• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

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

Why is Amtrak losing so much money? Because they run lines that will never make a profit. There is no concept of efficiency with government-run agencies.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

I hate to break to you, but the purpose of Government is not to provide for the welfare of the citizens either.

Who said it was? :roll:

You may want to READ the Constitution if you do not believe me. This is not a debate about profitability

Did you, or did you not rant that "no Government run entity in history has been profitable?"

I merely pointed out the fact that making profits has never been the duty nor the function of government. You can whine about the constitution all you like, and you can complain till the cows come home that your panties are all jammed up between your buttcheeks about the "profit-making" aspect of government agencies, but the facts remain the same: OUR GOVERNMENT WAS NOT CREATED WITH THE INTENT, NOR GIVEN THE MANDATE, TO MAKE PROFITS.

I am never surprised when raging pinhead conservatives show an inability [to what?], or display willful ignorance, as to what these debates actually are about.

Fixed that for ya. :2wave:
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Who said it was? :roll:



Did you, or did you not rant that "no Government run entity in history has been profitable?"

I merely pointed out the fact that making profits has never been the duty nor the function of government. You can whine about the constitution all you like, and you can complain till the cows come home that your panties are all jammed up between your buttcheeks about the "profit-making" aspect of government agencies, but the facts remain the same: OUR GOVERNMENT WAS NOT CREATED WITH THE INTENT, NOR GIVEN THE MANDATE, TO MAKE PROFITS.



Fixed that for ya. :2wave:

I see the debate topic and relevance of my comments continues to elude you; I cannot say I am surprised by this. Having a coherent debate has never been your forte'. You are more inclined to spew "raging pinhead liberal" talking points.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

I see the debate topic and relevance of my comments continues to elude you

Did you, or did you not rant that "no Government run entity in history has been profitable?"

Having a coherent debate has never been your forte'.

:rofl This is pretty effin' funny, coming from you, dude. :rofl
 
Last edited:
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.


People riding on trains are not the only ones who benefit. People on the roads also benefit b/c of reduced congestion, which leads to less road maintenance, etc. Also, businesses and communities benefit from transportation infrastructure that facilitates and encourages activity.

Infrastructure is what underlies a community and allows it to prosper, it does not benefit only those who directly use it.
 
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.

IA, high speed trains make more sense. Thx for link, clicking to check it out.
 
People riding on trains are not the only ones who benefit. People on the roads also benefit b/c of reduced congestion, which leads to less road maintenance, etc. Also, businesses and communities benefit from transportation infrastructure that facilitates and encourages activity.

Infrastructure is what underlies a community and allows it to prosper, it does not benefit only those who directly use it.

Private companies can build infrastructure.

And of note, rail actually increases traffic. Look it up, no lie.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Did you, or did you not rant that "no Government run entity in history has been profitable?"

:rofl This is pretty effin' funny, coming from you, dude. :rofl

What part of the thread topic are you not getting?

Amtrak Loses $32 Per PassengerWASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. taxpayers spent about $32 subsidizing the cost of the typical Amtrak passenger in 2008, about four times the rail operator's estimate, according to a private study.

Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving more than 500 destinations in 46 states. Forty-one of Amtrak's 44 routes lost money in 2008, said the study by Subsidyscope, an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts.


Clue: Government is LOSING money; in other words not paying for itself or making a return on its money.

For Liberals who are economically challenged, this would mean that there are not enough people who find the rail service viable and therefore choose OTHER more efficient forms of transportation and that continuing to run them is perhaps a BAD deal for the American taxpayer.

The simplest and most obvious answer which continues to elude you is that the Government should not be in the business of providing transportation services, should not be in the business of providing health services and perhaps should stick to what the Constitution states is really the Governments business, which was inherently more intelligent than the best Liberal thinkers to date, which is to merely provide for the nations defense and administer its laws.
 
People riding on trains are not the only ones who benefit. People on the roads also benefit b/c of reduced congestion, which leads to less road maintenance, etc. Also, businesses and communities benefit from transportation infrastructure that facilitates and encourages activity.

There are no facts to support this hypothetical OPINION. If this were remotely true, rail services would be highly profitable and New York City, Baltimore, Washington DC, Philadelphia and Chicago would not have traffic jams. But alas, we all know that they suffer from the same traffic congestion that Los Angeles does.

The notion that citizens benefit from something they rarely are inclined to use lacks any credible support.

FACT: The Federal Government should not be in the transportation business as it costs great sums of taxpayer funds with little to zero benefit.

