An Amtrak supporter in the White House?

Posted by: Angela Cotey | Date posted: 8/19/2008

Post your comment now[40]

Comments

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/19/2008 11:22:33 AM

Let''s hope you''re right, Angela. It would be nice to have someone in a position of responsibility who at least knows what it''s like to ride on a train. It would be a welcome change from the mindless, doctrinaire, ideologic blather we have been getting for years from the Reason Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and similar groups that form the "drown the baby in the tub" cabal. I''m equally confident that this blog site will hear from their adherents. Oh, it also would be nice if the White House were occupied by someone who understands the need for a national transportation policy that goes beyond passengers and pork.

Posted by Jack on 8/19/2008 12:07:16 PM

Yeah right, and an idiot as president. Good logic.

Posted by Adron on 8/19/2008 12:22:04 PM

Not that I like any of the candidates really, none of them are comparable to Lincoln, who obviously knew what was up with the railroads. But don't forget, Mr. Obama knows a thing or three about railroads too, he at least knows what high speed rail is, and that is to say a lot more than McCain.

Posted by Scott on 8/19/2008 12:44:27 PM

Unless a fundamental national transportation policy is created, with Amtrak's integrated role clearly defined, support from a VP means little. Unless the fundamental flaws of Amtrak itself are fixed, it doesn't matter who's in the White House. Unless the FRA is reformed to move beyond its anti-industry posture of illogical regulation and government job protection actions, none of this matters.

Posted by Tom on 8/19/2008 5:24:01 PM

I think Jack misunderstands. The article talks about Obama''s running mate, not McCain''s.

Posted by Michael D. Sternfeld on 8/19/2008 6:25:14 PM

SEN Joe Biden [D DE] would be a powerfull voice for Amtrak. He also will be a powerfull voice for a rational national security policy. I know Joe Biden...he rides my railroad. For years I was a Conductor and we developed a conversational relationship. When I was stationed in Iraq I visited with SEN Biden on every trip he made to Iraq in 2005-2006. My favorite momento from duty in Baghadad is an autographed photo that is inscribed "I didn't expect to get my ticket punched in Baghad. I'm proud of you." When I returned home injured SEN Biden call me personally to ask what he could do. Interestingly he was on a cell phone calling from a train! Biden knows passenger trains and national security. I think I am a good judge...3 wars and 15 years with Amtrak. 3 War Retired LTC

Posted by Earl Karper, Sr. on 8/20/2008 10:39:30 AM

I have known Joe Biden for many years. I used to work as a stationmaster at Wilmington, DE station and spoke to him a number of times. He supports ALL of Amtrak and NOT just the N.E.C. I recently invited him to be the key speaker at my railroad union convention. Unfortunately, due to a prior commitment, he could not make it. He is a personable, easy-going gentleman with a bulldog attitude for the things he believes in. The rail industry could only make out better - Amtrak, in particular - if Joe had succeeded in his presidential bid. I feel he would do wonderful things for the "forgotten" mode of transportation and help bring it to its rightful place as part of a national transportation system. GO, JOE !!!

Posted by James Mancuso on 8/20/2008 11:31:26 AM

I think it is high time we had a transportation policy dictated by common sense and what the American people really want NOT what some peabrained moron from Texas or Corporate America wants to dictate to America. This overdependence on highways and jet airplanes has gone on for far too long and we are now beginning to reap the seeds that we have been sowing over the past 50 years: crumbling infrastructure, an air traffic control and navigation system that is bordering on unsafe, airlines with third world quality fleets in operation,while many overseas lines fly the newest equipment turned out by Boeing, et al and we are stuck with a rail system bordering on third world as well. A balanced transportation system is just as important to national security as is the hardware the military man needs to do his job properly.

Posted by R. Elyea on 8/20/2008 7:38:10 PM

That is the best news we have heard if Obama would select Sen. Joe Biden. Joe Biden would be the greatest asset there is for Vice President. He is the best and we hope and pray that he will be vice Present.

Posted by Richard Rohle on 8/21/2008 11:21:13 AM

As a retired Railroad Engineer, I am thoroughly convinced Biden is our man. Democrats better be sure to vote this year. Obama/Biden good ticket.

Posted by Robert T on 8/21/2008 11:22:55 AM

Scott's posting on 8/18/08 is right on the mark. Without meaningful reform of our current transportation policies, we are never going to move forward and will continue to send good money after bad.

Posted by Stu Nicholson on 8/21/2008 1:08:58 PM

I echo your thoughts & hopes. But I wish the Obama campaign would develop a more high-pfolie stance on passenger rail and transit. If we're going to an effective energy strategy, it has to include more and better transportation choices.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/21/2008 2:17:38 PM

Stu Nicholson is absolutely right, but he really should go even further. The United States needs a comprehensive national transportation policy - and quickly. DOT was created in 1966 to develop a transportation policy and never has come close to doing the job. With a hybrid system where railroads own, maintain, and pay property taxes for their rights of way, and truckers and barges pay user charges (inadequate according to every independent study) for the shared use of public rights of way,there are serious distortions in public policy. Similarly, public policy for airlines and passenger rail is inchoate, with the distortions becoming most costly all the time. Meanwhile, the trucking industry seeks to gain authority to put 97,000-lb. gross vehicle weights on highways, a 21% increase over the current 80,000 pound limit. Absent payment of adequate user fees and taxes, this effectively has private automobile owners subsidizing big trucks and the rail freight shippers effectively subsidizing their own competitors that use trucks. It is a mess and will remain so until there is a transportation policy in this country. Anyone want to bet that either political party will have a meaningful transportation plank in its platform after the two conventions the next two weeks? Transportation? Why, they'll be for it.

