Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Panel:Amtrak Should be Broken Up (Dukakis Disagrees)
AP ^ | Lawrence Arnold

Posted on 02/07/2002 12:08:55 PM PST by Clemenza

Panel: Amtrak Should Be Broken Up By LAURENCE ARNOLD, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A congressionally appointed panel said Thursday that Amtrak is irreversibly flawed and should be broken up to give the free market an opportunity to improve the nation's passenger train system.

Amtrak, created to relieve freight railways of the burden of carrying passengers, should be replaced at least in part by private operators working under franchise, the Amtrak Reform Council said.

The council's report, sent to Congress, says Amtrak should be relieved of policy-making duties and landownership. After a transition period, private operators would be allowed to compete for contracts to run specific routes.

If enacted, the change would be dramatic. Amtrak, formed in 1971, is the nation's sole provider of intercity passenger train travel.

``The council believes that passenger rail service will never achieve its potential as provided and managed by Amtrak,'' the report says.

The council voted 9-1 in a mail ballot this week to approve the report, which was released Thursday. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta (news - web sites), the Bush administration's representative on the panel, abstained. Charles Moneypenny, who represented rail labor, cast the only ``no'' vote.

The next step is up to Congress, due to vote this year on whether to authorize Amtrak's continued existence. The House Transportation Committee has scheduled a Feb. 14 hearing on the report.

White House budget director Mitchell Daniels said this week the Bush administration plans to study the council's plan before deciding on a course for Amtrak and passenger rail.

The plan faces a hostile reception from Amtrak supporters on and off Capitol Hill.

``I think this report should be rejected out of hand,'' said Amtrak chairman Michael Dukakis, former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate. He called decentralization ``a prescription for bureaucratic paralysis.''

Dukakis said the real issue is money.

Amtrak says it has a $5.8 billion backlog in work needed on its trains, tracks, rail yards and stations. The Transportation Department's inspector general, Kenneth Mead, reported last month that Amtrak needs at least $1 billion a year to stave off deterioration of its assets, most of which are in the Northeast.

Last week, Amtrak said it will cancel long-distance routes unless it receives $1.2 billion in the 2003 budget year, which begins in October. President Bush (news - web sites) has proposed $521 million for Amtrak, the same amount as the last three years.

In its report, the reform council endorses ``adequate and secure sources of funding for intercity passenger rail service'' but specifies no amount.

The reform council's chairman, Gilbert Carmichael, said Thursday that Amtrak's problems do not relate to funding. ``They stem from an organization that is obsolete, can't do all the things it is supposed to do, and has to change,'' he said.

Amtrak, in a statement, agreed that ``the current policy model for passenger rail does not work.'' But it said the reform council sidestepped questions about how big a rail system Americans want, or how much such a system will cost.

Under the council's plan, a new subsidiary of the National Railroad Passenger Corp. - Amtrak's official name - would conduct train operations, ultimately franchising out some or all routes through competitive bidding.

Another subsidiary would own, operate and maintain the tracks, property and stations now under Amtrak's control.

``The council believes that, as is the case throughout our free-market economy, competition would drive down costs and improve service quality and customer satisfaction,'' the executive summary says.

Congress created the council as part of an overhaul that gave Amtrak until Dec. 2, 2002, to begin operating without government subsidies. The council voted 6-5 in November that Amtrak will not achieve that goal, a finding that gave the panel 90 days to come up with a restructuring plan.

Amtrak President George Warrington said the council's November vote cost Amtrak $52 million because it forced some pending business deals to fall apart.

