Re: (erielack) Re: commuter railroads

[ELRRco_@_aol.com]

Dear All,
 
If the Erie Lackawanna and others either received a subsidy or been placed  
on a level playing field with tax abatements or another "carrot" to compensate  
for the massive investment and support of commuter and passenger rail  
competitors, then yes, they would have been a very force in the nation's  
transportation system.
 
Rail gets the short end of the stick money-wise at the government level  
because it does very little politically for those who do appropriations  
(Congress, State Legislatures, etc.), and can also generate trouble with  NIMBY/BNANAs 
that can be avoided. Its much easier to strike a chord in a voter's  mind when 
he is driving to work over an expansive highway to vote for  Senator Big 
Spender on Tuesday, than it is for the idea to pop into  that same voter's mind 
while reading the Wall Street Journal in a Comet I coach  passing through the 
Meadowlands.
 
But that all is beside the point that railroads could have done and do more  
to support passenger and commuter services rather than simply complaining 
about  how unjust the government financing of the Interstates and other highways  
was--and is. The issue goes back to the pre-Interstate Commerce Act times, 
when  railroads had just as powerful a lobby as firms like ExxonMobil do today. 
Having  a strong lobby permitted them to grow and for the most part thrive 
without too  much meddling. However, remember that railroads welcomed the ICC and 
its  rate-setting powers because they felt it would end the ruinous 
competition that  resulted from having multiple participants in most markets of 
consequence and  the collapse of the rate pools that would appear from time-to-time. 
With this  thought, the industry quickly became fat and sassy not only with 
operating  styles and customer service, but also with lobbying efforts--meaning 
that it was  easy for state governments and the Federal Government to support 
and protect the  "infant industries" of trucking and air carriers, both of 
which helped directly  and indirectly siphon off passengers and produce some of 
the problems for  passenger and commuter train services.
 
Would a strong rail lobby permitted New Jersey's well-known tax policy of  
the bygone era that made important rail assets such as the Hoboken Terminal, and 
 the Erie Lackawanna's lines in the state subject to taxes unheard of 
anywhere  else? The correct answer is a resounding NO, and if one questions that, you 
can  tell by the present day efforts in many NJ communities to continue 
property tax  reassessments which soak homeowners and only happen because of a very 
weak  'lobby' among voters who could prevent this.
 
Many railroads also did not make much of an effort to provide high levels  of 
flexible and innovative service on the passenger and commuter services,  that 
would be aimed at not only eating into the competitor's markets, but  
eviscerating their market share. After all, what does it matter if the airport,  
interstate, or other limited-access highway is funded by the state if the  
truckers, airlines, and bus companies are out of business--and the  automobile is a a 
relatively niche product? This is a tried-and-true  business concept that 
happened in pre-ICC days, and happens in any new industry.  While you might argue 
that railroading was a mature business by the time things  became dire for 
passenger and commuter trains, the industry should have reverted  to greater 
investments in all aspects of the service, but also find every means  of 
adjusting each aspect of the service with the idea of becoming #1 or #2 in  each 
market served--and making the service of such a high level, that profitable  rates 
will be maintained. Yes, its difficult for organizations to justify this  to 
shareholders, but the good ones like Microsoft and Google will do it, and the  
results will be borne out in the returns generated, corresponding share price  
increases, and longevity of the firms.
 
And finally, It is very difficult for me to understand that why we are  
lovers of railroads (and in some cases leaders of them) would want to wait for  
governmental support of our favored mode of transportation in the first place. I  
for one do not believe that whether we have a train that goes to point X 
should  only happen if we can convince the staff of Senator Big Spender that its a 
 politically viable option for him to support a study of it, and maybe years 
from  now, serious consideration. Strong, private, innovative, and operations  
produces great rail service--just remember how the Southern gave the Green 
Light  to innovation--and great, high-level rail service makes money, whether it 
is  carrying passengers or freight.
 
Phil
_ELRRco_@_AOL.com_ (mailto:ELRRco@AOL.com) 

- - Had  Erie Lackawanna and the others been treated equally,  re: receiving  
subsidies for commuter and intercity passenger traffic, would  they  be a 
"force" 
in our national transportation system?

2- Since our  taxes support all, but to a very small degree, subsidizing the  
 
rails, can anyone honestly answer why rail transportation (both freight  and  
passenger service) gets the short end of the  stick?

Again, SGL, you're not off topic, actually, you're right on. And  you are  
correct when you say that passenger service never made a  profit. Maybe it 
did in  
some places, maybe not. Overall, the  consensus is that it didn't.

The movement of people back then was  considered to be a necessity and it  
was 
indeed. Today, our federal  and state governments do not consider the  
movement of people to be a  necessity because people have independent ways of 
 
travelling, i.e.,  cars.  

Once the gas prices continue to rise to European levels  and Americans can't  
afford to fuel their gas guzzling SUVs and  understand that the money we 
spend 
on  our gas guzzlers only  continues to finance those who bombed my town on  
September 11,  2001,  maybe then, we'll see those who wish to be  elected  
understand that we can rely upon ourselves to do what our   forefathers did, 
in 
effect, take care of us on our own. We  can.

Those who really want to see this country move forward will invest  the  
bucks 
in our infrastructure, including what was Erie Lackawanna  and the others  
throughout the country.

Yes, T, it can be done  but it won't until we tell those running for  
election 
that this is  priority.

Rick






	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org

------------------------------