 |
Re: Restored Amtrak Service To Vegas? Don't Hold Your Breath!
Author: Bobby Johnson
Date: 07-01-2010 - 13:50
Holly Gibson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think there was probably a moment in time when
> L&N and SAL made money solely off their passenger
> revenues. It may have been a long time ago, but I
> would venture to say that it probably did happen.
> Shortly after they were constructed, most
> railroads found it very worth their while to
> operate passenger service. There are very few
> railroads that were built with freight-only status
> and always remained that way.
That was before airlines and major roads. It was also before the average American household owned more than one car.
> Well, first of all, we should probably get it out
> of our minds that Amtrak can operate at a profit.
> It probably can’t, any more than a public school,
> fire department or police department can operate
> at a profit. If you stripped away the subsidies
> and had to cover all the costs associated with
> driving your car, you wouldn’t be able to afford
> to do that either. Airlines lose a tremendous
> amount of money and require enormous subsidies,
> but I’ve noticed that most everyone brushes all
> that aside and only “picks” on Amtrak to turn a
> profit. Can you explain to me why that is? Why
> the double-standard? Check out this report from
> ABC News about a pork barrel airport in
> Pennsylvania that is located in the Congressional
> district of the late senator John Murtha. The
> report was filed before his death.
>
> [abcnews.go.com]
> 412160&page=1
You can't compare a transportation corporation (yes, Amtrak is a corporation although government owned) to public services such as schools, law enforcement, fire department etc...
Amtrak was created with intentions that it would turn a profit just like Conrail. Conrail eventually turned a profit, Amtrak has never turned a profit.
As stated before I can fly from one location of the country or drive and be at my destination the same day. Amtrak's top speed through most of the country (excluding the NEC) is 79mph with numerous speed restrictions. The interstate speed limit through most of the country is 75mph with few speed restrictions. Unless Vegas had high speed rail that competed with the airlines like Acela in the northeast it would not be worth it. Make Amtrak competive against the automoblie and an the airlines (yes I know they are government subsidized) and you will turn a profit.
>
> Personally, if given a choice, I’d rather have my
> tax dollars going to support **yes, shudder the
> thought** non-profitable inter-city rail passenger
> service rather than a lot of other areas where
> taxpayer dollars “wasted.” For example, one of
> the most ludicrous examples of taxpayer dollars
> being spent unwisely is enhancements to detention
> centers where illegal aliens are housed prior to
> deportation. Under this new proposal, detainees
> will be treated to more variety in their dining
> hall menus and have self-serve beverage and fresh
> vegetable bars. They will enjoy movie nights,
> bingo, arts and crafts, dance and cooking classes,
> tutoring and computer training.
>
> Source:
> [www.chron.com]
> ation/7043040.html
>
> In short, supporting Amtrak is money well spent
> when compared to the above example. And that
> example is just one of thousands that are equally
> absurd.
Look at your president, until he grows a pair and tells unwanted guests they are unwanted then you are going to continue having this and just because money is thrown at stupid ideas doesn't mean we need to throw it at another. I am not saying Amtrak as a whole is stupid. You either pay up and invest in the projects you think will be most economically beneficial and profitable or you kill it. I support the swift deportation and imprisonment of all illegal aliens no matter what there circumstance is. This is my country, pay up or get out. Most ICE guys I work with don't treat illegals very nicely.
> You’re forgetting that The Pioneer interfaced with
> the California Zephyr at Salt Lake City and
> furnished through cars from Seattle to Chicago.
> Boise and all the other towns and cities along the
> OWR&NCo and OSL would probably embrace Amtrak
> service, particularly since Greyhound and other
> bus companies have made service cutbacks. The
> service would be especially valuable in the winter
> months when driving conditions are undesirable and
> best and dangerous at worst.
> There is not really much between Portland and SLC
> and the trip takes you about 20 hours if you are
> on time. I could drive that in twevle for cheaper
> than what Amtrak charged or would charge and I
> would have a vehicle to use when I reached my
> destination.
No I haven't forgot. Anyone going to destinations further than SLC can take a bus, take the Builder, CZ or an airplane. Obviously they are in a hurry and they probably would get there faster if they took Amtrak's thruway connections.
> You’re going on the assumption that everyone in
> our society owns and operates a car and enjoys
> driving, just like you do. That is not the case.
> As you say, you can drive it cheaper than Amtrak.
> That situation may change, especially when we’re
> doing stupid things like what’s currently
> happening in the Gulf of Mexico. Very little of
> that oil will be able to be salvaged and recycled.
> What a waste. On so many levels.
I know everyone in society does not own a car, nor a house however most people in America own more than one car. This country is built around the automobile.
> I could fly and be there in less than 12 hours
> from the time I leave my doorstep to the time I
> reach my destination.
>
> Yes, but, by all means, please remember to tell us
> that your airline flight is heavily subsidized and
> whatever profit the airline may or many not show
> most certainly appears as an illusion on the
> balance sheet because of the massive taxpayer
> support. Please review the ABC News piece cited
> above.
Yes, I know we subsidize airlines. Airlines are also more efficient than the trains we have.
> You've already killed your profit with the cost of
> labor because your train crew doesn't work for
> free and you don't have any money left over for
> fuel or to maintain your train, stations, etc...
>
> Again, you’re going to have to re-educate yourself
> into thinking that a train that loses money isn’t
> any more “sinful” than an airplane that loses
> money. Remember, too, that Interstate highways do
> not operate at a profit and the highway trust fund
> and gasoline taxes do not come anywhere near
> covering the cost of maintaining the nation’s
> highway infrastructure.
> Since you appear to be such a libertarian, I guess
> it’s safe to assume that you’ve sent your children
> to private schools, you protect your home with
> privately funded police and fire protection and
> that, if you’re a senior citizen, you do not rely
> on taxpayer-subsidized Medicare coverage. Those
> things are just way too socialistic ---- and,
> horror of horrors, they don’t operate at a profit.
America's interstate highway system was built because of this country's geography. We did not decide to build high speed rail instead like a lot of other countrys chose. Remember we tore up most of our mass transit systems when personally owned cars became prevelant because people stopped using them.
>
> Lets raise taxes so we can all ride trains because
> your not going to pay for them any other way.
>
> Here’s another idea: Let’s eliminate the taxpayer
> subsidies to airports such as the one profiled in
> the above ABC News report and let’s eliminate the
> perks being extended to illegal aliens being held
> in detention centers. Let’s shut down public
> schools and fire and police protection. Let’s
> charge water consumers the TRUE cost of their
> water. Do you have any idea how many taxpayer
> dollars were used to build the California Aqueduct
> and the Tennessee Valley Authority dams? I don’t
> know whether or not they operate at a profit. If
> they do, it may be a little while before any
> revenues come anywhere near covering their
> enormous construction and start-up costs. Where
> was private enterprise when it came time to build
> Oroville Dam? If the Government did it, isn’t
> that a little socialistic? My Gawd! That’s
> almost as un-American as socialized medicine!
Again you are comparing apples to oranges.
>
> If you’re going to implement draconian cuts, don’t
> just pick on Amtrak.
>
> The Vancouver to Eugene corridor is a good example
> of a good corridor (which I have ridden many
> tiems) with good ridership, but you know what?
> With all that traffic on I-5 it is still faster to
> drive and it always will be until that speed limit
> is raised to over 100mph.
>
> Well, I believe you more or less stated in an
> earlier post that ANY rail corridor is stupid and
> a waste of investment if it turns out that you,
> personally, can drive the distance faster.
> And I don't know about you, but I try to obey the
> law and drive at the speed limit. Judging by the
> morons tooling down the highways these days, I
> think I'm definitely in the minority.
I just stated the small intercity corridors with high ridership are beneficial to society. Let me also rephrase the following: "With all that traffic on I-5 it is still faster to
> drive while maintaining the speed limit and it always will be until the train speed limit
> is raised to over 100mph."
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think there was probably a moment in time when
> L&N and SAL made money solely off their passenger
> revenues. It may have been a long time ago, but I
> would venture to say that it probably did happen.
> Shortly after they were constructed, most
> railroads found it very worth their while to
> operate passenger service. There are very few
> railroads that were built with freight-only status
> and always remained that way.
That was before airlines and major roads. It was also before the average American household owned more than one car.
> Well, first of all, we should probably get it out
> of our minds that Amtrak can operate at a profit.
> It probably can’t, any more than a public school,
> fire department or police department can operate
> at a profit. If you stripped away the subsidies
> and had to cover all the costs associated with
> driving your car, you wouldn’t be able to afford
> to do that either. Airlines lose a tremendous
> amount of money and require enormous subsidies,
> but I’ve noticed that most everyone brushes all
> that aside and only “picks” on Amtrak to turn a
> profit. Can you explain to me why that is? Why
> the double-standard? Check out this report from
> ABC News about a pork barrel airport in
> Pennsylvania that is located in the Congressional
> district of the late senator John Murtha. The
> report was filed before his death.
>
> [abcnews.go.com]
> 412160&page=1
You can't compare a transportation corporation (yes, Amtrak is a corporation although government owned) to public services such as schools, law enforcement, fire department etc...
Amtrak was created with intentions that it would turn a profit just like Conrail. Conrail eventually turned a profit, Amtrak has never turned a profit.
As stated before I can fly from one location of the country or drive and be at my destination the same day. Amtrak's top speed through most of the country (excluding the NEC) is 79mph with numerous speed restrictions. The interstate speed limit through most of the country is 75mph with few speed restrictions. Unless Vegas had high speed rail that competed with the airlines like Acela in the northeast it would not be worth it. Make Amtrak competive against the automoblie and an the airlines (yes I know they are government subsidized) and you will turn a profit.
>
> Personally, if given a choice, I’d rather have my
> tax dollars going to support **yes, shudder the
> thought** non-profitable inter-city rail passenger
> service rather than a lot of other areas where
> taxpayer dollars “wasted.” For example, one of
> the most ludicrous examples of taxpayer dollars
> being spent unwisely is enhancements to detention
> centers where illegal aliens are housed prior to
> deportation. Under this new proposal, detainees
> will be treated to more variety in their dining
> hall menus and have self-serve beverage and fresh
> vegetable bars. They will enjoy movie nights,
> bingo, arts and crafts, dance and cooking classes,
> tutoring and computer training.
>
> Source:
> [www.chron.com]
> ation/7043040.html
>
> In short, supporting Amtrak is money well spent
> when compared to the above example. And that
> example is just one of thousands that are equally
> absurd.
Look at your president, until he grows a pair and tells unwanted guests they are unwanted then you are going to continue having this and just because money is thrown at stupid ideas doesn't mean we need to throw it at another. I am not saying Amtrak as a whole is stupid. You either pay up and invest in the projects you think will be most economically beneficial and profitable or you kill it. I support the swift deportation and imprisonment of all illegal aliens no matter what there circumstance is. This is my country, pay up or get out. Most ICE guys I work with don't treat illegals very nicely.
> You’re forgetting that The Pioneer interfaced with
> the California Zephyr at Salt Lake City and
> furnished through cars from Seattle to Chicago.
> Boise and all the other towns and cities along the
> OWR&NCo and OSL would probably embrace Amtrak
> service, particularly since Greyhound and other
> bus companies have made service cutbacks. The
> service would be especially valuable in the winter
> months when driving conditions are undesirable and
> best and dangerous at worst.
> There is not really much between Portland and SLC
> and the trip takes you about 20 hours if you are
> on time. I could drive that in twevle for cheaper
> than what Amtrak charged or would charge and I
> would have a vehicle to use when I reached my
> destination.
No I haven't forgot. Anyone going to destinations further than SLC can take a bus, take the Builder, CZ or an airplane. Obviously they are in a hurry and they probably would get there faster if they took Amtrak's thruway connections.
> You’re going on the assumption that everyone in
> our society owns and operates a car and enjoys
> driving, just like you do. That is not the case.
> As you say, you can drive it cheaper than Amtrak.
> That situation may change, especially when we’re
> doing stupid things like what’s currently
> happening in the Gulf of Mexico. Very little of
> that oil will be able to be salvaged and recycled.
> What a waste. On so many levels.
I know everyone in society does not own a car, nor a house however most people in America own more than one car. This country is built around the automobile.
> I could fly and be there in less than 12 hours
> from the time I leave my doorstep to the time I
> reach my destination.
>
> Yes, but, by all means, please remember to tell us
> that your airline flight is heavily subsidized and
> whatever profit the airline may or many not show
> most certainly appears as an illusion on the
> balance sheet because of the massive taxpayer
> support. Please review the ABC News piece cited
> above.
Yes, I know we subsidize airlines. Airlines are also more efficient than the trains we have.
> You've already killed your profit with the cost of
> labor because your train crew doesn't work for
> free and you don't have any money left over for
> fuel or to maintain your train, stations, etc...
>
> Again, you’re going to have to re-educate yourself
> into thinking that a train that loses money isn’t
> any more “sinful” than an airplane that loses
> money. Remember, too, that Interstate highways do
> not operate at a profit and the highway trust fund
> and gasoline taxes do not come anywhere near
> covering the cost of maintaining the nation’s
> highway infrastructure.
> Since you appear to be such a libertarian, I guess
> it’s safe to assume that you’ve sent your children
> to private schools, you protect your home with
> privately funded police and fire protection and
> that, if you’re a senior citizen, you do not rely
> on taxpayer-subsidized Medicare coverage. Those
> things are just way too socialistic ---- and,
> horror of horrors, they don’t operate at a profit.
America's interstate highway system was built because of this country's geography. We did not decide to build high speed rail instead like a lot of other countrys chose. Remember we tore up most of our mass transit systems when personally owned cars became prevelant because people stopped using them.
>
> Lets raise taxes so we can all ride trains because
> your not going to pay for them any other way.
>
> Here’s another idea: Let’s eliminate the taxpayer
> subsidies to airports such as the one profiled in
> the above ABC News report and let’s eliminate the
> perks being extended to illegal aliens being held
> in detention centers. Let’s shut down public
> schools and fire and police protection. Let’s
> charge water consumers the TRUE cost of their
> water. Do you have any idea how many taxpayer
> dollars were used to build the California Aqueduct
> and the Tennessee Valley Authority dams? I don’t
> know whether or not they operate at a profit. If
> they do, it may be a little while before any
> revenues come anywhere near covering their
> enormous construction and start-up costs. Where
> was private enterprise when it came time to build
> Oroville Dam? If the Government did it, isn’t
> that a little socialistic? My Gawd! That’s
> almost as un-American as socialized medicine!
Again you are comparing apples to oranges.
>
> If you’re going to implement draconian cuts, don’t
> just pick on Amtrak.
>
> The Vancouver to Eugene corridor is a good example
> of a good corridor (which I have ridden many
> tiems) with good ridership, but you know what?
> With all that traffic on I-5 it is still faster to
> drive and it always will be until that speed limit
> is raised to over 100mph.
>
> Well, I believe you more or less stated in an
> earlier post that ANY rail corridor is stupid and
> a waste of investment if it turns out that you,
> personally, can drive the distance faster.
> And I don't know about you, but I try to obey the
> law and drive at the speed limit. Judging by the
> morons tooling down the highways these days, I
> think I'm definitely in the minority.
I just stated the small intercity corridors with high ridership are beneficial to society. Let me also rephrase the following: "With all that traffic on I-5 it is still faster to
> drive while maintaining the speed limit and it always will be until the train speed limit
> is raised to over 100mph."
