Which presidential candidate (if elected), in your opinion, will take the best action to improve the national passenger intercity rail network?
Here's an opinion about McCain http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/080128
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I think Weyrich is anti-McCain because McCain has been an outspoken Amtrak critic and is not a dyed-in-the-wool, true blue conservative, so he has two strikes against him.
Can't find much of on the others. Obama seems to be "for", Clinton, too, but her hubby said lots of wonderful things in 1992 and delivered exactly zilch. Romney is a complete mystery. All I can find is that "he'd have an open mind."
The only real, true, pro-passenger rail candidates in recent history that I can think of are Dukakis and Thompson.
In the end, I don't think it will matter which of these 4 gets elected. There is too much Senate and House support for the LD trains for even McCain to do much, except to whack his favorite punching bag - the Sunset (and no, the savings won't go for corridor development). The Dems will spend too much on healthcare et. al. for there to be enough in the coffers to do anything more than limp on with a status-quo Amtrak.
It's interesting to me that McCain has the endorsement of Tom Kean, the almost liberal Republican ex-gov of NJ who spent like a drunken sailor on NJT! I guess there's more to an endorsement than transportation policy....
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
30 years and counting with one president after another.
No it does not matter. I think that passenger era ended with the Truman Presidency.
The Presidential candidates = Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey....without the circus.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD wrote: The Presidential candidates = Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey....without the circus.
... or the train!
motard98 wrote:McCain will be the next president IMO and that's a good thing
What momentum? The Democrats demonstrated a failure in Congress all of 2007 to pass the 14 or so most necessary budget bills that is required to run the Government. Oh no, no momentum here except for a last minute omnibus bill.
As thier body language indicated looks like after the State of Union speech, they intend to sit on thier behinds until Bush is out of there in 2009.
I say Huckabee will do it but I do concede that he has a long shot. We already put up our votes in the early elections last week.
The way things are going, I think it will be GOOD that Hillary and company can run this USA and finish our downward spiral.
Here is one example:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_33
That will increase the unemployment because the only defense against Garnishment is quitting your work. (That I know of and was a Garnisher once long ago until we wrote it off)
So much for freedom of choice.
Another thing to consider is that Spouse is a Vet and only goes to the VA for medical care of any kind when necessary, we dont even participate in health care such as it is hardly at all.
The State of Arizona's economy has been the beneficiary of rail tourism for over 100 years, from the old AT&SF and SP to Amtrak today.
The state understands the dollar impact of passenger rail, even if their senior US senator does not.
Why keep on lookin' to east? Governors and state legislatures are getting more done close to home. They are better atuned to what the political market will bear when it comes to taxing for services.
Most of the activity regarding passenger rail is coming from the states. Some states are even working in concert on interstate projects. Let the 50 laboratories of government see what works and what does not.
Amtrak needs to remain as a national system. It should remain as a skeleton bringing the various pieces together. As the flesh grows, so will demand to strengthen the tie that binds.
Thus far I have seen only one news organization even ask the candidates about their positions on transportation. That one being the the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and their curiousity might have had something to do with a highly publicized bridge incident in their neighborhood.
Each of the candidates responded to their question, but only one, Obama, mentioned rail. The paper said he would "support the development of high-speed rail networks across the country."
I think transportation in general is not getting the attention it deserves in this or any campaign. After all, transportation affects so many other things, including energy, the environment, economics, land use, national security, mobility and quality of life. And given that in the last year we've seen a major bridge collapse, airline passengers stranded for hours on planes going nowhere without food or functioning toilets, an Amtrak train stranded on Donner Pass and another that can't cross the Cascades for at least a month, you'd think that transportation would be getting more attention in this campaign.
Thanks to lattasnip9 for bringing up this topic. What I can say is that, yes, McCain hates Amtrak. This is enough of a reason for me NOT to vote for him (I haven't decided yet whether to support a Democrat candidate or to vote against all of them for different reasons). However, it is important to remember that the U.S. President does not have an absolute power. As mentioned above, Congress has much more power over Amtrak issues than President does. Of course, if President is supportive, it is easier for Congress to come up with various pro-Amtrak legislations. But even if President is anti-rail, he can't just block an appropriations bill for this reason only. That would be politically irresponsible. President can threaten to veto a nice authorization or any other kind of a bill specifically addressed to Amtrak if he does not like it - that's why it's better to have a pro-rail President who would not do that. But, you know something, Congress has power to override a veto - if the bill is supported by a significant majority of both houses (I don't remember what's the minimum percentage qualifying for that). But, as far as annual appropriations is concerned, the Congressional support for Amtrak is big enough to provide at least a minimum level needed. Besides, the Bush administration has been proposing inadequate figures every year every year since Bush became president. Three years ago he even proposed a ZERO amount to Amtrak (as Reagan did every year during his second term). But common sense prevails in Congress, and the figure is always raised to what Amtrak needs.
Another important thing to remember is that it's virtually impossible to shut down Amtrak immediately in its present form, since this would cause chaos in the entire Northeast corridor, as well as in some other places where Amtrak shares its stations with commuter rail (e.g. Chicago). During the 2002 crisis, the Bush administration did extend a helping hand to prevent such a shutdown (even McCain offered some encouraging words at that time). Also, the same Bush administration recently helped Amtrak reach an agreement with its unions, thus preventing a strike that would have a similar effect. So you see that proposing an shut-down amount is more a political gesture than a real threat, which may not be taken seriously (as nobody wants a responsibility for a chaos it can cause). President (or any Senator or Congressman) can also propose some kind of an anti-rail legislation, trying to undermine the long-distance trains in particular. But, again, Congress is very unlikely to follow up on it, as there is a lot of support to Amtrak.
However, there is another thing to remember, I believe the most important one. This Congressional support to passenger rail should not be taken for granted. We do have to remind our leigslators that we are interested in having Amtrak as a nationwide system. This is especially important if McCain (or any other anti-rail politician) becomes a President. Of course, even under the most pro-rail President (such as Clinton) it is still important to express our support. After all, highway and aviation lobbies are still very strong. If not for these lobbies, America might possibly have followed Europe and Japan in high-speed rail technology, which is not happening so far. But, with growing gas prices and congestion, this should not last forever. I hope that, sooner or later, we will have real high-speed rail in this country. Meanwhile, it is important to preserve what we have, that is Amtrak with all types of trains it has (including the long-distance ones). So, feel free to write to the legislators to express your support. Moreover, I guess it makes sense to write a letter to McCain's campaign, letting him know that you do support passenger rail and he should better keep this in mind. The mailing address can be found at his website: www.johnmccain.com
So, let's not panic for no reason, but stand up to protect Amtrak!
In addressing the issue, remember that:
An improved Amtrak can improve the USA's energy efficiency and reduce dependence of imported oil. While Amtrak without improvement is only marginally better than highway and/or air, the dislocations resulting from any shutdown would reduce the USA's energy efficiency markedly. (Affecting important commuter rail systems)
A clean face for tourists
Access for parts of the country for the handicapped and elderly and others who cannot fly.
Lifeline communications for some communities witihout other transportation alternative, especially in winter.
Unfortunately, a comprehensive transportation plan leading to an integrated system including roads, rails, waters, and skies is probably beyond the reach of our political system - even if it were on the top of the president's list. Most political leaders seem unable (or unwilling) to understand that our infrastructure is key to our prosperity, but it costs money to develop and maintain. It does not show directly on the balance sheet. But over time if our transportation, education, health care, etc. systems continue to degrade then our competitive edge in the world declines and our standard of living stagnates or declines. In this day of special interest politics/pork barrel politics/no tax politics we are unable to elect a statesman of vision who can enhance this country.
I don't see any of the candidates doing more than tolerating Amtrak. Amtrak is a rememberance from the past - a keepsake - that we'll hang on to until it gets too expensive.
Enjoy it while you can,
Paul
An improved Amtrak can improve the USA's energy efficiency and reduce dependence of imported oil.
The "Vision for the Future" report of the PRWG asks for 350 billion dollars (spread over 40 years) to increase Amtrak from .1 percent of auto passenger miles to 1 percent of auto passenger miles.
This is not contained in the report, but I contacted a State of Wisconsin policy analyst associated with the project about what kind of energy savings can be expected from the proposed trains, and I was quoted a figure of about 1.7 gallons per mile for a single locomotive with eight Amfleet-style train cars, and the train worked out to be about a third of the auto fuel usage.
So spending 350 billion saves 2/3 of one percent of auto fuel usage, where autos are using roughly 50 percent of oil usage. So, an expenditure of 350 billion on trains will have 1/3 of one percent of oil use. I don't think this constitutes a meaningful contribution to reducing the need for imported oil.
I still think that trains could make a meaningful contribution, but people need to go back an sharpen their pencils to devise better plans.
It's possible that at sometime in the future the development of a national transportation policy that includes Amtrak will become a priority in DC. I don't see it happening anytime in the future regardless of who sits in the oval office. With the exception of the NEC and regional services in California, Illinois and maybe North Carolina very few voters ride intercity trains. Face the fact that we are a nation committed to highway and air passenger travel. Those are the transportation modes used by the vast majority and that is where the public wants their tax dollars spent.
Long Distance travel via Amtrak is totally inconsequential and if all the LD trains were dropped overnight their loss would be noted only by railfans and the miniscule number of travelers who actually ride them. The long distance passenger train is merely an expensive anachronism that has hung on this long out of nostalgia rather than necessity. The bigest impediment to meaningful LD rail passenger service is not the federal government but the railroads themselves that see them only as an nuisance that interfers with their bread and butter business of hauling freight.
Corridor service as opposed to long distance is another matter. I think there is increasing interest in corridor services as a result of demonstrated success in the few areas where it has actually been implemented. In the near future at least the impetus for new corridor services is going to come from the various state houses rather than the federal govenment or any one presidential administration.
These are the realities of the here and now and anyone who believes differently is merely engaged in wishful thinking. The oil may be in Texas but the dipsticks are in DC.
Mark
Candidates for the President have not mentioned Amtrak when I have listened to their speeches. It the topic too mundane for the candidates?
If all the wasteful spending for unneeded Air Force parts were immediately cut and that money was transferred to the National Rail Passenger Corporation, Amtrak could be completely renewed for several years to come.
The reason to keep AMTRAK around is high speed commuter rail like the Aclea.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Andrew Falconer wrote: Candidates for the President have not mentioned Amtrak when I have listened to their speeches. It the topic too mundane for the candidates?If all the wasteful spending for unneeded Air Force parts were immediately cut and that money was transferred to the National Rail Passenger Corporation, Amtrak could be completely renewed for several years to come.The reason to keep AMTRAK around is high speed commuter rail like the Aclea. Andrew
You dont cut anything Military.
Lives are lost because of budget cuts.
The Aclea is nothing more than a compromise and a attempt to overcome exisiting problems in that rusted, wore out and unmaintained corridor.
The report on CBS showed millions of dollars of unneeded Air Force parts and many more on order that are no longer needed. If the contractors need to build something, why not build something advanced for AMTRAK.
Big cities in the Northeast like New York and Boston are apparently condemned and they need to be torn down, that is why projects like the Aclea will never work.
Here is the story on CBS news about how Air Force department heads end up over ordering just to show they can spend money and spend $19 Billion without the President or the Congress watching closely.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/21/eveningnews/main3640606.shtml
Meanwhile the $11 Billion Dollars over 6 years budget for Amtrak has to go through the House, the Senate, and the President before being approved.
What makes AMTRAK a boring topic for the Presidential Candidates? There have been no terrorist attacks on AMTRAK trains.
Presidential Candidates have taken trains when were giving speeches even in the last 3 three elections. Unfortunately, most of those were expensive private trains for security purposes. They should have to ride on all the all the major types of Amtrak trains at least once during the election and again while in office so they have a perspective on the service provided.
Face the fact that we are a nation committed to highway and air passenger travel.
The nation is not "committed". The highway and aviation lobby is. In fact, public DOES want trains. That's what helps preserving them.
Long Distance travel via Amtrak is totally inconsequential and if all the LD trains were dropped overnight their loss would be noted only by railfans and the miniscule number of travelers who actually ride them.
This is false! Did you ever ride any of the Amtrak's LD trains? If you did, you would notice that they are usually filled and are often sold out. If these trains were shut down "overnignt", the impact would be felt by MILLIOINS of VOTERS in remote communities where airline services are either unavailiable or unaffordable. Besides, what about those people who cannot drive? You may argue that intercity bus is the most efficient way of travel, but it is not. That's what is standing behind the political force supporting Amtrak in general and long-distance trains in particular! Nationwide rail system (presently represented by Amtrak) is not an anachronism. It's a necessary national asset.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.