Amtrak taken to task on Fox last night

[FriskyFL]

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?

In what way would Amtrak not be considered "functional"? That's a rather broad statement. What criteria are you considering as the basis of your contention?

 

[the_traveler]

1341000674[/url]' post='376688']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.

If I understand your post correctly, you are calling France, Spain, Germany, Japan, etc..THIRD WORLD COUNTRiES?

 

[saxman]

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.

You do realize why the railroads were getting rid of passenger trains, and many of their other freight rail lines disappeared too. It was a mess, and many railroads, went bankrupt in the 1960's. But why was that? I'll tell you that it was massive government intervention, and overregulation by what was then the ICC. The erosion started before even the Interstate Highway system was planned.

So what do you get when the government heavily subsidizes one mode or transportation and turns around and heavily taxes another? One will eventually fail, which is pretty much happened. All the streetcar, transit lines, and railroads were for profit entities that used mostly private money to built their track and infrastructure. About the only government assistance they got were land grants, but in return, the railroads had to pay taxes on that land.

Highways, even toll roads were built by the government or at least planned by the government. Highways don't pay taxes on the land they use. I'm honestly not sure if toll road companies pay. If anyone knows, please tell us.

So if your problem is with government, go back and blame the government for driving the railroads out of business in the first place. Until government gets out of the highway business, no private passenger rail operator will make a profit. Government got us into this mess in the first place, and its only going to take government to get us out!

 

[dn4192]

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".

Simple...profit. Gov't doesn't care if it makes money, not in the business to make money, thus no insentive to improve product. YOu improve product and service to increase profit. PROFIT is the key.

 

[Ryan]

So you're advocating the government stop spending money on all those roads that aren't profitable then, right?

How much profit does the DoD generate?

What about the police department? Fire department?

 

[dn4192]

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.

I am wan't speaking of the workers. Look at how outdated the equipment is. Look at how inefficent their scheduling time is. There is nothing motivating the gov't to improve equipment or travel time. These two upgrades changes alone I believe could increase ridership on Amtrak, but won't happen under gov't control.

 

[Ryan]

Where do you expect them to get new equipment from, the equipment fairy?

How would you make their scheduling more efficient?

 

[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?

In what way would Amtrak not be considered "functional"? That's a rather broad statement. What criteria are you considering as the basis of your contention?

Modern equipment

Reliable on time performance

Quicker arrival times (come on 20+ hours to go from Chicago to NYC)

More frequent service on key routes

Long distance speed trains

 

[dn4192]

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.

Well actually the Indiana toll road was one of the least used highways in IND, most drivers used the free interstate which covered the same area. Amtrak needs to upgrade equipment, provide quicker and more depenadable service.

 

[Ryan]

You keep saying that.

How about some concrete plans on how you think they should accomplish that.

 

[jebr]

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".

Simple...profit. Gov't doesn't care if it makes money, not in the business to make money, thus no insentive to improve product. YOu improve product and service to increase profit. PROFIT is the key.

Not quite. You improve your product to increase market share, more than likely. If I'm at the top and people are happy with my product, and I'm making money, I probably won't improve my product. I may change my product so that I can produce it cheaper (and thus make more money), but I won't improve it per se, unless I want more market share (which many businesses do want.)

Now, in a quasi-competitive marketplace with large barriers to entry, I'm probably going to try and cut costs even to the point where I may displease some customers, under the assumption that there isn't as much competition for them to go to (and they'll still pay for the product or service because they have to, even if it's inferior to a product made in a completely open marketplace.) This is why health insurance is so high, for example.

Look at the post office for an example of a government entity that, if it had enough freedom to make a couple of changes without Congressional approval (namely, implement 5-day delivery) and not have to prepay retirement benefits well beyond any private corporation is expected to, it'd still be breaking even or making a small profit while serving every household in America.

 

[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.

You do realize why the railroads were getting rid of passenger trains, and many of their other freight rail lines disappeared too. It was a mess, and many railroads, went bankrupt in the 1960's. But why was that? I'll tell you that it was massive government intervention, and overregulation by what was then the ICC. The erosion started before even the Interstate Highway system was planned.

So what do you get when the government heavily subsidizes one mode or transportation and turns around and heavily taxes another? One will eventually fail, which is pretty much happened. All the streetcar, transit lines, and railroads were for profit entities that used mostly private money to built their track and infrastructure. About the only government assistance they got were land grants, but in return, the railroads had to pay taxes on that land.

Highways, even toll roads were built by the government or at least planned by the government. Highways don't pay taxes on the land they use. I'm honestly not sure if toll road companies pay. If anyone knows, please tell us.

So if your problem is with government, go back and blame the government for driving the railroads out of business in the first place. Until government gets out of the highway business, no private passenger rail operator will make a profit. Government got us into this mess in the first place, and its only going to take government to get us out!

I believe that a reliable, modern, quick train service like is available in many modern countries could be successful here. I think a bullet train from NYC via say Chicago to LA could more then make a profit. I think well thought out design and plans will work. Look at the Cardinal, it should not take a train that long to go from Chicago to NYC. Consoladate stops, you don't need like 4 stops in the state of Indiana. Go with 2, and remove a number of other small town stops that were needed back in the day but not now. It should not take any train almost 3 times longer to travel from Chicago to NYC that it takes to drive. Correct that and have a reasonable priced ticket which I think you can do, and you increase ridership and make a profit.

 

[Ryan]

I believe that a reliable, modern, quick train service like is available in many modern countries could be successful here.

It certainly could, if our government funded it the way those governments do.

I think a bullet train from NYC via say Chicago to LA could more then make a profit.

Is that just a vague feeling of "this should be possible because I say it is", or do you have anything to back it up?

Consoladate stops, you don't need like 4 stops in the state of Indiana. Go with 2, and remove a number of other small town stops that were needed back in the day but not now.

What stops would you eliminate? How much time would that shave off of the schedule?

Correct that and have a reasonable priced ticket which I think you can do, and you increase ridership and make a profit.

How much would it cost to run such a service? What kind of revenue can you bring in with reasonably priced tickets?

 

[henryj]

As we see with Amtrak, the federal gov't is incapbable of operating a functional transportation system, so why continue the waste of money?

So I can have my two little trains down here in Texas, the Sunset Ltd and the Eagle. lol. I don't believe Amtrak's loss numbers for the LD trains anyway. There is no way those 15 trains lose 530 million dollars a year. They are just loading them up with their bloated overhead to make the NEC and state operated trains look good. The LD trains, if operated and accounted for properly would cover their operating costs or even make a contribution to overhead. You could discontinue all 15 and most of those costs would not go away.

 

[Ispolkom]

I believe that a reliable, modern, quick train service like is available in many modern countries could be successful here.

Does any passenger rail system anywhere make a profit under generally accepted accounting principles? Including capital costs?

 

[jis]

Well actually the Indiana toll road was one of the least used highways in IND, most drivers used the free interstate which covered the same area. Amtrak needs to upgrade equipment, provide quicker and more depenadable service.

If you came up with a viable proposal on how this will be done instead of talking in the abstract I'd take you more seriously

 

[dn4192]

So you're advocating the government stop spending money on all those roads that aren't profitable then, right?

How much profit does the DoD generate?

What about the police department? Fire department?

Roads care is different as is DOD and such. They are neccessities, Amtrak isn'. Amtrak is a business, the others are not.

 

[jebr]

So you're advocating the government stop spending money on all those roads that aren't profitable then, right?

How much profit does the DoD generate?

What about the police department? Fire department?

Roads care is different as is DOD and such. They are neccessities, Amtrak isn'. Amtrak is a business, the others are not.

Define necessity, please. Also, if you're using enumerated powers under the Constitution, explain how many of our wars are Constitutional under what I assume is a narrow reading of the Constitution, or why our Constitution allows us to have by far the largest military budget in the world.

A narrow reading of the Constitution is fine, but realize that most of the GOP talking points are only about limited government where they want limited government. Talk about drastically cutting the military, and most would consider that blasphemy.

 

[dn4192]

Well actually the Indiana toll road was one of the least used highways in IND, most drivers used the free interstate which covered the same area. Amtrak needs to upgrade equipment, provide quicker and more depenadable service.

If you came up with a viable proposal on how this will be done instead of talking in the abstract I'd take you more seriously

Well for Amtrak you remove unprofitable routes. You work on providing more dependable service to start out with. Instead of say 3 Cardinal routes you have now, you drop down to 2, increase your volume on those two routes making them more profitable. YOU work on removing delays to where your arrival time is within a reasonable (no more then 30 minutes late) time frame and begin upgrading your equipment slowly. Not going to happen overnight, but changes can be done where Amtrak can become less dependent on gov't monies and become a viable form of cross country transportation.

 

[dn4192]

So you're advocating the government stop spending money on all those roads that aren't profitable then, right?

How much profit does the DoD generate?

What about the police department? Fire department?

Roads care is different as is DOD and such. They are neccessities, Amtrak isn'. Amtrak is a business, the others are not.

Define necessity, please. Also, if you're using enumerated powers under the Constitution, explain how many of our wars are Constitutional under what I assume is a narrow reading of the Constitution, or why our Constitution allows us to have by far the largest military budget in the world.

A narrow reading of the Constitution is fine, but realize that most of the GOP talking points are only about limited government where they want limited government. Talk about drastically cutting the military, and most would consider that blasphemy.

