Amtrak Shutdown Will It Happen?

[Anonymous]

The government will eventually have to retake control of Amtrak, regardless, just saw on CNN where private companies have returned brit rail to gov.

[Anonymous]

Paul,

I don't agree that the gas tax is only a feel good measure. It is a real tax. And it really pays to build the roads. How do I know? Whenever fuel sales drop off, road construction projects are delayed or cancelled. The auto and truck drivers are paying for road construction. Now if you want to debate whether the trucks pay their fair share, then you have something to talk about. But it is not accurate to say the fuel taxes are not paying for the construction of the nation's highways.

In my opinion, Amtrak is not essential to the country outside of the NEC. Also, the NEC states have the means to operate that portion of Amtrak without the rest of the nation pitching in. I think it would be best for everyone to allow Amtrak to sink or swim. I predict the outcome would be that Amtrak would stop running in the rest of the country and the NEC states would subsidize the NEC. That would be a reasonable outcome given the apparent situation Amtrak and the nation are in today.

If you want the level of passenger rail service they have in Europe and Japan, raise the fuel tax so fuel costs $4 a gallon and tear up the interstates and primary highways in the country. That would probably get you what you want. It would also get a lot of people to move back into our decaying downtown areas, but I digress . . .

Just because the government gives one industry, the airlines, a subsidy doesn't make it right for them to give another industry one, Amtrak, as well. I think the government should stop giving the airlines a subsidy as well. Aren't these publicly held companies? If that is the way it works, I want the government to start subsidizing NS and Microsoft because I have stock in those companies. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Amtrak simply needs to hire Roger Snoble away from Los Angeles....You would think GW Bush, a former resident of Dallas would think of it!

[Anonymous]

Well put Paul, the one sided transportation policy that this country followed for the 50 years needs to be corrected.

[Anonymous]

The problem with the UK rail network was (and is) that there were too many companies formed. Railtrack was responsible for maintainence, but had no maintainence department. Hence, it had to contract out for work, with the result that it was overcharged and had variable quality.

Also,it was assumed that Railtrack could make money through the stockmarket and other investors. This, obviously, did not happen. The Government has had to step in and bail them out.

The number of Train Operating Comapnies is something like 25. This is far too many. There are suggestions that the certain stations in London will have one train company only usingthem. So capacity is increased by reducing conflicting opertating schedules.

The government has also given funding to some Regional operators to ensure services that are for the benefit of rural communities continue.

In all, had British Rail been given half the money that has been wasted over the passed few years, then things might have been different. BR wanted to do some upgrades to the West Coast mainLine at a cost of around $3-4 billion. The cost now is over $10 billion and it is still not completed.

Consider this thought: there are 365.25 days in the year. At a minimum it would cost $1 million a day to run a rail network. $365 million a year. Of course, this would probably mean the number of services were reduced to a very limited number, and only the minimal renewal. As to allow for crashes, lind damage through floods etc, more would be needed. Therefore, to ensure investment and improvement, you are talking 3-4 times this amount at least.

Is $1.2 billion per year too much to ask for a national rail system?

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Jason, I don't think so, in fact I think a lot more needs to be spent to give the U.S. a REAL passenger rail system.