WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s proposed 2020 budget calls for refocusing Amtrak on routes of less than 750 miles and would slash discretionary funding for the U.S. Department of Transportation by 21.5 percent, a decrease of $5.1 ...
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/03/12-trump-administration-budget-would-end-long-distance-amtrak-trains-cut-dot-spending
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
Brian Schmidt WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s proposed 2020 budget calls for refocusing Amtrak on routes of less than 750 miles and would slash discretionary funding for the U.S. Department of Transportation by 21.5 percent, a decrease of $5.1 ... http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/03/12-trump-administration-budget-would-end-long-distance-amtrak-trains-cut-dot-spending
“In effect, the Trump budget would shirk federal responsibility when it comes to our nation’s infrastructure, putting a massive burden on cash-strapped states and local communities...........”
As if the federal government, which is in debt to the tune of $22 trillion has heaps of free cash for passenger rail! Whoops, I forgot! It can print money.
Anybody remember David Stockman? Used to zero out Amtrak every year in the budget for Reagan, etc.
This actually seems tame by comparison. What will actually happen? Amtrak will be funded about the same amount, but not without much wailing and gnashing of teeth and finger pointing and pontificating. Just part of the game.
A bigger question will be how much of political football Gateway will be and, will Amtrak actually be able to pivot at all from LD to corridor service as they've hinted at...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
So Amtrak gets cut to $1.49 billion. Defense (not knocking the military, just putting this in context) gets a big increase, to $716 billion. So you are focusing on a line item that is 0.2% as large? And compared to the overall debt of $22 trillion, it is a grain of sand on a beach. Myopia?
JPS1As if the federal government, which is in debt to the tune of $22 trillion has heaps of free cash for passenger rail! Whoops, I forgot! It can print money.
As a country we are also approaching close to if not exceeding $100 Trillion in Net Worth. While the National Debt is of concern and I might also add probably easily paid down in 10-15 years if Congress grew a backbone. I wouldn't think we are in any danger of waking up some day in poverty.
JPS1JPS1 wrote the following post 14 hours ago: What the federal government spends on the military or any other activity is irrelevant. The question is how much of its – the taxpayers - limited resources should it spend on passenger trains?
You really miss the point.
JPS 1 hit the point exactly, plus
Defense is a constitutional duty of the Federal Govt. A 12 inch to the foot scale model railroad welfare program is not such a duty.
Agree with jps 1.
PNWRMNMDefense is a constitutional duty of the Federal Govt. A 12 inch to the foot scale model railroad welfare program is not such a duty.
But the CIC knows more than all his Generals and Admirals combined and doesn't pay attention to their recommendations so why do they exist?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD But the CIC knows more than all his Generals and Admirals combined and doesn't pay attention to their recommendations so why do they exist?
Having an elected civilian as CIC is important and stops us from having unelected military leaders making policy.
It also has nothing to do with the fact that our government continues to underwrite an expensive and inefficient long distance passenger service for nostalgic reasons.
York1 John
York1 BaltACD But the CIC knows more than all his Generals and Admirals combined and doesn't pay attention to their recommendations so why do they exist? Having an elected civilian as CIC is important and stops us from having unelected military leaders making policy. It also has nothing to do with the fact that our government continues to underwrite an expensive and inefficient long distance passenger service for nostalgic reasons.
As well as an expensive and inefficient military that is still fighting the wars of the past for nostalgic reasons. The USA is a war now with the CIC denying it.
BaltACD Having an elected civilian as CIC is important and stops us from having unelected military leaders making policy. It also has nothing to do with the fact that our government continues to underwrite an expensive and inefficient long distance passenger service for nostalgic reasons. As well as an expensive and inefficient military that is still fighting the wars of the past for nostalgic reasons. The USA is a war now with the CIC denying it.
Not quite sure what the point is. Because we have one, it justifies the other?
Do we allow Amtrak to continue its inefficient policies because the military (in your opinion) has inefficient policies?
PNWRMNMDefense is a constitutional duty of the Federal Govt
"...provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."
It seems to me that both are constitutional duties of the Federal Government, at least according to the Preamble of the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on the subjects of a National Bank, lighthouses, power dams on the Tennessee River, seating on buses & trains according to color, the FCC, CAA, and food safety. Where is the constitutional impediment to Congress' funding or subsidizing a national passenger train system which the majority of citizens desire, at least according to polls and fifty years worth of Congressional support?
Why do rail advocates still insist on having Amtrak run all interstate rail passenger service? Like most modern government non-fundamental operations it has shown itself unable to do it effectively. It also seems to be heavily influenced by its employees unions that basically don't want changes, just expansion. The USA is never going to get modern interstate rail service as long as Amtrak has a total monopoly on interstate rail travel under the law.
One question: is the Rail Passengers Association receiving financil support form Amtrak's unions? If so, it is no longer an independent organization.
BaltACDAs well as an expensive and inefficient military that is still fighting the wars of the past for nostalgic reasons. The USA is a war now with the CIC denying it.
