Stinky fails math

[sharkhawk]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026668120

Stinky The Clown (52,937 posts)

In the NE Corridor, 750K a DAY use AMTRAK. If we let it starve, all those people . . . . .

. . . . . will be in cars or on planes. Supporting that extra load on highways and airports will require . . . . wait for it . . . . M.O.N.E.Y.

Rail is the cheapest way to move a lot of people. for short to moderate trips.

In England, they spend many billions more on an otherwise not profitable rail system because it SAVES MONEY and is better for the environment. China spends over $125B on their rail system.

Last year the Republicans allowed AMTRAK to get a meager $1.1B.

Way ta go, Guys!!!! Yay Tax Cuts.

Mother****ers.

Per Amtraks own numbers, a record 30,900,000 riders rode Amtrak in 2014.  Even if you only include 250 weekdays, that averages out to about 125,000 riders per day nationwide.

[thundley4]

The heaviest traveled route is between NYC and DC. Those riders are paying less than half of the actual cost of the trip, and guess what, they aren't poor blue collar workers.

[franksolich]

The problem here is that the sparkling old dude thinks everybody else should use the train; he of course is going to continue driving his own car.

[Carl]

Rail is the cheapest way to move a lot of people. for short to moderate trips.

In England, they spend many billions more on an otherwise not profitable rail system because it SAVES MONEY

This could only make sense to a lunatic DUmbfuk.

[GOBUCKS]

Stinky The Clown (52,937 posts)

In the NE Corridor, 750K a DAY use AMTRAK. If we let it starve, all those people . . .

Per Amtrak.com:

With ridership of 11.6 million, the Northeast Corridor (NEC) had its highest ridership
year ever in FY 2014, up 3.3 percent from the prior year.

At 365 days per year, that's 31,780 people per day, slightly short of Mike's 750,000.

In a huge, rich country like America, mass transit by rail makes sense only in a few congested blue urban hellholes like Chicago and New York.

In the civilized parts of the country people neither need it nor want it.

[obumazombie]

This could only make sense to a lunatic DUmbfuk.

That logic escapes me.
Just like the lib today on Megan Kelly who is demanding (as a result of the derailment) more money for infrastructure.
His claim was that for every dollar spent on infrastructure(aka shovel ready jobs) the economy gets 3 dollars worth of return.
Let's put our whole GDP into infrastructure. We could pay off our national debt in about 6 years.

[Big Dog]

That logic escapes me.
Just like the lib today on Megan Kelly who is demanding (as a result of the derailment) more money for infrastructure.
His claim was that for every dollar spent on infrastructure(aka shovel ready jobs) the economy gets 3 dollars worth of return.
Let's put our whole GDP into infrastructure. We could pay off our national debt in about 6 years.

That's like an economic perpetual motion machine!

[BlueStateSaint]

I think it was Glenn Beck's show that said something to the effect that the Northeast Corridor routes are big moneymakers for Amtrak, to the tune of $300 million.  It's the other routes outside said Northeast Corridor that bleed Amtrak red.  That wouldn't be surprising to me.

[DumbAss Tanker]

This could only make sense to a lunatic DUmbfuk.

No, it's not really as stupid as it sounds, he is saying that alternative means would require much more expense in highway infrastructure, as well as the additional expenses to expand traffic throughput on already-packed English motorways, inevitably requiring additional real estate for the expansion to handle traffic.

As far as the economics of rail goes, there are really more like 240 full-traffic workdays a year.  Both the the white and blue collar workers use the network of Amtrak and regional transit rail in the NE corridor, it's not all one or the other.  Pretty sure Stinky is full of crap on the ridership, though, I think the number he quoted as 'Daily' is given elsewhere as 'Monthly.'  Everywhere else it loses money, but even there, outside the actual cities, almost all of it runs on rails that are paid for by freight operations and the passenger runs just pay for rights-of-way on existing systems.  A billion dollars a year is actually a pretty modest amount to keep a minimal system alive for strategic infrastructure purposes, compared to some of the other crap we spend money on.  Money aside, though, it really is a strategic issue to have a back-up system for unforeseen events like Bush's No-Fly order, and with the near-total death of long-distance bus lines, rail is about the only available fall-back.

