Panel:Amtrak Should be Broken Up (Dukakis Disagrees)

Thanks

Glad to help.

I should point out that since downtown Pittsburgh would be one of the intermediary stops, the fares to get there would be only $5 or $10 one-way, depending where you got on. Once again, cheaper than a cab, & factor in the cost of downtown parking to compare to driving.

I agree with everything you wrote. I'd also like to add that I ENJOY long distance train travel, and don't understand why the government can spend billions on the ridiculous Big Dig, can increase foreign aid to Egypt to 2 billion a year (that was posted this morning), can give all that money to the airlines after 911, but can't give rail the support it deserves.

Yeah. If the railorad industry had just gotten a $12 billion free gift from the Feds, people would be screaming bloody murder. For some reason it's okay to have government-supported AIRLINES, but if the Feds were to spend the same money on railroads, why, that'd be communism!

"But America needs airlines! We can't let them go bankrupt!" people say. "Really?" I asnswer. "Why not? Which industry does the nation need most to survive?

Answer: If the airlines disappeared tomorrow, it'd be a nightmare, but we'd pull through. That was proved during the post-911 period when air travel was banned; things were inconvenient, but we survived. But without trains, America dies: coal and oil, spare parts, machinery, foodstuffs in bulk, industrial chemicals, and more are all delivered by rail. There aren't enough eighteen-wheelers in the world to take up the slack. Airlines cannot fly coal to powerplants. In any rational reckoning of worth, the rail industry is vastly more important to the survival of this nation than are passenger airlines.

Yet the airlines get the federal bailout, and rail gets told to go get stuffed.

Infrastructure is the province of government. From seaports to canals to roads to railroads to interstates to airports to space launch facilities, government has always shouldered the capital outlay and maintenance costs of basic transportation infrastructure in this country. It is a practice as American as apple pie. Just as they did with the Interstate System fifty years ago, federal, state, and local government should now build and maintain a nationwide network of interconnected regional high-speed rail systems.

Nobody cares if Uncle Sam covers the airlines' tab; if the airline industry were forced to own and operate their own airports, navigation aids, and other infrastructure they wouldn't make a dime of profit. But let anyone propose that the railroads get the same sweet deal and suddenly we're operating on the strict free-market system again.

Which just goes to show that, when it comes to the airline industry, some people like to serve up their free-market capitalism a lot hotter than they like to eat it.

I just finished "Atlas Shrugged" yesterday. This is very interesting.

Well in a capitalistic society, investors give an entreprenuer money to build a business which then pays them a return on their investment generated from operations. No government funds are involved. Or sometimes the gov't will pay a portion of the capital costs. The investors you cite are not doing that, but rather putting forth a little seed money, in the hopes of being paid far, far more money from the government for construction(not operational) contracts. One-time projects, not an ongoing successful enterprise. And you darn well know that the operational subsidies required from the government for this route would be larger than for the existing, or even improved, Amtrak service. So if it requires gov't operating subsidies, than it is by definition a money-losing proposition. At least Amtrak has 4 private companies competing for the operating rights of Amtrak. How many are competing for the operating rights of maglev?

You can call me all the childish names you want, but its a pretty basic distinction from capitalism 101. Socialism might rewrite the definition of investoring to include those who put forth only lobbying exenses, but not Wall Street.

Infrastructure is the province of government.

Back in the '50s, when the federal government was a little more aware of what its functions were, the Eisenhower administration justified the interstate highway system for defense purposes. The same justification is just as valid for the rail system.

I just can't phanthom the logic of the government not doing everything possible to increase train travel, as it is obvious that passenger air travel is totally overwhelmed with security and safety issues. And, PS: when I travelled by train, there were a lot of citizens who were wonderful employees in good paying jobs working for AMTRAK.

The investors you cite are not doing that, but rather putting forth a little seed money, in the hopes of being paid far, far more money from the government for construction(not operational) contracts.

Well, your ADD is flairing up again, so I'll repeat for you a second time:

"Additional segments of the system would be financed by private and public partnerships. The system operating costs must be proven to be sufficient to support the investment costs and associated profit while in operation."

In other words, if the 47 mile pilot segment doesn't prove itself financially viable in operation, the rest of the system doesn't get built. Considering the long-term promise of 300 mph high-speed ground passenger service, $900 million is a very small amount of federal funds to prove the technology.

Furthermore, it is far and away less than government spends on other transportation infrastructure, highways, airports, etc.

AMTRAK isn't that bad. Any trip by rail, no matter how grim, is preferable to riding a bus. And let's face it -- driving long distances sucks. Sitting in an upright postion with a wheel in my hands, staring straight ahead through a bug-splattered glass windshield for hours and hours is a boring waste of time.

All that being said: I don't think the federal government has the ability or the constitutional right to directly operate a passenger railroad service. In other words, I'm against AMTRAK. However, I am most definitely for the proposition that our federal, state, and local governments should cooperate to build and maintain the physical infrastructure of a linked network of regional high-speed rail transportation systems. In other words, I support the establishment of a national system of interstate and defense railroads -- the rail equivalent of the Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

Just as the Interstate Highways are taxpayer-funded, the rail system I'm advocating would be built and maintained with public funds. Each state would operate its own regional rail network, just as they build and maintain their own sections of the Interstate highways. The difference is that on the national rail system there would be no traffic jams, no weather closures, and no billboards. There would also be no 55 mile-per-hour speed limit; trains would regularly operate at 150 to 190 miles per hour on the longer runs. These trains would be owned and operated by private, for-profit railroads; the government would no more run these trains than they run the trucking companies or motor coach (bus) operators today. The majority of funds for upkeep and improvement of the infrastructure would come from taxes levied on the carriers, just as trucking companies and bus lines pay for much of the highway system's operating costs today.

And finally travelers would have a choice! Instead of gulping down greaseburgers or attempting to digest the latest offering from Stuckey's or Perkins, travelers on these improved railroads could enjoy fine meals, served in a clean, comfortable dining car on real china with cloth napkins by a uniformed steward -- or they could eat home-cooked or other picnic foods in the Club Car. Unlike travelers in buses or private cars, rail travels could enjoy wine, beer, or liquor during their trips. Unlike airline travelers, their luggage would stay with them the entire time, they could "move about the cabin" to their hearts' content, there would always be an open restroom, and passengers who desired to could even -- gasp! -- enjoy a cigar or pipe in the Smoking Car or Lounge.

The trains would depart and arrive from convenent city-center terminals. That would sure beat sitting in traffic for an hour to get to the concrete bunker of the airport. And the pre-boarding rectal exam and underwear inspection would be a thing of the past.

Those who worry that the federal goverment has no right to build roads (or canals or airports) need not worry. Not only is such construction constitutional (Art. I, Sec. 8), but there is a substantial body of case law supporting its constitutionality (the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, among many others). To argue otherwise is to argue against the existence of ports, airports, and the Panama Canal -- all of which required (and require) big honking heaps of taxpayer dollars to build and maintain.

I'm generally not a supporter of big government. In this case, however, I'm of the opinion that it is the duty of our governments to build and maintain a national high-speed rail system -- not to operate the service, but to create the infrastructure that will allow that service to exist.

Your defense of and analysis of how to fix the rail system is wonderful...articulate and informed. Please forward it to everyone who is part of the decision making process.

If Amtrak IS broken up and sold to the private sector will the government stop collecting taxes for it?

MY guess=DOUBTFUL.

Trains may be nicer than busses, but the real purpose of a transportation infrastructure is to get people from point A to point B. Unless a route has enough riders that bus schedules are set by capacity limitations rather than frequency-of-service, a bus is almost certainly going to be more cost effective than a train. Indeed, one feature of busses as opposed to trains is that it is practical to run a wider selection of routes than would be practical with trains.

A double-track rail line that can transport people at 70mph is IIRC about comparable in cost per mile to two lanes of interstate (it may be more or less depending upon grading conditions, etc.) Such a line can transport many more people than can a lane of interstate, if it's used to absolute maximum capacity. In practice, though, very few passenger rail lines are utilized to anything near the capacity of a lane of interstate.

Freight, btw, is a different matter. Many rail lines are used to haul far more coal or other bulk freight than could reasonably be transported by road. Even though most such lines are used to only a fraction of their theoretical maximum capacity, they provide a far more economical means of transport than anything else except waterways (with which they're about comparable).