BaltACD How much profit are the armed services returning on their investment? We are in a profit driven world so every organization getting tax dollars should be returning a profit to the treasury to justify it's continued existence.
How much profit are the armed services returning on their investment? We are in a profit driven world so every organization getting tax dollars should be returning a profit to the treasury to justify it's continued existence.
Actually, the Defense Budget gives a much better return on investment than passenger rail.
The Vision Report proposed spending a half a trillion dollars over 50 years to save 1/2 % on the gasoline used in automobiles. The Defense Budget runs, what, something like a half trillion per year? Suppose you attribute Defense to defending access to oil for gasoline for cars. If we spent the Vision Report budget equal to the Defense budget in one year, we would save, what, 25% of the gasoline used in cars? So then, money spent on the Defense Budget is four-fold more effective than spending on Amtrak?
What the Defense Budget does is protect access to world trade routes and markets, not just for ourselves but for the many countries in the world who are even more reliant on trade for their oil and many other internationally traded goods. This is cynically described as Blood for Oil, but there is a lot more than our own oil supply at stake, and the benefit is not limited to just oil.
You could say there is a free-rider effect inasmuch as some of our trading partners who have money to spend on HSR are not contributing their proportionate share to a common defense, and these countries need to import large amounts of oil just the same. Part of the bargain in ending WW-II is that Japan and Germany, very prosperous societies indeed, would as much as write pacifism into their Constitutions and we would allow them to be free riders on the U.S. contribution to mutual defense as part of the deal. In return, the U.S. reaps economic advantage from controlling the world reserve currency.
What I am saying is forget about Amtrak competing as a commercial enterprise with private funding; it barely competes even as a public enterprise with government funding. And just because Defense gets government funding doesn't mean it doesn't have to justify every last one of the large number of dollars it receives and spends. Just ask the folks on the F-22 Raptor assembly line who lost their jobs.
Going forward from 40 years of Amtrak, the advocacy community needs to do a better job advocating rather than falling back on "all those other guys are getting big bucks, why don't we" and "the benefits of trains are not dollars-and-cents quantifiable and why does everything have to be dollars and cents?" The high cost of providing train service is an issue the advocacy community needs to face head on. "Privatizing Amtrak" is usually a code word from anti-train people for "let's get rid of it", but as some have pointed out, Amtrak has little organizational incentive for cost improvement, and there are those in the advocacy community hopping up and down going "anti-train! anti-train!" at the least bit of any brainstorming of how passenger train service could be improved.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Then we must learn or be enticed or taught to use that track capacity...I have a feeling this will eventually happen, especially in densely urban areas for commuter and regional travel because circumstances will demand it. With my Ridewithmehenry group I get down the the NY area at leaset six times a year just to ride trains. Each time we encounter more and more usage of commuter trains between outlying stations and not just in and out of the city, especially on MNRR and LIRR lines but also on The Corridor with NJ to Trenton and to SEPTA. NJT's Midtown Direct and Sec. Jct. have also made regional travel easier, even less costly, for many with NJT inerline fares, and good LIRR connections at NYP and even the MTA easy access to GCT and MNRR; Amtrak at NYP is a given. As highway congestion continues (there can be no more new highway contstruction in the area because there is no more land and air polluion is high) and gas prices rise, there has to be more and better coordination and schedule application to accomodate more regional rail travel. It will happen because it has to happen. If it doesn't happen, then there will be gridlock at best, total lack of breathable air and gridlock at worst.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 oltmannd: What extra highways and lots? Nearly everyone who rides Amtrak has a car. ...or two. Amtrak service in the NEC is worth about 1/3 of a highway lane in each direction during peak hours. You have that backwards. One railroad track can carry 6 highway lanes of traffic in one hour. That's why commuter rail is used..
oltmannd: What extra highways and lots? Nearly everyone who rides Amtrak has a car. ...or two. Amtrak service in the NEC is worth about 1/3 of a highway lane in each direction during peak hours.
What extra highways and lots? Nearly everyone who rides Amtrak has a car. ...or two. Amtrak service in the NEC is worth about 1/3 of a highway lane in each direction during peak hours.
You have that backwards. One railroad track can carry 6 highway lanes of traffic in one hour. That's why commuter rail is used..
Yes and no. You CAN carry that much on a track. Amtrak in the NEC, by itself, does not. A couple trains an hour each way, 6-8 cars is the norm....plus a few LD and some peak trains.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
NittanyLion oltmannd: What extra highways and lots? Nearly everyone who rides Amtrak has a car. ...or two. Amtrak service in the NEC is worth about 1/3 of a highway lane in each direction during peak hours. You want to make some more sweeping generalizations about DC-NYC-BOS and its millions of people that don't have cars and use Amtrak to get between the cities?
You want to make some more sweeping generalizations about DC-NYC-BOS and its millions of people that don't have cars and use Amtrak to get between the cities?
Don't put words in my mouth....
That is not a sweeping generalization. It is a fact about the number of Amtrak passengers on the NEC and the capacity of a highway lane.
I made no attempt to generalize the value of that capacity or the cost of it's replacement. (which is where you can make a good argument for investment in the NEC)
A generalization I would make is that, outside of the NEC and it's branches, Amtrak could go away and you wouldn't be able to see or feel the small bump in highway traffic.
n012944 DwightBranch: n012944: henry6: Shouldn't we therefore also privatize highways, waterways, canals, airports and air traffic control and any other transportation mode the governemtn underwrites? Or is it just trains? Turning highways into tollways and turning them over to a private company is an idea that I support. My commute takes me over I80/90 in Indiana, which was leased by the state of Indiana to a private firm a couple of years ago. The state made a nice little chunk of change, and the highway seems to get more maintenance since the lease. Seems like a win for everyone....The city of Chicago leased out the Skyway, which is part of I90 a couple of years ago. It also seems to be working well. Chicago is also talking about leasing out Midway to a private firm. So no, it is not just trains.... Wrong: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/jeff-bingaman-senate-highway-bill-leases_n_1266385.html Now what exactly was wrong from my statement???? Where the Skyway and Indiana Toll Road not leased out? Did the State of Indiana not make money off the deal? Has he city of Chicago not been talking about leasing out Midway? Are these items transportation items other than railroads? About the only thing that could be argued was my statement about maintenance improving on the Toll Road since the lease, which your linked article did not talk about. Indiana got 3.8 BILLION dollars from the lease http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-and-regional/indiana/article_da8125ef-7d78-51f1-90e9-727b1023fd88.html Chicago talking again about leasing Midway http://illinoispirg.org/blogs/tax-dollars-and-sense/ilp/midway-airport-lease-resurgence
DwightBranch: n012944: henry6: Shouldn't we therefore also privatize highways, waterways, canals, airports and air traffic control and any other transportation mode the governemtn underwrites? Or is it just trains? Turning highways into tollways and turning them over to a private company is an idea that I support. My commute takes me over I80/90 in Indiana, which was leased by the state of Indiana to a private firm a couple of years ago. The state made a nice little chunk of change, and the highway seems to get more maintenance since the lease. Seems like a win for everyone....The city of Chicago leased out the Skyway, which is part of I90 a couple of years ago. It also seems to be working well. Chicago is also talking about leasing out Midway to a private firm. So no, it is not just trains.... Wrong: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/jeff-bingaman-senate-highway-bill-leases_n_1266385.html
n012944: henry6: Shouldn't we therefore also privatize highways, waterways, canals, airports and air traffic control and any other transportation mode the governemtn underwrites? Or is it just trains? Turning highways into tollways and turning them over to a private company is an idea that I support. My commute takes me over I80/90 in Indiana, which was leased by the state of Indiana to a private firm a couple of years ago. The state made a nice little chunk of change, and the highway seems to get more maintenance since the lease. Seems like a win for everyone....The city of Chicago leased out the Skyway, which is part of I90 a couple of years ago. It also seems to be working well. Chicago is also talking about leasing out Midway to a private firm. So no, it is not just trains....
henry6: Shouldn't we therefore also privatize highways, waterways, canals, airports and air traffic control and any other transportation mode the governemtn underwrites? Or is it just trains?
Shouldn't we therefore also privatize highways, waterways, canals, airports and air traffic control and any other transportation mode the governemtn underwrites? Or is it just trains?
Turning highways into tollways and turning them over to a private company is an idea that I support. My commute takes me over I80/90 in Indiana, which was leased by the state of Indiana to a private firm a couple of years ago. The state made a nice little chunk of change, and the highway seems to get more maintenance since the lease. Seems like a win for everyone....The city of Chicago leased out the Skyway, which is part of I90 a couple of years ago. It also seems to be working well. Chicago is also talking about leasing out Midway to a private firm. So no, it is not just trains....
Wrong:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/jeff-bingaman-senate-highway-bill-leases_n_1266385.html
Now what exactly was wrong from my statement???? Where the Skyway and Indiana Toll Road not leased out? Did the State of Indiana not make money off the deal? Has he city of Chicago not been talking about leasing out Midway? Are these items transportation items other than railroads? About the only thing that could be argued was my statement about maintenance improving on the Toll Road since the lease, which your linked article did not talk about.
Indiana got 3.8 BILLION dollars from the lease
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-and-regional/indiana/article_da8125ef-7d78-51f1-90e9-727b1023fd88.html
Chicago talking again about leasing Midway
http://illinoispirg.org/blogs/tax-dollars-and-sense/ilp/midway-airport-lease-resurgence
The taxpayers, who paid for the building of the road, only "made" money by slight of hand:
“The tax code is encouraging the privatization of public highways by offering generous tax breaks to private entities, and U.S. taxpayers are footing the very expensive bill. This practice doesn’t make any sense and I’m glad we’re a step closer to changing it,” Bingaman said in a statement Wednesday.
In other words, Wall Street entities get tax breaks through depreciation far in excess of what they are paying back to the taxpayers to lease the roads. It is as if someone stole your wallet and then offered you a job using the money they had stolen from you. But that is over now, as the amendment was included in the bill that passed the Senate, no more privatization magic beans, as far as highways are concerned anyway.
henry6 The problem in the US seems to be that investors want to make money with their money, not make widgets, build highways or run trains. Part of the reason Amtrak is not privtiized is because no company or investors have come forward to take it over... ...what no one seems to get through their heads is that we in the US, in fear of being ripped off (and probably rightly so if the mortgage and investment scams are any indication) and so afraid of not making a huge return on investment (whats this about an entrapeneurial risk taking classs) unless there is government protections and guarentees, have not had to face the real cost of anything in hundreds of years. Food, fuel, and and everything else in this country is priced low because the governemtn protects investors and industry from going under. Even the old adage of knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing can't stand up here because we really don't know the real price of anything and understand the value of nothing.
The problem in the US seems to be that investors want to make money with their money, not make widgets, build highways or run trains. Part of the reason Amtrak is not privtiized is because no company or investors have come forward to take it over...
...what no one seems to get through their heads is that we in the US, in fear of being ripped off (and probably rightly so if the mortgage and investment scams are any indication) and so afraid of not making a huge return on investment (whats this about an entrapeneurial risk taking classs) unless there is government protections and guarentees, have not had to face the real cost of anything in hundreds of years. Food, fuel, and and everything else in this country is priced low because the governemtn protects investors and industry from going under. Even the old adage of knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing can't stand up here because we really don't know the real price of anything and understand the value of nothing.
If the government protects investors and industry - the same group - from going under, it needs to sharpen its skills. Of the Dow Jones companies in existence in 1900, only GE has survived. Moreover, of the 1950 S&P 500, only 39 are around today, although a number of them have been merged into companies that are still listed in the S&P 500.
Today approximately 88 to 90 per cent of the shares of U.S. corporations are owned by institutional investors, i.e. mutual funds, pension funds, endowment funds, etc. That means everyday citizens. If you are retired with a pension, chances are your pension is paid out of a fund that holds shares in a variety of U.S. companies.
DwightBranch n012944: henry6: Shouldn't we therefore also privatize highways, waterways, canals, airports and air traffic control and any other transportation mode the governemtn underwrites? Or is it just trains? Turning highways into tollways and turning them over to a private company is an idea that I support. My commute takes me over I80/90 in Indiana, which was leased by the state of Indiana to a private firm a couple of years ago. The state made a nice little chunk of change, and the highway seems to get more maintenance since the lease. Seems like a win for everyone....The city of Chicago leased out the Skyway, which is part of I90 a couple of years ago. It also seems to be working well. Chicago is also talking about leasing out Midway to a private firm. So no, it is not just trains.... Wrong: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/jeff-bingaman-senate-highway-bill-leases_n_1266385.html
An "expensive model collector"
henry6 oltmannd: You have that backwards. One railroad track can carry 6 highway lanes of traffic in one hour. That's why commuter rail is used..
oltmannd:
"Mess with the best, die like the rest" -U.S. Marine Corp
MINRail (Minessota Rail Transportaion Corp.) - "If they got rid of the weeds what would hold the rails down?"
And yes I am 17.
n012944 Turning highways into tollways and turning them over to a private company is an idea that I support. My commute takes me over I80/90 in Indiana, which was leased by the state of Indiana to a private firm a couple of years ago. The state made a nice little chunk of change, and the highway seems to get more maintenance since the lease. Seems like a win for everyone....The city of Chicago leased out the Skyway, which is part of I90 a couple of years ago. It also seems to be working well. Chicago is also talking about leasing out Midway to a private firm. So no, it is not just trains....
The private company that Indiana turned it's toll road over to is a consortium of Spanish and Australian companies. Some commuter railroads that have privatized have also turned over operations to foreign companies. Along with the hollowing out of American assets is the inevitable transfer of monies offshore. Does not sound like a win for us.
oltmannd What extra highways and lots? Nearly everyone who rides Amtrak has a car. ...or two. Amtrak service in the NEC is worth about 1/3 of a highway lane in each direction during peak hours.
n012944 henry6: Shouldn't we therefore also privatize highways, waterways, canals, airports and air traffic control and any other transportation mode the governemtn underwrites? Or is it just trains? Turning highways into tollways and turning them over to a private company is an idea that I support. My commute takes me over I80/90 in Indiana, which was leased by the state of Indiana to a private firm a couple of years ago. The state made a nice little chunk of change, and the highway seems to get more maintenance since the lease. Seems like a win for everyone....The city of Chicago leased out the Skyway, which is part of I90 a couple of years ago. It also seems to be working well. Chicago is also talking about leasing out Midway to a private firm. So no, it is not just trains....
What is more blatent than the government building a highway and allowing buses and trucks to use it while charging less than the cost of damage ot the highway infrastructure or the air pollution? Or what about communities pouring millions of dollars (including commercial or other viable land values) into an airport that eliminates the land from commercial development and has so little traffic that the taxpayers foot the bill? Or a canal that sees so little commercial traffic it doesn't pay the way for private craft so fees have to be subsidized from highway funds? I could go on. And what does "union votes" mean? What does that have to do with infrastructure, economic fuel use and environmental concerns? You don't make sense...you are sweeping dirt under the carpet to pretend it doesn't exist.
