# Amtrak taken to task on Fox last night



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

Last night on John Stossels show they spent a segment talking about amtrak. I am not sure if this was a repeat and already discussed here or not but they went into how our gov't is basically keeping Amtrak afloat. I had no idea that our limited tax dollars were being used at a very high amount to keep Amtrak going. The pointed out a route from New Orleans to LA that is a very expensive route for the gov't and has very little ridership. After seeing what our gov't is spending on Amtrak I have to feel that in it's best interest the gov't needs to back off to the degree it is and work with Amtrak to become more self sufficent and if it means reduction in service so be it.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

Your first mistake was watching Faux News.

Go compare how much of your tax dollars are going towards road and air transport and get back with us.


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Your first mistake was watching Faux News.
> 
> Go compare how much of your tax dollars are going towards road and air transport and get back with us.



roads benefit far more then trains and the airline industry doesn't recieve anywhere near what Amtrak does, plus the also serve more people and provide better overall service.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jun 29, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Your first mistake was watching Faux News.


Yea. Fox News announced yesterday that the Supreme Court overturned "Obamacare". Later, much later, they finally corrected themselves, but never apologized for the error. hboy:


----------



## afigg (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> roads benefit far more then trains and the airline industry doesn't recieve anywhere near what Amtrak does, plus the also serve more people and provide better overall service.


The airline industry between the federal and local governments receives far more in subsidies than Amtrak ever has.

But can we close this thread?. Any thread that starts by quoting Fox news as a source is not going to go well. Fox news was once a decent news channel, but they have changed so much in the past decade, they are no longer a reliable source for almost anything.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Jun 29, 2012)

afigg said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > roads benefit far more then trains and the airline industry doesn't recieve anywhere near what Amtrak does, plus the also serve more people and provide better overall service.
> ...


I'm conservative, but even I still agree with this.


----------



## Exiled in Express (Jun 29, 2012)

John Stossel is a political commentator, not a news anchor. His schtick has been one of big inefficent government outrage for the better part of 15 years. While the facts may have been presented correctly, it is quite likely they were blown out of proportion. If I recall correctly, the entire Amtrak budget for both operating losses and infrastructure is ~$2 billion dollars of a total ~$3.5 trillion federal budget or less than half a percent.

Growing ridership and raising fares on the existing routes, as Amtrak has done for the past few years, is leading to an increased dependence on subsidy but will likely always have a need for one just like any other mode of transportation.


----------



## the_traveler (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> 1340984980[/url]' post='376609']
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> ...


You're so right! After the 9/11 attacks, the airlines demanded and received $xxx *BILLION* each in subsidies for "their lost business" and for "safety improvements"! Do you know how much Amtrak received?



$000,000,000.00 or *NOTHING*!

Do you really think airlines could offer cheap fares like $99 cross country if they had to fully support things like air traffic control, the FAA, building and maintaining airports, etc... witthout any Government subsidies?


----------



## PerRock (Jun 29, 2012)

This is a great visual representation of Government Spending. Amtrak (I believe, as I couldn't find it elsewhere) falls under the FRA within the DOT (either that or just the DOT budget). http://www.deathandtaxesposter.com/

peter


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

afigg said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > roads benefit far more then trains and the airline industry doesn't recieve anywhere near what Amtrak does, plus the also serve more people and provide better overall service.
> ...


This was on Fox Business and was John Stossels show and he is a libertarian who looks at gov't waste.


----------



## jis (Jun 29, 2012)

My thought was _Pravda_ has spoken! How can it be wrong? :lol:


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 29, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > dn4192 said:
> ...


First of all, Johnny you're too young to be conservative. Secondly, when was Fox News ever a decent new channel. It's always been the broadcast arm of the Republican Party.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > dn4192 said:
> ...


So? Why should some random guys opinion matter?

If you're going to make a compelling argument that he's right, you're off to a poor start.


----------



## afigg (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> This was on Fox Business and was John Stossels show and he is a libertarian who looks at gov't waste.


I'm probably going to regret this. :lol:

I'm aware of who John Stossel is. I remember him way back when he had segments on 20/20 on ABC news.

So Stossel did an informed critique of Amtrak's Sunset Limited (SL) Performance Improvement Plan from 2 years ago? That plan recommended taking the SL to daily service and changing the schedule to improve ridership and reduce operating losses per passenger.

Did Stossel then critique Union Pacific, a private company, for blocking the SL switching to daily service? This despite UP sitting at the government teat for such high profile projects as the Alameda Corridor, the on-going Alameda East corridor, the Colton Flyover, the Tower 55 rail crossing separation project in Fort Worth? These were or are all government backed and at least partially government funded projects that have or will greatly improve UP's freight speed and capacity for shipping cargo containers from CA ports to across the US. If UP is going to take $100s of millions in public money which goes directly to improving the company revenue and future profits, shouldn't they have some obligation to run a once a day public passenger train over their ex-SP route?

I'm not arguing against the projects because they have major benefits for the local communities and for the national transportation infrastructure, which is a good thing. But I doubt that Stossel presented an informed discussion on Amtrak and the complex issue of direct and indirect government subsidies to provide a better transportation infrastructure.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

afigg said:


> Did Stossel then critique Union Pacific, a private company, for blocking the SL switching to daily service?


Of course not! Private corporations can Do No Wrong. Everything they do is rainbows and unicorn farts, the only problem is that pesky government preventing them from running roughshod over us poor folk creating jobs and raining prosperity down upon us.


----------



## Ocala Mike (Jun 29, 2012)

For Fox News, any form of surface transportation carrying more than one individual or group of family members at a time is highly suspect and probably is evidence of some sort of insidious Socialist takeover of our entire way of life. I'm sure they're scaring their sheeple today with talk of an impending Soviet takeover now that the ACA has been ruled constitutional.


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

I am unclear the problem with removing unprofitable routes and privatizing Amtrak? The gov't doesn't need to be "helping" it to the degree it is and if private business can do it better why not give it a shot?


----------



## Texan Eagle (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> I am unclear the problem with removing unprofitable routes and privatizing Amtrak? The gov't doesn't need to be "helping" it to the degree it is and if private business can do it better why not give it a shot?


You might want to ask our friends across the border in Mexico.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

The problem is that passenger rail travel will cease to exist.

Plus, if you're going to be logically consistent, you're going to have to remove government subsidies to roads and the air industry as well.

Enjoy your $10/gallon gas, and whatever airlines survive (probably not many) will have to charge enough for a flight that neither you nor I would ever see the inside of an airplane again.

Now contemplate the secondary effects of that, as every tangible good that you buy gets more expensive because it has to be transported from where it's made to where you are.

I anxiously await your reasoning for "private business can do it better".


----------



## fulham (Jun 29, 2012)

Part of me just wants to say to everyone who believes in the "trickle down economic" theories, the all government is wasteful and inefficient" theories, "the private sector has the answer to every single issue facing this country today theories"...let's try it. Let the Republicans win every election (local and national) and they can implement the above. Then let's talk in 4 years and we will see what type of country we have. Amtrak will go away, but so will a host of other things.

This country was made great, and can continue to be great, by a combination of government spending (i.e. infrastructure) and private enterprise/capitalism. You cannot have one without the other but you cannot only have just one either.

Sorry for the rant but I feel it is appropriate for the post.


----------



## jis (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> I am unclear the problem with removing unprofitable routes and privatizing Amtrak? The gov't doesn't need to be "helping" it to the degree it is and if private business can do it better why not give it a shot?


Let's see, wasn't the reason that Amtrak was created was that private business was unwilling or unable to provide said service for the larger system? What exactly has changed? What basis is there to believe that private business is ready to provide a nationwide network? Should we perhaps consider privatizing the Interstate roads too since private business appears to be so eager to jump into the relatively high risk low or nonexistent reward business, as the airlines re-learn that lesson every day?


----------



## PerRock (Jun 29, 2012)

I think in order for Private National Passenger Rail to become profitable/investment-worthy, the physical rail network needs to be publicized. If Rail was set up similar to the Airports & Highways we might see more interest in Private Passenger rail. But with the infrastructure being private any other private entity doesn't want to get involved with getting track rights & such. Most of Amtrak's track rights were originally grandfathered into the system.

Imagine what UPs response would be if [say] First Group came to them wanting to run service on their lines, and how much a ticket on that might cost if UP let them...

peter


----------



## PRR 60 (Jun 29, 2012)

jis said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > I am unclear the problem with removing unprofitable routes and privatizing Amtrak? The gov't doesn't need to be "helping" it to the degree it is and if private business can do it better why not give it a shot?
> ...


Wasn't the original 1971 Amtrak just a funding conduit and equipment supplier? If I recall correctly, Amtrak had only a handful of employees on Day One. The actual trains were still run by the private railroads with the losses paid by Amtrak. Amtrak later took over the train operation under the belief that they could do the job less expensively.

Hypothetically, lets say the Amtrak western long distance trains posts losses of $100 million per year (making up that number). That $100 million comes from the taxpayer as a subsidy. What if a private contractor could run the same trains at the same service level for $80 million, and would sign a contract guaranteeing that. Wouldn't saving the taxpayers $20 million be something worth considering even if is that nasty word, "privatization?"


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> What if a private contractor could run the same trains at the same service level for $80 million, and would sign a contract guaranteeing that. Wouldn't saving the taxpayers $20 million be something worth considering even if is that nasty word, "privatization?"


That'd be great, if it were to actually happen.

Of course the likelihood of that happening is about as much as snow falling here in DC in the middle of July.


----------



## the_traveler (Jun 29, 2012)

I fully agree. Amtrak was started in 1971 because each individual railroad (except a few like the Southern and D&RGW) did not want to operate passenger service any more (Look at the trains in the 1960's - what few there were - for an example!



) Do you think some private operator can - or wants to - do it better without Government subsidies?



(Think of Grand Luxe - aka American Orient Express - and others! Where are they now?



)


----------



## dlagrua (Jun 29, 2012)

When the private railroad companies ran the passenger rail system, the service back then far exceeded what Amtrak now provides. Look at some of the old movies on You Tube and see if you agree. While service was great, meals first class, accomodations top notch, service impeccable and fares affordable, there was little money to be made in passenger rail. That is why the government stepped in and created Amtrak.

While many of us would like to see a return to four star privately owned passenger rail service, it isn't likley to happen. If it did the barebones route system that Amtrak now runs would be dessimated.

I saw John Stossels segment about Amtrak and in typical main stream media news fashion, he picked the least profitable route to base his argument upon. The ironic thing is that Stossel is a frequent Acela first class traveler.

There is no way to have a balanced argument on the value of private passenger rail vs government provided rail as no private railroad company wants to buy it. If the UP,BNSF,CSX, and NS were solicited they would probably only want the NE Corridor and Autotrain routes and even that is a stretch.

Since Amtrak is such a small amount of the federal transpotaqtion budget, it is best left alone.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jun 29, 2012)

Fox News sensationalizes everything to match their narrow minded philosophy. This reporter has probably never traveled on Amtrak. As has been stated, a good report would be how meager Amtrak's subsidy is compared to high subsidies for Airways and highways. And that would be a true story. People need to do research on topics rather than letting something like Fox News make their decisions.


----------



## jis (Jun 29, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Hypothetically, lets say the Amtrak western long distance trains posts losses of $100 million per year (making up that number). That $100 million comes from the taxpayer as a subsidy. What if a private contractor could run the same trains at the same service level for $80 million, and would sign a contract guaranteeing that. Wouldn't saving the taxpayers $20 million be something worth considering even if is that nasty word, "privatization?"


Don't get me wrong. I am perhaps one of a very few here who would countenance such a course if it were politically feasible to do so rationally. I am one of the few who believes that the privatization in the UK is a qualified success after the dust has settled down. However, for that we have to address the whole ball of wax as the Brits tried to do, and indeed they did stumble completely on the infrastructure part, but produced a qualified success in the TOCs and ROSCOEs and the Rail Regulators office, and the common ticketing and core tariffs. However, I do not see either the intestinal fortitude or the necessary dispassionate intelligence in our current legislature, executive and bureaucracy to pull such a thing off.

So now I am sure I will be chewed alive by a few so time to duck I suppose.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

dlagrua said:


> I saw John Stossels segment about Amtrak and in typical main stream media news fashion, he picked the least profitable route to base his argument upon. The ironic thing is that Stossel is a frequent Acela first class traveler.


For real?

I really shouldn't be surprised, but...


----------



## bmorechris (Jun 29, 2012)

In general, I think its pretty safe to say that transporting people, whether by car, bus, plane, train, subway, etc., tends not to be a money making enterprise. Subsidies come into play with virtually all forms of transportation, from local to national systems. But what is ignored in almost every discussion about gov't funding of transportation or anything else is what the benefits are beyond simply having a train/bus/etc. I would guess that if there were a way to quantify the benefits of transporting people: people traveling and spending money, people going to meetings and making business deals, etc, that the net effect of subsidizing transportation is revenue positive. Not to mention all those subsides go towards something, people work and get paid, pay taxes, spend that money at other businesses, use it to by homes etc. What about just providing another form of transportation to people who can't drive or fly for whatever reason? I think there is a societal benefit to providing additional forms of transportation to the public. To me (liberal alert!) a vital function of gov't is to facilitate in the operation of the economy and to benefit peoples lives. Just because something doesn't make money doesn't mean its dysfunctional, you need to look at the benefits it creates further down the chain.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

bmorechris said:


> I would guess that if there were a way to quantify the benefits of transporting people: people traveling and spending money, people going to meetings and making business deals, etc, that the net effect of subsidizing transportation is revenue positive. Not to mention all those subsides go towards something, people work and get paid, pay taxes, spend that money at other businesses, use it to by homes etc.


Exactly, I alluded to that in one of my earlier posts, but this bit gets overlooked so frequently.

Government subsidized transportation makes many, many things possible and affordable. Shutting that down would be like throwing water on a fire. Not something our economy needs at this stage of the game.


----------



## NE933 (Jun 29, 2012)

Chase bank lost/misplaced/blew/burned $2 billion in Credit Derivatives, and the Chief Investment Officer of that division retired and was allowed to receive $21 Million in stocks and options.

Cut crap like that out and then you can talk to me about passenger rail getting too much government subsidy.

Edit was a spelling correct.


----------



## jis (Jun 29, 2012)

Ryan said:


> bmorechris said:
> 
> 
> > I would guess that if there were a way to quantify the benefits of transporting people: people traveling and spending money, people going to meetings and making business deals, etc, that the net effect of subsidizing transportation is revenue positive. Not to mention all those subsides go towards something, people work and get paid, pay taxes, spend that money at other businesses, use it to by homes etc.
> ...


When Congress starts charging for each elevator ride in the Capitol building until the elevator system is completely paid for by such revenues, then we'd be talking. But of course they will do no such thing


----------



## PRR 60 (Jun 29, 2012)

NE933 said:


> Chase bank lost/misplaced/blew/burned $2 billion in Credit Derivatives, and the Chief Investment Officer of that division retired and was allowed to receive *$21 Billion* in stocks and options.
> 
> Cut crap like that out and then you can talk to me about passenger rail getting too much government subsidy.


I think you mean $21 million. $21 billion would even make Bill Gates envious.


----------



## fulham (Jun 29, 2012)

fulham said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > When the private railroad companies ran the passenger rail system, the service back then far exceeded what Amtrak now provides. Look at some of the old movies on You Tube and see if you agree. While service was great, meals first class, accomodations top notch, service impeccable and fares affordable, there was little money to be made in passenger rail. That is why the government stepped in and created Amtrak.
> ...


Most of the private rail passenger system was a total mess in the 1960's...that was why Amtrak was created. Granted there were some railroads that tried to put their best foot forward (SCL/UP/ATSF) but they were far outweighed by the situation surrounding the Penn Central. For an example, look at pictures of the New Haven/Penn Central trains between New York and Boston in the late 1960's verses today. No comparison.


----------



## NE933 (Jun 29, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> NE933 said:
> 
> 
> > Chase bank lost/misplaced/blew/burned $2 billion in Credit Derivatives, and the Chief Investment Officer of that division retired and was allowed to receive *$21 Billion* in stocks and options.
> ...


Yes, I'm going to correct it now. Thank you.


----------



## Paul Dow (Jun 29, 2012)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Your first mistake was watching Faux News.
> ...


In the interest of accuracy, I believe you may be thinking of CNN, not Fox News. Both Fox News and CNN had a Dewey Defeats Truman moment yesterday

*CNN, Fox make health care headline blunder*

The staff inside the Supreme Court didn't wait until Roberts completed his statement before reporting, in the interest of being first instead of accurate.

(Edited to agree with later comments to show both cable news channels messed up.)


----------



## TimePeace (Jun 29, 2012)

Paul Dow said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


It was both


----------



## FriskyFL (Jun 29, 2012)

Fixed Noise Channel is just preaching to the choir here. Not a particularly good day for their tea-party constituents , so why not drag out the right wing's favorite whipping boy for a few whacks? Hardly a coincidence, ya think?


----------



## NE933 (Jun 29, 2012)

Paul Dow said:


> The CNN staff inside the Supreme Court didn't wait until Roberts completed his statement before reporting, in the interest of being first instead of accurate.


So this what it has come to. When a major artery of journalism and news values the boasting rights for being "ME FIRST!!!" ahead of factual value and accuracy, those who can not see the rot and decay going on elsewhere makes extinctionism an attractive option.


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

Ryan said:


> The problem is that passenger rail travel will cease to exist.
> 
> Plus, if you're going to be logically consistent, you're going to have to remove government subsidies to roads and the air industry as well.
> 
> ...


Name one successful gov't run business? It's not the gov't job to keep business afloat if private business can do it better. Private industry is doing fine and if the need and demand is there, can operate a train system. Right now Amtrak is for the most part a joke in performance and service. Look around the world at where train travel is compared to the US. Should the gov't "help" yes to a minor degree, but to keep afloat for some grand political reason is bad.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 29, 2012)

Maine Rider said:


> Paul Dow said:
> 
> 
> > Cho Cho Charlie said:
> ...


Right, Fox News also got it wrong. Unfortunately, in today's media world, being first now counts more than being accurate.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> It's not the gov't job to keep business afloat if private business can do it better.


You keep saying that, yet failing utterly to make a case that private industry can do it better.

As Jishnu said, what has changed since A-day that would make that a true statement?

Until you can answer that, we're just talking about a fantasyland where the private industry fairies make everything A-OK.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that passenger rail travel will cease to exist.
> ...


Most foreign governments subsidize or outright own their rail systems. Even in the so-called "privatized" system in the United Kingdom, a government corporation owns the tracks.


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

jis said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > I am unclear the problem with removing unprofitable routes and privatizing Amtrak? The gov't doesn't need to be "helping" it to the degree it is and if private business can do it better why not give it a shot?
> ...


If it can be done economically successfully then there is no reason to think private industry can't do it.

Here in Indiana we have privatized our toll roads to a French company. Made billions off the deal. We have privatized our parking in the city and such. The more burden you can reduce from gov't the better. And I am not saying the gov't can't help, but right now Amtrak is not operating anywhere near what it should and the gov't has no incentive to improve it.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Here in Indiana we have privatized our toll roads to a French company. Made billions off the deal.


You've privatized the profitable roads, congrats. What about the unpopular roads and the people that live on them?



> but right now Amtrak is not operating anywhere near what it should


Quick! Name 3 things that Amtrak can do to "operate where it should".



> and the gov't has no incentive to improve it.


Of course they do. You also overlook the fact that the government doesn't run Amtrak.


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

Ryan said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the gov't job to keep business afloat if private business can do it better.
> ...



If private industry can't do it, then you don't have it. It's not the Gov't job to run a train. Can they provide minimal assistance and such, sure, but it's not the role of the gov't to do it. As we see with Amtrak, the federal gov't is incapbable of operating a functional transportation system, so why continue the waste of money?


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> If private industry can't do it, then you don't have it. It's not the Gov't job to run a train. Can they provide minimal assistance and such, sure, but it's not the role of the gov't to do it. As we see with Amtrak, the federal gov't is incapbable of operating a functional transportation system, so why continue the waste of money?


If you're going to keep repeating the same thing over and over, you're going to make it really easy for me to reply.



Ryan said:


> Plus, if you're going to be logically consistent, you're going to have to remove government subsidies to roads and the air industry as well.
> 
> Enjoy your $10/gallon gas, and whatever airlines survive (probably not many) will have to charge enough for a flight that neither you nor I would ever see the inside of an airplane again.
> 
> ...


I *still* anxiously await your reasoning for "private business can do it better".


----------



## NE933 (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Right now Amtrak is for the most part a joke in performance and service. Look around the world at where train travel is compared to the US. Should the gov't "help" yes to a minor degree, but to keep afloat for some grand political reason is bad.


There are some people in the organization who do make it seem like a joke, like the instances of locking up the food service cars. And then there are those who are diamond gems, like those on board who pacify angry passengers when a freight train up ahead is slow or stopped. There are lots of individuals of Amtrak that shine like all heaven. May I ask that perhaps you note the bad apples next time you're on board a train and stick it to them specifically? That won't likely get passenger rail economics to a point where it won't need annual subsidy, but it will encourage ridership and passenger miles. Also, go or write to 60 Massachusetts Ave. and stick it to some of them, to demand an increase of ordering new rolling stock. Stuff like that helps.


----------



## R30A (Jun 29, 2012)

That is the problem with your argument. The federal government is SOLELY capable of running a decent transportation system. Those other countries you are talking about POUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more PUBLIC money into their transportation systems, rail and otherwise, and have a first world transportation system to show for it. You seem to desire to turn us into some third world nation without basic amenities, as that is what a country without govt spending would be.


----------



## FriskyFL (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > dn4192 said:
> ...


In what way would Amtrak not be considered "functional"? That's a rather broad statement. What criteria are you considering as the basis of your contention?


----------



## the_traveler (Jun 29, 2012)

R30A said:


> 1341000674[/url]' post='376688']That is the problem with your argument. The federal government is SOLELY capable of running a decent transportation system. Those other countries you are talking about POUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more PUBLIC money into their transportation systems, rail and otherwise, and have a first world transportation system to show for it. You seem to desire to turn us into some third world nation without basic amenities, as that is what a country without govt spending would be.


If I understand your post correctly, you are calling France, Spain, Germany, Japan, etc..*THIRD* *WORLD* *COUNTRiES*?


----------



## saxman (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > dn4192 said:
> ...


You do realize why the railroads were getting rid of passenger trains, and many of their other freight rail lines disappeared too. It was a mess, and many railroads, went bankrupt in the 1960's. But why was that? I'll tell you that it was massive government intervention, and overregulation by what was then the ICC. The erosion started before even the Interstate Highway system was planned.

So what do you get when the government heavily subsidizes one mode or transportation and turns around and heavily taxes another? One will eventually fail, which is pretty much happened. All the streetcar, transit lines, and railroads were for profit entities that used mostly private money to built their track and infrastructure. About the only government assistance they got were land grants, but in return, the railroads had to pay taxes on that land.

Highways, even toll roads were built by the government or at least planned by the government. Highways don't pay taxes on the land they use. I'm honestly not sure if toll road companies pay. If anyone knows, please tell us.

