If anyone believes that Amtrak is in jeopardy think again

[Anderson]

Because taking a longer term view of things, that oil is going to get more and more valuable. We're not going to be ready/able to go 100% petroleum free anytime soon (see: Air Travel). Saving it for then oil sells for $500 a barrel or $1000 a barrel makes more sense.

Well, the problem is: who's going to buy oil when it's that high? The only buyers I can see is the Federal Government and the Military.

And if oil is that high, then there's probably shortages going around. Gas pumps empty, people can't drive their cars, a gas tanker is worth its weight in gold (pre-1971 gold, that is

) .

Storing a bunch of oil is going to seen as "hoarding" at that point, and holding on to it may be almost as expensive as the price of the oil. You're going to have thieves who'll try to steal the oil (or blow it up because they see you as a hoarder).

In addition, there's likely going to be rationing, and hoarding oil could be illegal. Federal Government your only consumer? Federal Government wants you to give over the oil back when it was $300/barrel.

I think he was referring to "saving" it as "not drilling for it at the present", not "pulling it out of the ground and sticking it in storage containers for 30 years". And even at absurd prices, you're still going to have (badly choked-off) demand for petroleum products such as plastics. Of course, if oil is at $1000, those dollars are going to look much smaller than what we're thinking of, and I wouldn't be surprised to see everything inflated about 10 times. So much for that $100,000 salary...

 

[Ryan]

Exactly - no point drilling it now for cheap when we can drill it later and sell it for crateloads of money (yes, there will be inflation, but as supply dwindles the price of oil will grow much faster than inflation).

 

[dlagrua]

Recent world events have pushed the price of oil over $100 per barrel and no one knows exactly how high it will go. With $4, $5 or even $6 per gallon gas will the America people keep joy riding and using their Automobile for the slightest purpose or will financial concerns cause them to turn to public transportation?

When traveling from city to large city (or when visiting NY or Phila on a day trip) I always take to the rails. It convenient, saves a considerable amount of money (especially in coach), its restful (not being in stop and go traffic),and stops me from supporting the Shieks at the gas pumps.

Am I wrong about any of this?

Well Yes you are wrong. You live on the East coast apparently where there ARE trains. Here in Texas we have precious few. So no one is going to take to the rails when they don't exist. And there is no plan for them to exist in the near future. It would take years for some kind of corridor service to be developed. People here in the largest cities will take to public transit more, mainly buses, but not Amtrak. And I should remind you that Europeans have been living with $8 a gallon fuel for decades and they still own cars and use them whenever they can. If you have been over there then you know that the roads are just full of cars and trucks. And these people have probably the finest passenger rail system in the world. So the difference will be more use of local public transit, more fuel efficient cars and less long distance trips. People will just fly and rent a car when they get there, probably a small one. If high oil prices stick for an extended time, then it may have an impact on Amtrak funding and service, but most of these spikes don't last long enough to have any economic impact and when they go away everyone just goes back to doing what they always did..........drive. The current spike in oil prices is just speculation anyway as there is plenty of oil out there on the market and the Saudis have stated they can make up any shorfall easily.

Now if the Saudis fall all bets are off. lol.

Here are a few points to consider,

1. Yes Europeans have lived with $8 per gallon gas and still own cars. However, countries in Europe are like small states here. You could put Western Europe in an area the size of Texas and still have lreft over land. There is not much road to cover unless you decide to go to another country. Its a totlly different situation. Europeans don't drive much. They also have a great rail system and around town many people use scooters or bicycles.

2. Parts of Texas do not have passenger rail service but they have trackage in the way of freight lines. It would not be that hard to reinstitute passenger service on those tracks. A few trains worth of equipment and you are in business. Not likely to happen now but wait for $5 gas and the situation could change.

 

[Eric S]

However, countries in Europe are like small states here. You could put Western Europe in an area the size of Texas and still have lreft over land. There is not much road to cover unless you decide to go to another country. Its a totlly different situation. Europeans don't drive much. They also have a great rail system and around town many people use scooters or bicycles.

Unless you have a very small/exclusive definition of Western Europe, Texas is in fact not larger. Texas is about 700,000 sq km (actually a little less). France and Spain are each over 500,000 sq km. Add in all of the other nations of Western Europe, and it is much larger than Texas.

EDIT: Doing a little more adding and figuring, if you use a Cold War-era definition of Western Europe (and include all of Germany, instead of just the former West Germany), you come up with around 3.6-3.7 million sq km. That is close to (but larger than) the 5 largest US states combined (AK, TX, CA, MT, NM = 3.5 million sq km).

 

[henryj]

2. Parts of Texas do not have passenger rail service but they have trackage in the way of freight lines. It would not be that hard to reinstitute passenger service on those tracks. A few trains worth of equipment and you are in business. Not likely to happen now but wait for $5 gas and the situation could change.

I know we are all pro-rail on here but my statement was just mean't to show the impractability of suddenly switching to rail. Other than the TRE between Ft Worth and Dallas and the little Heartland Flyer, Texas is served by two long distance trains and one is three times a week. Amtrak has no extra superliner equipment nor has it ordered any. So if they acted today you are looking at two years before anything could happen and a lot longer if you plan to add any new routes such as DFW to Colorado(or any of the other long lost routes). Also, long distance trains even on the best of routes are just once a day service, hardly enough to make a dent in peoples travel plans. So long distance trains will not be able to take up much if any slack. Then if Texas suddenly decided it wanted corridor trains say in the DFW, SAS, HOU triangle where does the equipment come from? It has to be ordered so another two years. And then there is the problem of track capacity. All the potential track here is single track with passing sidings and most routes are already congested with freight traffic. And if you suddenly have a fuel crisis guess what is going to get priority........freight and lots more of it. So the point is, where you already have the infrastructure like the NEC or California or some lines out of Chicago a switch to passenger rail by a large number of people might be practical. For the rest of the country people will just have to figure out some other alternative. It's not a pretty picture. And of course assuming you did initiate a crash program to fund nationwide passenger rail, just about the time you started to implement it the crisis would end and oil prices would crash and the program would be abandoned. It's going to take an extended crisis and a lot of suffering before anything positive will happen with passenger rail in this country. Just my 2 cents.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

Although I do support Amtrak buying new equipment, double-tracking railroads and expanding with more routes in Texas, freight may be more important in an oil crisis than passenger traffic.

Remember, I don't have to travel to DFW or HOU anytime soon, but I'm always going to need to eat, and the railroads will be critical for keeping foodstuffs rolling in.

Although I'm not saying it can't go either way. One more track for Amtrak will also equal one more track for the freight RRs.

And if more freight trains can take more semis off of I-35, I'll be glad to pay for that project.

 

[Ryan]

I know we are all pro-rail on here but my statement was just mean't to show the impractability of suddenly switching to rail.

That's about as obvious as the post that started this conversation. Nobody is saying that an immediate switch to rail is practical, possible, likely or needed.

 

[henryj]

And if more freight trains can take more semis off of I-35, I'll be glad to pay for that project.

That's what the new I45/I130 toll roads were supposed to do. They were built to accomodate railroad tracks down the median to alleviated railroad congestion as well as I35 auto and truck traffic around Austin. Unfortunately the tracks have never been laid even though the toll roads are in service.

 

[Eric S]

That's what the new I45/I130 toll roads were supposed to do. They were built to accomodate railroad tracks down the median to alleviated railroad congestion as well as I35 auto and truck traffic around Austin. Unfortunately the tracks have never been laid even though the toll roads are in service.

What was the thought/plan there? To have the tollway authority construct railroad tracks? Or that UP or BNSF (or whichever other railroads operate in that area) would construct tracks on right-of-way that was set aside in the tollways?

 

[henryj]

That's what the new I45/I130 toll roads were supposed to do. They were built to accomodate railroad tracks down the median to alleviated railroad congestion as well as I35 auto and truck traffic around Austin. Unfortunately the tracks have never been laid even though the toll roads are in service.

What was the thought/plan there? To have the tollway authority construct railroad tracks? Or that UP or BNSF (or whichever other railroads operate in that area) would construct tracks on right-of-way that was set aside in the tollways?

Look at the TXDOT site for more information. http://www.ncppp.org/councilinstitutes/minn_presentations/russell.pdf

My understanding is that segments 1-4 were designed for rail in the median. If you look at it on Google Earth that appears to be the case. Segments 5&6 currently under construction are not designed for rail. I have no idea why the rail segment has not been built. Perhaps they failed to consult with the Union Pacific about it. I think they are happy with the row they have. lol. Texas had this grandiose plan called the Trans Texas Corridor. It has been scrapped. They ran out of other people's money.

Here is an excerpt:

State Highway 130 Information

Improved mobility for Central Texas is on the way with a 40-mile extension of State Highway (SH) 130 from Austin to Seguin.

SH 130 is a state-owned toll road being developed under public-private partnership with the SH 130 Concession Company. Under the agreement, the developer is designing, constructing, operating and maintaining the toll road over 50 years. The developer is also financing the project, including right of way costs, thereby lifting the financial burden from Caldwell, Guadalupe and Travis counties.

The $1.3 billion private investment in the state transportation system gives the state a share of the toll revenue, which will be used for other regional mobility improvements.

The SH 130 extension, opening in 2012, is from SH 130/SH 45 Southeast near Creedmoor to I-10 east of Seguin. More information is available about the SH 130 extension (segments 5 & 6).

Here is an article that opposed it. It was built anyway. http://bicycleaustin.info/roadways/sh130/

Here is more info: ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/segment2/march_notes.pdf

 

[NE933]

The investment in rail lines is not about and never has been about making vacations easier, with the exception of such things as the line to las Vegas. It is about the "normal" business and personal travel.

Well, Henry Flagler saw it differently when he built the Florida East Coast over a route to Key West that spent lots of distance over water, commanding a high capital expenditure of bridge after bridge. Vacationers can be reconstituded as tourism, a very lucrative industry, and so think it would be a grave mistake if we took vacation dollars out of the equation. Capital investment in rail lines very well ought to take into account travelers on the grounds that they are cash beholden consumers who wield great purchasing power. The steel rails don't know whether the 400 people in the train above them are sipping margaritas bound for Disney World, or employees going to a meeting or make a contract. The same goes for the stairway in my building in which I live: whether i'm walking them going to work, or to the store, or honeymoon, or escaping a fire, i depend on them to be there when leaving or coming.

 

[Anderson]

Flagler was also planning to run coal trains to Key West when he started that project. Apparently, at the time, Key West was a major coaling port because of ship distance limits. The tourism hit he managed was just icing on the cake.

 

[George Harris]

The investment in rail lines is not about and never has been about making vacations easier, with the exception of such things as the line to las Vegas. It is about the "normal" business and personal travel.

Well, Henry Flagler saw it differently when he built the Florida East Coast over a route to Key West that spent lots of distance over water, commanding a high capital expenditure of bridge after bridge. Vacationers can be reconstituded as tourism, a very lucrative industry, and so think it would be a grave mistake if we took vacation dollars out of the equation.

I was well aware of the FEC situation. It is one of the things I had in mind with the "such things" as being similar to the Las Vegas proposal.
Flagler's railroad was a necessary part of his main objective, which was to develop southeast Florida. In order to do that in the late 19th / early 20th century, a good railroad was necessary. There are those both at the time and since that considered the Key West Extension a bridge too far in every sense, but it was Flagler's railroad and Flagler's dream, so it happened. A few years back, I do not remember exactly when, there was a small article that the Florida East Coast did something for the first time ever in its corporate life. What was it? Paid a dividend on its stock. Simply put, under Flagler the FEC never really made any money and it was not really of great concern to him that it did not. As long as it made southeast Florida accessible and attractive, it was doing what is was built to do.

 

[NE933]

Simply put, under Flagler the FEC never really made any money and it was not really of great concern to him that it did not. As long as it made southeast Florida accessible and attractive, it was doing what is was built to do.

Maybe accessible and attractive itself were admirable objectives; and besides, the money part came all in good time anyway.

The way we humans work in business just to make money needs a rearranging of its equations. Making babies loses money, yet our birth rate is as robust as ever. So why then do we have children when all they do is drain the public breast of resources, getting sick, costing us sleep and absence days? Because, I guess, life has a deeper meaning. At least that's what i've been told (maybe I missed my calling to spend ten hours a day mixing chemicals in a laboratory to come up with the next profitable compound, as opposed to contributing something to the good will of mankind).

Note this disclaimer with supersized magnifying glasses: I am not advocating getting a completely free ride. Amtrak doesn't make a profit, but it still must be fiscally responsible with every discipline at hand to make sure its money is spent wisely. That means new and better rolling stock, tracks, and such, and not junk like office artwork and lavish parties the time Acela was launched in Boston under a hail of pretty pyrotechnics, when that money should have gone towards attending to it's mechanical issues.

And another itch that's been bugging me. Anyone see the Oscars? I didn't. The way Amtrak gets lynched for using tax dollars and yet we will gladly pay up to $25.00 to see a movie in 3-D... and where does this after tax box office largess go? To limos, red carpets, fancy tuxedos and dresses and the like. Hollywood, the oil industry, electronics makers and luxury auto market are frequent recipients of wallet love, big banking style, but the imprimatur seal of merit goes on lavish dividends of stockholders.

 

[George Harris]

And another itch that's been bugging me. Anyone see the Oscars? I didn't. The way Amtrak gets lynched for using tax dollars and yet we will gladly pay up to $25.00 to see a movie in 3-D... and where does this after tax box office largess go? To limos, red carpets, fancy tuxedos and dresses and the like. Hollywood, the oil industry, electronics makers and luxury auto market are frequent recipients of wallet love, big banking style, but the imprimatur seal of merit goes on lavish dividends of stockholders.

About the only way I would watch the Oscars is glued to a chair with my eyes glued open. Almost anything comes ahead of watching a bunch of self-important airheads strut around bragging on each other.

 

[NE933]

Almost anything comes ahead of watching a bunch of self-important airheads strut around bragging on each other.

LOL!! How true you are!!

My beautiful bipolar mind hatched up this winner of a version of the Amtrak funding via taxes debate, it'll spring from alot of the tenets of principal all of us brought to the table in the above postings.

I made a thought that Amtrak is the rightful recipient of public funding, with the condition this money, along with ticket and other revenues, must be saved and used/invested in wise ways that banishes waste, and considers the points of various experts.

I read the view that the use of Amtrak by vacationers shouldn't be the sole governing deciding mechanism by which to plan investments in capacity, better track, and so on. I later tempered that (i guess) by pleading those on this forum not to exclude the purchasing power of tourism, that it should be considered in the mix though not highest of priorities. Amtrak's business will become a better railroad when it learns how to best serve all those who demand it, and in light of the social disease of 'I Love My Car Til Death Do Us Part' so prevalent, we ought to be shaping what has become the norms of our daily lives, to have adults and their children at least be interested in making rail their daily pill and glass of water. Amtrak and other railroads must have the dollars and unselfish genius, to be successful in pulling it off. If you go thru the trouble of buying an $850.00 ticket to Miami (this is true, as i've just done so) and a Dining Car steward rudely sneers a simple request for an extra glass of water, well-- no one should put up with that. Amtrak should be held to the fire and attend to this specific trouble and its causes.

