Latest from Washington

[jeaton]

Sometimes I get a little steamed when people who ought to know better throw out a bunch of ignorant comments. I’m NOT speaking about contributors to this forum.

On March 3, Transportation Secretary Mineta appeared before the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to discuss the Bush Administration’s $900 million.

A little background. This Committee is chaired by Ernest Istook (R-Okla), a former talking head news type, whose prior experience in the transportation field probably wasn’t any more than doing a live remote next to an Oklahoma City expressway. Last year he insisted that his committee release an Amtrak appropriation that probably had barely enough money to keep the power on the NE Corridor so thieves wouldn’t steal the copper off the overhead. Recently, he wrote a letter to all the Congressmen who had supported the higher FY 2004 Amtrak appropriations bill, stating that Amtrak CEO Gunn had said that anything less than the original $1.8 request would mean shutdown. That is patently untrue. Gunn had stated that a lesser appropriation would mean slowing the progress in putting the railroad in good order.

Now to the hearing. My comments in ( ) (This is from NARP’s March 5, 2004 Hotline found at http://www.narprail.org). Mineta claimed that for the per passenger subsidy of $469 on the Sunset Limited, the passengers on that train could be FLOWN faster and cheaper. (The subsidy number is from a couple of years back and has been significantly reduced, and the idea is based on the totally incorrect notion that most of the passengers on the train travel the entire Orlando to LA route).

When asked if there is any evidence of “private” operators were interested in running long distance trains without any major subsidy, Mineta said there is a private operator running trains in Washington and Oregon. (Huh?? The only private operator out there runs the seasonal Lewis and Clark excursion train. Amtrak was Oregon’s first choice to run that train, but couldn’t because of expansion limits imposed by DOT).

Acknowledging that the major carriers aren’t interested in multiple operators, Mineta said some short lines would do it. (And as we all know, all the short lines would be more than happy to throw in a million or two a mile to fix track for the privilege of running a passenger train. Maybe there would be a job at DOT for one of you short line fans linking them up to make transcontinental routes).

Mineta also reiterated his idea that if a state would not pay its share of a subsidy on a long distance train, no stops would be allowed in that state. (…to dumb for comment…)

Just another example of politicians setting something up so that the failure can be blamed on someone else.

[daveklepper]

The USA would still be better off if this disgrace was the ONLY inept hadling of USA major policies. There is much else, too, and it cuts across party lines. Kennedy and Kerr and the Big Dig in Boston? Dave

[CG9602]

As I have posted in this and other Fora, one thing that really makes my cheese curdle is when they substitue per-passenger for something theat should be measured by the Revenue Passenger Mile. Where are the measurements of profit/loss related to revenue passenger miles in Mineta's statements? That whole statement about $400+ per passenger to go from Orlando to LAX? meaningless nonsense. How much does it cost to run the ATC, and how much would the property tax be for Orlando and LAX? where are the figures for the cost "per passenger" of the ATC, including the cost of the terminal use for each passenger on that flight? Grrr! [:(!][:(!][:(!]

Air passenger think they're paying the full cost of everything when, in reality, they aren't.

[Anonymous]

well its politics. come up with any stats and use what you want to develop a convincing argument!

Its the same as a documentary on railroads talking about how dangerous it is to ride the train because of all the wrecks (Not mentioning that most wrecks are freight and caused by forces beyond the RRs control), and how planes are 'much safer' due to less crashes, without mentioning the comparison of total passengers vs. fatal injuries for both a train wreck and a plane crash. (FYI, most likely there would be few to no survivors from a plane, and unless they are on a bridge or a huge fire erupts, most people on the train would survive.

[jeaton]

CG9602-That's waaay too complicated.

[Anonymous]

WE NEED AMTRAK 4 EVER

RRRAHHHH

[Anonymous]

Well, I remember once when I was taking an Ottawa to Smith Falls train (actually, it was going all the way to Toronto, I got off at Smith Falls), there was some hysterical woman asking about what to do "when the train derails", and asked how to climb out. I thought I'd help the VIA crewmember by assuring her trains were the safest form of transportation.
"No they aren't, busses are safer, planes are safer." OK, then why did Ms. Hysterical take a train? Planes are safer? Sure...everyone knows that, let's ask Buddy Holly, Ritchie Vallens, and the Big Bopper for their opinion on the matter. Oh wait....

Improving rail costs only a fraction of widening highways.....and requires way less expropriation. What good is a couple of 24 lane highways, if most of the places they were intended to serve were demolished to make room for them?

~Le Ra'akone

[AntonioFP45]

It's saddening that a man as intelligent as Norm Mineta is IMHO so blatantly ignorant!

[jeaton]

I should back off a little on my criticism a little. I am sure Secretary Mineta is under pressure from the White House to "get rid of this problem". Sometimes lines are drawn between the White House and Congress, egos get involved and a lot of junk is tossed back and forth for political reasons, even though everything is presented for "the good of the people". I'll have to admit that this is not unique to the present administration.