CMStPnP ROBERT WILLISON I wonder how any one could support Trump if they support Amtrak. The hand writing was on the wall. I wrote in earlier post, that under Trump their be only the regionals, state supported trains and the NEC left standing The problem of course is you did not look at the Infrastructure Program where many big-ticket Amtrak projects were moved away from the Amtrak budget. It's a new philosophy that apparently many of the Forum readers here are clueless of. President Trump moved most of the individual agency transportation big ticket projects over to the Infrastructure Program. So while it is listed that light rail will suffer under the budget. Looking at the Infrastructure program.......Billions are going to be spent on Light Rail, if the Infrastructure program is approved. Dallas has two large transit projects on the Infrastructure program.
ROBERT WILLISON I wonder how any one could support Trump if they support Amtrak. The hand writing was on the wall. I wrote in earlier post, that under Trump their be only the regionals, state supported trains and the NEC left standing
The problem of course is you did not look at the Infrastructure Program where many big-ticket Amtrak projects were moved away from the Amtrak budget. It's a new philosophy that apparently many of the Forum readers here are clueless of. President Trump moved most of the individual agency transportation big ticket projects over to the Infrastructure Program. So while it is listed that light rail will suffer under the budget. Looking at the Infrastructure program.......Billions are going to be spent on Light Rail, if the Infrastructure program is approved. Dallas has two large transit projects on the Infrastructure program.
On the face of it, that sounds better. But what good does it do to build fancy infrastructure to be used by an entity that is too starved to make good use of it?
Tom
oltmannd Has anyone else noted the irony that the states that will be losing their Amtrak service are almost exactly match the states that went for Trump?
Has anyone else noted the irony that the states that will be losing their Amtrak service are almost exactly match the states that went for Trump?
Most of my Texas neighbors don't know anything about Amtrak? They don't use it; most of them don't even know there are any passenger trains that serve Texas. If Amtrak ceased to exist it would not register with them.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
ACYOn the face of it, that sounds better. But what good does it do to build fancy infrastructure to be used by an entity that is too starved to make good use of it? Tom
Allegedly, what President Trump says he is trying to do is remove the big Infrastructure Project management from the smaller agencies to the larger ones with more experience managing large projects (he believes that will translate to lower costs, less cost overruns and better management). So I believe but I am not 100% sure, he moved the large Amtrak projects under either DOT or FRA.
Also I posted the preliminary Infrastructure plan in this forum earlier that he outlined in December which was a work in progress back then and it still should be searchable if you want to see what Amtrak projects he selected. All I remember was the twin tubes to New York, CUS improvement project (additional 5 stories), Washington DC improvement project. He has the express light rail from Plano, TX to DFW Airport on there as well as DART light rail expansion as shovel ready projects.......there are a few other rail projects as well.
I suspect and I am just guessing here, the other reason he moved the projects to DOT or FRA is they have more power with negotiation and bidding if they have a suite of large projects to bid on vs several smaller agencies with just one project to bid on. So if your dealing with a BECHTEL Construction conglomerate you can shave costs off one project if they are getting more projects to offset the loss where you shaved costs.
Also, another item on the Infrastructure program was replacement of a large part of KANSAS CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, he moved that project from the local level to the Federal Level and I am not sure who is in charge of it now.
Also, fixing or expanding a lot of waterways and locks.
schlimmn.b.: As of Saturday morning, Trump's minions have yet to release any details of his infrastructure budget.
Not true, they did a preliminary release in December. It is posted in this forum or General Discussion Forum. Again, all you need to do is search on Trump and Infrastructure as keywords.
Here is the preliminary Infrastructure program released in December, it was a work in progress then. #1 on the list is Amtrak and the twin tubes to NYC, they also have the CSX Howard Street Tunnel on the list.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3409546-Emergency-NatSec50Projects-121416-1-Reduced.html
CMStPnP schlimm n.b.: As of Saturday morning, Trump's minions have yet to release any details of his infrastructure budget. Not true, they did a preliminary release in December. It is posted in this forum or General Discussion Forum. Again, all you need to do is search on Trump and Infrastructure as keywords.
schlimm n.b.: As of Saturday morning, Trump's minions have yet to release any details of his infrastructure budget.
Analyisis of his plan: Trump’s plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It’s a tax-cut plan for utility-industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The plan doesn’t directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports. Instead, Trump’s plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. These projects (such as electrical grid modernization or energy pipeline expansion) might already be planned or even underway. There’s no requirement that the tax breaks be used for incremental or otherwise expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects. He also takes the projects out of existing federal agencies and sets up a new agency in the WH. The potential for pork and graft is huge.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CMStPnP Here is the preliminary Infrastructure program released in December, it was a work in progress then. #1 on the list is Amtrak and the twin tubes to NYC, they also have the CSX Howard Street Tunnel on the list. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3409546-Emergency-NatSec50Projects-121416-1-Reduced.html
This is a political wish list issued before the President took office.
We won't know the details of the President's proposals for months to come, and they will only be important if Congress agrees to fund them. Until then getting torqued-up over the President's (OMB's) proposed budget seems premature.
schlimmAnalyisis of his plan: Trump’s plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It’s a tax-cut plan for utility-industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The plan doesn’t directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports. Instead, Trump’s plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. These projects (such as electrical grid modernization or energy pipeline expansion) might already be planned or even underway. There’s no requirement that the tax breaks be used for incremental or otherwise expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects. He also takes the projects out of existing federal agencies and sets up a new agency in the WH. The potential for pork and graft is huge.
Well I guess that is one perspective but I think I will wait and see how it is implemented before I make judgements of abuse (before they happen).
The problem is Trump's infrastructure program is nothing more than a wish list. The reality is that local transit systems will lose millions in new investments and operating funds. Gcrta will lose the funding to operate it's health line running from public square out to the Cleveland clinic, providing connections to heavy rail and West side busses in public square.
The real irony is the Health line construction, new buses and the rebuilding of public square to better flow bus traffic was largely paid for with Federal funding.
It's a shame that Trump's vision of making America great again is as erratic as his tweets.
Schlimm, thanks for articulating this so well. It was what I was driving at, but you got it 100% correct. And then some.
If the budget is passed with the Amtrak and Transit cuts, then it is expenditure certain that those programs will be cut. Even if the infrastructure package is also passed as tax break incentives, there is little certainty that rail projects will be privately funded. Just look at the problems that FEC/Brightline had trying to sell the junk bonds for AAF. In the end they had to self-finance.
While Trump's infrastructure plan is quite murky at this point, I either read of or heard that the trillion dollar infrastructure idea depended on a lower corporate tax rate of around 10 to 15%. The trillions that corporations are holding overseas would supposedly flow back stateside and pay a one time tax at the lower rate, thus yielding the roughly one trillion plus for infrastructure projects that would be spread out over 10 years. This money would match private funds or money raised by state and local governments or other public bodies, such as Amtrak. Those of you with better info than I can comment on the accuracy, or lack thereof.
A McIntosh While Trump's infrastructure plan is quite murky at this point, I either read of or heard that the trillion dollar infrastructure idea depended on a lower corporate tax rate of around 10 to 15%. The trillions that corporations are holding overseas would supposedly flow back stateside and pay a one time tax at the lower rate, thus yielding the roughly one trillion plus for infrastructure projects that would be spread out over 10 years. This money would match private funds or money raised by state and local governments or other public bodies, such as Amtrak. Those of you with better info than I can comment on the accuracy, or lack thereof.
Pretty iffy.
CMStPnP:
You suggest that Trump's plan is a well thought out plan to reassign responsibilities for funding from one agency to another in the interest of efficiency. I may not be expressing it perfectly, but I think that is the nub of it.
If that were the case, it might not be bad at all. But so far, Trump has shown pretty convincingly that he hasn't a clue how the government in general, or these agencies in particular, work in the first place. If that's the case, no plan of his will make any sense or have any positive impact, unless it's by accident. Making changes just because you decide you ought to do SOMETHING is an idiotic approach, and it doesn't speak well for Trump's business acumen. So far, that seems to be what he's doing.
I obviously don't care for him, but that's beside the point. I want the Country to have successful policies, irrespective of my opinion of him as a person. If Trump can do that, I'll accord him whatever credit he deserves. But nothing he has said or done so far makes me optimistic.
ACYCMStPnP: You suggest that Trump's plan is a well thought out plan to reassign responsibilities for funding from one agency to another in the interest of efficiency. I may not be expressing it perfectly, but I think that is the nub of it. If that were the case, it might not be bad at all. But so far, Trump has shown pretty convincingly that he hasn't a clue how the government in general, or these agencies in particular, work in the first place. If that's the case, no plan of his will make any sense or have any positive impact, unless it's by accident. Making changes just because you decide you ought to do SOMETHING is an idiotic approach, and it doesn't speak well for Trump's business acumen. So far, that seems to be what he's doing. I obviously don't care for him, but that's beside the point. I want the Country to have successful policies, irrespective of my opinion of him as a person. If Trump can do that, I'll accord him whatever credit he deserves. But nothing he has said or done so far makes me optimistic. Tom
Well despite his other nonsense, he has applied his business knowledge in areas that a politician would not. Too early to tell how effective he will be with legislation and the budget, in my view. I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt there.
To be fair, I also extended the benefit of the doubt to the last President for the first two years at least.
Last but not least, I can't see a native of NYC, screwing up Amtrak beyond removal of the Long Distance Trains, which most of us know will not happen because Congress will vote against it and the labor protections will keep them running forever...........as in the past. I don't think there is a politician that will ever be able to kill Amtrak's LD trains without the country plunging into a major financial crisis first to provide a real sense of urgency for eliminating them. I think the most we will ever see is a compromise there where Amtrak loses maybe 2-3 LD trains but not all of them at once.
Interestingly nobody heard the comments the Trump administration made about state subsidized Amtrak service or Corridor service, they were supportive of both in their comments and only ripped on LD service.
So if any LD trains are on the block, my guess is finally the Cardinal and the Sunset Limited make their last runs.
CMStPnP ACY CMStPnP: You suggest that Trump's plan is a well thought out plan to reassign responsibilities for funding from one agency to another in the interest of efficiency. I may not be expressing it perfectly, but I think that is the nub of it. If that were the case, it might not be bad at all. But so far, Trump has shown pretty convincingly that he hasn't a clue how the government in general, or these agencies in particular, work in the first place. If that's the case, no plan of his will make any sense or have any positive impact, unless it's by accident. Making changes just because you decide you ought to do SOMETHING is an idiotic approach, and it doesn't speak well for Trump's business acumen. So far, that seems to be what he's doing. I obviously don't care for him, but that's beside the point. I want the Country to have successful policies, irrespective of my opinion of him as a person. If Trump can do that, I'll accord him whatever credit he deserves. But nothing he has said or done so far makes me optimistic. Tom Interestingly nobody heard the comments the Trump administration made about state subsidized Amtrak service or Corridor service, they were supportive of both in their comments and only ripped on LD service.
ACY CMStPnP: You suggest that Trump's plan is a well thought out plan to reassign responsibilities for funding from one agency to another in the interest of efficiency. I may not be expressing it perfectly, but I think that is the nub of it. If that were the case, it might not be bad at all. But so far, Trump has shown pretty convincingly that he hasn't a clue how the government in general, or these agencies in particular, work in the first place. If that's the case, no plan of his will make any sense or have any positive impact, unless it's by accident. Making changes just because you decide you ought to do SOMETHING is an idiotic approach, and it doesn't speak well for Trump's business acumen. So far, that seems to be what he's doing. I obviously don't care for him, but that's beside the point. I want the Country to have successful policies, irrespective of my opinion of him as a person. If Trump can do that, I'll accord him whatever credit he deserves. But nothing he has said or done so far makes me optimistic. Tom
Of course Trump won't interfere with State subsidized service. As long as the money isn't Federal, he doesn't care because he thinks it's no skin off his nose.
ACY CMStPnP ACY CMStPnP: You suggest that Trump's plan is a well thought out plan to reassign responsibilities for funding from one agency to another in the interest of efficiency. I may not be expressing it perfectly, but I think that is the nub of it. If that were the case, it might not be bad at all. But so far, Trump has shown pretty convincingly that he hasn't a clue how the government in general, or these agencies in particular, work in the first place. If that's the case, no plan of his will make any sense or have any positive impact, unless it's by accident. Making changes just because you decide you ought to do SOMETHING is an idiotic approach, and it doesn't speak well for Trump's business acumen. So far, that seems to be what he's doing. I obviously don't care for him, but that's beside the point. I want the Country to have successful policies, irrespective of my opinion of him as a person. If Trump can do that, I'll accord him whatever credit he deserves. But nothing he has said or done so far makes me optimistic. Tom Interestingly nobody heard the comments the Trump administration made about state subsidized Amtrak service or Corridor service, they were supportive of both in their comments and only ripped on LD service. Of course Trump won't interfere with State subsidized service. As long as the money isn't Federal, he doesn't care because he thinks it's no skin off his nose. Tom
Somebody can fact check this, but AFAIK, the "State-subsidized Services" are not 100% state funded.
CMStPnP oltmannd Has anyone else noted the irony that the states that will be losing their Amtrak service are almost exactly match the states that went for Trump? Perhaps they know their Amtrak service is secure regardless of the proposed budget.
Perhaps they know their Amtrak service is secure regardless of the proposed budget.
If this was a strategic ploy, then I'd the Amtrak service is a pawn in some greater horsetrading scheme.
However, I think the simplest explanation is that this is just some sort of window dressing in a quick and dirty budget preparation. Just cross stuff off so that the number at the bottom comes out right after you add in defense and homeland security spending.
There is scant analysis or commentary on any of the budget items. Just another sign of having another rookie administration...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ACYOf course Trump won't interfere with State subsidized service. As long as the money isn't Federal, he doesn't care because he thinks it's no skin off his nose. Tom
He is thinking probably more along the lines of votes and presuming the LD trains have far less support but just a guess on my part. I thought it was radically different for them to come out and make a verbal statement (the Budget Director made the positive statement) in support of state corridors. Past Republican Administrations never delineated between Amtrak Corridor and Amtrak LD.
