I am in finance for my career. While in college( back in the days before Amtrack) I did my finacial thesis on rail road accounting and airline practices. It took doing research of about 50 years before WWII for back ground. I predicted back about 1970 that the way public transportation was headed and accounted for that by the end of the century the airlines would be in financial trouble. For many years they airlines have been about 4-50 years behind the railroads in many areas. This includes finances.
glad to see it happen! I have only flown 3 times, but each time felt like only a number. Rode amtrak 2 times, talked to the crew, and met many interesting people, just in the two times I have been on the train. People need to slow down, RELAX! TALK to EACH OTHER. It’s not only finances, but the way the airline conducts buisness. Unfortunately most people dont care how they’re treated, or whats going on behind closed doors, as long as they get there as fast as possible.
I have noticed that when the airlines were replacing their Boeing 707s and DC-8s a decade ago they ran in the red, and now when the airlines are replacing their large fleet of Boeing 727s, DC-10s, Lockheed L-1011s they are running in the red again.
Simple rule of business.
If you have more product than demand and then charge to much for this product you lose money. and you go out of business.(if the govement dose not bail you out).
Can sombody help me to understand WHY the gov’t will give billions of dollars to the airlines for a bail-out, but would rather see passenger rr go down the tubes? I’m just waiting for the day when the gov’t says we have to rely on rr for transportaion because the airlines are all in bankruptcy or something like that.
It is not so much the bailout, but the federal government funding for airports, terminals, runways, etc., etc.
Amtrak barely got a $1 billion this year, whereas the airports received $12 billion. And this was before the feds bailed out the airlines…
If we had a MORATORIUM on federal airport funding for just 10 years, we would have a high speed rail network the envy of the world, some $120 billion worth.
Which would build new passenger only double track (electrified) rail lines from the northeast corridor to Chicago, Chicago to Texas thru St. Louis and Kansas City, Texas to Jacksonville thru New Orleans and Mobile, Jacksonville thru Atlanta to DC, Chicago to Jacksonville thru Atlanta, Jacksonville to Miami thru Orlando, and not to forget the folks on the west coast, Los Angeles to San Francisco (or Oakland). Some 6,000 miles at Florida’s FY 2002 rate of $12 million per mile. And there would still be enough money left over to build another 4,000 miles of high speed double track rail, to other cities such as Denver, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Toronto, Montreal, even a short cut from Pittsburgh to DC and Cleveland to Buffalo in the east.
All of this plus more with just a ten year moratorium on federal airport spending…After the ten years were up, the feds would NOT need to spend so much on airports afterwards…
Passenger trains and service are like the steam engine, they are both dead. Let the dead lie dead.
TIM A
Passenger trains may be dying today, but in the future, hopefully soon, when all of the airlines have gone under in a mountain of red ink, they will thrive.
In the major cities, where the hubs are, airports literally have no more room for growth. The feds have spent so much and built so much, the airports are full. With the population expecting to double in the next 50 years, just where are the airlines going to land their jets, just where are they going to board their passengers, and where are the airliners going to circle and for how long?
The state of Texas DOT has issued a comprehensive study dedtailing its plans of the Trans Texas Corridors. I suggest you read this and get your head out of the sand. There is much more gridlock in your future.
http://www.dot.tx.us/ttc/ttc.htm
After reading this, one might come to the conclusion that high speed trains will be in our future…
I read it. (Not all but most) I liked what I read. One problem, in order for high speed rail to be a success you are going to have to change the mind set of the everyday businessman. They are the bulk of the travelers. They are the one’s who have to be sold on high speed rail. Without there support rail travel, remains dead.
TIM A
What’s pathetic is high speed rail is very profitable in most of the world(France, Japan, Spain, Germany) airlines are huge money losers almost everywhere. The highway system is in trouble also in the USA, I know the transportation commitee in Congress is looking at adding a 60 cent per gallon fuel tax and making more interstates toll roads, my solution would be to build privately owned toll roads and privitize roads like the NJ or Pennsylvania turnpike(both beauracratic nightmares) The United States is about the only country not building privatized highways , because are pork minded politicians both Democrats and Republicans ,don’t want to give up control. You think transportation is bad now wait ten years!!! Thanks to unlimited immigration the US population is growing far faster than infrastucture is being built, plus were neglecting the most efficient form of transport, railroads. The person who said passenger rail is dead must not venture out of the USA much, or has never been on a 200mph+ passenger train.
