Amtrak is considering suspending service on tracks that don’t have sophisticated speed controls by a Dec. 31 deadline, the railroad’s top executive said Thursday, threatening to disrupt operations across the U.S. in a push to strengthen safety after a series of deadly wrecks.I'm going to guess that would include every long-haul Amtrak route outside of the Northeast Corridor.
Conservatives have been pushing for a very long time to kill off Amtrak. They hate the idea of mass transit, figuring that if people can't afford cars, they should walk. The fact that Amtrak supplies an important service to a lot of places where people who can't drive happen to live makes no difference to them. Government, to conservatives, should not be in the business of helping people do anything other than make money. They'd kill off the Post Office if it wasn't mandated by the Constitution.
So I see this sudden emphasis on safety as the conservatives not letting a crisis go to waste.
12 comments:
Is the hatred of public transport just more hatred of the poor? Or is it an active attempt to get back to the "company town" situation, wherein you are immobilized in the town you're born in, and all your earnings go back to the company?
Oh, Nangleator, what on earth makes you think corporations would be so patriarchal (housing, schools, medical clinics, water systems)? As far as I can tell, we want to go farther back to an earlier, perhaps more feudal, model. In my opinion, it would be more accurate to think in terms of the most vicious sharecropping arrangements. I don't think Republicans believe in "public good" and public transportation and highway systems (as well as education and labor law) seem to fall under the heading of common or public good. Or, perhaps, I am just too cynical.
Jill
No, conservatives hate Amtrack because they can't ever break even, requiring subsidies to operate. They are, instead of being what you claim, a money pit that includes overpaid union trackmen and engineers and conductors and such, lots of greed and poor management.
When they came into being, they drove many other private FOR PROFIT companies out of business, but failed (and still do) to make any reasonable level of service. Often, the price of a train ticket is more than a discount airline. Their on-time performance is abysmal and most of the passengers you claim are poor, aren't. (I assume you are mistaken and uninformed, and not lying about that).
Inshort, what you said just isn't true.
Cue the assault on “Unions” as the evil that is destroying America, when Unions made America what it is. Are all Unions perfect, hell no, but they are the necessary counter-balance to Business.
And their rules are what is destroying amtracks ability break even, among other things...I'm not anti union, only anti stupid union rules
Seriously, if you were to look at some of the rules they have negotiated and realize what they have come to.... Unions are far from the only reason for Amtracks failure, but they are a significant part of it. The biggest issue is that, except for the east coast, they are redundant and uneconomical as a form of travel.
At some point, things gotta give. I'd rather see no subsidies at all, since Amtrack can't make it work and is, essentially, redundant to other forms of travel. Of course, that will fix the union issue....
Long-haul rail passenger service stopped being profitable long before Amtrak came about. You can blame the war-surplus C-47s that were converted into DC-3s for that, followed by the 707s and 727s, not to mention the Interstate Highway System One of the iconic passenger trains, the 20th Century Limited, ended service before Amtrak came along.
The Class 1 railroads were more than happy to let Amtrak take over running passenger trains. They were private lines competing with government-subsidized modes of transportation (roads and airlines)
The idea that Amtrak took away good profitable work from the rail companies is a myth. If anything, Amtrak made the playing field a bit more level, since it wasn't private money that built the interstates or the airports.
Oddly thought, there were private railroads until Amtrack came along.
And Amtrack never made it to break even. ALWAYS needed a subsidy.
Airlines do it cheaper most of the time, now. Odd, that.
And Amtrack still isn't doing it for the poor...never was.
Amtrak runs on track belonging to other railroads.
The railroads made use dependent on Amtrak agreeing that the railroads would never be held accountable for accidents due to poor track conditions.
Who are these people for whom Amtrak is the best travel option?
Please, Sir B., explain the Union rules that irk you so.
Amtrak from Oakland to Stockton is eight bucks. My commute on BART and Muni to my last job in the city cost more than that. From here to my friend's house in Truckee is $44, and depending on the current price of gas and what car you're driving, that's comparable, and amounts to one less car on the road and one less tank of gas turned into emissions in the air.
Public transport never makes money, but does make life easier in cities.
Perhaps some day we can have the kind of train service that many other rich countries enjoy right now, but my guess is that if it ever happens, it will be over the kicking and screaming of folks who would rather (and can afford to) drive their cars instead.
-Doug in Oakland
Ah, ya'all missed the point...
Amtrack required automatic speed management systems. Now the question what was used before that? The engineer. We still have the engineer, so that means he is redundant or broken. Your pick.
Going too fast into a section of track means someone screwed up and its nicer to humans to blame the automation.
Eck!
The government has always subsidized transportation. Often, it's sort of backdoor. There would have been very little airline service before or after the war without the fees that the airlines were paid by the Postal Service to carry first Airmail, now First Class and Priority.
The railroads are private, sure. But most every foot of trackage west of the Mississippi river runs on land that was given by the government to the railroads, along with a lot of land on either side of the tracks, which the railroads then sold off. The railroads got to use eminent domain early on, where there already was private land ownership. And in some cases, the government gave the railroads money for extending their tracks.
If only private money was used, you'd still be driving dirt roads to California.
Post a Comment