Amtrak taken to task on Fox last night

[dlagrua]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jphjaxfl]

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

 

[jis]

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

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

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

 

[Ryan]

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

For real?

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

 

[bmorechris]

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

 

[Ryan]

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

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

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

 

[NE933]

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

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

Edit was a spelling correct.

 

[jis]

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

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

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

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

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

 

[fulham]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[NE933]

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

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

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

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

 

[Paul Dow]

Your first mistake was watching Faux News.

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

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

CNN, Fox make health care headline blunder

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

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

 

[TimePeace]

Your first mistake was watching Faux News.

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

In the interest of accuracy, I believe you may be thinking of CNN, not Fox News.

CNN News Staffers Revolt Over Blown Coverage

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

It was both

 

[FriskyFL]

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

 

[NE933]

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

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

 

[dn4192]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MikefromCrete]

Your first mistake was watching Faux News.

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

In the interest of accuracy, I believe you may be thinking of CNN, not Fox News.

CNN News Staffers Revolt Over Blown Coverage

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

It was both

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

 

[Ryan]

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

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

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

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

 

[MikefromCrete]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dn4192]

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

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

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

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

 

[Ryan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dn4192]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ryan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[NE933]

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

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

 

[R30A]

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