Newspeak

[pecunium]

I love to look at the way politicians use language.

But then again, I've been known to make my own sausage, so I've got a strong stomach.

This morning I was listening to the Sec. Transportation discuss Amtrak. Next year's budget lists zero dollars for Amtrak. He says the Administration is really proposing nothing for Amtrak, that's just a way to force Congress to engage in reform.

What they want to do, he said, was move it to a more private model, where Amtrak lines are paid for from passenger income. What the Gov't is supposed to pay for, according to him is the rail infrastructure; the track, the bridges and the tunnels, sort of like the Interstate Highway System. Of course, that might mean (to apply his example to a concrete location) you couldn't get off the train in Kansas, if the state didn't want to pay for passenger service. The "road" would be there, but no offramps.

Given the way in which Amtrak (which had record income and ridership last year) is working (commuter runs, like DC-NY, and Los Angeles to Santa Barbara have lots of passengers: Long haul. like Los Angeles to Seattle, or Portland to Chicago don't) this will kill long distance rail travel.

This is, however, a subtle dodge, and a bit of subterfuge. Amtrak doesn't own the rails, the tunnels, the bridges. Rather it is forced to use the rails of private companies, not quite at their pleasure. The gov't pays them to allow Amtrak to run passenger rail, but they get to set the speeds, and have priority (which is why a long distance ride is almost never on time).

So the $1 billion they say they are willing to spend on the infrastructure (those rails, tunnels and bridges) would be to pay the frieght haulers, by way of removing the cost of replacing track from Boulder to Kansas City, while no longer demanding that they allow trains to run on the tracks the people are, now, paying for.

Gotta love it.

Comments

[liatha.livejournal.com]

most people dont take long haul train rides because they are both too slow and too expensive. For the price of a train ticket from DC to LA, you could get a plane ticket... and be there in 6 hours instead of 4 days. This day and age, most people dont have the extra time to waste... let alone the inclination to be cooped up on a train for several days.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

I prefer Amtrak, but the cost is the killer, for me.

I'd take it a lot more often. I've even been on the Acela (ooooo) but the price? Outrageous.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

That's the funny thing. Maia and I took it L.A. to Seattle and time is the only thing which made any real difference.

We went in sleeper (call it business class/first class) and it cost a bit more than plane tickets for two.

Included all our meals, and two-nights lodging. The attendants were attentive (basically we wanted for nothing) and we had enough luggage to keep ourselves in clothes for the three weeks we were on the road, as well as room for the gifts we took and the swag we got.

Just in the problems of packing we saved money.

If you look at it as a B&B with scenery, it was cheap at twice the price.

TK

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

For DC to NYC it's more convenient than flying. Although I've never flown into DC, I've flown OUT of NYC, which is inconvenient, to put it mildly. They actually did a comparison, driving versus train versus plane, and the plane won by less than a half hour, I think, when the finish line was in Manhattan.

So that leg is worth it -- but when I want to hop down to Philly, I could take NJ transit which is about $10, or the bus, which is about $20 (except chinatown bus, which is $10), or Amtrak, which is $40, I think, one way. In those cases, though, I took Amtrak, when I was in a rush. Bus took too long.

(I dated someone in the DC area, and we met in Philly sometimes, so I am pretty familiar with the DC/Philly/NYC leg of things.)

My friend who came to visit last week loves the train, and will avoid planes. He enjoys the long ride. My mother in law would take the train from Iowa, but they got rid of her station, and it is a lot more money than greyhound (she wont fly either).

It's got to be a lot faster, or a lot cheaper, for people to want it. After all, a lot of people take busses for the long haul.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

If Amtrak didn't have to wait for every freight train on the track (or, in the case of the train we took north) have to wait while a common carrier added a couple of cars, long trips would be faster.

We lost about four hours from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. because they held us in the yard in Oakland.

That made a 36 hour ride into a bit more than 42 (because we had some other delays). To drive would have taken about half the time, at the cost of less sleep, and more fatigue; regardless.

Is the train less convenient than planes... mostly, for issues of time. But to get on the train, I just climb aboard. If I get there five minutes before the train, I still make it. Hell, if I get there as it pulls up to the station I make it.

No searches, no hassles. I can bring food, books, movies, use my cell phone, have power for my computer, even (on some trains) get good food made to order.

It's not as bad as all that.

But they don't like it. I have suspicious and cynical thoughts about why.

TK

[cluefairy-j.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but I can leave my B&B when I want. It hurts to jump off a moving train.

We're not Europe. The distances to make it worthwhile (unless it's Acela...yay...that's a great train ride to/from Boston/NY) doesn't exist in America. Things are too far to make the time/money worth it and there's not a really high speed option (Acela out here on the east coast, yes). Flying is faster.

Americans don't believe in the train system anymore. It's a shame, really.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

I used to commute regularly between Sacramento (where I used to live) and the bay area (booty calls) and loved it. For long-haul, I might do it if I really had time, but on long distances, I like to stray off the beaten track, and Amtrak's track is well beaten. But the bay area to Seattle would be such a gorgeous ride -- I love Redding to Ashland, though that's at night on that route -- and it's not an incredibly long trip. (I'd go on a mid-spring full moon night, to get Shasta with snow on it.)

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

In NY, Amtrack has been pretty much replaced by local rail and planes. The only thing DC and PA need to supplant it totaly is a dedicated high speed shuttle from the airports to the middle of the city.

Anyhow, the end result is, Amtrack will slowly cease to exist, which is what Bush wants. If I were running it, I'd put that forth as a proposal to Bush in public, saying that if he really wants to kill it, I'd be happy to help by phasing out all of the jobs into the private sector (loyalty to one's staff) and selling off the trains. Letting it die slowly is just stupid.

[cluefairy-j.livejournal.com]

The MBTA commuter rail pays for the use of the rails and Amtrak cars and personnel run it for us. There's local commuter rail issues here, too, not just long distance.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

More to the point... the money being spent to provide "infrastructure" and remove the subsidisation is a lie.

It moves the subsidation of the passengers (which while it may not be as many people as use United, isn't trivial) to a subsidisation of private companies.

The present system has taxpayers paying to support citizens.

The new one will have the same taxpayers paying to support railroads (who aren't exactly hurting).

TK