The war remnants as I would call them are comparitively cheap as compared to the $1 Trillon per year we were paying. The biggest reason is we are not directly engaging as much and have far fewer people over there fighting. Afghan War remnant is approx $45 Billion a year, Iraq we officially are no longer fighting there but instead are using it as a base. Syria is probably (my guess) $5 Billion a year.
Syria is fairly cheap as we probably only have 1,000 troops there at the most and they are Special Forces which generally run up far less of a tab than conventional troops do. Generally Special Forces are just given a budget and told "you figure it out" compared with Regular Troops that deploy with a full logistical train of people behined them. So the SF troops use the budget to set up unconventional logistics in some cases they use the USAF, other cases they buy locally. In Afghanistan in some cases, far cheaper to buy ammo and AK-47's in Pakistan than to fly it in from the United States......not saying they do that but it is an example of how SF could spend money wisely to cut costs and foot print. Plus spending money locally also gives them access to more local intel as some of the local merchants. The more SF embed themselves locally the more intel and friends they get locally, better fighting force they are. So generally why politicians favor them, they are cheaper and very effective. They are all usually pretty fluent in the local languages and customs as well.
So overall approx $50 Billion a year on what remains of three seperate wars. That would be my very rough guess on current costs just among those three countries. Though I know we are engaged in more than those three militarily, they have the most significant costs and probably lead the pack among the other countries we have troops on the ground fighting (Africa mostly but some Asian countries as well).
alphas Why do rail advocates still insist on having Amtrak run all interstate rail passenger service? Like most modern government non-fundamental operations it has shown itself unable to do it effectively. It also seems to be heavily influenced by its employees unions that basically don't want changes, just expansion. The USA is never going to get modern interstate rail service as long as Amtrak has a total monopoly on interstate rail travel under the law. One question: is the Rail Passengers Association receiving financil support form Amtrak's unions? If so, it is no longer an independent organization.
alphasWhy do rail advocates still insist on having Amtrak run all interstate rail passenger service?
It is why Amtrak was created in the first place.
alphasThe USA is never going to get modern interstate rail service as long as Amtrak has a total monopoly on interstate rail travel under the law.
And yet that is exactly what is happening today via the Midwest High Speed Rail Compact. Regardless of what Amtrak does or chooses to do, that compact will remain and forge ahead, with or without Amtrak. They are only choosing to use Amtrak now out of convienience as it has a better negotiating position with the Class I railroads. However, it is at the table side by side with Amtrak during the negotiations now, so they can easily jettison Amtrak and continue without Amtrak.
alphasOne question: is the Rail Passengers Association receiving financil support form Amtrak's unions? If so, it is no longer an independent organization.
As individual members probably but I doubt at the organization level. RPA is the new name of NARP (National Association of Railroad Passengers). Long ago I was a member until I found out how ineffective they were at getting anything done. Basically they just beotch and write editorials. Rarely do they have a seat at the table with states or other agencies when dealing with Amtrak. Additionally, they do not help much in regards to generating any useful stats either. So pretty much they are slightly less effective than hiring the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders.
If you really want to support Passenger Trains better off on your own or with a trully grass roots group that has some lobbying influence. The Hiawatha Service in Milwaukee is a good example. It gets strong support from the Mayor's office, Chamber of Commerce and local Milwaukee Rotary Chapter......all three combined are far more powerful locally and politically than NARP at the national level. I think Madison DOT is finally on board with the Hiawatha service. When I lived in the State the DOT was an enemy of anything rail related and frequently in public speeches the DOT Secretary Lowell Jackson would talk as if rail was on the way out and should be allowed to disappear like the stage coach. Then Milwaukee II and 1980's hit and Milwaukee Road and C&NW filed to abandon mass quantities of rail lines in Wisconsin. Jackson was drummed out of office, and more rational DOT Secretary was appointed but even still he had to be lobbied and convinced by the CEO of WSOR before Wisconsin really changed it's tune and amended its Constitution to allow direct rail subsidy. The Constitution issue dated from the Robber Baron era when Milwaukee Road predessor railroads engaged in outright fraud to raise money. The biggest burn was from the Milwaukee and LaCrosse or was it Watertown and LaCrosse? Forget the name but it had LaCrosse in the name. They had some fundraising scheme in which a lot of rural farmers participated in and most ended up losing their farms after the railroad went bankrupt........sent shockwaves through the state. And I suspect thats when the Constitutional article was written about staying away from railroad investments.
charlie hebdo JPS1 JPS1 wrote the following post 14 hours ago: What the federal government spends on the military or any other activity is irrelevant. The question is how much of its – the taxpayers - limited resources should it spend on passenger trains? You really miss the point.
JPS1 JPS1 wrote the following post 14 hours ago: What the federal government spends on the military or any other activity is irrelevant. The question is how much of its – the taxpayers - limited resources should it spend on passenger trains?
Perhaps I was too subtle? The point was not whether or not a rail service is constitutional or not or comparing budgets. It was purely to put the Amtrak budget in context when someone repeatedly insists that our $22 trillion debt means we haven't the money for Amtrak, as though zeroing out that line item would solve the problem.
As to defense, we have been training, equipping and helping some Afghans we cobbled together to fight other Afghans, aka, the Taliban in a civil war for almost 18 years to the taxpayer cost of $1.07 to $2.4 trillion (including interest). If the tribe/faction we chose to support hasn't the ability or will, it is high time we left in toto.
charlie hebdo Perhaps I was too subtle? The point was not whether or not a rail service is constitutional or not or comparing budgets. It was purely to put the Amtrak budget in context when someone repeatedly insists that our $22 trillion debt means we haven't the money for Amtrak, as though zeroing out that line item would solve the problem. As to defense, we have been training, equipping and helping some Afghans we cobbled together to fight other Afghans, aka, the Taliban in a civil war for almost 18 years to the taxpayer cost of $1.07 to $2.4 trillion (including interest). If the tribe/faction we chose to support hasn't the ability or will, it is high time we left in toto.
The question is how much should the nation's taxpayers spend on Amtrak. It should be treated as a line item in the context of a national debt in excess of $22 trillion, which even the current and most recent Fed chairs have expressed a concern about.
How much the country spends on defense or agriculture or anything else is irrelevant concerning the nation’s limited resources should be spent on passenger rail.
The decision makers, as an example, should make sure that continuing to spend more than $500 million a year of the taxpayer’s monies on the long-distance trains is wise. Is it a good spend or is it just throwing good money after bad?
Apparently, anyone who has a point of view different from yours is myopic or just does not get it. I don't share your perspective.
JPS1Apparently, anyone who has a point of view different from yours is myopic or just does not get it. I don't share your perspective.
Apparently you did not read my post accurately. In many posts I have agreed that LD trains serve few people and are not a wise use of Amtrak's tiny budget. I did not ignore the federal debt. As I said, the context is what I was showing, putting the Amtrak budget in perspective compared with the Defense budget or what we spent in Afghanistan, if you read my other posts.
Put it another way, "Penny wise, pound foolish."
Rising interest rates. Gobble, gobble. Servicing the debt. Gobble, gobble.
I'd like to see the military get by on rebuilt equipment that's over 40 years old. Nothing against the military, but rather a bit of admiration for the work at Beach Grove trying to do more with less. As for "let 'em ride buses," instead of the long distance trades, I would say to the Trump administration: You first.
EdnorI'd like to see the military get by on rebuilt equipment that's over 40 years old. Nothing against the military, but rather a bit of admiration for the work at Beach Grove trying to do more with less. As for "let 'em ride buses," instead of the long distance trades, I would say to the Trump administration: You first.
That would be something - DJT bussing between DC and Mar-a-Lago on weekends.
Ednor I'd like to see the military get by on rebuilt equipment that's over 40 years old. Nothing against the military, but rather a bit of admiration for the work at Beach Grove trying to do more with less. As for "let 'em ride buses," instead of the long distance trades, I would say to the Trump administration: You first.
If you read the following link yoy will find Amtrak is talking about putting V-1 sleepers on front of Superliner trains for crew. That would eleminate any additional sleepers on the oversold sleeper routes in the east. Now Amtrak is being coy by stating that this is just one consideration but any bets that this just smoke unless congress screams ?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/913pjwnj1gduvue/Amtrak-Equipment-Asset-Line-Plan-FY20-24.pdf?dl=0
In 48 years the Federal Goverment has not found a way to provide a stable rail transportation system. This does not speak well for goverment intervention in other markets. While the population is there for rail service, the goverment doen't understand how or have the will to support Amtrak like they do air ports, bridges, and roads. I remember the day the flags fell and the last call to board was made on April 30, 1971. Its been a good run, we all had decades to get our rides in. Maybe its time to call it quits now, pick a date, like January 2, 2020, and shut it all down. Except where the states are willing to foot the bill for local service. You know, that DC,NY,Bostin ROW? Make a very nice exclusive bus way.
seppburgh2In 48 years the Federal Goverment have not found a way to provide a stable rail transportation system. This does not speak well for goverment intervention in other markets. While the population is there for rail service, the goverment doen't understand how or have the will to support Amtrak like they do air ports, bridges, and roads. I remember the day the flags fell and the last call to board was made on April 30, 1971. Its been a good run, we all had decades to get our rides in. Maybe its time to call it quits now, pick a date, like January 2, 2020, and shut it all down. Except where the states are willing to foot the bill for local service. You know, that DC,NY,Bostain ROW? Make a very nice exclusive bus way.
For 48 years the Federal government has treated Amtrak with the same level of care that the Japanese treated their US prisoners of war - barely above the level of sustainable human life - all the while expecting Amtrak to provide services of Biltmore quality and turn a profit. The best the US prisoners of war could hope for under the Japanese was to survive until the end of the war and repatriation - some achieved the best - many more did not.
When it comes to rail passernger transportation, we don't have 'nice' things because we don't want to pay for things to be nice, and if perchance, something is 'nice' we don't want to pay for the maintenance to keep it nice.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.