Republicans say they will destroy Amtrak. - Page 4

Oerdin · July 30, 2003, 14:24

Heck a highspeed train from Vegas to the Grand Canyon would be pretty good to and I bet they'd get a bunch of extra tourist traffic in Vegas if they did build it.

Az · July 30, 2003, 15:01

high speed trains.

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 15:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
So say lots of people, but when it comes down to it they fly instead usually.

But not because it's enjoyable. I have had one enjoyable flight in the last decade. Planes are just flying cattle cars these days, unless you can pony up a grand to fly first class. The major considerations for chosing air over rail is price and time. For long distance travel, rail loses on both counts, even if it is more comfortable and more enjoyable.

We put up with air travel. We aspire to take trains.

Imran Siddiqui · July 30, 2003, 15:17

Quote:

Clearly Congress sabataged Amtrak so wouldn't you agree it is hypocritical in the extreme for Congress to get mad about Amtrak not being profitable. Don't you also feel Congress should try repealing the outlawing of cutting unprofitable routes before we go through with Bush's plan to liquidate Amtrak

Not really. Why? Because Bush plan looks at political reality. Amtrak will NEVER make a profit or be profitable because Congressmen will never let them cut rail service in their neck of the woods.

So they Republicans are correct. Amtrak will not make any money, and the reason is because political realities will not make them so.

I'm with Spray. If regions want rail travel, let them do it themselves. Rail is really only the most useful form of transportation in urban settings. Also roads are everywhere. The South Dakotan is also paying for NY roads, but is getting money, as well, for his own roads from other places. He probably doesn't need or want the railroad, which is only useful in areas where he isn't.

And planes are far superior to trains. It'll take me 2 days to get from NJ to Atlanta in a train, while it'll only take 2 hours to do the same from a plane... and it's the same price.

Oerdin · July 30, 2003, 16:28

Sure the South Dakotans put some money but take a look at the big picture and start measuring capital flows. I'm willing to bet a HUGE amount goes from say New York and a comparitively small amount goes from South Dakota to New York. That's what I mean when I say the balance of payments amounts to a massive subsidy from the populous areas to the rural areas.

I agree that for the long haul trips trains aren't as good as flights cost wise. For the Medium and short term trips the government should absolutely be pushing train service instread cars or plane since they use less fuel, pollute less, cost less, and would help eleavate traffic congestion.

Az · July 30, 2003, 16:32

Quote:

And planes are far superior to trains. It'll take me 2 days to get from NJ to Atlanta in a train, while it'll only take 2 hours to do the same from a plane... and it's the same price.

Including the check in, and waiting for the plain?

Arrian · July 30, 2003, 16:34

Check-in: add 2 hours (you're supposed to get to the airport 2hrs before takeoff). So call it 4hrs, then. That's still a lot less than 2 days.

-Arrian

Chemical Ollie · July 30, 2003, 16:51

Note: I dídn't spend the time to read more than the first page in this thread, so forgive me if I missed something.

The private railroads in Sweden was bankrupted a 120 years ago and the government took control of everything. Now 10 years ago, the railroads were privatised again and everything went crap again. The former government company is not making any money, the service level is awful and the private companies only keep the few profitable lines open.

I am a conservative capitalist, but I maintain the opinion that ownership of all infrastructure should be public: roads, railroads, electricity, telephones, water and Internet etc. I am old enough to have tried everything except Internet controlled by both public and private ownership, and I prefer public ownership in all cases. (This preference does however not include other types of business)

Odin · July 30, 2003, 17:02

I think trains will stay unpopular until they start building maglevs, they are faster and don't make as much noise as conventional trains.

Imran Siddiqui · July 30, 2003, 17:15

Quote:

Sure the South Dakotans put some money but take a look at the big picture and start measuring capital flows. I'm willing to bet a HUGE amount goes from say New York and a comparitively small amount goes from South Dakota to New York. That's what I mean when I say the balance of payments amounts to a massive subsidy from the populous areas to the rural areas.

That may be so, but what I'm arguing is that roads are useful everywhere, so people subsidizing roads all over makes sense, because their roads will also be subsidized. Rails are only useful in densely populated states (admit it), so it makes less sense to have people subsidize rail in other places when they subsidy for them will be for a useless transportation device.

You should pay for subsidizing those things which your state will also benefit from (needless to say, I'm against corporate subsidies as well, one reason being that many of them only benefit a few states).

Chemical Ollie · July 30, 2003, 19:04

Yeah, I am really surprised that a a conservative like G.W. Bush is even discussing government subsidies for private companies. Subsidies is actually a commie thing isn't it? So is steel import duty fees...

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 19:04

Well, considering that the densely populated parts of the country subsidize most of the rest of the country, they can give a little back on trains. If the Feds didn't redistribute taxes from the rich states (the ten states with half the population) to the poor states, most of the country would be fubared.

Az · July 30, 2003, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Check-in: add 2 hours (you're supposed to get to the airport 2hrs before takeoff). So call it 4hrs, then. That's still a lot less than 2 days.

-Arrian

I know that. It can only compete with the plane when it will be faster.

( It compete in holidays and such, though )

But soon, it will be faster.

Chemical Ollie · July 30, 2003, 19:14

Che, American steel companies are not only in low-pop states, are they? The problem is that they are crappy and did not invest enough in modernisation. When G.W. Bush found out a about that, he invented an import fee on foreign steel products so that the American steel industry could stay crappy and obsolete and still exist. So basically, G.W. Bush is a communist IMO. But this very important matter was forgotten just after it happened, for some peculiar reason. That was in September 2 years ago.

Odin · July 30, 2003, 19:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
Che, American steel companies are not only in low-pop states, are they? The problem is that they are crappy and did not invest enough in modernisation. When G.W. Bush found out a about that, he invented an import fee on foreign steel products so that the American steel industry could stay crappy and obsolete and still exist. So basically, G.W. Bush is a communist IMO. But this very important matter was forgotten just after it happened, for some peculiar reason. That was in September 2 years ago.

Pressure from the Iron Union I bet. Modernization usually results in job cuts. Luddites.

Sprayber · July 30, 2003, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Lines connecting LA to Vegas, SF to Reno, San Diego up the coast to Santa Barbara, and maybe another going from San Diego up the center of the state to Sacramento (thus tieing the whole system togeather) would be a good send. In order to compete though the trains would have to go at least 200mph and there would have to be experse trains as well as communter trains (I hate having to sit and wait at every stop).

I still think a regional approach would be the best. If California and Nevada see the need and have public support then they should get together and make it happen. Wouldn't regional control over such things be better than centralized?

Chemical Ollie · July 30, 2003, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin

Pressure from the Iron Union I bet. Modernization usually results in job cuts. Luddites.

So when did American conservatives start to care about the union? I heard some other big companies, like International Paper asked for government subsidiries after 9/11. I can't recall if they actually got it, but even their hope for it made the Bush administration look like a communist government. Why would the world biggest land owner ask for government money?

Out of topic: I am a conservative myself and I stayed out of the union for the first 5 years of my employment. But for some peculiar reason, huge companies in Sweden prefer the employees to to join the Union. I guess it speeds annual salary discussions up a bit if they can discuss with a group instead of an individual.

Chemical Ollie · July 30, 2003, 19:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre

So when did American conservatives start to care about the union? I heard some other big companies, like International Paper asked for government subsidiries after 9/11. I can't recall if they actually got it, but even their hope for it made the Bush administration look like a communist government. Why would the world's biggest land owner ask for government money?

Out of topic: I am a conservative myself and I stayed out of the union for the first 5 years of my employment. But for some peculiar reason, huge companies in Sweden prefer the employees to to join the Union. I guess it speeds annual salary discussions up a bit if they can discuss with a group instead of an individual.

Edit: sorry again, I did not want to post a new message, just edit a typo in the last one.... Wrong button...

Sprayber · July 30, 2003, 19:36

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Well, considering that the densely populated parts of the country subsidize most of the rest of the country, they can give a little back on trains. If the Feds didn't redistribute taxes from the rich states (the ten states with half the population) to the poor states, most of the country would be fubared.

Your cities would starve before the week was done if the rest of the country stopped making the food and kept your city trucks off the rurul interstates. So until the cities are self sufficent don't start with that stuff.

Imran Siddiqui · July 30, 2003, 19:53

Quote:

So when did American conservatives start to care about the union?

When they learned they could get some votes from them.

Chemical Ollie · July 30, 2003, 19:56

It's your count that votes...

But if it weren't for the autocensor, I would spell it differently...

Imran Siddiqui · July 30, 2003, 19:58

Who? Cheney?

Ned · July 30, 2003, 21:12

I say junk Amtrak. Clearly its mere existence prevents the introduction of modern high speed trains that could operate at a profit. The role of government should be limited to facilitating right-of-way rights through the power of eminent domain.

IIRC, passenger trains became unprofitable in the first place both due to competition from air travel and due to government regulations. Obviously, long distance travel is more efficient by air. It makes no sense whatsoever to continue to operate long distance rail travel. However, one of the reasons Amtrak was formed was precisely to keep these long distance trains operating!

I presume that private companies will purchase and keep operating profitable lines. But they should be free to do so without government regulations that make no sense from a safety or health point of view, but which exist simply to increase the income of union members.

Obviously, the less the government interferes with railroad operations the better. Hopefully, this is one of the lessons we learned from this fiasco.

Proteus_MST · July 31, 2003, 01:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
I think trains will stay unpopular until they start building maglevs, they are faster and don't make as much noise as conventional trains.

Oh yes.
We are currently discussing about routes where we can install a Maglev here in Germany. The Problem here is the same as with AmTrak: Funding. As it is very dificulty to find profitable routes. The Rebublic grants Subsidies for the county that builds one, but still the county has to pay most of the costs to build and upkeep it, so money is a large issue. ALso my own county (NRW) applied for the subsidies but backed of, as it came clear, that it wouldn´t be as profitable as expected (NRW is very densely populated with small Distances between Train Stations and a good Train network, so the MagLev couldn´t play out it´s Strengths (Speed) here. But maybe Bavaria will build one.

I think it is very strange not yet to have a MagLev in Germany, as we already installed one for China