Another Amtrak Question

Trains Magazine General Discussion
21

Futuremodal

Your constant assertion that the user fees pay for all the government support of non rail modes is really getting old. There have been numerous post showing that you are dead wrong on that subject. Apparently your dreams about a utopian world, where every shipper gets dramatic reductions in rates and improvements in service, block out both the reality of the world today and the possibility that what you propose may not produce the results you expect.

As stated previously, the Federal Highway Administration has reported that tolls, fuel taxes and other taxes defined as user fees only pays for about 60% of the cost of building and maintaining all U.S. roads and highways. The rest of the expenditure comes from various forms of taxes that go to general revenue funds. It is true that the largest proportion of those other funds come from state or local taxes, but if you can show me how the dollar you pay in federal taxes takes more from your wealth than the dollar you pay in local taxes, I will stop saying that taxes are taxes. It should also be noted that the FHWA has stated the the backlog of needed highway construction programs is about $75 Billion. If the user fees were actually covering the full cost of building and maintaining highways, they wouldn’t be wearing out faster than they are being replaced.

You assertion that the government only puts money into the infrastructure used by the other modes is just dumb. When was the last time you saw an 18 wheeler with flangers removing snow off the road, or the trucking company sending out its wrecker to move its damaged truck, or trucking company personel providing traffic control? The last time I checked, the people that route airplanes are government employees. And even after months of working near a major waterway lock, I have never seen a deck hand climb up the ladder to turn the valves that flood the lock basin.

As an aside, Railway Age magazine recently noted that the Bush budget really put t

22

Part of the Federal highway user fee money is used to subsidize other modes including passenger rail. The few states who support rail, like California, add State highway user fees to the rail pot. California’s highway system would be in much better shape if highway money were was spent on highways not rail. (and also not spent to reduce the deficit caused by wasteful spending and stupid mandated automatic spending increases in social program spending) Actually at the regional/local level spending some highway user fee money on rail is probably justified to provide a balanced overall transprtation system.

The majority of non user fee taxes used for funding roads are local taxes and assessments used to fund local roads. The local residents and business people who pay them benifit.

Separating the local/regional passenger rail from the overall system into local/regional funded systems is in line with local funding of local roads.

Many areas of thre USA do not have the population density/distribution for public transit to work. The is no less or more true than it was 50 or 100 years ago. If you look at the history of public transportation in America most systems lost money even when the had a monopoly and the auto was not an alternative.

One of the things that killed privately owned public transit, in places that had the proper population density/distribution, was the cost of operating off peak hour services. However, when fares are rasied enough to subisize them, or when these services are cut, the peak hour services suffer drastic loses of ridership destroying their profitability.

Fares on local/regional public transit should be raised to be more in line with costs of providing the services, although (while I hate to admit it) for the public good, they should be kept lower than the cost of driving oneself.

It must also be recognized that because it is a fixed system with fixed access points, passenger rail cannot provide a

23

You know, an arguement could be made that the Federal government is required to build and maintain the Interstates by nothing less than the Constitution itself. But what exactly “To establish … post Roads” means was never really established insofar as can they only declare where a post road should be or actually build it.

24

Interesting.

The Federal government did not actually build the Interstate Highway system or the US sign route system that preceeded it. The individual States designed and built them.

The Federal government did furnish he majority of the funding for the Interstates. They set minimum standards, and coordinated the routes. The Federal funding made the States develop highway systems that fit into a national network by requiring them to do so in order to get Federal funding.

The US highway system was developed from local road systems where there was little coordination between roads in neighboring jurisdictions.

In California, for instance, it was not until after 1900 that the State startind developing a road system to connect County seats and a few other important cities. The State took ownership or roads fitting the system and began to maintain and improve them.

The 1916 Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Aid Road Act to “coordinate major interstate roads” The justification for the act was the Constitutional provision for “post roads”. The Act provided for the Federal government to pay a maximum 50% of the construction cost for any rural public road “over which the US mails now are or may hereafter be transported”. The first Federal Aid Road was a 2.55 mile project between Alameda and Richmond in California. It was completed in January 1918.

