It is not because Amtrak loses the most money of all of them...in fact there is no reason to say that because non of the other are designed as profit centers...the real reason is political. Amtrak smacks of socialism and socialism is wrong in this country...just ask anybody sitting on the right side of the aisle or aligned with any right side political or social or religious organization. It's a "somebody gets to ride a choo choo and I don't so why should they on my dime?" mentality . Amtrak is a selected entity because of politics, that's all.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Mr. Railman I think Amtrak loses the MOST money out of all of them, and that's why privatization is put on the table as ideas.
I think Amtrak loses the MOST money out of all of them, and that's why privatization is put on the table as ideas.
You might want to take a look at the Federal budget and then reconsider your statement.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
henry6 Let's see....what else doesn't make money in Washington....about the only thing I think does make money is the printing presses! The Defense Department doesn't, Nor the Highway Adminsitration nor the FAA or FCC...I don't think there is a government agency or department that does except the Treasury Department! So why pick on Amtrak? It is too much socialism for the Tea Party to bear?
Let's see....what else doesn't make money in Washington....about the only thing I think does make money is the printing presses! The Defense Department doesn't, Nor the Highway Adminsitration nor the FAA or FCC...I don't think there is a government agency or department that does except the Treasury Department! So why pick on Amtrak? It is too much socialism for the Tea Party to bear?
I think Amtrak loses the MOST money out of all of them, and that's why privatization is put on the table as ideas. That's how it was before 1972, but the RPOs went out of business in the sixties with the creation of the zip code, and train lines lost much of their revenue from it.
You mentioned "privatizing" which is the key element. The company gets a subsidy and there are new opportunities for kickbacks, etc. to get the contract. Pay to play. Check some of the outsourcing contracts done in Iraq for services that used to be handled directly by the quartermaster corps.
Mr. Railman I guess the chairman of the U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Introduced a bill that would privatise much, if not all, of Amtrak. I say go forth and do it. Amtrak doesn't make any money as is.
I guess the chairman of the U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Introduced a bill that would privatise much, if not all, of Amtrak. I say go forth and do it. Amtrak doesn't make any money as is.
Neither does METRA...Of course there are many transit operations in the U.S that are "privatized" in the sense that they are operated by a private company but said company gets a hefty subsidy for the services provided..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
This measure, as introduced by two Republican Congressmen, is just a political gambit. It may have merit not by itself but as part of a wholesale restructuring, rationalization, and programming of an integrated, interdependent, transportation system. It may or may not fit or accomodate or achieve anything as a stand alone conecpt. But merged with other rail, highway, air, and waterway programs and projects, may be feasable. No, this is not a good transportation proposition but a political posturing. It may work, but has to work within the entire framework of transportation and not as a Tea Leaf pagent.
DMUinCT you are raising the same questons many of us have raised in the past. As was explained in an NPR interview yesterday, the Tea Party is ensconced in the idea that government is spending too much money and should stop spending all money. They are doing this with the backing of some highly rich people. Some in the Party understand the stance and consequences, others are just along for the ride. There is some merit in what they say, but their unmovable stance, their inabiiity to compromise or come up with solutions, are causing problems in following through with their mandate. Amtrak is one of their targets but most don't understand, or seem to want to understand, that life is a cooperative effort between government and business working together to make things happen for the greater good. There may in fact be some merit in selling off the Corridor either to private enterprise or to the states enroute. Wholesale condemnation of either pose, at this point, doesn't seem to make sense, and niether is wholesale backing of the idea. The answers are not among railfans, but amogst the voters and their governors.
WHY?
Why do so many people on this Forum feel that if something does not make a profit it should not be done?
"promote the common good"
How much "profit" does the "Interstate Highway System" make? Or does it just make it posible for others to run businesses that makes a profit?
How much "profit" does the "Air Traffic Control System" make. The United States has been the leader in Aviation, yet, most aircraft designs were aided by Government research and support.
When the northeast Freight Railroads were bankrupt, it was the Government that formed "Conrail", made it profitable, and then turned into a stock company which was later taken over by NS/CSX.
We, us Amercans, have a passenger rail system that is third rate, we are not leaders, we are not even followers of Europe, China, or Japan.
Doesn't a country 3,000 miles wide REQUIRE long distance air travel (and i'm not talking Airlines that only make a profit by charging for Bags, Pillows, and Snacks) , High Speed Rail for shorter distances (500 miles or less), and the Automobile for local transport?
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Maybe it's good, maybe bad, but I think this proposal is part of a larger agenda posing as ideological which has way too much to do with politics to be allowed to discuss here.
The concept that Amtrak make money was verbage put into the legislation to assure that it would be a failure and that the whole idea that people wanted to and would ride passenger trains would be done and over with within a year or two. So...should the Northeast Corridor...what, Boston to Newport News?...be sold off to a private entity? And if it fails should the government or Amtrak regain control? Or should the government as Amtrak or other entity, either retain control and ownership or work in concert with the new owner. If private enterprise, how should the trackage rights, operations, etc. of MARC, SEPTA, NJT, MNRR, CONNDOT-Shore LIne East, and MBTA be handled? Hand over those operations to the new owner? Be required to continue the existing agreements? Throw them off the tracks and tell them to get their own lives? It is not an easy toss, giving Amtrak to a private carrier...there are many private carriers who probably don't want to get involved with these operating authorities! There is no black or white, no private or public, no simple answer to Amtrak. Only outsiders to the area and to rail think this is just another Lionel set.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.