Republican Vs Democrat on Railroads

[Crow T Robot]

Now I don't want this to be overly political(sp) but I keep seeing this cropping up in various Railroad magazines first and foremost "Trains". My question is why are the republicans so opposed to the railroads? They seem to go out of their way to cut any form of rail projects in their respective states and the the country mainly related to Amtrak. Where as the Democrats seem to supports and want the funding for the railroad(s). The only Republican that seems/seemed to embrace the railroad was the Gov of California(no way I can spell his name). I see myself as a republican by default yet I see no real issue with tax dollars going to support and/or fund rail improvements. I guess is there some historical aspect that set the majority of the Republicans to oppose Railroad funding and in doing so the Democrats just wanted to do the PC thing and support the railroad(s)?

[SW]

A (perhaps overly) simple answer: Passenger services lose money. Why start new services that lose more money? If a service cannot be profitable at the fare box, the difference must be made up with tax money, i.e. higher taxes. Startup costs are tremendous.

Years ago, it was said Amtrak loses $200 on every long-distance passenger. I Googled "Amtrak losses per passenger" and this was a link that came up - a study by Pew Charitable Trusts in 2009, and its figure was $32 per passenger system wide, and just under $140 per passenger on long-distance trains in 2008:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=55638

From the report, subsidy per passenger:
Sunset Limited - $462
California Zephyr - $192

[AARR]

Perhaps another over simplification is rail transportation tends to be favored by the less affluent. And of course Dems support most programs that help the poor and believe/feel helping the less-fortunate justifies the additional cost.

I think another factor is one of the big support groups of Dems are environmentalists. And rail transportation is an effective means to get more cars off the roads so less pollution.

And yet another factor is Dems are looking for votes and by giving people services and things those people will vote for the politicians whom they depend on for transportation.

[TSB]

Republicans, at least those elusive few that still adhere to their chosen mantra, recognize that passenger rail service and freight service are polar extremes. Amtrak is a social service provided by an overbearing government. A superior and more flexible service can be provided by busses and should be to the extent that it is justified by national defense or public safety. Amtrak is a governmental expenditure that should not be made.

Rail freight service is an integral part of bringing goods to market. It is a cost of goods the expenditure of which is a private commercial decision.

To the extent that publically funded facilities (highways, airports and ports) compete with rail systems in the capital market, stipends to support rail infrastructure, but only that, are appropriate. No governmental funding for rail operations should ever be made. Thus sayeth the true Republican sagacity.

Unfortunately, in modern America, Democrats have molted into Socialist, Republicans into Democrats.

[pfs]

...snip...
Unfortunately, in modern America, Democrats have molted into Socialist, Republicans into Democrats.

Which is why voting 2 party is the equivalent to shooting ones self in the foot...among other things.

[ns8401]

Republicans, at least those elusive few that still adhere to their chosen mantra, recognize that passenger rail service and freight service are polar extremes. Amtrak is a social service provided by an overbearing government. A superior and more flexible service can be provided by busses and should be to the extent that it is justified by national defense or public safety. Amtrak is a governmental expenditure that should not be made.

Rail freight service is an integral part of bringing goods to market. It is a cost of goods the expenditure of which is a private commercial decision.

To the extent that publically funded facilities (highways, airports and ports) compete with rail systems in the capital market, stipends to support rail infrastructure, but only that, are appropriate. No governmental funding for rail operations should ever be made. Thus sayeth the true Republican sagacity.

Unfortunately, in modern America, Democrats have molted into Socialist, Republicans into Democrats.

Having worked with buses for years and knowing routing and drivers and efficiencies like I do, buses are not as efficient as you think... Between the unions, people wanting more and more specialized services and how inefficient the grey-dog can be at times.... it's probably not as safe a bet as you might think... Plus a bus running a similar route as a train would have to make 7 or 8 trips to equal what one train would carry.... assuming that the train had the proper number of cars for the number of passengers... That might be one way to free up some Amtrak cars as well, just assign the right number of cars for the number of tickets sold, just like there are 35 and 40 foot buses which are utilized on routes that are less used and heavily used respectively... 1 bus = 70 passengers (Approx., depends on the bus) 1 Long distance train running a similar route = 600 or 700 people. There is no way that running 8-10 buses per day to equal the daily train would be as efficient... and if you factor that there would be numerous transfer points... it's just not nearly as good of a system...

[TSB]

Very nice, except, busses in Michigan serve hundreds of towns, villages and rural points. Amtrak has how many stops? Not even close. And still, busses cost far, far less per passenger, per passenger mile or any other measure you want. The grey dog can stop to crap, loose the scent or whatever and still serve better and cost less than trains. The economics of rail passenger transportation starts with POPULATION DENSITY. Boston to Washington D.C have it but it does not exist anywhere else in the US. Over.

[ns8401]

Very nice, except, busses in Michigan serve hundreds of towns, villages and rural points. Amtrak has how many stops? Not even close. And still, busses cost far, far less per passenger, per passenger mile or any other measure you want. The grey dog can stop to crap, loose the scent or whatever and still serve better and cost less than trains. The economics of rail passenger transportation starts with POPULATION DENSITY. Boston to Washington D.C have it but it does not exist anywhere else in the US. Over.

Yes until you start to factor in things like having to multiply the cost of one bus to go the same distance as one train and then make it even.... in other words multiply your number for the bus by 7 or 8 to get the true cost of replacing the train... it becomes totally ridiculous to try to run buses everywhere because they haul less people, meaning that if the same number of people want to ride the bus somewhere as want the train you find out that you need way way more buses, drivers, fuel, cleaners and facilities staffed 24-hours.... the expense is enormous for that to really work well...

[partition]

Part of it could be simple partisanship. Could be, republicans look at the rail industry as a bastion of union activity, of which they have not historically been fans. Could be, democrats are lately trying to fund anything that might create jobs and infrastructure where as republicans feel that subsidizing an industry is dangerously like socialism.