25

A good bit of what is now public transit was built by developers in order to support profitable development of land they owned. Quite a bit of Queens Co. in NYC was developed this way. Once the land was developed, the developer sold the transit line for whatever he could get and moved on to the next project, leaving the residents dependent on a money losing transit line.

The interstate highway system has provided this same function, only with tax payers footing the bill for construction.

26

radivil and DSchmitt have some interesting thoughts there! On the Interstate highway system – on which I had the dubious privilege to work some many years ago as a design and route selection engineer – it is quite true that the various States did the actual design and construction work. The Feds paid for 90% of the cost of construction. The Feds also gave a very large set of volumes of specifications for the design of the roads involved, which allowed the design engineer almost no latitude at all, although there was a good bit of latitude involved in actual route selection. In spite of that, some States managed to build some very well-designed and thought out highways. Others… well… lets just say that there are sections of a major interstate in a southern New England State which are STILL used in civil engineering and traffic engineering courses to this day as outstanding examples of what NOT to do when building a highway. Also, one must keep in mind that the original purpose of the Interstate highway system was only partly to expedite traffic; a very significant part of the motivation was to provide for the rapid and efficient movement of military assets from one place to another (just one example: the 14’ 6" minimum overhead clearance was to allow for the transport of vehicle mounted ballistic missiles).

The Federal highway system is slightly different; there was a genuine effort to facilitate interstate transportation there, in accordance with the post roads clause of the Constitution. That the individual States took advantage of the system to gain reimbursements for local roads is a political point – simple opportunism, and why not? The point that the Federal highway system (US route what have you) is somewhat chaotic is the result of that opportunism.

What is the point of this? Simply this: realistically, allowing the individual States to go their own way on something which affects Interstate commerce works, at best, poorly. This is not an attack on the integrity or

27

Jamie

Very interesting, particularly because of your 1st person witness.

Even in metro NY, you have NJT and Metro North each doing their own thing. And, until recently, the LIRR and NYC/NH were operating independently. I’m still not so sure how well Conn and NY get along on the NH line, either.

You can even point to the “weak link” on the NEC being the Conn DOT owned portion from Shell to NH.

Another example of how states don’t work together is the “Downeaster”. Maine is pushing it hard, and NH is a reluctant partner, even though a major chunk of the riders are from NH.

Even the example Mineta uses as a sucess story, the Cascades, has had trouble. Oregon nearly opted out last year which would have placed more burden on Wash.

28

Don – on Connecticut vs. the NEC and MetroNorth/New Haven line – the only reason Connecticut supports it at all is that the folks in Fairfield County have the money… and the pull… and absolutely have to have it to get to New York. The State has been trying to kill the Waterbury branch (used mostly by less affluent individuals trying to get to work in places like Stamford) for years… don’t get me going.

But all your examples are good ones, and support the argument I was making!

29

thanks, jeaton. I didn’t really mean my tax break for the railroads to be a winner. I merely mentioned it is the one thing, if large enough, that could put them into the passenger business. Practially speaking it would not be such a bad deal, because there are really only six players, maybe only five, and they would naturally get together, as indeed the multiple private railroads always did, to pool services and ticketing.

In the old days you could go to Sante Fe Station in Aneheim and buy a ticket to Rahway, New Jersey. It would have two coupons for the Sante Fe to Chicago and then a coupon for Parmelee Transfer and then two coupons for the Pennsy. You would ride four trains, and one van, bus, or taxi between Chicago Stations.

The advantage today is that you would not have to change stations in Chicago. But you would have to buy three separate tickets, one for the Los Angeles suburban system, one for Amtrak taking you from LA to Trenton, and you would probably miss your first-out connection in Trenton while buying your ticket to Rahway from NJT’s window there.

May the six railroads together would again provide one ticket for this trip!

30

Think about it–why were the railroads so eager to give up their passenger service in the first place?

31

Jay,

Your ignorance is getting old. Do you not have the ability to discern between “all” road funding and funding that is primarily interstate (as opposed to Interstate) in nature? Most interstate road systems get the majority of their federal share of funding via user fees. That is a statement of fact. What the states do to take care of their share of interstate highway is of their own discretion. The fact that some states choose to pay for some interstate road funding with methods other than user fees is not an issue for the federal government to have any say over. The fact remains: The federal share of interstate road funding comes from user fees.