So if your problem is with government, go back and blame the government for driving the railroads out of business in the first place. Until government gets out of the highway business, no private passenger rail operator will make a profit. Government got us into this mess in the first place, and its only going to take government to get us out!


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

Ryan said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > If private industry can't do it, then you don't have it. It's not the Gov't job to run a train. Can they provide minimal assistance and such, sure, but it's not the role of the gov't to do it. As we see with Amtrak, the federal gov't is incapbable of operating a functional transportation system, so why continue the waste of money?
> ...



Simple...profit. Gov't doesn't care if it makes money, not in the business to make money, thus no insentive to improve product. YOu improve product and service to increase profit. PROFIT is the key.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

So you're advocating the government stop spending money on all those roads that aren't profitable then, right?

How much profit does the DoD generate?

What about the police department? Fire department?


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

NE933 said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > Right now Amtrak is for the most part a joke in performance and service. Look around the world at where train travel is compared to the US. Should the gov't "help" yes to a minor degree, but to keep afloat for some grand political reason is bad.
> ...


I am wan't speaking of the workers. Look at how outdated the equipment is. Look at how inefficent their scheduling time is. There is nothing motivating the gov't to improve equipment or travel time. These two upgrades changes alone I believe could increase ridership on Amtrak, but won't happen under gov't control.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

Where do you expect them to get new equipment from, the equipment fairy?

How would you make their scheduling more efficient?


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

FriskyFL said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


Modern equipment

Reliable on time performance

Quicker arrival times (come on 20+ hours to go from Chicago to NYC)

More frequent service on key routes

Long distance speed trains


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

Ryan said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > Here in Indiana we have privatized our toll roads to a French company. Made billions off the deal.
> ...


Well actually the Indiana toll road was one of the least used highways in IND, most drivers used the free interstate which covered the same area. Amtrak needs to upgrade equipment, provide quicker and more depenadable service.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

You keep saying that.

How about some concrete plans on how you think they should accomplish that.


----------



## jebr (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > dn4192 said:
> ...


Not quite. You improve your product to increase market share, more than likely. If I'm at the top and people are happy with my product, and I'm making money, I probably won't improve my product. I may change my product so that I can produce it cheaper (and thus make more money), but I won't improve it per se, unless I want more market share (which many businesses do want.)

Now, in a quasi-competitive marketplace with large barriers to entry, I'm probably going to try and cut costs even to the point where I may displease some customers, under the assumption that there isn't as much competition for them to go to (and they'll still pay for the product or service because they have to, even if it's inferior to a product made in a completely open marketplace.) This is why health insurance is so high, for example.

Look at the post office for an example of a government entity that, if it had enough freedom to make a couple of changes without Congressional approval (namely, implement 5-day delivery) and not have to prepay retirement benefits well beyond any private corporation is expected to, it'd still be breaking even or making a small profit while serving every household in America.


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

saxman said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


I believe that a reliable, modern, quick train service like is available in many modern countries could be successful here. I think a bullet train from NYC via say Chicago to LA could more then make a profit. I think well thought out design and plans will work. Look at the Cardinal, it should not take a train that long to go from Chicago to NYC. Consoladate stops, you don't need like 4 stops in the state of Indiana. Go with 2, and remove a number of other small town stops that were needed back in the day but not now. It should not take any train almost 3 times longer to travel from Chicago to NYC that it takes to drive. Correct that and have a reasonable priced ticket which I think you can do, and you increase ridership and make a profit.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> I believe that a reliable, modern, quick train service like is available in many modern countries could be successful here.


It certainly could, if our government funded it the way those governments do.



> I think a bullet train from NYC via say Chicago to LA could more then make a profit.


Is that just a vague feeling of "this should be possible because I say it is", or do you have anything to back it up?



> Consoladate stops, you don't need like 4 stops in the state of Indiana. Go with 2, and remove a number of other small town stops that were needed back in the day but not now.


 What stops would you eliminate? How much time would that shave off of the schedule?


> Correct that and have a reasonable priced ticket which I think you can do, and you increase ridership and make a profit.


How much would it cost to run such a service? What kind of revenue can you bring in with reasonably priced tickets?


----------



## henryj (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> As we see with Amtrak, the federal gov't is incapbable of operating a functional transportation system, so why continue the waste of money?


So I can have my two little trains down here in Texas, the Sunset Ltd and the Eagle. lol. I don't believe Amtrak's loss numbers for the LD trains anyway. There is no way those 15 trains lose 530 million dollars a year. They are just loading them up with their bloated overhead to make the NEC and state operated trains look good. The LD trains, if operated and accounted for properly would cover their operating costs or even make a contribution to overhead. You could discontinue all 15 and most of those costs would not go away.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> I believe that a reliable, modern, quick train service like is available in many modern countries could be successful here.


Does any passenger rail system anywhere make a profit under generally accepted accounting principles? Including capital costs?


----------



## jis (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Well actually the Indiana toll road was one of the least used highways in IND, most drivers used the free interstate which covered the same area. Amtrak needs to upgrade equipment, provide quicker and more depenadable service.


If you came up with a viable proposal on how this will be done instead of talking in the abstract I'd take you more seriously


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

Ryan said:


> So you're advocating the government stop spending money on all those roads that aren't profitable then, right?
> 
> How much profit does the DoD generate?
> 
> What about the police department? Fire department?


Roads care is different as is DOD and such. They are neccessities, Amtrak isn'. Amtrak is a business, the others are not.


----------



## jebr (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > So you're advocating the government stop spending money on all those roads that aren't profitable then, right?
> ...


Define necessity, please. Also, if you're using enumerated powers under the Constitution, explain how many of our wars are Constitutional under what I assume is a narrow reading of the Constitution, or why our Constitution allows us to have by far the largest military budget in the world.

A narrow reading of the Constitution is fine, but realize that most of the GOP talking points are only about limited government where they want limited government. Talk about drastically cutting the military, and most would consider that blasphemy.


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

jis said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > Well actually the Indiana toll road was one of the least used highways in IND, most drivers used the free interstate which covered the same area. Amtrak needs to upgrade equipment, provide quicker and more depenadable service.
> ...


Well for Amtrak you remove unprofitable routes. You work on providing more dependable service to start out with. Instead of say 3 Cardinal routes you have now, you drop down to 2, increase your volume on those two routes making them more profitable. YOU work on removing delays to where your arrival time is within a reasonable (no more then 30 minutes late) time frame and begin upgrading your equipment slowly. Not going to happen overnight, but changes can be done where Amtrak can become less dependent on gov't monies and become a viable form of cross country transportation.


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

jebr said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


No. 1 job of the gov't is security, which is what the military does, everything else falls in line after it, so you spend whatever is needed to accomplish job 1, then all other things the gov't wants to do can be paid for if they have funds. Propping up Amtrak should be way down on that list.


----------



## TimePeace (Jun 29, 2012)

I'm still waiting for an example of a profitable private sector passenger railroad anywhere in the world. Past or present. That has not been subsidized and/or bailed out by a government (like our banks, oil companies, etc etc).

The profit motive is pretty highly over-rated as far as public good is concerned.


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

Ryan said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that a reliable, modern, quick train service like is available in many modern countries could be successful here.
> ...


Right now the Cardinal has 30 stops between Chicago and NYC. If you droped that down to say maybe half or a little more then have like 17, I bet you could on average pick at least a couple of hours. I would think most stops are at least of 15-30 minute range and that doesn't include the train having to slow down when approaching those stops and the time it takes to get back up to speed. Also Amtrak should have the tracks to make it from start to finish without having to pull over for "other" trains. Again non of this is easy, but can be done if the motivation of profit is there to encourage it.


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

Maine Rider said:


> I'm still waiting for an example of a profitable private sector passenger railroad anywhere in the world. Past or present. That has not been subsidized and/or bailed out by a government (like our banks, oil companies, etc etc).
> 
> The profit motive is pretty highly over-rated as far as public good is concerned.


Well they spoke last night of a rail system in Japan that is private and having postive cash flow and one in england. If the airline and bus systems can operate and be profitable, why can't trains?


----------



## jis (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > dn4192 said:
> ...


Still too abstract handwaving. How would one define profitability, and why is that the right measure to determine what is overall best for the society? What costs and benefits would be included in the computation? What do you do to remove delays? How much will that cost? What will be the corresponding benefits and how will their value be determined for inclusion in the equation? Still too much platitude and too little detail.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Roads care is different as is DOD and such. They are neccessities, Amtrak isn'. Amtrak is a business, the others are not.


In other words, the government should subsidize the things you think are necessary and nothing else. Got it.



dn4192 said:


> Well for Amtrak you remove unprofitable routes. You work on providing more dependable service to start out with. Instead of say 3 Cardinal routes you have now, you drop down to 2, increase your volume on those two routes making them more profitable.


Dropping down to twice a weeks will reduce volume, not increase it. Does the phrase "death spiral" mean anything to you? Look northward to Via and see what's going on up there.



dn4192 said:


> No. 1 job of the gov't is security, which is what the military does, everything else falls in line after it, so you spend whatever is needed to accomplish job 1, then all other things the gov't wants to do can be paid for if they have funds. Propping up Amtrak should be way down on that list.


Amtrak is way down on that list, and we spend FAR more on defense than we need to in order to guarantee our security. What enemy of ours warrants spending as much money on defense as we do?



dn4192 said:


> If you droped that down to say maybe half or a little more then have like 17, I bet you could on average pick at least a couple of hours.


 You'd lose that bet.


> I would think most stops are at least of 15-30 minute range and that doesn't include the train having to slow down when approaching those stops and the time it takes to get back up to speed.


 You would think wrong. Have you ever even been on an Amtrak train before?


> Also Amtrak should have the tracks to make it from start to finish without having to pull over for "other" trains.


Also, this is impossible without massive amounts of money to build new tracks. Where is that money going to come from? (hint: If people with a real business plan thought that they could make a profit doing it, there's nothing to stop them from doing so right now)



dn4192 said:


> Well they spoke last night of a rail system in Japan that is private and having postive cash flow and one in england. If the airline and bus systems can operate and be profitable, why can't trains?


That doesn't include capital costs. And the airline and bus systems can operate and be profitable on the back of what? GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE!!! How about that?


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

jis said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Profitbality can only be determined by those investing, what I might consider a good profit, someone else might not. This has nothing to do with what is "best" for society. Amtrak is a service, nothing more, a service that is not mandatory for life to continue. As for removing delays you just correct what is causing them. Again change only happens by motiviation, and like it or not, money motivates people to improve services.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> As for removing delays you just correct what is causing them.


I'll just whip out my magic wand and make that happen.

What do you think are causing the delays? What would you do to correct them? How much would it cost? How much more revenue would fixing the delays bring in? Would it be enough to make the improvements profitable?


----------



## jis (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Profitbality can only be determined by those investing, what I might consider a good profit, someone else might not. This has nothing to do with what is "best" for society.


you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But do not think that they universally held because you believe in them 

If what you say was really true then both all sorts of drugs and prostitution would be completely legal


----------



## afigg (Jun 29, 2012)

Ryan said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > Well for Amtrak you remove unprofitable routes. You work on providing more dependable service to start out with. Instead of say 3 Cardinal routes you have now, you drop down to 2, increase your volume on those two routes making them more profitable.
> ...


Yep, the 3 day a week trains have worked out _so well_ for Amtrak. The Sunset Limited and the Cardinal have the poorest cost recovery of the LD trains. Guess what, they are the only 3 days a week LD trains Amtrak still runs. A 3 - or 2! - day a week train still has all the overhead, but sells a lot fewer tickets. If Amtrak could easily take the Cardinal and SL daily, they would have.

Oh boy, lots of bad ideas or ideas that have been tried before and failed in this thread.