henry6 Shouldn't we therefore also privatize highways, waterways, canals, airports and air traffic control and any other transportation mode the governemtn underwrites? Or is it just trains?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EMD#1 I say privatize the trains, train service employees and ticket agents. Let Amtrak stay in place as the owner of the Northeast Corridor tracks, keep up with the maintenance and provide dispatching. Another suggestion would be to do away with long distance service and instead offer corridor service where private passenger train companies negotiate trackage rights with private freight train companies. Who knows...maybe a private freight train company might offer passenger service if federal, state and local governments would be willing to pay for trainsets, stations and upgrades to mainlines to high speed standards. By doing away with the non-competitive bureaucratic government run Amtrak, service would greatly improve and the US could catch up with the rest of the world in passenger train service.
I say privatize the trains, train service employees and ticket agents. Let Amtrak stay in place as the owner of the Northeast Corridor tracks, keep up with the maintenance and provide dispatching.
Another suggestion would be to do away with long distance service and instead offer corridor service where private passenger train companies negotiate trackage rights with private freight train companies. Who knows...maybe a private freight train company might offer passenger service if federal, state and local governments would be willing to pay for trainsets, stations and upgrades to mainlines to high speed standards.
By doing away with the non-competitive bureaucratic government run Amtrak, service would greatly improve and the US could catch up with the rest of the world in passenger train service.
We would be left with the NEC and it's extensions plus California. Is that enough?
MidlandMike Paul Milenkovic: Yes, cash payback or payout is indeed the only value to any endeavor, especially if you want to maximize a social payout in the form of reduced imported oil, reduced Greenhouse gas emission, or any other metric. Someone here please convince me that subsidizing Amtrak results in more quantifiable environmental savings then taking the same money and giving tax breaks on hybrid or electric cars. By my reckoning, if Amtrak saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile at 20 cents subsidy/passenger mile. If a hybrid or electric car saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile, a $10,000 tax credit for a plug-in hybrid amounts to 7 cents/passenger mile. Hence the hybrid car subsidy is three times more effective than subsidizing Amtrak. Why are we giving money to Amtrak if saving the environment is a concern? The environmental costs of cars is more than just fuel burning. All those extra hybrid cars would need more highways and parking lots. All that paving leads to loss of habitable space, loss of vegetative cover, storm water issues, etc. Adding more airports would have similar consequences. Whether or not they can be quantified monetarily does not disqualify them as environmental problems. LA once has an efficient rail transit system, but it was abandoned when thy thought it could be replaced by freeways. With the freeways clogged, and people commuting hours to work, they realized the limits of roadways, and are rebuilding the rail system at great costs. Amtrak and commuter rail have a place, at least in dense corridors.
Paul Milenkovic: Yes, cash payback or payout is indeed the only value to any endeavor, especially if you want to maximize a social payout in the form of reduced imported oil, reduced Greenhouse gas emission, or any other metric. Someone here please convince me that subsidizing Amtrak results in more quantifiable environmental savings then taking the same money and giving tax breaks on hybrid or electric cars. By my reckoning, if Amtrak saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile at 20 cents subsidy/passenger mile. If a hybrid or electric car saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile, a $10,000 tax credit for a plug-in hybrid amounts to 7 cents/passenger mile. Hence the hybrid car subsidy is three times more effective than subsidizing Amtrak. Why are we giving money to Amtrak if saving the environment is a concern?
Yes, cash payback or payout is indeed the only value to any endeavor, especially if you want to maximize a social payout in the form of reduced imported oil, reduced Greenhouse gas emission, or any other metric.
Someone here please convince me that subsidizing Amtrak results in more quantifiable environmental savings then taking the same money and giving tax breaks on hybrid or electric cars.
By my reckoning, if Amtrak saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile at 20 cents subsidy/passenger mile. If a hybrid or electric car saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile, a $10,000 tax credit for a plug-in hybrid amounts to 7 cents/passenger mile. Hence the hybrid car subsidy is three times more effective than subsidizing Amtrak. Why are we giving money to Amtrak if saving the environment is a concern?
