A good example of why RR's lost pasenger service

Yes, Albany County Airport has always been property-tax exempt. Albany Mayor John Boyd Thacher II once said "a city without the foresight to build an airport for the new traffic may soon be left behind in the race for competition". He therefore decided to build in 1928 a new modern airport. The Amtrak facility is tax exempt too, but the right-of-way is not. CSX charges Amtrak more than enough to recover their costs for property taxes.

...Ken

Ken W2KB wrote: Air passenger and cargo service is deemed essential to the national defense. As is the air traffic control system which is a mix of civilian and military.

Trains are also, Ken, under the Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET) established by the Railroads for National Defense Program (RND).

Cowford wrote:But remember, railroads were subsidized through land grants, etc. when they started up, and air travel has prevailed not because of subsidies, but because of one thing: comparative transit time.

Land grants? Not all railroads received land grants and those that did were obligated to provide discount service to the government until the value of those grants had been paid-in-full.

Transit times over long distances do favor air travel, I'm not denying that, in fact I have taken advantage of it. But I do believe that rail passenger service does have (or had) a role to play in shorter distance travel except the economics became badly skewed. Forced to compete with modes that did not have to earn the full cost of providing their service, railroads were forced to compete by keeping fares unrealistically low. That meant they failed to earn enough in order to maintain the investment.

This is what the roads and the AAR were talking about in the 1950s. They used the huge profits from WWII to re-equip their passenger fleets, but where was the money coming from when that equipment needed replacing? From a freight service that was competing with truckers that were reducing their transit times and costs courtesy of the Interstate Highway system?

My point about Albany Airport not paying taxes? You stated the airport earns all of it's costs, both operating and capital. I was paraphrasing someone who once said about the New York Port Authority, 'It's easy to look good when you don't have to pay taxes.'

As for Amtrak, take a look at the subject line of this thread. Why RAILROADS lost passenger traffic. IMHO this isn't about Amtrak, it's about how we got to Amtrak.

I would love to see amtrak go the way of conrail. that would be a good one,but nobody could make a private MONEY MAKING business out of it. nuff said

....nobody could make a private MONEY MAKING business out of it...

Not now they couldn't, I agree.

But what if back in 1950 the City of Albany (and Schnectady, Utica, etc.) had bought the New York Central passenger stations and then charged Central the same kind of user fees Mohawk Airlines was paying? What if the State of New York had recognized the disadvantage they were creating for Central when they built the Thruway? Given the railroad compensation or changed the rules under which a privately-owned common carrier railroad operated, recognizing the Central was now dealing with a state-created competitor?

But they didn't. They told Central, Lehigh Valley, Erie, D&H et al you keep playing by the old rules. The new guys -- the airlines, the truckers, the bus operators -- they get new rules. They're basically partners with New York State.

WOW, I thought this thread would have died a while ago. I’m surprised it’s still going. So I’ll throw my thoughts into the mix just for the heck of it;

Yes indeed the “disruptions” of the Great Depression and WWII probably slowed the natural replacement of slower railroad travel by FASTER airplane travel.

Yes indeed some government policies FAVORED some transportation modes over others, this was probably NOT FAIR. But it happened and nothing can change it.

Could anybody make a profit operating Amtrak? I doubt it. My evidence, in 4 decades how many venture capitalists have come forward with any proposals to take Amtrak off the government’s hands? dozens? A couple? EVEN ONE? In the same 4 decades whole industries have been created; the PCs we are all using to post here, the container shipment of STUFF from China, FedEx, UPS, Green Energy, etc. Remember once Conrail was “fixed” by matching supply with demand (by painfully shedding lots of beloved but unnecessary rail lines) there were at least two suitors that wanted to buy that business!

So, in summary, technology advances, and there isn’t much we can do to stop it. Remember that the superior technology of railroads is what displaced the Erie Canal in New York State. So the Airplane did to the railroad what the railroad did to the canal, and life goes on.

Cheers, Kevin.

"So, in summary, technology advances, and there isn’t much we can do to stop it. Remember that the superior technology of railroads is what displaced the Erie Canal in New York State. So the Airplane did to the railroad what the railroad did to the canal, and life goes on."

Spot-on.

The advent of air/highway travel has been nothing short of revolutionary. The flexibility of the private auto and the speed of air have created NEW demand for travel to the extent that today's air-miles are more than six times that of rail passenger miles at their peak in WWII - before intercity auto was a considerable factor.

I would like to answer this last comment. I am sure I would not say anything new in defense of the railroads that was not mentioned in either this thread or others.

NYCRRson wrote: Yes indeed the “disruptions” of the Great Depression and WWII probably slowed the natural replacement of slower railroad travel by FASTER airplane travel.

As was mentioned many times, there wasn't anything natural about the replacement. Comparing just the speed of travel is somewhat misleading for travel under 1000 miles. Travel to and from the airports substantially increases the duration of the trip.

NYCRRson wrote: Yes indeed some government policies FAVORED some transportation modes over others, this was probably NOT FAIR. But it happened and nothing can change it.

Not just unfair but these policies caused both the road and air traffic gridlocks that are plaguing this country and costing us millions of dollars in delays. These policies have also contributed to the tremendous environment damage due to pollution. I agree that we can't change the past but we don't need to be repeating the same mistakes in the future.

NYCRRson wrote:Could anybody make a profit operating Amtrak? I doubt it. My evidence, in 4 decades how many venture capitalists have come forward with any proposals to take Amtrak off the government’s hands? dozens? A couple? EVEN ONE? In the same 4 decades whole industries have been created; the PCs we are all using to post here, the container shipment of STUFF from China, FedEx, UPS, Green Energy, etc. Remember once Conrail was “fixed” by matching supply with demand (by painfully shedding lots of beloved but unnecessary rail lines) there were at least two suitors that wanted to buy that business!

That is not a fair question. Imagine if the airlines after 9/11 were not bailed out by the government and were on the verge of the bankruptcy. Imagine if every airport and traffic control center had decades of deferred maintenance. And then imagine that the government combined all these airlines into one company called "Amflight" that was responsible for flying the planes, maintaining the planes but also maintaining and paying for the upkeep of airports and traffic control facilities. And the funding that government did give to Amflight would be barley adequate to avert the collapse. Do you think anyone from private sector would be interested?

NYCRRson wrote:
So, in summary, technology advances, and there isn’t much we can do to stop it. Remember that the superior technology of railroads is what displaced the Erie Canal in New York State. So the Airplane did to the railroad what the railroad did to the canal, and life goes on.

Cheers, Kevin.

Technology does advance and there is no need to stop it. In the case of the railroads, HSR is a new technology that can successfully compete with the planes in the short to medium distance travel. HSR can also offer tremendous environmental benefits as compared the air traffic. Had there been a level playing field between rail roads and air lines, HSR would probably be pretty strong in this country by now. And there would’ve not been a need for China to help with HSR development as could now be happening in California.

RDGTRANSMUSEUM wrote:I would love to see amtrak go the way of conrail. that would be a good one,but nobody could make a private MONEY MAKING business out of it. nuff said

It's never allowed any volume in any business unit, so it only gets fixed costs. The only volume they have is in the hopeless Northeast Corridor. Which has high terminal costs, and low ticket yield due to the short distances passengers travel. The books are "cooked" and expenses are send out west along a few token routes. This speads the costs of operation accross the country. Making the hopeless Northeast Corridor with thousands of 100 year old bridges and tunnels to maintain look great! Remember the mail business? That was done with NO volume, just fixed costs, and limited service that delayed trains. The "OLD" freight railroads were in this business for years. They didn't run it like this! The Post Office one of the biggest trucking companys in the world will need a bailout soon even with cut back services because of internet and thousands of empty intercity trucks running at the same times the trains ran. I'd like to see their fuel bills. I'd like to know how many people are being turned away where and from what intercity trains, because they are sold out. Going to the airport is like going to the dentist. X-ray machines that see everything! Security people putting their hands between your legs feeling you up! $3 gas. There's alots of business to get. "But old Reading Town is left out of it. Isn't it?" No volume=No Profits. Amtrak is a private for profit corporation. The stock is owned by CN-CP-BNSF- and Mr. Carl Lindner

Defiant wrote:Not just unfair but these policies caused both the road and air traffic gridlocks that are plaguing this country and costing us millions of dollars in delays. These policies have also contributed to the tremendous environment damage due to pollution. I agree that we can't change the past but we don't need to be repeating the same mistakes in the future.

Very interesting points, somebody gets it anyway!

Again, the original question was how the railroads lost passenger traffic, not, Can Amtrak become profitable.

Sticking with the original premise, I have to believe that it's really not possible to know what might have happened had government followed a more rational policy in regulating railroads. That's my argument. I'm not looking at Amtrak. The trouble started back in the 1930s and '40s. By 1957 or so it was all over.

Airlines don't compete on trips from say Utica to Syracuse but Greyhound manages to survive on those kinds of hauls. If the regulatory climate had been different New York Central/Penn Central might've survived too.

It's 1956. You live in Boston and have to travel to Pittsburgh, a medium-distance lane. The NH offers six departures per day that connect with PRR at Penn Station. Once on the train, it takes you 14-17 hours to arrive in Pittsburgh. Four of your six travel options arrive between midnight and 4am. (Back in 1932, it would have taken you about the same amount of time, with only one train offering through coaches/sleepers.)

Back to 1956... TWA offered 10 connecting flights a day in the same lane. Those flights took about 4-5 hours. Only two of the ten flights arrived between midnight and 6am. The round trip flight fare was $465 (in today's dollars), and (for you subsidy sleuths) was subject to a 10 percent tax. (Were rail fares taxed then??? I've no idea.)

Even assuming all the issues of unfairness are valid, it would be hard to understand why government policy WOULDN'T have favored air and highway travel. It offered such a productivity improvement over rail, promoting those new fangled travel options was in the nation's best interest. It should be noted, too, that the railroads were questioning the viability of passenger business and route networks in the 20s.

All travel had the 10% tax. It was imposed on all rail, air and bus tickets except low cost commutation tickets early in World War II and the initial rate was 15%. It was imposed to discourage unnecessary travel (and raise government revenue from that unnessary travel). It was subsequently reduced to 10%. When the travel tax was repealed in the early 1960s, some railroads - notably in the East - which had been squawking about the tax and the burden it put on potential travelers, raised their fares by the 10% that had just been repealed. So if you bought a $20. ticket before repeal you paid the fare plus the 10% tax or $22. After repeal with the 10% fare increase, you paid the railroad $22.

RDGTRANSMUSEUM wrote:I would love to see amtrak go the way of conrail. that would be a good one,but nobody could make a private MONEY MAKING business out of it. nuff said

The only way that would ever happen is if the Railroads were directly under Government Control like they are in Europe. I spend a lot of time in Eastern Europe and all modes of Transportation out side of Taxi and bus drivers are under State control everything gets equal funding. The Railroad is just that one State owned Railroad and thats it. The air ports are owned by the state the air lines pay landing fees and rent slips to dock there planes, the highways are owned and maintained by the state there free to use. Trains on the other hand are under direct control of the State and go to nearly every city, town and village and if there is no railroad going there then the State makes sure that other modes of transport are set in place to get people from A to B weather its a dedicated bus route, taxi, Trolley, boat, small plane, Subway connection,

and if you rilly want old school service believe it or not horse and wagon which I saw being used in a remote village in Romania of all places there was also an OX team being used to move small amounts of Cargo, mail, and baggage while I was there. The trip back to the train station was a small farm tractor pulling a hay wagon covered with a tarp with a few hay bails on it for seating. The fare was only a few dollars maybe $2 or $3 both ways if I remember correctly.

Ok, one more coal for the fire,

Yes HSR in an “improved” technology, but what if I DON’T want to travel where the HSR goes ?

What if I want to maximize my 5 days (120 hours) of vacation in a nice warm place like Florida?

My options today;

1) Go to the airport sometime in the morning, park the car, transfer my luggage (everybody’s got some) go through security, fly, retrieve my luggage, arrive in Florida, rent a car and go anyplace I want. Total time: 5-10 hours.

2) Go to the train station, park the car, etc. etc. Total time: 20-48 hours.

Option Two after we spend money we don’t have to implement HSR, Total time: 12-20 hours.

So after we spend lots of money we don’t have we are still wasting 20-40 hours (roundtrip) of my VALUABLE vacation time. That’s about 10%-40% + of my time.

The basic flaw in the HSR model is that you CAN ONLY GO WHERE THE TRACKS GO!! Yes you can get there faster than the “old low tech trains” but if you want to go someplace else you are out of luck!!!!

Oh and that whole “pollution” thing is a rotten chestnut. There is no such thing as manmade global warming, yes the exhaust from older cars had some bad stuff in it, but that has largely been fixed in modern cars, there’s that improved technology thing coming at you again. But that’s not a topic for this forum.

Cheers, Kevin.

NYCRRson wrote:Ok, one more coal for the fire,

Yes HSR in an “improved” technology, but what if I DON’T want to travel where the HSR goes ?

What if I want to maximize my 5 days (120 hours) of vacation in a nice warm place like Florida?

...

The basic flaw in the HSR model is that you CAN ONLY GO WHERE THE TRACKS GO!! Yes you can get there faster than the “old low tech trains” but if you want to go someplace else you are out of luck!!!!

If you want to go somewhere the train doesn't go, don't take the train - no one is forcing you into a roomette. Or, take the train for only part of your journey. The proponents of high-speed rail would leave airlines to do what they do best (longer-distance travel), and help rail better serve the medium-distance travel that eat up more fuel and are less profitable for airline companies, but are too drawn-out for buses and cars to be very competitive.

Say you do want to spend the maximum amount of time in Florida, and you're traveling from, say, Albany to Tampa. Your three choices are to drive (which would eat up half your time but is cheapest), take the train (which would also eat up half your time, is more expensive but would save you a hotel), and fly (which is rather expensive from a smaller market like Albany.) Still, you'll fly, or maybe you'll trade some time for a cheaper ticket and take Amtrak to New York. With true HSR as an option, you can board the train at Albany, take it to a New York City-area airport and fly to Tampa, saving you money and very possibly time. If Florida finishes its HSR, you might fly from New York to Orlando and save even more money with a short train ride on either end.

HSR isn't there to reduce travel options - quite the opposite.