Amtrak posts record annual ridership

[xBiffx]

I dont see them as apples to apples. One is infrastructure, the other is a service.

I was going to say something along these lines as well. If you want to compare apples to apples then compare rail to air. Amtrak would not be able to survive without government subsidy. Airlines, on the other hand would. Although they would likely operate slightly differently than they do today.

 

[HomerJS]

The House Appropriations Committee's transportation subcommittee last month approved a budget that sharply reduces Amtrak subsidies. In June, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., proposed soliciting bids from other railroads for the right to service the 456-mile Northeast Corridor, which is the heart of Amtrak's operations. He said it was taking the railroad too long to achieve consistently high-speed service equivalent to trains in Europe and Asia.

How are the Republicans justifying cutting Amtrak's funding citing the sucess of high speed rail in Europe and Asia when those rail systems are govt subsidized??

 

[Genx87]

Yet they are in direct competition for transporting goods and people....

Amtrak does own assets btw, like the one the Republicans want to strip away and give to a private company.

So because they are in competition with other transportation modes we should fund them so they can survive? That is silly imo. If the govt thinks a train track through the NE would help with traffic flow build it. Let the service market sort itself out. The worst that will happen is they go out of business. Which tells us the service wasnt desired anyways. The best that can happen is service quality increases and competition for the passenger happens. Which in the end is a benefit.

 

[xBiffx]

Yet they are in direct competition for transporting goods and people....

Amtrak does own assets btw, like the one the Republicans want to strip away and give to a private company.

I don't see roads competing for anything. No one actively markets for roads and tries to get people to use them over other forms of transportation, people just use them because they have always been there.

 

[xBiffx]

How are the Republicans justifying cutting Amtrak's funding citing the sucess of high speed rail in Europe and Asia when those rail systems are govt subsidized??

You can't compare the rail system in Europe to that in the US. For one, the rail system there has been in place for a lot, lot longer. We are still having to make improvements/expand the system here to not even have the same coverage they do there. This adds greatly to the cost, cost that doesn't exist in Europe. Also, the size of the system here, to have the same coverage, would mean a lot more track, which means more maintenance, more cost. European rail to US rail is not an apples to apples comparison.

 

[K1052]

So because they are in competition with other transportation modes we should fund them so they can survive? That is silly imo. If the govt thinks a train track through the NE would help with traffic flow build it. Let the service market sort itself out. The worst that will happen is they go out of business. Which tells us the service wasnt desired anyways. The best that can happen is service quality increases and competition for the passenger happens. Which in the end is a benefit.

As long as one mode receives subsidies the field isn't level. If really want to see what survives on it's own merits repeal all fuel taxes and suspend all financial support from the government on all modes of travel.

 

[K1052]

I don't see roads competing for anything. No one actively markets for roads and tries to get people to use them over other forms of transportation, people just use them because they have always been there.

As the whole road system has been wildly subsidized by governments federal/state/local it undercut any other mode of transportation for price. Economics motivated people, even though the true cost has been largely paid by the government and hidden.

 

[Genx87]

As long as one mode receives subsidies the field isn't level. If really want to see what survives on it's own merits repeal all fuel taxes and suspend all financial support from the government on all modes of travel.

You are lumping in infrastructure and service. Amtrak provides a service that drives on tracks that is infrastrcture. Cars drive on a road that is infrastructure. Airlines provide a service, they fly out of an airport that is infrastructure.

Like I said earlier. If the govt feels a train track through the NE would be beneficial to traffic flow then build it like we do roads.

 

[K1052]

You can't compare the rail system in Europe to that in the US. For one, the rail system there has been in place for a lot, lot longer. We are still having to make improvements/expand the system here to not even have the same coverage they do there. This adds greatly to the cost, cost that doesn't exist in Europe. Also, the size of the system here, to have the same coverage, would mean a lot more track, which means more maintenance, more cost. European rail to US rail is not an apples to apples comparison.

European HSR was largely inspired by the US rail system, before the Federal Government gutted it.

Regional HSR makes sense here, a nationwide system not so much.

