Should the government continue funding Amtrak?

Question

The trains themselves are old and cumbersome, and it seems to take forever to get from one place to another. Yet, possibly because of low fares or sentimental reasons, many people still use trains to travel across the country. European trains are modern and fast, streamlined versions of our outdated coaches. Should train travel be relegated to the past? Should the government continue to fund the trains? Or should the U.S. invest in newer, faster, more modern trains such as the ones they have in Europe?

Answer 1

I have to weigh in YES.

In many of our corridors the population density is a bit low to promote good ridership, not like Europe.

But bear in minid there is NO public transportation that pays it's own way, it cant and be affordable.

It must be considered a benefit to the populace and to the environment.

Travel per passenger mile is much more efficient and safer than automobile, our highways are already over-congested and upgrading is getting more and more expensive.

We have government officials that cant see beyond the next election which is why we dont have a first rate transportation system.

We build highways for busses, we build airports for airlines, we subsidize over the road truck traffic, we build canals, locks, and harbors for cruise lines.

Yet we cant adequately finance the one form of overland travel that has the possibility of getting people off their personal automobile habit.

As for outdated equipment, actually a lot of Amtrak's equipment is new and quite nice.

The few people who ride for sentimental reason are already on the excursion lines, the people on Amtrak are there because they recognize it as a safe environmentally friendly way to travel, despite it's limitations.

It could be better, it should be better, it takes vision and a willingness to help generations in the future who are not yet voting age.

Answer 2

With the increasing price of fuel and highways becoming more and more congested, I think Amtrak really needs to be expanded and updated. We are #1 in most other areas and should cetranly set the standard in rail travel as well! As a footnote intercity bus transportation IE "Greyhound" is on the verge of bankruptcy (again) only furthering the need for improved rail service. The only bright side in intercity ground transportation is Megabus.com which is quite innovative.

Answer 3

Passenger train operations have been a huge money pit for nearly 45 years, now.  That is why the nations' railroads did away with them wherever and whenever possible.

Commute corridors are vital.  There ridership actually pays some bills.  But, as far as long distance train travel, even though currently ridership is up significantly, it will never break even, let alone turn a profit.

Putting the federal government in charge of operating a rail passenger line is like putting a junkie in charge of a pharmacy.  It isn't going to work out.

As far as investing in new technology, it is at this point nearly irrelevant.  There is equipment in use today, that allows for running at an appreciable speed on existing railroad.  But, a true, high speed line will need entirely new infrastructure, at a truly astronomic cost.

It is time to euthanize long distance train travel, at least in its current form, to leave Washington free to squander these tax payer dollars elsewhere.

Answer 4

My answer is yes we should contine to fund AmTrak and it would be more better than funding the war and rebuilding Irac!

Answer 5

The government needs to invest in Amtrak.

1) Amtrak is the most efficient way for people to commute on the eastern seaboard.

2) We need to have alternatives to driving on freeways:

- reduce dependency on cars & gas

- in case of emergency the railways can help w/ evacuating an area

- rail roads are another way to transport supplies; medical aid

3) Having an excellent train system will foster travel w/in the U.S. & encourage tourism (domestic & visitors from abroad).

Answer 6

For one week after September 11, 2001,  the United States commercial airline industry was entirely shut down.  Only military aircraft and outbound foreign aircraft were allowed to fly.   Hundreds of thousands of air passengers were stranded for days trying to get back to their points of origin.  Rental car counters were jammed with customers, but there were not enough cars in the right places to get everyone to their destination for days.   And it took weeks to return many rental cars back to their home locations after customers used them for one-way long distance trips.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the alternatives for commuter and long-distance travel were: private cars, buses, commuter rail and Amtrak.  Take away Amtrak, however few long-distance passengers it carries, and you will cripple the nation's travel if we ever have a massive natural disaster or terrorist event.