I'll reiterate: give Amtrak what is needed to serve the traveling public, whether business, vacation, college, medical, etc., and demand in return trains that are fast as appropriate to their geographic route (no 200mph Acelas on the edge of the Grand Canyon), comfortable, in good shape, and presents an attractive vision to the world that we work hard at making an excellent product, we'll do whatever it takes to take care of and maintaine it, we'll spread it around where it's needed, and the whole damn thing simply just looks and works great!

Ok. Now: detractors state that the passenger railroad is a business, and if it can't earn more than it spends: send it to hell. Or at least to Citibank which will handle the liquidated remains deftly. Then i counterpointed keynote of capitalism, that making more money is not the end all, because if it were, the joys of giving birth -- an expensive and risky medical event -- ought to go out as well. But it doesn't. What to do here, with these irreconcilables...what to do...

I took my lithium. Ahhh.. And my 30 year old obsession with trains continues, though in an adult on-line community talking seriously about the problems that dog us on the tracks.

Be patient with this, for it shall be woven into the topic, like a bang. What do people who are millionaires/billionaires, SOME of them, do with that money? Though American history, and certainly other nation's histories, greed -- it's good, said Gordon, the art of being in the recipient's position to acquire money, power, goods and the like. What need, or wound, are we soothing? It's hidden. Hidden in church confessionals, quiet whispers at the bar table, it's at the end of every needed giving a pair of lips Botox, it's in the UV bulbs burning the tan onto young skin, it's the wares of hairstylists who charge a hundred for every swipe of the comb, it's in the men's gyms and lockerrooms ensuring their muscles explode, it's in a billion dollar cosmetic business promising, no, requiring you to buy thier stuff or else you ain't deserving of life, AAANNDD -- it fuels the business of porn.

We have greed legion because America has a disease: a systemic, epidemic, lack of intimacy. Since the 80's we've heard college professors and have been mentored into weaving every breath towards the end goal of getting a dollar bill. Seventy hour workweeks became the norm, as is taking 'work vacations' (***!). Americans, as a demographic and not a generalized populus, spend billions becoming attractive, staying that way, and when we find someone, it -- uh -- doesn't work. Viagara and it's brethren wouldn't be so sought after if we hadn't handicapped our bodies' natureal sexual response. But we did, and so we pay the price. Take pills to maintain capabilities, but first one has to find somebody. So we hire them. But they can't be hired if their T & A hasn't been injected with quarts of silicon, or steroids, or both. And, internet porn has flowered into a billion dollar dream, or rather, nightmare, I say so because it has become for many THE way of gratification. We're greedy for more money so that we can purchase more love.

And Amtrak stands in the way. New England residents put up a fuss when Amtrak started the removal and replacement of the next movable bridge. It requires closure of the waterway channel every so often, stopping yachts and boat parties from sailing away. Armed with clout, they forced Amtrak to a time table that lengthens the process rather than taking care of it sooner, which raises expenses. Those of us believing Amtrak should lower expenses ought to be out targeting causational factors like this one.

If people like these reduced their extreme needs for entertainment, there would be less anxiety to defend, less competition with other more important expenditures.

Love and passion would be less on the computer screen, and more with two people taking the time to enjoy being together. And thier would be less worry of Amtrak's need of tax dollars because more of it will be available to a population willing and able to use trains.

Loss of intimcacy = a malnourished Amtrak. Repair our rails = repair our relationships. More trains = more groans of satisfaction.

That is my theory. Good night.

 

[had8ley]

In equally shocking news, the sun rose in the East this morning and is expected to set in the West later today.

We'd better hope it does with all the strife in the world today. I sat in the Arab embargo gasoline lines and spit nails when the sign went up "Out of gas" after sitting in line three hours. All we need is just one terroristic idiot to insure that the sun doesn't rise tomorrow...and yes, it can happen.

 

[dlagrua]

In equally shocking news, the sun rose in the East this morning and is expected to set in the West later today.

We'd better hope it does with all the strife in the world today. I sat in the Arab embargo gasoline lines and spit nails when the sign went up "Out of gas" after sitting in line three hours. All we need is just one terroristic idiot to insure that the sun doesn't rise tomorrow...and yes, it can happen.

Whether we like it or not, the worlds oil supply is both unstable and limited. There will come a day soon when middle East conflict and wars will severely restrict the supply chain and demand will far exceed supply. The USA is resiliant and will eventually develop our own energy sources but it will take years and years to become energy independant.

I see a time in the not to distant future when the people in the USA will not be able to depend on their automobile as their only source of transportation. Gasoline will become extremely expensive and in many cases unavailable. We will need to consider passenger rail as alternative transportation out of sheer necessity. Bus and airplanes transportation could also grow but buses are not as comfortable for long haul trips and airline flights will sharply escalate in price as that industry uses far more oil per passenger than rail transportation.

Going to your destination via Amtrak is a good comfortable and affordable way to travel. We take our yearly vacations via rail and its always a good experience.

Rail travel will be discovered again by many more Americans as the energy noose tightens. This is just a prediction (or consider it a guess) but one only has to look at world affairs to see that life as we know it is about to change. Passenger trains are the answer.

 

[PRR 60]

About the only way I would watch the Oscars is glued to a chair with my eyes glued open. Almost anything comes ahead of watching a bunch of self-important airheads strut around bragging on each other.

I've been to some engineering conferences that meet that same description.

 

[had8ley]

About the only way I would watch the Oscars is glued to a chair with my eyes glued open. Almost anything comes ahead of watching a bunch of self-important airheads strut around bragging on each other.

I've been to some engineering conferences that meet that same description.

Kinda reminds me of going to the National Press Club in D.C to watch the NS (Norfolk Southern) get the Harriman Award for Safety for the upteenth time. I think they need to retire the trophy or investigate just what the NS is doing to make its property so safe...I already know~ they hound anybody who gets hurt then fire them !!! :angry2:

 

[George Harris]

Kinda reminds me of going to the National Press Club in D.C to watch the NS (Norfolk Southern) get the Harriman Award for Safety for the upteenth time. I think they need to retire the trophy or investigate just what the NS is doing to make its property so safe...I already know~ they hound anybody who gets hurt then fire them !!! :angry2:

The award is approaching being meaningless anyway as the playing field has gotten really small. Any one of the big 4 are now bigger than the rail system in most European countries.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The USA is resiliant and will eventually develop our own energy sources but it will take years and years to become energy independant.

You, like many, make this mistake. When America was young, it was full of **** and vigor, with a can do spirit, and a fast on its feet ability to adapt. That was years ago.

We are not resiliant. We can't even figure out ways to get our citizens to recognize the difference between being healthy and losing weight. We don't do anything, we merely talk about doing something. We won't figure out how to be energy independent. We can't even figure out how to bring our healthcare system up to the level of quality and affordability of some African third world countries without bickering, whining, adding three tons of lard to the proposition, and making sure every crony and his brother gets his little slice of it.

 

[henryj]

The USA is resiliant and will eventually develop our own energy sources but it will take years and years to become energy independant.

You, like many, make this mistake. When America was young, it was full of **** and vigor, with a can do spirit, and a fast on its feet ability to adapt. That was years ago.

We are not resiliant. We can't even figure out ways to get our citizens to recognize the difference between being healthy and losing weight. We don't do anything, we merely talk about doing something. We won't figure out how to be energy independent. We can't even figure out how to bring our healthcare system up to the level of quality and affordability of some African third world countries without bickering, whining, adding three tons of lard to the proposition, and making sure every crony and his brother gets his little slice of it.

In other words, we are Rome in it's last days. lol. And the 'Barbarians' are already at the gates.