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

Ryan said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > Roads care is different as is DOD and such. They are neccessities, Amtrak isn'. Amtrak is a business, the others are not.
> ...


Roads in the place where our in our society right now is a neccessaity, Amtrak isn't. Amtrak could stop operations tomorrow and our way of life wouldn't have any change to it. Remove or stop the upkeep of our roads where the majority of individuals travel and goods are moved, you have problems.

Does the present 3 Cardinal trips each week go at 100% full? I bet they don't, so you are operating with less then 100% capacity. If they are and in fact have overflow, then begin a 4th route, but I doubt that is the case.

Our gov't expenditures on the military are not even close to what they should be, the defense of this country is the no. 1 priority of our gov't.

So you are saying Amtrak trains stop and go at each stop within 10-15 minutes?

I have not said gov't shouldn't play a role, like the roads the gov't can be involved, but instead of wasting money supporting poor routes, why not invest in new track, new equipment and such.


----------



## afigg (Jun 29, 2012)

henryj said:


> So I can have my two little trains down here in Texas, the Sunset Ltd and the Eagle. lol. I don't believe Amtrak's loss numbers for the LD trains anyway. There is no way those 15 trains lose 530 million dollars a year. They are just loading them up with their bloated overhead to make the NEC and state operated trains look good. The LD trains, if operated and accounted for properly would cover their operating costs or even make a contribution to overhead. You could discontinue all 15 and most of those costs would not go away.


Rather sweeping claim. How much of Amtrak's fleet and personnel are used to run the LD trains? Almost all of the Superliners plus the 145 Amfleet IIs plus many of the P-42 locomotives. The equipment percentage allocation could be figured out.

The PRIIA act mandated an agreed to accounting cost allocation between Amtrak and the states. The cost allocation for the LD trains has to follow those rules as far as I know. I'm am not arguing against the LD trains. I think Amtrak needs to improve the LD train cost recovery percentages and, once they do, should restore or add several LD trains once they have enough equipment. But this argument that Amtrak is "loading them up" with overhead just to make the other trains looks good really does not make sense - unless you can back it up with documented facts.


----------



## saxman (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> > dn4192 said:
> ...


Removing one unprofitable route simply makes the other routes unprofitable and makes the situation worse. The rest of what you advocate is already being at Amtrak, or dealing with the freight railroads.


----------



## Go Modern (Jun 29, 2012)

I'm tired of economic arguments for and against. Sometimes you buy things because they're make you feel good. AMTRAK is an American gem. When I travel by plane, I am basically are forced to sit in a tiny seat and look straight ahead (or out out of one of the few window at tiny things or the tops of clouds); Fellow traveler interaction is nil. When I drive the freeways across the country, I see pavement; Fellow traveler interaction is an occasional raised middle finger. If I take Greyhound... well, let's not go their, I want to keep my head.

But when I take the train for business or pleasure, I see America out of the window - city, country and everything in between. And I meet fellow Americans from all over the country, and from all walks of life. More often than not, by the end of a long distance (and even medium distance) rides, I feel a common bond with my 'local' group of passengers. Just like a visit to a national parks, after a train ride, I usually find myself much happier for the experience.

So, for my part, I am glad my tax dollar (and certainly it seems a very small percent of my tax dollar at that) goes to support Amtrak. Unlike other government expenditures (wasteful or not), at least I can see where my tax dollar in operation. And the amazing thing is: A ride on Amtrak is available to everyone. What a bargain!


----------



## AlanB (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > So you're advocating the government stop spending money on all those roads that aren't profitable then, right?
> ...


Much of the placement of cities west of the Appalachian Mountains are due to trains and passenger trains in particular, not because of roads. And even today, 40% of all freight moves by rail. Only 28% moves by roads. This country grew up around its railroads, not its roads.

Roads today are only a necessity because government threw Trillions of dollars at them to make them so. And as others have pointed out, government interfered in the Free Market by subsidizing driving & planes. But for the fact that we've so badly gutted our trains, if government removed all subsidies tomorrow, we'd all be back riding trains again.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Right now the Cardinal has 30 stops between Chicago and NYC. If you droped that down to say maybe half or a little more then have like 17, I bet you could on average pick at least a couple of hours. I would think most stops are at least of 15-30 minute range and that doesn't include the train having to slow down when approaching those stops and the time it takes to get back up to speed. Also Amtrak should have the tracks to make it from start to finish without having to pull over for "other" trains. Again non of this is easy, but can be done if the motivation of profit is there to encourage it.


While there are a few longer stops, most stops that the Cardinal and other similar trains make take maybe 5 - 6 minutes. And that includes slowing down to a stop and accelerating back to track speed.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Well they spoke last night of a rail system in Japan that is private and having postive cash flow and one in england. If the airline and bus systems can operate and be profitable, why can't trains?


Let's see, Greyhound over the last 5 years cut about 1/2 the number of buses that it used to run. And they run on our subsidized roads, meaning that if they were actually paying more, they'd probably be out of business. Trailways as a company is largely out of business. Small operators using that name still exist, but the parent company is gone.

As for the airlines, collectively over the last 40 years they've lost about $10 Billion. And that's despite subsidies to them.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Profitbality can only be determined by those investing, what I might consider a good profit, someone else might not. This has nothing to do with what is "best" for society. Amtrak is a service, nothing more, a service that is not mandatory for life to continue. As for removing delays you just correct what is causing them. Again change only happens by motiviation, and like it or not, money motivates people to improve services.


It may not be mandatory for your life to continue, but for some people it is. The State of Montana several years ago commissioned a study on Amtrak to see if it benefited or hurt the state. The study found that Montana gets far more back in dollars than it sends to DC for Amtrak when considering all factors.

That study also found that many people up there along the hi-line depend on the Empire Builder to get from where they live to a larger city for medical treatment. They found that Amtrak carries people back home to their final rest. They found that without Amtrak people would have to drive several hours in the dead of winter on icy roads to reach any other form of transit if Amtrak didn't exit.

In other words, for some people, Amtrak is at a minimum extremely import to life, if not mandatory.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Roads in the place where our in our society right now is a neccessaity, Amtrak isn't. Amtrak could stop operations tomorrow and our way of life wouldn't have any change to it. Remove or stop the upkeep of our roads where the majority of individuals travel and goods are moved, you have problems.


If you stopped Amtrak tomorrow people would notice. Maybe you wouldn't depending on just where you live. But people in California, the Chicago area, and along the NEC would immediately notice the surge in traffic on our roads & highways. And flights would be strained beyond their ability to carry the load along the NEC.

And again, the majority of goods is moved by train; 40% of all freight moves by rail, 28% by truck.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Roads in the place where our in our society right now is a neccessaity, Amtrak isn't. Amtrak could stop operations tomorrow and our way of life wouldn't have any change to it. Remove or stop the upkeep of our roads where the majority of individuals travel and goods are moved, you have problems.


Actually, quite a few people depend on Amtrak for routine transportation needs. But you don't, so go ahead and give it the axe.



> Does the present 3 Cardinal trips each week go at 100% full? I bet they don't, so you are operating with less then 100% capacity. If they are and in fact have overflow, then begin a 4th route, but I doubt that is the case.


First off, it's "frequencies" you're talking about, not "routes". There is only one route that the Cardinal takes. And Amtrak's ridership figures are available, so go do the research. Interestingly enough, they're right by the on time numbers that you also kept on ignoring in the other thread. People aren't going to take trains if they can only travel on certain days. Amtrak should be going the other way and taking the Cardinal and Sunset daily and watch the ridership explode when they actually become useful.


> Our gov't expenditures on the military are not even close to what they should be, the defense of this country is the no. 1 priority of our gov't.


Aren't even close? Please expand. What enemy? What systems should we be spending more money on?


> So you are saying Amtrak trains stop and go at each stop within 10-15 minutes?


Alan already covered that. Cut 12 stations and congrats, you saved an hour and destroyed what ridership was left after you took the train to twice a week.


> I have not said gov't shouldn't play a role, like the roads the gov't can be involved, but instead of wasting money supporting poor routes, why not invest in new track, new equipment and such.


The routes are poor because of the lack of investment in them. Spend the money and see what happens with the ridership.


afigg said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > So I can have my two little trains down here in Texas, the Sunset Ltd and the Eagle. lol. I don't believe Amtrak's loss numbers for the LD trains anyway. There is no way those 15 trains lose 530 million dollars a year. They are just loading them up with their bloated overhead to make the NEC and state operated trains look good. The LD trains, if operated and accounted for properly would cover their operating costs or even make a contribution to overhead. You could discontinue all 15 and most of those costs would not go away.
> ...


We had that thread, and Henry came up empty.

There's a beautiful irony in both posters that are long on criticism and completely devoid of realistic, concrete suggestions for improvement in here.


----------



## amamba (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > dn4192 said:
> ...


Amtrak is absolutely a necessity for travel for the thousands of people that use it to commute to work on a daily basis. My husband is one of them, and there is a decent group of people that board his train every day for the same commute.


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

amamba said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...



And if Amtrak went away, something else would replace. Travelers would fly, drive or take a bus.


----------



## amamba (Jun 29, 2012)

Commuters would fly to work?! That sounds expensive. And the roads are already crammed - that is why he takes the train.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

I'm going to need to get on a train to keep up with these moving goalposts.

The government subsidized Essential Air Service suggests that you're still wrong.


----------



## EB_OBS (Jun 29, 2012)

Ispolkom said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that a reliable, modern, quick train service like is available in many modern countries could be successful here.
> ...


Absolutely not! There isn't a profitable, self-sustaining passenger rail service in existence anywhere on the planet.


----------



## EB_OBS (Jun 29, 2012)

AlanB said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > Profitbality can only be determined by those investing, what I might consider a good profit, someone else might not. This has nothing to do with what is "best" for society. Amtrak is a service, nothing more, a service that is not mandatory for life to continue. As for removing delays you just correct what is causing them. Again change only happens by motiviation, and like it or not, money motivates people to improve services.
> ...


I've read that study and I've witnessed first-hand almost every single aspect of it in my short experience working on-board the Empire Builder for five years and as a supervisor for the last three years. Every city and town along the High-Line depends upon Amtrak and passenger rail service to a great degree.


----------



## EB_OBS (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> And if Amtrak went away, something else would replace. Travelers would fly, drive or take a bus.


Sure they would, and with one less option, any of the those remaining options would also likely increase in cost. Let's not even consider that fact that many locations the train serves are 200 to 300 miles from the nearest airport.


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

amamba said:


> Commuters would fly to work?! That sounds expensive. And the roads are already crammed - that is why he takes the train.



Well actually yes there are some commuters who do fly and yes the roads are crammed, but that wouldn't stop more people from driving. Also you can remove amtrak trains and still offer train service through other sources regionally.


----------



## dn4192 (Jun 29, 2012)

Ryan said:


> I'm going to need to get on a train to keep up with these moving goalposts.
> 
> The government subsidized Essential Air Service suggests that you're still wrong.



Again I am not against gov't assistance, what I am against is wasteful gov't assistance. Keeping train service of a poor used route makes no sense. The gov't assistance can be better used if a private company had a motive to do so, and right now Amtrak is not very motivated to improve its' overall service.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

More assertions with no proof to back them up.

Just like Faux "News".


----------



## Texan Eagle (Jun 29, 2012)

I do not wish to jump in the mud with more arguments, the folks in here are doing a great job already, but I'd say this is one of the most entertaining threads I've seen on this forum






Do you think if this forum was instead run by a private company, the quality would be much better?


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Keeping train service of a poor used route makes no sense.


Define "poor(ly) used"



> right now Amtrak is not very motivated to improve its' overall service.


What is this opinion based on - you're familiar with the motivations of Amtrak management exactly how?


----------



## jebr (Jun 29, 2012)

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what enemy requires us to spend 10ish% of our entire tax revenue just to protect ourselves against it. We shouldn't be the world's policemen. Nor do we need bases and military personnel all around the world. Do we need them in Germany or Japan? Neither one of those countries has attacked us in roughly 60 years, and they seem to have no inclination to do so.

The enumerated powers of Congress do not have anything suggesting bases around the world, simply for us to have an army and navy to protect our borders.

In fact, here you go. The enumerated powers of Congress:



> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> 
> To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
> ...



Trust me, to get to where we are today, we're interpreting this quite broadly. Even with our military.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 29, 2012)

Amtrak has the highest fare box recovery of any functional transportation service in this hemisphere. What more do you want?


----------



## PaulM (Jun 29, 2012)

fulham said:


> Part of me just wants to say to everyone who believes in the "trickle down economic" theories, the all government is wasteful and inefficient" theories, "the private sector has the answer to every single issue facing this country today theories"...let's try it. Let the Republicans win every election (local and national) and they can implement the above. Then let's talk in 4 years and we will see what type of country we have.


Human nature won't have changed in 4 years. The republicans, or whoever gets elected, will quickly realize that everyone, individual and corporations, depend on subsidies. So a few subsides with only a tiny constituency might be eliminated. But it won't be anything like what you are envisioning.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jun 29, 2012)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Your first mistake was watching Faux News.
> ...


Which only goes to show the overall accuracy of their reporting... :lol:


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jun 29, 2012)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak has the highest fare box recovery of any functional transportation service in this hemisphere. What more do you want?



Only what those nice people on talk radio tell me I want. :wacko:


----------



## henryj (Jun 29, 2012)

Go Modern said:


> I'm tired of economic arguments for and against. Sometimes you buy things because they're make you feel good. AMTRAK is an American gem. When I travel by plane, I am basically are forced to sit in a tiny seat and look straight ahead (or out out of one of the few window at tiny things or the tops of clouds); Fellow traveler interaction is nil. When I drive the freeways across the country, I see pavement; Fellow traveler interaction is an occasional raised middle finger. If I take Greyhound... well, let's not go their, I want to keep my head.
> 
> But when I take the train for business or pleasure, I see America out of the window - city, country and everything in between. And I meet fellow Americans from all over the country, and from all walks of life. More often than not, by the end of a long distance (and even medium distance) rides, I feel a common bond with my 'local' group of passengers. Just like a visit to a national parks, after a train ride, I usually find myself much happier for the experience.
> 
> So, for my part, I am glad my tax dollar (and certainly it seems a very small percent of my tax dollar at that) goes to support Amtrak. Unlike other government expenditures (wasteful or not), at least I can see where my tax dollar in operation. And the amazing thing is: A ride on Amtrak is available to everyone. What a bargain!


This is the best argument for Amtrak and passenger rail I have ever heard on here. Good job. All transportation modes are subsidized by the Government. Amtrak gets the smallest piece by far. Lets give them more. If you want it all to go private then make the Interstate highways toll roads, put tax mileage meters on all cars, charge the airlines the full costs of the TSA, air traffice controllers and airports and plan to pay double the current air fare and then private passenger rail will compete.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jun 29, 2012)

The goverment or those who are anti-rail want to get rid of Amtraks subsidy's cause they think it will help the national debt. it ain't going to do squat. it's like taking a shop vac to a flooded city not going to do much good.


----------



## PaulM (Jun 29, 2012)

Ryan said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > If private industry can't do it, then you don't have it.
> ...


Would it help if you recommended an elementary logic course? He's got the major premise, but it still takes a minor premise to draw a conclusion.

I doubt it.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> and right now Amtrak is not very motivated to improve its' overall service.


This is probably the most ridiculous statement you've made to date in this topic. Sorry!

Amtrak is very motivated to improve things. Amtrak has dozens of reports on it's website and in the hands of Congress detailing things that it would like to do so as to improve service. But those things take money. Money that so far Congress isn't willing to part with. Heck, right now thanks to Congress, even if Amtrak could find the equipment to start a new route to improve service, it can't! Congress won't allow it! Much less help to fund it knowing that the more trains that Amtrak can run, the more interconnected the system becomes and the greater the ridership becomes. Greater ridership means more revenue and less subsidy.

Yet Congress is happy to throw away money on many far more wasteful things, like the bridge to nowhere or a statue of Andrew Jackson in a city in the south, don't recall what city right now.

However returning to our central theme, we drivers only manage to cover 51% of the costs of our highways. If we back out the monies that go to public transit and other questionable items that Congress spends the fuel taxes on, we get to 65% covered by fuel taxes and other direct fees.

As of 2011, Amtrak covered 69% of its budget without help from the Fed. If we toss in the state subsidies, then Amtrak is probably hovering around that same 65% mark that drivers manage to cover. The only difference is that Amtrak's budget is only around $4 Billion, while the combined state & Federal spending on highways is in the $200 Billion range, meaning that in terms of total dollars, what gets spent in subsidies on drivers is huge compared to Amtrak.

Here's another way to look at it. According to the Taxpayer's REceipt for 2009, a married couple with 2 kids & $80K paid $3.83 via their Federal incomes taxes to Amtrak. That same couple paid $110.06 towards the highways. That's on top of what they paid via fuel taxes, states taxes, sales taxes and so on.

A retired couple with $100K in income paid $3.11 towards Amtrak, something that they might well use. They paid $89.38 towards the highways, even if they can no longer drive a car, much less own one.

Cutting Amtrak isn't going to do much to your tax bill, and any savings would quickly be gobbled up by the need to build more highways and add lanes to the existing ones.

Sure, it sounds terrible when John Stossel throws around wild numbers like he did in his report on the Sunset Limited. But killing Amtrak is only going to save about $4 in taxes, which again will just end up in the roads anyhow. Killing the Sunset Limited is likely to drop that $3.83 to about $3.82 for the first couple and $3.11 to $3.10 for the second.


----------



## pennyk (Jun 29, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> The goverment or those who are anti-rail want to get rid of Amtraks subsidy's cause they think it will help the national debt. it ain't going to do squat. it's like taking a shop vac to a flooded city not going to do much good.


Thanks Kevin for the humurous analagy in a not so funny thread. :lol:


----------



## NE933 (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Roads care is different as is DOD and such. They are neccessities, Amtrak isn'. Amtrak is a business, the others are not.


This is contradictory to an earlier post. If the Amtrak rail system is not a necessity, then why would you go through decades of work, time, and dollars to convert the NY - Chicago route into a 'bullet train'? Your words, I'm not going to use the quote feature but you did write them, was to run a bullet train NY to Chicago. High speed rail requires more than just rolling stock, and converting the entire route would mean more projects than you're fathoming, assuming you are, that is.

I'll now go after the other part of the above quote, about Amtrak being a business. Yes, it is a business and it needs ridership revenue along with revenue from real estate, collecting user fees from other railroads that run on it's tracks, and so on. What the link is between that and being/not being a necessity doesn't make sense.

Now, are you relatively new to AU? I've not seen your tag name 'dn4192' before and your explosive entrance onto the scene with much thunder but little substance has me and clearly, many others wondering of your capabilities of forming a meaningful and well structured debate. Your posts have lots of run ons, and many have no point or cause-effect illustration. You know, like "Amtrak is not necessary because ... it costs alot for the few people it serves....." but then you fail to offer a consiliatory when others and myself tell, repeatedly, that 30 million per year use it, and then you again fail, seemingly on purpose, to explain how those 30 million would get transportation if Amtrak were not around. With such a high sensationalism to low logic and thoughtfulness ratio to your posts, I'll continue reading them but only in the framework that what you have to say is mere entertainment for a person in boredom, rather than meaningful transportation discourse.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > dn4192 said:
> ...


Woah. I've been watching your posts for a while and not commenting because you are entitled to your opinions, but making such a wildly broad generalization so untrue for many is not OK. My life would be dramatically different, and for the worse, if it had not been for Amtrak. Amtrak is one of the sole ways I have such a good relationship with many family members, across multiple states. I would be much worse off if our passenger train system is here. For me, it is basically a necessity, and that is true for SO many people that your statement here is wrong on so many levels. Criticize Amtrak's financials as much as you want, but don't underestimate the impact its demise would have on the lives of millions.


----------



## saxman (Jun 29, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Right now the Cardinal has 30 stops between Chicago and NYC. If you droped that down to say maybe half or a little more then have like 17, I bet you could on average pick at least a couple of hours. I would think most stops are at least of 15-30 minute range and that doesn't include the train having to slow down when approaching those stops and the time it takes to get back up to speed. Also Amtrak should have the tracks to make it from start to finish without having to pull over for "other" trains. Again non of this is easy, but can be done if the motivation of profit is there to encourage it.


I agree that in general, a private entity will be more motivated to improve things, but then I think of companies like Enron, so on, so forth... Like I pointed out before, it was the government in the first place that interfered with the free market. Our massive highway system is not the free market! And I'm one to agree that building interstate highway system was a great thing! Flawed? Yes, because it ruined many of our downtowns and inner-cities, but overall a good thing for interstate commerce.

Now about your idea with the Cardinal. Eliminating stops would make Amtrak worse. Most of those towns want Amtrak service and they help pay for the upkeep of their platforms and stations. I really don't have time to look up numbers, but several months ago, someone on these boards suggested something similar. Specifically it was to eliminate 3 towns in Texas; Mineola, Cleburne, and San Marcos. Nevermind the fact that all 3 of those stations are seeing huge ridership growth because they have new stations. They also collect over $1 million in ticket revenue combined per year. So if you eliminate those stops, Amtrak just lost over $1 million per year! Now what were you saying about profit??

Now lets say you eliminate 15 stops along the Cardinals route. Now the Cardinal does not run daily, so I'm not really sure how much revenue each stop generates, but lets say each small stop generates only $150,000 in revenue per year average. Remember thats very conservative, seeing how my 3 Texas stations had over $333,000 each average. Now $150,000 times 15 stations comes to a whopping $2.25 million! And thats probably on the low end that Amtrak would lose should they eliminate 15 stops along the Cardinal route. Remember, the cost to Amtrak of stopping at many of these unstaffed stations is negligable.

Now you might say, the extra revenue will be made up for the fast running times. Nope, maybe 30 minutes would be saved, but I don't think saving 30 minutes is worth losing $2.25 million.

Just talk to the folks in Hope, Arkansas whose spending $250,000 just to build a platform to get Amtrak to stop there. They've spent 10 years doing so, and will finally get a stop on the Texas Eagle route later this year!


----------



## KYRR (Jun 29, 2012)

This has been interesting to read. It reminds me of a quote I once heard. "Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is already made up".


----------



## oldtimer (Jun 29, 2012)

pennyk said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > The goverment or those who are anti-rail want to get rid of Amtraks subsidy's cause they think it will help the national debt. it ain't going to do squat. it's like taking a shop vac to a flooded city not going to do much good.
> ...


But what Kevin didn't tell you was that the power was out in that flooded city!

:giggle: :blink: :help:


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jun 30, 2012)

jebr said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


As of end of 2011, DoD budget is 4.7 of GDP which includes protecting the US and major forces on the ground protecting 17 other countries.

Healthcare, education and welfare(HHS) each all spend more(as part of GDP) than DoD. DoD allows YOU sleep to under your blankets at night knowing for (28) years I and my fellow brethren protected you 24 hours a day. We guaranteed you freedom of speech, freedom of religion and many other freedoms. You have a lot of hutsfa comparing DoD to any other department. Those other departments produce whiny, suckers of the government teat who comprise the 47% "taker" crowd who think the government exists to reward them for their many errors in judgement and expect the 53% "givers" (taxpayers) to take care of them.

