Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]They ignore any data that does not support their argument, which is what I would do if I was being paid to advocate for a point of view. [/quote] The data provided by those "experts" who would like to kill Amtrak is easily disproved by NARP (and other enthusasts). For example, the previous DOT Secretary Norman Mineta compared the passenger-mile costs of the Sunset Limited with those of a typical Orlando-LA flight. Obviously, a flight would seem much more economical, especially considering the difference between 5 hours and 3 days. But Mineta simply ignored the fact that most passengers on the Sunset Limited do not travel the entire length of the route. An Orlando-to-LA flight does not stop at New Orleans, Houston, Phoenix, and numerous points in between. NARP website in fact discloses many myths created by those who don't want passenger trains to be around. By the way, I don't know if NARP or any other group has ever mentioned it, but my opinion is that increasing Amtrak service on medium distances (up to 500-600 miles), especially with overnight trains that would attract significant numbers of passengers, would relieve airports from handling short flights and provide more room for long-haul flights (transcontinental and international). My parents live a few miles away from JFK, and I see it for myself that airplanes are passing over our home about every two minutes.  And large aircraft (B747, B767, A330, etc.) is NOT a majority.  Yes, JetBlue does run small A320's even for coast-to-coast flights, but it's probably an exception.  I suspect that most of smaller aircraft flying to/from JFK are some relatively short flights.  If most passengers from these flights were transfered to trains, imagine how many more international or transcontinental flights could be there instead![quote]The information presented on NARP's website is frequently wrong, incomplete, or misleading. For example, they claim that general aviation received a federal subsidy of $1,453 billion for 2007. They are wrong. During 2007 FAA expenditures were $14.8 billion, of which $2.3 billion was transferred from the general fund. Most of the $14.8 billion was covered by ticket and fuel taxes. [/quote] You are not proving anything. You aren't saying that this $14.8 billion was NOT spent on aviation, are you? That's all NARP is saying, not getting into details what fund it came from. The very fact that there is no dedicated rail trust fund in the U.S. is already a shame! And $2.3 billion from the general fund is more than Amtrak has received annually ever during the past decade. NARP is not claiming that the entire aviation subsidy goes to airlines. It fully realizes that much of it also goes to other things, including airports. And they do advocate for adequate capital funding for rail infrastructure.  The problem, however, is that Amtrak in its current structure so far seems to be the most realistic way of preserving passenger rail in the U.S., which is hard to change.  If any politician proposes some other model that can realisticly earn Congressional support, without cutting the existing service, I'm sure NARP would embrace it.  For right now, however, Amtrak seems to be the only way to save intercity passenger rail as a mode, therefore NARP supports it.  So, don't blame this organization.  After all, they are the most influential pro-rail group in the U.S. for already 41 years.  In fact they often claim that they do support investment to highways and airports, only wanting the rail to be treated equally. What "hard-nosed" data are you talking about? [quote]Generally speaking, people contribute taxes into the system until they retire, and take benefits out of the system after they retire. With the end of WWII almost 65 years away, this will affect Government programs such as Amtrak in the future. [/quote] I don't think Amtrak depends on this so much. The real issue is, as always, adequate funding by the government. [quote]Reagan appointed Graham Claytor President of Amtrak, arguably the best CEO Amtrak has ever had ... [/quote] Hmmm... I was too young to know that, so I'm not disputing it. In fact, it's quite possible. As I said, Bush Administration did give Amtrak a loan guarantee necessary to survive the fiscal crisis of 2002. McCain proposed some security bill for Amtrak shortly after 9/11. That's encouraging news, meaning that common sense prevails even in most biased politicians. [quote]If every taxpayer was an occasional Amtrak LD train rider or even if it could be shown that Amtrak's LD trains provide a net societal benefit relative to their subsidy, then the "per taxpayer" arguement would be a good one.[/quote] The "per-taxpayer" argument works for Amtrak not less than it does for funding the Iraq war, or financial aid to foreign countries. The funds used for rebuilding Iraq (including its railroads!) could just as well be used for expanding rail transportation in our country. Apparently, most taxpayers don't care, as long as the per-taxpayer amount is trivial enough.
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