Amtrak Update: Byrd Falls Short on Bailout Amendment
---
A small baby-step victory toward ending the disgrace known as Amtrak:
The bait-and-switch maneuvering around Amtrak has been both consistent and constant. It goes something like this: "We can't afford to lose the Northeast corridor, so Amtrak must continue to be subsidized." But of course the Northeast corridor is the one part of Amtrak that actually runs a profit and therefore would not need a subsidy in the first place! It's precisely the routes that nobody rides that lose money (go figure).
Similar to my update earlier today with municipal wi-fi, passenger rail service is simply not a public good (a natural monopoly perhaps, but not a public good). Where there is a market for it, there, is, well, a market for it and therefore no need for subsidies. When there is no market (i.e., insufficient need), one must ask why, since no one uses the route, should it be propped up via a subsidy. This is wise fiscal policy -- spend money where it's not wanted?
And as for those who long for the days of it taking, um, days to travel cross-country: Is your nostalgic yearning for the "golden age of rail" a sufficient claim on taxpayers who prefer the Twenty-First Century?
I think not. Fortunately, neither did 52 senators. Perhaps this will truly be the beginning of the end for the pathetic boondoggle.
Related Post (With Archive):
Transportation Secretary Defends Proposed Amtrak "Cut" (Sorta Kinda)
An effort in the Senate to increase federal subsidies for the beleaguered Amtrak system failed to pass Wednesday.
The amendment, offered by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., would have added $1.04 billion to government financial assistance for the system. It failed on a 52-46 vote. The amendment was cosponsored by 23 senators, mostly Democrats. Two Republican senators from the Northeast - Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island - also voted for it.
In his 2006 budget, President Bush proposed eliminating Amtrak's operating subsidy and setting aside $360 million to run trains along the Northeast Corridor if the railroad ceased operating. In the current budget year that ends Sept. 30, Amtrak is getting $1.2 billion in operating subsidies and capital investment.
The bait-and-switch maneuvering around Amtrak has been both consistent and constant. It goes something like this: "We can't afford to lose the Northeast corridor, so Amtrak must continue to be subsidized." But of course the Northeast corridor is the one part of Amtrak that actually runs a profit and therefore would not need a subsidy in the first place! It's precisely the routes that nobody rides that lose money (go figure).
Similar to my update earlier today with municipal wi-fi, passenger rail service is simply not a public good (a natural monopoly perhaps, but not a public good). Where there is a market for it, there, is, well, a market for it and therefore no need for subsidies. When there is no market (i.e., insufficient need), one must ask why, since no one uses the route, should it be propped up via a subsidy. This is wise fiscal policy -- spend money where it's not wanted?
And as for those who long for the days of it taking, um, days to travel cross-country: Is your nostalgic yearning for the "golden age of rail" a sufficient claim on taxpayers who prefer the Twenty-First Century?
I think not. Fortunately, neither did 52 senators. Perhaps this will truly be the beginning of the end for the pathetic boondoggle.
Related Post (With Archive):
Transportation Secretary Defends Proposed Amtrak "Cut" (Sorta Kinda)
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Was This Worth $1,000,000,066?
- Is "Luxury Travel" a Public Good?
- "Politics versus Economics" Quote of the Day...
- Amtrak Should Go to the Movies
- Faster Than a Speeding Bullet (Train)?
- Amtrak Update: Byrd Falls Short on Bailout Amendment
Posted by KipEsquire on
16 March 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.