What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Don't save your Digg images to your Hardrive... view!
newegg.com - Add them to a Digital Photoframe from newegg
113 Comments
- SQLDigger, on 07/14/2009, -11/+36Oh, Amtrak. What would you do if you weren't continually bailed out by fresh funds from the U.S. taxpayer's pocket? When WAS the last year you reported a net loss of less than a billion dollars... ?
- SQLDigger, on 07/15/2009, -2/+22No, I don't believe so. The U.S. gov't subsidizes them to the tune of about $1B per year. They were originally intended to be self-sufficient, but they've never really come close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak#Public_funding
You can also see their recent financial statements here.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagena ... - merreborn, on 07/14/2009, -2/+21Man, $687,000 to repair a 60-seat car? Those things must be pretty pricey.
- akchrs, on 07/16/2009, -7/+23At least they could put a plaque in it somewhere with my name on it since I paid for it.
- jsdratm, on 07/16/2009, -3/+15Train ridership has been rising every year due to gas prices. Before the gas prices dropped again they had record ridership. It works everywhere else in the world, it can work in the US too.
- Chakat, on 07/16/2009, -1/+13New rail cars run about 2-3 million a piece, and are designed to last for several decades of service. BART, for example, is just now considering replacing their rolling stock dating from the 60s and 70s, and that's simply because the passenger load is too great for the older cars.
- merreborn, on 07/16/2009, -0/+12"I love these 60-seat cars to carry 20 people along their routes."
Meh. They run commuter rail on the SF peninsula ("caltrain"), and during rush hour, the cars are full every day.
Don't get me wrong -- there's plenty of fat to be trimmed, but some of their lines are running at capacity. - Ghostalker, on 07/16/2009, -1/+12FTA: "Republican Rep. Michael Castle acknowledged that he was no fan of the $787 billion stimulus package, but said he wants to ensure that Amtrak remains a viable mode of transportation."
I guess he can have his cake AND eat it too. - ictoan, on 07/16/2009, -1/+11Personally I like to use trains more than airplanes/cars. Japan has one of the best railway system I've seen. It's super efficient and I don't see why U.S. can't do the same. I think people are being too sarcastic and pessimistic. You may condemn the spending now but in a couple of years when gas goes up and population increases, trains are definitely the way to go.
- akchrs, on 07/16/2009, -6/+16"Has Amtrak ever turned a profit?"
LOL!! - fortheworld, on 07/16/2009, -0/+9Have you ever been on the Cascades/Coast Starlight trains? I know at least between Portland and Seattle those things are always full. When i get on, there's generally only one or two seats available in a car.
Having been on the trains to St Louis, and from Hastings, NE to SLC, they aren't as full as they could be, but those are some damn long trips too.
I still think it's one of the better ways to travel across the US. - durruticolumn, on 09/18/2009, -2/+11
When was the last time the highways were profitable?
Air travel gets an order of magnitude more subsidies than rail ever did. The idea that air travel has ever been "profitable" is laughable. - spartan777, on 07/16/2009, -3/+121.3 billion for rail, is that it?!? We should be spending tens of billions to bring our rail system into the 21st century. Hell, a lot of it is stuck in the 19th century.
Anyways, I've traveled Amtrack a lot, and they are THE BEST period. Better than a flight, or bus ride, or anything. Just goes to show that the government actually *can* run things, and run them well! - 3tcp, on 07/15/2009, -11/+19I love these 60-seat cars to carry 20 people along their routes.
Has Amtrak ever turned a profit? - carbonfilament, on 07/16/2009, -0/+8totally wrong. Amtrak is huge on the eastern seaboard, and faster than planes in most instances when you figure security time.
- jrm125, on 07/16/2009, -6/+13Wait, I thought Amtrak has been receiving stimulus for...decades?
- raleel, on 07/16/2009, -2/+9pretty much what I thought. it appears to be about 2 million for a diesel locamotive and 2/3 of a million for a car (81 cars, 15 engines, 90-(81*.68) ~= 2 million per engine).
However, I suspect the lifespan on those things is very long. like a couple of decades barring collisions and such. 2/3 a million for a couple of decades of life... i'll take that anyday. - carbonfilament, on 07/16/2009, -2/+8I love Amtrak
- bjornredtail, on 07/16/2009, -0/+6Keep in mind the level of collision resistance these things have to be engineered to. For example, the windows must be able to withstand a .22LR bullet traveling at 940 Feet/Second, by FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) regulation.
- akchrs, on 07/16/2009, -2/+8"because two black people in coach got into a fistfight."
What does skin color have to do with it? racist...
- carbonfilament, on 07/16/2009, -2/+7this just in - no one gets to choose where their tax dollars go
- hapagolucky, on 07/16/2009, -2/+7Most successful train and bus systems have been publicly subsidized. It's too large of an endeavor to undertake otherwise. A company investing in such a system would require high fares to recoup the costs of ownership and maintenance. People really need to start thinking of public transportation as something that benefits everyone even those who choose not to use it.
- spartan777, on 07/16/2009, -3/+7You clearly have not ever actually been on an Amtrak.
- strykefive, on 07/16/2009, -0/+4We need Maglevs please!
- jsdratm, on 07/16/2009, -0/+4They are doing that but it takes time. You can't plan out a new rail route and build it in several months. Iowa is planning one from Iowa City to Chicago, for example.
- durruticolumn, on 09/18/2009, -1/+5
It has, just like highways and airlines have, only way less than they get. - Y0tsuya, on 07/16/2009, -5/+9Our local public bus system runs these long double-section busses along the busiest road in town. Everytime I see it passing by there's maybe 5 people riding in it. It stays in business all these years because public transit hippies demand that taxpayers pay for any shortfalls.
- spartan777, on 07/16/2009, -0/+4Judging by your statement, either you are an anarchist or a vulgar hypocrite. Which is it?
- HentaiJeff, on 07/16/2009, -0/+4the lines they use are owned by other ppl, honestly I've ridden the train from NY to Dallas and I loved it, not something I'd do if I had time critical work to do but it works if you want to see the country.
- sharkd, on 07/16/2009, -0/+4Yup, just like that M1A2 tank, F-22, the thousands of computers at the Department of Interior, FBI firing ranges, those pesky EPA data centers and SuperFund cleanup sistes -- all things the Federal Government has spent *your* money on, that you'll never get the chance to use.
Tsk, tsk. How selfish of the rest of the country not to consider the emotional needs of music4mic.
Perhaps you should start your own country, (with hookers! and blackjack!) where you get to set the national spending priorities so they revolve entirely around you. - TVarmy, on 07/16/2009, -0/+4I'm fond of the idea of Amtrak, and I see they have great potential. I like how the trains are more efficient than airplanes (saves fuel and the environment), and how they can go faster than cars with modern track. I also like that there's much less security and that the chairs are large, comfortable, and fitted with electric outlets. I really like not having to deal with my ears popping, either (I go half-deaf for a day or two after flying, but maybe I'm just sensitive).
However, the problem is that they just can't compete on price with air travel, and over long distances, their poorly maintained parts start to show. I think they'd turn a profit, or at least need less help, if the government would just give them a big subsidy to do a complete overhaul of their trains and rails. Right now, Amtrak's financial problems are like an illness that we're only treating with painkillers instead of antibiotics. We're eliminating the most pressing symptoms, but we're not curing the disease. - carbonfilament, on 07/16/2009, -0/+4Eastern Seaboard trains are almost always full these days.
- rhodydog, on 07/16/2009, -0/+4You're right, all those roads I never use, why should I pay for them? And what about all those fire fighters etc etc. Why don't you right wing nuts give it a rest? If you don't like this country why do you still live here? Africa has very small government, you should try living there, you'll feel much more at home.
- vault, on 07/16/2009, -2/+6The US isn't like "everywhere else in the world," because we're a very large country with the highest car ownership penetration in the world.
If Amtrak were a good idea, it'd be profitable from fares, not from handouts. - ulcards2033, on 07/16/2009, -1/+5We would be better served if it could break even, maybe even make some money to pay for r/d and building better trains.
- rhodydog, on 07/16/2009, -0/+4Have the airlines every posted a profit (assuming you took all the government subsidies away from them)?
- Bloodwine, on 07/16/2009, -2/+5Amtrak is not run well, from a financial standpoint.
In many parts of the U.S. Amtrak has shut down operations. They retreated to only keeping the busier train routes (makes sense), but they still are drowning in red ink. - esc27, on 07/16/2009, -1/+4Actually seems somewhat reasonable. (If I did the math right)
A automobile can seat ~4 and has ~10 years of useful life and costs ~$20,000.
Say the $2 million (new) train car that seats 60 is good for 40 years.
That's: $833 per seat per year for the train car. $500 per seat per year on the highway car.
(Not bad when you consider the costs of extra safety and durability requirements.)
The renovated train car would be around $280 per seat per year. - theholyraptor, on 07/16/2009, -0/+3I'd be curious as to why those specifications are necessary (or was the bullet just an analogy for the general impact resistance required since the windows would obviously have to be strong enough for other reasons.)
- TVarmy, on 07/16/2009, -2/+5Agreed. The only reason people pick on rail for wasting their tax money is because the systems perpetually get too much money to fail, but too little money to provide consistently good service. Most other forms of transit get enough money to provide a decent experience, probably because of the numbers of people using the systems (if too many people face long delays on the tarmac in planes or find the roads they drive on terrible, they will complain to their senator, who will vote for subsidies), which makes this a chicken-and-egg paradox. People won't ride the trains because they have so many problems, and the trains have the problems because they're underfunded, but that's because there aren't enough riders to lobby for better subsidies/provide profits for improvement.
- erkokite, on 07/16/2009, -3/+6Seems to work fine in other countries. They have nice trains and health care. And by the way, our privatized health care in the US costs a mint. It can't get much worse than it already is.
- collution, on 07/16/2009, -1/+4They are only going to upgrade the same old cars and the same old train stations. What happened to upgrading the actual rail lines, giving it a huge overhaul, and actually adding plentiful high-speed trains to the system?
This is sad. - vault, on 07/16/2009, -1/+4This is going be a total failure just like everything else cash-gobbling Amtrak does, owns, and thinks about it.
- TVarmy, on 07/16/2009, -0/+3I think it's likely just an easy benchmark to test vs. the real impact of being in a collision. It's easier to put the window in a vice and fire a gun at it that meets the specs rather than precisely hit it with a blunt object.
- spartan777, on 07/16/2009, -0/+3When I was on Amtrack, they had gourmet meals that were among the best I ever had, nice silverware and plates (possibly porcelain). Coach on Amtrak was comparable to 1st class on an airplane... with MORE legroom. The sleeper cars were nice, and paid for themselves since they came with free meals for however long you were on (3 meals for roughly a day). If there was a reason Amtrack sucked, it would be because it's been drastically underfunded. I heard there were budget cuts since I last was on Amtrak, which is a shame. However, cutting funds and then saying 'aha, government can't do anything, give it away to rich people for them to run' is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you properly fund Amtrak, it will kick ass like it used to.
- deema1, on 07/16/2009, -1/+4What? The trillion dollars we give them each year to keep them in business doesn't count as stimulus? They can only offer improvements when they get billions more on top of the $1 trillion+ annual handout?
Yet another broken government business. Good thing we have so many inexperienced and failed businessmen and women running corporations on our behalf. Where would we be without them? - ChoosyMother, on 07/16/2009, -0/+31. TARP
2. Cap $ Tax
3. Universal Healthcare
4. This Stupid train...
Go Obama! - TVarmy, on 07/16/2009, -0/+2That's a pretty expensive undertaking, and a risky endeavor for a business that's just scraping by. They'd need a much bigger subsidy, or a miracle. They lease tracks from freight lines, as that's all they can afford, and the freight lines are only maintained well enough for trains going at the slow speeds freight trains go.
- Chakat, on 07/16/2009, -3/+5No, because you're from alaska. The rest of the country is subsidizing your ass to about as big a degree as Amtrak.
- akchrs, on 07/16/2009, -1/+3Thanks!!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is