 

[K1052]

You are lumping in infrastructure and service. Amtrak provides a service that drives on tracks that is infrastrcture. Cars drive on a road that is infrastructure. Airlines provide a service, they fly out of an airport that is infrastructure.

Like I said earlier. If the govt feels a train track through the NE would be beneficial to traffic flow then build it like we do roads.

In no case do the actual end users directly pay the real cost of any of the above. All transport is subsidized, one way or another.

 

[HomerJS]

You can't compare the rail system in Europe to that in the US. For one, the rail system there has been in place for a lot, lot longer. We are still having to make improvements/expand the system here to not even have the same coverage they do there. This adds greatly to the cost, cost that doesn't exist in Europe. Also, the size of the system here, to have the same coverage, would mean a lot more track, which means more maintenance, more cost. European rail to US rail is not an apples to apples comparison.

High speed rail in most cases required new track be built so I question your argument.

Yes we would require more track the Europe but there some things govt should invest in as part of infrastructure. We funded and build the Hoover Dam during the depression. Without it the city of Las Vegas could not exist.

 

[xBiffx]

In no case do the actual end users directly pay the real cost of any of the above. All transport is subsidized, one way or another.

In the case of toll roads around Chicago, right?

At least that's what they tell you when they go to build the damn things and its going to be a "temporary' toll. :whiste:

 

[K1052]

In the case of toll roads around Chicago, right?

At least that's what they tell you when they go to build the damn things and its going to be a "temporary' toll. :whiste:

I mentioned toll roads in a previous post. Since the vast majority of road miles in the country are not tolled I wasn't including them as a major part of the discussion. However if you want to propose tolling all roads I'd be more than happy to discuss that.

 

[Genx87]

In no case do the actual end users directly pay the real cost of any of the above. All transport is subsidized, one way or another.

Infrastructure is going to be paid for by the govt. It will never be a profitable business. It is one the legitimate powers govt has in my opinion. If we were paying people to drive us around in cars and those people were paid for by the govt. I would be just as against that as I am for govt paying amtrak to drive people around the country.

 

[K1052]

Infrastructure is going to be paid for by the govt. It will never be a profitable business. It is one the legitimate powers govt has in my opinion. If we were paying people to drive us around in cars and those people were paid for by the govt. I would be just as against that as I am for govt paying amtrak to drive people around the country.

Your main issue seems to be how close the government tit is to the entity enabling transport and that somehow being a couple steps removed significantly alters the equation, even if the amounts involved are enormous. I don't see how that is a defensible position.

 

[xBiffx]

I mentioned toll roads in a previous post. Since the vast majority of road miles in the country are not tolled I wasn't including them as a major part of the discussion. However if you want to propose tolling all roads I'd be more than happy to discuss that.

Nah I was just ranting and saw your location. I just love it when they go to make a new road/improvements there and talk about "temporary" tolls that will go away once the cost of the improvements is paid for.

Although toll roads are a little more apples to apples to rail/air than all non toll roads.

 

[Genx87]

Your main issue seems to be how close the government tit is to the entity enabling transport and that somehow being a couple steps removed significantly alters the equation, even if the amounts involved are enormous. I don't see how that is a defensible position.

I say a service like this is something a market provides. Infrastructure is something govt provides. Amtrak is recieving both. Dump subsidizing the service and let it win or lose on its own merits.

 

[K1052]

My main issue is a service is something a market provide. Infrastructure is something govt provides. Amtrak is recieving both. Dump subsidizing the service and let it win or lose on its own merits.

You're splitting hairs but anyway....

Amtrak largely operates over private railroads that had to guarantee Amtrak use to be able to shed their passenger services. There are exceptions to this in the NEC and other places where trackage is either owned outright by Amtrak or the states where they provide service. In many cases it is not possible for Amtrak to expand or improve service because they don't own the right of ways and congress gives them no money to pursue those ends.

 

[CPA]

What their profit/loss for the year? compared to previous years? Is it improving?

Companies post high sales numbers all the time. The only thing I care about is cashflow/profit margin.

Those things don't matter to libs. It only matters if it's a taxpayer mass-transit program, which means it's good. No matter how much it costs us...oh, and because Europe does it...

