Paul Milenkovic henry6 But rail infrastructure will be the focus in the near future...that is why BNSF, CSX, NS, especially are advertising now...they are trying to warm up the taxpayers to the idea that Federal transportation dollars for infrastructure has to include rail. Plus, since the railroad industry is big and important to transportation and business, and thus politics, it is a big issue facing the Federal DOT. Is this something that people know about, or is this wishful thinking regarding a world where the government would have more authority to direct the railroads towards social purposes? It is well established that the railroads would want government funding of rail infrastructure in exchange for greatly increased or expedited passenger service on their lines. Is there any evidence at all that the railroad companies would want any government funding to support their freight operations? Government funding comes with strings attached. The strings for government funding rail infrastructure are the same strings for government funding of highways, airways, and waterways -- open access. The railroad companies have a tremendous expense in building, owning, maintaining and operating their company rail networks, but in exchange for that, they get to "call the shots." What evidence is there that the railroads either want or need government infrastructure support?
henry6 But rail infrastructure will be the focus in the near future...that is why BNSF, CSX, NS, especially are advertising now...they are trying to warm up the taxpayers to the idea that Federal transportation dollars for infrastructure has to include rail. Plus, since the railroad industry is big and important to transportation and business, and thus politics, it is a big issue facing the Federal DOT.
But rail infrastructure will be the focus in the near future...that is why BNSF, CSX, NS, especially are advertising now...they are trying to warm up the taxpayers to the idea that Federal transportation dollars for infrastructure has to include rail. Plus, since the railroad industry is big and important to transportation and business, and thus politics, it is a big issue facing the Federal DOT.
Is this something that people know about, or is this wishful thinking regarding a world where the government would have more authority to direct the railroads towards social purposes?
It is well established that the railroads would want government funding of rail infrastructure in exchange for greatly increased or expedited passenger service on their lines. Is there any evidence at all that the railroad companies would want any government funding to support their freight operations?
Government funding comes with strings attached. The strings for government funding rail infrastructure are the same strings for government funding of highways, airways, and waterways -- open access. The railroad companies have a tremendous expense in building, owning, maintaining and operating their company rail networks, but in exchange for that, they get to "call the shots."
What evidence is there that the railroads either want or need government infrastructure support?
RR's know that highways are crowded, drivers are in short supply, the widened Panama Canal is about to change traffic patterns, our highway infrastructure is in bad condition, rail is putting what money they have into their own properties but that is not a bottomless pit, so government is going to have to help them so they can help government. Yes they know government means interventions but they also feel that they can be the interveners for government projects...cooperative growth being good for all.
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.
Not yet...change of political guards on several levels...so I'll try stirring the pot again in a month or two...the unfortunate thing is that the money has not been released for the PA part and NJT is being held hostage by the environmentalist/conservationists after getting the OK to build across NJ in the first place. So until that looks more promised than now, there is no need to rush...
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
henry6HSR is the smallest of them.
And, I suspect, will be even smaller in the next 2 years. But what will happen to conventional rail as operated by Amtrak? We have to wait and see.
By the way, is there any more information about rail service between Binghamton and NYC?
HSR is not everything under USDOT. Rail, highway, waterways, air, pipelines, are all under this purview. And there is going to be more integration and rationalization of modes in the future in making funding decisions. HSR is the smallest of them.
henry6But rail infrastructure will be the focus in the near future...that is why BNSF, CSX, NS, especially are advertising now...they are trying to warm up the taxpayers to the idea that
I have to agree with Schlimm, Henry. HSR will go nowhere as long as the Republicans have a majority in the House. But, as you point out, freight railroads are trying to raise public awareness that railroads are important to America.
If I were in charge of a freight railroad and I wanted Amtrak off my tracks the last thing I would do is to run any advertisements at all. After all, the logic that says railroads are important for freight is close to the logic that say railroads are important for passengers. I don't think the subject can be neatly separated in the public mind.
But the same analysis suggests that a public that sees passenger service as valuable will also be inclined to appreciate the value of rail freight service. To the extent that railroads have negative image problems from many years ago this can counteract those images; passenger rail can help the public to understand and perhaps to even care about freight rail.
