Now who would thought that Trump would eliminate ld trains, comes at such s surprise. Lol
Trump eliminates LD trains
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
For Amtrak, the budget would restructure and reduce federal subsidies to the national intercity passenger railroad to focus on services within regions. It eliminates federal support for long-distance Amtrak services, "which long have been inefficient and incur the vast majority of Amtrak's operating losses," according to the document."This would allow Amtrak to focus on better managing its state-supported and Northeast Corridor train services," it states.
The President’s FY18 Transportation Department budget eliminates funding for Amtrak’s long distance trains. In doing so it emphasizes using the nation’s limited resources on those parts of the passenger rail system that provide meaningful transportation options within regions.
The budget also eliminates the Essential Air Service Program, which it notes was implemented more than 40 years ago as a temporary measure. Other changes include privatization of air traffic control, limits on funding for Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Programs, and elimination of the unauthorized TIGER discretionary grant program.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Excerpt from A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf
The Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible, and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people today, and into the future. The Budget request reflects a streamlined DOT that is focused on performing vital Federal safety oversight functions and investing in nationally and regionally significant transportation infrastructure projects. The Budget reduces or eliminates programs that are either inefficient, duplicative of other Federal efforts, or that involve activities that are better delivered by States, localities, or the private sector.
The President’s 2018 Budget requests $16.2 billion for DOT’s discretionary budget, a $2.4 billion or 13 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level.
The President’s 2018 Budget:
Initiates a multi-year reauthorization proposal to shift the air traffic control function of the Federal Aviation Administration to an independent, non-governmental organization, making the system more efficient and innovative while maintaining safety. This would benefit the flying public and taxpayers overall.
Restructures and reduces Federal subsidies to Amtrak to focus resources on the parts of the passenger rail system that provide meaningful transportation options within regions. The Budget terminates Federal support for Amtrak’s long distance train services, which have long been inefficient and incur the vast majority of Amtrak’s operating losses. This would allow Amtrak to focus on better managing its State-supported and Northeast Corridor train services.
Limits funding for the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Program (New Starts) to projects with existing full funding grant agreements only. Future investments in new transit projects would be funded by the localities that use and benefit from these localized projects.
Eliminates funding for the Essential Air Service (EAS) program, which was originally conceived of as a temporary program nearly 40 years ago to provide subsidized commercial air service to rural airports. EAS flights are not full and have high subsidy costs per passenger. Several EAS-eligible communities are relatively close to major airports, and communities that have EAS could be served by other existing modes of transportation. This proposal would result in a discretionary savings of $175 million from the 2017 annualized CR level.
Eliminates funding for the unauthorized TIGER discretionary grant program, which awards grants to projects that are generally eligible for funding under existing surface transportation formula programs, saving $499 million from the 2017 annualized CR level. Further, DOT’s Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects grant program, authorized by the FAST Act of 2015, supports larger highway and multimodal freight projects with demonstrable national or regional benefits. This grant program is authorized at an annual average of $900 million through 2020.
If it passes I will be okay with that.
What did the railroads do when steam became inefficient? That's right, they killed off steam.Why do we insist on sustaining a money losing system that has a ton of viable alternatives that don't cost the nation money? (Bus, personal automobile, ride sharing, airlines, etc...)
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
DigitalGriffin If it passes I will be okay with that. What did the railroads do when steam became inefficient? That's right, they killed off steam.Why do we insist on sustaining a money losing system that has a ton of viable alternatives that don't cost the nation money? (Bus, personal automobile, ride sharing, airlines, etc...)
Johnny
Deggesty If this part of the budget passes, it will make it impossible for people who cannot fly because of health problems to travel long distances when they have o other way. And, it will make it impossible for people who, for other reasons, do not fly to travel long distances.
If this part of the budget passes, it will make it impossible for people who cannot fly because of health problems to travel long distances when they have o other way. And, it will make it impossible for people who, for other reasons, do not fly to travel long distances.
I have a brother-in-law that is required every day to ride the MARC, Amtrak, and Metro to get to work in Washington DC. Do you know what MARC and Amtraks arrival "on time" record was last year? 2 out of 200 working days. He keeps a public blog documenting the failures on a daily basis. One time the conductor stepped on a live voltage cable between two cars and put him out. That's how bad things are. And you know why a lot of these cars are in such bad shape and why the trains arrive late?1) Union contracts that incentivize employees NOT to arrive on time.2) Money being diverted on maintenance to pay for money losing operations3) Not having private road lines and CSX not giving a darn if they get proper rail priority or not.The system is broken. But at least we can fix #2 where it's needed.
I am fine with the budget in this area as submitted. All the long-distance trains save perhaps Auto-Train are a waste of money as they are currently run. One thing not mentioned in the proposal is that terminating the LD trains will generate a large Multi-Billion dollar labor protection agreement that most Amtrak employees fall under since the start of the Corporation in 1971. Pretty sure President Trump is unaware of that issue as have been past Presidents. So labor protection clauses of cutting of LD trains will cost more than savings for at least 3-5 years into the future unless they find a way to transition Amtrak LD employees over to other areas.
Lets not kid ourselves however, the Budget will not be passed as proposed and President Trump stated that last night and said "this is the opening part of a negotiation". In fact, I cannot think of a Budget by any President, since I have been breathing air that has been passed as proposed. Budget first goes to house where they present amendments and vote on it, then it moves to Senate where more amendments are voted on before it passes the Senate.
CMStPnPe Budget will not be passed as proposed and President Trump stated that last night and said "this is the opening part of a negotiation". In fact, I cannot think of a Budget by any President, since I have been breathing air that has been passed as proposed. Budget first goes to house where they present amendments and vote on it, then it moves to Senate where more amendments are voted on before it passes the Senate.
DigitalGriffin Deggesty If this part of the budget passes, it will make it impossible for people who cannot fly because of health problems to travel long distances when they have o other way. And, it will make it impossible for people who, for other reasons, do not fly to travel long distances.Respectfully, you are asking the nation to shoulder a very large portion of the bill for a very small part of the population. That money could be better spent to serve them. And a bus is just a viable an alternative. A bus might not be as comfortable, but it will get you there, and likely for less money. I have a brother-in-law that is required every day to ride the MARC, Amtrak, and Metro to get to work in Washington DC. Do you know what MARC and Amtraks arrival "on time" record was last year? 2 out of 200 working days. He keeps a public blog documenting the failures on a daily basis. One time the conductor stepped on a live voltage cable between two cars and put him out. That's how bad things are. And you know why a lot of these cars are in such bad shape and why the trains arrive late?1) Union contracts that incentivize employees NOT to arrive on time.2) Money being diverted on maintenance to pay for money losing operations3) Not having private road lines and CSX not giving a darn if they get proper rail priority or not.The system is broken. But at least we can fix #2 where it's needed.
Deggesty If this part of the budget passes, it will make it impossible for people who cannot fly because of health problems to travel long distances when they have o other way. And, it will make it impossible for people who, for other reasons, do not fly to travel long distances.Respectfully, you are asking the nation to shoulder a very large portion of the bill for a very small part of the population. That money could be better spent to serve them. And a bus is just a viable an alternative. A bus might not be as comfortable, but it will get you there, and likely for less money.
If this part of the budget passes, it will make it impossible for people who cannot fly because of health problems to travel long distances when they have o other way. And, it will make it impossible for people who, for other reasons, do not fly to travel long distances.Respectfully, you are asking the nation to shoulder a very large portion of the bill for a very small part of the population. That money could be better spent to serve them. And a bus is just a viable an alternative. A bus might not be as comfortable, but it will get you there, and likely for less money.
RE #3 - Bovine Excrement to the MAX! MARC & VRE get all possible priority on CSX. I KNOW because I gave it to them before I retired - it was my job!
RE #1 there is not incentive to be late - arrive early and you worked less time for the same pay, arrive late you are working longer for the same pay.
RE #2 If money is being 'diverted' it will continue to be diverted. Analogy - States sold gambling as providing additional funding for schools - reality, while gambling funds may go to schools, the 'general fund' funds that went to schools have gone elsewhere and schools are still struggling for funding.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD DigitalGriffin Deggesty If this part of the budget passes, it will make it impossible for people who cannot fly because of health problems to travel long distances when they have o other way. And, it will make it impossible for people who, for other reasons, do not fly to travel long distances.Respectfully, you are asking the nation to shoulder a very large portion of the bill for a very small part of the population. That money could be better spent to serve them. And a bus is just a viable an alternative. A bus might not be as comfortable, but it will get you there, and likely for less money. I have a brother-in-law that is required every day to ride the MARC, Amtrak, and Metro to get to work in Washington DC. Do you know what MARC and Amtraks arrival "on time" record was last year? 2 out of 200 working days. He keeps a public blog documenting the failures on a daily basis. One time the conductor stepped on a live voltage cable between two cars and put him out. That's how bad things are. And you know why a lot of these cars are in such bad shape and why the trains arrive late?1) Union contracts that incentivize employees NOT to arrive on time.2) Money being diverted on maintenance to pay for money losing operations3) Not having private road lines and CSX not giving a darn if they get proper rail priority or not.The system is broken. But at least we can fix #2 where it's needed. RE #3 - Bovine Excrement to the MAX! MARC & VRE get all possible priority on CSX. I KNOW because I gave it to them before I retired - it was my job! RE #1 there is not incentive to be late - arrive early and you worked less time for the same pay, arrive late you are working longer for the same pay. RE #2 If money is being 'diverted' it will continue to be diverted. Analogy - States sold gambling as providing additional funding for schools - reality, while gambling funds may go to schools, the 'general fund' funds that went to schools have gone elsewhere and schools are still struggling for funding.
