Do you agree with John McCain or Joe Biden regarding Amtrak?

Question

Shortly after he was elected to the senate in 1972, Joe Biden's wife and daughter were killed in a car crash. To take care of his two sons he commuted an hour and a half from Washington to Wilmington, Delaware by train and has continued to do so ever since.

Not surprisingly, he is a big supporter of Amtrak and rail transport. In 2002 he said:

"For 30 years, I have witnessed Congress dangling a carrot in front of Amtrak's eyes, funding it just enough for it to limp along. And I'll tell you, this has to stop. Now is the time to commit politically and financially to a strong, safe, and efficient passenger rail system."

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/joe-biden-fan-amtrak.php

Conversely, John McCain hates Amtrak.

In 2000, when he was chairman of the Senate Science, Commerce and Transportation committee, McCain killed $10 billion in capital funding for Amtrak. He denounced Amtrak as a symbol of government waste, claiming, "There's only two parts of the country that can support a viable rail system - the Northeast and the far West."

In 2002, McCain said "Amtrak needs to make more progress before any further funding schemes are enacted," while at the same time calling any money for progress a "multibillion-dollar blank check." In 2002, McCain declared that "Amtrak should be restructured to eliminate its reliance on the American taxpayers and to allow for its privatization."

In the section of McCain's website called "reforming our transportation sector," there is no mention of rail. When The Washington Post reported on how President Bush's fiscal 2006 budget did not include a subsidy for Amtrak, would kill both $20 million for the next generation of high-speed rail, and $250 million for railroad rehabilitation, it quoted McCain as saying on television, "I'm glad the president is coming over with a very austere budget."

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/john-mccain-on-amtrak.php

A few more facts - while the government funded highways to the tune of $35 billion last year, and air travel received $14.5 billion, Amtrak received a measly $1.3 billion - the same as it got in 1980. And President Bush is proposing to slash that by 40%.

Right now, Amtrak ridership is at an all time high

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/cbs_forget_flying.php

So do you agree with Biden that we should increase funding to trains like Amtrak, or do you agree with McCain that we should cut their funding altogether (or something in-between), and why?

Answer 1

From an environmental point of view replacing planes with trains can help (look at the CO2 emissions of a TGV compared to a 707-300 (the JT4A powered model not the JT3D powered model), I know that's a bit of an extreme comparison) although in terms of travel time high speed trains can only beat planes for journeys of less than 1000 km (and that requires that people not have to go through security or check baggage, etc like at airports) although with the slower high speed rail currently used in the US the distance would probably be a bit less but even so nearby capitals could benefit from high speed lines or tilt trains on normal but well built track (with the bombardier Jettrain you could even get away with not electrifying it, although consider that the French had a reason for switching the TGV to electric (the prototype had a gas turbine)).

As I understand it, Amtrak was set up because the private companies didn't want to run intercity passenger trains they were required to run (which weren't very profitable) so the government took them over.  Passenger rail typically doesn't make much profit anyway (freight is where the money is) and even when passenger rail is privatised usually the government is paying a subsidy to the company that runs the franchise (and varying the subsidy based on performance even if they call it a fine), in the few instances in which a passenger rail system makes more in ticket revenue than operations cost it still couldn't repay capital and infrastructure maintenance costs.  You could of course raise prices to pay for it but then you also reduce demand, not to mention that the prices are set so as to be affordable to people who can't use a car.

The proposal for shut down of rail services probably won't go over too well with the public anyway (at least if it actually looks like it'll happen), public outrage has often caused a lot of such proposals to end up watered down to the point at which they only close a few of the lesser used lines to passenger services.

Answer 2

I am probably agreed with both or somewhere in the middle.

From one side I am agreed that yes business need to be self sufficient or it should die. On the other hand if Americans do not use railroads as much as freeways or airways now doesn’t mean they won’t do that later. It’s all should depends on demand. Another problem is that Amtrak doesn’t own railroads it self. I am not sure how and who does, but Amtrak heavily depends on the railroads. That would be like everyone has a car or a plane, but there are no roads or airports. So may be something should be done with railroads and its support in a first place.

Then again the company that owns the train operation doesn’t have to be Amtrak. I don’t have preferences. I used Amtrak and Metrolink (local commuter train) to go to work for 4 years, and yes I like the idea. I also used Amtrak to travel from Los Angeles to Seattle and back, and it was one great adventure. But taxpayers should not have obligation to support a business. Especially the one that many don’t use.

Answer 3

Having been blessed by living in Europe for a few years and traveling to Japan and China I support public transport on all fronts. As our roads are getting more congested, and we are living futher away from our work we are spending too much time and money commuting. Too many Americans see mass transit as a ugly thing that only vagrants use.

My sister actually purchased a car for her unemployed daughter who had lost her license and encouraged her to drive without insurance because as he put it "Do you know what kind of people ride the bus?"

The arguement of any system that can't pay for itself shouldn't exist isn't valid. We spend billions to widen roads and build bridges, not all of it comes from gas tax. We subsidise biofuel and a variety of other transportation programs.

The main complaint I've heard is there are still too many gaps in service to make mass transit a viable option for many commuters. So I hope we develop mass transit and reduce road rage.

Answer 4

Its real simple, ANY business that can not survive on its own needs to die.

Got it???????  wither its a dead beat train or a movie house or the nation endowment for the arts.

If it can not make it, it has no business being keep alive like a dying drug addict on welfare.

Answer 5

Due to it's size and road network, US does not travel much by train. If Amtrack can't turn a profit, shut it down. Why should I pay when there is no service here where I live? Even the "alltime high ridership" is minuscule compared to travelers in cars and planes. If there are places where it is feasable, like the east coast, they should be able to pay with ticket fees.  

Answer 6

Lilly- I hope you're not a doctor, because druggies don't deserve to die!

I go with Biden. Supporting the Amtrack system is a good investment for America

Then again, I live in Chicago, so it'd be more helpful to me than people in like, Idaho.

Answer 7

When it comes to limiting environmental impact and fuel efficiency; trains blow away airplanes and top cars -- both on impressive levels.

I do a fair amount of travel writing.  The August issue of Conde Nast Traveler has a great series of articles discussing the turn around of the rail industry in the U.S. and some of the stunning scenic journeys we can tack via the tracks.

Lily M:  Amtrak seems to be hanging tougher than the airlines right now, so watch where you head in that snotty comment on "dead beat trains".  Might come back on you.  It's the "National Endowment for the Arts" -- you keep messing up on that one as well.  Great cultures are recalled for their arts -- poetry, sculpture, paintings, literature, etc.  Not great business plans.

How did your summer's Hitler Youth Program go?  Good turn out?

Answer 8

Biden is courting the eastern states; McCain is courting the Midwest. Sure, the BosWash area is getting more federal money for Amtrak. That is a step toward balancing the handout that the middle of the country gets for raising maize for ethanol. The difference is that the ethanol uses more fossil fuel to produce than it saves. Trains save more than they expend. Along with this, there is a reduction in air pollution when people travel by train. I guess I'm with Biden on this one, regardless of why he supports Amtrak. McCain's environmental policies leave something to be desired.

Answer 9

I am 100% with Biden. I enjoy train travel and find it much more pleasant and convenient than traveling by car or plane. (Or would, if there were more service areas - I travel mainly from Omaha to Seattle and they closed that route several years ago so I now have to go first to Chicago or California.)

I've also traveled by train in Europe, where the train system makes poor old Amtrak look third world in comparison. Patriotism may not be my strongest virtue, but that's unacceptable to me! High speed rail isn't a leftover from the past, it's the transport of the future and America's innovation in that sector is lagging dangerously behind Europe and East Asia.

Incidentally, to those who say rail can't be supported in the Midwest, in 1947, 114 passenger trains a day passed through Omaha. Whether we will ever be able to support that level of rail service again remains to be seen, but with the price of gas rising and unlikely to turn around any time soon, the demand for rail is only going to rise.

Answer 10

This is an interesting question.

The U.S. auto industry has recieved all kinds of Government subsidies over the years.  GM (among many) is failing horribly.  GM is moving their manufacturing out of the U.S. because "they can't make it here."

Toyota, which is of course recieving NO Government subsidies, is moving all of their manufacturing plants TO the U.S. and they are doing a booming business!

I'm not a fan of Government subsidies, never have been.  I personally do not believe they work (ESPECIALLY in the farming sector, but that's for another question).

However nothing is ever completely black and white.  The rail system is a bit of an exception.  The fear I have, is that if the Government did not subsidize the rail system, more of them would go out of business.  In turn more rail tracks would be torn up, and the land sold off.  Once those rail roads are gone, they are gone virtually forever.  The cost to buy up land to put rail roads on can have ASTRONOMICAL cost.

I guess I'd rather see Amtrak limping along with Government subsidies than going completely out of business.   I think the expence of starting it back up from scratch (even if the railroads were still there) would be too cost prohibitive.

As oil becomes more and more expensive, I see rail use as making a come-back in a BIG way.  People will not hop on an airplane to fly accross the country to visit family.  Instead people will go by train every few years (it will be too expensive to travel more often).

Frankly, I'm horribly disapointed in the rail system of the U.S.  It's completely pathetic.

My mother would have traveled by train to visit me in Idaho.  But to get from WA to ID, I would have had to pick her up nearly 1/2 the distance of just driving here.  Why forgo the convience of traveling alone in a car, when it costs LESS in gas than to buy an Amtrak ticket?  (Not to mention you can bring more in your personal car, and bring the dogs, not having to pay boarding expenses)  

How pathetic my husband and I have found that it's cheaper to hire a semi to trasport our tractors from one farm to another, than to put them on the train.  Like $2500 for the semi, vs. over $9000 by train!

I'm for keeping the U.S. rail system in place.  However I think it needs SERRIOUS managment revamping!  Perhaps someone from Toyota is available?

~Garnet

Permaculture homesteading/farming over 20 years  

Answer 11

maybe it's appropriate to look at the constituency.

in Arizona, where ya gonna take the train from/to?

phoenix to phoenix?

but they still pay for it.

as opposed to the eastern corridor.

it's far more beneficial for densely populated areas than for rural areas.

but nowhere in my taxes do i see some box to check to indicate whether i'd like my taxes go go to support roads, railroads, airports, etc.

now you may well say that government money is equally distributed.

however, i seriously doubt that's true.

while i like trains, there are large areas of the country, 80--90% geographically, where they are not particularly efficient.

now i do like Biden.

but at the same time, i understand McCain's position.

Edit:  <<Its real simple, ANY business that can not survive on its own needs to die.>>

so, who pays for roads?  GM, Ford, and Chrysler?

does every road need to be a toll road?

it sure is interesting how many of us think that the government should fund the things we like and use, but nothing else.

yes sir, these days, it's the American Ethic.

"What's yours is ours, and what's mine you keep your grubby paws off of."

when's someone going to start American Narcissist  magazine.