Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

kate
Lv 7
kate asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 9 years ago

How many people oppose Romneys drive to kill Amtrak?

What will seniors do for travel (who have too many TSA problems to fly) if Romney kills Amtrak ?

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Me, for one. Without Amtrak, passenger service will just disappear. The freight railroads don't want it. That's why they let it die 50 years ago. No passenger trains means more congestion on interstates and at airports. If you happen to be in Chicago some afternoon, take a look at the waiting rooms at Union Station. Try to imagine all those people added to the mob scenes at O'Hare. Rail services should be enhanced so more people will use them. Unfortunately, Amtrak has become politicized with too many Republicans blindly calling for its elimination to save precious tax dollars. The cost of supporting Amtrak and PBS together wouldn't add up to the cost of maintaining one redundant Army base that just happens to be in some Republican Congressman's district.

  • elhigh
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    For some reason, Amtrak hasn't been able to turn a profit. You'd think, with all the rolling stock paid for and relatively few union squabbles they'd be able to get a handle on the money, but no.

    I'm actually for killing Amtrak if it means coming up with something better. Privatized railroads, maybe. But not if it means the death of passenger service in the US. Passenger rail is ridiculously fast compared to driving, and almost as fast as flying if you're covering 300 miles or so - factoring in time to and from the airport, security hassles etc. - the railroad's convenient arrival right in the center of the city makes it an extremely attractive option.

    Rail is fabulously fuel efficient compared to flying. Trains almost never fall out of the sky (although they do occasionally fall off the rails, or smack into each other or some hapless truck driver who forgets about the extra 53' of truck dragging back over the level crossing). Most of its largest costs are in the past...why the hell can't it turn a profit? In spite of the fares being even higher than those for flying FIRST CLASS? Something is systemically wrong at Amtrak and it needs a major refurbishment to get it straightened out, but I'd still rather keep it than do without passenger rail service entirely.

    Source(s): Handyman
  • 9 years ago

    Amtrak is already killing itself by going through millions of taxpayer dollars for years. It's going broke. Maybe it's time to realize that the government can't run things and let the private sector take over.

  • Full
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Have you been on an amtrak train lately?

    Neither has anyone else.

  • 9 years ago

    I support it. Amtrack was SUPPOSED to be subsidized for X years and by then it was supposed to be a profitable company. X years have come and gone, heck I think it was gone before I was born. Amtrack either needs a REAL Businessman to correct it OR it needs to die.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Just think of all the Americans Romney and his supporters want to lay-off with this smooth move of theirs.

    .

    Source(s): What's Ex-Lax Romney's next move?
  • ?
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    I am more worried about Romney keeping us safe. I already know Obama can keep us safe.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.