bigjohnson
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 174
Regarding the government subsidy of Amtrak....
Back in the 1930s, electric utility companies refused to provide electric service to many rural areas. The justification for their refusal was that it was not cost effective. In cities and suburban areas, they would have dozens - even hundreds - of customers per mile of electric line. In rural areas, however, they might have to run ten miles of cable and erect hundreds of power poles just to serve one customer. So the government, in the form of the Rural Electrification Administration, stepped in and provided subsidies to the electric companies so that farms throughout the country would have access to electric power. The thinking in Washington was this: If private business cannot or will not provide a necessary service, then it is the responsibility of the government to do it.
This was the same thinking that brought about the National Railroad Passenger Act of 1970, which created Amtrak. The freight railroads were unable to continue running passenger trains because of the huge losses they incurred, and rail passenger service was deemed to be a "necessary service". So the government stepped in. It probably would have been a better idea to subsidize the freight railroads and let them continue to run the passenger trains, but actually Amtrak has not done all that bad of a job. Ridership and revenue is up again this year (the 12th year in a row). Ticket sales cover about 80% of Amtrak's operating costs, while ticket sales in European countries cover only about 45% of the costs of running their government-owned passenger rail services. Of course, European countries spend a huge amount percapita on passeenger rail... much more than is spent here in the US. And that expenditure certainly shows when you ride their trains.
Amtrak needs MORE money, not less.
As to their policy of no guns: I think they're wrong. I can also tell you that I carry a gun almost everywhere I go. And that includes riding the train. The words to remember are "discretion", and "concealment".
Back in the 1930s, electric utility companies refused to provide electric service to many rural areas. The justification for their refusal was that it was not cost effective. In cities and suburban areas, they would have dozens - even hundreds - of customers per mile of electric line. In rural areas, however, they might have to run ten miles of cable and erect hundreds of power poles just to serve one customer. So the government, in the form of the Rural Electrification Administration, stepped in and provided subsidies to the electric companies so that farms throughout the country would have access to electric power. The thinking in Washington was this: If private business cannot or will not provide a necessary service, then it is the responsibility of the government to do it.
This was the same thinking that brought about the National Railroad Passenger Act of 1970, which created Amtrak. The freight railroads were unable to continue running passenger trains because of the huge losses they incurred, and rail passenger service was deemed to be a "necessary service". So the government stepped in. It probably would have been a better idea to subsidize the freight railroads and let them continue to run the passenger trains, but actually Amtrak has not done all that bad of a job. Ridership and revenue is up again this year (the 12th year in a row). Ticket sales cover about 80% of Amtrak's operating costs, while ticket sales in European countries cover only about 45% of the costs of running their government-owned passenger rail services. Of course, European countries spend a huge amount percapita on passeenger rail... much more than is spent here in the US. And that expenditure certainly shows when you ride their trains.
Amtrak needs MORE money, not less.
As to their policy of no guns: I think they're wrong. I can also tell you that I carry a gun almost everywhere I go. And that includes riding the train. The words to remember are "discretion", and "concealment".