Since so many people seem convinced that the Government should either take over some of our Corporations, or should avoid doing so, I thought I would bring up the grand-daddy of Government Sponsored bailouts:  AMTRAK

By the 1960's, passenger rail in this country was in serious trouble.  And the problem was three-fold:

1.  Air travel was faster, and cars were more convienent.
2.  Freight travel for short distances was replaced by trucks.
3.  Train mail service was discontinued.

And in addition, Air and Truck travel was subsidized.  Trains were at an additional disadvantage because they owned their rails.  They had to pay taxes on the land they rested on, and had to pay for maintenance.  Something that the truck and airlines did not have to pay for.

By 1971, the curtain closed on private passenger rail in the US.  In order to keep thousands of (union) jobs, President Nixon formed AMTRAK, formally known as the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.  But unlike most corporations, the stock is 100% owned by the US Government, and the board of directors is appointed by the President.

Originally, the company was to last for no more then 2 years.  By then they would divest themselves of excess lines and equipment, and come back as a private company.  But obviously that has never happened.  38 years later, it still runs in the red.  And it has no idea why that is.

This may come as a shock, but the Government is horrible at business.  And anybody that looks at AMTRAK (or has ridden it) knows what I mean.  Prices are most of the time higher then that of an airline ticket.  And often times, it is as slow as a car.  I can drive from EL Paso to Los Angeles in around 14 hours.  The fuel cost is around $100-120. 

I can fly there in around 5 hours (1 stop at Phoenix).  The cost for this is around $225.

By train, it is a 16 hour journey, costing $195.

If you want to travel long distances, it gets even worse.  They still have their "rail passes", but they are outrageous.  A 15 day pass is $389.  And this is only good for 8 segments.  And since each time you change trains (or drop from train to bus or bus to train) it counts as a segment, most long-distance trips count as 3-5 segments each way.  And if you look it is not that hard to find cheaper airline fares then this.

While most of the world enjoys "High Speed Trains", our antiquated system of laws and rules prevent their use here in the US.  Most of our trains travel at under 70 miles an hour (and by law, 79 is the top speed).  They are slow because even cars travel legally at higher speeds then that!  The average speed between El Paso and LA is 75 MPH (with vehicles often traveling 85).

For those that believe in being "green", it is time to force this to change.  Something has to be done, and done soon.  And here are some of my thoughts on the subject:

1.  High Speed Rail.  Force through the proposals for "Bullet Trains".  If a train can travel the 393-mile journey from London to Edinburgh four and a half hours, why does it take AMTRAK 7 hours to travel the 340 miles from New York to Charlottesville?  This is a waste of fuel, a waste of resources, and prevents ridership from being higher.

Most of the blocks in place for Bullet Trains are ironically from Environmental groups.  If they really care about the environment, they would lift these blocks, and let things proceed.  Not only will it tempt more people to use the train, a lot of them are electric, which would remove hundreds of diesel burners from the fleet.

2.  Put reasonable priced in place for the rail passes.  And either increase the number of "segments" allowed, change how they are counted, or remove them all together.  Start a PR campaign at the colleges, make rail traffic "shiek" again.  Promote the image of bohemian travel during spring break to college kids, and you will likely gain adult riders in the future.

3.  Since the Government owns the train system, stop flying government employees at Government expense.  Unless the flight is time sensitive, require them to take the train when possible.  Flying government employees makes as much sense as giving the president of Ford a Caddilac to drive.

4.  Give incentives to Corporations and State-Local Governments for having their employees travel by rail instead of flying.

5.  Reopen routes.  There are huge gaps in the rail system because of route closure.  The Pioneer from Seattle to Chicago closed 12 years ago, ending travel in all of the North-West.  While the lines destroyed by Katrina have been fixed, AMTRAK has no reopened service there yet.  This forces travelers from California to Florida to get off in Texas, and take a bus through Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.  They do not get on the train again until they are in Florida.  Not only is this wastefull, for the purpose of a pass, this counts as 3 segments.

6.  Advertise, advertise, advertise.  One reason most people do not take the train is because most do not even think about it.  But even when they do, most decide not to because it is to expensive, slow, or does not go where they want to go.  Trains are unique, because they are the most efficient way to move huge numbers of goods and people.  As you get more people, lower the prices.  Offer group discounts.  On holidays offer discounted fares.  Encourage people to take the train instead of driving.  Even offer special events on the train.

I took the train many times in my life.  The first was in 1969, from LA to San Francisco (Pre-AMTRAK).  When I was stationed at Camp Pendleton (1983), I took it every weekend from Oceanside to LA.  It was fairly cheap, left every few hours, and was fun.  I took it again in 1988 when I returned from Japan.  I paid for a ticket from San Diego to LA, and I remember it was quite expensive, around $75 I think.  Once on the train I discovered it was one that would travel within a mile of my house.  I tried to upgrade my ticket (an extra 20 miles), only to be told the fare would be almost double.  That was outrageous, so I just stayed on and avoided the conductor.  I was not paying around $50 to go 20 miles, a Taxi would have charged me less.

My son took the train from LA to El Paso last Thanksgiving to spend with us.  It was more expensive then a flight, and was horribly slow.  He told us about 3 hour stops in the middle of nowhere for no reason.  Super-expensive food in the dining car.  And even the smoking car is a thing of the past.

If there is one thing that would encourage some people to take the train, it would be the restoration of the "Smoking Car".  I am sure there are thousands of smokers that would gladly take longer if only they could smoke during their travel.

And think about this.  Every year since 1971, AMTRAK has run in the red.  Does anybody think that would change for any other Government takeover?

...and with all this, I love traveling by Amtrak. 

We take at least 2 trips a year, Florida in February, and Virginia Beach in August,  and couple of trips to Old Orchard Beach on the DownEaster.  We have taken it to California and Chicago, and plan on doing it again.  We pay up to go business class, or get a sleeper for the overnight trips.  We do it because, for us, it is a stress free trip.  Airports and airplanes suck.  Amtrak has proven reliable.  They don't lie to you about departure/arrival delays, if there is a problem you know why. No one drives so everyone gets to look out of the window, you can get up and stretch a bit.  They provide Wifi, and each seat has outlets for all your plug ins.  We have never had a problem with the toilets, and we bring our own snacks.  On the overnight trips we get the sleeper which is always clean and comfortable, and on overnight trips in a sleeper they give you your meals, though not high cuisine, they are good enough.  The waiters and porters are always very helpful.

The main problem of speed/or lack of speed within the system arises from the fact that Amtrak doesn't own the rails it rides on.  The rails are owned in sections by various freight haulers and who are able at any time to side track Amtrak in favor of their own carriers.  This is a major problem with the institution of high speed continental rail road. 

Put this guy in charge of the railways :)

...you do realize, though, that you'd have huge arguments from the air lobby, 'cause they're the ones with most to lose?

As a Brit, I found it marvellously ironic that anyone would use UK trains as an exemplar of "high-speed" rail travel - continental Europe (especially France - they love their trains there) do the high-speed stuff so much better, and the Japanese even more so.

Unfortunately every high speed rail proposal that I have seen is either (a) a Government entity that wants to biuld and run it or (b) a private company that wants to do it as long as Uncle Sam gives them about $5 billion.

The worst of these proposals is "Maglev" which despite all of its hoopla has never been commercially successful anywhere in the world(translated: they have all proven to be money losing ventures).  And for all the German technology in Maglev, there are no Maglev operations in Germany other than the manufacturer's test track.

1.  High Speed Rail.  Force through the proposals for "Bullet Trains".  If a train can travel the 393-mile journey from London to Edinburgh four and a half hours, why does it take AMTRAK 7 hours to travel the 340 miles from New York to Charlottesville?  This is a waste of fuel, a waste of resources, and prevents ridership from being higher.

Uh, because you have to stop and pick up other passengers and luggage or let off passengers and luggage?  It took us about 40 hours to travel from Chicago to LA, with two long stops, and lots of shorter stops to let people off, change crew, etc.  Amtrak also goes about 90MPH when you're out on the Plains and in the Mojave Desert.

2.  Put reasonable priced in place for the rail passes.  And either increase the number of "segments" allowed, change how they are counted, or remove them all together.  Start a PR campaign at the colleges, make rail traffic "shiek" again.  Promote the image of bohemian travel during spring break to college kids, and you will likely gain adult riders in the future.

I paid about $700 for mine and Jason's trip across the country.  That included a HUGE private room, free meals, and our own private bathrooms.  If I would have opted for coach, it would have been about $300.  When I took the train from Chicago to Ann Arbor, MI, it cost me $74 and four hours.  So it is not entirely unreasonable already.

3.  Since the Government owns the train system, stop flying government employees at Government expense.  Unless the flight is time sensitive, require them to take the train when possible.  Flying government employees makes as much sense as giving the president of Ford a Caddilac to drive.

4.  Give incentives to Corporations and State-Local Governments for having their employees travel by rail instead of flying.

I agree with this.

5.  Reopen routes.  There are huge gaps in the rail system because of route closure.  The Pioneer from Seattle to Chicago closed 12 years ago, ending travel in all of the North-West.  While the lines destroyed by Katrina have been fixed, AMTRAK has no reopened service there yet.  This forces travelers from California to Florida to get off in Texas, and take a bus through Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.  They do not get on the train again until they are in Florida.  Not only is this wastefull, for the purpose of a pass, this counts as 3 segments.

The route from LA to New Orleans is open again, but yeah, I don't see anything to take you directly from LA to Florida.  However, there is a route from Seattle to Chicago.  It is called the "Empire Builder".

6.  Advertise, advertise, advertise.  One reason most people do not take the train is because most do not even think about it.  But even when they do, most decide not to because it is to expensive, slow, or does not go where they want to go.  Trains are unique, because they are the most efficient way to move huge numbers of goods and people.  As you get more people, lower the prices.  Offer group discounts.  On holidays offer discounted fares.  Encourage people to take the train instead of driving.  Even offer special events on the train.

I'm starting to see more and more advertisements for Amtrak, which is a good thing.

My son took the train from LA to El Paso last Thanksgiving to spend with us.  It was more expensive then a flight, and was horribly slow.  He told us about 3 hour stops in the middle of nowhere for no reason.  Super-expensive food in the dining car.  And even the smoking car is a thing of the past.

The reason it was expensive is bolded.  It is always going to be more during the holidays.  Same thing happens in airports.  The food in the dining car is about as much as any mid-scale restaurant and really good, actually.  But if it wasn't in his budget, why didn't he go to the club car and get cheaper stuff?  And I'm sorry, but I'm GLAD there isn't any smoking cars.  I can't stand the smell of it, and it does linger, even if you are in another car and then come back through to your seat.

I would travel by train all the time, but unfortunately, they do not allow pets, so we take a lot of road trips because I refuse to fly.

Uh, because you have to stop and pick up other passengers and luggage or let off passengers and luggage?  It took us about 40 hours to travel from Chicago to LA, with two long stops, and lots of shorter stops to let people off, change crew, etc.  Amtrak also goes about 90MPH when you're out on the Plains and in the Mojave Desert.


Errr, nope.  The limit is 79 tops.  The one from Chicago-LA is one of 2 exceptions in the country.  The other is in the NE.  And this is all because of an outdated law from the 1930's:

Another major reason for the slowness is that advancement in the speed of intercity rail service, begun as early as the 1930's, were significantly set back by a 1940s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rule which required enhanced safety features for all trains traveling above a 79mph limit. Since the infrastructure required for cab signaling, automatic train stop and other enhancements was considered uneconomical in the sparsely-populated American West at that time, this rule effectively killed further development of high speed rail outside of the Northeast, where the Pennsylvania Railroad and others had installed cab signaling beginning in the 1930s. No other English-speaking country adopted this rule, and while the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia all operate trains at 100mph (160 km/h) or higher using conventional lineside signaling, few trains in the United States operate above 79 miles per hour (127 km/h) outside of the Northeast Corridor. One notable exception is the Southwest Chief, which travels up to 90 miles per hour (140 km/h) along various stretches of its Chicago—Los Angeles route.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMTRAK


The route from LA to New Orleans is open again, but yeah, I don't see anything to take you directly from LA to Florida.  However, there is a route from Seattle to Chicago.  It is called the "Empire Builder".