Since you fancy your self as a Constitutional scholar, then I am sure you know that only the Post Office and a standing army and navy are authorized by the Constitution. There has never been a USSC decision that has declared a war authorized by a sitting President and a sitting Congress as unconstitutional.

Also the common ruse used by politicians to give us all those great social programs is under the umbrella of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Those ideals come form the Declaration of Independence which is not a LAW.

You not only besmerch me but my fellow adversaries on this site who I have had disagreements with but whom I now have served honorably for their country.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## jebr (Jun 30, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> > dn4192 said:
> ...


So because I take issue with many of the recent military conflicts, such as the ones you mentioned, you assume that I do not support our military, that I am a Democrat, that Obama is my hero, and that I fully support many of our welfare programs?

That is quite a leap with a lot of untrue assumptions. I support our military personnel (after all, they make many sacrifices to serve our country). I do, however, disagree with spending money on conflicts that do not seem to have a direct impact on the defense of the United States. I still wonder why we need to spend six times more money than China, the next largest military in terms of expenditures.

As for the rest of your assumptions on my political leanings, I'll just say...they're false.


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jun 30, 2012)

AlanB said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


Alan,,

As one of the few conservatives who comes to this site, I agree with most of what you said but need to clarify something. The Eisenhower Interstates And DEFENSE Highways System started in 1956 was developed by Ike to move military convoys from ports, rail yards and airports rapidly throughout the country. It was never intended to be a major thoroughfare for massive private automobile transportation. At that period of time, most cars where concentrated in the large metropolitan areas and used the individual state road systems.

The article below does a good job of showing how the increased mass production of automobiles forced/allowed city dwellers to leave citiesfor cheaper areas(suburbs) leaving the cities to those who could not afford a car. The federal gas tax that was started in 1919 increased dramatically in 1950s supposedly to pay for the increase demand for more infrastructure which it did until 1960s. Since the 1960s the federal gas tax collected has NEVER 100% been used for the continued upkeep of the nationals highway and we know where a lot of that money went and it wasn't for roads.

http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Race/R_Overview/R_Overview5.htm

That being said, AMTRAK's subsidy is .1% of the total federal budget and I DON'T get my panties all twisted up like some conservatives do as it's peanuts compared to the highway/airport subsidies given out and other gov't waste. But those airports and roads are used by 80%-90% of the adult population and America is not going to give up their love affair with their automobile.

As I have said on previous threads and I will continue to say until they put me in a pine box, AMTRAK could cut their 1.2 billion subsidy by half by adding a $75 FIRST Class Sleeper Fee to each LD sleeper fare. A FIRST Class Sleeper ticket has a more upscale ring to than a "sleeper ticket". Appearance is everything. Do you think I wouldn't have bought the wife and I's $1,995 Christmas LAX-WAS-LAX trip last year if they added the $75 First Class Sleeper fee. Not in the least.

For my First Class Sleeper fee of $75, I would like priority boarding, clean, nice smelling sleeper car bathrooms, cloth table cloths(if already available) daily local/national newspaper(if available) and good service. I am not an elitist. I come from humble beginnings. EVERY sleeper passenger I talked to at meal time on my round trip last Christmas agreed they would pay it for those services.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## Anderson (Jun 30, 2012)

I'm going to disagree that the IHS was not intended for private use; I suspect that had that been a _truly_ secondary consideration, it would have been tolled with military vehicles exempted from the tolls by statute. Instead, the entire system was set up with a rather solid ban on tolls (with a few exemptions, such as paying off construction bonds on some projects), and in fact there was an initial debate on whether or not to try and put a second interstate through southern PA to get around the Turnpike (among other examples of such debates).


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jun 30, 2012)

jis said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > Profitbality can only be determined by those investing, what I might consider a good profit, someone else might not. This has nothing to do with what is "best" for society.
> ...


Prostitution is LEGAL and SAFE in Nevada(certain parts) and very profitable.

NAVYBLUE

From Las Vegas, Nevada where it is ILLEGAL


----------



## AlanB (Jun 30, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> Alan,,
> 
> As one of the few conservatives who comes to this site, I agree with most of what you said but need to clarify something. The Eisenhower Interstates And DEFENSE Highways System started in 1956 was developed by Ike to move military convoys from ports, rail yards and airports rapidly throughout the country. It was never intended to be a major thoroughfare for massive private automobile transportation. At that period of time, most cars where concentrated in the large metropolitan areas and used the individual state road systems.


I'm sorry, but I've got to disagree with you on this.

The Defense part was the the little white lie that Ike told everyone after his first attempt at the Interstate Highway System (IHS) failed to pass Congress in 1954. After that failure, Ike regrouped and added in the military angle as he knew that would allow things to sail right through Congress. And wonder of wonder, it did sail right through.

If the IHS had been solely about the military, then every highway would have been planned to have only 2 lanes in each direction, as the military needed nothing more. But many highways initially were planned for more than that. This is not to say that the military didn't use the highways, and God forbid had we ever faced an invasion the IHS could well have proved invaluable.



NAVYBLUE said:


> The federal gas tax that was started in 1919 increased dramatically in 1950s supposedly to pay for the increase demand for more infrastructure which it did until 1960s.


The Federal fuel tax was enacted in 1932 by then President Herbert Hoover. And its purpose wasn't to pay for roads or highways, but instead to help pay down the national debt.

In 1956, the Highway Act of 1956 redirected the fuel taxes into the Highway Trust Fund and raised it considerably. The same highway Act called for the Federal fuel tax to revert back to its primary purpose of paying down the debt either when the initial IHS plan was completed or 1972, whichever came first. Instead Congress continues to divert the fuel tax into the Highway Trust Fund.



NAVYBLUE said:


> That being said, AMTRAK's subsidy is .1% of the total federal budget and I DON'T get my panties all twisted up like some conservatives do as it's peanuts compared to the highway/airport subsidies given out and other gov't waste. But those airports and roads are used by 80%-90% of the adult population and America is not going to give up their love affair with their automobile.


It's actually even less, Amtrak's subsidy represents about 0.04% of the 2012 Federal budget. So yes, cutting Amtrak does next to nothing to help balance the budget.



NAVYBLUE said:


> As I have said on previous threads and I will continue to say until they put me in a pine box, AMTRAK could cut their 1.2 billion subsidy by half by adding a $75 FIRST Class Sleeper Fee to each LD sleeper fare. A FIRST Class Sleeper ticket has a more upscale ring to than a "sleeper ticket". Appearance is everything. Do you think I wouldn't have bought the wife and I's $1,995 Christmas LAX-WAS-LAX trip last year if they added the $75 First Class Sleeper fee. Not in the least.


Actually a $75 surcharge on Amtrak's 663,947 sleeping car passengers in 2011 would raise just shy of $50 Million. So it really wouldn't make much of a dent in the average annual $1.5 Billion Federal subsidy.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 30, 2012)

Alan,

However, if we restrict ourselves to the operating deficit (i.e. consider the capital account separately), that $75 would cut the LD operating losses by about 7-10%, or cut overall operating losses by about 10-15%. Still not half, but definitely a noticeable dent. Moreover, if you also omit the losses in the short corridors, the overall operating losses (LD losses less NEC profits) would likely be "bumped down" by 20% or so.

_Unfortunately_, it would also trash my favorite sleeper trip by hiking the cost about 40%, and seriously trash a lot of other trips for folks. LAX-WAS-LAX only gets a 3.5-5% hike, yes, but a low bucket ticket on the Cap or a Silver goes up by as much as 25%. Amtrak _would_ lose riders at that point, I suspect.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 30, 2012)

AlanB said:


> NAVYBLUE said:
> 
> 
> > As I have said on previous threads and I will continue to say until they put me in a pine box, AMTRAK could cut their 1.2 billion subsidy by half by adding a $75 FIRST Class Sleeper Fee to each LD sleeper fare. A FIRST Class Sleeper ticket has a more upscale ring to than a "sleeper ticket". Appearance is everything. Do you think I wouldn't have bought the wife and I's $1,995 Christmas LAX-WAS-LAX trip last year if they added the $75 First Class Sleeper fee. Not in the least.
> ...


that includes the baked in assu,ption that everyone is like NAVYBLUE, and everyone that bought a ticket would have still bought that ticket.

Under what I shall now call the "Dlagrua Collerary", (namely, "Sleeper prices are too high, and I won't pay them!"), I submit that's an invalid assumption and the amount raised would've even less than $50 Million.

(sorry for the typos, power is out and typing on the phone is a pain)


----------



## TrainLoverJoy (Jun 30, 2012)

Glad to see others can't stand Fox news either!!!


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jun 30, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> For my First Class Sleeper fee of $75, I would like priority boarding, clean, nice smelling sleeper car bathrooms, cloth table cloths(if already available) daily local/national newspaper(if available) and good service. I am not an elitist. I come from humble beginnings. EVERY sleeper passenger I talked to at meal time on my round trip last Christmas agreed they would pay it for those services.
> 
> NAVYBLUE


I got all that without having to pay an EXTRA fee when I took my LD trip in November, so I don't see a need for an EXTRA fee. Sleeping car pax are already paying for first class service.


----------



## henryj (Jun 30, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Alan,
> 
> However, if we restrict ourselves to the operating deficit (i.e. consider the capital account separately), that $75 would cut the LD operating losses by about 7-10%, or cut overall operating losses by about 10-15%. Still not half, but definitely a noticeable dent. Moreover, if you also omit the losses in the short corridors, the overall operating losses (LD losses less NEC profits) would likely be "bumped down" by 20% or so.
> 
> _Unfortunately_, it would also trash my favorite sleeper trip by hiking the cost about 40%, and seriously trash a lot of other trips for folks. LAX-WAS-LAX only gets a 3.5-5% hike, yes, but a low bucket ticket on the Cap or a Silver goes up by as much as 25%. Amtrak _would_ lose riders at that point, I suspect.


Actually raising sleeper fares would do little as they are already high. The problem is Amtrak is charging less than the Greyhound coach fare on most LD routes. Train travel is a step above buses with their dining and lounge cars and more comfortable than flying. Raising the coach fares to at least higher than the bus would generate a lot of revenue and would make most of the LD routes close to covering their basic operating costs.


----------



## rrdude (Jun 30, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Last night on John Stossels show they spent a segment talking about amtrak. I am not sure if this was a repeat and already discussed here or not but they went into how our gov't is basically keeping Amtrak afloat. I had no idea that our limited tax dollars were being used at a very high amount to keep Amtrak going. The pointed out a route from New Orleans to LA that is a very expensive route for the gov't and has very little ridership. After seeing what our gov't is spending on Amtrak I have to feel that in it's best interest the gov't needs to back off to the degree it is and work with Amtrak to become more self sufficent and if it means reduction in service so be it.


Drinking the Kool-Aid I see.

I'd be all for "privatizing" Amtrak too, IF, (and it ain't gonna happen) the railroad TRACK and infrastructure were like the Interstate Highway system, built by YOUR tax dollars btw, and maintained by YOUR tax dollars btw, and used by you, and all the other private citizens, AND by UPS, FedX, Greyhound, Snider, Central Transport, NEMF, Megabus, BOLTBus, Mayflower Moving & Storage,..........get the idea?

TWO sides to every store, FOX good at showing only one side.


----------



## rrdude (Jun 30, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > I am unclear the problem with removing unprofitable routes and privatizing Amtrak? The gov't doesn't need to be "helping" it to the degree it is and if private business can do it better why not give it a shot?
> ...


LOL LOL LOL. Damn, I truly, REALLY, spit out my coffee onto the screen when I read that. OMG, so true.

I do have to AGREE, this has been one of the BEST THREADS in some time. Ryan, take your heart medicine, calm down, there may be a bit of trolling going on.......


