Why try to kill Amtrak?

[SavetheCZ]

From time to time I like to try to to get differing points of view about different issues so I pose the question above.

I can't understand the thinking of people like Rep. Istook, Sen. McCain, President Bush and others regarding the desire to privatize/dismantle national passenger rail service. I have heard the arguments ad hominem that the "rail service is a money loser" or "we need to turn funding over to the states etc." and we should privatize passenger rail service" (which is humorous since that is how Amtrak came to be originally)

Could someone give me an idea that would explain the urgency to dismatle service? Can anyone say why the nation as a whole would be better off without passenger rail?

And finally can anyone, in all seriousness, tell me what will happen to any funds freed up from the discontinuation of Amtrak?

 

[musher]

I think it all comes down to adherance to the conservative principle that if it is worth doing, then people will pay for it, and it can exist in the private sector (with exceptions for national defense, roads and law enforcement, of course).

Sometimes defenders will fall into the trap of talking about how it is necessary to relieve congestion, etc.. Unless there is a significant change in infrastructure (rails, routes and schedules) and adoption (more passengers), then the congestion issue isn't really a factor. We have that going on here in Minnesota trying to get a commuter rail line going (the "relieves congenstion" argument).

What needs to be argued and supported is that rail is an important and necessary alternative to air and road travel, that it needs to be run efficiently, but that it is in the national interest to have it, and give it enough financial support that it can thrive and grow.

I don't think there is so much a desire to dismantle the service as there is a singular focus on spending to the exclusion of all else. That focus was set aside when 9/11 happened with regard to defense and security spending. The politicians just need to arrive at the understanding that supporting rail transportation is no different than what is done now for roads and air travel.

 

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

Our Government just has it in there head that all transportation has to make money.When in realty transportation around the world has never made a profit and never will.Transportation will always require a subsidy from the Government.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

And as to where the money for Amtrak would go, it would pay for two or three days' worth of his Iraq war.

 

[IceColdMintJulep]

If I remember, Trains magazine had an article about the Iraqi Railway. I did not read it, but it would be interesting to know how much money we put into their railroad. Another thought (brainstorming) cuting Amtrak makes it appear to the public that the republicans are trying to save tax payer dollars, when in fact they are wasting them left and right....I think they call that smoke and mirrors? Another thought is something we all know and that is that rail is efficient, which means Bush's oil buddies won't get that extra few bucks. If Amtrak were successful, it would shed a positive light on rail in general and help it cut into the wallets of big trucking, big oil, and big construction.

 

[panamaclipper]

And does everyone know how much money the passenger airline industry has made in this country since World War II. None. Zip. Not one thin dime. Everytime there is a boom period it is offset by a collapse and taken altogether over the last 60 years are so the bottom line is zero. Actually, it's a negative number because of all the federal loans, bailouts and support.

 

[lepearso]

Being a lifelong Republican myself, I usually have the inside track on the conservative sentiment. The excuse I constantly get for cutting Amtrak is that it's like another form of welfare - government simply doling out salaries. My response to my fellow conservative Republicans is: Would you rather the government subsidize jobs that add to our gross domestic product, or would you rather the government subsidize people to sit and do nothing? If Bush and the DC gang destroy Amtrak, they'll have to scrape up the money to pay an enormous amount of unemployment. They'll also have to come up with some strategy to help our GDP because Amtrak purchases millions of dollars worth of American-made products and pays tax on all of it. The government will have to find some way to help people in rural regions have transportation, and Greyhound is no longer an option in many areas. The government would have to report as a loss all of Amtrak's equipment and facilities, especially since there won't be an entity to take them over - at least not right away. Then, let us not forget about the hotels, restaurants, tourist attractions, and retail outlets from cost to coast that do business with Amtrak passengers in and near the stations. Conservatives understand the meaning of government providing the infrastructure for a healthy economy, but they [we] sometimes develop a mental block when it involves passenger rail. They [we] too often see Amtrak as a burden, though they don't realize that the word burden takes on a whole meaning if Amtrak is taken away.

Maybe, just maybe, Bush and the gang are worried that Amtrak growth will hurt the oil companies that depend on gas-guzzling SUV's. (Whoops....did I say that out loud?)

At the same time, I say don't worry too much about the latest mess from the White House. I am cautiously optimistic that Congress will see right through this nonsense.

 

[WICT106]

Well put, Lepearso. Too often the refrain many folks hear from certain sectors of society is that Amtrak is unique in operating at taxpayer expense. Certain individuals overlook the fact that all transportation is subsidized in one form or another, via one method or another. Singling out Amtrak assumes that we the U.S. taxpayers want nothing to do with passenger rail when quite the opposite is true. According to the Washington Post taken in July 2002, 71 % of those polled indicated that they supported continued or increased federal funding for Amtrak.

One also has to remember that highways don't pay for themselves - we the taxpayers pay for them. Wither it's via the Gas Tax ( and related Highway Trust Fund) or vehicle registration fees, the money has to come from somewhere. Increasingly, though, funding is coming from other sources such as the property tax and general funds. According to a study, "Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance," Money comes from bonding issues, investment income, other miscellaneous taxes & fees, and property taxes.

I'm tempted to state that Our Elected Representatives should put the proverbial money where the mouth is, and propose to privatize all transport in the U.S. Privatize every single last inch of Federal & Interstate highways. Want roads in your state? let the State pick up the full tab for the bill - or, for a joint stock corporation with some friends and build a private road yourself. Get rid of the Highway Trust fund & Gas tax. Same with the airports. privatize every last inch of the airports and the air t4raffic control system. If an airline wants to serve a certain city, then the airline has to buy part ownership of a nearby private airport - just like the private RRs did in certain situations back when they ran the passenger trains. Can't afford to buy part ownership in an airport? Don't have enough capital on hand? Then I guess you can't afford to serve that certain city.

Privatize everything - then wait and see how much it costs to drive. You can bet that the road and highway owners will be quick to charge whatever the market will bear in terms of tolls.

 

[Guest]

And as to where the money for Amtrak would go, it would pay for two or three days' worth of his Iraq war.

Or two or three days worth of war in Iran, which many believe is next on the "Disaster Monkey's" misguided agenda!! B)

 

[Guest]

Bush needs to realize that a lot of those Red states have populations that are dependent on the passenger rail system........as their only affordable means of transportation.

I have a call into someone who spent a good deal of time in Iraq, working on their railroad and will try to get a handle on the amount of money poured into that venture.

 

[RobertL]

One of the nasty underlying concepts the republicans are pushing with this spend spend spend mentality, is that once the money is gone then nothing, other than defense and corporate Americans favorite pork, will have any money.

This began with the tax cuts. They looked innocent enougn with a surplus and no war, but once the war hit deficits were automatic. The only reason to continue deficits AND tax cuts, is they want the well to run dry and then turn to Congress and say "See, no money so cut the life out of the services that the Government provides!"

Spend spend spend is a recipe to bankrupt the Government and all essential services to the American people.

It is Corporate Raiding 101 from that MBA Mr. Bush applied to Government.

 

[Guest]

Bush needs to realize that a lot of those Red states have populations that are dependent on the passenger rail system........as their only affordable means of transportation.

I would love to see the figures pertaining to this. How many people truly dependent upon Amtrak as their only source of affordable transportation? And, how do you define "affordable transportation"?

Personally, I'm getting a little tired of subsidizing a bunch of train buffs' hobby.

 

[musher]

The only reason to continue deficits AND tax cuts, is they want the well to run dry and then turn to Congress and say "See, no money so cut the life out of the services that the Government provides!"

Actually, tax cuts stimulate the economy, ultimately resulting in more total dollars collected in taxes.

I honestly don't see how a belligerent, combative approach to the argument will produce results. What is needed is a reasoned argument about how and why passenger rail transportation (and freight) is vital to the stability of the US and its economy.

Obviously, a good portion of the US economy is based on a lot of people traveling around a lot of the time (for business and pleasure). The best way to win the argument will be to effectively argue the importance of support and funding for passenger rail transportation, just like it it is for roads and bridges, airports and air traffic controllers (not to mention billion-dollar bail-outs of the airlines!).

 

[Guest]

This is perhaps the most level-headed post on this subject that I have seen.

 

[Guest]

Bush needs to realize that a lot of those Red states have populations that are dependent on the passenger rail system........as their only affordable means of transportation.

I would love to see the figures pertaining to this. How many people truly dependent upon Amtrak as their only source of affordable transportation? And, how do you define "affordable transportation"?

Personally, I'm getting a little tired of subsidizing a bunch of train buffs' hobby.

don't lose fact of one other tidbit here: Trains (both freight and passenger), BUILT this country. Passenger rail service is currently, and should always be, a vital link in our overall transportation system. B)

 

[Allen Dee]

Bush needs to realize that a lot of those Red states have populations that are dependent on the passenger rail system........as their only affordable means of transportation.

I would love to see the figures pertaining to this. How many people truly dependent upon Amtrak as their only source of affordable transportation? And, how do you define "affordable transportation"?

Personally, I'm getting a little tired of subsidizing a bunch of train buffs' hobby.

Guest,

In all of my train travels, I have never met another "train buff" riding on the same train. I was always the only one with the scanner, GPS, camera, and note pad to document the trip. All of the rest of the passengers were "normal" people traveling from one point to another.

It is absurd to state that Amtrak exists strictly for rail fans.

 

[battalion51]

Like Allen, I rarely run into other rail fans when I'm on the trains. There are ocassions when I'll plan to meet up with one of my buddies, but it isn't that often that another enthusiast is on board. Mostly people looking to get from point A to point B.

 

[Guest]

Guest,
In all of my train travels, I have never met another "train buff" riding on the same train.  I was always the only one with the scanner, GPS, camera, and note pad to document the trip.  All of the rest of the passengers were "normal" people traveling from one point to another.

It is absurd to state that Amtrak exists strictly for rail fans.

Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they weren't there. Not all rail fans have "Rail Fan" stamped on their foreheads or are geeks that haul around equipment like that so they can document every aspect of every mile of every trip they take.

I don't ride trains very often but when I do, I do it because I enjoy the experience of traveling by train. It's nostalgic. It's even historic. I certainly don't do it because it's the only way to efficiently get me from Point A to Point B. I consider myself a "rail fan" but I don't look at a train trip as some kind of project that must be micro-managed. I don't care what the consist is and I especially don't care what the car numbers are or what the paint scheme is. I have no idea how many miles I've traveled. Heresy, you say!

It may shock you but I think long-distance rail does have its place in the American transportation system. I'm not convinced however, that, even with a few billion more dollars, Amtrak is the best answer.

 

[AlanB]

It may shock you but I think long-distance rail does have its place in the American transportation system. I'm not convinced however, that, even with a few billion more dollars, Amtrak is the best answer.

Well then who do you suggest we get to run the trains? The freight companies don't want to. They already proved that when the gave them up 30 + years ago.

Private enterprise isn't going to do it either, since they can't make money. That's why the freight companies gave it up, they weren't making money. Additionally if the airlines can't turn a profit, with the billions of passengers that they handle, no one is going to be able to turn a profit moving the 25 million pax that Amtrak moves.

Amtrak's problem is that it's a political animal. For years, just like the politicians that squander money, Amtrak did so too at times. Now that they've finally got a president who knows how to run things, they don't want to give him the money to fix things properly.

But under no circumstance will Amtrak or any replacement ever be able to make a profit. No commuter rail system does. No subway does. And no passenger rail system in the world does.

Here's what I see as a disgrace, the tiny country of Estonia (the size of Rhode Island), spends more money on their national rail system than we do here in the US. Yet here in the wealthiest country in the world, our politicians sit and debate over a few hundred million dollars in funding for a system that is probably 20 to 30 times larger than Estonia's.

 

[Guest]

It may shock you but I think long-distance rail does have its place in the American transportation system.  I'm not convinced however, that, even with a few billion more dollars,  Amtrak is the best answer.

Well then who do you suggest we get to run the trains?

I don't know. Maybe if nobody wants to do it, though, it's time to let it go.

 

[Poindexter118]

I can't think of any transportation section of this country that could survive without Federal money. The highways would become worse than they are now, the airlines would fall out of the sky, and Amtrak would cease rolling.

We need to write or Email our Senators and Representatives to tell them how we feel.

I, for one, am mad about this!

:angry: