# Is Amtrak LD Truly Relevant



## Wildcat (Aug 1, 2011)

Looking at LD on-time statistics, I really don't think Amtrak is vaguely relevant. Trains 16 hours late? Plain inexcusable. And please... don't discuss the on-time performance of legacy airlines vs. Amtrak -- that ship sailed ages ago (and there's no excuse for the absurd on-time performance of legacy airlines, either). But steel wheels on steel rails should simply get through... but weak-kneed Amtrak management coupled with absurd governmental rules (freight before passengers?) hamstring the carrier.

Sure, sometimes trains can't get through... a mountain pass snowed under; tracks flooded. Happens. But it seems that there are no contingency plans that Amtrak can put into place to overcome obstacles. The weather has been good for a week or so; no major issues other than heat, yet the wonderful Amtrak Status Map system shows red box after red box after red box -- trains dramatically late (like more than 1/2 day).

I don't want to hear that "Amtrak is doing the best it can" as an argument; no, it is not. As someone else said here, once the Heritage diners come off eastern LD trains, they'll go to Canada, be properly maintained, and put in another half-century of good, reliable service. So... maintenance crews are not doing the job, plain and simple. They're quasi-government employees and have no incentive to do a better job (just like Congress).

I'm a big believer in privatization rather than government subsidy; if it's time for Amtrak LD trains to be gone, I'd try to privatize them and see what happens. If they fail, then that's how it goes. Companies go in and out of business all the time. And I truly don't want to hear about "it's the only way I have to go see my grandchildren" or any of that rot; the move closer to your grandchildren or have the little buggers move in with you.

If you're incapable (for physical or emotional reasons) of flying or driving, then don't go -- you have absolutely no _right_ to travel, regardless of the means. And if you can't afford to fly or drive... then don't go. Like all of us, I have plenty of things I want but will never have; doesn't bother me one whit.

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for train travel. I've ridden great US trains pre-Amtrak; I've ridden trains all over Europe in both luxury and basic accommodations, depending on the destinations. I prefer to ride trains here in the US, given the relative ease of travel compared to flying (no TSA intrusion, for instance). Even though it's bad, the food on an Amtrak train is better than anything you can get on a plane (if you even get food). And few things are as comfortable and comforting as seeing the American (or European or Asian) countryside go by as you relax in a sleeper. The best.

I'm just talking relevance here. And with so few LD routes to handle, Amtrak simply might no longer be relevant as anything other than a regional/corridor carrier. Perhaps that's for the best, too.


----------



## PaulM (Aug 1, 2011)

I agree with you 100%, except I would substitute the word highway where ever appropriate. When was the last time private enterprise financed, built, and operated a highway? 1840 maybe?


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 1, 2011)

Wildcat said:


> I'm a big believer in privatization rather than government subsidy; if it's time for Amtrak LD trains to be gone, I'd try to privatize them and see what happens. If they fail, then that's how it goes. Companies go in and out of business all the time. And I truly don't want to hear about "it's the only way I have to go see my grandchildren" or any of that rot; the move closer to your grandchildren or have the little buggers move in with you.
> 
> If you're incapable (for physical or emotional reasons) of flying or driving, then don't go -- you have absolutely no _right_ to travel, regardless of the means. And if you can't afford to fly or drive... then don't go. Like all of us, I have plenty of things I want but will never have; doesn't bother me one whit.


Based on your comment, if you don't like late trains, then don't use them. Take the plane or drive. "You have absolutely no _right_ to travel" on the train.

It would take a lot to fix the on time performance:

Laws that financially penalize railroads that fail to follow federal rules giving Amtrak priority and sttrict enforcement of such laws.

A solution to the fact that fast-moving Amtrak trains have different railbed issues than slow moving freights that can live with slow-orders.

A commitment by states and the federal government to adequately fund rail travel.

Better Amtrak management.

A decision as to who pays for multi-tracking heavily used sections as well as eliminating more crossings.

A decision as to proper maintenance of rail lines and crossings.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 1, 2011)

Congressman Mica, welcome aboard!


----------



## coachseats (Aug 1, 2011)

Wildcat said:


> The weather has been good for a week or so; no major issues other than heat, yet the wonderful Amtrak Status Map system shows red box after red box after red box -- trains dramatically late (like more than 1/2 day).


You do realize that the Missouri River has been at unprecedented record flooding levels for months now don't you? Just because it hasn't rained for a week doesn't mean that the river automatically drops to normal levels and all of the flood damage to tracks and bridges is miraculously fixed overnight. Trains 7/8, 5/6, and 3/4 have all been dramatically impacted by this flooding, slow orders through the affected areas, as well as increased other train traffic due to rerouting away from the flooding. Amtrak isn't perfect but unless you can control the weather (I for one can't) I think your argument is rather misinformed and misguided.


----------



## Gratt (Aug 1, 2011)

MikefromCrete said:


> Congressman Mica, welcome aboard!



:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## eagle628 (Aug 1, 2011)

Wildcat said:


> I don't want to hear that "Amtrak is doing the best it can" as an argument; no, it is not. As someone else said here, once the Heritage diners come off eastern LD trains, they'll go to Canada, be properly maintained, and put in another half-century of good, reliable service. So... maintenance crews are not doing the job, plain and simple. They're quasi-government employees and have no incentive to do a better job (just like Congress).



Can you actually prove that? Or do you just like presenting wild speculation as fact?


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 1, 2011)

Wildcat said:


> I'm a big believer in privatization rather than government subsidy


Then let's get rid of all the government subsidies the airlines and roads get!

Oh, that's right, the Government does subsidize roads and airlines! Who pays for the FAA, ATC, the airports themselves, "Security" at the airports, DOT, the building and repairing of roads, the building and repairing of bridges, etc...?




And if that's not a subsidy, what is?





I know I do not want to pay $1,000,000 to fly coast to coast or $500,000 to drive to the store to get some milk!



But without subsidies, that's what it will cost!

After 9/11, didn't all (or most) of the airlines complain that they were losing money?



So the Government provided *BILLIONS OF $$ to the airlines!*

*The grand total that Amtrak received was $0.00!*


----------



## Ryan (Aug 1, 2011)

eagle628 said:


> Can you actually prove that? Or do you just like presenting wild speculation as fact?


Given the OP's ignorance of this:



coachseats said:


> You do realize that the Missouri River has been at unprecedented record flooding levels for months now don't you? Just because it hasn't rained for a week doesn't mean that the river automatically drops to normal levels and all of the flood damage to tracks and bridges is miraculously fixed overnight. Trains 7/8, 5/6, and 3/4 have all been dramatically impacted by this flooding, slow orders through the affected areas, as well as increased other train traffic due to rerouting away from the flooding. Amtrak isn't perfect but unless you can control the weather (I for one can't) I think your argument is rather misinformed and misguided.



I seriously doubt that any reality-based rebuttals will do any good at all.


----------



## NY Penn (Aug 1, 2011)

Agreed about the inexcusable part. Is this one of those new 'only in America' jokes? e.g. Only in America can someone arrive a half-hour early at a train station, see their daily train leave right under their noses, and then find out that it's yesterday's train?

@Privatization: It just will not work.


----------



## FriskyFL (Aug 1, 2011)

As much as we'd all prefer to ignore the OP or dismiss his commentary as typical Tea-publican right wing radio talking point rhetoric, the fact remains that far too many Americans do believe this trash, therefore it's our responsibility to counter these distortions of reality with FACTS.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 1, 2011)

In a way I almost feel sorry for the guy because there will come a day when thing don't work for him and he won't understand what hit him. Lable it however you want:

"What goes around comes around"

"You reap what you sow"

"Vengance is mine says the LORD, I will repay."

No matter how you label it, you will generally at some point be on the receiving end of what you dish out or whatever attitude you have and you will not enjoy the experience. Ignore the guy and let him stew in his own juice.


----------



## ToddVanSlyke (Aug 1, 2011)

No, I don't use unreliable trains. I have a trip scheduled for next summer and my wife and I want to take the train to LA... haven't done the Chief in years. But I can't rely on it getting there anywhere near on time. And mid-summer so weather (other than heat) shouldn't be an issue.I'm probably going to drive -- which is silly and wasteful but at least more-or-less controllable (I can always detour around problems).

And... if privatization doesn't work, well, so be it. Then let Amtrak be a regional/corridor carrier and that'll be that. Perhaps it's just time for the government to be out of the passenger railroad business altogether; privatize the corridors and when the rest dies, the rest dies. I'd hate it and mourn it... but maybe it's just time for passenger railroading over LD routes to be put in their graves and become a nostalgic memory. Like steam locomotives.

Don't get me wrong: we have every right to travel. We just have no special right to travel the way we want to, regardless of what that ignorant idiot said.


----------



## George B (Aug 1, 2011)

Mordac said:


> As much as we'd all prefer to ignore the OP or dismiss his commentary as typical Tea-publican right wing radio talking point rhetoric, the fact remains that far too many Americans do believe this trash, therefore it's our responsibility to counter these distortions of reality with FACTS.


Facts don't mean anything to the OP. That was obvious from the get-go.


----------



## coachseats (Aug 1, 2011)

ToddVanSlyke said:


> But I can't rely on it getting there anywhere near on time.


Why not? Train #3 SW Chief has a on time percentage over the last 12 months of 79.7%


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 1, 2011)

ToddVanSlyke said:


> No, I don't use unreliable trains. I have a trip scheduled for next summer and my wife and I want to take the train to LA... haven't done the Chief in years. But I can't rely on it getting there anywhere near on time. And mid-summer so weather (other than heat) shouldn't be an issue.I'm probably going to drive -- which is silly and wasteful but at least more-or-less controllable (I can always detour around problems).
> 
> And... if privatization doesn't work, well, so be it. Then let Amtrak be a regional/corridor carrier and that'll be that. Perhaps it's just time for the government to be out of the passenger railroad business altogether; privatize the corridors and when the rest dies, the rest dies. I'd hate it and mourn it... but maybe it's just time for passenger railroading over LD routes to be put in their graves and become a nostalgic memory.


I'll say just two last things on this subject - Amtrak was established in 1971 because the freight railroads did not want to run passenger trains anymore. In the late 1950's and thru the 1960's train travel was so bad and unreliable that fewer and fewer passengers rode it. Today, the passenger loads go up and up every year! The only reason that more people do not take trains is because of capacity issues!

But remember: "Nobody rides trains any more!"





And as far as not riding the Southwest Chief because you "can't rely on it getting there anywhere near on time", I'll say this. In all my traveling on the SWC, I never arrived into LAX on time - most times, it been 30 minutes to an hour *EARLY*!


----------



## jis (Aug 1, 2011)

ToddVanSlyke said:


> No, I don't use unreliable trains. I have a trip scheduled for next summer and my wife and I want to take the train to LA... haven't done the Chief in years. But I can't rely on it getting there anywhere near on time. And mid-summer so weather (other than heat) shouldn't be an issue.I'm probably going to drive -- which is silly and wasteful but at least more-or-less controllable (I can always detour around problems).


So as a matter of choice you'd knowingly and with acknowledgement do a silly and wasteful thing. That is indeed comforting to know. 



> And... if privatization doesn't work, well, so be it. Then let Amtrak be a regional/corridor carrier and that'll be that. Perhaps it's just time for the government to be out of the passenger railroad business altogether; privatize the corridors and when the rest dies, the rest dies. I'd hate it and mourn it... but maybe it's just time for passenger railroading over LD routes to be put in their graves and become a nostalgic memory. Like steam locomotives.


First what makes you assume that privatization will work, other than a matter of faith?

Which corridor do you think will operate nicely in privatized form, and what makes you believe so? just for kicks, how many highways do you think will operate nicely in a privatized form? Please note that in general the corridor that show to be close to profitable all involved cost allocations that are dubious at best. And some of the most heavily traveled corridors actually have lower cost recovery than Amtrak LD.



> Don't get me wrong: we have every right to travel. We just have no special right to travel the way we want to, regardless of what that ignorant idiot said.


Where does anyone explicitly say that one has a right to travel? It certainly is not one of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights. So that right derives from the 9th amendment (and indeed before it was adopted, from an assumption implicit in the Constitution), viz...

_Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution._

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That being the case, who is to say that the right to travel is any more sacrosanct than the right to travel by a horse and buggy or by an airplane, or (shudder) even by train, until some law or regulation is promulgated stating otherwise?

Ergo.... if one believes one has a right to travel, it follows that one has a right to travel by whatever means they choose, absent any specific prohibitions that has stood the test of a constitutional court judgement.

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## jis (Aug 1, 2011)

Here is an interesting blog on the contribution of the _Empire Builder_ to the economy of Montana.


----------



## pennyk (Aug 1, 2011)

Thanks Jis for well-reasoned and well-presented posts.


----------



## leemell (Aug 1, 2011)

Mordac said:


> As much as we'd all prefer to ignore the OP or dismiss his commentary as typical Tea-publican right wing radio talking point rhetoric, the fact remains that far too many Americans do believe this trash, therefore it's our responsibility to counter these distortions of reality with FACTS.


Not here however, that is preaching to the choir.


----------



## reefgeek (Aug 1, 2011)

Jis, well said and temperate, as usual!

PS: Let's privatize the FAA and a few of the major airports. They need to pull their weight too!


----------



## TVRM610 (Aug 1, 2011)

While I certainly do not agree with everything the OP said I think one point he makes is true, LD train travel in the USA is certainly not a necessity. I support it, but I also do not see it as necessary. If every LD train was cancelled tomorrow, very little about this country would change.


----------



## saxman (Aug 1, 2011)

You said this:



Wildcat said:


> you have absolutely no _right_ to travel, regardless of the means.


And then you said this:



> Don't get me wrong: we have every right to travel. We just have no special right to travel the way we want to,





> And mid-summer so weather (other than heat) shouldn't be an issue.


Because there is no weather ever during the summer. Just ask the folks in Joplin, Tuscaloosa, and the folks all along the Missouri River about that one. Just saying that Amtrak has almost as much as chance of weather delays no matter what the season is.


----------



## henryj (Aug 1, 2011)

TVRM610 said:


> While I certainly do not agree with everything the OP said I think one point he makes is true, LD train travel in the USA is certainly not a necessity. I support it, but I also do not see it as necessary. If every LD train was cancelled tomorrow, very little about this country would change.


I have to agree with a lot that is being said. Regardless of the flooding problems, Amtrak's LD train performance has been just abysmal all over the system. If you want relevence then just compare the number of flights from Chicago to Denver, Albuquerque, Phoenix and the West Coast vs how many Amtrak carries on their little one train a day schedules. And to make that one train a day takes from 5 to 7 sets of expensive equipment on the road every day.

Personally, I think Amtrak's LD trains are a necessary part of it's network and a great national asset as a way to see the country at eye level. But not the way they are being run today. More routes are needed and more equipment and the service needs to be run on time and it needs to be a real service. Not some govt employees just trying to get through so they can get paid. The markets are there for the picking. But I doubt if there are that many repeat riders after one horrible Amtrak experience after another. Only railfans will put up with what is going on right now.


----------



## minnesota2011 (Aug 1, 2011)

I have to agree that Amtrak long-distance trains are irrelevant for 99.9% of the population. As a past Amtrak passenger, I wish it weren't true, but it's reality. At the rate things are going, I don't see how the LD trains can last much longer than another decade or so. The reasons include a sparse route system that makes it very difficult to get to many places, aging and poorly maintained equipment, on-board employees with poor attitudes, terrible on-time performance, and coach fares that often exceed the cost of an airline ticket. After my recent experience with long-distance coach travel, I have decided to never try that again. I have also traveleled by sleeper in the past, but the fares have gotten so ridiculously expensive that I won't consider it now. The future is with improved corridor services, not the LD trains.


----------



## George B (Aug 1, 2011)

henryj said:


> More routes are needed and more equipment and the service needs to be run on time and it needs to be a real service. Not some govt employees just trying to get through so they can get paid. The markets are there for the picking. But I doubt if there are that many repeat riders after one horrible Amtrak experience after another. Only railfans will put up with what is going on right now.



Explain to me how Amtrak is supposed to do all of this with existing capital and equipment? And, let me tell you, employees in the private sector are also “just trying to get through so they can get paid”. Customer service in the airlines is rotten, in case you have forgotten.

The only reason Amtrak runs trains, or even exists at all is for political reasons. It doesn’t make sense to run LD passenger trains anymore. So, making comparisons to the airlines is senseless, as the differences are obvious. Everything is against Amtrak’s existence. Either a person makes peace with this and takes LD train travel for what it is, or chooses not to ride LD trains. I make peace with it and enjoy train travel while we still have it.


----------



## TVRM610 (Aug 1, 2011)

henryj said:


> But I doubt if there are that many repeat riders after one horrible Amtrak experience after another. Only railfans will put up with what is going on right now.


henryj, I notice you are from Houston TX, so perhaps things are very different in that area, but here on the East Coast I have seen completely the opposite! Since the beginning of the year I've ridden the Crescent twice, the Carolinian twice, the Silver Meteor twice, the Silver Star twice and the Piedmont once, in addition to NE/Acela trains. The only significant delay was once on the Crescent when a locomotive had to be taken off in Atlanta. Even then we weren't more than an hour late into NYP, and that was with the switching in ATL, fueling the locomotive in the middle of the night (since it was using more fuel with the extra work), and slightly slower speeds in the mountains. I've been more than impressed with the Amtrak trains in this area lately, maybe I just have amazingly good luck.

Seriously, your "only railfans" comment is completely unrealistic.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 1, 2011)

Wildcat,

One of the biggest reasons that we have Amtrak today is because the government interfered in the Free Market. Passenger trains used to be run by private industry years ago. While there were several factors in private industry dumping passenger service, the biggest one was the fact that government started subsidizing roads & planes. In recent years the subsidies to planes have come down, although the amount last year was still more than Amtrak got from the Fed. But road subsidies are higher than ever. In fact, just in the last 3 years the Fed alone has dropped more than $62 Billion into highways not paid for by us drivers. That's more money than Amtrak has received in its 40 years of existance.

The only way to send passenger service back to private ownership is to drop all subsidies to planes & roads. And you won't like the results of that experiment.

You get what you pay for, or don't as in this case. Want better trains, let your Congress reps know that you want higher subsidies for Amtrak. Want fewer delays, make sure your Congress reps know that too!


----------



## AlanB (Aug 1, 2011)

To everyone else,

I've had to clean up some posts in this topic and delete a few too. While you may not like the subject, the staff will still requests that you please keep things civil. Post with name calling will be deleted or modified as we see fit.

Please feel free to bash away with facts, but again, please let's be civil and respectful!

Thanks!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 1, 2011)

MikefromCrete said:


> Congressman Mica, welcome aboard!


:lol: :lol: :lol: With enemies like this guy, Amtrak needs all the friends it can get! Amtrak Joe needs to get to work!!! :help:


----------



## TraneMan (Aug 1, 2011)

minnesota2011 said:


> coach fares that often exceed the cost of an airline ticket. I have also traveleled by sleeper in the past, but the fares have gotten so ridiculously expensive that I won't consider it now.


I find prices are about the same..

For an example, I priced out tickets next week to Whitefish MT.

Amtrak w/ roomette- $1,500.80

Flying in coach- $1,747.82

Next June.

Amtrak w/ roomette- $868.40

Flying in coach- $1,202.00

I think it's cheaper to take the train out, than flying. I've had good service on Empire Builder. The 24 hours is my vacation while I am going to my vacation spot.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 2, 2011)

George B said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > More routes are needed and more equipment and the service needs to be run on time and it needs to be a real service. Not some govt employees just trying to get through so they can get paid. The markets are there for the picking. But I doubt if there are that many repeat riders after one horrible Amtrak experience after another. Only railfans will put up with what is going on right now.
> ...


I have to break Amtrak into three groupings:

1) The NEC and other short-haul hubs that can be run at a profit or fairly close to one fairly easily (and which have a number of routes "on the bubble": I count 5 non-NEC corridor routes with better than 90% CR, 3 more between 80% and 90%, 5 between 75% and 80%, and 3 more between 70% and 75%).

2) A subset of the longer-haul Eastern trains and some other Regionals which I believe could be run, if not at a profit, then with CR figures more commensurate with the current "corridor" routes (i.e. with an eye towards 70% CR). I would put a better-run Silver Service in this category, as well as the Cap and the Lake Shore (both of which I think are harmed by the lack of an option to get folks back into NYC before dinner time); I would also put in some "feeder" services (the Keystone, for example) which dump traffic onto the NEC and/or feed one another (a good example here is the Lincoln Service vs. the MORR/Mule: The Lincoln doesn't do so hot on CR, but the Mule does very well...yet I think they definitely feed into one another).

3) The Western money hole trains, which I think we can agree aren't going to turn a profit (or even come close) anytime in the foreseeable future. Maybe if oil goes to $200 next week and the airline industry goes insolvent, but even then it would be a stretch.

#2 might potentially include parts of #3, such as the CZ going to Denver and the EB going to Minneapolis, but the overall western operation _is_ a mess. I think that it serves a role as part of a national system (and I would point out the _relative _utility of large sections of several interstates out in Flyover Country, too), but the financial side is a mess and not improving. Likewise, #3 would probably include the Cardinal _in its current form _(as opposed to a dailified version that was rescheduled to hit Cincinnati at a sane hour)_._

There's very little talk about axing #1 while most of the criticism focuses on #3 and, I believe, conflates #2 and #3.


----------



## jis (Aug 2, 2011)

By Amtrak's own admission none of the CR figures include any allocation of capital cost or depreciation. So using those numbers to claim something can be run profitably or not is a bit unconnected with reality. At best, if one can assume that the impact of those additional items are equally spread out among all, then those numbers can be used for comparing one service line against another. but even that has been repeatedly challenged by many, including many state ARPs and URPA. Only NARP, which gets a bit of funding to carry out some marketing functions for Amtrak, appears to not want to even ask Amtrak to fix that problem in their performance story.

One of the biggest problems in all this is that unlike the rest of the Amtrak system, the separation of infrastructure from operations on NEC is pretty fuzzy at best. Thus, typically Amtrak is unable to provide a meaningful "track charge" method of charging for infrastructure to its trains using it. It is also alleged with good reason, that even the transit agencies pay track charges that are well below any sustainable level for keeping the NEC infrastructure in operable shape. OTOH, it is also an acknowledged fact that the track charges that Amtrak pays private RRs is artificially low when compared to reasonable market prices for the same. So the whole accounting is still a bit of a mess, and there is quite a bit of apples to oranges comparisons going on when those Amtrak performance numbers are used.

So the story of profitability of NEC operations is based on a set of assumptions that can be adjusted as needed to produce the desired result at the other end. That of course does not lead to good analysis. That is why many friends of Amtrak were appalled when Boardman categorically stated to the Congress that Acela is profitable while LD trains can never be so. And to some extent they were right to do so.


----------



## henryj (Aug 2, 2011)

TVRM610 said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > But I doubt if there are that many repeat riders after one horrible Amtrak experience after another. Only railfans will put up with what is going on right now.
> ...


I would like to take the train more often......but we don't have any. Amtrak just doesn't like Texas. The East Coast is a diff market and one that even LD trains should be able to suceed in. But out West it is different. Except on the West Coast where the states have stepped in, Amtrak has basically ignored the area. For example, Chicago to Denver only the CZ where there used to be many options, and it's never on time. Chicago to MSP. Wow just think how many trains plied this route in the past and many posted speed records for decades....now only one train a day, the LD EB and it's rarely on time. The SWC, if put back on it's 39 3/4 hour schedule could compete with airlines for traffic since it only costs you one day of travel. But it would have to run on time and be reliable. And there is certainly room for more than one train on the route. Here in Texas we had the Eagles, the Twin Star Rocket, Texas Chief, Sunset Limited, Texas Zephyr, California Special, etc just to name a few LD trains plus the intrastate connections. Now just a wandering Eagle and a 3 times a week Sunset. People in Houston don't even know we have rail service. With options like these few people ride trains or even think about it. If the remaining rail service in Texas disapeared tomorrow no one would miss it or even know it was gone. Houston's two airports board over 50 million passengers a year, Amtrak just 15 thousand.

Talk about privatizing airports and highways is a good idea. The first interstate like highway was the Pennsylvania Turnpike opened in 1940 as a toll road. It is still a toll road today. Make the rest toll also. Eliminate subsidies to the airline industry. Put everything on the same page and just let the chips fall where they may. It would be interesting to see what happens then. Really, I don't see anything changing in our lifetime except fewer and more poorly run trains.


----------



## Ispolkom (Aug 2, 2011)

TraneMan said:


> minnesota2011 said:
> 
> 
> > coach fares that often exceed the cost of an airline ticket. I have also traveleled by sleeper in the past, but the fares have gotten so ridiculously expensive that I won't consider it now.
> ...


Sure, the Empire Builder still makes good economic sense if you're going to small cities whose airports are monopolized by one airline (hi, Delta!). I'd never fly from Minneapolis to Minot, N.D., for instance, since I have flown to Europe for the same amount. Between large western cities, though, Amtrak rarely makes much sense financially. Chicago to Denver is $84 on Southwest on a randomly selected date in September, while #5 is $106 for coach.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 2, 2011)

To the "Free Market Micas" of this Country:Yeah, let's Privatize ALL Transportation, Commuter, Busses, Trains, Planes and Highways! It's the American Way1 :excl: :excl: :excl:

Enjoy your $500 Toll Drive to Grandmas House, your $75 commute on the Bus, Lightrail or Subway to work,your $2000 Airline ticket to Denver and your $1,000 Ride on Acela from WAS-NYP!!Hyperbole, No! Most Americans don't have a clue how much ALL Corporations are subsidized (it's called Welfare when it goes to the Poor!), especially Transportation entities!!

Little known Secret: Amtrak has received the Least Amount of Government Support of any Transportation system and Falls farther behind all the time as Prices rise while Ridership multiplies! The answer: Fire the Idiots in Congress and elect some people that are Honest, have Common Sense, will come home and not spend their life in Washington getting Rich, and will work together to provide for the Common Good! :wub: Thats the American Way!  Gordon Gecco was NOT right, Greed is NOT Good!!  Power to the People! :help:


----------



## NY Penn (Aug 2, 2011)

Does anyone have concrete figures?

For example:


Ridership of Amtrak
Subsidies of Amtrak
Ridership of airlines
Subsidies of airlines

It's not fair to claim that airlines are more subsidized if they have a smaller subsidy _per passenger_.


----------



## jis (Aug 2, 2011)

NY Penn said:


> Does anyone have concrete figures?
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...


Why compare Amtrak to all airlines together, commuter and mainline? Perhaps a more apt comparison would be all rail travel vs. all air travel. IMHO the only one that can be meaningfully computed on an apples to apples comparison. As soon as you split each into subcategories you run into the problem of across sub category cost/subsidy allocations and even revenue allocation.


----------



## NY Penn (Aug 2, 2011)

How about LD trains vs. non-commuter airlines?


