Politco.com
Say what you will about Obama, he's certainly the most rail/alternate transportation-friendly president in the modern era.
Obama: more investment in rail (Labor Day)
- Thread starter makai1976
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
Say what you will about Obama, he's certainly the most rail/alternate transportation-friendly president in the modern era.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,507
He talks a good game, but the actions appear to suggest otherwise.
- Amtrak had to purchase the new Viewliners using internal funding because the expected funding was not forthcoming from the administration and Congress. This with a veto-proof majority in Congress: a luxury that few administrations have had (and this one will not have it for much longer).
- Amtrak is operating with essentially the same budget as they did in the Bush administration. The operating and capital subsidy increases promised in the five-year reauthorization have not materialized.
- The "high speed rail" program is, so far, little more than studies and reports. Maybe something will pan out there, but for now, it has produced lots and lots of expensive paper.
- The $2 billion + investment in the Acela and Boston electrification project during the Clinton administration far eclipses anything tangible provided by the Obama administration, and Clinton was working with a hostile Congress. That $2 billion + was special funding provided over and above the regular operating and capital funding. Amtrak did get a piece of the "stimulus" funding, but much less than Clinton provided some 12 years ago.
- For that matter, the actual formation of Amtrak under Nixon eclipses anything done under Obama. Now, that was despite Nixon, not because of Nixon, but he still signed on, and Amtrak was formed and funded under his watch.
Support of Amtrak by Obama: real or imagined?
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
Among the two permanently entrenched parties we're allowed to vote for. I'd imagine any Green Party candidate would do far more for rail than any current Democrat or Republican. But how many Americans would have the guts to vote for a candidate that received no air time? Not enough for them to win, that's for sure.
G
Guest
Guest
Id venture to say that "Amtrak Joe", the Veep, has more to do with what little Amtrak has gotten from a hostile Congress, President Obama, aka Hamlet, seems more interested in talking a good game rather than deliviring on his Campaign promises! 
(In all fairness most of these guys are the same, talk is cheap, takes money to run railroads!) :help:
(In all fairness most of these guys are the same, talk is cheap, takes money to run railroads!) :help:I assume you mean fillibuster-proof, not veto proof (2/3), which did exist for about 6 months if you consider Lieberman a Dem.
Here's Amtrak's five-year funding authorization from 2009 to 2013, you can see it rises from 1.49 billion to 2.23 billion. That's more than a 50% increase in 5 years.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249206267639&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_Amtrak-Five-Year-Plan-FY2010-2014.pdf
(BTW, in 2004, the middle of the Bush year, the fed authorization was 1.27 billion, so Obama will essentially double fed funding for Amtrak -- not including the capital expenditures in the 'stimulus' in less than 10 years)
BTW, Obama has written exactly *one* budget, so I'm not sure how you can blame him for the fact that the budget authorization plan has not yet materialized. In addition to the regular funding, Amtrak got something like $1.3 billion out of the stimulus, (and that doesn't count any of the high speed rail cash at all).
I think you'll have to wait at least a couple years to see how funding goes...If you count the stimulus, in Obama's first year, Amtrak essentially got double what they did in Bush's last year. I'd say that's a real result. And if Congress adheres to the spending plan (very unlikely if Republicans get control of the House this fall), then a 50% increase in 5 years would be a real result as well.
I think you'll have to wait at least a couple years to see how funding goes...If you count the stimulus, in Obama's first year, Amtrak essentially got double what they did in Bush's last year. I'd say that's a real result. And if Congress adheres to the spending plan (very unlikely if Republicans get control of the House this fall), then a 50% increase in 5 years would be a real result as well.
Don't give any credit to Nixon. Anyone who was an insider at the time would tell you that Amtrak was formed with the idea that it would die rather quickly, but it has somehow persevered.
on the "maybe something will pan out there" Beck-ism. I know the meme among rail supporters and opponents alike is that high-speed rail ends up only in plans and studies, but most of the stimulus funding was dedicated to projects that would actually build or improve rail lines, get new or renovated cars in service, etc. I know these projects were advertised as "shovel ready," and perhaps they haven't been implemented as quickly as many would hope, but "shovel ready" for government -- or a mega-corporation -- has never been a phrase to be taken literally.1) The delays were due primarily to the controversial FRA operating guidelines (on-time performance and the like) which were intended to address past and ongoing issues in how freight railways treat Amtrak trains but admittedly set the balance too much to the railways' detriment. Those guidelines were revoked and new ones will be issued. Note that the guidelines concern operating improved services, not preparing more studies.
2) Despite new guidelines not being in place, BNSF and the State of Washington just reached an agreement on improving the Cascades line with $590 million in stimulus funds and governing the operation (on-time performance, etc.) of the improved service.
3) Also despite the lack of guidelines, Union Pacific struck an agreement with the State of Illinois and is commencing track work this very month on the Lincoln Service line under the stimulus funding for CHI-STL improvements.
4) The State of Wisconsin has announced that $300 million in contracts under the $800 million stimulus funding to extend CHI-MKE service to Madison will be let out by the end of the year.
5) The Auto Train station in Sanford, FL, was just renovated with $10.5 million in stimulus funds. In the same vein, I've seen in revenue service several Amtrak cars with marks indicating their renovation with stimulus funding. Admittedly, these were probably in the Amtrak portion of the stimulus rather than the high-speed portion, but they are completed stimulus work.
Good grief. There is obvious support from the administration, just have to keep some perspective about it. For starters, $1.3 billion in stimulus money that went directly to Amtrak which Amtrak is still working to spend. With a lot of non-sexy, but useful projects for that $1.3 billion - upgrades and repairs to the NEC electrical system & Amtrak maintenance facilities, clearing the trees and replacing fences along the NEC and Keystone corridors, replacing platforms at lightly used stations, and so on.
$8 billion for HSIPR with the grants only announced at the end of January. The vast majority of that money will go to actual construction projects which have only just now started in a few places. It takes time to put together bid packages, get the bids, award contracts, then start the work, and another year or 3 of construction work. And the FRA guideline squabble slowed things down. The benefits from the $8 billion will only start to kick in 2011 in a few places, then more in 2012, 2013, 2014. Some modest amounts of the $8 billion went to engineering and design studies such as $60 million for the Baltimore B&P tunnel replacement, but you can't request bids and build a big infrastructure project until you have a detailed engineering plan for it. And that whole process starts with feasibility and more general studies.
$2.3 billion for HSIPR in FY10 funding with the grants announced somewhere around the end of September. The lion's share of this money will go to construction and actual projects.
Amtrak funding for FY11 will likely fall between $1.7 and $1.9 billion which is enough to keep them above minimal life support level. I think the administration supports HSR and improved intercity rail, but they do not see that as being entirely as an Amtrak show. They are looking at a bigger picture where Amtrak is just a piece with regional HSR & IPR systems that may operate independently from Amtrak.
The interstate highway system did not get started and built overnight. First, there needs to a be a national plan and strategy. Which the FRA and DOT have been working on, but Congress will have to pass bills and provide funding. The key is the next 6 year (or multi-year) Transportation authorization bill and how much support it will have in it for HSR and improved intercity rail. Because of the economy and all the other stuff going on, the administration pushed to have the transportation bill put off until later. Which may have been a mistake, because if the Republicans get control of Congress and there is a reduced Senate democratic majority, it will make for a even worse state of gridlock in DC.
However, I think if we take a long view, I expect we will see a major revival of intercity corridor rail in the US, albeit with fits and starts, regardless of which party controls Congress. Just wait for gas to hit $5, $6, $7 a gallon which I expect will happen within the next 10 years, if not within 5 or 6 years. That will have an effect.
Last edited by a moderator:
transit54
Conductor
I'm going to withhold judgement on Obama's support for rail until I see a passed transportation bill. I think the problem with Obama in this area, as it seems to be with all other areas, is that he has a very difficult time delivering a clear message to carry support for his policies. And if he gives Amtrak noticeably more than it has had in the past, his opponents (who are excellent at delivering their message) will hold it up as high as they can as an example of government waste, socialism, and anything else they can use to beat him over the head with.
If he puts forth a major appropriation for Amtrak, he needs to stand behind it. He needs to articulate the need to diversify our transportation infrastructure, he needs to illustrate how trains serve both rural and urban areas well, he needs to conjure up some stories of what trains mean to people in the communities that have access to them and what they can do for communities that don't. He should cite the BP crisis (although its already a bit late for that) as an example of our unchecked oil dependence and offer trains as one of many solutions.
He needs to talk about cost effectiveness, too. Per dollar of public investment, transit investments create far more sustainable jobs than highway construction ever does. The differences are staggering (though I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, I could dig them up if need be). He needs to talk about building systems that put people back to work for good, that provide things that Americans want, that are worthwhile investments of our public dollars. He absolutely needs to bring up the staggering difference in highway versus rail appropriations - which no one (outside of rail advocates) seems to know about. I routinely tell people that Amtrak gets about $1.5b-$2.5b a year in funding, and then ask them to guess federal highway funding. People guess about $8b or $10b. The real answer is above $30b. People are just shocked when they hear this.
And he needs to beat opponents over the head with the issue if they disagree. And that may mean taking a play or two from his opponents playbooks - simplifying the facts and delivering them over and over again. Painting opponents as shills for automakers and big business, as ignorant of the facts, as unwilling to take realistic steps to resolve foreign oil dependence.
The problem is that I think Obama and the Democrats in general have tremendous trouble translating policy into messages and are unwilling to play hardball to advance their agenda. That was beyond clear with the whole BP issue that became an unbelievably squandered opportunity to advance transportation and energy policies.
If he puts forth a major appropriation for Amtrak, he needs to stand behind it. He needs to articulate the need to diversify our transportation infrastructure, he needs to illustrate how trains serve both rural and urban areas well, he needs to conjure up some stories of what trains mean to people in the communities that have access to them and what they can do for communities that don't. He should cite the BP crisis (although its already a bit late for that) as an example of our unchecked oil dependence and offer trains as one of many solutions.
He needs to talk about cost effectiveness, too. Per dollar of public investment, transit investments create far more sustainable jobs than highway construction ever does. The differences are staggering (though I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, I could dig them up if need be). He needs to talk about building systems that put people back to work for good, that provide things that Americans want, that are worthwhile investments of our public dollars. He absolutely needs to bring up the staggering difference in highway versus rail appropriations - which no one (outside of rail advocates) seems to know about. I routinely tell people that Amtrak gets about $1.5b-$2.5b a year in funding, and then ask them to guess federal highway funding. People guess about $8b or $10b. The real answer is above $30b. People are just shocked when they hear this.
And he needs to beat opponents over the head with the issue if they disagree. And that may mean taking a play or two from his opponents playbooks - simplifying the facts and delivering them over and over again. Painting opponents as shills for automakers and big business, as ignorant of the facts, as unwilling to take realistic steps to resolve foreign oil dependence.
The problem is that I think Obama and the Democrats in general have tremendous trouble translating policy into messages and are unwilling to play hardball to advance their agenda. That was beyond clear with the whole BP issue that became an unbelievably squandered opportunity to advance transportation and energy policies.
Nice post transit54. I think that Obama submitted a request of 2.8B for the FRA in 2011, but I don't know if stimulus spending is included in part of that or not (for 2011, it was listed as something like 4.1B, so maybe all the stimulus spending was included in the 2010 budget).
But I agree that messaging is a big part of his problem. As easy as it is to lead the media around by the nose, it's kind of amazing that he hasn't been able to do it more.
ETA: maybe the extra billion in the FRA budget is high-speed?
But I agree that messaging is a big part of his problem. As easy as it is to lead the media around by the nose, it's kind of amazing that he hasn't been able to do it more.
ETA: maybe the extra billion in the FRA budget is high-speed?
Last edited by a moderator:
This is plain silly. Democrats have all three branches of government by a majority. Amtrak or rail funding is being held up if it is by democrats unwilling evidently to proceed with the plans. I think Amtrak is rather unwilling to look forward and propose expansion and the types of service that many would like to see. So far the promise end is much better than the getting things done one. I have no doubt that republicans will try to impede any progress with amtrak or high speed rail funding when they win. Its the nature of them to promote free markets an less government intrusions. But this is one area where a national support system needs to be in place as in every other country, or as in support for the other major travel modes. Getting republicans to see that will not be easy and I fear they will try to undo as much as they possibly can. I would prefer to see Obama announcing he was going to spend some of that "Stash" there holding for favorite projects to win elections, and not propose yet more money from the public. If all the money thrown at housing and car give a ways and endless other schemes had gone to building a real rail network we might have something. Instead we have over half the housing buy downs still not paying their mortgages.
I support this initiative but not the "tax oil" element.
My apologies for waxing didactic, but the "third" branch of our government is the Supreme Court and under no sense of the term could that be considered under control by the democrats.
Joel N. Weber II
Engineer
It would be interesting to ask what people think National Park Service funding is at that point, too.
I think the chances that more than 50% of the automobiles sold in 2020 will run entirely off batteries are far better than the chances that by 2020 you could move 25% (or even 10%) of the current automobile use in the US to trains. I don't see how battery powered cars won't be the majority of the solution to greatly reducing US oil consumption.
That said, trains have lots of potential in addressing highway and airport congestion, increasing viable daily commuting range, providing a safer travel option than automobiles, providing independence to those who cannot drive, and reducing the amount of oil needed by airplanes. There is also the question of whether the automobile loving public will someday fall in love with a high speed version of the auto train for things like reducing travel time and increasing comfort for people in northern California visiting southern California and vice versa, and there's the question of whether high speed rail could someday dramatically reduce overnight shipping costs from coast to coast, potentially making fresher food available, etc.
Fellow members: Remember, it is Congress that gives final approval for all spending. The President may propose all kinds of funding for whatever he pleases, it is Congress where the fight really takes place. The House of Representatives, specifically. Do not think for one minute that Amtrak, or any passenger rail funding, is out of the proverbial woods. It looks as though that there will be a significant turnover in elected officials this election, and they will be every bit as ignorant, if not more so, than the current bunch. It is up to us to get out there, and counter the anti-rail statements being made now and in the near future if we ever want to see increased funding and financial support for rail. One issue I have is that people, at least here in Wisconsin, are opposing rail spending, simply because it is taking place during a Democratic Administration (The current WI governor, Doyle, has left much to be desired, by raiding the State highway funds for other purposes). if anything, I think we need to find ways and arguments that will continue to reach and make converts on the right-wing side of the political spectrum, as that side appears to look as though it will be the victor. You can bet that many new office holders will be anti-spending in general, and also receptive to statements that folks like the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute are saying. How many members here have made efforts to counter some of those statements with Letters to the local news editor, or letters to your Elected Officials ?
Again, the Democrats, while being in control of the budget process, have passed exactly one budget. In that budget and the supplemental bill, Amtrak got unprecedented funding.
As far as Republicans promoting "free markets and less government intrusions," I think you mean they simply prefer the existing government subsidies of automotive and air transport systems. Remember, it was a Republican who started the federal highway system, and it is Republicans who are all too happy to pour money into building more and bigger roads.
Another good point. Fortunately, it does seem that the administration is willing to spend some political capital in pushing for alternative forms of transportation. Although Congress ultimately passes a budget, the President can use the bully pulpit to push for his budget priorities.
Should use > $40 billion, not a mere $30 billion. The administration FY 2011 request for highway and road funding was around $41 billion. The House bumped that up to $44 billion, cutting some of the funding for passenger rail (still more than it was just a few years ago). Even $44 billion is not that much money in comparison to the funds being spent on Afghanistan and Iraq operations & building their infrastructure and vast sums spent on homeland security and related things. First, a billion dollars doesn't go as far as it used to and second, people seemingly pay little attention to the funds going to highway projects. If we were to spend 15% to 20% on intercity passenger rail & HSR systems of federal grant money of what we spend at the federal level on highway and roads, we would have a much healthier passenger rail in this country.
As for the Obama administration not being forceful enough to get out their message, I agree. They have been surprisingly passive about much of the smearing operations and more hardball aspects of the political process, and not getting their side of the story out. But this is digressing off entirely into politics which is not the purpose of this forum. Better to stick to the aspects that directly affect Amtrak, passenger rail, and transportation funding. Which get messy enough in themselves in a overheated political year.
The White House has a press release on the new infrastructure plan at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/06/president-obama-announce-plan-renew-and-expand-america-s-roads-railways-.
Lacks details and any specific funding amounts, but does mention Amtrak in the rail paragraph:
"Rail. Many parts of transit systems have been allowed to fall into a state of ill-repair. The President’s plan would help address this by making a major new investment in the nation’s bus and rail transit system. The Administration is also committed to expanding public transit systems and would dedicate significant new funding to the “New Starts” program – which supports locally planned, implemented, and operated major transit projects. In addition, the Administration is committed to building on its investments so far in high-speed rail – constructing a system that will increase convenience and productivity, while also reducing our nation’s dependence on oil and cutting down on pollution. The President’s plan would also invest in a long-overdue overhaul of Amtrak’s fleet."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/06/president-obama-announce-plan-renew-and-expand-america-s-roads-railways-.
Lacks details and any specific funding amounts, but does mention Amtrak in the rail paragraph:
"Rail. Many parts of transit systems have been allowed to fall into a state of ill-repair. The President’s plan would help address this by making a major new investment in the nation’s bus and rail transit system. The Administration is also committed to expanding public transit systems and would dedicate significant new funding to the “New Starts” program – which supports locally planned, implemented, and operated major transit projects. In addition, the Administration is committed to building on its investments so far in high-speed rail – constructing a system that will increase convenience and productivity, while also reducing our nation’s dependence on oil and cutting down on pollution. The President’s plan would also invest in a long-overdue overhaul of Amtrak’s fleet."
spacecadet
Lead Service Attendant
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
- Messages
- 368
Don't you mean the "cutting government subsidies to oil" element?
I would much rather my tax dollars go to rail than oil.
volkris
Lead Service Attendant
The administration has proposed to increase taxes on the oil industry to pay for part of Obama's proposal. Therefore, jmbgeg probably did mean "tax oil" just as he said.
Where are you getting this information? The Fact Sheet doesn't mention revenue sources and the only thing I've heard regarding oil companies in the last couple weeks is ending some tax credits for multinational corporations in favor of the small business tax credits.
oldtimer
OBS Chief
Maybe if the Pentagon were able to account for its spending we could support America. What did Donald Rumsfeld say on 9/10/2001? This 2.3 TRILLION of unaccounted funds was soon to be overshadowed. See
How much more has been lost since then, and what could that money do for America and it's infrastructure. Amtrak funds would probably never be questioned!
How much more has been lost since then, and what could that money do for America and it's infrastructure. Amtrak funds would probably never be questioned!
- Status