Posted by David Smith on 8/21/2008 8:27:35 PM

Does anyone on either side of the political spectrum have enough foresight to realize that there is no logical excuse for the US to have a government-run passenger rail system? Obviously, the answer is NO. Conservatives want to eliminate Amtrak's federal subsidy, socialists want to further empower Amtrak at taxpayers (read: non-users) expense. Neither stand is warranted. The best solution is to return passenger rail operations to the Class I's with some form of per passenger tax incentive to ensure healthy intramodal competition. That's what should have occured back in 1970, it's what should be done now. Oh, and if one or more of the Class I's still don't want to run passenger trains even with the incentives, then private vendors should be allowed to step right in and take over Amtrak's right of usage of that Class I's rail network. Just get the federal government out of the business of running trains like some Soviet-wannabe third world nation. As for Biden et al, keep in mind we shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. An Obama/Biden ticket might be an enabler for Amtrak (akin to the way saturated fat is an enabler for heart disease!), but obviously it would be a disaster for our economy - higher taxes, carbon regs, socialized medicine = a second Great Depression.

Posted by Superheater on 8/21/2008 10:04:41 PM

Before you rush off to vote for HO, keep in mind that Amtrak runs on a lot of freight railrods and BHO's party wants to take us back to the bad old days of the ICC-which almost killed railroads through its inane rate and other regulatios

Posted by Wes Burns on 8/22/2008 11:02:58 AM

No matter who occupies the White House, they might reach the obvious conclusion if we could get either of the candidates to use all three of these words in a complete sentence: Transportation, Energy, and Environment.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/22/2008 2:12:02 PM

It's time for a civics lesson for Dave Smith. He's right that Amtrak is a cost for taxpayers, and it always will be. That's because passenger service is unprofitable wherever it is offered in the world. Most governments accept that mobility for citizens is a legitimate function of government. The point is, though, that in a free society, the society gets to make that determination, not the absolutist ideologues of the Reason Foundation, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation or Dave Smith. Mr. Smith crosses the line, as he generally does, when he equates conservatives with socialists. Sorry, Mr. Smith, but conservatives equate to liberals. There is no need for labeling, especially not the way you have a nasty tendency of doing. It says more about your intellect or lack thereof than it does about either conservatives or liberals. Mr. Smith is quick to offer passenger service back to the Class 1 railroads. Of course, it isn't his to give, and it isn't something the railroads -- the private sector railroads that have an obligation to provide a return on investment for their owners -- have sought or probably ever would seek. They damn near went broke the last time they had the burden of subsidizing the society with passenger service, and Amtrak was created in 1971 only after the Penn Central bankruptcy and Congress' fear that it might have to nationalize the entire industry. Frankly, government's record in this area is so abysmal that no rational capitalist (how's that for using labels, Mr. Smith?) would risk his capital on the promise of government to pay a proper subsidy. Nope, Americans have the freedom to make silly decision is that's what they wish to do. They have made it clear over many years that they want to have passenger service available whether they choose to use it or not. That's there decision, Mr. Smith. You get to have opinions on that, but fortunately, you don't get to make the decision.

Posted by Jeff on 8/22/2008 2:28:29 PM

David: Soviet-wannabe third world nation? Are you kidding? The US railroads initially subsidized their passenger service with their freight profits, since colonizing the west meant more freight customers. Later, when the airlines reduced their passenger load and the ICC kicked them (as you mentioned) by favoring trucking, their passenger service was subsidized by the US Mail, until the Feds pulled it. No major industrialized country has passenger rail service that isn't subsidized by their government. Japan, France, Germany, etc. Yeah, they're real Soviet wannabees.

Posted by Tim Mullins on 8/22/2008 6:31:15 PM

Amtrak needs the support, and needs equipment to help handle the surge in rider ship. Senator Gregg of New Hampshire does not support funding the railroad. Thinking like that is wrong. With the problems that the airlines are having, especially after 911,when all we had was Amtrak, our transportation system was basically crippled. That alone is a threat to or country. What Amtrak doesn''t need is to be top heavy with political appointee''s and people who are not familiar with railroads and the rules,laws and equipment it takes to run it. Freight railroads that Amtrak runs on should receive financial incentives to help keep trains on time. Also, I feel since tax dollars go into Amtrak,that equipment ie. coaches,locomotives, etc., should be made in this country. Thank you

Posted by David Smith on 8/22/2008 8:55:11 PM

So Jeff, you want us to be like France? I would venture that the average American wants no part of emulating France, Germany, or Japan. And trying to equivocate the rail systems overseas with ours makes no sense, since their rail systems are either government run or are open access. Are you and Larry suggesting that our freight rail system would be better off under government operation? It's ironic to say on the one hand that passenger operations absolutely must be government run, yet these same people cry foul if the same is suggested for freight rail operations. Since our private freight rail system is subsidized to a certain degree, why not require passenger rail operations in return for these growing subsidies? By the way, some British rail folk and other Europeans will claim their passenger systems make a profit, so it's not axiomatic that all passenger rail systems necessarily lose money. Of course, those who insist that passenger rail services operate on 1930's logistics and inherent government ineptude will certainly not do anything to dispel the myth that passenger rail always loses money.

