Again, did you READ the articles? Tell me how losing money "3 out of the last 5 years before the lease" 'brought money to the state'? Please, show me in what math that an annual 'loss' equals profit to the rest of the state?justalurker66 wrote: All public roads cost the taxpayers money. The toll road returned money to the state. Getting a lump sum pre-payment was a good deal. But if you bothered to read more about it you would find articles that question the deal over the long term. The toll road lease is 75 years. That is a long time to give up the annual revenue. What will happen when the lump sum is gone?
Maybe I need to repost this article, since you apparently missed it the first time around:
http://www.elkharttruth.com/article/201 ... source=RSS
Then there’s the “sorry history” of 50-plus years when the toll road “was under political management,” Woodruff adds. Under state control, the toll road never became debt free and it lost money in three of the last five years it was publicly operated, including a $16 million loss in 2005.
“Prior to the lease, the road had generated a total of only $254 million for other purposes over its entire history,” notes Woodruff.
Again, over the FIFTY YEAR history of the Toll Road, they only ever generated $254 million in "profit". That's a paltry $5.8 million dollar AVERAGE for 'profit' per year, 50 years. Again, the lease generated $3.8 BILLION. If Indiana saw $5.8 Million average 'profit' (that's not every year mind you), it would only take 703 years to get the $3.8 billion the state got in one pen swipe. I'm sorry, where was the downside again?
Ok, great, they generated $90 million in Revenue on toll collection. If Expenses > Revenue = LOSS.
Ok, letsee that connection...justalurker66 wrote: This whole toll road issue was brought up as an example of the difference between private contractor operation vs public government operation, so perhaps you can focus on that issue? It isn't about how whether the lease of the toll road was good for the state or not ... it is about whether having ITC run the toll road is better than ITR. And if you can somehow apply your opinion to the actual subject of this thread (Beech Grove) it would be good.
Despite the tangent in conversation I've tried to apply my opinion to Beach Grove. Go therefore and do likewise.
WOW, what a great connection. Our point-counter point has done more to stimulate debate on public vs private funding. While a 'railroad' site, why does Transportation Policy matters have to be centered upon JUST railroads. CSX, NS, UP, BNSF aren't just 'railroad' companies after all...justalurker66 wrote:But I digress ...
As far as the threat to lose Beech Grove it is not the same thing. It is not INDOT turning over railcar maintenance to a foreign consortium.
Perhaps if a private entity runs the repair business for AMTRAK, they could 'save' on the expense of upkeep. Its obvious AMTRAK leeches money like a sieve. Its a "Government Entity". They have no accountability because they'll just keep going back to the till for more money. I'm not under the delusion that AMTRAK should turn a profit. Turning a profit on passenger operations alone is nigh impossible. The lease AMTRAK can do (along with any Government Agency) is be as 'careful' with MY money as possible. We're reaching a point in this country when the tax payers are starting to say 'enough' with the waste. Is AMTRAK waste? That debate could go either way...
I live in Indy. I work for the big railroad in town. I know people who work at the Grove at the shops. I understand they are good paying jobs. But to hold those jobs as political 'bait', to keep their shop train on, is a low ball tactic on AMTRAK's part. I'd be more willing to 'support' a subsidy if AMTRAK would just be honest about why they want to keep the Hoosier State on. They want it as a Hospital Train between Chicago and Indy, and want *someone else* to pay for it. Fine, whatever. I *get* that. Call it what it is, another handout to keep their operation afloat. Don't try and put lipstick on the pig and say that "Well, if we don't get this, we're cutting the Grove." I don't know AMTRAK's mechanical capabilities, but I highly doubt they have the money to build a new shop, or have other shops absorb the work. AMTRAK has proven their commitment to "The Grove" when the Hoosier State was cut off in the past.
AMTRAK is just pissy that someone else isn't going to be paying the expense to run their shop train. AMTRAK has shown they don't 'value' the Cardinal nor the Hoosier State. I can remember when BOTH ran with Superliner equipment. Of course...you'd probably accuse me of imagining that, and attributing it to my 'failing memory'. Now...it runs with a couple Horizon or Amfleet coaches. No food service (that I'm aware of). They've even moved up the evening departure to 5:45 central. It used to be one of the later departures allowing for a full day in the city. Its a shop shuttle that AMTRAK just happens to have a couple hot coaches on.
Practice Safe CSX