http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wi
re/2011/01/Conservative%20Republican%20House%2
0group%20Kill%20Amtrak.aspx
Let me give you a summary of the article.
A group of republicans in Ohio want to rid of government programs (not all of them)
One such thing they want to rid of is AMTRAK.
I did send a message to speaker John Bohner about the shocking news. I know that no class one railroad will take in the operations of Amtrak.
Mr. Railman http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wi re/2011/01/Conservative%20Republican%20House%2 0group%20Kill%20Amtrak.aspx Let me give you a summary of the article. A group of republicans in Ohio want to rid of government programs (not all of them) One such thing they want to rid of is AMTRAK. I did send a message to speaker John Bohner about the shocking news. I know that no class one railroad will take in the operations of Amtrak.
This, Conservative Republicans from Ohio wanting to, get this, terminate Amtrak yet keep many other government programs in place, is, what we call "in the business", a "dog bites man" story.
That is, nothing remarkable. Dogs bite people from time to time, Conservative Republicans from Ohio never did like passenger trains all that much, and to report such an instance as news, well, is rather unremarkable.
Now if you had something newsworthy, such as Vice President Biden, and ardent train supporter and frequent Amtrak rider, announce that we could work with those Conservatives Republicans from Ohio on trimming the Amtrak subsidy, you would have a "man bites dog" story. In other words, people go around doing a lot of things, but for a person to decide to bite a dog is a rare and perhaps a newsworthy happenstance. Maybe people are less violent than dogs; maybe a person who wants to abuse a dog will hit it with a stick because biting a dog has a high chance of getting the dog to bite you back.
But there you have it -- get back to us when you have a good "man bites dog" story -- it is much more newsworthy.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
You're quite right, Paul (and I don't mean that in a political sense). Here is a link that shows what that conservative caucus is doing and how unlikely it is that Speaker Boehner would support it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/house-gop-gets-specific-on-cuts_n_811557.html
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Private sector businesses, road and railroad transportation companies and officers, planners from all levels of governements, even some money people, are looking at a transportation system that needs infrastructure and structure, coordination and integration, a purpose to provided service and not receive lip service in terms of money. These Teatoadelers are pushing little pins at small balloons: making big bursting noises but accomplishing nothing else. It appears that there is a sobering of the Right leadership in that they recognize there is a lot to the future if they plan for it now. Taking money away from anything and everything is subtraction, not the addition or multiplication of efforts our economic future needs and leaders from both sides of the aisle are beginning to understand that.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
[quote user="henry6"]
Private sector businesses, road and railroad transportation companies and officers, planners from all levels of governements, even some money people, are looking at a transportation system that needs infrastructure and structure, coordination and integration, a purpose to provided service and not receive lip service in terms of money. These Teatoadelers are pushing little pins at small balloons: making big bursting noises but accomplishing nothing else. It appears that there is a sobering of the Right leadership in that they recognize there is a lot to the future if they plan for it now. Taking money away from anything and everything is subtraction, not the addition or multiplication of efforts our economic future needs and leaders from both sides of the aisle are beginning to understand that. /quote]
Amtraks supporters, including those with a take no prisoners perspectiive, i.e. don't give up anything, number in the thousands. They are matched by a many times greater number of Americans who agree that we need to get our fiscal house in order. But don't touch my interest, i.e. Amtrak, Essential Air Service Program, etc. or whatever benefits me is the mantra for most people. In other words, every thing is on the table except what benefits me.
The federal government debt is nearly 100 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. This is serious. If we don't figure out a way to manage it down, the international finance markets will do it for us. And it won't be pretty, i.e. steep run-up in interest rates, slashing of government services, etc. So it means taking a hard look at Amtrak, Essential Air Services Program, etc. Everything needs to be on the table. Not just the other guy's or gal's interests.
I support passenger rail, with reasonable subsidies, in short, high density corridors where expanding the airways and highways is cost prohibitive. I see no financial justification for the long distance trains, although I love to ride them.
Pretending that we don't have a fiscal crisis in the U.S. is a prescription for a financial disaster. Accordingly, whether the government should continue to subsidize Amtrak is a legitimate question. The broader question is: How much can the country afford to spend on passenger rail above what the market will support it? The answer has nothing to do with how much we spend on defense or foreign aid or anything else.
Those who argue for a national transportation scheme need to say what it looks like, how it differs from where we are now, how much it will cost, and most importantly, who will pay for it. Coordination, integration, etc. are nice terms. But without specifics, including how to pay for them, they are not very helpful.
