"Moreover, many Republicans in Congress have argued repeatedly that they are interested in funding improved rail service on the Northeast Corridor. Former House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chair John Mica (R-FL) said in 2011 that “We have to redirect our efforts to having at least one success in high-speed rail in the nation. And that high-speed rail success needs to be here in the Northeast Corridor.” Though he didn’t propose any specific way to pay for those improvements, his interest is indicative of the GOP’s willingness to compromise. (And indeed, current Committee Chair Bill Shuster also has been a supporter of Amtrak.)"
From Yonah Freemark's blog, "The Transport Politic". Interesting reading....always very thoughtful.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
A couple Bill Shuster quotes from AASHTO Conference.
"I’ve watched, in the last 40 years, the debate in Congress. Republicans used to stand up and say, “Amtrak has failed; sell it off and do away with it all.” I don’t agree with that. There is a need for passenger rail in this country. My counterparts on the other side of the aisle talk about, “There’s no passenger rail system that’s not subsidized in the world,” and they’re right. But I think it’s wrong that we can’t get Amtrak to a place where they’re not taking as big subsidies from the federal government. They can get to a place where they may be able to get close to break-even."
AND
"I think the place we’ve got to focus when it comes to high-speed rail is the one place we own the tracks, the place we have the most condensed population in nation — 18, 19 percent of our population live on 3 percent of our land mass in the Northeast Corridor. That’s where we should focus. Focus there, achieve it, learn from it, and then roll it out to other parts of the country."
Sounds like Bill wants a "Better Amtrak." Sounds good to me!
It will be interesting to hear what NARP will have to say about these comments.
What Bill Shuster says sounds good to me, too, Don.
But first of all, representation in the Senate is based not on population but on statehood. The 8 states with 19 per cent of the population have 16 Senators. Other states like the Dakotas have very small populations but still get 2 Senators each. And as Joe Boardman has pointed out if we cut out the trains that are the biggest money losers were cut out almost all trains west of the Mississippi river.
How does this sound to a Congressman or Senator from Alabama where Amtrak never restored the Sunset Limited after Katrina? Or to a Congressman or Senator from Wyoming where Amtrak abandoned rail service years ago? I think to these people it sounds like pork for the northeast.
John
I suggest you check your facts. In a speech before the HSR group [video link posted elsewhere on the forum] Boardman clearly said that cutting out the four biggest money losers would be the four LD trains going west of the Mississippi, not east of it. of course he then went on to say that they should be retained, but not be subsidized in part by Acela.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
John is right about states like South Dakota or Wyoming having very little interest in Amtrak's fate. When train promoters issue grand schemes that contain service for our state we recognize it as an attempt to gain political favor, probably by a person who doesn't recognize how vast our distances are nor the realities of our low population densities.
That said, it seems to me that the states that comprise the Northeast Corridor are getting off very easily compared to California, Illinois, North Carolina and others who are directly contributing to the operation of Amtrak in their states. It seems to me that it is those states who have the biggest complaint when Amtrak asks for equipment or infrastructure money for the Northeast Corridor.
Dakguy201When train promoters issue grand schemes that contain service for our state we recognize it as an attempt to gain political favor, probably by a person who doesn't recognize how vast our distances are nor the realities of our low population densities.
Of course the grandest of all of the schemes was the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and a few years thereafter. It was clearly recognized both by government and private industry that private capital would never build a transcontinental railroad precisely for the reasons you point to: Vast distances and low population densities. Never the less it was important to the nation that the transcontinental railroads be built.
Do we today need a national passenger railroad system? That is the issue. But if we do need a passenger rail system it must cover our nation as it is. And it is a nation where some areas have low population densities and vast distance. Today Amtrak is but a remnant of the passenger rail system that private railroads operated before Amtrak. And that private system was but a remnant of the system that existed up to the 1950's.
Although I am an easterner I don't regard recognizing that Wyoming and South Dakota are part of our nation as a political favor.
John WR What Bill Shuster says sounds good to me, too, Don. But first of all, representation in the Senate is based not on population but on statehood. The 8 states with 19 per cent of the population have 16 Senators. Other states like the Dakotas have very small populations but still get 2 Senators each. And as Joe Boardman has pointed out if we cut out the trains that are the biggest money losers were cut out almost all trains west of the Mississippi river. How does this sound to a Congressman or Senator from Alabama where Amtrak never restored the Sunset Limited after Katrina? Or to a Congressman or Senator from Wyoming where Amtrak abandoned rail service years ago? I think to these people it sounds like pork for the northeast. John
Bill chairs the committee where the money comes from. That's pretty important.
oltmanndBill chairs the committee where the money comes from. That's pretty important.
Well, yes it is important. But there are 434 other members of the House of Representatives. Perhaps they are as aware of the importance of Representative Schuster as we are. At the very least 217 of them must support the laws he influences if they are to pass.
John WR oltmanndBill chairs the committee where the money comes from. That's pretty important. Well, yes it is important. But there are 434 other members of the House of Representatives. Perhaps they are as aware of the importance of Representative Schuster as we are. At the very least 217 of them must support the laws he influences if they are to pass.
blue streak 1But if I want my pet project in my distric to get money from Bill maybe I better suppport him ?
There's the rub. If you have a transportation project you want funded the transportation chairman can see that it stays bottled up in committee and goes nowhere.
But if you are also a Republican and you have just won a hard primary fight from party members who object to your spending you might have some second thoughts. After all, the people who vote in the primaries tend to come from the most extreme parts of the party, both on the right and on the left. And the next election is not quite two years off and the primary is even closer. So you have got to make some careful decisions.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.