Amtrak taken to task on Fox last night

[Ryan]

Keeping train service of a poor used route makes no sense.

Define "poor(ly) used"

right now Amtrak is not very motivated to improve its' overall service.

What is this opinion based on - you're familiar with the motivations of Amtrak management exactly how?

 

[jebr]

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what enemy requires us to spend 10ish% of our entire tax revenue just to protect ourselves against it. We shouldn't be the world's policemen. Nor do we need bases and military personnel all around the world. Do we need them in Germany or Japan? Neither one of those countries has attacked us in roughly 60 years, and they seem to have no inclination to do so.

The enumerated powers of Congress do not have anything suggesting bases around the world, simply for us to have an army and navy to protect our borders.

In fact, here you go. The enumerated powers of Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Trust me, to get to where we are today, we're interpreting this quite broadly. Even with our military.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Amtrak has the highest fare box recovery of any functional transportation service in this hemisphere. What more do you want?

 

[PaulM]

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.

Human nature won't have changed in 4 years. The republicans, or whoever gets elected, will quickly realize that everyone, individual and corporations, depend on subsidies. So a few subsides with only a tiny constituency might be eliminated. But it won't be anything like what you are envisioning.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

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:

Which only goes to show the overall accuracy of their reporting... :lol:

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Amtrak has the highest fare box recovery of any functional transportation service in this hemisphere. What more do you want?

Only what those nice people on talk radio tell me I want. :wacko:

 

[henryj]

I'm tired of economic arguments for and against. Sometimes you buy things because they're make you feel good. AMTRAK is an American gem. When I travel by plane, I am basically are forced to sit in a tiny seat and look straight ahead (or out out of one of the few window at tiny things or the tops of clouds); Fellow traveler interaction is nil. When I drive the freeways across the country, I see pavement; Fellow traveler interaction is an occasional raised middle finger. If I take Greyhound... well, let's not go their, I want to keep my head.

But when I take the train for business or pleasure, I see America out of the window - city, country and everything in between. And I meet fellow Americans from all over the country, and from all walks of life. More often than not, by the end of a long distance (and even medium distance) rides, I feel a common bond with my 'local' group of passengers. Just like a visit to a national parks, after a train ride, I usually find myself much happier for the experience.

So, for my part, I am glad my tax dollar (and certainly it seems a very small percent of my tax dollar at that) goes to support Amtrak. Unlike other government expenditures (wasteful or not), at least I can see where my tax dollar in operation. And the amazing thing is: A ride on Amtrak is available to everyone. What a bargain!

This is the best argument for Amtrak and passenger rail I have ever heard on here. Good job. All transportation modes are subsidized by the Government. Amtrak gets the smallest piece by far. Lets give them more. If you want it all to go private then make the Interstate highways toll roads, put tax mileage meters on all cars, charge the airlines the full costs of the TSA, air traffice controllers and airports and plan to pay double the current air fare and then private passenger rail will compete.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

The goverment or those who are anti-rail want to get rid of Amtraks subsidy's cause they think it will help the national debt. it ain't going to do squat. it's like taking a shop vac to a flooded city not going to do much good.

 

[PaulM]

If private industry can't do it, then you don't have it.

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.

Would it help if you recommended an elementary logic course? He's got the major premise, but it still takes a minor premise to draw a conclusion.

I doubt it.

 

[AlanB]

and right now Amtrak is not very motivated to improve its' overall service.

This is probably the most ridiculous statement you've made to date in this topic. Sorry!

Amtrak is very motivated to improve things. Amtrak has dozens of reports on it's website and in the hands of Congress detailing things that it would like to do so as to improve service. But those things take money. Money that so far Congress isn't willing to part with. Heck, right now thanks to Congress, even if Amtrak could find the equipment to start a new route to improve service, it can't! Congress won't allow it! Much less help to fund it knowing that the more trains that Amtrak can run, the more interconnected the system becomes and the greater the ridership becomes. Greater ridership means more revenue and less subsidy.

Yet Congress is happy to throw away money on many far more wasteful things, like the bridge to nowhere or a statue of Andrew Jackson in a city in the south, don't recall what city right now.

However returning to our central theme, we drivers only manage to cover 51% of the costs of our highways. If we back out the monies that go to public transit and other questionable items that Congress spends the fuel taxes on, we get to 65% covered by fuel taxes and other direct fees.

