Maybe a little arm twisting?

Ok, here's an idea. As I understand history, most charters awarded to people who wanted to build railroads had a clause in them that the recipient, in exchange for HUGE land grants, agreed to operate passenger trains. (This is why the privates had to petition to drop passenger trains and could not do so at will, yes?) The builders of the great rail network needed help to do so, and the government stepped in with a carrot. "You can have this IF you do this.." Maybe this could work again. So much is being said about the Class I's being financially unable to improve their physical plant. They are in desperate need of capital to increase capacity. Soooo...let's have some federal help for the freights to improve their position, but include a mandate that the freights must either provide at least some rudimentary passenger service, or contribute a portion of their increased profitability so someone else can. "We'll help you improve your standing IF you agree to use some of your enourmous plant for a public service. Seems a nice (naive?) balance between capitalism and socialism to me. Whatay'all think?

This could be a "back to the future", Mr. Greer.

There is presently under consideration public funding to upgrade capacity on a Norfolk Southern line between Hagerstown, MD and Roanoke, VA. This line "roundly" follows I-81.

Although the line last saw a passenger train during "the fifties", and the potential for any appreciable passenger traific along the route is highly questionable, there is resonable possibility, as reported in TRAINS, that passenger service will be a condition along that line as part of the funding covenant.

You can be sure NS will oppose this "intrusion", but as I noted at another thread regarding this matter, they may be confronted with a "discression is the better part of valor" decision.

Stay tuned.

Indeed, with the entire public transportation system in crisis, it seems some sort of safety net is in order, especially given the economic and demographic changes currently under way.

But it needs to be realized at the outset that such a plan would be just that: a safety net, a default option, a carrier of last resort; and those who can find a better way through their own efforts will prefer it.

It would have to be intended for a role similar to that now held by the Post Office vis-a-vis the package carriers -- intended to fill in the gaps rather than to generate a profit...but not allowed free rein to grow into a huge, and expensive, bureaucracy. Several modes of carriage would likely have to be co-ordinated...rail on some routes, buses on others, and maybe vans in rural areas.

I'll close by pointing out that the phrase "public necessity" has multiple connotations.

Isn't this on some level what has been happening with various commuter rail systems across the country, and to a lesser extent with some Amtrak related projects?

Certainly this is far from a universal or federal level legislative mandate, but to varying extents this has happened on the new Metra North Central Service, the (not yet happened) improvements to CSX trackage in NYS for higher speed running for Amtrak trains, various improvements to BNSF/UP in the LA area for Metrolink, improvments to the BSNF near Seatle for the Talgos, etc, etc

Certainly there is much to be said for a centrallised, well thought out plan that balances passenger service with the needs of the freight roads for their own capacity.

Using the land grants of the 1800's is not a valid precedent. The land that was 'granted' by the federal government at that time was worthless. It cost the taxpayers nothing. Not like granting dollars today. It was only *after* the railroad was built that the land became valuable - there was now transportation to those remote areas. Note that the land granted was in a 'checkerboard' pattern, with the railroad getting alternating parcels with the government retaining the other. So the government's worthless land became valuable after the railroad was built.

That said, it may be practicable to design an assistance program based on environmental credits. To the extent that freight railroads enhance capabilty they would be granted these credits which they could then sell on the open market. A similar system is used for industries that construct pollution control equipment and/or build new clean facilities. It would be a departure from the present law in that the railroads would not directly construct pollution control facilities, but the end result would be the same by removing over the road trucks and thus reducing fuel use and emissions.

The biggest hurdle, imo, will not be the railroads. Remember what we said in an earlier thread? They're not generating cost of capital? So.... governments are contemplating being the provider of capital.

My only question is: How far can governments go, cumulatively, in taxing the populace? The summed marginal tax rate (Federal, State, Municipal) approaches what government classes used to allocate to Socialism.

We are back in an "accumulating debt" environment. How far can governments take taxpayers before you have Taxpayer Revolt (a la Prop 13 out in California?).

Thoughts to ponder.

John Perkowski

I have always been a big believer that the Federal Government should pay for new or more track lines my Prority list would be
1. Sunset Route
2. BNSF Chicago to LAX Corridor
3. Repair the NEC
4. Repair Chicago rail insfurturture
Any others I need to add?

AmtrakFan

The government doesn't have any money of its own, only taxpayer money. That said, what's in it for taxpayers generally for using taxpayer money to fund private corporations such as railroads? Environmental benfefits? Anything else?

Well Mr. Ken, that's the whole crux of the matter isn't it? Generally speaking, my first thought of "big corporations" is not a charitiable one, especially with all we here of "golden handshakes" and CEO's run amok. Upon further reflection though, one must consider that, unlike some businesses, the freight railroads in this nation are a huge part of the economy. Not only must we consider the direct effect rail shipping has on commerce, but also the thousands of employees with disposable income. So at what point does "business" become an interest of the federal government? Heck if I know.

