[link] Along the lines of the previous post

[wispfox]

Is another link (from crazypills as a comment in the previous post), Amtrak At Twenty End Of The Line For Taxpayer Subsidies.

I'm annoyed by the 'we could pay for _these_ types of transportation for this many people for this much instead' arguments, since it's highly unlikely that the money not spent on Amtrak _would_ go to another form of public transportation, but I otherwise find it to be an interesting article.

edit: kightp notes in a comment below that this article is from the Cato Institute, a right-wing think tank with a vested interest in proving that government is always bad and privatization is always good.

Comments

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Wow! I didn't notice how old the stats were.

My initial concern was about the fact that people are randomly not being allowed to use airplans (the no fly list, or some such), so taking away land-based travel options is not precisely a _good_ idea.

[kightp.livejournal.com]

Absolutely.

If you get away from the densely populated East, there's also the problem of access to air travel - in the West, there are many, many towns where the nearest airport is a half day's drive or more away, and where Greyhound has already pulled out.

Amtrak doesn't exactly serve those areas well - one train a day, usually, and that's often late - but it's something. Without it, all that's left is the private automobile. If you can't drive, I guess you can hitch-hike or stay home.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

If you can't drive, I guess you can hitch-hike or stay home.

And that's my other concern.

Saying that it would be cheaper for the government to pay for everyone who uses Amtrak to use the plane doesn't mean the government _will_. How is trapping people who can't (for whatever reason) or don't want to drive a _good_ thing?