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 30, 2012)

Note to Youngsters that weren't around on A Day in 1971! (Want a Snack from the SP Automat Car? Just pay the Attendant for Change and have some Gourmet Fast Food! :giggle: !!!) Lets ask UP and BNSF if they want to run Passenger Trains like the Lines did up until the terrible 60s when they started using every Hook or Crook they could to run off passengers and cut Routes and Trains! The poster about Mexico nailed it, Mexico "Privatized" the Railroads and except for two Tourist Lines ( Copper Canyon and the Tequila Train)the Passenger Trains went away! Same thing would happen here , or even worse the Operators would get Huge Subsidies to run the Trains AKA Corporate Welfare!


----------



## E Runs (Jun 30, 2012)

Ryan said:


> The routes are poor because of the lack of investment in them. Spend the money and see what happens with the ridership.
> 
> [


And who's responsible for that lack of investment? Oh that's right, the Class Is! The PRIVATELY owned Class Is who treat Amtrak like a red-headed stepchild. 90% of Amrtrak's deficiencies, real or preceived, are a direct result of not owning their own tracks (aside from the NEC and a stretch in MI). This fact can't be mentioned enough.


----------



## Big Iron (Jun 30, 2012)

E Runs said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > The routes are poor because of the lack of investment in them. Spend the money and see what happens with the ridership.
> ...



http://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/improving-rail-infrastructure-on-the-right-track/

Just a very quick check on the internet and came up with the link above. Anyone that reads Railway Age knows that freight railroading is a growth industry and that Class I's spend billions annualy to grow and maintain their rights of way. To say that Amtrak's routes are poor due to lack of ROW investment is mostly false. To say Amtrak is treated like a red headed step child by the class I's is likely true but that is more of a dispatching issue than infrastucture. What's obvious in the article is that the Class I's are getting their subsidies as well, from local, state and federal sources.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 30, 2012)

The fact the the Class I's have spent all that money doesn't disprove the fact that ROW issues are a huge factor in Amtraks's poor performance. Examples:

Cardinal lateness, due to lack of sidings on the BBRR

Daily Sunset, or lack thereof

Potential SwC reroute

Flooding on the Devils Lake sub

Mudslides on BNSF track in the PacNorWest

Just off of the top of my head...


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jun 30, 2012)

And even though the freight railroads ares supposed to give priority over amtrak they delay amtrak to force it to miss its window so they can delay it more to the point its hours late.If the host railroads don't want to deal with amtrak why delay it. That just makes them have to deal with amtrak that much longer. Give amtrak the priority even if it's late and you can go back you running your little freight trains sooner. It's a game the hosts like the play cause they know amtrak does not have the gonads to challenge it.


----------



## jmbgeg (Jun 30, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Last night on John Stossels show they spent a segment talking about amtrak. I am not sure if this was a repeat and already discussed here or not but they went into how our gov't is basically keeping Amtrak afloat. I had no idea that our limited tax dollars were being used at a very high amount to keep Amtrak going. The pointed out a route from New Orleans to LA that is a very expensive route for the gov't and has very little ridership. After seeing what our gov't is spending on Amtrak I have to feel that in it's best interest the gov't needs to back off to the degree it is and work with Amtrak to become more self sufficent and if it means reduction in service so be it.


I risk possibly offending some of my AU friends, but I am a big Fox News fan.

That said, their piece on Amtrak is dead wrong. My arguments are twofold:

1) Consider train travel funding the same way government does highways and public transit.

2) Give Amtrak capital funding to modernize its fleet, then make the judgement.


----------



## Big Iron (Jun 30, 2012)

Ryan said:


> The fact the the Class I's have spent all that money doesn't disprove the fact that ROW issues are a huge factor in Amtraks's poor performance. Examples:
> 
> Cardinal lateness, due to lack of sidings on the BBRR
> 
> ...


Just off the top of your head, what percent would that be of Amtrak's entire system?


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jun 30, 2012)

jmbgeg said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > Last night on John Stossels show they spent a segment talking about amtrak. I am not sure if this was a repeat and already discussed here or not but they went into how our gov't is basically keeping Amtrak afloat. I had no idea that our limited tax dollars were being used at a very high amount to keep Amtrak going. The pointed out a route from New Orleans to LA that is a very expensive route for the gov't and has very little ridership. After seeing what our gov't is spending on Amtrak I have to feel that in it's best interest the gov't needs to back off to the degree it is and work with Amtrak to become more self sufficent and if it means reduction in service so be it.
> ...




Here is my answer form another thread that I KNOW will offend some of my AU "friends"

NAVYBLUE

Mode of passenger transport Passenger-miles

(millions) Percent

* *

*Highway — total* *4,884,557* *88.79%*

Passenger vehicles, motorcycles 4,520,810 82.18%

Trucks 222,836 4.05%

Buses 162,908 2.96%

* *

*Air Carriers* *583,689* *10.61%*

* *

*Rail — total* *30,972* *0.56%*

Transit 16,118 0.29%

Commuter 9,473 0.17%

Intercity/Amtrak 5,381 0.10%

*All other modes (e.g., ferryboats)* *2,091* 0.04% Source: 2010 estimates by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics

All this being said, l am going to let you in on a secret. Of the people who are on various Transportation Committees and Sub Committees, my former home state(PA) has (3) Republicans and (2) Democrats on these committees. If you think those (5) people and the other members who have heavy interstate traffic going THROUGH their state and have 2-5 Metro areas NOT served by a MARC/NEC train system but BUSES gives a rats ass about AMTRAK, you are delusional.

My former reps care about fed/state roads and buses and will throw a token bone to AMTRAK as the ACELA (Philly), CL(Pittsburgh) and Keystone/Pennsylvania came through/to Pennsylvania. It has ALWAYS been like that in Pennsylvania. State/Fed roads and bus terminals in Pennsylvania are built by UNION workers and create more Union jobs than AMTRAK does. It is the sad truth as it where. PA has always had and tried to load up Transportation with PA people.

That being said, the PA reps and the other heavy Interstate traveled states are going to do their best to stop California HSR now projected to cost twice as what was originally projected and the Las Vegas, NV to somewhere in Califirnia HSR if it involves a lot of Fed money.

Roads ALWAYS need repair and there are plenty of Union workers to do the work. It is what it is.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## Big Iron (Jun 30, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> And even though the freight railroads ares supposed to give priority over amtrak they delay amtrak to force it to miss its window so they can delay it more to the point its hours late.If the host railroads don't want to deal with amtrak why delay it. That just makes them have to deal with amtrak that much longer. Give amtrak the priority even if it's late and you can go back you running your little freight trains sooner. It's a game the hosts like the play cause they know amtrak does not have the gonads to challenge it.


http://www.aar.org/~/media/aar/Industry%20Info/AAR-Stats-2011-0617.ashx

The stats above would suggest that the freight trains aren't so little. The 2010 profits for the class I's was roughly four times the annual government funding for Amtrak. Annual revenues are roughly twenty-five times the annual funding. The way I see it, the Class I's are thinking about the billions of products they need to deliver on time versus the millions of passengers Amtrak needs to deliver on time. I would imagine they are also thinking about the competition, stockholders, growing revenue, maintaing pysical plant, etc..

I expect Amtrak understands this as well and if they did sack up and go after them (they did sue the UP) that the collective power of the class I's would overrun them and Amtrak may come away with less power than they have now.


----------



## Big Iron (Jun 30, 2012)

Ryan said:


> The fact the the Class I's have spent all that money doesn't disprove the fact that ROW issues are a huge factor in Amtraks's poor performance. Examples:
> 
> Cardinal lateness, due to lack of sidings on the BBRR
> 
> ...


Also, you, and others, have been pressing dn4192 to produce facts and figures to document his comments, how huge a factor are ROW issues an Amtrak OTP? What routes are affected and to what extent, how much revenue is lost due to lack of class I investment in their infrastructure? How much should the class I's spend and where?


----------



## Chatter163 (Jun 30, 2012)

dn4192 said:


> Roads in the place where our in our society right now is a neccessaity, Amtrak isn't. Amtrak could stop operations tomorrow and our way of ife wouldn't have any change to it. Remove or stop the upkeep of our roads where the majority of individuals travel and goods are moved, you have problems.


But obviously it was not always that way. Without massive government expenditures that favored the auto and aviation industries, beginning in the 1920s and again in the 1950s, there would be no auto or airline industries as we know them, and therefore no need for roads, highways or airports--nearly all of which are financed by the government. Private industry was, of course, the spark that created these needs, but without governmnent expenditure propping them up (to many times the tune of Amtrak's budget), just as had been the case with railroads, these industries would not exist today. Ditto the cruise shop industry, whose ports are constructed and maintained by government funds. Where is your outrage about these industries having a huge part of their infrastructure being financed by the government? Shouldn't they be made to pay their own way, or cease to exist?



dn4192 said:


> Roads in the place where our in our society right now is a So you are saying Amtrak trains stop and go at each stop within 10-15 minutes?


You really don't know anything about Amtrak or trains, do you? Most trains stop only for *a minute or two* at most stations. A few stop 3-4 minutes at large stations. The only 15-20 minute stops are the very rare service stops, when the train is rewatered and the enginers/conductors change. But most are only momentary stops.

Private industry used to operate commuter and regional trains, too, such as the New York Subway system, the Long Island Railroad, New York and New Haven RR, etc. But over time all of these proved unprofitable and government, usually local or state, stepped in and took them over, because transportation is seen as a necessary government function. Unlike local commuter trains, Amtrak is government-subsidized, but not government run.

According to your statements, the airlines should never have been bailed out after 9-11, nor should their airports be financed by the federal government, which supplies ninety percent of the finanacing, or local (the remainder). We pay air traffic controllers to guide private flights--why shouldn't the airlines do this? Should public bus terminals expel Greyhound and the many regional bus companies? After all, these are private companies and if they cannot afford to construct and maintain their own terminals, then obviously we don't need them. And why are we running federal port operations for pleasure cruise passengers?


----------



## TimePeace (Jun 30, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> And even though the freight railroads ares supposed to give priority over amtrak they delay amtrak to force it to miss its window so they can delay it more to the point its hours late.If the host railroads don't want to deal with amtrak why delay it. That just makes them have to deal with amtrak that much longer. Give amtrak the priority even if it's late and you can go back you running your little freight trains sooner. It's a game the hosts like the play cause they know amtrak does not have the gonads to challenge it.


I agree ... but - "Little freight trains"????? Haven't seen any Amtrak trains over a mile long lately!


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jun 30, 2012)

Maine Rider said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > And even though the freight railroads ares supposed to give priority over amtrak they delay amtrak to force it to miss its window so they can delay it more to the point its hours late.If the host railroads don't want to deal with amtrak why delay it. That just makes them have to deal with amtrak that much longer. Give amtrak the priority even if it's late and you can go back you running your little freight trains sooner. It's a game the hosts like the play cause they know amtrak does not have the gonads to challenge it.
> ...


Being sarcastic about the freight railroads as they see their freight as more important then amtrak. Freights travel slower then amtrak. Let amtrak over take it's not going to kill you to hold a freight for 3 or 4 minutes etc while amtrak takes over but instead they will hold amtrak for hours just to let 3 or 4 trains pass amtrak in the same direction. then cause amtrak missed its "window" they delay it more. That makes sense how?


----------



## ParrotRob (Jun 30, 2012)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Your first mistake was watching Faux News.
> ...



"Later, much later"? Seriously? Shannon Bream reported at 10:08 that the individual mandate was struck down, based on the initial reading that it was unconstitutional under the commerce clause. One minute later - ONE MINUTE - Megyn Kelly reported (correctly) that it was upheld as a tax. If you're going to blast the networks, at least get your OWN facts straight, please.


