Over the last few weeks I noticed a lot of bashing of the current President, the transportation secretary and the latest budget presented to congress regarding federal funding for Amtrak. Now that legislation has been presented from that same adminstration to transition Amtrak into a "purely operating company", I've noticed that no postings/comments regarding same.
What's everyone thinking?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Better known as it is more fun to bash than have constructive discussion.
Posted by Capltd29 (Member # 3292) on :
The Passenger Rail Investment Reform act is pretty much an oxymoron, it is not an investment to starve the system of funds necessary to keep the system intact.
Jon
Posted by Tanner929 (Member # 3720) on :
True, it is easier to bash then look into problem solving. If you only read this Forum, you would think Investors would be knocking down the door to buy this railroad. So many passengers everyday filling up the trains. The current business plan has not changed since the bailout in 71.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
quote:Originally posted by hehcooh: Now that legislation has been presented from that same adminstration to transition Amtrak into a "purely operating company", I've noticed that no postings/comments regarding same.
Well, nothing has really changed in the administration's plan, so there's really nothing new to discuss, other than its prospects in Congress. Senator McCain formally reintroduced the bill this year, just as he did last year. Last year the bill went nowhere. McCain was about the only Senator who endorsed it. I expect the same will be true this year.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tanner929: True, it is easier to bash then look into problem solving.
I wouldn't call our collective criticism of the Bush plan "bashing." Most of us are in agreement that it just won't work, for very realistic reasons.
The main problem with the Bush plan, like many other so-called "reform" plans, is that the administration is trying to impose it from the outside, without the consent of those companies and agencies that would carry it out. Any genuine reform will need to have these players involved in the planning process.
quote:If you only read this Forum, you would think Investors would be knocking down the door to buy this railroad.
When has anyone here said that? I think the consensus here is that no passenger operators are "waiting in the wings" to take over Amtrak.
quote:The current business plan has not changed since the bailout in 71.
That's the fault of an inattentive Congress, which hasn't changed its attitude towards Amtrak since 1971.
Posted by North American Railroader (Member # 3398) on :
Even those of us who support the President (with exception to Amtrak) agree that this plan would fail. Think about it for a second, outside commuter and short intercity railroads, where is there a profitable passenger railroad? There are none. Trains don't generate a profit, they haven't since the dawn of the automobile and the airplane, and they never will unless either new technologies or new money-making "schemes" are implemented. Companies are not going to run a business that loses money, which means there are no companies that would want to assume the role of national intercity rail travel. Therefore, using simple semantics, I find it quite illogical for someone to propose a bill, to "support and expand" Amtrak service, that will turn the rail service over to nonexistant corporations. This bill was proposed to kill Amtrak, and limit service to the Northeast. You vote for the guy you agree with the most, no matter which side of the aisle their on, but that doesn't mean you have to always support their policies, for me, one of my few sticking points with the President is Amtrak, but without the sticking points, America just wouldn't be democratic.
Posted by mikesmith (Member # 447) on :
Our President is wrong on Amtrak and he's wrong on our border situation. Given those two things, he's still FAR BETTER that his opponent would have been.
Let him know he's wrong on Amtrak and our border security. Write that letter.
Posted by irish1 (Member # 222) on :
mr smith i could not agree with you more about our president. he is still way better than what we could of had.
Posted by Capltd29 (Member # 3292) on :
Posted by 20th Century (Member # 2196) on :
The folly of it all is that it will probably cost more than what Amtrak has requested in the past. Will anyone tell that to the public? I doubt it. Amtrak, or no Amtrak transcontinental as well as regional service is important. I confess I am not knowledgeable of all the $figures$. But I haven't read about anyone in Washington mentioning that this proposal might be more costly than properly supporting Amtrak. As usual the working class will carry the beast of burden.
Posted by mikesmith (Member # 447) on :
The waterways/canals are subsidized to the tune of $6 billion, Airways are into the taxpayers for $14 billion, and the roadways are tagging us for $34 billion. All rail needs is a mere $3 billion.
What a bargain!!!!
Now... How do we get this message across?
Posted by CG96 (Member # 1408) on :
Why, bribery, Mr. Smith!
Just kidding!
Seriously, though, there are several good arguments or "writing points," to be found on places such as the NARP web site National Association of Rail Passengers , or the Midwest High Speed Rail Association Midwest High Speed Rail Association Locate their page on why the Empire Builder is actually a series of rail corridors, and not just one single route.
Posted by 20th Century (Member # 2196) on :
Money for Amtrak: How about a nationwide tax on new auto purchases? The bigger the vehicle the higher the tax. The other suggestion I have is not a good proposal with the current gas prices......but the original pennytax idea should have been pushed through when gas prices were lower. This would definitely strike a nerve or two I suppose.
Posted by canoe86 (Member # 3099) on :
Just sitting here today thinking to myself...."darn I really could stand to pay a bit more in taxes". Raising taxes is never the solution, period.
How about raising tickets prices?
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
I think a good case can be made for raising the gas tax two cents, which is less than the weekly price changes at the pump. I think its been stagnant at 18 cents for many years, while costs of building and maintaining transportation networks keeps going up.
Or as Mike Smith has suggested, take the portion of the gas tax that is currently going to the general fund, and put it into rail transportation. That makes a good deal of sense to me.
Regarding the general competency of the Bush administration, I will disagree that the President's stance on Amtrak is an anomoly. Rather, I find it typical of his M.O., which is to pull an ideologically based policy out of thin air then expect everyone to go along without question. He's doing the same thing with Social Security with about the same amount of success as he's having with Amtrak. A true leader seeks input from those who he is serving before formulating a course of action for people to follow. Bush seems to have a large ideological cheerleading section, but not many followers when it gets down to specific issues.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by North American Railroader: Even those of us who support the President (with exception to Amtrak) agree that this plan would fail. Think about it for a second, outside commuter and short intercity railroads, where is there a profitable passenger railroad?
Sorry, but short intercity runs and commuter services are the biggest sinkholes for money known to the railroad world.
Even the Hong Kong mass transit "railroad" which runs trains almost end to end with loading densities on most lines that would be unacceptable for cattle is no longer making money since it opened the airport line, which line is hauling far fewer people than projected. No one else in the world, including Tokyo, comes close to their people per railcar loadings. This is a 7 day operation. In fact weekend loadings are higher than weekday loadings.
George
Posted by mikesmith (Member # 447) on :
Of course, I disagree with Mr. Toy's impression of President Bush's social security plan. To keep this as short as possible, Social security MUST change or it WILL crater. In fact, eliminating it {as we know it} over a 50-60 year period would be best for my future grandkids. Moving the entire system to individual retirement accounts gives my future grandkids what social security is promising "the masses" now.
Let's face the facts. The government is "hoping" we all die before we hit 67. If a good portion of the citizens meet that "hope", SS stays solvent for a long time. With the advances in medicine, the life expectancy is increasing, guaranteeing the collapse of SS if we do nothing. The government is losing that "hope".
The only feasable solution is private individual accounts. I could go another 400-500 words on why this is right and the Dems are wrong, but this isn't a Social Security forum.
Posted by 20th Century (Member # 2196) on :
Maybe there should an "off topic" forum regarding these issues. But the rail forum is not for promoting the accolades of either political party...as much as I am tempted to dive in I try NOT to. But then again it is very difficult to avoid the issue because Amtrak's survival,or a replacement involves political polarities which reflect the differences (thank goodness for differences, diversity,etc.) from which each of us as posters believe in. For Amtrak as well as other agendas...reform is needed, but private enterprise means "for profit" not for "we the people".
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)