We need to significantly upgrade our national rail passenger network, and identify critical routes for 80 mph standard trains, as well as targeted high-speed (150 mph+) intercity corridors.  This is not something that can be done with year to year funding, but takes 20 years or more to develop.  Unfortunately, we tend to take the short-term view.

Answer 7

I think that Treadstone said it best.  Absolutely, the government should fund Amtrak, and much more than it currently does (and, contrary to popular belief passenger rail in general is never profitable, it's the reason the private freight railroads ditched it in the early 1970s, it was simply losing too much money).

If not then I must ask, what will take its place, more highways which are already choked or more airlines which currently are at their lowest performance levels in history?  (Of note, in spite of the airline's record low performance levels of late, they still receive millions more annually in subsidies than does Amtrak, and passenger rail in general.)  Per fuel mile nothing is more efficient at moving freight or passengers than railroads and sadly because of the outdated infrastructure we currently have in place the strong demand for passenger rail is not being met (for instance, even with Amtrak's current level of minimal funding it continues to break ridership records, even on long distance, intercity, trains).

Also, regarding our nation's transportation infrastructure in general are two excellent articles by renowned columnist Don Phillips who points out with striking clarity how badly out-of-date it is at the present time (you can read these articles in the August and September issues of Trains magazine), it severely needs updated.

And, actually, laying more rail lines and updating our passenger rail network is very feasible and needed for both freight and passenger service, which Phillips points out. The freight railroads are essentially at capacity as we speak (something that is unprecedented and hasn't happened since WWII) and are trying desperately to keep up with demand as again, the Interstates and highways can simply no longer support the demand.

Having said all of the above, will such a system ever be built?  Well, not likely, unless Washington ever decides to be proactive regarding our transportation infrastructure (of note, this is the main reason why a better passenger rail system has yet to be built, not because of lack of demand), which hasn't happened since the Eisenhower administration (when the Interstate system was built).

Answer 8

Absolutely and beyond question, the government should finance Amtrak or something equivalent to it, and should invest in massive improvements and modernization programs to bring rail travel in this country up to European/Japanese standards or beyond.

We cannot go on wasting energy, money, and environmental reserves by using personal vehicles the way we do.  Long-distance trucking is an abomination that must be done away with and replaced with rail transportation of trucks and containers.

In addition, implementing a scheme that involves a combination of electric or fuel cell cars and long-distance rail travel is an imperative if this nation is to have an economic future.

I should be able to drive my little electric car down to the station, park it at a recharging ramp, take my bags and get on the train for Chicago.  On the train I can sleep, read a book, watch a movie, work on my paperwork, or join in a conversation.  There could be conversation rooms devoted to different subjects.

On the train I can enjoy good meals and sit in the bar.  I can socialize or rest in my room.  I can take a shower and then go to the breakfast bar and sit by the window and watch the countryside go by.

I don't have to worry about the roads, carjackers, weather, turbulence, or accidents.  At the appointed time, I arrive, get off the train, stick my plastic card in a slot and check out an identical electric car just like the one I left behind in my home town.  Drive to my destination and arrive at the meeting rested and refreshed with my paperwork caught up.

If I am only going 30 miles, I drive the electric car.  If I need to go to Washington, DC., I take the train.  We can do this, and have a great system in time to avoid being left sitting still when the fossil fuels run out.  All it takes is intelligent voters and intelligent politicians.

HAH! HAH! Hah....   I guess we should not hold our breath.

But it could be done.

Answer 9

Government needs to get out of the transportation business.

Answer 10

With a few minor exceptions, the passenger rail industry in the USA has been abused and neglected for many years.  Amtrak does own a few relatively modern trains but not enough to make a real difference in today's travel market.  

Bringing the American passenger rail industry up to European or Japanese standards at this late date would be hugely expensive, and probably not worth doing.   Maybe it's time to let passenger rail service in the USA die a quiet death.

If commuters in New York and New Jersey want to have their own rapid transit system, then it's OK with me, but I don't want MY tax dollars paying for it.