Least sense to whom? Again, the EB is considered by many to fulfill a vital service in winter. The CZ\s route between Denver and Salt Lake City is certainly a tourist's high spot, and Denver-Chicago and Kansas Citu-St. Louis-Chicago are populated areas that can use some form of corridor service. The Coast Starlight performs relativelly well compared to most LD trains.
schlimm So what to do about the LD trains west of the Mississippi where they make the least sense: the Sunset, TX Eagle, CZ, SWC and EB?
So what to do about the LD trains west of the Mississippi where they make the least sense: the Sunset, TX Eagle, CZ, SWC and EB?
I think the question might better be recast to ask if there were things the train could do to better serve the market the route traverses.
For example, does it make sense for the SW Chief to serve the Grand Canyon stop (WIlliams) in the middle of the night? Would Albuquerque - LA day train make more sense? Is there a an untapped tourist market out of LA into the SW? (You should see all the RVs rented from LA that show up at the Grand Canyon!) Amtrak California markets a day train/bus trip from SF to Yosemite. How about a weekend trip from LA to the Grand Canyon or Albuquerque/Santa Fe?
You can look at Chicago/KC/(Topeka?) in the same light. The problem becomes the gap. Do you do the gap overnight or run a separate day train with though travelers going to hotels?
You can look at all the western trains in this light, I think.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndI want free stuff for my town, too! Where do I sign up?
I thought you lived in the northeast, Don. Am I wrong?
Those of us who do live in the northeast between Washington and Boston really have grabbed the free stuff for ourselves. After all, this route is 431 miles long, much less than 750 miles, but there is no serious suggestion that we in the northeast should pay for it. I mean my own Governor, Chris Christie backed out of New Jersey Transit's plan to build two new tunnels under the Hundson, a plan that was many years in the making. The Feds response was to say they will come in and build it for us. And we are getting our catenary redone along with substantial repairs to the track, all paid for by Uncle Sam. Maybe I should say Uncle Sugar.
John
In addition to eliminating or dividing up some routes into city-pair segments, Amtrak should consider cost-cutting on the service by eliminating non-essential features and raising fares to come closing to covering "above-the-rail costs."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
That does sound pretty respectable, in Canada VIA Rail would be breaking open the bubbly with those types of numbers. Passenger rail in this country is in steep decline and I'm not sure there's anything that can be done to stop the bleeding, I'm mean, VIA just cut back service to Kitchener, Ontario, what's next?? less service for Toronto to Montreal??
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/2606278-via-rail-is-cutting-service-to-and-from-kitchener/
Very Bad
schlimm In addition to eliminating or dividing up some routes into city-pair segments, Amtrak should consider cost-cutting on the service by eliminating non-essential features and raising fares to come closing to covering "above-the-rail costs."
In FY10, if Amtrak could have shed the long distance trains, it could have covered its operating costs (above the rail) with an average fare increase per passenger of $7.41. Clearly, the increases would vary by leg and market variables. This number assumes no service level change on any of these routes.
In FY10 the NEC had an operating profit of $51.5 million, offset by an operating loss for the other short corridor trains of $231 million.
From the Republican Platform for the 2012 election:
"Amtrak continues to be, for the taxpayers, an
extremely expensive railroad. The public has to
subsidize every ticket nearly $50. It is long past time
for the federal government to get out of way and
allow private ventures to provide passenger service
to the northeast corridor. The same holds true with
regard to high-speed and intercity rail across
the country."
What strikes me is that while the Republican Platform does acknowledge the loses from long distance train routes there is no proposal to change those routes. However, in the routes which are profitable or are believed will become profitable there is a proposal to turn them over to the private sector.
"allow private ventures to provide passenger service to the northeast corridor. The same holds true with
regard to high-speed and intercity rail across the country."
Not that party platforms have much effect, but I would read that as privatize the whole route structure. Or at least, open up ROW to various operators.
Schlimm,
I was looking for some kind of Republican consensus. This is the closest thing to one that I can find. I offer it for what it's worth.
However, I don't think the Republicans are calling for privatization of long distance routes simply because they know the trains lose so much money that no private concern would operate them. But I don't think the platform reflects strong opposition to long distance routes either.
John WR . . . the Republican Platform does acknowledge the loses from long distance train routes . . .
. . . the Republican Platform does acknowledge the loses from long distance train routes . . .
You didn't attend school where the local Republicans managed to vote down all of the bond referendum ballot questions, and where the school board then furloughed English teachers so you could keep your football team that went every year to the state tournament?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicYou didn't attend school where the local Republicans managed to vote down all of the bond referendum ballot questions, and where the school board then furloughed English teachers so you could keep your football team that went every year to the state tournament?
I'm confused, Paul. What do the decisions of a school board have to do with rail passenger service?
Since I provided the Republican Party Platform statement on Amtrak I thought I should do the same with the Democratic Party Platform. However, unless I missed something, the Democratic Platform is silent about Amtrak. If someone else can find something about the subject I would appreciate it. Here is a link to the Democratic Party Platform:
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform#america-works
Well said, narig01. In 1971 Republicans and Democrats came together to come up with Amtrak as a national passenger train network. Without it, there would be nothing more than commuter operations around the country. Pretty much forget about corridors, because the freight railroads would have no reason whatsoever to all of a sudden let someone start running passenger trains over 100-500 mile routes. Unless of course that someone wanted to buy the thing lock, stock and barrel.
The current Amtrak has kept trains running in the US and does actually have a network where you can travel from coast to coast. In a time when we have a generation coming of age that isn't all car crazed and very interested in other forms of transportation, when flying has lost all the luster it once had and has all the appeal of a ride on the cattle truck, when Interstates are packed with cars and trucks and then some, trains are a real alternative that deserves investment and addition to frequencies and lines.
Talking about what lines to cut is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Cut a line this year, then another next year and pretty soon there won't be any left to cut. The conversation should be about which new trains to add. Illinois seems to get that. They are pushing hard for getting the line Chicago - Quad Cities up and running. A line that should be extended all the way to Omaha along the old Rock Island main line post haste. There are plenty more corridors that should be happening today or tomorrow or really, really soon. But don't dump the current LD's just because corridor seems to be the fashion word of the day.
There's a cost to building, maintaining and even expanding a national train network. The thing is that the US can't afford not to spend the money, unless it wants to become a 3rd world country when it comes to transportation.
CJtrainguy In a time when we have a generation coming of age that isn't all car crazed and very interested in other forms of transportation, when flying has lost all the luster it once had and has all the appeal of a ride on the cattle truck, when Interstates are packed with cars and trucks and then some, trains are a real alternative that deserves investment and addition to frequencies and lines. Talking about what lines to cut is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Cut a line this year, then another next year and pretty soon there won't be any left to cut.
In a time when we have a generation coming of age that isn't all car crazed and very interested in other forms of transportation, when flying has lost all the luster it once had and has all the appeal of a ride on the cattle truck, when Interstates are packed with cars and trucks and then some, trains are a real alternative that deserves investment and addition to frequencies and lines.
Talking about what lines to cut is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Cut a line this year, then another next year and pretty soon there won't be any left to cut.
Are you saying 20-35 year olds are going to start flocking to the western LD trains or ride trains from the east to west coast? The answer in few words is, No, impossible to compete because of the distance. Even if trains could average 120 mph (very fast and very expensive) CHI-LA do you realize how long a ride that would be? [18 h 52 m] How many folks would elect to spend nearly an entire day, or more likely, parts of two for that trip? Only some elderly, some railfans and generally folks with a lot of time on their hands.The obvious point that you and other folks are missing is that passenger rail in the US, to be viable, needs to compete with air where it is competitive, i.e., the in the relatively short four-five hour corridors which you so nicely dismiss as " the fashion word of the day." Getting rid of the legacy LD trains, which create most of Amtrak's losses while carrying a small percentage of passengers, is not getting rid of Amtrak one route at a time. It is the only way to save Amtrak!
Illinois is doing the right thing, with the various State-subsidized routes and the CHI-StL pretty high speed corridor. The Quad Cities route might work, especially if Iowa gets on board and pitches in to Iowa City [good luck on that!]. The restored Blackhawk also has potential. Upgrading the speed on what once was a real racetrack when i was at UIUC, the CHI-Carbondale former IC route would also be a plus {good luck with CN]. Cutting off the CZ at Omaha or Lincoln and moving the route to the UP could create another corridor with potential. Yes, I am an Illinoisan and a strong proponent of modern passenger rail (and other investments in infrastructure). And like you, I believe we cannot afford NOT to upgrade. And we can afford it now as we did in the Great Depression. But we need to invest wisely.
As I understand CJ he calls corridors "the fashion of today" in the sense that this is the direction Amtrak is heading in today and needs to head in to give us the transportation service we need. I hope I represent him fairly; I certainly think that is true.
But he also believes that if we do not maintain the long distance trains, the whole national network, we will wind up losing Amtrak. If that happens we won't have to worry about corridors because there won't be an Amtrak to run corridor trains. And I believe that too.
You (and other people here) say "we need to invest wisely." But there is a paradox here. Certainly there are arguments, in fact strong arguments, that corridor trains would be better investments of scarce dollars than long distance trains. But if Amtrak is going to make these investments Amtrak must continue to exist. And if, as I certainly believe, Amtrak becomes so fragmented that its existence is threatened or worse thee will be no possibility or corridor trains or and other Amtrak trains.
In the Republican Party Platform the one line that is identified as a candidate for cutting is the Northeast Corridor Line precisely because it is profitable and is therefore considered inappropriate for government operation. And the Democratic Party Platform does not even bother to address that issue much less oppose it. I know individual party members may take different positions but over all there is no challenge to the way Amtrak is run by either party except for that one place where Amtrak is most successful.
The crux of our difference is you and others think continuing the legacy LD routes nationwide is the only way to preserve Amtrak. You think the government will sell off the NEC. Others and myself believe pruning those routes and making Amtrak a close to break even organization on operations while increasing corridors is the way to grow. For us, Amtrak's wasteful LD routes make it more vulnerable to congressional meddling.
If you have one train on a route originating in Chicago, the schedule has to be set up to facilitate Chicago connections.
If you have two trains on the route, you can schedule the second train for better times where the traffic warrants. Using the Southwest Chief as an example, if you had a second frequency you could run a Los Angeles-Grand Canyon train that left Los Angeles at 9:15 AM and arrived at Williams Junction at 7:50 PM. The train would lay over 3 hours in Williams Junction, then leave for Chicago, arriving in Chicago at 10:15 AM the 2nd day following.
The current Southwest Chief schedule is good for Los Angeles - Albuquerque service.
John WR Schlimm, As I understand CJ he calls corridors "the fashion of today" in the sense that this is the direction Amtrak is heading in today and needs to head in to give us the transportation service we need. I hope I represent him fairly; I certainly think that is true. But he also believes that if we do not maintain the long distance trains, the whole national network, we will wind up losing Amtrak. If that happens we won't have to worry about corridors because there won't be an Amtrak to run corridor trains. And I believe that too.
You represent that fairly.
Let me bring in what I've seen happen in places in Europe:
Whole regional networks were considered unprofitable by the national railway. So they wanted to abandon passenger traffic on those lines. In response and thanks to changes in law, the regions took over the traffic. Not unlike Amtrak, they were faced with scarce resources. So most of the traffic was abandoned, with remaining, upgraded traffic focused on a few corridors. Then a funny thing happened: Upgraded service brought more passengers, which led to service expansion. All of a sudden there was talk of reopening lines that had been abandoned for passenger traffic years before.
They are however also finding that reintroducing passenger traffic 20-30 years later is difficult and associated with large costs. Yet the regions push forward. Why? Because once people see the benefits of trains, they want them. Not just where the trains run now, but where the people who want them live. So why should we be so eager to get rid of trains that work to maybe save pennies now, when in a matter of years we'll be trying to get trains back on much those same lines? Because that will happen in the US. It is happening in corridors already.
Schlimm doesn't seem to believe that the millennials will want to take the train to go places. But their transportation habits are changing. And the generation after them will change even more in the same direction. Flying has become a real PITA. Lots of people of all ages avoid it whenever possible. Taking an LD train is not much different in time spent from driving. I can drive from my home in Arkansas to New York City in 2 long days of driving and a so-so night in some motel along the road, or I can take the Texas Eagle to Chicago, the Lakeshore Limited from there to New York. Leave 11:39pm on Wednesday, arrive in NYC 6:35pm Friday. Let's see, I can be alert all that driving time and arrive worn out or take the train and arrive rested. And that's not even a fabulous example, having to detour via Chicago on the train. But an increasing number of millennials don't even own a car, so just getting in and driving is not a real option for them.
Mainly what I'm saying is that there is a national network of trains, including those pesky LD trains. It's in Amtrak's interest to keep those trains running. Once LD trains are off a class 1, what are the chances of getting corridor trains on that class 1? We all know that slower freights bring in more revenue than faster passenger trains that also "mess up" the schedule for those slower freights.
There are LD trains that could be complemented with corridor service along their entire line. The Lake Shore Limited, The Crescent, The City of New Orleans, The Texas Eagle all run through territory that could use additional trains running part of the distance at times that are daylight hours or otherwise more convenient for particular city pairs.
Here in Arkansas, Fort Worth/Dallas - Little Rock would make a lot of sense, as would that train continuing east to Memphis (our DOT wants to add lanes on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis because the road is so crowded - would be smarter to start running passenger trains on an hour or every other hour schedule). If Tennessee was on top of it, they'd want passenger trains Memphis - Nashville(-Knoxville).
So, I'm not against corridor service. It makes lots of sense, but it shouldn't be an either or. LD trains fill a real function and so do corridor trains.
CJtrainguy Let me bring in what I've seen happen in places in Europe: Whole regional networks were considered unprofitable by the national railway. So they wanted to abandon passenger traffic on those lines. In response and thanks to changes in law, the regions took over the traffic. Not unlike Amtrak, they were faced with scarce resources. So most of the traffic was abandoned, with remaining, upgraded traffic focused on a few corridors. Then a funny thing happened: Upgraded service brought more passengers, which led to service expansion. All of a sudden there was talk of reopening lines that had been abandoned for passenger traffic years before.
Where to begin. I've been riding trains in Europe, primarily Germany, but also other countries for 45 years quite regularly and your statement above does not correspond with what I have observed first-hand. I also read articles in the German press concerning DB.
You stated I don't believe millenials will ride trains. Of course what I clearly said was that younger folks will not ride the western LD trains even if the speeds were dramatically increased to reduce the times. A discussion without accuracy is pointless.
schlimm CJtrainguy Let me bring in what I've seen happen in places in Europe: Whole regional networks were considered unprofitable by the national railway. So they wanted to abandon passenger traffic on those lines. In response and thanks to changes in law, the regions took over the traffic. Not unlike Amtrak, they were faced with scarce resources. So most of the traffic was abandoned, with remaining, upgraded traffic focused on a few corridors. Then a funny thing happened: Upgraded service brought more passengers, which led to service expansion. All of a sudden there was talk of reopening lines that had been abandoned for passenger traffic years before. Where to begin. I've been riding trains in Europe, primarily Germany, but also other countries for 45 years quite regularly and your statement above does not correspond with what I have observed first-hand. I also read articles in the German press concerning DB.
Schlimm, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on what the future of passenger rail should be in the US.
I am glad that you have had ample opportunity to ride trains in Europe over many years. I grew up in Europe and frankly took the easy access to passenger trains for granted for much of my life.
As to what I related about regional networks in Europe seeing passenger traffic first abandoned and then eventually reinstated, you state that you haven't observed that. That's of course entirely possible, as I don't know what you have observed or how far off the mainlines you have had the opportunity to venture. What I stated is however what I've observed and lived through.
In the UK, the Beeching report led to the wholesale abandonment of lines deemed unprofitable. Some of those very lines are now being reactivated. In Germany many miles of rail lines were abandoned in the 70s and 80s by DB. Sometimes just the passenger traffic, sometimes freight as well. Since local/regional traffic was deregulated in Germany, many lines where DB had dropped passenger traffic have seen the return of passenger traffic and are experiencing great ridership.
In Southern Sweden, SJ, the state railways, deemed all local/regional passenger traffic unprofitable in the 70s and wanted to drop all that traffic. Several counties banded together, purchased 10 train sets and in 1983 started operating passenger traffic on a few core lines. In the rest of the region, local/regional passenger traffic ended. Now in 2013, that traffic has expanded to cover just about anything that had passenger traffic in the 70s (and some towns that didn't have it back then). Ridership is going through the roof and the region is running trains all the way to Gothenburg. Copenhagen/Malmö - Gothenburg used to be LD trains run by SJ, the national railways, but they bowed out since the regional trains out-competed them.
However, bringing passenger trains back to lines that saw them abandoned years earlier hasn't been easy or inexpensive. Infrastructure has been removed and in many cases the traffic now has to go through a lengthy permitting process that would not have been necessary if passenger trains had still been running on those lines.
In the US, looking at the map, I will draw the line between East and West not at the Mississippi, but rather along the western borders of Minnesota, Iowa, and then along I-35 in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.
East of that line, there is no question that corridor trains and LD trains should stay and be multiplied in number. Many states in this area already have state supported trains or will find that their populations and business communities demand more passenger trains.
Along the West coast (California, Oregon, Washington) we have states that are already supporting passenger rail.
That leaves the states in-between: Nevada, Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Utah, Colorado. Arizona, New Mexico and the western parts of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.
Some of them already have and/or are building commuter rail or corridor rail. Front range rail will happen from Cheyenne to Denver to Albuquerque, not all at once, but eventually it will happen some day.
As for those Western LD trains: I do believe that if we dash forward and drop them now, in some penny-pinching move, we will regret it later. Google maps says I can drive from Chicago to San Fran in 31 hours. In real terms that means 3-4 full days of driving and 2-3 nights in motels. Yet people do it. For all kinds of reasons, but the point is: People do it. Not all people going from Chicago to San Fran choose to fly.
I can get on Amtrak, leave Chicago at 2pm Wednesday and arrive in the Bay Area 4:10pm on Friday. If I drive, I'll get up early and drive all day Wednesday, motel overnight, drive all day Thursday, motel overnight, drive all day Friday and be in the Bay Area after dinner on Friday.
The need for the western LD trains is not to drop them, but to work with the host railroads to improve on-time performance and to raise the travel speed. It may even mean that Amtrak gets its own ROW in places.
We all see things differently. I have seen many lines of the former DR abandoned since 1990. And I have ridden on many single track lines in Germany (and in the UK) far from the mainlines. And I am wondering which DB lines abandoned in the 70's and 80's have been reinstated more recently? Which pre-Beeching lines are being reinstated in the UK?
As to the US, the reason western transcontinental LD routes need to be trimmed is because they cannot compete with air travel. In the east and to some extent in the midwest and southeast, interstates are overcrowded and so the rail can provide a sound alternative to those roads. Since the western interstates, i.e., those running west to east, are not overcrowded, they do not need to exist as alternative to highways. Consequently, they serve no useful purpose in any national transportation scheme. You may enjoy driving from CHI-SF, as do others, including myself. But that is no justification for wasting resources for passenger rail operations, where they are not vitally needed, when those same dollars could be put to better use where passenger rail is competitive and IMO, needed.
"The need for the western LD trains is not to drop them, but to work with the host railroads to improve on-time performance and to raise the travel speed. It may even mean that Amtrak gets its own ROW in places."
How do you propose to pay for or continue to pay for the long distance trains that are used by less than one per cent of intercity travelers?
It is doubtful that private investors will put up the money. This is especially true for expansion of or upgrading of the long distance trains. Moreover, working with the hoist railroads means increasing their cost of hoisting Amtrak's trains.
So that leaves the taxpayers. And they are in hawk up to their ears. Currently, the national debt is $16.8 trillion. Add in state and local government debt, and the number is close to $19.8 trillion dollars. This is before unfunded liabilities, which are estimated to be in the neighborhood of $46 trillion. The public debt, which is the one to worry about because the federal government either services it or defaults on it, and if it defaults on it, there would be terrible ramifications, stands at $11.9 trillion. It is approximately 76 per cent of GDP. The International Monetary Fund cautions countries whose national debt exceeds 60 to 65 per cent of GDP.
As per table S-5 of the President's 2014 budget (OMB), the interest on the national debt is projected to be $763 billion in 2023. The projected outlay for defense is $631 billion. The biggies are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with defense, but if a country is required to spend more on interest than defense, it has a financial problem.
Passenger trains are not major contributors to the national debt. But they contribute to the problem, along with hundreds of other "just a little bit" for our interests seekers. Amtrak's advocates say that the amount of federal money required by Amtrak is a rounding error. Supporters of PBS, NPR, the National Endowment for the Arts, as well as hundreds of other special interests, say the same thing. First thing you know the little bits or rounding errors add up to some serious money.
I like trains. I ride them whenever I can. But if someone wants to expand an existing service or implement new service, it is incumbent on them to layout a realistic plan for funding it.
I hear the argument that Amtrak's deficit contributes to the overall US deficit and so we have to cut Amtrak, because while in the magnitude of a rounding error, it still contributes. Okay, this is not supposed to be a political discussion forum, so on the national deficit thing, I'll just say that it's not that long ago the US had a balanced budget. And I do not believe that Amtrak's funding has increased super-exponentiallly since then to be what tipped the scales and gave the country the current deficit. I simply suggest that those who really want to slash the deficit go look in the spending areas that have increased since the budget was last balanced and they leave Amtrak spending alone.
Somehow, with all the issues affecting Amtrak, and all the budget constraints and fiscal threats over the years, Amtrak keeps transporting more passengers every year. I say it again, the transportation landscape is changing. To dump all or parts of Amtrak now would be a foolish mistake that we will regret eventually. Every bit as foolish as it would have been to just let all the railroads drop running passenger trains back in 1971. At least the White House and congress at that time did something somewhat constructive and gave us Amtrak. Not perfect, but it runs.
In January, 2001 President Clinton left office. Amtrak had deficits at that time. However, the U. S. Treasury has a surplus. Events after President Clinton left office caused our deficit.
Amtrak does not threaten the economic stability of the United States.
John WR In January, 2001 President Clinton left office. Amtrak had deficits at that time. However, the U. S. Treasury has a surplus. Events after President Clinton left office caused our deficit. Amtrak does not threaten the economic stability of the United States.
In January 2001 the U.S. federal debt was approximately $3.3 trillion.
The on-budget deficit in 1998 was $29.9 billion. However, because of the Social Security surplus of $99.4 billion, the combined budget showed a surplus of $69.3 billion. In 1999 the U.S. had an on-budget surplus of $1.9 billion on revenues of approximately $1.8 trillion. This was a surplus of 10/100s of one per cent of revenues. In 2000 the U.S. had an on-budget surplus of $86 billion, the best of the so-call surplus years. In 2001 the on-budget deficit was $32.4 billion. The on-budget figures are the operating results for the United States. With the exception of 2000, the surpluses were mostly a function of Social Security surpluses, which came about because of the Greenspan Commission changes to Social Security.
No one said that Amtrak threatens the economic stability of the United States. But its annual deficits of more than $1.2 billion a year are a contributing factor, along with the other special interest runs on the Treasury. The federal debt and annual deficits has come about because of many variables.
Amtrak's deficits through FY12 totaled $29.3 billion, which shows how a comparatively small amount each year can add up over the years to a sizable sum of money..
I am not proposing that Amtrak be abolished. However, if the U.S. is to solve its financial problems, it is difficult to see a way forward unless every special interest group, including those supporting Amtrak, gives up something. Just a little bit from everyone would work wonders. The numbers can be found at OMB, CBO, JCT, and the U.S. Treasury.
The question that I posed is how do proponents of enhanced long distance train service or, for that matter, upgrades to the NEC, propose to pay for it? What is their realistic plan?
Part of my proposal to right Amtrak's financials is to eliminate the long distance trains and increase the fares on the remaining services to at least cover the operating costs. If Amtrak dropped the long distance trains, it could realize savings of up to $674.9 billion a year, although the savings during the first three years would be reduced by equipment disposal costs, labor payouts, and re-organization charges. Knowing how much could be saved is problematic, but lets say that it could average out to be $450 million a year.
Using a simple calculation, which does not take into consideration inflation, over 15 years the savings could amount to as much as $8.2 billion, which could be used as seed money to upgrade existing corridors or build new ones. It would be approximately 80 per cent of Amtrak's current investment in right-of-way infrastructure, less accumulated depreciation. This estimate is based on the current rate for ten year Treasury notes. It is very conservative; realistically, the savings probably would be much greater.
Sam1I am not proposing that Amtrak be abolished. However, if the U.S. is to solve its financial problems, it is difficult to see a way forward unless every special interest group, including those supporting Amtrak, gives up something. Just a little bit from everyone would work wonders.
If we had proportional representation that might work, Sam. At least we could come closer to it. But we are a two party system. In any given year that favors a winner take all perspective. It is supposed to even out in the long run but I don't know how to see whether it does or not. Also, we still are spending money because of our two recent wars. That is unpredictable and hard to factor in.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.