Amtrak taken to task on Fox last night

[dn4192]

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.

 

[Ryan]

Your first mistake was watching Faux News.

Go compare how much of your tax dollars are going towards road and air transport and get back with us.

 

[dn4192]

Your first mistake was watching Faux News.

Go compare how much of your tax dollars are going towards road and air transport and get back with us.

roads benefit far more then trains and the airline industry doesn't recieve anywhere near what Amtrak does, plus the also serve more people and provide better overall service.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

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:

 

[afigg]

roads benefit far more then trains and the airline industry doesn't recieve anywhere near what Amtrak does, plus the also serve more people and provide better overall service.

The airline industry between the federal and local governments receives far more in subsidies than Amtrak ever has.

But can we close this thread?. Any thread that starts by quoting Fox news as a source is not going to go well. Fox news was once a decent news channel, but they have changed so much in the past decade, they are no longer a reliable source for almost anything.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

roads benefit far more then trains and the airline industry doesn't recieve anywhere near what Amtrak does, plus the also serve more people and provide better overall service.

The airline industry between the federal and local governments receives far more in subsidies than Amtrak ever has.

But can we close this thread?. Any thread that starts by quoting Fox news as a source is not going to go well. Fox news was once a decent news channel, but they have changed so much in the past decade, they are no longer a reliable source for almost anything.

I'm conservative, but even I still agree with this.

 

[Exiled in Express]

John Stossel is a political commentator, not a news anchor. His schtick has been one of big inefficent government outrage for the better part of 15 years. While the facts may have been presented correctly, it is quite likely they were blown out of proportion. If I recall correctly, the entire Amtrak budget for both operating losses and infrastructure is ~$2 billion dollars of a total ~$3.5 trillion federal budget or less than half a percent.

Growing ridership and raising fares on the existing routes, as Amtrak has done for the past few years, is leading to an increased dependence on subsidy but will likely always have a need for one just like any other mode of transportation.

 

[the_traveler]

1340984980[/url]' post='376609']

1340984732[/url]' post='376608']Your first mistake was watching Faux News.

Go compare how much of your tax dollars are going towards road and air transport and get back with us.

roads benefit far more then trains and the airline industry doesn't recieve anywhere near what Amtrak does, plus the also serve more people and provide better overall service.

You're so right! After the 9/11 attacks, the airlines demanded and received $xxx BILLION each in subsidies for "their lost business" and for "safety improvements"! Do you know how much Amtrak received?

$000,000,000.00 or NOTHING!

Do you really think airlines could offer cheap fares like $99 cross country if they had to fully support things like air traffic control, the FAA, building and maintaining airports, etc... witthout any Government subsidies?

 

[PerRock]

This is a great visual representation of Government Spending. Amtrak (I believe, as I couldn't find it elsewhere) falls under the FRA within the DOT (either that or just the DOT budget). http://www.deathandtaxesposter.com/

peter

 

[dn4192]

roads benefit far more then trains and the airline industry doesn't recieve anywhere near what Amtrak does, plus the also serve more people and provide better overall service.

The airline industry between the federal and local governments receives far more in subsidies than Amtrak ever has.

But can we close this thread?. Any thread that starts by quoting Fox news as a source is not going to go well. Fox news was once a decent news channel, but they have changed so much in the past decade, they are no longer a reliable source for almost anything.

This was on Fox Business and was John Stossels show and he is a libertarian who looks at gov't waste.

 

[jis]

My thought was Pravda has spoken! How can it be wrong? :lol:

 

[MikefromCrete]

roads benefit far more then trains and the airline industry doesn't recieve anywhere near what Amtrak does, plus the also serve more people and provide better overall service.

The airline industry between the federal and local governments receives far more in subsidies than Amtrak ever has.

But can we close this thread?. Any thread that starts by quoting Fox news as a source is not going to go well. Fox news was once a decent news channel, but they have changed so much in the past decade, they are no longer a reliable source for almost anything.

I'm conservative, but even I still agree with this.

First of all, Johnny you're too young to be conservative. Secondly, when was Fox News ever a decent new channel. It's always been the broadcast arm of the Republican Party.

 

[Ryan]

roads benefit far more then trains and the airline industry doesn't recieve anywhere near what Amtrak does, plus the also serve more people and provide better overall service.

The airline industry between the federal and local governments receives far more in subsidies than Amtrak ever has.