It is highly unlikely Congress will totally shut down Amtrak. Most likely there will be cuts to existing services and no new federally funded new starts in service in the near future. In addition spending for high speed rail may be cut.
This committee's whole charge is the same as the Tealoaders: cut expneses at any cost. Amtrak is not the problem but a budget line item they think they understand. There is so much in the Federal budget that can be cut but will not be as long as the military-industiralists are in charge of our economy. Those newbies to the Congressional scene for the most part have very little background in big business, economics, government, and politics to really know what they are saying, doing, cutting except that it sounds good the the guys back home. They think. They will be, if not already, overwhelmed with the size and the complexity of the budget and the cost of government. They don't understand the value of a dollar here or a million dollars there, its all the same to them because they don't see how the interlocking parts fit together, In some cases you can pull a dollar and something will collapse, in other places pull a million and life goes on. Until they can master that they are only talking. The real problem is that while pure in heart maybe, they are so gullible so as to be led astray.
How many of you pro Amtrak pro passenger service people have sold your cars and use the train to increase ridership? I am in complete agreement with cutting the subsidy and the road subsidy and the trucking subsidy and the barge subisidy and the air subsidy. Let them all compete on actual cost and may the winner enjoy the spoils.
henry6 This committee's whole charge is the same as the Tealoaders: cut expneses at any cost. Amtrak is not the problem but a budget line item they think they understand. There is so much in the Federal budget that can be cut but will not be as long as the military-industiralists are in charge of our economy. Those newbies to the Congressional scene for the most part have very little background in big business, economics, government, and politics to really know what they are saying, doing, cutting except that it sounds good the the guys back home. They think. They will be, if not already, overwhelmed with the size and the complexity of the budget and the cost of government. They don't understand the value of a dollar here or a million dollars there, its all the same to them because they don't see how the interlocking parts fit together, In some cases you can pull a dollar and something will collapse, in other places pull a million and life goes on. Until they can master that they are only talking. The real problem is that while pure in heart maybe, they are so gullible so as to be led astray.
There are those in the advocacy community who have a deep misunderstanding of the fiscal problem. The notion is that for what is wasted on military spending, you could fund Amtrak 10 times over.
Yes, there is undoubtedly a great deal of waste in military spending, and with the current fiscal crisis, the defense budget will get intense scrutiny. But what makes you think that the money saved in that fashion will be available to spend on Amtrak, either at current levels or increased levels, or that there are not a number of higher priorities for that money? Say for education, or job training on account of the recession, or hiring more police to fight crime especially for the poorer among us who live in high-crime areas? Is Amtrak a higher priority?
But the one spending priority that overwhelms military spending is health care. Whether you are for keeping or for repealing the recent Health Care Reform, the existing government Medicare and Medicaid programs stand to spend whatever money you are going to save by trimming Defense, long before Amtrak gets any of that money. Health care expenses, whether government funded or privately funded, are the fastest rising expense by far, and there are no clear solutions offered by anyone liberal or conservative apart from rationing to deal with the situation.
Amtrak is a budget line item that people in the advocacy community think they understand. Yes, the 1.5 billion/year for Amtrak is a tiny slice of the the multi-hundred-billion deficits. To the advocacy community, the loss of Amtrak would be a catastrophe because restarting passenger trains at some future post-peak-oil time would look to be impossible. But as Amtrak carries one tenth of one percent of total U.S. passenger miles, the average non-railfan non-passenger advocate person wouldn't even notice its passing.
Paul Milenkovic Amtrak is a budget line item that people in the advocacy community think they understand. Yes, the 1.5 billion/year for Amtrak is a tiny slice of the the multi-hundred-billion deficits. To the advocacy community, the loss of Amtrak would be a catastrophe because restarting passenger trains at some future post-peak-oil time would look to be impossible. But as Amtrak carries one tenth of one percent of total U.S. passenger miles, the average non-railfan non-passenger advocate person wouldn't even notice its passing.
That really puts it in perspective. It demonstrates clearly how the advocacy community needs to see priorities more clearly/realistically. For one, Amtrak would look a lot better if they eliminated or greatly reduced the high cost long distance trains and focused the limited resources on corridor services that have a potential to actually serve a decent percentage of travelers in those markets, as is the case now with the NEC.
ndbprr How many of you pro Amtrak pro passenger service people have sold your cars and use the train to increase ridership? I am in complete agreement with cutting the subsidy and the road subsidy and the trucking subsidy and the barge subisidy and the air subsidy. Let them all compete on actual cost and may the winner enjoy the spoils.
That is not the question by a long shot. The question is whether or not to provide a viable rail passenger service or not. "Service" includes a usable frequency, comfortable and available equipment, timely and speedy enough, reliable and cost friendly. One train a week or one train a day is not service; one car or one engine out of commission should not shut down the service, nor should "other traffic" cripple a schedule or a whole bunch of schedules. It is not a question of running trains but providing a viable, useful, effective service. I don't use Amtrak because there is no viable serviced where I live. An hour or two to the nearest AMtrak station and then a 5 or 6 hour train ride to NYC. I can drive to NYC in 3 and a half hours, or to NJT/MNRR in two for another 1 to 2 1/2 hour ride in. If Amtrak came to my fair city, I'd still need my car to drive to the station!
schlimm Paul Milenkovic: Amtrak is a budget line item that people in the advocacy community think they understand. Yes, the 1.5 billion/year for Amtrak is a tiny slice of the the multi-hundred-billion deficits. To the advocacy community, the loss of Amtrak would be a catastrophe because restarting passenger trains at some future post-peak-oil time would look to be impossible. But as Amtrak carries one tenth of one percent of total U.S. passenger miles, the average non-railfan non-passenger advocate person wouldn't even notice its passing. That really puts it in perspective. It demonstrates clearly how the advocacy community needs to see priorities more clearly/realistically. For one, Amtrak would look a lot better if they eliminated or greatly reduced the high cost long distance trains and focused the limited resources on corridor services that have a potential to actually serve a decent percentage of travelers in those markets, as is the case now with the NEC.
Paul Milenkovic: Amtrak is a budget line item that people in the advocacy community think they understand. Yes, the 1.5 billion/year for Amtrak is a tiny slice of the the multi-hundred-billion deficits. To the advocacy community, the loss of Amtrak would be a catastrophe because restarting passenger trains at some future post-peak-oil time would look to be impossible. But as Amtrak carries one tenth of one percent of total U.S. passenger miles, the average non-railfan non-passenger advocate person wouldn't even notice its passing.
I hear both of you saying that the advocacy community is wrong, totally wrong. I don't believe that. What I do believe is that passenger train service in this country cannot be dismissed out of hand or be ignored in any way. We have to find a good way of moving people be it intercity or commuter. What questions your points of view is that most applied rail services over the last 10 or so years have been successful ahead of projections. We have a highway lobby supporting and supported by the petroleum industry propagandizing their point of view as America's "right to freedom" as only 350 horsepower under the hood and millions of miles of government highway can offer. We've got to stop believing that as gospel, know that there are other ways of traveling which are better for our economy (the escalating cost of fuel), our environment (cleaner air, less land usage), and the real freedom to be able to go anywhere at anytime without having to be the one peddling the bicycle!
As for the budget process, if the elimination of Amtrak from the budget would turn the deficit around, then you might have something. But even 100 times the Amtrak budget wouldn't do that. The deficit and the budget are much larger, deeper, and broader than running passenger trains. And those who are using ice picks and tea cups on the budget haven't a clue as to what they are picking at. Dollar signs are not ice cubes, nor blocks of ice, so picking at one or two of them is not going to rearrange everything. And taking money away for the sake of takling money away does nothing unless there is an alternate plan to replace what has been removed. Picking on Amtrak, blindly, ignorantly, without understanding economics, transportation, geography, envirnmentalism, urban plannning, or the many other things that go into the need and shape of a transportation system, is only going to weaken our world position more.
We have survived 40 yrs with Amtrk and during that time, every session of Congress has funded it one way or another. The flip side is we could also have a Congress that will take the steps whatever is necessary in doing to defund it and we may be on the outer edges of this now. With the change of mid term election, the leaders of the party in power have made it clear this is one of many slashing of programs intended to phase out. How members will act will of course remain to be seen. Budget proposals for FY 2011 will soon have to be released as required by law. This could be 1979 all over again but on a much, much larger scale.
It is time for transportation to pay for itself. All the proposals will not eliminate the degicit amounts that go for highway construction.
IMHO it is time for all US transportation to be funded from users only. It is time for a series of transportation taxes to be levied on all transportation and for the proceeds to be divided out as necessary.
1. I would require each government entity to list for every year how much they receive in tax revenue from each transportation group. That includes all motor fuel taxes, operational user taxes (mainly OTR trucking), property taxes (RRs a big payer + some taxes on motor vehicles such as license fees), etc
2. Then I would allow only user taxes to be used for transportation. This iincludes new construction, maintenance, repair, snow removal, police patrolling vs ticket revenue, etc The result??