The rail labor division of the AFL-CIO's transportation trades department failed last week to persuade a federal judge to block release of the council's report.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: transportationlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
Nice to see Dukakis remains the same socialist that he always was?
1 posted on 02/07/2002 12:08:55 PM PST by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Heads up!
2 posted on 02/07/2002 12:09:23 PM PST by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Dukakis? He's still around? No wonder Amtrak is failing.
3 posted on 02/07/2002 12:10:36 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
The transportation system in this country needs a serious influx of capitalism. Let the airlines, trains and buses go TU. It would bring the greatest travel revolution in the last 4 decades to fruition. The only thing holding us back, is the govts link to the past, and their hold on our pocketbooks. If A A went banko, their would be cheap airplanes, tools, etc for auction for someone to pick up and build an empire. The same holds true for all of these assets. Too bad there really is no voice in the halls of govt to promote these ideas.
4 posted on 02/07/2002 12:14:11 PM PST by jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
The real question is, if Amtrak went away would anyone notice?
5 posted on 02/07/2002 12:16:42 PM PST by Straight Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
After the heinous way Dukakis screwed Massachusetts on the Boston Harbor cleanup, he should be limited to toilet bowl scrubbing in public restrooms (I can see it now: "next year they are giving me a promotion: I will get a brush!")
6 posted on 02/07/2002 12:17:27 PM PST by SpinyNorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeremiah
Please clarify "TU," "A A," and "banko." (At least, those last two look like you want American Airlines to go bankrupt.)
7 posted on 02/07/2002 12:21:39 PM PST by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Dukakis said the real issue is money.

Hey, there's a shocker!

But what else would you expect from the guy who had the state issue phony ID's to illegal immigrants when he was governor so that they could qualify for welfare?

8 posted on 02/07/2002 12:22:04 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Dukakis said the real issue is money

For once I agree with Dukakis. The issue is money: Amtrak doesn't make a profit.
9 posted on 02/07/2002 12:24:59 PM PST by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Transportation infrastructure should be the responsibility of government. No one seems to have a problem with canals, locks, waterways, ports, highways, airports, and space launch facilities, all of which operate on the public dime, yet for some reason rail has to pull its own infrastructure load.

Trucking companies don't pave and maintain the Interstates. Airlines don't staff and equip airports and air navigation systems. Shipping lines neither build their own ports nor navigate using their own satellites and buoys. And every satellite in orbit flies off a taxpayer-funded launchpad using a booster derived from a taxpayer-funded military program.

We as a nation need high-speed passenger rail. Rail infrastructure is national infrastructure. Just as the federal government created the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, which is used by privately-owned trucking companies and motor coach lines, the federal government should fund, construct, and maintain a National System of Interstate and Defense Railways, to be used by privately-owned freight and passenger railroads.

Please note: I am not advocating a National Rail Corporation any more than I'd advocate a National Trucking Corporation or a Federal Bus Line. I'm simply advocating a national high-speed rail infrastructure -- an "Interstate of Rails" -- as part of our total national transport strategy.

Trucks don't pay for the roads they use -- why should trains pay for theirs? What's sauce for the eighteen-wheeler goose is sauce for the eighteen-coach special.

10 posted on 02/07/2002 12:24:59 PM PST by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Death to antiquated Amtrak!!!

Die Amtrak Die!!!

Pittsburgh may lose link to financially strapped Amtrak (Build MAGLEV instead!)

What is High Speed Ground Transportation?

High-speed ground transportation (HSGT)-- a family of technologies ranging from upgraded existing railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles-- is a passenger transportation option that can best link cities lying about 100-500 miles apart. Common in Europe ( http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/home.htm) and Japan (http://www.japanrail.com),HSGT in the United States already exists in the Northeast Corridor (http://www.amtrak.com/news/pr/atk9936.html) between New York and Washington, D.C. and will soon serve travelers between New York and Boston. 
HSGT is self-guided intercity passenger ground transportation that is time competitive with air and/or auto on a door-to-door basis for trips in the approximate range of 100 to 500 miles. This is market-based, not a speed based definition. It recognizes that the opportunities and requirements for HSGT differ markedly among different pairs of cities. High-speed ground transportation (HSGT) is a family of technologies ranging from upgraded steel-wheel-on-rail railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles.
The Federal Railroad Administration has designated a variety of high density transportation corridors within our nation for development of HSGT:

.

For more information, please visit the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA’s) High Speed Ground Transportation Website

11 posted on 02/07/2002 12:29:11 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
TU = tits up...A A = American Airlines. I could care less what happens to major carriers, as long as they are left to stand on their own, without govt support for operations. Banko = bankrupt
12 posted on 02/07/2002 12:30:18 PM PST by jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green; Transportation_List
High-speed rail as an alternative mode of transportation in the U.S. is long overdue. We are reaching the point of diminishing returns as we expand our 4-lane interstates to 6 or (gasp!!!) 8 lanes. And even costly airport expansions make little sense when (prior to 9/11) the air corridors themselves are over-congested.

High-speed rail and maglev offer the perfect alternative to augment & supplement our highway and air transportation infrastructure. For regional trips between 150 and 350 miles, it is faster than automobile and not that much slower than air. Yet offers the potential to alleviate both congested highways and air corridors!

In light of current economic conditions, construction of this vital transportation infrastructure should be accelerated.

13 posted on 02/07/2002 12:31:19 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Why was this removed from Breaking News? I think it qualifies!
14 posted on 02/07/2002 12:31:24 PM PST by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Trucks don't pay for the roads they use -- why should trains pay for theirs?

Two problems with this:


15 posted on 02/07/2002 1:13:37 PM PST by detsaoT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
So you are advocating replacing existing Amtrak service with a new technology(maglev) that will require a whole new infrastructure along the entire route that will require new ROW for much of the route. Replacing an existing technology for a new one that costs $20-100+ million PER MILE! And an unproven technology that has never successfully been implemented in common carrier service.

Thanks for offering to spend everybody else's money.

16 posted on 02/07/2002 1:30:43 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
A compendium of posts about this topic.

Amtrak Sparks Bidding Interest

Perry’s Trans-Texas Corridors: A Prescription for America’s Transportation Woes

Perry Unveils Parallel Road, Rail Proposal

Time for the Railroads to Take Back the Passenger Trains?

CEO Summit Can Solve Passenger Rail Problem

17 posted on 02/07/2002 1:43:23 PM PST by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Publius
FYI: Pittsburgh may lose link to financially strapped Amtrak (Build MAGLEV instead!)
18 posted on 02/07/2002 1:54:50 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
with a new technology(maglev) that will require a whole new infrastructure along the entire route...

Actually, one of Maglev's major advantages is a small "footprint" that enables it to be built along existing rights-of-way (Interstate or state highways, existing rail lines, etc.)

19 posted on 02/07/2002 1:58:44 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT
Trucks do pay for the roads they use.

Nope. Not even close. Federal, state, and local governments invest around $50 billion each year on capital outlays (highway construction, engineering, and right-of-way expenditures) for our nation's highways, roads, bridges, and streets. Maintenance and traffic services provided by Federal, state, and local governments together come to about $27.5 billion annually. In addition, the Federal Highway Administration pays about $19 billion annually to the states for maintenance/traffic work. Federal funds cover more than 50 percent of state capital outlays and about 40 percent of total highway capital outlays. Other highway costs include administration and research, law enforcement and safety, and interest and other debt-related expenses.

Total nationwide disbursements for highways are approximately $106 billion per year.

Now, what percentage of the highway system is paid for by the user? In1997, total "user" fees and taxes, including the federal and state tax on each gallon of gasoline, were $89.5 billion.

$106B in expenditures less $89.5B in user fees leaves a difference of $16.5B. Who picks up the difference? You and I do, through state highway bond proceeds ($5.6 billion) and local financial participation ($1.4 billion), with the remainder coming as a free gift from the taxpayers.

And keep in mind that the original capital outlay for the Interstate System -- and other public roads -- was covered by Uncle Sam as well.

Users don't pay for the highway system -- the taxpayers do. The same is true for the airline industry (the Feds and local governments cover the costs of airports and aids to navigation, not to mention post-911 federal cash bailouts) sea and river transport (ports, canals, buoys, satellites) space launch services, and other forms of transportation infrastructure. So why shouldn't rail get the same kind of sweet deal?

Trains, in most areas of the nation, do pay for their own infrastructure - in the sense that the train companies (CSX, Northern, etc) OWN and MAINTAIN their railroad track networks (which they lease out to Amtrak).

So what? All that proves is that railroads labor under a burden shared with no other form of transportation and still manage to turn a profit, thus supporting my point. The trucking industry gets a $16.5 billion dollar check from Uncle Sam every year to maintain its roads; the railroads have to pay for and maintain their own.

Your premises are incorrect, and the Government still has no business in any of the aforementioned industries.

Get back to me when the trucking industry starts paying for the highway system on its own. Until then, it's your premises that are flawed.

See also

20 posted on 02/07/2002 2:11:10 PM PST by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT
The Trans-Texas Corrodor System

"Governor Rick Perry today unveiled the "Trans Texas Corridor" plan, a fiscally responsible and innovative transportation blueprint that will improve our state's transportation needs, move the transport of hazardous materials out of urban population centers, reduce air pollution and significantly improve opportunities for economic development and job creation in Texas.

The Trans Texas Corridor incorporates toll and non-toll roads, high-speed freight and commuter rail, water lines, oil and gas pipelines, electric transmission lines, broadband and other telecommunications infrastructure in the same corridors.

With population projections showing that Texas could grow from 21 million residents today to 50 million over the next few decades, Perry stated that planning for tomorrow's transportation needs is essential.

'We need a transportation system that meets the needs of tomorrow, not one that struggles to keep up with the needs of yesterday,' Perry said. 'The Trans Texas Corridor will map out a brighter future for Texas. It is a plan to ease traffic congestion and increase the safety and security of Texans living in crowded cities and suburbs, near congested border crossings, and in our smallest communities in rural Texas.'

The Trans Texas Corridor plan utilizes innovative and fiscally sound funding methods that will allow the state to construct the system with a minimal expenditure of public money. Those measures were approved by the Texas Legislature and by Texas voters last year. Through Exclusive Development Agreement authority, Toll Equity, Regional Mobility Authorities and the Texas Mobility Fund, Texas can use increasingly tight state and federal funds to partner with public and private entities to design, build, operate and manage the innovative system - without new taxes.

'The Trans Texas Corridor plan also will help Texas reduce air pollution and lead to better stewardship of our natural resources,' Perry said. "Improved infrastructure will provide unprecedented opportunities for economic growth, creating jobs and luring businesses to Texas because of a superior, safe and efficient transportation system.'" [Source]

"The Corridor will link with existing interstate systems, three existing regional transportation systems, as well as major ports of entry in Laredo, El Paso, Brownsville, Corpus Christi and Houston. [Gov. Perry] has asked Texas Transportation Commissioners to finalize a plan by this summer.

The corridors will consist of six highway vehicle lanes - three in each direction - and six rail lines - three in each direction. One rail line will be dedicated to high speed commuter rail, one to high speed freight rail and one dedicated to short haul regional rail, which could serve as the backbone of a local commuter rail system serving all Texans. The governor emphasized that his Trans Texas Corridor plan will involve the construction of rail lines at the same time roads are built.

The corridors also will have easements for petroleum, natural gas, electric and telecommunications lines. By locating the infrastructure in the corridors, industries will be able to increase public safety by gradually moving their lines away from neighborhoods and population centers. At the same time, Texas businesses, citizens and residents of rural communities will have increased access to water utility lines, petroleum pipelines, natural gas pipelines, electric lines, communication lines and other public resources.

When all segments are completed, the system will provide approximately 4,000 miles of roads, rail, water lines and lift stations to transport water from border to border, broadband, oil and gas pipelines, and electric utilities. Perry said construction could begin as early as this year. Construction of the entire plan, which will extend all across Texas, is expected to take at least 25 years to complete.

The Trans Texas Corridor also improves the state's ability to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks or other disasters by creating hazardous material routes outside major cities, and by providing transportation alternatives that make it more difficult to paralyze the state's infrastructure." [Source]

This is what we need.

x

21 posted on 02/07/2002 2:24:31 PM PST by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Nice to see Dukakis remains the same socialist that he always was?

And it's also nice to see that his stupidity hasn't waned much either. Dukakis was one of the least able to understand that government can't run, manage or oversee much of anything efficiently, for all the many and obvious reasons he will never understand.
22 posted on 02/07/2002 2:34:07 PM PST by pt17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Again, how much will it cost to build a Philly to Pittsburgh maglev line? Afraid to admit the total cost for just one line?
23 posted on 02/07/2002 3:02:27 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
The cost for this first 47-mile segment is estimated at $1.8 billion for the system infrastructure with a total project cost of $2.8 billion. Additional segments of the system would be financed by private and public partnerships. The system operating costs must be proven to be sufficient to support the investment costs and associated profit while in operation. The system is being costed for a usable 40 year service life on the propulsion, energy supply components, 30 years on the vehicles and an 80 year life on the guideway, longstator stator components and substructures.

The infrastructure is estimated at $40 million per mile.
It would be an additional 250 miles to complete the route to Philly.

24 posted on 02/07/2002 3:33:48 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan, detsao T
Nope, you've boo booed and should apologize to desao.

Your numbers don't take into consideration the huge sums raised by highway fees which are diverted from highway uses to hideous boondogles such as mass transit. The money diverted from highway user fees to non-highway uses far exceeds the non-highway taxes diverted to highway uses.

I don't know how to post a link, but try the following:

http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-us$93&c.htm

25 posted on 02/07/2002 6:08:29 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
So then you are saying dump the existing Amtrak service and spend at minimum $11 billion(before the inevitable costs overruns associated with implementing a new technology) just to build a Pittsburgh to Philly maglev. That's a lot of money, and the Feds would be stuck with most of the costs. Because at least $2.4 of that $2.8 billion cost will be paid by the Feds($900 mil) and state and local($1.5 bil). Not exactly a strong private-sector investment total.
26 posted on 02/07/2002 9:20:59 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Why did you cut off my quote and misrepresent what I said? What you cutoff stated that maglev would require new ROW along much of its route. I've heard your footprint story before, but every foot of maglev is new infrastructure. So my previous statement is true, irregardless of whether it follows the freeway ROW(which according to the maps I have seen only does so in spots).
27 posted on 02/07/2002 9:25:04 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Because at least $2.4 of that $2.8 billion cost will be paid by the Feds($900 mil) and state and local($1.5 bil). Not exactly a strong private-sector investment total.

Since it seems you suffer from a serious form of ADD, I'll repeat this for you:

"Additional segments of the system would be financed by private and public partnerships. The system operating costs must be proven to be sufficient to support the investment costs and associated profit while in operation."
Federal funding is used to develop and prove the initial segment of this system. Subsequent segments are expected to receive a greater proportion of private investment once the costs are proven in commercial operation.
28 posted on 02/08/2002 6:49:46 AM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Why did you cut off my quote and misrepresent what I said? What you cutoff stated that maglev would require new ROW along much of its route. I've heard your footprint story before, but every foot of maglev is new infrastructure. So my previous statement is true, irregardless of whether it follows the freeway ROW(which according to the maps I have seen only does so in spots).

I directly answered your statement regarding rights-of-way. Most of your statement is simply pure, fallacious, obtructionist balderdash. Here is a map of the various alternative routes under consideration in Pittsburgh:

.

