An Amtrak supporter in the White House?

Posted by: Angela Cotey | Date posted: 8/19/2008

Post your comment now[40]

Comments

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/19/2008 11:22:33 AM

Let''s hope you''re right, Angela. It would be nice to have someone in a position of responsibility who at least knows what it''s like to ride on a train. It would be a welcome change from the mindless, doctrinaire, ideologic blather we have been getting for years from the Reason Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and similar groups that form the "drown the baby in the tub" cabal. I''m equally confident that this blog site will hear from their adherents. Oh, it also would be nice if the White House were occupied by someone who understands the need for a national transportation policy that goes beyond passengers and pork.

Posted by Jack on 8/19/2008 12:07:16 PM

Yeah right, and an idiot as president. Good logic.

Posted by Adron on 8/19/2008 12:22:04 PM

Not that I like any of the candidates really, none of them are comparable to Lincoln, who obviously knew what was up with the railroads. But don't forget, Mr. Obama knows a thing or three about railroads too, he at least knows what high speed rail is, and that is to say a lot more than McCain.

Posted by Scott on 8/19/2008 12:44:27 PM

Unless a fundamental national transportation policy is created, with Amtrak's integrated role clearly defined, support from a VP means little. Unless the fundamental flaws of Amtrak itself are fixed, it doesn't matter who's in the White House. Unless the FRA is reformed to move beyond its anti-industry posture of illogical regulation and government job protection actions, none of this matters.

Posted by Tom on 8/19/2008 5:24:01 PM

I think Jack misunderstands. The article talks about Obama''s running mate, not McCain''s.

Posted by Michael D. Sternfeld on 8/19/2008 6:25:14 PM

SEN Joe Biden [D DE] would be a powerfull voice for Amtrak. He also will be a powerfull voice for a rational national security policy. I know Joe Biden...he rides my railroad. For years I was a Conductor and we developed a conversational relationship. When I was stationed in Iraq I visited with SEN Biden on every trip he made to Iraq in 2005-2006. My favorite momento from duty in Baghadad is an autographed photo that is inscribed "I didn't expect to get my ticket punched in Baghad. I'm proud of you." When I returned home injured SEN Biden call me personally to ask what he could do. Interestingly he was on a cell phone calling from a train! Biden knows passenger trains and national security. I think I am a good judge...3 wars and 15 years with Amtrak. 3 War Retired LTC

Posted by Earl Karper, Sr. on 8/20/2008 10:39:30 AM

I have known Joe Biden for many years. I used to work as a stationmaster at Wilmington, DE station and spoke to him a number of times. He supports ALL of Amtrak and NOT just the N.E.C. I recently invited him to be the key speaker at my railroad union convention. Unfortunately, due to a prior commitment, he could not make it. He is a personable, easy-going gentleman with a bulldog attitude for the things he believes in. The rail industry could only make out better - Amtrak, in particular - if Joe had succeeded in his presidential bid. I feel he would do wonderful things for the "forgotten" mode of transportation and help bring it to its rightful place as part of a national transportation system. GO, JOE !!!

Posted by James Mancuso on 8/20/2008 11:31:26 AM

I think it is high time we had a transportation policy dictated by common sense and what the American people really want NOT what some peabrained moron from Texas or Corporate America wants to dictate to America. This overdependence on highways and jet airplanes has gone on for far too long and we are now beginning to reap the seeds that we have been sowing over the past 50 years: crumbling infrastructure, an air traffic control and navigation system that is bordering on unsafe, airlines with third world quality fleets in operation,while many overseas lines fly the newest equipment turned out by Boeing, et al and we are stuck with a rail system bordering on third world as well. A balanced transportation system is just as important to national security as is the hardware the military man needs to do his job properly.

Posted by R. Elyea on 8/20/2008 7:38:10 PM

That is the best news we have heard if Obama would select Sen. Joe Biden. Joe Biden would be the greatest asset there is for Vice President. He is the best and we hope and pray that he will be vice Present.

Posted by Richard Rohle on 8/21/2008 11:21:13 AM

As a retired Railroad Engineer, I am thoroughly convinced Biden is our man. Democrats better be sure to vote this year. Obama/Biden good ticket.

Posted by Robert T on 8/21/2008 11:22:55 AM

Scott's posting on 8/18/08 is right on the mark. Without meaningful reform of our current transportation policies, we are never going to move forward and will continue to send good money after bad.

Posted by Stu Nicholson on 8/21/2008 1:08:58 PM

I echo your thoughts & hopes. But I wish the Obama campaign would develop a more high-pfolie stance on passenger rail and transit. If we're going to an effective energy strategy, it has to include more and better transportation choices.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/21/2008 2:17:38 PM

Stu Nicholson is absolutely right, but he really should go even further. The United States needs a comprehensive national transportation policy - and quickly. DOT was created in 1966 to develop a transportation policy and never has come close to doing the job. With a hybrid system where railroads own, maintain, and pay property taxes for their rights of way, and truckers and barges pay user charges (inadequate according to every independent study) for the shared use of public rights of way,there are serious distortions in public policy. Similarly, public policy for airlines and passenger rail is inchoate, with the distortions becoming most costly all the time. Meanwhile, the trucking industry seeks to gain authority to put 97,000-lb. gross vehicle weights on highways, a 21% increase over the current 80,000 pound limit. Absent payment of adequate user fees and taxes, this effectively has private automobile owners subsidizing big trucks and the rail freight shippers effectively subsidizing their own competitors that use trucks. It is a mess and will remain so until there is a transportation policy in this country. Anyone want to bet that either political party will have a meaningful transportation plank in its platform after the two conventions the next two weeks? Transportation? Why, they'll be for it.

Posted by David Smith on 8/21/2008 8:27:35 PM

Does anyone on either side of the political spectrum have enough foresight to realize that there is no logical excuse for the US to have a government-run passenger rail system? Obviously, the answer is NO. Conservatives want to eliminate Amtrak's federal subsidy, socialists want to further empower Amtrak at taxpayers (read: non-users) expense. Neither stand is warranted. The best solution is to return passenger rail operations to the Class I's with some form of per passenger tax incentive to ensure healthy intramodal competition. That's what should have occured back in 1970, it's what should be done now. Oh, and if one or more of the Class I's still don't want to run passenger trains even with the incentives, then private vendors should be allowed to step right in and take over Amtrak's right of usage of that Class I's rail network. Just get the federal government out of the business of running trains like some Soviet-wannabe third world nation. As for Biden et al, keep in mind we shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. An Obama/Biden ticket might be an enabler for Amtrak (akin to the way saturated fat is an enabler for heart disease!), but obviously it would be a disaster for our economy - higher taxes, carbon regs, socialized medicine = a second Great Depression.

Posted by Superheater on 8/21/2008 10:04:41 PM

Before you rush off to vote for HO, keep in mind that Amtrak runs on a lot of freight railrods and BHO's party wants to take us back to the bad old days of the ICC-which almost killed railroads through its inane rate and other regulatios

Posted by Wes Burns on 8/22/2008 11:02:58 AM

No matter who occupies the White House, they might reach the obvious conclusion if we could get either of the candidates to use all three of these words in a complete sentence: Transportation, Energy, and Environment.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/22/2008 2:12:02 PM

It's time for a civics lesson for Dave Smith. He's right that Amtrak is a cost for taxpayers, and it always will be. That's because passenger service is unprofitable wherever it is offered in the world. Most governments accept that mobility for citizens is a legitimate function of government. The point is, though, that in a free society, the society gets to make that determination, not the absolutist ideologues of the Reason Foundation, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation or Dave Smith. Mr. Smith crosses the line, as he generally does, when he equates conservatives with socialists. Sorry, Mr. Smith, but conservatives equate to liberals. There is no need for labeling, especially not the way you have a nasty tendency of doing. It says more about your intellect or lack thereof than it does about either conservatives or liberals. Mr. Smith is quick to offer passenger service back to the Class 1 railroads. Of course, it isn't his to give, and it isn't something the railroads -- the private sector railroads that have an obligation to provide a return on investment for their owners -- have sought or probably ever would seek. They damn near went broke the last time they had the burden of subsidizing the society with passenger service, and Amtrak was created in 1971 only after the Penn Central bankruptcy and Congress' fear that it might have to nationalize the entire industry. Frankly, government's record in this area is so abysmal that no rational capitalist (how's that for using labels, Mr. Smith?) would risk his capital on the promise of government to pay a proper subsidy. Nope, Americans have the freedom to make silly decision is that's what they wish to do. They have made it clear over many years that they want to have passenger service available whether they choose to use it or not. That's there decision, Mr. Smith. You get to have opinions on that, but fortunately, you don't get to make the decision.