Infrastructure is what underlies a community and allows it to prosper, it does not benefit only those who directly use it.

Rail systems were built through private enterprise; when those endeavors started becoming unprofitable, the private rail services started disappearing then Government stepped in to subsidize it eventually taking over.

If rail systems were beneficial, people would still be using them instead of driving their own cars. Unfortunately, for the vast majority, there were much better alternatives and therefore it made no sense to continue paying for, riding on or subsidizing rail systems.

The Canadian Government has already figured that one out and gotten out of the business of transportation services; stunning how we continue to arrogantly think that we can do it where others have not.

Again, instead of providing FACTS to support your assertions as I asked, you come up with more theoretical feel good opinions rather than factual evidence.
 
IA, high speed trains make more sense. Thx for link, clicking to check it out.

I guess the article still had no effect on your opinions:

The net system loss from consolidated operations decreased from $1.12 billion in FY 2007 to $1.01 billion, a decrease of 9.6 per cent. The increase in revenues was offset partially by significant increases in fuel, power, and utilities, casualty and other claims, depreciation, and miscellaneous items.

A passenger traveling from Los Angeles to New Orleans on the Sunset Limited in FY 2008 received an average federal subsidy of $947.63 before interest and depreciation. A business class seat on AirTrans would have cost approximately $539. Amtrak could have bought the passenger a business class ticket on AirTrans and saved the taxpayers more than $408.63 per LA to NO passenger by discontinuing the train.
 
And of note, rail actually increases traffic. Look it up, no lie.

I tried, but found documentation that the opposite is true - rail travel decreases traffic congestion.


Here's one example:

For the 1992-97 period examined, traffic congestion, as measured by the TRi, increased 55.9% in urban areas without rail transit, but only 32.4% in urban areas with rail transit in major travel corridors. in other words, traffic congestion grew at a rate 73% higher in non-rail cities, than in cities with rail in one or more major travel corridors.
 
I tried, but found documentation that the opposite is true - rail travel decreases traffic congestion.


Here's one example:

That's correlation, and not even good correlation at that. You didn't even prove that the difference is statistically significant.

Look, I'm not opposed to rail, in fact I'm a big proponent of it because it is much cheaper than auto traffic. That said, I still want the truth out there. Rail increases traffic. Compare a corridor before rail and after rail. The increased pedestrian activity and increased development because of the rail cause increased traffic.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

the Government should not be in the business of providing transportation services

:confused: Do you have any idea what you're babbling about? The government provides necessary transportation services that we'd be in a world of hurt without. Our Interstate Highway System comes immediately to mind. Imagine no high-speed freeways, no bridges or tunnels. And how would you feel about flying without air traffic controllers? Should we disband the FAA?

:doh

The DOT consists of numerous government agencies that provide important and necessary transportation services to all citizens.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

:confused: Do you have any idea what you're babbling about? The government provides necessary transportation services that we'd be in a world of hurt without. Our Interstate Highway System comes immediately to mind. Imagine no high-speed freeways, no bridges or tunnels. And how would you feel about flying without air traffic controllers? Should we disband the FAA?

You're making the faulty assumption that we wouldn't have any of these things without government.
 
That's correlation, and not even good correlation at that. You didn't even prove that the difference is statistically significant.

I'll post the statistic significance one more time, for those with short attention spans and/or reading comprehension issues...

For the 1992-97 period examined, traffic congestion, as measured by the TRi, increased 55.9% in urban areas without rail transit, but only 32.4% in urban areas with rail transit in major travel corridors. in other words, traffic congestion grew at a rate 73% higher in non-rail cities, than in cities with rail in one or more major travel corridors.

Rail increases traffic.

You keep saying this, but offer no proof. *shrug*
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

:confused: Do you have any idea what you're babbling about? The government provides necessary transportation services that we'd be in a world of hurt without. Our Interstate Highway System comes immediately to mind. Imagine no high-speed freeways, no bridges or tunnels. And how would you feel about flying without air traffic controllers? Should we disband the FAA?

:doh

The DOT consists of numerous government agencies that provide important and necessary transportation services to all citizens.

I see that not only are you unable to follow a debate topic, but also incapable of comprehending the differences in the providing of transportation services versus the job Government has to enforce our laws and regulations to ensure the populations safety.

Do you honestly believe that regulating air traffic or building a highway system and owning and operating a rail system are all one and the same; REALLY?

Carry on. :doh
 
I tried, but found documentation that the opposite is true - rail travel decreases traffic congestion.


Here's one example:

Is that loss equivalent to $32 per passenger?

Let's find out. Raise the ticket prices so the passengers are paying their fair share...ie, the whole cost of the trip, and see how many still ride the choo-choo.
 
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.

Clearly, you didn't do your research. Several portions of the US rail system are more congested then the Acela line which made profit. There is clearly enough demand to sustain a train system. And as the high speed system proved, it is profitable. What isn't profitable are the low speed trains.

You clearly did not even bother to read the posted summary. This is how I know you don't have a finance degree of anything resembling a business education.

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.

I see you changed your statement from your earlier absolute. I can think of several government agencies, including several companies that have been profitable. JAL has been profitable in many years and is essentially an arm of the Japanese government.

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.

Do you actually have the prices or are you just making it up as you go along which would be the usual?

Try to LEARN your lessons before you attempt to LECTURE.

The funny thing is, you haven't learned a single lesson, yet you try to lecture without researching anything.

Try look up JR group in Japan. Huh. Imagine that. A government run train system that makes money.

The thing is TD, I don't actually disagree with most of your views. You are just so abrasive it is hard to go along with you.
 
Last edited:
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

:confused: Do you have any idea what you're babbling about? The government provides necessary transportation services that we'd be in a world of hurt without. Our Interstate Highway System comes immediately to mind.

You must be referring to the roads built for national defense purposes in the 1950's. BTW, all USERS of the roads pay for their use.

Imagine no high-speed freeways, no bridges or tunnels.

Pretending that private enterprise can't build roads?

And how would you feel about flying without air traffic controllers? Should we disband the FAA?

Yes. The airlines have an interest in air traffic safety and not only can but SHOULD finance air traffic control. If they can't do that with fare increases, they should go out of business.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

I see that not only are you unable to follow a debate topic, but also incapable of comprehending the differences in the providing of transportation services versus the job Government has to enforce our laws and regulations to ensure the populations safety.

I'm afraid you're the one with comprehension issues.

Did you, or did you not state that "the Government should not be in the business of providing transportation services?"

The fact is our government provides the populace with numerous important and much-needed transportation services, and I've offered a link to prove it. You seem to be saying that our government does not provide these services. You're wrong.

Perhaps you are unclear on the definition of "services." *shrug*
 
Last edited:
I'll post the statistic significance one more time, for those with short attention spans and/or reading comprehension issues...





You keep saying this, but offer no proof. *shrug*

Ah, you're confusing Amtrak with generic "rail transit".

We're discussing Amtrak, not Metrolink.

Oh, btw: LA County's Metrolink recently opened a six mile long extension to the Gold Line, at a cost of $148 million dollars per mile. What advantage does the driver who doesn't use the Gold Line see in having his taxes raised to pay for this?

None.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Did you, or did you not state that "the Government should not be in the business of providing transportation services?

He's right though. The government (aside from military) should not be in the business of running the transportation system. Meaning, Amtrak should be privatized, government should not run buses or airlines, nor subways. That said, government does have a duty to maintain and build transportation networks as well as keep prices reasonable.
 
Clearly, you didn't do your research. Several portions of the US rail system are more congested then the Acela line which made profit. There is clearly enough demand to sustain a train system. And as the high speed system proved, it is profitable. What isn't profitable are the low speed trains.

If they're profitable then private industry can buy the rights of with with investors' money, not taxpayers, and the shareholders can keep the profits.

If it's not profitable, the government shouldn't be doing it.

Oh, and where's the profit in having a terrorist blow up the track under a train going 300 mph at ground level?
 
Is that loss equivalent to $32 per passenger?

Studies show that traffic congestion costs the average metropolitan driver about $1000 per year.

The Texas Transportation Institute estimated that, in 2000, the 75 largest metropolitan areas experienced 3.6 billion vehicle-hours of delay, resulting in 5.7 billion U.S. gallons (21.6 billion liters) in wasted fuel and $67.5 billion in lost productivity, or about 0.7% of the nation's GDP. It also estimated that the annual cost of congestion for each driver was approximately $1,000 in very large cities and $200 in small cities. --Traffic Congestion

Additionally:

Gridlock costs the average peak period traveler 36 hours a year in travel delay, and costs the United States more than $87 billion each year. At a time when fuel is increasingly costly, traffic jams are wasting 2.8 billion gallons of gas every year. --TTI


Let's find out. Raise the ticket prices so the passengers are paying their fair share...ie, the whole cost of the trip, and see how many still ride the choo-choo.

Conversely, we could raise taxes so that individual drivers cover the other 90% of funding that our government currently provides states to build/maintain our Interstate Highway System.

:roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom