United Air Lines wants 1.8 billion

[Anonymous]

1. Federal funds into a "rail interstate"... if it is for: a.) track b.)signals c.)r-o-w d.)stations e.)wires etc.... yes... on an 80% match for local funds.

Why the match? This is how highways work... and it is effective. If Georgia doesn't want to pony up, doesn't care, then why force them? Let them remain off the RR maps. This way, the decision on routes happens closest to the ridership instead of DC, who, we should remember, cause this mess to begin with.

2. funds for staff, engineers, train maintenance, electrical bills, fuel, ticket machines, etc? No. These should be covered by the ticket costs... if this is too much, then the states can choose if they wi***o subsidize the ticket... that is their right. I don't think they should but it is in the purview of the state government to determine their transportation system.

3. Funds from Fed for dispatching, control, safety inspectors, track maintenance, signal crews, etc.... yes. Just like the FAA. Make it part of FRA to complete the parallel.

4. Funds from highways. No. We should not siphon from air or highway monies for rail because these modes are more important and have their own cash problems regarding infrastructure.

Want funds? First, kill the deficit reduction rail fuel tax. 2nd, issue bonds! This would be the largest public works project since the highway system... so bond it out. Since when did Uncle Sam go back on bonded debt? ot for a long time... if ever. You'll find the market for them, especially in these times, strong. And gaurantee them against their own fuel tax in the future.

Those are just a few possibilities

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Who said rail is a public service? Who says that any transportation is?

Is food a public service? Then should food be provided by the government? Or is it each according to their means? You are on dangerous ground here.

The government does not exist to "provide us" with anything... rather to gaurantee us our liberty and our freedom. Thus common defence, etc..... but there is no gaurantee to transportation.

Anyway, who said the roads should not be built by the government? I did not. Who said airports should not be built by governments? Not I.

But who said that the aircraft should be state funded? or your car, or mine? Does the government buy your gas for you? Or your tires? No. Do they pay you a stipend to drive? Or for a chauffer? No. The government is not here to provide transportation; rather, to make it possible by providing the system it functions in. Just as the river belongs to the state, but not the boats.

[Anonymous]

All it would take is to raise $5 billion or so a year to fund a 20 year plan to build a new network of high speed rails, surely, at least $5 billion more will be collected......We won't have to take any money away from the highways or airports.......

[Anonymous]

I agree, that is the fundamental reason that we elect our representatives, to decide how our taxes should be spent for the benefit of ALL of us. National transportation planning fits this template precisely, and I believe that there has been a inequity in distributing those dollars for many years, planning has become simply a matter of who has the bigger lobby in Washington, and it has ruined our passenger rail network.

[Anonymous]

I for one have been saying that for years. If we had put as much money into rail passenger service as the other means of transport, we'd have a system as good or better than Japan and Europe, (which, by the way, we defeated in WW11) and probably a lot of our tax dollars went to help buid by way of "foreign aid".

[Anonymous]

Sorry, public services should be provided by government, period. Note that the British "experiment" has failed-they turned passenger service back to the government today. Lets see how long you can drive on the non-fed or state supported highways or fly from non tax supported airports. Free market works in some areas, but not all, and one day people will realize that.

[Anonymous]

Alexander;
So you are saying that you would not agree in an investment in the rail system by the government on a scale that would approach the investment in the interstate highway system or airport or waterway system? I believe that this is the next logical place to invest our tax dollars wisely. Federal funds have helped to create such a unbalanced system in favor modes other than rail passenger. And, IMO, as long as we are spending our money anyway, I think rail passenger is the most logical way to go for the optimum bang for the buck. Why not take SOME of the cash now going into expansion of the highway and larger airports and put it into the rail passenger network? Is it okay that the majority of the subsidy money goes into air and highway, while rail is allowed to whither?

[Anonymous]

Charlie:

I would say I am definitely in the "anti-Amtrak" crowd. Please not I am NOT anti-passenger rail.

However, I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone who is an "anti-Amtrak" or Amtrak critic that will agree with bailing out United, or ANY industry.

Most Amtrak critics are free-marketers, such as myself, and find ANY bailout abhorrent. It is not the job of the government to reward failure.

So two wrongs do not make a right... do not subsidize United operations. And likewise, do not subsidize Amtrak ops... at least not at a federal level. If your local state(s) want to, that's an entirely different matter.

Alexander Craghead
Oregon
"Live by the market, die by the market."

[Anonymous]

We have got the same thing here in New Zealand. On our suburban trains in Wellington some have been painted with adverts covering the whole train. The units run in two car sets. I don't live in Wellington but do go down there on occasion. One is painted for a local shopping mall and another is painted for Telecom(our biggest phone co.). Tranz Rail wants to sell the services and already a patnership has been formed to buy them, the local Wellington Regional Council in patnership with Stagecoach which runs bus services around the city. If it gets sold to these guys maybe there will be more advertising on the trains as a lot of buses there already have. BTW, Tranz Rail is headed by Michael Beard who was CEO of Australia New Zealand Direct Line(ANZDL).

[BR60103]

We get advertising on the GO Trains around Toronto. Despite what they say, it does affect the view out the window and it really cuts down on the natural light that gets in.
Also, most of the ads are pretty tasteless from the outside as well.
-David

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Correction:
United Airlines has applied for a $1.8 billion loan guarantee, not a subsidy or a bailout. Further, there is some hope Amtrak will either get a supplemental appropriation or a loan guarantee for $200 million so it will stay in operation.

By the way I believe Amtrak has "wrapped" some cars on its NEC trains with advertising.

[Anonymous]

This is a great example, that I hope even the anti-Amtrak people will grasp, of the lopsided transportation policies of our country. After the $15 billion handout after 9-11, I figured that the Airlines would crawl back into their rodents dens for a while,until the smoke cleared for at least a year,before they unleashed their greedy,paid beggars on Washington for more of our dollars.

[Anonymous]

I read the story too. United wants $1.8 billion, Amtrak needs $200 million to stay afloat...... Hey, that is a factor of 9-1.....

Taking the clue of the anti-Amtrak people: Since I never fly, why should the government provide these funds to United Airlines? What a waste of money!

[Anonymous]

Thirty seconds of advertising time on the Super Bowl will set you back nearly two million

Do Amtrak's needs seem so unreasonable?


Idea:
On corridor trains, Amtrak ought to sell ad space on the sides of one coach per train.