----------



## CT guest (Aug 2, 2011)

Here are the graphs showing how rail is subsidized on a passenger-mile basis compared to commercial air travel:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/table_04.html

I think subsidies to airlines might have increased after 9/11.


----------



## chandj (Aug 2, 2011)

As a tax payer, I'm happy to subsidize LD trains--a lot happier than I am about some other things I'm subsidizing. I will ride LD's as long as they run and I am able, but I'll be riding for fun, not to get to a business meeting on time in Sacramento when I live in Pittsburgh. Doesn't bother me at all that LD's are subsidized even though most people don't use them. My tax dollars help subsidize a lot of parks and monuments that I'll never even see, but I'm okay with that and not about to suggest that we sell them off to private companies in hopes they'll be improved.


----------



## NY Penn (Aug 2, 2011)

CT guest said:


> Here are the graphs showing how rail is subsidized on a passenger-mile basis compared to commercial air travel:
> 
> http://www.bts.gov/p...l/table_04.html
> 
> I think subsidies to airlines might have increased after 9/11.


Thank you. This chart (although a bit dated) shows that even after 9/11 (see 2002), airlines are subsidized LESS per passenger-mile than Amtrak.


----------



## jis (Aug 2, 2011)

NY Penn said:


> CT guest said:
> 
> 
> > Here are the graphs showing how rail is subsidized on a passenger-mile basis compared to commercial air travel:
> ...


Note that this counts only federal subsidy. It is not surprising therefore that road comes out ahead, since most of the hidden subsidy for roads is from states not the feds. Also of necessity, state subsidies for tax abatement for transport facilities used by air transport is not accounted for. So this at the end of the day is close to meaningless if one is interested in getting the true overall subsidy figure. Just because a subsidy burden has been shifted from federal to state level or local level does not mean it is not still a subsidy.

At the federal level I would just treat them as an interesting set of numbers,  noting that it does not give a good overall picture.

In addition, as you will notice I am a skeptic par excellence when it comes to any statistics sans explanation of how they were arrived at.  Specially when statistics collates information from multiple sources, it is extremely important to understand how source skew caused by differing definitions and assumptions are accounted for.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 2, 2011)

Well, and I think the railroad figures improved markedly as the Acela took off, and then again with the recent (i.e. 2008-present) spike in gas prices.


----------



## CT guest (Aug 2, 2011)

Those figures also exclude state subsidies for Amtrak services.

Numbers can be skewed in a way to prove anything and also to prove nothing.

Trying to have a meaningful conversation about Amtrak subsidies is impossible on a pro-Amtrak discussion board.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Aug 2, 2011)

Wildcat said:


> I'm a big believer in privatization rather than government subsidy; if it's time for Amtrak LD trains to be gone, I'd try to privatize them and see what happens.


I'm all in favor of that too as long as we're also privatizing all other modes of transportation. Highways? All toll. Local roads? All toll. City downtown areas? Congestion charges. Want to get your car from the highway to your driveway? That'll be 50 cents please.

The fastest way to sink the airlines (or make air travel only for the super rich) would be to make them pay the FULL cost of the air traffic control system, the TSA, and airport construction. The TSA budget is $8.1 billion for FY2012. Let's privatize that and put the entire burden on the airlines (who will of course pass the costs on to you).

So, yes. privatize away.... just make sure you are consistent and privatize ANYTHING that gets government subsidy.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 2, 2011)

jis said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > CT guest said:
> ...


And to add one further point to Jishnu's, those numbers are a snap shot of just one year. It took years of much higher subsidies to get the airlines to the point where much of the overhead expenses could be covered by user fees & taxes. There is also no accounting for the hidden subsidies, things like pilots that learn to fly in our military and then migrate to commercial airlines.

The simple reality is that there is no easy way to get a meaningful comparison of subsidies per passenger mile. And that has nothing to do with the fact that this board might be pro-Amtrak.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 2, 2011)

henryj said:


> Talk about privatizing airports and highways is a good idea. The first interstate like highway was the Pennsylvania Turnpike opened in 1940 as a toll road. It is still a toll road today. Make the rest toll also. Eliminate subsidies to the airline industry. Put everything on the same page and just let the chips fall where they may. It would be interesting to see what happens then. Really, I don't see anything changing in our lifetime except fewer and more poorly run trains.


Henry,

I wouldn't argue what you said in your first paragraph, which I didn't quote here. And I wouldn't argue much of what you said in the paragraph that I did quote. However, I'd have to insist on one small change to what you've said. After years of throwing big dollars at roads & planes, in order to truly see what forms of transportation would sink or swim, we need to increase significantly the subsidies to rail for the short term even as we start decreasing the subsidies to roads & planes. Right now rail does not have an equal footing thanks to the Government's interference in the free market. Therefore dropping all subsidies would give roads & planes an unfair advantage in a truly "free market". Rail must be given some help first to restore things to a level playing field; then and only then can we pull all subsidies and see what the free market decides for the future.


----------



## leemell (Aug 2, 2011)

Wildcat said:


> Looking at LD on-time statistics, I really don't think Amtrak is vaguely relevant. [snip]


Anybody else notice wildcat posted his provocative message, looked in once about an hour later and has not been back since to view the flamefest he started? He has not posted another thing in the three years he has been an AU member. Curious.


----------



## henryj (Aug 2, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Rail must be given some help first to restore things to a level playing field; then and only then can we pull all subsidies and see what the free market decides for the future.


Yes Alan, I agree with that. It's hard to put all your thoughts in one or two little paragraphs. What I am for is reasonable competition, be it Federal subsidies or privatizing or something in between.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 2, 2011)

leemell said:


> Wildcat said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at LD on-time statistics, I really don't think Amtrak is vaguely relevant. [snip]
> ...


I did. At least he took the time to register instead of the usual "guest post and run" routine.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 2, 2011)

Ryan said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcat said:
> ...


While I can't explain why, he made two subsequent posts as a guest.


----------



## Rob Creighton (Aug 2, 2011)

Is Amtrak long distance truly relevant? From a personal foamer standpoint, my answer is yes. As a tax payer I'm happy to pay for Amtrak funding. I'm also happy to pay for highways, national parks, monuments, affordable air line pricing and everything else. That said it becomes difficult for the average person who has very little emotional attachment to trains to understand why we're paying for a rail system that is perceived as: chronically late, poorly run, expensive to maintain and not utilized (outside of the NEC) by even a significant minority of the population.

Case in point, a friend of mine's nephew was traveling from Chicago to visit my friend in Des Moines. My friend chronicled the train's tardiness on Facebook: First posting when 3 hours late, then four hours late, then expressing his frustration that he had to practically "drive to Missouri" to pick his nephew up because Amtrak doesn't serve Des Moines. Then finally posting the train arrived...nine hours late, and pointing out that the place he picked his nephew up was "a dump." Of course, other friends of his peppered his post with comments like, "that's it...I'm officially never taking Amtrak." "Just be glad the train stayed on the tracks." This is the perception a lot of potential riders and public has about Amtrak, especially outside the North East Corridor.

It's easy for those of us who love trains, even someone like me who isn't all that plugged in to the current state of Amtrak, to explain the reasons why Amtrak has problems: Lack of equipment, consistently starved for funding, poor understanding by politicians for what Amtrak is and could be, Amtrak and how politicians use the agency for their own grandstanding purposes, resentment from the freight railroads. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. At the end of the day the potential Amtrak rider doesn't care about any of this. They want to get where they want to go on time and with the least hassle possible. They may understand an occasional delay because of mother nature or a train hitting a car or truck, but that's it. Unfortunately there are 40 years worth of Amtrak's "trips from hell" floating around out there dogging the company.

Between the perceived public reputation of Amtrak, how it's used as a political football by politicians and chronic equipment shortages--might Amtrak do a better job and create a better reputation for itself by curtailing some long distance operations and creating more corridor and mid distance trains? I'm not saying you need to cut all long distance trains, but maybe have 1 or 2 from Chicago to points west, 1 from Chicago to New York and 1 from Chicago down towards New Orleans. Then perhaps focus on corridor and mid-distance trains throughout the rest of the system? I'm not familiar enough with Amtrak's schedules these days to determine if this is workable, I'm just spit balling.

Ideally the solution is to educate our elected officials on why Amtrak was created. How politics and starvation funding have hurt and hindered the company. How investing in equipment, infrastructure and the rider experience may not make it profitable--but might help us create a cleaner environment, might get more people to ride the system and could create a reliable transportation alternative that is worth supporting. That unfortunately, probably won't happen in our current political environment.


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 2, 2011)

As most people on this forum know, I am an Independent, not a Republican, Socialist, democrat or anything else so I hope that my opinion is considered as unbiased.

On the subject of government subsidies; when compared to airlines and the highway system, Amtraks receives the least amount of the US transportation budget. It is between 2% and 3%-that's it!

