Amtrak Privatization Bill

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why should the federal government be shedding money so that a couple of random farmers could have the option (that they don't particularly need nor want) to take the train into town every blue moon?

Maybe because we should actually try to get more people to use public transport?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Profit is not, and should not, be the only thing that matters as far as public transport, or other public services, go.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why? Why not try to get more people to use them? Why not actually try to get less people using cars?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If we assume that the rosy picture of privatization being good for the railways is correct, then the Government will end up making an awful loss on them.
And if (as is more likely) they go to a group of asset-strippers, the Government will be buying back something that is in an even worse shape (in just about every way) than it is at the moment.

[MasterJedi]

This amendment has passed.

[ilikeverin]

Why should the federal government be shedding money so that a couple of random farmers could have the option (that they don't particularly need nor want) to take the train into town every blue moon?

Maybe because we should actually try to get more people to use public transport?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Profit is not, and should not, be the only thing that matters as far as public transport, or other public services, go.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why? Why not try to get more people to use them? Why not actually try to get less people using cars?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If we assume that the rosy picture of privatization being good for the railways is correct, then the Government will end up making an awful loss on them.
And if (as is more likely) they go to a group of asset-strippers, the Government will be buying back something that is in an even worse shape (in just about every way) than it is at the moment.

Of course we should make public transportation useful.  What do you take me for, a conservative?

But railways shouldn't be the main solution to our woeful public transportation; I think buses, subways, and light rails are better ways to manage our public transportation needs.  The problem with railroads is that they aren't terribly useful in urban and suburban areas, where public transportation is needed most, because of their NIMBY effect (e.g. do you want freight trains going through your backyard?).  The other systems of transport are better at this, I think.  I mean, obviously subways aren't practical for suburban areas, but an integrated system of buses, light rail, and subways might work.

Besides, my amendment allows subsidies to be kept so we can subsidize worthy local initiatives towards using railroads as public transit.

[WMS]

FTR, I vote Aye on the Amendment, but I have grave concerns about privatization.

[Bono]

Nay.  I don't support any privatization of Amtrak for the reasons I stated in my above post.

Might I urge you to change your vote? This makes it so if it does pass at least not all rail subsidies aren't all gone. I think you'd like that, as well as Earl.

Reading through the bill again (and the recent amendent)... the only people who'll take any interest in buying this will be asset-strippers...

Al's comment sums up my reason for opposing this amendment nicely.  I fear that if Amtrak were simply placed on the chopping block and auctioned off, the only people who would buy it would be corporate raiders who would sell off all the rolling stock and retain only the Northeast Corridor as a passenger rail route.  I will certainly not sit there and watch the our nation's passenger rail system be broken up.  It has more potential than any form of transportation in this country, and the government must have faith in it. 

Yes, this amendment certainly is an improvement to the original bill, but I don't like the idea of handing over exclusive decisions over route authority to one private individual.  Several small towns depend on Amtrak for transportation, you know.  I am hoping my fellow Senators will give Amtrak another chance and vote against this bill.

If rail transport has such a great potential, why does it need government support/ownership/both? methinks if it were really the panacea you suggest, it could atract investment on its own.

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up the final vote on this bill. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MasterJedi]

Aye

[Democratic Hawk]

I would have supported partial privatization, which would have resulted in a public-private partnership but voiced opposition to a full privatization from the outset; therefore, I have no other choice but to vote Nay

'Hawk'

[ilikeverin]

Yup

[jerusalemcar5]

Nay.

[Virginian87]

Nay.  I don't need to reiterate my reasons for this, as I have made them clear throughout the thread.

[bgwah]

nay

[Јas]

Nay

[Jake]

Nay

[MasterJedi]

This bill has enough votes to fail. Senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

[WMS]

Nay FTR (sorry ILV ).

[MasterJedi]

With 2 Ayes, 7 Nays and 0 Abstentions this bill has failed.

[Virginian87]

I thank my colleagues in the Senate for resisting the urge to privatize Amtrak.  With these votes, we have preserved the existence of intercity passenger rail in Atlasia and prevented it from being dismantled at the hands of corporate interests.

[Jake]

And we've continued to prop up a failing company and failing industry.