In your wildest imagination can you see Americans ever switching from air travel to rail travel? Senator Sununu of NJ brought up two amendments that would have brought down the cost some but they were both rejected. He is the only one who dares to touch this admired white elephant. Why is that?
2007-10-25 09:36:57 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Have you checked Amtrak's fares lately?
2007-10-25 09:42:55 · update #1
Why doesn't the northeast subsidize it? Why do we have to pay for it?
2007-10-25 09:51:49 · update #2
Their fares are much higher than buses and that's why people are using them for long trips.
2007-10-25 09:53:24 · update #3
Even where they are available they are not being used as much as buses and even air planes.
2007-10-25 09:55:54 · update #4
Unions are a big factor with Democrats. Most Amtrak employees belong to unions. Lobbyists for Amtrak also have direct contact with legislators.
How ironic: the government subsidizes the railroad, so managers can pay lobbyists to promote subsidizing the railroad.
2007-10-25 09:43:11 · answer #1 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Amtrak's fares are far lower than the highly subsidized airlines. It is also less expensive than driving. If you have the time it is much more comfortable, relaxing, and less stressful than either driving or flying. Trains are twice as energy efficient as planes which are twice as energy efficient as cars. Two billion a year is a pittance compared to the cost of airports, air traffic controllers, failed airline bailouts, not to mention highways, traffic enforcement, losses on oil leases and all the other ways we subsidize transportation.
2007-10-25 09:51:18 · answer #2 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If trains were available like in other countries, yes, then I could see more Americans using rail travel.
2007-10-25 09:46:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The world has passed peak oil. Soon train travel will be the only economical alternative. Trains can be powered by electricity. Jets are not fuel efficient.
2007-10-25 09:40:21 · answer #4 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
the northeast depends on this service all the way from washington,d.c. to new york. if it was not for this demand the entire amtrak system would be shut down
2007-10-25 09:46:53 · answer #5 · answered by Dare Man 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
"in your wildest imagination" ???
Yes, and I don't need a wild imagination to do so.
In the U.S.A. we are no longer building airports
so.. In less than 20 years the airports we have will be in grid-lock.
At that time we will need those trains !
Unless we start building the airports we need, but no one wants in their backyards.
2007-10-25 09:52:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because every country needs at least a skeleton of a passenger rail system.
2007-10-25 09:40:13 · answer #7 · answered by Sean 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because Amtrak serves Washington DC. They are doing it only for themselves
2007-10-25 09:40:38 · answer #8 · answered by Fudge Town 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It would be nice but not without a major investment.
2007-10-25 09:39:50 · answer #9 · answered by Holy Cow! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would rather see that than subsidizing big oil.
2007-10-25 09:56:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