Court: Penalties for Poor Amtrak Handling Unconstitutional

[John Galt]

Actually, I just find it amusing that opinions are posted as if they were fact, and other's faulty logic is presented as refutation of Ayn Rand's novel - without actually addressing the arguments she presents.

I notice that you don't dispute the merits of how increasing government regulation is bad for railroads.

 

[Ryan]

What concerns me is not "What's good for railroads?", but "What's good for society?".

But debating that point with someone of your ideological bent is 1) pointless and 2) out of scope, so I'm not real interested in starting the conversation.

 

[John Galt]

What concerns me is not "What's good for railroads?", but "What's good for society?".
But debating that point with someone of your ideological bent is 1) pointless and 2) out of scope, so I'm not real interested in starting the conversation.

I care very much about what is good for society. But that

If railroads cannot turn a profit because of excessive regulation, then they cannot operate. If they cannot operate, then society isn't being served. The profit the railroads generate are what allows them to hire employees, who can then afford to buy homes and support families.

Of course, it is pointless to discuss why businesses need to make profit with someone of your ideology.

 

[Train Rider]

Actually there is nothing that prevents two railroads, one of which is Amtrak, entering into a contract that includes performance clauses involving both penalties and rewards. This case was about the extent to which special mechanisms can be used to force the hands of one of the parties by the other.

Well put. Freight railroads exist to make money for stockholders.....of which I suggest you all become because over the past few years it has paid off pretty well. Amtrak does indeed have its chartered agreements, but that doesn't mean it gets to decide its own rules.

With regard to Atlas Shrugged, it is a book that makes a person think. You don't have to accept part or all of the points in the book, but what is enjoyable is its decidedly different point of view and the defiant presentation by the author. Personally, I don't think the views of the protagonists are practical and found them to be the least enjoyable parts of the book. What I found most relevant is that there is a whole host of people out there in all aspects of life who don't want to create anything, but simply want to build their power either co-opting it, taking their cut or shutting it down.

 

[jis]

Without getting into the endless arguments of the "my liberalism is better than yours" nature, Which is often where these discussions go, I'd just point all to the Wiki article on Classical Liberalism and leave each to draw their own conclusions. The tendency to characterize one that you disagree with as more close minded than self is a standard argument technique and is usually best ignored.

My plea meanwhile is .... let us get back to discussing possible implications of this ruling on Amtrak operations in this thread and drop the Ayn Rand admirers vs. detractors part of the discussion.

My speculation is that the freight railroads are not as enthusiastically out to get Amtrak as is implied in many discussions here, and OTOH, there are certain cases where Amtrak could help by improving its attitude towards life too. Of course I could be entirely wrong in this assessment. I am sure we will know soon enough if that is the case.

 

[Ryan]

Of course, it is pointless to discuss why businesses need to make profit with someone of your ideology.

I understand completely and agree that business need to make a profit to exist.

I also understand that it isn't the end of the world when we provide regulations that limit that profit for the good of society.

The freight railroads jumped at the opportunity to get rid of the operation of their passenger services in exchange for continuing to host Amtrak at below market rates.

I don't think that it's too much to ask that they live up to their end of the deal.

 

[tonys96]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

THIS

 

[tonys96]

What concerns me is not "What's good for railroads?", but "What's good for society?".

But debating that point with someone of your ideological bent is 1) pointless and 2) out of scope, so I'm not real interested in starting the conversation.

I care very much about what is good for society. But that

If railroads cannot turn a profit because of excessive regulation, then they cannot operate. If they cannot operate, then society isn't being served. The profit the railroads generate are what allows them to hire employees, who can then afford to buy homes and support families.

Of course, it is pointless to discuss why businesses need to make profit with someone of your ideology.

Have you any idea what common carrier obligations Amtrak took over from the "freight" railroads?

If not, your philosophy has exactly ZERO bearing on the matter at hand.

 

[Train Rider]

My speculation is that the freight railroads are not as enthusiastically out to get Amtrak as is implied in many discussions here, and OTOH, there are certain cases where Amtrak could help by improving its attitude towards life too. Of course I could be entirely wrong in this assessment. I am sure we will know soon enough if that is the case.

This is a very good point. Some of the defense of Amtrak and ire towards freight railroad companies on the board borders on the unhinged.

 

[tonys96]

Of course, it is pointless to discuss why businesses need to make profit with someone of your ideology.

I understand completely and agree that business need to make a profit to exist.

I also understand that it isn't the end of the world when we provide regulations that limit that profit for the good of society.

The freight railroads jumped at the opportunity to get rid of the operation of their passenger services in exchange for continuing to host Amtrak at below market rates.

I don't think that it's too much to ask that they live up to their end of the deal.

This is my point. "Freight" railroads were relieved of their common carrier responsibilities and obligations in exchange for giving Amtrak priority. Now they want to get out of portions of that agreement. I will quote you, as you put it succinctly ;

"I don't think that it's too much to ask that they live up to their end of the deal."

 

[jis]

I think the problem was with Amtrak as a private entity being the setter of the standard, measurer of compliance and the enforcer too. If the standards were set, compliance measured and enforced by an independent body I think the court might have been more sympathetic.

But what independent body would be able (much less willing) to set the standards?

I'm just wondering out loud. In the good old days when each railroad operated their on trains, who set the standards then? :huh:
An example I'm thinking of is something like Chicago to LA. UP ran SLC-LV-LA while ATSF ran FLG-LAX. Both operated down Cajon Pass, but Santa Fe owned the tracks. Both are private companies. So who "ran the show" if one was late? :huh:

Santa Fe ran the show and ICC was the arbiter.

 

[PRR 60]

This topic is too important to get buried under a pile of left vs right political name calling. Lets try to keep more or less to the subject of this court ruling, please.

 

[Shortline]

Of course, it is pointless to discuss why businesses need to make profit with someone of your ideology.

I understand completely and agree that business need to make a profit to exist.

I also understand that it isn't the end of the world when we provide regulations that limit that profit for the good of society.

The freight railroads jumped at the opportunity to get rid of the operation of their passenger services in exchange for continuing to host Amtrak at below market rates.

I don't think that it's too much to ask that they live up to their end of the deal.

Admittedly, I'm not up on the in's and out's of the creation of Amtrak, but wasn't their deal for 25 years? And, long since fulfilled?

 

[jis]

Just remember that the most spectacular public works project in US, the interstate highway system, did not happen out of the largess of the private industry but out of a regulated development under the auspices of the federal government. This leads me to believe that those who claim that regulations are bad under all circumstances are not particularly attached to reality.

OTOH, it is bad to have regulations just for regulation's sake. A balance has to be struck whereby the overall result of regulation is general betterment of society. The disagreement usually is in what is a better society.

However, as far as this thread is concerned, my assumption is that an underlying tacit agreement in this forum is that the existence and efficient operation of passenger train both LD and corridor is a good thing for the society, and the question then boils down to what sort of regulations are appropriate and not too odious. The case in question was about identifying the acceptable boundaries. There clearly are other ways to set things up which would not run afoul of the line defined by the court. The need of the day is to put our collective creativity together to come up with another way and run it up the flagpole. I know that there are many who are already working on such.

One thing that happens on this forum on occasions is that people get too wrapped up around the proverbial axle about the well being of Amtrak, to the exclusion of everything else, as a proxy for successful operation of passenger rail system, because I suppose, in many places Amtrak is the only show in town. Thinking of structures and processes that go beyond mere preservation and protection of the Amtrak bureaucracy is I think necessary for us to come up with a longer term, viable set of solutions.

 

[VentureForth]

First of all, thank you John Galt for keeping me from having to make your points. I am NOT Mr. Guest, and I will agree with what Mr. Galt has to offer for thinking.

I was under the impression that the act that created Amtrak, and supposedly the contracts and agreements included therein, as an act of Congress was then therefore an act of creating a Law. Therefore, I wonder where the unconstitutionality of it comes from. Which amendment does it specifically violate?

IF - the United States built the train tracks and IF the United States owned the land that the railroads operate on, then I would actually say that the Government would have a greater role in the way Amtrak is managed and operated. But they didn't.

I would love to see how much the freights are really LOSING from operating Amtrak on their rails, with all they payouts, fees, and UPGRADE after UPGRADE after UPGRADE that Amtrak aimlessly and blindly pays out.

 

[tonys96]

Of course, it is pointless to discuss why businesses need to make profit with someone of your ideology.

I understand completely and agree that business need to make a profit to exist.

I also understand that it isn't the end of the world when we provide regulations that limit that profit for the good of society.

The freight railroads jumped at the opportunity to get rid of the operation of their passenger services in exchange for continuing to host Amtrak at below market rates.

I don't think that it's too much to ask that they live up to their end of the deal.

Admittedly, I'm not up on the in's and out's of the creation of Amtrak, but wasn't their deal for 25 years? And, long since fulfilled?

Not that I am aware of, but I may be wrong.

 

[jis]

AFAICT, the "contracts" specified in the act that created Amtrak have long expired and been replaced by new set of regulations. So they are of very little relevance in the discussion at this time. Of course a greater expert in the laws could set me straight on that matter if I err.

So one of the new laws namely Section 207 of PRIIA 2008 is the law that was challenged and the court found that to have reached beyond what it deemed allowable. To get the details of their reasoning read the verdict which has been linked in this thread above. Incidentally it has nothing to do with how much the freights are losing or not. It is a narrow decision having to do with who gets to control how much of the process of definition of standards and enforcement of the same. The issue of whether Amtrak is a private corporation or a government entity came up, and the court decided that for the purposes of this case it is a private corporation. Again, the reasoning can be found in the full text of the verdict.

 

[Shortline]

And, to be clear, I don't have too big of a problem with the Gov spending money on Amtrak-I DO believe they should be funded enough, to pay the Freight RR's fairly for the use of their tracks, dispatching, signals, etc. I guess my problem is more with government waste in it's entirety, and our continued inability as a nation to limit the scope of government, prioritize the spending from a fair tax system, and quit with the fraud, waste, and abuse of power. Hell, we spend over twice the Amtrak subsidy giving free phones to crackheads without any sort of oversight, than we do funding passenger rail. That tells me, our Government priorities are a bit skewed. Just saw on the news they are trying to shut down some of the "obamaphone" dealers for fraud, they keep signing up the same people over and over, and rake in millions in GOV dollars. Local news interviewed some folks at the homeless shelter, several of those interviewed had nearly a dozen phones. They sign up, get a new one, and a meal, meanwhile the phone company bills the GOV for providing a new phone to the underprivilidged, to the tune of 2.4 Billion in 2012, according to some numbers I just googled, that may or may not be correct, but the idea is still the same.

 

[Ryan]

I think you mean "ReaganPhone" or "BushPhone".

But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

 

[AlanB]

Hell, we spend over twice the Amtrak subsidy giving free phones to crackheads without any sort of oversight, than we do funding passenger rail. That tells me, our Government priorities are a bit skewed. Just saw on the news they are trying to shut down some of the "obamaphone" dealers for fraud, they keep signing up the same people over and over, and rake in millions in GOV dollars. Local news interviewed some folks at the homeless shelter, several of those interviewed had nearly a dozen phones. They sign up, get a new one, and a meal, meanwhile the phone company bills the GOV for providing a new phone to the underprivilidged, to the tune of 2.4 Billion in 2012, according to some numbers I just googled, that may or may not be correct, but the idea is still the same.

Just as an FYI, the $2.2 Billion isn't all coming out of Government coffers. The cell phone companies are required to pay into a fund to support this program. Of course in its infinite wisdom, Congress didn't specify that the carriers had to pay that money out of profits. So naturally they simply added a surcharge to our bills to cover what they have to pay out for this program.

And Ryan is correct, this did not start with President Obama. It started with President Reagan and the program was later modified under President George W Bush. And interestingly enough, one of the biggest abusers of this program causing some of the waste that some Republican's in Congress are now complaining about is TracFone, a company that originally would not have qualified to participate in the program. It was a Republican FCC Chairman who changed the rules in 2005 that allowed TracFone into the fold.

 

[Shortline]

I don't know WHO started it, and don't care, it's a waste of money, the government has no business providing cell phones to anyone. And, I don't recall tents on every corner,and trucks in parking lots with banners touting Free Phones, until the last few years, and it seems to be hitting a creciendo right now. So, regardless of who started it, it's definetely been increased dramatically in the last 4 years. But, don't let facts stand in the way of a perfectly good snark! :wub: And, let me be clear, I don't care WHICH party it is wasting the money, I'm disgusted with all of them, one isn't better than the other, and even the Libertarian's are getting out of line. Until we prioritize, budget for those priorities, and spend according to income, I have to believe we're in for a whole lot of trouble, at this rate, the next crash will be sooner rather than later, and will make 2008 look like the Roaring 20's. You just can't spend the money of the people like we've been doing, and borrowing from everyone in sight, with no way to repay it. Amtrak subsidies are a small part, my point is, it shouldn't be, we simply shouldn't be paying for the vast majoroty of pet projects to an entitled populace like we have been for so long, we've trained people to come begging for government money every time their finances become inconvenient, the wind blows or the river rises. Just my view, and am done with the subject. Got a 2 day train to catch in the morning, have a good holiday all, celebrating freedom from unfair taxation, over burdensome government, and repression!

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."

 

[AlanB]

Let me please add one more tidbit, the number of people enrolled in the cell phone program has gone down from a high of 18.2 Million people to 13.2 Million currently. So while you may be seeing the things you say, the abuse clearly must be going down. The Fed is also building a database that the cell phone companies must check once a year for current subscribers and for any new registrations so as to ensure that people cannot sign up for multiple phones.

Have a great trip!

 

[Ryan]

I don't know WHO started it, and don't care, it's a waste of money, the government has no business providing cell phones to anyone.

Right. That's why you specifically called it an "obamaphone".

As far as "it's definitely been increased in the last 4 years" seems to be patently false, based on actual numbers.

Now perhaps we can stick to discussing Amtrak and what kind of reasonable regulations there are to ensure that the host railroads dispatch the trains in a timely fashion and leave the misinformed rants for a more appropriate forum?

 

[jis]

I don't see the verdict saying that the STB or FRA cannot act on their own under general executive authority to some extent. It is mainly concerned with Amtrak having unilateral power to veto a decision and call for a third party arbiter as it would seem.

I wonder if there is a simple executive recourse in the interim while the do nothing Congress does nothing for a while.

 

[tonys96]

AFAICT, the "contracts" specified in the act that created Amtrak have long expired and been replaced by new set of regulations. So they are of very little relevance in the discussion at this time. Of course a greater expert in the laws could set me straight on that matter if I err.
So one of the new laws namely Section 207 of PRIIA 2008 is the law that was challenged and the court found that to have reached beyond what it deemed allowable. To get the details of their reasoning read the verdict which has been linked in this thread above. Incidentally it has nothing to do with how much the freights are losing or not. It is a narrow decision having to do with who gets to control how much of the process of definition of standards and enforcement of the same. The issue of whether Amtrak is a private corporation or a government entity came up, and the court decided that for the purposes of this case it is a private corporation. Again, the reasoning can be found in the full text of the verdict.

AFAICT, the "contracts" have NOT expired. In fact they have been upheld by courts on a surprisingly regular basis. Unless there was a definite expiration date on a bill, they are open ended. The "freight railroads" all still have common carrier obligations under both federal and state laws. As private companies, how else would railroads have eminent domain authority, right-of-way authority, and the authority to circumvent and ignore some federal/state/local laws, rules, and regulations? Those are "perks" given to the railroads in exchange for them having common carrier obligations. When the rails cross public lands, or receive any type of public assistance, they remain obligated. They are common carriers.

There may be some smaller railroad companies called "contract" carriers, who own all of their own track, do not cross public land, and can accept or refuse any cargo or pax. However, all of the national railroads are "common" carriers.

There was a big to-do about the rules of common carrier rail a few years back, here is a link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/470/451

There was also one a bit later about requiring freight carriers to transport hazardous materials, but I do not recall the exact year.

And in 1984, the Supreme Court clarified and re-stated the fact that "freight" railroads continued to have a common carrier obligation to provide passenger rail service, pursuant to all of the "perks" they received as "common" carriers. They are only relieved of that obligation by contracting/becoming participants in the RPSA.

http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1984/sg840070.txt

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/470/470.US.451.83-1633.83-1492.html

Remember that the Montrealer train line only became possible due to the common carrier designation given to Amtrak because the CV rail and landowners refused to allow it....Supreme Court again confirmed that "rail" including "freight" railroads, that cross public lands have to abide by "common good" rules, including the OBLIGATIONS of common carriers.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/503/407

To sum up, privately owned "freight" rail received tangible subsidies from the "public" (eminent domain, crossing public property, etc.) and as such has obligations to all of the public, and federal/state/local rules say among these is the obligation to provide passenger service. This was too expensive and costly for the companies and they agreed to relinquish that obligation to Amtrak, and give Amtrak priority in return for Amtrak taking that obligation.

Amtrak has kept their end of the agreement, and there is no legal or moral reason that the "freight" rail companies should not live up to their end of the agreement (other than greed)

The current case just decided by the DC circuit only concerned the methods of deciding and enforcing the standards, not the legal status of those standards, in fact, it reiterated the legality of the RPSA.