2005 Amtrak Funding-Bad News and Good News

[Anonymous]

while we are on the subject of the highway funding bill, did any of you know that one version of the bill is going to allow states to place tolls on any existing highway? i would say that 90% of the public has no idea that we are about to pay more taxes (in the form of tolls) on highways that we have already paid for.

if you dont want to be taxed again for using highways, be sure to contact your senator or representative and tell them to go with the house version of the highway bill, not the senate version. if it's not already too late.......

[conrailman]

To: csxengneer 98.
Why Can't Amtrak be like Over Sea, Where They Spend from 5 to 20 billions a year on they Trains system where amtrak just gets barely 1 billion a year from Congress. If Amtrak was like Over Seas Train System, Where the U.S. spends Least 2 or 3 Billions year on Amtrak System. We would have a World Class System Too.[:D][8D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: The demand for intercity rail passenger transportation is limited.

You'd be amazed what a 1.3 Trillion dollar investment by the government will do for "demand." Any limitations on rail passenger demand have to do with the lack of investment and funding, not with a lack of desire or willingness to take the train. You're confusing cause and effect. Even with a smaller network and fewer trains, Amtrak is carrying more people than ever despite all of its handicaps. Passenger rail in this country truly is a case of "build it, and they will come." We just have to get to the building part. In the meantime, we should continue to have what rail passenger service we have, and if they're unwilling to build the high speed network we SHOULD have, then at least Amtrak should be supported adequately in order to expand its capacity and utility instead of keeping it on the ridiculous starvation budget that it's been on since 1971.

[Anonymous]

/quote]
/quote]they are seeing growth on trains becouse their are less trains.... amtrak is elimiating trains....so yea..the growth will show in ridership becouse of less trains..and more people on the ones left... so is it "real" growth..or just a way to cook the books to make ridership numbers on trains grow?
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98
[
if we would have gotten on the high speed bandwagon when france germany got on it... amtrak wouldnt be in the shape it is in today...
build high speed deicated rail corridoers for 200+mph passinger trains..
csx engineer

That's not Amtrak's fault. That blame lies squarely with Congress & the White House, since someone has to fund it. I didn't see GM or Ford stepping up and paying for the highways, nor SOUTHWEST AIRLINES building the airports they fly into. Air and highways,comparatively, get a free ride from Congress while Amtrak has to limp along all the while being attacked every year as useless.

We need an 80% federal match, where the feds will pay 80% of rail infrastructure improvement, much like they have with highway and airport construction. More unfairness which has lessened the choices of the traveling public.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

QUOTE: Originally posted by halifaxcn

Remember it was only three years ago that the airlines went to Capitol Hill and said bail us out after the 9-11 attacks, who picked up the slack for frequent travelers? It was Amtrak the public turned to. Its an election year and public transportation is a key domestic issue. What are we to do with the airlines that keep filing chapter 11?

Good points. But airlines didn't just receive the 9-11 funding. They're gotten billions in tax dollars, in infrastructure costs, the FAA, screening, etc. ($15 billion a year normally).

The highways, however, have been the biggest porkers, in terms of subsidies.

This link gives a history lesson of how many billions this country has invested in highways and air. Yet suggest investments in passenger rail, and you're somehow considered a nut.

http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/essays/subsidies.htm

http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/subsidies/transport.htm

According to the New York Times, et. al.,
$1.8 TRILLION has been spent building airways and highways, 1971-2001.
Over that same time frame, tiny Amtrak has received $30 billion and its funding has been reduced yearly, while aviation and highway funding has steadily increased.

You get what you pay for.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98
insted of wasting my tax money on a system that is slowly dieing... the money could be better spent by investing in a whole new system... 3rd... it also goes with the tax money spent on roads... the money that amtrak gets as well as the money spent on new roads could be used to start to build a high speed system.... the cold hard facts are that the european nations have what we need.. but fail to put in place.... if we would have gotten on the high speed bandwagon when france germany got on it... amtrak wouldnt be in the shape it is in today...
build high speed deicated rail corridoers for 200+mph passinger trains..
csx engineer

I like your idea of building another system, but your contention that the system is slowly dieing is incorrect. AMTRAK RIDERSHIP IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH. LD trains are seeing record growth.

