Amtrak Funding
With the Democrats back in power, the Bataan death march known as our national passenger rail policy has re-emerged. Amtrak is not even currently authorized to receive funding, although Congress has been appropriating just enough money to keep it alive the last few years. Now there is a shot that a re-authorization bill, perhaps specifying an actual policy on passenger rail in this country, could be introduced.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601459_pf.html
The issues in this case are much less complicated than the never-ending "debate" would indicate. No passenger rail system in the world has ever been built and sustained without substantial government capital funding. If we want a passenger rail system, of any kind, someone needs to pay for it and it isn't going to be private industry.
Amtrak haters tend to point to the long-distance trains as evidence of government waste, but the big secret is that the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak's most popular service and a vital economic interest for everyone from Boston to Washington, is what really drives up Amtrak's costs. The federal government was forced to take over that corridor from the bankrupt private railroads after they had let it deteriorate, and inadequate funding for Amtrak has assured that the corridor has yet to reach a state of good repair. This has increased costs over the long-term, reduced service quality, and generally been good for no one.
The $3.2 billion per year proposed by Lautenberg and Lott may finally put Amtrak in a position where it could focus on something else other than surviving for the next few years. Of course the administration is likely to strongly oppose and veto such legislation to show their fiscal austerity, which is kind of like saving money by driving a Yugo to the caviar store.
It really is about time that we spent real money on our passenger rail system. Our spending typically ranks somewhere behind Estonia, which means that countries that did not exist twenty years ago have better trains than we do. Rail has limited application within the U.S. for sure, but let's not confuse the limitations of rail with the required investment.
One could argue that the rail investment required for rail in the Northeast Corridor should come from the states it serves rather than the federal government. This argument rests on the assumption that the federal government should not subsidize local projects or issues, to which I might ask, did you serve in the Fillmore administration? Other projects, often much more expensive and covering fewer states than Amtrak, are funded regularly by the feds. The only reason Amtrak gets criticized along these lines is that there is this insane concept that passenger rail operates in a competitive free market and should be able to pay for itself. If you believe that, I have another free market I would like to introduce you to involving the sale of bridges.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601459_pf.html
The issues in this case are much less complicated than the never-ending "debate" would indicate. No passenger rail system in the world has ever been built and sustained without substantial government capital funding. If we want a passenger rail system, of any kind, someone needs to pay for it and it isn't going to be private industry.
Amtrak haters tend to point to the long-distance trains as evidence of government waste, but the big secret is that the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak's most popular service and a vital economic interest for everyone from Boston to Washington, is what really drives up Amtrak's costs. The federal government was forced to take over that corridor from the bankrupt private railroads after they had let it deteriorate, and inadequate funding for Amtrak has assured that the corridor has yet to reach a state of good repair. This has increased costs over the long-term, reduced service quality, and generally been good for no one.
The $3.2 billion per year proposed by Lautenberg and Lott may finally put Amtrak in a position where it could focus on something else other than surviving for the next few years. Of course the administration is likely to strongly oppose and veto such legislation to show their fiscal austerity, which is kind of like saving money by driving a Yugo to the caviar store.
It really is about time that we spent real money on our passenger rail system. Our spending typically ranks somewhere behind Estonia, which means that countries that did not exist twenty years ago have better trains than we do. Rail has limited application within the U.S. for sure, but let's not confuse the limitations of rail with the required investment.
One could argue that the rail investment required for rail in the Northeast Corridor should come from the states it serves rather than the federal government. This argument rests on the assumption that the federal government should not subsidize local projects or issues, to which I might ask, did you serve in the Fillmore administration? Other projects, often much more expensive and covering fewer states than Amtrak, are funded regularly by the feds. The only reason Amtrak gets criticized along these lines is that there is this insane concept that passenger rail operates in a competitive free market and should be able to pay for itself. If you believe that, I have another free market I would like to introduce you to involving the sale of bridges.
posted by J Schank | 11:12 AM
|
0 comments