Finally, even if we did move forward on HSR it is not clear that there would be less of a demand for Amtrak on freight rail tracks. HSR could encourage people to use traditional rail for shorter distances and even to get to a HSR station.
In short the advertising by freight rail companies is consistent with accepting Amtrak's use of their tracks so I think in a broad sense you are right.
Interesting post on the LA mayor. IMO, transportation infrastructure is not likely to be a focus in the 2nd term. At least until January 2015, nothing would pass through the House.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
vsmithWell one other possible candidate being talked about over here on the left coast is that our current mayor of LA Antonio Villaraigosa might be on the short list.
You make a good point. The selection hasn't been made yet.
Well one other possible candidate being talked about over here on the left coast is that our current mayor of LA Antonio Villaraigosa might be on the short list. He'll be termed out of office very soon and he has been inside the Prez inner circle for a while now. On the plus side he is a fierce advocate for public transit, not so sure on his experience with Amtrak or freight rail companies. I will say this much, LA has a MUCH better light rail public transit system since he became mayor and it is alot easier to get around the city, however the Bur Riders Union might disagree. The system is not perfect, the LAX airport Green Line extension is still just a dream, the Subway to the Sea extension is IMHO a giant waste of money (why in the climate we have are they building underground? Build it in the daylight, elevate it if needed, faster cheaper and easier to build) but that's the MTA's failure more so than the Mayors. Be interesting to see who's shoulder gets tapped.
Have fun with your trains
tpatrick It really doesn't matter who replaces LaHood. The president runs the show and his nominee will do as he is told.
It really doesn't matter who replaces LaHood. The president runs the show and his nominee will do as he is told.
I really don't think it works that way.
So, Oberstar says to Obama, "The RRs are ripping off poor family farmers. I have proof and I want to stop them." Obama is going to say, "No. I know all about railroading and farming. This is not true. Go sit down and shut up."?
Cabinet posts are very powerful things. They get to tell the prez what's up in their realm and he listens to what they say. Presidents want people they can trust, not people they have to second guess all the time.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
tpatrickThe president runs the show and his nominee will do as he is told
I agree. But I seriously doubt freight railroads really get a lot of Presidential attention. Even Amtrack doesn't get much attention and Amtrak is a government entity. Freight railroads are private companies. The President has a lot of higher priority issues. So the Transportation Commissioner has a lot of leeway here. Should the TC be of a mind that the Robber Barons have not gone away and his job is to reign them in I think the freight railroads will have a hard row to hoe. But perhaps they can do it and persuade the TC that this is 2013, not 1913.
oltmanndOberstar is scary. He thinks RRs = Robber Barons.
Jim Oberstar is from Minnesota and a member of the Democratic Farmer Labor party. Certainly the freight railroads have their work cut of for them if he becomes Transportation Commissioner.
John WR oltmanndHe could have been worse, but we can hope for better. Don, You mean someone who will push even harder for HSR? ;-) On a more serious note, bear in mind that LaHood, a Republican, is more conservative than most people. John
oltmanndHe could have been worse, but we can hope for better.
Don,
You mean someone who will push even harder for HSR? ;-)
On a more serious note, bear in mind that LaHood, a Republican, is more conservative than most people.
John
LOL. On the plus side, he did, at least seem to know there were railroads, and he was a good cheerleader for the stimulus money spent on HrSR. On the negative side, he saddled the RRs with a scary and expensive PTC rulings. He could have been an advocate for longer, phased implementation schedule, at least. He also could have helped focus the stimulus money to where it could do the most good, the quickest.
Oberstar is scary. He thinks RRs = Robber Barons.
MarknLisa Heard one rumor on the radio that the Administration is looking at Jim Oberstar. POTUS is in MN next week. May be a meeing?
Heard one rumor on the radio that the Administration is looking at Jim Oberstar. POTUS is in MN next week. May be a meeing?
Gadzooks! That would be awful.
He could have been worse, but we can hope for better.
Transportation Commissioner Ray LaHood has announced he will resign as soon as President Obama can appoint a new commissioner and a smooth transition can be arranged.
LaHood, a Republican, is known for his strong support of High Speed Rail and his opposition to driving with the distraction of cellphones.
Here is a link: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/transportation-secretary-ray-lahood-stepping-down-86892.html?hp=l9
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.