I did not notice anything in this article regarding capital funding. Would it be a fair assumption that this would be taken up as part of the infrastructure plan of the President, or something else?
A McIntosh I did not notice anything in this article regarding capital funding. Would it be a fair assumption that this would be taken up as part of the infrastructure plan of the President, or something else?
WE need Amtrak in this country Both LD trains and Med trains. What Cutting the highway funding from 45 billion dollars to 40 bilion and giving that 5 Billion dollars to Amtrak?? or airlines 15 billiion dollars to say 10 billion and give that to Amtrak?? We need to think outside of box there.
conrailman WE need Amtrak in this country Both LD trains and Med trains. What Cutting the highway funding from 45 billion dollars to 40 bilion and giving that 5 Billion dollars to Amtrak?? or airlines 15 billiion dollars to say 10 billion and give that to Amtrak?? We need to think outside of box there.
DigitalGriffin Why do we insist on sustaining a money losing system that has a ton of viable alternatives that don't cost the nation money? (Bus, personal automobile, ride sharing, airlines, etc...)
Why do we insist on sustaining a money losing system that has a ton of viable alternatives that don't cost the nation money? (Bus, personal automobile, ride sharing, airlines, etc...)
Respectfully, you are asking the nation to shoulder a very large portion of the bill for a very small part of the population.
DigitalGriffin conrailman WE need Amtrak in this country Both LD trains and Med trains. What Cutting the highway funding from 45 billion dollars to 40 bilion and giving that 5 Billion dollars to Amtrak?? or airlines 15 billiion dollars to say 10 billion and give that to Amtrak?? We need to think outside of box there. And what is your reasoning that we need LD trains?
And what is your reasoning that we need LD trains?
WE give the Highways 45 Billion a year and give Airlines 15 billion a year. We give poor old Amtrak little 1.3 billions dollars. and Now Mr. Trump wants to it 250 Million dollars. Countrys like Russia& China spends 10 to 30 Billions a year on they train system. We needs Amtrak in this Country USA.
Opinions about what is wasteful and what is a wise use of public funds are about as varied as the people who hold those opinions. A few observations:
Every time Trump takes one of those vacations for which he criticized Obama (and said he'd be too busy to take), the local Florida airport shuts down. This causes a great loss of local revenue for employers and employees, and serious inconvenience to travelers. Is this efficient?
Trump says the highways are in disrepair. The party that has controlled Congress (i.e., the purse strings) for several years has failed to do anything about it. Does Trump expect that Party to do a 180 and suddenly do what it has failed to do in the past? Get real.
The number of commercial intercity bus routes and frequency of service has steadily declined for over a generation, rendering that option less and less viable.
Many small towns have no other practical commercial connection to the outside world.
Minimum wage workers either can't afford a car, or can't afford a car that they can trust on a long trip. Is it fair for a government, whose professed purpose is to serve the people, to deny them the opportunity to travel?
Those of us who are older know that commercial air travel does not have to be the onerous experience it is today, but the steady trend is to make it even more inhospitable. The only ones who can escape it are the few who can afford their own planes. Since income disparity has steadily increased over the past several years and shows no sign of abating, air travel is becoming an unacceptable nightmare.
I won't get into the discussion of Federal funds spent on highway and airport construction and maintenance, the costs of air traffic control and highway law enforcement, the loss of tax base and/or productive land when highways and airports are built, etc. because that's been argued to death and nobody can agree.
My conclusion: If the role of Government in a free Society is to serve the needs of the people, then a balanced approach to Transportation issues makes the most sense. This means making it possible and reasonable for there to be free travel by as many modes as possible, by as many routes as possible, to as many destinations as possible. All of it may not be perfectly efficient, but the resultant comprehensive Transportation network will be worth that small sacrifice.
Tom
Highways are much more effective systems at transporting people. So are airlines.Russia and China are NOT the USA. And those countries do not have the interstate road system like we do, nor do the citizens have cars like we do.
Rail in Europe is profitable because of how the cities are laid out in Europe. In the midwest, there are not enough high population cities to jusity the expense. The cost per passenger can NOT be justified here in the USA. This is why Amtrak is losing a fortune. And that's my 2 cents.
Quick question And this will determine how many of you get to yell about how we need to save LD Amtrak...HOW MUCH DOES THE US GOVERNMENT SPEND PER PASSENGER PER MILE ON THOSE MIDWEST ROUTES? If you don't know the answer, you shouldn't be commenting.
DigitalGriffinQuick question And this will determine how many of you get to yell about how we need to save LD Amtrak...HOW MUCH DOES THE US GOVERNMENT SPEND PER PASSENGER PER MILE ON THOSE MIDWEST ROUTES? If you don't know the answer, you shouldn't be commenting.
How much passenger income is derived from the Interstate Highway system?
BaltACD DigitalGriffin Quick question And this will determine how many of you get to yell about how we need to save LD Amtrak...HOW MUCH DOES THE US GOVERNMENT SPEND PER PASSENGER PER MILE ON THOSE MIDWEST ROUTES? If you don't know the answer, you shouldn't be commenting. How much passenger income is derived from the Interstate Highway system?
DigitalGriffin Quick question And this will determine how many of you get to yell about how we need to save LD Amtrak...HOW MUCH DOES THE US GOVERNMENT SPEND PER PASSENGER PER MILE ON THOSE MIDWEST ROUTES? If you don't know the answer, you shouldn't be commenting.
The per-ticket subsidy over the past five years has averaged nearly $51. Mica compared that to other forms of transportation: Using 2008 data, he showed that the average per-ticket subsidy to aviation was $4.28, for mass transit was 95 cents, and for intercity commercial bus service 10 cents.
DigitalGriffinTons due to tractor trailers carrying cargo. Tons due to people paying gas tax. Tons due to roadside restaurants, gas stations, hotels, and shops.
That's not a real answer.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
ACYThe number of commercial intercity bus routes and frequency of service has steadily declined for over a generation, rendering that option less and less viable.
I would be real curious what the financial stats were on Amtrak Thruway Bus subsidiary. I just chartered a 56 passenger bus from the Milwaukee Amtrak Depot across the State to Mineral Point, WI for an all day tour and approx 10 hours use of the bus. They only charged me about $750. Seems like a lot but looking at the Thruway Bus between OKC and Newton, KS, They just need one or two LA bound Sleeping Car Passenger on that Bus..........that would otherwise not ride the train without the bus, and they made up a good portion of their expenses for that one trip. So I wonder across the Amtrak system how the Thruway Bus is doing financially. Making or Losing money?
Also, kind of curious why they never extended Auto-Train to carry dead heading truckers (tractor cabs mostly but some trailers). Seems with the uneven freight flows between NE and Florida, might be a market there.
DigitalGriffin Highways are much more effective systems at transporting people. So are airlines.Russia and China are NOT the USA. And those countries do not have the interstate road system like we do, nor do the citizens have cars like we do. Rail in Europe is profitable because of how the cities are laid out in Europe. In the midwest, there are not enough high population cities to jusity the expense. The cost per passenger can NOT be justified here in the USA. This is why Amtrak is losing a fortune. And that's my 2 cents.
A train hater on a train forum. You must be a joy at parties.
After reading this absolutely terrible news today, the last thing I expected was to visit this forum and see some brainwashed right wing mind slave espousing the virtues of eliminating long distance rail travel in the greatest country on earth. Silly me.
And for the record, I typically vote a straight Republican ticket. But this man has never - nor will he ever - spoken for or represented me. Like the rest of white collar conservatism, I've been relegated to the trash bin of history by our troglodyte base. All hail the reign of the single celled organisms.
Raise fares on the Northeast Corridor 12% and on LD trains 20%. I doubt that it would effect ridership. The lower income people take Megabus anyway. But to really save government money, sell TSA and Air Flight Control to a private company. Heard Trump is considering this. That would ultimately mean higher air fares, but shouldn't affect ridership. Higher toll fees for the trucking industry would recoup the damage they do to the highways.
With that said Richard Nixon never expected the company to survive more than a few years. Their has never been any kind of long term planning and certainly no kind of long term funding.
Here it is 2017, and the system original diners, rolling along since the fifties are finally being replaces. The system has been intentionally capital starved so I would never reach any kind of profitability or levels of service.
Amtrak needs to be given a A capital budget and a time table for delivery of new equipment and infrastructure. This would facilitate a pipe line so rail equipment vendor's can grow and become viable instead of having new companies come and then disappear. It would also stop the revolving door if management turn over.
Stop blaming Amtrak and put the blame where it belongs, squarely at the feet of Congress. These guys are probably patting themselves on the back, for the first step in destroying Amtrak.
Digital G:
If it were true that the highways generated "tons" of money, as you say, then they wouldn't need additional funds in the form of highway subsidies, and the surplus profit from highway operations would be available to fund other endeavors. The fact is, they don't pay for themselves. Highway deterioration, maintenance, and replacement needs outpaces any revenue from them by a wide margin. Your argument falls on its face.
