But that's why they'll have an uphill battle trying to get it privatized, and why things remain this way. No one is prepared to shut it down without a Plan B in place, and no one will do a Plan B without guarantees. The real problem, if you want to look at it this way, is we force people to commute to an island that's too small and expensive to sustain those people. What we should do is shut down the cities, and disperse the population to other more commutable locations. Then you don't need railroads.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
But that's why they'll have an uphill battle trying to get it privatized, and why things remain this way. No one is prepared to shut it down without a Plan B in place, and no one will do a Plan B without guarantees. The real problem, if you want to look at it this way, is we force people to commute to an island that's too small and expensive to sustain those people. What we should do is shut down the cities, and disperse the population to other more commutable locations. Then you don't need railroads.
An interesting idea. A question not intended to be a smarta**: Do you also implement a system akin to airports and air traffic control to manage a common entry/exit point for passengers and ensure the trains run---and not into each other, on the finite track space?
Of course. Traffic control is an essential part of any transportation system infrastructure.
What's needed is common sense. High speed rail requires a certain combination of medium distance and high population density to be viable - like the Northeast Corridor and a few other rail hubs that have been identified. And it needs modern technology like those being used in Japan, China and the EU, plus grade separation and wide turns (unlike Frankford Junction). Funny how countries devastated by war, revolution and economic collapse can come back and build modern rail system but the country that claims to be exceptional can not. Of course, those other countries have universal health care, superior education and worker benefits, too. American exceptionalism means exceptionally bad.
Look on the bright side: Our military budget is larger than most of the places you've listed combined. 'Merica!
What's needed is common sense.
You're exactly right. Which is why nothing has been done.
Of course anyone who disagrees with you is doing so for political reasons with no facts to support them. Meanwhile, you keep comparing commuter rail service with long distance rail, which are two different animals. Amtrak isn't SEPTA or NJ Transit, which are services that are essential to their cities and a subsidy isn't out of hand.
Well, I shall try to write a bit more carefully.... I encourage you to also read a bit more carefully.
People who agree with me often do so for political reasons, people who disagree with me often do so political reasons. Some of my observations are rather objective, some of my observations are rather political. That's just life.
Yes, local transportation by rail has a different set of circumstances, rules and opportunities than does long distance interstate rail. BUT, I would try to convince you that they are co-dependent in the following ways: They need a strong industry of suppliers to make rails, signal systems, safety systems, ticket vending devices, and paid lobbyists. National intercity rail travel has a better chance at winning over customers if those customers tend to be users of local rail transit that is clean, useful, and convenient.
A trip from Philadelphia 30th Street to Penn Station in New York on New Jersey Transit is $15. On Amtrak it's anywhere between $54 and $100. Not any faster. Same tracks. No reserved seat. Train isn't a whole lot nicer. On average Amtrak STILL loses $5 on that trip.
Amtrak has a serious problem. It's not political to point that out.
I would suggest that it is political to point that out... the way you just did. I must confess that I have very little knowledge of all the tax and regulatory issues of the NYC/New Jersey locale, but I do know that successful localized transit requires a significant cluster of human beings contained in a relatively small geographical setting to prosper. You are not likely to find a successful rail system connecting Texarkana, TX and Texarkana AR. You are not likely to find a successful rail system connecting Louisville, KY and New Albany/Jeffersonville, IN.
A lifetime ago we found this new-fangled thing called electricity being wired through cities and even modestly-sized towns in America while the farmers and other rural dwellers sucked their thumbs and waited. So the nation invented the rural electric co-operatives and subsidized them with low interest loans. Today I live in an area where the old R.E.A. system (nobody calls them that anymore) just sat here and percolated for 70 years or so and the sprawl and affluence of Atlanta rolled over the area like a fog drifting in off the ocean, and today OUR R.E.A. gives the big-city electric companies something to dream and wish they could have.
I have a dream that our nation will realize that rural yokels need transportation also and we must find the political will to do the heavy lifting to make it work. Other nations around the world are taking a whack at it. Some of them will fail miserably. But if some of them find out how to make a nationwide network of passenger rail work, they may be the new "leaders of the world economy" while if we DON'T find out how to make a nationwide network of passenger rail work, my grandchildren may live to see the day they are standing around mumbling: "What the heck happened anyway?"
You can build a network of stores like Walmart without betting all wrapped up in political talk. You can created consumer products/services in the way Apple has and the way Amazon and Google are doing while keeping political talk at a minimum. But if you want to be in the petroleum pipeline business, the airline business or the PASSENGER RAIL BUSINESS you will sleep with the political process every night of your life to make it work.
So when we set about to cozy up to our computer terminals and decide to have a forum about rail transportation, how do we NOT come to the point of examining each other's political views to have that discussion?
