Doomsday Scenario: What If Congress Stops Funding Amtrak?

[tp49]

It also helps that the government owns the land in China only granting land use rights to private parties. Makes it a lot easier to build that fancy high speed train when revoking the land use grants on the land you need to build on is relatively easy.

Technically the US has the same system: the government has "eminent domain" over the land, and private parties only have limited rights to it. The most common is called "fee title", and is conditional on payment of your property taxes, among other things...
You might not know that.

China actually has very serious issues with "holdout landowners"; you can google this. The legal system is very strong -- unsurprising, since China is one of the most legalistic societies in the world -- and those land use rights can't be revoked on a whim.

So in short, no, you're wrong. China has exactly the same issues with acquiring land for a high speed rail line as the US does. No difference.

...OK, there is one difference. China has a policy of printing lots of money to keep the renminbi cheap. This causes booming export industries, and the combination provides loads of cash to use to buy out landowners. The US, for decades now, has pretty much had a tight-money policy of keeping the dollar expensive. This is part of what hollowed out US manufacturing; cheap dollar is good for export industries, expensive dollar is bad for them. Trump has stated that he wants the dollar to drop, the first President I can remember who did so...

Not to derail this into a discussion on law in China but you might want to actually read the Property Law in China. The code went into effect back in 2007. If you do you will learn that the land is owned by the state. An individual in China cannot own land, not natives, not foreigners no one unless it is the state through whatever vehicle they choose. An individual can own a real property so long as it's a house, apartment or structure (Article 64) but they do not own the land upon which the structure is built. They get the land pursuant to a grant from the government that looks more like a lease than a fee (70 years for residential, 50 years for industrial, etc. but nothing is granted for more than 70 years.) The rights can be revoked both in a an agricultural and urban setting for "the public interest" which is well, rather vague and not defined.

I am familiar with the compensation payments made to rights holders when those rights are revoked. While it looks on its face to be similar to eminant domain here in the US the major difference is that compensation is only paid for the private property lost. It is common to see a displaced rights holder receive some compensation and a new dwelling somewhere else. The compensation is generally nowhere near the "fair market value" you see in US eminant domain cases. This is the norm and happens with regularity. There are holdovers sometimes as there are here but again they are not landowners but rights holders who's rights were revoked. So legally speaking the state council a.k.a the government does not have the same issues here because there is no due process in this type of case as there would be in an eminant domain case here in the US. The state council's formula is revoke the rights, compensate, bulldoze.

Also, just so you know, I am quite familiar with property law and eminant domain here. Second, I know the differences between PRC law and US law when it comes to issues along these lines because I've walked the walk advising clients when I worked in PRC. So, in long, I'm not wrong it's a lot easier to build infrastructure in China than it is here.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Yes, let's cut the long distance route that has the highest ridership and second-highest revenue of any long-distance train. That makes perfect sense.

It's also one of the longest and one of the most expensive. The EB in FY 2016 carried 454,625 passengers and runs 2205 miles between CHI and SEA and an extra 306 miles between Spokane and PDX for a total of 2511 miles, longer than both the SWC and CZ. The LSL in FY 2016 carried 387,853 passengers but runs only 959 miles between CHI and NYP and another 200 between CHI and BOS. So the LSL runs about 46% of the distance and takes about half the time yet has 85% of the ridership. The CS had slightly lower ridership (453,131) but is only 1377 miles. When using PM/TM, the EB is on the lower half of the LD trains. The point of lack of transportation options is reasonable but do you still think the EB is a "successful" train?

And then you can ask why don't these two states (and West Virginia) pay for at least part of the train to save us money or free up money for other trains? Every train is important to the people they serve. But how many are important to the country? Why is the EB and Cardinal "more important" than the Carolinian? The EB serves eight states while the Carolinian serves seven and Washington DC. If the real reason to run the EB is to give transportation options to Malta, MT then that's not a national train, that's a regional train. And you can't say the Cardinal route is far away from an interstate highway, it's pretty close to I-64 along the route through West Virginia between Huntington and Charleston and their ridership and revenue even if you multiply by 7/3 is pathetic. Rail travel in this country isn't a right. If it is, where's Las Vegas's train, where's Columbus Ohio's train, where's Nashville's train? And if I look hard enough I can probably find areas that have no airports, highways, buses, or trains. Should we serve them too? How much is that going to cost?

