Amtrak Politics

[MikeM]

I hope I am wrong, it just feels like Congress, and particularly the Senate, is dissolving into a fracas where one of the two parties just wants to pout and take the toys of the other party. (Where's my kindergarten teacher of 1965 when we need her?)

It's the civics teacher you should be calling for.

Appreciate the perspective, and understand your opinion. However, we seem to be trapped in a loop right now where lots of nonsense is getting spouted off in Washington right now that is obscuring the facts that need to be dealt with. For instance, in 2001, "Reconciliation" was just fine to pass a multi-billion dollar tax cut, yet now it's not acceptable to use for legislation with a much lower cost. The lies and self-serving claims are enough to make blood boil.

However, I really don't want to debate politics, trains are truthfully a refuge at times like this. One of my favorite features is that you don't have television, radio doesn't work that good, but there's good reading lights in the sleepers and nice views in the lounge (unless it's a CCC ). I do think there will be a strong component of regional funding in the national passenger network going forward as some areas are seeing the need and have the setting that most's conducive to high speed and commuter rail. However, in the meantime I would like to see less of a pay anything to anyone attitude towards rail and air service.

Using the "if I don't use it I'll resent paying for it" argument, I've never traveled to the south, yet my tax dollars subsidize their highway and airport networks. Why should I pay for those roads? I really don't resent it that much, because I realize a national transportation network benefits everyone, not just me. But at the same time, I feel similarly about passenger rail. A basic network should cover the nation. Let states and regions fill in with commuter and regional services, but don't treat rail transport different than any other mode of transportation.

I think this is a good discussion, and appreciate the differing insights. Hopefully we can all agree to disagree about some aspect of each other's belief, and still enjoy and support passenger rail in the way we feel best.

 

[Abe Zumwalt]

I hope I am wrong, it just feels like Congress, and particularly the Senate, is dissolving into a fracas where one of the two parties just wants to pout and take the toys of the other party. (Where's my kindergarten teacher of 1965 when we need her?)

It's the civics teacher you should be calling for.

The Senate is operating as the entire federal government was supposed to operate: do nothing on a skin of the teeth majority, but instead require widespread consensus before forcing the entire country in any particular direction. What you see as pouting and taking of toys is really just a refusal to get in lock step and allow a few people to dictate the policy for a whole lot of Americans who strongly disagree.

I bring this up not to get into a political argument but because it's relevant to the question. Why is it so hard to get funding for Amtrak? In part it's because the federal approach requires taking money from a lot of people who for good reason just aren't interested in funding the service. They'll resent being forced to pay for services that benefit others, just as some here seem to resent being forced to pay into the highway trust fund. But two wrongs don't make a right, and the argument that railfans help pay for highways probably won't really convince many people far away from Amtrak's routes that they should be forced to pay for rail. It's not that they're taking their toys (well, wallets) and going home; it's that they actually disagree with being forced to do something lots of people don't want to do.

That's why I think the national focus is questionable. Focus on regions that actually want and value rail, and focus on intercity service that can benefit people pretty directly. Together these can demonstrate to the rest of the country that rail has value, and then national networks can be fought for from a much stronger foundation.

Until then you're working from a base of forced charity... and that's just not a recipe for sustainable success.

Despite your conclusion sounding reasonable enough as a blueprint for intercity rail's success in this country, there was something that bothered me in your argument:

Your argument was favored by many Republicans in the 1980's- 'why should a farmer from Oklahoma have to pay for a train connecting Chicago and St. Louis or Washington D.C. and New York?' And at first glance, the argument holds water -but- why should I pay for that massive arterial surrounding Atlanta? Simple- sure, I'll never use the 20 lane monstrosity, but it's possible the guy that just hocked me a couple books on Amazon.com will use it every day. Likewise for that farmer in Oklahoma- he'll never use the Acela, but it's very likely the person who made a crucial loan possible for him does, and needs the service. It's the reason why there (was) an interstate trust fund, payed for by everyone, including those who can't drive through their taxes.

 

[saxman]

Despite your conclusion sounding reasonable enough as a blueprint for intercity rail's success in this country, there was something that bothered me in your argument:
Your argument was favored by many Republicans in the 1980's- 'why should a farmer from Oklahoma have to pay for a train connecting Chicago and St. Louis or Washington D.C. and New York?' And at first glance, the argument holds water -but- why should I pay for that massive arterial surrounding Atlanta? Simple- sure, I'll never use the 20 lane monstrosity, but it's possible the guy that just hocked me a couple books on Amazon.com will use it every day. Likewise for that farmer in Oklahoma- he'll never use the Acela, but it's very likely the person who made a crucial loan possible for him does, and needs the service. It's the reason why there (was) an interstate trust fund, payed for by everyone, including those who can't drive through their taxes.

I just saw a video on PBS.org about Detroit in their "Blueprint America" series. I remember a short clip with Reagan saying to Congress that Washington's responsibility is only for armaments and national security, not to fill potholes. So back in the 80's they didn't even want to fund highways. But lucky for the highways, they still had a dedicated source of funding, the Highway Trust Fund.

I highly recommend everyone to watch the video series Blueprint America. Especially the one about Detroit. You can find that one here. It's an hour and a half long but very good.

You can also watch their other videos here. They have a new video come out every so often.

 

[Ryan]

people don't want to spend money on Amtrak is simply because they don't see it as valuable enough to pay for.

people simply don't want their government spending money it doesn't have to pay for a service they don't want.

Until you convince people that passenger rail is a valuable piece of infrastructure, money spent on Amtrak will be perceived as money taken out of citizen's pockets to pay for railfans' toys.

You keep saying that, assuming that it's true. I wonder where you're seeing all this anti-Amtrak sentiment, because I'm not. Sure, most people don't care about it, but that's different than the "people don't want to pay for it" that you keep on saying.

I hope I am wrong, it just feels like Congress, and particularly the Senate, is dissolving into a fracas where one of the two parties just wants to pout and take the toys of the other party. (Where's my kindergarten teacher of 1965 when we need her?)

It's the civics teacher you should be calling for.

The Senate is operating as the entire federal government was supposed to operate: do nothing on a skin of the teeth majority, but instead require widespread consensus before forcing the entire country in any particular direction. What you see as pouting and taking of toys is really just a refusal to get in lock step and allow a few people to dictate the policy for a whole lot of Americans who strongly disagree

If by "a few people" you mean "a majority of Americans", you're absolutely right. Really, you have the whole thing backwards. You have a very few Americans that are loud and vocal in their disagreement holding up what the vast majority of Americans actually want. Plus, your argument falls completely flat on its face when you look at the Senate's refusal to hold confirmation hearings for dozens of Executive Branch positions. That's boils down to the Republican Senate's "Obama picked them, so I must oppose them" mentality that pervades every single thing they do. Or, if you don't like that example, take your pick from the 290 bills that have passed the House and are awaiting Senate action.
Edit to add: Not to mention, your appeal towards "how the entire Federal Government is supposed to act" is flawed as well - cloture wasn't used in the Senate until 1919. I guess for the first 150 years, the Senate was doing it wrong.

 

[saxman]

...Until the stimulus came along, Amtrak limped along with a subsidy in the $675 million per year range.

The Amtrak federal subsidy has been over $1 billion per year for the last eight years. The average over those eight years has been about $1.3 billion.

I am wondering if anyone has ever broken down the subsidy in usage. The interstates are heavily used by everyone. How does the number of passengers served/mile relate. On any given day if all trains are at full capacity how many passengers are served? How does that break down into a subsidy ratio with the highways, or the airlines? Don't know if this is like comparing apples and oranges or if this can be calculated.

Yes, there is. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics came up with this chart. Pretty much it breaks down net subsidies by mode to passenger travel and also shows it per 1000 passenger miles traveled. I think the data is a little flawed or really means little. It show rail transit took lots of subsidy while road travel actually had a negative number meaning auto users actually paid for everything. I'll have to do a little more reading to figure out how it came up with it though.

The flaw I see is that, there are millions of passenger miles travelled by car on highways, while Amtrak only has 22,000 route miles. Not sure what their passenger miles are, but of course the subsidy per 1000 passenger miles is going to be way less because there are millions of drivers and only a tiny fraction of riders on Amtrak or other transit.

The other thing is that the data is only from 1990 to 2002.

 

[MikeM]

If by "a few people" you mean "a majority of Americans", you're absolutely right. Really, you have the whole thing backwards. You have a very few Americans that are loud and vocal in their disagreement holding up what the vast majority of Americans actually want. Plus, your argument falls completely flat on its face when you look at the Senate's refusal to hold confirmation hearings for dozens of Executive Branch positions. That's boils down to the Republican Senate's "Obama picked them, so I must oppose them" mentality that pervades every single thing they do. Or, if you don't like that example, take your pick from the 290 bills that have passed the House and are awaiting Senate action.
Edit to add: Not to mention, your appeal towards "how the entire Federal Government is supposed to act" is flawed as well - cloture wasn't used in the Senate until 1919. I guess for the first 150 years, the Senate was doing it wrong.

Amen! Ryan, you worded it very nicely.

 

[volkris]

I am wondering if anyone has ever broken down the subsidy in usage. The interstates are heavily used by everyone. How does the number of passengers served/mile relate. On any given day if all trains are at full capacity how many passengers are served? How does that break down into a subsidy ratio with the highways, or the airlines? Don't know if this is like comparing apples and oranges or if this can be calculated.

IIRC this forum saw an article about a year ago that addressed pretty much this question globally, showing that around the world subsidies going toward road transportation enabled the transportation of far more people than rail. Folks here dismissed the statistic as meaningless, completely missing the point.

Why should I pay for those roads? I really don't resent it that much, because I realize a national transportation network benefits everyone, not just me. But at the same time, I feel similarly about passenger rail. A basic network should cover the nation. Let states and regions fill in with commuter and regional services, but don't treat rail transport different than any other mode of transportation.

I think there's a huge difference between the interstate system and passenger rail in that the interstates weren't proposed purely for the sake of passengers. They were and are a significant means of transporting goods, unlike Amtrak. Funding Amtrak routes on the other side of the country is rightly perceived more along the lines of helping those folks take vacations, not maintaining vital arteries of the country. If anything I'd say interstates are similar to the freight lines while Amtrak is more similar to airlines... and I completely agree that airline subsidies should be ended TODAY (along with government imposed costs).

It's the reason why there (was) an interstate trust fund, payed for by everyone, including those who can't drive through their taxes.

The interstate trust fund was designed to see self-sufficient highways being funded out of gas taxes (that need to be bumped up to cover the shortfall). I don't see anyone here promoting any plan for Amtrak to be self sufficient in any way.

As for the political stuff, like I said, I'm not here to argue non-rail politics. Suffice it to say, all you who don't agree with me are wrong

 

[Ispolkom]

Edit to add: Not to mention, your appeal towards "how the entire Federal Government is supposed to act" is flawed as well - cloture wasn't used in the Senate until 1919. I guess for the first 150 years, the Senate was doing it wrong.

Umm, before cloture was introduced in 1917 there was *no* way to end a filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Google "little group of willful men." Say what you will about civility in Congress today, it's still a big advance over behavior in the 19th century.

I thought at the time that Amtrak was missing the boat last year. Here they had what seemed like a great opportunity for new equipment, and they proposed building. . . baggage cars. Sure, I know that Amtrak desperately needs new baggage cars, and crew dorms, and Viewliner sleepers, but it seemed like they missed an opportunity to present a maximum program.

In any case, I think that Amtrak is a tiny federal program that will continue because its supporters will defend it much more vigorously than budget cutters will attack it. Appropriations might increase or decrease, and we might get a new route or two, but I doubt that there will be significant changes, regardless of who is in power in DC.

 

[AlanB]

I am wondering if anyone has ever broken down the subsidy in usage. The interstates are heavily used by everyone. How does the number of passengers served/mile relate. On any given day if all trains are at full capacity how many passengers are served? How does that break down into a subsidy ratio with the highways, or the airlines? Don't know if this is like comparing apples and oranges or if this can be calculated.

IIRC this forum saw an article about a year ago that addressed pretty much this question globally, showing that around the world subsidies going toward road transportation enabled the transportation of far more people than rail. Folks here dismissed the statistic as meaningless, completely missing the point.

