Why does the GOPee hate AMTRAK?

[Stinky The Clown]

I really don't understand where the antipathy came from.

[Wounded Bear]

1. Mostly from the libertarian wing...

they think that it is not a "viable" business model and should die out. No gov't subsidies.

Of course, the last thing the airline industry wants is a high speed rail system to compete against them. And the automotive industry isn't really fond of the idea of convenient mass transit, either.

Market forces, not public need. And by 'market forces,' of course, we mean the biggest, baddest mofo in the market decides everything.

[MisterProton]

22. Although dont forget self driving cars...

Planning out 30 years for a rail system completely overlooks the advent of self driving cars rolling out in the next few years. It may be akin to building out a national "horse barn network" that would take decades only to have the automobile proliferate.

I'm not against rail, but with change coming as fast as it is, I am VERY hesitant to approve any multi-billion dollar 30 year plans. We need to be able to adapt to changing times.

[Wounded Bear]

23. I'm not "forgetting"...

replacing the current fleet of cars with new shiny, whiz-bang, high tech super cars doesn't solve the basic problem of too many cars on the road.

High speed rail has numerous locations where it makes too much sense not to do it. Expecially in those medium range runs where it's too far to drive efficiently, but too close to bother with flying. Light rail is a great way to handle commuter traffic from suburbia to the inner city, or to industrial hubs.

America's love affair with the private vehicle has run its course. The change we need will probably involve enhanced rail. The rest of the world is decades ahead of us on this.

[MisterProton]

25. Dont forget to factor in dynamic reallocation of those cars...

In a world of self driving cars, one may not even need to own a car, and transportation becomes a "service". You pop a button on your phone, the closest free car pulls up to you and you tell it where to go - then its free to go serve someone else.

That, coupled with accident free transport and getting rid of traffic lights, cars will smoothly move people around efficiently.

Again, probably some place for rail in the equation, but one should be cautious and very deliberate at deploying it - and try to take into mind changing technology and how it might affect the overall picture.

Oh, another good example of this is the deployment of wireless communications over the African continent, and them being able to leapfrog the entire wiring of the country that we have here. If someone had slapped in a 30 year home telephone wiring project to bring service to all African homes, they would have been outpaced by technology long before that was complete.

[Wounded Bear]

26. Yeah, and in the 50's we were all going to have flying cars by now...

Sounds great, I guess, but IMNSHO cars are the past. Efficient high speed mass transit is the future.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. They hate public transportation in general if it gets any government funding.

People who aren't rich get to use it, and we can't have that.

[Honeycombe8]

12. +1. nt

[hatrack]

27. As opposed to interstates and roads and streets, that get NO subsidies EVAH!

Libertarians -

[BlueDog22]

3. Socialized Industy

Because they see it as socialist.

[AllaN01Bear]

4. hem

i used to ride amtrak alot , but my travel days are over. the gropers have been trying to get rid of amtrak from day 1. constantly nibbleing things away with "budget cuts". if amtrak totaly dissapears , esp: in the the northeast, ohm myy. amtrak loans out its conductors and train drivers to other commuter orgizations . if amtrak goes so do those operations . many in california will dissapear too also. and of course our freeways and tollways are falling apart too.i cringe the gridlock the next day and for those who dont own, nor want to own a car. i dont drive or fly so it would be a disaster.

[elleng]

5. They only 'hate' it insofar as it doesn't serve their locales.

and of course they think it costs big bucks.

and they 'never' use public transportation.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. I'll add that publically sponsored or funded transportation is considered...

an expense, not an investment, by the conservatives. Convenient travel options are not a right specified in the Constitution.

I note, once again, that conservatives promote actions or programs that benefit themselves, while we on the left promote those that benefit society at large.

[meadowlander]

7. It encourages people to use less gas.

[jalan48]

8. The fossil fuel industry makes bigger profits with cars rather than trains. A viable train system

would lessen the need for automobiles.

[Jake Stern]

9. Because it almost continuously runs at as loss and would die without government subsidy.

There's a reason why the railroad companies were dumping passenger service en masse by the 70's: with competition from low airfares, they were hemorrhaging money on it. Why would someone take a 3 day train ride from NY to LA when they could now afford to hop on a jet and be there in a few hours? Much the same today.

For example, right now on Amtrak a one way reserved coach seat from Denver to Chicago on March 1st costs $122 and takes almost 19 hours while a seat on American Airlines is $67 and takes only 2.5 hours.

Passenger trains work well in densely populated areas like the Northeast Corridor (DC to Boston) and the Bay Area but are major money losers in sparsely populated areas like Montana and Wyoming.

This is not a RW talking point, it's simple economics.

[rusty quoin]

13. But the northeast corridor is so important.

And so many use it. No one is talking Montana to nowhere.

[dembotoz]

17. Northeast corridor blue, Montana red

Easy to cut funding and scream about services not used by ur base.
A Texas senator becomes a fool when he votes against hurricane aid and his state gets Harvey. My Wisconsin senator, the asshole ron Johnson can vote against such aid cause well, Wisconsin doesn't get hit by hurricane.

[Hugin]

14. I guess the entire rest of the world with extensive high speed rail is wrong, eh?

Must be like so-called socialized medicine, right?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

10. They NEVER take public transportation.

Probably never have. Haven't a clue that there are ways to get around other than driving a car.

The other completely unmentioned factor is that roads are heavily subsidized but that subsidy is completely unrecognized and unacknowledged. Every other form of public transportation is charged with paying for itself. Not roads. And that is because those in charge never take public transportation but drive on the highways themselves.

Me? I love public transportation. My current city, Santa Fe, has a semi-adequate bus system which I use from time to time. If I ever move from here, it will be to a city with a very strong public transportation system and I will very happily give up owning a car.

[JI7]

11. it results in diverse people mixing among each other

[NBachers]

15. Because they're fucked up asshole pieces of shit.

[Cha]

16. Could it be it hits and hurts their

big oil donors?

[randr]

18. It is something that works and the public likes

[WillowTree]

28. The American public? 'Cause that kind of doesn't fit with the fact that it consistently loses money

[bahrbearian]

19. Biden

[GulfCoast66]

20. When Orlando was starting ups it commuter system I had a conversation with a right wing dumbass

He and I were volunteers at a local event and I brought up the system. He started bitching that it would not pay for itself. I told him one of the roles of government is to make life better for the people who form the government. He insisted only if itbpaud for itself, painting himself in a corner. So I started in about police and fire protection, pushing the argument harder than I normally would.

Finally he admitted he only wanted to pay for things he might use.

They are bitter, selfish miserable people. Oh, and this guy was every bit of 70.

[crazycatlady]

21. If they hate it so much

Then why did they take it to their retreat?

[Orange Free State]

24. The commons. Things we all use, like health care and

Transportation, are seen as creeping collectivism. If Amtrak is killed perhaps a regional group of states could run the Northeast Corridor, and do so better.

[lunasun]

29. Big oil and auto industry lobby . $$$ . our rail is so decayed compared to other countries now after

years of neglect . I use it for under 6 hr. trips because I live close to a big hub vs the 2 crowded airports in the area.
Still when visiting countries who have upgraded as years went on USA is behind
Lots of room for improvement but still doable and good price for less than 8 hr runs plus usually lets you off in the center of town where with airports it's often another fee to get in to town which can be more money and time

[Freethinker65]

30. Their donors will make more $$$$ and be happier, thus more campaign donations, if the GOP defunds it

It is all about the $$$$ and pleasing their donors. They do not care that much about their constituents. After all, the choice will be between them with tons of campaign $$$ and some "godless left coast Pelosi Soros loving liberal that wants to take away your bible and guns, perform abortions on demand, and force you to pee next to and bake cakes for people they have made their voters frightened of".