Posted by Gautam Ghosh on 8/25/2008 9:48:41 AM

More than ever, we need more supporters and participants of public transit systems(AMTRAK and others)in this country and in our Government. Thanks,

Posted by Matthew Daggett on 8/26/2008 9:39:17 AM

Mr. Biden will be in favor of any program that puts the government in control of the private sector, he's a socialist.

Posted by Amtrak Proponent on 8/26/2008 10:55:36 AM

The fact that we do not have a decent rail transportation policy and the current poor condition of the system in this country is a national disgrace. We should have had a long-term rail plan back in the 1970s, when the first oil crisis put the writing on the wall for all of us to see. But we chose to ignore it. I''d rather see our taxes put into redeveloping the passenger rail infrastructure than using it to build more weapons to fight for oil. It would bring back rail car manufacturing to the U.S. to help revitalize our steel industry and the rust belt. It also would help to rejuvenate our cities, help with the environment, reduce traffic congestion along our roadways and help with our national security and prosperity. Its no different than having our taxes pay to build and maintain the roads and to run the airports and the air traffic control system in our country. We all benefit, even if we do not personally use it.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/27/2008 11:19:57 AM

Xenophobia. It's such a wonderful thing to be xenophobic, as David Smith demonstrates. Considering that no society is perfect, why cannot France - or any number of other countries - have rail passenger service that is better than that experienced in the United States? Going back to Amtrak's creation in 1971, the U.S. government, both legislative and executive branches, has maintained the fiction that if Amtrak only were managed more efficiently it would become profitable. As I was at DOT in 1971, I can assure readers that when the claim was made initially, those who made it knew they were "shining" the American public, and that it never would be done. So, yes, David, and speaking only for myself, I might like to have the kind of taxpayer supported rail passenger service that people in France, Germany, Japan and a few other nations have. Whenever I travel by rail in Europe, I thank the European taxpayers for subsidizing my pleasures. All humor aside, Mr. Smith demonstrates as usual that his political beliefs exceed his understanding of economics. European passenger service is not open access. European freight service in some countries is. It also is inferior and doesn't begin to match up to U.S. freight service in quality, quantity, cost or any other measure. And, Mr. Smith, DO NOT try to put words in my mouth. I've made it clear, even though you seem to be a remedial reader, that I do not advocate government operation of railroads. Far from it, I have stated many times that the less government involvement there is in railroading the better off our society will be. I shall await Mr. Smith's next canard on this subject. Don't forget, Davey, always allow your preconceived notions, no matter how silly they may be, to get in the way of facts. Try as he may, Mr. Smith cannot equate problems of passenger service with freight operations. Let's try it in simple terms. Passenger service always will have heavy government involvement because it requires government funding. Freight service should not have any government involvement because it is profitable and seeks no subsidies. See, that wasn't too difficult to comprehend, was it? Mr. Smith is just plain wrong (ignorant?) when he states that "our private freight rail system is subsidized to a certain degree..." Bull! Note, dear readers, that any fool can make a specious claim. Anyone see Smith's support of Smith's claim? No? Perhaps that was because it is just untrue, although truth and Dave Smith's political screeds at this blog have no speaking aquaintance. Smith, I think it's really time for you either to learn something about the subjects on which you blog or fade away. You contribute nothing of value to the discussion that PR editors stimulate at this blog. Also, you really want to be more careful in your diatribes against railroads. The same arguments could be made in a discussion of subsidized electic co-ops. Wouldn't want that, now, whould we, Davey?

Posted by Richard Lange on 8/27/2008 11:22:45 AM

Let''s not forget that it was under a Republican administration that AMTRAK was born on April 30 1971, and CONRAIL operated communiter lines in the Northeast. Richard Lange

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/27/2008 1:22:57 PM

There is good news and bad news about transportation and the political season. The good news is that transportation is not a partisan issue. The bad news is that transportation is not a partisan issue - not that the Dave Smith's of the world haven't tried to make it such. So far today, we have had a comment accusing Joe Biden of being a Socialist, but with no discussion of the allegation - perhaps because he's not and the blogger can't find support for his silly statement. We've also had a reminder that Amtrak was created under a Republican Administration. That is true, but also is simplistic. Penn Central, which ran more passenger trains than any other railroad had gone bankrupt in 1970. Congress (Democrat-controlled) and the Nixon Administration (Republican) were terrified that they might have to nationalize Penn Central in order to maintain its essential services. For those who do not remember the economy in 1970, Penn Central moved a lot of raw materials in and finished goods out of steel mills, auto assembly palnts, etc. Amtrak was not created out of any political philsophy, but out of a real fear. It never has been properly funded, although the Dave Smith's of the world would require that private sector tax-paying railroads be forced to take back the passenger service that damned near bankrupted them once before. Perhaps Mr. Smith can find a blog for people who follow electric co-ops. It would be interesting to see if he has the courgage to demand that the co-ops finance themselves in the capital markets and that they pay the same taxes on the profits that investor-owned utilities pay. No, it's easier to prattle about railroads, isn't it Davey?

Posted by Amtrak Porponent on 8/28/2008 10:04:40 AM

If there is any doubt about Biden's degree of support for improving Amtrak, this is from his convention speech last night: "But I profoundly -- I profoundly disagree with the direction John wants to take this country, from Afghanistan to Iraq, from Amtrak to veterans." The fact that he would find it important enough to specifically mention it in his speech, which probably went over the heads of many of his listeners, tells me that this will be an important item on his agenda if he is elected.

