RSC: Federal Funding For Amtrak & HSR On Chopping Block

[AlanB]

The bottom line for the US is as long as it insists on maintaining its spending habits on maintaining a huge armed forces and insist on indirectly subsidizing unsustainable lifestyles, there is no saving it from its own demise, even if all of the expenditures on infrastructure are zeroed out. It is just a question of when people will stop grandstanding and start dealing with the real issues. Amtrak is really not one of the real issues. It is a feel good thing to talk about by those who are scared to deal with the real issues, which usually has more to do with their own habits and proclivities and changing them.

Precisely!

I can't find the story anymore, unfortunately I forgot to bookmark it. But in any event some enterprising reporter from California IIRC, interviewed last fall right after the election, one of the newly elected conservatives in Congress. Don't recall if he was a Tea Party candidate or just a mainstream Republican. He asked how they were going to control spending and start reducing the deficit. He got the typical response that they would cut all the unneeded and unnecessary spending.

So the reporter asked him, "Are you going to make cuts to the military?" "No" was the response. The reporter asked, "Are you going to make cuts to Medicaid?" Again the response was, "NO". The reporter asked him similar questions about another 2 or 3 big ticket items. Each time the response was "No". The reporter then said, "Well what I just listed represents like 80% of the budget. Even if you cut every other remaining program/department to zero, those items that I just listed will outspend the income and the deficit will continue to increase, so how are you going to be able to decrease the deficit?" The Congressman had no answer!

 

[monorailfan1]

The bottom line for the US is as long as it insists on maintaining its spending habits on maintaining a huge armed forces and insist on indirectly subsidizing unsustainable lifestyles, there is no saving it from its own demise

A great graphic that shows why the US is in so much trouble, check out this link and scroll to the bottom to see the Aircraft Carriers of the World Comparison. And per Alan's point, this is just the aircraft carriers of the US Navy, let alone the rest of the Navym the rest of the armed forces, and the rest of all of the other lifestyle entitlements.

If there is any good news in this picture, I think it's that we'd easily win!

But again, this is the Eisenhower Industrial Military Complex at work with your tax dollars - and you can add Highways and Airlines modes to that.....Amtrak does not and will never have nearly as many friends.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm

 

[George Harris]

You won't get it. The forces that work on freight trains is such that the ride and so forth would be terrible.

Ride quality is dictated mainly by the tracks and the trucks on the car I'm riding on. There is the issue of slack action, which would generate some jolts. Some of this could be ameliorated by cushioning in the coupler apparatus; the rest would just be a fact of life. I don't think it would be intolerable, especially on intermodal trains where articulated cars limit the number of couplers and therefore the total amount of slack.

Mr. Anir: have you ever ridden on the back of a long freight train? Slack action is a major issue. Most railroad operating rules have lengthy discussions on train handling for this reason. Not for comfort, but to prevent damage to lading, shifting of loads, and breaking couplers and drawheads. All of which require forces well beyond the limits of comfort.

If long distance passenger trains are barely fast enough to have any form of decent ridership now, what happens to ridrship if the average speed is only 2/3 of what it is now? 2/3 average speed equals 3/2 the run time. In other words, a 24 hour schedule would become a 36 hour schedule. Plus, that will not be 2/3 everywhere. It would probably be better than 2/3 of current average speed on near flat lines where there are very infrequent stops, but far less than 2/3 on lines with significant grades.

I am not going to get into where our governments should economize. They could probably do all that they do now at somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 of current costs if they simply got serious about dealing with inefficiencies, outright waste and fraud, and benefits to employees completely out of scale to workers in anything else.

Passenger trains are not really that overpowered for what they are required to do. The power is more for acceleration than for top speed. Remember the old formula: F = m a ? That is force equals mass times acceleration. Turn it around and you see a = F/m. In other words, increasing acceleration requires increasing power directly proportional to the acceleration that you want, the maximum limited only by comfort and adhesion.

For those that were around at the time that Amtrak came into being, the whole "for profit" had a wink, wink, nod, nod. component to it from everybody that knew much about the issues. Recall that the congress critters virtually by definition know little to nothing about the things they do and regulate, so they bought the message. Or, at least if they did not buy it the pretended that they did for public consumption. By the time Amtrak came into being, the railroad companies were simply out of ideas on things to try to keep running a decent passenger service. Plus, there were quite a few that had given up on trying.

With the exception of trains is some of the densely populated Asian countries no rail passenger service of any kind anywhere turns and honest profit. Some manage to turn an "operating profit" That is, day to day income exceeds day to day expenses, if you ignore such things as covering the cost of building and renewal of the facilities.

