Amazing, the say-anything-to-get-elected geniuses that cater to the Tea Party crowd are dead set on derailing the trains.
Wiping out our subsidy for Amtrak takes less then 1/2 of 1 percent of the federal budget investments off the table. Speaking from a strictly passenger mile per dollar basis, Amtrak is cheaper to operate then our national highway system, but none of these rocket scientists is proposing to "privatize" our highway system so it will "make money." The trouble is, most of these people, and yes they are on both sides of the aisle, actually think highways and aviation makes money and it is somehow a 100% private sector success story. NOT! BTW, all user fees combined would only pay 51% of highways true costs, a number that has no doubt fallen lower due to higher fuel prices and fewer miles driven.
To restate all of this succinctly, if Railroads were run as a real business, as you would obviously like, they would be getting all of the benefits (sometimes called subsidies) that all of the other transportation businesses get from government, and they might actually be competitive, from both a cost standpoint and a desirability standpoint.
ON ROMNEY:QuoteThe GOP presidential candidate says Amtrak should be privatized to save taxpayer money.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Thursday that the federal government could rein in spending if the national passenger rail service, Amtrak, was not national anymore.
Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, penned an op-ed Thursday in the New Hampshire Union Leader laying out solutions for controlling federal spending, which he wrote "has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history" under President Obama. New Hampshire, of course, holds a crucial early primary that Romney hopes to win.
Among the solutions Romney laid out is privatizing Amtrak service, a plan that has been proposed by House Republicans.
"A first step in reform is acknowledging that the federal government cannot be everything to everyone," he wrote.
"There are many functions that the private sector can perform better than the public sector," he continued. "Amtrak is a classic example."
Romney, who has sought often to burnish his conservative credentials in comparison to Texas Gov. Rick Perry and other GOP presidential candidates, argued in the paper that it was imperative that government spending be contained.
"This is the financial equivalent of speeding against traffic on a superhighway," he wrote. "It’s dangerous. It has to stop. A household cannot become prosperous by spending all its money and running up a credit card bill. Neither can a government or a country." SOURCE: http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/railroads/184573-romney-amtrak-a-classic-example-of-unnecessary-government-spending
ON NEWT:QuoteEstablish three high-speed rail corridors; NY-MA; FL; & CA
The French & Japanese have made substantial investments in creating high-speed rail corridors. The Chinese are now following their lead. The US has 3 corridors that are very conducive to this kind of high-speed train investment. We could build a system between Boston and Washington; from Miami to Tampa, Orlando and Jacksonville; and from San Diego to San Francisco.
There are three problems with trying to build high-speed systems in the US and, not surprisingly, all three relate to government.
Union work rules make it impossible, at least if Amtrak has anything to do with it.
Pork barrel politicians waste money subsidizing absurdly uneconomic routes
Regulations and litigation involved in large-scale construction have become time- consuming and expensive.
I support a 21st century rail system that is privately built, run efficiently, and capable of earning its own way. The US should have a railroad system that works for us, and not for the Amtrak bureaucracy and their unions.
Source: Real Change, by Newt Gingrich, p.211-212 , Dec 18, 2007
Need more? Support your local gasoline refiner eh?QuoteBy Dan Nichols // Dec 20, 2009 at 12:23 am
The actual fuel usage measured in btu/mile/pass
(BTU per mile per passenger) is rarely discussed for transportation issues. Consider the following transportation media..Privately Owned Vehicle (POV), Passenger Airlines and Passenger Rail (Amtrak). Comparing apples to apples is a good idea.. We'll make the trip 2000 miles long . The vehicle is turbo diesel vehicle getting 28mpg with 4 people on board using #2 diesel: The plane is a 747 with 280 passengers using Jet-A (kerosene) and gets 2.7 gal/mile. (Note that’s gallons per mile not the inverse) The Amtrak is the Empire Builder pulling 4 coaches and two sleepers with an average fuel usage of 1.7 mpg with a combined total of 280 passengers. The result is as follows: POV= 1200 btu/mile/pass; Plane=1309 btu/mile/pass and Rail=245 btu/mile/pass From the standpoint fuel efficiency I’d say the Train wins hands down… over 400 percent fuel savings over the other modes.
SOURCE: http://bobmccarty.com/2009/10/28/amtraks-per-passenger-subsidy/
Amtrak is subsided at the rate of about $40.00 per train ticket, while highways are subsided at a rate of about $400-500 dollars per automobile per year. SOURCE AMTRAKQuoteEvery day in 22 cities around the country, commuter planes take off with so few passengers that the pilots and crew outnumber the passengers. Each passenger pays a fare that’s less than $100. However, the federal government subsidizes the rest of the cost and pays airlines as much as $3,700 for each person on board.
The controversial subsidy program is called Essential Air Services. It was enacted by Congress in 1978 as a “temporary†measure to help rural communities that were facing the loss of air travel when small airports were to be closed due to airline deregulation.
Instead, Congress has temporarily extended the program 21 times over the last 33 years. The 22nd extension, lasting to January, was passed last week by the Senate.
Most importantly, the EAS program has mushroomed into a airline routing program based on political favors. And the subsidy doesn’t go to the traveling public; it goes to the air carriers. The $3,700 per passenger subsidy, for example, has been championed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who fought and won the earmark for keeping open air service for Ely, Nevada (population: 4,000).
House Republicans have vowed to kill the program, but its supporters, largely Democrats and the Obama administration, are keeping the program alive. The administration pushed and won another short-term extension through January 2012.
In the latest temporary approval, federal subsidies will now be limited to $1,000 per passenger and the program will be offered to those airports that are at least 90 miles from a large or medium airport hub.
Rep. John Mica (R-FL), the chairman of the House Transportation Committee accepted the latest extension but is still leading the fight to curtail large parts of the program. On September 13, he said,
The reforms are considered small given the extraordinary growth of the program. Over the last ten years, EAS subsidies have grown by 300% while most planes still take off and land with few passengers. In 2001, the temporary program cost $50 million to operate. Now it has ballooned to $200 million.
The truth is that today most of the EAS communities are between one hour and 90 minutes of a major airport. According to House data, in 2010, 42 communities had subsidized each passenger more than $200. Of those 42 communities, 16 had subsidies in excess of $500 per passenger.
The result is that air routes have been politicized throughout the country. Routes are not subsidized as much by need as by political connections. Democratic lawmakers in Maryland have been able to get Hagerstown subsidized as an EAS city. Yet the city is only 70 minutes from the Baltimore-Washington International Airport. Democratic lawmakers in Muskegon, Michigan, won subsidies for flights when the Grand Rapids airport is only 40 miles away.
The problem isn’t only with Democrats. Former Republican Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) and fellow Republican Rep. Joe Pitts demanded that the U.S. Department of Transportation recalculate the distance from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to Philadelphia. Lancaster was only 68 miles from the large Philly airport. The Transportation Department used to consider communities if they are at least 70 miles away from a major air hub. Strong-arming DOT, Specter and Pitts got an “alternative†route considered that put Lancaster 80 miles from Philadelphia International Airport. They won EAS designation.
Political pressure is also exerted by the airlines themselves. Portfolio claims that earlier this year Delta Airlines used “greenmail†by demanding more federal EAS payments or they would pull out of 24 small communities.
So does OCK support killing the EAS program? Have you ever DRIVEN to Ely, NV? I have (to ride a train of course) but if your not a true wanderer (or desert rat) the airplane is your ride!
OCKLAWAHA