Those of us who would see Passenger Rail grow and prosper in America have been burned before.
I can understand mainstream media getting excited. There is too much news media and not enough content, so every gurgle that issues from the mind or mouth of a politician gets reported. In the fashion of the "new journalism," the enthusiasm of the journalist, or the disdain, shows through on the page, or in the TV news article.
But I think those reporting in such specialized areas as Passenger Rail should learn to hold their water. Let's face it. Bigger Amtrak budgets don't always result in better Passenger Rail service. When and if they do is the time to get excited. I would much rather hear about the successes resulting from the use of funding than about projected funding that may or may not materialize.
If all of the excited speculation of the past decade had resulted in solid passenger rail service, we would be riding HSR trains on dedicated rights of way from Chicago to Detroit and from Los Angeles to San Francisco, we would have Amtrak service that made money, and we would be light-rail commuting in a dozen small cities that are barely able to keep bus service solvent.
So let's not get too excited!
For another view on what is and is not possible and probable in passenger rail, please see RailwayAge guest blog [here].
©2013 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Thursday, April 04, 2013
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Letter to Republican Elites from a Conservative Rail Enthusiast
Dear Republican Elites:
Passenger trains are not archaic dinosaurs that eat up public money that can be better used to cut the debt. They are public conveniences, nay even necessities, that eat up public money in order to make the economy and our lives better. Stop treating them as something to be cut from budgets or sold off to whatever idiot wants to buy them from Amtrak. They are the most fuel efficient mode of mass transportation of human beings on the planet. They are part of a comprehensive transportation policy that includes highways, buses, air and waterways.
Limited and constitutional government envisioned by conservatives does not automatically mean the curtailment of all public subsidy for transportation modes. If it did, we would all be going back to horses, wagons, and private toll roads on private lands. Limited and economical government does mean that public funds should not be used by the government to favor one mode of transportation to the exclusion of another, except for the purposes of national defense.
The Obama regime appears to have gotten passenger rail and high-speed rail right for all the wrong reasons. When stimulus money was rolled out, it didn't go to transportation as part of a comprehensive plan. The regime wanted money to go to an industry that it perceived did or would employ labor union members who would vote Democratic. The right reasons? America needs more than one mode of transportation for people and their belongings that can meet the need to travel long distances in short times. Airlines have met this need for years, but are becoming more inconvenient due to their vulnerability to attack, hijack, and conversion (to flying weapons) by any person or group of nefarious bent. In fact, a comprehensive transportation plan for the rest of this century should envision a third mode, possibly high-speed commercial highways that are independent of rail and air travel. I hate to say it, but with the advent of computerization, rail doesn't have to be the only so-called self-guiding mode out there.
Sequestration has made it clear that the Washington Elites, whether on the left or right, are only going to cut those things that will hurt the general public the most. So it would not surprise me if Amtrak and commuter rail funding dries up. It doesn't have to be that way. Though the DOT is one of the leanest in Washington, it is still a bureaucracy. If it's a government-run entity, there is still plenty of fat to be trimmed before we really need to curtail trains and transport, or let highway bridges crumble into rivers.
Lets wake up and get a clue. Despite what liberals might profess, conservative does not have to equate with 'stupid.'
© 2013 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Passenger trains are not archaic dinosaurs that eat up public money that can be better used to cut the debt. They are public conveniences, nay even necessities, that eat up public money in order to make the economy and our lives better. Stop treating them as something to be cut from budgets or sold off to whatever idiot wants to buy them from Amtrak. They are the most fuel efficient mode of mass transportation of human beings on the planet. They are part of a comprehensive transportation policy that includes highways, buses, air and waterways.
Limited and constitutional government envisioned by conservatives does not automatically mean the curtailment of all public subsidy for transportation modes. If it did, we would all be going back to horses, wagons, and private toll roads on private lands. Limited and economical government does mean that public funds should not be used by the government to favor one mode of transportation to the exclusion of another, except for the purposes of national defense.
The Obama regime appears to have gotten passenger rail and high-speed rail right for all the wrong reasons. When stimulus money was rolled out, it didn't go to transportation as part of a comprehensive plan. The regime wanted money to go to an industry that it perceived did or would employ labor union members who would vote Democratic. The right reasons? America needs more than one mode of transportation for people and their belongings that can meet the need to travel long distances in short times. Airlines have met this need for years, but are becoming more inconvenient due to their vulnerability to attack, hijack, and conversion (to flying weapons) by any person or group of nefarious bent. In fact, a comprehensive transportation plan for the rest of this century should envision a third mode, possibly high-speed commercial highways that are independent of rail and air travel. I hate to say it, but with the advent of computerization, rail doesn't have to be the only so-called self-guiding mode out there.
Sequestration has made it clear that the Washington Elites, whether on the left or right, are only going to cut those things that will hurt the general public the most. So it would not surprise me if Amtrak and commuter rail funding dries up. It doesn't have to be that way. Though the DOT is one of the leanest in Washington, it is still a bureaucracy. If it's a government-run entity, there is still plenty of fat to be trimmed before we really need to curtail trains and transport, or let highway bridges crumble into rivers.
Lets wake up and get a clue. Despite what liberals might profess, conservative does not have to equate with 'stupid.'
© 2013 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Monday, February 18, 2013
Contingency Plans
The recent near disaster on board the cruise ship Carnival Triumph got me thinking about transportation policy. (The cruise was neither a Triumph nor a Carnival.) In previous posts, I've discussed transportation policy as a government function. For many, many years, federal and state governments have decided what transportation projects get the nod and what ones don't. However, every major transportation company (Southwest Airlines or Union Pacific, for two examples) should have its own transportation policy. I'm sure that most actually do. What the near disaster makes me ask about policy is, "What are your disaster contingencies?"
Nowadays, disasters come in all shapes and sizes, and are mostly defined by the media. A good definition seems to be anything that puts a great number of lives, or a great dollar amount of property at risk. For the purposes of this discussion, I would like to suggest that a good definition of disaster is a major disruption in the scheduling, forwarding, and delivering of freight and passengers.
I'll get back to the Carnival Triumph in a minute, though only tangentially. This is, after all, a railroad-focused blog. But I would like to take these transportation policy risks from the bottom (of the river) up and demonstrate how our neglect of redundancy in transportation policy puts America at risk.
A river barge hits a bridge. It may be a highway bridge, a railroad bridge, or (call the environmentalists) a pipeline bridge. It could be a bridge that carries all three. River traffic is disrupted for days, maybe weeks, while spilled fuel is cleaned up. Do we have alternate waterways? You know we do not. The likelihood that there is any other mode of transportation capable of moving the barge commodities safely during the outage is small. Probably the railroad can reroute trains, truckers and travelers can drive another highway, and there may even be a redundant pipeline.
An Amtrak train is wrecked. I mean thoroughly wrecked. God forbid it results in loss of life, but in any case there is major loss of passenger equipment. Amtrak schedules have to be fixed, equipment has to be borrowed from other routes. A general degradation of the entire system occurs. There's just not enough passenger equipment, inspected for safety and in good repair, that Amtrak can just field another trainset. No redundancy.
A giant cruise ship is crippled. There apparently aren't enough other cruise ships not already on their schedules to send one to offload passengers from the crippled ship from an environment that will become sheer hell for most of them before the crippled ship gets towed to port. Or maybe there's no mechanism to get them onto another ship. I don't know. It seems like there should be. We have enough engineering students in America to make this happen.
Airlines are grounded due to a terrorist threat. Or, alternately, the air traffic control system suffers a major glitch and has to be shut down. Do we have a contingency plan? Can all those thousands of passengers count on the railroads to put on more trains? No. Can they all take a bus? I think not. How about driving? Major traffic jams in major metro areas.
For passenger rail, there should be long-term plans for new tracks, trains, and modern signaling systems to make it all work. Years ago, these plans should have been implemented so that, today, we would be on our way to true HSR and true independence of passenger rail from the freight system. Nobody foresaw that Amtrak would be having record years, nor did they see that at the same time as there is record demand for passenger rail there would be record freight delivery by rail. I don't know why not. Rail has for as long as I can remember been the most efficient and energy friendly way to move freight and passengers in terms of energy used per passenger-mile or per ton-mile. Yet it is still thought of as a dinosaur. That's because government has become the curator of a museum instead of the owner of a modern transportation system.
Privatize Amtrak? Now may be the time. Build more rail right of way? Yes. Let the NIMBYs be damned! Plan for the future? Definitely. Stop making risk a dirty word? Most important of all. And let's stop building things with projected useful life, and start building things to last! We could surely better handle "disaster" if we did.
Rant over.
© 2013 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Nowadays, disasters come in all shapes and sizes, and are mostly defined by the media. A good definition seems to be anything that puts a great number of lives, or a great dollar amount of property at risk. For the purposes of this discussion, I would like to suggest that a good definition of disaster is a major disruption in the scheduling, forwarding, and delivering of freight and passengers.
I'll get back to the Carnival Triumph in a minute, though only tangentially. This is, after all, a railroad-focused blog. But I would like to take these transportation policy risks from the bottom (of the river) up and demonstrate how our neglect of redundancy in transportation policy puts America at risk.
A river barge hits a bridge. It may be a highway bridge, a railroad bridge, or (call the environmentalists) a pipeline bridge. It could be a bridge that carries all three. River traffic is disrupted for days, maybe weeks, while spilled fuel is cleaned up. Do we have alternate waterways? You know we do not. The likelihood that there is any other mode of transportation capable of moving the barge commodities safely during the outage is small. Probably the railroad can reroute trains, truckers and travelers can drive another highway, and there may even be a redundant pipeline.
An Amtrak train is wrecked. I mean thoroughly wrecked. God forbid it results in loss of life, but in any case there is major loss of passenger equipment. Amtrak schedules have to be fixed, equipment has to be borrowed from other routes. A general degradation of the entire system occurs. There's just not enough passenger equipment, inspected for safety and in good repair, that Amtrak can just field another trainset. No redundancy.
A giant cruise ship is crippled. There apparently aren't enough other cruise ships not already on their schedules to send one to offload passengers from the crippled ship from an environment that will become sheer hell for most of them before the crippled ship gets towed to port. Or maybe there's no mechanism to get them onto another ship. I don't know. It seems like there should be. We have enough engineering students in America to make this happen.
Airlines are grounded due to a terrorist threat. Or, alternately, the air traffic control system suffers a major glitch and has to be shut down. Do we have a contingency plan? Can all those thousands of passengers count on the railroads to put on more trains? No. Can they all take a bus? I think not. How about driving? Major traffic jams in major metro areas.
For passenger rail, there should be long-term plans for new tracks, trains, and modern signaling systems to make it all work. Years ago, these plans should have been implemented so that, today, we would be on our way to true HSR and true independence of passenger rail from the freight system. Nobody foresaw that Amtrak would be having record years, nor did they see that at the same time as there is record demand for passenger rail there would be record freight delivery by rail. I don't know why not. Rail has for as long as I can remember been the most efficient and energy friendly way to move freight and passengers in terms of energy used per passenger-mile or per ton-mile. Yet it is still thought of as a dinosaur. That's because government has become the curator of a museum instead of the owner of a modern transportation system.
Privatize Amtrak? Now may be the time. Build more rail right of way? Yes. Let the NIMBYs be damned! Plan for the future? Definitely. Stop making risk a dirty word? Most important of all. And let's stop building things with projected useful life, and start building things to last! We could surely better handle "disaster" if we did.
Rant over.
© 2013 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, January 27, 2013
US Transportation Policy is No Policy At All
Those of you who have followed this blog or visit often enough to get my political drift know that I am a strong believer in a comprehensive United States transportation policy that includes passenger rail. I'm going to link to two recent reports that are - or will be - interesting reading, because they both address how our "no policy" approach has put the US behind much of the rest of the world when it comes to transportation.
The [first report] is from a bipartisan organization called Building America's Future. Before you get into the report and read the statistics that should scare the pants off any user of transportation (freight or passenger), consider its source and understand that the chair-persons for this organization are on the liberal side. So take some of it with a grain of salt in that there may be a tendency to slant in the direction of higher subsidies for all modes, not just for high-speed rail and freight rail. In my opinion, the report is on the money in its criticism of how we handle transportation policy and where this will lead us in the not-too-distant future. Frankly, if we can't move goods and people around fast, in high volume, and in an energy-efficient manner, the United States will continue to fall behind other countries. Additionally, the solution, I think, is not just in subsidy or government money, but in general tax and business policies, and an easing of regulations, that will help private enterprise get this accomplished. Even though the report's slant may be liberal, mine is definitely conservative.
The [second report] hasn't really come out yet. The link is to an article on the Amercian Society of Civil Engineers site that describes the expected March 19 report in generalities. Nevertheless, the conclusion is the same: The United States needs a comprehensive transportation policy that includes all modes, and needs to spend a lot more money on infrastructure for all modes. Again, the slant is probably liberal, as one would expect from a highly commercialized academic society, but the need can be met by applying conservative political principles.
Bottom line: It would be an extremely bad idea to continue treating rail, and passenger rail in particular, as an anachronism or as a second cousin to so-called "modern" modes like air and highway. My opinion is that it would also be an extremely bad idea to demand that government fund all of the needed improvements, as liberal political influences would have it. It would also be an extremely bad idea for government to dump modes that it currently subsidizes - Amtrak, for example - with no backup plan, as conservatives would have it. Limit taxes on transportation modes and their profits, dump unnecessary regulation, and promote general business prosperity, and the rest of the plan will take care of itself. AS LONG AS WE HAVE A PLAN!
© 2013 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
The [first report] is from a bipartisan organization called Building America's Future. Before you get into the report and read the statistics that should scare the pants off any user of transportation (freight or passenger), consider its source and understand that the chair-persons for this organization are on the liberal side. So take some of it with a grain of salt in that there may be a tendency to slant in the direction of higher subsidies for all modes, not just for high-speed rail and freight rail. In my opinion, the report is on the money in its criticism of how we handle transportation policy and where this will lead us in the not-too-distant future. Frankly, if we can't move goods and people around fast, in high volume, and in an energy-efficient manner, the United States will continue to fall behind other countries. Additionally, the solution, I think, is not just in subsidy or government money, but in general tax and business policies, and an easing of regulations, that will help private enterprise get this accomplished. Even though the report's slant may be liberal, mine is definitely conservative.
The [second report] hasn't really come out yet. The link is to an article on the Amercian Society of Civil Engineers site that describes the expected March 19 report in generalities. Nevertheless, the conclusion is the same: The United States needs a comprehensive transportation policy that includes all modes, and needs to spend a lot more money on infrastructure for all modes. Again, the slant is probably liberal, as one would expect from a highly commercialized academic society, but the need can be met by applying conservative political principles.
Bottom line: It would be an extremely bad idea to continue treating rail, and passenger rail in particular, as an anachronism or as a second cousin to so-called "modern" modes like air and highway. My opinion is that it would also be an extremely bad idea to demand that government fund all of the needed improvements, as liberal political influences would have it. It would also be an extremely bad idea for government to dump modes that it currently subsidizes - Amtrak, for example - with no backup plan, as conservatives would have it. Limit taxes on transportation modes and their profits, dump unnecessary regulation, and promote general business prosperity, and the rest of the plan will take care of itself. AS LONG AS WE HAVE A PLAN!
© 2013 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Amtrak Advertising
I just couldn't live with myself if I didn't share this one with everybody. Click [here] to see it.
Monday, December 31, 2012
What About Amtrak?
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about how the economy is going to change Amtrak. Will it be for better or for worse, and what can we who love passenger trains do to make it better? I don't think there's any question that Amtrak will change, as it has for as long as there has been an Amtrak.
In my humble opinion, the economy is not going to get radically better for the next year. It may not get radically worse, but I see nothing on the horizon that spells boom times. So two things are a sure bet for Amtrak: 1. There will be less federal funding. 2. There will be higher fares for everyone.
Let's take number 2 first, because it's a good thing, as old jailbird Martha Stewart used to say. Higher fares without an increase in incremental costs; i.e., same old schedule, no increase in frequency, but Amtrak charges the traveler more to get from Point A to Point B; means Amtrak gets closer to being profitable. However, it also means that Passenger Rail, in general, gets closer to being profitable. Enter private enterprise. Say what you will about the capitalist system. As much as the current regime in Washington would like to regulate big business out of existence, trends in investment are coming back strong in favor of rail - both freight and passenger. If the transportation-consuming public gets used to paying more to ride the rails, the same way it got used to paying over $3 per gallon of gas, then watch out for more investment in privately operated Passenger Rail. As I said, "A good thing!"
On to number 1. In the humble opinion of this rail fanatic, Amtrak, at this point in it's federally-funded life, may not survive a drastic cut in federal funds. Even in a gradually increasing economy, the states that would have to pick up the bulk of the shortfall in federal funding to keep many - if not all - services are cash-strapped and have other agendas. Being politically conservative my self, I've never understood the incredible shortsightedness of politicians who ignore the enormous public benefits of comprehensive transportation policy that includes all modes. Both ends and the middle of the political spectrum seem to be self-destructive in their zeal to show constituencies their so-called principled approach to government. Hogwash! Common sense and historical perspective tell us that Passenger Rail was never the real albatross around the neck of railroad private enterprise, but government intransigence was!
Would the demise of Amtrak be desirable? In short: A resounding NO! There's not a railroad out there that is prepared to take over the route structure and offer the level of service - such as it is - that is today's Amtrak. (A tip of the New Years hat to all of Amtrak's dedicated employees!) Once it's gone, it's going to be that much harder to get something back, in any form. Better for the politicians to recognize Amtrak's value as part of a comprehensive transportation policy that may include fares covering ever more of costs until such time as Amtrak becomes another Conrail. It won't happen, you say? Why not? There was a time not so long ago that I wrote in this blog that Passenger Rail would never be profitable. I don't see it that way any more.
Disclaimer: I write this on 12/31/2012, and the Fiscal Cliff - who I sometimes imagine as some myopic accountant living in a 3-story walk-up in Queens - has yet to be addressed. I don't think any deal that happens after I post this will change what I have written above.
Happy New Year!
+Amtrak
#PassengerRail
© 2012 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
In my humble opinion, the economy is not going to get radically better for the next year. It may not get radically worse, but I see nothing on the horizon that spells boom times. So two things are a sure bet for Amtrak: 1. There will be less federal funding. 2. There will be higher fares for everyone.
Let's take number 2 first, because it's a good thing, as old jailbird Martha Stewart used to say. Higher fares without an increase in incremental costs; i.e., same old schedule, no increase in frequency, but Amtrak charges the traveler more to get from Point A to Point B; means Amtrak gets closer to being profitable. However, it also means that Passenger Rail, in general, gets closer to being profitable. Enter private enterprise. Say what you will about the capitalist system. As much as the current regime in Washington would like to regulate big business out of existence, trends in investment are coming back strong in favor of rail - both freight and passenger. If the transportation-consuming public gets used to paying more to ride the rails, the same way it got used to paying over $3 per gallon of gas, then watch out for more investment in privately operated Passenger Rail. As I said, "A good thing!"
On to number 1. In the humble opinion of this rail fanatic, Amtrak, at this point in it's federally-funded life, may not survive a drastic cut in federal funds. Even in a gradually increasing economy, the states that would have to pick up the bulk of the shortfall in federal funding to keep many - if not all - services are cash-strapped and have other agendas. Being politically conservative my self, I've never understood the incredible shortsightedness of politicians who ignore the enormous public benefits of comprehensive transportation policy that includes all modes. Both ends and the middle of the political spectrum seem to be self-destructive in their zeal to show constituencies their so-called principled approach to government. Hogwash! Common sense and historical perspective tell us that Passenger Rail was never the real albatross around the neck of railroad private enterprise, but government intransigence was!
Would the demise of Amtrak be desirable? In short: A resounding NO! There's not a railroad out there that is prepared to take over the route structure and offer the level of service - such as it is - that is today's Amtrak. (A tip of the New Years hat to all of Amtrak's dedicated employees!) Once it's gone, it's going to be that much harder to get something back, in any form. Better for the politicians to recognize Amtrak's value as part of a comprehensive transportation policy that may include fares covering ever more of costs until such time as Amtrak becomes another Conrail. It won't happen, you say? Why not? There was a time not so long ago that I wrote in this blog that Passenger Rail would never be profitable. I don't see it that way any more.
Disclaimer: I write this on 12/31/2012, and the Fiscal Cliff - who I sometimes imagine as some myopic accountant living in a 3-story walk-up in Queens - has yet to be addressed. I don't think any deal that happens after I post this will change what I have written above.
Happy New Year!
+Amtrak
#PassengerRail
© 2012 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