The environmental costs of cars is more than just fuel burning. All those extra hybrid cars would need more highways and parking lots. All that paving leads to loss of habitable space, loss of vegetative cover, storm water issues, etc. Adding more airports would have similar consequences. Whether or not they can be quantified monetarily does not disqualify them as environmental problems.
LA once has an efficient rail transit system, but it was abandoned when thy thought it could be replaced by freeways. With the freeways clogged, and people commuting hours to work, they realized the limits of roadways, and are rebuilding the rail system at great costs. Amtrak and commuter rail have a place, at least in dense corridors.
Henry,
Those are all fine ideas, and doing so would minimized the economic distortion caused by government intervention. The case for ATK is so blatent that almost anybody who cares to look wonders why in the world congress is doing it. My suggestion is to purchase union votes.
Mac McCulloch
Ditto. It makes sense.
0 0 1 625 3564 Retired 29 8 4181 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
According to Amtrak’s September 2010 Monthly Operating Report, which includes the financial results for FY10, the average cost to carry a passenger in the NEC was $83.78 compared to $58.46 for the State Supported and Other Short Distance Corridor Trains (Corridor) and $263.67 for the long distance trains. These numbers represent average costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses.
FY11 segment numbers have not been provided. Amtrak is re-working its accounting system. Amongst other things it will be able to allocate depreciation, interest, and other expenses by segment and route. Why Amtrak ceased segment reporting before the new accounting system is ready for prime time is a mystery.
The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
Assuming 80% of the depreciation, interest and other expenses is allocable to the NEC, with 10% being allocable equally to the other two segments, the average loss per passenger after considering these items was $48.67 for the NEC compared to $21.68 for the corridor trains and $144.15 for the long distance trains. Even if 100% of the depreciation, interest, and other expenses were charged to the NEC, which would be inappropriate accounting, the long distance trains would still lose considerably more money per passenger than the NEC and the corridor trains.
The cost of normal maintenance of any segment of Amtrak’s owned system, including the equipment and infrastructure for the NEC, is included in operating expenses. If the maintenance is designed to extend the life of the asset, it is capitalized. Ultimately, depending on the depreciation schedule for the assets, it flows through the income statement as a part of the depreciation expense. In Amtrak’s case it take decades for some of the capitalized costs to be fully amortized.
The long distance trains accounted for 15.6% of system passengers and 26.0% of system revenues. But their losses wiped out the NEC operating profit and accounted for 76.2% of the net operating losses before allocation of depreciation, interest, and other expenses. Sleeping car passengers accounted for 2.3% of system passengers and 15% of long distance passengers. Sleeping car revenues accounted for 3.7% of long distance revenues. Amtrak does not disclose the costs attracted by the sleeping cars, but in a 2005 report the Inspector General indicated that the subsidy for sleeping car passengers was greater than the subsidy for coach passengers on the long distance trains.
Amtrak claims that it would realize net savings of approximately $300 million per year if the long distance trains were discontinued. I have not been able to obtain a breakdown for these numbers. Clearly, the savings during the first year or two of discontinuance would not equal the operating and fixed costs associated with the long distance trains because of severance packages, asset sale and salvage lag, and overhead reallocations. Some of the overheads associated with the long distance trains, e.g. reservation systems, management, maintenance facilities, etc., could not be reduced proportionately with the discontinue of the long distance trains. Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that Amtrak would not be able to realize savings of more than 52% of the net operating losses by discontinuing the long distance trains. A for profit private enterprise probably would be able to achieve considerably greater savings.
Even if the saving were only $300 million per year, it adds up. Assuming that they were invested at the Treasury Department’s weighted average cost of borrowing, the savings would amount to $3.34 billion over 10 years. That is a significant amount of money and would go a long way toward upgrading the DFW/San Antonio corridor, which is the kind of environment in which passenger trains make sense.
Paul Milenkovic Yes, cash payback or payout is indeed the only value to any endeavor, especially if you want to maximize a social payout in the form of reduced imported oil, reduced Greenhouse gas emission, or any other metric. Someone here please convince me that subsidizing Amtrak results in more quantifiable environmental savings then taking the same money and giving tax breaks on hybrid or electric cars. By my reckoning, if Amtrak saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile at 20 cents subsidy/passenger mile. If a hybrid or electric car saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile, a $10,000 tax credit for a plug-in hybrid amounts to 7 cents/passenger mile. Hence the hybrid car subsidy is three times more effective than subsidizing Amtrak. Why are we giving money to Amtrak if saving the environment is a concern?
First, I don't believe cash payback to only one or just a few people is good. In the cancer drug shortage, drug companies stopped supplying because there was no huge profit in it despite the life and death dependency of the drug, and the fact that only drug companies can make drugs...if you don't want to make drugs, then open a pizza parlor or go to work for the railroad; you chose to make drugs, so take on the responsibility or is there no such thing as corporate responsiblity and patriotism or dedication? So if you want to get into the railroad business, then get in the railroad business. But if you want to make lots and lots money become a printer in the treasury department. In other words, yes, make as much money as you can, there is nothing wrong with that; but also try to be satisfied with what you can make or else get out.
Second, subsidies for Amtrak on dense corridors do make environmental impacts. Less land is used, less fuel is used, less pollutants are produced, roads and airways are less congested. NY to Boston or D.C. for instance. There is little land, if any, which can be turned over to more highway building. Both highways and airlanes are already dangerously croweded in plane physical congestion. AIr quality is bad and getting worse...and if you have so much congestion not only are people not moving or moving quickly, thus there is even more pollution. Putting money into a better Amtrak...be it high speed, renewed infrastructure, more trains...would work to reduce air pollutants in the densly populated area. Even if you had an all electric automobile with unlimited mileage and speed, there isn't enough room many places to build more highways which would take space away from industry or homes.
henry6 Three issues: One, polluting emissions are not only CO2, so we can't take pollution lightly. Two, no one can deny the role of governments in creating and maintaining our transportation system. Three, is cash payback the only value of any endeavor especially when so much of society benefits? I know we've lost many valuable products and services over the years and lost quality of products and services, too, simply because cash payback was not enough to satisfy the investors. Look at what is happening to our drugs as profit margin drops, no matter how valuable the drug is for taking care of patients' needs, the drug becomes scarce or not available anymore.
Three issues:
One, polluting emissions are not only CO2, so we can't take pollution lightly.
Two, no one can deny the role of governments in creating and maintaining our transportation system.
Three, is cash payback the only value of any endeavor especially when so much of society benefits? I know we've lost many valuable products and services over the years and lost quality of products and services, too, simply because cash payback was not enough to satisfy the investors. Look at what is happening to our drugs as profit margin drops, no matter how valuable the drug is for taking care of patients' needs, the drug becomes scarce or not available anymore.
henry6 gabeusmc: These are the founding priciples of the US. If that is so, gabeusmc, then why does the Constitution give the Congress right to regulate interstate commerce? Why is there copyright laws and a Patent Office? Why has the Federal and state governements from the beginning issued charters, legislated bonding, allowed for eminent domain, or otherwise help form the system...I am not talking just 20th or 21st Century, I am talking 18th and19th Century, too. I am not neccessarityly talking railroads either, I am talking roads and highways, canals, waterways, airports and air traffic controls. "The US dosen't need it." What do you envision our population corridors would be like without passenger rail service? What alternatives would you propose that wouldn't be congested, used more land than in use now, and be non pollutant? Overall your statement lacks a sense of history and the role the government has played in all our intercourse and economic (military?) growth nor considers the need for proper use of fuel, land, and air for practicality, safety and enviornmently sound choices.
gabeusmc: These are the founding priciples of the US.