For the US, this is not just true of trains, but of all passenger carriers of all types. Yes, there are profitable airlines, but they are not paying the cost of building or operating airports.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

There is not a whole lot of support for passenger rail outside the NEC, and if you couple that with the much more important (and powerful) corporate lobbying on behalf of highway and air, Amtrak is an easy target. It simply does not have a need for major corporate interest - 200 or so locomotives every other decade, less for passenger cars. Outside the NEC, the infrastructure is taken care of by the lesser-subsidiized Class 1 railroads (if Amtrak OWNED all of its right of way, then of course, this would be different).

Amtrak is not the only rail operator in the country. Between the MTANY 2000 strong fleet, NJTs 1200+ cars, Septas fairly large fleet, and METRA of Chicagos fleet, and all the others, there is probably a fleet of perhaps 5,000 commuter/intercity cars and 12,000 rapid transit/light rail cars in this country. 17000 cars need to be replaced on an approximately 30 year time scale, or about 567 cars a year. Of the commuter intercity cars, about half of them are locomotive hauled, and an average of perhaps 5 cars per locomotive. That means that 25 new locomotives must be built on average each year. So that in toto we need to purchase 25 locomotives and 567 cars each year, or 500 locomotives and 11,340 cars every twenty.

For example, I live in the suburbs. Not because I want to, but I need to live here because this is where the good schools are. Therefore, I need my car to get to work. If we cut Amtrak funding to instead support our roadsystem, that is much more important to me. There is simply no way I can ever take a train to work, to shop, etc. Outside the Northeast, the majority of Americans are this way. We're not anti-Amtrak, it's just that we are living in the transportation system (and the corporate support) that our elders gave us.

I live in the suburbs, and with the limited funding NJ Transit gets, I can live some 50 miles outside of the nearest major city and get by (with some difficulty) on local public transit. If NJ Transit was funded using half the money spent on NJ roads, I could get by without a car very easily. Amtrak isn't a special entity operating in a vacuum. It is part of our overall public transportation system, which in the places that bother to fund it works quite well.

Since when do Public Servants (that's what they are) deserve better than the taxpaying public they serve? That's called Benefits Apartheid - the public servants as a better class than those who pay them. I apparently bored GML and others on an earlier post about this, and that's too bad, because it impacts passenger rail.

First of all, most firemen in this country get by with no money at all as they do it on a volunteer basis. Only the large cities have professional fire departments. Because we DON'T FUND THEM, many fire departments have been closed down for lack of money to repair ancient equipment, some of which dates back to the second world war. Forget about benefits, they need more money just to do their job of protecting lives. I'm sure Acela150, who is a volunteer firefighter, would be happy to chime in on this subject.

Next, yes, you bore me. Dear god how you bore me. You have thrown out buzzwords like benefits apartheid, which demonstrates you don't know what Apartheid is, without demonstrating any actual facts at all. I know there is a disparity between public and private benefits, primarily because in the past decade or so companies have decided it is more important to screw every little ****ing ounce from their employees while depriving them of everything they can, then to provide for a fair and balanced reimbursement structure for their employees. But I fail to see how it involves failure on the part of government, other then it attempting to force companies to continue manufacture here.

And thus why our economy is neck deep in crap creek with neither bucket nor paddle.

I find anyone who throws around nonsense without facts, solutions without workability demonstrations, and accusations without just cause to be extremely boring. So yes, you bore me. And with darned good reason.

 

[Ryan]

That's called Benefits Apartheid - the public servants as a better class than those who pay them. I apparently bored GML and others on an earlier post about this, and that's too bad, because it impacts passenger rail.

You didn't learn the first time you got schooled on this? You keep throwing out these conclusions made up completely out of thin air to justify your ridiculous assertions. There is no such thing as "Benefits Apartheid".

 

[monrailfan1]

So yes, you bore me. And with darned good reason.

I'm good with that. And will likely continue to bore you.

I'm not in NJ, or anywhere near the NEC. And here in the midwest where I live there is little support for passenger rail. I find it frustrating. But then I scan this passenger rail board and its obvious there is LOTS of work to be done to convince people otherwise. No wonder there is so little support.

Its good to see lots of disagreement on this board and serious discussion about the causes and effects of the challenges that passenger rail have. Don't forget that we are all here because we support passenger rail.

First of all, most firemen in this country get by with no money at all as they do it on a volunteer basis. Only the large cities have professional fire departments. Because we DON'T FUND THEM, many fire departments have been closed down for lack of money to repair ancient equipment, some of which dates back to the second world war. Forget about benefits, they need more money just to do their job of protecting lives. I'm sure Acela150, who is a volunteer firefighter, would be happy to chime in on this subject.

I've worked with many, many fire departments over the years. I know it very well, their budget challenges, etc. Those are the cities that do it right. The cities that are in financial trouble, which is what I was referring to in my discussion, are the ones that don't have volunteer firefighters.

As for the buzzwords, see the UK Daily Mail again.

Oh wait, let me guess, this is the UK, and is another trash papersource that is worthless....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287497/Public-sector-staff-spend-9-fewer-years-work-earn-30-private-employees.html#ixzz0rUarKxZb

 

[Ryan]

Actually yes - the Daily Mail isn't exactly a well regarded news source in the UK. Citing it here adds nothing to your argument and only highlights the lengths that you need to go to in order to attempt to put together something of a cogent point.

 

[Shanghai]

I expect there will be a negative impact on Amtrak funding, as there will be with many government subsidies.

It was clear in the November election that the vast majority of the American voters want our Congress to dramatically

reduce spending and take actions that will reduce the deficit we are currently placing on our children and grandchildren.

 

I keep hearing to roll back spending to year 2008 levels and even perhaps year 2006 spending. I believe Amtrak received

funding in both of these years and I believe that Amtrak will receive funding in fiscal 2011.

 

When you look at where Amtrak serves the most people, these are areas that have the most House votes - California, Texas,

New York & Florida. In each of these states, Amtrak provides service that has reasonably good ridership.

 

In the meantime, we can contact our Congresspeople and express our opinion regarding Amtrak funding.

 

[jis]

I wonder where the "vast majority" comes from. I think a more accurate statement is that a slim plurality of the voting eligible public voted for such. Admittedly that does not sound as pompous or impressive, as real facts seldom do. There really was no landslide in any direction this time either.

But I do agree with the rest of your assessment Shanghai. I will be absolutely amazed if at the end of the day they manage to cut even to 2008 levels. Maybe they will if the actually touch defense, but not otherwise.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'm good with that. And will likely continue to bore you.

I'm not in NJ, or anywhere near the NEC. And here in the midwest where I live there is little support for passenger rail. I find it frustrating. But then I scan this passenger rail board and its obvious there is LOTS of work to be done to convince people otherwise. No wonder there is so little support.

Yes, and lets start with you. To support passenger rail, we need to accept the role of government in providing subsidized services for the people funded by the people who can afford to give their money to the government because they can't ever dream that their great grand child would ever be able to spend their money.

Don't forget that we are all here because we support passenger rail.

We are here because too many people here don't support passenger rail at all, especially on this board. They ride it, but they know so little about its actual purposes, its advantages, why it should be funded, and the realities of funding anything in our government, I intermittently laugh and cry.

I've worked with many, many fire departments over the years. I know it very well, their budget challenges, etc. Those are the cities that do it right. The cities that are in financial trouble, which is what I was referring to in my discussion, are the ones that don't have volunteer firefighters.

Small departments can function (but often don't) on a volunteer basis. A larger department, such as the one in NYC, will fight so many fires that full time people need to be employed. I hope you never find out first hand what it means to have inadequate fire coverage in your city.

As for the buzzwords, see the UK Daily Mail again.

Oh wait, let me guess, this is the UK, and is another trash papersource that is worthless....

I am now looking at the daily mail. I have made the following observations:

1) ASBO girl banned from every pub and bar in the country is back drinking again

2) 'I blew the lot' £5.5m lottery winner flees Spain penniless as bank seizes villa and bar

3) Children as young as FOUR to be taught about homosexuality under plans to 'celebrate gay community'

4) 'I had sex with Berlusconi out of gratitude': Showgirl involved in prostitution probe claims she slept with Italian premier after he paid her daughter's medical bill

5) Royally over it! Harry's ex Chelsy Davy parties til 7am... with a few new friends She's moved on from turbulent relationship with Prince Harry

After making these observations of what this "news paper" considers to be breaking front page news items, I have concluded that using this paper for demonstrating US social issues would be similar to quoting Rolling Stone Keith Richards for important financial advice. Because all of that "news" is about as important as what I eliminated after lunch today.

Edit: In addition, I often read UK automotive magazines because I am interested in what is going on in the automotive industry at large, rather than our tiny, very unusual little alcove of it. British journalists have a very limited understanding of what we do here, why we do it, or the society we live in in general. Their understanding of us is probably just as limited as the average American's understanding of them. If not more so.

I wonder where the "vast majority" comes from. I think a more accurate statement is that a slim plurality of the voting eligible public voted for such. Admittedly that does not sound as pompous or impressive, as real facts seldom do. There really was no landslide in any direction this time either.

QFT.

 

[Guest]

"Look, Amtrak provides a valuable service. If you think that passenger rail is going to exist in this country without some contribution from the federal government, you're crazy. I don't know if we're going to have that fight or not," said Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, an Amtrak supporter. "If it's their intention to eliminate Amtrak, yeah, it's going to be a long year."

 

[jis]

Thought some might find this article on Understanding the Republican Party’s Reluctance to Invest in Transit Infrastructure an interesting read.

 

[Steve4031]

Don't republicans realize that transit would actually help their constituients? Transit would reduce traffic and this would allow republican voters more freedom to drive on the highways.

 

[Ryan]

Thought some might find this article on Understanding the Republican Party’s Reluctance to Invest in Transit Infrastructure an interesting read.

I saw that this morning, that is some interesting data - I'd never seen the population density correlated to party represented in Congress that way before, it's pretty striking. The contrast with the Senate, where (and I'm going from memory here), the Senators representing 16% of the population have the ability to filibuster and block anything from happening is striking.

 

[George Harris]

Thought some might find this article on Understanding the Republican Party’s Reluctance to Invest in Transit Infrastructure an interesting read.

I saw that this morning, that is some interesting data - I'd never seen the population density correlated to party represented in Congress that way before, it's pretty striking. The contrast with the Senate, where (and I'm going from memory here), the Senators representing 16% of the population have the ability to filibuster and block anything from happening is striking.

And that, ladies and gentlemen was the rationale behind out house/senate setup in the Constitution. There was a great fear that the populous area could simply run over or ignore the less populous areas.

You are also painting blindly with a very broad brush. Not all dimocrats are pro-transit and not all republicans are anti-transit. There is also a real need to look behind the surface and see who is being pro-transit for the sake of providing favors to their home districts or supporters.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

And that, ladies and gentlemen was the rationale behind out house/senate setup in the Constitution. There was a great fear that the populous area could simply run over or ignore the less populous areas.

The misguided rationale for a lopsided solution is more like it. Unless you truly believe that there's nothing scarier than giving each citizen one vote and simply letting majority rule.

You are also painting blindly with a very broad brush. Not all dimocrats are pro-transit and not all republicans are anti-transit. There is also a real need to look behind the surface and see who is being pro-transit for the sake of providing favors to their home districts or supporters.

I'm curious who all these anti-rail Democrats and pro-rail Republicans are that I keep hearing about?

 

[Ryan]

And that, ladies and gentlemen was the rationale behind out house/senate setup in the Constitution. There was a great fear that the populous area could simply run over or ignore the less populous areas.

The misguided rationale for a lopsided solution is more like it. Unless you truly believe that there's nothing scarier than giving each citizen one vote and simply letting majority rule.

In some cases, majority rule is a bad thing. There's plenty of room for the middle ground between 50%+1 and 16%.

You are also painting blindly with a very broad brush. Not all dimocrats are pro-transit and not all republicans are anti-transit. There is also a real need to look behind the surface and see who is being pro-transit for the sake of providing favors to their home districts or supporters.

I'm curious who all these anti-rail Democrats and pro-rail Republicans are that I keep hearing about?

Here's one a few posts up.

"Look, Amtrak provides a valuable service. If you think that passenger rail is going to exist in this country without some contribution from the federal government, you're crazy. I don't know if we're going to have that fight or not," said Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, an Amtrak supporter. "If it's their intention to eliminate Amtrak, yeah, it's going to be a long year."

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Here's [a pro-rail Republican] a few posts up.

"Look, Amtrak provides a valuable service. If you think that passenger rail is going to exist in this country without some contribution from the federal government, you're crazy. I don't know if we're going to have that fight or not," said Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, an Amtrak supporter. "If it's their intention to eliminate Amtrak, yeah, it's going to be a long year."

Yeah, I saw that. I've been trying to figure out where this was said, to whom, and under what context. Unfortunately all I've found so far is this tiny random quote in an endlessly regurgitated AP wire. I have found absolutely nothing about Amtrak on this alleged supporter's website (latourette.house.gov) nor can I find any specific level of funding he thinks is warranted or necessary or how much he intends to fight for it. For instance, if Steven LaTourette only favors a crippling cut in funding versus the catastrophic cut the majority of his party favors, does that still qualify him as a "supporter" of Amtrak? Maybe he's not an outright enemy, but I'm not so sure we can call him an actual supporter just yet.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'm curious who all these anti-rail Democrats and pro-rail Republicans are that I keep hearing about?

As far as I can tell, Mr. Harris is primarily a republican voter, and, as far as I can tell, he generally supports Amtrak and other rail. I can think of other republicans off the top of my head who support or did support Amtrak, including the endlessly annoying Al Papp, Jr, of NARP and NJ-ARP, Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, Michael Bloomberg, formerly a republican, and... Joe Boardman, who clearly supports Amtrak and is a registered Republican, believe it or not.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

As far as I can tell, Mr. Harris is primarily a republican voter, and, as far as I can tell, he generally supports Amtrak and other rail.

I don't doubt there are Republican voters who support (or at least approve of) Amtrak. It's the politicians they elect that seem to be rather indifferent if not completely anti-rail.

I can think of other republicans off the top of my head who support or did support Amtrak, including the endlessly annoying Al Papp, Jr, of NARP and NJ-ARP, Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, Michael Bloomberg, formerly a republican, and... Joe Boardman, who clearly supports Amtrak and is a registered Republican, believe it or not.

I thought we already saw Tommy Thompson ditch his supposedly pro-rail credentials the moment he saw smoke on the horizon? Bloomberg is no longer a Republican as you said. I don't know much about Al Papp. As for Boardman, well, lets just say that could fill a whole other thread. :lol:

 

[Trogdor]

Joe Boardman, who clearly supports Amtrak...is a registered Republican, believe it or not.

As was David Gunn. Now back to the show.

 

[AlanB]

Michael Bloomberg, formerly a republican,

FYI, Mayor Bloomberg was originally a Democrat. When the Dems wouldn't let him run on their ticket for Mayor of NYC, he switched to the Republican party and won the election against the Democratic candidate. After two terms of being a Republican, Mr. Bloomberg then switched to the independent party.

 

[VentureForth]

Don't republicans realize that transit would actually help their constituients? Transit would reduce traffic and this would allow republican voters more freedom to drive on the highways.

It's irrational thoughts like these that enflame rational debate. Get a freakin' break.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson is also a pro-rail Republican. She was at the helm of a proposal 10 years back to bring half the Crescent from Birmingham to Dallas or Ft Worth via Meridian, MS and Shreveport on the KCS line.

Regrettably, Steve4031, I have this sneaking suspicion that this sort of rhetoric is what actually takes place in offices of the influencers rather than real substance.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

After two terms of being a Republican, Mr. Bloomberg then switched to the independent party.

Where can I go to find the platform of the independent party? :huh:

Kay Bailey Hutchinson is also a pro-rail Republican. She was at the helm of a proposal 10 years back to bring half the Crescent from Birmingham to Dallas or Ft Worth via Meridian, MS and Shreveport on the KCS line.

Kay Baily represents a dying breed of moderate conservatism that has been soundly rejected by today's GOP/TP. In fact she recently made good on announcing her retirement after failing to unseat the pro-secession governor of Texas.

 

[amamba]

Thought some might find this article on Understanding the Republican Party’s Reluctance to Invest in Transit Infrastructure an interesting read.

I saw that this morning, that is some interesting data - I'd never seen the population density correlated to party represented in Congress that way before, it's pretty striking. The contrast with the Senate, where (and I'm going from memory here), the Senators representing 16% of the population have the ability to filibuster and block anything from happening is striking.

And that, ladies and gentlemen was the rationale behind out house/senate setup in the Constitution. There was a great fear that the populous area could simply run over or ignore the less populous areas.

You are also painting blindly with a very broad brush. Not all dimocrats are pro-transit and not all republicans are anti-transit. There is also a real need to look behind the surface and see who is being pro-transit for the sake of providing favors to their home districts or supporters.

I read a very interesting editorial in the NYT this week about the number of reps in the House. Essentially, the House stopped growing after the 1910 census (with additions allowed for the new states added after 1910). But we stopped adding additional house seats to represent general population growth in this country. If we had the same ratio of house reps to population as they did back in the 18th century when the country was formed, the House would have over 1500 members. As it is, some House members represent 900,000 (example, the one house rep from Delaware) while other House members represent as few as 500,000 americans (example, one house rep from Wyoming).