Of course I don't want Congress to stop funding Amtrak but I wouldn't mind if they examine where that money is going to and passes the buck onto individual states in some cases where the train is more regional than national. The Amtrak LD map is outdated. When Amtrak first started, Walt Disney World didn't even exist (October 1, 1971). Las Vegas has over 4 times as many people as they did in 1970 (125,787 to 623,747) and more than double the population of 1990 (258,295). Columbus has about 50% more people (564,871 to 850,106) than in 1980, the year after the National Limited was canceled. The transportation "needs" of the country have changed. The population has shifted. Maybe they don't need to take away trains but they certainly need to add more (and no, not just "mine"). You're never going to be able to serve everyone so what choices do you make?

And I'm curious. Is Malta, MT anywhere near Hannah, MT?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

while it's not exactly a major market, I'm guessing you don't realize the combined populations of the Spokane metro area and the adjoining Coeur d' Alene metro area is nearing the 700,000 mark. Not exactly an insignificant loss IMO.

I wouldn't be against a SEA-SPK train being funded nationally. I'd rather Amtrak pay federal tax money to fund two separate trains between SEA-SPK and MSP-CHI than one serving the two and over 1,000 miles in between SPK and MSP. The two separate trains would be a lot cheaper and serve most of the markets served on the EB route. A similar argument can be made for CHI-CIN and CVS-NYP. I am not against trains serving Minneapolis, Cincinnati, or Spokane but is there a more efficient way to serve them? You can run four daily CHI-MSP trains for the same train miles as the EB and you wouldn't have to pay for sleepers or diner cars, and you'd probably save a good amount of money on labor.

 

[Ryan]

Maybe we can expend a little more time talking about the topic at hand, rather than indulge Philly Amtrak Fan in his endless quest to cut trains from rural areas to fund trains to be used by people he deems important enough to grant them? It gets old when every single thread he participates gets drug into the same stupid argument.

 

[Palmetto]

What's the title of this thread, again?

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

The writer mentions Amtrak as a monopoly for (intercity) passenger rail. She says probably what most conservatives would believe, privatize. I don't think anyone here can dispute Amtrak's monopoly status although I would believe that isn't because Amtrak/Congress is stifling competition in the industry but that the industry just isn't profitable enough for any private company. The proposal is obviously outdated since the first year they suggested cutting the operating subsidies was FY 2016.

Amtrak was created because private passenger rail failed.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

Worth repeating: "..Amtrak doesn't serve my State.. " Sen. John McCain(R-AZ)

There is quite a long list of "needs" for AZ, that are meaningless to my state, if John wants to play that card (good of his state vs. good for the country).

 

[jis]

Worth repeating: "..Amtrak doesn't serve my State.. " Sen. John McCain(R-AZ)

There is quite a long list of "needs" for AZ, that are meaningless to my state, if John wants to play that card (good of his state vs. good for the country).

Federally subsidized water comes to mind.

 

[Rover]

It also helps that the government owns the land in China only granting land use rights to private parties. Makes it a lot easier to build that fancy high speed train when revoking the land use grants on the land you need to build on is relatively easy.

Technically the US has the same system: the government has "eminent domain" over the land, and private parties only have limited rights to it. The most common is called "fee title", and is conditional on payment of your property taxes, among other things...
You might not know that.

China actually has very serious issues with "holdout landowners"; you can google this. The legal system is very strong -- unsurprising, since China is one of the most legalistic societies in the world -- and those land use rights can't be revoked on a whim.

So in short, no, you're wrong. China has exactly the same issues with acquiring land for a high speed rail line as the US does. No difference.

...OK, there is one difference. China has a policy of printing lots of money to keep the renminbi cheap. This causes booming export industries, and the combination provides loads of cash to use to buy out landowners. The US, for decades now, has pretty much had a tight-money policy of keeping the dollar expensive. This is part of what hollowed out US manufacturing; cheap dollar is good for export industries, expensive dollar is bad for them. Trump has stated that he wants the dollar to drop, the first President I can remember who did so...

Not to derail this into a discussion on law in China but you might want to actually read the Property Law in China. The code went into effect back in 2007. If you do you will learn that the land is owned by the state. An individual in China cannot own land, not natives, not foreigners no one unless it is the state through whatever vehicle they choose. An individual can own a real property so long as it's a house, apartment or structure (Article 64) but they do not own the land upon which the structure is built. They get the land pursuant to a grant from the government that looks more like a lease than a fee (70 years for residential, 50 years for industrial, etc. but nothing is granted for more than 70 years.) The rights can be revoked both in a an agricultural and urban setting for "the public interest" which is well, rather vague and not defined.

I am familiar with the compensation payments made to rights holders when those rights are revoked. While it looks on its face to be similar to eminant domain here in the US the major difference is that compensation is only paid for the private property lost. It is common to see a displaced rights holder receive some compensation and a new dwelling somewhere else. The compensation is generally nowhere near the "fair market value" you see in US eminant domain cases. This is the norm and happens with regularity. There are holdovers sometimes as there are here but again they are not landowners but rights holders who's rights were revoked. So legally speaking the state council a.k.a the government does not have the same issues here because there is no due process in this type of case as there would be in an eminant domain case here in the US. The state council's formula is revoke the rights, compensate, bulldoze.

Also, just so you know, I am quite familiar with property law and eminant domain here. Second, I know the differences between PRC law and US law when it comes to issues along these lines because I've walked the walk advising clients when I worked in PRC. So, in long, I'm not wrong it's a lot easier to build infrastructure in China than it is here.

I think that mineral rights to land in the US should revert to the landholder after 50 years.

 

[A Voice]

We're a single country. Yes, we have 50 differing states with different priorities, but we are one country, and that means we work together to support things that are for the common good. The whole "pay for mine but nothing else" mentality is destructive for everybody.

The problem with "the common good" is when it becomes specific. It's easy to understand expenditures for national defense as they protect everyone. 'Most everyone feels as if they have a stake in the National Parks, even if there's not one in my back yard. It's a little hard to explain to someone in Ohio how massive water projects in California benefits him. It's also hard to show someone who lives over 100 miles from the nearest passenger rail station, how spending money subsidizing other people's travel makes sense. It would be like subsidizing the Postal Service but not delivering letters to rural addresses.

Without widespread support among voters, the only real arguments that Amtrak can make on their own behalf are 1) environmental costs of their competition and 2) taxpayer subsidies provided to their competition.

That's just the thing, though. When Amtrak's survival has been seriously threatened in the past, there has indeed emerged overwhelming support among voters, even those who are not directly in a position to benefit. As a very general rule, passenger rail is more popular and well supported among the populace than it is among politicians and other decision makers.

Most states have some form of Amtrak service, even when it is woefully inadequate or the tracks used by a long-distance train just happen to pass through a portion of that state. Thus, most people at least have a train in their "region". Support for Amtrak is not a completely foreign concept, because it benefits a persons home area; They have a stake in passenger rail, limited though it is. Many do not use the service themselves, but many also do not personally use nearby airports or national parks or other facilities. Generally, however, people recognize the public good for the region in which they live, not just what affects them personally.

 

[BCL]

The writer mentions Amtrak as a monopoly for (intercity) passenger rail. She says probably what most conservatives would believe, privatize. I don't think anyone here can dispute Amtrak's monopoly status although I would believe that isn't because Amtrak/Congress is stifling competition in the industry but that the industry just isn't profitable enough for any private company. The proposal is obviously outdated since the first year they suggested cutting the operating subsidies was FY 2016.

Amtrak was created because private passenger rail failed.

I don't know if passenger rail necessarily failed. I thought providing passenger service was one condition that railroads agreed to because they also had the power to condemn property for railroad rights of way. It was always something that they understood to be an obligation.

Still, there was a time when they embraced passenger rail rather than see it as a liability. They built grand stations designed by world-class architects. Heck - Union Pacific even built destination lodges at several national parks via their Utah Parks Company division in order to attract passenger rail business.

 

[BCL]

We're a single country. Yes, we have 50 differing states with different priorities, but we are one country, and that means we work together to support things that are for the common good. The whole "pay for mine but nothing else" mentality is destructive for everybody.

The problem with "the common good" is when it becomes specific. It's easy to understand expenditures for national defense as they protect everyone. 'Most everyone feels as if they have a stake in the National Parks, even if there's not one in my back yard. It's a little hard to explain to someone in Ohio how massive water projects in California benefits him. It's also hard to show someone who lives over 100 miles from the nearest passenger rail station, how spending money subsidizing other people's travel makes sense. It would be like subsidizing the Postal Service but not delivering letters to rural addresses.
Without widespread support among voters, the only real arguments that Amtrak can make on their own behalf are 1) environmental costs of their competition and 2) taxpayer subsidies provided to their competition.