It does appear to me though that at some time in the future, the railroads will get the idea to pony up to the same trough the airlines have been feeding from forever. Someone will have to decide if all that taxpayer money should be spent in such a way. Is the benefit to the economy/employees/public worth the outlay? One could use the Chrysler Corp. as an example, exept that that was but a bailout "loan". Apples and oranges really. At any rate, I think tying any assistance the freights may get to providing some public service is a dandy idea. The taxpayers get something back for their buck.

Mr. Norman, is the the proposed "Trans-Dominion Express" what you speak of on the NS? If so, from what I've read the NS is, if not eager, at least not hostile to the idea. They seem to see it as a win-win.

One more thing. Can anyone (MR. Norman?) educate me on the arrangement Amtrak has with the BNSF here in the San Joaquin Valley? I spoke with a BNSF employee at a train show a year or two back and he told me that Amtrak pays for ALL maintenance on this line. The twelve San Joaquins a day that run on this line is my favorite screaming example when the UP gripes about 2 trains a day being "out of the question". Anyone know if this maintenance arrangement is true?

To answer Mr Perkowski's question of how far the govt. can go before a taxpayer revolt, I'm afraid the answer is "a lot further".
I am bothered by the so-called "bailout" of the major airlines after 9/11. Most of the economically difficulties, they were and still are in , have been self-inflicted, to my thinking. Except for a few well-run airlines, most had financial problems well before 9/11.
If we are to subsidize private freight railroads, especially with the prerequisite of having them help finance passenger services, would it not be more forthright to simply add a passenger rail tax to Calif sales tax, or maybe a tax on your utility bill (a la Al Gore)? Maybe the old idea of a gasoline tax might survive another go-around. Problem is, most roads and highways in Calif are in deplorable shape..partly because the gasoline tax, which is suppose to only go for highway construction and maitenance, is partially robbed for other spending obligations. Calif seems to solve all of its problem with future bond obligations, heavily burdening generations to come, not to mention businesses which are already leaving the state in droves.

Such thinking is not far fetched at all. There are rumblings in the industry that such things may be ready to start taking shape. (see http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df1 ... ml#Railway ) And, yes, it is already being done at the state level, here and there. Oregon has helped pay for upgrades to the UP line between Portland and Salem for the Cascades service. Washington has been working similarly with BNSF. California has been funding the double tracking of the Capitol Corridor.

So not only is it possible, it is being done.

Thanks for that link Mr.Toy, I knew I had read about that "somewhere". Perhaps the last sentence of that article summed things up best.

"The American Road and Transportation Builders Assn. can always blanket the Hill with thousands of advocates fighting for highway dollars while the numbers advocating rail are dismally slim by comparison."
---Tom Simpson, Executive Director, Railway Supply Institute

The point on which most of us seem to agree is that for-hire passenger carriage is, and probably always be a poor fit for the rules applied to a lazziez-faire market. For roughly fifty years our leaders, from both parties, sought to underwrite the automotive and aviation industries while allowing the almost-exclusively-private-financed rail infrastructure to wear out.

Now the conflict betwen a global rising of expectations and a finite supply of petroleum is forcing a reconfiguration (note that I did not say a rethinking) of that effort.

Despite the "sky-is-falling" alarms of the present day Luddites, any number of alternative sources of entergy have already been identified; the scene is now advancing toward what will likely be several decades of re-orientation toward those sources which can be harnessed, stored, transported and renewed most efficiently. State interference is justifiable only in the short run, to mitigate a temporary and artificial imbalance.

It should also be recognized that the natural interplay of supply and demand will adrress any bottleneck. Petroleum is simply the classic example; more barrels of oil are recoverable at $50/barrel than at $12/barrel. But as the prinicipal feedstock for a large portion of our industry, the sooner a viable alternative for the private vehicle is perfected, the better for the long run.

I would not, however, expect any major attempt to discourage the use of private vehicles for some "common good" to gain favor. Barring some quantum leap, rail technology wil endure, and likely gain market share as international differences and barriers diminish. But passenger service can flourish only in those markets for which it's a natural fit.

If I may add to Mr. 2nd Trick's thoughts, I think we should "lay the cards on the table" and note that Middle East crude and the ocean transportation to consumers represents the most inexpensive energy source on the planet.

This even considers that everybody over there has a popgun and who they use it on today is not who they will use it on tomorrow.

If one wonders why, as they drive along I-80 (or maybe the Overland Route on a Zephyr detour), through the Wyoming "moonscape", windmills are not the most visible object, it is simply the economics moted above.

theres plenty of oil , it s just the economics of getting it that may change , ( is the cost of the operation in Iraq factored into the cost of middle east oil ? ) , and the enviromental consequnces of using it that will become more significant .
Rail has an advantage , in that it is easily electrified , therefore been able to use any fuel . Perhaps this needs to be pushed more by rail passenger advocates , electrification here was done to reduce oil dependance , not to help railways .