I forgot about that line.  I was thinking of the old Pioneer, which ran through Boise.  That one is gone and the station is abandoned again.


The reason it was expensive is bolded.  It is always going to be more during the holidays.  Same thing happens in airports. 

Actually, we bought the ticket over a month in advance.  And the return was over a week earlier.  The price was no higher then it is the rest of the year.


Unfortunately every high speed rail proposal that I have seen is either (a) a Government entity that wants to biuld and run it or (b) a private company that wants to do it as long as Uncle Sam gives them about $5 billion.


Well, AMTRAK is already a Government Entity.  And I would rather see money thrown into something that has long-term benefit to the infrastructure then into a black hole, like investigating pig stink or butterfly mating rituals.

And I agree with MAGLEV.  Stick to proven technology with our money.


Put this guy in charge of the railways :)

...you do realize, though, that you'd have huge arguments from the air lobby, 'cause they're the ones with most to lose?


They already get huge subsidies.  If they don't like it, then just take them away.  8)

After all, they have to realize that they are basically competing with the US Government.  And is it to much to ask to allow them to share a faction of their business?  After all, nobody is going to take a train to Europe or Asia, so that is all theirs.

The Interstates are a government program.  The Interstate system, completed in the 1960s, also damaged passenger rail travel.  The airlines were also heavily subsidized and regulated by the U.S. government.

What you say about the high prices and sluggish speeds of the Amtrak is certainly true.  I think it represents willful self-sabotage on the part of the government.  Remember, they were into subsidizing the airlines and the highways.  The U.S. chose not to develop modern railway systems in favor of other modes of transportation.  The de facto philosophy is:  The more fossil fuels you can burn per passenger, the better!

I don't like driving in New York City, but I don't take the train or the bus when I go visit my brother in Brooklyn.  Both the bus and the train are a great deal more expensive and time consuming.  Even driving to New Haven and taking the train from there was a bigger hassle than it was worth.  So I just drive in.  Parking is easy in Park Slope, not like in Manhattan. 

Of course, I know plenty of people who live in NYC and take the bus or the train out.  Then it makes sense to pay the ticket prices because owning a car in NYC is a nuisance and costs a fortune.  Heck, I know one guy who teaches college up here, but he needs to live in NYC because he's a filmmaker, so he uses the Zip Car program, basically renting a different car every week.  It's still cheaper than insuring/garaging a car in Tribeca. 

One passenger train stops in Amherst in the afternoon, and Amtrak is eliminating it this year. 
::)

I don't have a problem with socializing AMTRAK.  Then again, I don't have a problem with socializing medicine or banking either.

I don't have a problem with socializing AMTRAK.  Then again, I don't have a problem with socializing medicine or banking either.


Why are private corporations more efficient than government programs?
Because, in America, we let the government bail them out when they f**k up.
I don't mean just the pornographic examples of AIG, GM, and the like that we've seen in past year, but just as a general practice.

One has to ask just how "private" these institutions ever were in the first place.
::)

Why are private corporations more efficient than government programs?
Because, in America, we let the government bail them out when they f**k up.
I don't mean just the pornographic examples of AIG, GM, and the like that we've seen in past year, but just as a general practice.


I believe they are more efficient because they are essentially living entities.

To be successful in the Darwinian sense, a being has to produce a profit.  For most creatures, that is offspring.  For humans, it means either productive work, and/or offspring.  To put it simple, people are paid because they give something of value.  They are rewarded for this in currency.  Without this currency in the modern world, most people would die without money.  The same with corporations.

Instead of parents though, a corporation has investors.  And instead of decendents, the return is more money if successfull.  If the corporation is not successfull, it fails.  And a corporation has to be successful, because there are other corporations trying to get it's own investors.

