 |
|  |
 |
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001 time: 21:29
|
|
In the 1970's the Congress nationalized all of the priviately owned passager rail way companies in the US, many of them where in bankruptcy, and formed Amtrak as the American national railway company. From the beginning Amtrak was required to maintain and continue to run all existing passager rail lines even if those lines generated a lose. During the 1970's and 1980's Congress provided a subsidy to Amtrak in recognition that Congress's mandate that all rail lines continue to be oppurated, including the money losing lines, and so Amtrak continued to exist. However, the amount of money Congress supplied was never enough to invest in new trains, cars, stations, and was barely enough to maintain the rail tracks themselves in working condition.
Starting in the 1990's the newly Republican controlled Congress drastically cut funding to Amtrak and demanded Amtrak turn a profit. The Republicans did not repeal the congressional mandate that Amtrak continue to maintain and oppurate unprofitable rail lines since this would have offended representatives from rural states. Now the Republican controlled Congress is declaring that Amtrak is a complete failure and in light of the largest budget deciet in history, a defiet almost entirely created by massive Republican tax cuts and massive Republican spending increases, Amtrak will be closed and it's assets closed. 
In my mind there is something wrong and immoral to intentionally set an institution up for failure and then say "See! State run companies can't compete!". If Amtrak were allowed to cut the unprofitable routes then Amtrak could easily become a profitable company, but, Republican law makers have recieved millions of dollars from the Airline companies who all feel they will benifit from Amtrak's demise.
Does anyone else feel this is the wrong way for the country to go? In light of how bad the air line system has become post 9/11 shouldn't we be working towards creating more ways to travel and not less? Isn't it in the national interest to have a functional railway system? 
Here's the link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3107667.stm
EDIT: Link updated.
Last edited by Oerdin on 30-07-2003 at 01:34
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
SlowwHand, if the government mandated you to build a large housing project to house 500 people and gave you seventeen cents and a bottlecap to do it, would you be able to?
It's the same principle here.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Sounds great. I mean, the car companies don't have to pay to upkeep the roads, do they?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
There´s more to a functiuoning Railway System.
I think, Trains are much more cleaner from an Environmentalist Standpoint than Planes.
So it would be a reasonable thing to have a functioning Railway System.
It would even be reasonable trying to atract more customers to use trains for short Distances, so you can cut down the Numbers of Flights.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand
Always people looking for a good excuse for failing.
They said, "Make a profit."
They DIDN'T give unrealistic guidelines, Mitchell. |
If the things Oerdin posted are right,
i.e. they get only small funds which aren´t even enough to buy new (faster) trains or to properly upkeep their Tracks and not even are allowed to close their unprofitable routes,
how can you then expect them to make Profit?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|