Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-10-2011, 01:27 PM
 
Location: On the Rails in Northern NJ
12,380 posts, read 26,861,461 times
Reputation: 4581

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by brien51 View Post
Greg; What is AMTRAK? It loses billions per year and still takes taxpayer subsidies. The building of the right of way and the trackage can all be supplied by the government, but is should be leased out to private enterprise to run it since the government has already proved it can't do it successfully nor profitably in passenger service. I believe freight service is already profitable.
If Amtrak got fair funding like the Highways and Airliners do it wouldn't have an issue. Amtrak Northeast , & Cali lines are profitable....the long distance lines are not profitable....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2011, 01:32 PM
 
Location: NE CT
1,496 posts, read 3,386,817 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
If Amtrak got fair funding like the Highways and Airliners do it wouldn't have an issue. Amtrak Northeast , & Cali lines are profitable....the long distance lines are not profitable....

Why should the government run a passenger railroad? Where in the Constitution is the authority for the government to operate a passenger rail service?

Private industry can likley do it better and probably less expensive than the government. AMTRAK should not be taxpayer be funded at all. Let the riders who use the service pay for the service.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 01:34 PM
 
Location: NE CT
1,496 posts, read 3,386,817 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroTrashed View Post
Government should stay completely out of it... including right-of-way and trackage
But the right of way and trackage may be needed for national security so I have no problem with the government supplying these so long as private enteprise operates and maintains the system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,830,565 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by brien51 View Post
Where in the Constitution is the authority for the government to operate a passenger rail service?
Where in the constitution is the limit imposed on the government to refrain from such activities? Where in the constitution does it say that only private corporations should be responsible for all services?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 01:38 PM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,803 posts, read 8,752,210 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacific Swell View Post
Building high-speed trains will obviously create jobs. But they have potential to do even more. Say a high speed train gets built in rural Iowa. These folks would be able to commute to Chicago or St. Louis to work for a fraction of the time it would take to drive.

During previous recessions, people would pack up and move to cities with job growth. Now, due to the dismal housing market, people are less likely to move away.

These high-speed trains can change the way we think about commuting. They can let people in rural areas compete for jobs in the city.

U.S. unveils $53 billion in high-speed rail plan - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110208/pl_nm/us_usa_transport_rail - broken link)
Right....because the U.S. rail system has already proven to be such a financial bonanza--with an estimated loss of $32 per passenger......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 01:42 PM
 
Location: On the Rails in Northern NJ
12,380 posts, read 26,861,461 times
Reputation: 4581
Quote:
Originally Posted by brien51 View Post
Why should the government run a passenger railroad? Where in the Constitution is the authority for the government to operate a passenger rail service?

Private industry can likley do it better and probably less expensive than the government. AMTRAK should not be taxpayer be funded at all. Let the riders who use the service pay for the service.
The Govt should have never interfered with the private RR's and set up unfair competition...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 01:59 PM
 
Location: NE CT
1,496 posts, read 3,386,817 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
The Govt should have never interfered with the private RR's and set up unfair competition...

Hear here!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 02:04 PM
 
Location: NE CT
1,496 posts, read 3,386,817 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Where in the constitution is the limit imposed on the government to refrain from such activities? Where in the constitution does it say that only private corporations should be responsible for all services?
You make preposterous statements and lie about what I write and then move on to more BS. I don't know why I bother with your drivel.

You didn't answer my previous question. You just pose silly questions to deflect having to answer the ones I pose to you.

Try reading Article II section 8 if you can comprehend it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 02:19 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,830,565 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by brien51 View Post
You make preposterous statements and lie about what I write and then move on to more BS. I don't know why I bother with your drivel.

You didn't answer my previous question. You just pose silly questions to deflect having to answer the ones I pose to you.

Try reading Article II section 8 if you can comprehend it.
I assumed this was about the US Constitution. What does the constitution you had in mind speak in its Article II/Section 8?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Seattle Area
3,451 posts, read 7,057,103 times
Reputation: 3614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
Right....because the U.S. rail system has already proven to be such a financial bonanza--with an estimated loss of $32 per passenger......
There is a difference between the freight railroads which are doing okay considering the economy...and Amtrak.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:57 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top