The problem with Amtrak is Congress. It's never wanted to properly fund Amtrak from the beginning. Transportation in this country isn't free. Yet many expect Amtrak to be profitable while the highways and airways have never made money (at least without decades - now centuries - of governmental assistance.

they are seeing growth on trains becouse their are less trains.... amtrak is elimiating trains....so yea..the growth will show in ridership becouse of less trains..and more people on the ones left... so is it "real" growth..or just a way to cook the books to make ridership numbers on trains grow?
csx engineer

[daveklepper]

Again, even walking is subsidized, at least in cities, with traffic lights, sidewalk paving, etc. A good cost benefit analysis would probably prove that Amtrka funding is a lot more efficient than most!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by halifaxcn

Remember it was only three years ago that the airlines went to Capitol Hill and said bail us out after the 9-11 attacks, who picked up the slack for frequent travelers? It was Amtrak the public turned to. Its an election year and public transportation is a key domestic issue. What are we to do with the airlines that keep filing chapter 11?

Good points. But airlines didn't just receive the 9-11 funding. They're gotten billions in tax dollars, in infrastructure costs, the FAA, screening, etc. ($15 billion a year normally).

The highways, however, have been the biggest porkers, in terms of subsidies.

This link gives a history lesson of how many billions this country has invested in highways and air. Yet suggest investments in passenger rail, and you're somehow considered a nut.

http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/essays/subsidies.htm

http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/subsidies/transport.htm

According to the New York Times, et. al.,
$1.8 TRILLION has been spent building airways and highways, 1971-2001.
Over that same time frame, tiny Amtrak has received $30 billion and its funding has been reduced yearly, while aviation and highway funding has steadily increased.

You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous]

7 billion for transit is good news for Amtrak in its Commuter rail division.
Amtrak could do partnership with RTAs to get some of that cash

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98
insted of wasting my tax money on a system that is slowly dieing... the money could be better spent by investing in a whole new system... 3rd... it also goes with the tax money spent on roads... the money that amtrak gets as well as the money spent on new roads could be used to start to build a high speed system.... the cold hard facts are that the european nations have what we need.. but fail to put in place.... if we would have gotten on the high speed bandwagon when france germany got on it... amtrak wouldnt be in the shape it is in today...
build high speed deicated rail corridoers for 200+mph passinger trains..
csx engineer

I like your idea of building another system, but your contention that the system is slowly dieing is incorrect. AMTRAK RIDERSHIP IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH. LD trains are seeing record growth.

The problem with Amtrak is Congress. It's never wanted to properly fund Amtrak from the beginning. Transportation in this country isn't free. Yet many expect Amtrak to be profitable while the highways and airways have never made money (at least without decades - now centuries - of governmental assistance.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

csxengineer-

I know you don't like wasteful government spending. Even if government funding for Amtrak was stopped immediately, and the government could just ignore the multi-billion residual obligations, and the $1.8 billion requested was instead passed to you as a reduction in income taxes, you might get something on the order of $40.00 per year.

A shut down of Amtrak is likly to impact the level of future Railroad Road Retirement benefits, down, of course.

Be careful of what you wish for.

Jay

i never said to get ride of passanger service all together..i said that the amtrak needs to be worked... and a total overall of the system..starting with high speed coridors... first off..that will get amtrak off of the freight railroads..and be one less headack for dispatchers and crews to have to deal with.... sencond... insted of wasting my tax money on a system that is slowly dieing... the money could be better spent by investing in a whole new system... 3rd... it also goes with the tax money spent on roads... the money that amtrak gets as well as the money spent on new roads could be used to start to build a high speed system.... the cold hard facts are that the european nations have what we need.. but fail to put in place.... if we would have gotten on the high speed bandwagon when france germany got on it... amtrak wouldnt be in the shape it is in today...
build high speed deicated rail corridoers for 200+mph passinger trains..
csx engineer

[jeaton]

csxengineer-

I know you don't like wasteful government spending. Even if government funding for Amtrak was stopped immediately, and the government could just ignore the multi-billion residual obligations, and the $1.8 billion requested was instead passed to you as a reduction in income taxes, you might get something on the order of $40.00 per year.

A shut down of Amtrak is likly to impact the level of future Railroad Road Retirement benefits, down, of course.

Be careful of what you wish for.

Jay

[Junctionfan]

Even today though, there are still quite a few military trains running about as required. Go to the Oaks Model Railroad web site once and a while and you will see them in action around the Philadelphia area usually pulled by NS. The military has a large amount of flat cars with DODX reporting marks just for that service.

You can't ship everything by air otherwise the military would have no need for the Merchant Marines.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I repeat that Amtrak and Public transit ARE essential to national defense. Those who disagree just have short memoroies or didn't learn the history of what the home front was really like during WWI and WWII. Efficient ground transportation is always essential in any wartime situation. Even in the Korean conflict and during Viet Nam there were far more passenger coaches in good repair to carry the troops than now, nd the were USED for that purpose. There is only so much highway and airport capacity available, and those flying hotels consume a whale of a lot of fuel. You guys weren't around during the days of "A-cards" When obsolete wood 2nd Avenue elevated cars from New York were rolled across the country and put in service on resurrected Key system tracks tried in with an electrified SP freight branch so shipyard workers could get to and from their jobs. The US has not been in a major conflict since and is very ill preparied for one presicely because the railroads are not in the shape they were in before 1941.

Now about waste. It has already been discussed that highway taxes only pay a fraction of the cost of highway maintenance and street maintenance and traffic control. The highways of the USA have reached the point where adding highway capacity in many places simply increases congestion because more people are encouraged to drive and then the choke point moves to another area. Yet good public transportation draws people off the highways precisely in places and times where the most good is done for the people who continue to use them. To me, the "Big Dig" was an extravegant waste precisely because the rail connector was not built at the same time. Money spent with Amtrak, with all its problems, and Gunn would be eliminating most of them if he had the money, and most publoic transit agencies, is an efficient (at least as compaired with other cgovernment programs) way to reduce fuel imports, reduce pollution, reduce noise, and traffic congestion.

you also are forgetting that air trasportation was in its early days... and that the railroads had reguler schechled passinger service...meaning the freight railroads also ran the trains...
the millitary has a fleet of trainsport plans that can ship anything and eveything in the millitary invantory at a moments notice...ever see a C-5 gallaxey...the thing can tranport 4 M-1 tanks... as well as anything eles....
also your comparing a rail system that was in place in the 40s and 50s to what thier is today... thats like comapring apples to organes... in the 40s and 50s we had heavey industry that could procues mutions at the rate which helpes us win the war... and a transportation infastruter that could suport the amount of traffic durning the wars...
so in the respects of rail transportation of troops and supplies... its not the same as it was 50 years ago... so they are not as vital to defence as you are thinking
csx engineer

[daveklepper]

I repeat that Amtrak and Public transit ARE essential to national defense. Those who disagree just have short memoroies or didn't learn the history of what the home front was really like during WWI and WWII. Efficient ground transportation is always essential in any wartime situation. Even in the Korean conflict and during Viet Nam there were far more passenger coaches in good repair to carry the troops than now, nd the were USED for that purpose. There is only so much highway and airport capacity available, and those flying hotels consume a whale of a lot of fuel. You guys weren't around during the days of "A-cards" When obsolete wood 2nd Avenue elevated cars from New York were rolled across the country and put in service on resurrected Key system tracks tried in with an electrified SP freight branch so shipyard workers could get to and from their jobs. The US has not been in a major conflict since and is very ill preparied for one presicely because the railroads are not in the shape they were in before 1941.

Now about waste. It has already been discussed that highway taxes only pay a fraction of the cost of highway maintenance and street maintenance and traffic control. The highways of the USA have reached the point where adding highway capacity in many places simply increases congestion because more people are encouraged to drive and then the choke point moves to another area. Yet good public transportation draws people off the highways precisely in places and times where the most good is done for the people who continue to use them. To me, the "Big Dig" was an extravegant waste precisely because the rail connector was not built at the same time. Money spent with Amtrak, with all its problems, and Gunn would be eliminating most of them if he had the money, and most publoic transit agencies, is an efficient (at least as compaired with other cgovernment programs) way to reduce fuel imports, reduce pollution, reduce noise, and traffic congestion.

[halifaxcn]

Interesting thread, but can some one answer me this... why is passenger rail service in the US becoming a whipping post for the pols and the public alike. It is a pity, nay a disgrace that the United States cannot have a passenger rail system like that of other countries. Remember it was only three years ago that the airlines went to Capitol Hill and said bail us out after the 9-11 attacks, who picked up the slack for frequent travelers? It was Amtrak the public turned to. Its an election year and public transportation is a key domestic issue. What are we to do with the airlines that keep filing chapter 11?

Enough for tonight, still from Kharkiv Ukraine.

[Junctionfan]

Via can't compete with Air Canada and yet does O.K for itself. Why do you figure that is?

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98
and 6 hours across PA from pittsburgh to philly on a good day is not going to cut it when you can drive thier in 4 hours..of fly thier in an hour...
amtrak is dead..stop trying to beat a dead horse here..
csx engineer

This is apples and organges. Since driving takes 4 hours, and a plane can do it less than an hour, likely, should we then stop buidling highways?
There's no way a car can compete against a plane in terms of speed.

This type of narrow thinking is what hurts rail, passenger and freight.
A passenger train isn't there just to get someone from point A to point B. Passenger trains are different than plans, obviously - but not to many herein- because they can serve intermediate cities much more effectively than planes.