----------



## Larry H. (Jun 30, 2012)

Ryan said:


> dn4192 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the gov't job to keep business afloat if private business can do it better.
> ...


The real problem is not who is running rail service its that it cost so much to operate that no matter who runs it there is going to be a loss. We have seen the prices go up and up with Amtrak. Many here seem just fine with that. Our trouble is were trying to charge fares that will cover the expenses and rarely has that worked with passenger rail on a large scale. As to the political tones of this thread, I am always amazed at how people can degrade one station they disagree with but more than likely flock to the majority to are in the tank with the administration.. No matter though, better to throw stones at others.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Jul 1, 2012)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Your first mistake was watching Faux News.
> ...


Like MSNBC ever does.


----------



## rusty spike (Jul 1, 2012)

I didn't see the segment on Fox re John Stossel but I do know that Libertarians like Stossel don't want much of anything regulated. Some Libertarians proclaim, "Let the Iranians have a nuke, legalized marijuana etc. 

 

Yes, it is true Amtrak is subsidized heavily, but name one airline that doesn't operate from a government-owned, taxpayer-supported terminal flying through government supplied airspace courtesy of a the Federal Aviation Admin. Name a trucking/bus line operating on other than government, tax-supported rights-of-way, or a river barge line operating on other than a waterway created and maintained by the government tax-supported Army Corps of Engineer. Private enterprise has it's place but public infrastructure, including public transportation, will always be subsidized for the "greater good" of the people.

 

Perhaps upgrading Amtrak, like making the SSL a daily train, that does not miss the 6th largest U.S. city by 35 miles without any connecting transportation, might actually increase ridership.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 1, 2012)

Big Iron said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > The fact the the Class I's have spent all that money doesn't disprove the fact that ROW issues are a huge factor in Amtraks's poor performance. Examples:
> ...


I still don't have power 37 hours and counting), but go look at Amtrak's monthly reports, which (if I recall correctly) break down delays by train and reason for delay. All the information you seek is right there.

OK, crashing at a friends place since we don't have any power - looking at the April Monthly Performance Report. Page E-1 breaks down delay minutes by cause, in April LD trains suffered 181,000 minutes of delay time. Of that, 36,000 minutes can be laid at the feet of Amtrak. 113,000 minutes can be laid at the feet of the railroads. Page E-3 has an excellent graph demonstrates that Freight Train interference is the leading cause of Amtrak delays. The second most common cause of delay minutes are slow orders. Both of these problems can be fixed by the host railroads making investments in their ROW to clear slow orders and increase capacity to reduce congestion.

All the data is there if you care to look.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Jul 1, 2012)

On my JetBlue flight last night and this morning, I was flipping through channels and what comes on? John Stossel was just beginning his Amtrak segment that started this thread. I watched it, and didn't like 1 minute of it. And the guest they had on was so vague in his insults. I'm forgetting them now because I got 1 hour of good sleep, but I remember how he was just trying to make the problem sound worse than it was. And they claimed that a ticket price is something like $437 for NOLA - LA. I don't believe this would ever be a coach ticket, high bucket or not. This huge misrepresentation of facts was just kind of frustrating to watch.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Jul 1, 2012)

Ryan, top Google News story:

"Power could be out for days"

Sorry about that


----------



## NW cannonball (Jul 1, 2012)

I gave up my TV 25 years ago. Turned it on again to see the totally lame coverage of "Reagan shot"

Never looked again since. All the media make their money off their advertisers - and will kiss the advertisers parts to get the ads.

In an election year -- how much money do any of the media make off the hate ads? Will any media outlet even try to be "fair" "balanced" -- not likely when the money for hate ads lets their top people make a few million a year.

Ask your local media outlet to consider one of your most important local issues.  Good luck 



johnny.menhennet said:


> Ryan, top Google News story:
> 
> "Power could be out for days"
> 
> Sorry about that


----------



## WICT106 (Jul 1, 2012)

Stories such as this, and the reach of the Fox News network, should serve to illustrate just how many anti-rail individuals there are in our nation. It should also serve to illustrate just how effective they are at getting the anti-Amtrak, or anti-passenger train message out. The reporter even had come up with neat numbers, and eye catching statistics, that are easy for those not as well-versed in the Politics of Passenger Railroading, to quote in their opposition to train service improvements. Amtrak could continue to carry more and more riders, but, for many folks, if they have never been aboard a train before and cannot imagine ever riding one, this and similar stories make the opposition even stronger. Get out there and ride trains, and show your support (especially to your Elected Officials) !


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 1, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Ryan, top Google News story:
> 
> "Power could be out for days"
> 
> Sorry about that


Doesn't help that in New York Con ed just went on strike.


----------



## RRUserious (Jul 1, 2012)

Here's my confusion. Private business had the rails and didn't WANT them. We wouldn't have Amtrak if Great Northern, Northern Pacific, and other companies wanted to carry passengers. Don't Fox reporters even bother to research the subject? Or do they know all this and just pretend it never happened?


----------



## E Runs (Jul 1, 2012)

Big Iron said:


> http://www.inboundlo...he-right-track/
> 
> Just a very quick check on the internet and came up with the link above. Anyone that reads Railway Age knows that freight railroading is a growth industry and that Class I's spend billions annualy to grow and maintain their rights of way. To say that Amtrak's routes are poor due to lack of ROW investment is mostly false. To say Amtrak is treated like a red headed step child by the class I's is likely true but that is more of a dispatching issue than infrastucture. What's obvious in the article is that the Class I's are getting their subsidies as well, from local, state and federal sources.


Of course I can't dispute the the maintenance dollars ClassIs spend every year, it's significant. However the fact BNSF if just now getting around to installing automatic switches on the Ottumwa Sub, a continual choke point for the CZ, tells me they aren't all that interested in improving those ROWs for passenger service. From Trains.com: _"This is a very focused investment targeted to improving on-time performance for a small number of passenger trains," says Richard Wessler, BNSF's director of passenger train operations. "If it weren't for Amtrak's need, BNSF wouldn't ask for the money, and certainly not from the federal government."_ 

In a way I don't blame the Class Is for looking out for themselves first. They have to for all the reasons you enumerated in another post, the quote from Mr. Wessler just drives that fact home. They were relieved of the burden of passenger service in 1971 and have been lukewarm, if not hostile in some instances, to Amtrak's efforts. And again, if the UP wants to downgrade a stretch of track because they don't run freights over it anymore, I can understand their thinking. But it all just goes back to one of the major reasons, in my mind, of why Amtrak will always be behind the proverbial eight ball: they don't own their ROW.


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 1, 2012)

RRUserious said:


> Here's my confusion. Private business had the rails and didn't WANT them. We wouldn't have Amtrak if Great Northern, Northern Pacific, and other companies wanted to carry passengers. Don't Fox reporters even bother to research the subject? Or do they know all this and just pretend it never happened?



There are many reasons why their is so much discourse and polarity in America. First let's look at the overall source of information for this article:

Fox News is not news by their own admission in the court system, in a 1997 case in Florida : *During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. *

Having worked at Amtrak with many recent immigrants for eastern Europe their view of Fox in particular and American news in general is that it is nothing but the same propaganda that they saw before they came to America. If they want to see news they watch the BBC or even RT news, they think that it is more fair and balanced than any American news source (or even Australian in Fox's case with a Saudi prince being a major shareholder).


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (Jul 1, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> Being sarcastic about the freight railroads as they see their freight as more important then amtrak. Freights travel slower then amtrak. Let amtrak over take it's not going to kill you to hold a freight for 3 or 4 minutes etc while amtrak takes over but instead they will hold amtrak for hours just to let 3 or 4 trains pass amtrak in the same direction. then cause amtrak missed its "window" they delay it more. That makes sense how?


Unless you've actually sat in a dispatch office watching the entire railroad move, you really can't make a judgment like that. On a railroad filled with freight trains traveling 40-50 mph, one passenger train traveling 79 mph takes up a hell of a lot more capacity than most people realize. It's not as simple a matter as just holding a freight for "3 or 4 minutes."


----------



## Ryan (Jul 1, 2012)

Ryan said:


> OK, crashing at a friends place since we don't have any power - looking at the April Monthly Performance Report. Page E-1 breaks down delay minutes by cause, in April LD trains suffered 181,000 minutes of delay time. Of that, 36,000 minutes can be laid at the feet of Amtrak. 113,000 minutes can be laid at the feet of the railroads. Page E-3 has an excellent graph demonstrates that Freight Train interference is the leading cause of Amtrak delays. The second most common cause of delay minutes are slow orders. Both of these problems can be fixed by the host railroads making investments in their ROW to clear slow orders and increase capacity to reduce congestion.
> 
> All the data is there if you care to look.



Sorry, I edited my earlier post instead of adding the above in a new post.


----------



## cirdan (Jul 2, 2012)

PerRock said:


> Imagine what UPs response would be if [say] First Group came to them wanting to run service on their lines, and how much a ticket on that might cost if UP let them...


Allow me to be the Devil's advocate here.

If First Group were to takle over the SL, they would sign some lock in-agreement with DOT, assuring them a minimum subsidy for a period of several years, thus forcing DOT to commit to that route for a certain time horizon, and giving DOT no space to worm out of making the payments. They would similarly get an armlock on UPRR and smother them in red tape if they caused unjustified delays.

That's a lot more than Amtrak has or gets.

But none of this would come for free.

If that's what libertarians want, fair enough, but don't let them pretend they're saving tax dollars.


----------



## EB_OBS (Jul 2, 2012)

RRUserious said:


> Here's my confusion. Private business had the rails and didn't WANT them. We wouldn't have Amtrak if Great Northern, Northern Pacific, and other companies wanted to carry passengers. Don't Fox reporters even bother to research the subject? Or do they know all this and just pretend it never happened?


Of course they know it. Just like the guy from the Post Office said, there isn't any private business that's going to buy the Post Office and continue to serve every location, every rural town that the Post Office currently serves. No private company is going to buy Amtrak and continue to run 90% of the LD trains.

I love how they put up $60 Billion in large font on the screen too, showing how much subsidy Amtrak has received. It's typical and hypocritical though to also fail to mention that's $60 Billion over 40 years. That makes a huge difference to reasonable people who are actually paying attention.

Last night was the first time I'd seen this week's show. He mentioned a Japanese passenger railroad making a profit. I'd sure like to see the proof of that.


----------



## saxman (Jul 2, 2012)

I stumbled across another podcast with John Stossel, talking about transportation in general. This was recorded back in 2010, but it was pretty much the same. He invited the American Public Transportation Association's president, along with Randy O'Toole, and even had Glenn Beck on as a "transportation expert." They talked about how to get better transportation, and they pretty much trashed talked any type of rail transit and said the solution to gridlock was to....add more highways.

The APTA president did a really poor job at defending transit and HSR, and when he tried, O'Toole would toute back some silly myth that most of use know aren't true. Luckily, I didn't stick around to hear Glenn Beck.

Unfortunately these are the type of people we are dealing with sometimes and its our job to correct them as much as we can.


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 3, 2012)

I find some of the arguments presented in this post amusing. While we cannot generalize we can to look at any politicans view (of any party) about their support for government owned businesses and the logic is simple. If that business is part of their state or district, the politican supports it, and if not, they oppose it. For instance the US Post Office serves many of the rural districts that have Republican congressman. Hence the post office receives strong GOP support there. Now if we look to the cities that are served by rail, (that the Democrats typically represent), there is strong support for Amtrak. Now if the GOP held those seats you can bet that they would be strong Amtrak supporters too. Its all part of a self serving partisan political game to gain votes to be re-elected. Its a system that wants to make you feel as though you have a choice. You don't. You have no choice!


----------