As pointed out, there would be no highway travel, no airline travel and no railroad travel without government subsidies. You would need to walk, but hey thats on government owned sidewalks too. Ride a bike- you need streets. Without government you could not reach any destination. If subsidies are fair or not can be debated but how do you intend to travel without them? Some amount of government is needed to serve the public interest, especially when private industry is not providing rail passenger service. If private industry is in fact interested in getting into the railroad business there are 100's of abandoned routes that I'm sure Washington would be most happy to talk to them about.

I am not a proponent of big government but in many cases it is necessary to have programs that serve the people. The debate that we are now having about the deficit would not exist if we would stop using trillions of taxpayer money to fight wars for the the financial elite, stop bailing out the crooks on Wall Street, and to stop passing laws that make it easy for corporate America to fire American workers and send millions of manufacturing jobs to China.

I am happy that Amtrak exists and the benefits of it being with us are numerous. Passenger rail ridership continues to grow because it is good for America. It is also the most energy efficient form of transportation that there is.


----------



## NY Penn (Aug 2, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> On the subject of government subsidies; when compared to airlines and the highway system, Amtraks receives the least amount of the US transportation budget. It is between 2% and 3%-that's it!


Now compare airline ridership to Amtrak ridership.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 2, 2011)

NY Penn said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > On the subject of government subsidies; when compared to airlines and the highway system, Amtraks receives the least amount of the US transportation budget. It is between 2% and 3%-that's it!
> ...


You're still beating that drum?


----------



## NY Penn (Aug 2, 2011)

Ryan said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


I'll keep beating that drum until someone proves the argument wrong. So far, I have not seen anyone do so.


----------



## George B (Aug 2, 2011)

NY Penn said:


> I'll keep beating that drum until someone proves the argument wrong. So far, I have not seen anyone do so.


As I said, it is pointless to compare Amtrak to airlines….the contrasts and comparisons are endless and obvious. I suspect you will keep challenging stats and searching for numbers until you get one you like that will fit your argument.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 2, 2011)

NY Penn said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > NY Penn said:
> ...


You should read Jishnu and Alan's posts again a little more closely. The data that you seek does not exist. When you have the data that compares the two on a level playing field, we anxiously await your results. Until then, you're just making stuff up.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 2, 2011)

NY Penn said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > NY Penn said:
> ...


OK, I'll bite!

Airlines have more passengers because they have more flights than Amtrak operate trains! (Do I hear a drum beating?




)


----------



## RailFanLNK (Aug 2, 2011)

I learned years ago that a moron is born every 60 seconds in the USA and 16 years later they are given a drivers license and possibly a few years after that they are given the right to find an Amtrak forum and spout out a bunch of drivel about privatizing passenger rail. Lets just privatize everything and call it the US Business instead of the US Government.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 2, 2011)

One other thing I'll note is that when I was looking up comparative statistics (or, rather, attempting to) I saw one report saying that Amtrak got an average of _$10 billion_ per year in subsidies from 2002-09. Even taking a loose view of what counts as subsidies, I can tell right off that this is baloney (hint: That would mean Amtrak had gotten over $80 billion in subsidies over the last decade)...though it's one bit of baloney I wish were true because I know what could be done with that sort of money.

I think you have to add a few areas outside the NEC to areas people ride the train...there's a decent block in the MW and in California as well. But I think it is fair to say that Amtrak serves a number of areas poorly, albeit more by accident than by design (i.e. the fact that they can't run several LD trains on a given route to offer "sane hours" service to intermediate destinations or that they need to use a direct routing that skips a major city and passes 60 miles away instead).


----------



## Ben_G (Aug 2, 2011)

Just wish they would bring back service to Las Vegas. The Desert wind from Salt Lake to LA. From what I seen that was a poular route at one time. Anyone know why they discontinued that route ?


----------



## Anderson (Aug 3, 2011)

Ben_G said:


> Just wish they would bring back service to Las Vegas. The Desert wind from Salt Lake to LA. From what I seen that was a poular route at one time. Anyone know why they discontinued that route ?


For obvious reasons, I don't have hard ridership numbers...however, I think it wasn't very cost-effective. If I had to guess, the train ran slam full from LA to Las Vegas, and then ran mostly empty up to Salt Lake (that being a rather slow way to travel CHI-LAX). The result was likely a half-empty train that ran fully-staffed. Then they tried running it four days per week, and we all know how well _that_ worked out. I'm surprised they didn't consider running a set of cars LAX-Las Vegas that would return on the next Vegas-LA train (sort of like the "Sparks Cars", the Denver-CHI sleeper, and the segments on the Texas Eagle and the Empire Builder that only run to Minneapolis and St. Louis).

Los Angeles to Las Vegas corridor service makes sense, be it at 79 MPH or 150 MPH. The Strip is reasonably compact, the station was right by the strip, and the trip isn't _that_ long if you can work out a deal with UP. Of course, UP is also UP...

On the other hand, Vegas to Salt Lake is a dubious proposition simply because it takes a long time and most of your travel is going to be from Denver or even Chicago...and I don't see _that_ much through traffic choosing an SLC-Vegas routing over the much tighter Chief.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 3, 2011)

Anderson said:


> The Strip is reasonably compact, the station was right by the strip, and the trip isn't _that_ long if you can work out a deal with UP. Of course, UP is also UP...


Wrong!!!!!!

While the tracks do run (semi) next to the Strip, the station was in Downtown Las Vegas. It was at the Union Plaza - built by the Union Pacific (UP)! And Downtown LV is IIRC over 5 miles from the Strip!

And how do you define "compact"?



IIRC, from the casino on the south end of the Strip to the casino on the north end of the Strip is *OVER 7 MILES*!


----------



## Amtrak boy (Aug 3, 2011)

It seems that this forum has attracted a whole bunch of rightists who want to privatize everything including Amtrak, who don’t realize that privatizing Amtrak will effectively destroy most of its long-distance routes, who keep talking about subsidies and cost effectiveness. But they’re missing the big picture. Not everything can be put into dollars. Amtrak provides the only long-distance service for upper Montana; it provides a way for people to see the country, a clean-energy solution to our nation’s pollution. It’s part of the American fabric and a key component of American heritage. Can you put a dollar amount on that?

The OP asked whether long-distance Amtrak service is relevant. The answer for most people is no. Most people would rather fly across the country than take the train. This is understandable. It works for them and who are we to judge? But as for me, I would rather get stuck in the middle of a field while kicking back on a train waiting for a freight to pass than getting stuck at the hellhole that is O’Hare waiting for a thunderstorm to end.

You have those conservative wackos from the Heritage foundation and the Cato institute criticizing Amtrak, saying it’s this many hundred dollars of federal grants per passenger to transport people on the Sunset Limited, this many for the California Zephyr. They say the federal government shouldn’t be subsidizing people’s vacations. What a bunch of baloney. I want my tax money subsidizing vacations of the middle class. It’s already subsidizing the lifestyles of the hedge fund traders and the kleptocrats’ corporate jets. If we give tax credits to corporate jet owners, why not have the feds help out Amtrak as well?


----------



## henryj (Aug 3, 2011)

Amtrak boy said:


> It seems that this forum has attracted a whole bunch of rightists who want to privatize everything including Amtrak, who don’t realize that privatizing Amtrak will effectively destroy most of its long-distance routes, who keep talking about subsidies and cost effectiveness.
> 
> You have those conservative wackos from the Heritage foundation and the Cato institute criticizing Amtrak, saying it’s this many hundred dollars of federal grants per passenger to transport people on the Sunset Limited, this many for the California Zephyr. They say the federal government shouldn’t be subsidizing people’s vacations. What a bunch of baloney. I want my tax money subsidizing vacations of the middle class. It’s already subsidizing the lifestyles of the hedge fund traders and the kleptocrats’ corporate jets. If we give tax credits to corporate jet owners, why not have the feds help out Amtrak as well?


Actually this forum mostly attracts leftist, marxists and socialists(or progressives as they now want to call themselves) that want big government and the nanny state to take care of everything for them, at someone elses expense of course. Hey lets just go on and print all the money we need and do everything for everyone. Or didn't they try that in Germany in the 1920's and as if no one learned anything from that, most South American and African countries still try it today. I like the Zimbabwe trillion dollar paper bill. Of course the leftist, marxists and socialists are not wackos...only conservatives are considered wackos or terrorists on here. Right? Big government doesn't work, can't do everything, never has and never will.


----------



## jis (Aug 3, 2011)

henryj said:


> Amtrak boy said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that this forum has attracted a whole bunch of rightists who want to privatize everything including Amtrak, who don’t realize that privatizing Amtrak will effectively destroy most of its long-distance routes, who keep talking about subsidies and cost effectiveness.
> ...


This getting way off topic and is bordering on gratuitous content free name calling and trying to prove points by random categorization and labeling. The real problem is that the extremists on both ends of the spectrum are unrealistic and dogmatic. Neither a government that is too big, nor a government that is too small works. The challenge is to figure out what the right sized government is and to get there. The efforts to get there are forever thwarted by extremists at both ends of the spectrum, because both extremes believe that they are privy to revealed truth, and therefore need not be rational or worry about any connection to reality. Behaviorally they are very similar unfortunately.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 3, 2011)

jis said:


> This getting way off topic and is bordering on gratuitous content free name calling and trying to prove points by random categorization and labeling. The real problem is that the extremists on both ends of the spectrum are unrealistic and dogmatic. Neither a government that is too big, nor a government that is too small works. The challenge is to figure out what the right sized government is and to get there. The efforts to get there are forever thwarted by extremists at both ends of the spectrum, because both extremes believe that they are privy to revealed truth, and therefore need not be rational or worry about any connection to reality. Behaviorally they are very similar unfortunately.


