"Amtrak, citing signs of help from Congress, backed away Friday from its threat to issue notices that would allow it to cut its long-distance train network as early as the fall."
Interesting that Mr Warrington has changed his tune just a little -- not a lot, because he reiterated that "uncertainities associated with the legislative process" mean that Amtrak must still prepare for the possibility that enough money won't be forthcoming.
If it's up to Mr McCain, it won't be.
Eric Member # 674
posted
At least we're this far. Hopefully Congress will step up before the fall to do something, and not wait 'til the last minute. How much clout does John McCain have?
[This message has been edited by Eric (edited 04-06-2002).]
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
Well, one scary notion of this is that there's the temptation for maintaining the status quo of slow trains, leaving less room for the expansion of high-speed trains...but on the other hand, the slow-train network should stay in place until the fast-train network can be phased in. The whole deal gives me a headache...
Although I'm glad to see the back of the highway-trust-fund-versus-Amtrak-subsidy argument, I do see the validity in the claims of the highway-supporting crowd...problem with their argument is, there's zero investment in railroad infrastructure unless it's from the private sector, excepting the case of state-owned or federally-owned railroads (which aren't supported by fuel taxes, as with the highways). The highways are fully public, plus they aren't permitted to deteriorate (for the most part) to the degree that the interstate RR infrastructure was. In the case of the railroad alignments, heavy re-investment will be necessary to bring them up to speed with their competitive public mode, plus they'd need to be "open-access", which many private freight-hauling railroads dread. (The freight RRs, however, may shoot themselves in the foot, what with raising rates on customers without improving service, plus maintaining a virtual monopoly in their respective markets.)
As for passenger rail, it can only benefit from a public rail system. However, a "trust fund" system will have to be put in place, to perpetuate a revenue stream to allow for continuous infrastructure maintenance...
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
It's a blinding flash of what is inherently obvious to the casual observer that you were not driving the interstates in the late 70s and 80s.
I was a young Army officer in 1979, stationed at Fort Riley (on Interstate 70). I-70 was enough of a washboard road that I had front-end alignments quarterly!
During the 90s, my trips along I-35, I-70 and I-80 all had significant "shoo-flys". Why? We were finally (in some states) investing in life cycle infrastructure.
From my vantage point, railroads began life cycle infrastructure improvement a good five years ahead of the highway system. I saw improvement notes int the news sections of Trains throughout the 80s and early 90s. I saw BN re-lay the KC-Omaha-Lincoln main (route of the Pioneer Zephyr) in 91, only to have to rebuild it after the 93 floods.
I have to disagree with you, railroads started as soon as they saw the potential of stealing back truck service.
As a stockholder in a couple of railroads, I have just one thing to say. Railroads got their subsidies about 1 1/3 centuries ago. It's called land grants. Open access is a non-starter, unless you want the US Government to buy the tracks (as through the States, they own/maintain the highway grid, and possess absolute right to the airspace). Ask our British friends about the success of Government owned roadbed... post BritRail.
My $0.02. YMMV.
John
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: Although I'm glad to see the back of the highway-trust-fund-versus-Amtrak-subsidy argument, I do see the validity in the claims of the highway-supporting crowd...problem with their argument is, there's zero investment in railroad infrastructure unless it's from the private sector, excepting the case of state-owned or federally-owned railroads (which aren't supported by fuel taxes, as with the highways). The highways are fully public, plus they aren't permitted to deteriorate (for the most part) to the degree that the interstate RR infrastructure was. In the case of the railroad alignments, heavy re-investment will be necessary to bring them up to speed with their competitive public mode, plus they'd need to be "open-access", which many private freight-hauling railroads dread. (The freight RRs, however, may shoot themselves in the foot, what with raising rates on customers without improving service, plus maintaining a virtual monopoly in their respective markets.)
------------------ The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations
MPALMER Member # 125
posted
PullmanCo- One point: I like to think that the rails have "earned" back the freight business, not "stolen" it from the truckers. MP
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Railroads got their subsidies about 1 1/3 centuries ago. It's called land grants.
Of course the land-grant "subsidies" was a one-time thing. Highway subsidies are ongoing and never ending.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
quote:It's a blinding flash of what is inherently obvious to the casual observer that you were not driving the interstates in the late 70s and 80s.
Sheesh, you should be a detective, lad...for one, I started driving around 1987, in New Jersey; before the end of 1983, I wasn't even in the USA, but living in a town called Leixlip, County Kildare, Republic of Ireland. Of course, I wasn't trying to hide the fact that I wasn't driving on the interstates on the late 70s/early 80s, mainly because it would've been really illegal for me to do so, but physically impossible because I was about 3,600 miles away from them...
quote:Railroads got their subsidies about 1 1/3 centuries ago. It's called land grants
Very good...of course, all paid back through excruciating property taxes and rail taxes which all states once levied, but have repealed, with NY state being one exception...the tax rate goes higher with number of tracks on ROW, which is why a lot of 4-track ROWs have about one to two tracks left; and also, a higher rate is charged for weight of rail used, which excludes the use of heavier rails outside commuter operations (usually 100 lbs/yd is the limit, but problem is, it makes for a rough ride and you can't go as fast as you could on 140-150 lb/yd rail). CSX, I believe, is in continuing litigation with NY state to get them to drop the tax...but the damage has been done; a lot of main lines in the northeast got decimated during the "dark ages of rail" thanks to these taxes (which led to the formation of entities such as Conrail and Amtrak, since the private companies could no longer be self-sufficient...but which further led Conrail to shrink the former PRR, Erie and NY Central main lines, and utterly destroy part of the DL&W's one in NJ, the Lackawanna Cutoff). Maybe things are different elsewhere in the country, but in the northeast, it's a long road back, still, believe me...
posted 