These are the founding priciples of the US.
If that is so, gabeusmc, then why does the Constitution give the Congress right to regulate interstate commerce? Why is there copyright laws and a Patent Office? Why has the Federal and state governements from the beginning issued charters, legislated bonding, allowed for eminent domain, or otherwise help form the system...I am not talking just 20th or 21st Century, I am talking 18th and19th Century, too. I am not neccessarityly talking railroads either, I am talking roads and highways, canals, waterways, airports and air traffic controls.
"The US dosen't need it."
What do you envision our population corridors would be like without passenger rail service? What alternatives would you propose that wouldn't be congested, used more land than in use now, and be non pollutant?
Overall your statement lacks a sense of history and the role the government has played in all our intercourse and economic (military?) growth nor considers the need for proper use of fuel, land, and air for practicality, safety and enviornmently sound choices.
Well if we need the rail transportation some guy/s (like me but with more money) will buy it and make money on it, if it is indeed needed and is profitable. As for the regulation of interstate commerce,I am not saying that there should be none. I am just saying that if there is a need for transportation somthing will fill thae gap if Amtrak goes under. It could be that CSX (as an example) decides it can make money providing passenger transit between here and there they will do it. If they don't acme bus will. Taking amtrak off the shoulders of the goverment will help our debt problem.
As for the statment the "US does not need it" I meant if it is not profitable then there must be no demand for it an therefore not needed. The biggest problem is that the goverment beurcrats are running it. The post office is struggling, yet Fedex and UPS seem to do fine. theres some food for thought.
Long haul trains are mostly tourist atractions for people like you and me. If I need to get from LA to Chicago for bussinessI am taking a plane, because it is faster. I'll take a train because I want to see the land. And yes I know this dosen't apply to inter city transit.
Also I live in Northern MI. not many people here want to pay taxes to help people in Washington DC get to work. Make the people in washington DC pay to get to work.
And as for as a non pollutent choice, I could care less. The ECO people want to get rid of CO2, Ironically thats what trees "breath".
DwightBranch ...Republicans wanted to eliminate "money losing" long distance trains and keep the NE Corridor it was revealed that Amtrak loses more per rider in the NE Corridor than on long distance trains when you account for the upkeep Amtrak must pay for on track it owns. Long distance trains are on the other had a small incremental cost for the freight railroads. I saw a figure once that Amtrak pays the same to CSX and NS to send one train from NYC to Chicago as UPS does to send one piggyback trailer. BTW, a little-advertised part of the Transport bill that made its way out of the Senate a few weeks back was a provision that would severely restrict the privatization of highways, I think they are waking up that privatization is more expensive: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/jeff-bingaman-senate-highway-bill-leases_n_1266385.html
...Republicans wanted to eliminate "money losing" long distance trains and keep the NE Corridor it was revealed that Amtrak loses more per rider in the NE Corridor than on long distance trains when you account for the upkeep Amtrak must pay for on track it owns. Long distance trains are on the other had a small incremental cost for the freight railroads. I saw a figure once that Amtrak pays the same to CSX and NS to send one train from NYC to Chicago as UPS does to send one piggyback trailer.
BTW, a little-advertised part of the Transport bill that made its way out of the Senate a few weeks back was a provision that would severely restrict the privatization of highways, I think they are waking up that privatization is more expensive:
You are buying into a myth. Sam and others here have debunked it a couple of times. (maybe more). The LD trains are losers, Truly.
UPS pays about a grand to have a trailer moved 1000 miles. Amtrak pays about $10 a mile for a LD train. (Which isn't even close to what it costs the frt RR to host it). So, the Amtrak rate is about 10x more per mile.
I really like the LD trains. I wish it wasn't true that they are such losers. I also wish Amtrak would tighten up their leaky ship a good bit so that we have a chance of keeping some of them.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.