Rail Freak
Engineer
The Feds gave us another 800 million Monday, on top of the 1.2 billion received earlier for the HSR between Tampa & Orlando!
Yes, "supportive" (not sure why that was in quotes) states get greater federal funding for their rail plans than other states. Illinois (in the case of Chicago-Iowa City) has, for many years, been more supportive of Amtrak and rail service than Texas (in the case of Houston-Dallas). Did Texas even submit a plan for Houston-Dallas (or any other corridor) rail service in order to receive federal funding?I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?
Why is it "political" to responsibly leverage federal money in states willing to contribute financially? :wacko: Plus, you do realize that this federal money contributes to capital construction and purchases but the states pay what Amtrak fares can't on the day-to-day and year-to-year operating side?! That is why Amtrak doesn't apply for these funds and run the trains directly.I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?
Why do you expect this to be different from the way highways for example are funded? Which state has received federal funds for highways construction that has not put up its share of local funding for the same? So naturally you probably find all highway funding to be appalling too?I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?
Alaska gets $6 federal funding for hiways for every $1 of state money. Other states pay more than the federal share. Wrong argument.Why do you expect this to be different from the way highways for example are funded? Which state has received federal funds for highways construction that has not put up its share of local funding for the same? So naturally you probably find all highway funding to be appalling too?I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?
I think the point is that in order to get the federal highway grants, all states have to put up a local match - be it 90/10%, 80/20% or 50/50%, depending on the type of project. It was not a comment on how much federal gas tax paid by a state's motorists comes back to that state.Alaska gets $6 federal funding for hiways for every $1 of state money. Other states pay more than the federal share. Wrong argument.Why do you expect this to be different from the way highways for example are funded? Which state has received federal funds for highways construction that has not put up its share of local funding for the same? So naturally you probably find all highway funding to be appalling too?I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?
Yeah, I got that part.I think the point is that in order to get the federal highway grants, all states have to put up a local match - be it 90/10%, 80/20% or 50/50%, depending on the type of project. It was not a comment on how much federal gas tax paid by a state's motorists comes back to that state.Alaska gets $6 federal funding for hiways for every $1 of state money. Other states pay more than the federal share. Wrong argument.Why do you expect this to be different from the way highways for example are funded? Which state has received federal funds for highways construction that has not put up its share of local funding for the same? So naturally you probably find all highway funding to be appalling too?I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?
And that was the only relevant part of the argument. So I don;t know why you think it is a wrong argumentYeah, I got that part.I think the point is that in order to get the federal highway grants, all states have to put up a local match - be it 90/10%, 80/20% or 50/50%, depending on the type of project. It was not a comment on how much federal gas tax paid by a state's motorists comes back to that state.Alaska gets $6 federal funding for hiways for every $1 of state money. Other states pay more than the federal share. Wrong argument.Why do you expect this to be different from the way highways for example are funded? Which state has received federal funds for highways construction that has not put up its share of local funding for the same? So naturally you probably find all highway funding to be appalling too?I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?
I agree. Like Texas, Georgia has refused to think anything but roads with no money for an Atlanta station, commuter rail, etc. States that refuse to pay should get what they deserve.Why is it "political" to responsibly leverage federal money in states willing to contribute financially? :wacko: Plus, you do realize that this federal money contributes to capital construction and purchases but the states pay what Amtrak fares can't on the day-to-day and year-to-year operating side?! That is why Amtrak doesn't apply for these funds and run the trains directly.I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?
Both Illinois and Iowa are putting up state money to match the federal money. Texas ain't for Houston-Dallas, and while California pays for a lot of rail service, neither it nor Nevada are willing to pony up a ha'penny for Las Vegas service.
I don't "find it appalling" that people who put their money where their mouth is (back up Congressional delegation and state-government support with cold cash) get better service than other people not willing to put their money or their mouth (as Eric S notes, has a Texan government official or Congressional delegate called for Dallas-Houston service?) behind it.
Enter your email address to join: