israeli government put into place to solve the problem of settling nearly broke refugee jews. I'm not going to condone some of the "settling" actions of the Israeli government, but using the kibbutz system to run it was a stroke of pure genius. A kibbutz is a commune, and essentially a microcosmic communist society.

They work, very well. You work for the good of the community, to the best of your ability, and in return you get decent housing, a very functional child-raising system that (having lived through it) is, in my opinion, a vast improvement over what most children face in the United States, and all the food you can eat. You share many things, and there isn't much desire for advancement based upon reward, I admit. But you do things for the good of your community.

Communism, as a governmental system, given that all members of the commune are 100% dedicated to the health and welfare of that commune, is a vast improvement over basic capitalistic democracy.

Democracy, in todays day and age, is showing its biggest failing.

There are three basic forms of government, socially. The first is the government that puts the interests of that government itself ahead of the all other things. We call these bad monarchies, tyrants, tyrannical dictators, and so forth. That is, undoubtedly, the worst form of government. The Soviet Union, by and large, falls into this.

The second type is the government that puts the issues of its nation as a whole ahead of both its own and that of individuals within that country. There are several kinds of these, and frankly its the largest group. Communism, socialism, and benevolent dictators fall into this category, assuming the latter two are non-corrupt. This is, in my opinion, the best kind.

The third is the government that looks out for the special interest of individuals and their personal and immediate wants over the general health of both the government and the society as a whole. This last is where most democracies, especially the United States, falls. This works ok when the individuals want the plausible, and the individuals are not being excessively greedy. Unfortunately, it goes into a cascading systems failure when the individuals want the impossible (example, conserving energy without affecting way of life- jesus god are people stupid), they are being greedier than Romulus Augustulus, or both.

 

[BobWeaver]

Re-privatization of Amtrak would be a horrible disaster. Privatizing inherently non-profitable businesses is, conceptually, about as intelligent as the actions performed in the "Paying too much for car insurance isn't any smarter" commercials General Insurance Company (GeICo) ran a few years back.
That being said, Guest, you should be bloody ashamed of yourself. I hate when people do this. With limited knowledge of communism, the concepts behind it, what exactly it is, what it can be, and what it can do, you relate the concept of Facist Socialism under the banner of Communism. What's more, you tend to portray it as all evil, rotten, and so forth. Shame. on. YOU.

I spent many of my formative years growing up on an Israeli kibbutz. A kibbutz is what the Israeli government put into place to solve the problem of settling nearly broke refugee jews. I'm not going to condone some of the "settling" actions of the Israeli government, but using the kibbutz system to run it was a stroke of pure genius. A kibbutz is a commune, and essentially a microcosmic communist society.

They work, very well. You work for the good of the community, to the best of your ability, and in return you get decent housing, a very functional child-raising system that (having lived through it) is, in my opinion, a vast improvement over what most children face in the United States, and all the food you can eat. You share many things, and there isn't much desire for advancement based upon reward, I admit. But you do things for the good of your community.

Communism, as a governmental system, given that all members of the commune are 100% dedicated to the health and welfare of that commune, is a vast improvement over basic capitalistic democracy.

Democracy, in todays day and age, is showing its biggest failing.

There are three basic forms of government, socially. The first is the government that puts the interests of that government itself ahead of the all other things. We call these bad monarchies, tyrants, tyrannical dictators, and so forth. That is, undoubtedly, the worst form of government. The Soviet Union, by and large, falls into this.

The second type is the government that puts the issues of its nation as a whole ahead of both its own and that of individuals within that country. There are several kinds of these, and frankly its the largest group. Communism, socialism, and benevolent dictators fall into this category, assuming the latter two are non-corrupt. This is, in my opinion, the best kind.

The third is the government that looks out for the special interest of individuals and their personal and immediate wants over the general health of both the government and the society as a whole. This last is where most democracies, especially the United States, falls. This works ok when the individuals want the plausible, and the individuals are not being excessively greedy. Unfortunately, it goes into a cascading systems failure when the individuals want the impossible (example, conserving energy without affecting way of life- jesus god are people stupid), they are being greedier than Romulus Augustulus, or both.

I think people who support Amtrak (and the freight railroads) are classified as Socialists rather than Communists. I know I was when I had it out with some Polish kid in a forum on Facebook regarding Amtrak and freight railroad funding and the role that the government should (or should not) take part in. I think you'll always have those who are against anything that a government tries to do that doesn't directly benefit them (perfect example: passenger rail). They're the first to complain that they shouldn't get charged for something that they don't use too. Wyoming's, South Dakota's, Alaska's, and Hawaii's taxpayers still pick up the tab for Amtrak, even though it doesn't even serve their state.

I think it is high time for us as a whole to cease the procrastination of expanded passenger rail in the US. The federal government somehow needs to get it through their thick skulls that passenger rail everywhere else in the modern world is heavily subsidized by their respective governments, governments who are not concerned with petty affairs like whether or not the dining car makes a profit but rather the mobility of their country and the efficient, quick movement of its citizens. It's come to the point that it's really starting to **** me off how we can't seem to get through to the next step. It bothers me that many of our syndicated network show hosts (and sometimes their guests) seem to have a better grip on things than those idiots we have in Washington. Perhaps they should run for office in the near future. It bothers me that infrastructure is decaying everyday with age and increased traffic loads, be it railroads, highways, or airports, and we still are too slow to do anything about it because "it costs too much money." It bothers me that there are those who oppose capital projects by railroads, solely because it might bring a few more trains per day through their town and/or have trains that run at higher speeds because of the "danger" associated with them. Those people need to realize that said improvements are an improvement to the national transportation network as a whole, and not just a local hindrance. America is changing. America is growing. America's transportation needs are changing AND growing. Washington, and many citizens out there, need to realize that Amtrak serves as a method of national transportation, not a meaningless tax-eating entity.

And for heaven's sakes, 3-5 interstate highway interchanges cost as much as Amtrak's annual budget. Embarrassing? Most decidedly. Happy 4th of July. <_<

 

[Guest_timetableflagman_*]

Many of the points made so far are so very true. Could we say that if rail travel becomes recognized as the only logical form of transit-- a recognition that may be developing before our eyes-- that the “un-profitability” of rail passenger service will start to disappear?

It could be argued that any business currently seen as profitable, including aviation and even the highway related businesses, might not be so if not for the volume of business generated by high demand such as with aviation, motoring or even the grocery business. People usually expect and demand that these things be relatively cheap. The key is in the volume of demand. Depletion of oil, with no logical replacement for it as a way to power either individually operated motorized road vehicles or high petroleum consuming aviation, may be the element in diverting the volume of demand from aviation and motoring onto the rails.

Rail, on the other hand, can be powered by externally—and potentially renewably generated electric power. This mix of realities can make rail passenger service not just more economically possible to be operated but make passenger service a vital part of rail traffic—much as it was before the appearance of the auto or plane.

The days of rail passenger service being seen as a merely recreational waste of rail usage may be rapidly being replaced by a realization that rail travel is a growing logical necessity. In the absence of high-speed rail (an absence that may very well cease shortly as Americans needing to travel by rail demand fast transcontinental rail travel), travelers may have to accept current travel times as a necessary delay and be thankful they even have any form of mass intercity transportation.

Would a mere twenty-car daily coal or grain train be profitable? But, several hundred-car trainloads are considered to be profitable. How about even fifty to seventy-car passenger trains? Even current 18-20-car trains with about half the cost subsidized by the sale of onboard advertising space could be “profitable”. Considering the apparent tariff for each freight car and the likely full tariff for passenger cars (including all costs such as insurance, labor, etc.), the volume of passenger traffic for each car could make passenger trains just as profitable as any current freight train--at 72-100 seats per coach and about half that for double-fare, individual sleeper berth compartments with only café compartments on each car rather than separate, largely non-revenue lounge, dinette, dining or baggage cars.

The attractiveness of profitable passenger service, made possible by high demand and perhaps several daily high capacity passenger trains with only the essential onboard services frugally provided, could be the sea change that will occur making rail passenger service not only self-sustaining but profitable as a recognized legitimate form of rail traffic. Therein might be the potential for companies, whether railroads or other operators, to trample each other in rushing to provide this service.

 

[lrdc9_metroplitan_sub]

"'Paying too much for car insurance isn't any smarter' commercials General Insurance Company (GeICo) ran a few years back. "

"Communism, as a governmental system, given that all members of the commune are 100% dedicated to the health and welfare of that commune, is a vast improvement over basic capitalistic democracy."

