wjstix A French diplomat stationed in America pointed out a few years ago that all of America's problems could be solved at once by putting a 50 cent per gallon tax on gasoline.
A French diplomat stationed in America pointed out a few years ago that all of America's problems could be solved at once by putting a 50 cent per gallon tax on gasoline.
Congress would find ways to waste another 50 cent on something dumb?
wjstixA French diplomat stationed in America pointed out a few years ago that all of America's problems could be solved at once by putting a 50 cent per gallon tax on gasoline.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndwjstixA French diplomat stationed in America pointed out a few years ago that all of America's problems could be solved at once by putting a 50 cent per gallon tax on gasoline.Ross Perot said more or less the same thing over a decade ago. I think he that right. Even if Congress wasted the revenue, it would have a beneficial effect on reducing consumption. If they were clever enough, it could even be adjustable to help smooth out price spikes. How about letting local governments add to the gas tax to allow them to recoup costs currently covered by property and general sales tax such as highway patrol, local road construction, traffic control, etc.?
If we made the gasoline tax a true user fee, which would include the portion of property taxes devoted to local and rural road construction, it would send a better pricing signal to motorists. It would probably cause most of them to opt for more fuel efficient cars. Moreover, it would encourage many motorists to opt for public transit and intercity rail where practicable, thereby reducing the subsidy require by these modes of public transport. And put everything on a more level playing field.
I discussed this option with my state representative and state senator. Ha! I could just as well have discussed with my cat. Come to think of it, she is a bit more responsive.
Ross Perot would be a great president of USA.
OK I looked at Rep. Olver's bill, House Resolution 3288. I couldn't find anything where President Obama is cutting millions of dollars from Amtrak's funding in the bill. I'd still like to know where the original poster heard this??
blue streak 1 Mr. Oberstarr must really be in a dither. After his work to add the extera amount it suddenly gets cut. Of course the final outcome may be different?
Mr. Oberstarr must really be in a dither. After his work to add the extera amount it suddenly gets cut. Of course the final outcome may be different?
Rep. Oberstar is very frustrated by the administration and has introduced his own proposed plan. His comment on the administration:
"The reality is that the administration does not have a program," Oberstar said. "They do not have a plan. They have not given transportation any thought. I have."
Dakguy201 blue streak 1 Mr. Oberstarr must really be in a dither. After his work to add the extera amount it suddenly gets cut. Of course the final outcome may be different? Rep. Oberstar is very frustrated by the administration and has introduced his own proposed plan. His comment on the administration: "The reality is that the administration does not have a program," Oberstar said. "They do not have a plan. They have not given transportation any thought. I have."
Representative Oberstar may have a transportation plan, but I'll bet he is short on how to pay for it. He is a tax and spend politician, which is no worse than a borrow and spend politician, but both of them are leaving a heavy debt load for future generations to pay on.
The federal debt stands at $11.7 trillion, and it is growing by billions of dollars each week. This speaks to a need to make sure than monies spent on transportation projects, including passenger rail, are a sound investment that will not saddle the country with addition operating debt in the out years. Unfortunately, for most rail projects, this is not likely to be the outcome.
Paul Milenkovic Deggesty I am not sure how my current representative thinks, but I know my senior senator has no use for Amtrak. He should travel in civilized comfort between Salt Lake City and Washington instead of getting there yesterday. The only person who seems to be making any sense today on this thread is Phoebe Vet, who is asking us "Hey wait a moment, folks. Why don't we find out exactly what it is that the President is proposing and Congress is voting on before taking our characteristic trolling positions pro and con on Amtrak." Civilized comfort. That is a phrase that evokes images of Simpler Times, when the sun never set on the British Empire and all that. The British built a prototype of an airliner called the Bristol Brabazon. The thing was the size of an Airbus A-380 Super Jumbo, but it was somewhat lighter in weight, powered by 8 of the radial piston engines of the size where 4 powered a DC-7 or a Super Constellation. It carried only 100 passengers on its two decks, but it carried them (slowly) in the civilized comfort of private rooms and berths. Do we really want a United States Senator from the Mountain West commuting between the home state and DC on Amtrak sleeping cars, with a train change and possible layover in Chicago? Is that a proper use of time for someone who has to be in DC for votes and committee meetings and in the home state to serve constituents? OK, maybe to do this once a term, to get out among the denizens of fly-over country, but are you really serious that this is how such a person, essentially with the breadth of responsibility of the CEO of a major corporation only serving the people in an elected office, should spend their time? Are people around this forum really serious about getting some kind of passenger train revival going to meet the challenges of a resource-constrained world, or are we a bunch of romantics who think that people who need to cross this vast country of ours several times a year in the service of the people they are working for should take weeks out of the year to make those trips? That they should do this because we, personally are rail romantics and airline travel offends our personal tastes? While we are at it, I find that Diesels offend my sensibilities and steam power better suits my tastes. I think that the Amtrak long-distance trains should be steam powered. Actually, were we to do this, it would probably boost ridership considerably given that the long-distance train market has a strong railfan/rail romantic contingent. This would draw steam train tourism from all over the world.
Deggesty I am not sure how my current representative thinks, but I know my senior senator has no use for Amtrak. He should travel in civilized comfort between Salt Lake City and Washington instead of getting there yesterday.
I am not sure how my current representative thinks, but I know my senior senator has no use for Amtrak. He should travel in civilized comfort between Salt Lake City and Washington instead of getting there yesterday.
The only person who seems to be making any sense today on this thread is Phoebe Vet, who is asking us "Hey wait a moment, folks. Why don't we find out exactly what it is that the President is proposing and Congress is voting on before taking our characteristic trolling positions pro and con on Amtrak."
Civilized comfort. That is a phrase that evokes images of Simpler Times, when the sun never set on the British Empire and all that.
The British built a prototype of an airliner called the Bristol Brabazon. The thing was the size of an Airbus A-380 Super Jumbo, but it was somewhat lighter in weight, powered by 8 of the radial piston engines of the size where 4 powered a DC-7 or a Super Constellation. It carried only 100 passengers on its two decks, but it carried them (slowly) in the civilized comfort of private rooms and berths.
Do we really want a United States Senator from the Mountain West commuting between the home state and DC on Amtrak sleeping cars, with a train change and possible layover in Chicago? Is that a proper use of time for someone who has to be in DC for votes and committee meetings and in the home state to serve constituents? OK, maybe to do this once a term, to get out among the denizens of fly-over country, but are you really serious that this is how such a person, essentially with the breadth of responsibility of the CEO of a major corporation only serving the people in an elected office, should spend their time?
Are people around this forum really serious about getting some kind of passenger train revival going to meet the challenges of a resource-constrained world, or are we a bunch of romantics who think that people who need to cross this vast country of ours several times a year in the service of the people they are working for should take weeks out of the year to make those trips? That they should do this because we, personally are rail romantics and airline travel offends our personal tastes?
While we are at it, I find that Diesels offend my sensibilities and steam power better suits my tastes. I think that the Amtrak long-distance trains should be steam powered. Actually, were we to do this, it would probably boost ridership considerably given that the long-distance train market has a strong railfan/rail romantic contingent. This would draw steam train tourism from all over the world.
Paul;
Just a personal observation, but this might be the very thing that saves this Country...It would certainly lessen the amount of time our elected officials could legislate.
Art Buchwald, a number of years ago, identified the ruination of Washington,D.C. was air conditioning. It was the utilization of air conditioning that allowed the politicians to stay in Washington most of the year; much longer than had been originally intendedby the founding fathers . It might be that rationale that caused the city of Washington, D.C. to be placed in an unwanted swampy land, rife with mosquitoes and other assorted nasty critters.Maybe what we need is less airconditioning and more vacation time away from the normal routine.. Just a thought.
I heard President Obama, (but actually not sure) he wants to get rid of Coal Permentally, for going Greener in the Environment. Is that true, because what would happen to all the Coal Trains and Peoples Jobs?
wrawroacx I heard President Obama, (but actually not sure) he wants to get rid of Coal Permentally, for going Greener in the Environment. Is that true, because what would happen to all the Coal Trains and Peoples Jobs?
Al - in - Stockton
passengerfanIf this President was really serious about energy he would be looking to Nuclear power plants
No matter how you slice it, coal is not a clean burning source of energy...it also causes pollution and other problems in the mining. It has been "cleaned" up some, and can be more. It shouldn't be thrown away wholesale.
As for nuclear power. Yes a lot of Europe is fed by nuclear generated electricity. But there are many of us who don't feel comfortable with the waste product not being able to be disposed of completely or properly. Come up with better answers to this problem, then America may embrace nuclear energy.
But, to hold on to coal (and oil) and forego nuclear or other energy sourcs strictly on nostalgic or because thats what we always had, is not good. New energy sources have to be found and produced as well as the older energy sources be modified and made environmentally safe and economically acceptable.
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.
Maybe it all comes down to the observations of Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America as recently remarked.
What Tocqueville observed to be unique about public life in America and different from Continental Europe, and this perhaps extends to this very day, is the prevalance of "voluntary associations" apart from political parties, governing, or other official entities. The whole environmental movement in the US is a network of such voluntary associations.
What we have here in the US are voluntary associations in the form of the passenger train advocacy groups, but what we don't have in the US is a strong sense of centralization of decision making.
OK, this is a generalization, but an educated, governing elite in France thinks that nuclear power is the way to go, and voila, as they say in France, 80% of electric power comes from nuclear plants. The educated, governing elite in France thinks that TGV trains are important, and again, there is a network of TGV and feeder passenger lines. In the US, we have NARP and on down the chain of rail advocacy groups thinking that TGV trains would be just great here, but there is not some central decision making authority along with the social and political deferrence to such a decision making authority to get something like that done.
For example, the Wisconsin governer and the DOT secretary let that contract to build a pair of Talgo train sets, and already this is mired in controversy about a "no-bid" contract. Our local advocacy group has huffed, "There is no controversy, WisDOT asked for proposals and only Talgo responded. Case closed."
Whether our advocacy group thinks it is good politics to "circle the wagons" around our governer is one thing, but our response is an answer that is far from ending the buzz in the papers. Yes, there is a law on the books that rail equipment does not need to "go out on bids", and there is probably a reason for that given that even worldwide there are few manufacturers who can make passenger equipment to FRA requirements, and if we were in France where there was not only more in the way of centralized decision making by graduates from Ecole Polytechnique de Telling Political Opposition Where to Put it, there is also greater social respect for such decisions.
It just doesn't work the same way here. Especially when the call went out from WisDOT to Nippon Sharyo/Super Steel (Japan/Wisconsin), Talgo (Spain), and Alstom (France). Talgo sends back a detailed proposal, but keep in mind, Talgo had kind thought it was pre-selected from the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, Nippon Sharyo sends a letter (which the WisDOT people say they cannot find), and Alstom sent an e-mail, where they had the understanding from the e-mail reply that this would go out on bids, at which time they could supply a detailed proposal.
So here we have Nippon Sharyo, the maker of the Bullet Train, along with its Milwaukee, Wisconsin partner Super Steel shut out, we have Alstom, the TGV people, shut out, and our local advocacy group thinks there is "no problem." There is indeed a big problem, and yes it has to do with those "right-wing train-hating Republican legislators from the wealthy suburbs of Milwaukee." Yes there is a problem because ProRail or WisARP are not the only Tocquevillian "voluntary associations" who will feel the need to put their two cents in. That is how democracy functions in America, it has been that way since the very beginning, and that is the lay of the land for getting anything done, whether it is health care reform, nuclear power, or a passenger train network.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Along those same lines of differences between the US and the rest of the world is buffer crash standards. According to Trains, we use crash survival standards rather than crash avoidance through modern signaling. Once/If that changes, we could import European or Japanese HSR designs off the shelf.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Along those same lines of differences between the US and the rest of the world is buffer crash standards. According to Trains, we use crash survival standards rather than crash avoidance through modern signaling. Once/If that changes, we could import European or Japanese HSR designs off the shelf.
Talgo does not have an off-the-shelf design for FRA standards -- that is part of why their cost is what it is for this bid.
The partnership of Nippon Sharyo/Super Steel is a US manufacturer of passenger trains to FRA standards -- they supply Metra along with a new commuter agency out east. Part of the reason why they are being diplomatic is that Super Steel is hoping to get the Talgo assembly contract, and Nippon Sharyo and Super Steel are being careful to not rock the boat.
Even if a no-bid contract is legal, this would have gone much smoother if there was some announcement that "Alstom would have supplied a train with these specs, Nippon Sharyo/Super Steel with these other specs, and here are the specs on the Talgo offering. WisDOT offered the contract to Talgo because this is what the Talgo design offers."
The WisDOT response was that only Talgo responded to the RFP. Not true if you believe the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporting on the subject. We have been waiting over 20 years for this, and when the chance comes, we make a hash of it.
Incompetence or payoff?
Paul MilenkovicEcole Polytechnique de Telling Political Opposition Where to Put it
Wdlgln005 Obama may be a typical politico that says one thing & does another. Cutting Amtrak $400M while the Clunker for Cash program gets $2Bil fits. don't forget the Highway Fund is going broke as we speak. They even cut the Grade Crossing fund.They wanted to divert $Bil from the High Speed Rail fund to the Highway Fund.Congress & Obama could be getting an earful for their summer vacations. They may need it.
Obama may be a typical politico that says one thing & does another.
Cutting Amtrak $400M while the Clunker for Cash program gets $2Bil fits.
don't forget the Highway Fund is going broke as we speak. They even cut the Grade Crossing fund.They wanted to divert $Bil from the High Speed Rail fund to the Highway Fund.Congress & Obama could be getting an earful for their summer vacations. They may need it.
They need to be putting the money into High Speed Passenger Rail (and Freight Rail) so they can make repairing the highways easier. I mean if you take less people and freight off the highway system, that would give the states more breathing room to repair the highways and also make them last longer. The Interstate system is not bulit for the current capacity it handles now. You need to take the weight of the highways and start hauling people and goods on a system that is designed for heavy loads and constant pounding of heavy trains.
I am beginning to think Obama is "bubba light."
In my lifetime, toll road authorities, funded primarily in the bond market, do a pretty good job of estimating the market and costs of construction and maintenance in creating a cash cow. To be sure, toll roads are a parasite on the local road and street system that strips public benefit for private profit.
Similarly, I'm beginning to wonder if even partially privatized hsr investment affords the same private wealth-creation at an unnecessary cost to the public.
steinjr You guys have a somewhat (IMO) bizarre budgeting process with both the house of representatives and the senate being involved
You guys have a somewhat (IMO) bizarre budgeting process with both the house of representatives and the senate being involved
Stein --
A little off topic, but it's even worse than you think. There are around a dozen DIFFERENT appropriations bills that actually make up the Federal budget, with no restrictions on what comes from where. So the transportation bill might fund Amtrak operations, while the Homeland Security bill funds security measures. Funding bills, however, have to (per the Constitution) originate in the House, so that's where you should look for any funding bills. They will have links to the appropriate Senate version.
And just to muddy the waters further, some of these (such as the Defense bill) have both an Authorization Act (which allows it to be done) AND an Appropriations Act (which pays for it). There have been several cases where something was funded but not authorized and vice versa.
It's kind of sad, though, that it took a non-US citizen to tell us what our Government is up to.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
henry6 As for nuclear power. Yes a lot of Europe is fed by nuclear generated electricity. But there are many of us who don't feel comfortable with the waste product not being able to be disposed of completely or properly. Come up with better answers to this problem, then America may embrace nuclear energy..
As for nuclear power. Yes a lot of Europe is fed by nuclear generated electricity. But there are many of us who don't feel comfortable with the waste product not being able to be disposed of completely or properly. Come up with better answers to this problem, then America may embrace nuclear energy..
Why can't we dispose of the waste product completely and properly? What do you think the French and the Japanese do with their waste? In a nutshell (and at a very high level), once the reactor has processed something like 25% of the uranium in a fuel rod, the remainder is no longer pure enough to support the fission reaction. In the US, we declare that remainder (about 99.999% of the volume and 75% or so of the radioactivity) waste and then spend a whole lot of time and effort trying to figure out how to store it. The United States developed the technology for reprocessing that waste for reuse (either in weapons or to make more fuel rods), and then declined to use it, citing security issues. Solutions exist; we just lack the political will to implement them.
And everyone wants nuclear-generated electricity, but no one wants to live next to a reactor (the NIMBY effect). FWIW, I live next to two of them, Millstone in Waterford CT and the former Connecticut Yankee site in Haddam Neck (where the "spent" fuel rods are still being stored). I sleep soundly at night, and I worry much more about being killed or injured by that idiot babbling on his cell phone while driving.
I, too, live within just a few miles of two different nuclear power plants. I am not at all concerned about the safety of the reactors. I am not at all concerned about them being attacked by the bogey man du jour. If a system is put in place to deal with the spent fuel then I would be in favor of nuclear power.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet I, too, live within just a few miles of two different nuclear power plants. I am not at all concerned about the safety of the reactors. I am not at all concerned about them being attacked by the bogey man du jour. If a system is put in place to deal with the spent fuel then I would be in favor of nuclear power.
Most of my working career was spent with one of the largest electric utility companies in North America. We operated two 1150 megawatt nuclear units. The spent fuel is being stored on site, as is the case for all nuclear plants in the U.S., and it can be stored there indefinitely. It would be better, however, if one or two central sites could be developed.
The argument for central storage is twofold. It would be more economical, and it probably would be a tad more secure, although this feature may be offset in part by the security risks associated with transporting the spent fuel to a central site.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.