Guys, I found this article and was interested in everybody's reaction.
I'm not so sure I did the link part right.
Congress Should Link Amtrak's Generous Subsidy to Improved Performance
the direct link to the heritage foundation blather is
HERE.
mr. utt and the heritage foundation have been beating these drums for years now, using the same talking points. in certain sections of their arguments against continuing the national network trains (nee long-distance trains), they point to the per-passenger loss on the sunset and repeat the hackneyed quip that we should just 'buy everyone an airline ticket.' they issue papers/articles like this every time amtrak funding comes up, recycling them to such a degree that he hasn't even updated this twiddle to reflect that the much-maligned sunset no longer runs to orlando. the fundamental issue here is that mr. utt and his colleagues feel that subsidizing rail service anywhere makes little fiscal sense. and where it is profitable 'above the rail,' we should sell it to the private sector so that those profits go to individuals instead of the state.
the problem with all of this cogently argued nonsense is that the reason amtrak continues to receive subsidy and continues to run the national network is that voters tell their representatives they like the service. if the public likes it, and feels there is utility, then the argument should simply be where the value proposition to the public starts to break apart. the other problem with their propping up of the NEC and its glorified 'profits' is that it is no way shape or form profitable. it would be profitable if amtrak did not own and maintain the physical plant of the NEC or ever acquire new rolling stock/motive power. from a capital perspective, the NEC sucks money like no tomorrow. just look at the costs of bridge reconstruction and maintenance the long-distance trains lose money operationally, and the NEC loses money in maintaining and building infrastructure. but since the only apples-to-apples comparison between the two is on an operational basis, the national services always look terrible.
of course, what mr. utt and his ilk
really want is to dump the NEC on the states (so federal tax dollars aren't spent on it, shifting the funding liability elsewhere) and allowing private firms to run trains on rails that don't cost them too much. this way states pay, federal tax dollars are spent elsewhere, and the private sector gets to grab all those above-the-rail 'profits' for themselves. never mind we created amtrak to relieve the private sector of money-losing services. mr. utt wants the private sector to get to run profitable trains on state-subsidized rails and kill anything that can't make money elsewhere on an operational basis.
i've been listening to this chap go on and on like this for a decade now. if you want to have rail service in this country, you'll need public dollars. and if you want to use public dollars for rail, then everyone should have at least some marginal benefit. the assumption that transit is ever profitable or close to it is and always was unreasonable. if you want it, you'll need to pay for it. i, for one, don't care to have my tax dollars helping everyone between boston and washington enjoy frequent convenient service while back in austin our one 'money-losing' train goes bye-bye. i like our national trains, and i think most voters outside the NEC probably feel the same way.
every time amtrak funding rears its head on capitol hill, mr. utt will repeat this rubbish as loudly as he can. and congress will go ahead and ignore him as they have time and again for years. good.
-- eliyahu
waterbury, ct
B-29 Superfortress WWII bomber set to land in the Lehigh Valley