The majority of these routes travel primarily along existing rights-of-way. Public meetings are currently being conducted to determine which is most suitable.

29 posted on 02/08/2002 7:25:30 AM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
No ADD, but disbelief, since investors have not been forthcoming on ANY maglev projects.

More likely the govt will build the initial segment, and then excuse its failing by stating that it will only succeed if the longer distance is built, and since we've already invested heavily in the technology, might as well build more. Its a ploy to get the foot in the door, put forth by Adtranz and Specter. When the private sector won't support it, get the Feds to do it.

30 posted on 02/08/2002 9:54:55 AM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
No ADD, but disbelief, since investors have not been forthcoming on ANY maglev projects.

Private sector shareholders in MAGLEV, Inc. include the following:

Michael Baker Corporation
United States Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation
Bombardier Transportation
Duquesne Light
CargoLifter

Is there any more misinformation that you wish to spout?
31 posted on 02/08/2002 10:24:16 AM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
I'm not sure of this, but I understand the Pennsylvania Turnpike was the first such highway to be built in America and was constructed, for the most part, on railroad right-of-way. Anybody know for sure?
32 posted on 02/08/2002 10:34:56 AM PST by Temple Owl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
The rail labor division of the AFL-CIO's transportation trades department failed last week to persuade a federal judge to block release of the council's report.

Don't these same people, the DEM UNIONS, demand to see info on Cheney's private meetings and they have the nerve to attempt to block info on this???? SHEESH

33 posted on 02/08/2002 10:38:09 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
This is what we need.

What....billions in new taxes and a sytem that loses money?

34 posted on 02/08/2002 10:40:21 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
The system operating costs must be proven to be sufficient to support the investment costs and associated profit while in operation

What $500 tickets?

35 posted on 02/08/2002 10:41:32 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Ha, each one of those "investors" has simply put up some seed money in the expectations of getting fat gov't contracts for construction projects which will boost their core business. Thats closer to lobbying expenses than actual investment. Psuedo-investment. Show me a mutual fund or other investor looking for returns from operations. Betcha dollars to donuts we will never see the total costs of maglev supported by even 50% private funds(unless indemnified for loss by govt).
36 posted on 02/08/2002 10:41:49 AM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
I believe the turnpike was constructed in the alignment of a proposed railway, but am not sure if it used actual RR-owned ROW. Early in the RR building boom, rivals to the Pennsylvania RR had scouted out a parallel route from the eastern markets of NYC and Philly to Pittsburgh, and the PRR was attempting to put together a line roughly parallel to their arch competitor New York Central's route through New York state. Some industrial and financial bigwigs(was J.P. Morgan one of them) got the NY Central and the Pennsylvania RR together for a summit of sorts and discussed how all the duplication could damage the railroad industry, and an agreement was reached to basically respect each other's territory. Hence that 2nd Harrisburg-Pittsburgh line was never built, but the turnpike pretty much follows the proposed route.
37 posted on 02/08/2002 10:47:46 AM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
What $500 tickets?

For planning purposes, fares for this initial 47-mile segment are set at $5 at each stop. That would be $15 to ride the entire length from Greensburg to Pittsburgh Airport, $30 round trip. Much cheaper than cab, or driving and leaving your car in airport parking.

38 posted on 02/08/2002 11:05:17 AM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Ha, each one of those "investors" has simply put up some seed money in the expectations of getting fat gov't contracts for construction projects which will boost their core business.

Who do you expect to invest in this venture, doofus?

Krispy Kreme?

39 posted on 02/08/2002 11:07:16 AM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
History and pictures of the Pennsylvania Turnpike and tunnels
40 posted on 02/08/2002 11:10:37 AM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Thanks
41 posted on 02/08/2002 11:15:43 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
Glad to help.

I should point out that since downtown Pittsburgh would be one of the intermediary stops, the fares to get there would be only $5 or $10 one-way, depending where you got on. Once again, cheaper than a cab, & factor in the cost of downtown parking to compare to driving.

42 posted on 02/08/2002 11:27:31 AM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
I agree with everything you wrote. I'd also like to add that I ENJOY long distance train travel, and don't understand why the government can spend billions on the ridiculous Big Dig, can increase foreign aid to Egypt to 2 billion a year (that was posted this morning), can give all that money to the airlines after 911, but can't give rail the support it deserves.
43 posted on 02/08/2002 11:34:59 AM PST by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: grania
Yeah. If the railorad industry had just gotten a $12 billion free gift from the Feds, people would be screaming bloody murder. For some reason it's okay to have government-supported AIRLINES, but if the Feds were to spend the same money on railroads, why, that'd be communism!

"But America needs airlines! We can't let them go bankrupt!" people say. "Really?" I asnswer. "Why not? Which industry does the nation need most to survive?

Answer: If the airlines disappeared tomorrow, it'd be a nightmare, but we'd pull through. That was proved during the post-911 period when air travel was banned; things were inconvenient, but we survived. But without trains, America dies: coal and oil, spare parts, machinery, foodstuffs in bulk, industrial chemicals, and more are all delivered by rail. There aren't enough eighteen-wheelers in the world to take up the slack. Airlines cannot fly coal to powerplants. In any rational reckoning of worth, the rail industry is vastly more important to the survival of this nation than are passenger airlines.

Yet the airlines get the federal bailout, and rail gets told to go get stuffed.

Infrastructure is the province of government. From seaports to canals to roads to railroads to interstates to airports to space launch facilities, government has always shouldered the capital outlay and maintenance costs of basic transportation infrastructure in this country. It is a practice as American as apple pie. Just as they did with the Interstate System fifty years ago, federal, state, and local government should now build and maintain a nationwide network of interconnected regional high-speed rail systems.

Nobody cares if Uncle Sam covers the airlines' tab; if the airline industry were forced to own and operate their own airports, navigation aids, and other infrastructure they wouldn't make a dime of profit. But let anyone propose that the railroads get the same sweet deal and suddenly we're operating on the strict free-market system again.

Which just goes to show that, when it comes to the airline industry, some people like to serve up their free-market capitalism a lot hotter than they like to eat it.

44 posted on 02/08/2002 12:25:44 PM PST by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
I just finished "Atlas Shrugged" yesterday. This is very interesting.
45 posted on 02/08/2002 12:28:51 PM PST by RowdyYates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Well in a capitalistic society, investors give an entreprenuer money to build a business which then pays them a return on their investment generated from operations. No government funds are involved. Or sometimes the gov't will pay a portion of the capital costs. The investors you cite are not doing that, but rather putting forth a little seed money, in the hopes of being paid far, far more money from the government for construction(not operational) contracts. One-time projects, not an ongoing successful enterprise. And you darn well know that the operational subsidies required from the government for this route would be larger than for the existing, or even improved, Amtrak service. So if it requires gov't operating subsidies, than it is by definition a money-losing proposition. At least Amtrak has 4 private companies competing for the operating rights of Amtrak. How many are competing for the operating rights of maglev?

You can call me all the childish names you want, but its a pretty basic distinction from capitalism 101. Socialism might rewrite the definition of investoring to include those who put forth only lobbying exenses, but not Wall Street.

46 posted on 02/08/2002 2:07:21 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Infrastructure is the province of government.

Back in the '50s, when the federal government was a little more aware of what its functions were, the Eisenhower administration justified the interstate highway system for defense purposes. The same justification is just as valid for the rail system.

I just can't phanthom the logic of the government not doing everything possible to increase train travel, as it is obvious that passenger air travel is totally overwhelmed with security and safety issues. And, PS: when I travelled by train, there were a lot of citizens who were wonderful employees in good paying jobs working for AMTRAK.

47 posted on 02/08/2002 2:43:04 PM PST by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
The investors you cite are not doing that, but rather putting forth a little seed money, in the hopes of being paid far, far more money from the government for construction(not operational) contracts.

Well, your ADD is flairing up again, so I'll repeat for you a second time:

"Additional segments of the system would be financed by private and public partnerships. The system operating costs must be proven to be sufficient to support the investment costs and associated profit while in operation."

In other words, if the 47 mile pilot segment doesn't prove itself financially viable in operation, the rest of the system doesn't get built. Considering the long-term promise of 300 mph high-speed ground passenger service, $900 million is a very small amount of federal funds to prove the technology.

Furthermore, it is far and away less than government spends on other transportation infrastructure, highways, airports, etc.

48 posted on 02/08/2002 2:58:36 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: grania
AMTRAK isn't that bad. Any trip by rail, no matter how grim, is preferable to riding a bus. And let's face it -- driving long distances sucks. Sitting in an upright postion with a wheel in my hands, staring straight ahead through a bug-splattered glass windshield for hours and hours is a boring waste of time.

All that being said: I don't think the federal government has the ability or the constitutional right to directly operate a passenger railroad service. In other words, I'm against AMTRAK. However, I am most definitely for the proposition that our federal, state, and local governments should cooperate to build and maintain the physical infrastructure of a linked network of regional high-speed rail transportation systems. In other words, I support the establishment of a national system of interstate and defense railroads -- the rail equivalent of the Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

Just as the Interstate Highways are taxpayer-funded, the rail system I'm advocating would be built and maintained with public funds. Each state would operate its own regional rail network, just as they build and maintain their own sections of the Interstate highways. The difference is that on the national rail system there would be no traffic jams, no weather closures, and no billboards. There would also be no 55 mile-per-hour speed limit; trains would regularly operate at 150 to 190 miles per hour on the longer runs. These trains would be owned and operated by private, for-profit railroads; the government would no more run these trains than they run the trucking companies or motor coach (bus) operators today. The majority of funds for upkeep and improvement of the infrastructure would come from taxes levied on the carriers, just as trucking companies and bus lines pay for much of the highway system's operating costs today.

And finally travelers would have a choice! Instead of gulping down greaseburgers or attempting to digest the latest offering from Stuckey's or Perkins, travelers on these improved railroads could enjoy fine meals, served in a clean, comfortable dining car on real china with cloth napkins by a uniformed steward -- or they could eat home-cooked or other picnic foods in the Club Car. Unlike travelers in buses or private cars, rail travels could enjoy wine, beer, or liquor during their trips. Unlike airline travelers, their luggage would stay with them the entire time, they could "move about the cabin" to their hearts' content, there would always be an open restroom, and passengers who desired to could even -- gasp! -- enjoy a cigar or pipe in the Smoking Car or Lounge.

The trains would depart and arrive from convenent city-center terminals. That would sure beat sitting in traffic for an hour to get to the concrete bunker of the airport. And the pre-boarding rectal exam and underwear inspection would be a thing of the past.

Those who worry that the federal goverment has no right to build roads (or canals or airports) need not worry. Not only is such construction constitutional (Art. I, Sec. 8), but there is a substantial body of case law supporting its constitutionality (the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, among many others). To argue otherwise is to argue against the existence of ports, airports, and the Panama Canal -- all of which required (and require) big honking heaps of taxpayer dollars to build and maintain.

I'm generally not a supporter of big government. In this case, however, I'm of the opinion that it is the duty of our governments to build and maintain a national high-speed rail system -- not to operate the service, but to create the infrastructure that will allow that service to exist.

49 posted on 02/08/2002 4:12:33 PM PST by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Your defense of and analysis of how to fix the rail system is wonderful...articulate and informed. Please forward it to everyone who is part of the decision making process.
50 posted on 02/08/2002 4:44:28 PM PST by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson