The Chickens Come Home to Roost

None of us with any knowledge of the business of Passenger Rail think that it is a walk in the park.  Start a passenger train, let alone a full schedule of trains, from scratch requires capital, hard work, luck and a loyal customer base.  Preferably that base is a broad one, drawn from a variety of demographics.  If you are running a train, you should also hope that both ends of your line originate traffic.

Readers of this blog will recall my skepticism and incredulity when then New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson went out of his way to fund rail passenger service for the Mid-Region Council of Governments, AKA MRCOG.  This service, one of Gov. Bill's "legacies", from Belen, NM, through Albuquerque, to Santa Fe, is now known as New Mexico Rail Runner Express.  Look on my second page to see some photos.

I wrote at the time that the route was too costly and that the whole project would eventually cost the taxpayers of New Mexico many millions of dollars in subsidies.  Albuquerque just isn't the kind of metro area that you find in places like Seattle or Dallas.  If done at all, the service could have used existing tracks instead of new ones, used DMUs instead of full-fledged communter rail equipment, and grown with demand rather than taking a "build it and they will come" approach.  Even now, with heavy rail tracks built all the way into Santa Fe, the equipment could be owned and operate by another entity under subsidy.  And New Mexico will now have the dubious distinction of trying to make BNSF Railway run the Lamy to Raton portion of the original Santa Fe Raton Pass line in order to keep just one long distance train, Amtrak's Southwest Chief, running. 

In the future, if you hear someone ask, "Who killed the Chief?" the answer will be either New Mexico or Railrunner Express. 

The Albuquerque Journal of Sunday, June 19, 2011, reports that the service averages "about" 4,500 passenger boardings on weekdays.  That's not a lot.  It's why the beginning of the whine has started, as the Rio Metro Regional Transit District board decided to cut weekends from the schedule.  Passenger boardings on weekend days of only 1,000 make this seem logical, but the politicians on the board see it as a way to speak to current Gov. Susana Martinez.  "Whine!  We need more taxpayer money.  Whine!  The businesses who depend on weekend recreational travelers will lose money.  Whine!"

Frankly, as a taxpaying NMer, I don't see why I should have to subsidize riders to the tune of an (estimated) $40 to $80 a boarding just so they don't lose the profit from that latte.  I don't think we should let them eat cake, but let them adjust their business practices to take advantage of the business that remains.  Or learn a lesson, which is:  Don't depend on the taxpayer to keep you in business.

But the better lesson is this.  When you're local politician starts to talk about his or her legacy, hide your wallet and your kid's wallet and your grandkid's wallet.  The state will be picking their pocket for the legacy forever.

©2011 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Also posted on A Bit Off New Mexico.

Political Extremes

For a good while, I have been just flabergasted - check my spelling here - at the political extremes that have been reached in playing with the Passenger Rail football. This is one reason I haven't had much to say of late.   At the one extreme is the high speed rail initiative begun by the Obama administration and perpetuated by those government agencies that recognize they have a whole pot o' money to get power over if they somehow hitch their train to the high-speed bandwagon.

At the other political extreme are conservatives who can't recognize a good deal when they see one.  And, as most of you know, I am a political conservative, but, by God's grace, not as stupid as some, I hope.  And in the middle stands Amtrak, which has proven time and again that it can play at both games, but would be better off if the game didn't change every year or two.  I think this constant game change is one reason that Amtrak didn't pick up the ball and run faster with it, taking upwards of two years to decide what kinds of new engines and cars to order, and now it looks like it is too late.

I now agree with most pundits:  America has no high speed rail at this point in time, and is unlikely to have any true high speed rail at any time in the reasonable future.  So the administration's push for high speed rail is really a political subsidy for "higher" speed rail, which translates into the following:  If you have a political entity (such as a transit district) that runs passenger trains or is going to run passenger trains sometime in the future, even if you are only in the "study" phase, you can get high speed rail money as long as your trains will run faster in the future that they do now.  For the study-phase districts, that could be 1 mph. 

While we push ourselves to opposite poles of the political globe, we fail to realize that there is a real place in America for Passenger Rail, if not for high speed rail in particular.  Americans have been speaking about this to Amtrak with their pocketbooks for several years now.  So have millions of commuters who use Passenger Rail to get to work every day.  Yes, this involves a subsidy, but the conservatives among us should see that as an opportunity to start up a business and move the whole shootin' match onto the private, for-profit stage.  That is no less likely a scenario than having a true high speed line  (125 mph or more average speed) running between two major cities by 2021.

A good long vacation - the first in several years - has given me a bit of new energy, and I will be trying to post on this site more often than recently.  The vacation gave me a chance to start my next novel.  Will it have trains in it?  You betcha!

© 2011 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

'Nother Way

The ongoing, highly politicized "Battle For Wisconsin" has got me thinking about other ways to fund Passenger Rail.

The train of thought - now leaving from Track 5 - goes as follows:  The whole Wisconsin thing involves public sector unions.  Any unionized Amtrak employee is effectively in the public sector.  Why can't ours be a totally privatized but subsidized passenger rail system.  Unions welcome, but no longer public sector unions.  Private enterprise can't give away the store without losing out on the profit.

