 |
Re: California high speed rail segment
Author: OldPoleBurner
Date: 09-21-2012 - 09:14
> republicans for a long time have been anti-rail. They want to kill off Amtrak and don't support
> transit projects or high speed rail. Can anyone logically explain why?
It's quite simple to explain, actually.
Your first premise is on its face - false!
Yes, there are some republicans who oppose Amtrak as the answer, just as there are also democrats. That does not mean that they are anti-rail, or anti-passenger. Indeed, even in some heavily republican states, both publicly owned light-rail and heavy commuter lines flourish, by public vote. Nixon was often characterized by the media as being a railfan, supposedly because of his dad being employed on the rails at one time. But not all pro-rail politicians believe his answer was the correct one. I for one, think we could have done much better, and still could.
The sad fact is that now, many years later, at the macro level, both parties are wholly incompetent or even willfully negligent, of all actual needs or wants of the citizens they claim to represent; especially when it comes to transportation. Seems that who really gets represented, is whoever has the biggest lobbyist budget - and that ain't the railroads! And certainly not Amtrak for sure.
One republican that was truly anti-rail, was Eisenhower. He was (and still is) more destructive of the rail industry than any other politician - ever. Carter was probably the worst democrat. Eisenhower had had a falling out of sorts with the industry by the war's end. In hindsight it is now pretty clear, that what followed was a vendetta against railroads in general; with his bully pulpit and heavy general fund subsidies to other modes, doing much harm.
This caused the people to erroneously assume that railroads were "obsolete". Of course we now know that was very foolish. But many if not most democrats followed that lead, as well as most republicans. Too bad that false notion dies hard; as it ultimately did much harm to the nation as a whole, as well as to the rail industry. Both are now but faint shadows of themselves!
> transit projects or high speed rail. Can anyone logically explain why?
It's quite simple to explain, actually.
Your first premise is on its face - false!
Yes, there are some republicans who oppose Amtrak as the answer, just as there are also democrats. That does not mean that they are anti-rail, or anti-passenger. Indeed, even in some heavily republican states, both publicly owned light-rail and heavy commuter lines flourish, by public vote. Nixon was often characterized by the media as being a railfan, supposedly because of his dad being employed on the rails at one time. But not all pro-rail politicians believe his answer was the correct one. I for one, think we could have done much better, and still could.
The sad fact is that now, many years later, at the macro level, both parties are wholly incompetent or even willfully negligent, of all actual needs or wants of the citizens they claim to represent; especially when it comes to transportation. Seems that who really gets represented, is whoever has the biggest lobbyist budget - and that ain't the railroads! And certainly not Amtrak for sure.
One republican that was truly anti-rail, was Eisenhower. He was (and still is) more destructive of the rail industry than any other politician - ever. Carter was probably the worst democrat. Eisenhower had had a falling out of sorts with the industry by the war's end. In hindsight it is now pretty clear, that what followed was a vendetta against railroads in general; with his bully pulpit and heavy general fund subsidies to other modes, doing much harm.
This caused the people to erroneously assume that railroads were "obsolete". Of course we now know that was very foolish. But many if not most democrats followed that lead, as well as most republicans. Too bad that false notion dies hard; as it ultimately did much harm to the nation as a whole, as well as to the rail industry. Both are now but faint shadows of themselves!
