For the benefit of the Amtrak naysayers, here is an interesting read on how the federal government does in fact provide subsidized air travel...and how "well" (sic) it does it: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/kens5/iteam/stories/MYSA050208.airport.kens.c0cff39d.html
OK, the article argues that the subsidized "commuter" flights are a boondogle. So, um, what is the conclusion to be draw from this?
Since the Federal government is willing to fund a commuter airline boondogle, it should be willing to fund a rail boondogle? Or is a 50 percent rate of subsidy a boondogle when applied to commuter flights but not a boondogle when it is applied to long-distance trains? Or is the airline service mischaracterized as a boondogle and the "I" team of investigative reporters are the same sort who unfairly label Amtrak as a boondogle? Is an average 70 dollar subsidy per flight a matter of the government giving money to rich people, or at least people well off enough to fly on airlines, but the multi-hundred dollar subsidy to sleeper passengers on the Empire Builder a matter of helping the downtrodden?
Based on numbers gleaned from the article, it appears that the EAS generates 1 billion passenger miles using about 100 million in subsidy. Amtrak generates about 4 billion passenger miles using somewhere north of a billion in subsidy. Is the point of this that the Amtrak appropriation should be scaled back to the 400 million dollars so there is a level playing field?
The "what about all those other guys getting subsidy" is an argument I hear time and time again in advocacy circles. Meetings become gripe sessions "how come we can't get trains when they waste X dollars on this and 10 times X dollars on that." Are we telling people outside advocacy circles that since so much government money is wasted, it is unfair that such a small amount of money is wasted on Amtrak?
Amtrak and trains have to stand on their own in terms of benefit provided, either personal or social, and dollar expenditure. That the government has money to spend on a whole lot of other things is really irrelevant to persuading people to support trains. And given the demographic of the people who patronize and advocate for Amtrak, so help me, the next time "the government has billions to spend on . . . but no money for a train", I am going to pipe up, "Yeah, and think of how much money they have for Medicare Part D!"
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The problem isn't which modes get how much subsidy, but what do we get for each taxpayer dollar.
A lean, mean, high performance (organizationally) Amtrak would go a long way toward justifying more taxpayer subsidy for more service.
But, so far, most Amtrak supporters give Amtrak a free pass on this and anyone who questions Amtrak's performance is looked on with knee-jerk suspicion.
It's possible that Amtrak could self-reform if given motive to do so.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
alphas wrote:I suspect that if Amtrak was given an ultimatum to "reform or perish", you'd see some changes, including employees' attitudes. But politics being what it is today, it won't ever be given that ultimatum so nothing will change.
They've been given the "reform or perish" ultimatum so many times and they've weaseled out of it every time....it's like the "boy who cried wolf".
Reagan zeroed out their budget every year. Clinton did the whole Amtrak Reform Council thing - whose results were completely ignored (and probably with good reason.) The GAO did a report on a reformed Amtrak (LD sleepers and diners should pay their way) - which has led to some reformulated dining service (with much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the advocacy groups).
But, you really can't push lasting reform on from the outside. It's not a "once and done" kind of thing. And the outsiders never really have the knowledge needed to make the best informed decisions.
You have to develop a positive feedback loop for the "insiders" so that improvement is continuous.
With the airlines being strong lobby groups coupled w/support from city/county govt's and chamber of commerences, there is no way something like this is going away. For better or worse, its here to stay.
Is that a problem? Should we welcome this program because it means that the Federal government recognizes the need for lifeline service to small communities? Or do we think that the 100 million for this program is coming out of Amtrak's money?
Do we think it is a bad thing to serve these communities by air? Could trains do it better -- cheaper, whatever?
Could the Bus do a better job? Greyhound cut routes to many small communities that were to small for Train Service or were no were near a class one main line. Jamestown New York has US Air to Pittsburgh that is subsidized even though Buffalos Airport is 60 miles away and the Fact that Jamestown is on the old Erie Mainline
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.