I don't know what the funding ratio is on Amtrak Corridors when the state picks up part of the tab but the FEDS have been slowly increasing the state funding ratio along with other requirements like purchasing equipment. For example to expand Chicago to Milwaukee another three frequencies, WI and IL now have to buy a new locomotive as well as I believe an additional trainset because the existing equipment pool can't make 10 RT runs.
oltmannd CMStPnP oltmannd Has anyone else noted the irony that the states that will be losing their Amtrak service are almost exactly match the states that went for Trump? Perhaps they know their Amtrak service is secure regardless of the proposed budget. If this was a strategic ploy, then I'd the Amtrak service is a pawn in some greater horsetrading scheme. However, I think the simplest explanation is that this is just some sort of window dressing in a quick and dirty budget preparation. Just cross stuff off so that the number at the bottom comes out right after you add in defense and homeland security spending. There is scant analysis or commentary on any of the budget items. Just another sign of having another rookie administration...
+1
Much of the "budget" looked like some intern cut and pasted existing stuff from various websites, enough to add up to 50 projects, many of which were privately funded already. Failing grade for plagiarism.
I think the plan is cut the heck out of domestic spending, not just transit but the whole deal so they can move on to tax " reform ". With billions if dollars of federal expenditures gone. He can come out more tax relief to corporations and his buddies. All the while he helps him self and the Trump family business.
ROBERT WILLISON I think the plan is cut the heck out of domestic spending, not just transit but the whole deal so they can move on to tax " reform ". With billions if dollars of federal expenditures gone. He can come out more tax relief to corporations and his buddies. All the while he helps him self and the Trump family business.
In Dallas, Federal Funding is looked at as an accelerant not a "must have". So a lot of the planned transit in Dallas will move forwards without Federal Funding but at a later date. I am pretty sure that is true of other locations that established a permanent source of funding. So the notion he is ending transit projects might be a little far-fetched. However, President Trump and his staff already said that existing multi-year transit projects underway would still recieve Federal Funding as committed to and they were not abandoning previous commitments. This budget is primarily addressing projects with no Federal commitment yet.
CMStPnP ROBERT WILLISON I think the plan is cut the heck out of domestic spending, not just transit but the whole deal so they can move on to tax " reform ". With billions if dollars of federal expenditures gone. He can come out more tax relief to corporations and his buddies. All the while he helps him self and the Trump family business. In Dallas, Federal Funding is looked at as an accelerant not a "must have". So a lot of the planned transit in Dallas will move forwards without Federal Funding but at a later date. I am pretty sure that is true of other locations that established a permanent source of funding. So the notion he is ending transit projects might be a little far-fetched. However, President Trump and his staff already said that existing multi-year transit projects underway would still recieve Federal Funding as committed to and they were not abandoning previous commitments. This budget is primarily addressing projects with no Federal commitment yet.
CMStP&P- Is there ever a day or posting where you don't come under attack from the "tin foil hat reporting to the mother ship crowd"?
You are a Stonewall!...keep up the good fight.
Miningman CMStP&P- Is there ever a day or posting where you don't come under attack from the "tin foil hat reporting to the mother ship crowd"? You are a Stonewall!...keep up the good fight.
You know what is funny is I get slammed on the Military boards for espousing the Liberal viewpoint (ha-ha) too much. I have these folks check my profile to see if I actually served and in what capacity. Not sure what happened to the Air Force but some of those USAF guys are waaaayyyy to far to the right for my comfort level (and too preachy on the religous end as well). The other thing I noticed and this is actually a nose hit point of view but you'll never see Infantry or Special Forces posting something stupid in public or something overly political or poorly thought out. It's always the support people that do that.
Dad made a similar observation in the early 1970's comparing the differences in political points of view between the American Legion and VFW. Since, the members of the VFW had to serve overseas, they were more likely to have been in combat and were collectively not as far to the right as Legion members.
As a reminder, Dad flew combat with the 306th Bomb Group (8th Air Force) during WW2.
The so called 'Trump Budget' is a big pile of crap thrown against the wall to see what sticks and what slides down and gets washed into the storm drains of Congress.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
https://archive.org/stream/veterancomesback00wallrich#page/n5/mode/2up
wanswheelhttps://archive.org/stream/veterancomesback00wallrich#page/n5/mode/2up
Relevancy?
Go back and read "Art of the Deal" aim high and everything is on the table. Much of this news is BS by the Democrats who want to scare us into thinking that we are all going to Ëat Dog Food just like back in the Reagan Era.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.