As of 2011, Amtrak covered 69% of its budget without help from the Fed. If we toss in the state subsidies, then Amtrak is probably hovering around that same 65% mark that drivers manage to cover. The only difference is that Amtrak's budget is only around $4 Billion, while the combined state & Federal spending on highways is in the $200 Billion range, meaning that in terms of total dollars, what gets spent in subsidies on drivers is huge compared to Amtrak.

Here's another way to look at it. According to the Taxpayer's REceipt for 2009, a married couple with 2 kids & $80K paid $3.83 via their Federal incomes taxes to Amtrak. That same couple paid $110.06 towards the highways. That's on top of what they paid via fuel taxes, states taxes, sales taxes and so on.

A retired couple with $100K in income paid $3.11 towards Amtrak, something that they might well use. They paid $89.38 towards the highways, even if they can no longer drive a car, much less own one.

Cutting Amtrak isn't going to do much to your tax bill, and any savings would quickly be gobbled up by the need to build more highways and add lanes to the existing ones.

Sure, it sounds terrible when John Stossel throws around wild numbers like he did in his report on the Sunset Limited. But killing Amtrak is only going to save about $4 in taxes, which again will just end up in the roads anyhow. Killing the Sunset Limited is likely to drop that $3.83 to about $3.82 for the first couple and $3.11 to $3.10 for the second.

 

[pennyk]

The goverment or those who are anti-rail want to get rid of Amtraks subsidy's cause they think it will help the national debt. it ain't going to do squat. it's like taking a shop vac to a flooded city not going to do much good.

Thanks Kevin for the humurous analagy in a not so funny thread. :lol:

 

[NE933]

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

This is contradictory to an earlier post. If the Amtrak rail system is not a necessity, then why would you go through decades of work, time, and dollars to convert the NY - Chicago route into a 'bullet train'? Your words, I'm not going to use the quote feature but you did write them, was to run a bullet train NY to Chicago. High speed rail requires more than just rolling stock, and converting the entire route would mean more projects than you're fathoming, assuming you are, that is.

I'll now go after the other part of the above quote, about Amtrak being a business. Yes, it is a business and it needs ridership revenue along with revenue from real estate, collecting user fees from other railroads that run on it's tracks, and so on. What the link is between that and being/not being a necessity doesn't make sense.

Now, are you relatively new to AU? I've not seen your tag name 'dn4192' before and your explosive entrance onto the scene with much thunder but little substance has me and clearly, many others wondering of your capabilities of forming a meaningful and well structured debate. Your posts have lots of run ons, and many have no point or cause-effect illustration. You know, like "Amtrak is not necessary because ... it costs alot for the few people it serves....." but then you fail to offer a consiliatory when others and myself tell, repeatedly, that 30 million per year use it, and then you again fail, seemingly on purpose, to explain how those 30 million would get transportation if Amtrak were not around. With such a high sensationalism to low logic and thoughtfulness ratio to your posts, I'll continue reading them but only in the framework that what you have to say is mere entertainment for a person in boredom, rather than meaningful transportation discourse.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

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?

Roads in the place where our in our society right now is a neccessaity, Amtrak isn't. Amtrak could stop operations tomorrow and our way of life wouldn't have any change to it. Remove or stop the upkeep of our roads where the majority of individuals travel and goods are moved, you have problems.

Does the present 3 Cardinal trips each week go at 100% full? I bet they don't, so you are operating with less then 100% capacity. If they are and in fact have overflow, then begin a 4th route, but I doubt that is the case.

Our gov't expenditures on the military are not even close to what they should be, the defense of this country is the no. 1 priority of our gov't.

So you are saying Amtrak trains stop and go at each stop within 10-15 minutes?

I have not said gov't shouldn't play a role, like the roads the gov't can be involved, but instead of wasting money supporting poor routes, why not invest in new track, new equipment and such.

Woah. I've been watching your posts for a while and not commenting because you are entitled to your opinions, but making such a wildly broad generalization so untrue for many is not OK. My life would be dramatically different, and for the worse, if it had not been for Amtrak. Amtrak is one of the sole ways I have such a good relationship with many family members, across multiple states. I would be much worse off if our passenger train system is here. For me, it is basically a necessity, and that is true for SO many people that your statement here is wrong on so many levels. Criticize Amtrak's financials as much as you want, but don't underestimate the impact its demise would have on the lives of millions.

 

[saxman]

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.

I agree that in general, a private entity will be more motivated to improve things, but then I think of companies like Enron, so on, so forth... Like I pointed out before, it was the government in the first place that interfered with the free market. Our massive highway system is not the free market! And I'm one to agree that building interstate highway system was a great thing! Flawed? Yes, because it ruined many of our downtowns and inner-cities, but overall a good thing for interstate commerce.

Now about your idea with the Cardinal. Eliminating stops would make Amtrak worse. Most of those towns want Amtrak service and they help pay for the upkeep of their platforms and stations. I really don't have time to look up numbers, but several months ago, someone on these boards suggested something similar. Specifically it was to eliminate 3 towns in Texas; Mineola, Cleburne, and San Marcos. Nevermind the fact that all 3 of those stations are seeing huge ridership growth because they have new stations. They also collect over $1 million in ticket revenue combined per year. So if you eliminate those stops, Amtrak just lost over $1 million per year! Now what were you saying about profit??

Now lets say you eliminate 15 stops along the Cardinals route. Now the Cardinal does not run daily, so I'm not really sure how much revenue each stop generates, but lets say each small stop generates only $150,000 in revenue per year average. Remember thats very conservative, seeing how my 3 Texas stations had over $333,000 each average. Now $150,000 times 15 stations comes to a whopping $2.25 million! And thats probably on the low end that Amtrak would lose should they eliminate 15 stops along the Cardinal route. Remember, the cost to Amtrak of stopping at many of these unstaffed stations is negligable.

Now you might say, the extra revenue will be made up for the fast running times. Nope, maybe 30 minutes would be saved, but I don't think saving 30 minutes is worth losing $2.25 million.

Just talk to the folks in Hope, Arkansas whose spending $250,000 just to build a platform to get Amtrak to stop there. They've spent 10 years doing so, and will finally get a stop on the Texas Eagle route later this year!

 

[KYRR]

This has been interesting to read. It reminds me of a quote I once heard. "Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is already made up".

 

[oldtimer]

The goverment or those who are anti-rail want to get rid of Amtraks subsidy's cause they think it will help the national debt. it ain't going to do squat. it's like taking a shop vac to a flooded city not going to do much good.

Thanks Kevin for the humurous analagy in a not so funny thread. :lol:

But what Kevin didn't tell you was that the power was out in that flooded city!

:giggle: :blink: :help:

 

[NAVYBLUE]

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.

As of end of 2011, DoD budget is 4.7 of GDP which includes protecting the US and major forces on the ground protecting 17 other countries.

Healthcare, education and welfare(HHS) each all spend more(as part of GDP) than DoD. DoD allows YOU sleep to under your blankets at night knowing for (28) years I and my fellow brethren protected you 24 hours a day. We guaranteed you freedom of speech, freedom of religion and many other freedoms. You have a lot of hutsfa comparing DoD to any other department. Those other departments produce whiny, suckers of the government teat who comprise the 47% "taker" crowd who think the government exists to reward them for their many errors in judgement and expect the 53% "givers" (taxpayers) to take care of them.

Since you fancy your self as a Constitutional scholar, then I am sure you know that only the Post Office and a standing army and navy are authorized by the Constitution. There has never been a USSC decision that has declared a war authorized by a sitting President and a sitting Congress as unconstitutional.

Also the common ruse used by politicians to give us all those great social programs is under the umbrella of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Those ideals come form the Declaration of Independence which is not a LAW.

You not only besmerch me but my fellow adversaries on this site who I have had disagreements with but whom I now have served honorably for their country.

NAVYBLUE

 

[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.

As of end of 2011, DoD budget is 4.7 of GDP which includes protecting the US and major forces on the ground protecting 17 other countries.

Healthcare, education and welfare(HHS) each all spend more(as part of GDP) than DoD. DoD allows YOU sleep to under your blankets at night knowing for (28) years I and my fellow brethren protected you 24 hours a day. We guaranteed you freedom of speech, freedom of religion and many other freedoms. You have a lot of hutsfa comparing DoD to any other department. Those other departments produce whiny, suckers of the government teat who comprise the 47% "taker" crowd who think the government exists to reward them for their many errors in judgement and expect the 53% "givers" (taxpayers) to take care of them.

Since you fancy your self as a Constitutional scholar, then I am sure you know that only the Post Office and a standing army and navy are authorized by the Constitution. There has never been a USSC decision that has declared a war authorized by a sitting President and a sitting Congress as unconstitutional.

Also the common ruse used by politicians to give us all those great social programs is under the umbrella of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Those ideals come form the Declaration of Independence which is not a LAW.

