Politicians Are Gearing Up To Kill Passenger Rail Projects

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Devil's Advocate

⠀⠀⠀
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
14,127
Location
⠀⠀⠀TX
Link to Full Story...

In Wisconsin, which got more than $810 million in federal stimulus money to build a train line between Milwaukee and Madison, Scott Walker, the Milwaukee County executive and Republican candidate for governor, has made his opposition to the project central to his campaign. In Ohio, the Republican candidate for governor, John Kasich, is vowing to kill a $400 million federal stimulus project to link Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati by rail. In Florida, Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for governor, has questioned whether the state should invest in the planned rail line from Orlando to Tampa. The state got $1.25 billion in federal stimulus money for the project, but it will cost at least twice that much to complete. And the nation’s most ambitious high-speed rail project, California’s $45 billion plan to link Los Angeles and San Francisco with trains that would go up to 220 miles per hour, could be delayed if Meg Whitman, a Republican, is elected governor. “In the face of the state’s current fiscal crisis, Meg doesn’t believe we can afford the costs associated with new high-speed rail at this time,” said Tucker Bounds, a campaign spokesman. With recent polls showing all of the anti-rail Republican candidates leading or within striking distance of their pro-rail Democratic rivals, it is possible they could be elected and try to stop the train projects.
Face it rail fans, in many cases a vote for the GOP is a vote against passenger rail. I know Amtrak has survived many attacks in the past and some AU members apparently think they always will, but that's frankly an absurd position. Eventually the GOP will get their way and Amtrak will be gone. And you can still keep chatting about what might have been, but it won't matter any more. 2010 is a critical year for passenger rail, so put your vote where your mouth is!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This has been frustrating to deal with, especially here in Wisconsin. Many who are against the train, particularly those "average man- or woman- on the street," have rationalized this by thinking that, "well, I'll never take the train, so why should I have to pay for it?" Arguments such as other folks taking the train for their own trips, or the fact that driving costs a lot more than simply gas money, or that it is an investment in the future, and Amtrak's current results are due to an utter lack of investment, are lost on them. Member AlanB may support me on this. It is as if the opponents are saying that they would rather shell out money that pay for 30 years of operating costs, in order to "save" $ 7.5 to 10 billion per year.

A member at Trainorders.com put the rail opponents' position this way:

"Anti-rail politicians (Kashic, Christie, McCaine, etc) are a bunch of hypocrites because they want to deny their Country the real benefits of HSR on the pretense of "saving" money for the Government which they dislike so much. What heroes! They want to benefit the "Government" and deny benefit to "their constituents".
Or, how about this one:

"These dopes haven't a clue how to create jobs and increase State revenues, so they look for the easiest "cost" to cut--like HSR. They're too blind to sea HSR creates jobs."
 
Link to Full Story...

In Wisconsin, which got more than $810 million in federal stimulus money to build a train line between Milwaukee and Madison, Scott Walker, the Milwaukee County executive and Republican candidate for governor, has made his opposition to the project central to his campaign. In Ohio, the Republican candidate for governor, John Kasich, is vowing to kill a $400 million federal stimulus project to link Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati by rail. In Florida, Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for governor, has questioned whether the state should invest in the planned rail line from Orlando to Tampa. The state got $1.25 billion in federal stimulus money for the project, but it will cost at least twice that much to complete. And the nation’s most ambitious high-speed rail project, California’s $45 billion plan to link Los Angeles and San Francisco with trains that would go up to 220 miles per hour, could be delayed if Meg Whitman, a Republican, is elected governor. “In the face of the state’s current fiscal crisis, Meg doesn’t believe we can afford the costs associated with new high-speed rail at this time,” said Tucker Bounds, a campaign spokesman. With recent polls showing all of the anti-rail Republican candidates leading or within striking distance of their pro-rail Democratic rivals, it is possible they could be elected and try to stop the train projects.
Face it rail fans, in many cases a vote for the GOP is a vote against passenger rail. I know Amtrak has survived many attacks in the past and some AU members apparently think they always will, but that's frankly an absurd position. Eventually the GOP will get their way and Amtrak will be gone. And you can still keep chatting about what might have been, but it won't matter any more. 2010 is a critical year for passenger rail, so put your vote where your mouth is!
This sounds like a very partisan oriented post by someone who trusts one corrupt party over the other. The reality is that two parties combined create all of the same problems. If you believe that you have a choice, you don't. You have no choice.

First off, Amtrak was created under a Republican administration. Now we have a democratic administration. Has that helped Amtrak thrive? Lots of lip service but the answer is no.

Like all other government owned businesses, Amtrak, the post office, social security, medicare and even the local education systems are BROKE. In todays political climate it's nice to get on the soapbox and proclaim that we can save money but the bottom line is that politicans themselves have driven this country into bankruptcy. Theswe type of suggested cuts are just soapbox points to gain votes. Politicans don't care about you or me. They just care about getting re-elected so that they can continue to have license to steal.
 
That's nothing but a bunch of political ranting with no bearing on the topic at hand.

The only thing that matters is now, and if you look at the politicians that are campaigning on killing rail projects, they all have an "R" after their name. The fact that Amtrak was created by a Republican administration 40 years ago is orthogonal to what is happening in these states today.
 
Link to Full Story...

In Wisconsin, which got more than $810 million in federal stimulus money to build a train line between Milwaukee and Madison, Scott Walker, the Milwaukee County executive and Republican candidate for governor, has made his opposition to the project central to his campaign. In Ohio, the Republican candidate for governor, John Kasich, is vowing to kill a $400 million federal stimulus project to link Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati by rail. In Florida, Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for governor, has questioned whether the state should invest in the planned rail line from Orlando to Tampa. The state got $1.25 billion in federal stimulus money for the project, but it will cost at least twice that much to complete. And the nation’s most ambitious high-speed rail project, California’s $45 billion plan to link Los Angeles and San Francisco with trains that would go up to 220 miles per hour, could be delayed if Meg Whitman, a Republican, is elected governor. “In the face of the state’s current fiscal crisis, Meg doesn’t believe we can afford the costs associated with new high-speed rail at this time,” said Tucker Bounds, a campaign spokesman. With recent polls showing all of the anti-rail Republican candidates leading or within striking distance of their pro-rail Democratic rivals, it is possible they could be elected and try to stop the train projects.
Face it rail fans, in many cases a vote for the GOP is a vote against passenger rail. I know Amtrak has survived many attacks in the past and some AU members apparently think they always will, but that's frankly an absurd position. Eventually the GOP will get their way and Amtrak will be gone. And you can still keep chatting about what might have been, but it won't matter any more. 2010 is a critical year for passenger rail, so put your vote where your mouth is!
I don't think the GOP is out to "get" Amtrak still. Sure there are some GOP members who want it gone, but just because we may get a Republican ruled Congress does not mean Amtrak is going to just shut down. I've been following Amtrak for a while now, and we get caught up in this partisan politics that all GOP members want to kill Amtrak and all Dems. support it. When the Bush Admin. tried to kill Amtrak back in 2005, it was a Republican controlled Congress that voted to keep it around. There are still many members of the GOP that still support Amtrak such as Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas. I don't know why we're getting all worked up because only two or three GOP gubernatorial candidates have spoke out against it. If they get what they want, sure I'll be pretty disappointed, but it doesn't mean the world is going to end, or that Amtrak is going to shut down. There are many other parts of the country that are going full steam ahead with their rail projects.

I'm not saying don't stop fighting or don't stop writing letters. I'm just saying don't get worked up over a couple of ignorant people. There's always going to be NIMBY's and BANANA's for anything that is planned to get built, but again that what makes America great! :)
 
I don't believe Governor Christie (NJ) is opposed to rail transport, what he wants to know is the

real cost of transportation projects at hand and the financing arrangements for the funding.

The most recent issue was the failure of the NJ Assembly and Senate to approve the proposed transportation

bond issue. Christie also stopped spending for the ARC tunnel between NY and NJ until an accurate

estimate of total cost was obtained to ensure there was enough money for the project. New Jersey along

with the Port Authority of NY & NJ is funding the tunnel. New York is not paying for any of the costs.

As a resident and taxpayer of NJ, I'm glad the Governor is investigating the costs. It started at a

figure of 5 billion, then 7.5 billion and then 8.2 billion. Now the estimate is nearly 10 billion.

A comprehensive investigation is in order!!
 
This sounds like a very partisan oriented post by someone who trusts one corrupt party over the other. The reality is that two parties combined create all of the same problems. If you believe that you have a choice, you don't. You have no choice. First off, Amtrak was created under a Republican administration. Now we have a democratic administration. Has that helped Amtrak thrive? Lots of lip service but the answer is no.
Just because you assume that if I don't trust and support the GOP I must support and trust the Democrats doesn't make it so. I don't trust either party to be perfectly honest. I'm simply pointing out that voting for the GOP is in large measure a vote against Amtrak.

First off, Amtrak was created under a Republican administration. Now we have a democratic administration. Has that helped Amtrak thrive? Lots of lip service but the answer is no.
I think if you take a deeper look you'll find that the Republicans of the 1970's were a completely different breed than the Neo-Cons we have now.

I don't think the GOP is out to "get" Amtrak still. Sure there are some GOP members who want it gone, but just because we may get a Republican ruled Congress does not mean Amtrak is going to just shut down.I've been following Amtrak for a while now, and we get caught up in this partisan politics that all GOP members want to kill Amtrak and all Dems. support it.
It's certainly true that not every Republican is actively working to dismantle Amtrak, but if a given politician is advocating the dismantling of passenger rail it's generally a Republican. I'm concerned that if we continue to vote for the GOP we will eventually vote Amtrak right out of existence. If we accept that Amtrak does not have a mythical guardian angel and can therefore only survive a finite number of attacks we must also accept that at some point Amtrak funding can and will be defeated so long as we keep voting for politicians who are likely to be against it.

When the Bush Admin. tried to kill Amtrak back in 2005, it was a Republican controlled Congress that voted to keep it around. There are still many members of the GOP that still support Amtrak such as Kay Bailey Hutchinson [sic] of Texas.
Kay Bailey Hutchison makes for exactly one GOP candidate that is still in support of Amtrak (we hope). Got any others? You also mention that individual states are still moving ahead, but aren't those the very states where passenger rail is under attack by the GOP/TP crowd?

There's always going to be NIMBY's and BANANA's for anything that is planned to get built, but again that what makes America great!
I've never understood the whole anti-NIMBY argument. Where exactly have the NIMBY's prevented Amtrak from running in recent memory?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kay Bailey Hutchison makes for exactly one GOP candidate that is still in support of Amtrak (we hope). Got any others? You also mention that individual states are still moving ahead, but aren't those the very states where passenger rail is under attack by the GOP/TP crowd?
California, GOP governor. Florida, GOP governor. Our own Rick Perry of Texas has stated he's not against high speed rail in Texas. Tommy Thompson was at one point but seems to have changed sides for GOP political gain. And former Sen. Trent Lott was always a big supporter. I'm sure there are more, but I'd have to do some digging.

There's always going to be NIMBY's and BANANA's for anything that is planned to get built, but again that what makes America great!
I've never understood the whole anti-NIMBY argument. Where exactly have the NIMBY's prevented Amtrak from running in recent memory?
I was talking about NIMBY's in a more general sense, not just Amtrak, but light rail lines, commuter rail, subways, even highways.
 
Amtrak was formed under a Republican Administration, but it was formed with the idea that within 10 years it would be gone and here we are nearly 40 years later and Amtrak is still around. yet some of Amtrak's problems go back to it roots. It should have been given some designated funding, but hasn't so every year they have to beg Congress for funds to barely survive, but can never really live up to the full potential.
 
Rails' scarce service in so many, many parts of the nation has made it easy for the non rail enthusiast to think, "why should I pay for something which I'll never ride on, and doesn't directly benefit me ?" I strongly suspect that this thought has passed through a great many rail opponents' mind as well -- and they are using it to characterize rail projects as "wasteful Government spending." This is one way in which Amtrak's scarce, bare-bones service across much of Fly-Over country returns to haunt Amtrak.

Read the two books listed above, folks, and also get involved! Speak up, and write letters to the editors of your local newspapers! Start countering the anti-rail comments being listed on the "comments" sections of many of your area's news websites. I think we will be playing defense for Amtrak after the upcoming election, as there are many candidates running on a platform of anti-spending. Believe me, Amtrak is on the chopping block, because it is so easy to characterize it as non-essential to large sections of the nation.

I also fear that many of the Improved rail projects will come too late to make a difference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
New Jersey along

with the Port Authority of NY & NJ is funding the tunnel. New York is not paying for any of the costs.

As a resident and taxpayer of NJ, I'm glad the Governor is investigating the costs. It started at a

figure of 5 billion, then 7.5 billion and then 8.2 billion. Now the estimate is nearly 10 billion.

A comprehensive investigation is in order!!
Here is a more or less non-partisan take on what is going on in NJ.

IMHO there is little difference between the Dems and the Reps on matter of substance on the issue of transportation. While Christie is stuck dealing with a situation not of his own making, and some of his decisions appear to be leaning towards roads and away from rails, he is also on record being supportive of DLRT for Glassboro and LRT for Tenafly, both of which would require the TTF to be solvent to fund them.

As far as I can tell, NJ never had any intention of spending too much of their own money on ARC. They have direct funding from PANYNJ and FTA. Then they are proposing to use a pile of CMAQ fund which is originally federal money, masquerading around as state money. And then of course NJ Turnpike Toll money, which is user fee paid by users of the Turnpike and the Parkway and has nothing to do with NJ Taxpayers, and a little bit from the non-existent stash from the TTF which is broke. So as NJ Taxpayer, we have very little to complain about either way - provided there is no cost overrun :) .

The present issue is that cleverly, they refrained from identifying who would be responsible for covering the cost overruns, hoping that no one will notice, and then once the project is 2/3rds done and out of money, the crisis will somehow get resolved - typical bureaucratic thinking. Notice that even there they had not yet committed the NJ Taxpayer to anything ;) . Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on ones leanings), the Federal DoT, having run into that issue with the Big Dig, have explicitly capped what they will fund. Moreover they even noticed that NJ had not designated an agency that will pick up the cost overrun tab, and asked for clarification and the name of one such. That is when the proverbial scatology hit the proverbial fast rotating set of blades for pushing air.

Irrespective of what posturing various sides go through, and god knows you put bureaucrats and politicians together and you never know what will come out the other side, the fact that projects occasionally have cost overruns won't go away, no matter how much we investigate, and I am glad that FDoT will not give money without knowing up front what the contingency is for covering such.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When someone who is anti-rail starts the "it's never made any money" I throw out the line, "how can something thrive when its been funded to barely survive". Also, when they also say how it never making a profit, I just shrug my shoulders and say, "neither have the highways or interstates". That usually shuts them up.
 
When it comes to Government subsidies, NO subidized means of transportation ever has, nor never will make a true free enterprise profit! Even in the days of the RailRoad Robber barosn the Government basiclly picked up the tab to make them rich!

Those that live in areas where so called "private business" control the utitlities and other necessities of life dont realize just how much they are subsidized by tax breaks, free infrastrucxte etc. If people that actually pay the taxes were made aware of just how much it truely costs to subsidize the transportastion Industries (with the exception of the freight roads that do pay taxes and make profits!), they would get out the rope and torches and pitchforks and mob up! This is true, all you non-wealthy defenders of so called "private sector" need to to study up! Just saying! ;)
 
Right now we have a bunch of ranting and raving to get voters attention to get the ranters elected. Once (if) elected most of them are going to look at the true costs and options. Without seeing the underlying studies I think the widespread desire in many places to put a rail option in place suggests that the total costs of rail vs road vs air do favor rail. Road is heavily subsidised not only from general fund taxes (I think the national average is around 50% user taxes / 50% general fund) but the tremendous costs from auto crashes and injuries. MUCH less by rail and almost nonexistant by commercial air. Note the wannabe California Govnr statement "... we do not have the money to spend at this time..." Not a blanket against rail, just a recognition that the money is not there today. Christy (NJ) is the type of GOP guy to get elected, and talk to because he appears to listen about the true costs. EVERYTHING INCLUDED. If we can get the true comphrensive costs out in the open I think a very good case for investing in rail can be made to even the most conservitive.
 
I would like to add my .02 from a point of view as a student of politics (I got hooked with the 1956 conventions being televised) and a former Amtrak employee from the Nixon era to the Obama Administration.

First of all Nixon would not be able to call himself a republican today he was far too liberal for todays GOP. Even with a view of a short life Amtrak was able to attract some very good management in its infancy.

Under Ford and Carter Amtrak did grow and ordered and received new equipment, converted to HEP, tried some experimentation with High-Speed Rail Equipment IE TMT turbotrains and RTG & RTL Turboliners, expanded service and tried to maintain most of the original routes that were run on Amtrak day one. (May 1, 1971) Ford even used a campaign train in Michigan in 1976. The company took over the former PennCentral mechanical facilities and employees and labor relations were at least cordial and polite, not friendly but able to handle disputes and negotiate in good faith.

It is my opinion that Amtrak may have taken too big a bite and had to retreat in 1979 with reduction in service and forces maybe this was an omen of the times to come as the political winds were shifting to the right.

The election of Reagan was a dire point in time for Amtrak, the mechanical employees were forced to take a reduction of 12% when compared to the freight carriers mechanical employees. At the same time that craft employees had their wages reduce it was announced that management would take a DEFERRAL of the same proportion. Did this happen? No, it was also the time that management bonuses were established. This caused a great rift in employee management relations, As many of those employees are still with the company that may still be a factor in the attitude of some employees today. They trust nobody. The management union relationship faded greatly in this time frame (all unions seemed to be demonetized by some politicians) and the distrust extended to the unions who had their hands tied by the Railway Labor Act calling for the NMB to be involved and the NMB appointments were partisan and the board were very under funded bringing its actions to almost a halt.

This period of union-employee unrest continued in the mechanical department for the Reagan and Bush I administrations. The next craft employees contract took almost 11 years and resulted in a 3% raise while the cost of living rose almost 50%. Amtrak lost many great mechanical employees in this period and the equipment suffered from both fewer employees to service it and the talent drain.

The Clinton administration's attitude toward Amtrak was very different, Superliner II's and Viewliners came and a better view in negotiations prevailed and by 1999 wages were equal to the national freight carriers again. These were substantially lower than most commuter line wages but still an improvement the past. The NMB backlog was cut way down. This improvement was only temporary as the 2000 election brought in Bush II and the conditions deteriorated fast.

Bush II also underfunded the NMB and tried to stack the deck again. and again Amtrak stalled the negotiation process. This only ended In GWB's lame duck period when he appointed a Presidental Emergency Board to prevent a strike after almost 9 years of fruitless talks. Again the union presented a case that only asked for the equality with the freight carrier crafts and Amtrak made some outlandish demands (restricting the use of seniority among others). The PEB rejected all of Amtrak's demands for lack of justification and gave the unions just what they asked for. (On a side not the VP of Labor Relations for Amtrak ouickly retired.)

The Obama administration has seemed to be more Amtrak friendly. Most of us are aware that VP Biden was a commuter from Wilmington to DC when Congress was in session and as a senator had two mechanical facilities (Bear and Wilmington) and the National Operation and training center located ing his home state. The current Amtrak administration offered a contract proposal to all of the unions that some quickly accepted and others had to turn down when their membership did not ratify. Those that did not ratify are still currently in the process of meeting to find something that is aceptable to both sides.

I think that the current shift to the right is being very over publicized by the media.(who have more to gain from the right than the left) The few people are being exposed for their lack of common sense and very partisan views. Where were they when GWB took Clinton's surplus budget and spent like a drunken sailor for 8 years? Of the money spent on Defense budgets in the world the USA spends 49% of it and there always has been a history of "Black Budget" item that are not accounted for there. I think that the Chinese probably have the "titles" to almost all of the US Navy's supercarriers and half of the USAF aircraft. I wonder what we will do when they come to collect. That would make a great "Repo Man" show. At least we know they would not want Amtrak's equipment as it is took antiquated for their system!

I guess this is more than .02 worth, Alan B. please send the bill to the other Alan B.
mosking.gif


Have a great time in St Louis, A 60th Anniversary in the family will keep me away, hope to make it next year!
 
California, GOP governor. Florida, GOP governor. Our own Rick Perry of Texas has stated he's not against high speed rail in Texas. Tommy Thompson was at one point but seems to have changed sides for GOP political gain. And former Sen. Trent Lott was always a big supporter. I'm sure there are more, but I'd have to do some digging.
1. Governor Schwarzenegger was never a bellwether for the GOP at large and will soon be out of power regardless. The GOP's follow-up is Meg Whitman, who has called for a moratorium on passenger rail spending.

2. Governor Crist is no longer with the GOP and is running a losing battle for the Senate as an independent.

3. Rick Perry has directed virtually all state funding to roads and has not competed for any federal rail money.

4. Tommy Thompson has dutifully followed the rest of the GOP toward anti-rail positions.

5. Trent Lott hasn't been a force in Washington politics since 2007.

Basically, the only person you mentioned who is in any way wired-in with today's GOP is staunchly against passenger rail. Are there any others you've dug up?

I was talking about NIMBY's in a more general sense, not just Amtrak, but light rail lines, commuter rail, subways, even highways.
That really doesn't answer my question. If they have had virtually no impact in modern times then why do people keep bringing them up so often?

IMHO there is little difference between the Dems and the Reps on matter of substance on the issue of transportation.
I read through your entire post and never saw anything that explains how you came to this conclusion.
 
IMHO there is little difference between the Dems and the Reps on matter of substance on the issue of transportation.
I read through your entire post and never saw anything that explains how you came to this conclusion.
In NJ at least they have not shown any particular propensity to support rail more than road in general. The Dems tried as hard as they could to kill MOM, kill the RiverLINE and gum up the LRT to Tenafly with silly ideas like DMU to the middle of nowhere. They had every opportunity to fix the financial problem of the TTF by raising the gas tax, and considering they lost the election anyway, they would have gone down having fixed a problem instead of having perpetuated it even further. They came up with grand plans with really no idea on how to actually fund it without due application of smoke and mirrors. And in all those years when they had full control of the state assembly, senate and governorship, they could not bring themselves around to fund even one full project, the only achievement being 9 miles of the cutoff to Andover.

The Reps when it comes to their turn are working to still not fix the TTF problem with a guaranteed source of ongoing funding and trying to apply their own form of smoke and mirror to it. I understand by this time tomorrow they may have killed the tunnel already, instead of right-sizing it, for which they have a chance. OTOH they have been on record in support of the LRT to Tenafly and DLRT to Glassboro.

And so far neither of them through multiple governorships have managed to come up with a real plan to fix the operating subsidy funding source problem. They keep pissing money away on Capital Projects knowing fully well that they do not have the funds to operate those new lines should they be built. This happens irrespective of whether the Dems or the Reps are in ascendency at the moment. Quite disgusting overall actually! :(

Frankly I am more disillusioned by the non-performance of the Dems than the silliness of the Reps, because I expected better of the Dems.
 
Basically, the only person you mentioned who is in any way wired-in with today's GOP is staunchly against passenger rail. Are there any others you've dug up?
Congressman Mica (R-FL), who would be the House Transportation committee chairman, if the Republicans take back control of the House, should be considered pro-transit and pro-rail to some extent. See http://dc.streetsblog.org/2010/10/06/if-republicans-take-the-house-what-happens-to-transportation-reform/. A committee chairman has much more influence and power than any 10 freshman congresspersons.

Meg Whitman is now trailing Jerry Brown in the polls for the CA Governor's race, which may be the one Governor's race in the US that really matters for true HSR in the short term. The way I see it, if California can get their HSR system far enough along under construction - say a year or two after major work has actually started and thus beyond the cancellation point (see the ARC project) - other more populated states and regions of the US that currently have some rail service will start to ask why are we not working towards HSR and improved passenger rail?

The other corridor that may matter is Chicago to St. Louis. If they can show that 110 mph improved service with greater frequency in the mid-West results in a big increase boost in ridership, that should change the political landscape in the wavering states of the mid-West towards building passenger rail. If Wisconsin gives their $800+ million HSIPR money back, I say give it to Illinois & Michigan for the Chicago - St Louis and Chicago - Detroit corridors. The funding Illinois got does not fix up the entire Chicago - St. Louis corridor, just most of it.

This is one of those crazy election years with a lot of clamor and yelling. This one may be the craziest in some decades. The economy has begun to recover, it is just taking a while because of the huge amount of money lost in the crash of 2008 and the fall in real estate prices. In a year or two, the political climate should be calmer. I sure hope so.
 
In Wisconsin, which got more than $810 million in federal stimulus money to build a train line between Milwaukee and Madison, Scott Walker, the Milwaukee County executive and Republican candidate for governor, has made his opposition to the project central to his campaign.
Analysis of the Wisconsin situation here Link.
 
I don't think that most of these politicians actually give a crap one way or the other about trains. It is just a tool to get their voters fired up about something. Politics is all marketing and this is just one way for them to sell their snake oil. I don't thing that most politicians actually give a crap about much of anything besides getting re-elected and feeding their lust for power.
 
I don't think that most of these politicians actually give a crap one way or the other about trains. It is just a tool to get their voters fired up about something. Politics is all marketing and this is just one way for them to sell their snake oil. I don't thing that most politicians actually give a crap about much of anything besides getting re-elected and feeding their lust for power.

Cynical view of our politicians! But very accurate, for the most part, in my opinion.
 
Given the opportunity, a Republican controlled House would KILL AMTRAK. Do not kid your self. We already have seen what a "zero budget" proposal looks like.

Just look at what the Republican Whip put up recently: End Sleeper Subsidies on AMTRAK

This has been debunked time after time, yet they continue to rant.
 
Given the opportunity, a Republican controlled House would KILL AMTRAK. Do not kid your self. We already have seen what a "zero budget" proposal looks like.

Just look at what the Republican Whip put up recently: End Sleeper Subsidies on AMTRAK

This has been debunked time after time, yet they continue to rant.
Agreed. DaveyB is correct, folks. It really does look like Amtrak's tiny, miniscule market presence in most parts of the Nation, will result in its' defunding. It is not enough to sit around at home. If you want to have trains as an option, then I suggest that you get involved in the local rail passengers association.

Also, write, and continue to write, your Elected Representatives in Congress. Remember, they are supposed to work for us.
 
Given the opportunity, a Republican controlled House would KILL AMTRAK. Do not kid your self. We already have seen what a "zero budget" proposal looks like.

Just look at what the Republican Whip put up recently: End Sleeper Subsidies on AMTRAK

This has been debunked time after time, yet they continue to rant.
Agreed. DaveyB is correct, folks. It really does look like Amtrak's tiny, miniscule market presence in most parts of the Nation, will result in its' defunding. It is not enough to sit around at home. If you want to have trains as an option, then I suggest that you get involved in the local rail passengers association.

Also, write, and continue to write, your Elected Representatives in Congress. Remember, they are supposed to work for us.
With respect, please don't kid yourself.

It was a Republican controlled Congress that got those "zero budget" proposals from the Bush White House and restored the Amtrak funding to the budget for those 2 years sending the Bush White house a message "we're not defunding Amtrak."
 
I just made a round trip to chicago last friday from southern illinois. Both the local day train and the City on the return were filled and larger than the previous trips I have taken the past number of years. It sadly shows that rail support from the public is trending upward, and really for small towns all along the routes that any major long distance train travels its the only way many have the ability to get anywhere without driving very long distances to airports and then ending up outside the cities they want to go to in many cases. I don't know how to convince republicans of the importance of a viable rail service including sleepers and diners. I wish every congressman and senator had to travel cross country on amtrak once a year. That would open a lot of eyes to the need of the very services somehow they seem to feel are unneeded and wasteful spending.

I also agree 100% that the fact that the Amtrak map was so sharply cut right after it started was a huge problem for keeping it foremost in the minds of politicians and riders that we need this service. I have always felt that we would be seeing huge ridership increases over what we have today with the right routes and cars. Neither party has been particularly good at that one. I voted for Clinton because he said he would expand and improve service, I voted for Obama for the same reason. In truth I have voted against my gut feelings of how the country should be run to help save amtrak. But I don't know that I can do that again. No matter what I think, the country is going to speak its mind and that will be that. I just hope that some sense of obligation will prevail when it comes to support for rail services. I just don't know where the politicians heads are that think we don't need it. I would think we have tons of expenses we could cut before ruining such a basic service as rail. To me it should be like the highways and air support we give, they don't ever seem to think they should be cut. Maybe some museums or research on potatoes or fish or what ever should go first?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top