[Happy Fun Ball]

Because tax cuts caused that train to go more than twice the speed it should have around that turn, right?

[SVPete]

Are rail systems less expensive to build than highways?

Are rail systems less expensive to maintain and operate than highways are to maintain?

While rail freight may be more efficient at getting huge loads to and from major depots, trucks and highways are still necessary to get freight to individual cities and locations.

"Mass transit" passenger fares in Silicon Valley pay ~10% of actual costs of a ride. This is an ongoing taxpayer subsidy, not a one-time taxpayer expenditure!

Gas tax $$ supposedly for highway maintenance and building is routinely diverted (= stolen from car drivers!) to "mass transit". Consequently, highways are poorly maintained and not expanded.

[Carl]

No, it's not really as stupid as it sounds, he is saying that alternative means would require much more expense in highway infrastructure, as well as the additional expenses to expand traffic throughput on already-packed English motorways, inevitably requiring additional real estate for the expansion to handle traffic.

As far as the economics of rail goes, there are really more like 240 full-traffic workdays a year.  Both the the white and blue collar workers use the network of Amtrak and regional transit rail in the NE corridor, it's not all one or the other.  Pretty sure Stinky is full of crap on the ridership, though, I think the number he quoted as 'Daily' is given elsewhere as 'Monthly.'  Everywhere else it loses money, but even there, outside the actual cities, almost all of it runs on rails that are paid for by freight operations and the passenger runs just pay for rights-of-way on existing systems.  A billion dollars a year is actually a pretty modest amount to keep a minimal system alive for strategic infrastructure purposes, compared to some of the other crap we spend money on.  Money aside, though, it really is a strategic issue to have a back-up system for unforeseen events like Bush's No-Fly order, and with the near-total death of long-distance bus lines, rail is about the only available fall-back.

I get the idea of what he was saying but to me sounded more like the old leftist canard of "we have to spend today because if we don`t it will cost so much more later" with the only reasoning being that they say so.

I have no inherent problem with rail for its practical uses and as you say a strategical fall back.
The left seems to view it as the equivalent of a moving sidewalk that runs past their front door and will take them virtually non stop to any destination they desire free of charge.
I know that is an exaggeration but not by a lot,it is another freebie they want someone else to pay for so as to allow them to use their own cash for frills.

[JohnnyReb]

A 100 years ago, a train ran through my little community twice a day. There was a side track for farming stuff coming in and going out plus a little booth by the track where passengers could catch a ride into town and/or connect for longer trips. They tell me they took the passenger car off in the 20's, tore down the booth in the 40's and took out the side track in the 80's....and what was a 50+ odd mile of track has been taken up and now serves the ADM plant down the road. What was 50+ miles is now 12 miles and the train runs when needed.....2 or 3 times a week during peak season.

Yes, I need high speed rail running by my house NOW.....so I can wave at the engineer as he goes by just like I did in my childhood.

[txradioguy]

Stinky The Clown (52,937 posts)

In the NE Corridor, 750K a DAY use AMTRAK. If we let it starve, all those people . . . . .

. . . . . will be in cars or on planes. Supporting that extra load on highways and airports will require . . . . wait for it . . . . M.O.N.E.Y.

Rail is the cheapest way to move a lot of people. for short to moderate trips.

In England, they spend many billions more on an otherwise not profitable rail system because it SAVES MONEY and is better for the environment. China spends over $125B on their rail system.

Last year the Republicans allowed AMTRAK to get a meager $1.1B.

Way ta go, Guys!!!! Yay Tax Cuts.

Mother****ers.

Out of the $800 billion stimulus package that was passed in early 2009 for "infrastructure improvements" and "shovel ready" jobs...only $9 billion was actually put to that use.



Stimulus package passed by Dem controlled House and Senate that could have fixed this....used for other purposes.

DUmbass.

[CC27]

Amtrak has never name a profit. EVER. It should be out of business but government props it up.

[GOBUCKS]

Passenger trains are good if you're part of that steaming, squirming mass of left-wing humanity in the "Northeast Corridor".

Passenger trains are good if you work in the center of downtown Chicago and live in a civilized suburb twenty-five or thirty miles away.

Otherwise, trains are a useless, bottomless money pit.

[thundley4]

A 100 years ago, a train ran through my little community twice a day. There was a side track for farming stuff coming in and going out plus a little booth by the track where passengers could catch a ride into town and/or connect for longer trips. They tell me they took the passenger car off in the 20's, tore down the booth in the 40's and took out the side track in the 80's....and what was a 50+ odd mile of track has been taken up and now serves the ADM plant down the road. What was 50+ miles is now 12 miles and the train runs when needed.....2 or 3 times a week during peak season.

Yes, I need high speed rail running by my house NOW.....so I can wave at the engineer as he goes by just like I did in my childhood.

90% of the rail cars I see say ADM or the name of one of their subsidiaries on them.

[thundley4]

Passenger trains are good if you're part of that steaming, squirming mass of left-wing humanity in the "Northeast Corridor".

Passenger trains are good if you work in the center of downtown Chicago and live in a civilized suburb twenty-five or thirty miles away.

Otherwise, trains are a useless, bottomless money pit.

I think Amtrak's sight seeing trains turn a profit. At least they should at the prices they charge.

[JohnnyReb]

Small trucking company in N.C. used to guarantee delivery anywhere on the west coast in 54 hours....and coming back to east coast. Can rail make the same guarantee?

[jukin]

Rail is great for freight. Passenger service, not so much.

Again, AMTRAK sells a $4 hamburger for $16 and loses $8 on each hamburger sold. Extrapolate that to non subsidized cost of passenger tickets. Rail would be three times more than an airplane.

[I_B_Perky]

I get the idea of what he was saying but to me sounded more like the old leftist canard of "we have to spend today because if we don`t it will cost so much more later" with the only reasoning being that they say so.

And the same dummies will scream if we decide to drill for oil today so oil will be less expensive later or it will only produce x amount.

[tuolumnejim]

This could only make sense to a lunatic DUmbfuk.

I'll just use this example. 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHFEcyUNBjg[/youtube]

[98ZJUSMC]

In the civilized parts of the country people neither need it nor want it.

Only if forced to travel to a blue hell hole.  Once gas went over $2.00/gl, it's cheaper to take AmWreck from Carbondale to Chicago, than drive anything that gets less than 25 MPG...... 

.....as long as you have people that will pick you up at Union Station.

I have gone one-way, for a little as $18.00 (364 Miles driving, give or take a block or two).

[98ZJUSMC]

I'll just use this example. 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHFEcyUNBjg[/youtube]

Only in BizzaroWorld.   

What a doorknob.....

[SVPete]

Only if forced to travel to a blue hell hole.  Once gas went over $2.00/gl, it's cheaper to take AmWreck from Carbondale to Chicago, than drive anything that gets less than 25 MPG...... 

.....as long as you have people that will pick you up at Union Station.

I have gone one-way, for a little as $18.00 (364 Miles driving, give or take a block or two).

Pretty much the only times I use mass transit are when I need to go to SF (six times since 1999) or to downtown San Jose. Unless validated by some store or event, SF parking for several hours is $35-$40; driving and finding parking in SF is stressful enough that I take BART and walk a couple of miles to and from the BART station when I get to SF. Parking in SJ is less expensive, but I only go there for largish event, which makes getting there and finding parking stressful. So I take Light Rail to downtown and walk a half mile or so (usually to a 10K run/walk event).