GOP Transportation Plan: Lets Kill Amtrak, Fund Highways Not People, and Give Blackwater the Airports

[mixiboi]

GOP platform: Cut Amtrak, privatize airport security and focus highway money on roads - The Hill's Transportation Report

The GOP platform takes a harsh tack on Amtrak in particular, which has been a frequent target of Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

"Amtrak continues to be, for the taxpayers, an extremely expensive railroad," the GOP platform says. "The public has to subsidize every ticket nearly $50. It is long past time for the federal government to get out of way and allow private ventures to provide passenger service to the northeast corridor. The same holds true with regard to high-speed and intercity rail across the country."

"In some states with elected officials dominated by the Democratic Party, a proportion of highway funds is diverted to other purposes. This must stop," the platform continues.

"We call for the private sector to take over airport screening wherever feasible and look toward the development of security systems that can replace the personal violation of frisking."

Same old same..

[Sailaway]

GOP platform: Cut Amtrak, privatize airport security and focus highway money on roads - The Hill's Transportation Report

Typical propaganda.

As a train buff, it pains me to say this, but cutting Amtrak (apart from the NEC and a few other corridors) is probably prudent.

And, it's better to have private companies running airport security than corrupt government employee unions representing members with the IQ of a flea running the country into the ground.

Yeah what a concept: Cutting expensive waste.

[BarryG]

Typical propaganda.

As a train buff, it pains me to say this, but cutting Amtrak (apart from the NEC and a few other corridors) is probably prudent.

The GOP wants to cut the NE Corridor too. How do jive with that? What is the rationale to subsidize highways but not rail?

[Naveen]

I'd be perfectly happy with private rail service...but do any private companies actually want to do it? I thought they all got out of the biz because ridership was declining.

The GOP wants to cut the NE Corridor too. How do jive with that? What is the rationale to subsidize highways but not rail?

Republicans would subsidize the railways if private companies owned them. They just don't like subsidizing anything that's regarded as "public". Highway subsidies are ok because the money ultimately ends up in private hands (especially oil co.'s).

[BarryG]

I'd be perfectly happy with private rail service...but do any private companies actually want to do it? I thought they all got out of the biz because ridership was declining.



Republicans would subsidize the railways if private companies owned them. They just don't like subsidizing anything that's regarded as "public". Highway subsidies are ok because the money ultimately ends up in private hands (especially oil co.'s).

If a private company ran amtrak but the capital projects were publicly funded that would be ok. Passenger Railroads can be profitable to run but they are not profitable to build. I think this is the model in much of Europe.

[thoth]

If a private company ran amtrak but the capital projects were publicly funded that would be ok. Passenger Railroads can be profitable to run but they are not profitable to build. I think this is the model in much of Europe.

I think (it's been a while since I checked) that SNCF (France's rail system) is one of the only networks in the world that turns a profit, even excluding building costs.

[five apples]

GOP platform: Cut Amtrak, privatize airport security and focus highway money on roads - The Hill's Transportation Report








Same old same..

Fine, if you believe that nothing should be run by the government than lease and sell every road in the country too. I get being against funding Amtrak if you come from that world view, but than insisting on funding highways with federal tax dollars is well a bit hypocritical.

The truth is, they don't like trains because latte drinkers take them and the heaviest used ones run through areas that tend not to send R's to the federal government. Of course, killing the NorthEast would be very detrimental to the economies of those cities that are connected by them. I know people who take it to or from NYC almost every day for work. But hey, who gives a crap about them.

We do need more funding for roads as well of course. But we are ass broke.

[Naveen]

Fine, if you believe that nothing should be run by the government than lease and sell every road in the country too. I get being against funding Amtrak if you come from that world view, but than insisting on funding highways with federal tax dollars is well a bit hypocritical.

The truth is, they don't like trains because latte drinkers take them and the heaviest used ones run through areas that tend not to send R's to the federal government. Of course, killing the NorthEast would be very detrimental to the economies of those cities that are connected by them. I know people who take it to or from NYC almost every day for work. But hey, who gives a crap about them.

We do need more funding for roads as well of course. But we are ass broke.

But if they kill the economy of the Northeast, all of us latte-drinking liberals will move into the Red states and turn them Blue or Purple. They should be careful what they wish for!

[hammersklavier]

Given that my perspective is that we have (with very few exceptions, Roosevelt Boulevard) funded our roads well beyond the point of declining returns--showing less and less and less for it year after year even though we've already sacrificed safety on the altar of mobility, and that was before driving plateaued earlier this decade--I think the R's priorities are a$$-backward.

We need to maintain the roads we've already got, and prune them back into economic viability. That will generally mean less funding, not more.

But our roads lobby is deeply entrenched, unlike the lobbies for any other form of transportation.

By the way, privatizing security theater is not going to make it more effective. The only thing that will is its plain old elimination. Which would--again--reduce the budget.

[MariusPontmercy]

I can contemplate voting R sometimes just because I hate the D politicians... but not when you threaten to take away my choo choos...

I guess I might vote for a third party to protest the system again.

[OffenseTaken]

The GOP wants to cut the NE Corridor too. How do jive with that? What is the rationale to subsidize highways but not rail?

Considering that the NEC subsidizes the rest of Amtrak as much as taxpayers do, I think we might jive with that pretty well.

If Amtrak were replaced by two or three consortia of state governments—let's say one on the East Coast, one on the Great Lakes centered on Chicago, and another on the West Coast which may be just California by itself—the result could be better rail service for the three regions in the country where that really matters.

It's a quandary, no doubt about it. You could say that the interstate highway system was only built because the federal government (and its ability to run huge deficits) could bankroll it, so it would be unfair to expect that rail service for the modern era could be financed by puny state governments.

But the interstate highway system was built with uniformity over every region of the country; meanwhile, there are huge swaths of the country that don't want rail, don't need it, and wouldn't use it even if given. France doesn't have this problem: almost everyone in the country has easy access to the SNCF, so no one (well, almost no one) sees the SNCF as a worthless government boondoggle. France also doesn't have vast, sparsely populated areas like the Great Plains or the Rocky Mountains.

I think (it's been a while since I checked) that SNCF (France's rail system) is one of the only networks in the world that turns a profit, even excluding building costs.

The SNCF does bring in a modest profit every year; even then, they operate the pokey regional trains, which constitute the bulk of the system by station count, at a slight loss. (Source: an article that ran in the Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace, some time in October 2010. Best I can do.)

[raider.adam]

Fine, if you believe that nothing should be run by the government than lease and sell every road in the country too. I get being against funding Amtrak if you come from that world view, but than insisting on funding highways with federal tax dollars is well a bit hypocritical.

The truth is, they don't like trains because latte drinkers take them and the heaviest used ones run through areas that tend not to send R's to the federal government. Of course, killing the NorthEast would be very detrimental to the economies of those cities that are connected by them. I know people who take it to or from NYC almost every day for work. But hey, who gives a crap about them.

We do need more funding for roads as well of course. But we are ass broke.

When talking about Amtrak, the issue is that the NEC is almost nothing similar to the rest of the system.

[eldondre]

Considering that the NEC subsidizes the rest of Amtrak as much as taxpayers do, I think we might jive with that pretty well.
If Amtrak were replaced by two or three consortia of state governments—let's say one on the East Coast, one on the Great Lakes centered on Chicago, and another on the West Coast which may be just California by itself—the result could be better rail service for the three regions in the country where that really matters.

I highlighted the operative word here since there's no reason to expect that it would. the advent of government rail was supposed to eliminate the contentious relationship private operators had with each other but in reality, bureaucratic fiefdoms are even worse. decisions are made based on state borders rather than customer travel demands. in Europe high speed trains subsidize other operations. part of the problem is that the NEC isn't big enough to support the rest of the system when the rest of the system is slow and therefore expensive. I'd point out that Amtrak is technically a private company whose shares are mostly owned by the government. the government could decide the sell those shares if they so desired. Cuts to amtrak without other changes in management structure (micromanaging) and regulation (in the US locomotives have to be inspected twice as often or more than most other countries which drives up costs...not that it keeps us safer but the rules were set when locomotives were less reliable) could be dangerous to the mode and the NEC. if funding is cut, would they allow amtrak to eliminate it's long distance routes?

I'd also point out that federalization doesn't fit rail well. the feds took over transportation and everything else in the 30's. federal taxation is designed to take money from cities and give it to rural areas (lower cost). rail, on the other hand, is bests suited to dense areas that pay the taxes but can never get funding for expensive projects. remember that cities themselves financed a lot of improvements like subways and enormous grade crossing removal programs. that was before the feds started taking all the money and spending it on guns and butter.

When talking about Amtrak, the issue is that the NEC is almost nothing similar to the rest of the system.

the acela averages 83 mph (not terribly fast but not terribly slow. if the trip to Pittsburgh averaged 83 mh it would be 4 hours, not 7.5. montreal would be 4.5 hours rather than 9 plus a two hour border crossing. the point being there's two ways to look at it. the rest of the country isn't the nec or the service is most of the country isn't as good as the nec. both are true and both present problems.
eta: the old system of paying private railroads to operate train serviceshould also be considered.

[thoth]

I highlighted the operative word here since there's no reason to expect that it would. the advent of government rail was supposed to eliminate the contentious relationship private operators had with each other but in reality, bureaucratic fiefdoms are even worse.

Really? I always thought the govt took over because rail operations became unprofitable.

[eldondre]

Really? I always thought the govt took over because rail operations became unprofitable.

not exactly, no. passenger rail operations had become unprofitable long before government rail, private rail operators were then paid subsidies to keep running the service. part of the idea behind things like septa and njt was indeed the idea that they'd be more cooperative than, say, the reading and the pennsy. also, ironically, amtrak has been no better run than the ill fated merger of the nyc and pennsy. of course, a large reason why rail became unprofitable was the government itself.
also worth noting, amtrak was created to take over long distance passenger service and manage its demise. the penn central bankruptcy changed all that when they split up the prr dumping much of the nec into amtrak. had they bailed out (or not driven into bankruptcy)the penn central, amtrak probably would have died a long time ago. interestingly, diversification at the corporate level owes its origins to the pennsy whose CFO realized that it was easier to earn money on investments paying the capital gains rate of 25% than on rail operations at a tax rate of 52% (yes, you read that correctly, 52%). sadly, that same bizarre incentive still exists today at lower rates.

[raider.adam]

the acela averages 83 mph (not terribly fast but not terribly slow. if the trip to Pittsburgh averaged 83 mh it would be 4 hours, not 7.5. montreal would be 4.5 hours rather than 9 plus a two hour border crossing. the point being there's two ways to look at it. the rest of the country isn't the nec or the service is most of the country isn't as good as the nec. both are true and both present problems.
eta: the old system of paying private railroads to operate train serviceshould also be considered.

The rest of the country doesn't have the ridership of the NEC of even the non-acela routes. The NEC, will always be at a different level of relevance just from sheer population and major city centers in close proximity.

[eldondre]

The rest of the country doesn't have the ridership of the NEC of even the non-acela routes. The NEC, will always be at a different level of relevance just from sheer population and major city centers in close proximity.

the "non-acela" routes are also substantially faster and more frequent than the rest of the country thus offering greater utility. the fact that the nec is a large market doesn't mean there are no other good markets. the regionals avg ~57 mph on the nec. the pittsburgh trip would drop to 6 hours, montreal 6h40m. San diego-la would drop from 2h55 to 2h15m (already the second largest corridor by volume). the nec isn't the only place that needs decent rail service.

[raider.adam]

the "non-acela" routes are also substantially faster and more frequent than the rest of the country thus offering greater utility. the fact that the nec is a large market doesn't mean there are no other good markets. the regionals avg ~57 mph on the nec. the pittsburgh trip would drop to 6 hours, montreal 6h40m. San diego-la would drop from 2h55 to 2h15m (already the second largest corridor by volume). the nec isn't the only place that needs decent rail service.

I doubt a 6 hour pittsburgh trips isn't going to result in multiple sold out trains to Philadelphia every morning and back again in the evening.

[palvar]

not exactly, no. passenger rail operations had become unprofitable long before government rail

But it became unprofitable because of price controls for tickets; the same goes for the trolley companies.

[hammersklavier]

I don't believe intercity rail (i.e. what the Reading and Pennsy operated) had the same price controls that urban mass transit did...

Remember that nearly every urban mass transit system (streetcars, els, the IRT, interurbans) went bankrupt and either came under government control or dissolved entirely between 1910 and 1940, the vast majority during the 1930s. Of those that survived, only the barest handful (I can only think of the South Shore Line) escaped the 1950s.