4 ms·

Because we haven't made it a priority. We've spent our resources fighting abroad and cutting taxes at home, leaving little money left over to repair our current

by sc68cal 15y ago

Because we haven't made it a priority. We've spent our resources fighting abroad and cutting taxes at home, leaving little money left over to repair our current infrastructure, let alone fund any ambitious public works projects. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that the nation faces a $2.2 trillion infrastructure backlog. One of every eight bridges is "structurally deficient," and 85 percent of public transit systems are struggling to carry the growing number of riders. As ASCE President Blaine D. Leonard puts it, "We are still driving on Eisenhower's roads and sending our kids to Roosevelt's schools." http://www.governing.com/columns/potomac-chronicle/The-Looming-Infrastructure-Crisis.html http://www.governing.com/columns/potomac-chronicle/The-Loomi... We also have one half of our two-party democracy steadfastly against public transit. Despite the fact that trains and rail were a central theme in their cultural touchstone, Atlas Shrugged. Why did President George W. Bush try to zero out Amtrak funding in 2005? Why is the conservative Republican Study Committee suggesting that we do so now? Why does George Will think "the real reason for progressives' passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans' individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism"? "You need to distinguish between Republicans and conservatives and libertarians when you look at this," says William Lind, the director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation. "It's the libertarians who push this crap." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/03/off_the_rails.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

tptacek 15y ago
The GOP wants to zero out Amtrak because it isn't cost-effective; it would have been bankrupt but for tens of billions of subsidies. I like the Acela, a lot, and I disagree philosophically with the GOP's take on public infrastructure, but I think it's a bad idea to pretend that they don't have a valid point regarding Amtrak.
- MichaelSalib 15y ago
  Would Amtrak be cost effective if Congress didn't force it to run lots of unprofitable routes that it was desperately trying to shed? This is a fun game! Congress forces Amtrak to lose money and then lambastes it for not being profitable.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Who are you arguing with? Me? I like the Acela, and wish we had one running STL->Chi->Memphis. I could care less about the availability of a 2-day sleeper car route from Chicago to the west coast.
    - MichaelSalib 15y ago
      I'm not arguing with anyone. I just don't think Congressman "have a valid point regarding Amtrak" when they complain about a problem they're largely responsible for. Don't you agree? Or do you think they do "have a valid point regarding Amtrak"?
      - tptacek 15y ago
        I think they have a valid point regarding Amtrak. I think they have a valid point even if you narrow the whole thing down to the Acela. I do not have a hard time believing that the Northeast Rail Corridor is less cost-effective than air. I'm pretty sure they have a valid point when you consider Amtrak nationwide. I do not think that their point is dispositive. The Acela can be inefficient and still worth retaining and (as I've argued elsewhere here) extended. But I object to the notion that they have no valid argument at all.
- sc68cal 15y ago
  >The GOP wants to zero out Amtrak because it isn't cost-effective; it would have been bankrupt but for tens of billions of subsidies. Do you think that toll roads wouldn't go bankrupt, if not for the gas tax subsidy that they receive? It's a false equivalence because one subsidy is directly authorized by congress and is a political football that each side uses for fundraising, while the other (the gas tax) can't be used as a political football because voters would revolt. Also, The jury is still out on your basic assertation that Amtrak is not cost effective. David C. of the blog GreaterGreaterWashington published a classic in this genre late last month. "When indirect subsidies are considered, Amtrak's total subsidy comes out to a little less than 44¢ ppm," he argues. "Motoring's subsidy rises up to almost 45¢ ppm." http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/11/road-v-rail http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/11/road-v-rail
  - ams6110 15y ago
    At least the people paying gas tax are the people using the roads. I never use Amtrak, yet I still pay for it.
    - sc68cal 15y ago
      This is another poor basis for public tax policy - the classic "I don't use it so I don't want to pay for it." First - part of living in a society is paying for things that others use that you may not, but which improves society for all. Second - I live in Philadelphia and rarely use roads, and yet my tax dollars to the government of Pennsylvania are used, in combination with gas tax proceeds, to repair roads that others drive on, and that I don't directly benefit from. That's the price of living in a society, and I support it.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        You're answering a resource allocation argument with a moral argument. Non sequitur. If you reject the premise that we should allocate resources to the modes of transport that move the most people at the least expense including external costs, you're opting out of the whole debate. Also, unlike most of Amtrak, you benefit directly from Penn's roads even when you don't use them yourself; for instance, virtually everything you eat is brought to you over them.
- tsotha 15y ago
  I live on the west coast. Amtrak is so lame here it takes 12 hours to take the train from San Francisco to Los Angeles, and there's only one each day. It's an amusement park ride for train buffs instead of a way to travel. Why am I paying for Amtrak? Outside a very small area on the east coast, it's useless. Either expand it into a true national rail system or get rid of it.

by sc68cal 15y ago

tptacek 15y ago

The GOP wants to zero out Amtrak because it isn't cost-effective; it would have been bankrupt but for tens of billions of subsidies. I like the Acela, a lot, and I disagree philosophically with the GOP's take on public infrastructure, but I think it's a bad idea to pretend that they don't have a valid point regarding Amtrak.

MichaelSalib 15y ago
Would Amtrak be cost effective if Congress didn't force it to run lots of unprofitable routes that it was desperately trying to shed? This is a fun game! Congress forces Amtrak to lose money and then lambastes it for not being profitable.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Who are you arguing with? Me? I like the Acela, and wish we had one running STL->Chi->Memphis. I could care less about the availability of a 2-day sleeper car route from Chicago to the west coast.
  - MichaelSalib 15y ago
    I'm not arguing with anyone. I just don't think Congressman "have a valid point regarding Amtrak" when they complain about a problem they're largely responsible for. Don't you agree? Or do you think they do "have a valid point regarding Amtrak"?
    - tptacek 15y ago
      I think they have a valid point regarding Amtrak. I think they have a valid point even if you narrow the whole thing down to the Acela. I do not have a hard time believing that the Northeast Rail Corridor is less cost-effective than air. I'm pretty sure they have a valid point when you consider Amtrak nationwide. I do not think that their point is dispositive. The Acela can be inefficient and still worth retaining and (as I've argued elsewhere here) extended. But I object to the notion that they have no valid argument at all.
sc68cal 15y ago
>The GOP wants to zero out Amtrak because it isn't cost-effective; it would have been bankrupt but for tens of billions of subsidies. Do you think that toll roads wouldn't go bankrupt, if not for the gas tax subsidy that they receive? It's a false equivalence because one subsidy is directly authorized by congress and is a political football that each side uses for fundraising, while the other (the gas tax) can't be used as a political football because voters would revolt. Also, The jury is still out on your basic assertation that Amtrak is not cost effective. David C. of the blog GreaterGreaterWashington published a classic in this genre late last month. "When indirect subsidies are considered, Amtrak's total subsidy comes out to a little less than 44¢ ppm," he argues. "Motoring's subsidy rises up to almost 45¢ ppm." http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/11/road-v-rail http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/11/road-v-rail
- ams6110 15y ago
  At least the people paying gas tax are the people using the roads. I never use Amtrak, yet I still pay for it.
  - sc68cal 15y ago
    This is another poor basis for public tax policy - the classic "I don't use it so I don't want to pay for it." First - part of living in a society is paying for things that others use that you may not, but which improves society for all. Second - I live in Philadelphia and rarely use roads, and yet my tax dollars to the government of Pennsylvania are used, in combination with gas tax proceeds, to repair roads that others drive on, and that I don't directly benefit from. That's the price of living in a society, and I support it.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      You're answering a resource allocation argument with a moral argument. Non sequitur. If you reject the premise that we should allocate resources to the modes of transport that move the most people at the least expense including external costs, you're opting out of the whole debate. Also, unlike most of Amtrak, you benefit directly from Penn's roads even when you don't use them yourself; for instance, virtually everything you eat is brought to you over them.
tsotha 15y ago
I live on the west coast. Amtrak is so lame here it takes 12 hours to take the train from San Francisco to Los Angeles, and there's only one each day. It's an amusement park ride for train buffs instead of a way to travel. Why am I paying for Amtrak? Outside a very small area on the east coast, it's useless. Either expand it into a true national rail system or get rid of it.