(+5) We should eliminate subsidies for the Amtrak

Reasons to agree:

1. It doesn't matter that more money is spent on roads, and air travel than amtrak, because more people travel these methods. The simple fact is that more is spent per mile traveled per person, with each dollar given to amtrak, vs. other methods of Government spending. 


2. According to the United States Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation; the subsidy varies year to year, but exceeds $100 dollars (in 2000 dollars) per thousand passenger-miles, compared to subsidies around $10 per thousand passenger-miles for aviation (with general aviation subsidized considerably more per passenger-mile than commercial aviation), subsidies around $4 per thousand passenger-miles for intercity buses, and automobiles being a small net contributor through the gas tax and other user fees rather than being subsidized. ("Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation". Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Retrieved June 13, 2009.)


3. We shouldn't give money to amtrack just because we also give other forms of transportation. The question should be: can we live without funding Amtrak? If so, because we are so much in debt, we should get rid of it. The question of not spending any more money on the Federal Interstate Highway System, the Federal Aviation Administration, many airports, among many aspects of passenger aviation, is a separate question. 


4. We should reward success and punish failure. 


5. Amtrack is unprofitable


6. We spend 1.6 billion a year on Amtrack. 


7. Amtrak has proven incapable of operating as a business.


8. Amtrak does not provide valuable transportation services meriting public support.


9. Amtrak is a "mobile money-burning machine.


10. The federal government shouldn't spend money on planes, trains, and automobiles. We should pick one, if we want to fund infrastructural. 


11. Americans should support cars. They allow freedom. Giving money to train companies is sort of a socialist activity... We have to rely on someone else to get you there...

Reasons to disagree:

1. The U.S. Department of Energy considers Amtrak among the most energy-efficient forms of transportation.


2. If we are going to end subsidies to Amtrak we should also end subsidies to maintain roads, or support airline traffic. 


3. Drunk drivers are less likely to kill you on a train. 


4. As a matter of fairness Amtrak should only be expected to be as self-sufficient as the federal highway system. 


5. As of 2008:




1.  $10 billion per year was transferred from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund.


2. $2.7 billion is granted to the FAA


3. $8 billion goes to "security and life safety for cruise ships




6. Amtrak provides all of its own security, while airport security is a separate federal subsidy. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 11

# of reasons to disagree: -6

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Transportation

As our society becomes more mobile and interconnected, the need for 21st-century transportation networks has never been greater. However, too many of our nation's railways, highways, bridges, airports, and neighborhood streets are slowly decaying due to lack of investment and strategic long-term planning. President Obama and Vice President Biden believe that America's long-term competitiveness depends on the stability of our critical infrastructure. They will make strengthening our transportation systems, including our roads and bridges, a top priority. In the Recovery Act and his first budget proposal, the President made investment in high speed rail a key investment.