Posted by David Smith on 8/28/2008 7:27:07 PM

Ahh, the communists in capitalist clothing are running amock! No Amtrak supporter here seems able to justify why US passenger rail has to be a government run enterprise rather than being returned to the private sector wtih the appropriate "safety net" level of subsidy/tax incentive. That proves that these people do not think things through - I guess it''s easier to let the government do their thinking for them. BTW - Biden spends twice as much to ride Amtrak back and forth each day than he would if he just drove it! And Larry, you are sadly misinformed if you continue to contend that today''s freight railroads are not subsidized (does the phrase "Heartland Corridor" mean anything to you?), and the trend is for growing subsidy of the so-called "private" freight railroads. The fact is all forms of transportation are subsidized to some extent. He also avoids addressing his logical fallacy that government run passenger rail is superior to privatized passenger rail, but God forbid if we apply that same policy to our freight railroads! Neither freight nor passenger rail can cover it''s long-run cost of capital - why else would the AAR be calling for partial public funding of the so-called rail infrastructure shortage? And here we were told that Staggers was going to fix the cost of capital conundrum once and for all! If subsidy is what it takes to keep the freight railroads abreast of demand, we should apply that same principle to passenger rail. Or else just throw in the towell and apply the current Amtrak principle to the freight railroads - at least that would take care of the discriminatory rate problem.

Posted by George Fleming on 8/29/2008 10:04:14 AM

Mr. Smith says "Biden spends twice as much to ride Amtrak back and forth each day than he would if he just drove it!" -- Driving on I-95 or the BW Parkway in rush hour is a nightmare. No wonder MARC is buying 13 double deckers from VRE for folks living closer in than Senator Biden.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/29/2008 10:35:46 AM

Here we go again with the inflammatory labeling and the "big lie" technique of public discourse. Dave Smith, he of the tax-eating non-tax-paying electric co-ops, seems to believe that if he repeats a false argument often enough that it will become true. Sorry, Davey, but the world doesn't work that way. Could the Class 1 railroads operate passenger service more efficiently than Amtrak? perhaps. But that is not the issue. Congress (Democrat controlled) and the Nixon Administration (Republican, the last time I checked)were convinced that public subsidies for the railroads were politically not feasible and the only alternative to allowing train after train to be abandoned through the ICC procedures was the effective nationalization of rail passenger service. I've never argued that the solution was or was not the right solution. It was the solution, and that's what is on the table. For those who do not allow their preconceived notions to get in the way of the facts (Smith, you reading?) this is the way government works. Most government decisions are compromises based on the possible and not on ideological dogma. Mr. Smith is quick to return passenger service to the private railroads, with an incentive (subsidy) from government. Socialist in a Capitalist suit that he is, he refuses to acknowledge that private railroads do not want to run passenger trains and cannot be forced to do so. Mr. Smith now calls public-private-partnerships subsidies. Call them what you will, Smith, but your calling them subsidies doesn't make them subsidies. A PPP is a joint venture in which the private entity (railroad in this discussion) pays for these facets that benefit it and the public pays for those aspect that benefit the public. Railroads should not be forced to pay for grade crossing elimination or improvement, as the public road invariably is crossing private property that existed long before the public road (you do know about the Fifth Amendment "taking" clause of the Constitution, don't you?)But absent the public participation the private investment either would not be undertaken at all or it would be delayed, neither solution benefiting the society. Oh, sorry, I forgot. Dave Smith doesn't worry about the society. He just chooses to spew his ideological dogma.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/29/2008 10:44:59 AM

I overlooked another of Mr. Smith's fallacies in his oft-expressed desire to return rail passenger service to the freight railroads - whether they want it or not. That is the effective subsidy that the railroads give Amtrak by act of Congress. Amtrak trains, by law, are to be given priority handling by the railroads over whose track they run. Amtrak has the exclusive right to run over the freight railroads, paying a less than fully allocated cost recovery for the use of those tracks. In exchange, in 1971, when Amtrak was created, the freight railroads "bought" their way out of the passenger service obligation by paying Amtrak the equivalent of two years' operating losses - either in cash or equipment. No one but Mr. Smith has seriously suggested returning passenger service to the freight railroads, so the issue never has been tested, but most experts in the field do not believe the Amtrak right of access is transferrable to another entity. That leaves Amtrak as the only entity to run passenger trains, as the freight railroads have no desire to do so. That, by the way, was one reason (among many) that no one ever has paid any attention to the silly Bush Administration proposals to shift money to states and other authorities to take over Amtrak service. It wouldn't have been legal and it wouldn't have had enough money to do the job the White House kept insisting it wanted done.

Posted by David Smith on 9/1/2008 1:07:14 PM

Ah Larry, you can pontificate in lengthy pointless paragraphs what most of us could state in one sentence. And you'd still be wrong. First, to say that passenger services can't be returned to the private sector because "it's the law" ignores the fact that laws can (and more often than not should) be changed. That's the beauty of a representative democracy - we can change bad law, aka Amtrak. Ditto for giving third party passenger providers the right of access to the Class I grid should the owner excercise the right of first refusal to run their own passenger trains. And I would take exception to your claim that the Class I's wouldn't want to run passenger trains with the right tax incentive policy. I believe they would prefer their own to having that bumbling Amtrak outfit clogging up the system. For example, a private in sito operation could run passenger services in combination with priority freights so that there would be no net loss of track slot availability nor added crew costs, something that can't be done with Amtrak in any meaningful way. And what of the fraternal pride and private-sector PR currently missing from Amtrak operations? Really folks, try thinking these things through rather than just being status quo reactionaries!

Posted by David Smith on 9/1/2008 1:15:40 PM

Let's do a comparison of the two vice presidential candidates as it relates to passenger rail services in their respective areas of residency. Biden is out their using Amtrak for his daily commute, perhaps a quicker commute than if he drove his own vehicle, but with a gratuitous helping of federal taxpayer subisidy to do so, e.g. it's much more costly to taxpayers than if he did what the Average American had to do each day. Contrast that with Palin's state, wherein the State owns and operates the railroad, which by the way has both freight and passenger services under one corporate umbrella. Can you guess which one does the better job of covering it's own expenses - Amtrak or the Alaska RR? Of course, it's the latter. Food for thought!

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 9/2/2008 10:28:04 AM

Yep, Davey, you''re sort of right that laws can be changed. Heck, even the Constitution of the United States can be changed if enough people want to change it. But, you obviously are not familiar with the "takings" provision of the Fifth Amendment to that Constitution. You can change the law all you want, but you cannot take the property of the freight railroads - or any other property owner - without compensation. Is that brief enough for you. As for you other posting, thanks very much, but I''ll go elsewhere for analysis and assessment of the candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency. The Reason Foundation, Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation are not known for their unbiased views -- nor are you, Davey.

Posted by Robert Rynerson on 9/2/2008 5:39:31 PM

I've been following this discussion since the late 1960's and unless numerous other politically unacceptable changes are made, Amtrak (aside from regional commuter carriers) will be the only game in town. Only a few companies even made it to 1971 with serious people selling passenger service. The rest ranged from incompentent to awful, with the biggest Western market being dominated by the worst Western carrier. Current managements would have no reason to want to risk joining doctors in a Medicare-style funding of passenger service in which Congress could play with compensation levels in every election cycle. Of course, I'd enjoy riding in an over-staffed Armour Yellow dome dining car once again, but unless one of those politically unacceptable structural changes happen, I'm not waiting for it. Oh... and one of those structural changes would be for the airlines, oil industry and highways to start paying their own way. Conservatives, Liberals and Libertarians all go silent on that part of the equation. Until that happens, countervailing subsidies will be needed for transit and intercity rail service.

Posted by Tom Halterman on 9/3/2008 8:38:55 AM

Having to engage in wishful thinking about a vice president being an Amtrak supporter demonstrates the pathetic state of our (lack of) transportation policy in the US. Although I strongly believe that passenger rail needs to play a much, much larger role in the US, I would feel much better about these various Amtrak appropriations and various HSR proposals, whatever the amount, if they were in the context of a reasoned, comprehensive, multi-modal long range national transportation and energy policy coordinated with state and local land use policies. As it is, we are just throwing darts at balloons. It is not even clear that Amtrak should be the vehicle for passenger rail investments. With regard to taking of freight rail property (with due compensation) for HSR development, if I were planning a truly state-of-the-art HSR system to meet our 21st century needs, I'm not sure I would want it to be trying to follow freight rail alignments or be anywhere close to freght tracks.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 9/3/2008 9:22:34 AM

Thank you, Tom Halterman and Robert Rynerson for injecting a note of sanity to what has become a never-ending back-and-forth between an idologue who never allows facts to get in the way of preconceived prejudices and someone who knows just a bit about railroads, transportation, and the economics of both. It's been lonely.

Posted by Dr M.Seshagiri Rao on 9/3/2008 8:41:13 PM

What? You have a Vice Presidential candidate who goes to work everyday by a Local train? Not even one Police pilot car? No sirens? I wish I had such candidates to vote for.

Posted by David Smith on 9/17/2008 7:51:52 PM

Robert, you missed the trolley in your analysis. There is no reason to think that the railroads would not embrace a return to having full control over passenger train operations over their own tracks rather than having to deal with Amtrak's inherent operating incompetence. The key is simply making it worth their while to do so. So instead of having the taxpayers dole out millions each year for a glorified government welfare program only used by less than 1% of the population, let's get rid of the cash subsidy and instead provide tax credits to the Class I's to do what they do best. Nearly all economic studies have shown that tax credits provided to private industry for a particular enterprise will produce better results for less cost than having that same enterprise ran as a government agency funded by tax reciepts. It is clearly in the best interests of the American Spirit to reprivatized passenger rail operations, except of course for those Euro-trash wannabes who pine for socialized everything.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 9/18/2008 10:32:14 AM

Mr. Smith, who steadfastly refuses to engage in any kind of real discussion simply by ignoring what others have said, now would substitute tax credits for outright passenger subsidies. This economic illiterate is a disgrace to the Libertarian views of his beloved Reason Society. If anyone were to really advocate tax credits, Smith would be among the first to argue against them on the grounds that because they deprive the Treasury of revenue, they are in fact a subsidy. Way to go, Davey. You continue to speak out of both sides of your mouth.

NS shifts automotive equipment gears to match car-buying pattern shifts

Posted by: Jeff Stagl | Date posted: 8/8/2008

Post your comment now[16]

Comments

Posted by Adron on 8/11/2008 3:37:10 PM

About time we wised up, funny how it usually takes a market adjustment to bring logic back into certain buying patterns. The twisted irony is I'm sure particular political alignments will still say that big trucks should go the way of the dinosaur and demand legislation. The market is a much better regulator of demand than any silly legislative action.

Posted by David Smith on 8/12/2008 11:14:17 AM

This anamoly of rising demand for smaller cars will be short-lived just like it was in the 70's, the last time we had an artifical oil "shortage" created by government incompetence. Once we win the drilling battle in Congress we'll see oil prices (and subsequent gas prices) decline to more normalized levels. Then sales of larger vehicles will again become dominant because they are a better fit for the American lifestyle. I just hope NS and the other railroads can just as easily convert the autocarrier fleets back to normalicy.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/12/2008 11:49:49 AM

Dave Smith continues to believe that the earth is flat. The 1974 energy crisis occurred because our good friends in OPEC put an embargo on shipments to the U.S. following U.S. support for Israel during its Yom Kippur War that was started by the Arab OPEC nations. There was no shortage of oil then, just an artificial disruption of the market. There were no developing India or China to affect the market as it existed then. Today, the problem is that world-wide demand for oil is greater than ever before and production has not increased to keep pace with demand. Golly, supply and demand again -- it always works, doesn't it? So the harking back to past oil disruptions may make some people feel better, but it just isn't accurate. If anything it gives some people a false sense of security and a rationale for doing nothing. Perhaps Mr. Smith should run for Congress. He'd feel right at home with the others who prefer to do nothing. More seriously, Americans seem to have set $4/gal. as the break-point for gasoline. At and above $4, they reduce their driving, and you cannot give away a large SUV, much less a Hummer. And, as this is a rail-oriented blog, it figures that Norfolk Southern and other railroads that participate in the multi-level pool will have to reconfigure the fleet to reflect the change in mix of what is selling and what is not selling. To make good news out of bad, at least with the carmakers in deep recession, they at least have time in which to do the requisite reconfiguring.

Posted by Dave Smith on 8/13/2008 7:52:04 PM

Flat Earthers like Larry Kaufman continue to align themselves with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest of the 25% of un-Americans who don't want us to drill for our own oil. Indeed, they continue to ignore the fact that the US could easily be energy independent if we only opened up the OCF and ANWR, as well as refocussing on CTL and oil shale/oil sands production. Oh yes, Larry, this is indeed an artificial shortage akin to the artificial shortage of the 1970's. It is all due to government fiat, enabled by psuedo-communists like Larry who yearn for a socialist nirvana. Regardless, buying patterns of US consumers will soon return to the types of vehicles that fit the American psyche, namely SUV's. I think NS has jumped the gun in spending so much money to convert auto carriers to small car dimensions, because in a short while they'll have to convert them right back to larger vehicle dimensions. By the way Larry, what do you drive? Or do you just live off the backs of taxpayers via public transit?

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/14/2008 10:13:07 AM

Having been challenged on the basis of ideas and fact, Mr. Smith, having neither on his side, resorts to personal invective. So be it. I''ve been attacked by better than he. As the editors of PR have allowed a particularly vicious and nasty personal attack, I am assuming that I will be allowed the opportunity to offer a response in kind. Flat earth, Mr. Smith, refers to people like you who reject all ideas that man can progress. It is you who posit the same old arguments despite plentiful evidence that you are wrong, thus earning you the flat earth sobriquet. You have no idea what my personal political views are - nor should you - but I will tell you and any other readers who have not already been bored to death by this increasingly puerile exchange that I was a Schedule C special assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation more than 35 years ago during a Republican Administration. Your juvenile effort to insult and offend me by tying my views to those of Ms. Pelosi and Sen. Reid are just that - juvenile. You see, Mr. Smith, I don''t need to impugn other people''s motives or patriotism. I do challenge incorrect interpretations of history and ill-founded ideas. That''s what blogs are for, whether you choose to admit it or not. You are plain wrong about being energy independednt by opening the OCF and ANWR, although I grant you that Dick Cheney no doubt considers you a "good, loyal American" for mouthing such inanities. The U.S. has 3% of the world''s population and consumes 25% of its energy. We cannot drill our way out of this problem, and the more realistic of us understand that and seek a variety of alternatives. When you get to language like "pseudo-communists," you only make yourself look stupid. That''s the kind of idiotic epithet that used to vbe used by the McCarthyites. I don''t need to defend myself to the likes of you, a pseudo-socialist living off the U.S. Treasury in his electric co-op world, and paying no federal taxes on his artifical profits. Your visceral anger is amusing,if unconstructive. As for some substance in this silly rant of yours, I''ll take NS''s word for it that it knows what its markets are likely to be and that its management is properly spending resources so that it will be able to serve the markets that exist, not the fictional ones that "David" hallucinates over. Finally, David, I drive a hard-top luxury convertible and my wife drives a luxury SUV, both manufactured in Japan, not that it''s any of your business. Having worked hard for a long time, we consider it our right to own and drive any kind of vehicle that suits our fancy. We pay for our gasoline and we don''t condemn ExxonMobile for the price. When I worked in NY, I happily rode public transit and thanked my fellow taxpayers for the subsidy. Funny thing, though, my fellow taxpayers all seemed to understand that getting workers to and from a central city efficiently was a better use of public resources than building multiple additional lanes of freeways just so auto traffic could pile up in the city. Fortunately, your Libertarian screed has no more adherents today than it ever has. You must enjoy standing in front of a mirror and raging at yourself. Perhaps in future blogs you will try to exchange ideas rather than invective. I somehow have my doubts that you are capable of conducting a rational exchange of ideas, as I''ve seen no evidence of rationality on your part yet.

Posted by brian on 8/14/2008 3:19:03 PM

Tell me...are Dave and Larry really the same person who skipped medication time?

Posted by David Smith on 8/15/2008 8:45:50 PM

Whether NS has contemplated future market conditions or not is irrelevant, since they are part of the oligarchy that can simply pass on costs to consumers, regardless of whether those costs were due to the normal cost of doing business or due to poor managerial decisions. That's the beauty of belonging to the fraternity of natural monopolies. However, it does occur to most folks that NS would be better suited if they just hauled the minicars in the SUV-dimensioned auto carriers rather than spending so much money converting them for what is clearly a temporary situation. As for the current energy situation, the EIA conservatively estimates that there are 115 billon barrels of recoverable oil and 570 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf alone. Clearly, we can and should drill our way out of this unnecessary energy problem. We have a 300 years supply of coal that can be converted to synthetic fuels via CTL technology. We have untold billions of barrels of oil available via the oil shales of the Intermountain West. Yes, we are easily capable of becoming energy independent within a few short years. However, there are some on this forum that would have us believe it is better for the railroad industry if Americans stay enslaved to increasing dependency on foreign oil and environmental fascism.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/18/2008 11:39:11 AM

Here we go again; another political screed from Dave Smith. Anyone note that he increasingly is off on political rants and has less to say about transportation? And, sorry, Brian, but at my age I faithfully take my meds. You may also want to consider that I don't originate exchanges at this blog, but do respond to the lunacy expressed from time to time. No names, of course, because I don't wish to be accused of attacking anyone. Oligarchy? Heck, why not go all the way and call it a monopoly. Others do. They are, of course, wrong. Railroads face more competition than do Dave Smith's beloved co-op electric generators, and where they have market dominance - a term with legal significance - their rates may be challenged with reparations and interest due to those who can persuade the STB that they are being forced to pay unreasonably high rates. After 28 years, that seems to be obvious to all but a few in the utility and chemical industries. Simply pass on costs? Only someone who never has had to buy transportation service or provide it would make such a statement. No evidence, but rhetoric seems to be the order of the day from Mr. Smith. I'm sure NS, considered by most to be one of if not the best managed railroad, appreciates Mr. Smith telling it how to conduct its automotive business. Considering that 11 out of 12 new trans-plants were built on NS tracks, I'll take NS's reputation over the maundering of Mr. Smith, who demonstrates no real understanding of railroads or economics, although that never keeps him from having an opinion, invalid though it usually is. Sorry, Mr. Smith, oil drilling policy just is not a subject of this particular blog or site. You're on your own with that loony blather. You really ought to watch the name calling though. Last week it was pseudo-communish. Now it is environmental fascism. And Brian had the temerity to include me in his query whether we were one and the same person but off our meds. Happily, I am not Dave Smith, have never been Dave Smith, and never will be Dave Smith. His problem, which he states over and over, is one that cannot be fixed simply by meds.

Posted by michael willis on 8/19/2008 2:58:05 PM

What a great debate between Mr. Smith & Mr. Kaufman. This is the kind of debate that should air on the Larry King show! with additional members of the panel from the railroad/transit/electric utilities area with oppssing views from the oil/automotive/airline sector. The public needs to know the efficiency numbers & the incredible advantages that 21st steel wheel on iron rail century railway technology has in its favor vs fuel slurping rubber wheeled suv's & trucks over the road & thirsty wings in the air! EFFICIENCY RULES!

Posted by Richard Frick on 8/19/2008 6:30:11 PM

It is a shame that this type of forum is used to lucubrate on political issues and circumvent the issue at hand. The Automobile Industry requested a NEW conveyance from the Railroad Industry in 1991 and continues that request to deaf ears. Seventy-five percent of the current fleet of multi-levels have reached their maturity and by Railroad Regulations, should be scraped due to OLD AGE. They are the True Dinosaurs of the Railroad Automobile Transport Industry. There is a product in use by the BNSF and American Honda Motor Co., Inc. called the AutoMax. that provides the ride quality that is required with todays more sophisticated vehicles. The use of sensitive computers to control the various functions of the vehicles cannot tolerate the rough ride that is provided by the Old Technology. That is giving a lot of misplaced credit since the multi-levels were built on outdated Intermodal railcars thereby providing an extended life to this worn out equipment. The AutoMax Railcar will transport 85% of ALL vehicles that are manufactured in North America and Imported into North America. The Railroad Industry is trying to protect against the obsolescence of the multi-level fleet by ignoring the true benefits that the New Technology provides. With the rising cost of fuel, you would think that the Railroad Industry would would embrace technology that reduces fuel costs by 40% and virtually eliminates transcontinental movement of empty equipment for repositioning to loading sites. The New Technology will handle automobile and Lt. Trucks/SUV''s on the same railcar and provides the ride quality of a Double Stack railcar. Maybe the Railroads feel that containers of freight need a better ride than vibration and impact sensitive motor vehicles. As for the lack of a universal network that can accommodate the AutoMax railcar, the outdated technology can easily accommodate the routes that cannot accommodate the AutoMax and provide an efficient network for the entire Automotive Industry. that cannot.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/20/2008 10:28:22 AM

The argument in favor of broader use of the AutoMax car is a welcome addition to this blog site. All equipment investment invariably is made by the acquirer on the basis of expected/anticipated return on investment. BNSF and Honda have been pioneering users of the Greenbrier AutoMax car. That no one else has committed to it suggests that the benefits may not be all that some claim. As for the auto makers calling for better cars, etc., the railroads still are common carriers and must provide service upon reasonable demand. Nothing prevents the auto makers from financing their car fleet and negotiating an allowance for provision of cars. The chemical industry always has provided its own cars. Otherwise, this is the classic approach of those shippers who feel "entitled." They expect carriers to make all the capital investment they want, whether the rate charged covers the capital investment or not.

