• 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

winston53660 said:
Why not? I think has been benefit to us all as well as rail and air subsidies.
Click to expand...

We could subsidize caviar and that would benefit us all too. However, the real question is if it is worth it. It's hard to judge, but a good indicator is whether or not a private company would have invested. If they wouldn't, then it probably wasn't wroth it. If they would, then it probably was. Since I don't see private companies building interstate highways, then it probably wasn't worth it.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the opening post of this thread comparing the losses in Amtrak to how the government will run health care?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the opening post of this thread comparing the losses in Amtrak to how the government will run health care?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes, but the Left is trying to ignore that.

However, the discussion is still relevant. Right now it's about if government should subsidize failing businesses.

Naturally, the answer is no.
 
phattonez said:
We could subsidize caviar and that would benefit us all too. However, the real question is if it is worth it. It's hard to judge, but a good indicator is whether or not a private company would have invested. If they wouldn't, then it probably wasn't wroth it. If they would, then it probably was. Since I don't see private companies building interstate highways, then it probably wasn't worth it.
Click to expand...

With out the interstate highway system there would not be a lot of commerce happening. Here in Texas there is a Spanish co. Interested in buying 635 and turning into a toll road.

Since I'm posting from my phone it is hard for me to link. I will provide more later.
 
winston53660 said:
With out the interstate highway system there would not be a lot of commerce happening. Here in Texas there is a Spanish co. Interested in buying 635 and turning into a toll road.

Since I'm posting from my phone it is hard for me to link. I will provide more later.
Click to expand...

We would probably have highways between close cities built by private companies and rail and plane travel used primarily for cities further apart.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes, but the Left is trying to ignore that.

However, the discussion is still relevant. Right now it's about if government should subsidize failing businesses.

Naturally, the answer is no.
Click to expand...


Ok thanks, I thought I missed something.....I notice that the derailing was purposely taken off track by the suggestion, and compliance that the original thread title was changed. Pretty transparent if you ask me.


j-mac
 
phattonez said:
It's a stupid argument. New York wouldn't have developed like it had without the subways, so your argument means nothing.
Click to expand...
Development normally follows infrastructure. No big secret.

NYC had already developed so that normal modes of transportation was unsustainable. They had to develop a system to reduce traffic in order to prevent gridlock. The logical solution to reduce traffic was rail transportation.

There had to be a need/reason to build a subway to somewhere.

Unless, of course you adhere to the 'theory' of build it and they will come...;)
 
BWG said:
Development normally follows infrastructure. No big secret.

NYC had already developed so that normal modes of transportation was unsustainable. They had to develop a system to reduce traffic in order to prevent gridlock. The logical solution to reduce traffic was rail transportation.

There had to be a need/reason to build a subway to somewhere.

Unless, of course you adhere to the 'theory' of build it and they will come...;)
Click to expand...

NYC didn't develop it though, private companies did.
 
BWG said:
NYC had already developed so that normal modes of transportation was unsustainable. They had to develop a system to reduce traffic in order to prevent gridlock. The logical solution to reduce traffic was rail transportation.

There had to be a need/reason to build a subway to somewhere.

Unless, of course you adhere to the 'theory' of build it and they will come...;)
Click to expand...

I am curious what New York subway systems have to do with AMtrack? But that aside, when do you think the subways were built in New York City? HINT: starts with eighteen and ends in sixty-nine.

In other words, pretty much the before the automobile came into prominence; the notion that New York developed it's mass transit system due to normal modes of transportation pretty much goes out the window don't you think?
 
phattonez said:
NYC didn't develop it though, private companies did.
Click to expand...

And didn't those private companies go out of business leaving the investors losing their money? Id rather buy municipal bonds.
 
winston53660 said:
And didn't those private companies go out of business leaving the investors losing their money? Id rather buy municipal bonds.
Click to expand...

NYC bought them out.
 
winston53660 said:
Because they had to so private common citizens did not lose all their money. The system despite all its faults is an amazing one.
Click to expand...

Hmm, did it start going out of business around the same time that the government started building roads? I wonder.
 
phattonez said:
It shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

Let me just say, I visited Chicago once. It was my first experience with a tollway. It was incredible and obnoxious introduction to me to the less than enjoyable experience of driving on a privately funded and owned roadway.
 
Last edited:
MyOwnDrum said:
Let me just say, I visited Chicago once. It was my first experience with a tollway. It was incredible and obnoxious introduction to me to the less than enjoyable experience of driving on a privately funded and own roadway.
Click to expand...

Rail is more efficient when transportation is not subsidized, you were experiencing that first hand.
 
phattonez said:
Rail is more efficient, you were experiencing that first hand.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. The next day, after my son's graduation from Navy boot camp, we took the train into the city and it was a breeze.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Yes it is. The next day, after my son's graduation from Navy boot camp, we took the train into the city and it was a breeze.
Click to expand...

That's not really a fair comparison though since the rail is subsidized, but yeah, the same thing would apply. Rail is cheaper than driving on your own.

The thing about private roads in this country though is that the government does not let the company run it like it wants to. Look up the DC Beltway article on Wikipedia.
 
phattonez said:
That's not really a fair comparison though since the rail is subsidized, but yeah, the same thing would apply. Rail is cheaper than driving on your own.

The thing about private roads in this country though is that the government does not let the company run it like it wants to. Look up the DC Beltway article on Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

How do to expect a toll road to collect money? It's inconvenient and disrupts the flow of traffic.

If government didn't regulate the builders of the roads, they basically could hold citizens hostage, since they happen to have a monopoly on that particular road. It's not like other companies can very well build a competing road, now is it?

No, there are certain infrastructure projects that require the pooled resources of the citizenry, gathered through taxes. Roadways, rails, subways are examples of these things that benefit everyone, one way or another.

The government should build and maintain more rail lines that could be be used by private and public railroads. There's no more civilized way to travel, in my opinion.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
How do to expect a toll road to collect money? It's inconvenient and disrupts the flow of traffic.
Click to expand...

FasTrak.

If government didn't regulate the builders of the roads, they basically could hold citizens hostage, since they happen to have a monopoly on that particular road. It's not like other companies can very well build a competing road, now is it?
Click to expand...

You don't have to take the toll portion of the DC Beltway, yet government still regulates it. Why?

No, there are certain infrastructure projects that require the pooled resources of the citizenry, gathered through taxes. Roadways, rails, subways are examples of these things that benefit everyone, one way or another.

The government should build and maintain more rail lines that could be be used by private and public railroads. There's no more civilized way to travel, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

But private companies built rail across all major American cities in the early part of last century. Why do we need government to do it now? If we toll more roads to market prices then we would see a resurgence of private rail companies.
 
phattonez said:
Strangely enough, you didn't argue against the point he was making that it is more efficient to invest in roads if you want to decrease auto congestion.
Click to expand...

Most likely because "efficiency" isn't the proof you were supposed to be giving me. :doh

Thus far, all you've produced is biased criticism (and a few impossible "solutions") offered by a road-industry mouthpiece, regarding a study by the most trusted transportation research organization in the nation. Pointing fingers at a widely accepted study and saying it's wrong is all very nice, but it proves nothing.


The proof you have yet to offer is that "rail actually increases traffic."


phattonez said:
It takes a lot more than an observational study to prove that rail is the reason for the decreased traffic.
Click to expand...

Correct. That's why TTI collects and analyzes reams of actual road use data from across the country to come up with their results. Mr. Cox clearly doesn't like the data TTI has produced, yet he doesn't seem to have produced any of his own independent data, research, or analysis, to prove his assertions.

Wonder why that is?
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
FasTrak.



You don't have to take the toll portion of the DC Beltway, yet government still regulates it. Why?



But private companies built rail across all major American cities in the early part of last century. Why do we need government to do it now? If we toll more roads to market prices then we would see a resurgence of private rail companies.
Click to expand...

Yes, you mention that private companies built the rails. I live near a rail out West, they have had a monopoly on the land they were given by the government forever in order to do that, and have raped that land. The current holders of that land are some of the most obnoxious developers and abusers of the land. It was a big mistake for the government to hand those huge tracts of land over to those huge companies.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Yes, you mention that private companies built the rails. I live near a rail out West, they have had a monopoly on the land they were given by the government forever in order to do that, and have raped that land. The current holders of that land are some of the most obnoxious developers and abusers of the land. It was a big mistake for the government to hand those huge tracts of land over to those huge companies.
Click to expand...

So what? It's their property and they can do what they want with it.
 
Glinda said:
Most likely because "efficiency" isn't the proof you were supposed to be giving me. :doh

Thus far, all you've produced is biased criticism (and a few impossible "solutions") offered by a road-industry mouthpiece, regarding a study by the most trusted transportation research organization in the nation. Pointing fingers at a widely accepted study and saying it's wrong is all very nice, but it proves nothing.


The proof you have yet to offer is that "rail actually increases traffic."
Click to expand...

It was in the paper that I linked to you, you didn't respond except by saying OH NO the big bad man is biased.


Correct. That's why TTI collects and analyzes reams of actual road use data from across the country to come up with their results. Mr. Cox clearly doesn't like the data TTI has produced, yet he doesn't seem to have produced any of his own independent data, research, or analysis, to prove his assertions.

Wonder why that is?
Click to expand...

But all you've shown is an observational study, nothing that even proves strong correlation.
 
I've read Cox's essay. I'm unable to find the place where he produces his research/data/methodology/documentation that proves "rail actually increases traffic" - i.e. that the mere availability of rail travel in a given locality increases the number of vehicles on the road.

*sigh* This is ridiculous.

Let me know if you ever come up with an unbiased, independent study that proves "rail actually increases traffic."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom