Democrats, Labor Say Bush Amtrak Plan May Backfire

[eleny]

Reuters
By John Crawley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House proposal to end subsidies for Amtrak and possibly push it into bankruptcy could backfire and disrupt train travel for millions of commuters, congressional and labor officials said on Tuesday.

While few expect Congress to fully embrace the administration's zero aid proposal for the nation's only city-to-city railroad, Amtrak supporters in the House of Representatives said insolvency would not guarantee continuity in commuter services and could create pension and other headaches for the government.

"It's far from clear that the outcome of bankruptcy would be a more efficient Amtrak," said Rep. James Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat and ranking member of the House Transportation Committee.

Absent the sweeping passenger rail reforms the White House has been pushing for two years, the Bush administration budget released on Monday views bankruptcy as one way to transform the way passenger rail services are delivered.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-02-09T022412Z_01_N08322247_RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-TRANSPORT-AMTRAK-DC.XML

[Us vs Them]

1. I could easily see them try to phase out Amtrak entirely.

"Airplanes and automobiles are the American means of transportation."

However, it is odd that the only service Amtrak actually makes a profit from is the one that services Boston to Washington D.C.. The only functioning high speed railway system in commercial service in the United States is the Acela Express, linking the Northeast. All other Amtrak routes require subsidies from the federal and state governments in order to continue functioning - service costs and low passenger numbers don't help much, either.

What the article fails to stress, however, is that rail service will only get worse without Amtrak. We need to figure out a better way to handle this situation, including the possibility of increasing federal subsidizing of rail travel. If you want a growth industry, why not promote a cheaper, more efficient, passenger-friendly route of travel from city to city.

[marmar]

4. Agreed...

If there was frequent and reliable high-speed service between other high-traffic city pairs, say Detroit-Chicago; LA-San Diego; Chicago-St. Louis etc etc, people would use it. On those short trips the train, downtown-downtown, is a much more desirable mode of transit than a car or plane. Just look at Europe - trains totally dominate routes like London-Paris, Paris-Brussels, London-Brussels, Berlin-Frankfurt and so on.
This nation's shortsightedness on public transit is going to cost us very dearly someday.

[Ravenseye]

15. Isn't the West Cost profitable as well?

I could have sworn that either the northwest like Seattle to Portland, or the LA-San Diego spurs were profitable as well.

The thing sinking amtrak is the cross country routes.

The difference between us and Europe though is size, and also the number of trains. Here in Pittsburgh, at least a few years ago, if you wanted to use the train you had two choices. Eastbound to Philadelphia, or Westbound to Chicago. Both passed through town between 1 and 3 am. Not the best time to start a trip.

Also keep in mind that the distance from Berlin to Moscow is the same as the distance from Chicago to DC to keep things in persepctive. London to Paris is a hop that is akin to the northeast rail service between Boston and DC which is profitable. It's a different dynamic.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. The Seattle-Portland train runs several times a day

but the Seattle-Los Angeles train (Pacific Coast Starlight) runs only once every 24 hours in each direction. It passes through southern Oregon and northern California after midnight.

If the airlines had only one plane per day in each direction between Seattle and LA, taking off after midnight, people wouldn't want to ride them, either.

[reprobate]

35. The short-sightedness is due to just one thing: contributions to congress

And of course to the presidential campaigns. The airline and auto industries contribute hugely to the campaigns so the airline and auto industries get the political clout.

It's a given that hi-speed rail is more efficient, safer, and just as fast as air, when you consider the time spent too and from the airport and security screening.

The problem is the rail industry has no organized constituency. If you could organize a group with sufficient resources to contribute to the campaigns you'd see congressional support for high speed rail shoot up.

[hughee99]

36. Congressional support for high speed rails

doesn't necessarily translate to consumer support. In some areas, there are enough people willing to spend the extra money and wait the extra time, but I do not believe that is the case in most of America. Here's a comparison if you wanted to go from boston - DC this weekend (Friday - Sunday)

Acela - Price: $317 round trip
Travel time: About 12 hours round trip
Flight - Price: $141 round trip
Travel time: about 4 hours round trip.

So you can save yourself $176 and spend an extra 8 hours in DC with the flight. The Boston-DC Acela is currently profitable, but rail is never going to be the form of transportation that it is Europe until this situation changes, no matter who votes for what in congress.

[reprobate]

41. There are several things wrong with the comparison.

First, you are comparing trip times without accounting for to and from the airport, security checks, wait times on the runway and in the air.

The pricing is false because the airlines lose money with the low fares, plus they are subsidized, while the rail is not.

Acela is operating on existing old railbeds and must hold its speed down because of the condition of the tracks which were never designed for such hi speeds, and have not been maintaned for such. And the railbeds have been beaten up by freight trains.

Also, once you figure in the polution caused by the jet fuel to the air, and the hugh per passenger mile cost of the fuel, the inefficiency of air travel becomes clear.

If you operated hi speed rail on railbeds designed for it that could run into the city centers you could avoid the times spent to and from the airport and the in route times would be more in line. A two hundred mph train is not that much slower than a four hundred mph airliner, when you consider that the airliner does not fly straight line, but follows air routes, and must wait it's turn at each end.

And then we really should consider the stress we are under when we try to meet such tight schedules. It ain't good for you, as granny used to say.

[RPM]

42. not to mention...

the plane can't load more people at New Haven, NYC, Philadelphia and Baltimore en route...

The point being, few persons ride end-to-end, but the midpoint-end and midpoint-midpoint pairs are the most common.

[hughee99]

48. False comparisons?

I forgot to account for the time it takes me to get to the airport, but not the time it takes for me to get to the station? Where I live, I can get to the airport quicker than the train station. In any case, they are close enough together that the travel time to one is not really any different then the other. Travel time to the station/airport is NOT relevant, since it is essentially equal. The time it takes to get through security, and waiting on the tarmac is not nearly enough time to make up the difference. I've made the flight to Washington several times. I can leave my house and get to the airport in just under an hour. Assuming I get there 1 1/2 hours before my flight, I can get through security, make my trip, and get off in Washington about 5 hours later. The train trip itself will take 6 hours NOT including the time it takes to get to an Acela station (about an hour) and assuming I get there just as my train leaves and spend no time waiting around.

"The pricing is false because the airlines lose money with the low fares, plus they are subsidized, while the rail is not."

Airlines do receive subsidies, but did you read what this thread is about? It's about "A White House proposal to END SUBSIDIES for Amtrak". If rail is not subsidized, they why is anyone upset about the end of these non-existent subsidies?

"Acela is operating on existing old rail beds and must hold its speed down because of the condition of the tracks which were never designed for such hi speeds, and have not been maintained for such. And the rail beds have been beaten up by freight trains."

I agree, what does this have to do with it? I didn't see any proposals to put in new high speed rail exclusively for the Acela. This is the current state of things. It will continue to be the state of things in the near future. This is a reason why it is slow, but it doesn't help the traveler get from point A to point B faster.

"If you operated hi speed rail on rail beds designed for it that could run into the city centers you could avoid the times spent to and from the airport and the in route times would be more in line. A two hundred mph train is not that much slower than a four hundred mph airliner, when you consider that the airliner does not fly straight line, but follows air routes, and must wait it's turn at each end."

Yes, if you did this... Right now, I'm not aware of any high speed rail beds. How much would it cost to build them? Since these rails could only be used by high speed trains, how much would you have to charge for a ticket to recoup the cost not just for the construction but for the maintenance. Would it ever become cost effective? The upside of a plane is that you don't have to build and maintain extensive, single point of failure, infrastructure for it. You can go from any point A to any point B without having to spend years and millions of dollars building a rail through every neighborhood that is in the way.

"And then we really should consider the stress we are under when we try to meet such tight schedules"

Yes, we are under stress because of tight schedules. Is the schedule going to become less tight if we spend more time traveling?

I do agree with you on the pollution, though.

[cap]

acela doesnt function too well

its trains are cancelled frequently... not just late... wont run. it's a real pain.

[Ravenseye]

16. Wasn't there a problem with the lines?

Like it had to share the high speed lines with slow speed freight traffic or something?

[Zebulon]

28. Re: All other Amtrak routes require subsidies

The reality is, the airline industry is also heavily subsidized by the state and federal governments. The airlines sure aren't paying for the construction of terminals, for example.

[found object]

29. no form of transportation is profitable

if you include subsidies, bail-outs and tax incentives -- "your taxes at work." Would there be any profit in manufacturing cars if the auto industry had to also build and maintain the roads they are driven on? Could the airlines afford to build the infrastructure it relies on?

[Harry S Truman]

43. Amtrak is a bargain!

A national system for only $1.2 billion? It's amazing that Amtrak has done as well as it has for so long on such marginal financing. ALL good transportation systems require government funding. While pondering how much Amtrak "lost" last year, consider that the Interstate highway system "lost" a hundred times more. And that Amtrak's ENTIRE annual budget would build barely 10 miles on urban freeway.

[sandnsea]

2. Bankruptcy, the corporate solution

It should be no surprise that they're bringing corporate economics into the government. Americans have been saying they want the government run like a business. Well, this is what businesses do when they've got too much debt. File bankruptcy. Is there one of those betting things on which will be first after Amtrak; the post office, SS or schools.

[durablend]

12. Freepers already want the Postal Service abolished

It's their usual excuse: "The private sector can do the job better" (translated...I can't make MOOOOOOOOOLAH off of it the way it is now)

[Ravenseye]

20. My favorite freeper type...

once said to me that the postal service should be privatized. We argued for a bit and they actually said something along the lines of "Hey you dont' see Federal Express employee's 'going postal' and killing people"

oh ok. Sure, good argument. Lets privitize the post office so sending a letter always costs 2 bucks. Nice.

[IMayBeWrongBut]

33. Well there was that one Federal Express guy that went "postal"...

There was one Federal Express pilot that went nuts and hitched a ride on a plane and beat the pilot and co-pilot up with a hammer planning to crash the plane into the Federal Express sorting building. Fortunately the wounded pilot managed to fend him off overting disaster. I also might add this attempt was a few years *before* 9/11. I guess Condi Rice never heard about it...

[Ravenseye]

34. Wish I had known about that

would have been possibly a way to shut him up.

[lovuian]

3. Bush goes "OH let them drive a car to work"

kinda like Marie Antoinette
"Let them eat cake"

[drscm]

11. A car? A car? What do you mean a car? AN SUV!!! eom

eom

[durablend]

13. That uses GAS

Lotsa GAS!

Expensive GAS!

Getting even MORE expensive GAS!

CHA$CHING$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[MaineDem]

5. I'm taking the train from Portland to DC today

I enjoy train travel and this cutback pisses me off. Why is it only airlines that the US Government subsidizes? Is their lobby stronger?

I don't see why the US doesn't have half the passenger rail travel that Europe does. OVer there train travel is fantastic.

I understand many people don't have the luxury of the time involved in train travel. But I don't see what we should keep airlines going at the expense of Amtrak.

[BiggJawn]

6. Yes.

"Why is it only airlines that the US Government subsidizes? Is their lobby stronger?"

You get the prize, MaineDem!

Why don't we see Alcohol regulated and dumped on like Tobacco?

Seagram's has better-funded lobbyists.
Same with the Airlines.

[saigon68]

7. Got to agree

The little people can't afford to fly. They ride trains and busses. They will soon toil all day on the "plantation".

[durablend]

14. Where they don't need rail service...

"No time to travel when you're employed 168 hours a week"

[saigon68]

50. And Making $ 5.25 an hour

When you work to eat--- because milk is $4.69 a gallon for your kids.

[MaineDem]

17. Actually I could have flown cheaper

I just like the train.

[athenap]

49. Not to mention...

...on the train, you're treated like a human being. You can get up, go to the bathroom or the club car or another car whenever you want, instead of being strapped down in a too-damn-small seat simply for the convenience of the flight attendant who doesn't want you in the way. Also, at the train station, you're not made to strip down to your skivvies and subjected to excessively time-consuming security checks that don't really stop much from getting through. You're not treated like a piece of meat.

If they had a daily between Cincinnati and Chicago, or Cincy and Cleveland, that didn't come through only three times a week and in the middle of the night, I'd be on it to make commuter trips to Chicago or Cleveland, and my husband would be on it to make business trips to Chicago rather than driving or flying.

And for vacations--I'll rail anywhere rather than flying if it's possible. It's bad enough trying to travel with a preschooler, let alone being treated like a criminal and an insufferable inconvenience on someone else's time whenever I'm in an airport and my kid needs a little attention.

[Vogon_Glory]

9. Europe Has Passenger Rail Because The Europeans

Europe has passenger rail service not only because travel distances are shorter in many European countries, but also because they're wiling to pay for it. Europe is less encumbered by "private enterprise" ideologues than the US is.

On the other hand, I fear that the US is serving as a bad example for what happens when such "private enterprise" ideologues are given free reign with their retrogressive ideas.

[Ravenseye]

21. More expensive to fly over there.

Have you ever flown around Europe? It's expensive. More expensive than the trains.

See there though they help support their airlines, it's mostly for international travel. They try and promote rail for internal travel. They can do it because of the size.

Imagine if New England was a country. Well you'd make flying expensive, you'd make people take the train from Burlington to Boston, not fly.

The thing is aren't most trips in this country shorter trips? Sure people drive cross country, but they're closer distances. I just think the infrastructure isn't there, and rail has been so hindered by government in this country that even a private attempt at it now would be corporate suicide (other than certain milk runs like DC to NYC or Boston).

[MaineDem]

23. IntraEurope air travel has been very inexpensive lately

Ryanair for one has been offering under-$50 tickets within Europe. Many of the discount airlines are very reasonable.

[Ravenseye]

24. Cool

I'll have to look that up next time I'm over. Traditionally though flights there have been very expensive, long enough that many people don't even consider flying.

For instance someone who is going to fly internationally from Frankfurt but lives near Hamburg is far more likely to take the train to Frankfurt, and then fly, than to go to the airport in Hamburg, fly to Frankfurt, and then change planes.

Right?

[tabasco]

25. Not correct.

Inter-city travel by air around Europe is cheaper than dirt.

[mainer]

40. Yep, try RyanAir

Every cab driver I talked to in London flies to the continent several times a year because it's so cheap. They'll run off to Barcelona for the weekend ($100 round-trip) just to watch a soccer match.

[dannynyc]

10. I've written this before . . .

To keep things in line with Bush's "Ownership Society", airlines should own all the costs of their operations - the way that Amtrak does. Airlines should pay for the air traffic control system, airports, etc., in addition to eliminating airline subsidies. Of course, this will make air travel more expensive, and make train travel more competitive, giving Amtrak funds for upgrades.

I do think we need to use Bush's theory of "ownership society" to state that companies need to "own" their costs, rather than the government.

[Ravenseye]

22. Agreed

I love when I get into an argument with my libertarian family. They're so anti-government, and anti-regulation. They say "look at airline deregulation. It made it cheaper for everyone to fly!"

Yeah but now all these airlines lose money every quarter. Finally teh government bails them out, and they repeat the process. Over and over and over again.

Let the airlines fail. Let them pay for all costs. Let them run things truly privately. You'll see ticket prices soar, and/or airlines go actually out of business. Other ones will take their place.

The costs will be high enough that people will look for alternatives and they'll go rail.

If my choice were between a 100 dollar ticket to Philadelphia by train that takes 8 hours, or a 800 dollar ticket to Philadelphia that takes 2 hours, I'll take the scenic route thanks very much.

[Ravenseye]

18. Exactly

They don't want to support rail, but they support airlines out the wazzoo.

Put them on equal footing, and let the airlines fail without supports. Other airlines will pick up the slack but the costs will rise and more people will start thinking trains.

As far as the luxury of time. If we just spent a few billion up front the system would start paying for itself as far as putting in high speed lines. High speed train lines are faster than planes. THe plane travels the distance faster, but the takeoff, and landing cycle added with taxing, and the hour you spend at the airport before hand checking in, and the half hour or more afterward waiting for your bag....well it adds up to being in favor of a train.

[Zebulon]

30. Re: Is their lobby stronger?

Yes.

I've been wishing for years for passenger service from Green Bay to Chicago. For 20 years the Republicans have been more intent on killing Amtrak than expanding it. And I'm sure it has a lot to do with lobbying from the airline industry.

[Bridget Burke]

37. A high-speed train was proposed linking Houston, Dallas & San Antonio.

Drives in Texas are long & most airports are out in the suburbs. The train would have been great. Even "non-high-speed" would have been good.

But Southwest Airlines lobbied heavily against the project & it was abandoned.

[Vogon_Glory]

8. Waiting In The Wings Is Greyhound--NOT!!!

The same ideologues who would do away with Amtrak would also have their marks believe that Greyhound or the airlines are ready and willing to pick up the slack for a missing national rail transportation system.

And they'd be blowing smoke! Not only do the airlines not serve dozens of small rural communities, but with rising fuel and operating costs, airlines are discontinuing service to many smaller communities. Greyhound is in bigger trouble--it's been losing money for years and its own intercity network is fraying; Greyhound has also been abandoning routes and news reports tell of poor service and poor maintenance (Don't take my word for it--Google for articles in Forbes and the WSJ!).

If Amtrak AND Greyhound fall apart, a lot of rural--and especially red-state rural--America will find itself in the middle of nowhere with no way to get to or from there.

I think it is more than clear that the notion of doing away with Amtrak is ideologically driven, and I'd bet that it's people like Grover Norquist who are pushing it.

[Ravenseye]

19. Rural Communities Wouldn't Suffer as much as the Poor

Poorer people who just can't afford to buy a 300 dollar ticket on a plane trip to see their sister in Detroit get to go on Greyhound or Amtrack, if they can afford it.

You eliminate those vessels and poor, and soon with rising oil costs, the middle class will only have two ways to get to other places in the country. Drive their own cars, or hitch rides.

Yay "Ownership Society"!

[Vogon_Glory]

26. Good Point, But...

You make a very good point, but you know that, I know that, but the smug souls living in places like Sonora, Texas, Lamar, Colorado, Grand Island, Nebraska, and other Red State communities with bus and no air service need to wake up and wise up. I imagine that they assume that bus service will always be there, just as I'm sure that other smug souls living in Uvalde or Temple or Deming assume that there'll be a Greyhound there when they need it.

I will fight the good fight to save what skeins of the social net we can, but at times, I think that the only way so many of our fellow citizens so bamboozled by the GOP will wise up to the true nature of this "Banana Republican" counter-revolution is intense pain, and the Republic is still a very long way from hitting rock bottom.

[reprobate]

45. When a nation won't support it's infrastructure,

..That nation is doomed to destroy itself as a cohesive whole.

[underpants]

27. And uh what region of the country does Amtrak primarily serve?

Hmmmm....?

[Zebulon]

31. Re: And uh what region of the country does Amtrak primarily serve?

Hah, good point. "Punish the blue states".

[underpants]

32. The cross country stuff seems to be a minor part of their business

the NE commuter service is THE lifeblood it seems to me. No numbers just a sense.

[Vogon_Glory]

47. Cross-Country Is Less Used, BUT...

Amtrak's cross-country services are admittedly less-used than the Northeast Corridor, BUT those trains come a lot closer to breaking even than Amtrak's corridor operations.

Also, I think it can be validly argued that Amtrak's corridor operations also include southern California's San Diegan trains and also some rail service out of Seattle.

Personally, I think corridor versus cross country squabbles are the sorts of things right-wingers encourage to splinter passenger rail's supporters

In a saner polity than our Banana Republican-controlled USA, "corridor" rail services in such areas as Savannah-to-Miami, Baton Rouge-to-New Orleans, Milwaukee-to-Chicago-to-St. Louis would be allowed to grow. However, thanks to people like Grover Norqist and that fellow from the so-called "Club For Growth," the US is likely to end up with a passenger transportation infrastructure inferior to Brazil's and Mexico's in the next 20 years.

[mainer]

39. The UK tried privatization of rail service. Disastrous.

They've discovered that government support is really necessary.

Continental European rail system is amazing and efficient. But it requires government subsidies ... and why not? A nation's economy relies on fast and dependable transportation. This is part of a country's infrastructure, like highways and airports. The U.S. SHOULD subsidize rail serve.

[struggle4progress]

44. Fight Over Amtrak Begins

<snip> U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said Amtrak provides a link between big cities and small communities. Without the rail line, Byrd said, many regions of rural America would return to isolation.

Amtrak has more than 500 stations in 46 states, including West Virginia sites in Charleston, Huntington, Martinsburg, Montgomery and White Sulphur Springs. <snip>

http://www.wvnstv.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=678

[Lorien]

46. "I won't do anything that will cost Americans jobs"!

That was the Chimp's excuse for not signing Kyoto or doing ANYTHING to protect the environment. Throw this Amtrak deal back in any Freepers face when they bring that "jobs" BS up. Let's not kid anyone-BushCo is all about oil profits, period.

[Zech Marquis]

51. I would LOVE to see more rail options!

NOt having to be packed into some damn airplane, wait, wait, and wait some more from weather delays, equipment repairs, the ehadaches of flyng through bad weather and turbulence...you'd thin Amtrak would have received MORE funding after 9/11--Iv heard the Arcela line is very nice, so why not expand it and mak thigs easier for American travellers? :shrug:

[DainBramaged]

52. All the BFEE knows is one word

Privatization, at any cost to the taxpayer. I'm POSITIVE an entity is waiting in the wings to take it over, and it's name begins with a C.

[October]

53. They obviously want to "privatize" the rail system...

Great avatar, by the way! Did you create it?