But can we close this thread?. Any thread that starts by quoting Fox news as a source is not going to go well. Fox news was once a decent news channel, but they have changed so much in the past decade, they are no longer a reliable source for almost anything.

This was on Fox Business and was John Stossels show and he is a libertarian who looks at gov't waste.

So? Why should some random guys opinion matter?

If you're going to make a compelling argument that he's right, you're off to a poor start.

 

[afigg]

This was on Fox Business and was John Stossels show and he is a libertarian who looks at gov't waste.

I'm probably going to regret this. :lol:

I'm aware of who John Stossel is. I remember him way back when he had segments on 20/20 on ABC news.

So Stossel did an informed critique of Amtrak's Sunset Limited (SL) Performance Improvement Plan from 2 years ago? That plan recommended taking the SL to daily service and changing the schedule to improve ridership and reduce operating losses per passenger.

Did Stossel then critique Union Pacific, a private company, for blocking the SL switching to daily service? This despite UP sitting at the government teat for such high profile projects as the Alameda Corridor, the on-going Alameda East corridor, the Colton Flyover, the Tower 55 rail crossing separation project in Fort Worth? These were or are all government backed and at least partially government funded projects that have or will greatly improve UP's freight speed and capacity for shipping cargo containers from CA ports to across the US. If UP is going to take $100s of millions in public money which goes directly to improving the company revenue and future profits, shouldn't they have some obligation to run a once a day public passenger train over their ex-SP route?

I'm not arguing against the projects because they have major benefits for the local communities and for the national transportation infrastructure, which is a good thing. But I doubt that Stossel presented an informed discussion on Amtrak and the complex issue of direct and indirect government subsidies to provide a better transportation infrastructure.

 

[Ryan]

Did Stossel then critique Union Pacific, a private company, for blocking the SL switching to daily service?

Of course not! Private corporations can Do No Wrong. Everything they do is rainbows and unicorn farts, the only problem is that pesky government preventing them from running roughshod over us poor folk creating jobs and raining prosperity down upon us.

 

[Ocala Mike]

For Fox News, any form of surface transportation carrying more than one individual or group of family members at a time is highly suspect and probably is evidence of some sort of insidious Socialist takeover of our entire way of life. I'm sure they're scaring their sheeple today with talk of an impending Soviet takeover now that the ACA has been ruled constitutional.

 

[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?

 

[Texan Eagle]

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.

 

[Ryan]

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".

 

[fulham]

Part of me just wants to say to everyone who believes in the "trickle down economic" theories, the all government is wasteful and inefficient" theories, "the private sector has the answer to every single issue facing this country today theories"...let's try it. Let the Republicans win every election (local and national) and they can implement the above. Then let's talk in 4 years and we will see what type of country we have. Amtrak will go away, but so will a host of other things.

This country was made great, and can continue to be great, by a combination of government spending (i.e. infrastructure) and private enterprise/capitalism. You cannot have one without the other but you cannot only have just one either.

Sorry for the rant but I feel it is appropriate for the post.

 

[jis]

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?

 

[PerRock]

I think in order for Private National Passenger Rail to become profitable/investment-worthy, the physical rail network needs to be publicized. If Rail was set up similar to the Airports & Highways we might see more interest in Private Passenger rail. But with the infrastructure being private any other private entity doesn't want to get involved with getting track rights & such. Most of Amtrak's track rights were originally grandfathered into the system.

Imagine what UPs response would be if [say] First Group came to them wanting to run service on their lines, and how much a ticket on that might cost if UP let them...

peter

 

[PRR 60]

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?

Wasn't the original 1971 Amtrak just a funding conduit and equipment supplier? If I recall correctly, Amtrak had only a handful of employees on Day One. The actual trains were still run by the private railroads with the losses paid by Amtrak. Amtrak later took over the train operation under the belief that they could do the job less expensively.

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?"

 

[Ryan]

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?"

That'd be great, if it were to actually happen.

Of course the likelihood of that happening is about as much as snow falling here in DC in the middle of July.

 

[the_traveler]

I fully agree. Amtrak was started in 1971 because each individual railroad (except a few like the Southern and D&RGW) did not want to operate passenger service any more (Look at the trains in the 1960's - what few there were - for an example!

) Do you think some private operator can - or wants to - do it better without Government subsidies?

(Think of Grand Luxe - aka American Orient Express - and others! Where are they now?

)