It was dismissed because it's an unfair comparison. We've spent 60 years building up our road system and tearing down our rail system for 30 of those years before finally reversing things. So obviously our roads carry more people making the subsidy per person less.

But if one is actually concerned with where the budget is going, which do you think is going to raise taxes faster? Spending $69.116 Billion at the Federal level on our roads, of which $34.5B came out of the general fund or spending $1.5 billion on Amtrak?

Why should I pay for those roads? I really don't resent it that much, because I realize a national transportation network benefits everyone, not just me. But at the same time, I feel similarly about passenger rail. A basic network should cover the nation. Let states and regions fill in with commuter and regional services, but don't treat rail transport different than any other mode of transportation.

I think there's a huge difference between the interstate system and passenger rail in that the interstates weren't proposed purely for the sake of passengers. They were and are a significant means of transporting goods, unlike Amtrak. Funding Amtrak routes on the other side of the country is rightly perceived more along the lines of helping those folks take vacations, not maintaining vital arteries of the country. If anything I'd say interstates are similar to the freight lines while Amtrak is more similar to airlines... and I completely agree that airline subsidies should be ended TODAY (along with government imposed costs).

The Interstates weren't proposed for transporting good either. President Eisenhower sold the Interstates on the premise that they were for the Military.

Regardless, with 40% of this country's freight moving via rail and only 28% moving via truck, clearly we don't need Interstate Highways that have more than 2 lanes in each direction. All those other lanes exist only for those driving personal autos. If we returned our Interstates back to the original goal, or even included moving freight in that goal, we could reduce the expenses for our highways significantly by returning back to 4 lane highways; 2 in each direction. And we might even find that our trains could start covering their operating expenses with people now forced to take trains instead of benefiting from the road subsidies.

It's the reason why there (was) an interstate trust fund, payed for by everyone, including those who can't drive through their taxes.

The interstate trust fund was designed to see self-sufficient highways being funded out of gas taxes (that need to be bumped up to cover the shortfall). I don't see anyone here promoting any plan for Amtrak to be self sufficient in any way.

Until we make our roads and planes become self-sufficient, there can be no viable plan to make trains do the same. Can't subsidize the competition and expect trains to still make a go of it. Any plan would be nothing more than just still more paper being wasted, much like we see with the countless studies that get made every time we think about doing anything.

 

[Ryan]

The interstate trust fund was designed to see self-sufficient highways being funded out of gas taxes (that need to be bumped up to cover the shortfall). I don't see anyone here promoting any plan for Amtrak to be self sufficient in any way.

That'll be great, and you'll never have to do any maintenance, since without the government funded roads to get to the interstate, nobody would ever be able to get to them to use them!

As for the political stuff, like I said, I'm not here to argue non-rail politics. Suffice it to say, all you who don't agree with me are wrong

Then you shouldn't bring them up in the first place.

Say what you will about civility in Congress today, it's still a big advance over behavior in the 19th century.

That doesn't make the current status acceptable.

 

[dedhd]

...Until the stimulus came along, Amtrak limped along with a subsidy in the $675 million per year range.

The Amtrak federal subsidy has been over $1 billion per year for the last eight years. The average over those eight years has been about $1.3 billion.

I am wondering if anyone has ever broken down the subsidy in usage. The interstates are heavily used by everyone. How does the number of passengers served/mile relate. On any given day if all trains are at full capacity how many passengers are served? How does that break down into a subsidy ratio with the highways, or the airlines? Don't know if this is like comparing apples and oranges or if this can be calculated.

Yes, there is. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics came up with this chart. Pretty much it breaks down net subsidies by mode to passenger travel and also shows it per 1000 passenger miles traveled. I think the data is a little flawed or really means little. It show rail transit took lots of subsidy while road travel actually had a negative number meaning auto users actually paid for everything. I'll have to do a little more reading to figure out how it came up with it though.

The flaw I see is that, there are millions of passenger miles travelled by car on highways, while Amtrak only has 22,000 route miles. Not sure what their passenger miles are, but of course the subsidy per 1000 passenger miles is going to be way less because there are millions of drivers and only a tiny fraction of riders on Amtrak or other transit.