Cowboy: There is/was a link between electrification and transportation, especially transportation in less densely populated areas. They were called Interurbans. Many were operated by electric companies, which - back then - had surplus generating capacity during the day and looked for ways to use that capacity. But the auto lobby pushed for road and highway infrastructure and then worked deliberately to kill off Interurbans and streetcars.
Cowboy: There is/was a link between electrification and transportation, especially transportation in less densely populated areas. They were called Interurbans. Many were operated by electric companies,
Yes, that is a part of history that many of today's middle age and younger citizens have no knowledge of.
When I was a child we would travel to Waco, TX which was home territory for my Mom and Dad and there was at that time still an Interurban running from Waco up to Dallas and I saw it lumbering down the trace.
Those of us who have lived in the Indianapolis area are aware that certain East-West roads have exotic names like Stop 10 Road, Stop 14 Road, etc.... named after the Interurban "stations" for the rail line connecting Indianapolis and Columbus IN in that era.
In my younger years there were all these stories about General Motors going around and buying up all the city bus systems and shutting them down so people would need cars. Those tales always have some of the characteristics of "classic folklore" and I have never come across documentation where you can say "GM bought this bus company for this much money on this date." but I find the concept that the auto industry lobbied for a national highway system to believable. (What little experience and knowledge I have came at the hands of an oil industry lobbyist.) The auto industry not only wanted roads so people would buy cars to drive on them.... eventually the auto industry needed roads to deliver their vehicles to dealers and to move parts and pieces from distant factories and vendors to their assembly plants.
One of the participants in this conversation has chided me a bit for being maybe too quick to tie political alliances and opinions to this topic of rail transportation but I feel you cannot have an intelligent conversation on transportation issues without discussing the politics of transportation.
You can go into business making candy bars to compete with Hershey and Mars without getting completely entangled in politics. You can go into business growing fields of radishes to sell to grocery stores and not have any more political activity in your industry than a lot of other enterprises. You can become a crop-duster pilot and not be any more politically entangled than most other citizens. But because of right-of-way issues, because of the need to not have the market place split too thinly without getting wrapped up in anti-trust issues, and because of the need to have consistent standards on signal systems, rail size and strength, and probably the need for some forms of subsidy until the day Gabriel blows his trumpet for the final time, the issue of how we do passenger transportation in this country can never be discussed intelligently without the inclusion of all the political views. Without some agreements on the politics, all you can ever have is a pipe-dream with no wheels.
Last edited:
Cowboy, as I recall Hershey and Mars got very involved in politics over sugar tariffs. Corporate types say they don't like regulation but they keep trying to get regulations that will rig the game in their favor.
The Interstate Highway System was passed under Ike and sold as a defense measure - we needed highways to move stuff in the event of war (railroads for some reason wouldn't do). Ike's secretary of defense was the former CEO of General Motors ("what's good for General Motors is good for America"). His postmaster general was the largest Chevy dealer in Michigan.
GM, Firestone and a few others did not buy up all the bus companies and shut them down. They did get control of transit systems in several major cities and then get rid of electric trolleys and interurbans in favor of buses. It is pretty well documented. GM made buses. Firestone made tires for buses.
The Interstate Highway System was passed under Ike and sold as a defense measure - we needed highways to move stuff in the event of war (railroads for some reason wouldn't do). Ike's secretary of defense was the former CEO of General Motors ("what's good for General Motors is good for America"). His postmaster general was the largest Chevy dealer in Michigan.
GM, Firestone and a few others did not buy up all the bus companies and shut them down. They did get control of transit systems in several major cities and then get rid of electric trolleys and interurbans in favor of buses. It is pretty well documented. GM made buses. Firestone made tires for buses.
I guess it would be appropriate if we took a look at this topic and figured out at this point what we might do to bring radio into focus as it relates to this event.
And since one of the aspects of our discussion of rail travel is the FUTURE of the travel mode, what does our logic (and lack there-of) say to us about the future of radio.
We seem to be in an era where those who hold a philosophy that radio is simply a vehicle for audio content that makes the most money, we could just wash our hands and say that radio has no connection or obligation to the railroad wreck event. Some stations will report about it. Others simply continue (as we said in the old days) grinding records.... like a guy in a machine shop grinding valves to fit in your car engine.
If we conclude that the railroad industry has some obligation to seek a safer way to haul human bodies around, can we with integrity say radio has NO OBLIGATION when it comes to helping the voting public understand this event and this industry that hauls people around? Are we comfortable saying that the railroad industry has an obligation to provide SAFE travel, the automobile industry has an obligation to provide SAFE travel, but radio has no obligation to provide conversation that will help the voting public understand the transactions this train wreck leaves scattered on the right-of-way?
And since one of the aspects of our discussion of rail travel is the FUTURE of the travel mode, what does our logic (and lack there-of) say to us about the future of radio.
