Bailing out Amtrack

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:29 am

yea?

neh?

I have mixed views on this. Is passenger service that much out of vogue?

RoundEye · Post by **RoundEye** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:51 am

I have mixed emotions about it, if my dad's business were to fail they wouldn't be there to help bail him out.

Yet, thousands of people would lose thier income, also look what has happened with Chrysler and Harley Davidson. Both have made incredible comebacks after help from the government.

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 10:06 am

Yes. We need amtrak. Transportation in this country sucks-- there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to take a train from phoenix to tucson, or from phoenox to san diego or LA. I had hoped that the fear of flying would force people to ride trains, but apparently not. If amtrak goes down, we lose our las chance at a nationwide rail system. The airlines got help when they were starting up. IMO, there should be a public works project to refurbish all the rail in this country to be electric rail and then put a huge tax on flying to destinations within 500miles that are rail-accessible to make it more economicaly sound to ride than to fly.

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 10:15 am

Yes. Amtrak is necessary. First fire ALL management, financial and accounting personnel and THEN bail them out.

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 12:40 pm

I rode Amtrak from Sacramento to Detroit last summer to visit a couple of freinds I have in Warren. I would have to say that even though it took a few days, the scenes were breath taking going through the Serias and variouse other ranges, if Amtrak goes lord help us all...

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 1:21 pm

Originally posted by Qwijib0
Yes. We need amtrak. Transportation in this country sucks-- there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to take a train from phoenix to tucson, or from phoenox to san diego or LA. I had hoped that the fear of flying would force people to ride trains, but apparently not. If amtrak goes down, we lose our las chance at a nationwide rail system. The airlines got help when they were starting up. IMO, there should be a public works project to refurbish all the rail in this country to be electric rail and then put a huge tax on flying to destinations within 500miles that are rail-accessible to make it more economicaly sound to ride than to fly.

Actually that's a very good point. I see United Airlines is asking for a huge bailout....

Could it be that our elected officals are in PAC money bed with the nations airlines?

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 1:41 pm

can we pleez stop with the Government bailouts

what incentive is that for a corporation to manage itself well when they know if they screw up old Uncle Sam will be there with blank check in hand. i mean come on the Gov. sure doesn't know how to manage it's own money.

where does it stop, the Greyhound bus system, Thrifty rent a heap, Joes moped dealer

2 loud · Post by **2 loud** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:50 pm

The points made in regards to Harley Davidson and Chrysler are good points in supperting Federal Bail-outs, but these bail outs were one time deals, where the companies were then on their own. Amtrak on the other hand has been receiving federal subsidies for a loooooooong time and has never been profitable. I agree with cybotron r-9 on this one. I belive in the free market system. If you can provide a service to meet demand, or create demand based on the superiority of your product or service you will make it. Obviously Amtrak hasn't met these conditions.

SGTMAJRET · Post by **SGTMAJRET** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:57 pm

200 million dollars isn't going to solve AMTRAK's problems. The railroads are a private enterprise. As previously stated small businesses don't get bailed out.

De Plano · Post by **De Plano** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 10:03 pm

I think it should continue getting funded, in other words bailed out. In L.A. Dodge bought the subway system and purposelly sold off key real estate so that there is no reasonable way they can ever go back to a decent public transit system. It worked for Dodge but not for the general public. It could be argued that L.A. is fine but probably not from any one who deals with its traffic daily. If Harley goes under there are other motorcycle companies, or at least it would be easier to start one, same with Chrysler. I admit they would not start off ass big, but they could build slowly. Amtrak would never be able to be rebuilt. There would be companies that would sell off the property, worth a lot of money, and we would permantlly lose those routes even if they are for the good of the country. In terms of bailouts this seems like a good one.

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 10:17 pm

Originally posted by SGTMAJRET
200 million dollars isn't going to solve AMTRAK's problems. The railroads are a private enterprise. As previously stated small businesses don't get bailed out.

Fine then have GovernmentRail. The US NEEDS rail. Let the government run it to make it profitable, THEN turn it over to private companies, similar to (what was) british rail, and is now private companies.

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 10:18 pm

Does Q-man wanna ride the choo-choo?

2 loud · Post by **2 loud** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 10:43 pm

What has Government ever run that was profitable? Medicare, social security or any other program the Government is inolved in. Most Govt. programs are sink holes, funded by overburdended tax payers with little or no accountability. If Amtrak goes by the wayside and it is determined by the free market that the former routs run by Amtrak are profitable, the void will be filled. If it isn't it was never ment to be. I don't see how Government can make unprofitable rail routs profitable.

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 11:10 pm

Originally posted by 2 loud
I don't see how Government can make unprofitable rail routs profitable.

It's called TAX. Make it so that it's more economical to ride than fly to destinations within 500 miles. Or better yet, have the FAA reduce the number of available 'slots' between close destinations, forcing the price up. With a high-speed train at 70-80MPH, you can get to destinations within 400-500 miles almost as fast as flying, counting the 2 hours you have to arrive in advance at the airport today. Reduce the distance, and it's even faster to ride, and seeing how the station is IN the middle of the city, you can take mass transit from the station to the destination. The government could do plenty... It's closed-minded oil-huggers that force this nation to have overcrowded highways as opposed to much cleaner, faster and efficient rail.

2 loud · Post by **2 loud** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 11:45 pm

Why should I be taxed into compliance? This is a free country, why can't I choose the mode of transportation I want to use. I allready pay too much in taxes, and by the way the purpose of taxation isn't to equalize outcomes, but rather to provide funding for a Government run within the bounds of the Constitution. Ever hear of the 10th Amendment?

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 11:53 pm

Nobody should pay taxes...we need no water services.....no sanitation....no paved roads...no programs that actually benefit mankind...

We should NOT give to the hungry of the world..

We do not need government offices..no police, no military...

Why send a man to the moon? Let truck drivers eat cake. No need to make a living on federal roads that we arn't going to keep up.

No bridges.....no grants to study diesase, alt. power, or to regulate HDTV....who needs it?

We should strive on a daily basis to become as selfish as our TV religious personalities....and top corporate brass.....

What's wrong with that?

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 11:54 pm

Originally posted by 2 loud
Why should I be taxed into compliance? This is a free country, why can't I choose the mode of transportation I want to use. I allready pay too much in taxes, and by the way the purpose of taxation isn't to equalize outcomes, but rather to provide funding for a Government run within the bounds of the Constitution. Ever hear of the 10th Amendment?

Then I guess there shouldn't be taxes on liquor or cigarettes either. Most of those takes are to DISSUADE people from using it because it's not good for you. at least half of this country is full of dumb****s who need to be told what to do. I don't want the government to control every last aspect of my life, but there are some places where the government telling people what to do is a good thing.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Thu Jun 27, 2002 12:08 am

The Government doesn't bail anyone out, the people do.

Who do you think pays for all these bailouts?

I say let all those in favor pay, and all those not in favor get a tax reduction, hows that?

I'm Canadian, and we bailed out our national rail system, VIA RailI used the train once when I was a kid, and I don't want to pay to keep anyone in business. If there is a need for a rail system there will be a company to fill the void soon enough. If there is no need, there will be alternatives in place soon enough.

Where there's money to be made, there will be someone there to make it, that you can bet on..

kneemeister · Post by **kneemeister** » Thu Jun 27, 2002 12:12 am

Originally posted by SGTMAJRET
200 million dollars isn't going to solve AMTRAK's problems. The railroads are a private enterprise. As previously stated small businesses don't get bailed out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong: Amtrak is a QuasiGovernmental Corporation, just like the USPS. And two hundred Million may build 10 miles of interstate.

In the entire history of the National Railway Pasenger Corporation -dba AMTRAK, they have received 31 Bil in Subsidies, that averagers out to about 1 Bil a year. Everyone expects a corporation formed to rescue the Freight Railroads from going bankrupt in 1970 to suddenly make a profit. Guess what it will never happen, and as a matter of fact if JB Hunt didnt have the Interstates and United didnt have the FAA and federally built runways they would be in the same situation, in fact United is in the same situation, the Airlines received howmany BILLIONS after 9-11.

Amtrak is a public corporation like the post office, It lives and dies by which Senator wants a train where, and which govonor the current congess or President dosent want to tick off.

Yes a few trains should be cut, and the northeast should pay more like Calafornia, Ill, and Michigan. The last Amtrak president was a political crony telling the Congress what they wanted to hear. Mr Gunn, the newlly apointed President wants to run Amtrak like a railroad, He has plans to eliminate more than half the Vice Presidents, and over grown management structure. Some of who designed the new Acella trains 4 in to wide to be able to pass at 150 MPH. so all the hoopla saves only 15 min.

Mr. Gunn is the man who turned around the New York Subway system and GO Transit in Toronto. I say give the Man the Money and see what he can do in one year, if nothing improves then talk drastic cuts. But the system can not continue to be left to wither at the vine as it has for the last 30 years. To get a viable system the Federal government must invest in equipment and infrastructure, the same as they do with roads, River Navagation, and Airports Remember only the railroads furnish there own vehilces, roadways and traffic control systems.

kneemeister · Post by **kneemeister** » Thu Jun 27, 2002 12:25 am

Originally posted by Qwijib0

Fine then have GovernmentRail. The US NEEDS rail. Let the government run it to make it profitable, THEN turn it over to private companies, similar to (what was) british rail, and is now private companies.

Actually that example is a prime reason to KEEP Amtrak, the privitazation of British Rail was a total disaster, because it was so split up there was little if no coordination, in fact the Govenment has retaken over control of the infrastructure.

Your example did infact work for Conrail, which was basiclly the freight version of Amtrak, fromed from the ashes of Penn Central, and the small eastern railroads. It became profitable, reverted to a stock corporation and was fought over for two years by the Norfolk Southern and CSX.