Posted by Jeff on 8/22/2008 2:28:29 PM

David: Soviet-wannabe third world nation? Are you kidding? The US railroads initially subsidized their passenger service with their freight profits, since colonizing the west meant more freight customers. Later, when the airlines reduced their passenger load and the ICC kicked them (as you mentioned) by favoring trucking, their passenger service was subsidized by the US Mail, until the Feds pulled it. No major industrialized country has passenger rail service that isn't subsidized by their government. Japan, France, Germany, etc. Yeah, they're real Soviet wannabees.

Posted by Tim Mullins on 8/22/2008 6:31:15 PM

Amtrak needs the support, and needs equipment to help handle the surge in rider ship. Senator Gregg of New Hampshire does not support funding the railroad. Thinking like that is wrong. With the problems that the airlines are having, especially after 911,when all we had was Amtrak, our transportation system was basically crippled. That alone is a threat to or country. What Amtrak doesn''t need is to be top heavy with political appointee''s and people who are not familiar with railroads and the rules,laws and equipment it takes to run it. Freight railroads that Amtrak runs on should receive financial incentives to help keep trains on time. Also, I feel since tax dollars go into Amtrak,that equipment ie. coaches,locomotives, etc., should be made in this country. Thank you

Posted by David Smith on 8/22/2008 8:55:11 PM

So Jeff, you want us to be like France? I would venture that the average American wants no part of emulating France, Germany, or Japan. And trying to equivocate the rail systems overseas with ours makes no sense, since their rail systems are either government run or are open access. Are you and Larry suggesting that our freight rail system would be better off under government operation? It's ironic to say on the one hand that passenger operations absolutely must be government run, yet these same people cry foul if the same is suggested for freight rail operations. Since our private freight rail system is subsidized to a certain degree, why not require passenger rail operations in return for these growing subsidies? By the way, some British rail folk and other Europeans will claim their passenger systems make a profit, so it's not axiomatic that all passenger rail systems necessarily lose money. Of course, those who insist that passenger rail services operate on 1930's logistics and inherent government ineptude will certainly not do anything to dispel the myth that passenger rail always loses money.

Posted by Gautam Ghosh on 8/25/2008 9:48:41 AM

More than ever, we need more supporters and participants of public transit systems(AMTRAK and others)in this country and in our Government. Thanks,

Posted by Matthew Daggett on 8/26/2008 9:39:17 AM

Mr. Biden will be in favor of any program that puts the government in control of the private sector, he's a socialist.

Posted by Amtrak Proponent on 8/26/2008 10:55:36 AM

The fact that we do not have a decent rail transportation policy and the current poor condition of the system in this country is a national disgrace. We should have had a long-term rail plan back in the 1970s, when the first oil crisis put the writing on the wall for all of us to see. But we chose to ignore it. I''d rather see our taxes put into redeveloping the passenger rail infrastructure than using it to build more weapons to fight for oil. It would bring back rail car manufacturing to the U.S. to help revitalize our steel industry and the rust belt. It also would help to rejuvenate our cities, help with the environment, reduce traffic congestion along our roadways and help with our national security and prosperity. Its no different than having our taxes pay to build and maintain the roads and to run the airports and the air traffic control system in our country. We all benefit, even if we do not personally use it.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/27/2008 11:19:57 AM

Xenophobia. It's such a wonderful thing to be xenophobic, as David Smith demonstrates. Considering that no society is perfect, why cannot France - or any number of other countries - have rail passenger service that is better than that experienced in the United States? Going back to Amtrak's creation in 1971, the U.S. government, both legislative and executive branches, has maintained the fiction that if Amtrak only were managed more efficiently it would become profitable. As I was at DOT in 1971, I can assure readers that when the claim was made initially, those who made it knew they were "shining" the American public, and that it never would be done. So, yes, David, and speaking only for myself, I might like to have the kind of taxpayer supported rail passenger service that people in France, Germany, Japan and a few other nations have. Whenever I travel by rail in Europe, I thank the European taxpayers for subsidizing my pleasures. All humor aside, Mr. Smith demonstrates as usual that his political beliefs exceed his understanding of economics. European passenger service is not open access. European freight service in some countries is. It also is inferior and doesn't begin to match up to U.S. freight service in quality, quantity, cost or any other measure. And, Mr. Smith, DO NOT try to put words in my mouth. I've made it clear, even though you seem to be a remedial reader, that I do not advocate government operation of railroads. Far from it, I have stated many times that the less government involvement there is in railroading the better off our society will be. I shall await Mr. Smith's next canard on this subject. Don't forget, Davey, always allow your preconceived notions, no matter how silly they may be, to get in the way of facts. Try as he may, Mr. Smith cannot equate problems of passenger service with freight operations. Let's try it in simple terms. Passenger service always will have heavy government involvement because it requires government funding. Freight service should not have any government involvement because it is profitable and seeks no subsidies. See, that wasn't too difficult to comprehend, was it? Mr. Smith is just plain wrong (ignorant?) when he states that "our private freight rail system is subsidized to a certain degree..." Bull! Note, dear readers, that any fool can make a specious claim. Anyone see Smith's support of Smith's claim? No? Perhaps that was because it is just untrue, although truth and Dave Smith's political screeds at this blog have no speaking aquaintance. Smith, I think it's really time for you either to learn something about the subjects on which you blog or fade away. You contribute nothing of value to the discussion that PR editors stimulate at this blog. Also, you really want to be more careful in your diatribes against railroads. The same arguments could be made in a discussion of subsidized electic co-ops. Wouldn't want that, now, whould we, Davey?

