What's new

Now I know why Amtrak will fail......(long) (1 Viewer)

Ben Menix

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 24, 1999
Messages
95
My thoughts exactly, Dennis.
James, in my experience (not that I have any running air traffic controllers, etc.) a privatized industry is a more efficient and effective industry. You want to know if I want to privatize some of the most important functions in our nation which would generally allow proven and experienced experts to run things, as opposed to letting the goverment run things (a government that doesn't even know what checks it's written, let alone how to balance a checkbook)? I say privatize, baby, privatize.
Yes, I know UP doesn't want Amtrak. Not yet, anyway. Maybe we could sell it to Microsoft... ;)
Ben Menix
[email protected]
 

Peter Burtch

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 3, 2002
Messages
116
Hi Dennis,
I don't see the problem using billions of tax dollars to start up a nationwide rail system when it's already being wasted on other things which don't benefit the public. If it helps us rely less on the oil & the automobile, great. Let the government start it, and privatize it later on. Much like I view the USPS now, it's too bloated to be effective. But a framework is already there (unlike rail unfortunately). It could be privatized and run a thousand times more efficiently.
Do you have the option to take a train to work where you live in Michigan(?) It's pretty decent here in Chicago, but the only catch is with the 'spoke' train routes starting from the loop, the further you go from the center north or south along the lake the less easy it is to travel in a westward direction.
Ben>
I agree with you. Those groups are also special interest. But at least in my opinion, what the Sierra club is trying to accomplish is certainly preferably to anyone else throwing money at big oil is doing.
I think you may be onto something trying to sell it to Microsoft :cool:.
James>
If you want some amusing reading, follow the newspaper coverage of the airport debates here in Chicago. Expand O'Hare, build a new airport south in Peotone (near Gary, Indiana which already has an airport), bleah. Not a word about working on rail connections in the future(!) More roads to get to all these new congested places perhaps(?) ;)
cheers,
Pedro
 

AjayM

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 22, 2000
Messages
1,224
The difference between the Euro system and the US system is a lot more than just tax dollars (although that's a huge part of it). But simple road travel in large parts of Europe is horrible, especially if you are trying to get somewhere on time (like a commute to work and home) without spending hours doing it.

For example, in the little town where some family lives if I want to go 8 miles down the road to the city (large city, but certainly not HUGE), to do some shopping there are 2-3 roads I can take that will get me a direct route, they are all small 2 lane roads with lots of traffic lights and such. To go at anywhere near rush-hour would mean probably at least an hour commute just to get to the city, then more time to get into the city and to park. Compare that to most places in the US where there is a highway or two running through the city, big 4-6 lane street roads, etc. Compare that to their rail system, where a train runs all the time (every 10-15 minutes during busy times I believe) and it's a 15 minutes trip to the middle of the city. Compare that to a lot of cities in the US and it isn't a comparison.

Andrew
 

Peter Burtch

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 3, 2002
Messages
116
Hi Ajay,
I agree, in parts of Europe in can be extremely tough to get anywhere reliably by car. In may I was fortunate to take a nice trip to France/Switzerland/Poland with my wife. We attended a wedding near Geneva during our first part of the trip. The roads in Switzerland were probably the best I have ever seen quality-wise. But much more crowded like the scenario to which you referred. Although the duration of our stay there prevented us from using much public transportation, touring the area via rental car I concluded it would always be easier to grab a train since the roads were so clogged. We picked up a friend coming in from Paris on the TGV. From the main station it was painfully easy to figure out how to get somewhere in any way *except* by car ;).
Poland was even more in this direction. My wife's uncle informed us that in the whole country there are only < 80 miles of actual 'freeway' quality roads. The other stuff we had the pleasure of driving on was pretty insane. Don't get me wrong, I preferred this part of the trip but only because we had the option to travel cross country via train. The drive would have been sheer hell. Ditto for getting around Warsaw [lovely street layout/design, thanks to the Russians, btw ]. Not fun by car.
We are truly blessed with the options we have in this country. But it's time to think about the future and the benefits of a more environmentally friendly way of getting around. Let's not continue to let big oil, auto manufacturers & airlines strangle this notion.
best,
Pedro
 

Bhagi Katbamna

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
870
Thank God these people aren't running our healthcare system---uh, wait they are running some of it and some Americans want them to run all of it.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
it's a necessary part of the infrastructure, and one of the costs and benefits of living in civilized society. Treating it as a potential profit center has been delusional from the word go. The police aren't there to turn a profit. Moving people around the country is important too.
The "it's essential therefore it should be run by government" argument doesn't impress me at all. How about Food? Clothing? Housing? Seems to me that eating, shelter, and clothes are "essential" too. I certainly don't want farms, housing, or clothing manufacturing to be State owned and operated.
 

Ben Menix

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 24, 1999
Messages
95
There was a time when passenger service was a very profitable function of rail transport. However, hauling freight was cheaper, and therefore more profitable. In addition, competion from automobiles and airlines essentially sealed the fate of rail passenger service.
However, I disagree that rail passenger service can even now only be run as a "public service." Many small rail companies have begun exploring the feasability of passenger service the last few years. I think it is only a matter of time before we see a private, profitable, passenger rail transport system or network.
Ben Menix
[email protected]
 

Michael*K

Screenwriter
Joined
May 24, 2001
Messages
1,806
If you want some amusing reading, follow the newspaper coverage of the airport debates here in Chicago. Expand O'Hare, build a new airport south in Peotone (near Gary, Indiana which already has an airport), bleah. Not a word about working on rail connections in the future(!)
Well, that's not entirely true. There are often plans discussed that would put Chicago at the center of a high-speed Midwestern rail network serving cities like Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, etc. One of the routes selected for the southern portion would run right behind my house. But funding is a problem, requiring upgrades to existing railbeds and the elimination of hundreds of grade crossings. I'd love to see the goverment come to the front and seed some financing dollars to get this thing started. But as Peter stated, rail plans here get buried among all the bickering over the planned expansion of O'Hare. :frowning:
 

Philip_G

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2000
Messages
5,030
Sheesh, it's a good thing that airline crews don't go "dead on the law" during the middle of trans-Pacific flights. Airliners carry extra crews onboard to avoid the kind of problems as described above.. is it that tough for Amtrak to do the same?
airline pilots are limited. If a flight puts them over their crew day they don't go on the flight, and call in another crew. Domestic flights don't carry a second crew. International do sometimes. Couldn't tell you when or which ones.
this has actually caused some large accidents, tenerife comes to mind. The captain was close on his duty day and got diverted to tenerife, he was anxious to get to the end of his day so he didn't break the law, and took off on a runway with another aircraft on it. Very large and very ugly accident.
fatigue is a serious concern, a pilot might get 8 hours from the end of one trip to his show time the next day, so they could be working another long day, 12 hours or more on 5-6 hours of sleep. It's been shown that fatigue seriously and negativity affects your risk assesment, people make risky choices that they normally wouldn't. Don't even get me started on microsleeps :)
[/look ma my edumacation actually taught me somethin]
 

Ben Menix

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 24, 1999
Messages
95
Realizing, of course, that this is currently a matter of opinion:
Due to several serious health problems my wife spent several years in extended medical care, including a large variety of hospitals, clinics, etc. *Without exception*, we had the attention of much more competant doctors and nurses, received better treatment as people, and generally received much better care, at the privately owned and operated institutes that we were occasionally in. The bill was the same one way or the other.
It would be pointless to go on. The U.S. government has proven it couldn't manage collecting shopping carts in the parking lot, let alone a rail system!
Privatization isn't perfect, and it won't solve everyone's problems. Plus, there are a lot of people in this country that just do not trust or like the private sector.
But at least if Amtrak were privately owned, it would have the *chance* of improving. The goverment has already given Amtrak management its best shot, and failed. The government has also proved over the last 10 years (the Clinton admin. AND the Bush admin.) that it has NO interest in putting any more money or time into Amtrak (not that it would do any good anyway).
That leaves two options: More of the same, or give it a chance to suceed. In my opinion, private sector will suceed where government has failed 9 times out of 10. Many of you will disagree, or at least argue that the cost of private sector advancement is too great or risky to truly validate the accomplishments. We'll have to disagree on that. But at least Amtrak would have a chance to be a sucessful passenger rail service.
Ben Menix
[email protected]
 

Mark Zimmer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
4,318
I respectfully disagree, Ben. The capital requirements to bring America's rail corridors up to snuff for high-speed rail (120+ mph) outside the Northeast corridor are enormous and no one in private industry is going to come up with that initial capital to support what was never a more than marginally profitable business to begin with. However, just because the market doesn't particularly want to do it doesn't mean it's not important. As pointed out above, rail is vital as an alternative if something shuts down the airlines (or they all head into bankruptcy, which is looking more and more likely) or our foreign oil supply gets shut off.

If you let the market dictate everything, you'd be euthanizing the retarded and the elderly because they cost more to keep than they produce. Economics is not real life.
 

Ben Menix

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 24, 1999
Messages
95
Profit is not made in the same way it once was, Mark. Look at game consoles, such as the PS2, XBox, GC, etc. The manufacturers take a loss on the RD, manufacture, and distribution of the consoles. Huge losses. Why do the sell them, then? Because the income from the games is *enormous*. My previous comment about selling Amtrak to Microsoft was only half in jest; I think Microsoft could turn a profit with Amtrak.
There is no way we will have less than two major airlines running in this country at any given time. There is a ton of money in airline travel; it's just not flashed in the public eye like it is in other industries. Why do you think the first thing every new billionaire does is start his own airline? Besides, the market is set up for at least two airlines. Nature abhors a vacuum.
Our foreign oil supply, in general, will not get shut off. Our OPEC supply *might*, but that is highly unlikely. Every OPEC nation is scared to death of what will happen if they seriously mess with oil supply. Everything they have been doing for the last few years is posturing and flirtation. In addition, oil companies are fast tracking oil production in the U.S. It will be a few years before we're ready, at the earliest; but in the meantime, we have arranged emergency supplies from Russia and several other former Soviet republics, the holders of the largest oil reserves in the world. I'm not worried about oil in the least. Yeah, the price might go up, but it will primarily be due to market jitters, not any real change in supply and demand. Of course, that depends on how soon something happens that has potential impact on the oil supply.
Economics IS real life, but it's not the ONLY thing there is to life. Besides, I don't now what it's like were you live, but the elderly in this neck of the woods produce a solid day's work just like the rest of us. And those that would rather stay at home and watch the weather channel are more than welcome to; after all, they spent the majority of their lives giving more than they got! And economically, that works for me.
Ben Menix
[email protected]
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
If you let the market dictate everything, you'd be euthanizing the retarded and the elderly because they cost more to keep than they produce.
This is a completely false ethical dichotomy you're setting up:

Market = accepts and condones murder
Government = always benign, never murders, always behaves ethically.

History shows us that such a claim is utterly ludicrous.
 

James Q Jenkins

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 24, 2000
Messages
167
It is a model of efficiency and excellence but not a model of universal coverage.
US health care? Excellent, perhaps (probably), but efficient? Every dollar spent on healthcare goes through about 10 different people's hands. Between the doctor and the patient there are is so much paperwork processing in insurance companies, company HR depts, etc. I wonder what percentage of every dollar spent on healthcare goes for "overhead" of insurance companies and other costs. Someone has to pay for all that paperwork. Not to mention the prices of perscription drugs, woo hoo! There's even more paperwork people with their hands out - pharmaceutical companies and more insurance - why is the drug insurance different than the health insurance anyway? And Optical and Dental? Why do I need 4 (minimum) policies for one person?
Though it's not that bad. Could be worse, at least the people actually performing in the practices are good. :)
Don't mean to "derail" the thread..... ha ha ha. :) man am I funny sometimes.
 

AjayM

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 22, 2000
Messages
1,224
Well US healthcare is still one of the best, and I would even say it's effecient, except for the money side. But when it comes down to it, if you really have a problem it will get fixed with a minimal amount of hassle...health wise. The whole money situation is just ridiculous though, thanks to the insurance industry.

But it's still a fairly good system, socialized medical sounds good on paper, but most people I've talked to (mostly Europeans) haven't had good things to say about it. Things like having your doctors choosen for you, no convienence built into those choices. My Mother when she was still living in Europe in the 70's had to drive over an hour just to visit the dentist. So a 30 minute dentist checkup would turn into half a day trip. I don't know if it's any better today than in the past.

Now as an outsider using their system there can be big benefits. My parents spent some of their retirement time in Europe and my father had to get a bit of dental work done while he was there. Some type of bridge, some caps or crowns, etc. Something that would have probably cost close to $10k over here in the states, yet over there it was just about $1k or so.

As to Amtrak, it just can't survive in this market. When the cost of a cross-country train ticket costs more than a plane ticket, what exactly is the benefit to train travel? You don't get any special kind of treatment on the train, you get crapy service and unreliable transportation. Look at the markets where train travel is succesful, like in Europe and Japan. To travel from say Italy to Germany by plane would be very expensive compared to train travel. And to travel by car wouldn't be bad, but it would cost a fortune in gas (remember gas over there is $4-5 gallon), and you have to deal with traffic by the cities, etc.

Andrew
 

James Q Jenkins

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 24, 2000
Messages
167
As to Amtrak, it just can't survive in this market. When the cost of a cross-country train ticket costs more than a plane ticket, what exactly is the benefit to train travel? You don't get any special kind of treatment on the train, you get crapy service and unreliable transportation. Look at the markets where train travel is succesful, like in Europe and Japan. To travel from say Italy to Germany by plane would be very expensive compared to train travel. And to travel by car wouldn't be bad, but it would cost a fortune in gas (remember gas over there is $4-5 gallon), and you have to deal with traffic by the cities, etc.
Yes! And this is why Amtrak is so profitable and successfull in the northeast corridor.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top