No. 1 job of the gov't is security, which is what the military does, everything else falls in line after it, so you spend whatever is needed to accomplish job 1, then all other things the gov't wants to do can be paid for if they have funds. Propping up Amtrak should be way down on that list.

 

[TimePeace]

I'm still waiting for an example of a profitable private sector passenger railroad anywhere in the world. Past or present. That has not been subsidized and/or bailed out by a government (like our banks, oil companies, etc etc).

The profit motive is pretty highly over-rated as far as public good is concerned.

 

[dn4192]

I believe that a reliable, modern, quick train service like is available in many modern countries could be successful here.

It certainly could, if our government funded it the way those governments do.

I think a bullet train from NYC via say Chicago to LA could more then make a profit.

Is that just a vague feeling of "this should be possible because I say it is", or do you have anything to back it up?

Consoladate stops, you don't need like 4 stops in the state of Indiana. Go with 2, and remove a number of other small town stops that were needed back in the day but not now.

What stops would you eliminate? How much time would that shave off of the schedule?

Correct that and have a reasonable priced ticket which I think you can do, and you increase ridership and make a profit.

How much would it cost to run such a service? What kind of revenue can you bring in with reasonably priced tickets?

Right now the Cardinal has 30 stops between Chicago and NYC. If you droped that down to say maybe half or a little more then have like 17, I bet you could on average pick at least a couple of hours. I would think most stops are at least of 15-30 minute range and that doesn't include the train having to slow down when approaching those stops and the time it takes to get back up to speed. Also Amtrak should have the tracks to make it from start to finish without having to pull over for "other" trains. Again non of this is easy, but can be done if the motivation of profit is there to encourage it.

 

[dn4192]

I'm still waiting for an example of a profitable private sector passenger railroad anywhere in the world. Past or present. That has not been subsidized and/or bailed out by a government (like our banks, oil companies, etc etc).

The profit motive is pretty highly over-rated as far as public good is concerned.

Well they spoke last night of a rail system in Japan that is private and having postive cash flow and one in england. If the airline and bus systems can operate and be profitable, why can't trains?

 

[jis]

Well actually the Indiana toll road was one of the least used highways in IND, most drivers used the free interstate which covered the same area. Amtrak needs to upgrade equipment, provide quicker and more depenadable service.

If you came up with a viable proposal on how this will be done instead of talking in the abstract I'd take you more seriously

Well for Amtrak you remove unprofitable routes. You work on providing more dependable service to start out with. Instead of say 3 Cardinal routes you have now, you drop down to 2, increase your volume on those two routes making them more profitable. YOU work on removing delays to where your arrival time is within a reasonable (no more then 30 minutes late) time frame and begin upgrading your equipment slowly. Not going to happen overnight, but changes can be done where Amtrak can become less dependent on gov't monies and become a viable form of cross country transportation.

Still too abstract handwaving. How would one define profitability, and why is that the right measure to determine what is overall best for the society? What costs and benefits would be included in the computation? What do you do to remove delays? How much will that cost? What will be the corresponding benefits and how will their value be determined for inclusion in the equation? Still too much platitude and too little detail.

 

[Ryan]

Roads care is different as is DOD and such. They are neccessities, Amtrak isn'. Amtrak is a business, the others are not.

In other words, the government should subsidize the things you think are necessary and nothing else. Got it.

Well for Amtrak you remove unprofitable routes. You work on providing more dependable service to start out with. Instead of say 3 Cardinal routes you have now, you drop down to 2, increase your volume on those two routes making them more profitable.

Dropping down to twice a weeks will reduce volume, not increase it. Does the phrase "death spiral" mean anything to you? Look northward to Via and see what's going on up there.

No. 1 job of the gov't is security, which is what the military does, everything else falls in line after it, so you spend whatever is needed to accomplish job 1, then all other things the gov't wants to do can be paid for if they have funds. Propping up Amtrak should be way down on that list.

Amtrak is way down on that list, and we spend FAR more on defense than we need to in order to guarantee our security. What enemy of ours warrants spending as much money on defense as we do?

If you droped that down to say maybe half or a little more then have like 17, I bet you could on average pick at least a couple of hours.

You'd lose that bet.

I would think most stops are at least of 15-30 minute range and that doesn't include the train having to slow down when approaching those stops and the time it takes to get back up to speed.

You would think wrong. Have you ever even been on an Amtrak train before?

Also Amtrak should have the tracks to make it from start to finish without having to pull over for "other" trains.

Also, this is impossible without massive amounts of money to build new tracks. Where is that money going to come from? (hint: If people with a real business plan thought that they could make a profit doing it, there's nothing to stop them from doing so right now)

Well they spoke last night of a rail system in Japan that is private and having postive cash flow and one in england. If the airline and bus systems can operate and be profitable, why can't trains?

That doesn't include capital costs. And the airline and bus systems can operate and be profitable on the back of what? GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE!!! How about that?