Who benefits if Amtrak stops running in some states?

[aquart]

That's the threat. Who would profit? I don't know anything about this situation. Bush wants Amtrak in bankruptcy? Why? Not the liar's stated reason. Anyone know the real one?

[davidinalameda]

1. the airlines

they would be the ones to profit; and it would mean more personal driving and more gas consumption

Bush's buddies in the oil biz would be the ones to ultimately profit

[BrklynLiberal]

2. I think that is the answer....

[kalibex]

3. I'd guess...

...anyone with an interstate bus company.

-B

[tinrobot]

4. Oil companies benefit...

Just as they benefitted from the dismantling of LA's Red Line.

Auto companies benefit.

Airlines also benefit.

[hatrack]

5. Grover Norquist - he'll pop a little chubby, run to the mens' room . . .

. . . and, well, you get the rest.

It's just a way for Beltway Pukes and their hangers-on to show how "fiscally responsible" they are, never mentioning that Amtrak is a trivial mote of the federal budget.

And a few years from now, when gas hits a new permanent high of $4.00 a gallon, all the members of Congress will be screeching and yelling and whining "Why didn't we look at passenger rail systems?" Asshats.

[happyslug]

6. Auto Lobbyists

Remember the reason Amtrak has so many lines is to appease various politicians in the Congress. Amtrak knows it can NOT rely on North East Corridor politicians, it needs other politicians from other parts of the Country. Thus no train, no support from these other politicians.

Thus the push to restrict Amtrak is to reduce its support within Congress, and with the loss of Support transportation money will go to other means of Transportation.

[newswolf56]

7. The Methodical Destruction of Public Transport...

...has been part of the hidden agenda of the petroleum and automotive industries since before World War II, and it's been largely successful. Even middle-sized cities (like Roanoke, Virginia or Knoxville, Tennessee) once had extremely effective, efficient public transport systems -- hundreds of miles of track for electric trolleys -- that served large segments of the public. The sole purpose of destroying these systems is to force people into ever-greater (and ever more costly) dependence on the automobile and on petroleum-based fuels. Bush's opposition to public transport is thus typical of the Big Oil mentality he brought to the White House. But Bush's stance goes beyond the simple Big Oil/Big Automotive greed for profits: in Bush's case, he wants to make poverty as fearsome as possible -- a vicious flail with which to flog us all into an ever more frenzied Rat Race toward ever decreasing rewards, this as expression of his Dominionist beliefs that riches are divine reward and poverty is divine punishment.

Back to the broader matter of the methodical destruction of public transport, Congress investigated this matter c. 1948-1950 and held extensive hearings, but the records of the proceedings are very hard to find, and I can't imagine how they might be Googled out. One place to start -- I haven't attempted this myself -- might be by Googling "los angeles street railway system" and/or variants thereof; the LA Street Railway was one of the systems so destroyed.

Hope this helps.

[Ron Green]

13. Why do you hate America, newswolf56?

Nice post. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[newswolf56]

20. I know your headline was written in jest...

...but I should say this anyway: native-born (in New York City) but (except for overseas military service) having lived most of my life in a diverse American elsewhere, it is precisely because of my heartfelt love for both this nation and its wondrous land that I so lament its methodical ruination.

(And thanks for the welcome. Sometime soon -- as soon as I figure out how -- I'll do a separate "thank you" post to all who have welcomed me.)

[Kurovski]

8. It also restricts movement.

remember that during 9/11 when no planes flew, amtrak was the only way to travel for many people.

I'm not certain why Bushco would like that, but I do know that we always used to make a big deal about "freedom of movement" in this country. You know, back when we weren't on lockdown by our own government.

[newswolf56]

12. Immediately after 9/11, the rail traffic back east...

...was so heavy, I heard that lines like the Norfolk Southern (formerly the Southern Railroad and the old and very much lamented Norfolk & Western) were actually taking steam locomotives out of mothballs and firing them up to haul passenger trains. (The steamers had been kept in operational condition for summertime excursion trains.) In fact I remember a photograph of some young girl leaping into the air with glee and pointing at just such an engine, its huge wheels and bright driving-rods dimly visible in the background. "Lucky kid," I thought. She gets to experience something folks my age took for granted and now terribly miss: the low pulse-like throb of a steam locomotive at rest, then the saxophonic blues-wail of its whistle, finally the fast sibilant white halo and the rolling black-smoke thunder of a mighty road-engine torquing away the miles...

[Kurovski]

18. I love the trains, too.

Welcome to DU!

[RetroLounge]

21. "taking steam locomotives out of mothballs "

Uhm, that's a new one on me, especially since NS and any other Class I railroads do not have passenger trains. Not since 1971 and Amtrak...

Do you have a link, I mean, I have been wrong before :D

RL

[newswolf56]

26. Don't know who ran the trains...

...but Norfolk Southern (and a lot of other nominally freight-only railroads) run summertime excursion-train passenger service. Apparently during the post-9/11 transport crisis (which by some accounts skyrocketed rail travel to World War II levels), the excursion equipment was put to use making regular passenger runs. If I remember correctly, the photo I saw was by Associated Press from the Richmond area; the detail of the locomotive in the background was too out of focus to identify it by type save that it was steam -- BIG steam by the man-high driving wheels. In Richmond that would most likely be Norfolk Southern (N&W built and ran the largest and most powerful steam locomotives in the world), but it could be any one of three other railroads too: the Chessie System (the old Chesapeake & Ohio and several smaller lines); Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac (if it's still running); or the Baltimore and Ohio, which -- if that's still operational -- is (or was) the oldest railroad in America.

For authentication, now that I think of it, it seems to me there were indeed stories in The Washington Post and/or The New York Times about the emergency use of excursion trains on regular passenger runs. The photo itself was on some news website; sorry I don't remember which one.

[RetroLounge]

27. I'll have to take your word for it...

:hi:

RL

p.s. You like O. Winston Link?

[newswolf56]

29. I have his book...

...The Last Steam Railroad in America. Exquisite! Those locomotives were the Industrial Age's most representative functional sculpture. A memento of my boyhood too: I spent a lot of years in N&W country and the Southern/L&N lands immediately to the south. Nothing on earth like the sight of a Y-class engine working a grade cut on a frosty October morning, all white steam and black smoke and thunderous rhythm, no sound on the planet like that of a steam whistle banshee-wailing up some hollow late at night -- the source of most every blues riff ever laid down.

First job I ever wanted -- this from age four onward -- was to be a locomotive engineer. But then they retired all the steam locomotives and replaced them with boring diesels and I became a journalist instead.

[RetroLounge]

30. You should write about trains then!

RL

[newswolf56]

32. Thanks for posting that picture; it gives the youngsters...

...a little taste of what we're talking about. Though there's a better picture on Page 57, if you can scan it up. And indeed I have written about trains (though never often enough): covered transportation for about seven years total -- some of the best times (and best people) of my career.

[RetroLounge]

34. I write now for a RR Historical Society quarterly

just a little photo section, but it's cool...

RL

[Joanne98]

9. The oil companies

[bobbieinok]

10. there was an article in Atlantic or Harper's about the destruction of

cities' mass rail transit systems......the article ran in the early 70s at the time of the 'oil crisis' and the long lines at filling stations

one of the points in the article......auto makers were behind this; they also built buses to replace the rail mass transit systems

this might be accessible on the internet

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Because trains are so .... 'French'

The republicans have never supported the more egalitarian forms of mass transit. Cars are given a pass because they use **oil**. Airlines are given a pass because they're big bidniss ... and they use **oil**. But intercity and long distance travel that might actually be efficient and accessible? Like trains? Hah ... nostalgia and old europe.

[SpiralHawk]

22. Why that's the Jeff GannonBall Special, isn't it?

Comin down the line, headed straight for the Bush White House press room, and looking totally French and Butch and Tres Republican (The Way Bush & Co prefer it)

[Kurovski]

40. LOL. Actually, rumor has it

that George says Jeff is more like a "pistol" than a "locomotive".

[GetTheRightVote]

14. Because * knows of the jobs this system brings to us, wants the

money for war instead, many jobs are depending upon train system continuing, like in FDR's days .... remember.

:kick:

[amazona]

15. i have no idea who uses amtrak anyway?

It is such unreliable service in my area that surely the only people who use it are extremely fearful of flying. A friend and I asked about Amtrak from Gulfport/Biloxi to Las Vegas. The train station wasn't even sure which day the Amtrak would pick up. So our plans of a fun train trip were discarded and we flew as usual. Amtrak already doesn't seem to serve anyone, and it isn't cheap either.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[belpejic]

16. It's big on the East Coast

A major source of transportation on the Boston to DC corridor.

[newyawker99]

36. Hi belpejic!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Ron Green]

17. As long as passenger rail service remains unreliable, the only riders will

be, as you point out, those afraid to fly or "railfans," who just love train travel and don't have to be anywhere on time. My wife and I enjoy train travel, even in the West, but we want to travel on time, so we find that we don't use it unless we can afford to be late. Retired people, however, and many vacationers, don't worry about the delays; they just go with the flow, which is a great way to travel, but it doesn't solve the problem: an inefficient ground transportation system.

My guess is that the Powers That Be want to keep passengers off of rails, except for tourists and railfans, who don't mind waiting on sidings for freight, which is what the railroads want to carry.

[SharonAnn]

19. I use Amtrak and it's wonderful. Go to AAA for info if you can't get

it elsewhere. Or their website, www.amtrak.com.

I love using it and wish I could do it more often.

BTW, it's cheaper than driving and staying in motels and eating on the road. And more fun.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. In the northeast corridor (Boston to DC) it beats all the alternatives

It is easier than driving. Its just plain fun. Admittedly, its more expensive, though.

Here's the hell of it, though. In actual portal to portal time (to say *nothing* of the hassle and anxiety) it is faster than flying.

DC to NYC (for me):

to fly ..... 30 - 60 minutes drive to the airport
60 minutes preboard hang-around time at the airport.
45 - 60 minutes flying (30-35 minute flight plus taxi and hang-around time)
45 to 60 minutes airport to destination.

On the high side, thats a total travel time of 4 hours.

to take Amtrak .... 20 minutes to the train station.
10 minutes hang around time.
2-1/2 hours on train
10 minutes in a taxi to destination

On the high side, that's 3 hours and 10 minutes.

[newswolf56]

28. Hear, hear! I used to ride the MetroLiner...

...between NYC and DC during the '80s. Wonderful trip: arrive in DC refreshed and ready to work, arrive home in NYC that same night energized and ready to play. Even before 9/11, (especially allowing for all the air traffic delays at LaGuardia or JFK) it was actually quicker by at least an hour to take the train.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. I beg to differ

I just went from Miinnapolis to Chicago and back for $110.70 roundtrip, which was about half of what the cheapest plane ticket was--and it landed me in downtown Chicago, just a few blocks from my hotel.

It was fun! I had a comfortable reclining seat with a leg rest and foot rest, the ability to get up and walk around and go get a cup of coffee or a meal or go sit in the observation car to watch the Mississippi River or the Wisconsin countryside roll by. There was a friendly atmosphere, with people talking to each other. If you're traveling alone, you get seated with random strangers in the dining car, but that was fine. In fact, the three strangers I sat with at dinner on the way back were all staunch Democrats, so we had a great time talking politics until the dining steward made a show of shutting down.

The train down to Chicago last Friday was nearly full. Coming back on a Tuesday, the train was about 3/4 full.

I didn't know this until this trip, but one group that would definitely be impacted by the loss of Amtrak would be the Amish. There were four or five Amish families (and not the same ones) on each leg of the trip, since it's the only means of long-distance travel that they're allowed.

Amtrak's main problem is that it's being starved. Imagine a political prisoner who is being fed just enough to keep him alive but not enough to keep him healthy. That's the situation Amtrak is in. The Republicanites complain about Amtrak getting "a billion dollar a year subsidy." That sounds like a lot until you realize that most states spend more than that on their highways. If you know that Amtrak is being expected to run an entire national rail system on less than the typical state highway budget, you can understand why it has deficiencies and marvel that it does as well as it does.

Amtrak is also forced to yield right-of-way to all freight trains. Because of its low budget, it can run only one train in each direction on each route every day. Sometimes not even that. Would the airlines be able to function if they could have only one flight per day to each destination? There are many places where the only train goes through town at 3AM, which is a major disincentive, and yet, as I read the seat tags on the cars I passed through, I saw that people were bound for towns where they would be let off in the wee hours of the morning.

If we had been a smart country (and any country where more than a few dozen people vote for Bushboy is not a smart country), we would have re-elected Jimmy Carter and worked toward energy independence, and one step would have been reducing auto and air travel, both of which burn petroleum. Trains are the most efficient carriers of passengers per amount of energy consumed, especially for trips of 600 miles or less.

It's just sickening to think that we could have used the billions upon billions being wasted in Iraq to create regional high-speed rail networks, thereby protecting the environment and creating a high number of blue collar jobs. The Asian countries are way ahead of us in this regard.

Who would benefit from the demise of Amtrak? The usual pet industries: cars and airlines.

[Yupster]

35. We took an Amtrac vacation

from Abuquerque to The Grand Canyon to San Diego.

It was all very nice, and the trip from Los Angeles to San Diego was crowded with morning commuters, but the desert part was pretty much deserted.

We enjoyed it, but I wouldn't be able to justify the expense for as few people who were using it.

It seems like it's a simple mathematical problem. The routes that are being well used should stay and the ones that aren't should go.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. As I noted above, a major problem is that Amtrak can afford

to run only one train per day in each direction on its current starvation diet.

It's a general principle of transportation that the more places a system goes and the more often, the more ridership increases, because it then becomes more convenient for more people.

The current starvation subsidy for Amtrak is chump change in terms of the total federal budget. Just for instance, the government could have used the money being wasted on death and destruction in Iraq to bring the U.S. rail system up from its current Third World standards.

And for all you crypto-libertarians out there, not one system of transportation in the entire country has grown without government subsidies. Highways and airports and airline bailouts ($35 billion for the airlines after 9/11--more than Amtrak had received in total since 1970) are obvious examples, but even the first transcontinental railroads in this country were subsidized by being given free land to sell along their routes.

[cap]

39. Congress & their staff and government officials & Wall Street

shuttling back and forth between NYC and DC.

[Kurovski]

41. I always travel by train.

Some Amtrak routes are inspirational. Views from windows of The Empire Builder are astounding.

On one trip from Chicago to Kansas City there was a dusk near the Mississippi when the moon was pale gold, and pale-cream Egret-like birds were wading in water covered in White water-lillies.

You can witness things that would make you weep with joy or pray in gratitude.

Every writer or artist should give it a shot at least once and see what they come up with. It can be well worth the "challenge" of train travel.

[Hidden Stillness]

24. From Regulated to Unregulated, and At Their Mercy

Briefly, it is because the railroad, Amtrak, is actually a Department of the Federal Government, a regulated monopoly, and train service here, unlike all the corporate price-gouging travel alternatives, is "Nationalized." The employees are Federal workers, protected by a strong union, their pensions are Federally protected, written into law, and it is just another example of the Republican fascist destroying a part of the government and replacing it with corporate profiteering which the people cannot control. It will be deregulated, will stop serving "low-profit" areas of small population, thus cutting those people off, workers will lose their benefits, and there will be no more Federally protcted pensions, only corporate control of them, (just like their attempt with Social Security).
Just as important, all these protections, price controls, job and rail line security, etc., was yet another Roosevelt Administration achievement--and so of course this bastard wants to kill it and give it to yet another capitalist. It is a way of killing one of the last regulated, Federal government properties, and making it some pimp's moneymaker.

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. I bet you're right about this.

Sounds like the best answer thus far.

[bloom]

25. Recently Greyhound announced cuts in services

My daughter's college friend from South Dakota had been able to take the bus all the way to Bloomington, IN. Neither of them drive.

Now Greyhound is just going to major cities.

It would make it much more difficult for them to visit each other.


(What a stupid country.)

[BiggJawn]

31. Kill it. Cut off all the outlying routes, THEN sell the Northeast Corridor

To a big campaign contributor...

Oh, wait.. Did I say SELL??? Silly me....

He'll GIVE the NE Corridor to one of his Pioneers. And we'll (the taxpayers) pick up the tab for the infrastructure...

The City of New Orleans? The Empire Builder? The Cardinal? the Century Limited? Pffft. Who rides those trains anayway? poor people who can't afford SUV's, and fukkem.