Republicans say they will destroy Amtrak.

Oerdin · July 29, 2003, 16:24

In the 1970's the Congress nationalized all of the priviately owned passager rail way companies in the US, many of them where in bankruptcy, and formed Amtrak as the American national railway company. From the beginning Amtrak was required to maintain and continue to run all existing passager rail lines even if those lines generated a lose. During the 1970's and 1980's Congress provided a subsidy to Amtrak in recognition that Congress's mandate that all rail lines continue to be oppurated, including the money losing lines, and so Amtrak continued to exist. However, the amount of money Congress supplied was never enough to invest in new trains, cars, stations, and was barely enough to maintain the rail tracks themselves in working condition.

Starting in the 1990's the newly Republican controlled Congress drastically cut funding to Amtrak and demanded Amtrak turn a profit. The Republicans did not repeal the congressional mandate that Amtrak continue to maintain and oppurate unprofitable rail lines since this would have offended representatives from rural states. Now the Republican controlled Congress is declaring that Amtrak is a complete failure and in light of the largest budget deciet in history, a defiet almost entirely created by massive Republican tax cuts and massive Republican spending increases, Amtrak will be closed and it's assets closed.

In my mind there is something wrong and immoral to intentionally set an institution up for failure and then say "See! State run companies can't compete!". If Amtrak were allowed to cut the unprofitable routes then Amtrak could easily become a profitable company, but, Republican law makers have recieved millions of dollars from the Airline companies who all feel they will benifit from Amtrak's demise.

Does anyone else feel this is the wrong way for the country to go? In light of how bad the air line system has become post 9/11 shouldn't we be working towards creating more ways to travel and not less? Isn't it in the national interest to have a functional railway system?

Here's the link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3107667.stm

EDIT: Link updated.

Az · July 29, 2003, 16:25

I think this is not the right link....

Az · July 29, 2003, 16:27

But we communists have known this for a very long time. When capital influences politics, nothing good comes out. Even Adam Smith knew this.

mrmitchell · July 29, 2003, 16:28

Republicans are pigs. Get over it.

On a more serious note, yes, Amtrak has promise if they'd do more than just **** around with it and use it as a pawn in some political game.

SlowwHand · July 29, 2003, 16:28

It doesn't matter, Azazel.

Why shouldn't a profit be expected?

mrmitchell · July 29, 2003, 16:29

SlowwHand, if the government mandated you to build a large housing project to house 500 people and gave you seventeen cents and a bottlecap to do it, would you be able to?

It's the same principle here.

Kidicious · July 29, 2003, 16:30

The market has already shown that rail can't compete against air travel. That's why the private companies went bankrupt. I don't see how Amtrak could possibly make profit.

Timexwatch · July 29, 2003, 16:30

I doubt airlines will pick up that much money from a potential demise of Amtrack. The people who take the train will continue to do so.

Besides, the only routes that make money are on the DC-NYC-Boston Corridor. Amtrak will continue to operate that line for the foreseeable future.

I would favor regional rail setups, but people in America continue to have hardons for cars, regardless of gridlock. The trains that run into NYC and DC are a godsend.

Oerdin · July 29, 2003, 16:30

So how would I fix Amtrak? I would first nationalize all rail way lines in the country and create a new federal agency which would be something of an FAA but for trains. The federal government would then be responsible for maintaining all the nations rail way lines just like it is responsible for maintaining interstate highways, airports, sea ports, many canals, and the like. Next individual priviately owned companies would be authorized to oppurate trains on the rail way lines just like individual airlines are authorized to fly into certain air ports.

Such an approach would inject a great deal of competetion into the industry thus keeping down prices, but, it would remove the single biggest problem priviate rail companies have had in the past. That being how to continually pay for maintaining tens of thousands of miles of track.

What do you think? Is my idea workable?

mrmitchell · July 29, 2003, 16:31

Sounds great. I mean, the car companies don't have to pay to upkeep the roads, do they?

Arrian · July 29, 2003, 16:32

Amtrack SHOULD be gotten rid of.

Profitable railroads are indeed possible. But not under government control/mandate.

The absurd restrictions you mention (maintain all sorts of unprofitable routes) are government directives that a private company wouldn't have to deal with.

I'm not defending the idea of cutting funding + demanding improvement, and then crucifying Amtrak for failure. I am, however, saying that Amtrak needs to go. Pronto.

-Arrian

Kidicious · July 29, 2003, 16:33

They use the same track as freight. How much maintainance do they pay?

Arrian · July 29, 2003, 16:34

However, if you insist on government interference, then the government-funded track upkeep makes sense so that RR's can compete on a level playing field with other forms of transportation... though there are tolls roads out there...

-Arrian

Kidicious · July 29, 2003, 16:35

If one RR can't make profit, how are many RRs going to make profit. No way.

Proteus_MST · July 29, 2003, 16:37

There´s more to a functiuoning Railway System.

I think, Trains are much more cleaner from an Environmentalist Standpoint than Planes.
So it would be a reasonable thing to have a functioning Railway System.
It would even be reasonable trying to atract more customers to use trains for short Distances, so you can cut down the Numbers of Flights.

Oerdin · July 29, 2003, 16:38

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It doesn't matter, Azazel.

Why shouldn't a profit be expected?

Slow: Did you read the part about how Congress has made it illegal for Amtrak to cut service to unprofitable lines? If Congress doesn't want to provide the money then shouldn't they at least make it legal for Amtrak to decide which lines to run and which not to run based upon which lines make money and which lose money? Isn't it extremely disingenious to claim "They're unprofitable so we're closing them" when it continues to be the Congress which makes them unprofitable?

At the very least Congress should repeal the "Amtrak may never stop oppurating any rail line" statute and then see if they are profitable or not.

Arrian · July 29, 2003, 16:39

Quote:

If one RR can't make profit, how are many RRs going to make profit. No way

RR's can do it, if they aren't forced to run routes that lose money.

The track upkeep thing is an interesting topic, and one could certainly argue that it would be good public policy to have the government (and therefore the taxpayers) cover it, leveling the playing field.

-Arrian

SlowwHand · July 29, 2003, 16:39

Always people looking for a good excuse for failing.
They said, "Make a profit."
They DIDN'T give unrealistic guidelines, Mitchell.

Oerdin · July 29, 2003, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Always people looking for a good excuse for failing.
They said, "Make a profit."
They DIDN'T give unrealistic guidelines, Mitchell.

Slow: If Congress told the airlines they couldn't cut unprofitable routes then how long do you think the airlines would last losing money on every plane they flew? This is exactly what the Congress has done to Amtrak; they require Amtrak to maintain and oppurate every single line in the country including the interstate route into Ceyyan (spelling), WI that only gets about 100 people per month.

Allow Amtrak the freedom to eliminate the lose making routes and you will find Amtrak will make money.

Proteus_MST · July 29, 2003, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Always people looking for a good excuse for failing.
They said, "Make a profit."
They DIDN'T give unrealistic guidelines, Mitchell.

If the things Oerdin posted are right,
i.e. they get only small funds which aren´t even enough to buy new (faster) trains or to properly upkeep their Tracks and not even are allowed to close their unprofitable routes,
how can you then expect them to make Profit?

Oerdin · July 29, 2003, 16:45

The bill hasn't passed yet and we might be able to change it if we all write our congressmen and tell them to stop it.

Az · July 29, 2003, 16:47

Oerdin is a closet commie! nya nya nya nya.

Oerdin · July 29, 2003, 16:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
The market has already shown that rail can't compete against air travel. That's why the private companies went bankrupt. I don't see how Amtrak could possibly make profit.

The reason the priviate companies went bankrupt was because of the huge expense of maintaining the rail lines when cars and planes both had their infastructure paid for by the state (in the form of state owned roads and airports). If we have state owned rail lines and priviately owned companies oppurating on those rail lines then we will have a level playing field were the economics are very favorable.

JohnT · July 29, 2003, 16:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
So how would I fix Amtrak? I would first nationalize all rail way lines in the country and create a new federal agency which would be something of an FAA but for trains. The federal government would then be responsible for maintaining all the nations rail way lines just like it is responsible for maintaining interstate highways, airports, sea ports, many canals, and the like. Next individual priviately owned companies would be authorized to oppurate trains on the rail way lines just like individual airlines are authorized to fly into certain air ports.

Such an approach would inject a great deal of competetion into the industry thus keeping down prices, but, it would remove the single biggest problem priviate rail companies have had in the past. That being how to continually pay for maintaining tens of thousands of miles of track.

What do you think? Is my idea workable?

So you want to nationalize the track, but keep the railroad cars private?

I could go for that.

Oerdin · July 29, 2003, 16:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Oerdin is a closet commie! nya nya nya nya.

I've told everyone I'm a Centrist Democrat but no one believed me.

Oerdin · July 29, 2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Timexwatch
Besides, the only routes that make money are on the DC-NYC-Boston Corridor. Amtrak will continue to operate that line for the foreseeable future.

70% of all Amtrak lines are profitable. I know here in California the Coaster (Amtrak's train which goes from San Diego to Santa Barbara and back 4 times a day) has broken all ridership records and is very profitable.

DeathByTheSword · July 29, 2003, 16:53

problem with american is that they rather take the car for a +3 hours drive than sit in a train for +4 hours.

in the netherlands a lot of people take the train everday....and it is (partly) goverment owned.....oh no wait...it is private now....anyways....the trains are in bad shape and always to late....so turning from Government owned to Private companies is not always succesfull

Oerdin · July 29, 2003, 16:54

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
So you want to nationalize the track, but keep the railroad cars private?

I could go for that.

Further once priviate rail companies are up and running we could charge them a user fee just like we charge a per plane fee which the airlines have to pay. This will help to off set the cost of maintaining train stations and rail way lines.

Imran Siddiqui · July 29, 2003, 17:02

Interesting BBC article, especially this part:

Quote:

The plan would split Amtrak into operating and maintenance companies and open both to competition from outside contractors.

I like this idea. Have Amtrak face the private sector. After all, they have a monopoly on running service between cities.

The maintainance company would be seperate and be the one that gets state funding for upkeep on the railroad network... if they do a good job.

Sandman · July 29, 2003, 17:19

Privatising the train operators whilst keeping the track state-owned sounds like a good idea, but it sounds a lot like the utter fiasco that is Britain's experience.

The railways are now costing the taxpayer more money than when they were state-owned. Safety has declined, due to engineers being replaced by accountants obsessed with profit.

Your current system sounds fine, if you just had a more interested government.