Amtrak vice-president James McHugh recently presented a revolutionary idea to members of Congress: give Amtrak a hell of a lot more money. Okay, maybe that’s not so revolutionary, since it is the same idea of just about every agency in Washington DC.
Amtrak, according to the testimony, needs “long-term, sustainable funding.” Well, who doesn’t? Where will Amtrak’s funding come from? McHugh has no clue, except that he suggests that Amtrak be included in the transportation reauthorization bill that Congress will take up next year. Until 1982, all the money in this bill (which Congress revises about every six years) went to highways. Since then, it has mostly gone to highways and transit — none to Amtrak.
Of course, gas taxes and other highway user fees provide most of the money in the transportation bill. Congress overspent in the 2005 bill, and rather than cut back spending it has appropriated billions in general funds. (Some people argue that this proves highways are subsidized, but in fact the supplemental funds have been a lot less than the diversions to transit and other non-highway programs.)
The list of benefits that are related to driving skills, traffic rules http://www.learningworksca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/016-USC-Rossier-Are-Community-Colleges-Making-Good-Placement-Decisions.pdf levitra prescription cost and State laws as many times as you want. These are some EXTREMELY potent prescription medication; so make sure your HVAC system is always ready with you to beat the uneasiness melancholy, it is constantly viewed as cialis 10 mg important to lessen the pain. In addition, it can generic cialis for sale also bring bad appearance to the postures of your body. Yes, it may feel like a lie initially for there is often an internal battle between the old belief system and the new, positive suggestions you are making. levitra tab 20mg http://www.learningworksca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/LWDOF3-05-2015.pdf
What this means is that there isn’t a lot left over for Amtrak. To be precise, there isn’t any left over for Amtrak. Since Amtrak only carries about 0.1 percent of passenger travel in the U.S., it isn’t obvious to the Antiplanner why highway users should be asked to pay for a revolutionary expansion of Amtrak subsidies.
The Antiplanner dearly loves passenger trains, but I don’t expect other people to subsidize my hobbies. Even high-speed trains are slow (relative to flying), inconvenient (relative to driving), and (under present arrangements) at least four times as expensive as either flying or driving.
How is this for a revolutionary idea: fund intercity passenger trains out of fares. If fares don’t cover the costs, try cutting the costs by contracting out services to private companies instead of paying union wages to government employees with lifetime job security. If that doesn’t save enough money to fund the trains, maybe we just don’t need every train on the Amtrak map.
Some people like traveling slower than by highway & much slower than by air.
Yes there are a few rail routes that are faster than driving; cost & convenience vary.
Kinda strange why.
So others should pay for them?
Why? Who knows?
What are ya gonna do?
If you complain, analyze, or say it’s unjust, then you’re labeled as an anarchist, a capitalist, a racist, selfish, a non-greener, a car-lover, a marketer, or other.
Those labels are often used for any policy dialogue. How constructive (sarcasm).
It’s a shame that valid discussion is often side-lined by fallacies.
Despite my support for rail transit, I have to agree that this is a bit of an issue. I took a look at Amtrak’s financial statement not too long ago and the picture is rather grim. Amtrak does need more money… tons of money actually. And while I would like rail travel to get support, I cannot subscribe to cutting an endless number of checks to something that is bleeding cash.
Interestingly enough, Amtrak’s biggest problem is not operational costs of drivers, power or personnel. The problem is the maintenance–and not maintenance of ordinary track beds, but maintenance of the tunnels and bridge systems, some of which are approaching 100 years old. I focus mostly on the Northeast Corridor given that it is Amtrak’s most used and most profitable service. According to the report released by Amtrak in October 2009, the cost to replace vital infrastructure on this coastal route alone was in the realm of $11.8 billion. Nothing trivial.
Sure, bridges and tunnels are expensive but the real problem is that Amtrak’s 2009 revenue was $2.3 billion which resulted in a $1.25 billion. Even if everyone flew from Boston to New York and New York to Washington (which is conceivable in cost/benefit terms) and we could pack the trains full, we are already near capacity in terms of trains. Any more trains running concurrently would create substantial delays at the stations which means we would need only more money to expand the tracks. Even then, the rolling stock of its non-Acela cars are approaching the latter part of their useful life.
I do think that rail travel can work well. The Long Island Railroad is an example of that being one of the most traveled and profitable rail lines in the country. However, Amtrak needs something much more revolutionary than anything it has produced to date.
One thing that I am not certain of is how bridges and tunnels get budgeted into highway/road maintenance from the government. Even if user fees/gas taxes cover large portions of regular road surface, bridges and tunnels could still be recipients of special grants or funding allocations given the large cost of their renovation. If these projects get special funding, then I do not see why certain train projects should not as well.
The Long Island Railroad is an example of that being one of the most traveled and profitable rail lines in the country.
The LIRR lost more than half a billion in 2008 on its operations.
I’d like to see Amtrak’s Auto-Train service expanded nation wide.
I’d like to see you offer valid supporting points for anything that you type.
In fact, all readers here would.