Can Amtrak survive three more years of Bush?

[DeclinetoState]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002678361_peirce12.html

The United States needs strong regional passenger-rail systems, linked across the country to provide alternatives to highway grids already choked by autos and fast-growing fleets of freight trucks.

It should be a matter of simple common sense, patriotism and high priority.
But the Bush administration, never stingy with favors and subsidies to private corporate interests, can't bear the fact that Amtrak, the only national rail system we have, has been receiving more than $1 billion a year in subsidies for capital and operations.

Last winter, Bush recommended zero-budgeting for Amtrak. Then, last month, he had his hand-picked board fire David Gunn, Amtrak's highly respected president. The move prompted consternation to fury in Amtrak's remarkably broad, bipartisan congressional support group. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., put it most colorfully: "Amtrak is now being run by a board made up of members who have virtually no experience in passenger rail. ... Mr. Gunn was fired because he would not agree with 'FEMA-tizing' Amtrak."

Hired in 2002 before Bush appointees took control of the Amtrak board, Gunn was picked to give Amtrak a tough, hands-on rail executive with skills to correct the long, slow slide in performance and credibility that Amtrak, for many reasons, was enduring.

By all accounts, he lived up to expectations — trimming waste, adding equipment, shoring up service. Amtrak broke ridership levels for three straight years (most recently to 25.3 million passengers). It was the kind of tough turnaround mastery he'd previously shown in restoring New York City's graffiti-ridden subway system, close to collapse in the 1980s when he took it over.
A lot of debatable premises here, IMHO.

[Rink]

So are the proponents of expanding Amtrack wanting a more Socialized bloated, bureaucratized amtrack?

[Kathy29]

Traffic congestion could be reduced, like all other congestion if we rounded up the 35 million illegals here and deported them.

[Wyatt_Junker]

I heard this same shit 8 years ago. Funny thing is they didn't couch their angle the same way, 'Can Amtrak survive 3 more years of Clinton?' Its been on the verge of shutting down for over 20 years now.

[DesertFox]

Give Amtrak the entire US budget for the next year. Outlaw all private vehicles. Everybody get down to the train station.

Luss go, quit draggin'-ass.

[Wyatt_Junker]

:grin:

[DeclinetoState]

Too many Congresscritters want a choo-choo in their state or district to let Amtrak wither away.

[DoctorDoom]

The era of cross-country passenger rail service is over. With cars, buses and air travel providing faster, more flexible options, riding the train is passe.

Fact: if people wanted to travel long distances by rail, it would be a self-supporting service. The fact that it survives only by taxpayer support is evidence that it is an idea whose time has gone.

Granted, trains are viable in urban areas and intercity corridors, where commuting any other way is a huge hassle. And they tend to be at least moderately profitable there. However, in the words of Norman Mineta (http://www.dot.gov/affairs/minetasp02142005.htm), "... Amtrak cannot spend money on new, innovative services that people want, because it is spending so much money running trains that nobody rides between cities that nobody wants to travel between."

Federal subsidies account for $1.2 billion of Amtrak's overall budget of $3 billion this fiscal year. Without it, the company -- already saddled with $3.8 billion in debt -- would be forced into bankruptcy, leaving courts to decide how to restructure it.

"We cannot save intercity passenger rail service by burying our heads in the sand and simply shoveling more money into a system that cannot help but fail," said Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta after a tour through train stations in North Carolina earlier this week.Riding the rails (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/25/BUGJUBGM861.DTL&type=business)

The romance and nostalgia of sitting in a compartment listening to the click-click-click of the wheels and watching the countryside scroll by cannot make up for the reality of life in the 21st century: cross-country travel has made rail passenger service obsolete. Arlo Guthrie's "City of New Orleans" aside, the fascination with railroads is fading away. And taxpayers supporting moving a hundred tons of machinery a thousand miles to bring a few dozen people from point A to point B is unjustfiable.

Cross-country freight service is ideal for railroads. Cross-country people service is not. Let Amtrak fail. Its time is past.

[Eagle1]

no business should be government subsidized.
its that simple.

i like amtrack, i will take a train next time i go home, its $400 cheaper than a plane ticket. but if they cant survive on thier own, they dont deserve to be in business

[cerberus]

One of the major problems is that Amtrak has competing mandates from Congress that are mutually exclusive; it must be profitable and self-sufficient AND must continue to service all of its routes. It can't DO both. The intercity routes (west coast and Boston-DC) are profitable BUT the long-distance (generally East-West) routes are not.
Amtrak would like to shut down the loser routes and use the money for capital improvements like high-speed rail service on its good routes, but Congress won't let it, THEN those same Congressmen bitch about Amtrak being a money hole!

The second overlooked fact here is that railroad service WOULD be competitive, even on longer routes, if it received the same types of subsidies that other industries got. Amtrak is responsible for maintaining and updating, from its own budget, it stations, trains and miles of track, but the FedGov gives billions into the national Aviation system and major US hubs and doesn't charge Delta, American, United a dime. They have an unfair advantage. We also pour billions into the Federal Highway system that people generally drive on free. If THAT worked on a private system like some people call on Amtrak to be, Rail would look a LOT more attractive.
For the most part its not Amtrak's "fault" per se. Its the choices of the Government to fund less efficient, but more popular highways and air transport and to deliberatly underfund passenger rail for decades.

[cerberus]

no business should be government subsidized.
its that simple.

i like amtrack, i will take a train next time i go home, its $400 cheaper than a plane ticket. but if they cant survive on thier own, they dont deserve to be in business

Fair enough, but are you willing to pay the FULL cost reflected in driving or flying next time, sans gov't subsidized help?

[Eagle1]

Fair enough, but are you willing to pay the FULL cost reflected in driving or flying next time, sans gov't subsidized help?

any market in which a government subsidizes business does badly in the long run.
just look at the old rail industry, the only one that didnt go bankrupt was the only one that wasnt government subsidized

[DoctorDoom]

Taking government money comes with the understanding that government dictates how to spend it. And government has shown by long experience that its ways are usually the most inefficient and the most wasteful.

Remove the subsidies. Those that it doesn't kill will be made stronger.

[The_Sonarman]

I agree that if Amtrak can't survive on it's own, it should be allowed to fail. The government subsidy keeping Amtrak breathing isn't fair to other industries such as the airlines, or buslines.

---------------
Hang 'em. Bar's open. - Judge Roy Bean

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

Yeah! No more Amtrack!

Why should I be forced to pay my money against my will for some gov't run, money-wasting boondoggle that I will never use in my life.

[Naturalized-Texan]

If Amtrak, or any other business, including mass transit, can't make it on its own without taxpayer money, that business should be allowed to die.

[UnkHiram]

Unlike some of the folks around here I have no opionon one way or the other on Amtrak. I have never ridden it, probably never will. I do have an opionon on my TAX DOLLARS going to support it, I am totally opposed to that. If that means Amtrak joins the horse and buggy industry, so be it.

[dPrasse]

"Amtrak is now being run by a board made up of members who have virtually no experience in passenger rail. ...

Once again , a Dem is not in touch .... Bush has only appointed 2 of the 7 board members ... and , David Gunn was a W appointee to AMTRAK ...

most of the AMTAL train I have seen have good "population" ... the over-head is the prob , just like all other govt agencies ...

[The_Sonarman]

If Boston and New York want a rail system between them, I fail to see the reason taxpayers nationwide need to subsidize it.

As long as Amtrak gets a billion USD+ (ie. "real money") thrown at them every year from Uncle Sugar, there isn't going to be any real incentive for Amtrak to attempt to become profitable and self sustaining.

Then again, a billion USD is a flea in a whirlwind when it comes to Gubmint blowing 2 trillion USD + per year.

[dPrasse]

Then again, a billion USD is a flea in a whirlwind when it comes to Gubmint blowing 2 trillion USD + per year.

Very good point !

At least AMTRAK is gubermint pork that could turn a profit if run properly ... unlike bridges in Alaska to no where and piles of other gubermint pork ....

[dPrasse]

Sponsor "AMTRAK Mooning " Parties !!

Amtrak Passengers The Amtrak trains will be filled to capacity with passengers to see the "moon show" between the stations of "Irvine" to the North and "San Juan Capistrano" to the South.

27th Annual Mooning of Amtrak
All Day Saturday, July 8, 2006, Laguna Niguel, (Orange County) California, U.S.A.

http://www.moonamtrak.org/

Saturday, July 9, 2005 was the big day. More people than were exected flocked to Mugs Away Saloon in Laguna Niguel to see the action and what all the talk is about. About twenty thousand people were Mooning all day.

[DeclinetoState]

I wonder if Bill Clinton was on any of the trains.

[Lazarus]

...Fact: if people wanted to travel long distances by rail, it would be a self-supporting service. The fact that it survives only by taxpayer support is evidence that it is an idea whose time has gone...This is the key point in the debate... Rail travel died out because there is NO DEMAND for it... Amtrac is a dinosaur being propped up by the shear fact that it is a federal bureaucracy...

If there became a real demand for passenger service then the major railroads would provide it - Just as they did in the past...

These people who are activists for forced mass transit are nothing less than enviro-nazis bent on taking away our right to own and operate internal combustion engines... They are the same people who want to force us all to move back into the urban areas and live in highrise government approved domiciles...

In short, these are your basic Communists - they will use any and all excuses to take our freedoms away and put us in cages... A free man is a dangerous man and must be controlled and regulated for the good of this ehtereal entity known as the state...

[DeclinetoState]

It's interesting to juxtapose Lazarus' comment with Rosa Parks' recent passing. In Montgomery, Alabama, it was the bus boycott that helped to end segregation on the buses there. The boycott succeeded in large part because of blacks who had cars. The automobile played a major role in bringing about social justice when mass transit was used as a tool to further government policies promoting social injustice.

The car gives man freedom. It does the same thing as the gun (in some ways). No wonder the libs want to take it away.

[star2589]

quite honestly, i dont understand why more people dont travel by train. it costs the same as traveling by bus now.

[DeclinetoState]

A lot of bus services are being cut back, especially in rural America. A lot of communities that used to be served by either Greyhound or Trailways are now without any intercity public transportation, or with service that is very inconvenient for most travelers.

[UnkHiram]

quite honestly, i dont understand why more people dont travel by train. it costs the same as traveling by bus now.

It is slower than driving yourself, It is slower than going by air. It is NOT significantly cheaper than driving yourself, It is NOT significantly cheaper than flying. Riding the rails is a nice way to get across the country if you have a week to kill but not if you are cost conscience or in a hurry.

[cerberus]

Taking government money comes with the understanding that government dictates how to spend it. And government has shown by long experience that its ways are usually the most inefficient and the most wasteful.

Remove the subsidies. Those that it doesn't kill will be made stronger.
Fine. Can we get rid of highway subsidies too then and make the highway system private? Can the government get out of the air traffic system and privatize that? Then we'd have a level playing field and we could really see who comes out on top.

[cerberus]

Yeah! No more Amtrack!

Why should I be forced to pay my money against my will for some gov't run, money-wasting boondoggle that I will never use in my life.

Why should taxpayers be forced to pay money to keep up highways they across the country they may never use or to subsidize the airline system millions may not use?

[cerberus]

If Boston and New York want a rail system between them, I fail to see the reason taxpayers nationwide need to subsidize it.

As long as Amtrak gets a billion USD+ (ie. "real money") thrown at them every year from Uncle Sugar, there isn't going to be any real incentive for Amtrak to attempt to become profitable and self sustaining.

Then again, a billion USD is a flea in a whirlwind when it comes to Gubmint blowing 2 trillion USD + per year.

Take a look at the massive pork-bloat that was the Transportation Bill Congress passed and GW signed and see what percentage went to Amtrak. It's about 2 or 3 "bridges to nowhere".

[The_Sonarman]

Take a look at the massive pork-bloat that was the Transportation Bill Congress passed and GW signed and see what percentage went to Amtrak. It's about 2 or 3 "bridges to nowhere".
No argument from me. I was being sarcastic about a "mere" billion USD being blown on Amtrak in the midst of a 2 trillion USD plus budget.

Why should taxpayers be forced to pay money to keep up highways they across the country they may never use or to subsidize the airline system millions may not use?
As to your privatized road comments and subsidizing the airlines, I completely agree. If the roads were privatized, they would be better cared for and not under government control. Those people who didn't use the roads or the airlines wouldn't be paying one cent towards either.

[dPrasse]

As to your privatized road comments and subsidizing the airlines, I completely agree. If the roads were privatized, they would be better cared for and not under government control. Those people who didn't use the roads or the airlines wouldn't be paying one cent towards either.

The privatized road part would never work ....
"everybody" uses the road networks in this country ...

[The_Sonarman]

The privatized road part would never work ....
"everybody" uses the road networks in this country ...
Perhaps, but these are the kinds of things upon which 2 trillion USD are expended per year by the Federal Government.

[DeclinetoState]

REMARKS FOR
THE HONORABLE NORMAN Y. MINETA
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

AMTRAK BUDGET AND CALL TO ACTION ON REFORM
NEWS CONFERENCE
CHICAGO, IL

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2005
10:30 AM
A week ago today, the President and I unveiled a budget for the next fiscal year that eliminates subsidies for Amtrak. We did so as a wake-up call for the need for reform.

Some people have portrayed this as an attempt to kill Amtrak.

I’ve got news for you. If I wanted to kill Amtrak, I wouldn’t have to lift a finger. The system as it stands now is dying and everyone knows it.

But passenger rail is too important, in too many parts of the country – including here in Chicago – to just stand by and watch a major mode of transportation strangle under a funding system that is fundamentally irrational.

Across the country, states and local governments are planning impressive passenger rail investments. There are projects that are ambitious, exciting, and show a real commitment, and a real need, for passenger rail in those areas.

And what will the federal government do to help those projects under the current system? Not really much of anything.

This is because our passenger rail money goes to Amtrak.

And Amtrak cannot spend money on new, innovative services that people want, because it is spending so much money running trains that nobody rides between cities that nobody wants to travel between.

On some Amtrak routes, the company could actually save money by not running the train and buying the riders an airplane ticket instead.

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/minetasp02142005.htm

[DesertFox]

Luss hope not.

[DeclinetoState]

By Edward Wytkind
Originally published December 15, 2005

Here we go again. President Bush puts highly unqualified political supporters in charge of a vital public service, and Americans pay the price.

But this time it isn't the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It's our national passenger railroad - Amtrak.

Amtrak's directors, appointed by the Bush administration based on cronyism, not competence, are shirking their responsibilities and dismantling - through outsourcing and privatization schemes - the very rail company they are charged with strengthening. If we don't stop this runaway train, millions of passengers will lose vital rail service along the Northeast Corridor and across America.


Defying the wishes of a bipartisan Congress, Amtrak board members are pushing a disastrous "reorganization" plan that would dismantle the rail carrier, abandon passengers, dump billions of dollars in costs onto Maryland and other states and allow profit-driven speculators to cherry-pick Amtrak's most prized assets. Other than the White House and its handpicked Amtrak board, few are for this plan.

The Bush administration wants to eliminate federal funding for Amtrak, and the Amtrak board of directors wants to separate the Northeast Corridor from the rest of the network and open the system up to competition/privatization.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.amtrak15dec15,1,5529428.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

Is the Baltimore Sun a "real" newspaper, or simply a leftist rag (not that there's too much difference between the designations anymore)?

Looks like there are lots of ad homs and straw men here, but you know me.

[DesertFox]

Since when was Amtrak a "vital public service"?

Dude smokin' the cheap stuff.