Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 182

Thread: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    There is an argument to be made that infrastructure is worthwhile independent of whether or not it operates at a profit.
    I would love to hear those arguments. I am at a loss as to why we would fund losing enterprises that only serve a select few.

  2. #42
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    And yet, there isn't one tiny shred of evidence any Government run entity in history has been profitable. The Government of Canada shed its monopoly of the airlines in Canada and oil companies back in the 70 or 80's. Why do you think that was?

    Is there a public system in the US that is really profitable? I believe that the HONEST answer is no; there is not, never will be and it requires a stunning level of self imposed denial to believe there will be.

    If private enterprise looks at something and concludes that there will not be enough customers to pay back the investment, why then should the taxpayers fund it for a select few that might use the system?
    "Is there a public system in the US that is really profitable?"

    Good question, I thought I had an answer against this statement but the more I thought about it the more I realize your point might be quite true
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Did anyone even read the article?

    Oh wait. I forgot. Most people here can't read.

    Basically, slower (read: older) trains lost money.

    But high speed, new trains made money.

    Furthermore, this dude makes an excellent summary:
    Trains.com - Trains Magazine - Online Community - Amtrak's FY 2008 Key Performance Numbers

    Lesson to learn? Focus on high traffic, high speed. Ditch low traffic, low speed.
    I think you are missing the lesson; it is not based on high speed, it is basically about being extremely selective about where you place rail and mass transit.

    But again, no, or very few, Government agencies have ever actually broken even or made money on any transit system in the world. Most are subsidies by the taxpayers and the reasons for providing such systems when few want them are suspect at best.

    A high speed rail system from SF to San Diego will still be extremely unprofitable; particularly when the airlines charge the same or less for HIGHER speed transit.

    Try to LEARN your lessons before you attempt to LECTURE.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    yep high speed trains in Europe make lots of money. Think the French system made over a billion in profits last year.. euro, not dollar.
    Do you have a factual link to back that up?

  5. #45
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    And yet, there isn't one tiny shred of evidence any Government run entity in history has been profitable.
    I hate to break it to you, but the purpose of government has nothing to do with raking in profits.

  6. #46
    Norville Rogers
    Kernel Sanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,730

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Isn't the entire point of Amtrak the fact that it's unprofitable? I was under the impression that Amtrak was formed because passenger rail in the US is unprofitable and the industry would have disappeared had the government not taken it over. Do I have it wrong?

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    I hate to break it to you, but the purpose of government has nothing to do with raking in profits.
    I hate to break to you, but the purpose of Government is not to provide for the welfare of the citizens either.

    You may want to READ the Constitution if you do not believe me. This is not a debate about profitability; it is a debate about the wasteful spending of hard earned tax payer dollars to provide for a select few citizens for purely partisan political purposes.

    I am never surprised when Liberals show an inability, or display willful ignorance, as to what these debates actually are about.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post
    Isn't the entire point of Amtrak the fact that it's unprofitable? I was under the impression that Amtrak was formed because passenger rail in the US is unprofitable and the industry would have disappeared had the government not taken it over. Do I have it wrong?
    I think you have it right, so it begs the question; if the people CHOOSE to NOT ride on trains, when did it become Governments role to ensure that the few who actually preferred it to subsidize the rail service in the nation?

    If those who prefer to ride rail want it, make them pay the cost to provide it. The reality is that is far more efficient and cheaper to take other forms of transportation; if it weren't, more people would ride the trains.

    One of the biggest issues one has to confront when riding the trains, even in Europe, is the lack of assistance when getting their luggage on board the train and the effort and time it takes to get anywhere.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Well that's why you should try to make money off of paying for people's health issues.

    Which is the inherent evil of insurers.
    You mean, the natural incentive people have for actually doing something, their personal profit, is EVIL?

    No, it's not evil at all.

    If people want a product, it's only right that the people providing the product earn a living.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post
    Isn't the entire point of Amtrak the fact that it's unprofitable? I was under the impression that Amtrak was formed because passenger rail in the US is unprofitable and the industry would have disappeared had the government not taken it over. Do I have it wrong?
    Nope, you've got it right.

    The problem being that the government has no business stealing from people to prop up a business that those very same people have declined to patronize.

    It's exactly analogous to the Messiah's take over of GM. The People had decided that GM was crap and they didn't want to waste their money on what GM was selling. Therefore the government had no business to steal their money to prop up GM.

    No business is "too big to fail", nor should any ever be considered as such.

    Because Amtrak is "too big to fail", the government takes a loss on each passenger on the train going from Los Angeles to San Antonio of $432, which is almost what it costs to buy TWO airplane tickets.

    Is the goal merely to make it economical for people to go from LA to San Antonio? Then it would be more cost effective for the government to GIVE AWAY airline tickets.

    Clearly then, the goal isn't to provide transport but to subsidize jobs, and in that case, the government should cease immediately all passenger rail subsidies.

Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •