Abolishing Amtrak: Why I Voted No

National Association of Rail Passengers | November 2001 | James Coston

[balrog666]

I voted that the ARC should not make such a finding, even though I knew at the time -- as all of the ARC members did -- that there is no possible way, and never was any possible way, that Amtrak could have reached operational self-sufficiency, deadline or no deadline… I voted against the ARC finding because the 1997 law was silly, meaningless, irrelevant, futile, superfluous, gratuitously punitive and inappropriate.

That's not for him to decide. Fire him. Fire him now!

With regard to rest, we've gone around a few time on this discussion already. I don't care about the airlines, bus services, road taxes, corporate taxes, income taxes, 9/11 effects on intercity travel, etc. as they are all irrelevant to the subject under discussion.

And, in fact, as much I hate government subsidies of all kinds, I don't have a problem with railroads lobbying for a piece of the action. But I don’t see them doing that openly - just the hybrid beast that is "Amtrak" and only because it's under the economic and legislative gun so to speak and needs a reason to exist and be subsidized for the sake of all those bureaucrats.

But… when you talk about restructuring the entire railroad system using intercity passenger service and revitalizing inner cities as some holy grails to justify the both the initial expense and then the (apparently unlimited) operating subsidies on top of that, you rapidly gain my rabid opposition. We've all seen how the costs of openly subsidized, government-run programs rapidly spiral out of control and the bigger they get, the more idiots we have screaming for their particular subsidized lifestyle to get bigger and more lavish (and the unionized bureaucrats all quietly lobby for the expansion of their control and their increases in their pay grades). The sad fact is that if you don't limit the access to the public wallet up front, Congress will always lose control.

The difference is that in the U.S. the government support for railroads is limited to capital improvements and does not extend to operating costs.

I missed this before, why is that a problem?

This one really deserves a barf alert. The author's thesis boils down to "I like passenger trains so you need to pay for them." Socialism, pure and simple. Mobocracy at work.

Barf alert, no, but you have captured the thesis correctly.
Socialism, yes it is.
Mobocracy? No, I think 97% of the citizens out there wouldn't know of Amtrak if a passenger train derailed and ran off the tracks right over them. Oh, wait that happens already.

[Alberta's Child]

The difference is that in the U.S. the government support for railroads is limited to capital improvements and does not extend to operating costs.

I missed this before, why is that a problem?

This is a problem because the system of allocating Federal dollars end up serving as an incentive for states to build transit projects regardless of whether they can afford to operate them or not.