EDITORIAL: GOP tries to derail Amtrak

[^_^ 5,021]

Sen. Frank Lautenburg, D-N.J., opened a recent hearing on the future of U.S. passenger rail service by observing that the federal government last year spent more than $40 billion on highways — more than it has spent on Amtrak in its 40-year history.

A longtime champion of national rail service, Lautenburg denounced a Republican proposal to cut Amtrak’s operation by 60 percent and to privatize its high-traffic routes.

“It’s like cutting throats,” he said.

Republicans have been trying for years to cut Amtrak’s throat. Under President George W. Bush, GOP lawmakers tried to wipe out Amtrak’s operating subsidy and allow private operators to skim its profitable routes.

House Republicans are targeting Amtrak once again, introducing a proposal to reduce funding for Amtrak operations in 2012 from the current level of $563 million to $227 million. They also want to strip federal funding from short routes, which make up almost half of all Amtrak ridership.

Congress created Amtrak in 1971 to save a rail industry that was dying as Americans abandoned rail to cruise the interstate in automobiles. Since then, times have changed. Highways and airports became clogged with travelers, gas prices surged and global warming raised concerns about emissions of greenhouse gas.

The GOP assault on Amtrak reflects the worst instincts of Republicans, who seem oblivious to its resurgent popularity. Amtrak is enjoying its sixth year of record ridership and expects to carry more than 30 million passengers this year.

Republican resistance to national rail service stems from the fact that Amtrak never has made a profit and requires government assistance.

Never mind that the United States is the only major industrialized nation with a substandard national rail system — and that European and Asian nations provide hefty rail subsidies and are far ahead of the United States in the development of high-speed rail.

And never mind that the United States pours tens of billions of dollars annually into subsidizing airlines, highways and ports — and a relative pittance into maintaining and operating interstate passenger rail service.

If Congress wants to improve Amtrak’s bottom line, lawmakers should heed the advice of Amtrak’s inspector general, Ted Alves, who suggests restructuring Amtrak’s debt. Alves also cites the need to improve long-distance train service, but that’s unlikely to happen until the host railroads stop giving freight trains priority over passenger rail and improve infrastructure, which they refuse to do without more federal subsidies.

President Obama’s proposed jobs bill would provide spending to update passenger rail systems. The bill would grant $4 billion to design and build a new high-speed railway. Another $2 billion would be allocated for repairs and upgrades.

Even with a major increase in funding, Amtrak is years away from providing a European-style system, including bullet trains that can run at top speeds in excess of 200 mph.

But Congress can ensure the continuation of its national rail system by continuing the subsidies that Amtrak needs to keep the nation moving.

http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/26952785-47/amtrak-rail-service-congress-federal.html.csp

[Chris921 13]

As someone who is looking to get into the railway this interests me Greatly, (I worked in the UK on the railway) and it is really a paltry amount that congress gives to Amtrak, considering how much railway they have to run and maintain, in comparison in the UK I think Network rail got 24 billion GBP for 5 years, in comparison of the size of the UK Railway to the us, that is ridiculous I dare say Amtrak is responsible for like 10 times the amount of railway and infrastructure that network rail is. I am sure if they gave Amtrak more funding there would be a LOT more jobs on offer therefore helping to rebuild the economy

[bigdog 376]

Private enterprise need to run it own business, not my money.

[mawilson 2,133]

"derail Amtrak", how very clever

[Nina~ 431]

Private enterprise need to run it own business, not my money.

I would not trust a private company to invest and build basic infrastructure.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I would not trust a private company to invest and build basic infrastructure.

And just how do you thing that US' railroads were built?

[mawilson 2,133]

I would not trust a private company to invest and build basic infrastructure.

Why not?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I would not trust a private company to invest and build basic infrastructure.

we wouldn't have railroads at all in this country if it weren't for private company investing and building basic infrastructure.

[The_Dude 1,142]

we wouldn't have railroads at all in this country if it weren't for private company investing and building basic infrastructure.

Depending on where you live, that is a good or a bad thing. In this day and age, I wouldn't trust a private company to build infrastructure, not when you know damn well that a cost benefit analysis would be done to determine if cutting corners would be worth it to them financially. Sometimes, financial decisions aren't the most prudent standard.

Edited September 30, 2011 by The_Dude

[Nina~ 431]

Why not?

Because private companies do not have the best interests of the public in mind when they invest in anything. Also, I have more of a "say" with the government as a taxpayer. I might change my tune when I have more money invested in shares than what I pay in taxes.

And just how do you thing that US' railroads were built?

The first railroads were built as a government charter.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Because private companies do not have the best interests of the public in mind when they invest in anything. Also, I have more of a "say" with the government as a taxpayer. I might change my tune when I have more money invested in shares than what I pay in taxes.

you're lying to yourself if you actually believe this.

Government will collect your taxes no matter what.

A company only collects what money you offer to them by your choice in products you use.

[luckytxn 2,265]

If it requires a huge subsidy then it is a cost inefficient entity and should be defunded and either stopped altogether or handed over to private enterprises.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[The_Dude 1,142]

If it requires a huge subsidy then it is a cost inefficient entity and should be defunded and either stopped altogether or handed over to private enterprises.

That is ignorant and myopic. So anything cost prohibitive for a private company should be stopped altogether? If people thought that way, we'd still be using commodore 64 computers and using dial up internet.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

That is ignorant and myopic. So anything cost prohibitive for a private company should be stopped altogether? If people thought that way, we'd still be using commodore 64 computers and using dial up internet.

OK first off...that wouldn't be so bad

Anyway, the infrastructure (ie. the actual track) are owned by private companies. BNSF and UP own about 50% of the nations rails.