A. An immediate increase of the federal gasoline tax from about 18 cents per gallon to about 32 cents?
B. States would not be able to hide true cost of roads from the public as easily.
C. Many states required to increase gasoline taxes greatly. My state Georgia is a prime example. Less the 30% covered in Ga.
D. decrease in property taxes and other fees devoted to roads.
E. Sales tax decrease ( we pay an extra 1% for streets in my county and many other counties in Georgia and general sales taxes go for roads in Ga.
F. Rail would then get the proper amount because the ROI is larger in high useage traffic lanes (2 lanes of highway [one each way} vs 1 additional train track.
3. Many of you posters can think of other items as well.
This alone is more revenue than the proposals that cut programs put forward by the new congress.
But is this even feasible?? I think not. Political power is using the taxpayers money in hidden ways for a certain clientel -- not the masses. We need to get the most bang for the buck. This proposal would put roads as close to top priority in the hinderlands but not excluding passenger rail. This would emphasize rail in high density corridors such as the NEC, Chicago, LA basin, Pacific NW but not to the exclusion of roads.
In a perfect world (for some) one would decide to build and operate a business and the public would pay him directly for it. But such a perfect world does not exist when it comes to publicly needed services like roads, water, sewers, even electicity and railroads-transit operations, police and fire protection. Governements of all countries, and at all levels, have had to step forward to aid the public ability to acquire these services. Beyond that, big business has received tax cuts and breaks, bonding authority and bonded authority, utility improvements and easments, etc., to lure them into a community. So unless you make bus and truck companies to build and operate their own roads, automobile manufactureres to also own and operate roads for their product, and have airlines build their own airports and have their own air traffic control system, then you will never, ever have a real private enterprise system with a level playing field. Business, by design, is a partnership of private enterprise and governments and its agencies working together to build a factory, provide road and railroad access, provide electric and gas, water and sewer, and people for employment and for market. Why do we in this country keep trying to stop that role of each entity? Why do we keep trying to ignore one entity in favor of another? Why do we keep trying to stop the machine that works?
1. Privatize the Interstate Highway system. Money received to reduce the Fed. Deficit.
2. Then privatize Amtrak and all canals and locks and similar facilities.
3. Slap a tax on imported oil to pay for the wars that were started because of the ideology of those countries that deny religious freedom
THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL THE TRUE COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION BE PASSED ON TO THE OWNERS. And railroads will certainly come out ahead.
I like your thinking Dave, but it is only a beginning and I don't think a majority will ever understand or begin to understand.
henry6 I like your thinking Dave, but it is only a beginning and I don't think a majority will ever understand or begin to understand.
The mainline advocacy position is that there is really nothing wrong with Amtrak that a modest increase in funding won't fix, and that opposition to Amtrak reflects some mix of ignorance, misinformation or outright malice. Yes, Amtrak is subsidized, but that subsidy levels the playing field with modes that pollute the atmosphere, despoil the landscape, and put us at the mercy of overseas tyrants.
The advocacy heresy is that the rate of subsidy to Amtrak in relation to passenger miles is indeed high, that high rate of subsidy has us stuck on Amtrak serving only .1 percent of total U.S. passenger miles, and the amount of service received per subsidy dollar makes Amtrak time and time again vulnerable to political initiatives to do away with it entirely as the economy and the political majorities go in cycles.
Our local advocacy group pretty much followed the mainline approach, telling people whom we believed to be ignorant or misinformed that they were indeed ignorant and misinformed, putting our advocacy positions on banners in all-caps format at our literature tables, and seeking venues where people didn't disagree with us. We did all of that, and we did our best to add to the delay in implementation by making a big public fuss about the downtown train station. In the end we lost the Madison, WI train.
Whether my approach, of addressing the concerns of the anti-train camp instead of calling them stupid would have made a difference, is hard to tell. Taking opposition to the train seriously, however, may have focused energy in the advocacy camp on moving the train along during the "Golden two years" that we had, and getting construction under way sooner could have made some difference. It was inconceivable to us that turning back 800 billion in "free Federal money" was anything but political posturing. We spent last summer discussing the color of the window drapes of the Madison train station and then, poof, the train was gone by the second week in November.
OK Mr. Political Consultant Smarty Pants, you are thinking, it is fine to theorize about the cost-effectiveness of the Amtrak subsidy or that age-old 'tis 't'aint arguments about corridors vs long-distance trains, but there is a serious proposal (again) to zero out Amtrak, and what do we do?
What we do is this. There will be some proposal to come out of this to do what had been proposed by the previous Administration and we decided it was ignorant and stupid before the ink was even dry. The deal is Federal money to keep the NEC with its collection of corridor intercity service and commuter services going, a deal for a Federal-state cost sharing in keeping the various regional corridors going, and a deal to drop the long-distance trains.
We could dig in our heels and stand our ground and stand for none of this, and we might get our way (again) and have Amtrak clank along, business as usual, until 10 years from now when we deal with this again. Maybe that is the correct course of action because from a position of weakness, we don't want to be negotiating the future direction of Amtrak But as an advocacy community, I think we did a mighty poor job during the Golden Two Years and the 8 billion in ARRA money in our negotiating position on the future direction of Amtrak from a position of a lot more political strength than we have now.
Or we could at least take what proposal comes along seriously, perhaps draft a counterproposal for the restructuring of Amtrak.
AndI agree, Paul! I really believe we have to look at regional transportation districts for inter city rail followed by interregional services overlayed on regions. California, the Northwest, New England, New York, Northeast Corridor, Illinois (Chicago), even Florida are already looking at such regionalisms. Right now Amtrak is a hostage of politics and mentalities rather than an effective tool in operating a passenger rail network. I hate to say that there is one the I agree with from the Bush the Lesser adminsitration, but I do agree with his concept of regionalizing. Will the gods that be allow Amtrak to be administrator for such a program or will they hold on to Amtrak as just a lip service to running passenger trains remains to be seen. I think Amtrak could be the orginizing umbrella as I propose and there not be a need to invent another beaurocracy to oversee rail passenger services.
Great posting, Paul!!
amtrak or privatization or anything else will never work because te infrastructure is not where the people are. We are no longer a center city culture. No place has more trains than Chicago but even if your car didn't disappear who is going to drive downtown (for most people two hours) and pay $40 a day for the privelage of using a mode of travel that is early 20th century at best? You may not have noticed but everything else is getting faster. I'm sure there are those that mourn the passing of the stage coach. Maybe we should subsidize thosetoo.
I'm not sure if I'm following your thoughts. Of course, inter-city rail works best if there are commuter lines and transit in the main city. This is true of many cities already. Where it is lacking, a suburban stop might work, so folks could park and ride.
ndbprr amtrak or privatization or anything else will never work because te infrastructure is not where the people are. We are no longer a center city culture. No place has more trains than Chicago but even if your car didn't disappear who is going to drive downtown (for most people two hours) and pay $40 a day for the privelage of using a mode of travel that is early 20th century at best? You may not have noticed but everything else is getting faster. I'm sure there are those that mourn the passing of the stage coach. Maybe we should subsidize thosetoo.
You are confusing commuter rail/mass transit with Amtrak intercity and inter regional rail. Two different things, two different pholosophies, two different operating models.
I'm not confusing the two. Want to board Amtrak in a suburb of Chcago good luck. So if I understand the argument I should ride Metra to LaSallle st. Schlep over to Union Station and wait for my train. That takes longer then driving to Midway and getting a Southwest flight that will have me anywhere in the country in under four hours and has parking at $12 per day. It is cheaper and it is quicker. Double the air fare and it is still cheaper and quicker. Subsidized? Yes and rightfully so. It maximizes time and productivity.
Your choice. As it sounds like you live in a SW suburb, you could board in Joliet or Summit if you wanted to go to St. Louis. And if and when higher speed trains on corridors under 300 miles become reality, you might find the train at least as quick and cheaper to those and other destinations, when you add in the time spent getting to/from both airports, security, and a car rental at your destination. Anything more distant would and should be the domain of airlines.
Just to set the record straight, Amtrak currently does make Chicago suburban stops in Glenview, Naperville, Plano, Kankakee and Homewood, as well as Joliet and Summit.
So if I want to go east then what?
You understand that it will take time to get the appropriate corridors operating, if ever. Probably the Michigan one would be first and maybe to Indianapolis. Distances greater than 300 miles make little sense for rail.
Amtrak doesn't have a limitation of liquid on their trains and some baggage cars have been retrofitted to carry guns. sure, it's not faster than an airplane but at least you don't have to go through as much a hassle (screening processs) than you have to while traveling through the boring sky. Trains have better views and better food (I think). and don't get me started on Metra. sure you'll have to walk from LaSalle to Union, but you won't have to pay $15 for parking, spend some time in gridlock (or construction, dependant on time and season) or use the gas to get down there.
The more people Ridong Metra, the less CO2 we have in the air.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.