AMTRAK Must Go!

[SEVERUSMAX]

Am I the only one who thinks it's past time to get rid of this dead weight and privatize AMTRAK already?

 

[TE999]

Am I the only one who thinks it's past time to get rid of this dead weight and privatize AMTRAK already?

No indeed. Passenger trains have never turned a profit, freight does. Like all forms of public transportation, AMTRAK is a tax gobbling dinosaur. The equipment is old, the track beds are in need of repair, the schedule is a joke and the train cars are pigstys.

If it doesn't make a profit, junk it. There's always Greyhound and Trailways.

 

[Noor]

India is the only place in the world where passenger trains turn a profit, however I believe we could break even.

Its kind of unfair, buses and trucks do not have to pay for their use of the highways, the government subsidizes them but trains must pay for their rails.

Having a good passenger rail system would help decrease our dependence on oil.

The food on the Empire Building has been quite good the last couple times I have ridden it ;-)

 

[Liar]

India is the only place in the world where passenger trains turn a profit

In the words of Wikipedia, citation needed.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

An Indian train is a bus where people ride on the roof and sit on the hood.

 

[popcorn2721]

No indeed. Passenger trains have never turned a profit, freight does. Like all forms of public transportation, AMTRAK is a tax gobbling dinosaur. The equipment is old, the track beds are in need of repair, the schedule is a joke and the train cars are pigstys.

If it doesn't make a profit, junk it. There's always Greyhound and Trailways.

I dont think your realize the importance of the service that Amtrak provides. Also short of the aging cars (which most folks wouldnt have know about if it wasnt in the news, and is something that all rail companies have to deal with (you would know that if you were a railroader or a rail buff)) the trains are just fine for travel. The track beds are actually owned by other railroads (I dont think there are any exclusive Amtrak lines...Ill double check later but Im pretty fucken sure). The schedule is based on demand... we see the "City of New Orleans" once every two to 3 days.


just wanted to make sure you were on the right track

 

[Tanuki]

Amtrak's getting really expensive now, maybe they'll start earning money?

I would miss the seating game - watching guys (or girls) try to decide if they should take that empty seat next to you.

 

[SweetWitch]

I have my own issues with Amtrak. The stupid Texas Eagle made me eight hours late for Litogether in Chicago. From now on, I drive. To hell with saving gas.

Sorry. Just a personal rant.

 

[rgraham666]

And yet in Europe where so far as I know the railroads are publicly owned the trains work and work well.

The rail beds and tracks are well maintained. The trains are usually full. They're good at sticking to schedule.

They have things like the TGV which can deliver you from the center of London to the center of Paris in less time than a plane.

The Europeans spend lots of money on their trains and yet, last I heard, they aren't doing badly financially.

Perhaps we should see what they're doing right?

 

[trysail]

Am I the only one who thinks it's past time to get rid of this dead weight and privatize AMTRAK already?

Of course, you're right. AMTRAK is a perfect example of democratic government bungling run amok. It needs to be run as a business instead of as a political boondoggle.

AMTRAK makes plenty of dough in the Northeast corridor. Acela service is excellent. I took it from Baltimore to Boston (Back Bay) last fall— five hours and thirty minutes— on time, clean, fast, relaxing, efficient and a billion times more pleasant than either driving or flying. While not quite on a par with the TGV (which I have ridden several times), it is comparable.

The problem arises from the goddamn politicos who have ceaselessly insisted that AMTRAK provide service to their states and districts. AMTRAK management is prohibited from ceasing service on loss-making routes by the effin' meddling politicos— none of whom have the brains that god gave an amoeba. Most long-distance AMTRAK routes in the Midwest and West have no chance of ever turning a profit, yet are maintained on life support.

 

[off2bed]

Its kind of unfair, buses and trucks do not have to pay for their use of the highways, the government subsidizes them but trains must pay for their rails.

Don't trucks and buses pay fuel taxes like the rest of us? Those go to fund the NHTSA and the highway trust fund.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Its kind of unfair, buses and trucks do not have to pay for their use of the highways, the government subsidizes them but trains must pay for their rails.

Au contraire, love - it's just the opposite. State and federal gas taxes and state vehicle registration fees are where the money comes from to build and maintain roads in this country. About 10 percent of that money is ripped off to subsidize corrupt, ineffecient, wasteful urban mass transit systems and a few other things, but otherwise these taxes are the closest thing in government to a pure user fee.

Amtrak gets massive federal subsidies and also subsidies from many states. It also gets an indirect subsidy from freight railroad customers, since the freight lines are mandated to let Amtrak use their rails for free. If the direct subsidies were eliminated the Amtrak commuter services on the east coast might continue as for-profit operations under new management - they would have to be freed from the dinosaur unions to be able to make a go of it. The cross-country service would almost certainly dry up and blow away. Given higher fuel prices, some more efficient version of the same might come along in the coming decades to replace some of it.

 

[R. Richard]

And yet in Europe where so far as I know the railroads are publicly owned the trains work and work well.

The rail beds and tracks are well maintained. The trains are usually full. They're good at sticking to schedule.

They have things like the TGV which can deliver you from the center of London to the center of Paris in less time than a plane.

The Europeans spend lots of money on their trains and yet, last I heard, they aren't doing badly financially.

Perhaps we should see what they're doing right?

If you have a situation like Manhattan, where you have many, many people living in close packed housing, where many don't even own private vehicles, then you can have an efficient public tranportation system. If you try the same thing in suburban Los Angeles, it aint gonna work.

Also Europe has this guy they call something like 'The Moose' who makes the trains run on time.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't know if they should privatize or not, but I certainly think rail needs to be given high priority in the new, more energy-efficient America. I thinks it's positively scandalous that I can't catch fast and convenient trains to nearby cities or the coast leaving almost as frequently as planes do. They should be running like they were in the heydays of the 30's and 40's, light and medium rail, mixed freight and passenger. They're doing it in other countries.

I heard some vice president of Norfolk & Southern on the radio and he was talking about how their business has been just taking off exponentially since gas hit $3.00. For the first time in 50 years they're going to be laying more roadbed. He thinks all of rail is in for a massive renaissance.

 

[Corylea]

Perhaps we should see what they're doing right?

I think part of what they're doing right is living in a much smaller space! North America is big, and if we want rail from New York to California or Quebec to Vancouver, that's a LOT of track to pay for and maintain.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Nothing against railways, but I think that private control would force AMTRAK to turn a profit....and perhaps, with our new energy crisis, they might. But not as a public monopoly. There are things that government does more efficiently and things that the private sector does better, and railways are the latter.

 

[Noor]

Don't trucks and buses pay fuel taxes like the rest of us? Those go to fund the NHTSA and the highway trust fund.

Trains also pay fuel taxes that go to highways, not their tracks.

 

[DesertPirate]

Trains also pay fuel taxes that go to highways, not their tracks.

The check stations at most state lines are to weigh the trucks and tax the load for the amount of damage it will do to the road. There is a formula for that taught in civil engineering classes.

 

[DesertPirate]

Nothing against railways, but I think that private control would force AMTRAK to turn a profit....and perhaps, with our new energy crisis, they might. But not as a public monopoly. There are things that government does more efficiently and things that the private sector does better, and railways are the latter.

The only service left would be the route from Boston to Washington DC.
The one from there to Miami might survive, and one to Chicago, other than that? No passenger service anywhere.

Mass transit in this country is a joke other than maybe a dozen cities it just doesn't work.

 

[Noor]

Nothing against railways, but I think that private control would force AMTRAK to turn a profit....and perhaps, with our new energy crisis, they might. But not as a public monopoly. There are things that government does more efficiently and things that the private sector does better, and railways are the latter.

Considering the inequality against its system, merely making something private will not force it to be profitable. India's railroads are profitable and government owned.



Our highway and civil aviation systems are not profitable, nor do we expect them to be. Why then should we place this commercial burden on Amtrak?

All forms of intercity commercial passenger transportation are money-losers-if you calculate all of their costs in the same way we calculate the costs of passenger trains.

Passenger trains require federal infrastructure investment in a modern right of way and a modern command-and-control technology just as cars and airplanes do.


There is more at that link. I should mention I like trains, if I have a choice I take a train. When I lived on the east coast and was able to take a train everyday to college I did, also to work when I lived in Chicago. Here we have two trains per day, one to Seattle and one to Chicago, I wish we had more.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Interesting. One person replies to my comment that we should invest more in railways and the other's response is that we should let it rot.

I think that in the right hands, a private mass transit could work, given the growing cost of gas. It would take one with the cash to invest in it. I just don't see the sense in a public monopoly. Monopolies, public or private, tend to be uncompetitive. The monopoly factor is a large part of why I oppose socialism in principle.

 

[Noor]

The check stations at most state lines are to weigh the trucks and tax the load for the amount of damage it will do to the road. There is a formula for that taught in civil engineering classes.

Most weight stations I see are closed when I drive by.

Besides that is only for long haulers.

 

[trysail]

Worth a repeat:

AMTRAK makes plenty of dough in the Northeast corridor. Acela service is excellent. Baltimore to Boston (Back Bay)— five hours and thirty minutes— on time, clean, fast, relaxing, efficient and a billion times more pleasant than either driving or flying. While not quite on a par with the TGV (which I have ridden several times), it is comparable.

 

[only_more_so]

Worth a repeat:

AMTRAK makes plenty of dough in the Northeast corridor. Acela service is excellent. Baltimore to Boston (Back Bay)— five hours and thirty minutes— on time, clean, fast, relaxing, efficient and a billion times more pleasant than either driving or flying. While not quite on a par with the TGV (which I have ridden several times), it is comparable.

Boston to DC on the Acela is $124 each way. I'm flying from Boston to DC and back this weekend, flight down was $75, flight back like $150, so the combined far is about the same. But it takes less than half the time, even including security.

The train definitely has other advantages, but price and time, not so much.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Boston to DC on the Acela is $124 each way. I'm flying from Boston to DC and back this weekend, flight down was $75, flight back like $150, so the combined far is about the same. But it takes less than half the time, even including security.

The train definitely has other advantages, but price and time, not so much.

I understand there's some good non-stop bus service between DC and New York. It's a new kind of "upscale" bus service. A lot cheaper than amtrak, and possibly more energy efficient too.