Posted by Bert Ruden on 9/10/2008 12:48:48 PM

While it is true that none of the other OEMs have committed to Automax cars to the extent Honda has, other manufacturers have at least dipped their toes in the water. Certainly both Nissan and Toyota have made use of these railcars. The biggest concern with the Automax cars at the moment is their height. At 20 feet 2 inches ATR there are many places they cannon go in the North American rail network. While I agree with Mr. Kaufman's argument that the OEMs need to either supply their own equipment or pay rates that will cover the capital costs for the equipment, I also believe that the "Big 3" U.S. manufacturers are not in the financial position at the moment to ante up a few billion dollars for railcars. I will take issue with the "old technology" argument. Damage-free shipments for one of the major U.S. manufacturers have been in the very high 90 percentile range for several years. When you dig deeper into the statistics you find that a good percentage of the damages that do occur have more to do with loading and unloading vehicles rather than anything inherent in the design of the railcars. What I have heard from the carriers is that converting a bilevel to a trilevel is neither cheap nor easy. That is the greatest strength of the Automax design: it can be converted from a two-deck to a three-deck railcar with only a day or two in the shopand the manpower to move the decks. The biggest question, in my mind, is whether the automotive industry is going to move away from their "build in quantity for stock" manufacturing model and go to a faster, more flexible and more customer-driven manufacturing model? If they do, multilevel railcars may indeed become dinosaurs.

Posted by David Smith on 9/10/2008 8:26:32 PM

The AutoMax is lightyears ahead of the competition in terms of optimized auto carriers, perhaps even the USRA flagship equivalent. It is unfortunate that the railroads have not adopted the AutoMax as the flagship of the auto carrying equipment fleet. Then again, if you were an automobile manufacturer and you were forced to choose between the present out-dated but cheaper rail-owned fleet, or having to purchase your own autocarriers, which way would you opt? By the way, does anyone else here think that the AutoMax would make a great template for an articulated passenger car?!

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 9/17/2008 11:32:24 AM

Ye gads! Does Dave Smith have the foggiest notion what he is saying? As usual, he makes a flat statement that the AutoMax is lightyears ahead of the competition in terms of optimized auto carriers, perhaps even the USRA flagship equivalent. He, of course, offers no support for the assertion; we're just supposed to accept it as Gospel. By the way, Davey, USRA doesn't have a flagship, never had a flagship, and doesn't even exist anymore. I realize that you don't believe anyone in the railroad knows anything, but has it ever dawned on you that those railroads that have not adopted the AutoMax (some have, you know) have not done so because the economics don't work for them. Unlike electric co-ops, railroads must secure their capital in the capital markets, not from the Treasury. Auto manufacturers, like other private sector businesses, seek the optimum in running their businesses. If the AutoMax enables them to achieve that, they will demand that railroads supply the AutoMax - or they can acquire the cars by purchase or lease and put them into service in their own self-interest. Cars represent capital investment, whether made by railroads, shippers, or leasing companies. Their cost of ownership and operation is included in the rate charged for transportation. Mr. Smith, you don't understand any more about rail cars than you do about rail economics - which is nothing. As for the cockamamie idea of using the AutoMax as a template for passenger equipment, Mr. Smith demonstrates for all to see that he gets his jollies simply by being contrary, not from any knowledge or wisdom. He, who argues against the continuation of Amtrak, would have someone do something that doesn't really make any sense at all - but what's different about that from any of his other anti-railroad screeds? No, Davey, no one else thinks that the AutoMax would make a great template for an articulated passenger car?! Perhaps that's because there is no demand for an articulated passenger car, and if there were, a better car would be designed than a two-truck freight car with freight car suspension.

Posted by David Smith on 9/17/2008 7:35:05 PM

Sooooo.....the Larry Kaufman insult parade just continues, unabated and unsubstantiated! Perhaps Larry should go back to high school and review the meaning of words such as "equivalent" and "template" before he spouts off another pointless rant against creative thought. "USRA equivalent" is not the same as "USRA", it is philosophical classification meant to imply the optimum design example for that type of freight car. And using the AutoMax as a template for an articulated passenger car design does not imply (except of course to the double-digit IQ crowd) that the an AutoMax-inspired passenger car would use freight car suspension et al, rather would incorporate the basic AutoMax frame with passenger car amenities. Most normal readers here probably got that, so it's not too suprising that such a not-so-subtle suggestion went right over Larry's head.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 9/18/2008 1:45:20 PM

It's a funny thing, but I don't seem to have a problem of insulting other scriveners at this blogsite, although I certainly am not always in agreement with every post. It's only Dave Smith. Perhaps the problem is Mr. Smith's? Perhaps there's something in the water he drinks or the air he breathes? Or, perhaps it's that he constantly presents an anti-rail ideological bias here that calls for rebuttal lest the truly cockamamie ideas accidentally take root.