I and others on this forum have NEVER claimed that all government (inclusive of federal, state, and local) road funding comes from user fees. We have been very carefull to make the distinction between federal and non-federal road funding.

Germain to the subject matter, Amtrak gets most of its funding from the federal government, and this federal share is NOT from user fees, but from the general tax funds, in direct contrast to road and waterway funding. Outside the NEC, Amtrak is solely an operating company, not an infrastructure owning entity. Therefore it is axiomatic that federal funding for Amtrak is diametrically opposed to the federal funding methods for highways.

The Waterways Association is pissed because there is funding available in the Waterways trust fund that is being used to help buttress the federal budget rather than being expended on needed waterway improvements. In this instance, Bush is being rather Clintonesque.

When we say that the federal government only funds the infrastructure portions of other modes, you know that the context of that statement is in comparing infrastructure to transporter operations. The three levels of government all are involved in infrastructure construction and maintenance for all non-rail modes, but only states and localities are involved in

32

How big of a money pit is the NEC? Where is the money all going? What were the notably bad decisions?

Part of why I am interested is there is this thing called the Midwest Rail Initiative that is supposed to bring 110 MPH trains to all over the Midwest, from Iowa to Wisconsin to Illinois to Indiana and I guess even Ohio. The reason for the 110 MPH is that with the right kind of signals you can go that fast, but you are not allowed to go faster without eliminating all the grade crossings.

Now the Midwest has some flat, straight stretches of track – the CP route taken by the Empire Builder from Milwaukee to Minneapolis I believe is the stretch that the old Milwaukee Road Hiawathas were doing 100 MPH+. I am told there are stretches through Indiana that are either the Pennsy or NYC Chicago-New York main line. There is the BNSF 3-track “Aurora Speedway” westbound out of Chicago.

But apart from that, what they are considering is essentially reproducing the NEC in the Midwest over many more route miles and with much fewer dollars (they are talking about 7 billion).

I asked someone in the know about things rail and things Amtrak, and the answer I got is that the electric wire is what soaked up all the money on the NEC and that the Midwest thing was going to be high-speed Diesel. There is no reason that Diesel – either locomotives like the P42’s or DMU cars like the Colorado Railcars or that Danish Flexliner DMU can’t go that fast, although there are some issues of getting good acceleration with Diesel power compared to the enormous HP’s at speed you can get with electric. I guess gas turbine keeps coming up (latest proposal from Bombardier) but gas turbine has a reputation of being a gas guzzler.

What did they do wrong and what did they do right on the NEC? My guess is that the AEM-7 pulling Amfleet cars was something they did right. My guess is that the jury is still out on the Bombardier Acela – heavy, trouble-prone (can you say PC-DOT Metroli

33

There are freight trains on the NE Corridor. The Providence and Worcester is proud of providing freight service on portions of the line north and east from Stamford and features freights passing Acelas on their calender. I understand that NS uses the corridor for one fast freight each way every weekday evening, but I am unsure of this at this particular time. It runs with diesel power, not with Amtrak’s electrics. And the Providence and Worcester also is all-diesel. I think Guilford and CSX also use part of the Corridor near Boston. All of this does of course (1) bring some additional funds for Amtrak above the additional maintenance expenses of the track, and (2) preserves rail access for some industries.

34

The question is: If Amtrak is “junked” will the freight railroads take over? I think if they do the freight roads will do a better job.

My response: Lots of very interesting information contained in the responses, some threads have gone way off track - so to speak - but nevertheless, pretty informative and somewhat emotional opinions.

You know, the longer one stays around (as in living) the more likely it is to see some of the past repeat it self. That may be wishful thinking insofar as the freight railroads wanting to get back into passenger operations. They wanted out - they made train travel for passengers intolerable for many - they cut the ties. Now, they didn’t do this all by themselves - several other factors were involved in the mix. But freight railroads in the U.S. are not about to bring back passenger trains. Can’t see it.