The other thing is that the data is only from 1990 to 2002.

That report throws up some scary numbers. Now I am wondering if this subsidy per passenger mile is only for Amtrak or if it includes all subsidies for any rail transportation i.e. metro, subways, intercity rails etc.. If it does not include the "commuter rail" end of it Which the NE corridor could be considered then yes it is flawed info. I have to admit I didn't read the whole report just looked at the charts.

 

[MikeM]

Why should I pay for those roads? I really don't resent it that much, because I realize a national transportation network benefits everyone, not just me. But at the same time, I feel similarly about passenger rail. A basic network should cover the nation. Let states and regions fill in with commuter and regional services, but don't treat rail transport different than any other mode of transportation.

I think there's a huge difference between the interstate system and passenger rail in that the interstates weren't proposed purely for the sake of passengers. They were and are a significant means of transporting goods, unlike Amtrak. Funding Amtrak routes on the other side of the country is rightly perceived more along the lines of helping those folks take vacations, not maintaining vital arteries of the country. If anything I'd say interstates are similar to the freight lines while Amtrak is more similar to airlines... and I completely agree that airline subsidies should be ended TODAY (along with government imposed costs).

As for the political stuff, like I said, I'm not here to argue non-rail politics. Suffice it to say, all you who don't agree with me are wrong

So? I don't typically buy things from the south either, most of what I consume comes from the midwest or imported from China. Again, why am I paying for roads in Alabama? I'm sorry Volkris, but it seems the "conservative republican" position to everything is "what I want is patriotic and wonderful, and what you want is a commie plot to subvert American Values!". I don't buy it.

The biggest ********* I know in my neighborhood goes to protest rallies and writes letters to the editor all the time and works in a low key, low pressure job. Why? Because he has government health insurance and a pension he got after working 20 years as a mechanic in the air force. Never saw combat, and I've probably been away as much as he has over the years at work. Meantime, I work full time, care for a disabled son, and pay through the nose for my health insurance. A company I worked for years ago had a insurance plan for retirees, but they scrapped it, too expensive, so sorry. (But the CEO of said company makes $15 million a year plus stock bonuses). Ditto for my pension, I'm on my own to save for that. Now I like my neighbor and can put politics behind us, but deep down I think he's a massive hypocrite to be protesting government spending when he's so richly benefiting from it himself. I keep asking him when he's going to ditch his socialized health care so the death panel doesn't get to him. He shrugs and says he "earned" it. Well, I "earned" my retirement health care and pension, didn't stop the company from rescinding it when they felt like it.

If we really think less government is the way to go, cut taxes and services. Reduce the size of the military to what is needed to defend the union, and that's all. Kill off ALL transportation subsidies if you're really of that bent. Quit farm subsidies that predominantly benefit corporate agriculture. Get out of the abortion debate, because if you aren't going to help with unwanted or disabled children, then society and government has no right to force individuals to do so. Ayn Rand would be so proud of us.

Oh, I bet that proposal would go far. I can hear the sputtering in the Teabag world now, you're messing with "my" entitlements. All the defense plants in republican states going dark leading to unemployment, more expensive transportation making imports from non-union and offshore more expensive, etc.

A while back, you'd mentioned I could have used a civics instructor, as the constitution wasn't meant to allow passage of bills with less than a supermajority in the senate. Well, guess what? The massive Bush II tax cut, the one that reduced rates on the top 5% of wage earners to the lowest level ever, was passed through Reconciliation. And many very conservative judges went through only after Republicans threatened to destroy the filibuster if Democrats did not back down. Now, of course, Reconciliation is anathema, and the filibuster is God's gift to democracy. Go back to the Bush II years and really objectively consider how anyone opposed to his agenda was steamrollered as not "supporting the troops" or "socialist".

To my original point, it'd be nice if both parties would have a real discussion and debate based on facts rather than campaign points. As it is we just have a noise chamber with no real factual debate, propaganda spewing forth, and now thanks to the Supreme Court, unlimited corporate spending to fund campaigns of their choosing. Maybe if we're lucky General Electric and Siemens will decide they can make money on passenger rail, and that'll result in more equipment funding.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Havent weighed in on this until now, which is very unusual for me for sure! This is an excellent summation, would make an excellent op-ed for any paper of the so called "mainstream media" !(anything that's not Fixed Noise or EIB)

Down here in Texas we have squads of these T-Party folks who are mostly retired, have government pensions,health care and are being manipulated by the cynical politicians and their corporate masters to make fools out of themselves @ the hate-fests that they call T-Parties!

Basically their motto is I got mine, if youre not like me you're a commie,socialist,**** foriegner whos Un-American! Their rallying cry is "I want my country back!" Guess what folks, it never was your country, it belongs to the rich, always has and you're "only a pawn in their game" as Bob Dylan said!

It's pretty hard to discuss this with most of them, yelling and carrying ridiculous signs with racial slurs is their MO, and don't confuse me with the facts, I heard Rush say it, or read it on the internet or heard one of the talking clowns on Fixed News say it is their stock in trade, bad as the no nothings that use the various Holy Books to justify such things as slavery, keeping women in their place and claiming that if you don't believe just like them you are an infidel and will burn in hell! Arent these the guys we are supposed to be fighting in our war on terror which is as phoney as the so called

War on Drugs!

If this offends anyone, all you have to do is look in the mirror or watch a T-Party rally and listen to what these idiots are saying and doing! Bury Obamacare with Kennedy indeed!

 

[Ryan]

Jim Hudson for President (in 2016).

 

[Bob Dylan]

Jim Hudson for President (in 2016).

Please, I want to be Free enough to ride trains, I do have to be careful down here, these people are carrying guns and boy are they angry! If they re-elect Gov. Rick ("Gov. Good Hair"), Suddenly it's 1861,Perry I may have to move to Canada!

How about Hillary in 2016, the Clintons havent been known as friends of Amtrak but she has grown! As Tip Oneil said: "All politics is local, vote early and vote often!"

 

[MikeM]

Jim Hudson for President (in 2016).

Please, I want to be Free enough to ride trains, I do have to be careful down here, these people are carrying guns and boy are they angry! If they re-elect Gov. Rick ("Gov. Good Hair"), Suddenly it's 1861,Perry I may have to move to Canada!

How about Hillary in 2016, the Clintons havent been known as friends of Amtrak but she has grown! As Tip Oneil said: "All politics is local, vote early and vote often!"

I could be tempted. I was a pretty strong Obama supporter, but watching the past few months as he stood by as the debate / food fight over health care blew out, it made me wonder if maybe I should have been more of a Hillary supporter. I won't get too far into my beliefs, although with a disabled son who is effectively un-insurable under the current private system, you could probably guess how I feel about things.

I think folks who are pro life should stay pro life after the baby's born, not go out for tea and assume "somebody else" can cover the bills without any help. My wife and I are both degreed professionals and we have been able to ensure he has the services he needs, sometimes at significant effort / cost to us. However, when you get into this setting, you see many other kids who's parents can't or won't fight the fight, navigate the mazes of services, and consequently those kids get lost, passed along. I wonder some times how many of those souls will end up homeless or taken advantage of, and not coached / lead to be as productive as they could be. I see many divorces occurring in this group because of the incredible stress it places on a marriage. Knock on wood, I have a great wife and we have been able to navigate the thickets and keep a sense of humor and balance about it.

Oh well. Maybe we'll be lucky and the tea partiers will hit critical mass in some southern state, and we could create a homeland resettlement and succession agreement. Just don't take Texas, my sister in law lives in the DFW area and the wife wants to move there when we retire!

 

[amtrakwolverine]

TED NUGENT for president

 

[rile42]

You want obstructionist politics, look here in Ohio. The Republicans, in anticipation of a rail initiative, passed a rule that it requires a super-majority of 5 out of 7 to get a spending bill for the 3-C corridor out of committee. The committee is nothing more than a rubber stamp of requests but now ONE member, Republican Jay Hottinger could derail the entire corridor. I've contacted his office as well as the offices of five of the other members but so far have not heard from anyone. He has made comments in the local paper that he will not kow-tow to his party but instead vote how he feels would best serve the community. Sounds like a cop out to me. I have little hope the $400 million that was OK'd by the Feds for the corridor will ever be used.

By the way, was that you Alan that made a few posts in the local online paper several days ago. If so, thanks for your input. Also, if so, you can see what we are up against in this area.

 

[AlanB]

By the way, was that you Alan that made a few posts in the local online paper several days ago. If so, thanks for your input. Also, if so, you can see what we are up against in this area.

It's quite possible that you're looking at posts from me, as I've posted on several newspaper blogs in that area. You'd have to provide a link for me to confirm it for sure, but it certainly is likely.

 

[volkris]

I think you guys need to figure out and focus on what you really want. Do you want to sit around bashing the people you disagree with, sitting back smugly because you think you've won arguments (hint: your detractors are laughing at your perspectives) and enjoying your toy of a rail system? Or do you really want to bring others around to your point of view, fixing and expanding the rail situation so that it's perceived as a valuable thing worth preserving when it runs into hard times?

Because going down this constant "two wrongs make a right" line of argument isn't going to win you any points with those standing in the way of better rail service right now. If you want to understand the politics of Amtrak you should start by looking in the mirror, as often it's the rail fans themselves who seem to be doing the most harm to the effort.

What do you think a "normal person" thinks when he sees the stuff that goes on in this forum? Sees the bashing of people who like to drive cars, the crass blaming of people involved in train collisions, the clear calls for interfering with the driving and flying that people want to do? The average American isn't exactly a braniac, but I'm sure even he could pick out that most of you seem to see what you want to see in every bit of information. Rail has enough shortcomings as it is without railfans coloring the mode in such a negative light.

So that's about the long and short of Amtrak politics: rail has been relegated to a political pawn not in the least because its strongest proponents don't have attitudes that resonate with the general public. The intense bitterness that just drips from this forum doesn't exactly invite other voters to join in.

 

[Ryan]

I think you guys need to figure out and focus on what you really want. Do you want to sit around bashing the people you disagree with, sitting back smugly because you think you've won arguments (hint: your detractors are laughing at your perspectives)

It's all good, we're laughing at your perspective as well.

toy of a rail system?

Toy? What the deuce are you talking about? Amtrak may not be the ideal transportation network, but it's a little more than the toy that you make it out to be.

Because going down this constant "two wrongs make a right" line of argument isn't going to win you any points with those standing in the way of better rail service right now.

You're the only person who seems to think that it's a "two wrongs make a right" - I'm perfectly happy to see the government fund roads, rail and air travel in equal measure.

What do you think a "normal person" thinks when he sees the stuff that goes on in this forum? ... The intense bitterness that just drips from this forum doesn't exactly invite other voters to join in.

I think that you're confusing this with a forum designed for rail advocacy. Sure, most folks here are, but I don't come here to try and convince people that train travel is a better travel mode than any other.

Sees the bashing of people who like to drive cars,

Every forum has it's nut, this is hardly a viewpoint that's in the mainstream around here.

the crass blaming of people involved in train collisions

You call it crass, I call it realistic. If you're dumb enough to put yourself in the path of something with as much momentum as a train, then in most cases you get exactly what you have coming to you.

the clear calls for interfering with the driving and flying that people want to do?

You're going to have to provide a reference for that one, shipmate. I've never seen anyone advocate that here.

 

[Ryan]

I asked you a question on the first page that you seem to have missed - care to take a whack at it? I think that your perspective on folks opinions on paying for Amtrak are skewed by your own personal belief that the government seemingly shouldn't be paying for anything.

people don't want to spend money on Amtrak is simply because they don't see it as valuable enough to pay for.

people simply don't want their government spending money it doesn't have to pay for a service they don't want.

Until you convince people that passenger rail is a valuable piece of infrastructure, money spent on Amtrak will be perceived as money taken out of citizen's pockets to pay for railfans' toys.

You keep saying that, assuming that it's true. I wonder where you're seeing all this anti-Amtrak sentiment, because I'm not. Sure, most people don't care about it, but that's different than the "people don't want to pay for it" that you keep on claiming.

 

[volkris]

I asked you a question on the first page that you seem to have missed - care to take a whack at it? I think that your perspective on folks opinions on paying for Amtrak are skewed by your own personal belief that the government seemingly shouldn't be paying for anything.

Until you convince people that passenger rail is a valuable piece of infrastructure, money spent on Amtrak will be perceived as money taken out of citizen's pockets to pay for railfans' toys.

You keep saying that, assuming that it's true. I wonder where you're seeing all this anti-Amtrak sentiment, because I'm not. Sure, most people don't care about it, but that's different than the "people don't want to pay for it" that you keep on claiming.

There were too many things to respond to individually so I just gave a summary. It ends up being pretty easy to respond en masse since 75% of the arguments fall under the "two wrongs don't make a right" rule, from "I pay for their roads, so they have to pay for my rails" to "we deficit spent on Iraq, so it's ok to deficit spend on rail."

But no, I'm not for government not paying for anything. As I said many times, in practical terms I'm simply for government not paying for things that fewer than a large majority actually want. The founders of the country warned us of the tyranny of the majority, and they designed the federal government not to be a tool for small majorities and minorities to take advantage of their fellow citizens. Yet here we are, all too often seeing the few being given charge over the whole, taking from everyone for things that not even most want and leading this giant country in directions most disagree with. A whole lot of the current problems of the country can be traced directly to this failure.

If you can get large majorities of the people to agree to a program, then it's reasonable to let that be the direction the government goes. Otherwise, do it on a state level or a local level--whichever level finds a large enough concentration of people who actually want to see it happen. This would work really well in terms of Amtrak since the state-level services can be proving grounds from which to gather public favor before launching real national services.

As for the anti-Amtrak sentiment, I'll look for polling on a region by region basis, but I'm basing my perception on the many times I've seen local and state elections reject funding for programs connected to Amtrak and other polling showing that people are pretty happy to have the government get out of the Amtrak business. This tells me that while everyone is happy to say they like the idea of funding trains (like they like the idea of feeding all children!), when it actually comes time to write the check, suddenly the perceived low value of the service has them suddenly forgetting their checkbooks in their other pants.

 

[Ryan]

There were too many things to respond to individually so I just gave a summary. It ends up being pretty easy to respond en masse since 75% of the arguments fall under the "two wrongs don't make a right" rule, from "I pay for their roads, so they have to pay for my rails" to "we deficit spent on Iraq, so it's ok to deficit spend on rail."

Like I've already said, that's not "two wrongs make a right" since nobody's saying that the other spending is wrong but you.

But no, I'm not for government not paying for anything. As I said many times, in practical terms I'm simply for government not paying for things that fewer than a large majority actually want.

Those two things are incompatible, since there is nothing in this country that a large majority (however you want to define that) can agree on.

The founders of the country warned us of the tyranny of the majority, and they designed the federal government not to be a tool for small majorities and minorities to take advantage of their fellow citizens. Yet here we are, all too often seeing the few being given charge over the whole, taking from everyone for things that not even most want and leading this giant country in directions most disagree with. A whole lot of the current problems of the country can be traced directly to this failure.

I thought you promised to avoid the non-train related political rambling? The sour grapes are really distasteful.

As for the anti-Amtrak sentiment, I'll look for polling on a region by region basis, but I'm basing my perception on the many times I've seen local and state elections reject funding for programs connected to Amtrak and other polling showing that people are pretty happy to have the government get out of the Amtrak business. This tells me that while everyone is happy to say they like the idea of funding trains (like they like the idea of feeding all children!), when it actually comes time to write the check, suddenly the perceived low value of the service has them suddenly forgetting their checkbooks in their other pants.

You can find polling data to support any point of view, and your perception is wildly inaccurate. The vast majority of the country doesn't espouse your extreme anti-spending viewpoint.

 

[AlanB]

But no, I'm not for government not paying for anything. As I said many times, in practical terms I'm simply for government not paying for things that fewer than a large majority actually want.

If we followed that rule, then we wouldn't have Interstate Highways.

Today, the large majority want them because we’ve become accustomed to them. But when they were first proposed, that wasn't something that the "majority" wanted, much less wanted to pay for.

And of course that brings us right back to the fact that had the government not interfered with transportation matters, then we wouldn't be needing to fund something that perhaps a majority may or may not want.