You not only besmerch me but my fellow adversaries on this site who I have had disagreements with but whom I now have served honorably for their country.

NAVYBLUE

So because I take issue with many of the recent military conflicts, such as the ones you mentioned, you assume that I do not support our military, that I am a Democrat, that Obama is my hero, and that I fully support many of our welfare programs?

That is quite a leap with a lot of untrue assumptions. I support our military personnel (after all, they make many sacrifices to serve our country). I do, however, disagree with spending money on conflicts that do not seem to have a direct impact on the defense of the United States. I still wonder why we need to spend six times more money than China, the next largest military in terms of expenditures.

As for the rest of your assumptions on my political leanings, I'll just say...they're false.

 

[NAVYBLUE]

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.

Much of the placement of cities west of the Appalachian Mountains are due to trains and passenger trains in particular, not because of roads. And even today, 40% of all freight moves by rail. Only 28% moves by roads. This country grew up around its railroads, not its roads.

Roads today are only a necessity because government threw Trillions of dollars at them to make them so. And as others have pointed out, government interfered in the Free Market by subsidizing driving & planes. But for the fact that we've so badly gutted our trains, if government removed all subsidies tomorrow, we'd all be back riding trains again.

Alan,,

As one of the few conservatives who comes to this site, I agree with most of what you said but need to clarify something. The Eisenhower Interstates And DEFENSE Highways System started in 1956 was developed by Ike to move military convoys from ports, rail yards and airports rapidly throughout the country. It was never intended to be a major thoroughfare for massive private automobile transportation. At that period of time, most cars where concentrated in the large metropolitan areas and used the individual state road systems.

The article below does a good job of showing how the increased mass production of automobiles forced/allowed city dwellers to leave citiesfor cheaper areas(suburbs) leaving the cities to those who could not afford a car. The federal gas tax that was started in 1919 increased dramatically in 1950s supposedly to pay for the increase demand for more infrastructure which it did until 1960s. Since the 1960s the federal gas tax collected has NEVER 100% been used for the continued upkeep of the nationals highway and we know where a lot of that money went and it wasn't for roads.

http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Race/R_Overview/R_Overview5.htm

That being said, AMTRAK's subsidy is .1% of the total federal budget and I DON'T get my panties all twisted up like some conservatives do as it's peanuts compared to the highway/airport subsidies given out and other gov't waste. But those airports and roads are used by 80%-90% of the adult population and America is not going to give up their love affair with their automobile.

As I have said on previous threads and I will continue to say until they put me in a pine box, AMTRAK could cut their 1.2 billion subsidy by half by adding a $75 FIRST Class Sleeper Fee to each LD sleeper fare. A FIRST Class Sleeper ticket has a more upscale ring to than a "sleeper ticket". Appearance is everything. Do you think I wouldn't have bought the wife and I's $1,995 Christmas LAX-WAS-LAX trip last year if they added the $75 First Class Sleeper fee. Not in the least.

For my First Class Sleeper fee of $75, I would like priority boarding, clean, nice smelling sleeper car bathrooms, cloth table cloths(if already available) daily local/national newspaper(if available) and good service. I am not an elitist. I come from humble beginnings. EVERY sleeper passenger I talked to at meal time on my round trip last Christmas agreed they would pay it for those services.

NAVYBLUE

 

[Anderson]

I'm going to disagree that the IHS was not intended for private use; I suspect that had that been a truly secondary consideration, it would have been tolled with military vehicles exempted from the tolls by statute. Instead, the entire system was set up with a rather solid ban on tolls (with a few exemptions, such as paying off construction bonds on some projects), and in fact there was an initial debate on whether or not to try and put a second interstate through southern PA to get around the Turnpike (among other examples of such debates).

 

[NAVYBLUE]

Profitbality can only be determined by those investing, what I might consider a good profit, someone else might not. This has nothing to do with what is "best" for society.

you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But do not think that they universally held because you believe in them

If what you say was really true then both all sorts of drugs and prostitution would be completely legal

Prostitution is LEGAL and SAFE in Nevada(certain parts) and very profitable.

NAVYBLUE

From Las Vegas, Nevada where it is ILLEGAL

 

[AlanB]

Alan,,

As one of the few conservatives who comes to this site, I agree with most of what you said but need to clarify something. The Eisenhower Interstates And DEFENSE Highways System started in 1956 was developed by Ike to move military convoys from ports, rail yards and airports rapidly throughout the country. It was never intended to be a major thoroughfare for massive private automobile transportation. At that period of time, most cars where concentrated in the large metropolitan areas and used the individual state road systems.

I'm sorry, but I've got to disagree with you on this.

The Defense part was the the little white lie that Ike told everyone after his first attempt at the Interstate Highway System (IHS) failed to pass Congress in 1954. After that failure, Ike regrouped and added in the military angle as he knew that would allow things to sail right through Congress. And wonder of wonder, it did sail right through.

If the IHS had been solely about the military, then every highway would have been planned to have only 2 lanes in each direction, as the military needed nothing more. But many highways initially were planned for more than that. This is not to say that the military didn't use the highways, and God forbid had we ever faced an invasion the IHS could well have proved invaluable.

The federal gas tax that was started in 1919 increased dramatically in 1950s supposedly to pay for the increase demand for more infrastructure which it did until 1960s.

The Federal fuel tax was enacted in 1932 by then President Herbert Hoover. And its purpose wasn't to pay for roads or highways, but instead to help pay down the national debt.

In 1956, the Highway Act of 1956 redirected the fuel taxes into the Highway Trust Fund and raised it considerably. The same highway Act called for the Federal fuel tax to revert back to its primary purpose of paying down the debt either when the initial IHS plan was completed or 1972, whichever came first. Instead Congress continues to divert the fuel tax into the Highway Trust Fund.

That being said, AMTRAK's subsidy is .1% of the total federal budget and I DON'T get my panties all twisted up like some conservatives do as it's peanuts compared to the highway/airport subsidies given out and other gov't waste. But those airports and roads are used by 80%-90% of the adult population and America is not going to give up their love affair with their automobile.

It's actually even less, Amtrak's subsidy represents about 0.04% of the 2012 Federal budget. So yes, cutting Amtrak does next to nothing to help balance the budget.

As I have said on previous threads and I will continue to say until they put me in a pine box, AMTRAK could cut their 1.2 billion subsidy by half by adding a $75 FIRST Class Sleeper Fee to each LD sleeper fare. A FIRST Class Sleeper ticket has a more upscale ring to than a "sleeper ticket". Appearance is everything. Do you think I wouldn't have bought the wife and I's $1,995 Christmas LAX-WAS-LAX trip last year if they added the $75 First Class Sleeper fee. Not in the least.

Actually a $75 surcharge on Amtrak's 663,947 sleeping car passengers in 2011 would raise just shy of $50 Million. So it really wouldn't make much of a dent in the average annual $1.5 Billion Federal subsidy.

 

[Anderson]

Alan,

However, if we restrict ourselves to the operating deficit (i.e. consider the capital account separately), that $75 would cut the LD operating losses by about 7-10%, or cut overall operating losses by about 10-15%. Still not half, but definitely a noticeable dent. Moreover, if you also omit the losses in the short corridors, the overall operating losses (LD losses less NEC profits) would likely be "bumped down" by 20% or so.

Unfortunately, it would also trash my favorite sleeper trip by hiking the cost about 40%, and seriously trash a lot of other trips for folks. LAX-WAS-LAX only gets a 3.5-5% hike, yes, but a low bucket ticket on the Cap or a Silver goes up by as much as 25%. Amtrak would lose riders at that point, I suspect.

 

[Ryan]

As I have said on previous threads and I will continue to say until they put me in a pine box, AMTRAK could cut their 1.2 billion subsidy by half by adding a $75 FIRST Class Sleeper Fee to each LD sleeper fare. A FIRST Class Sleeper ticket has a more upscale ring to than a "sleeper ticket". Appearance is everything. Do you think I wouldn't have bought the wife and I's $1,995 Christmas LAX-WAS-LAX trip last year if they added the $75 First Class Sleeper fee. Not in the least.

Actually a $75 surcharge on Amtrak's 663,947 sleeping car passengers in 2011 would raise just shy of $50 Million. So it really wouldn't make much of a dent in the average annual $1.5 Billion Federal subsidy.

that includes the baked in assu,ption that everyone is like NAVYBLUE, and everyone that bought a ticket would have still bought that ticket.

Under what I shall now call the "Dlagrua Collerary", (namely, "Sleeper prices are too high, and I won't pay them!"), I submit that's an invalid assumption and the amount raised would've even less than $50 Million.

(sorry for the typos, power is out and typing on the phone is a pain)

 

[TrainLoverJoy]

Glad to see others can't stand Fox news either!!!