On another forum, BEFORE the announced budget cut for Amtrak, I posted a reply to a question regarding the future of the American passenger train. Because so much has been said here - I thought I’d repeat my comments - Here goes:

Several years ago I terminated my affiliation with a group of people who meet in our state capital (Jefferson City, Missouri) for quarterly meetings with government - Amtrak - chambers of commerce - tourism organizations and passenger rail enthusiasts (represented by a group, rather than individual). This organization was put together as a semi-governmental body with the purpose of putting together reasonable solutions to the operating, administrative and budgetary problems encountered by Amtrak and therefore, the traveling public.

For now, I would rather not get into the particulars insofar as the major players were - for many of them probably are still at it. So please let me continue with this caveat: What I have to say represents my thoughts based on my involvements and observations at four years of meetings - that’s about 16 in total.

In Missouri, Amtrak has two intra-

35

Three factors listed below = red ink.

  1. Subsidized competition in a regulated environment.
  2. Lost mail contracts
  3. Culture change - “suburbanization” of the US
36

Paul – I’m not quite sure I’d term the NEC a money pit. It does cost money, that’s quite true, but from my point of view ‘money pit’ is a rather loaded negative term.

I’d like to tackle several different things on this one, though.

First, the NEC is an integral – and absolutely essential – part of the transportation network in the area from Washington, DC to Boston. While there are parts of it which are less travelled (notably from New Haven, Connecticut, to Providence, Rhode Island), all of it is pretty well used by passengers. In large hunks of it, it is extremely heavily used by passengers who live in outlying communities and have to get to work in the major cities (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington). In one form or another, with one operator or another, it simply has to exist.

This is the reason that freight traffic is restricted on it: during much of the day (say from 06:00 AM to perhaps 9:00 PM) there simply are no available slots to run anything but a passenger train in; the demand is that high. The remainder of the day can be, and is, used for some freight service.

The remainder of the day is also used, however, for essential maintenance! That much traffic on a line causes a good bit of wear and tear. Further, and perhaps even more relevant, Amtrak and its predecessors (the New Haven and Pennsylvania railroads) didn’t have enough money to spend on really good preventive maintenance for many years, starting in the '50s. As a result, much of the infrastructure (catenary, rails, signalling, bridges, stations – you name it!) is, to put it kindly, elderly – and like us elderly people, elderly infrastructure takes more, and more expensive, maintenance to keep it (or us!) up and running.

New catenary, mostly on the New Haven (the section from New York to Boston) was expensive. Some of it was installed from scratch – from New Haven, CT, to Boston – and this was very expensive. The stretch from New York to N

37

Not to mention also the exorbitant insurance rates they’d have to pay. I’ll bet that alone would be a show stopper.

38

G’day, Y’all,
I’m glad someone else realizes that the Interstate system was designed by and for the military. Most roads and any other government projects get done because the military says it needs them. As a result, the feds sink their money into the project. As I recall, the Interstates were an 80/20 deal with Uncle Sugar picking up the 80. Here in Georgia we have fine Interstates. Everyone zips by my Geo Metro on Georgia interstates but when I go out of state, say northward to PA, I pass everyone at 65 because those highways are so poorly kept (or built) that other people slow down to 55. About the only car to pass me on my northbound trip to Orbisonia, PA and the East Broadtop was a Mercedes 300SL gullwing and it was 50 years old.
Railroads have always been taxed to the max because governments saw them as an easy target. For a long time, they were the only target being as they were the only BIG business around. In the 20th century, they helped pay for airports and roads which lightened their loads of both passengers and freight.
California ought to quit spending money on commuter rail and spend it on roads? It has been proven that you cannot ever overcome road traffic with more roads because if you build it they will come. That is why California began building up a commuter rail system in 1972. the state is seen as the leader in intelligent commuter transportation. I wish Georgia’s great leadership was so forward thinking. But that is only wishful thinking. Georgia leadershiip, both Democratic and Republican, would like to follow W’s plan of pushing the funding down a level and push it off on the counties. With such a system, Atlanta’s MARTA has seen its fleet of buses and trains start to wear out. And while the outlying counties refused to join MARTA’s rail system because they were afraid African Americans would move to their communities, the burden has fallen on Atlanta, Fulton and DeKalb counties. Meanwhile the 'burbs were beginning to overflow with new residents, many of whom came from