Massive Amtrak Crash....but who cares about our highways and trains?

[Oldstyle]

Last time I mentioned our crumbling infrastructure I was derided for sounding like a broken record. So six people dead and 140 injured. So six people dead and 140 injured. So six people dead and....

Not to mention that all train traffic between Phila and NYC has been stopped since last night at 9:30. You shut down NYC and the country will come to a halt, too.

That train didn't derail because of "crumbling infrastructure"...it derailed because it went into a corner at twice the speed limit. Don't be such an idiot...

 

[Mertex]

He proposed putting a second Asst Engineer in the cab to help with the workload and to double check each other.

Sounds like a good idea, but installing the PTC will probably take care of the problem. The question is, will Amtrak have enough money to do it by Dec 2015 now that Republicans have voted to cut their funding even more.

Rail News - Sound Transit to install PTC equipment on trains. For Railroad Career Professionals

There you go again. They didn't cut the funding.

Are you arguing semantics?

Republicans passed a bill to cut Amtrak funding.....there, is that better?



Washington (CNN)A House panel approved a measure Wednesday that cuts funding for Amtrak, less than a day after a train derailment left at least seven people dead and many more injured.

The Republican-led House Appropriations Committee voted 30-21 to reduce grants to Amtrak by $252 million -- a drop of about 15% from last year's level.
House committee passes bill that cuts Amtrak funding - CNNPolitics.com


As investigators were piecing together what happened, the House of Representatives moved to reduce Amtrak's federal funding. The Republican-led Appropriations Committee voted on Wednesday to slash grants to Amtrak by over $250 million—a 15 percent cut from last year. (Amtrak's new budget would be about $1.1 billion.) The vote had been previously scheduled, but in the wake of Tuesday's accident, Democrats and transportation experts criticized the move, asserting that increased rail funding was more important than ever.
The Amtrak Crash Hasn t Stopped Republicans From Trying to Cut Its Funding Mother Jones

He proposed putting a second Asst Engineer in the cab to help with the workload and to double check each other.

Sounds like a good idea, but installing the PTC will probably take care of the problem. The question is, will Amtrak have enough money to do it by Dec 2015 now that Republicans have voted to cut their funding even more.

Rail News - Sound Transit to install PTC equipment on trains. For Railroad Career Professionals

There you go again. They didn't cut the funding.

Are you arguing semantics?

Republicans passed a bill to cut Amtrak funding.....there, is that better?



Washington (CNN)A House panel approved a measure Wednesday that cuts funding for Amtrak, less than a day after a train derailment left at least seven people dead and many more injured.

The Republican-led House Appropriations Committee voted 30-21 to reduce grants to Amtrak by $252 million -- a drop of about 15% from last year's level.
House committee passes bill that cuts Amtrak funding - CNNPolitics.com


As investigators were piecing together what happened, the House of Representatives moved to reduce Amtrak's federal funding. The Republican-led Appropriations Committee voted on Wednesday to slash grants to Amtrak by over $250 million—a 15 percent cut from last year. (Amtrak's new budget would be about $1.1 billion.) The vote had been previously scheduled, but in the wake of Tuesday's accident, Democrats and transportation experts criticized the move, asserting that increased rail funding was more important than ever.
The Amtrak Crash Hasn t Stopped Republicans From Trying to Cut Its Funding Mother Jones

there they go again. Only DEMOCRATS would call and increase in spending a cut because they disnt get the amount they want.

Shame on Democrats politicizing the deaths of those people on Amtral 188. Obama's Amtrak could have installed that slowing technology that the Republican Congress authorized, but they didn't.

You're delusional. Show us the increase.

 

[Mertex]

Relevant:

Amtrak loses a ton of money each year. It doesn t have to. - The Washington Post

...best way to think of Amtrak is that it's essentially two different train systems rolled into one. One system is quite successful, the other isn't...

From the same link....

Think of the Acela Express in the Northeast, or the Pacific Surfliner between San Diego and Los Angeles. These 26 routes carry four-fifths of Amtrak's passengers, or 25.8 million riders per year. And they're growing rapidly. Taken as a whole, these shorter routes are profitable to operate — mainly because the two big routes in the Northeast Corridor earn enough to cover losses elsewhere.

The reasonable action would be to keep the profitable, get rid of the rest. Use the profits to maintain the integrity of the system that remains.

Wait a minute!!! How dare you???

How dare you inject sanity and logic into the conversation??? We just lost the liberal half of this site. You KNOW they self destruct when faced with logical, sane solutions!!

Shame on you!

Bwahahahaha......you're so funny. Logical, sane solutions? No wonder your party is considered just a bunch of whack-a-doodles.

 

[Mertex]

He proposed putting a second Asst Engineer in the cab to help with the workload and to double check each other.

Sounds like a good idea, but installing the PTC will probably take care of the problem. The question is, will Amtrak have enough money to do it by Dec 2015 now that Republicans have voted to cut their funding even more.

Rail News - Sound Transit to install PTC equipment on trains. For Railroad Career Professionals

I thought railroads charged passengers to ride on their trains. They need to raise the price of a ticket and get more customers. How many airlines or bus companies get subsidized year after year?

Well, don't be so lazy and look it up....oh wait, you are under the impression that airlines don't get subsidies, right? Oh, you're welcome.

"US airlines have received benefits valued at $71.48 billion, more than $70 billion of which has been since 2000, enabling the nation's three largest carriers to transition from the verge of bankruptcy to today's industry leaders," a statement from Etihad said.

Last year, the three largest US carriers posted profits of almost $9 billion, close to half the gains racked up by the entire worldwide aviation industry, the airline added.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/etiha...xBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjAwMDNfMQRzZWMDc2M-[/QUOTE]


American airline companies complain that Gulf carriers benefit from unfair government subsidies, but one of the accused firms is now claiming that the U.S. is guilty of similar behavior.

Etihad Airways, from the United Arab Emirates, released a scathing report Thursday claiming that American Airlines, Delta Airlines, and United Airlines have received a combined total of $71.48 billion in government benefits over the last 15 years, according to Air Transport World.
Gulf Airline Blasts US For Aviation Subsidies The Daily Caller

 

[Mertex]

The reasonable action would be to keep the profitable, get rid of the rest. Use the profits to maintain the integrity of the system that remains.

Yes, that would be reasonable.

But who would suffer if the unprofitable lines were abandoned?

Those rural districts who elect Republicans, right?

So they would turn on their representatives and replace them, right?

Seems to me that those that are slashing spending on Amtrak are the ones who haven't thought this through.

What slashing?
The House passed an increase in funding.

The House just slashed Amtrak funding by $250 million.

That bill passed the House Committee.
House committee passes bill that cuts Amtrak funding - CNNPolitics.com
It still needs to be voted on by the House and then the Senate.

While you ignore that the House passed an increase in funding in March of this year.

"In March, the House approved legislation that would authorize Amtrak to pump more money into the Northeast Corridor route but that measure has yet to muscle its way through the Senate."

That is not an "increase in funding". The actual funding was cut.

What do you expect from the group that think they are the ones with logic and reason....maybe Faux News told them that Republicans voted for an increase....I wouldn't put it past Faux.


Oh, I see what happened.....they read part of the story's title and didn't bother to read the rest......


One Day After Wreck, Increased Funding for Amtrak


Fails in a House Panel


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/u...unding-for-amtrak-fails-in-a-house-panel.html

 

[Annie]

Relevant:

Amtrak loses a ton of money each year. It doesn t have to. - The Washington Post

...best way to think of Amtrak is that it's essentially two different train systems rolled into one. One system is quite successful, the other isn't...

From the same link....

Think of the Acela Express in the Northeast, or the Pacific Surfliner between San Diego and Los Angeles. These 26 routes carry four-fifths of Amtrak's passengers, or 25.8 million riders per year. And they're growing rapidly. Taken as a whole, these shorter routes are profitable to operate — mainly because the two big routes in the Northeast Corridor earn enough to cover losses elsewhere.

The reasonable action would be to keep the profitable, get rid of the rest. Use the profits to maintain the integrity of the system that remains.

Yes, that would be reasonable.

But who would suffer if the unprofitable lines were abandoned?

Those rural districts who elect Republicans, right?

So they would turn on their representatives and replace them, right?

Seems to me that those that are slashing spending on Amtrak are the ones who haven't thought this through.

I really don't care about the 'politics' of closing non-profitable lines, the costs are wrong. Amtrack could easily sell off the profitable lines to private/non-subsidized.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Relevant:

Amtrak loses a ton of money each year. It doesn t have to. - The Washington Post

...best way to think of Amtrak is that it's essentially two different train systems rolled into one. One system is quite successful, the other isn't...

From the same link....

Think of the Acela Express in the Northeast, or the Pacific Surfliner between San Diego and Los Angeles. These 26 routes carry four-fifths of Amtrak's passengers, or 25.8 million riders per year. And they're growing rapidly. Taken as a whole, these shorter routes are profitable to operate — mainly because the two big routes in the Northeast Corridor earn enough to cover losses elsewhere.

The reasonable action would be to keep the profitable, get rid of the rest. Use the profits to maintain the integrity of the system that remains.

Yes, that would be reasonable.

But who would suffer if the unprofitable lines were abandoned?

Those rural districts who elect Republicans, right?

So they would turn on their representatives and replace them, right?

Seems to me that those that are slashing spending on Amtrak are the ones who haven't thought this through.

I really don't care about the 'politics' of closing non-profitable lines, the costs are wrong. Amtrack could easily sell off the profitable lines to private/non-subsidized.

Amtrak is forced to keep the non profitable lines open by the government so no one should be complaining about it costing taxpayers money. If they allowed Amtrak to close those lines there wouldn't be any need for funding.

Then the only people who would be whining would the ones who no longer have any trains.

 

[Annie]

Relevant:

Amtrak loses a ton of money each year. It doesn t have to. - The Washington Post

From the same link....

Think of the Acela Express in the Northeast, or the Pacific Surfliner between San Diego and Los Angeles. These 26 routes carry four-fifths of Amtrak's passengers, or 25.8 million riders per year. And they're growing rapidly. Taken as a whole, these shorter routes are profitable to operate — mainly because the two big routes in the Northeast Corridor earn enough to cover losses elsewhere.

The reasonable action would be to keep the profitable, get rid of the rest. Use the profits to maintain the integrity of the system that remains.

Yes, that would be reasonable.

But who would suffer if the unprofitable lines were abandoned?

Those rural districts who elect Republicans, right?

So they would turn on their representatives and replace them, right?

Seems to me that those that are slashing spending on Amtrak are the ones who haven't thought this through.

I really don't care about the 'politics' of closing non-profitable lines, the costs are wrong. Amtrack could easily sell off the profitable lines to private/non-subsidized.

Amtrak is forced to keep the non profitable lines open by the government so no one should be complaining about it costing taxpayers money. If they allowed Amtrak to close those lines there wouldn't be any need for funding.

Then the only people who would be whining would the ones who no longer have any trains.

If the private sector can do it, they should. Only the government would think it's a good idea to keep running those unprofitable lines for so many years, then complain they don't have enough money to do what they need to.

Get rid of the government in an area they have no business in.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Relevant:

Amtrak loses a ton of money each year. It doesn t have to. - The Washington Post

...best way to think of Amtrak is that it's essentially two different train systems rolled into one. One system is quite successful, the other isn't...

From the same link....

Think of the Acela Express in the Northeast, or the Pacific Surfliner between San Diego and Los Angeles. These 26 routes carry four-fifths of Amtrak's passengers, or 25.8 million riders per year. And they're growing rapidly. Taken as a whole, these shorter routes are profitable to operate — mainly because the two big routes in the Northeast Corridor earn enough to cover losses elsewhere.

The reasonable action would be to keep the profitable, get rid of the rest. Use the profits to maintain the integrity of the system that remains.

Wait a minute!!! How dare you???

How dare you inject sanity and logic into the conversation??? We just lost the liberal half of this site. You KNOW they self destruct when faced with logical, sane solutions!!

Shame on you!

Bwahahahaha......you're so funny. Logical, sane solutions? No wonder your party is considered just a bunch of whack-a-doodles.

One of these days, you will add something worthwhile to this message board.
Today is not that day,

 

[Papageorgio]

Relevant:

Amtrak loses a ton of money each year. It doesn t have to. - The Washington Post

From the same link....

Think of the Acela Express in the Northeast, or the Pacific Surfliner between San Diego and Los Angeles. These 26 routes carry four-fifths of Amtrak's passengers, or 25.8 million riders per year. And they're growing rapidly. Taken as a whole, these shorter routes are profitable to operate — mainly because the two big routes in the Northeast Corridor earn enough to cover losses elsewhere.

The reasonable action would be to keep the profitable, get rid of the rest. Use the profits to maintain the integrity of the system that remains.

Yes, that would be reasonable.

But who would suffer if the unprofitable lines were abandoned?

Those rural districts who elect Republicans, right?

So they would turn on their representatives and replace them, right?

Seems to me that those that are slashing spending on Amtrak are the ones who haven't thought this through.

I really don't care about the 'politics' of closing non-profitable lines, the costs are wrong. Amtrack could easily sell off the profitable lines to private/non-subsidized.

Amtrak is forced to keep the non profitable lines open by the government so no one should be complaining about it costing taxpayers money. If they allowed Amtrak to close those lines there wouldn't be any need for funding.

Then the only people who would be whining would the ones who no longer have any trains.

They are forced because they take federal money. Less than .10 of the population use the train. The northeast between Boston and Washington DC line makes money, keep it and run it. The lines that lose money shut them down.

 

[TooTall]

He proposed putting a second Asst Engineer in the cab to help with the workload and to double check each other.

Sounds like a good idea, but installing the PTC will probably take care of the problem. The question is, will Amtrak have enough money to do it by Dec 2015 now that Republicans have voted to cut their funding even more.

Rail News - Sound Transit to install PTC equipment on trains. For Railroad Career Professionals

I thought railroads charged passengers to ride on their trains. They need to raise the price of a ticket and get more customers. How many airlines or bus companies get subsidized year after year?

Well, don't be so lazy and look it up....oh wait, you are under the impression that airlines don't get subsidies, right? Oh, you're welcome.

"US airlines have received benefits valued at $71.48 billion, more than $70 billion of which has been since 2000, enabling the nation's three largest carriers to transition from the verge of bankruptcy to today's industry leaders," a statement from Etihad said.

Last year, the three largest US carriers posted profits of almost $9 billion, close to half the gains racked up by the entire worldwide aviation industry, the airline added.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/etiha...xBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjAwMDNfMQRzZWMDc2M-[/QUOTE]


American airline companies complain that Gulf carriers benefit from unfair government subsidies, but one of the accused firms is now claiming that the U.S. is guilty of similar behavior.

Etihad Airways, from the United Arab Emirates, released a scathing report Thursday claiming that American Airlines, Delta Airlines, and United Airlines have received a combined total of $71.48 billion in government benefits over the last 15 years, according to Air Transport World.
Gulf Airline Blasts US For Aviation Subsidies The Daily Caller

"A government report that surfaced recently shows that U.S. airlines received $155 billion in federal subsidies between 1919 and 1998. The report was unearthed by Kevin Mitchell, chairman of theBusinessTravelCoalition, who found it online after he saw it mentioned in The National, a UAE publication.

The report makes for fascinating reading. It briefly and accurately relates the history of government spending on the airline industry over the 79 years ending in 1998. It was compiled by the Congressional Research Office, which answers questions for members of Congress.

But it is overstatement to call it a “bombshell report,” as the U.S. Travel Association — which represents travel agents and supports the status quo for Mid-East carriers — has done.

Of the $155 billion in spending through 1988 outlined in the report, the vast majority, $140 billion, was spent by the aviation trust fund that supports Federal Aviation Administration spending.

The report does not mention that since 1971, U.S. airlines and their passengers have contributed about $247 billion to the fund, according to Federal Aviation Administration historical data.

The airlines and their passengers today contribute about $10 billion annually to the fund, which currently holds a surplus of about $13 billion. The rest has been spent.

In other words, the U.S. airline industry generally pays for what it gets from the government."

U.S. Airlines Have Paid the Government 250 Billion -- Amazingly Some Claim They Are Subsidized

 

[M14 Shooter]

From the same link....

Think of the Acela Express in the Northeast, or the Pacific Surfliner between San Diego and Los Angeles. These 26 routes carry four-fifths of Amtrak's passengers, or 25.8 million riders per year. And they're growing rapidly. Taken as a whole, these shorter routes are profitable to operate — mainly because the two big routes in the Northeast Corridor earn enough to cover losses elsewhere.

The reasonable action would be to keep the profitable, get rid of the rest. Use the profits to maintain the integrity of the system that remains.

Yes, that would be reasonable.

But who would suffer if the unprofitable lines were abandoned?

Those rural districts who elect Republicans, right?

So they would turn on their representatives and replace them, right?

Seems to me that those that are slashing spending on Amtrak are the ones who haven't thought this through.

I really don't care about the 'politics' of closing non-profitable lines, the costs are wrong. Amtrack could easily sell off the profitable lines to private/non-subsidized.

Amtrak is forced to keep the non profitable lines open by the government so no one should be complaining about it costing taxpayers money. If they allowed Amtrak to close those lines there wouldn't be any need for funding.

Then the only people who would be whining would the ones who no longer have any trains.

They are forced because they take federal money. Less than .10 of the population use the train. The northeast between Boston and Washington DC line makes money, keep it and run it. The lines that lose money shut them down.

Indeed. There is sanity found in subsidizing passenger rail services that do not make a profit due to market conditions, primarily, competition from other modes of transportation.

 

[Yurt]

1. the train was going twice the speed limit, but you won't say shit about the engineer, instead you blame me

2. you have nothing but pure SPECULATION that any funding cuts caused this accident....but that hasn't stopped you from passing off your speculation as fact.

1. The engineer is cooperating fully with the investigation. Speculation is pointless until we know more.

2. You were provided with links documenting the funding cuts to Amtrak that you support.

Actually, that's false. The engineer has refused to be interviewed by police. His attorney says that he will meet with the NTSB, but can be expected to assert his 5th Amendment rights.

Your ignorant canards are treated with the contempt they deserve!

Amtrak Engineer Very Distraught Doesn t Remember Crash Attorney Says - ABC News

The engineer, Brandon Bostian, 32, of Queens, New York, was “very distraught” to learn that the crash killed at least seven people, the attorney, Robert Goggin, told ABC News. He added that Bostian voluntarily turned over a blood sample and his cell phone and is cooperating with authorities.

Though Bostian retained an attorney, Goggin said, he has not stopped cooperating with police, and was willing to speak to National Transportation Safety Board investigators, as well.​

Old story --- you need to keep up.

Failure to provide a link proving that it is "old" goes to your lack of credibility.

you have yet to provide a link to your claim that funding caused this accident. you have yet to prove the gop or myself caused this accident.

look in the mirror

 

[Roadrunner]

Amtrak's lawyers have told this engineer what to say. It reminds me of the scene in Breaking Bad where Mike comes into Jesse's apartment where Jesse's girlfriend is dead from a heroin overdose. Mike said to Jesse, "Call the police. When they get here tell them you woke up, she was dead and you called 911. That's it. Don't say anything else".

As I said earlier in this thread, the engineer was doing what he was told. He doesn't set the time schedules, he just tries to meet them.

Wrong. Everyone in jobs like this is told safety is your top priority. If you are given an unsafe work order you are supposed to report it. I doubt he was ordered to hit a 50 MPH curve at 100 MPH.

Of course he was.

Bush actually told him to do 110, but he only hit 107.

 

[TooTall]

Amtrak's lawyers have told this engineer what to say. It reminds me of the scene in Breaking Bad where Mike comes into Jesse's apartment where Jesse's girlfriend is dead from a heroin overdose. Mike said to Jesse, "Call the police. When they get here tell them you woke up, she was dead and you called 911. That's it. Don't say anything else".

As I said earlier in this thread, the engineer was doing what he was told. He doesn't set the time schedules, he just tries to meet them.

Wrong. Everyone in jobs like this is told safety is your top priority. If you are given an unsafe work order you are supposed to report it. I doubt he was ordered to hit a 50 MPH curve at 100 MPH.

Of course he was.

Bush actually told him to do 110, but he only hit 107.

It is Bush's fault and the Engineer is a racist.

 

[mudwhistle]

This line, the Northeast Corridor, is a nightmare to ride. The rail system between D.C. and Boston hasn't been updated in over 60 years.

But bomb, bomb, bomb ....bomb, bomb Iran. Yeah baby! Defense spending trumps our own citizens' ability to get to work every day.

Death Toll Rises to 6 in Philadelphia Amtrak Train Wreck
(140 injured)
Death Toll Rises to 6 in Philadelphia Amtrak Train Wreck - WSJ

The Chinese, French, Italians, Japanese, et al. are laughing at us.

Outstanding thread.

I currently live in the one country that has the most advanced train/tram/bus system in the western world: Germany.

98% of the country is covered by this form of mass-transit. And they sink a lot of money into keeping it up to date.

This is why I am often tapatalking between business appts. I am usually on a train or tram between points A and B. And it's cheaper than traveling by car.

You are absolutely right about this point. We Americans are lagging severely behind in the area of public transit.

Germans have their shit together.

Do you expect the people responsible for the Obancare Rollout to do anything right?????

 

[MikeK]

Engineer looks loaded in the pics I've seen of him. And who wants to bet he did that on purpose? 106 mph on a curve??? Oh yeah. He did it on purpose since he speeded UP a minute before he reached the curve.

That speculation is made far more credible by the recent airline pilot suicide.

If this Engineer were a more ordinary individual I would be less inclined to believe he might have gone off the deep end. But what we know about him thus far suggests he is far from ordinary. He seems to have been rather preoccupied with railroading and troubled by the lack of that industry's concern with safety.

I once met a fellow who was a railroad Engineer, which is a rather euphemistic way of saying he drove trains. He told me it was an extremely monotonous job and for that reason there was a button on the train's control panel (dashboard) that lighted at a regular interval (I believe every two or three minutes). To ensure Engineers were not distracted or otherwise compromised they were required to tap that button within a certain number of seconds after it lighted.

Compare that with driving a bus, which requires one to steer and pay attention to the many factors involved in guiding the vehicle through various elements of highway traffic. A train rides on a fixed track and there is no traffic to pay attention to. So the Engineer is relegated to hour after hour of staring at the track ahead.

To be enthusiastic about such an occupation, as this fellow reportedly was, calls for an exceptional mentality.

The word obsessive comes to mind.

 

[Derideo_Te]

From the same link....

Think of the Acela Express in the Northeast, or the Pacific Surfliner between San Diego and Los Angeles. These 26 routes carry four-fifths of Amtrak's passengers, or 25.8 million riders per year. And they're growing rapidly. Taken as a whole, these shorter routes are profitable to operate — mainly because the two big routes in the Northeast Corridor earn enough to cover losses elsewhere.

The reasonable action would be to keep the profitable, get rid of the rest. Use the profits to maintain the integrity of the system that remains.

Yes, that would be reasonable.

But who would suffer if the unprofitable lines were abandoned?

Those rural districts who elect Republicans, right?

So they would turn on their representatives and replace them, right?

Seems to me that those that are slashing spending on Amtrak are the ones who haven't thought this through.

I really don't care about the 'politics' of closing non-profitable lines, the costs are wrong. Amtrack could easily sell off the profitable lines to private/non-subsidized.

Amtrak is forced to keep the non profitable lines open by the government so no one should be complaining about it costing taxpayers money. If they allowed Amtrak to close those lines there wouldn't be any need for funding.

Then the only people who would be whining would the ones who no longer have any trains.

If the private sector can do it, they should. Only the government would think it's a good idea to keep running those unprofitable lines for so many years, then complain they don't have enough money to do what they need to.

Get rid of the government in an area they have no business in.

On what do you base your claim that the government has no business in ensuring that there is public transportation available to the public?

 

[Papageorgio]

The reasonable action would be to keep the profitable, get rid of the rest. Use the profits to maintain the integrity of the system that remains.

Yes, that would be reasonable.

But who would suffer if the unprofitable lines were abandoned?

Those rural districts who elect Republicans, right?

So they would turn on their representatives and replace them, right?

Seems to me that those that are slashing spending on Amtrak are the ones who haven't thought this through.

I really don't care about the 'politics' of closing non-profitable lines, the costs are wrong. Amtrack could easily sell off the profitable lines to private/non-subsidized.

Amtrak is forced to keep the non profitable lines open by the government so no one should be complaining about it costing taxpayers money. If they allowed Amtrak to close those lines there wouldn't be any need for funding.

Then the only people who would be whining would the ones who no longer have any trains.

If the private sector can do it, they should. Only the government would think it's a good idea to keep running those unprofitable lines for so many years, then complain they don't have enough money to do what they need to.

Get rid of the government in an area they have no business in.

On what do you base your claim that the government has no business in ensuring that there is public transportation available to the public?

That isn't what she said.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, that would be reasonable.

But who would suffer if the unprofitable lines were abandoned?

Those rural districts who elect Republicans, right?

So they would turn on their representatives and replace them, right?

Seems to me that those that are slashing spending on Amtrak are the ones who haven't thought this through.

I really don't care about the 'politics' of closing non-profitable lines, the costs are wrong. Amtrack could easily sell off the profitable lines to private/non-subsidized.

Amtrak is forced to keep the non profitable lines open by the government so no one should be complaining about it costing taxpayers money. If they allowed Amtrak to close those lines there wouldn't be any need for funding.

Then the only people who would be whining would the ones who no longer have any trains.

If the private sector can do it, they should. Only the government would think it's a good idea to keep running those unprofitable lines for so many years, then complain they don't have enough money to do what they need to.

Get rid of the government in an area they have no business in.

On what do you base your claim that the government has no business in ensuring that there is public transportation available to the public?

That isn't what she said.

So why don't you try to explain what you believe she said?