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 3, 2011)

I try my hand at statistics and hope that someone with hard data can chime in. Total Amtrak ridership should be somewhere around 29 million passengers per year. on domestic flights the airlines serves about 170. million passengers annually. So at 17% of the total travel of the airlines, Amtrak gets. a "giant" subsidy of $1.8 billion or 2.9% of the federal transportation budget. Now help me fill in the amount of subsidies that the airlines receive.


----------



## Amtrak boy (Aug 3, 2011)

The number of annual domestic airline passengers is actually closer to 600 million (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1) but that's beside the point. Not everything is about numbers. As I wrote before, Amtrak supplies various intrinsic elements that are impossible to quantify. The subsidy is small potatoes compared to the foreign aid going to Egypt, Georgia, Israel and all those other countries with questionable human-rights situations.


----------



## henryj (Aug 3, 2011)

Amtrak boy said:


> The number of annual domestic airline passengers is actually closer to 600 million (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1) but that's beside the point. Not everything is about numbers. As I wrote before, Amtrak supplies various intrinsic elements that are impossible to quantify. The subsidy is small potatoes compared to the foreign aid going to Egypt, Georgia, Israel and all those other countries with questionable human-rights situations.


I agree, there is an intangible element attached to passenger rail. But here is the Federal budget forecast for 2012 and subsequent years. Amtrak is zero after 2012. Airlines are getting something around 22 billion. Highways get the lions share, or almost 60 billion of the total 95 billion transportation budget. But I thought the highways actually were getting more like 200 billion. The rest must be buried somewhere else. Some of you 'smart guys' can dig into it for us. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_current_gs.php?year=2011_2016&view=1&expand=6065&expandC=401_402&units=b&fy=fy12


----------



## Ben_G (Aug 3, 2011)

the_traveler said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > The Strip is reasonably compact, the station was right by the strip, and the trip isn't _that_ long if you can work out a deal with UP. Of course, UP is also UP...
> ...


Your dead on right with that location. My only trip by train to Vegas we got off and on in the rear of the Union Plaza Hotel and Casino downtown....Darn near missed the outgoing back to CHI due to a well paying poker machine. Running to the cash out cage with a bucket full of quarters took longer than I thought it would...


----------



## Anderson (Aug 3, 2011)

the_traveler said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > The Strip is reasonably compact, the station was right by the strip, and the trip isn't _that_ long if you can work out a deal with UP. Of course, UP is also UP...
> ...


I thought the station the Desert Wind used was in one of the casinos? Or did I misinterpret some images and whatnot and assume that the casino was a "strip casino" versus a "downtown casino"?

Edit: Just saw the last post. Ok, mea culpa...I thought that casino was in a different location than it actually is.


----------



## jis (Aug 3, 2011)

henryj said:


> Amtrak boy said:
> 
> 
> > The number of annual domestic airline passengers is actually closer to 600 million (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1) but that's beside the point. Not everything is about numbers. As I wrote before, Amtrak supplies various intrinsic elements that are impossible to quantify. The subsidy is small potatoes compared to the foreign aid going to Egypt, Georgia, Israel and all those other countries with questionable human-rights situations.
> ...


Past experience with these tables suggests that it is not worth paying too much attention to the out years numbers. OTOH look at all that money projected for HSR in the out years! It would be interesting to see how things evolve, and what the real 2013 numbers are when people actually start discussing those in 2012.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 3, 2011)

Anderson said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


It is Fremont Street/Downtown Vegas versus The Strip. They are two very different places. The railroad runs near, but not at the Strip, whereas it is a the foot of Fremont Street, behind the Union Plaza (which was built on the site of the UP station).

The Rio is the only non-downtown major hotel that is actually is beside the tracks, at Flamingo and the tracks, and there was talk about putting a platform there when there was still conversation about the Vegas Talgo. But the Rio is off-Strip. Not very far, but off-Strip.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 3, 2011)

zephyr17 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > the_traveler said:
> ...


Ok, that explains the disconnect. The pictures might have been of the back of the Rio...would that make sense?


----------



## The Journalist (Aug 3, 2011)

"The Strip" is sort of a hazy designation; I think most would consider Rio a Strip casino even though it's not on Las Vegas Blvd; it's only a (long) block off, behind the Bellagio and Caesar's and across the highway.

Nonetheless, the Plaza, where the former train station is, is not on the Strip, it's downtown on Fremont Street-the older tourist district.


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 3, 2011)

There are 300 million people living in the USA. I cannot believe a domestic airline passenger market of 600 million people. Are you sure that we are not talking about a world wide market?

As for the poster that claimed that we are all leftists I would have to disagree. I am very pro Amtrak, not a leftist, socialist, democrat, republican or conservative. I support Amtrak as it serves the public interest, period. That is the purpose of government.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 3, 2011)

Anderson said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


Any pictures of the Desert Wind would have been at the Amtrak station embedded in the Union Plaza downtown. The platform at the Rio never progressed beyond the talking stage in connection with the elusive resumption of LA-Vegas service that never happened.

And it is really nasty walk between the Rio and the Strip. Long, up and over both the tracks and I-15 and not pedestrian friendly at all, particularly the I-15 ramps on Flamingo. Harrah's runs (or at least used to run) a shuttle that went from Harrah's to the Rio and back to get people to and from the Rio from the Strip.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 3, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> There are 300 million people living in the USA. I cannot believe a domestic airline passenger market of 600 million people. Are you sure that we are not talking about a world wide market?


US Domestic airline passengers (departures from US airports for US destinations) in 2010 was 629,517,517. International passengers from US airports in 2010 was 157,798,279. Recognize that a lot of people fly multiple times a year. I counted as 22 passengers.

BTS


----------



## Anderson (Aug 3, 2011)

PRR 60 said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > There are 300 million people living in the USA. I cannot believe a domestic airline passenger market of 600 million people. Are you sure that we are not talking about a world wide market?
> ...


Yeah...you're going to have some business travelers who probably count as 50+ passengers per year; some may well push 100 with enough aggressive shuttling around. On the other end, I counted as zero last year and intend to stay at 0.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Aug 3, 2011)

NY Penn said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > On the subject of government subsidies; when compared to airlines and the highway system, Amtraks receives the least amount of the US transportation budget. It is between 2% and 3%-that's it!
> ...


now compare automobile usage to airline ridership....


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Aug 3, 2011)

PRR 60 said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > There are 300 million people living in the USA. I cannot believe a domestic airline passenger market of 600 million people. Are you sure that we are not talking about a world wide market?
> ...


If I am reading that site correctly. If I fly Pittsburgh to New Haven with a stop in Washington DC, I then count as two passengers. .... so every time there is a connecting flight involved, you're getting counted twice.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 4, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


So: That would mean that within the last year I have been counted as an airline passenger 12 times and as an Amtrak passenger 10 times. But, since all my Amtrak trips inclued a transbay bus leg, does that mean 20 times on Amtrak? If we do this by miles though, the picture changes. The Amtrak number comes up to about 2100 miles and the airline number up to around 11,000 miles.

Since I am carless in SF, there are a lot of trips on Muni and quite a few on Caltrain and VTA, so for pure number of trips these would be far ahead of all else. But: the milage would not be there. The average Caltrain trip is 32 miles and the average Amtrak trip 210 miles.

I am saying all this to say that, by careful manipulation you can prove almost anything you want with statistics.


----------



## Amtrak boy (Aug 4, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


You would only count as one passenger btw Pittsburgh and New Haven if you're flying through DC. The DC-New Haven leg would not count as a commercial air journey.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 4, 2011)

I don't think the bus trips get counted; they get a separate revenue line item with no trips counted on the performance reports.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Aug 4, 2011)

The point is that subsidy per passenger mile is a stupid metric. No one would take a 737 from Trenton to New York and very very few would take a train from NYC to LA.

I can't imagine every wanting to fly between DC and NYC. After figuring commute time to the airport, sexcurity groping, and sitting at the gate, Acela or NER will beat US Airways every single time. Turns out, this is also where Amtrak makes the most money, thus uses the lowest subsidy per mile.

When and Where Amtrak provides fast, reliable, and frequent service, it does very well. Even on the less fast routes like Michigan and Illinois service Amtrak still does well.


----------



## guest (Aug 4, 2011)

leemell said:


> Wildcat said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at LD on-time statistics, I really don't think Amtrak is vaguely relevant. [snip]
> ...


So? What difference does it make who he is or how many times he has posted? As AlanH posted, discuss the facts and leave the individual(s) out of it. The OP raised a lot of interesting points and has created a very meaty list of responses. Nuf said.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 4, 2011)

It would be better if the OP were to come back and actually defend their ideas instead of just throwing a hand grenade and sitting back and watching.