ACY Digital G: If it were true that the highways generated "tons" of money, as you say, then they wouldn't need additional funds in the form of highway subsidies, and the surplus profit from highway operations would be available to fund other endeavors. The fact is, they don't pay for themselves. Highway deterioration, maintenance, and replacement needs outpaces any revenue from them by a wide margin. Your argument falls on its face. Tom
CMStPnP:
By statute, Amtrak, and therefore Auto Train, is a passenger carrier. The automobiles are the property of the passeners on the train, and are equivalent to passengers' baggage. So the Auto Train is not a mixed passenger-freight train, in spite of the efforts of some folks to define it that way. Trailers are often handled in the carriers, and I have even seen boats loaded on trailers. The Auto Train has traditionally gone the extra mile to accommodate whatever business it can sensibly handle, but the interior dimensions of the carriers are limiting factors.
Not being a lawyer, I don't know whether hauling long distance commercial trucks on the Auto Train (a passenger train by definition) would be legal. Frankly, I doubt that a large semi would fit into one of the carriers. If it was narrow enough, it certainly wouldn't fit between the two decks of the Auto Carriers. So some carriers would have to be specially modified for the purpose. I also don't know whether the ramps would bear the weight. Since Amtrak has no spare money for experimentation, I am sure the Company would be happy to have you underwrite the expenses involved, if there is a market and if it's legal or possible in the first place.
There were a huge number of hidden costs that Mica did not include for buses and air, and I trust Moreman to come up with the right answer.
+ 1
BaltACD RE #3 - Bovine Excrement to the MAX! MARC & VRE get all possible priority on CSX. I KNOW because I gave it to them before I retired - it was my job! RE #1 there is not incentive to be late - arrive early and you worked less time for the same pay, arrive late you are working longer for the same pay.
+1 Same is true on NS. I've seen dispatchers do amazing things trying to keep the Amtrak trains moving when all else was lost.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Has anyone else noted the irony that the states that will be losing their Amtrak service are almost exactly match the states that went for Trump?
ACY Opinions about what is wasteful and what is a wise use of public funds are about as varied as the people who hold those opinions. A few observations: Every time Trump takes one of those vacations for which he criticized Obama (and said he'd be too busy to take), the local Florida airport shuts down. This causes a great loss of local revenue for employers and employees, and serious inconvenience to travelers. Is this efficient? Trump says the highways are in disrepair. The party that has controlled Congress (i.e., the purse strings) for several years has failed to do anything about it. Does Trump expect that Party to do a 180 and suddenly do what it has failed to do in the past? Get real. The number of commercial intercity bus routes and frequency of service has steadily declined for over a generation, rendering that option less and less viable. Many small towns have no other practical commercial connection to the outside world. Minimum wage workers either can't afford a car, or can't afford a car that they can trust on a long trip. Is it fair for a government, whose professed purpose is to serve the people, to deny them the opportunity to travel? Those of us who are older know that commercial air travel does not have to be the onerous experience it is today, but the steady trend is to make it even more inhospitable. The only ones who can escape it are the few who can afford their own planes. Since income disparity has steadily increased over the past several years and shows no sign of abating, air travel is becoming an unacceptable nightmare. I won't get into the discussion of Federal funds spent on highway and airport construction and maintenance, the costs of air traffic control and highway law enforcement, the loss of tax base and/or productive land when highways and airports are built, etc. because that's been argued to death and nobody can agree. My conclusion: If the role of Government in a free Society is to serve the needs of the people, then a balanced approach to Transportation issues makes the most sense. This means making it possible and reasonable for there to be free travel by as many modes as possible, by as many routes as possible, to as many destinations as possible. All of it may not be perfectly efficient, but the resultant comprehensive Transportation network will be worth that small sacrifice. Tom
+1
Although I strongly believe LD train concept needs radical transformation, this is not the right approach. One can see cognitive dissonance at work here: train lovers who are also Trump supporters. Which force prevails? So far it appears that ideology "trumps" passion and historical common sense.
schlimm ACY Opinions about what is wasteful and what is a wise use of public funds are about as varied as the people who hold those opinions. A few observations: Every time Trump takes one of those vacations for which he criticized Obama (and said he'd be too busy to take), the local Florida airport shuts down. This causes a great loss of local revenue for employers and employees, and serious inconvenience to travelers. Is this efficient? Trump says the highways are in disrepair. The party that has controlled Congress (i.e., the purse strings) for several years has failed to do anything about it. Does Trump expect that Party to do a 180 and suddenly do what it has failed to do in the past? Get real. The number of commercial intercity bus routes and frequency of service has steadily declined for over a generation, rendering that option less and less viable. Many small towns have no other practical commercial connection to the outside world. Minimum wage workers either can't afford a car, or can't afford a car that they can trust on a long trip. Is it fair for a government, whose professed purpose is to serve the people, to deny them the opportunity to travel? Those of us who are older know that commercial air travel does not have to be the onerous experience it is today, but the steady trend is to make it even more inhospitable. The only ones who can escape it are the few who can afford their own planes. Since income disparity has steadily increased over the past several years and shows no sign of abating, air travel is becoming an unacceptable nightmare. I won't get into the discussion of Federal funds spent on highway and airport construction and maintenance, the costs of air traffic control and highway law enforcement, the loss of tax base and/or productive land when highways and airports are built, etc. because that's been argued to death and nobody can agree. My conclusion: If the role of Government in a free Society is to serve the needs of the people, then a balanced approach to Transportation issues makes the most sense. This means making it possible and reasonable for there to be free travel by as many modes as possible, by as many routes as possible, to as many destinations as possible. All of it may not be perfectly efficient, but the resultant comprehensive Transportation network will be worth that small sacrifice. Tom +1 Although I strongly believe LD train concept needs radical transformation, this is not the right approach. One can see cognitive dissonance at work here: train lovers who are also Trump supporters. Which force prevails? So far it appears that ideology "trumps" passion and historical common sense.
I apologise if I offended some of you. That was not my intent.
I do have respect for elmost everyone in the railroad industry. I have several friends that are engineers, conductors, and dispatchers and I know they work very hard on some obscene late hours. I do have respect for them.
Now some of you want to play armchair CEO without looking at end result or numbers. The experts had 40 years to fix these issues. They all failed. And we all know the definition of Insanity.
Quitefrankly a lot of those Midwest routes would still lose money with 100% occupancy. And the fact that ticket subsidies per passenger exceed $250 is not something that can not be sustained or fixed. Roads airlines buses etc don't even come close to those kind of subsidies. Railroads have always struggled with passenger income. That is a fact that is worsened by the Interstate system and proliferation of cars as.well as the loss of.mail. we all know this.
But nobody wants to.sacrifice the golden cow. I say kill it to make Amtrak stronger for the future. I want Amtrak to be stronger. I don't want equipment breakdown because they don't have spare funds. But I also do you want to pay the obscene subsidy per passenger when better alternatives exist. That is money we don't have as a nation.
As to income and cost of roads the subsidies are much lower. But ancellary income.to business has a huge payout much more than the cost of the roads. And that is why we have interstates.
In all fairness to the armchair CEO's, those experts you refer to are elected officials. If this budget holds, Wick and his aspirations for Amtrak may be sidelined.
I agree with a statement above that LD trains need some form of transformation, but Amtrak unfortunately is a government step child with one too many foster parents.
If my beloved Lake Shore Limited, as well as all other LD trains, has to die, for any reason, you can bet I will work as hard as I can to kill all the rest of Amtrak. Why on earth would Ohioans pay one cent in subsidies to run trains on the East Coast? No, sir.
Either Amtrak is a national system, or it's nothing. Ohio's Congressmen, mostly Republicans, would be hard pressed to justify de-funding trains that serve Ohio in order to repair or bolster train service for the blue states along the coast.
We learned this week that GOP plans to cut Medicare and Medicaid will throw some $12 or $14 billion dollars worth of costs onto Ohio's already very shaky finances. In such an environment where would any money for anything come from? Simply put, it wouldn't.
No LD trains? Then no Amtrak. Period. That's what I'll be telling my Congressmen, and I'm sure I won't be alone.
[quote user="DigitalGriffin"]
I do have respect for elmost everyone I. The railroad industry. I have several.friends that are engineers, conductors, and dispatchers and I know they work very hard on some obscene late hours. I do have respect for them.
[/quoagoI an not sure why any one would think now, 40 years ago or 50 years ago that long distances passenger train would be profitable. If they could be then the railroads themselves would be still operating them,so let's put aside the notion that Amtrak or its ld trains can be profitable. Just won't happen.
I'm not trying to be an " arm chair " CEO. Long distances trains operate for the " public good". Just like rural road's, air ports, the post office and countless other programs funded by the federal government, directly or Thur creative tax deductions woven into our tax codes benifiting or targeting certain income groups.
These trains provide an alternative transportation options for a wide group of folks, including seniors, business travelers, students and vacationers. I fully understand that when I buy a Amtrak ticket that a certain percentage of the trip is being subsidized by both the federal and maybe a state government.
I also understand that when I board an air plane, trying to find the best vaule for my buck, that my ticket cost doesn't fully pay all the freight. I know the airports and parts of it operation are paid for by the " government " , traffic control another government expenses I don't like it but willingly pay for because it for the public good.
When I jump in the car I am not foolish enough to think that the gas taxes i pay cover all the expenses related to highway and road construction maintenance.
Could ld trains be replaced by a cheaper form of Transportation? Most likely. Should they be probably not. They have endured since 1971 because they are supported by a wide group of benefactors, for the public good. Thier plenty of fat in the budget, let's be creative and real.
