Whew! Boy, I sure wouldn’t want him to have his finger on the “RED”

button!!!!!!

An individual that can’t get his facts straight as is obvious in light of the convoluted

“JABBERWOCKY” logic he espouses in his little neo-con rightwing-nut tirade is

frightening.

THe fact of the matter is that Amtrak Employees worked [8] eight years without

a Union contract cheerfully and generously trying to help the System survive up to

2007 during all the bleak last ten years of the “paultry cheapskate” Budget

appropriations the “REactionary GOP” Congress parceled out. Some years the “BUSH

MAN” White Castle snapped the rug for not a “Red Cent”.

He had plenty money to throw away on TWO [2] Endless, Pointless WARS but nary

a soue’ for something practical or beneficial to the Country.

After running up the most reckless, horrendous explosive budget in 10 years and

sitting back and allowing Wall Street and his “Texas Cronies” take over, the end

result is the Country is now sinking in the “SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION” of the last

80 Years brought to you again by the those “Little Republicans”!!

Give me a break !!! Better yet, give this Country a break and all you “Idiots” go back

to your plywood shacks in the “backwoods and read your “ADAM SMITH” and bone

up on your “Free Markets” [Flea Markets], yeah its free for the “Big Dogs” and the

rest of the Schnauzers “HAVE to PAY” !!!!!!

Where are you getting your ideas about libertarianism? We are very much opposed to the things you named there.

“When gas spikes to $6, $8 or $10 a gallon in the coming years, wouldn’t it be prudent to have a national high speed rail system (supported by the federal government as necessary) in place as an alternative for the millions of Americans who will no longer be able to afford to drive or fly long distances?”

Why does it have to be supported (or run) by the federal government? As has been pointed out, private rail moved freight very efficiently without government subsidy, why is it so hard to believe that private rail could move people too?

When gas spikes to $6, $8 or $10 a gallon in the coming years, wouldn’t it be prudent to have a national high speed rail system (supported by the federal government as necessary) in place as an alternative for the millions of Americans who will no longer be able to afford to drive or fly long distances?

Just because something doesn’t pass a narrowly defined libertarian economic litmus test under today’s conditions doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. Some of us actually have the capacity to think about what the world may look like 10 or 20 years in the future and believe we need to prepare for likely circumstances. And the idea that gas may become prohibitively expensive within our lifetimes is a very real possibility.

I had heard about them waiting on the internet for the slightest mention of the revered name of Dr. Paul, but I’ve never seen Paulbots conducting a real live raid.
there’s certain terms that cult followers enter into their computer and they get email alerts when a website or blog they’ve never visited has new posts, then they gather their army and attack. the term “ron paul” is one such well known example. ‘PRT’ is another.

it is really funny that with transportation, libertarians dont mind government regulation when it comes to government imposing an auto-centric lifestyle. they dont mind new public roads and bridges putting private ferries, railroads and streetcar companies out of business.

The whole point of a successful business is to gain competitive advantage.

Railroads dropped money losing passenger rail as cheap oil and government built Interstates allowed buses and autos to dominate the transportation industry.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo173.html

If ticket revenue does not cover the cost of running the trains, then un-met demand cannot justify increased capacity. If this were the case, then we should set ticket prices at $0 and the demand would justify a railway to everyone’s front door!

I agree with you about NAFTA. I disagree that transportation is “public good” (code word for a “right”?) or that markets are not the most efficient way for transportation services to be provided, just like most other services.

Finally, this discussion started because Ron Paul said he was worried that the car company bailout would result in a government owned and operated auto industry, like Amtrak. I share his concerns and agree that such an outcome would do more harm to the economy than good.

I am no expert on rail transport, although I know a lot more now than I did a little while ago. If the current administration wants to expand Amtrak, it’s certainly not the worst thing they could do. But if they do, I hope they are honest with the American people about how it will be paid for. I hope they have the integrity to either raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere in order to afford it. As a matter of fact I would gladly trade the wars and our foreign occupation overseas for a better domestic rail system.

I certainly do not agree with your simplistic characterization of liberals and conservatives and suggest that such a perception does nothing but perpetuate the two-party monopoly in Washington. It is a false characterization that distracts us from fundamental issues about government and further ensconces the current establishment (both parties) in power.

Self-interest is not synonymous with greed. Greed is an unproductive motive.
It does not drive the free market. The free market is driven by productivity and efficiency. In a free market, those who provide the best services at the best price are rewarded. The accumulation of wealth is, therefore, a reflection of one’s ability to best satisfy the needs of others through a system of voluntary exchange. Greedy people need an unfair advantage in the market, like that afforded by government favoritism, in order to survive.

“GM and Chrysler came to the government for aid, so it’s not like this was some sort of hostile public takeover. I have no problem with the government owning companies. I prefer it to private sector ownership. Publicly owned companies are much more accountable.”

Sean, government ownership of the means of production is not a new concept, and you are not alone in this opinion. But I would ask you to consider the kinds of power needed by a government that can build and operate a nationwide industry. What liberties must the people concede in order for government to wield this kind of unilateral power?

After 8 years of the Bush administration’s exploits, can you really say with conviction that government is any more accountable or credible than the private sector? In fact, I would suggest that the worst corruption, deceit, and inefficiency found in the private sector is almost always enabled and protected by government. In a truly free market, such counterproductive behavior would lead to economic ruin.

Somewhere along the line people began to adopt the notion that civil liberty and economic liberty were somehow distinct and that presence of the former was more indicative of a free society than the latter. I consider economic freedoms inseparable and vital to a free society. When government interferes in the economy we are less free. When governement takes our property by force to use as it pleases, we are less free.

Many inhumane and repressive regimes have built impressive civil infrastructure. It is a poor substitute for individual liberty.

Tim, I think Ron’s fear is that the auto industry will go the way of Amtrak while your hope is that it will go the way of Conrail. The jury is still out on that one. My position is that the market should be left to take care of the car companies and that no good will come from my tax dollars propping up these failed businesses.

Regarding your implicit praise of the government’s role in Conrail, I have to point out that the conditions leading to the bankruptcy of the six major railroads that precipitated the government’s intercession were themselves caused by the government!

From conrail.com: “Although there were many reasons for the economic difficulties they [the railroads] faced, chief among them was competition from trucks, subsidized by the federally-built Interstate highway system, and an archaic system of economic regulation which prevented railroads from responding to the needs of the market.”

Let’s not praise the doctor who supervised our water boarding for resuscitating us!

public rail system…not working out, let’s privatize it and see if it helps.
private rail system…not working out, let’s nationalize the rail lines themselves and see if it helps.
confused rail system…is it working out? Sure hope the people who we only paid 2 pounds per share aren’t still mad at us.

I hate to break up your free market circle jerk, but capitalism is far from perfect.”

Aside from the fact that people can’t even agree whether Network Rail is publicly managed or privately managed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail), or whether it was nationalized because it was going bankrupt or another reason, the fact is that it’s customers are private companies that actually handle the trains. Network Rail handles the infrastructure, which is COMPLETELY opposite of Amtrak. With Amtrak, the lines are private and the train is publicly funded.

But aside from that, you’re not winning the argument by saying the other party is composed of nutjobs performing a circle-jerk.

Sure, the private sector screws up all the time, and sometimes the private sector does great things. Either way, the public wins.

When the public sector screws up, everyone loses.

Sorry, but the original trains we had weren’t provided by the feds. They came from private enterprise. They sprang to life because there was a market for them.

Right now, there’s a HUGE market for better transportation, including better rail systems. The problem is that people are blocked from providing innovative rail solutions. There are several great designs for practical rail systems, including inexpensive systems that can start small and grow, but before they can be built, the current laws have to be changed to allow them to exist. Laws such as the one that blocks competition with Amtrack. Laws such as the ones that cities impose to block private alternatives to city controlled trains.

Not all of the alternatives even require using any additional land than the current rails use. One approach is a train that doesn’t stop, but drops off cars at each station. Another is a 2-4 passenger unit that runs above the existing rail system. Not being 35 tons of train, it wouldn’t take as strong a structure to support it the entire distance. This latter one would be on-demand rather than scheduled, so it would only ever be used when someone is paying to ride it. All the benefits of cheap rail without the scheduling nightmares.

I’d love to see ANY of the alternatives rather than the classic go-stop-go train design, but that can’t happen while governments decide which are permitted.

I hate to break up your free market circle jerk, but capitalism is far from perfect.

France, Germany, Spain, and China’s passenger rail operators are state-owned and do a fabulous job. There is no reason why Amtrak can’t do the same. Amtrak does a fabulous job given the ridiculous difficulties it faces such as low funding and sharing right-of-way with slow moving freight trains.

GM and Chrysler came to the government for aid, so it’s not like this was some sort of hostile public takeover. I have no problem with the government owning companies. I prefer it to private sector ownership. Publicly owned companies are much more accountable.

Hey Tim, you ever read “Wreck of the Penn Central” by Joe Daughen and Pete Binzen? That’s a damn good book!

Ron’s supporters also, in their unending quest to out-unfederalize each other, ignore a fundamental fact about surface transportation: it is inherently an interstate issue. Let’s say that Illinois and Ohio want to run a train between Cincinnati and Chicago. If Indiana doesn’t want to contribute, that train won’t run even though the states around it would derive significant benefit. We’ve already seen the problems that Connecticut has foisted upon the Northeast Corridor because the tracks there are state-owned. For decades trains had to switch locomotives in New York because Connecticut wouldn’t pay for electrification. And, as everyone knows, the transport of people across state lines for pay is Interstate Commerce and therefore clearly under the domain of the federal government.

Furthermore, Amtrak doesn’t have a statutory monopoly. You are free to start your own passenger railroad tomorrow. Of course, the owners of the tracks have already made it clear that they’re not interested in dealing with anyone but Amtrak, so you might have a problem there. And Amtrak owns the stations in the major cities and they might not want to share. And Amtrak has all the rights to the passenger car designs that meet American crashworthiness standards, so you’ll have to design your own from scratch and find someone willing to build them for you. But I’m sure GE would sell you a locomotive, so you’ve got that going for you.

On top of that, Amtrak actually recovers a greater portion of its costs through user fees than the road system does. See, your car doesn’t know when it’s burning gas on a state or federal highway and when it’s burning gas on city streets and county roads. It burns gas (and therefore pays gas tax) no matter where it goes. You are paying gas taxes when you’re driving on roads paid for out of property taxes, meaning that property taxes are actually subsidizing the highway system. The highway system recovers about 60% of its costs through user fees; Amtrak covers 71% of its costs through fares, station income, and contracted services.

The train has left the station on this one, guys. The public wants more trains and is willing to pay taxes for them. You may want to pick another fight.

I have yet to hear an argument against Amtrak that makes any sense.

Richard Campbell is absolutely correct - freight railways are the big problem.

In a nutshell (Ron Paul’s skull), Amtrak doesn’t operate properly because of TWO fundamental problems that have been caused by the Republicans:

1. Freight railways in America (i.e. Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, CSX, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, etc.) HATE having to stop their trains for Amtrak. SHOULD the freight railways begin operating passenger service if it’s profitable? Yes, but the people running the railroads today are NOT the people of a hundred years ago. They don’t want to bother with passengers. It’s not their business and they don’t care. Their only interest is moving freight.

Amtrak operates over these railways because they have “trackage rights.” If the railways purposely delay Amtrak trains on their track, they are penalized. But over the last few decades, the freight railways have realized that it’s more profitable to delay Amtrak trains and take the fine. Why? Because NO ONE’S ENFORCING THE LAW!! Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush did NOTHING to enforce these laws because they were in bed with the railroads. Don’t kid yourself - those railroad lobbyists are VERY powerful, and Clinton wasn’t even a true Democrat (this is the guy who signed NAFTA!!) Furthermore, delaying Amtrak trains and making them late continues to hurt Amtrak’s reputation, therefore turning public opinion against it (like Grant and Barney above). The freight railroads hope to finally get Amtrak off their tracks so they can run better, and that’s how they do it!

2. Amtrak’s second problem is that the government hasn’t given Amtrak enough money to buy more passenger cars and locomotives to fill the demand. There IS a demand for Amtrak - here in Minneapolis, it’s difficult to buy a ticket because all trains are booked up for weeks ahead. If Amtrak is filling up trains, it’s still not making enough money to cover the operating costs. If Amtrak had MORE equipment to increase the capacity, it could be profitable! But Republicans have been blocking this for decades because of people like Grant, TJ and Barney who can’t stand their tax dollars being used for something that “doesn’t work.” How does THAT make any sense? But that’s exactly what Republicans will tell you - Amtrak doesn’t work, and YOU’RE paying for it. Quite simply, if Amtrak had more money, it would begin making money!

This is largely why so many people who understand infrastructure are so excited about President Obama! Bill Clinton was barely a Democrat. Now we’ve got someone who will begin to enforce the law stated above and give Amtrak the equipment it needs. I don’t know if you guys have ever actually looked at a typical passenger car, but they’re BIG - VERY BIG, and expensive.

Obama and Biden GET IT.

And let me add another thing: For the sake of argument, let’s say Amtrak REALLY IS destined to be a money pit for the government. So what?

Here’s a quote from an acquaintance of mine last year in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: “Some then cling to the idea that mass transit should be profitable, as a business must be. These critics forget that mass transit is a basic service, just like the police or education. Should we start billing victims of robberies or shaking down kids for their lunch money? Mass transit is a public good. Just because some folks have a fortune to spend on gas doesn’t mean we all do.” (A. Imboden, 2008)

This was written about light rail in Minneapolis, but the same concept applies. Amtrak is a necessary service provided by the government. Take a moment and go to Google Maps. Look at ANY large American metropolitan area (with the whole thing fitting on your screen). It’s blatantly clear where the airport is because it’s HUGE!! Any typical airport is the size of many whole neighborhoods.

Now consider this: By the year 2100, the population of America will at LEAST double, likely triple. We’re talking 900,000,000 people! How many more HUGE airports will we have to build? How far outside the city will they be? How many more runways will need to be built, increasing chances of mid-air collisions? How many more people will be unable to escape the loud noise of jets overhead when they’re trying to enjoy their evening in the backyard?

Without zooming in, now find the train station. You can’t! See what I mean?

Once again, we’ve got a topic that exposes the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives only care about themselves and their wallets - and if their money goes to someone else who needs it and doesn’t benefit them directly, the attitude is “Screw’em.”

Liberals, on the other hand, actually care about the well-being of our fellow Americans and the future of this great country. The advancement of Amtrak is one such case. Ron Paul is a fool.

Well, if you haven’t figured it out yet, you won’t get an argument from me if you propose that the federal government rescind most of its control over aviation and highways. I found this article because the author commented on Ron Paul, whose postions on economics and the free market I happen to support.

You can find the subsidy per mile stats here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak Look in the section titled “Controversy”.

Your contention that all transportation modes should be funded equally is specious, I think. Why should we fund a model that does not provide a good return on investment? Just because passenger rail works in other countries does not mean it can or must work here; there are many differences economically, geographically, culturally, politically, etc. that can change the equation. And how are we to decide what will “work”? Does government have the answer? Like when it decided to subsidize ethanol production to “reduce our dependence on foreign oil”? Was that a good decision?

Freight rail came back to viability in this country only after the government released its control over the industry and let the market work. The collective wisdom and efforts of the multitude of individuals in the market seeking value found a viable use for the resources. I think this is also passenger rail’s best chance. After all, we’ve had government rail for over 30 years, spent tens of billions of dollars, and the results are less than impressive.

I don’t know where that $100 for every 1000 passenger mile figure comes from, but if you provided that, then provide me with the same aspect for the highways.

Freight rail thrives because they have been on the same right of ways for over a century now and only need to keep up with maintenance, whereas Amtrak rides on the same lines which have only been kept up for slow moving freight rail and haven’t been kept up to date, to provide the fastest and most efficient passenger rail service. Plus, a large amount of Amtrak lines were eliminated over time.

You say that the federal government should get out of rail and states and private enterprise should take over, if that’s what should happen, then the same should be done with all roads and highways. Suggesting otherwise is a double standard.

For the record: Private competition is great — bring it on. I noticed that Italy will soon be getting a private high speed rail service that will compete with state company. That’s wonderful. And if we could have a functional fully private passenger rail system in this country, that would be fine too. But there’s no way it could just magically spring to life when we’ve spend trillions of dollars building, subsidizing and encouraging the use of highways for travel that would (arguably) be better accomplished by rail. Government is involved in all this. It’s not going to just disappear at this stage in the game.

Anyway, the notion that government shouldn’t be involved in transportation is just weird. By its nature, it is one area–along with defense–that almost requires it.

But why do I feel like I might be beating my head against a wall here?

-Jebediah

I had heard about them waiting on the internet for the slightest mention of the revered name of Dr. Paul, but I’ve never seen Paulbots conducting a real live raid.

I don’t know the actual difference between federal highway subsidies awarded and federal fuel taxes collected, do you? Further, I don’t know that fuel taxes collected are actually allocated to highway upkeep, just like social security taxes somehow don’t end up in trust fund’s “lock box”, but that is a different conversation

What “proportion of benefits” are you talking about? The Amtrak model requires $100 in subsidies for every 1000 passenger miles. It is brutally inefficient, and much higher than subsidies paid for other modes of transportation. You could actually idle some of the trains and simply buy airline tickets for passengers with the money that Amtrak gets from us. Isn’t that, by itself, an indictment of this enterprise?

Why is the (private) freight rail industry thriving and Amtrak struggling?

Why not get the federal government out of the rail business and let states and private interests figure out how to make passenger service viable again? Let innovation and private capital back into the equation.

There is no provision in the Constitution authorizing the federal government’s involvement in the railroad industry, and it’s doing a lousy job at our expense.

The major flaw in your argument is the following:

“but with the highway system fuel taxes provide an offset to subsidies based on use, while airline travel is a highly competitive market - the vast majority of it private”

In no way do fuel taxes offset subsidies based on use, that was the intent, but in no way correct, if it was, the highway fund wouldn’t be going bust in August. Second, the airline market may be competitive, but airports and many aspects that go with them are highly subsidized as well.

If Amtrak had been reaping the same proportion of benefits that the airline industry and highway system has, things would be completely different. I don’t have a problem with privatization of passenger rail in this country, but the major problem that exists is the matters of eminent domain and the building of new right of ways for high speed rail. The old right of ways need major modifications to make them straighter, which will no doubt require land grabs, the same way the interstate system works and the only way this can happen is through government support. The costs associated with this for private capital is far too inhibitive for it to work.

I feel the best form would be federal/state ownership of ROWs and the tracks, while trains could be operated by private companies. But not until the system is up and running to a much better degree than it currently is.

This would in effect, work the same way as the airline industry.

I’m sorry but I don’t buy it. I’ve ridden Amtrak and the trains almost always run on time. If they didn’t the bureaucrats wouldn’t even ride their own trains! The reason Amtrak loses money is because it can. It operates in a vacuum, insulated from market forces, just like all other government monopolies.

When gas was cheap Amtrak lost money. When gas was $4 a gallon and ridership was up %15, it still lost money. If the laws of physics changed and airplanes ceased to fly, and we all had to ride Amtrak, it would still lose money. It’s designed to lose money.

The $100 in subsidies required for each 1000 passenger miles is by far the highest rate of any major mode of transportation in this country.

I certainly agree that subsidies have skewed the evolution of transportation in this country, but with the highway system fuel taxes provide an offset to subsidies based on use, while airline travel is a highly competitive market - the vast majority of it private - that naturally enforces efficiency and promotes innovation. In both cases, freight and passenger transportation services are private and competitive. Amtrak is the only exception here.

I do not believe that Amtrak is the only viable model for interstate passenger rail service in this country. I do believe that the government and its partners in Amtrak have a vested interest in maintainig the status quo, and that this interest supercedes the best interests of the American taxpayer and even rail passengers, who might be getting much better service and cheaper fares if the private sector was allowed compete in this market.

With the advent of “too big to fail” the propping up of almost any company or industry with taxpayer dollars can be justified, and in every case we run the risk of creating another Amtrak: an unnecessary, inefficient bureaucracy that transfers the property of ordinary citizens - by force - to the elite and their cohorts in the name of progress and social justice.

The bigger picture is that with dwindling oil supplies and rising costs both driving and flying face very uncertain futures. High speed rail is the only solution that has a certain future and does not depend on technological miracles.

If you left this out, you might have had a better argument. Comparing passenger rail to stagecoach routes and telegraph service is ridiculous.

Your points are well taken, but you don’t reference the subsidies of airports, interstates and roads. I say we let all of those be given a level playing field and be run, maintained and new projects be entirely constructed by private industry and we’ll see how long they survive, or even begin, especially new construction.

…as you say “then why on earth should we all be forced to pay to continue an unsustainable business? What is the critical benefit or value that justifies the confiscation of our hard-earned money for this?”

The reason they are subsidized is for more transportation options that provide a greater benefit for the public.

A better approach would be to sell Amtrak and pass train track rail responsibility to to the states, just like the highway system. Keep it localized, or at least lower the amount of federal subsidies to various small things here and there.