Okay, cite please that Amtrak subsidies have anything to do with moving military equipment.
ETA: I should add that to my understanding, most of Amtrak’s routes are on rails owned by commercial freight companies.
I had forgotten where I heard the information my opinion relied on. A cursory investigation turns up bupkis, which is good enough for me. I concede the point, no government official has ever cited military necessity as a purpose of Amtrak’s yearly subsidies.
On researching though, god damn is that transportation industry getting raw dogged. Go by air, road or sea in America and more subsidized tax money goes to it.
I could technically be wrong about there being better ways to get around (economically speaking), but the only way to test this is to remove the subsidies and see if there are still people riding the trains. If there are, great. Trains are fun, but those enjoying them should shoulder the cost. It benefits society for me to pogo stick to work, and I may choose to if it was subsidized, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t better ways to get around.
Amtrak subsidizes suburbanites and urban sprawl by dispersing the cost of travel from the user of the service to all taxpayers. In a similar way, the interstate highway system subsidized white flight and the decay of American cities. The cost of moving further and further away from the city center was shouldered by taxpayers generally, encouraging whites to move and commute from far away.
We subsidize passenger rail travel quite differently than other modes of transport. Airports and roads (and air traffic control, certification, etc.) are owned and run by public entities, and private companies like air and bus lines get to use them. Amtrak is just the opposite, a public company operating on mostly privately-owned infrastructure.
So your sink-or-swim proposal isn’t entirely fair; we shouldn’t remove all subsidies from rail travel, just put it on an equal footing with the options it’s competing against. And it can work. Amtrak operates at a profit along the Boston-New York-Washington corridor.
How so? I don’t know that Amtrak is a major operator of commuter railroads. The commuter lines around Boston are overseen by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) which has a contract with Keolis Commuter Services to operate the trains. Amtrak may have done that sort of thing in the past, but I don’t know that they still are.
maybe you’re conflating frequent business travelers with commuters. In most cities that rely on a commuter rail system, they have their own. Amtrak is mainly an intercity connector. You have a handful of business travelers yes, but that’s not commuting. They’re doing that to save time; even though it’s a 40 minute flight from NY to DC, once you add in all the checkin and security overhead, you’re better off on a train.
Putting Amtrak on an equal footing with roads would mean substantially increasing passenger-rail subsidies. Or, hugely increasing gasoline taxes, to assess a comparable ‘fare’ on those who choose to drive rather than take a train.
Those assholes don’t think my fucking BMW limo is new enough to haul millennial hipster jerkoffs back and forth to their raves and whatnot! Let 'em rot!
Chevrolet on line 2, Exxon-Mobile on 3, etc. etc. …
“It benefits society for me to pogo stick to work.” - WillFarnaby