What I cannot understand is how rural people became the outspoken anti-subsidy group even though nearly every service they enjoy (roads, electricity, postoffice, telephone, internet, airport) are subsidized in part by fees and taxes levied against urbanites. I was raised as an only child so I can understand the desire to never share, but eventually you grow up and move to the where the jobs are and learn to coexist with neighbors and coworkers and those who live and think differently than you do.

Kind of veering off onto a tangent (and when has anything really stopped that on AU) but there is the interesting case of the call for a state of Jefferson in the southern part of Oregon and the northern tip of California. The big issues are the rural/city divide, guns, timber harvests, and water allocation. The proponents seem to believe that they will be able to overcome the politics of Salem and Sacramento with their own state. They seem to pooh pooh that many of the issues they're dealing with are due to federal control of national forests and large federal water projects that send water to farmers far away. Becoming a separate state isn't going to change any of that.

The big thing they're proposing if for there to be some largish cities to at least prop up the tax base. Most proposals include Redding, but some go as far as to Sacramento. It's really just a pipe dream, but including Sacramento is just way off the deep end.

 

[jis]

Creating an additional state anywhere in the US is a pipe dream at this point.

Anyway, that won;t make a difference to what happens to Amtrak either way.

 

[BCL]

Creating an additional state anywhere in the US is a pipe dream at this point.

Anyway, that won;t make a difference to what happens to Amtrak either way.

Might since the Coast Starlight runs through that area and at least the portion going through California gets state subsidies. There is the California Rail Pass, which can be used on the CS through California.

 

[jis]

Coast Starlight does not get operating subsidies itself. It runs on infrastructure that gets subsidies. The Coast Starlight is a national system funded train, not a California funded train.

But let me repeat, we are more likely to see 20 trains running from New York to Chicago than to see a new state happen. So why bother talking about it?

 

[Don Newcomb]

Still, there was a time when they embraced passenger rail rather than see it as a liability. They built grand stations designed by world-class architects. Heck - Union Pacific even built destination lodges at several national parks via their Utah Parks Company division in order to attract passenger rail business.

That was when rail beat the alternatives (stagecoach, sailing ship and steamboat) in terms of speed, comfort and/or safety. If you've ever read Mark Twain's Roughing It, you'll get an idea of what stagecoach travel was like and would want to avoid it at all costs. In the 1870s it would cost a workman two or three months' wages to travel from Omaha to San Francisco via rail, sitting on a hard wooden seat. The cost or Mr. Pullman's car was astronomical. If you've seen Ken Burns' documentary series on the National Parks, you'll recall a couple who started out traveling to visit the Parks via rail but in the 1920s switched to a new Buick. Most of the grand passenger stations were built before the automobile became something other than a rich man's toy.

What I cannot understand is how rural people became the outspoken anti-subsidy group even though nearly every service they enjoy (roads, electricity, postoffice, telephone, internet, airport) are subsidized in part by fees and taxes levied against urbanites. I was raised as an only child so I can understand the desire to never share, but eventually you grow up and move to the where the jobs are and learn to coexist with neighbors and coworkers and those who live and think differently than you do.

Everyone makes decisions in their perceived self interests. Go to any VFW hall and ask about welfare cheats and you'll get an earful about cutting the bums off at the knees. Then mention that VA benefits might be trimmed to save money and you'll find yourself tarred, feathered and rid out on a rail. One person's boondoggle is another's legitimate and rightful benefit.

The key is that people need to see that they somehow benefit from a train station 100 miles away or a dam in California or crop insurance in Nebraska.

 

[jebr]

Moderator reminder:

Make sure that any political posts in the Amtrak Rail forum group are related to Amtrak/the topic at hand.

Thanks.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Rather than pit trains vs. each other some more I'd like to discuss Amtrak/rail travel vs. other transportation services. It is clear that all forms of transportation are funded by the federal government. Let's take buses (Greyhound). The buses have to ride on roads which were built by and maintained by the federal government. But does the federal government subsidize the equipment? How about fuel? How about the labor (driver, ticket agents, service people, etc)? How about food service? My experience is buses stop at McDonald's or similar restaurants. Certainly there are parts of air travel that are taken care of by the government but I believe the operations costs are covered by United, American, Delta, Southwest, and others. So if we are drawing a reasonable comparison, the federal government should be responsible for the railroads (whether owned like the NEC or pay to access private railroads like NS and CSX) but the day to day operations should be Amtrak's and not government responsibility. Now of course private passenger rail is virtually nonexistent. But could Congress make it easier for them to start? I would think most if not all of us would like trains paid for by private enterprise rather than our tax money. I don't think there is anything wrong with the government trying to pass the responsibility onto others. Whether the private companies are interested is an entirely different question.

When it comes to rail travel, Trump would say it's about the infrastructure.

 

[Shawn Ryu]

I am sure some of the routes will be sustained by the states. But Amtrak as an entity will be gone, along with all the long distance routes.

 

[AmtrakFlyer]

As an airline pilot and Amtrak supporter it's never been more clear how much Amtrak is necessary. It's everyday service including long distance trains are vital and experiencing record ridership. If and when there is another attack here and planes are grounded our nation will be more vulnerable then ever. One thing I've noticed over the last few years and especially on a trip through the South today is how the right wing has divided this country. Divide and conquer 101 and getting people to vote against their best interests.

 

[Rover]

Rather than pit trains vs. each other some more I'd like to discuss Amtrak/rail travel vs. other transportation services. It is clear that all forms of transportation are funded by the federal government. Let's take buses (Greyhound). The buses have to ride on roads which were built by and maintained by the federal government. But does the federal government subsidize the equipment? How about fuel? How about the labor (driver, ticket agents, service people, etc)? How about food service? My experience is buses stop at McDonald's or similar restaurants. Certainly there are parts of air travel that are taken care of by the government but I believe the operations costs are covered by United, American, Delta, Southwest, and others. So if we are drawing a reasonable comparison, the federal government should be responsible for the railroads (whether owned like the NEC or pay to access private railroads like NS and CSX) but the day to day operations should be Amtrak's and not government responsibility. Now of course private passenger rail is virtually nonexistent. But could Congress make it easier for them to start? I would think most if not all of us would like trains paid for by private enterprise rather than our tax money. I don't think there is anything wrong with the government trying to pass the responsibility onto others. Whether the private companies are interested is an entirely different question.

When it comes to rail travel, Trump would say it's about the infrastructure.

How is that handled in say, Germany, Britain, or, Japan??

 

[Don Newcomb]

.....The buses have to ride on roads which were built by and maintained by the federal government. ....

Actually, only a very few roads, such as those in National Parks and military bases are built and maintained by the federal government. Roads are generally built and maintained by state and local governments with some federal funding, primarily derived from taxes on fuels. The Greyhound bus in question actually pays a rather large sum in taxes each year to use the roads. City buses are generally run by tax-exempt government agencies that may be exempt from fuel taxes and receive federal subsidies. The rail lines are a hodge-podge of private and public ownership.

 

[zephyr17]

Hodge-podge of private and public ownership? Aside from Amtrak owned, there are some commuter agencies that own some of the lines around a FEW major cities, it is all private. While there is a mix, "hodge-podge" implies a more even mix to me than there actually is, the overwhelming majority of railroad mileage in the US is owned by the RR companies, not public agencies.

 

[Rover]

Hodge-podge of private and public ownership? Aside from Amtrak owned, there are some commuter agencies that own some of the lines around a FEW major cities, it is all private. While there is a mix, "hodge-podge" implies a more even mix to me than there actually is, the overwhelming majority of railroad mileage in the US is owned by the RR companies, not public agencies.

So, I suggest Federalizing the railroad mileage. Is that how it's done in other major countries??

 

[CCC1007]

Hodge-podge of private and public ownership? Aside from Amtrak owned, there are some commuter agencies that own some of the lines around a FEW major cities, it is all private. While there is a mix, "hodge-podge" implies a more even mix to me than there actually is, the overwhelming majority of railroad mileage in the US is owned by the RR companies, not public agencies.

So, I suggest Federalizing the railroad mileage. Is that how it's done in other major countries??

That happened... look up USRA World War One. There is a reason this hasn't happened again, not to mention the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars it would cost to even try, and the extremely bad effect that a small error or incompetence would cause in day to day life of all of the citizens of the United States.
Why would the government want to mess with a steady stream of tax income wither...

Not to mention the adage, why fix something that isn't broken...