We seem to be in an era where those who hold a philosophy that radio is simply a vehicle for audio content that makes the most money, we could just wash our hands and say that radio has no connection or obligation to the railroad wreck event. Some stations will report about it. Others simply continue (as we said in the old days) grinding records.... like a guy in a machine shop grinding valves to fit in your car engine.
If we conclude that the railroad industry has some obligation to seek a safer way to haul human bodies around, can we with integrity say radio has NO OBLIGATION when it comes to helping the voting public understand this event and this industry that hauls people around? Are we comfortable saying that the railroad industry has an obligation to provide SAFE travel, the automobile industry has an obligation to provide SAFE travel, but radio has no obligation to provide conversation that will help the voting public understand the transactions this train wreck leaves scattered on the right-of-way?
Safety is an essential obligation of any transportation system but one not always provided. There's a long history of compromises on safety issues to save a few bucks.
"Helping people understand" rail safety is not an essential obligation. Radio is not the only means to get information about such issues (nor arguably even the best means). The information is available from numerous sources. And many people are not interested. If radio attempts to force this information on them, they turn off or tune out. Add to that, "helping people understand" is largely a matter of interpretation and opinion. Some people don't want Fox's help in understanding; others don't want NPR's help. And there will be little similarity in the "understanding" the two provide.
"Helping people understand" rail safety is not an essential obligation. Radio is not the only means to get information about such issues (nor arguably even the best means). The information is available from numerous sources. And many people are not interested. If radio attempts to force this information on them, they turn off or tune out. Add to that, "helping people understand" is largely a matter of interpretation and opinion. Some people don't want Fox's help in understanding; others don't want NPR's help. And there will be little similarity in the "understanding" the two provide.
Of course. Traffic control is an essential part of any transportation system infrastructure.
What's needed is common sense. High speed rail requires a certain combination of medium distance and high population density to be viable - like the Northeast Corridor and a few other rail hubs that have been identified. And it needs modern technology like those being used in Japan, China and the EU, plus grade separation and wide turns (unlike Frankford Junction). Funny how countries devastated by war, revolution and economic collapse can come back and build modern rail system but the country that claims to be exceptional can not. Of course, those other countries have universal health care, superior education and worker benefits, too. American exceptionalism means exceptionally bad.
You know if Amtrak only had to do the Northeast Corridor and de-unionized the employees, they'd probably be able to do everything you want them to do? When the guy that serves up the microwave $15 hamburgers makes $100k with full pension after 20 years, it's hard to build new tracks.
Oh sure. Blame unions. Always blame unions. And make up some numbers when you do it.
Oh sure. Blame unions. Always blame unions. And make up some numbers when you do it.
Their employees are overpaid and the pensions are destroying the company. The fact that you can't see that isn't my fault.
Who defines overpaid? Based on what standard? And is there a shred of evidence someone who worked in the cafe car made $100K?
Overpaid? A lead Amtrak Service Attendant gets $22.67 an hour. Amtrak offers a 401K plan to which it does NOT contribute.
Apparently what others get is too much. What you get is too little.
Apparently what others get is too much. What you get is too little.
Who defines overpaid? Based on what standard? And is there a shred of evidence someone who worked in the cafe car made $100K?
They lose money. That's a pretty good standard.
Overpaid? A lead Amtrak Service Attendant gets $22.67 an hour. Amtrak offers a 401K plan to which it does NOT contribute.
Apparently what others get is too much. What you get is too little.
So the guy who serves up the microwave burgers makes $45k a year. Still too much for a company that loses money.
So the guy who serves up the microwave burgers makes $45k a year. Still too much for a company that loses money.
That's not your call.
However, having said that, there are a lot of DJs and talk hosts in this country who make more than that, and some work for publicly traded companies that are operating at a loss. Should they all get fired?
Profit or loss is mostly the result of the decisions of management. Now you want to make workers take a hit when suits are stupid. Of course, when suits get lucky, that money does not go to workers.
That's not your call.
However, having said that, there are a lot of DJs and talk hosts in this country who make more than that, and some work for publicly traded companies that are operating at a loss. Should they all get fired?
I'm a taxpayer and an Amtrak customer. Shouldn't I have a say?
Those radio companies aren't supported by taxpayer dollars. And a lot of jocks did get fired in order to try to balance the books. This board is full of them. That's not a valid comparison.
I'm a taxpayer and an Amtrak customer. Shouldn't I have a say?
No. That's not the way the system works. Taxpayers don't vote on the salaries of anyone, including the Congressmen. Heck, I'm a stockholder of a dozen major companies, and I don't vote on the salaries of anyone. You can complain about it, but nobody will listen.
Those radio companies aren't supported by taxpayer dollars.
Even if they were, you'd have no say in employee's salaries.
Last edited:
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.