Who is Boardman? Has anyone aktchu'lly ever seen him? He sure don't get "oot-and-aboot" like David Gunn did. As far as Presidential appointments go, I'm sure there are a lot of unemployed persons in Illinois that could fill the positions, warm-body wise. That's a "no-brainer". Maybe the number "four" is beyond.... Uh, oh. Better quit now, or I'll be in the penalty box again.
Sam1blownout cylinder Sam1One does not have to be an accountant or budget expert to understand that these levels of debt and unfunded liabilities are unsustainable. Thus, the states, acting independently or in regional coalitions, will have to finance any expansion of passenger rail in their locale. This is the proper way to go, inasmuch as the future for passenger rail is as a regional transport solution. While the above breakdown is true--some models I've seen may put some of those GDP percentages down a tad--we'll have enough people running around trying to put some kind of a "national face" on any regional effort. I keep on about regional/local solutions being more of an idea anyways but will anyone give regional solutions a chance?-----Nooooooo The Heartland Flyer between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth is funded jointly by the Oklahoma and Texas Departments of Transportation. It is a small regional effort, to be sure, but it could be the start of something bigger. I favor a regional approach to improving passenger rail service. People in California should not have to fund a system designed for Texas, as well as perhaps its neighbors, and people in Texas should not help fund a California system. Both concepts are regional systems, contrary to what has been said in previous discussions, as opposed to a unified national system.
blownout cylinder Sam1One does not have to be an accountant or budget expert to understand that these levels of debt and unfunded liabilities are unsustainable. Thus, the states, acting independently or in regional coalitions, will have to finance any expansion of passenger rail in their locale. This is the proper way to go, inasmuch as the future for passenger rail is as a regional transport solution. While the above breakdown is true--some models I've seen may put some of those GDP percentages down a tad--we'll have enough people running around trying to put some kind of a "national face" on any regional effort. I keep on about regional/local solutions being more of an idea anyways but will anyone give regional solutions a chance?-----Nooooooo
Sam1One does not have to be an accountant or budget expert to understand that these levels of debt and unfunded liabilities are unsustainable. Thus, the states, acting independently or in regional coalitions, will have to finance any expansion of passenger rail in their locale. This is the proper way to go, inasmuch as the future for passenger rail is as a regional transport solution.
While the above breakdown is true--some models I've seen may put some of those GDP percentages down a tad--we'll have enough people running around trying to put some kind of a "national face" on any regional effort. I keep on about regional/local solutions being more of an idea anyways but will anyone give regional solutions a chance?-----Nooooooo
The Heartland Flyer between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth is funded jointly by the Oklahoma and Texas Departments of Transportation. It is a small regional effort, to be sure, but it could be the start of something bigger.
I favor a regional approach to improving passenger rail service. People in California should not have to fund a system designed for Texas, as well as perhaps its neighbors, and people in Texas should not help fund a California system. Both concepts are regional systems, contrary to what has been said in previous discussions, as opposed to a unified national system.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
blownout cylinderSam1One does not have to be an accountant or budget expert to understand that these levels of debt and unfunded liabilities are unsustainable. Thus, the states, acting independently or in regional coalitions, will have to finance any expansion of passenger rail in their locale. This is the proper way to go, inasmuch as the future for passenger rail is as a regional transport solution. While the above breakdown is true--some models I've seen may put some of those GDP percentages down a tad--we'll have enough people running around trying to put some kind of a "national face" on any regional effort. I keep on about regional/local solutions being more of an idea anyways but will anyone give regional solutions a chance?-----Nooooooo
Very true. However as I pointed out in an earlier post, the states most likely to need/want to do more regional transportation schemes are subsidizing those states who tend to reject any governmental (state or fed) rail plans.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Looking to the federal government for significant monies to support passenger rail is unlikely to be fruitful. The U.S. pubic debt is $7.2 trillion, whilst the intergovernmental debt is $4.9 trillion, bringing the total federal debt to $12.1 trillion or 86 per cent of GDP. Moreover, according to OMB projections, the public debt will reach approximately 70 per cent of GDP in 2019, bringing total federal government debt to nearly 100 per cent of GDP when combined with the intragovernmental debt.
Many of the states are also in serious hawk. They owe a combined $1.9 trillion. When their debt is added to the federal debt, the total comes to $14 trillion or 99 per cent of GDP. And this is before factoring in unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. The estimated unfunded liabilities are approximately $40 trillion.
One does not have to be an accountant or budget expert to understand that these levels of debt and unfunded liabilities are unsustainable. Thus, the states, acting independently or in regional coalitions, will have to finance any expansion of passenger rail in their locale. This is the proper way to go, inasmuch as the future for passenger rail is as a regional transport solution.
schlimmLooks to me like everything rail-related (HSR, route changes, etc.) has been put on hold for an indefinite period.
Agreed. That's why I said he's bettr than the political junk.
blownout cylinderoltmanndFalcon48Boardman's well respected in the rail industry. Amtrak needs someone like that. ..but not a year at a time. You are always a lame duck that way. People in the organization who might not like what he wants to do have the luxury of waiting for him to be gone. They don't have to decide to get with the program or argue the point. And if you couple that with the issue of 4 empty seats that seem to be lying around waiting for "someone" to appoint the positions, and then get them confirmed, then--------
oltmanndFalcon48Boardman's well respected in the rail industry. Amtrak needs someone like that. ..but not a year at a time. You are always a lame duck that way. People in the organization who might not like what he wants to do have the luxury of waiting for him to be gone. They don't have to decide to get with the program or argue the point.
Falcon48Boardman's well respected in the rail industry. Amtrak needs someone like that.
And if you couple that with the issue of 4 empty seats that seem to be lying around waiting for "someone" to appoint the positions, and then get them confirmed, then--------
Looks to me like everything rail-related (HSR, route changes, etc.) has been put on hold for an indefinite period.
4merroad4manLook around. He's better than some of the political junk laying around out there trolling for a position....
Look around. He's better than some of the political junk laying around out there trolling for a position....
jeatonI'm not sure he got a one year extension
jeatonI'm not sure he got a one year extension. The way I read the article, the current board members have decided to put off any decision on a permanent appointment-either Boardman or someone else-until more of the four vacant board seats are filled.
Then the question is whether Amtrak is even on anyone's radar---how long were those seats empty? And if Boardman did not get an extension--which I think he would have if there is anything there--then what is his role now? He is still titular head at this point I think----
4merroad4man Look around. He's better than some of the political junk laying around out there trolling for a position....
Boardman's well respected in the rail industry. Amtrak needs someone like that.
oltmannd..for one more year. Board decided against a permanent appointment. Gave Boardman one more year as temporary. Ugh. Not that I dislike Boardman, it's just that Amtrak need direction and focus and having another year in limbo doesn't help.
I'm not sure he got a one year extension. The way I read the article, the current board members have decided to put off any decision on a permanent appointment-either Boardman or someone else-until more of the four vacant board seats are filled.
For those who might not know-Amtrak Board members are US Presidential appointments subject to confirmation by the US Senate.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
tomikawaTTWell, so much for any hope for HSR running east-west from the left coast. I just can't see the states that are having problems paying their bills coughing up ANYTHING for rails across the states that can barely afford to pave anything but Interstates (which is mostly Federal money.) Chuck
Well, so much for any hope for HSR running east-west from the left coast. I just can't see the states that are having problems paying their bills coughing up ANYTHING for rails across the states that can barely afford to pave anything but Interstates (which is mostly Federal money.)
Chuck
Very true. I was looking at the Tax Foundation's 2007 annual analysis of federal taxing and spending patterns. While states on the east and west coasts and industrial midwest pay in (in taxes) more than they get a payouts, some western states (and some southern and Alaska) are the opposite.
During fiscal 2005, taxpayers in New Mexico benefited the most from the give-and-take with Uncle Sam, receiving $2.03 in federal outlays for every $1.00 the state's taxpayers sent to Washington. This first-place finish is nothing new in New Mexico which has perched atop this list for many years. Other big winners in 2005 were Mississippi ($2.02), Alaska ($1.84), Louisiana ($1.78), West Virginia ($1.76), and North Dakota ($1.68).
2005's biggest loser was New Jersey, which received 61 cents in outlays per tax dollar. Other low ranking states included Nevada (65 cents), Connecticut (69 cents), New Hampshire (71 cents), Minnesota (72 cents), Illinois (75 cents), California (78 cents) and New York (79 cents).
Boardman is only one issue I think---what about the board itself? They cannot either find someone to replace Boardman--or there are no takers -- or there is alot of dickering between board members? Was there anything said about that decision--like why?
schlimm The current Trains issue (F. Frailey) indicates a policy that any future plans for expansion will need to originate with the states, not Amtrak.
The current Trains issue (F. Frailey) indicates a policy that any future plans for expansion will need to originate with the states, not Amtrak.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.