Passenger Trains > Privatize, Don't Subsidize Amtrak

Gotcha. 

I am nowhere near qualified to debate this guy or anyone about anything.  Too tired.  But I know some of you love this stuff.  For or against.  Fact or fiction.  Left or right.  Who cares?  Maybe he'll learn how much it really costs to run and maintain passenger railroads around the world and why no private companies are rushing to do it ALL.  Oh, and have fun....


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2015/05/19/privatize-dont-subsidize-amtrak/


 

Bozo. Useless spin. We had a private system, it could not be sustained. Every daily scheduled public passenger service needs subsidy, worldwide. No subsidy won't work. === === = === JLH

Where were you two days ago when the privatization trope got trotted out previously?

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3745030

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where were you two days ago when the privatization
> trope got trotted out previously?
>
> http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3
> 745030


Crap.  I'll fess up.  I was learning to run my train using the public timetable with no speed boards to help me out.  I was speeding past every small platform too.  But I did ok passing the big ones.  I'll get a safety worker to help guide me next time.  Sorry, I just read that CBS New York thread about trains going too fast.  But to answer your question, I've been working too much and I usually scan for repeat topics.  I should have known better with the happy climate recently.  I love the internet of things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/15 18:53 by Bractor.

I wonder how Forbes feels about the subsidy granted newspaper and magazine publishers by the US Postal Service? 

Maybe they'd like to waive it, and pay full freight on their mailed magazines?

Didn't think so...

...and LA Metro isn't shy about funding Metrolink.
(you mean the cost of my monthly pass doesn't cover my commute? LOL!)

---

Seems that every few years we have some "free market economist" crawl out from under a rock to yammer about market.solutions that are pure bilge. If you start to ask about REAL COSTS vs. govmint subsidies for (fill in the blank here) their eyes glaze over.

Posted from iPhone

Maybe I should challenge Prof. Dorfman to put his plan in writing.  As a GA resident and taxpayer, I help pay his salary.  Please keep the flamethrowers at bay, but could Amtrak, for example, make more money on the Crescent Corridor, if it took existing equipment and crews and ran more frequent service between Atlanta & Charlotte and Atlanta & Birmingham or even Atlanta & Orlando via Macon, Jessup, and Jacksonville?  Okay, I am biaased.  The client base for my consulting business runs from central Florida (my second offoce is in DeLand) up through the Carolinas over to Raleigh and Wilson.  In Europe, I am far more productive when traveling as my laptop is out and running from just after I board the train to just before I depart.

John in Macon, GA 

Gawd, I get sooooooo tired of this endless debate.

<> Privatize Amtrak.

<> Expect Amtrak to operate taxpayer-subsidy-free.

Meanwhile, the commercial airline industry can soak the taxpayers to the tune of $225 BILLION and there is no debate or consideration of that facet of the controversy.  

Why the double standard?  That's all I'd like to know.  Why the double standard?

If we want to privatize Amtrak, maybe we also need to privatize the commercial airlines.  There's something a little strange about an industry that claims to be "private enterprise" yet it has to rely on $225 BILLION of outside funding to stay afloat.  I don't know what to call it, but it sure ain't "private enterprise."   

SOURCES: 
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-us-airlines-accused-of-hypocrisy-in-subsidy-debate-20150410-story.html  
http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2015/05/15/big-three-u-s-airline-ceos-speak-on-open-skies-at-national-press-club/

 

Most of these privatizing rants start from people who fail to realize that the freight railroads are also publicly funded.

shorthoodlead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of these privatizing rants start from people
> who fail to realize that the freight railroads are
> also publicly funded.

With the exception of occasional grants for infrastructure, which freight railroads are publicly funded? Can you provide a list with railroad names and amounts of taxpayer funding?

NS's Crescent Corridore received public funds touted to take trucks off the Interstates.
This is just one good example.

shorthoodlead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NS's Crescent Corridor received public funds
> touted to take trucks off the Interstates.
> This is just one good example.

That's an example of "grants for infrastructure."

As far as I know, there are no operating subsidies for any of the major railroads, which also have to pay property taxes on their infrastructure. State-owned track leased by shortlines may, depending on the lease terms, be considered an operating subsidy.

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gawd, I get sooooooo tired of this endless
> debate.
>
> <> Privatize Amtrak.
>
> <> Expect Amtrak to operate
> taxpayer-subsidy-free.
>
> Meanwhile, the commercial airline industry can
> soak the taxpayers to the tune of $225 BILLION and
> there is no debate or consideration of that facet
> of the controversy.  
>
> Why the double standard?  That's all I'd like to
> know.  Why the double standard?
>
> If we want to privatize Amtrak, maybe we also need
> to privatize the commercial airlines.  There's
> something a little strange about an industry that
> claims to be "private enterprise" yet it has to
> rely on $225 BILLION of outside funding to stay
> afloat.  I don't know what to call it, but it
> sure ain't "private enterprise."   
>
> SOURCES: 
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-us-airlines-
> accused-of-hypocrisy-in-subsidy-debate-20150410-st
> ory.html  
> http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2015/05/15/big-three-u
> -s-airline-ceos-speak-on-open-skies-at-national-pr
> ess-club/

One reason why Amtrak is the continued whipping boy is it's constituency is small compared to other government programs. Waste and fraud are endemic in other federal government funded programs. Think medicare, health care, veterans, welfare, food stamps, agriculture, etc. and even the IRS. But those programs have big constituencies and well paid lobbyists who work to make sure the programs and funds for them are kept flowing from the public trough. Amtrak is small and except for the NEC doesn't serve a big segment of the public. Hence it's the yearly target on the wall, available for everyone to throw darts at.
 

Cumbresfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

(snip)
>
> One reason why Amtrak is the continued whipping
> boy is it's constituency is small compared to
> other government programs. Waste and fraud are
> endemic in other federal government funded
> programs. Think medicare, health care, veterans,
> welfare, food stamps, agriculture, etc. and even
> the IRS. But those programs have big
> constituencies and well paid lobbyists who work to
> make sure the programs and funds for them are kept
> flowing from the public trough. Amtrak is small
> and except for the NEC doesn't serve a big segment
> of the public. Hence it's the yearly target on the
> wall, available for everyone to throw darts at.
>  

The agriculture bills are always fun to watch. With Republicans representing farm states, Democrats representing inner cities etc banding together to keep price supports (subsidies) under various crops, increase the allowance for food stamps, expand export incentives (subsidies), etc. Cooperatives of farmers, food distribution charities, multinational food groups, everybody is under one big happy tent.

Call it what you want but it is still public money going to a railroad that is not Amtrak yet it's Amtrak that received the black eye.

Cumbresfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One reason why Amtrak is the continued whipping
> boy is it's constituency is small compared to
> other government programs. Waste and fraud are
> endemic in other federal government funded
> programs. Think medicare, health care, veterans,
> welfare, food stamps, agriculture, etc. and even
> the IRS.

It speaks volumes that you forgot to mention the military, probably the worst offender by far.  But if everyone here on Trainorders is an R. Lee Ermey "Gunny" clone, then all of that is perfectly okay.  Hoo Rah!

> But those programs have big constituencies and well
> paid lobbyists who work to make sure the programs
> and funds for them are kept flowing from the public trough.

So what's the "solution'?  Does Amtrak need to spend as much on lobbying as Northop-Grumman and Boeing when they're pressing Congress for their latest multi-billion dollar boondoggle project that keeps the Military Industrial Complex alive and humming?

> Amtrak is small and except for the NEC doesn't serve a 
> big segment of the public. 

Is it etched in stone that Amtak will forever have to remain small and not serve a bigger segment of the public?  Apparently so.  Notice that we've got money for an endless war in Iraq but we don't have money for a Chicago-to-Florida train.  Are you going to be one of the first "boots on the ground" when we go over and re-liberate Fallujah?

> Hence it's the yearly target on the wall, 

Yearly?  Heck, here on Trainorders, it's practically a DAILY target!

> available for everyone to throw darts at.

Especially Trainorders subscribers . . . people that you'd THINK would have a pro-passennger rail attitude.  



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/15 11:08 by CA_Sou_MA_Agent.

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as I know, there are no operating subsidies
> for any of the major railroads, which also have to
> pay property taxes on their infrastructure.
> State-owned track leased by shortlines may,
> depending on the lease terms, be considered an
> operating subsidy.

Does your "litmus test" require that they have to be a "major railroad"?  How about a branch line?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Branch_Valley_Railroad

You can thank the "Prince of Pork", the late Senator Robert Byrd, for this one.  I'm sure there are some other examples.

Also, consider the money that's spent on airlines operating into small towns.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvzNj0Vobss

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> toledopatch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As far as I know, there are no operating
> subsidies
> > for any of the major railroads, which also have
> to
> > pay property taxes on their infrastructure.
> > State-owned track leased by shortlines may,
> > depending on the lease terms, be considered an
> > operating subsidy.
>
> Does your "litmus test" require that they have to
> be a "major railroad"?  How about a branch line?
>

You didn't exactly read my second sentence, huh?

Apparently shorthoodlead has reading-comprehension issues, too, because ATSF3751 asked for examples other than infrastructure support, and the Crescent Corridor was an infrastructure project. That was what I was responding to with my statement about subsidies.

Of course, whether freight railroading is subsidized in any way isn't the real issue in this thread, but rather the Tea Partiers' insistence that passenger trains NOT be subsidized when highway and air travel ARE in very obvious ways.
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/15 12:48 by toledopatch.

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gawd, I get sooooooo tired of this endless
> debate.
>
> <> Privatize Amtrak.
>
> <> Expect Amtrak to operate
> taxpayer-subsidy-free.
>
> Meanwhile, the commercial airline industry can
> soak the taxpayers to the tune of $225 BILLION and
> there is no debate or consideration of that facet
> of the controversy.  
>
> Why the double standard?  That's all I'd like to
> know.  Why the double standard?
>
> If we want to privatize Amtrak, maybe we also need
> to privatize the commercial airlines.  There's
> something a little strange about an industry that
> claims to be "private enterprise" yet it has to
> rely on $225 BILLION of outside funding to stay
> afloat.  I don't know what to call it, but it
> sure ain't "private enterprise."   
>
> SOURCES: 
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-us-airlines-
> accused-of-hypocrisy-in-subsidy-debate-20150410-st
> ory.html  
> http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2015/05/15/big-three-u
> -s-airline-ceos-speak-on-open-skies-at-national-pr
> ess-club/
>
>  
I'm with ya, I'm so fed up with this crap it's not even funny, besides do they even read their history books on why railraods signed up to join Amtrak? They were hurting because of the passenger trains, especially after the Postal Service got rid of the RPO's in 1968!