Passenger Trains > 29 years 2.23%

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-new-2.45-billion-question-at-amtrak/article/2600490

​Well it is a good rate, interest only first year about $54,635,000.  Probably a better chance for timely payment as opposed to Brightline chances for timely payment.

Only time will tell.

​Some of the stuff in the link has been posted earlier.

Not excactly from an unbiased publication...

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

And the "transfer payments" of $62 Billion dollars from general funds to the highway trust fund over the last few years- we don't talk about that, so distract with petty crap. 
Maybe new Acela will pay some of it or all of it - I don't care.

It is fascinating that even Amtrak's perennial critics mindlessly repeat the canard that the NEC is "profitable," or is the only business line that "makes money."

The debt chart was interesting. With this latest loan, Amtrak is entering George Warrington levels of debt, accompanied with similar happy talk about "glidepaths."

We all know how that turned out. As soon as David Gunn came on board to clean up the mess, Amtrak needed an immediate $100 million bridge loan from the DOT just to ward off insolvency. Then Amtrak begged and pleaded to have that loan forgiven. Didn't happen. They had to pay it back. (It's little like your rich uncle lending you $1,000 and then paying it back with a monthly allowance from the same uncle.) So, what happens when Amtrak owes the federal government $4 billion in principal and accrued interest and can't pay? We should see this for what it really is: a $2.45 billion advance on future subsidy outlays.

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And the "transfer payments" of $62 Billion dollars
> from general funds to the highway trust fund over
> the last few years- we don't talk about that, so
> distract with petty crap. 
> Maybe new Acela will pay some of it or all of it -
> I don't care.

You certainly don't care for context.

Annual miles traveled by intercity rail: 5.2 billion
By rail transit: 21 trillion

Annual miles traveled by cars, SUV's,and personal trucks: 3.742 trillion
By bus: 145 billion

So highways miles are 148 times as much as rail, and that doesn't include freight transport.  There's very valid reasons why highways do and should receive much more funds than rail.  Triple rail ridership and you would still have roads transporting people 50 times as many miles.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_40.html

But keep on angrily barking at all the cars passing by.

And, don't forget, Amtrak has the same (slightly less) share of the transportation system as those who ride motorcycles.

 

< You certainly don't care for context. Annual miles traveled by intercity rail: 5.2 billion. But keep on angrily barking at all the cars passing by.>

I care about money. Amtrak is chump change.
There is no justification for the $62 Billion transfer payment other than while you are a self acclaimed conservatives, but really a flaming liberal when it comes to your own wallet and consumption, refusing a gas tax hike since the early 1990's.

Enjoy your socialism. 
 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/16 14:46 by joemvcnj.

The timing of this is disturbing to me, because now Moorman's financial position
with Congress will be greatly diminished, vis a vis, asking more money for
new engines and Superliner cars for LD trains.  In other words, we just loaned you
2 1/2 billion, now you want more?  Plus, he will have to ask for more operating dollars
to cover the interest payments.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> < You certainly don't care for context. Annual
> miles traveled by intercity rail: 5.2 billion. But
> keep on angrily barking at all the cars passing
> by.>
>
> I care about money. Amtrak is chump change.
> There is no justification for the $62 Billion
> transfer payment other than while you are a self
> acclaimed conservatives, but really a flaming
> liberal when it comes to your own wallet and
> consumption, refusing a gas tax hike since the
> early 1990's.
>
> Enjoy your socialism. 
>  

the interstates and highways ALLOW employees to get to work and businesses to move their goods/services so they can ALL earn MONEY and subsequently benefit the economy.  that doesn't sound like socialism to me......... 

gas tax hikes would increase the costs for goods/services and increase costs for people to get to work.  not good for the economy ........

66

 

< the interstates and highways ALLOW employees to get to work and businesses to move their goods/services so they can ALL earn MONEY and subsequently benefit the economy.  that doesn't sound like socialism to me......... 

gas tax hikes would increase the costs for goods/services and increase costs for people to get to work.  not good for the economy .....>

Sorry, you cannot justify it.
Trains, planes, and buses ALSO "ALLOW employees to get to work and businesses to move their goods/services so they can ALL earn MONEY and subsequently benefit the economy."

Socialism is requesting general funds,  rather than a user fee, for one's consumption when they are unable or too cheap to pay themselves.
A gas tax is a user fee, no different than a train, bus, or plane fare, or for that matter  -tolls.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/16 15:39 by joemvcnj.

i justified it and u can't accept it.......

66

< i justified it and u can't accept it.......>

You did nothing. All you did was say highway travelers as a class are more important than everyone else.


 

It's interesting to see long term trends ebb and surge, and how that affects where people choose to live. And where firms decide to set up shop.

In the 1950s, the interstates made long haul commuting by car possible, with 25 cent gasoline and "free highways". Shopping malls, housing developments and office parks sprouted at every interchange. By the 1970s, lines for gasoline and horrific $3 a gallon prices torpedoed many remote housing developments.

Now, millenials are choosing to live in the cities and close in suburbs, shouldering aside the current residents. With little need for interstate highways to commute, or comuter rail...

The Millennials are moving right back into the very places and dwellings that the "Greatest Generation" couldn't wait to get out of in the 1950's and 1960's. Just look at the NYCTA "L" train areas in Brooklyn. It moves half of Wyoming's population in ridership numbers everyday.
http://web.mta.info/sandy/rebuildingCanarsieTunnel.html

Here is the quote about Amtrak from the article.

"Since its creation in 1971, Amtrak has never made a profit and has survived through rocky periods when its continued existence relied on billions of dollars each year in congressional appropriations to keep it afloat."

Lets rephrase this quote to fit State and Federal Highway Trust Funds.

"Since 1916 at the State and 1956 at the Federal level, Highway Trust Funds have never made a profit, surviving by having all the public costs of accidents covered by off the book general funds while also relying on taxing the use of largely pre-existing city and county roads paid for by general funds.

It had used this leveraged money to build expensive highways to keep politicians afloat on pork, before finally requiring direct congressional transfers from future tax revenues deemed pension smoothing to skirt spending caps. Its supporters typically quote mileage numbers that have nothing to do with the Federal program spending levels as most road funding is from local taxes. It is argued that the well financed trucking lobby guards this arrangement and passenger rail is just a civilian casualty of this war.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/16 18:15 by District.

johnpage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, don't forget, Amtrak has the same (slightly
> less) share of the transportation system as those
> who ride motorcycles.
>
>  

but...in its defense, Amtrak makes far less noise on a given Sunday afternoon.
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/16 02:58 by Narr8rdanny.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Millennials are moving right back into the
> very places and dwellings that the "Greatest
> Generation" couldn't wait to get out of in the
> 1950's and 1960's. Just look at the NYCTA "L"
> train areas in Brooklyn. It moves half of
> Wyoming's population in ridership numbers
> everyday.
> http://web.mta.info/sandy/rebuildingCanarsieTunnel
> .html

Today's younger population is merely moving where the "factories" of today are locating. That's the office cubicle in the big city. Cities are far cleaner places than they were in the 50's and 60's and developers have taken advantage of that just as they did the farmlands they turned into suburbs of previous decades.  As they age, not all but many of these hipsters in their skinny suits and yoga pants will tire of the urban life and migrate to the the hinterlands. Just like every generation before them.

They may move out the suburbs, but out to exurbia and hinterlands -  I don't think so. They will be accustomed to some signs of life, culture, and public transportation.

I hate the way New Jersey is run, its corruption, and its property taxes, but I would go batty in places like Upstate NY or Delaware, and I don't want to be car-dependent when I get to my 70's, and want more options than the once-a-day white van that comes by the senior community at 10am for the strip mall and back after early-bird dinner at 3pm.

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/16 04:04 by joemvcnj.

and how many big cities are experiencing crime rate increases? 

66

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and how many big cities are experiencing crime
> rate increases? 
>
> 66

Good point. Some large cities have seen decades long drops in violent crime.

If you go past the breathless headlines, most precincts in Chicago NY Baltimore continue to see progress.

What is happening is a concentration of crime, with a few blocks seeing double
Digit increases

In Paterson NJ, residents have seen 51 shootings. Ohly one was police related. No Al Sharpton no marches just a lot of dead young men. Of the 51, all happened on just a few blocks. The rest of the city is decent people going to work, washing their cars,etc

Posted from Android