We are in serious danger of losing all rail passenger service in the United States. The Amtrak Reform Council has ordered Amtrak to begin a liquidation plan based on the notion that Amtrak will not be financially self-sufficient by Dec. 31, 2002.
Amtrak has long been a favorite ideological whipping boy of those who want to make a point by making hamfisted cuts in government spending without really thinking about what they're doing. The notion is that Amtrak somehow "should" be making a profit; if not, it deserves to not exist. (Imagine the same logic being applied to the Marine Corps.) Leading the charge on this is John McCain. Perhaps someone would like to let the Senator from Arizona know that last September 11, in case he hasn't heard, a series of terrorist attacks were made against the United States, which had the effect of shutting down the air transit system for at least several weeks. The use of Amtrak trains in getting stranded passengers home proved vital to many; but I assume McCain had his own plane.
Part of the problem, as I see it after studying transportation issues for many years, is that Amtrak is seen as an entity: an Organization that Doesn't Make Money, rather than as part of a larger picture: a whole transportation infrastructure for the USA that -- properly balanced -- includes (and should include) highways, airlines, ancillary transit (like riverine shipping) AND rail. This is why nobody suggests that the Interstate highway system should "make a profit;" there is no entity to point to that doesn't do so.
If there WERE an Interstate Highway Agency or what have you that collected tolls for highway usage and was expected to a show a profit, I can virtually guarantee you it would not be profitable. Transportation seldom is, for a variety of complicated reasons that I don't want to bore everyone with.
The important purpose of Amtrak is to have the passenger rail infrastructure in place. Intercity travel is expected to grow by leaps and bounds over the next 50 years, and there simply isn't enough highway and airport to absorb all that growth (and don't imagine that more will be built).
Amtrak has long been a favorite ideological whipping boy of those who want to make a point by making hamfisted cuts in government spending without really thinking about what they're doing. The notion is that Amtrak somehow "should" be making a profit; if not, it deserves to not exist. (Imagine the same logic being applied to the Marine Corps.) Leading the charge on this is John McCain. Perhaps someone would like to let the Senator from Arizona know that last September 11, in case he hasn't heard, a series of terrorist attacks were made against the United States, which had the effect of shutting down the air transit system for at least several weeks. The use of Amtrak trains in getting stranded passengers home proved vital to many; but I assume McCain had his own plane.
Part of the problem, as I see it after studying transportation issues for many years, is that Amtrak is seen as an entity: an Organization that Doesn't Make Money, rather than as part of a larger picture: a whole transportation infrastructure for the USA that -- properly balanced -- includes (and should include) highways, airlines, ancillary transit (like riverine shipping) AND rail. This is why nobody suggests that the Interstate highway system should "make a profit;" there is no entity to point to that doesn't do so.
If there WERE an Interstate Highway Agency or what have you that collected tolls for highway usage and was expected to a show a profit, I can virtually guarantee you it would not be profitable. Transportation seldom is, for a variety of complicated reasons that I don't want to bore everyone with.
The important purpose of Amtrak is to have the passenger rail infrastructure in place. Intercity travel is expected to grow by leaps and bounds over the next 50 years, and there simply isn't enough highway and airport to absorb all that growth (and don't imagine that more will be built).
