Time to speculate on what the meltdown of U.S. financial markets will mean for Amtrak.
If the Federal government is coming to the rescue of the markets, and if it looks to be spending well over a trillion dollars in Iraq in the months to come, what will be left for the national railroad?
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Scary thought. I think we are finally beginning to feel the full impact of the "starve the beast" strategy of reducing the size of government.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Well Henry, you brought it up, so I'll give my honest answer.
Amtrak funding will remain status quo, just as it always has. They won't get enough to do what REALLY needs to be done, but they'll get enough to squeak by another fiscal year. The White House (no matter who is president!) will continue to low-ball the numbers for Amtrak, then Congress will bump it up.
Nothing will change. I'm simply using history as my guide.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Concur with Mr. Smith; somehow $1.4B in a $3.2T budget is analagous to a pile of pocket change.
Lest we note, we're talking about a government that thinks nothing of returning up to $1200 per household of their 2006 Federal tax liability to do with as they please. Somehow "as they please" I think will be put it in the bank. Receipt of that rebate will not alter or influence any expenditure I make.
Perhaps what should have been done was to issue a "gift card' good at any US place of business for the purchase of "Made in the USA" goods and services. An Amtrak journey would certainly be a qualifying use of such.
Flying overseas on a foreign flagged carrier? UHUH
Posted by 4021North (Member # 4081) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: Nothing will change. I'm simply using history as my guide.
I hope you're wrong!
---------------------------------- "I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past." --Thomas Jefferson
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Agreed, Mr. Norman. I am using my Bush bribe -- oops, I mean gummint "rebate" -- to take a trip on Amtrak. I may be stupid, but I am loyal.
Posted by HillsideStation (Member # 6386) on :
We received our "promo" from the government via a notice from the IRS indicating that both congress and President George W. Bush were responsible for the "largesse". "Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan". Best regards, Rodger...just home from an Amtrak trip to FLA and preparing for another cross the US, bribe or not.
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
The President cannot spend one dime that has not been authorized by Congress. The only time we can honestly blame a President for spending is when one party controls both the Administration and Congress.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
I plan on spending MY TAX MONEY {that I earned then gave to our government back in 2006} on a bedroom remodel.
And I think Amtrak has an opportunity, if our Congress critters fail to alleviate the oil crisis {Drill our own oil in ANWR, Florida, and western USA and relax the onerous EPA restrictions on building new refineries}. A lot more people will be willing to Amtrak it to their destination, instead of driving.
Posted by heyitsme_23 (Member # 7217) on :
well they say peak oil is going to happen some time 2010-2015, there will be a massive switch to public transportation and trains at that point. As for oil in the western US, their having a hard enough time just getting natural gas with all the legal and environmental issues and now pollution issues, I don't think they will ever allow shale oil extraction here like planned. At that time they better be thinking about upgrading the rail system in the US, otherwise I'm moving.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Or they could just drill in ANWR and end our dependence on mid-east oil. Or import the GIGANTIC amounts of oil from Mexico. There's plenty to go around---we're just being idiots about it.
Posted by heyitsme_23 (Member # 7217) on :
True, there might be plenty to go around, but shouldn't we try and reduce our dependence on it for that day when it eventually does run out? I just envision the entire country grinding to a halt when the gas stations run dry. Since I'm young, I'm afraid I might see that day
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
I'm young too (I guess 42 is young?), but based upon the evidence (which is rarely shown to the public-at-large in news and alleged documentaries, but is readily available to the public), I am not worried about running out of oil. I am worried about the USA being idiotic and allowing ourselves to be backed into a corner by not being self-sufficient. I'm all for conservation, but shooting ourselves in the foot is another story.
I wish I had an easy way to let the masses know the truth about these things, but because of the nature of the beast, this will always be a politically divided issue. I am a "facts" guy, but of course I have my own personal opinions on many different topics. But when talking about oil, if I put my blinders on and I completely and totally ignore the left and the right, it's pretty obvious where we stand with this stuff. I think it's a shame that decent, hard-working, intelligent, and educated people can not let go of the strong grip they have on the politics of things, and instead see things for how they truly are---without bias.
I'm also a news junkie, current events junkie, history junkie, and politics junkie........so I have strong feelings on a variety of issues. But for the big stuff like this, I only follow the facts and I allow THOSE to make up my mind for me. I just wish I could convince others to step out of their comfort zone to truly and honestly look at this from an angle they might not have considered before. I have learned to do this, and it has been difficult. But the rewards of the knowledge I have gained far outweigh the difficulties in doing such a thing. And for what it's worth, I recycle, I take public transportation whenever possible (although that is a bit difficult at times where I live), donate to charities, and volunteer my time to help those less fortunate than me. So to some who only know that about me, I would probably be considered left-leaning. But if you just read my posts such as this one about oil, I would probably be considered right-leaning. So, which is it? The answer is that I follow the facts. But I don't drive a Prius. Those cars are a HUGE rolling HazMat headache. I'd love to write more on this, but I guess I'm already a bit off-topic. But in years to come, we will discover the difficulties of disposing of all of those batteries containing nickel that are only good for 10 years. They haven't been on the road long enough, so we haven't seen the problems that are coming....and they are coming. BTW, Green Peace has some very strong words against the Canadian factory that makes the batteries for the Prius. They have destroyed thousands of acres of pristine forest due to the manufacturing process of the batteries for those hybrid vehicles.
Posted by 4021North (Member # 4081) on :
Conservation is a good reason to use public transportation, but there are other reasons that have to do with economics and land use as well as pollution. Getting back to the original topic, I think the money running out may be a more serious problem than the oil running out. In other words, the arguments in favor of expanding Amtrak cannot be based primarily on the rising cost of oil. Long-distance trains have a lot more going for them than fuel efficiency alone. That is why, in my view, Amtrak is more connected with the economy as a whole than people seem to like to acknowledge. All of these problems don't just come out of the blue.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
4021North said: "I think the money running out may be a more serious problem than the oil running out."
These may be interrelated problems. The high price of oil is partially due to the shrinking value of the dollar. In my opinion, the serious problem of the shrinking dollar is partially due to a fiscally irresponsible policy where the national debt is allowed to grow to new records. Then there was the (to me) obviously false belief that real estate prices would always keep rising, encouraging more debt conveniently labeled investment. And the greedy lenders who should have known better kept encouraging more debt. Now, to salvage the economy, we have to bail out those lenders and create more national debt. And instead of wisely using taxpayer dollars to create jobs by improving infrastructure (and trains), we are paying for these mistakes.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
TwinStarRocket, government is 12.5% of our entire economy. Why would you want government to create more jobs? We have to pay for those government jobs with our hard-earned money. I see government job creation as a problem, not a solution.
Posted by Ham Radio (Member # 6587) on :
Like it or not, politics will always be part of Amtrak's existance. Congress (meaning We the People) need to decide what kind of passenger rail system we want, national or a series of regional lines, and properly invest in it.
Whatever comes out of it, some of the states will also need to invest in the system.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Mike Smith, it appears the only reference Mr. 4021 made to creating jobs that could possibly be construed as more government jobs is that to his parenthetical (and trains) which in the context of this forum likely meant "more passenger trains".
Government agencies customarily hire private contractors to make infrastructure improvements to highways; railroads are, owing to existing labor agreements, best advised to hire their own private sector employees for infrastructure improvements.
In short I fail to see where any transportation infrastructure enhancements will result in a bloated public payroll.
Otherwise, as I once noted here at this topic, it is hard to believe (and I wish I could forget) how I held Bear paper in my portfolio from 2001 to its maturity during March 2007. Fortunately, I was out before an entire investment house was sold for less than the New York Yankees have committed to pay a star baseball player, A-Rod, over some five years.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
My pittance? It either goes against son's college education, or paying down a bill.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Time to speculate on what the meltdown of U.S. financial markets will mean for Amtrak
How about the rest of the transportation infrastructure? Interstate highways are currently eating up $40 billion per year, presumably from motor fuel taxes (but if the government is raiding other trust funds, this one certainly isn't safe).
