 |
Re: How about he cut other stuff first
Author: Erik H.
Date: 03-17-2012 - 14:33
George Andrews Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) The yearly Amtrak budget is less than the
> Pentagon spends in one day .
So, "waste" is OK if it's under a certain amount? I don't buy this argument at all - it says that we should just look the other way unless a single expenditure is high enough, then we should pay attention. There are a LOT of "little things" that collectively are a lot of waste. A good portion of Amtrak falls in that category. No it won't by itself solve our problems, but it is a step in the right direction.
> 2) The yearly Amtrak budget is less than the FAA
> spends in a month.
However much of the FAA's budget is recouped through user fees. On a federal basis, the airline industry is subsidized to the tune of about one penny per passenger mile, which is about the same as highways. But Amtrak gets a whopping 40 cents per passenger mile in subsidy. And the FAA subsidy overstates it, because it assumes that commercial airline passengers have to pay 100% of the cost while other general aviation and cargo pays nothing; same with highways. The Amtrak 40 cents/passenger mile is JUST to fund Amtrak.
> 3) If Amtrak is cut, the states would have to
> spend more to provide current services.
Possibly, but the states that want to provide the service would have to ask its residents to pony up for it. Those that don't, don't. States like Montana and North Dakota probably would realize that paying millions for one train a day across a very sparsely populated area isn't worth it. A state like Idaho surely isn't going to pay for one train a day at the middle of the night in one tiny town up north that provides virtually zero service.
> 4) If Amtrak is cut, many states would have to
> create their own maintenance facilities & staff.
No they wouldn't. If necessary they could buy the facilities from the U.S. DOT.
> 5) ALL public transportation in the United States
> loses money overall. Just ask the airlines.
I do not consider either Amtrak or the airline industry to be "public transportation". They are businesses that provide transportation. "Public Transportation" in its definition provides a minimum level of service through its defined service area to provide a public service. Amtrak does not provide this. Many areas of the U.S. aren't served by Amtrak. Many areas don't have suitable railroad tracks, and Amtrak does not own Greyhound and provide a suitable "public transportation" service to those cities. Why should the federal government say "You can have Amtrak" to one city, but tell another city that they don't get a subsidized service that gets 40 cents in subsidy per passenger mile? The last time I checked - Amtrak doesn't pay taxes, but Greyhound pays all of its taxes including fuel or mileage taxes, and the buses don't carry government (tax exempt) license plates...and they aren't allowed to fill up their buses with red-dyed diesel.
> 6) No one has ever hijacked an Amtrak train &
> flown it into a building !!!
I can tell you right now that if I were a terrorist I could cause some MAJOR damage to some metropolitan areas. I don't need to fly into a building when I can ship a small nuclear bomb using Amtrak Express and detonate the bomb in downtown Seattle, lower Manhattan, underneath the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, just a few blocks away from the U.S. Capitol... A terrorist could make 9/11 look like child's play. Does Amtrak utilize radiation detectors on its cargo, like the TSA uses at our international container ports? In Portland, Amtrak Police doesn't even have a permanent presence.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) The yearly Amtrak budget is less than the
> Pentagon spends in one day .
So, "waste" is OK if it's under a certain amount? I don't buy this argument at all - it says that we should just look the other way unless a single expenditure is high enough, then we should pay attention. There are a LOT of "little things" that collectively are a lot of waste. A good portion of Amtrak falls in that category. No it won't by itself solve our problems, but it is a step in the right direction.
> 2) The yearly Amtrak budget is less than the FAA
> spends in a month.
However much of the FAA's budget is recouped through user fees. On a federal basis, the airline industry is subsidized to the tune of about one penny per passenger mile, which is about the same as highways. But Amtrak gets a whopping 40 cents per passenger mile in subsidy. And the FAA subsidy overstates it, because it assumes that commercial airline passengers have to pay 100% of the cost while other general aviation and cargo pays nothing; same with highways. The Amtrak 40 cents/passenger mile is JUST to fund Amtrak.
> 3) If Amtrak is cut, the states would have to
> spend more to provide current services.
Possibly, but the states that want to provide the service would have to ask its residents to pony up for it. Those that don't, don't. States like Montana and North Dakota probably would realize that paying millions for one train a day across a very sparsely populated area isn't worth it. A state like Idaho surely isn't going to pay for one train a day at the middle of the night in one tiny town up north that provides virtually zero service.
> 4) If Amtrak is cut, many states would have to
> create their own maintenance facilities & staff.
No they wouldn't. If necessary they could buy the facilities from the U.S. DOT.
> 5) ALL public transportation in the United States
> loses money overall. Just ask the airlines.
I do not consider either Amtrak or the airline industry to be "public transportation". They are businesses that provide transportation. "Public Transportation" in its definition provides a minimum level of service through its defined service area to provide a public service. Amtrak does not provide this. Many areas of the U.S. aren't served by Amtrak. Many areas don't have suitable railroad tracks, and Amtrak does not own Greyhound and provide a suitable "public transportation" service to those cities. Why should the federal government say "You can have Amtrak" to one city, but tell another city that they don't get a subsidized service that gets 40 cents in subsidy per passenger mile? The last time I checked - Amtrak doesn't pay taxes, but Greyhound pays all of its taxes including fuel or mileage taxes, and the buses don't carry government (tax exempt) license plates...and they aren't allowed to fill up their buses with red-dyed diesel.
> 6) No one has ever hijacked an Amtrak train &
> flown it into a building !!!
I can tell you right now that if I were a terrorist I could cause some MAJOR damage to some metropolitan areas. I don't need to fly into a building when I can ship a small nuclear bomb using Amtrak Express and detonate the bomb in downtown Seattle, lower Manhattan, underneath the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, just a few blocks away from the U.S. Capitol... A terrorist could make 9/11 look like child's play. Does Amtrak utilize radiation detectors on its cargo, like the TSA uses at our international container ports? In Portland, Amtrak Police doesn't even have a permanent presence.