Posted by Richard Lange on 8/27/2008 11:22:45 AM

Let''s not forget that it was under a Republican administration that AMTRAK was born on April 30 1971, and CONRAIL operated communiter lines in the Northeast. Richard Lange

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/27/2008 1:22:57 PM

There is good news and bad news about transportation and the political season. The good news is that transportation is not a partisan issue. The bad news is that transportation is not a partisan issue - not that the Dave Smith's of the world haven't tried to make it such. So far today, we have had a comment accusing Joe Biden of being a Socialist, but with no discussion of the allegation - perhaps because he's not and the blogger can't find support for his silly statement. We've also had a reminder that Amtrak was created under a Republican Administration. That is true, but also is simplistic. Penn Central, which ran more passenger trains than any other railroad had gone bankrupt in 1970. Congress (Democrat-controlled) and the Nixon Administration (Republican) were terrified that they might have to nationalize Penn Central in order to maintain its essential services. For those who do not remember the economy in 1970, Penn Central moved a lot of raw materials in and finished goods out of steel mills, auto assembly palnts, etc. Amtrak was not created out of any political philsophy, but out of a real fear. It never has been properly funded, although the Dave Smith's of the world would require that private sector tax-paying railroads be forced to take back the passenger service that damned near bankrupted them once before. Perhaps Mr. Smith can find a blog for people who follow electric co-ops. It would be interesting to see if he has the courgage to demand that the co-ops finance themselves in the capital markets and that they pay the same taxes on the profits that investor-owned utilities pay. No, it's easier to prattle about railroads, isn't it Davey?

Posted by Amtrak Porponent on 8/28/2008 10:04:40 AM

If there is any doubt about Biden's degree of support for improving Amtrak, this is from his convention speech last night: "But I profoundly -- I profoundly disagree with the direction John wants to take this country, from Afghanistan to Iraq, from Amtrak to veterans." The fact that he would find it important enough to specifically mention it in his speech, which probably went over the heads of many of his listeners, tells me that this will be an important item on his agenda if he is elected.

Posted by David Smith on 8/28/2008 7:27:07 PM

Ahh, the communists in capitalist clothing are running amock! No Amtrak supporter here seems able to justify why US passenger rail has to be a government run enterprise rather than being returned to the private sector wtih the appropriate "safety net" level of subsidy/tax incentive. That proves that these people do not think things through - I guess it''s easier to let the government do their thinking for them. BTW - Biden spends twice as much to ride Amtrak back and forth each day than he would if he just drove it! And Larry, you are sadly misinformed if you continue to contend that today''s freight railroads are not subsidized (does the phrase "Heartland Corridor" mean anything to you?), and the trend is for growing subsidy of the so-called "private" freight railroads. The fact is all forms of transportation are subsidized to some extent. He also avoids addressing his logical fallacy that government run passenger rail is superior to privatized passenger rail, but God forbid if we apply that same policy to our freight railroads! Neither freight nor passenger rail can cover it''s long-run cost of capital - why else would the AAR be calling for partial public funding of the so-called rail infrastructure shortage? And here we were told that Staggers was going to fix the cost of capital conundrum once and for all! If subsidy is what it takes to keep the freight railroads abreast of demand, we should apply that same principle to passenger rail. Or else just throw in the towell and apply the current Amtrak principle to the freight railroads - at least that would take care of the discriminatory rate problem.

Posted by George Fleming on 8/29/2008 10:04:14 AM

Mr. Smith says "Biden spends twice as much to ride Amtrak back and forth each day than he would if he just drove it!" -- Driving on I-95 or the BW Parkway in rush hour is a nightmare. No wonder MARC is buying 13 double deckers from VRE for folks living closer in than Senator Biden.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/29/2008 10:35:46 AM

Here we go again with the inflammatory labeling and the "big lie" technique of public discourse. Dave Smith, he of the tax-eating non-tax-paying electric co-ops, seems to believe that if he repeats a false argument often enough that it will become true. Sorry, Davey, but the world doesn't work that way. Could the Class 1 railroads operate passenger service more efficiently than Amtrak? perhaps. But that is not the issue. Congress (Democrat controlled) and the Nixon Administration (Republican, the last time I checked)were convinced that public subsidies for the railroads were politically not feasible and the only alternative to allowing train after train to be abandoned through the ICC procedures was the effective nationalization of rail passenger service. I've never argued that the solution was or was not the right solution. It was the solution, and that's what is on the table. For those who do not allow their preconceived notions to get in the way of the facts (Smith, you reading?) this is the way government works. Most government decisions are compromises based on the possible and not on ideological dogma. Mr. Smith is quick to return passenger service to the private railroads, with an incentive (subsidy) from government. Socialist in a Capitalist suit that he is, he refuses to acknowledge that private railroads do not want to run passenger trains and cannot be forced to do so. Mr. Smith now calls public-private-partnerships subsidies. Call them what you will, Smith, but your calling them subsidies doesn't make them subsidies. A PPP is a joint venture in which the private entity (railroad in this discussion) pays for these facets that benefit it and the public pays for those aspect that benefit the public. Railroads should not be forced to pay for grade crossing elimination or improvement, as the public road invariably is crossing private property that existed long before the public road (you do know about the Fifth Amendment "taking" clause of the Constitution, don't you?)But absent the public participation the private investment either would not be undertaken at all or it would be delayed, neither solution benefiting the society. Oh, sorry, I forgot. Dave Smith doesn't worry about the society. He just chooses to spew his ideological dogma.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 8/29/2008 10:44:59 AM

I overlooked another of Mr. Smith's fallacies in his oft-expressed desire to return rail passenger service to the freight railroads - whether they want it or not. That is the effective subsidy that the railroads give Amtrak by act of Congress. Amtrak trains, by law, are to be given priority handling by the railroads over whose track they run. Amtrak has the exclusive right to run over the freight railroads, paying a less than fully allocated cost recovery for the use of those tracks. In exchange, in 1971, when Amtrak was created, the freight railroads "bought" their way out of the passenger service obligation by paying Amtrak the equivalent of two years' operating losses - either in cash or equipment. No one but Mr. Smith has seriously suggested returning passenger service to the freight railroads, so the issue never has been tested, but most experts in the field do not believe the Amtrak right of access is transferrable to another entity. That leaves Amtrak as the only entity to run passenger trains, as the freight railroads have no desire to do so. That, by the way, was one reason (among many) that no one ever has paid any attention to the silly Bush Administration proposals to shift money to states and other authorities to take over Amtrak service. It wouldn't have been legal and it wouldn't have had enough money to do the job the White House kept insisting it wanted done.

Posted by David Smith on 9/1/2008 1:07:14 PM

Ah Larry, you can pontificate in lengthy pointless paragraphs what most of us could state in one sentence. And you'd still be wrong. First, to say that passenger services can't be returned to the private sector because "it's the law" ignores the fact that laws can (and more often than not should) be changed. That's the beauty of a representative democracy - we can change bad law, aka Amtrak. Ditto for giving third party passenger providers the right of access to the Class I grid should the owner excercise the right of first refusal to run their own passenger trains. And I would take exception to your claim that the Class I's wouldn't want to run passenger trains with the right tax incentive policy. I believe they would prefer their own to having that bumbling Amtrak outfit clogging up the system. For example, a private in sito operation could run passenger services in combination with priority freights so that there would be no net loss of track slot availability nor added crew costs, something that can't be done with Amtrak in any meaningful way. And what of the fraternal pride and private-sector PR currently missing from Amtrak operations? Really folks, try thinking these things through rather than just being status quo reactionaries!

Posted by David Smith on 9/1/2008 1:15:40 PM

Let's do a comparison of the two vice presidential candidates as it relates to passenger rail services in their respective areas of residency. Biden is out their using Amtrak for his daily commute, perhaps a quicker commute than if he drove his own vehicle, but with a gratuitous helping of federal taxpayer subisidy to do so, e.g. it's much more costly to taxpayers than if he did what the Average American had to do each day. Contrast that with Palin's state, wherein the State owns and operates the railroad, which by the way has both freight and passenger services under one corporate umbrella. Can you guess which one does the better job of covering it's own expenses - Amtrak or the Alaska RR? Of course, it's the latter. Food for thought!

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 9/2/2008 10:28:04 AM

Yep, Davey, you''re sort of right that laws can be changed. Heck, even the Constitution of the United States can be changed if enough people want to change it. But, you obviously are not familiar with the "takings" provision of the Fifth Amendment to that Constitution. You can change the law all you want, but you cannot take the property of the freight railroads - or any other property owner - without compensation. Is that brief enough for you. As for you other posting, thanks very much, but I''ll go elsewhere for analysis and assessment of the candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency. The Reason Foundation, Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation are not known for their unbiased views -- nor are you, Davey.

Posted by Robert Rynerson on 9/2/2008 5:39:31 PM

I've been following this discussion since the late 1960's and unless numerous other politically unacceptable changes are made, Amtrak (aside from regional commuter carriers) will be the only game in town. Only a few companies even made it to 1971 with serious people selling passenger service. The rest ranged from incompentent to awful, with the biggest Western market being dominated by the worst Western carrier. Current managements would have no reason to want to risk joining doctors in a Medicare-style funding of passenger service in which Congress could play with compensation levels in every election cycle. Of course, I'd enjoy riding in an over-staffed Armour Yellow dome dining car once again, but unless one of those politically unacceptable structural changes happen, I'm not waiting for it. Oh... and one of those structural changes would be for the airlines, oil industry and highways to start paying their own way. Conservatives, Liberals and Libertarians all go silent on that part of the equation. Until that happens, countervailing subsidies will be needed for transit and intercity rail service.

Posted by Tom Halterman on 9/3/2008 8:38:55 AM

Having to engage in wishful thinking about a vice president being an Amtrak supporter demonstrates the pathetic state of our (lack of) transportation policy in the US. Although I strongly believe that passenger rail needs to play a much, much larger role in the US, I would feel much better about these various Amtrak appropriations and various HSR proposals, whatever the amount, if they were in the context of a reasoned, comprehensive, multi-modal long range national transportation and energy policy coordinated with state and local land use policies. As it is, we are just throwing darts at balloons. It is not even clear that Amtrak should be the vehicle for passenger rail investments. With regard to taking of freight rail property (with due compensation) for HSR development, if I were planning a truly state-of-the-art HSR system to meet our 21st century needs, I'm not sure I would want it to be trying to follow freight rail alignments or be anywhere close to freght tracks.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 9/3/2008 9:22:34 AM

Thank you, Tom Halterman and Robert Rynerson for injecting a note of sanity to what has become a never-ending back-and-forth between an idologue who never allows facts to get in the way of preconceived prejudices and someone who knows just a bit about railroads, transportation, and the economics of both. It's been lonely.

Posted by Dr M.Seshagiri Rao on 9/3/2008 8:41:13 PM

What? You have a Vice Presidential candidate who goes to work everyday by a Local train? Not even one Police pilot car? No sirens? I wish I had such candidates to vote for.

Posted by David Smith on 9/17/2008 7:51:52 PM

Robert, you missed the trolley in your analysis. There is no reason to think that the railroads would not embrace a return to having full control over passenger train operations over their own tracks rather than having to deal with Amtrak's inherent operating incompetence. The key is simply making it worth their while to do so. So instead of having the taxpayers dole out millions each year for a glorified government welfare program only used by less than 1% of the population, let's get rid of the cash subsidy and instead provide tax credits to the Class I's to do what they do best. Nearly all economic studies have shown that tax credits provided to private industry for a particular enterprise will produce better results for less cost than having that same enterprise ran as a government agency funded by tax reciepts. It is clearly in the best interests of the American Spirit to reprivatized passenger rail operations, except of course for those Euro-trash wannabes who pine for socialized everything.

Posted by Larry Kaufman on 9/18/2008 10:32:14 AM

Mr. Smith, who steadfastly refuses to engage in any kind of real discussion simply by ignoring what others have said, now would substitute tax credits for outright passenger subsidies. This economic illiterate is a disgrace to the Libertarian views of his beloved Reason Society. If anyone were to really advocate tax credits, Smith would be among the first to argue against them on the grounds that because they deprive the Treasury of revenue, they are in fact a subsidy. Way to go, Davey. You continue to speak out of both sides of your mouth.