Why can't our government - we, as taxpaying citizens, recognizing that Passenger Rail is part of a balanced national security and national transportation policy - decide how much it wants to spend on passenger rail.  Let's say for the next 10 years to make it a stable system.  And then why can't we put it up for bid.  The company that wants to show some gonads and take a shot at making a profit above and beyond covering the tax money gets to bid its own X number of dollars for the privelege.  Define adequate progress for 3 years right there in the bid documents.  The hard part would be defining progress realistically - not by having Congress say it has to turn a bottom line every year or else.

The prize:  Getting to make a profit.  As big a profit as you want if you manage it all correctly. 

The penalty:  If no adequate progress in 3 years the whole thing goes up for bids, including the subsidy and the investment of the original proprietor.  The whole subsidy goes back to the taxpayers out of the proceeds and everything starts over except for the infrastructure already in place.

I don't know if the USA has enough political will to try to accomplish something like this.  But I do know that, given the capital, I'd be one of the bidders.

©2011 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

No Rail Projects - But Don't Touch Those Unions!

As we have been talking of late about the rare chance to fund HSR and other new Passenger Rail projects, and of the need to hold our collective taxpayer bladder and keep from pissing it away, I thought a comment or two about Wisconsin, the power of the people, and the power of labor unions would be in order.

First, I applaud Wisconsin Gov. Walker for taking a stand on spending money the state doesn't have on rail projects.  They've waited this long and they can wait a little longer.  A compromise wherein the state perhaps spends some money on planning - including a detailed study of costs and maybe even a 20-year projection as to ridership - wouldn't be out of the question.

Notice how Gov. Walker has enough political power to do this.  Passenger Rail protesters haven't packed the state capitol or called the governor a fascist.  The people of Wisconsin elected Gov. Walker and the Republicans in the statehouse to do a job, and they are trying their damndest to do it.  EVEN THOUGH railroads are typically unionized, I didn't see organized labor on the capitol steps either. 

But let the same Republican take a step that looks like union busting, and all hell breaks loose.

So a lesson, if you will.  Make that A LESSON!!! 

Political power that comes from the ballot box is how this country was set up.  But political power that comes from money and influence is always there.  As The People, we can do one of three things with that, none of which will make everyone happy all of the time. 

First, we can let it take over, as Gov. Walker is determined not to do in Wisconsin, but as it has done in the federal Executive Branch.  This is either bad, or - at best - so-so for everyone.  Bad for the general populace, the vast majority of whom are not union members, and so-so for union members.  Why so-so?  Anyone who has ever been a union member will tell you that the rank and file many times gets treated just as badly by the union leadership as it does by management. 

Second, we can fight it.  This is a so-so result for all.  Collective bargaining and the labor movement have done a lot of good things in this country, and they can do a lot more in the right settings.  I am thinking that public-sector labor is not one of those settings.  When a public-sector laborer - I'm not talking first responders - gets paid more than a private-sector laborer in the same job, things "jest ain't right."

Third, and this may be anathema to some conservatives, we can live with it.  Just like we didn't vote for Mr. Obama to take advantage of a crisis and change the face of America, we didn't vote for conservatives to do the same.  If Gov. Walker needs to flex some muscle to get the Dems back to the bargaining table, so be it.  But please don't ram through conservative changes that are just as radical as the changes that Mr. Obama has tried to make to the American political landscape.

What does this mean for Passenger Rail?  I didn't agree with the last Bush any more than I agree with the Last Obama.  You can't completely cut off a mode of transportation from government support any more than you can cut off a proven method of keeping wages and working conditions fair for some workers.  And yet, you can't just throw away money on either.  Let's hope Gov. Walker has the intelligence to see that where both labor strife and rail funding are concerned.

Can I have an Amen?

© 2011 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

What's Supposed to Happen

That's not a question.

Many pundits are reporting the demise of High Speed Rail (HSR).  The reasons given are many, but the most prominent are the fact that Republicans are now in control of the House and of many state governments, and the related fact that most, if not all states, are going to take a hard, second look at what is going to be spent for HSR, both by the states and by the federal government.

I'd like to add a third main reason, and then go out on a limb.  The third main reason is the way that the Obama administration threw the funding helter skelter at so many different and disconnected HSR projects.

The limb, which I am now sawing off from the trunk side, is my belief that this did not kill HSR.  The facts just slowed it down a bit; and that is a GOOD THING.

Although some of the projects already well into or past the planning stage appear to be well thought out, from an engineering standpoint, no good thing can come of the fact that they are not designed to mesh, or in most cases even to connect.  Railroading learned its lesson in the 19th century, when the lack of a standard gauge and standard time became an obvious hindrance to the growth of business.  It's only because Private Enterprise Railroading has little to no say in these projects that they are so disconnected, or so I hope.  In any case, most freight railroads have taken a dim view of these projects, for now; and that, too, is thanks to Uncle Sam.

We have many visionary leaders in the railroad industry today.  I would like to see them come forward with plans for HSR that are national in scope and standardized from an engineering standpoint.  If we are going to use existing right of way, then the plans should say how this will hold up 20 or 30 years from now.  If we are going to pay the way for new rights of way, then we should commit to an engineering design that is so forward looking that there will be no reason to worry about how it will fit with the current system.  Maybe it will be railroading, but not railroading, something new and unique that derives from railroading only in the way that a covered hopper derives from a covered wagon. 

Yes, it'll cost money.  Our NOW, NOW, NOW mentality suggests that we would rather throw billions at it now than spend millions a year for, say, 60 years, and get something really great.  But the former would be a pity and the latter a blessing.  The push for HSR initiatives and funding NOW, in Congress and elsewhere, will be a pity.  Let's think on it, design for the future, and when the economy is back on its feet, we will be ready to build something we'll all be proud of.

©2011 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Let Me Be Perfectly Clear

Like a good glass of fine gin.

Compared to some bloggers, I don't get many comments.  HEY OUT THERE!  (Hands waving followed by one or two flares for effect.)  So pardon me if I take one to task for not listening. 

In my last post, I compared Pres. Obama deciding we needed HSR to Pres. Lincoln deciding we needed a transcontinantal railroad.  First the historical perspective, which I should never forget doesn't exist for most of you out there. . . (loss of readers) . . .  Lincoln saw the need to establish a transcon as a security issue.  A century and a half ago, security meant keeping the Union whole, and that meant keeping more states tied to the north.  I'm not sure that Obama knows what a security issue looks like.  I think that it is more likely he picked up HSR as a potential way to create jobs over a long period of time, kind of like the Eisenhower and the Interstates, although that was a security issue at the time as well. 

But transportation is a security issue.  As a security issue, it is one of the few things that conservatives, even fiscal conservatives, should see as worth spending taxpayer money on.  We need a balanced transportation program, and it should not just be so that somebody with enought money or enough power can travel from here to there in luxury, but it should be so that the business of the country can be carried out no matter what the internal or external circumstances; i.e., war, peace, recession, prosperity, a plague of Democrats or an infestation of Republicans. 

A balanced program would include both low- and high-speed ways for passengers, freight, and military materiel to get from point A to point B within the domestic confines of America and our closest neighbors.  Low-speed ways exist in abundance, and are currently heavily subsidized by the government.  The primary low-speed modes are highway (auto, bus, truck), rail, and internal waterway (boat, barge).  All have been heavily subsidized by government, rail the least.  While highways and waterways continue to be, there is proof that government could turn some of our highways and waterways over to private enterprise (sell them), and that private enterprise would make a profit.  Yes, the government will never recoup all its years of investment in the sale, but the taxes collected over the future years of private ownership can be shown to be more than adequate to justify the initial investments.  The government more rapidly turned over the railways to private enterprise, and realized a prosperous nation from sea to shining sea as the reward for all of the land grants that made the transcontinental routes possible.

(The proof is in the Illinois Tollway system, which, had government not decided to keep hold of the cash cow, would have paid off its bondholders.  It continues to pay for its upkeep and expansion without assistance from government subsidy except for the laws and government that allow it to function in its current form.)

The only high-speed mode we have today is air, and boy is it subsidized.  I think it could be argued that the government (read taxpayer) will never recoup its investment in airways, airports and the infrastructure that includes high-tech navigation equipment.  But I think it could also be argued that the feds could sell the airway system to private enterprise and that, by tackling efficiencies and future capital investment in the spotlight of profit, private enterprise could make a go of it and no future subsidies (perhaps except for government mandated upgrades) would be needed.

So we get back to HSR.  It is not pie-in-the-sky, because the technology exists and is proven to work.  We need HSR because the cost to invest in high-speed highways (never mind waterways) is ludicrously higher and there is no proven tech.  We need HSR for security reasons, because there will be no high-speed mode of transportation for passengers, freight or materiel if the air fleet gets grounded by any of a number of plausible threat scenarios.  We need HSR because we can engineer security measures into new infrastructure that has had to be after-the-horse-left-the-barn engineered into our existing modes. 

Bottom line: It may take another 150 years for HSR to give us the return on our investment as a nation that the transcons are giving us and the owning shareholders today.  And I am not saying that America shouldn't expect something in return.  But I, for one, am tired of my country having the short view.  There has to be a way that we, as taxpayers, can support this and realize some return, if only in the long term.

And who says HSR has to be just for passengers?

© C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

HSR Swings Like A Pendulum Do

Although I'm politically conservative, as most of my readers know, I'm also pro-subsidy when it comes to Passenger Rail.  I have speculated on a few occasions on how we can get more private money into Passenger Rail, but the bottom line is that there is just too tiny of a liklihood of turning a profit on passengers.

I don't necessarily think it's impossible any more.  I'm convinced that many governmental agencies that now run Passenger Rail of all kinds are rife with waste and could be substantially closer to profitability if that waste was curtailed.  But as a practical matter . . .

Here's the kicker.  For once, I agree with Mr. Obama.  While I don't see it as one of his Sputnik moments, I do see the opportunity to evolve Passenger Rail into a premiere form of transportation for America as a moment similer to Lincoln deciding to support the transcontinental railroads.  There are just certain challenges that are too large and too risky in the short term to be funded solely by private funds.  But they can be funded to a greater degree by private funds if public money is there to make the investors see the - pardon the pun - light at the end of the tunnel.  I would be much more likely to invest a billion of my own dollars in HSR, if I could see that I would be able to start getting a return in the short term, while the longer term returns are still out in the realm of dreams. 

Here's the other kicker.  I disagree that any HSR money should be put into the hands of existing or even new government agencies.  I think that the money should be set up so that private enterprise can start the projects just as though Uncle Sam were simply another investor.  With proper oversight and with private money added, business can get its feet wet - see where the efficiencies are and see where there's money to be made - in what is essentially a new way of doing things for rail.  The absolute last thing we should do is give money to Amtrak for HSR.

There are a lot of places we should not be spending public money - healthcare for instance - but we should not lose sight of the importance of transportation for economic stability and defense strategy, and simply for the welfare of the general populace. 

©2011 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

At Least Some Objections Don't Hold Water - Or Freight

A good many of the objections to spending money on Passenger Rail and/or High Speed Rail (HSR), now that Republicans will take over the House of Representatives, are grounded only in "don't spend money", and not in any sound logic.  The most illogical one is this:  Spend the money on improving freight rail, and the highways will get better because the trucks will be off of them. 

Yes, Virginia, it is true that getting trucks off the Interstates is a noble goal, both from the standpoint of congestion, and from a Green perspective.  But spending government money on the freight railroads isn't going to get us there.  For one thing, the freight railroads are still in competition with the truckers, last time I looked.  And there is a lot of money in the trucking lobby that says trucking will continue to get largesse from the gov't. for years to come. 

For another thing, the freight railroads still haven't figured out the formula to compete for short-haul freight.  And whether we like it or not, short-haul is what is going to continue to cause congestion in urban areas.

The gov't. could do two things that would not cost the taxpayer any money, and accomplish what there is to accomplish as far as getting trucks off the Interstates.  #1.  Stop allowing increase in truck size and weight (hopefully decrese weights) on the highways.  Any federal or local legislation that does this should also include a short rider that prohibits multiple trailers with 100 miles of an urban area of 75,000 people or more. 

#2.  Take half of what is already being spent on highway maintenance for 2 years and turn it over to Amtrak and/or short-haul commuter rail agencies like Caltran or urban transit districts.  Yes, there would be 2 years of deferred maintenance on some roadways.  If we didn't have to apply political correctness to everything, we could apply brain power instead and pick and choose which highways simply could not make it for another two years.  Spend the remaining half on them.  I bet there will still be some of the remaining half left over.

Before I started writing this post, Ohio had already opted out of the high-speed rail money form the Obama admin - okay, I'll stop calling it a regime, because that angers some folks.  That will go elsewhere, but it shouldn't be spent on freight railroads.  Not if we know what's good for us.

Before I completed this post, Mr. Obama had signed the tax bill that will give us two years to see if a continuation of the current income tax rates will stimulate the economy.  I bet it will.  Sadly for Passenger Rail, there will probably not be as much money offered to HSR projects for a long, very long, very very long time.  Happily, some people will now have a chance to think of better places to put the HSR money that remains in the hopper.

©2010 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Passenger Rail Project Funding In Jeopardy

Damn those Republicans!  Damn those Tea Party radicals!

Some of you will think I say this seriously, and others - those who know me better - will know I say this with tongue firmly implanted in cheek.  Yes, Republicans in control of the House and in control of more state governments will put Passenger Rail funding (read: stimulus money) in jeopardy.  For example, Wisconsin will suspend work on the high-speed rail project between Milwaukee and Madison until it is determined that it won't cost the state too much money.  And it will.  Ohio appears to be opting out of high-speed rail funding, too.  And for the same reason.

Another example is right here in my (adopted) home state of New Mexico.  Bill (never met a project I wouldn't fund as long as they put my name on it) Richardson will be out as governor as of January 1, 2011, and his longtime lieutenant gov Diane Den-eeesh (as Mr. Obama pronounces it) will not be taking over.  Instead, the intelligent electorate has chosen a conservative, Susana Martinez, to be the state's first elected female governor, and first female Latina governor in the nation.  She hasn't specifically targeted Railrunner Express and other rail projects, but you can bet she'll think long and hard before throwing in with those of us who would like to see the Denver (or Cheyenne) to El Paso rail corridor go forward.

That Passenger Rail projects are in jeopardy may be a good thing. I said may be, because I’m not sure it is. Building on what I have said in a previous blog, for which I was criticized as actually being anti-Passenger Rail, let me state a reason.

I don’t think anyone can disagree that funds for rail projects are limited. The conservative victories just shake us into this reality from the euphoria of finally having a national rail passenger system that didn’t have to beg for funds. Okay, it will always have to beg, but you know what I mean.

Given the reality that funds for rail projects will always be limited, and will have to be shared with freight railroads, a step back is what we need so that funds are not wasted on projects that cannot possibly succeed in the way we all dream they should.

The freight railroads, by the way, have a better handle on reality than Amtrak or than states that are simply taking money to do studies for high-speed rail because it’s there and coming to their states. How so? First, freight railroads have long resisted public money, then embraced it when it became inevitable. They are spending a lot of their own money on improvements, and it is unlikely they are going to take funds just for the hell of it. The funding they get will go to real improvements that are going to net them real bottom-line numbers. Freight railroads are not going to take money that makes them beholden to government unless they see a real upside.

Not so with Amtrak, which took the money long before it had any real idea what to do with it. Not so with state and local transportation departments and agencies, who are so used to taking money when it’s offered that they have ready-dug pie-in-the-sky holes they can throw it in, depending on the size of the check.

Conservatives putting the brakes on projects, wanting to get more for the money or be sure the projects aren’t really pre-dug black holes, may just be a good thing to let us step back and make sure the funding is directed to projects that, in the near term – say a decade – have a chance of success.

©2010 – C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Inspiration

It's amazing how a single development - make that a singular development - can change a lot of things and undo a lot of damage.  The feature article in the October 2010 issue of Trains, is about how the Staggers Act - deregulation - transformed railroading.  It is inspiring to know that, no matter how much damage an intrusive government has already done to a free enterpries, that the simple act of freeing that enterprise to compete in a free marketplace can turn almost certain disaster into good news.  Those among you who follow politics know what I'm talking about.

What does this have to do with Passenger Rail?  A sidebar to the article speculates on what railroading would be like if regulation had never been lifted.  Long before deregulation, government got into both passenger and freight rail where it deemed either or both too important to fail.  (See "bailout.")  Other than guaranteeing that there would still be private railroads with some reasonably good track on which to run Amtrak trains, deregulation didn't help Passenger Rail much.  There are still laws that limit what freight railroads can do, among which are the Amtrak reauthorizations that still require them to carry Amtrak trains.

Government will never get out of the railroad business completely.  As I have noted before in this blog, government has always had a stake, no matter how indirect.  But what would happen if government pulled out of Passenger Rail today?

Your first reaction is:  There would be no passenger trains!  But are you sure?  Are we so bereft of innovation and revolution in this country today that we couldn't figure out some way to make the trains stay, or even get better?  I have repeatedly said that Passenger Rail will never make a profit.  But I'm not so sure that this isn't just feeding on a defeatist attitude that permeates lots of our thinking today.

So I'd like you to think about it.  And comment please, or send me an email.  Let's see if we can come up with some ideas to sent to some private capitalists who may think differently, too.

©2010 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Shameless Self-Promotion

What good is a blog if you can’t do a bit of shameless self-promotion.  And, in that vein, I would like to announce that I have published my second novel as an Ebook.

A Tunnel Too Far is not about railroads or railroading per se.  Its setting, however, is Chicago of the early Depression Era, and the famous and sometimes infamous tunnel system that underlies the central part of the great city.  The story has plenty of tunnel train action, and railroad, streetcar, and Chicago ‘L’ background. 

The title above and the Important Link at right link to a web page for the book.  Or you can go directly to the Amazon Kindle Store, to download it to your Kindle eReader.

I also have the Ebook formatted for other eReaders, such as Nook (Barnes & Noble), Sony, and Microsoft Reader, but I have yet to set up a store for those versions.  If any reader of this blog is interested in getting a copy in a format other than Kindle, please email me (a comment also works) with your return email address and I will correspond with you about getting you a copy.

As an amateur historian and collector of railroad books, I can’t see that eReaders will ever supplant the printed and bound page.  But I really can see the attraction, and Ebooks are taking off like lightning in the bookselling marketplace.  In addition, I know that Kindle, Nook and MS Reader have versions that run on desktop or laptop computers.

Here’s the link to Passenger Rail:  If you ride a train or commute, you may be tired of standing in line to buy a newspaper on the way every day, or of carrying a book to read that weighs more than the sandwich in the pocket of your overcoat.  If so, an eReader is just right for you!  It’s the “ride home” entertainment of the 21st century.

And if you read my book and enjoy it, please recommend it to others.

Thank you to my readers and followers.

©2010 – C. A. Turek – mistertrains@gmail.com

Getting Too Conservative

From the very start of this blog, I have taken the position that U.S. Passenger Rail is one of the few exceptions to the conservative free enterprise rule.

Rail is a mode of transportation that has always been too important to the economy and general well being of Americans to allow it solely to free enterprise.  Witness the years that the feds have spent regulating railroads, first with antitrust action, next with the ICC, and now through the STB.  Well, some things are also too important to leave Free Enterprise alone in the same room with.  Passenger Rail is one of those things. 

Unfortunately, instead of alone with Free Enterprise, via Amtrak, we have left Passenger Rail alone in the same room with Government Excess.

Why are there no compromise positions any more?

For two reasons:  1.  Both the right and the left have decided that politics is no longer a system of compromise.  2.  Under the banner of political principle, the voting populace has gone along with them.

Where are the people who can see the Constitution as one giant compromise of many different political points of view?  It is a compromise that worked and that is still working.  A similar compromise for Passenger Rail would require free enterprise to invest in Passenger Rail just as much as it would require government to give free enterprise a helping hand.  The way I see it now, too much of the funding for Passenger Rail goes to government entities to spend.  What is spent on private enterprise – and there appears to be a lot of it vying for the right to build new HSR infrastructure – is spent on government connected companies working under government specifications.  This stifles innovation.

I am no more demanding that the government stop using tax money for transportation subsidies any more than I am asking private enterprise to fund new rail routes without tax money subsidies.  I am hoping for that grand comprise – embodied by our Constitution – that will get us there in new and innovative ways.  Without the political radicalism.

©2010 – C. A. Turek – mistertrains@gmail.com

Soup

I've recently been reading two books that have everything to do with Passenger Rail but nothing to do with Passenger Rail in the 21st century.  The first of these is a book called Super by Jim Lehrer.  Yeah, the same Lehrer who is a news commentator.  It's a novel that takes place aboard the Super Chief and environs in the 1950s.  I got an opportunity to board this train in Chicago a couple of times, and the book brings back the memories of the old low-level consists, before the high-level era and the addition chair cars to it.

What does this have to do with soup?  Let me tell you about the other book first.

The second book is Appetite for America by Stephen Fried.  It's a history of the Fred Harvey restaurant chain and how Mr. Harvey built the first "not fast food but good food fast" establishments in America - with the help of the Santa Fe.  Now to the soup.

Soup is made good or bad by what you throw into it.  But soup is never ever made with just one ingredient.  It's not even one main ingredient with a little spice, but many main ingredients worked in and cooked until the soup is just right.

Soup in something the Santa Fe had right.  Witness how the high-level concept became an Amtrak standard where the system could handle it.  Witness its ability to put together luxury trains that treated the passenger well and fed them better.  Fred Harvey was the food standard on the Santa Fe. 

In the 21st century, our ingredients for Passenger Rail soup are (in no particular order):  stimulus money (lots), antique equipment, plans for bit and pieces of a national high-speed rail system, plans to upgrade existing tracks to "higher speeds," performance contracts the the freight railroads are choking on, and a soupcon of new regular-speed long-distance routes.  Does anyone like paper soup?  Hope so, because 90% of our soup for the 21st century is paper.  Some of it stimulus money that hasn't been printed yet.  The dash of spice (the new routes) isn't going to help.

Are we going to choke on our soup like the freight railroads?

©2010 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

High Speed Rail – Boom or Bust

The bloom is on the rose for HSR.  A lot of money is available to be spent on HSR projects, and still more is likely to come our way.  True or false?

There is no doubt that President Obama’s domestic policy includes favorable conditions for HSR projects.  Many communities are interested in HSR, and many private enterprises are prepared to offer their products and services to help build a high-speed system.  The element that seems on the fence is whether the most important private enterprise – the railroads themselves – are prepared to offer their products and services to make this happen.

I think it will happen, eventually.  And I hope something like a public-private partnership gets it done.  Public – so that capital costs that are too high for private enterprise to finance all at once can be borne by the public at large.  Private – so that there is always the possibility that somebody with an innovative mind and a new concept can make a go of HSR and make some money at it.  Money to be made not just by providing goods and services, but by running trains.

Railroads are big business.  And right now, big businesses are afraid of the government.  Look at big oil, and big manufacturing (read: the auto industry).  One false step and you jump from the gravy train to the shit list, without passing ‘go’ and without collecting $200.  Most railroads don’t like the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) or the federal DOT telling them what they can and can’t agree with.  And that’s just what is happening in the process of granting the funds to get these projects moving.  There is a draft agreement that was created without private input, and the railroad involved must agree to it.  The private partners in the scheme are going to have to play second fiddle to the public (read: federal government). 

I predict that most railroads will not want to cross the Obama regime (word used intentionally).  They will, therefore, agree to the rules with little change.  That may be good for the regime, but it may be bad for business.  And to make these partnerships work, the private partner is going to have to stay solvent.

Oh, and even if the regime gets a second term, these projects will all still be only partially underway.  Don’t plan on riding a high-speed train next year, or even in 2016.  And if the railroads stop being scared and get pissed off?  I don’t know what will happen to HSR.  Neither true nor false, but wait and see.

©2010 – C. A. Turek – mistertrains@gmail.com

Passenger Rail: Everything Old Is New Again

Is it too unusual to blog my own blog?

Passenger Rail: Everything Old Is New Again gave some of you an idea of where I am coming from in this blog, and gave others the wrong idea.

Bottom line here, there are some areas where government subsidy and/or government intervention is desirable, and even where it is needed, and some places where it is not.  From a pragmatic point of view – that’s reality for you simple folk, and you know who you are – government subsidy is needed for Passenger Rail, for the foreseeable future.

Where’s the line to be drawn?  Those of us who see the line clearly get frustrated with those who don’t.  Those who don’t generally think everything should be subsidized by government, and, in some ways, everything is.  The purpose of limited government is to allow the rest of us to function productively in a free society.  That small feat costs money.  It has always cost money.  So in that limited sense, government is subsidizing every free activity of every man, woman and child.  Think about it!  For example, in order to maintain your freedom of religion, there must be a government system in place that guarantees you will not be persecuted in the practice of that religion, by anyone including the government.  That costs money, and the government must tax you to get that money.  Do they?

The federal government still has a lot of assets that it has chosen to bank for the people rather than sell.  It also includes a hell of a lot of assets that could be freed up to sell for the people, to support it’s primary function: to subsidize freedom.  In my state, New Mexico, more than a third of the land is held by the federal government. 

Don’t get antsy – I’m on my way to Passenger Rail.  Just let’s make a stop at rail in general.  Railroads would not be as they exist today in America without huge subsidies.  These came in many formats.  The largest were the land grants for the pacific roads.  More obscure, but still, in a way, subsidies, were the charters or franchises for construction of the earlier railroads, and the powers of eminent domain, sometimes given directly to the railroads, and sometimes exercised by favorable local government.  Most town governments wanted railroads to come through, so they didn’t hesitate to give them land, or take somebody else’s in order to accomplish that end.

So back to where I am coming from on the subject of Passenger Rail.  We have a choice of how it gets subsidized.  Not every choice is good for all situations, but government seems to have settled on a one-size-fits-all solution.  The quasi-governmental entity, I think, has seen its better days.  The primary reason: When the public is seeking efficiencies, the agency is just seeking more money and ignoring the possibility of efficiencies.

Can we place funds in the hands of private enterprise?  “Goldman Sachs” kind of excesses make private enterprise look as bad as, or worse than, government.  So what are we to do? 

In actual practice, rail transit agencies put money – in the form of operating contracts – into private enterprise all the time.  The operators are required by their free-enterprise contracts to perform their jobs efficiently, or lose money.  But in most cases, the transit agency still overlies the operator.

Would we save money by eliminating the middle man?  What if we just sold the transit agency to private enterprise with a guarantee of a contracted subsidy?  If they didn’t do their job efficiently, they’d go out of business.  Perhaps if there was the overlying threat of bankruptcy, there would be more efficiency and less waste.

Would this ever get us to so-called “profitable” Passenger Rail.  I think not.  But we need to try new things and stop whining about who stands for capitalism and who stands for socialism.  We are all in this together, and an even mix of all good ideas is probably the solution to a lot of problems, not just for Passenger Rail

©2010 – C. A. Turek – mistertrains@gmail.com

Everything Old Is New Again

There’s a song title there, but that’s not where I’m going with this.

Let me preface my remarks by reminding my blog followers that I am a conservative patriot.  I believe that America is exceptional and the last, best hope for freedom in the world.  I believe in limited government, free enterprise, and no unnecessary taxation.  I am an American optimist, and I believe that The United States of America is and will continue to be a beacon for the world in all aspects of life.  That the world watches America closely and criticizes freely is a sign that we are doing something right!

Moving on to a theme I am hearing over and over again these days:  America has missed its chance to (fill in the blank here).

I first heard this about NASA and space exploration.  It goes something like, “We put a man on the moon over 40 years ago and where are we now?  We are scuttling the Space Shuttle, we have no new exploration projects on line, and we couldn’t put a man on the moon today even if we wanted to.”

What does this have to do with Passenger Rail?  I’m getting there.  But here are a few others before I do:

1.  We have let our manufacturing base leave us.  We couldn’t forge the steel to build another Sears Tower today, even if we wanted to.
2.  We built a magnificent highway system, and we are now letting it rot under the wheels of indifferent truckers.
3.  We have the best medical care in the world, but we are letting lawyers sue it into the ground until our only alternative is ObamaCare.
4.  We once built the best automobiles, but we have hamstrung the manufacturers with so much safety and environmental bullcrap that there will never be another car like (fill in the blank again).

Well, here’s the one involving Passenger Rail.  “We had fast passenger trains on a high-speed network with frequent service and good amenities back in the 1930s, and let it all go with clueless Amtrak, and now we're going to spend billions just to get a few trains over 100 mph again!"  That one hurts because it is true. 

My point.  I criticize the way we are approaching the task of improving our Passenger Rail, but I believe and trust that, when we do it again, it will be so much better than what we had in the 1930s.  It will be so much better we will think of our old trains with the same fondness as we will be thinking of the first moon landings as our Mars liner hits the runway at Mars City.
 
Now is not the time to stifle innovation.  Our free enterprises need to be free enough of government intervention to research and develop and invent, but they will always need the government as the last, best source of funding for that great leap into the new frontier.  Our government is – after all – the people.  And we, the people, will take us there.  I criticize, but I have no doubt.

©2010 – C. A. Turek – mistertrains@gmail.com

Conservatives Don’t Like Passenger Rail

Well, not all conservatives, as I consider myself one.

I ran across 'Defining Success: The Case against Rail Transit' by Randal O'Toole - Page 1 of 40 when visiting the Cato Institute on the Web.  This site links to a lot of great, politically conservative writing.  But this study makes me shudder.

If you like Passenger Rail as a transportation mode, you should read the whole study.  It’s a great example of good investigation, science and research.  Some of the climate-change people should take it as an example.  It doesn’t paint rail transit in a very good light for those of us who would like to see reduced government size and cost.

If you are a railfan, some of the criteria Mr. O’Toole uses for viable rail transit systems are quite laughable.  Even if the criteria are not chosen objectively – what a lot of researchers do to slant the outcome – how the transit systems meet these criteria is looked at systematically.  You can then throw out criteria that appear ridiculous, and you still get a very bad picture of rail transit’s future.