That's quite a rambling there GML. By the way, it's Government Employees Insurance Company (i think) - GEICo.

The problem is, these states never have a 100% dedication rate. what do you think the reason that most communist states and sham democracies have crippling inflation, poor masses, bad living conditions and often, rampant disease.

Somebody needs to get off their soap box and take a little nap( see; poorly executed joke)

 

[Galls]

Government entities have the inability to pay market rates for anything, namely labor. So franchising and even subsidizing operations would still be cheaper than a non competitive position which amtrak has now.

 

[the_traveler]

Yes, the Government providing support for Amtrak is a form of Socialism, but that is not all bad. I for one would rather pay (via my tax money) support to Amtrak, then have (nothing personal against them) UP or CSX operates passenger trains. And if supporting Amtrak by the government is Socialist, what is supporting airports and highways? :huh:

I very much doubt that ORD would be built if only American Airlines or United Airlines had to pay for it. I doubt that ATL would have been built if only Delta Airlines was responsible for it, with no assistance. And do you think some of those small airports would have air service if not for EAS subsidies - paid by the Government? I doubt that I-44 would have been built if only St. Louis, Tulsa and OKC had to pay for it. And not to pick on them, but why did Hawaii complain that they can not get Interstate highway money because they do not touch any other state? That is how H-1, H-2 and H-3 got built on Oahu!

You say re-privatize Amtrak? :huh: Think back to the 1960's and railroads such as PC, RI and SCL! (And yes - even UP! ) Why do you think Amtrak was formed in 1971? Railroad carried less freight, and let passenger service suffer. So what make you think that they will throw away some of their freight business just so they can run passenger trains? :huh:

 

[Guest]

"Shame. on. YOU"

...not ashamed at all, thank you very much. Shame on you for insulting me. Watch your grammar and your manners, you sweet thing. You know I give you a lot of leeway in your comments because of your age, lack of experience, my manners and your occasional flashes of brilliance..... just wanted you to know that.

My husband and I took in a family of 7 Russians (5 boys under the age of 7 and their parents) in the late 1980's for 6 weeks (was supposed to be 2!) in order to get them adjusted to our society. They, Christians, came here under the same umbrella organization that serves the Jewish community (We're in a resettlement city.) straight from the refugee camp in Italy. They spoke no English upon arrival so it was a very fascinating time. The Father's job "over there" was whatever needed to be done by the government, on the day that he showed up for work. As a result, one day he might be delivering mail, the next he might be running an asphalt paving machine. Imagine the resume we helped him put together. As a result he was a jack of all trades and master of none. In their 1 room apartment (in our house they bunched up in 1 room because they were more comfortable with that) in Russia, they MIGHT have water. I don't know where the toilets were over there but they kept asking me what happened to "stuff" when you flushed and I had to explain the septic/sewer system. My father was one of those people who liked to keep old cars, "never know when you might need parts", he told me. He liked them old (like you and your Mercedes) whether they ran or not. "My" Russian family couldn't understand why whatever they saw not being used couldn't be appropriated for their own use without payment to the owner, including my Dad's car. That, my dear, is communism. I suspect Kibbutzim is different and more like a religious camp (no disrespect meant, please). There's a shared idealism and spiritual aspect within a Kibbutz, etc. (Frankly, I don't care.) The concept of private ownership (and the abundance of bananas, blue Kool-aid, disposable diapers and always-on electricity, believe it or not) was outside of "my family's" experience. They, to this day, lack the initiative required to live without other's support. The second family (appeared to be a conglomeration of people, some of whom were related to one another, some not) were from Vietnam. Again, 7 people, no English speakers. We spent less time together but I still had to teach them about choices among such abundance as exists here, such as chicken in a grocery store and jobs.

As far as this being a democracy. I understand that we have a democratic process in some respects but that we are actually a republic. This isn't my field, just seem to remember that from some class way back when.

Back to Amtrak and monies. UP earns its monies and appears to pay appropriate taxes. The ire of those desiring Amtrak should not be directed towards those profits of UnP. Go to the NTB statistical report on the other thread and see where monies are being spent. Persuade your Congressional reps to redirect monies and future policicies away from airports and expanding asphalt and towards rail.... but stay away from going after corporations to pay more than they already are.