I smell a troll.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 4, 2011)

Ryan said:


> It would be better if the OP were to come back and actually defend their ideas instead of just throwing a hand grenade and sitting back and watching.
> 
> I smell a troll.


Was my earlier post somehow unclear? :unsure:



AlanB said:


> While I can't explain why, he made two subsequent posts as a guest.


----------



## saxman (Aug 4, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> The point is that subsidy per passenger mile is a stupid metric. No one would take a 737 from Trenton to New York and very very few would take a train from NYC to LA.
> 
> I can't imagine every wanting to fly between DC and NYC. After figuring commute time to the airport, sexcurity groping, and sitting at the gate, Acela or NER will beat US Airways every single time. Turns out, this is also where Amtrak makes the most money, thus uses the lowest subsidy per mile.
> 
> When and Where Amtrak provides fast, reliable, and frequent service, it does very well. Even on the less fast routes like Michigan and Illinois service Amtrak still does well.


Subsidy per passenger mile, maybe not, but revenue per passenger mile is an important metric.

There are still 23 flight per day between DCA and LGA. Pretty much every 30 minutes. I will say this though...Delta use to have MD-88's on it's shuttle flights, but has now gone to E-175 jets. So basically 150 seats to 76 seats. Looks like US Airways still using the Airbus. Note this doesn't include the other NYC airports (EWR, JFK)

Sure wish I could look up the load factors on that website for a particular route.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 4, 2011)

Alright, checked the YTD (i.e. October to May) CR numbers against the same period last year for the LD routes, excluding the OEPB costs. Here's what I get:

Line FY 10 CR FY 11 CR Δ CR

Silver Star 40.08% 41.90% 1.83%

Silver Meteor 47.37% 47.29% -0.07%

Palmetto 49.48% 48.52% -0.96%

Cardinal 28.67% 30.00% 1.33%

Empire Builder 40.85% 46.53% 5.68%

Capitol Ltd. 43.22% 47.08% 3.86%

CA Zephyr 39.70% 42.64% 2.94%

SW Chief 37.50% 41.42% 3.92%

City of NO 43.02% 44.96% 1.94%

TX Eagle 41.79% 46.72% 4.94%

Sunset Ltd. 19.94% 23.58% 3.64%

Coast Starlight 40.90% 41.37% 0.47%

Lake Shore Ltd. 39.58% 45.43% 5.85%

Crescent 39.71% 42.22% 2.51%

Auto Train 77.68% 80.30% 2.63%

Please note that the numbers exclude the summer season for both years (FY 11 for obvious reasons...that is, unless someone would like to try and get me the September 2011 report before that month even begins; FY 10 is excluded for comparison purposes). Also, do note that the Empire Builder is distorted due to all of the issues that train was having; the sad truth is that I would not be surprised to see the Builder's ratio come close to 60% on all the trouble that it has had (the stub train is probably going to look shockingly good...if only we could get hard numbers on that, we could probably make a good case for an additional daily train between CHI and MSP.

The number I find most interesting is the LSL's bump: If that holds, the Lake Shore might well hit 50% CR this year.

Edit: A second list. Assuming that the trains manage to hold their gains for the whole of FY11, the CR numbers will be as follows for FY11:

Line

Silver Star 43.38%

Silver Meteor 48.69%

Palmetto 52.50%

Cardinal 32.72%

Empire Builder 57.94%

Capitol Ltd. 53.00%

CA Zephyr 50.86%

SW Chief 47.34%

City of NO 47.24%

TX Eagle 51.95%

Sunset Ltd. 26.43%

Coast Starlight 46.86%

Lake Shore Ltd. 51.07%

Crescent 45.49%

Auto Train 79.18%


----------



## NY Penn (Aug 5, 2011)

That's rather pathetic by international standards.





IMO, the only way to solve the issue is to extend trains, and YES, I know that Amtrak does not have the cars to do so.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 5, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > It would be better if the OP were to come back and actually defend their ideas instead of just throwing a hand grenade and sitting back and watching.
> ...


It doesn't count as "defending their ideas" if those of us reading at home don't know that it's them.

Edit: In fact, it's a pretty dishonest way of trying to build support by appearing (to the outside reader) to a separate person be agreeing with the OP.


----------



## jis (Aug 5, 2011)

saxman said:


> Subsidy per passenger mile, maybe not, but revenue per passenger mile is an important metric.
> 
> There are still 23 flight per day between DCA and LGA. Pretty much every 30 minutes. I will say this though...Delta use to have MD-88's on it's shuttle flights, but has now gone to E-175 jets. So basically 150 seats to 76 seats. Looks like US Airways still using the Airbus. Note this doesn't include the other NYC airports (EWR, JFK)
> 
> Sure wish I could look up the load factors on that website for a particular route.


Actually Revenue per Seat Mile is an even more important metric, since the seat miles are the things being run around whether there is a butt in the seat or not. That's why Amtrak and airlines report their overall RASM and CASM numbers.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Aug 5, 2011)

saxman said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that subsidy per passenger mile is a stupid metric. No one would take a 737 from Trenton to New York and very very few would take a train from NYC to LA.
> ...


The cheapest RT flight I can find on Delta is $378 and I still have to schlep out to LGA to do it.

Acela is $278 for low bucket RT.

So yeah, Amtrak is probably leaving some money on the table.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 5, 2011)

NY Penn said:


> That's rather pathetic by international standards.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Suggest that you look up the relative performance of railway passenger service elsewhere. You may find tha tAmtrak is not so pathetic after all. It has been several years since I did, but I was surprised at how well Amtrak did in comparison with places that had much denser service per line averages.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 5, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> saxman said:
> 
> 
> > Oldsmoboi said:
> ...


One of the problems, though, is that if Amtrak chases every penny on the table right now, they'll lose a share of their customers in the process (and I _highly _doubt that Amtrak wants to have to slash fares when the new Acela cars come online). The other problem is that:

A) The low bucket is not the high bucket, and the high bucket can be substantially higher; and combined with that

B) Amtrak's fares, if not regulated, are at least partly answerable to Congress in some form, IIRC. I seem to recall there being a decent reason that they're hesitant to raise fares, and I know they're restricted on what they can do as far as bucket variations go.

Edit: Another point to remember is that the low bucket is going to be largely MIA for the midday trains, while I don't think Amtrak can sell out the 5 AM Acela at virtually any reasonable price.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 5, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Another point to remember is that the low bucket is going to be largely MIA for the midday trains, while I don't think Amtrak can sell out the 5 AM Acela at virtually any reasonable price.


I agree about the 5 AM Acela. However, when I do point runs BOS-NYP, I chose the 11:15 AM or 12:15 PM Acelas - since they're usually low bucket. I could take the 9:15 AM Acela, but it is usually at mid bucket or higher.


----------



## henryj (Aug 5, 2011)

George Harris said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > That's rather pathetic by international standards.
> ...


What 'elsewhere' are you talking about? When I was in Germany if a train was a few seconds off the published arrival time people started looking at their watches and pacing around nervously. I traveled extensively in Europe and found the trains ran like clockwork. If you arrived at the platform a few seconds late you would be looking at the markers disapearing down the track. You must be thinking about some poor decrepid third world country. Amtrak's time keeping is very pathetic and 'third worldish'. If you ever travel to Germany and book your tickets online over here be sure to uncheck the 'make all close connections' box or you will be literally running down platforms and down and up stairs to catch your next train.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 5, 2011)

There's more to the world to the US and Europe.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 5, 2011)

henryj said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > NY Penn said:
> ...


I think he was referring to the CR numbers. Whether a train can meet a tight timetable regularly does not mean that it's going to make back its expenses, and a badly late train might still make a profit in the right circumstances.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 5, 2011)

Anderson said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


I was referring to the CR numbers. I thought that was the subject at the time.


----------



## ButFli (Aug 6, 2011)

Just wondering if any members have read Joseph Vranich's "End of the Line" and what they think about it. Vranich makes claims similar to those of the OP but is able to back them up with facts. Specifically, he refutes claims about other modes receiving more subsidies and that increased ridership means Amtrak is on a path to success. The book is not anti-Government-funded-rail. It is anti-Amtrak, or at least anti-Amtrak as Amtrak operates now.

Just saying.


----------



## jis (Aug 6, 2011)

George Harris said:


> I was referring to the CR numbers. I thought that was the subject at the time.


That is really not surprising at all, because how important CR is for specific operations is more of apolitical decision, and as we know politics is different even in different parts of the US. That is typically reflected in the differences in CR of various local operations.

Also the notion of CR really applies to units of business, and the business overall. Even extremely profitable businesses with huge cash flows (and I am familiar with a few, being intimately involved with one) internally have units that by design have terrible or no CR per se. They serve support functions by design. Usually they are not reported on individually, but as part of a larger unit that covers that sin completely. If such was not done there would not be any new product development ever, for example.

The question to ask then is what role does transportation play and how it should be packaged organizationally and accounted for, knowing that some fundamental support functions will have low CR. Afterall freight railroads get it and are able to report reasonable CRs, some smaller ones with considerable external financial inputs. OTOH the highways do not really produce in measurable CR at all in the classical sense and certainly are in an enormous hole if all required maintenance issues are accounted for. Some fuel tax hocus pocus makes some of it look almost palatable though, mind you, using a tax that was originally meant to address the "debt problem" not just the highways..


