Yeah I agree. I am not happy with Amtrak funding either but even less happy at a projected $20 Trillion Debt that seems to have decreasing concern in Congress as time goes on. On a net worth basis we still have approx $169 Trillion to go before we hit 100% debt to net worth. Still we are way past the 50% in debt point and I for one would feel a lot more comfortable dropping that back down to around 20%. On a GDP and Cash Flow basis our debt is way to high and we can see the result geopolitically around the world of how this is starting to threaten our security directly.
Returning to financial strength as a country is more important to me than ongoing Amtrak subsidies with a rapidly increasing National Debt.
schlimm“Every year that passes without an investment in expanding our system, is another year we fall behind our competitors in Europe and Asia.”
You want some cheese with that whine?
Hey states! You want it? Step up!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Considering most of the time in the past couple of decades when the Rs controlled the house, the authorization for Amtrak came out at ZERO, (and was later restored to some level in conference), this is a step up.
LD trains funded at pretty much status quo.
Some capital for NEC on top of operational surplus.
Tens of billions of low interest rate loan money available for the first time.
Does it built HSR coast to coast? No. Does it build out HSR corridors with Fed money. No. Those things just ain't happening - for decades. The budget deficit is still way to large and the national debt is dangerously high. First things first.
If ATK can not live on $1.8 BILLION per year, remember it was supposed to be self supporting according to the original advocates, then zero it out put everyone out of their misery, make a small contribution to reducing the deficit, and reducing the scope of an ever more intrusive Federal government.
Mac
CHICAGO (February 12, 2015) - Statement of Richard Harnish, Executive Director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association (MHSRA), in response to today’s House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure markup of the Passenger Rail Reform & Investment Act of 2015 (H.R. 749).“The bill proposed by the House T&I Committee, which has similar low rates of funding as previous years, will not provide the national rail network our economy needs to thrive in the 21st century.”“This bill would authorize Amtrak and other intercity passenger rail service for the next five years at a piddling $1.8 billion per year. That means another five years of declining service when the system should be rapidly expanding.” “The Federal Railroad Administration has established that $5 billion per year is the minimum required to grow the system. The American Public Transportation Association has shown that $9.5 billion is needed to support the current project pipeline and continue Amtrak’s funding. The National Association of Railroad Passengers has identified nearly $200 billion in projects requested by state or local governments. Congress needs to do a lot better.”“This insufficient funding comes at a time when Amtrak ridership is rapidly growing. As more and more American turn towards alternative modes of transportation, like inter-city trains, Congress is failing to plan for the future.”“Every year that passes without an investment in expanding our system, is another year we fall behind our competitors in Europe and Asia.”
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Summary here:
http://ti.house.gov/prria/
IMHO is it pretty Amtrak friendly. Has some things Boardman has wanted. Is politically palatable for both sides and pushes Amtrak to improve.
Yup just threw it out thier....not likely that a regional system based on state funding would suceed. Certainly the long distance trains would disappear.
ROBERT WILLISON The lake shore limited came back as s state sponsored train originally.
The lake shore limited came back as s state sponsored train originally.
The old 403b method of starting service was a great deal for the states. They only had to ante up a small part of the subsidy for the a period of years.
Dave if I recall a few year back the Ethan Allen was in trouble because vt did not want to pay its portion of the route although NY was paying for its portion. Today's empire service is NYC - Albany- Niagara falls. It does not include the Ethan Allen or Adirondack, even though it is an extension via Schenectady, Saratoga and Mechanicsburg.
The point of the thread was that Amtrak faces once again the likelihood of an inadequate budget. Since the current political climate is likely to be with us for at least two more years, is that not just one more reason why Amtrak should stop making foolish choices such as purchasing baggage cars, a concept largely abandoned by modern passenger rail everywhere else?
ROBERT WILLISON Michigan, va and north Carolina as well. Here a question for the group, does north Carolina pay for Virgina's portion of the carolianan or does Amtrak pay for it as well as it NEC portion of the trip? Most of the Ethan Allen runs Thur new York, it is likely that its jointly supported by NY and vt.
Michigan, va and north Carolina as well. Here a question for the group, does north Carolina pay for Virgina's portion of the carolianan or does Amtrak pay for it as well as it NEC portion of the trip?
Most of the Ethan Allen runs Thur new York, it is likely that its jointly supported by NY and vt.
NC picks up all costs over ticket revenue south of Washington On the Carolinian. Virginia gets a free ride.
The Ethan Allen is an extension of what was a NY - Albany service, which was and is supported by NY State as part of its contribution for the Empire Service in general. Vermont had to pick up most of the costs involved in the extension, possibly all.
Some states, such as NY, CA and IL, have been major contributors to the Short Corridor State-Sponsored group. But when borders are crossed, it is much harder to get regional services involving several adjacent states.
Just to illustrate the problems of non-federal support, The state of Texas had to loan Amtrak money to keep the Texas Eagle going in the mid 90's for a portion of a year following the Mercer cuts that were later partially undone, but I don't think any of the other route states joined.
oltmannd The regional vs national point of view is interesting. Traditionally, regional projects were put in place by the Feds. (TVA, for example) We really don't have any institutional mechanisms in place for regional projects. States have great difficulty acting in unison on anything. Downeaster, for example (hello, NH?) Heck, the counties that make up SEPTA have difficulty agreeing on anything. So, while it may make sense to do regional intercity rail project, the reality is they have less chance of success than the Articles of Confederation!
The regional vs national point of view is interesting. Traditionally, regional projects were put in place by the Feds. (TVA, for example) We really don't have any institutional mechanisms in place for regional projects. States have great difficulty acting in unison on anything. Downeaster, for example (hello, NH?) Heck, the counties that make up SEPTA have difficulty agreeing on anything.
So, while it may make sense to do regional intercity rail project, the reality is they have less chance of success than the Articles of Confederation!
I am really surprised but it does look like Amtrak is going to pull it off with getting states along the line to pay for the current Southwest Chief route upgrade.
Likewise in Texas, Amtrak and external Passenger Train interests have almost made a case for Texas going along with extension of the Heartland Flyer service North (eventually to Kansas City).
They failed with the Dallas to Shreveport, LA idea, primarily because the Casinos in LA kept waffling on if they would pay for part of the service or not. They never even funded a demo train and it's fallen to the back burner again.
ROBERT WILLISON Not sure what you are driving at in point 3.
Not sure what you are driving at in point 3.
I think we are getting close to the point of determination to ask, is Amtrak a National Program or Regional Program and at which level should be the majority of the funding. I think we should keep some funding at the Federal Level and kind of keep Amtrak a standards body so that we don't have different parts of the country buying different equipment and systems. It's not that now because we have different and probably somewhat non compatible HSR equipment being picked out and purchased. It is cheaper on the National level if we just set a standard for the entire country and work from that standard vs every state or region inventing their own.
CMStPnPIf you make the argument that HSR is the future of Amtrak and that HSR cannot happen everywhere and that your against the LD part of the Amtrak system does that not imply that Amtrak should then be predominantly regionally funded by the regions that most directly benefit from the HSR.....instead of it being a Federal program?
Let's wait for the final results, speculation either way will not be productive.
The house bill is certainly different than what president proposed.
ROBERT WILLISON Geez what a surprise. To think some here thought the republicans would be good to Amtrak.
Geez what a surprise. To think some here thought the republicans would be good to Amtrak.
What? Compared to David Stockman?
Actually Shuster & Co. are fairly Amtrak friendly compared to most of the other republicans. The norm over the years when the Reps controlled the House is for a bill to come out with ZERO for Amtrak.
"Kill Amtrak", or "zero out Amtrak" used to be a top ten Rep talking point. That chatter has pretty much vanished. Even the Mica circus has faded away of late.
I'm not as negative on this for the following reasons.....
1. Amtrak is becomming increasingly successful at getting states to contribute to not only infrastructure projects but with equipment purchases.
2. This is how the bill has been introduced and it has not gone through either house of Congress yet nor has it had amendments heard.
3. If you make the argument that HSR is the future of Amtrak and that HSR cannot happen everywhere and that your against the LD part of the Amtrak system does that not imply that Amtrak should then be predominantly regionally funded by the regions that most directly benefit from the HSR.....instead of it being a Federal program?
Reform can mean to change in order to improve. In this case to change in order to eliminate.
What exactly is meant by "reformed?"
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA); T&I Ranking Member Peter DeFazio (D-OR) introduced The Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015, or PRRIA (H.R. 749). Like a similar to a bill with the same name approved by the T&I committee last fall, this bill would authorize Amtrak and other intercity passenger rail service for the next five years at only $1.8 billion per year. For Amtrak, that will mean the next five years will see (at best) stagnant service levels.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.