Just try taking a plane from Garden City, Kan. to Albuquerque. Talk about sticker shock!

transportation is transportation..its ment to get people and goods from point A to point B...and rails can not compeate with air traval in the "hurry the hell up i needed to be someplace yesterday" way of life.... which is why amtrak is dead...becouse they cant get you their faster then a plane....and you want to talk about sticker shock..you havent gotting a amtrak ticket in a while too...
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98
and 6 hours across PA from pittsburgh to philly on a good day is not going to cut it when you can drive thier in 4 hours..of fly thier in an hour...
amtrak is dead..stop trying to beat a dead horse here..
csx engineer

This is apples and organges. Since driving takes 4 hours, and a plane can do it less than an hour, likely, should we then stop buidling highways?
There's no way a car can compete against a plane in terms of speed.

This type of narrow thinking is what hurts rail, passenger and freight.
A passenger train isn't there just to get someone from point A to point B. Passenger trains are different than plans, obviously - but not to many herein- because they can serve intermediate cities much more effectively than planes.

Just try taking a plane from Garden City, Kan. to Albuquerque. Talk about sticker shock!

[Junctionfan]

There is more to life than national defence and deportations though. Even Bush said America should go about their lives as normal; just be more vigilant.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Kerry will win the election if Bush doesn't change his view of ground transportation. It is a complete myth that gas taxes and user fess cover highway and street maintenance plus traffic control. It pays only about 1/3. The rest comves form general taxation.
Kerry can air the ad:

Elect Bush President, President of Saudi Arabia

However, if Bush is man enough to say:

I got bad advice. Fuel cell hydrogen research is NOT a way to energy independence.

Amtrak and public transit ARE.

Those are the simple facts.

Amtrak and public transit are also essential to national defense.

As a conservative, I hope I can vote for Bush. But not if continues his present thinking on ground transportation, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in 2004.

amtrak and public transit are not eccential to national defence... border patroles and deporting anyone that shouldnt be here ARE...but like i said befor..amtrak is a dying system... it can not compeat with the airlines for the simple fact of SPEED!!!!! like i said befor..and ill say it agin... if you want amtrak to work...or any passanger system in this country to work... thier needs to a rethinking of the system all together... to go head to head with the airlines..it needs to go high speed... 200 mph or faster...on dedicated passanger coridors..like the europiean nations have... high speed is what is needed.. not what we have now... you have to increes ridership someway..and 6 hours across PA from pittsburgh to philly on a good day is not going to cut it when you can drive thier in 4 hours..of fly thier in an hour...
amtrak is dead..stop trying to beat a dead horse here..
csx engineer

[Modelcar]

...."more government waste".....The reality of our situation is we now have more government spending and impending dept. than anytime in our history.....
Agree with the statement Amtrak really does need rethought to bring it into the 21th century.....and somehow decided how to politically and economically accompli***his massive update. Why do we want to do away with ground rail transportation....Aren't we trying to be accomendating to move people anymore.
We can only build so many 6 - 8 lane highways in high populated corridors, and when we actually do, they fill up almost imediately.

[daveklepper]

Kerry will win the election if Bush doesn't change his view of ground transportation. It is a complete myth that gas taxes and user fess cover highway and street maintenance plus traffic control. It pays only about 1/3. The rest comves form general taxation.
Kerry can air the ad:

Elect Bush President, President of Saudi Arabia

However, if Bush is man enough to say:

I got bad advice. Fuel cell hydrogen research is NOT a way to energy independence.

Amtrak and public transit ARE.

Those are the simple facts.

Amtrak and public transit are also essential to national defense.

As a conservative, I hope I can vote for Bush. But not if continues his present thinking on ground transportation, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in 2004.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Any Amtrak funding is bad news. Kill the beast!

Mac McCulloch

yea..... make my job alot easier..not haveing to get in the clear or not be let loss on some railroad becouse the silver sapository is about to come blasting buy
csx engineer

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

We need John Kerry to win in Nov2. Amtrak would be good shape then.[:)][:)]

that is the last thing we need...him to win.... more government waste... more give me programes...and more closing the gap between the middle class and the poor with the middle class getting screwed... no matter how much money you throw at amtrak it is still going to be in the same shape it is now..or worse... amtrak is a public works project that needs to be rethought out..and reworked ..no more of my tax money chucked at it!!!!
csx engineer

[PNWRMNM]

Any Amtrak funding is bad news. Kill the beast!

Mac McCulloch

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD
[brThe demand for intercity rail passenger transportation is limited.

That isn't the problem. Amtrak carried its most passengers ever last year - 25 million.

The problem is shortsightedness that pigeonholes Amtrak as subsidy-driven and a money-loser, when it in fact consumes far less federal subsidy than taxpayer-funded and maintained highways and airports.

This country is so backward in balanced transportation planning and funding.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Like it or not Amtrak is gonna have to live within its means. Amtrak will have to take a hard look at its service, and make some painful decisions. The demand for intercity rail passenger transportation is limited.