Okay, so these conservatives have an axe to grind with big government.  But I think those of us who advocate expanded railroad passenger systems are a bit guilty of wanting to put trains on ‘whenever and wherever.’

When I criticized the way that tax dollars would be spent on HSR, I got a bad reaction from some of you.  Some of the comments – not all shown on this blog – suggested that we should take anything that will bring on more trains.  That attitude is dead wrong and will lead to some of the situations that are grist for the conservative mill. 

First and foremost, there are some places where we shouldn’t be looking to put on more trains.  Not now, at least.  New Mexico’s Rail Runner Express was one of these, and now a very, very poor state is burdened with a very, very costly train that could have been done another way.  Rah, rah, for the train, but boo to the tax burden.  To even suggest that we put on more of these kinds of trains is going to work against us.

Second, we should stop looking at rail only in terms of “dollars of subsidy” per “passenger mile.”  Every mode of passenger transport is subsidized.  We should also have a “value” per “passenger mile” measure.  And we should have a spirited debate about what these values are.

Here are some suggestions:  What’s it worth to have the majority of travelers using a very low-polluting, fuel-saving mode?  What’s it worth to travelers to be able to look out a window and see where they are?  What’s it worth to have fixed guideways that will NEVER bring their noise and disruption to ANY OTHER than their nearest neighbors?  Buses don’t do that, you say?  Well just take a look at how easily a bus route can be changed!

These are just some of the talking points we could use to argue with Mr. O’Toole.

©2010 – C. A. Turek – mistertrains@gmail.com

NM commuter train expects 3 millionth rider - KVIA.com El Paso, Las Cruces - Weather, News, Sports -

Okay, So It’s More of a Success Than I Expected

NM commuter train expects 3 millionth rider - KVIA.com El Paso, Las Cruces - Weather, News, Sports -

The heavily subsidized commuter line that should have been called “The Bill Richardson Railroad” is a popular way for people to get from Albuquerque to Santa Fe and to a few other points, too. So I will eat crow and admit the following:

First, I didn’t think it would be up and running as quickly as it was. (Thank federal dollars.)

Second, I didn’t like the idea of running it down the middle of I-25, and still don’t. Instead of flattening it out as I thought they would, they built a roller-coaster profile that is a bit ridiculous, and more roller-coaster than the average railroad, but it works. Sorry guys, I go for the more conventional.

Third, I will never figure out how they do these “millionth passenger” things. Who is counting and how do they know that the millionth passenger will board at the Albuquerque station and not at, say, Rio Bravo?

Despite some of the comments I have received, I still think we should sell the thing to Warren Buffet.

©2010 – C. A. Turek – mistertrains@gmail.com

New Passenger Rail Company

APNewsBreak: Icahn Backs Passenger Rail Company.

I’ve recently been accused of being a little too curmudgeonly about the Obama administration’s support of high-speed rail (HSR). (Okay, I’ll use the hyphen.) So it’s time to give credit to the private sector for at least getting on the bandwagon, if not making the bandwagon move any faster.

I take exception to the remark the this is “Obama’s high-speed rail network.” If it comes to fruition, it will be America’s network, and not Obama’s.

America deserves the investment in time and attention to our rail network that, up until now, has always failed to materialize. And I laud Icahn and any non-governmental entity that wants to get invested and make this truly a project of the American free enterprise system.

As readers of this blog know, I am a political conservative, but I have repeatedly talked up the necessity of public subsidy for passenger rail. I am sure that Icahn sees the possibility of turning some of that public subsidy into return for stockholders, and that is the American way. It is the way our rail systems were built, and it is the way they will grow into the twenty-first century.

I give Mr. Obama credit no further than his ability to see the writing on the wall that was writ there by all the rest of us who have been screaming into the deaf ear of political and corporate inertia. The good news is not that Obama is giving away money for Passenger Rail, but that we now have at least two high-profile investors, Carl Icahn and Warren Buffett, who are willing to bet their not inconsiderable fortunes on railroads.

Could Burlington Northern Santa Fe become a test bed for new, non-Amtrak passenger service?

©2010 – C. A. Turek – mistertrains@gmail.com

Laughable Funding

I'm not in the habit of laughing at billions of dollars. I still find it hard to imagine paying over $40 thousand for an automobile. But spreading something like $8 billion for HSR over 31 states - see this link - is very much like trying to buy that $40 thousand automobile by paying $400 a year so that it is paid off in 100 years.

The cosst of any HSR project that is even close to actualization is sbustantially more than the per-state amount of money that each of the 31 states would get - if the money is divided evenly. (See this line from Wired for an idea of what HSR will cost.) So I'm wondering if Mr. Obama thinks we are easily impressed - a billion is still a billion - or just stupid when he characterizes this as a lot of money.

My first reaction is to characterize it as too little too late. Based on the costs in the link above, the feds should be considering 10 times this amount right away, and more later.

The other laughable part of this is the report that this will generate jobs. Again, not right away, especially because most of the states that get these funds are cash-strapped, and not as far along in their HSR aspirations as those represented in the link above. I count only 15 states involved in the projects shown in the Wired link, so where are the other 16? Unless these states come up with a lot more money soon, no immediate jobs are going to result.

After laughing a little, I may cry a lot.

©2010 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com