Skip to comments.
Abolishing Amtrak: Why I Voted No
National Association of Rail Passengers
| November 2001
| James Coston
Posted on 12/18/2001 11:42:31 AM PST by Publius
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
1
posted on
12/18/2001 11:42:31 AM PST
by
Publius
To: Andrew Byler; Willie Green
For your review.
2
posted on
12/18/2001 11:45:31 AM PST
by
Publius
To: Publius
all forms of inter-city commercial passenger transportation are money losers -- Then how does he explain that NYC taxi medallions now go form more than 400K a piece.
To: Rodney King
"Inter-city" means city-to-city. A New York cab represents "intra-city" transportation. Different animal entirely.
4
posted on
12/18/2001 11:49:59 AM PST
by
Publius
To: Publius
I was going to rip this piece apart, bit by bit, but the guy has such a poor understanding of basic economics that I don't even know where to start.
To: Publius
Yes, sorry. I wasn't paying close enough attention.
To: Rodney King
If The People wanted Amtrak, they could patronize it. The Free Market (disliked so much by Socialists and Conservatives alike) does generally reflect the public's desires. (Not necessarily the public's needs, or best interests, just it's desires.) Lack of profitability (generally) means that people want something else more than a passenger train.
To: Doctor Stochastic
Interesting argument, but as Warren Buffett said, "The airline business, from the time of Wilbur and Orville Wright through 1991, made zero money net." In other words, it was not profitable in the long run. Yet people take planes every day, and the government subsidizes the airlines through a variety of methods.
The author is simply asking for a level playing field.
8
posted on
12/18/2001 11:58:59 AM PST
by
Publius
To: Rodney King
yup, and after he gets his econ degree, maybe he can point out where in the constitution it says the federal government shall operate a passenger railroad
unfortunately, we call all scream close it down, sell it off, give it away, get rid of it, and it'll still be around 100 years from now, sucking taxpayers dry
To: Publius
Some old railroad executive once said, "The passenger train is like the male teat: neither ornamental nor useful."
To: Publius
all forms of inter-city commercial passenger transportation are money losers There is Bus service between a number of cities and they make money. If they are subsidized by taxpayers then maybe we should cut that subsidy too. Railroads are an albatros and antiquated form of transportation. We might as well subsidize horse buggy service between cities as well with that logic. Let the market determine need and price and someone will provide for it. I don't think the taxpayer should be subsidizing anything whether it's trains, airlines or buses. Let the market determine what should be charged. If some people can't afford to travel then so be it.
11
posted on
12/18/2001 12:05:05 PM PST
by
Cacique
To: Publius
Great post, thank you.
IMHO, it's not a matter of if, but when, when it comes to train resurgence in the US.
There is too much congestion on the roads and in the air, and too much atrophy of the railroads' right-of-way for anything else to happen.
The feds can either facilitate, by huge tax incentives, this transition, or they can wait until it becomes something the public overwhelmingly supports -- i.e., one or more transportation crises will have occurred, maybe with September 11 as the first.
The country is large enough that a fast train could go from Chicago to Indianapolis in about two hours, check-in time, etc., included.
That's what air travel takes, with all the congestion in either city, along with security considerations, etc., taken into account.
Factor in the fact that the rail stations are already downtown, and you can see that passenger rail is more than a possibility nationwide -- it could become the mode of choice for most interurban travel.
I would agree with the author that it will take some 'nurturing' from the feds to do this, but, hey, they have done that much and ten times more for ALL other modes of transportation.
By way of comparison, the rails are the stepchildren of the feds, and have been for years.
Ultimately, too, is the often-quoted physical argument that there is simply no more energy-efficient way to transport things than on long trains of cars on rigid, non-deformable wheels.
Apply modern technology to the problem of rail travel and it will thrive.
But any form of taxation may be too much to allow this to occur.
As Eisenhower said about the interstate highway system subsidies in the 50s -- there was an important security consideration in having first-class roads nationwide, so as to facilitate transportation of goods and manpower in the event of a national crisis.
I remember the three days following September 11, 2001, when the skies were clear blue and empty.
I think Eisenhower was right then, and I think that rail advocates who invoke national security are right for exactly the same reason.
In addition to the many other benefits of rail transportation.
12
posted on
12/18/2001 12:05:52 PM PST
by
caddie
To: Publius, sirgawain, redbloodedamerican
I got one better.....
ABOLISH AMWAY!!!!!
To: Doctor Stochastic
I generally despise government subsidies, but when you compare Amtrak to the nation's interstate highways you find that the railroad generates a far better return on each dollar spent than the highways do (about $0.70 for the rails, compared to $0.30 for the highways, if I remember correctly). It's time we started looking at things on a level playing field when we decide how operating expenses for these things are to be paid.
To: Publius
Yea and the level playing field he wants is billions more of taxpayers money.Why in the hell should a person in Alaska or Idaho give a shit if a bunch of eletist punks from the north east get any of their money. They would have to give the rails about 100 billion a year to make them break even. What a crock. If the idiots in the north east want to ride a train let them pay for,ala 50 bucks a ticket a day.
15
posted on
12/18/2001 12:09:42 PM PST
by
cksharks
To: caddie
I remember the three days following September 11, 2001, when the skies were clear blue and empty. Most of the points you made were good ones, but September 11th was not terribly relevant to the discussion. Changing the dominant mode of transportation will simply change the next target of a terrorist. In Europe, for example, rail travel is much more popular than air travel. As a result, the most common "high-profile" terrorist target in Europe is a railroad terminal.
To: AntiScumbag
The issue is not the government operating a passenger railroad. Even I don't support that. It's about government assistance to infrastructure, and doing for the railroads what the government did for the airlines and cruise ships. It's about a level playing field.
17
posted on
12/18/2001 12:11:55 PM PST
by
Publius
To: Cacique
Railroads are an albatros and antiquated form of transportation.Tell that to the companies who want their coal hauled, their grain hauled, or their new cars hauled. Put those comodities on trucks, and the interstates will gridlock.
18
posted on
12/18/2001 12:14:03 PM PST
by
Publius
To: cksharks
Why in the hell should a person in Alaska or Idaho give a shit if a bunch of eletist punks from the north east get any of their money. Maybe because the typical resident of Alaska or Idaho receives more in the form of Federal spending than he pays in taxes. In the Northeast, it's the other way around.
If it weren't for taxpayers in the eastern U.S., sled dogs and stage coaches would still be the dominant forms of transportation in Alaska and Idaho, respectively.
To: Publius
So, let the airlines go broke. (Or let them make a profit.) The lack of allocation of costs due to government subsidies means that it's impossible to rationally allocate funds. If people really like to fly, perhaps they should pay. I do not know which of airlines or trains or cars or canals are better; I know that it can't be computed as of now. Politics drives monetary allocations, not markets.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson