Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Passenger Trains
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
" To do the same for railroads, every Amtrak passenger would have to buy their own car (at a $1 million a whack, at least). Unrealistic, at best. " <br /> <br />Sorry to disagree, Paul, but there is no MORE realistic option. This is the way it is in the rest of the modes. <br /> <br />Example: <br />Greyhound and Trailways own their own buses. <br />Example: <br />JB Hunt owns it's own tractors and trailers <br />Example: <br />US Air, Southwest, et al own their own airplanes. <br /> <br />So the analogy really would call for the passenger train OPERATOR owning their own equipment at $1 million per car. What's so unfair about that? <br /> <br />"Really? Who built the original highways? How far back does the fuel tax go?" <br /> <br />So waht are you suggesting? That we sink billions of dollars into a rail system without a trust fund, and then later enact this trust fund? So we should do the wrong thing twice? <br /> <br />No, sorry, the Fed was NOT the pioneer in road building. States were. Matter of Fact, my home Oregon was one of the first to produce modern highways. the Columbia River Highway predates the Lincoln Highway. <br /> <br />But anyway, what difference does this make? That is a CAPITAL expenditure, with which i have no problems. It is the OPERATIONAL subsidy I cannot support. <br /> <br />On Trust Fund etc... yes, the fuel tax RRs pay is stupid, stupid, stupid. If they should pay it then they should get something back out of it that benefits them. This is a basic fundamental principle of all fair taxation: no payments without (at least tangential) benefit. <br /> <br />" "We want a nationwide network, but we aren't going to pay you enough to run it. Ha ha!" (Yes, I'm paraphrasing here) " <br /> <br />Well that would be more accurate if it said "we want a nationwide netwrok but don't want to build it." <br /> <br />Congress substituted operational susbidies and unrealistic demands, when it should not have given an operational dime. Instead, it should have provided significant capital spending and told Amtrak, "find some passengers that justify a train and we'll build you the system to run on." <br /> <br />But I maintain my point. All other modes, (except when Congress gets stupid(er) and bails them out, ala United,) recieve significant capital expenditure subsidies, but do NOT receive operational subsidies. And this OUGHT to be the rule for ALL modes. <br /> <br />Alexander Craghead
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy