thedailybeast.com— Taxpayers are still sinking billions of dollars into Amtrak almost 40 years after buying it. Economist James Langenfeld says the bailout of GM could be an even bigger disaster.
Jun 6, 2009View in Crawl 4
Because per-capita using a goddamn train destroys the environment considerably LESS than driving, as well as keeps traffic off of already CLOGGED interstates.
A private group will only make an investment if there is an immediate large return to them specifically, and typically give no consideration to the benefits of community or humanity (or, will invest the least possible amount to generate positive PR from it). The current big problem with trains is the lack of rail lines and high-speed rail. However, if more rail lines were constructed and maintained not only would trains become a lot more convenient for passenger travel, but it would also get a lot of trucks off the roads. Not only does this dramatically reduce energy usage, but tax dollars used on the whole as much less government money would need to be spent on interstate maintenance. Railways are a lot cheaper to maintain than roads, though more expensive to build initially. Unfortunately, the return from an investment in Amtrack would be long-term, part of a 50 year plan, and investors would much rather spend their money on the short-term returns. This is the mindset that birthed our sub-prime mortgage crisis - I WANT IT NOW NOW NOW. We're not very patient, especially when it comes to money.Just because a company is huge and rich doesn't mean that it has any interest in doing what's best for everyone. It would rather do what's best for itself and ignore any benefit that happens to fall elsewhere.
The comparison is inane. GM as an automotive manufacturer would be analogous to a locomotive manufacturer (and GM has manufactured locomotives BTW). GM is not a supplier of transportation services in the same way a railroad is. Secondly, automobiles are a fungible resource, but a railroad is a system of infrastructure and real estate that, once lost, cannot be easily replaced.
You mean you APPROVE of them stealing money from the rest of us for YOUR pet project. If YOU approve ... then to hell with the rest of us.The current Administration must be a dream come true for you.
wautreyJun 8, 2009
Because per-capita using a goddamn train destroys the environment considerably LESS than driving, as well as keeps traffic off of already CLOGGED interstates.
daybreakJun 8, 2009
What a lousy, stupid comparison. Amtrak is actually useful as opposed to a car company run by advertisers instead of engineers.
daliscaJun 8, 2009
A private group will only make an investment if there is an immediate large return to them specifically, and typically give no consideration to the benefits of community or humanity (or, will invest the least possible amount to generate positive PR from it). The current big problem with trains is the lack of rail lines and high-speed rail. However, if more rail lines were constructed and maintained not only would trains become a lot more convenient for passenger travel, but it would also get a lot of trucks off the roads. Not only does this dramatically reduce energy usage, but tax dollars used on the whole as much less government money would need to be spent on interstate maintenance. Railways are a lot cheaper to maintain than roads, though more expensive to build initially. Unfortunately, the return from an investment in Amtrack would be long-term, part of a 50 year plan, and investors would much rather spend their money on the short-term returns. This is the mindset that birthed our sub-prime mortgage crisis - I WANT IT NOW NOW NOW. We're not very patient, especially when it comes to money.Just because a company is huge and rich doesn't mean that it has any interest in doing what's best for everyone. It would rather do what's best for itself and ignore any benefit that happens to fall elsewhere.
charlietunaJun 8, 2009
The comparison is inane. GM as an automotive manufacturer would be analogous to a locomotive manufacturer (and GM has manufactured locomotives BTW). GM is not a supplier of transportation services in the same way a railroad is. Secondly, automobiles are a fungible resource, but a railroad is a system of infrastructure and real estate that, once lost, cannot be easily replaced.
monvalleyJun 9, 2009
People in the wilderness areas of America (outside of the Beltway) have been saying this for the past month. Glad real America is catching on.
toetaggerhJun 11, 2009
"Is GM the New Amtrak?"If you mean running at a loss at the expense of tax payers, then yes.
boulder555Jun 12, 2009
You mean you APPROVE of them stealing money from the rest of us for YOUR pet project. If YOU approve ... then to hell with the rest of us.The current Administration must be a dream come true for you.
korvan504521Apr 13, 2010
Yes, we need more track. We should never have torn up what we had.
korvan504521Apr 13, 2010
And takes longer.