Given the upgrades of the NEC infrastructure, the purchase of the Acela trainsets, and the new electric locomotives, it probably wears 70 to 90 percent of Amtrak’s capital charges (depreciation, interest, etc.). Let’s call it 80 percent with 10 percent each for the State Supported and Other Short Corridor trains and the long distance trains. Under this assumption the fully allocated loss for the NEC would have been approximately $225 million or averages of 12 cents per passenger mile and $19.22 per passenger. The fully allocated losses for the State Supported and Other Short Corridor trains was $252 million or averages of 16 cents per passenger mile and $17.17 per passenger. The full allocated losses for the long distance trains under this scenario was 22 cents per passenger mile and $133.54 per passenger.
Watergate!
If Nixon hadn't been politically forced to resign he would have presided over the burial of Amtrak after a 5 year experiment, which was the original intent of the formation of Amtrak. Amtrak was never intended to survive.
The fact that Amtrak still exists 46 years after it's formation on capital budgets that would have sunk less skillful players of the political games necessary to continue in operation is a testament to the skill of the Amtrak officials.
BaltACD Watergate! If Nixon hadn't been politically forced to resign he would have presided over the burial of Amtrak after a 5 year experiment, which was the original intent of the formation of Amtrak. Amtrak was never intended to survive. The fact that Amtrak still exists 46 years after it's formation on capital budgets that would have sunk less skillful players of the political games necessary to continue in operation is a testament to the skill of the Amtrak officials. Never heard Amtrak managers being described as skillful or even competent, but you are correct.. The last 46 years have been rough.
oltmannd Has anyone else noted the irony that the states that will be losing their Amtrak service are almost exactly match the states that went for Trump?
Perhaps they know their Amtrak service is secure regardless of the proposed budget.
ACY CMStPnP: By statute, Amtrak, and therefore Auto Train, is a passenger carrier. The automobiles are the property of the passeners on the train, and are equivalent to passengers' baggage. So the Auto Train is not a mixed passenger-freight train, in spite of the efforts of some folks to define it that way. Trailers are often handled in the carriers, and I have even seen boats loaded on trailers. The Auto Train has traditionally gone the extra mile to accommodate whatever business it can sensibly handle, but the interior dimensions of the carriers are limiting factors. Not being a lawyer, I don't know whether hauling long distance commercial trucks on the Auto Train (a passenger train by definition) would be legal. Frankly, I doubt that a large semi would fit into one of the carriers. If it was narrow enough, it certainly wouldn't fit between the two decks of the Auto Carriers. So some carriers would have to be specially modified for the purpose. I also don't know whether the ramps would bear the weight. Since Amtrak has no spare money for experimentation, I am sure the Company would be happy to have you underwrite the expenses involved, if there is a market and if it's legal or possible in the first place. Tom
Well what I was thinking was a CSX - Amtrak partnership, CSX hauls the trailers and tractor cabs on flatcars, Amtrak the truck drivers. I know it is unrealistic to expect any Class I to form a partnership with Amtrak given the past history so it was more a hypothetical. The current Amtrak Auto-Train consist is too long in my opinion as it is......I don't think extending it is a good idea, you would need a seperate train.
ROBERT WILLISON BaltACD Watergate! If Nixon hadn't been politically forced to resign he would have presided over the burial of Amtrak after a 5 year experiment, which was the original intent of the formation of Amtrak. Amtrak was never intended to survive. The fact that Amtrak still exists 46 years after it's formation on capital budgets that would have sunk less skillful players of the political games necessary to continue in operation is a testament to the skill of the Amtrak officials. Never heard Amtrak managers being described as skillful or even competent, but you are correct.. The last 46 years have been rough.
Living 41 years beyond your 'preordained' death requires skills.
CMStPnP oltmannd Has anyone else noted the irony that the states that will be losing their Amtrak service are almost exactly match the states that went for Trump? Perhaps they know their Amtrak service is secure regardless of the proposed budget.
Either show us the factual evidence that supports such a statement or emulate your hero and do a Trump (make stuff up).
[quote
[/quote]
Why transport the driver when you can have an equally qualified driver waiting at the other end of the line?
Trump’s budget is causing Chris Christie to remind everybody who killed the Arc tunnel.
http://nj.gov/governor/news/news/552017/approved/20170316a.html
wanswheel Trump’s budget is causing Chris Christie to remind everybody who killed the Arc tunnel. http://nj.gov/governor/news/news/552017/approved/20170316a.html
Nothing quite like political doubletalk.
NEC is hardly loosing money. Especially not Acela. Have you seen their ticket prices?That $120 loss per passenger is the result after the massive subsidies being handed to them for that route.The table below shows that if you sold 100% of the tickets, how much of that money collected would equal the operating expense of thet train. For example 50% collected on a train that cost $100 means they collected $50 in fair cost. So even if you fill that train to capacity you would still lose money.
BaltACDRE #3 - Bovine Excrement to the MAX! MARC & VRE get all possible priority on CSX. I KNOW because I gave it to them before I retired - it was my job! RE #1 there is not incentive to be late - arrive early and you worked less time for the same pay, arrive late you are working longer for the same pay. RE #2 If money is being 'diverted' it will continue to be diverted. Analogy - States sold gambling as providing additional funding for schools - reality, while gambling funds may go to schools, the 'general fund' funds that went to schools have gone elsewhere and schools are still struggling for funding.
Balt, You are spot on. Thanks for the truth.
Believe it or not the Twin Amtrak Tunnels to New York from NJ are on President Trumps Infrastructure program as a "National Security Priority" or "National Priority"........whatever the hell that means. I cracked up when I read it. Now we should start NEC Conspiracy Theory rumors of how the NEC is used in National Defense during or after an attack.
Redevelopment of Chicago Union Station and Washington DC Union Station is on there as well.
ROBERT WILLISONI wonder how any one could support Trump if they support Amtrak. The hand writing was on the wall. I wrote in earlier post, that under Trump their be only the regionals, state supported trains and the NEC left standing
The problem of course is you did not look at the Infrastructure Program where many big-ticket Amtrak projects were moved away from the Amtrak budget. It's a new philosophy that apparently many of the Forum readers here are clueless of. President Trump moved most of the individual agency transportation big ticket projects over to the Infrastructure Program. So while it is listed that light rail will suffer under the budget. Looking at the Infrastructure program.......Billions are going to be spent on Light Rail, if the Infrastructure program is approved. Dallas has two large transit projects on the Infrastructure program.
schlimmEither show us the factual evidence that supports such a statement or emulate your hero and do a Trump (make stuff up).
Your beyond hope. Even though I pointed you to the Chicago to Milwaukee Data and spoon fed most of it to you. You only found 1/3 the information and completely missed the attached EIS. So I learned from that experience and won't waste my time again. You can percieve someone that is more resourceful and intelligent than you are as "making stuff up". However, most rational people would at least Google first before making accusatory statements like that.
CMStPnP schlimm Either show us the factual evidence that supports such a statement or emulate your hero and do a Trump (make stuff up). Your beyond hope. Even though I pointed you to the Chicago to Milwaukee Data and spoon fed most of it to you. You only found 1/3 the information and completely missed the attached EIS. So I learned from that experience and won't waste my time again. You can percieve someone that is more resourceful and intelligent than you are as "making stuff up". However, most rational people would at least Google first before making accusatory statements like that.
schlimm Either show us the factual evidence that supports such a statement or emulate your hero and do a Trump (make stuff up).
Once again you put words in others' mouths. I never said a word about infrastructure, just your comment on the ending of LD service (that it would not happen). You are not only incapable of citing the sources for your remarks, you are dishonest in your attributions.
n.b.: As of Saturday morning, Trump's minions have yet to release any details of his infrastructure budget.
CMStPnP ROBERT WILLISON I wonder how any one could support Trump if they support Amtrak. The hand writing was on the wall. I wrote in earlier post, that under Trump their be only the regionals, state supported trains and the NEC left standing The problem of course is you did not look at the Infrastructure Program where many big-ticket Amtrak projects were moved away from the Amtrak budget. It's a new philosophy that apparently many of the Forum readers here are clueless of. President Trump moved most of the individual agency transportation big ticket projects over to the Infrastructure Program. So while it is listed that light rail will suffer under the budget. Looking at the Infrastructure program.......Billions are going to be spent on Light Rail, if the Infrastructure program is approved. Dallas has two large transit projects on the Infrastructure program.
ROBERT WILLISON I wonder how any one could support Trump if they support Amtrak. The hand writing was on the wall. I wrote in earlier post, that under Trump their be only the regionals, state supported trains and the NEC left standing
On the face of it, that sounds better. But what good does it do to build fancy infrastructure to be used by an entity that is too starved to make good use of it?
Most of my Texas neighbors don't know anything about Amtrak? They don't use it; most of them don't even know there are any passenger trains that serve Texas. If Amtrak ceased to exist it would not register with them.
ACYOn the face of it, that sounds better. But what good does it do to build fancy infrastructure to be used by an entity that is too starved to make good use of it? Tom
Allegedly, what President Trump says he is trying to do is remove the big Infrastructure Project management from the smaller agencies to the larger ones with more experience managing large projects (he believes that will translate to lower costs, less cost overruns and better management). So I believe but I am not 100% sure, he moved the large Amtrak projects under either DOT or FRA.