 

[K1052]

Those things don't matter to libs. It only matters if it's a taxpayer mass-transit program, which means it's good. No matter how much it costs us...oh, and because Europe does it...

That's about a dumb as conservatives refusing to fund mass transit claiming it's an affront to personal freedom.

And no something is not inherently good just because Europe does it. And Japan. And China. And Taiwan. And Turkey. And soon India/South America. What the fuck could those morons know.

 

[MovingTarget]

Amtrak shouldn't have to operate at a profit. Passenger rail is rightly a public good. I'm not suprised that they are posting record ridership. People are rediscovering rail after the air travel became too expensive and invasive for a lot of the flying public. The price of fuel is also driving people to the trains as a cost-effective option for travel. The problem is that it does not go enough places in the US, nor does it connect to fully developed public transit systems in many US cities. (I'm looking at you, every f*cking city in the South!)

Honestly, I'd ride the rail quite often if they simply reopened the extension of the sunset line that closed after Katrina. The portion between New Orleans and the east coast of Florida has been closed ever since. My only real option for travel on the Gulf Coast is by car or bus.

 

[her209]

Still very few of them post profits. Trains all over the world run in loss, its always a govt run or supported service to its people. Its not a profitable industry. Therefore it does not fit well in our capitalistic society.
As people in US get poorer and poorer they will use more and more public transportation, that does not mean that its good for our society as a whole.
This does not mean that I am totally against building rail road but we have to be very careful where we build it and make sure its will really help people. For example it cannot be good for a state or city where the rest of the public transportation is not good. You can build a train route that takes you from station A to Station B but noone will travel in them if after getting off the station they have take a $40 cab ride to go where they want to go or travel 2 hours in a bus to go where they want to go.

I'd venture to say that the airline industry would run at a loss too if you took away the government "subsidies" by operating the FAA/TSA/NTSB/etc.

 

[K1052]

Honestly, I'd ride the rail quite often if they simply reopened the extension of the sunset line that closed after Katrina. The portion between New Orleans and the east coast of Florida has been closed ever since. My only real option for travel on the Gulf Coast is by car or bus.

CSX finished repairing the line in 2006. Due to record demand and equipment shortages Amtrak has not been able to resume service east of New Orleans on the Sunset Limited. Pending delivery of new rolling stock I think they are looking at a restoration of service in 2012 or 2013.

 

[Fern]

Only toll roads have their full costs paid for by user fees and fuel taxes have been insufficient to pay road costs for about 20 years, the Highway Trust Fund itself would have gone insolvent starting in 08 had it not regualrly received huge sums from the general fund. That also doesn't count the billions spent on construction outside that by various capital projects.

Tell you what else isn't accounted for: billions in other govt revenue soley generated because of the existence of that highway.

Take an acre of land out in the middle of nowhere with no road/highway access how much money you think it generates in govt revenue from r/e tax? Not much.

Put a highway next to it, particularly with exist/on ramps and you're looking a multi-million $ piece of property generating tons of revenue for the govt.

Piece of land next to RR tracks. Ugh.

Highways are typically a good investment and judging them soley on gas taxes or tolls is wrong.

Amtrack's increased ridership is likely more a reflection of the economy and gas prices than anything else. I'm unpersuaded it speaks to viability of passenger rail in this country.

Fern

 

[her209]

Tell you what else isn't accounted for: billions in other govt revenue soley generated because of the existence of that highway.

Take an acre of land out in the middle of nowhere with no road/highway access how much money you think it generates in govt revenue from r/e tax? Not much.

Put a highway next to it, particularly with exist/on ramps and you're looking a multi-million $ piece of property generating tons of revenue for the govt.

Piece of land next to RR tracks. Ugh.

Highways are typically a good investment and judging them soley on gas taxes or tolls is wrong.

Amtrack's increased ridership is likely more a reflection of the economy and gas prices than anything else. I'm unpersuaded it speaks to viability of passenger rail in this country.

Fern

Yeah, all those "rich" neighborhoods definitely love it when government wants to put a highway/freeway that runs through or next to it.