Transportation Commissioner Ray LaHood has announced he will resign as soon as President Obama can appoint a new commissioner and a smooth transition can be arranged.
LaHood, a Republican, is known for his strong support of High Speed Rail and his opposition to driving with the distraction of cellphones.
Here is a link: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/transportation-secretary-ray-lahood-stepping-down-86892.html?hp=l9
He could have been worse, but we can hope for better.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndHe could have been worse, but we can hope for better.
Don,
You mean someone who will push even harder for HSR? ;-)
On a more serious note, bear in mind that LaHood, a Republican, is more conservative than most people.
John
Heard one rumor on the radio that the Administration is looking at Jim Oberstar. POTUS is in MN next week. May be a meeing?
MarknLisa Heard one rumor on the radio that the Administration is looking at Jim Oberstar. POTUS is in MN next week. May be a meeing?
Gadzooks! That would be awful.
John WR oltmanndHe could have been worse, but we can hope for better. Don, You mean someone who will push even harder for HSR? ;-) On a more serious note, bear in mind that LaHood, a Republican, is more conservative than most people. John
LOL. On the plus side, he did, at least seem to know there were railroads, and he was a good cheerleader for the stimulus money spent on HrSR. On the negative side, he saddled the RRs with a scary and expensive PTC rulings. He could have been an advocate for longer, phased implementation schedule, at least. He also could have helped focus the stimulus money to where it could do the most good, the quickest.
Oberstar is scary. He thinks RRs = Robber Barons.
oltmanndOberstar is scary. He thinks RRs = Robber Barons.
Jim Oberstar is from Minnesota and a member of the Democratic Farmer Labor party. Certainly the freight railroads have their work cut of for them if he becomes Transportation Commissioner.
It really doesn't matter who replaces LaHood. The president runs the show and his nominee will do as he is told.
tpatrickThe president runs the show and his nominee will do as he is told
I agree. But I seriously doubt freight railroads really get a lot of Presidential attention. Even Amtrack doesn't get much attention and Amtrak is a government entity. Freight railroads are private companies. The President has a lot of higher priority issues. So the Transportation Commissioner has a lot of leeway here. Should the TC be of a mind that the Robber Barons have not gone away and his job is to reign them in I think the freight railroads will have a hard row to hoe. But perhaps they can do it and persuade the TC that this is 2013, not 1913.
tpatrick It really doesn't matter who replaces LaHood. The president runs the show and his nominee will do as he is told.
I really don't think it works that way.
So, Oberstar says to Obama, "The RRs are ripping off poor family farmers. I have proof and I want to stop them." Obama is going to say, "No. I know all about railroading and farming. This is not true. Go sit down and shut up."?
Cabinet posts are very powerful things. They get to tell the prez what's up in their realm and he listens to what they say. Presidents want people they can trust, not people they have to second guess all the time.
Well one other possible candidate being talked about over here on the left coast is that our current mayor of LA Antonio Villaraigosa might be on the short list. He'll be termed out of office very soon and he has been inside the Prez inner circle for a while now. On the plus side he is a fierce advocate for public transit, not so sure on his experience with Amtrak or freight rail companies. I will say this much, LA has a MUCH better light rail public transit system since he became mayor and it is alot easier to get around the city, however the Bur Riders Union might disagree. The system is not perfect, the LAX airport Green Line extension is still just a dream, the Subway to the Sea extension is IMHO a giant waste of money (why in the climate we have are they building underground? Build it in the daylight, elevate it if needed, faster cheaper and easier to build) but that's the MTA's failure more so than the Mayors. Be interesting to see who's shoulder gets tapped.
Have fun with your trains
vsmithWell one other possible candidate being talked about over here on the left coast is that our current mayor of LA Antonio Villaraigosa might be on the short list.
You make a good point. The selection hasn't been made yet.
Interesting post on the LA mayor. IMO, transportation infrastructure is not likely to be a focus in the 2nd term. At least until January 2015, nothing would pass through the House.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
But rail infrastructure will be the focus in the near future...that is why BNSF, CSX, NS, especially are advertising now...they are trying to warm up the taxpayers to the idea that Federal transportation dollars for infrastructure has to include rail. Plus, since the railroad industry is big and important to transportation and business, and thus politics, it is a big issue facing the Federal DOT.
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.
henry6But rail infrastructure will be the focus in the near future...that is why BNSF, CSX, NS, especially are advertising now...they are trying to warm up the taxpayers to the idea that
I have to agree with Schlimm, Henry. HSR will go nowhere as long as the Republicans have a majority in the House. But, as you point out, freight railroads are trying to raise public awareness that railroads are important to America.
If I were in charge of a freight railroad and I wanted Amtrak off my tracks the last thing I would do is to run any advertisements at all. After all, the logic that says railroads are important for freight is close to the logic that say railroads are important for passengers. I don't think the subject can be neatly separated in the public mind.
But the same analysis suggests that a public that sees passenger service as valuable will also be inclined to appreciate the value of rail freight service. To the extent that railroads have negative image problems from many years ago this can counteract those images; passenger rail can help the public to understand and perhaps to even care about freight rail.
Finally, even if we did move forward on HSR it is not clear that there would be less of a demand for Amtrak on freight rail tracks. HSR could encourage people to use traditional rail for shorter distances and even to get to a HSR station.
In short the advertising by freight rail companies is consistent with accepting Amtrak's use of their tracks so I think in a broad sense you are right.
HSR is not everything under USDOT. Rail, highway, waterways, air, pipelines, are all under this purview. And there is going to be more integration and rationalization of modes in the future in making funding decisions. HSR is the smallest of them.
henry6HSR is the smallest of them.
And, I suspect, will be even smaller in the next 2 years. But what will happen to conventional rail as operated by Amtrak? We have to wait and see.
By the way, is there any more information about rail service between Binghamton and NYC?
henry6 But rail infrastructure will be the focus in the near future...that is why BNSF, CSX, NS, especially are advertising now...they are trying to warm up the taxpayers to the idea that Federal transportation dollars for infrastructure has to include rail. Plus, since the railroad industry is big and important to transportation and business, and thus politics, it is a big issue facing the Federal DOT.
Is this something that people know about, or is this wishful thinking regarding a world where the government would have more authority to direct the railroads towards social purposes?
It is well established that the railroads would want government funding of rail infrastructure in exchange for greatly increased or expedited passenger service on their lines. Is there any evidence at all that the railroad companies would want any government funding to support their freight operations?
Government funding comes with strings attached. The strings for government funding rail infrastructure are the same strings for government funding of highways, airways, and waterways -- open access. The railroad companies have a tremendous expense in building, owning, maintaining and operating their company rail networks, but in exchange for that, they get to "call the shots."
What evidence is there that the railroads either want or need government infrastructure support?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Not yet...change of political guards on several levels...so I'll try stirring the pot again in a month or two...the unfortunate thing is that the money has not been released for the PA part and NJT is being held hostage by the environmentalist/conservationists after getting the OK to build across NJ in the first place. So until that looks more promised than now, there is no need to rush...
Paul Milenkovic henry6 But rail infrastructure will be the focus in the near future...that is why BNSF, CSX, NS, especially are advertising now...they are trying to warm up the taxpayers to the idea that Federal transportation dollars for infrastructure has to include rail. Plus, since the railroad industry is big and important to transportation and business, and thus politics, it is a big issue facing the Federal DOT. Is this something that people know about, or is this wishful thinking regarding a world where the government would have more authority to direct the railroads towards social purposes? It is well established that the railroads would want government funding of rail infrastructure in exchange for greatly increased or expedited passenger service on their lines. Is there any evidence at all that the railroad companies would want any government funding to support their freight operations? Government funding comes with strings attached. The strings for government funding rail infrastructure are the same strings for government funding of highways, airways, and waterways -- open access. The railroad companies have a tremendous expense in building, owning, maintaining and operating their company rail networks, but in exchange for that, they get to "call the shots." What evidence is there that the railroads either want or need government infrastructure support?
RR's know that highways are crowded, drivers are in short supply, the widened Panama Canal is about to change traffic patterns, our highway infrastructure is in bad condition, rail is putting what money they have into their own properties but that is not a bottomless pit, so government is going to have to help them so they can help government. Yes they know government means interventions but they also feel that they can be the interveners for government projects...cooperative growth being good for all.
henry6NJT is being held hostage by the environmentalist/conservationists after getting the OK to build across NJ in the first place.
You're right. So the environmentalists are demonstrating their concern for the environment by denying people public transit and forcing them to drive to the nearest NJT rail head. Some environmentalism.
Paul MilenkovicWhat evidence is there that the railroads either want or need government infrastructure support?
The evidence I see, Paul, is the freight railroad commercials I see on my TV. Why are the commercials there? I do not ship containers of consumer goods or iron ore or coal by truck that I might divert to my local railroad. The commercials are there because the freight railroads want to raise my awareness and my neighbors' awareness of the importance of freight railroads. Over the long term they are trying to gain broad social support including government support of their activities. I see it as enlightened.
John WR Paul MilenkovicWhat evidence is there that the railroads either want or need government infrastructure support? The evidence I see, Paul, is the freight railroad commercials I see on my TV. Why are the commercials there? I do not ship containers of consumer goods or iron ore or coal by truck that I might divert to my local railroad. The commercials are there because the freight railroads want to raise my awareness and my neighbors' awareness of the importance of freight railroads. Over the long term they are trying to gain broad social support including government support of their activities. I see it as enlightened. John
So a person sees those ads and thinks, "there is no effort on the part of the railroads, say, to make the rails a governmental enterprise such as the highways, waterways, and airways with an open-access model, but the railroads must have something in mind."
How about that the public largely perceives railroads as a public nuisance -- blowing of train horns at night, blocking our drive home by occupying grade crossings, running people over who don't heed the warning devices of horns, lights, and gates? How about what little perception of what railroads do is Amtrak, with most people not aware of what rail freight haulage means to their day-to-day lives?
And I haven't even touched on the public perception as railroads as the operators of trains that jump the tracks in the middle of small towns, creating horrific explosions of propane tank cars or spilling deadly chlorine gas?
How about the railroads are running those feel-good ads about freight trains to counter the public perception of the railroad line as a dangerous nuisance in the community? How about the railroads are running those ads to counteract the deep-seated history lesson that their management and large stockholders are "robber barons"? How about the railroads are running those ads, speaking to the importance of freight haulage in all the goods we receive, as heading of regulation and government interference in their affairs?
Paul,
I believe your thoughts are much more likely to be correct than John's.
Mac McCulloch
Paul Milenkovic John WR Paul MilenkovicWhat evidence is there that the railroads either want or need government infrastructure support? The evidence I see, Paul, is the freight railroad commercials I see on my TV. Why are the commercials there? I do not ship containers of consumer goods or iron ore or coal by truck that I might divert to my local railroad. The commercials are there because the freight railroads want to raise my awareness and my neighbors' awareness of the importance of freight railroads. Over the long term they are trying to gain broad social support including government support of their activities. I see it as enlightened. John So a person sees those ads and thinks, "there is no effort on the part of the railroads, say, to make the rails a governmental enterprise such as the highways, waterways, and airways with an open-access model, but the railroads must have something in mind." How about that the public largely perceives railroads as a public nuisance -- blowing of train horns at night, blocking our drive home by occupying grade crossings, running people over who don't heed the warning devices of horns, lights, and gates? How about what little perception of what railroads do is Amtrak, with most people not aware of what rail freight haulage means to their day-to-day lives? And I haven't even touched on the public perception as railroads as the operators of trains that jump the tracks in the middle of small towns, creating horrific explosions of propane tank cars or spilling deadly chlorine gas? How about the railroads are running those feel-good ads about freight trains to counter the public perception of the railroad line as a dangerous nuisance in the community? How about the railroads are running those ads to counteract the deep-seated history lesson that their management and large stockholders are "robber barons"? How about the railroads are running those ads, speaking to the importance of freight haulage in all the goods we receive, as heading of regulation and government interference in their affairs?
Ugh I get so tired of this countries attitude towards rail. Whenever a accident happens people always blame the railroad when it is usually the fault of the other party. Usually the railroad is not to blame. I guess railroads are to blame for other people's stupidity. What have the railroads done to "rob" us. If robbing is providing a useful service at a low cost then this country has a really skewed definition of "rob". If robbing is paying taxes to fund police, fire departments, education, as well as well as other modes of transportation then people need to re-asses "robbing". If robbing is a certain (not all of them) railroads gaining access to land that belonged to no one to begin with and then paying for the land 10 fold while other recipients of land grants did not pay off their land grants then we need to re-asses "robbing". If "socialism" is giving Amtrak 1.4 billion every year to provide service in almost all of the country while paying most of its own expenses and then providing roads with more money every year then Amtrak he ever received in their entire existence while paying less of their own expenses and at the same giving billions to airports as well as giving airlines direct subsidies and state privileges then we need to re-asses what "socialism" is. If a "boondoggle" is an occasional rail project being built in area that would greatly need it and building ever more roads that never stop growing is not then people need to re-asses the meaning of "boondoggle". end of rant.
Railroad to Freedom
Succinctly, the commercials by freight railroads are a public relations effort to portray themselves in a positive light. Why is that necessary? Why does the public have such a generally negative perspective? Not sure, but it is probably more useful to figure out why than to pretend to be the victim of the public.
Federal stimulus funds and BNSF:
http://www.bnsf.com/media/video/?file=/media/video/video/burl-bridge-celebration.flv&title=BNSF%20Celebrates%20Opening%20of%20Burlington%20Bridge#%23subtabs-3
http://www.bnsf.com/media/news-releases/2013/january/2013-01-18a.html
BNSF doing what it takes to be in business.
http://www.bnsf.com/
http://www.friendsofbnsf.com/
schlimm Succinctly, the commercials by freight railroads are a public relations effort to portray themselves in a positive light. Why is that necessary? Why does the public have such a generally negative perspective? Not sure, but it is probably more useful to figure out why than to pretend to be the victim of the public.
"Why is that necessary? Why does the public have such a generally negative perspective?"
I just told you why the public has a generally negative perspective about railroads. Railroad lines are a public nuisance. Public nuisance, you say, Paul, you have a negative attitude about a lot of things and especially towards trains.
A lot of things constitute a public nuisance. My parents wanted to be buried on a plot of land that they owned and deeded for that purpose from a larger holding. They were refugees to this country from a part of the world where grave markers are removed and cemeteries are destroyed to remove any claim of people of a certain heritage or a certain religion to the homes, farms, and land from which they were forcibly displaced. They wanted to have that connection to the land they purchased with the proceeds of their labor, holding title in the adopted country of their naturalized citizenship. The Township President of their rural community fought them on this, and he had the law on his side, of a recent Wisconsin law mandating a minimum 20 acre size for a cemetery. By the waters of Babylon I sat and wept. The Township President probably never reflected on what that meant in the Bible and what it still means in the modern world.
I got involved in this matter, and the good Township President regarded "cemetery" and "private burial plot" as a distinction without a difference. He also explained to me how small and scattered cemeteries, of which there are many in this rural region, were a "public nuisance", leading to the state law. Land changes hands, roads or other public works are built or improved, such cemeteries are not maintained and decay into ruins, but human remains must be respected and it becomes a huge headache to rural government of limited tax base and financial resources as to what to do with same.
Public nuisance applies to many things. Said Township President soon after wanted to build a tank terminal on his land for storage and distribution of flammable liquids -- propane, Diesel, whatever. Public nuisance. It probably would have helped the community, maybe even broadened the tax base to pay for more public stuff, but let's just say that idea didn't get very far. My parents didn't vocally oppose the idea, but they didn't come out and support it much either. I guess Karma applied to politics, but the Township President may not have read the Vedic holy scripture either.
Railroads are a public nuisance as are cemeteries as are tank terminals. The tank terminal is a way to bring needed fuels and perhaps prosperity into a small town, a cemetery is a way of honoring our departed ancestors, and railroads bring us many of the goods and materials that make our modern lives comfortable.
The benefits are balanced against the burden, and the advertising of the freight railroads is their way of emphasizing the benefit portion of that balance. There was, however, Charles Dodgson's fictional account of a social gathering where the fruits of reason were regarded as the most provocative controversy. If memory serves me, I believe tea was served.
Paul Milenkovic "Why is that necessary? Why does the public have such a generally negative perspective?" I just told you why the public has a generally negative perspective about railroads. Railroad lines are a public nuisance.
I just told you why the public has a generally negative perspective about railroads. Railroad lines are a public nuisance.
I don't think that is a helpful answer because I don't think that is the way the public sees the railroads. Much of the public in many parts of the US sees very little of the railroads in the past 50 years because of abandoned tracks and limited passenger service.
Paul MilenkovicRailroad lines are a public nuisance.
But there are a number of publics and one man's nuisance is another man's blessing. Yes, there are people who complain about noisy train horns. But if you read real estate ads where I live you will find the phrase "walk to train" over and over.
And there are people who appreciate the fact that more freight trains mean fewer over the road trucks. If you go to a community which has experienced a sandwich collision where a car has gotten between two such trucks you will find an appreciation of freight railroads.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.