posted
In the December 5, 2005 issue of U.S. News & World Report (vol. 139, no. 21), there's a full-page interview with David Gunn on page 27, including a great picture of him sitting thoughtfully at a table in an Amfleet cafe or lounge car with the scenery whizzing by. Gunn acquits himself pretty well, although in my opinion he misses his chance to make a truly strong, accurate statement about the real competitive inequities that are at the heart of Amtrak's problems, and were at the heart of its predecessors' problems. For example, he fails to make the point that the long-distance trains could be profitable if competing modes of transportation were required to be like real businesses and truly take responsibility for all their ordinary costs (i.e., not including costs that are liable to be regarded as fluffy by some, such as environmental costs, but just the ordinary costs that any real business would assume). Instead, Gunn says that the long-distance trains are inevitably money-losing, and that they exist for political reasons. Not a smart thing for an experienced, knowledgeable railroad executive to say, in my opinion. I can see why a sitting Amtrak president might say such a thing, in order to avoid upsetting both Amtrak's competitors and its governmental supporters; but why would a retired ex-Amtrak president, someone with nothing to lose, say it? In this respect at least, I'd have to rate Gunn's interview as being far inferior to W. Graham Claytor's magisterial interview in the April 29, 1985 U.S. News & World Report--an interview whose j'accuse directed at the transportation status quo rings loud and clear and inspiringly across the decades, making it as well worth looking up and studying today as it was when it was first published.
The December 5 issue should, I think, be on newsstands for another day or so, so there's still time to buy it for those who are interested.
Posts: 86 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably Mr. Gunn recognizes that long distance trains will never be profitable because of his unique position to analyze not only the fiscal but also the political realities. He does not wish to be on record of saying something he knows to be erronious, and thus his stated position.
The reasons for other modes of transportion to be financially attractive to the vast majority of the traveling public are of course related to the substantial subsities they receive. And our Congress who, as has been stated at this site several times, continues to appropriate our taxes to them. And also to so many goofy items that are known as PORK. Witness the recently passed Transportation Bill. Even with the Huricane Katrina disaster they would not remove the PORK, in spite of the substantial need to rebuild transportation infrastructure.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't think Gunn was so flippant! The line that stands out to me is the one about providing transportation for people in Whitefish Montana.
As hard as it is for many people to believe, there are places in this country that do not have any type of airplane service (or it is hundreds of miles away), and Greyhound has pulled out of many small communities leaving people with difficult choices to get where they need to go. At least Amtrak provides some options!
I believe politicians think that eveyone owns a car and drives...and that those who don't are somewhat strange. Politicians also believe that everyone who wants to travel fly...and that those who don't are somewhat strange.
What is strange to me, is that no-one in congress wants to do the hard work (or no president has the vision)of putting together a "national, balanced transportation plan" with dedicated funding for all modes.
OK I'll get out of rant mode now!
Posts: 171 | From: Aurora, Illinois | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As hard as it is for many people to believe, there are places in this country that do not have any type of airplane service (or it is hundreds of miles away), and Greyhound has pulled out of many small communities leaving people with difficult choices to get where they need to go. At least Amtrak provides some options!
Oh great now Amtrak should use the Postal Service mission?
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tanner929: Oh great now Amtrak should use the Postal Service mission?
I think so yes.
So does, I believe, the writer of the article Mr. Norman posted directly above. The argument for long-distance trains is about preserving options. In places where Amtrak is the only thing that goes, Amtrak needs to continue going there.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
That is exactly what I meant, the people in these other communities pay their taxes and should have some travel options as well. But as I pointed out above, without a National Transportation Plan, huge inequities will always exist.
Posts: 171 | From: Aurora, Illinois | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