----------



## Anderson (Aug 6, 2011)

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > I was referring to the CR numbers. I thought that was the subject at the time.
> ...


Well, you're always going to have routes that lose money in any well-designed system; at least in theory, with a major business, you have loss leaders but you have profitable routes (or products) to offset those...do remember the old saying of "giving away the razors to sell the blades". A good example is that, in order for the NEC to be profitable, you may need some routes leading into it to lose money (the Shuttle and the Keystone both fall in this category to some extent...though I think in both cases, you _may _have too much reallocated revenue going to the NEC Spine and hurting those trains) to drive up ridership (and revenue) over the whole operation. I'd also point out the dining car situation that has always existed (food service has _always _lost money overall, but decent food is a necessity to get people to take the train).

What I am going to be interested in seeing is where things are at the end of FY11. I don't look at the Corridor routes too closely throughout the year because of the state funding "lumps" that occasionally put a route in the black simply because of when the check gets cut. That said, those corridors seem to be a bit more "noisy" in terms of performance.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 7, 2011)

ButFli said:


> Just wondering if any members have read Joseph Vranich's "End of the Line" and what they think about it. Vranich makes claims similar to those of the OP but is able to back them up with facts. Specifically, he refutes claims about other modes receiving more subsidies and that increased ridership means Amtrak is on a path to success. The book is not anti-Government-funded-rail. It is anti-Amtrak, or at least anti-Amtrak as Amtrak operates now.
> 
> Just saying.


He would have some more credibility with me if he did not use Reason Foundation data to support his position. Although Reason purports itself to be that, a voice of reason and politically conservative, in transportation matters, it is the Petroleum and Road foundation. Vranich's supposed pro-passenger position reminds me of the saying, God, my enemies I can handle, but please protect me from my friends.

There are many other things in his statements and positions that poke holes in his points.


----------



## ButFli (Aug 7, 2011)

George Harris said:


> ButFli said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering if any members have read Joseph Vranich's "End of the Line" and what they think about it. Vranich makes claims similar to those of the OP but is able to back them up with facts. Specifically, he refutes claims about other modes receiving more subsidies and that increased ridership means Amtrak is on a path to success. The book is not anti-Government-funded-rail. It is anti-Amtrak, or at least anti-Amtrak as Amtrak operates now.
> ...


I've just had a look through the reference section of the book and I can't see one time the Reason Foundation is cited. Most of the data seems to come from Amtrak itself. I also find it bizarre that you claim there is a pro-road and petrol influence considering the book is in favour of passenger rail, just not done by Amtrak. Just saying.

I'm not saying the book is necessarily right. All I'm saying is that someone has cited facts and figures and made a convincing argument that Amtrak is doing it wrong. Where is the pro-Amtrak equivalent?


----------



## jis (Aug 7, 2011)

ButFli said:


> I'm not saying the book is necessarily right. All I'm saying is that someone has cited facts and figures and made a convincing argument that Amtrak is doing it wrong. Where is the pro-Amtrak equivalent?


Are you asking this question after having looked for such and not found any? If you have looked where have you looked so far? Also have you read any of Vranich's other writings? As you say .... Just saying or well er.... asking. 

As an obvious place to start, have you looked at www.narprail.org?

Also have you tried to read any of Vranich's earlier diatribes?

Another activity that might be educational is to actually look at Amtrak's publications and see the interesting spins that Vranich is able to put on those. It's all quite fascinating actually. Also read what Vranich's positions on exactly the same things were when he worked for Amtrak before he was essentially inauspiciously removed. There are layers upon layers of story in this soap opera which has been quite entertaining in and of itself.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 7, 2011)

jis said:


> ButFli said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not saying the book is necessarily right. All I'm saying is that someone has cited facts and figures and made a convincing argument that Amtrak is doing it wrong. Where is the pro-Amtrak equivalent?
> ...


Brought to you by Colgate?

Sorry...anyhow, could I get some information on this soap opera? For good or ill, I do enjoy reading a good saga.


----------



## jis (Aug 7, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Brought to you by Colgate?
> 
> Sorry...anyhow, could I get some information on this soap opera? For good or ill, I do enjoy reading a good saga.


Go to various rail forums and search for Vranich. It does involves jilting and such


----------



## George Harris (Aug 7, 2011)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Brought to you by Colgate?
> ...


Ever heard the expression, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"? To say Mr. V was "inauspiciously terminated" is very polite. While I have no idea of the truth of the matter, and remember for any disagreement, there are usually three versions, No. 1's version, No. 2's version, and the truth, whatever happened it left Mr. V with a strong grudge against Amtrak to the point that it reduces if not eliminates the credibility of his positions.


----------



## jis (Aug 7, 2011)

George Harris said:


> Ever heard the expression, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"? To say Mr. V was "inauspiciously terminated" is very polite. While I have no idea of the truth of the matter, and remember for any disagreement, there are usually three versions, No. 1's version, No. 2's version, and the truth, whatever happened it left Mr. V with a strong grudge against Amtrak to the point that it reduces if not eliminates the credibility of his positions.


Actually if he ever managed to get off of his anti-Amtrak high horse and produce a dispassionate treatise of the problems facing evolution of rail passenger system, I think he does have the information available to him to produce a very reasonable treatise. But his irrational hatred of Amtrak prevents him from doing so. In sort he spends too much time and effort venting about Amtrak and ignoring real issues that need addressing. Just IMHO of course.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 8, 2011)

While I've not read Mr. Vranich's book in question, and therefore cannot speak accurately to his number and by no means do I seek to disparage his numbers either, let me point out the citing facts doesn't always mean that you're getting the whole story either.

For example, there are two other anti-rail people (and let me note that Mr. Vranich is anti-Amtrak; not anti-rail), who love to play with their facts. My favorite example is that they'll tell you and cite a valid source that shows that ridership on public transit in Portland, Oregon as a percentage of the population has gone down since they started building light rail. The conclusion that of course they want you to believe is that people aren't riding public transit and specifically light rail. And for those already opposed to rail, this is exactly the proof that they're looking for and easily believed.

However, with a modicum of common sense and a tiny bit of research you can find plenty of facts that show that actual transit ridership namely bodies in seats in Portland has been increasing steadily, with maybe a year or two of hiccups where it went down slightly, ever since they started building light rail.

So how can both be true?

Simple, when expressing the total ridership as a percentage of the population you in effect create a magic trick. The population of Portland is increasing at a much faster rate than transit's ability to carry that ever increasing population. In other words, these are not real numbers, if transit's ability or capacity to carry more people over the last 30 years has increased by 2% and the population has increased by 15%, then clearly transit is carrying less of the total population.

But again bodies in seats hasn't gone down, just transit's market share and only because they're not building it fast enough even though they are one of the better cities for getting the job done.

Again, since I didn't read that book, I'm not suggesting that Mr. Vranich used such a trick. But my point remains that simply citing facts doesn't always mean that the conclusion reached is a valid one.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 8, 2011)

As Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of Lies. Lies,Damn Lies and Statistics!" :excl: :excl: :excl: (think the Politicians, Wall Street and Banker Sharks used this to get us into the current Finanacial mess this Country and World is experiencing!)


----------



## jis (Aug 8, 2011)

jimhudson said:


> As Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of Lies. Lies,Damn Lies and Statistics!" :excl: :excl: :excl: (think the Politicians, Wall Street and Banker Sharks used this to get us into the current Finanacial mess this Country and World is experiencing!)


That put together with ignorance and apathy on part of the folks on the street is a lethal mix. All this could have been avoided if the general public were not sitting around like *duh* doing nothing about anything.


----------



## henryj (Aug 8, 2011)

jis said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > As Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of Lies. Lies,Damn Lies and Statistics!" :excl: :excl: :excl: (think the Politicians, Wall Street and Banker Sharks used this to get us into the current Finanacial mess this Country and World is experiencing!)
> ...


It's all over any way, the US debt has been down graded, the dollar is worthless, the markets have crashed, gold is over 1700 and going to 2000 and...............GLENN BECK IS MOVING TO TEXAS.


----------



## jis (Aug 8, 2011)

henryj said:


> It's all over any way, the US debt has been down graded, the dollar is worthless, the markets have crashed, gold is over 1700 and going to 2000 and...............GLENN BECK IS MOVING TO TEXAS.


:help: :giggle:


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 8, 2011)

henryj said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > jimhudson said:
> ...


:help: :help: :help: Just what we need, another Media Kook!!!


----------



## Grandpa D (Aug 9, 2011)

henryj said:


> ...and...............GLENN BECK IS MOVING TO TEXAS.


But will he run for governor?


----------



## Ryan (Aug 9, 2011)

You mean after Rick Perry is elected President?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 9, 2011)

Ryan said:


> You mean after Rick Perry is elected President?


:help: Say it ain't so!!!!  I can just hear Tina Fey on SNL going: "And how did that Texas Governor as President thingy work out for you last time pilgrim????"  :giggle:


----------