Also I posted the preliminary Infrastructure plan in this forum earlier that he outlined in December which was a work in progress back then and it still should be searchable if you want to see what Amtrak projects he selected. All I remember was the twin tubes to New York, CUS improvement project (additional 5 stories), Washington DC improvement project. He has the express light rail from Plano, TX to DFW Airport on there as well as DART light rail expansion as shovel ready projects.......there are a few other rail projects as well.
I suspect and I am just guessing here, the other reason he moved the projects to DOT or FRA is they have more power with negotiation and bidding if they have a suite of large projects to bid on vs several smaller agencies with just one project to bid on. So if your dealing with a BECHTEL Construction conglomerate you can shave costs off one project if they are getting more projects to offset the loss where you shaved costs.
Also, another item on the Infrastructure program was replacement of a large part of KANSAS CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, he moved that project from the local level to the Federal Level and I am not sure who is in charge of it now.
Also, fixing or expanding a lot of waterways and locks.
schlimmn.b.: As of Saturday morning, Trump's minions have yet to release any details of his infrastructure budget.
Not true, they did a preliminary release in December. It is posted in this forum or General Discussion Forum. Again, all you need to do is search on Trump and Infrastructure as keywords.
Here is the preliminary Infrastructure program released in December, it was a work in progress then. #1 on the list is Amtrak and the twin tubes to NYC, they also have the CSX Howard Street Tunnel on the list.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3409546-Emergency-NatSec50Projects-121416-1-Reduced.html
CMStPnP schlimm n.b.: As of Saturday morning, Trump's minions have yet to release any details of his infrastructure budget. Not true, they did a preliminary release in December. It is posted in this forum or General Discussion Forum. Again, all you need to do is search on Trump and Infrastructure as keywords.
schlimm n.b.: As of Saturday morning, Trump's minions have yet to release any details of his infrastructure budget.
Analyisis of his plan: Trump’s plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It’s a tax-cut plan for utility-industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The plan doesn’t directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports. Instead, Trump’s plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. These projects (such as electrical grid modernization or energy pipeline expansion) might already be planned or even underway. There’s no requirement that the tax breaks be used for incremental or otherwise expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects. He also takes the projects out of existing federal agencies and sets up a new agency in the WH. The potential for pork and graft is huge.
CMStPnP Here is the preliminary Infrastructure program released in December, it was a work in progress then. #1 on the list is Amtrak and the twin tubes to NYC, they also have the CSX Howard Street Tunnel on the list. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3409546-Emergency-NatSec50Projects-121416-1-Reduced.html
This is a political wish list issued before the President took office.
We won't know the details of the President's proposals for months to come, and they will only be important if Congress agrees to fund them. Until then getting torqued-up over the President's (OMB's) proposed budget seems premature.
schlimmAnalyisis of his plan: Trump’s plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It’s a tax-cut plan for utility-industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The plan doesn’t directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports. Instead, Trump’s plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. These projects (such as electrical grid modernization or energy pipeline expansion) might already be planned or even underway. There’s no requirement that the tax breaks be used for incremental or otherwise expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects. He also takes the projects out of existing federal agencies and sets up a new agency in the WH. The potential for pork and graft is huge.
Well I guess that is one perspective but I think I will wait and see how it is implemented before I make judgements of abuse (before they happen).
The problem is Trump's infrastructure program is nothing more than a wish list. The reality is that local transit systems will lose millions in new investments and operating funds. Gcrta will lose the funding to operate it's health line running from public square out to the Cleveland clinic, providing connections to heavy rail and West side busses in public square.
The real irony is the Health line construction, new buses and the rebuilding of public square to better flow bus traffic was largely paid for with Federal funding.
It's a shame that Trump's vision of making America great again is as erratic as his tweets.
Schlimm, thanks for articulating this so well. It was what I was driving at, but you got it 100% correct. And then some.
If the budget is passed with the Amtrak and Transit cuts, then it is expenditure certain that those programs will be cut. Even if the infrastructure package is also passed as tax break incentives, there is little certainty that rail projects will be privately funded. Just look at the problems that FEC/Brightline had trying to sell the junk bonds for AAF. In the end they had to self-finance.
While Trump's infrastructure plan is quite murky at this point, I either read of or heard that the trillion dollar infrastructure idea depended on a lower corporate tax rate of around 10 to 15%. The trillions that corporations are holding overseas would supposedly flow back stateside and pay a one time tax at the lower rate, thus yielding the roughly one trillion plus for infrastructure projects that would be spread out over 10 years. This money would match private funds or money raised by state and local governments or other public bodies, such as Amtrak. Those of you with better info than I can comment on the accuracy, or lack thereof.
A McIntosh While Trump's infrastructure plan is quite murky at this point, I either read of or heard that the trillion dollar infrastructure idea depended on a lower corporate tax rate of around 10 to 15%. The trillions that corporations are holding overseas would supposedly flow back stateside and pay a one time tax at the lower rate, thus yielding the roughly one trillion plus for infrastructure projects that would be spread out over 10 years. This money would match private funds or money raised by state and local governments or other public bodies, such as Amtrak. Those of you with better info than I can comment on the accuracy, or lack thereof.
Pretty iffy.
You suggest that Trump's plan is a well thought out plan to reassign responsibilities for funding from one agency to another in the interest of efficiency. I may not be expressing it perfectly, but I think that is the nub of it.
If that were the case, it might not be bad at all. But so far, Trump has shown pretty convincingly that he hasn't a clue how the government in general, or these agencies in particular, work in the first place. If that's the case, no plan of his will make any sense or have any positive impact, unless it's by accident. Making changes just because you decide you ought to do SOMETHING is an idiotic approach, and it doesn't speak well for Trump's business acumen. So far, that seems to be what he's doing.
I obviously don't care for him, but that's beside the point. I want the Country to have successful policies, irrespective of my opinion of him as a person. If Trump can do that, I'll accord him whatever credit he deserves. But nothing he has said or done so far makes me optimistic.
ACYCMStPnP: You suggest that Trump's plan is a well thought out plan to reassign responsibilities for funding from one agency to another in the interest of efficiency. I may not be expressing it perfectly, but I think that is the nub of it. If that were the case, it might not be bad at all. But so far, Trump has shown pretty convincingly that he hasn't a clue how the government in general, or these agencies in particular, work in the first place. If that's the case, no plan of his will make any sense or have any positive impact, unless it's by accident. Making changes just because you decide you ought to do SOMETHING is an idiotic approach, and it doesn't speak well for Trump's business acumen. So far, that seems to be what he's doing. I obviously don't care for him, but that's beside the point. I want the Country to have successful policies, irrespective of my opinion of him as a person. If Trump can do that, I'll accord him whatever credit he deserves. But nothing he has said or done so far makes me optimistic. Tom
Well despite his other nonsense, he has applied his business knowledge in areas that a politician would not. Too early to tell how effective he will be with legislation and the budget, in my view. I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt there.
To be fair, I also extended the benefit of the doubt to the last President for the first two years at least.
Last but not least, I can't see a native of NYC, screwing up Amtrak beyond removal of the Long Distance Trains, which most of us know will not happen because Congress will vote against it and the labor protections will keep them running forever...........as in the past. I don't think there is a politician that will ever be able to kill Amtrak's LD trains without the country plunging into a major financial crisis first to provide a real sense of urgency for eliminating them. I think the most we will ever see is a compromise there where Amtrak loses maybe 2-3 LD trains but not all of them at once.
Interestingly nobody heard the comments the Trump administration made about state subsidized Amtrak service or Corridor service, they were supportive of both in their comments and only ripped on LD service.
So if any LD trains are on the block, my guess is finally the Cardinal and the Sunset Limited make their last runs.
CMStPnP ACY CMStPnP: You suggest that Trump's plan is a well thought out plan to reassign responsibilities for funding from one agency to another in the interest of efficiency. I may not be expressing it perfectly, but I think that is the nub of it. If that were the case, it might not be bad at all. But so far, Trump has shown pretty convincingly that he hasn't a clue how the government in general, or these agencies in particular, work in the first place. If that's the case, no plan of his will make any sense or have any positive impact, unless it's by accident. Making changes just because you decide you ought to do SOMETHING is an idiotic approach, and it doesn't speak well for Trump's business acumen. So far, that seems to be what he's doing. I obviously don't care for him, but that's beside the point. I want the Country to have successful policies, irrespective of my opinion of him as a person. If Trump can do that, I'll accord him whatever credit he deserves. But nothing he has said or done so far makes me optimistic. Tom Interestingly nobody heard the comments the Trump administration made about state subsidized Amtrak service or Corridor service, they were supportive of both in their comments and only ripped on LD service.
ACY CMStPnP: You suggest that Trump's plan is a well thought out plan to reassign responsibilities for funding from one agency to another in the interest of efficiency. I may not be expressing it perfectly, but I think that is the nub of it. If that were the case, it might not be bad at all. But so far, Trump has shown pretty convincingly that he hasn't a clue how the government in general, or these agencies in particular, work in the first place. If that's the case, no plan of his will make any sense or have any positive impact, unless it's by accident. Making changes just because you decide you ought to do SOMETHING is an idiotic approach, and it doesn't speak well for Trump's business acumen. So far, that seems to be what he's doing. I obviously don't care for him, but that's beside the point. I want the Country to have successful policies, irrespective of my opinion of him as a person. If Trump can do that, I'll accord him whatever credit he deserves. But nothing he has said or done so far makes me optimistic. Tom
Of course Trump won't interfere with State subsidized service. As long as the money isn't Federal, he doesn't care because he thinks it's no skin off his nose.
