160 replies to this topic

[NAVYBLUE]

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

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

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

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

NAVYBLUE

From Las Vegas, Nevada where it is ILLEGAL

Edited by NAVYBLUE, 30 June 2012 - 01:15 AM.

[AlanB]

Alan,,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anderson]

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

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

[Ryan]

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

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

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

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

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

[TrainLoverJoy]

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

[AmtrakBlue]

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

NAVYBLUE

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

[henryj]

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

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

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

[rrdude]

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

Drinking the Kool-Aid I see.

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

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

[rrdude]

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

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

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

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

Edited by rrdude, 30 June 2012 - 09:29 AM.

[jimhudson]

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

Edited by jimhudson, 30 June 2012 - 09:21 AM.

[E Runs]

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

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

[Big Iron]

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

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

http://www.inboundlo...he-right-track/


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

[Ryan]

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

Cardinal lateness, due to lack of sidings on the BBRR
Daily Sunset, or lack thereof
Potential SwC reroute
Flooding on the Devils Lake sub
Mudslides on BNSF track in the PacNorWest

Just off of the top of my head...

[amtrakwolverine]

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

[jmbgeg]

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

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

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

1) Consider train travel funding the same way government does highways and public transit.
2) Give Amtrak capital funding to modernize its fleet, then make the judgement.

[Big Iron]

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

Cardinal lateness, due to lack of sidings on the BBRR
Daily Sunset, or lack thereof
Potential SwC reroute
Flooding on the Devils Lake sub
Mudslides on BNSF track in the PacNorWest

Just off of the top of my head...

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

[NAVYBLUE]

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

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

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

1) Consider train travel funding the same way government does highways and public transit.
2) Give Amtrak capital funding to modernize its fleet, then make the judgement.

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

NAVYBLUE








Mode of passenger transport Passenger-miles
(millions) Percent

Highway — total 4,884,557 88.79%

Passenger vehicles, motorcycles 4,520,810 82.18%
Trucks 222,836 4.05%
Buses 162,908 2.96%

Air Carriers 583,689 10.61%

Rail — total 30,972 0.56%

Transit 16,118 0.29%
Commuter 9,473 0.17%
Intercity/Amtrak 5,381 0.10%

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

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

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

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

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

NAVYBLUE

[Big Iron]

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

http://www.aar.org/~...-2011-0617.ashx

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

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

[Big Iron]

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

Cardinal lateness, due to lack of sidings on the BBRR
Daily Sunset, or lack thereof
Potential SwC reroute
Flooding on the Devils Lake sub
Mudslides on BNSF track in the PacNorWest

Just off of the top of my head...

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

[Chatter163]

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

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

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

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


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

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