If I remember right there are a least 100 or more Federal Programs that get more then a Billion dollers of Aid. “The Catolog of Federal Domestic Assitance lists thousands of programs that get money from the Feds” So why keep picking on Amtrak? Is it because the NEO conservitives hate any thing that is even remotely Communistic? I mean that have a national system of transportation that everyone can afford is too much like welfare(Socialism!).
The fact here is that Airline Lobbyists hate Amtrak because many people who have the time when there on vacation would rather Ride the train or take the bus. When someone else is footing the bill such as there company that work for then of course they have to fly. The Airlines lost 23,000,000 people or more to Amtrak and Buses last year. If amtrak was gone they would have a unrestricted monpoly.
The long departed Sen. Ev Dirkson once said, " A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money."
The even longer departed Ben Franklin said, “Penny-wise and pound foolish.”
My mortgage is many times my electric bill, but I still turn lights out when I leave a room.
The airline lobbyists hate Amtrak? Really? Which ones?
All Amtrak riders are would-be flyers? Really? How so? What about driving?
Airlines are a monopoly? Which one? Delta or American? USAir? United?
Are you trying to make the case that a billion isn’t too much to spend for what we get from Amtrak? If so, I’m not sure your talking points line up well with your arguement.
In your opinion, why do we have Amtrak? What is Amtrak’s mission?
I agree…the airline industry need not fear Amtrak. Having traveled both quite a bit between Denver and Chicago, I can assure you that the marketplace is completely different. I’m always one of the rare individuals on the train that contemplated flying on each trip. Generally each person on the train wants to be on the train.
The problem with Amtrak is that they’ve been given a long time to make themselves profitable, and have yet to do so. I’m not necessarily sure that its Amtrak’s fault, either. Supporters are always quick to point out the success of trains in Europe, and elsewhere. It’s a different place, and a different situation for Europe, though, and I don’t think it’s a fair comparison.
The best way to make Amtrak profitable would be to change the American mentality about travel. I think the government is actually doing their best at this right now through the TSA. I can not tell you the absolute, unmitigated joy I experience when I can get on the train without having to be there 3 hours early to be strip searched and treated as a suspected felon for wanting no more than to board an airplane. If we keep it up, I have a strange inclination that a lot of people will change their trip planning to include trains, buses and cars.
The biggest leap, however, that Amtrak would make would be even further investment in high speed service between key gateways. The initial expense would be high, but if done correctly, I’m sure they could become profitable, and be able to keep their more traditional service in place.
[2c]
Chris May
Denver, CO
Amtrak is about as profitable as the Airlines have been since they started their service in total…Amtrak profitable…? It won’t be either. It is a public transportation service and even if all seats were full it most likely still would not attain a profit. Just the nature of the service. It’s not a money maker and most likely can’t be made to be one…
What is the justification for publically owned transportation services?
Until the mid 1900’s, transportation was provided by private enterprise in most of the country.
23 Million passengers were diverted from the airlines to Amtrak in FY 04? Really? Where did that number come from? If even half of the 23 million passengers were you claim were diverted from the airlines to Amtrak, Amtrak would be in better financial straits
oltmannd,
So is it our government’s best interest then to throw millions of dollars at numerous airlines that are far more mismanaged than amtrak is? Your idea that these 23 million people would be driving instead of flying is insane. If you were traveling from somewhere in Washington (State) to somewhere in Illinois by train, and then that train were taken away, you would drive a car as your next option? People use trains and planes for a similar purpose on many levels, one of w
Dschmitt,
You are sort of answering the question. Private companies weren’t making it and were going bankrupt or eliminating services. Hence the reason amtrak was formed.
Shrek
Shrek,
Don’t you think Dschmitt was refering to all forms of transportation services, not just passenger rail? Only passenger rail has had the option of becoming a government run service. There is no such equivalent in any other modal form of transportation.
The difference of course is what you alluded to, that the railroads were unduly burdened by having to run passenger trains over their proprietary lines. Amtrak was formed to keep the idea of passenger rail going under the auspices of emulating government run passenger trains in other countries. However, of all modal forms of transportation in this country, only the railroads are owner operated, while the other modes are blessed with open access to their corresponding infrastructures.
Private passenger services do thrive on publicly owned highways, air corridors, and waterways, while private passenger services ostensibly cannot make it on privately held railroads. Ironic, isn’t it?
Well, to put things in perspective, I saw a story on Amtrak’s situation on my local news TV station earlier this week, describing the possible shut-down of the majority of the Amtrak system next year if the Bush-proposed funding is approved. The next story on that night’s news was that President Bush made a special budget request to Congress for $ 82 BILLION to “fight the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Kinda’ makes one wonder…
… not to mention that this time the “beef” with Amtrak is coming from a man that has no hesitation on spending $ 40 million of taxpayer money to throw himself a party…
The really odd thing I think in all of this is that for some bizarre reason the Bush Administration (not to mention some Congressmen) expect Amtrak to be self-sufficient by funding ALL of their own expenses. My question is why aren’t the military, NASA, homeland (in)security, the FBI and the interstate highway system held to the same standards of financial responsibility???
Hey, if we can spend over a billion dollars buying new helicopers for President Bush, why not another billion to keep an American treasure and a legitimate and in some communities much needed transportation system going and even improving?
Well, the providers might be private, but the gov’t (state and Fed) have a Looong history of investment, starting with the Nat’l highway and canals. The canal system in PA, for example, almost caused the state to go bankrupt.
Justification of publically owned transp. svcs would be public demand of such services. We vote, they represent, we get. Just like the bumper stickers say, " I’m a fill-in-the-blank and I vote"
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by shrek623
oltmannd,
So is it our government’s best interest then to throw millions of dollars at numerous airlines that are far more mismanaged than amtrak is? Your idea that these 23 million people would be driving instead of flying is insane. If you were traveling from somewhere in Washington (State) to somewhere in Illinois by train, and then that train were taken away, you would drive a car as your next option? People use t
TSA, strip search horror stories and all, the airlines are currently running ahead of the pre 9-11 passenger totals. Airports may be like prison camps and airplanes may be like cattle cars, but flying i
…it wasn’t taxpayer money. It was privately raised. Politics as usual…unfortunately.
Oltmannd, I was not aware of that… I was under the impression that it was taxpayer funds. Thank you for the clarification - it eases the pain a little, but obviously still leaves nearly all of us frustrated with the Amtrak funding situation. [:(][:(]
Is it? On really long distance stuff, I’m sure it is. One can’t compare flying across the Atlantic to taking a steamship. However, I’ve turned Denver to Chicago in 13 hours before (granted that was perhaps a bit above the posted limit, but not terribly so). Nominally, the flight between the same points in about 3 hours. But consider the following:
It takes me about 45 min. to get to DIA.
Depending on travel conditions and such, its suggested that I arrive as early as 3 hours before my flight. Let’s call it 2, though.
There’s the three hour flight time.
Assume 45 minutes to get from the gate to baggage claim, and get my luggage.
There’s a 1 hour drive from either Chicago airport to my hometown.
That’s 7 and a half hours. Faster? Yes. Worth the trouble of prison camp airports, and cattle car planes? It depends. Lately, Amtrak has been the prefered method of travel. Just a personal preference. But still a lot better to me that the TSA nonsense.
Chris