April 26, 2005
Amtrak Subsidies
The New York Times editorialized today about the need for the federal government to continue subsidizing Amtrak:
For some time, the Bush administration has pushed for Amtrak reforms, which almost everybody supports in principle. But the administration's most recent proposal is more like a death sentence - a slow dismantling of Amtrak into regional services while costs currently paid by the federal government would be forced onto cash-starved states. The fatal flaw in the administration's thinking is the idea that the railroad should be self-sufficient. That's impractical and unnecessary, given the benefits it provides in taking cars off congested highways and offering an alternative to air service in the post-9/11 era.Sorry, this is a bit hard to say but the bushies may be right on this one. There is no good reason for "cash-starved" states to pick up the tab for anything either. The various government entities do not need to be in the theme park business.
If Amtrak really does an effective job of getting cars off crowded highways and is a meaningful alternative to the airlines (which I doubt) then for those routes where this is true it should be able to be self sustaining.
Posted by Steve on April 26, 2005Ahh, so we disagree. In France the TGV decimates air routes where the compete and they turn a profit. In fact all TGV routes must show that they will turn a profic before they are contructed. People there are now seeing 200km (1 way)commutes as easily doable, as travel times are, at that distance approx., 1 hour. How many people in the US spend an hour commuting for a 30 mile trip?
Example: Paris-Lyon, 550 miles, 5.5 hours. That's the same San Fransisco to Las Vegas. Downtown to downtown. Care to try that in a plane? Hell, you'll spend 1.5 hours at the airport alone
When I worked in Aix-en Provence we would routinely take the TGV to Paris for the weekend. 14 hour round trip. Sleep on the way up, sleep on the way back. And the train is one hell of a lot nicer than a plane. As nice as first class in a plane.
Posted by littleboy at April 26, 2005 3:01 PMHmmm, I think we agree at least on the idea that these services should turn a profit!
You do make the point that rail service can provide a comparable, if not better, service. I'm all for it if this is the case! And, if this is the case, then there is no need for a government subsidy.
BTW, I'm all for eliminating gov't subsidies for airlines as well.
Posted by Steve at April 26, 2005 3:30 PMFrance has spent an enormous amount of money to improve it's railway infrastructure that makes rail travel attracive (the TGV travels on dedicated trackage with no grade crossings as examples) This may indeed be considered a subsidy, though short term. This money is then repaid through operating profits when they occur.
Congress has refused to allocate the money needed to provide for a rail infrastrucure that will indeed attract riders while at the same time providing direct (airport construction and expansion, air traffic control, and airmail) and indirect (Boeing, and other manufactureres, only got to where they are in the passenger market through the technology development subsidies provided by the military market) subsidies to the air travel market. If it were not for these subsidies we would not have the air travel system we have today.
Secondly, this country has no alternative to high speed, long distance transportation other than air travel. Take down the air transport system and our economy will quickly grind to a halt. From a national security stand point alone we need to develope an alternative long distance, high speed transportation system. This will require a huge financial commitment until the rail system can begin to pay for itself.
Posted by littleboy at April 26, 2005 6:18 PMIf there's a need in the market for transportation via trains, then companies will step up to the plate and keep trains moving...it's one of the nice things about free markets. Why should my tax payer dollars get sunk in something the government doesn't need to get involved in?
Does the government need to subsidize Greyhound because it keeps cars off the streets?
Posted by tired of liberals at October 11, 2005 10:45 PM