ACY CMStPnP ACY CMStPnP: You suggest that Trump's plan is a well thought out plan to reassign responsibilities for funding from one agency to another in the interest of efficiency. I may not be expressing it perfectly, but I think that is the nub of it. If that were the case, it might not be bad at all. But so far, Trump has shown pretty convincingly that he hasn't a clue how the government in general, or these agencies in particular, work in the first place. If that's the case, no plan of his will make any sense or have any positive impact, unless it's by accident. Making changes just because you decide you ought to do SOMETHING is an idiotic approach, and it doesn't speak well for Trump's business acumen. So far, that seems to be what he's doing. I obviously don't care for him, but that's beside the point. I want the Country to have successful policies, irrespective of my opinion of him as a person. If Trump can do that, I'll accord him whatever credit he deserves. But nothing he has said or done so far makes me optimistic. Tom Interestingly nobody heard the comments the Trump administration made about state subsidized Amtrak service or Corridor service, they were supportive of both in their comments and only ripped on LD service. Of course Trump won't interfere with State subsidized service. As long as the money isn't Federal, he doesn't care because he thinks it's no skin off his nose. Tom
Somebody can fact check this, but AFAIK, the "State-subsidized Services" are not 100% state funded.
If this was a strategic ploy, then I'd the Amtrak service is a pawn in some greater horsetrading scheme.
However, I think the simplest explanation is that this is just some sort of window dressing in a quick and dirty budget preparation. Just cross stuff off so that the number at the bottom comes out right after you add in defense and homeland security spending.
There is scant analysis or commentary on any of the budget items. Just another sign of having another rookie administration...
ACYOf course Trump won't interfere with State subsidized service. As long as the money isn't Federal, he doesn't care because he thinks it's no skin off his nose. Tom
He is thinking probably more along the lines of votes and presuming the LD trains have far less support but just a guess on my part. I thought it was radically different for them to come out and make a verbal statement (the Budget Director made the positive statement) in support of state corridors. Past Republican Administrations never delineated between Amtrak Corridor and Amtrak LD.
I don't know what the funding ratio is on Amtrak Corridors when the state picks up part of the tab but the FEDS have been slowly increasing the state funding ratio along with other requirements like purchasing equipment. For example to expand Chicago to Milwaukee another three frequencies, WI and IL now have to buy a new locomotive as well as I believe an additional trainset because the existing equipment pool can't make 10 RT runs.
oltmannd CMStPnP oltmannd Has anyone else noted the irony that the states that will be losing their Amtrak service are almost exactly match the states that went for Trump? Perhaps they know their Amtrak service is secure regardless of the proposed budget. If this was a strategic ploy, then I'd the Amtrak service is a pawn in some greater horsetrading scheme. However, I think the simplest explanation is that this is just some sort of window dressing in a quick and dirty budget preparation. Just cross stuff off so that the number at the bottom comes out right after you add in defense and homeland security spending. There is scant analysis or commentary on any of the budget items. Just another sign of having another rookie administration...
Much of the "budget" looked like some intern cut and pasted existing stuff from various websites, enough to add up to 50 projects, many of which were privately funded already. Failing grade for plagiarism.
I think the plan is cut the heck out of domestic spending, not just transit but the whole deal so they can move on to tax " reform ". With billions if dollars of federal expenditures gone. He can come out more tax relief to corporations and his buddies. All the while he helps him self and the Trump family business.
ROBERT WILLISON I think the plan is cut the heck out of domestic spending, not just transit but the whole deal so they can move on to tax " reform ". With billions if dollars of federal expenditures gone. He can come out more tax relief to corporations and his buddies. All the while he helps him self and the Trump family business.
In Dallas, Federal Funding is looked at as an accelerant not a "must have". So a lot of the planned transit in Dallas will move forwards without Federal Funding but at a later date. I am pretty sure that is true of other locations that established a permanent source of funding. So the notion he is ending transit projects might be a little far-fetched. However, President Trump and his staff already said that existing multi-year transit projects underway would still recieve Federal Funding as committed to and they were not abandoning previous commitments. This budget is primarily addressing projects with no Federal commitment yet.
CMStPnP ROBERT WILLISON I think the plan is cut the heck out of domestic spending, not just transit but the whole deal so they can move on to tax " reform ". With billions if dollars of federal expenditures gone. He can come out more tax relief to corporations and his buddies. All the while he helps him self and the Trump family business. In Dallas, Federal Funding is looked at as an accelerant not a "must have". So a lot of the planned transit in Dallas will move forwards without Federal Funding but at a later date. I am pretty sure that is true of other locations that established a permanent source of funding. So the notion he is ending transit projects might be a little far-fetched. However, President Trump and his staff already said that existing multi-year transit projects underway would still recieve Federal Funding as committed to and they were not abandoning previous commitments. This budget is primarily addressing projects with no Federal commitment yet.
CMStP&P- Is there ever a day or posting where you don't come under attack from the "tin foil hat reporting to the mother ship crowd"?
You are a Stonewall!...keep up the good fight.
Miningman CMStP&P- Is there ever a day or posting where you don't come under attack from the "tin foil hat reporting to the mother ship crowd"? You are a Stonewall!...keep up the good fight.
You know what is funny is I get slammed on the Military boards for espousing the Liberal viewpoint (ha-ha) too much. I have these folks check my profile to see if I actually served and in what capacity. Not sure what happened to the Air Force but some of those USAF guys are waaaayyyy to far to the right for my comfort level (and too preachy on the religous end as well). The other thing I noticed and this is actually a nose hit point of view but you'll never see Infantry or Special Forces posting something stupid in public or something overly political or poorly thought out. It's always the support people that do that.
Dad made a similar observation in the early 1970's comparing the differences in political points of view between the American Legion and VFW. Since, the members of the VFW had to serve overseas, they were more likely to have been in combat and were collectively not as far to the right as Legion members.
As a reminder, Dad flew combat with the 306th Bomb Group (8th Air Force) during WW2.
The so called 'Trump Budget' is a big pile of crap thrown against the wall to see what sticks and what slides down and gets washed into the storm drains of Congress.
https://archive.org/stream/veterancomesback00wallrich#page/n5/mode/2up
wanswheelhttps://archive.org/stream/veterancomesback00wallrich#page/n5/mode/2up
Relevancy?
Go back and read "Art of the Deal" aim high and everything is on the table. Much of this news is BS by the Democrats who want to scare us into thinking that we are all going to Ëat Dog Food just like back in the Reagan Era.
BaltACD The so called 'Trump Budget' is a big pile of crap thrown against the wall to see what sticks and what slides down and gets washed into the storm drains of Congress.
+1 Not even a sketch of a budget. More disinformation to try to fool the public.
It's kind of sad that it took almost four pages of commentary to finally cut through the bloviation (probably including some of my own comments) and get down to the simple, essential facts. Thanks for the dose of reality, Balt.
Still, it would not hurt to remind Trump of the role that Amtrak intercity service played on 9 September '01. I certainly will write the appropriate letter.
daveklepper Still, it would not hurt to remind Trump of the role that Amtrak intercity service played on 9 September '01. I certainly wioll write the appropriate letter.
Still, it would not hurt to remind Trump of the role that Amtrak intercity service played on 9 September '01. I certainly wioll write the appropriate letter.
+1, Dave. It surely cannot hurt.
Amtraks LD Trains serve communities that don't have an airportc ity commercial service. They are the orthodox the minuscule investment from the federal give. Trump budget is awful like him .
was not happy to hear this. One good thing about BO adminstration was they did support trains, allocated money to various states for high speed rail etc. No one ever talks about eliminating money given to keep rebuilding highways or airlines. Amtrak should get the same consideration, not every one drives or flies to a destination, I don't. Haven't been on a plane since 2003, when I flew back from San Fran after meeting up with a friend who flew out while I rode the Builder and Starlight. No desire to fly now with all the commotion and hassles, ain't been the same since TWA went down. That was a cool airline, flew with them many times to Europe and other places when it was cheap and safe.
SunnylandNo one ever talks about eliminating money given to keep rebuilding highways or airlines.
Follow the money trail. At least for highways, the building and frequent rebuilding is a huge windfall (pork) to the highway lobby, even in the post-earmarks era. Money for Amtrak is not so useful politically.
Sunnyland was not happy to hear this. One good thing about BO adminstration was they did support trains, allocated money to various states for high speed rail etc. No one ever talks about eliminating money given to keep rebuilding highways or airlines. Amtrak should get the same consideration, not every one drives or flies to a destination, I don't. Haven't been on a plane since 2003, when I flew back from San Fran after meeting up with a friend who flew out while I rode the Builder and Starlight. No desire to fly now with all the commotion and hassles, ain't been the same since TWA went down. That was a cool airline, flew with them many times to Europe and other places when it was cheap and safe.
What did we end up with 8 years later after the Obama administration spent Billions on High Speed Rail? What are the results and how have they transformed the opinion of the average American on HSR?
Please keep in mind we have a Northeast Corridor facing imminent collapse as there is still no funding for NJ to NY replacement tunnels.........precisely because of lack of investment during the Obama era.
Sad but true that FEC is going to do more to change Americans perceptions of passenger rail than anything Obama did and will probably have a completed near HSR operating before anything Obama funded. And so far not as much taxpayer money was spent in the case of FEC. Faster to market, far less money spent, more impact upon the public..........private sector comes through again.
