The Coming Competitive Milieu

Since we've mentioned this topic many times, I hope it'll be reckoned relevant. Maybe the moderators can be indulgent for a few hours, and then can it if it doesn't seem to be drawing useful, intelligent replies that bring it to topic.

A dramatic development, from the London Guardian:

EU gives US airlines a 'go green' ultimatum

Like their counterparts, American airlines WILL have to pay a carbon tax to land at EU airports. EU negotiator Barrot was not diplomatic -- "It's always possible to imagine reducing the number of flights or suspending certain rights," Barrot said.

This is an earthquake. Four years ago, it was still credible that the US, as the only superpower, could have stood alone against this. Certainly no EU negotiator would have spoken of cutting our landing rights or even suspending them. But the recession, predictable after spending trillions in a losing war in Iraq, has taken away our status as superpower.

Carbon taxes are coming to internal markets here as well. They'll be imposed by economic sanction if the voters can't be convinced to be responsible. The days of our adopting our old course have ended with this recession. The EU is not going to impose dramatic restrictions on themselves to handle global warming and then watch while the US continues to belch greenhouse gases and piss away all the progress made. Fire fighters setting up their hoses and getting ready to enter a burning building don't take kindly to supposed friends playing with kerosene nearby.

The rudimentary changes we've started to see in American transportation policy in the last 6 months, with several states putting forth more serious plans for Amtrak expansion, are only a very small beginning compared to what we will see as the recession unrolls and the American position in the world recedes. It will be interesting times, and not least for fans of rail.

Start advocating. If you don't like government, start thinking about investing in rail (and bus) passenger transport. I think government has a role, but I'd like to see Amtrak spun off at the point that it's healthy. Because of the existence of buses and highways, we'll never be in the position of our great-grandfathers, when rail had a monopoly on travel beyond the speed of a horse, so I'm less afraid of a single pax company, perhaps with competition on the fringes, and I tend to think it's a natural monopoly, that should compete with other forms of transportation.

But the bottom line is that the petroleum market WILL be forced by government pay for its externalities in coming years, and that will dramatically change the market position and viability of rail[/url]

"...Carbon taxes are coming to internal markets here as well. They'll be imposed by economic sanction if the voters can't be convinced to be responsible..."

And *whio* do you think will "impose...economic sanctions"? Last I looked, we lived in a democracy where these things were done by popular vote. Or are you appointing yourself dictator?

And let's discuss "carbon taxes" and your alleged "externalities" for a moment. Just how high should these carbon taxes be? The EU has blundered so badly in their price-setting that the price of "carbon offsets" has fallen to nearly zero. As for "sanctions" on US airlines, gee, I suppose EU citizens aren't going to be flying to North America any more?

As for the US "giving up its role as a superpower" all due to some allegedly very costly war, well, gee, I heard that one first in the 1970s. I've been hearing it ever since, as the US pulls further and further ahead (economically speaking) of the EU and other developed countries.

You know, I'm old enough that I usually just ignore people who claim the sky is falling, but your post was too egregious to leave alone.

What possible difference is a carbon tax going to create at this point?

Gasoline goes from $1.50 to $3.50 per gallon and people still drive cars. Maybe they drive less overall. Maybe (more than maybe for many) they purchase a different type of vehicle the next time they are in the market. People will still buy gasoline and still fly on airplanes no matter how much it hacks off some two-bit editor at the London Guardian.

Talking about the effects of a carbon tax is like lamenting that it might snow 13" instead of 12".

Well I agree with you that we're heading into a period of, shall we say, economic reorganization in the USA, with the cost of oil being a major driver of the downward spiral. But I don't think a carbon tax is going to prevent or help get us out of the upcoming economic recession/depression. As long as we continue to send US dollars overseas to buy petroleum and tee shirts from foreign countries and then borrow back those dollars back to buy more oil, tee shirts and finance wars on foreign soil we're on course to disaster. The falling value of the dollar shows just how wise our economic (and foreign) policy has been over the last few years.

So American citizens will start demanding more affordable transportation options, and that should be good for Amtrak, but at this point, I'm amazed that anybody would want to be elected President in 2008. The next administration is going to have one heck of a mess to deal with.

(NPU--maybe you could get this thread bumped over to the "Worldwide" forum, discussion is usually very balanced/diverse over there.)

Please explain to me how this is an Amtrak topic?

-otto-

sign of things to come Otto . If there is a carbon tax in the USA of some kinfd , it should make Amtrak more competitive with the airlines , particularily over short distances . This would probably mean a reduction of air shuttles on the nec . The question is , will amtrak be able to handle the extra traffic ?

Are they taxing rail too I wonder? Since one can't take Amtrak to Europe, I suppose we might not find out, at least as pertains to our trains.