I have traveled through-out Europe by rail. I did not travel in Japan by high speed rail but did see the trains. I know for a fact that most of the trains I rode on were Goverment subsitized. Most of the rail employee’s I spoke to were afraid they were going to lose there jobs because railroads were losing money. (This was in all country’s except Japan I did not have a opertunity to speak to them.) Today, from what I understand most rail companies are cutting routes do to lack of ridership and money through-out Europe and Asia. Only were heavy goverment subsitize exist do passenger trains continue to run.
TIM A
Nevertheless, you propose to spend more for airports and highways, probably bail out the airlines too, but won’t spend a penny for high speed rail. Face the music, the airlines have yet to build one airport, one airport terminal, one airport parking garage, or one airport freeway. The airlines have enough problems leasing new aircraft to replace the old ones.
If the airlines had to purchase the above items in the past, either one of two things would have happened by now: airline travel costs so high you couldn’t afford, or all of the airlines being government owned…
Notice that the railroads own their right of way, built their railroad tracks, and pay taxes on the same. While railroad cars and engines can be depreciated, land is very difficult to deprecitate…in fact, usually land appreciates…
I doubt if anybody has ridden on a 200 mph + passenger train considering that the maximum speed of most of the high speed trains is around 180 mph. Further, I never heard of any move in Congress to increase the motor fuel tax by 60 cents a gallon, and I live just outside of the Beltway in the suburbs of Washington, DC
Well, the maglev train in Hong Kong, or is it Shanghai does over 200 mph. But its only a twelve mile line from downtown to the airport, without any stops in between.
That is a commuter train, and yes there will always be a need for commuter rail service. Note that it goes from a city to a major Airport.
Sir, I do not disagree with you on hi speed rail. You make some very valid points. However, in today’s economic climate, and bussiness. Airport’s are looked at as the safer investment with a better out look for growth. (And I believe this to be true also.) Until you can change the mind set of World leaders, World bankers and the everyday businessmen, passenger rail sevice between major cities is dead.
TIM A
I will agree with you as far as long distance trips, but I must disagree with you as far as short distance and medium distance trips.
See this graph, even in America people would rather take a fast train than an airliner:
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/400mileairrailratios.gif
In the news this year Amtrak has seen more growth in its Acela ridership, whereas the airlines have lost more business on the northeast corridor/ air shuttle.
Also, keep in mind Acela is running on old tracks south of New Haven, and not reaching its top speed.
Whereas the air shuttle is losing money, Amtrak is posting a profit on its northeast corridor trains… However, Amtrak does have a maintenance backlog of a few billion dollars to reach Acela’s top speed which could save another 30 minutes travel time…
So, there, it is not just a European phenomenon.
The question remains, who we be better off spending $6 billion to fix the northeast corridor so that Acela could run as fast as possible, or spend a similar amount building another terminal and rebuilding the runways at O’hare airport in Chicago?
You are right! The question is how to allocate the limited funding between the modes and how to make the funding pot bigger or depending on your political persuasion how to reduce the funding required for all modes. High speed rail will become a reality in North America but probably not to the same extent as in Europe. I believe that Amtrak has 60% of the intercity in the NEC corridor now which is approximately double it was several years ago. High speed or even higher speed rail will succeed where the distance is short and congestion is high. Congestion will increase on the interstates around urban areas and between certain urban areas until the only alternative will be higher speed rail because air and road travel will be to time consuming at any price. The critics are right that rail will never take over air for the long haul but I disagree with respect to distances up to 500 miles. There are many city pairs that are less than 500 miles apart.
Perhaps I am confused. I have alway’s assumed that the Northeast corridor Infrustructor was maintained at a high standard. If this is true, and these trains are seeing growth and making a profit, why would they need Federal Funds? If the potential for even a break even operation existed, Why don’t the cities along these routes finance these improvments through the sale of Bonds? Or perhaps the reason the rail industry is not seeing this money is because it is so poorly managed.
TIM A
The reason the passenger trains are “not making money” is that they are not run by railroaders but politians. If the airline industry had to abide by the same financial rules the railroads do they would not be flying.
…First of all, I imagine it is a matter of question if a profit is being made on the overall length of the N E C…and perhaps it is time for major capitol improvements and for sure there would not be sufficient funds available from any “profits” being earned…and,I believe I recall Mr. Gunn saying much outlay of funds will be required soon to keep it “high Speed” and safe. I believe I read somewhere that the overhead Catenary is in need of major overhall…so if most of the above is true of their maintenance needs on that route…We’re talking real money.
QM