Bush to seek Amtrak subsidy cuts

[DanS]

In other words he's trying to shove the problem onto other people instead of actually trying to solve it. This is just another unfunded mandate.

This isn't an "unfunded mandate" in any way that I know the term.

If these states think it's worthwhile to subsidize, they will do so. If they don't think it's worthwhile to do, they won't do it. In fact, these states might believe that it is worthwhile to subsidize rail above and beyond the level at which Amtrak is subsidized by the Federal government.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by bfg9000
The problem is not subsidizing mass transit, per se. It is subsidising Amtrak - a company that has not turned a profit in 34 years.

Has the Army ever turned a profit? What about NASA? What about the FBI? Does the Highway department turn a profit?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
This isn't an "unfunded mandate" in any way that I know the term.

What part of the Congress not letting Amtrak cut unprofitable lines don't you understand?

[DanS]

As discussed, the law allows Amtrak to cut any line it wishes. It just never wishes to, considering that this might lose it some patrons in the congress.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Has the Army ever turned a profit? What about NASA? What about the FBI? Does the Highway department turn a profit?

Those are government agencies. Are you saying Amtrak is a government agency? It is not but it might as well be the way it drains our tax dollars. For most of Amtraks existence, Feds have kept their hands off and allowed Amtrak to try to turn itself around. In recent years, however, Feds have required more government oversight because Amtraks requested funding keeps escalating. They now ask for over a Billion dollars per year. They are unable to manage their escalating costs so it is time for the Feds to step in and takeover. Amtrak is just out of control. The unions have Amtrak by the balls with the CBAs they have negotiated. Amtraks crew and maintenance people are incredibly overpaid.

[Kidlicious]

Maybe there are external benefits to having Amtrak. Maybe it makes airline and busline prices more competitive. This would justify some subsidies.

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That may be because red states favor user taxes, while blue ones favor income taxes.

Actually it's because in the older blue states, the main highways were built at a time when road tolls were the main source of funding. The main highways in New York, NJ, Pennsylvania (I don't know much more beyond that) are all state run toll roads.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by bfg9000
Those are government agencies.

So what? It's an artificial distinction, only important in the minds of those who want to pare our government down to the bone and suck the marrow. Amtrak was established to provide a service. It's not a private corporation and shouldn't be treated as one. It's job isn't to turn a profit, it's to move people from one place to another. Despite your complaining about how much it sucks, apparently your alternatives are worse, so it's doing you a service.

I don't hear people complaining how we have to shut down the highway system and make them all private toll roads because they are always under repair. We derive a benefit from Amtrak, even if we don't use it. It lowers traffic congestion and pollution in areas where it is used. It forces Greyhound and the airlines to be more price friendly to consumers.

[:) Smiley]

Say, who here by the way has taken Amtrak before?

[Kidlicious]

I've taken it plenty. It's my prefered mode of travel when I'm traveling alone. When there are others with me it's better to drive.

[DanS]

The first time I took Amtrak was when I was 21 years old. Nowadays, I take it very infrequently, even though presumably I should be a core customer, by virtue of my location and travel habits.

[Timexwatch]

I've taken it to NYC from DC when I've missed flights during Uni break. I've also taken it from Albany NY to NYC when I've had to visit NYC.

I'm also a regular user of the MARC train in Maryland and Metro North when I decide to drive most of the way to NYC. I love the regional trains in D.C. Now if only we could get one to Dulles Airport and the MARCs to run on the weekends, we'd be all set here in D.C..


Nothing, however, beats European rail. I loved RENFE, the AVE and the TMB.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by bfg9000
Those are government agencies. Are you saying Amtrak is a government agency? It is not but it might as well be the way it drains our tax dollars. For most of Amtraks existence, Feds have kept their hands off and allowed Amtrak to try to turn itself around.

That's the funny thing about government owned corporations; they basically are government agencies which are opporated for the public good. Tell me do you know much about successfully recreating and/or privatizing government owned businesses? Let's examine two big examples one unsuccessful and one successful.

Both were large government owned automakers in western Europe. The first was British Leland which until about 1972 was the third largest automaker on Earth and the other was French National automaker Renault. Both companies were nationalized as a result of the private companies going bankrupt and the national government decided those industries were to strategically important to let die, both companies were supposed to eventually achieve profitability, and both were to eventually be reprivatized. BL failed and died while Renault continues to be one of the larger automakers in the world especially after it bought most of Nissan. Why?

Both had mangers who made bad decisions and both faced governments who meddled in their affairs so that's not different. What is different is the amount of funding they got. BL's funding went up and down with each passing government and neither labor nor the tories wanted to give the company money to develop new products thus the companies offers go older and shabbier causing it to lose more and more sales. Eventually the cars being made were so out of date no one wanted to buy them and the company went bust. Renault on the other hand was heavily invested in by the French state so much so that they were not only able to replace their whole line up but they also expanded their line up and modernized their factories. Renault soon became profitable again because it had modern products to sell which people wanted to buy. In the mid 1990s Renault was once again privatized and is today one of the world's leading automakers.

What lesson do you draw from this? You fail to invest enough in a government owned company and it's product line ceases to be competitive then no one wants their product any more. If on the other hand government spends the money to rehabilitate a company with modern equipment and product offerings and the company is likely to turn itself around which supports the national interest.

Amtrak has been treated like BL and has been starved. It's gotten enough funds to stay alive but not to build modern high speed trains nor even maintain its track. Since Amtrak has old and slow trains riding on tracks that are as likely to be closed as open then is it any wonder people don't want to ride it? The government has failed to turn Amtrak profitable because it has been trying to starve a company into success and that has never worked. If you want to make a company successful you have to invest more then just subsistance you have to invest the money for better tracks and truly better trains then you will see people beating down the doors because they can buy fast affordable high speed rail tickets which go where they want to go. If Amtrak is a failure then it is the short sighted government which ahs made it a failure.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Smiley
Say, who here by the way has taken Amtrak before?

About two weeks ago from San Diego to LA and back. The ticket cost $16 round trip which is cheaper then the gas woulld have cost in my four cylinder car. The trains were over crowded with daily commuters for the first half of the trip but thinned out after we went through Orange County (I guess htere are lots of people who live in Orange County but work in San Diego). The ride was comfortable the seats were about twice the size of an airplanes and I got to drink several beers bought in the dinning car.

All in all a good experience but it would have been better if the trains traveled faster and an express train was offered insteaqd of just commuter trains.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Timexwatch
Nothing, however, beats European rail. I loved RENFE, the AVE and the TMB.

The French TGV is great but my favorite is Japanese Bullet trains. The Japanese government understands the need to relieve traffic on freeways and has invested very heavily in mass transite both intracity subways and intercity bullet trains. Flying into Norita you coulf get a round trip express train for around $12 which would take you the 80 miles to downtown Tokyo in about 25 minutes. It was safe, clean, afford, and ultra modern because it was subsidized by the Japanese state.

The Japanese knew that old slow trains like the US uses wouldn't cut it when you're trying to travel long distances and compete against air travel so the state railway, which is a government agency run by the Ministry of Transportation, built super fast bullet trains which make trains almost as fast as air travel but with more comfort, less cost, and better protection for the enviroment.

Just think of what a truly world class bullet train system would could build with the $200 billion Bush has totally wasted on his star wars program which fails even tests rigged in it's favor and doesn't protect against the most likely of nuclear attacks (a nuke in a van parked in New York or DC).