[Sam Cree]

My personal opinion is that government has no business giving money at all to a railroad service, these things ought to live or die by market forces.

But considering other things that our government gives money to, Amtrak is as deserving or more deserving than many.

And there are other considerations: Amtrak can never make a profit, not even given another 34 years, since equipment purchases and maintenance, track maintenance and fees, and labor are all so expensive as to drive its service beyond market price. If union and government rules did not arbitrarily set wages and expenses arbitrarily, with no regard to the market, then perhaps this would not be so, but, IMO, there is little chance that these things will ever change.

[hubbubhubbub]

Auction off its assets and let the private sector takeover.

[hubbubhubbub]

Auction off its assets and let the private sector takeover.

[muawiyah]

It's not the salaries that are the problem ~ it's the technology itself. All other methods are less costly, even if not a single employee worked for Amtrak.

(I do not want to hear about the co-efficient of friction of steel on steel versus rubber on concrete ~ at the end of the trick you still have to get home from the station).

(Besides, I rode Metro-rail in the DC area for many, many years, still my hitch-hike operation in Springfield was much more efficient for it's users in that 5,000 people per day got free transportation to and from designated commuter pick-up operations in DC.)

(Others have coined the term "slug line" for this activity).

[sinkspur]

Amtrak will survive, and get at least the $1.2 billion it got this year. There are too many Congressmen who are committed to it.

Does anybody think airports and airlines would survive without federal subsidies?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Amtrack's got to go over the cliff. Only then will it reflect its real needs. I believe the interurban concept makes sense in its NE environment. Elsewhere, its a loser.

[El Oviedo]

The Japanese are experts in running railroads. Why don't we just invite them to run Amtrak?

[sandbar]

Why should the government prop up a business that has no need in the market place anymore?

[Nick Danger]

I think we can safely say that there is no way in Hell that the Amtrak budget will get out of Congress in the state where Bush put it.

Whether that ought to be the case is an interesting debate, but political reality is that it won't happen.

In all fairness, the airline industry that sets "the market price" for intercity travel receives huge subsidies from the federal government, including the air traffic control system, the security-weenies at the airports, and most of the FAA bureaucracy. According to the USDOT, between 1982 and 1989, only 57% of all federal funding for aviation came from the Airport and Airways Trust Fund, a revenue account supported by various aviation user fees and charges. The rest (43%) came from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury.

So the reality is, our intercity transportation system is subsidized up the wazoo. Again, we could debate whether that is good or bad, but yanking it to zero in one fell swoop is not a realistic proposal. It's a PR stunt.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Our costs are more under control than ever before - that's quite an accomplishment.

A dumbed-down way of relating the reality.

Meanwhile, roads can hardly be said to operate strictly on a "free market" basis since the rights of way are maintained via taxation. Railroads might be better served to amplify the free market avenue, since they are apparently so ineffecient from a cost perspective.

Or, to look at it another way, what if the government funds currently spent on roadways were diverted to railroads and vice versa?

[Mr. Jeeves]

"Eliminating Amtrak wouldn't just cost us billions of dollars in operating funds for the trains and the business people and tourists they bring here, it also shreds the safety net we'll need in case - God forbid - our airspace is shut down again like it was after 9/11."

Um, Chuckie? That safety net is called the "private passenger automobile". Just like the other safety net you don't like called the "privately owned handgun". ;)

[austinmark]

It is time to take AmTrak OFF "life Support". Let it die.

IF, there is a Need and someone from the private sector can make a go of it, then it will happen, Just as a few entrepreneurs in the airline industry, (Virgin, Jet Blue) have been successful.
Most all of the Major Airlines can't survive on their own, (exception: SouthWest Airlines) so let them Die on the vine as well. ONLY the competitive should survive.

Corporate Welfare has become "business as usual" and is now viewed as an "entitlement", it kill's industry's "incentive" to operate within it's means.
The Problem is systemic across the board and in all sectors.

Then Again ...... They learned well from the Federal Government.

[Cicero]

One of the main reasons the railroads are having a tough time is the government's decision to develop an enormous highway network instead, beginning toward the end of the Second World War and taken to a new level with Eisenhower's interestate highway program. Behind these decisions there was a great deal of lobbying (and bribing) on the part of General Motors and others.

I agree. There's no form of transportation that isn't subsidized, and the railroads are far from getting the lion's share.

[BurbankKarl]

Good...let them walk, they will get there quicker.

[balrog666]

- Amtrak financing nearly eliminated in proposed Bush budget; Amtrak president reacts in message to employees

Nearly? Not nearly enough.

[Ciexyz]

I disagree with President Bush's budget on this issue. I use Amtrak and believe that the federal government should continue to support the Amtrak rail system.

[goldstategop]

As Willie Green is our witness, the politicians will restore Amtrak funding. As they say, the reports of its impending demise are greatly exaggerated.

Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."

[benjaminjjones]

My personal opinion is that government has no business giving money at all to a railroad service, these things ought to live or die by market forces.

I'll have to ask my ex-high school QB, ex-econ doctoral roommate, ex-airborne ranger bud about this, but I don't think the massive capital investments involved in public tranpo systems can survive in today's gubmint's regulatory systems without some kind of taxpayer support. I know a tiny bit about the railroad barons but anti-trust laws might prohibit that these days.

I believe public transportation systems are important (how would I get around in Boston without the subway?). I believe that it will always have to subsidized to some extent by gubmint and taxpayers up to a certain point.

On the other hand, I worked for Amtrak for 6 years. I was a contractor for 5-1/2 years, worked harder than any Amtrak employee, yet got completely screwed salary-wise. I was finally hired full-time (at a hugh salary increase) as a full-time employee when the homo-cabal got their boinked butts fired with the advent of the weird NJ-cabal administration change.

I quit not long after getting the imprematur of a legitimate employee and moved to Boston with my ex, who remained an employee, while I moved back into the private sector.

All I can say is that Amtrak has tons of overpaid, dead-weight, top-heavy, useless management types, has tons of useless unions problems.

The basic history of Amtrak is that they took over passenger carrying operations after the freight rail companies couldn't afford to fufill their original right-of-way obligations to carry passengers, which they had agreed to, long before the advent of interstate highways and autos.

Public Passenger Transpo is a good thing, but I'm starting to think we need to wipe out Amtrak and the frigging unions and start fresh. I think the Brits privatized their train system, but haven't kept up on that news.

I do like traveling on trains, and still want to take a trip across the states by train.

[Snoopers-868th]

I am in agreement. Compete or die. Same for mass transit that is subsidized. Let those who use it pay for it. I pay for my car, insurance, parking, etc. while they pay their token fee to ride the cities' buses. I am sick of subsidizing, if it can't stand on its own two feet then it should be no more.