CMStPnP According to the article we have 230 million rail passengers in this country sharing Amtrak infrastructure of that amount only 30 million passengers belong to Amtrak. To me that is a fairly persuasive argument that $1.7 Billion, largely applied to Amtrak Infrastructure is not a huge subsidy and not all that different from the Interstate Highway subsidy. Further the article points out that Amtrak is mandated by Congress to operate it's long distance train network and so that is not a free business decision Is it fair to hold Amtrak financially responsible for that mandate?
According to the article we have 230 million rail passengers in this country sharing Amtrak infrastructure of that amount only 30 million passengers belong to Amtrak. To me that is a fairly persuasive argument that $1.7 Billion, largely applied to Amtrak Infrastructure is not a huge subsidy and not all that different from the Interstate Highway subsidy.
Further the article points out that Amtrak is mandated by Congress to operate it's long distance train network and so that is not a free business decision
Is it fair to hold Amtrak financially responsible for that mandate?
CMStPnPThose are the two major points I gleened from the article which neither one of you addressed above. Perhaps you missed them?
Personal agendas can often sidetrack a discussion of issues.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
You guys should really read the whole article next time before you debate it. That was the intent of me posting the link to the article to begin with.
Further the article points out that Amtrak is mandated by Congress to operate it's long distance train network and so that is not a free business decision. Is it fair to hold Amtrak financially responsible for that mandate?
Those are the two major points I gleened from the article which neither one of you addressed above. Perhaps you missed them?
Paul MilenkovicAnd who are those like-minded people? Plato? Aristotle? The Honorable Herbert Kohl, the now retired Senator from Wisconsin?
Paul,
I said "You or like minded people." The phrase "like minded" refers back to you and means people who agree with you on this issue.
Representative Mica has every right to his opinion. However, I regard his phrase "Holy Jihad against Amtrak" as inappropriate.
I don't mean to suggest that debate should be closed on this or any other issue. But if we simply repeat ourselves the conversation becomes tiresome for other people.
The coffee cake issue puzzles me. When I was in the Army there was plenty of coffee but no coffee cake.
John
Paul M.
While I am not, and doubt I ever will be a passenger train supporter, I must tell you I enjoy your well reasoned, well written pieces. This is a classic.
Mac McCulloch
John WR Paul MilenkovicHow is this "excellent" article in any way a rebuttal to Representative Mica? Paul, I contend that the article is intended as a rebuttal to John Mica. I do not contend that you or like minded people will find it persuasive.
Paul MilenkovicHow is this "excellent" article in any way a rebuttal to Representative Mica?
I contend that the article is intended as a rebuttal to John Mica. I do not contend that you or like minded people will find it persuasive.
And who are those like-minded people? Plato? Aristotle? The Honorable Herbert Kohl, the now retired Senator from Wisconsin?
When Mr. Kohl, a staunch backer of trains whom I had personally thanked for that support at a "meet and greet", was first running for that office, his opponent accused Mr. Kohl, a wealthy businessman who then owned a regional supermarket chain, of selling coffee cake for much more money to the US Army than what he charged in his store. In an on-camera political debate, he was prepared to answer this charge. When challenged on "coffee cake gate", he pulled out a Kohl's Foods coffee cake and a defense-contract coffee cake. The defense-contract cake was much larger, the kind of institutional package used for serving large groups of people economically, such as the soldiers an Army barracks, rather than the smaller family-sized package sold locally.
He patiently explained that the Army coffee cake cost more per cake but that it was actually a good value on a per serving basis, and the independent-minded voters in the State of Wisconsin who place reason above blind party loyalty found his argument persuasive.
So how is the rebuttal to John Mica, so purportedly unpersuasive to me and the like-minded unpersuasables that a person gives up trying, any different than State Representative Engeleiter's breathless charge that businessman Herb Kohl was overcharging the Army for coffee cake, which was dramatically refuted and ending up costing her the election in Wisconsin?
The highways are a more expensive cake than Amtrak that nevertheless costs less "per serving." For all I know, John Mica is a terrible person who opposes Amtrak for the most venal of reasons. But he isn't any less wrong about highway and passenger train spending comparison as Mr. Kohl was about the cakes he sold.
And repeating Yogi Berra's famous scrambled aphorism is supposed to be the "time out" sign that we are "not supposed to reopen the debate" on this question? Not being open to persuasion goes in both directions, the coffee cake question sank Susan Engeleiter's political career, and it is undermining passenger train advocacy.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I call it "deja vu all over again" because it was written last September and before the recent election. The pro and con arguments have been made; I see no reason to simply repeat them.
You observe that it is desirable to have "a more cost effective Amtrak." In fact recent figures show a historically small deficit for Amtrak. You may not find this entirely satisfactory but I hope you will agree it is a step in the right direction.
Where I disagree most with John Mica is his use of "Holy Jihad" rhetoric. I find that language inappropriate. You yourself do not use such language. I hope that indicates we agree on this particular point.
John WR This is a rebuttal to Representative John Mica's "holy jihad" argument. Its deja vu all over again.
This is a rebuttal to Representative John Mica's "holy jihad" argument. Its deja vu all over again.
How is this "excellent" article in any way a rebuttal to Representative Mica?
Mr. Mica claims that that the Amtrak subsidy is multiples of alternative common carrier modes on a "per ticket" basis. Some of us have reasoned that the Amtrak subsidy is high on a passenger-mile basis. One can dicker and bicker about what boundary should be drawn and about all of the "hidden" subsidies, but I have long reasoned that the high rate of the Amtrak subsidy is an impediment to getting more public money to get more trains. The assertion had been made that I am obdurate with respect to "the facts" and it had been suggested in criticism that I can "go ahead and believe whatever I want", but the way I see it, a more cost-effective Amtrak will be a more politicially popular Amtrak that could attract higher dollar amounts of support.
The argument is made (Chairman Boardman) that based on "fairness", if the Highway Program receives 10 billion in General Revenue to make up to gas tax shortfall, Amtrak should maybe get 10 billion, or perhaps people should halt any complaints about Amtrak getting north of 1 billion?
This is the fairness concern of having 3 children in the family and the unsolvable geometry problem of dividing the remaining part of the apple pie in 3 identical portions, using the measurement tools available to the Ancient Greeks and to small kids. So if highways get a certain dollar amount, it is "unfair" that trains do not receive the same dollar amount?
What if Federal highway spending supports 25 percent of total passenger miles on Interstate highways alone, leaving out the substantial freight on those highways, and if we followed the European model, the same amount of money spent on passenger trains would support 5 percent of total passenger miles? Would anyone, ever, admit that passenger trains are a particularly expensive mode in terms of work product per unit of public expenditure? Or is it all about if Kid Bro gets a dessert treat, I will be in a child's sulk if don't get the same thing in the same amount?
Go ahead and reason that Representative Mica is wrong and that highways getting a higher dollar amount is unfair. "We", broadly in the passenger train advocacy community, have been reasoning that way for over 40 years, and it is not working. And yes, I had been a child member of NARP, paying dues from the sweat of pushing a mower over neighbor's lawns, and I once thought as a child, believed in trains as a child, wrote letters to the Congressional delegation as a child, advocated for trains as a child, and over 40 years later, I am a vocal proponent of putting the childish ways of supporting trains behind us.
Very well written article on Amtrak's Subsidy. This should get a good debate going.....
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/09/21/reminder-amtrak-subsidies-pale-in-comparison-to-highway-subsidies/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.