New/more routes?

[Eric S]

"One person, one vote" does not apply to representation in the US Senate, as it is specifically stated in the Constitution that each state gets two and only two senators. "One person, one vote" as decided by the Supreme Court does apply to how state legislatures apportion seats.

 

[jis]

Nerodn you must have spent time in Georgia in the past. Only you would know that at one time the state constitution caused the most one sided rural representation in the legislature. Took the Supreme court's one man one vote ruling to change things. But we still have some vestiges of that system.

For those who don't know each county basically had the same vote in legislature and congress. So cities of Atlanta, Augusta, Savannah, Macon, Columbus had same vote as Brunswick .

I believe that was the situation in quite a few other states as well. California, for instance, had one state senator per county - so Los Angeles County, with 6-7 million people in the 1960s, had the same representation in the state senate as Alpine County, which had fewer that 1,000 people.

Other states? How about the US Senate? Two senators per state regardless of population.

And that is by design, in order to give some semblance of protection to rural states. Unfettered democracy without any protection for minorities is the quickest way to tyranny as has been illustrated over and over again. Most successful representative democracies have similar protections and provision of continuity and higher barrier to change through the existence of bicameral legislature, and typically the young and inexperienced starry eyed idealists hate it, and older and more experienced people who have seen what can possibly go wrong when things are done in a hurry or maliciously or simply out of idiocy (exhibit A - Brexit), like it.

 

[Anderson]

I've got a real problem with Sims v Reynolds, but that's because it basically sledgehammered a bunch of states' political balances without practical recourse to retain some semblance of the previous balance (e.g. working to allow some sort of replacement checks to be enacted to, in general, preserve protections for non-urban areas).

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

Put reinforcements on all lead engines, give free rides to all lawyers, and big guns on the front. RAM THE FREIGHT TRAINS, RAM THEM.

I want to say this was intended as a joke, which some of my friends laughed at, so I thought you guys would like it, be evidently not, so sorry for my many rants, I just go a bit crazy sometimes , so, sorry, will you forgive me? I respect the freight railroads, as they carry so many goods, and so much better than other modes, but I feel they could do better. There is always room for improvement.

Sincerely, Henry

 

[CCC1007]

Put reinforcements on all lead engines, give free rides to all lawyers, and big guns on the front. RAM THE FREIGHT TRAINS, RAM THEM

Please. Stop. Now.
The only reason we have a rail network today is because of the freight companies. Without them there would be no intercity trains period.

 

[jis]

Put reinforcements on all lead engines, give free rides to all lawyers, and big guns on the front. RAM THE FREIGHT TRAINS, RAM THEM

Someone needs to adjust their meds I am afraid. LOL!

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Put reinforcements on all lead engines, give free rides to all lawyers, and big guns on the front. RAM THE FREIGHT TRAINS, RAM THEM

The freight railroads own the right of way. Private property.

Try to RAM one of their trains and you might as well change your name to something, uh, more Syrian sounding. I wonder if this blog has anyone posting from inside the Big House? I doubt it can be done. "Read only" is a maybe.

Now, after your chill pill kicks in, let's acknowledge that some states have been able to cooperate with the freights. California's popular corridors run mostly on UP tracks and thrive. Of course, California has been investing in upgrades to the route of the Capitol Corridor and Pacific Surfrider year after year, with mutual benefit to the hosts and the passenger rail tenants.

Going back to the beginning, the deal was that Amtrak would take over the existing trains, consolidate some routes into a national system, and then manage the expected decline and death of intercity rail.

The freights had every reason to believe that Amtrak would go away in 10 or 20 years tops. Instead, the basic system has remained in place, with a few amputations here and there. Now, as Gilbert Norman insightfully observed on a similar site, most of the freights have reached the Kubler Ross Stage 5, Acceptance, and they are accepting of their fate to carry the Amtrak trains forevermore. But they don't accept that they have to carry even one more than they have now.

When a freight operator is approached about using its tracks for another frequency, typically it will model the route before and after, as is vs as it would be with one more train in each direction. Then the model is tweaked -- "How will it work with a 10,000 ft siding about here? What if we rebuild this bridge from single track to double track," and so forth. Then the state's team comes in, "You don't really need all this stuff. One 5,000 ft siding should be enuff." Bargaining ensues before the To-Do List can be presented to the legislature and the feds. If the government is willing to pay for most of the upgrades it wants, the freight road will usually do the deal.

But there's no point in refusing to pay for some upgrades. The tracks belong to the railroad, and it can make things very very difficult. And why not pay for what is needed? The upgrades benefit the freights, but benefit the new trains running on the route.

The real problem is a political cult that demonizes government spending (well, except for war stuff). If our politics reverted to something like under President Eisenhauer, we would be investing in infrastructure the way he launched the Interstate Highway system. If we were investing in upgrades to tracks all across the national system -- and investing a few hundred more (more than replacement) passenger cars -- we'd see that the freights are not the biggest problem, not at all.

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

Ok, in some cases, the freight trains are friendly, and some are a little intrusive into the time table, and some of them can't go into sidings (BNSF loaded oil trains), but there is a law stating that when an Amtrak passenger train enters, the freight trains should all side immediately, and let Amtrak through, sometimes this happens, sometimes it can't happen, but a lot of the time they CHOOSE not to participate in obeying the law!! Amtrak should ask politely, then ask again, then ask one more time, (three should be a lucky number) then file cases against the freight RR's that choose to be mean to Amtrak.

 

[CCC1007]

Ok, in some cases, the freight trains are friendly, and some are a little intrusive into the time table, and some of them can't go into sidings (BNSF loaded oil trains), but there is a law stating that when an Amtrak passenger train enters, the freight trains should all side immediately, and let Amtrak through, sometimes this happens, sometimes it can't happen, but a lot of the time they CHOOSE not to participate in obeying the law!! Amtrak should ask politely, then ask again, then ask one more time, (three should be a lucky number) then file cases against the freight RR's that choose to be mean to Amtrak.

The law said no such thing, it said that Amtrak was to have priority over freight when possible. In any case, the Supreme Court of the United States struck that part down as the regulator was going to directly benefit from the regulation!

 

[west point]

One can wonder if the continuing failure of Amtrak locos will influence the freight RRs ? On schedule operation except for grade crossing incidents will influence the RRs/

 

[jis]

Ok, in some cases, the freight trains are friendly, and some are a little intrusive into the time table, and some of them can't go into sidings (BNSF loaded oil trains), but there is a law stating that when an Amtrak passenger train enters, the freight trains should all side immediately, and let Amtrak through, sometimes this happens, sometimes it can't happen, but a lot of the time they CHOOSE not to participate in obeying the law!! Amtrak should ask politely, then ask again, then ask one more time, (three should be a lucky number) then file cases against the freight RR's that choose to be mean to Amtrak.

The law said no such thing, it said that Amtrak was to have priority over freight when possible. In any case, the Supreme Court of the United States struck that part down as the regulator was going to directly benefit from the regulation!

What the SCOTUS struck down was the process used to set the standard for evaluating whether the railroads are meeting the goal. it did not strike down the bit about Amtrak getting preferential treatment. And indeed, if STB + FRA takes it upon themselves to go through its usual process to set a standard, I don;t think anyone, except the railroads, will complain loudly, and likely a challenge by AAR won;t go too far either. but politically all that may be unlikely to happen, though there are no specific legal barriers.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

One can wonder if the continuing failure of Amtrak locos will influence the freight RRs ? On schedule operation

I have no doubt that many Amtrak failures -- locomotive and otherwise -- makes the passenger trains unloved by the freights.

Meanwhile, Amtrak is doing the best it can. It's almost powerless, because it's Congress that decides whether to pay for new equipment, etc. But where the freights feel like they are being treated fairly (like, not unduly burdened with failing locomotives, etc), they often have a good relationship with Amtrak.

Of course, it's best when Amtrak owns its own tracks (like Porter, IN-Kalamazoo). Not enuff of that. And almost that good when a state partner owns the tracks (Kalamazoo-Dearborn). Not enuff of that either.

Seeing Virginia getting FASTLANE funds to buy the Petersburg-Raleigh trackage is great good news. That 125 or so mile segment will link to the Piedmont Corridor at Raleigh and take the trains down to Charlotte. That's what I'm talkin about!

 

[SarahZ]

Put reinforcements on all lead engines, give free rides to all lawyers, and big guns on the front. RAM THE FREIGHT TRAINS, RAM THEM

 

[Ryan]

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Put reinforcements on all lead engines, give free rides to all lawyers, and big guns on the front. RAM THE FREIGHT TRAINS, RAM THEM

 

[neroden]

Nerodn you must have spent time in Georgia in the past. Only you would know that at one time the state constitution caused the most one sided rural representation in the legislature. Took the Supreme court's one man one vote ruling to change things. But we still have some vestiges of that system.

For those who don't know each county basically had the same vote in legislature and congress. So cities of Atlanta, Augusta, Savannah, Macon, Columbus had same vote as Brunswick .

I believe that was the situation in quite a few other states as well. California, for instance, had one state senator per county - so Los Angeles County, with 6-7 million people in the 1960s, had the same representation in the state senate as Alpine County, which had fewer that 1,000 people.

Yep. We had essentially the same problem in NY. Despite the 1-man 1-vote rulings in the '60s, gerrymandering and malapportionment (they mis-size the districts to the maximum extent permitted by the Supreme Court) have been used to keep the rural areas overrepresented in the state Senate for decades since then, which by the 1980s had already morphed into a mindless and unjustifiable scheme to support the Republican Party machine in the state, with no actual benefits to rural areas whatsoever. (This is *finally* falling apart due to population shifts, thank goodness).

The big difference is that our rural areas aren't quite as *hostile* to the cities as Georgia's rural areas are hostile to Atlanta.

 

[neroden]

Other states? How about the US Senate? Two senators per state regardless of population.

And that is by design, in order to give some semblance of protection to rural states. Unfettered democracy without any protection for minorities is the quickest way to tyranny as has been illustrated over and over again. Most successful representative democracies have similar protections and provision of continuity and higher barrier to change through the existence of bicameral legislature, and typically the young and inexperienced starry eyed idealists hate it, and older and more experienced people who have seen what can possibly go wrong when things are done in a hurry or maliciously or simply out of idiocy (exhibit A - Brexit), like it.

You don't know what you're talking about. Brexit was voted for by the "older and more experienced" people, while the "young and inexperienced starry eyed idealists" voted against it. Look up the numbers.
Younger people are actually smarter than older people right now, on average. This is probably because older people have *more childhood lead poisoning* exposure. Thank goodness for the elimination of leaded gasoline, which is making each generation smarter than the last! I'll trust the opinion of a clear-headed 25-year-old over a lead-addled 60-year-old any time.

In the particular case of the US Senate, *absolutely no political scientist* thinks it's a good idea as currently arranged. It's generally considered a disaster. Anyone who's studied it concludes that it is not fit for purpose; it doesn't really protect rural interests. It does cause gridlock and prevent the government from functioning at all, pretty often. Pretty much all other democratic republics have a tiebreaker system where a clear majority in the lower house can overrule the upper house in a crisis (Australia's is particularly complicated and being invoked *right now*); the US doesn't have any tiebreaker, which is disastrous.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I'm thinking protecting rural interests should not be a concern when it comes to transportation. If trains favor rural areas it means trains running more miles and with smaller population bases to choose from fewer people on trains and less money. If Amtrak brings less money in and has to pay more to get these trains to the boondocks, then guess who has to pay more money? Taxpayers. Is transportation really a concern for people who live in rural areas? If I really cared about being able to visit New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago easily, I wouldn't be choosing to live in North Dakota would I? I'd much rather the House dictate Amtrak than the Senate. I'm not sure they're that much better but they can't be much worse. At least have a group where Pennsylvania has a larger delegation than the boon dock states handle transportation.

 

[CCC1007]

I'm thinking protecting rural interests should not be a concern when it comes to transportation. If trains favor rural areas it means trains running more miles and with smaller population bases to choose from fewer people on trains and less money. If Amtrak brings less money in and has to pay more to get these trains to the boondocks, then guess who has to pay more money? Taxpayers. Is transportation really a concern for people who live in rural areas? If I really cared about being able to visit New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago easily, I wouldn't be choosing to live in North Dakota would I? I'd much rather the House dictate Amtrak than the Senate. I'm not sure they're that much better but they can't be much worse. At least have a group where Pennsylvania has a larger delegation than the boon dock states handle transportation.

Hey, don't count out our rural states just so easily! The rural areas on the empire builder route depend on the train for essential travel, especially in the winter when the roads are much more dangerous and the nearest interstate is 150+ miles away!

 

[seat38a]

Other states? How about the US Senate? Two senators per state regardless of population.

And that is by design, in order to give some semblance of protection to rural states. Unfettered democracy without any protection for minorities is the quickest way to tyranny as has been illustrated over and over again. Most successful representative democracies have similar protections and provision of continuity and higher barrier to change through the existence of bicameral legislature, and typically the young and inexperienced starry eyed idealists hate it, and older and more experienced people who have seen what can possibly go wrong when things are done in a hurry or maliciously or simply out of idiocy (exhibit A - Brexit), like it.

You don't know what you're talking about. Brexit was voted for by the "older and more experienced" people, while the "young and inexperienced starry eyed idealists" voted against it. Look up the numbers.
Younger people are actually smarter than older people right now, on average. This is probably because older people have *more childhood lead poisoning* exposure. Thank goodness for the elimination of leaded gasoline, which is making each generation smarter than the last! I'll trust the opinion of a clear-headed 25-year-old over a lead-addled 60-year-old any time.

In the particular case of the US Senate, *absolutely no political scientist* thinks it's a good idea as currently arranged. It's generally considered a disaster. Anyone who's studied it concludes that it is not fit for purpose; it doesn't really protect rural interests. It does cause gridlock and prevent the government from functioning at all, pretty often. Pretty much all other democratic republics have a tiebreaker system where a clear majority in the lower house can overrule the upper house in a crisis (Australia's is particularly complicated and being invoked *right now*); the US doesn't have any tiebreaker, which is disastrous.

And if you can't pass a budget, new elections must be called. You can't sit on your ass and collect a paycheck till your term runs out.

 

[jis]

I am actually a proponent of a Parliamentary system using STB. That automatically removes some of the craziness in the US system, and also provides enough checks, specially if there is a bicameral legislature with the second house indirectly elected by the state legislative bodies, with proportional representation to the population. But I think there is zero chance of anything like that happening.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Other ways to rig the system are used. Scoop up 10,000 marijuana-selling black guys, aka "thugs", and send them from the streets of Harlem to the penitentiaries set among the cow pastures of Upstate New York. Voila. The incarcerated black guys can't vote now, but they are "persons" for purposes of redistricting. So, more seats in the Lege for cow pastures, fewer seats for Harlem. God's in his Heaven, all's right with the world.

In NY State, it usually works out that the cow pasture vote always favors highways and more highways. Representatives from the city usually support passenger rail as well as highways.

Perhaps one day the Supreme Court will take on the issue of fairness in districting. The current ways deprive all of us of fair representation.

 

[Eric S]

I am actually a proponent of a Parliamentary system using STB. That automatically removes some of the craziness in the US system, and also provides enough checks, specially if there is a bicameral legislature with the second house indirectly elected by the state legislative bodies, with proportional representation to the population. But I think there is zero chance of anything like that happening.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is STB in this context?

 

[jis]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is STB in this context?

STB (Single Transferable Ballot) or STV (Single Transferable Vote) is a method of voting that does a more fair selection of a winner than the commonly used first past the goalpost.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

Perhaps one day the Supreme Court will take on the issue of fairness in districting. The current ways deprive all of us of fair representation.

The courts in Florida just finished forcing a redsitricting for the upcoming election to get rid of extremely egregious gerrymanders. Didn't affect my district too much though. Its net effect could be interesting since both Republicans and Democrats could be in for a little trouble.

 

[Eric S]

Thanks.

I figured you weren't referring to Surface Transportation Board. And I'd agree STV is probably a better method of voting.