As far as the dollar's value, there has been just too much borrowing against it (and remember, the president whose signature created Amtrak is the same guy who eliminated the gold standard for the dollar and turned it into a "fiat currency"); this put it in a very precarious situation, especially since it was (and still is, for now) the world's reserve currency. Self-sufficiency? 25.6 percent (over a quarter) of our national debt is owned by all these countries, many of whom are our enemies, mortal enemies in some cases (and it's more than merely unnerving to consider how many out of that list we are dependent upon for oil, too much of which we consume for transportation). The more confidence lost in the dollar, the further it will fall.
(The USA consumes about 43 percent more oil, based on barrels per day, than the EU does. The EU's population is estimated to be 162 percent that of the USA. Comparatively, the EU consumes 3.0 barrels per day per person whereas the USA consumes 6.9 barrels per day per person. And the market share of rail for passenger transportation in the entire EU is still remarkably low, but certainly not without impact, especially given the needs of the "big countries" like Germany and France. And in many EU countries, they are driving "gas-guzzlers" in spite of gasoline being $7-8 per US gallon on average.)
Our government didn't learn the value of intercity rail six and a half years ago. In the face of a greater crisis, would it be too late for them to finally learn?
Posted by heyitsme_23 (Member # 7217) on :
quote:And in many EU countries, they are driving "gas-guzzlers" in spite of gasoline being $7-8 per US gallon on average
hmm when I was in switzerland I saw maybe 1 or 2 pickup trucks, most of the cars run on diesel and get 35 or more mph, I drove a diesel volkswagon. Most of their cars are small compacts, they even use trailers with small cars unlike us who need big SUVs.
quote:Our government didn't learn the value of intercity rail six and a half years ago. In the face of a greater crisis, would it be too late for them to finally learn?
I think our state governments are starting to take matters into their own hands instead of waiting around for the feds to come up with solutions, and if the need arises private companies will become part of the solution as well (example is the Desert Xpress route to Las Vegas from CA, and the Rail Runner in New Mexico)
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:hmm when I was in switzerland I saw maybe 1 or 2 pickup trucks, most of the cars run on diesel and get 35 or more mph, I drove a diesel volkswagon. Most of their cars are small compacts, they even use trailers with small cars unlike us who need big SUVs
Switzerland is not a member of the European Union. My own country Ireland is; and in spite of the limited road infrastructure, they have been selling large jeeps with V8s (I am loath to say "SUV" or the inaccurate "Sport-utility vehicle") and big sedans ("saloons" over there) such as the Chrysler 300 and others. Smaller compacts are still popular; but it's a mix of all types now instead of one size predominating.
quote:I think our state governments are starting to take matters into their own hands instead of waiting around for the feds to come up with solutions, and if the need arises private companies will become part of the solution as well (example is the Desert Xpress route to Las Vegas from CA, and the Rail Runner in New Mexico)
That won't work. The efforts would be small in scale, and too little too late, to help in intercity markets.
Incidentally, the Railrunner is commuter rail. States have gone it alone funding commuter rail in the past.
Desert Xpress, though? Very vague proposal, that. Where are they going to find $3 billion for that? Never mind that: where are they going to find a right of way where they can run at an average speed of 109 mph on, especially operating no faster than 125 mph? ($16 million per mile is too little to spend for "off-the shelf HSR" as they call it; especially if they want the ROW to be totally separated from the general railway network like Shinkansen.) Where would a private consortium get the permission to build alongside (or, as they claim, in parts of the median of) I-15, a highway built with public funds? (which is not an ideal location for a ROW to run at an average speed of 109 mph on; not even Acela Express gets up to average speeds that fast.) On top of all that, Victorville is 85 miles away from Los Angeles, which would put a damper on attracting users. Sounds very pipe-dreamish.
Posted by heyitsme_23 (Member # 7217) on :
quote:Railrunner is commuter rail
it is commuter rail that is being planned to someday grow into intercity rail. Right now its being expanded to santa fe, then to the colorado border where (hopefully) will be tied in with our ranger express, making a continuous line down from Casper, WY to Albuquerque, NM. The ranger express is another example of state funded long distance rail, that we the people will vote on and not rely on congress (other than maybe a little extra cash to get it off the ground) The 3 states and many local towns and cities are supporting this and raised the money to get the rail feasibility studies done.
Also the california high speed rail, which if built will be the first and only actual high speed rail network in our country (which is more of a pipe dream than the las vegas route IMO, but may actually make it to the ballot this year)
As for the Las Vegas route, well, maybe it is a pipe dream, but it is MUCH less of a pipe dream than a 300 mph maglev train running the same route, which is the other alternative publicly funded choice that runs at $12 B. Most likely the desert xpress will be forced to extend service to LA either before or shortly after construction, the main problem being the more technically challenging Cajon Pass. Not sure how they will get the speed limit increase for the right of way, but any speed is faster than sitting in your car not moving at all which may be the key to success here.
Posted by Amtrak207 (Member # 1307) on :
I gotta side with Pullman here- I'm using it to pay down my student loan. Amtrak has been doing the same, but I have to wonder if a new federal DOT chief will actually forgive the loan that they got?
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Las Vegas Monorail / maglev / high speed rail:
Whatever the guys proposing these schemes are smoking, it sure ain't tobacco. All these schemes are more hallucinations than even semi-serious proposals.
Posted by heyitsme_23 (Member # 7217) on :
well don't forget it is Las Vegas were talking about here, they already have a fully functional monorail and are in the process of expanding it. They will spend any amount of money to make something larger than life and get the attention of more would be customers to come empty their wallets.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
I'm in Las Vegas now, and just got off the Monorail 10 minutes ago. (Doing fairly well at blackjack so far)
It's my understanding that the LV Monorail is in serious financial trouble. Their credit rating is just about the lowest that they can have. As far as expanding it, there is strong opposition from the taxi unions because they don't want it to take away from their huge airport business. The best solutions don't always work, because what's good for some people is not so good for others. Oh well.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amtrak207: Amtrak has been doing the same, but I have to wonder if a new federal DOT chief will actually forgive the loan that they got?
Why surrender a "wedge" that the President (Mr. Bush) or his designate (SecTrans Ms. Peters) presently holds to influence Amtrak policy?
Posted by HillsideStation (Member # 6386) on :
After reading of Mr. Norman's "luck" with his portfolio, it appears he is a student of the late Bernard Baruch's caveat on investments. Best regards, Rodger
Posted by Charles Reuben (Member # 2263) on :
They say it's hard to stop a train and if Bush couldn't do it then I think Amtrak is here to stay. There's even a new Amtrak station in Albuquerque, so I would say the future looks pretty rosy.
I was in Las Vegas some time ago and found the Monorail to be a hoot and a half. Definitely the easiest way to get around the strip and a bargain at $15 for a full day pass (cheaper for Nevada residents and students). It would have been nice to take the monorail to Freemont Street, but what they have done is impressive and should be experienced by all railfans. And, as the PA constantly reminds people: The Monorail was not built using taxpayer money.
As far as a maglev between LA and Vegas is concerned, I think it's the only viable option for such technology in the world. Any other high speed technology would fail however because people who go to Vegas are expecting something different.
I mean, consider the entrance to Caesar's Palace: A moving stairway that takes you from street level all the way to the casino (where they take all your money and then send you hoofing back to the exit, penniless.)
I tell you that's the ticket: A one-way maglev from LAX to Vegas and let 'em hitch-hike back home.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Hillside, I'm stupid and ignorant. What did Baruch say about investments?
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
I concur with Mr Norman. Maglev is a PIPEDREAM. The key to any high speed rail project is that it is market tested. Maglev is a Buck Rodgers technology that has not been market tested. The future lies in more market tested-wheel to steel technology much like you see in Europe and Japan. California will use technology similar to the TGV.
Posted by HillsideStation (Member # 6386) on :
Mr.Kisor, I doubt you are ignorant, but rather just a little too young to have known about Mr. Baruch, a park bench philospher on many subjects, but primarily investments...at which he was quite successful. In a nutshell, Mr. Baruch's philosophy was not to be greedy. To that end he attempted to buy stocks "before" they bottomed out, and sell them "before" they crested, making a profit rather than attempting to make a killing. Best regards, Rodger
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
I'm creeping up on 70 myself, and did know of Baruch when I was a young man, and remember his echt crackerbarrel philosophizing. "Never pay the slightest attention to what a company president ever says about his stock" strikes me as great good sense.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)