4 ms·
That plus the clear difference that funding trains would basically mean subsidizing the operations of a few large companies, while anyone can drive on publicly
by codekansas 5y ago
That plus the clear difference that funding trains would basically mean subsidizing the operations of a few large companies, while anyone can drive on publicly funded roads
- realityking 5y agoSince Amtrak is fully owned by the federal government, why not let them run the trains. That way there’s no subsidizing of a few large companies.
- throwawayboise 5y agoAmtrak is the brand name for the service provided by National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a weird quasi-public, ostensibly for-profit corporation. Its stock is all owned by the government, but it's not supposed to be dependent on subsidies to operate.
- realityking 5y agoThis is quite similar to Deutsche Bahn, the main German railway operator. It’s a private company but all shares are owned by the federal government. They get subsidies (mostly infrastructure cost) but any profit they make goes back into the federal budget.
- colin_mccabe 5y ago"it's not supposed to be dependent on subsidies to operate." I don't think this reflects the current thinking in Washington about Amtrak. I wasn't able to find its P/L history, but has it ever made a profit? I can't remember hearing that it did.