 

[Guest]

"I think it is high time for us as a whole to cease the procrastination of expanded passenger rail in the US"

Mr. Weaver, I so agree.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

"'Paying too much for car insurance isn't any smarter' commercials General Insurance Company (GeICo) ran a few years back. "
"Communism, as a governmental system, given that all members of the commune are 100% dedicated to the health and welfare of that commune, is a vast improvement over basic capitalistic democracy."

That's quite a rambling there GML. By the way, it's Government Employees Insurance Company (i think) - GEICo.

The problem is, these states never have a 100% dedication rate. what do you think the reason that most communist states and sham democracies have crippling inflation, poor masses, bad living conditions and often, rampant disease.

Somebody needs to get off their soap box and take a little nap( see; poorly executed joke)

I ain't gettin' off my soap box. I never suggested that we have a 100% dedication rate in the US, or in most places. When it works, communism is, at least as far as I'm concerned, the best form of government. The problem, here and elsewhere, is that, as you suggest, people aren't altruistic enough for it to work- yet, anyway.

Shame on you for insulting me. Watch your grammar and your manners, you sweet thing.

I didn't insult you, friend. Hope you didn't take it that way.

My husband and I took in a family of 7 Russians (5 boys under the age of 7 and their parents) in the late 1980's for 6 weeks (was supposed to be 2!) in order to get them adjusted to our society. They, Christians, came here under the same umbrella organization that serves the Jewish community (We're in a resettlement city.) straight from the refugee camp in Italy. They spoke no English upon arrival so it was a very fascinating time. The Father's job "over there" was whatever needed to be done by the government, on the day that he showed up for work. As a result, one day he might be delivering mail, the next he might be running an asphalt paving machine. Imagine the resume we helped him put together. As a result he was a jack of all trades and master of none. In their 1 room apartment (in our house they bunched up in 1 room because they were more comfortable with that) in Russia, they MIGHT have water. I don't know where the toilets were over there but they kept asking me what happened to "stuff" when you flushed and I had to explain the septic/sewer system. My father was one of those people who liked to keep old cars, "never know when you might need parts", he told me. He liked them old (like you and your Mercedes) whether they ran or not. "My" Russian family couldn't understand why whatever they saw not being used couldn't be appropriated for their own use without payment to the owner, including my Dad's car. That, my dear, is communism. I suspect Kibbutzim is different and more like a religious camp (no disrespect meant, please). There's a shared idealism and spiritual aspect within a Kibbutz, etc. (Frankly, I don't care.) The concept of private ownership (and the abundance of bananas, blue Kool-aid, disposable diapers and always-on electricity, believe it or not) was outside of "my family's" experience. They, to this day, lack the initiative required to live without other's support. The second family (appeared to be a conglomeration of people, some of whom were related to one another, some not) were from Vietnam. Again, 7 people, no English speakers. We spent less time together but I still had to teach them about choices among such abundance as exists here, such as chicken in a grocery store and jobs.

Why does everyone bring up Russia when communism is mentioned as a conceptual system? You mention later that this isn't a pure democracy. Well, our democracy is a pure as driven snow compared to the purity of communism in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a oligarchical dictatorship with communist tendencies, nothing more. Maybe under Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, it came closer to that ideal. But certainly not by the end of WWII, what with Stalin and his paranoia and the system that followed him.

As for what a Kibbutz is, they aren't all particularly religious. The one I lived on wasn't, for instance. Shared belief in Judaism was a connection in the group, yes, but its the same as a shared interest in Amtrak is a connection in the group we are in now. Amtrak isn't a religion, and Kummant sure as heck ain't a god. In that case, it was friends and family, and working for the betterment of the group was done for that reason.

 

[George Harris]

Many of the RR rights-of-way were land grants from the government, i.e. handouts, especially routes in the West.

For which they were required to carry government material at half the going rate. This condition stayed in effect until after the end of WW2, by which time the reduced rates had saved the government several times the value of the land provided.

As an aside to this: This law was construed by the government to mean by any route between points where a land grant railroad existed, whether the freight moved on the land grant route or some other line. This led, at one point during WW2, concerning a relatively short piece of railroad in northeast Louisiana that was built by land grant but bypassed later on company purchased right of way: One government agency opposing the abandonment so as to maintain the cheaper freight rate while another goverment agency wanted it abandoned so the rail and other material could be either scrapped or used elsewhere. Even though no military freight actually moved on the line, the route was used for pricing purposes.