Amtrak Reform: A Dirty run around from federal responsibility . . .

[Sterling1]

Hey guys and gals,

if you want to discuss how the possible new 2006 Budget proposal might destroy Amtrak, go ahead and vent.

I know that Norman Mineta is a fool to represent President Bush in transportation especially when his home state California has growing passenger rail.

"National or Nothing" . . .

What are your views . . .

All views are welcome . . .

Matt[:0][:(!]

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

Hey guys and gals,

if you want to discuss how the possible new 2006 Budget proposal might destroy Amtrak, go ahead and vent.

I know that Norman is a fool to represent President Bush in transportation especially when his home state California has growing passenger rail.

"National or Nothing" . . .

What are your views . . .

All views are welcome . . .

Matt[:0][:(!]

Here's the article; I now may have a strong dislike towards Norman Mineta:

[passengerfan]

Only if Bush budgets out the airlines should he be allowed to budget out Amtrak. A $6 billion subsidy to bring a few US airports up to standards necessary for the Airbus A-380 should inflame every American taxpayer. Why should we support Britain France Germany and the other European countries who build the Airbus let them bring the US airports up the necessary standards with their money not ours. I personally could care less if the A-380 lands in the US at all. And if it is goiung to land in this country let the Europeans pay for the changes to the airports.

[Anonymous]

Looking at it from a strictly selfish position, but trying to see a positive side....it MAY not be all that bad a deal

Anyone feel free to jump right in and tell me where I'm wrong here, or have missed something, but, here where I am at,...Ft Wayne In...Amtrak withdrew service years ago.

Instead, the only remaining NY-Chicago route across my state was 30 (+/-) miles north of here, The Lake shore Limited.

My understanding is, that the attempts to get Amtrak rail service restored have been met with considerable skepticism, hinging upon money. The paradigm of Amtrak budget cuts vs how much the state would have to pay to subsidize a restored Amtrak route. I think the expectation was that ALL of the cost would have to be subsidized, locally. And it was generally viewed as "the only alternative available", meaning the only option Amtrak was willing to put on the table.

The new plan proposed, inviting/requiring each state to pay 50% of the pot, would seem to invite increased participation at the state level in determining which route it is willing to pay 50% for... (Am I missing something here?)

I think that the standard 'soft rolled' excuse/explanation the State DOT has always made was that if there was anything they could do to sway Amtrak to restore rail passenger service to my town, they would. Invariably with the disclaimer that the matter was really out of their hands. Maybe *that* isn't going to be the case anymore? Perhaps the fed would now be paying 50% of the cost to restore thru service, instead of expecting 100% reimbursement?

B est case scenario might have it work out just the way i would hope... worst case scenario, it would force the state to become more creative with an explanation of why the States 2nd most populous city STILL does not deserve passenger rail service.

Being the cynic I am,..i can almost predict which of the two is the more likely

[Anonymous]

What BS from government. Just wait until the next meltdown in the airline industry. Where will this country be then without amtrak. What state has th money(outside california) to fund passenger trains?

[Anonymous]

What is really sad, is the fact that the Bush administration is putting forth more money to rebuild the Iraqai National Railroad, than it is in our own national passenger rail system. That is a disgrace!! As far as that "sawed off" moron Mineta is concerned, we should all pitch in, buy him one of those "Human Transporter" scooters, and send him out on the Washington Beltway to play. Seriously, I don't think that congress will let Amtrak die. It does serve 46 of the 50 states. Will have enough support to keep rolling, but no doubt still will be a bumpy ride!!

[klahm]

The administration proposal is irresponsible. So is the typical Congressional reaction, which continues Amtrak's "perils of Pauline" struggle. Both riders and taxpayers lose.

I would hope that a draconian proposal like this might result in real debate and perhaps an "outside the box" approach that's long overdue. But I'm too much of a pragmatist to expect that, what with the far more pressing matters of Social Security, the war, and Janet Jackson's *** pending on the Hill.

Whatever is done cannot succeed unless it has adequate transitional provisions.

Some ideas, mostly not original:

1. End Amtrak's "monopoly" status. Immediately. Let private operators initiate cruise trains to the extent that their finances and host railroads are willing.

2. Fund all state/local rail infrastructure initiatives on a 20/80 state/federal matching basis, just like airports etc.

3. Accelerate transfer of stations and their maintenance to states/municipalities. Provide transitional, decreasing block grants to ease the pain.

4. Establish one or two limited state-consortium demonstration projects with Federal operating support decreasing 20% per year, 50% matching funding for train equipment & upgrades thereto. Require annnual reviews of performance by GAO. Add larger project(s), involving more states, in the fourth year, based on lessons learned during the first two years of the first project. Ultimate goal is to transfer all short-haul services (say, <500mi) to state consortiums, should they prove practical, within 10-12 years.

5. Appoint an expert, bi-partisan commission to establish performance criteria for federal subsidy of trains not transitioning to state support, considering ridership, finances, and timeliness. Trains not meeting standards go "on probation", giving stakeholders (states, municipalities, operating labor) 12-18 months to improve performance before the a decision must be made to terminate the train within 6 months. (alternatively, require an up/down vote on the train's continuance by Congress)

6. Require integration of rail terminals/routes with airports and cruise ship ports to the greatest extent practical, with 100% Federal support for infrastructure needed to accompli***his.

Immediate solution? No. Definitive? No. But no such "solutions" are likely to survive the politics. Given the 30+ years of wheel-slipping with short-term views, it's time to try something less immediate, but perhaps more effective.

[Anonymous]

Well, getting states to all agree would be an interesting thing to see happen, especially in the northeast. Wonder where the states are going to come up with the money that the federal gov't. would match? What if an in-between state says "no way, we can't afford that!"? Do we stop the train at, say, New Jersey's border because N.J. couldn't afford "their" share, and then off load the passengers from the train onto buses to cross through N.J. to get back on a train in New York?

Since our gov't. is so eager to fund the Iraqi RR, when can we expect to have a web cam here to watch the trains running on the Iraqi RR?? I know a few states don't receive the kind of Amtrak service they would like to have, or, none at all. maybe those trains were cut becuase of the budget situation. But, no matter if you are living in a state with little or no Amtrak service, I'm sure some of my federal payroll taxes have supported programs in those states that my home state absolutely will not benefit from.

Just something to think about.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by passengerfan

A $6 billion subsidy to bring a few US airports up to standards necessary for the Airbus A-380

This'll never happen. Most airlines aren't even considering the A380 and the ones that are will only use it on routes that serve terminals already equipped to handle aircraft of this scope. You don't see 747s and 777s servicing intra-national destinations and you won't see the A380 servicing them either. And THOSE are the terminals and runways that would need upgraded.

I simply do not understand why people cling to Amtrak. Let it die already. If there is demand and room in the national transportation network for it, someone will step into the role. I sometimes wonder if out there there are people demanding for federal subsidies for zeppelins and steamships.

[Modelcar]

....If we are not to "cling to Amtrak"...., than lets raise a bunch of "noise" of not "clinging" to rebuilding the Iraqi RR....! I believe that in itself has disturbed me more than anything in all of our discussions on our forum of this subject....! No tax money for our rail passenger system but plenty of money to the Iraqi RR....What's wrong with this priority. Let their oil money rebuild that system when it's available....

[AntonioFP45]

Well, here in Florida we've got the President's brother as governor!

Would be great, but I seriously doubt governor Bush would suggest provide funding for Amtrak service in Florida, inspite of the fact that the Silver Meteor, Silver Star, and The Auto Train often run full.