CMStPnPWhat did we end up with 8 years later after the Obama administration spent Billions on High Speed Rail?
In 2009-10, $10.1 billion in federal funding was made available through the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (grants) given to states all over the US that chose to participate. Some chose to subsequently cancel programs. No more money was appropriated beginning in 2011 once the GOP got control of the House. Much has been spent on projects underway, especially CA, IL, MI and the NEC. Now the CA GOP congressional delegation wants Trump to cancel any pending funding there. And regardless of how you spin it, Trump is cutting all LD funding for Amtrak in his initial budget, something Obama never did.
CMStPnP What did we end up with 8 years later after the Obama administration spent Billions on High Speed Rail? What are the results and how have they transformed the opinion of the average American on HSR? Please keep in mind we have a Northeast Corridor facing imminent collapse as there is still no funding for NJ to NY replacement tunnels.........precisely because of lack of investment during the Obama era. Sad but true that FEC is going to do more to change Americans perceptions of passenger rail than anything Obama did and will probably have a completed near HSR operating before anything Obama funded. And so far not as much taxpayer money was spent in the case of FEC. Faster to market, far less money spent, more impact upon the public..........private sector comes through again.
HSR money was spent on the Lincoln Corridor to install more HrSR segments and more millions was spent on the Wolverine Corridor (remember the money turned back from WI and OH) to purchase the line east of Kalamazoo from NS, to be able to extend that HrSR project. The NEC suffered more from Super-storm Sandy than lack of investment, and lots of money was put into re-opening the tubes connecting Manhattan, as well as catching up on deferred maintenance on the rest of the NEC. Much money was spent system wide on Amtrak on a backlog of previous needs.
So far the FEC has not changed my perception of American passenger rail. At the present, AAF is a south Florida real estate development that happens to be connected by a 79 mph commuter line. As far as I know, they have not started installing 2nd track north of WPB, and everyone talks like their HSR succes is an established fact. And yes they have not spent much taxpayer's money, but of course they have not secured that $1 billion FRA loan yet. Let me know when they reach Orlando.
schlimmIn 2009-10, $10.1 billion in federal funding was made available through the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (grants) given to states all over the US that chose to participate. Some chose to subsequently cancel programs. No more money was appropriated beginning in 2011 once the GOP got control of the House. Much has been spent on projects underway, especially CA, IL, MI and the NEC. Now the CA GOP congressional delegation wants Trump to cancel any pending funding there. And regardless of how you spin it, Trump is cutting all LD funding for Amtrak in his initial budget, something Obama never did.
OK so where is HSR up and running from all that investment? What HSR project has been completed? Where is the showcase system that is going to sway public opinion in favor of HSR? Show me where that large sum of money was not largely squandered via lack of focus by the Feds.
CMStPnP schlimm In 2009-10, $10.1 billion in federal funding was made available through the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (grants) given to states all over the US that chose to participate. Some chose to subsequently cancel programs. No more money was appropriated beginning in 2011 once the GOP got control of the House. Much has been spent on projects underway, especially CA, IL, MI and the NEC. Now the CA GOP congressional delegation wants Trump to cancel any pending funding there. And regardless of how you spin it, Trump is cutting all LD funding for Amtrak in his initial budget, something Obama never did. OK so where is HSR up and running from all that investment? What HSR project has been completed? Where is the showcase system that is going to sway public opinion in favor of HSR? Show me where that large sum of money was not largely squandered via lack of focus by the Feds.
schlimm In 2009-10, $10.1 billion in federal funding was made available through the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (grants) given to states all over the US that chose to participate. Some chose to subsequently cancel programs. No more money was appropriated beginning in 2011 once the GOP got control of the House. Much has been spent on projects underway, especially CA, IL, MI and the NEC. Now the CA GOP congressional delegation wants Trump to cancel any pending funding there. And regardless of how you spin it, Trump is cutting all LD funding for Amtrak in his initial budget, something Obama never did.
I agree. I warned that if that $8B in stimulus wasn't spent wisely, with something to show after it was all spent, that it would be the last major money we would see from the Feds for new intercity rail projects.
Eight year later, we almost have 110 mph low density corridor in Illinois, a rail car order where the sample can't pass the structural requirments, and not much else.
Fool me once, etc.
Meanwhile in Florida...a $2B investment will yield a new, 110 mph, medium density corridor complete with new stations, some new 125 mph right of way and a whole set of brand new equipment, all in a few short years.
Imagine if the same process for getting things done at All Aborad Florida was available for spending Federal investment.
oltmanndEight year later, we almost have 110 mph low density corridor in Illinois, a rail car order where the sample can't pass the structural requirments, and not much else.
Odd how the voice of gradualism conveniently has changed his tune.
The $10 bil was just a beginning; after 2010 the GOP House blocked any additional funding. The railcar order is a fiasco, likely poor engineering choices and poor construction techniques as also seen in the Viewliner II mess. And it is also "interesting" how the Trumpists change the topic away from the new budget ending LD trains to a shop-worn refrain of blaming Obama.
schlimm oltmannd Eight year later, we almost have 110 mph low density corridor in Illinois, a rail car order where the sample can't pass the structural requirments, and not much else. Odd how the voice of gradualism conveniently has changed his tune.
oltmannd Eight year later, we almost have 110 mph low density corridor in Illinois, a rail car order where the sample can't pass the structural requirments, and not much else.
Don Oltmann is a recently retired railroad industry insider (Norfolk Southern) and rail enthusiast. He posts under a handle, but his identity is known as he links to his blog under his own name. He has consistently advocated for passenger trains on this Web site while maintaining a big-picture view of what is possible and what is not possible in railroad projects.
His writings taking the point-of-view, his warnings that the 10 or so billion out of the Stimulus directed at passenger trains had to be spent effectively, these were made prior to the 2010 elections. In that time frame, he warned that passenger train advocates should not count on there being follow-on appropriations of this or even greater magnitude. I remember him starting threads on this Forum asking, "OK people, how should 'we' spend this money" with the discussion going off in five different directions as to the priorities, which in my view, did not bode well.
That sentence starting with "Odd" is one of the nastier remarks posted here. Of course there will be no retraction, no apology, not even a clarification "I did not mean it in that spirit and this is what I am trying to say." And even more certain than the sun rising in the sky every morning, it will be me will have made the nasty remark for calling this out because I will have "twisted" or "smeared" or "misinterpreted" or "gone off on a tangent, again", or whatever the term-of-art-is for I-am-always-right-and-you-are-ever-wrong.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicThat sentence starting with "Odd" is one of the nastier remarks posted here.
Odd = different from what is usual or expected. Since in the past Don has frequently stated that a gradual progression in stages towards higher speed rail passenger service is a sound plan, I was quite surprised that he dissed the CHI-StL corridor. There is nothing nasty about that use of "odd" in this case. Try using a dictionary before jumping to conclusions.
schlimmAnd it is also "interesting" how the Trumpists change the topic away from the new budget ending LD trains to a shop-worn refrain of blaming Obama.
Never voted for Trump but after seeing all the Liberal crying after the election now feel as though I missed out on a major kick in the pants towards Liberals. I was responding to a poster that stated things were so much better under Obama. All I asked is how they were much better? Amtrak is in the same financial mess it was before Obama took office with major critical infrastructure investment not much addressed. We now have three states in over their head with financial commitments towards HSR corridors that will probably not be completed anytime soon or without a future Fed bailout of some sort.
And the only reason I am rubbing peoples face in it because so much criticism was leveled at Wisconsin's then Governor for being rational and saying NO. Which continues to look more and more like a wise decision in avoiding financial calamity at the State budget level as there wasn't any ongoing financial funding to these HSR initiatives.......the funding source disappeared after one lost election. Total flash in the pan. Seems to me that any responsible infrastructure spending should be permanently based and funding should be available every year regardless of who is in office at the time. No effort even attempted in that area or at addressing the current budget deficit with funding existing Transportation Infrastructure........which is sucking money out of the General Fund now in ever greater amounts.
schlimm I was quite surprised that he dissed the CHI-StL corridor.
I, for one, was not surprised at all, because Don Oltmann pointedly didn't "disrespect" the St. Louis Corridor. What he disrespected was the everthing-but-the-St. Louis Corridor that hasn't gotten "off dead center."
schlimm oltmannd Eight year later, we almost have 110 mph low density corridor in Illinois, a rail car order where the sample can't pass the structural requirments, and not much else. Odd how the voice of gradualism conveniently has changed his tune. The $10 bil was just a beginning; after 2010 the GOP House blocked any additional funding. The railcar order is a fiasco, likely poor engineering choices and poor construction techniques as also seen in the Viewliner II mess. And it is also "interesting" how the Trumpists change the topic away from the new budget ending LD trains to a shop-worn refrain of blaming Obama.
BS. FEC/AAF is gradualism done right - because the process is so much cleaner. No layers of consultants writing specs (apparently, badly). No "USA content" regulation". No multiple party deals. FEC, AAF and Brightline are all under the same family tree.
For $8B we should have been able to complete the IL corridor, do Michigan and have new rolling stock in 3 or 4 years. What's actually happened is stupid and wasteful, and hurts the cause!
Paul Milenkovic schlimm I was quite surprised that he dissed the CHI-StL corridor. I, for one, was not surprised at all, because Don Oltmann pointedly didn't "disrespect" the St. Louis Corridor. What he disrespected was the everthing-but-the-St. Louis Corridor that hasn't gotten "off dead center."
I should have been done LONG ago, considering when they started. Too many cooks...
schlimm Paul Milenkovic That sentence starting with "Odd" is one of the nastier remarks posted here. Odd = different from what is usual or expected. Since in the past Don has frequently stated that a gradual progression in stages towards higher speed rail passenger service is a sound plan, I was quite surprised that he dissed the CHI-StL corridor. There is nothing nasty about that use of "odd" in this case. Try using a dictionary before jumping to conclusions.
Paul Milenkovic That sentence starting with "Odd" is one of the nastier remarks posted here.
I've been called worse!
While the AAF/Brightline is moving along, it has become a victim of government interference in the form of pending legislation singling them out for special treatment courtesy of the treasure coast NIMBYs. It seems private operators are not immune to political shenanigans.
oltmanndFor $8B we should have been able to complete the IL corridor, do Michigan and have new rolling stock in 3 or 4 years. What's actually happened is stupid and wasteful, and hurts the cause!
I doubt if many critics of wasteful government spending are willing to look at the SDI, started in 1983 by President Reagan. $200 billion and 20 years later (2013), we have a questionable defense against some ICBMs. And some folks want to spend another $800-1000 billion to upgrade. And one guy wants to construct a wall for $54 billion.
schlimm oltmannd For $8B we should have been able to complete the IL corridor, do Michigan and have new rolling stock in 3 or 4 years. What's actually happened is stupid and wasteful, and hurts the cause! I doubt if many critics of wasteful government spending are willing to look at the SDI, started in 1983 by President Reagan. $200 billion and 20 years later (2013), we have a questionable defense against some ICBMs. And some folks want to spend another $800-1000 billion to upgrade. And one guy wants to construct a wall for $54 billion.
oltmannd For $8B we should have been able to complete the IL corridor, do Michigan and have new rolling stock in 3 or 4 years. What's actually happened is stupid and wasteful, and hurts the cause!
Channeling the late Don Adams (a.k.a. Maxwell Smart): "Aha, the old it's OK for passenger rail projects to waste money because Defense projects waste much, much more, trick!"
Paul Milenkovic schlimm oltmannd For $8B we should have been able to complete the IL corridor, do Michigan and have new rolling stock in 3 or 4 years. What's actually happened is stupid and wasteful, and hurts the cause! I doubt if many critics of wasteful government spending are willing to look at the SDI, started in 1983 by President Reagan. $200 billion and 20 years later (2013), we have a questionable defense against some ICBMs. And some folks want to spend another $800-1000 billion to upgrade. And one guy wants to construct a wall for $54 billion. Channeling the late Don Adams (a.k.a. Maxwell Smart): "Aha, the old it's OK for passenger rail projects to waste money because Defense projects waste much, much more, trick!"
I tell you what. Many of our trading partners who have really, really nice passenger trains have also relied on the U.S. defense umbrella and not had to have spent as much money on that sector. A defense umbrella that has prevented the larger portion of Germany coming under the Russian Soviet defense umbrella and economic system. The Russians maybe didn't have to invade with a tank army; the "order of battle" and "balance of power" could have tipped things to that state without Germans or Russians firing a shot and the U.S. not in any position to do anything about it.
The Russians have OK trains, but not nearly as good as the (West) German ICE trains.
I heard something, just, just a little bit, but yeah, I heard something, that President Trump presented Chancelor Merkel with a 300 billion dollar invoice to set this straight. What's more, we could purchase German ICE trains and Germany could get all of that money recycled into their economy. I think the 300 billion could get us a really, really great set of trains. That is, if the money doesn't get spent on say, medical research oriented towards our aging people?
Paul Milenkovic Paul Milenkovic schlimm oltmannd I doubt if many critics of wasteful government spending are willing to look at the SDI, started in 1983 by President Reagan. $200 billion and 20 years later (2013), we have a questionable defense against some ICBMs. And some folks want to spend another $800-1000 billion to upgrade. And one guy wants to construct a wall for $54 billion. Channeling the late Don Adams (a.k.a. Maxwell Smart): "Aha, the old it's OK for passenger rail projects to waste money because Defense projects waste much, much more, trick!" I tell you what. Many of our trading partners who have really, really nice passenger trains have also relied on the U.S. defense umbrella and not had to have spent as much money on that sector. A defense umbrella that has prevented the larger portion of Germany coming under the Russian Soviet defense umbrella and economic system. The Russians maybe didn't have to invade with a tank army; the "order of battle" and "balance of power" could have tipped things to that state without Germans or Russians firing a shot and the U.S. not in any position to do anything about it. The Russians have OK trains, but not nearly as good as the (West) German ICE trains. I heard something, just, just a little bit, but yeah, I heard something, that President Trump presented Chancelor Merkel with a 300 billion dollar invoice to set this straight. What's more, we could purchase German ICE trains and Germany could get all of that money recycled into their economy. I think the 300 billion could get us a really, really great set of trains. That is, if the money doesn't get spent on say, medical research oriented towards our aging people?
Paul Milenkovic schlimm oltmannd I doubt if many critics of wasteful government spending are willing to look at the SDI, started in 1983 by President Reagan. $200 billion and 20 years later (2013), we have a questionable defense against some ICBMs. And some folks want to spend another $800-1000 billion to upgrade. And one guy wants to construct a wall for $54 billion. Channeling the late Don Adams (a.k.a. Maxwell Smart): "Aha, the old it's OK for passenger rail projects to waste money because Defense projects waste much, much more, trick!"
schlimm oltmannd I doubt if many critics of wasteful government spending are willing to look at the SDI, started in 1983 by President Reagan. $200 billion and 20 years later (2013), we have a questionable defense against some ICBMs. And some folks want to spend another $800-1000 billion to upgrade. And one guy wants to construct a wall for $54 billion.
oltmannd
Would that become Trumptrak or Trumptrain or Trumpcare?
Paul MilenkovicI heard something, just, just a little bit, but yeah, I heard something, that President Trump presented Chancelor Merkel with a 300 billion dollar invoice to set this straight. What's more, we could purchase German ICE trains and Germany could get all of that money recycled into their economy. I think the 300 billion could get us a really, really great set of trains. That is, if the money doesn't get spent on say, medical research oriented towards our aging people?
We have plenty of money outside of DoD to spend domestically on rail. It is not an issue of not having the money to spend, it's an issue of the Democrats not wanting any cuts whatsoever in entitlement programs. The issue was before that the Dems locked in 7-10% annual increases in all domestic spending budgets..........which has now been negotiated down to 5%. We have no freeze though in any budgeted entitlement program so far. Furthermore the Democrats refuse to look at or even audit entitlement areas where it's pretty clear to most that wasteful spending is taking place (such as University spending that I mentioned earlier). Instead they hold the DoD budget to standards well above what any entitlement program must adhere to and strive to reduce DoD spending to near zero.
It's going to take a major Financial Crisis to fix or change that attitude among the Democrats. Perhaps, the American people will smarten up at some point without a financial crisis but I have my doubts there.
As far as revenue raising. Because of Democratic Party objections, we unlike many other countries that the Dems like to hold up as examples we should aspire to. We still do not have a soverign wealth fund that would help us in lean budget years not to cut as deep or even help us expand funding for health care. Despite the success of soveriegn wealth funds in other country's the Dems hold in high esteem, for some reason they feel if the United States tried it, it would unfairly benefit business and the wealthy. So thats a potentially large revenue source we cannot even tap because of Democratic Party paranoia.
The list goes on and on quite a bit. We do have the budget and we can raise the money fairly painlessly........if we had the will and political support internally. It's just not there though. We keep hearing how entitlement programs are cut to the bone (complete BS) and how the only taxes or revenues left to levy are those against the wealthy (also BS). Hell, they have never even inflation indexed the gasoline tax and I think the last time it was increased was the mid-1990's.
You want to know why there is no permanent funding source for HSR or transit projects, the Left in this country is a big part of the blame. Failure to compromise, failure to see the bigger picture of a larger or faster growing GDP, etc.
Here we go again.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
This time its likely to happen. Congress will go with it. Anyone should be able to figure that out. By no means is this any surprise. There may be some support from within the Senate but it likely won't matter. On the other hand, if something is hashed out, look for some "meeting each other halfway "goop that the odds would kill out some ld routes. Either way, the Amtrak map will be changing in the near future
CMStPnPYou want to know why there is no permanent funding source for HSR or transit projects, the Left in this country is a big part of the blame.
Which party cuts Amtrak spending or proposed its total elimination in the past? Which man with bad hair proposed elimination of LD trains? Your efforts at alternate facts won't wash here any more successfully than your posts about train speeds and mileposts did.
BaltACDWould that become Trumptrak or Trumptrain or Trumpcare? Add Quote to your Post
About as tasty as a Trump Steak or Trump Wine or as inteligent as a graduate of Trump University.
How do you know when Trump is lying? When he says "Believe me"
Now he states that he never said he could pass a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, but there ar many videos of him saying "Immediately. upon taking office he would pass a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. Now we have him costing us $3,000,000.00 for a weekend of his golfing and he does this frequently. One weekend won"t by a new train but it would be a good start. And he complained about what it cost for B.O. going to Hawaii. At least he has given the comedians a lot of material. I'll stop at this.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.