A carbon tax won't have any effect on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphwere because neither India nor China are willing to sacrifice their prosperity on the altar of environmentalism. Why we are is beyond my comprehension.

I, too, want to see wider use of passenger rail, but not at the cost of making us poorer.

china is only just coming up to the USa's energy use , despite having 4 times more people .
Its probably a longtime coming . We still don't have a carbon tax that's been govt policy for 9 years (and that govt may lose this year , and this in a country where most people would support a carbon tax ) .
however , as ive said before , it certainly wouldnt hurt for Amtrak to brush up its green credentials , as they may well be handy in procurring more money for capital upgrades in the future .

David Benton wrote:sign of things to come Otto . If there is a carbon tax in the USA of some kinfd , it should make Amtrak more competitive with the airlines , particularily over short distances . This would probably mean a reduction of air shuttles on the nec . The question is , will amtrak be able to handle the extra traffic ?

Mr. Benton, you could be missing the elephant in the room. Gasoline has more than doubled in price in recent years while the airlines appear to be doing about as well collectively as they ever have. If $110/bbl oil doesn't put the airlines out of business then some little charade of a tax will hardly be noticed.

RussNelson wrote:I, too, want to see wider use of passenger rail, but not at the cost of making us poorer.

I'm not sure of your age, so this may be a factor here, but I personally don't care how rich I am if my apartment is underwater. I may live on the 12th floor right now, but the lobby doesn't.

I think its more a case of changing a mindset . Ms Blys ironic comment about living in a democracy , when theyre talking about trying to get the US govt to ALLOW US airlines participate in a carbon trading scheme , illustrates the problem .
Paying a carbon tax makes one think about why your paying it . and look at alternatives to paying it . Eurostar have preempted this marketing opportunity ,it may be too soon for amtrak to do so too . but i would say it would be wise for amtrak to make sure its green credentials are in order , and be prepared to flaunt them .

NellieBly wrote: And *whio* do you think will "impose...economic sanctions"? Last I looked, we lived in a democracy where these things were done by popular vote. Or are you appointing yourself dictator?

The answer to this should be obvious, but since it wasn't, here's a handy link to one of the many articles that came out today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23635644/

The European Union will impose sanctions.

The idea that American miles driven will not decline is just silly. We've already seen the first decline in two decades because of price increases. India is on the side of Europe in the debate on what to do about climate change, as is most of the world. China is even more vulnerable than the US to international trade pressure, so it will fall into line.

So here are the questions:

How would a 10% decline in miles driven impact Amtrak? Wigwagfan often suggests that Amtrak is so marginal that it is an unlikely beneficiary of any changes. Would Americans simply take more mass transit, more intercity buses, and we'd see little change in intercity train travel?

Likewise, what will be the consequences of a 10% decline in airline miles? Would this reinvigorate the intercity bus market? Would we see a decline in the number of intercity trips, more teleconferencing? Would Amtrak reap some of the gains?

Finally, how will changes in international flight impact the American economy. If flights are more expensive, will this dampen the Caribbean tourism market at all? Will this mean Amtrak's north-south routes grow stronger? It wouldn't take a large change to overwhelm capacity there. Another 2% of air travelers trying to take trains, and it'd be swamped.

For those who want to dismiss me and write back once again that I'm saying the sky is falling, go back and look at the MSNBC article at top. To the degree anything is falling on your head, it's the opprobrium of our 40-year allies who can't understand our irresponsibility in the face of a global crisis. They will force solutions on the US if we're unwilling to get our act together.

It's time to start thinking about what we'll need to do.

ne plus ultra wrote:How would a 10% decline in miles driven impact Amtrak? Wigwagfan often suggests that Amtrak is so marginal that it is an unlikely beneficiary of any changes. Would Americans simply take more mass transit, more intercity buses, and we'd see little change in intercity train travel?

The problem is that outside major corridors, there simply aren't enough trains -- or even capacity on the long distance trains that do exist -- to assume anything beyond a microscopic share of the intercity travel market. That problem could be rectified with a combination of increased Amtrak funding and governmental pressure on the freight mega-railroads to treat Amtrak as something other than an annoyance, but that isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. Bus companies, on the other hand, can quickly ramp up service, and that seems to me to be the likely growth mode (again, outside major corridors) if gas prices force motorists off the roads.

There's no question in my mind that we're in the midst of an accelerating transportation crunch. I'm just very cynical about whether the Federal government under the control of either major party will do anything about it.

TomNelligan wrote: Bus companies, on the other hand, can quickly ramp up service, and that seems to me to be the likely growth mode (again, outside major corridors) if gas prices force motorists off the roads.

If that were genuinely the case, then Greyhound would not be in the retrenchment that it is. Most of its runs are from larger city to city, and no longer serve smaller towns.