Governments on the other hand do not have to be "profitable".  If GM was run like our Government, the President and Congress would all be in jail for gross crimes.  Compared to our debt (which will likely never be paid off), GM, AIG, and all the others combined are not even a drop in the bucket.

Governments do worse when they do things that should be done by private enterprise because they have no interest in making a profit.  Instead of a "money making" entity, they become a self-serving job making enterprise.  And because it is not answerable to it's investors, corruption often becomes rampant.

Just look at the First and Second Bank of the United States.  This is something that is now done by private enterprise.  And it is much more efficient then it was when the Government ran it.  When the Government tried to run it, on multiple occasions it almost ruined the economy of this country, and was constantly on the verge of failure.  Under free enterprise, if one (or several) banks fail, it will not collapse our economy.

Do I believe in government takeover?  No.  Do I believe in Government bailouts for corporations?  Only under very strict guidelines.  The Corporation must sign over it's assets, and show a set improvement within a set period of time, or be dissolved.  It must pay back the money, with interest.  And I do not think this should be done to keep the corporations alive.  I do not care if they live or die, only that this will impact the workers, and those jobs should be preserved if reasonable.

I could go on forever about why I believe GM failed.  And I believe that it can be returned to profitability.  But a lot of people would hate what I think is nessicary in order to make it so.

I believe they are more efficient because they are essentially living entities.
They were granted the bogus status of persons under our Constitution, which was, in fact, a clerical error.  A corporation has no innate "life."  It is a legal device chartered by the state.

To be successful in the Darwinian sense, a being has to produce a profit.
"Profit" is an economic concept invented by post-agriarian man, otherwise it has no connection to Darwin's theories.

  For most creatures, that is offspring.  For humans, it means either productive work, and/or offspring.  To put it simple, people are paid because they give something of value.  They are rewarded for this in currency.  Without this currency in the modern world, most people would die without money.  The same with corporations.
We had money for thousands of years before corporations.  Corporate profits are a new artifice devised in the last 300 years.  Again, the biological analogy is inept.  There is nothing about corporations and corporate profits essential to the experience of being a human being, and where such essence is concocted and imposed, it's results have invariably negative.

Instead of parents though, a corporation has investors.  And instead of decendents, the return is more money if successfull.  If the corporation is not successfull, it fails.  And a corporation has to be successful, because there are other corporations trying to get it's own investors.
Once again, I am not seeing any analogy of a human family with parents and children and a corporation.  The idea of a corporation was limited liability for investors to achieve a specific goal.  Where we got into trouble is allowing the chartered corporation to go on forever and allow it to accumulate so much money power it can influence the political system.  Perfidy is honored in corporations today where it was reviled in all other institutions created by man.

Governments on the other hand do not have to be "profitable".  If GM was run like our Government, the President and Congress would all be in jail for gross crimes.  Compared to our debt (which will likely never be paid off), GM, AIG, and all the others combined are not even a drop in the bucket.
It did not cross the minds of our Founding Fathers that governments state and federal would be held hostage to the demands of chartered corporations as we know corporations today.  The United States does not like to call itself an empire, but it is.  Crushing debt has been the ruin of all Western empires that came before us.  If we operated as a true republic, we might not have the imperial debt.  On the other hand, we might not have that top 0.10% of the population owning Matterhorns of the country's wealth.

Governments do worse when they do things that should be done by private enterprise because they have no interest in making a profit.  Instead of a "money making" entity, they become a self-serving job making enterprise.  And because it is not answerable to it's investors, corruption often becomes rampant.
This phenomenon gains hegemony when corporate interests dominate every interest for which the people might petition their government.  For instance, 2/3+ of the people of the United States want single payer healtchare.  They are not going to get it because the insurance companies, the AMA, big Pharama OWN enough politicians via financial campaign support that the politicians do not need to pay heed to the interest of their human constituents.  So, the government is indeed answerable to its investors when we talk in terms MONEY not VOTES.

I believe they are more efficient because they are essentially living entities.

I've had this argument a few times with respect to nationalized/privatized efficiencies.  The way I see is that by and large businesses are more efficiently run because the ones that aren't die off: there is nothing inherently more efficient in privately-run institutions, but in the cut-and-thrust (OK, "Darwinian", if you like) of business, inefficient ones go broke and what you're left with, on average, is the better, more efficient ones.

Where the Darwinian analogy falls down, however, is that these efficiencies are not "genetic": they are more to do with the people managing things/working than any inherent efficiency in the system itself.  After all, if that were the case, companies like GM wouldn't be in trouble, would they?  So selling off an inefficient nationalized industry doesn't guarantee an increase in efficiency - quite the opposite in some cases, as extra management (& legal teams) ends up being needed.

But the main cause of perceived efficiency in the private sector, that inefficient companies go bust leaving only the good ones as a comparison, can't be allowed to happen to some of the biggest companies/banks/privately-run hospitals... where there is a political need for an entity not to fail (be it a national rail network or a bank), you end up with the worst of both worlds; and in addition, successful, money-making businesses get sold off, and the taxpayer ends up with the ones incapable of standing on their own.. thus reinforcing the idea that the taxpayer can't run businesses.

The Interstates are a government program.  The Interstate system, completed in the 1960s, also damaged passenger rail travel.  The airlines were also heavily subsidized and regulated by the U.S. government.

What you say about the high prices and sluggish speeds of the Amtrak is certainly true.  I think it represents willful self-sabotage on the part of the government.  Remember, they were into subsidizing the airlines and the highways.  The U.S. chose not to develop modern railway systems in favor of other modes of transportation.  The de facto philosophy is:  The more fossil fuels you can burn per passenger, the better!

I don't like driving in New York City, but I don't take the train or the bus when I go visit my brother in Brooklyn.  Both the bus and the train are a great deal more expensive and time consuming.  Even driving to New Haven and taking the train from there was a bigger hassle than it was worth.  So I just drive in.  Parking is easy in Park Slope, not like in Manhattan. 

Of course, I know plenty of people who live in NYC and take the bus or the train out.  Then it makes sense to pay the ticket prices because owning a car in NYC is a nuisance and costs a fortune.  Heck, I know one guy who teaches college up here, but he needs to live in NYC because he's a filmmaker, so he uses the Zip Car program, basically renting a different car every week.  It's still cheaper than insuring/garaging a car in Tribeca. 

One passenger train stops in Amherst in the afternoon, and Amtrak is eliminating it this year. 
::)



I agree. The gov put more $$$$$ into the airlines and they let Amtrak fall to the wayside which is a shame. However, I believe with the cost of gas going up last year, ridership on Amtrak was up. There is a stop in our little town but we can't ride the rails to a big city like Tulsa. Go figure. I would really love to see more $$$$ go into rails. Hopefully, they will see that it is worth it. 



Cat

Why are private corporations more efficient than government programs?
Because, in America, we let the government bail them out when they f**k up.
I don't mean just the pornographic examples of AIG, GM, and the like that we've seen in past year, but just as a general practice.

One has to ask just how "private" these institutions ever were in the first place.
::)


Very true...

They were granted the bogus status of persons under our Constitution, which was, in fact, a clerical error.  A corporation has no innate "life."  It is a legal device chartered by the state.
"Profit" is an economic concept invented by post-agriarian man, otherwise it has no connection to Darwin's theories.


It actually existed already in English law.  And in many other European nations.  In fact, the oldest corporation still in existance was chartered in Sweden in 1347.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,870230,00.html

And when looking at Darwin's theories, there is "profit".  In biological senses, they are children and successive generations.  And in agrarian societies, they were a necessity for survival.  In modern corporations, they are returning profits back to investors.

And the idea is naturally a more modern concept.  In most agrarian societies, trade was largely by barter.  Banking was hiding your money (if you had any) in a hole in the floor, and if you did not have the money, you did not get something.  Everybody that puts money in the bank to draw interest is making a profit, returns from a percentage of what the bank loaned out to others.

And the vast majority of "corporations" are small mom and pop type operations.  They normally incorporate for tax reasons, to preserve assets for their children, or to help offset liability.  Odds are your local 7-11, laundramat, doctors office, and flea market are all corporations.