State-sponsored train observations, questions

[JayPea]

Here is how the State of Washington handles the Cascades:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Freight/Rail/RideTrain.htm

There hasn't been any battle about funding the Cascades here in Washington, nor is there likely to be. A vast majority of the state legislature resides along the I-5/Cascades corridor. Not to mention a vast majority of the state's population. To invoke a generality, which I don't usually like to do, the state legislature also happens to be solidly Democratic, so that funding battles are less likely.

I'm taking a trip on the Cascades next month, just to make sure my tax dollars are being managed wisely. :lol:

 

[George Harris]

George, thanks for the correction. I never realized the NC RR went on into Charlotte. NC DOT clearly has their act together and would be a good one for other states to study.

The state has owned this railroad since at least 1850. In a way, the state of North Carolina got into this sitation almost by accident. The North Carolina Railroad was built in response to demands of the western part of the state for better access to the more populous eastern seaboard. It was built by and is owned by the state from the beginning. It was completed in 1850 or thereabouts, and unlike most of the southern railroads was built to 4'-8 1/2" guage not 5'-0". Somehow through all the turmoil that followed, the state retained ownership of the line. When the Southern was absorbing all the railroads they could get their hands on in the Southeast in the 1890's, the state leased the line to Southern. Thus, for its entire existance in the 20th century the NCRR has been a source of income for the state.

There are other state owned line sections out there. The W&A between Atlanta and Chattanooga, now CSX is owned by the state of Georgia. the city of Cincinatti owns the NS line between Cincinatti and Chattanooga. I am surre there are others.

 

[meatpuff]

To invoke a generality, which I don't usually like to do, the state legislature also happens to be solidly Democratic, so that funding battles are less likely.

NOOO, don't do it (generalize)! Only because it is so different from our experience in Illinois.

Illinois gradually shifted from being a swing state in Presidential politics in the Reagan years and before to becoming one of the most stalwart blue states in this decade. But Illinois pretty much always had a Republican governor, until maybe four years ago when a Dem finally got in there. This finally gave Illinois a Democratic State House, State Senate and Governor. And by solid margins. Things were finally going to get done.

It got WORSE. I won't bore you with ALL the details that you can find by reading some news from Illinois, but the Guv and House Speaker seem to be mortal enemies, always sniping at each other through the media, the budget discussions go several months over the deadline every single year, and the (nation's second largest) Chicago Transit Authority has been allowed to get within days of going broke three times in the last six months. I'm glad Washington's experience has been so much better. Just replacing one or two over-active personalities I think would make all the difference here.

Getting back on topic, I don't know why Illinois does so well on funding Amtrak operating costs. The previous poster may be right about where the charge is couched in the budget being a help. Anyway, I know there is not a whisper in the media about controversy in the State government over Amtrak support ever, even as they fight over sooo many other things, including the mess I mentioned to do with funding the CTA. Certainly one big part of Amtrak's success getting funded here (after all I think Illinois' $24MM/year is second or third in the USA) is the broad support arising from the fact that Amtrak trains really do serve most corners of the state. Most major cities are connected, and there is agitation to connect the rest with very recent feasiblity studies on service to Peoria, Quad Cities and Rockford (services that if implemented would give all of Illinois' ten most populous cities train service). This leaves few people to complain. This is the same reason that Amtrak has proved unkillable at the federal level (serves, at least nominally, 46 states) and by contrast, shows part of why CTA almost got de-funded here (all the non-Chicago lawmakers balked at getting nothing for their districts). So I guess there are some lessons from Illinois' experience.

 

[p&sr]

Certainly one big part of Amtrak's success getting funded here (after all I think Illinois' $24MM/year is second or third in the USA) is the broad support arising from the fact that Amtrak trains really do serve most corners of the state. Most major cities are connected, and there is agitation to connect the rest with very recent feasibility studies on service to Peoria, Quad Cities and Rockford (services that if implemented would give all of Illinois' ten most populous cities train service). This leaves few people to complain.

Sounds great. Glad that the expanded services are being studied.

In California, we have rail service to all 19 of our most populous cities, and to 25 of the top 27.

(left out: #20, Huntington Beach, which (ironically) was Founded when Huntington established rail service there,

and #25 Moreno Valley, where new rail service is being planned.)

 

[JayPea]

A quick perusal of the population statistics of Washington show that of the 25 most populous cities, 21 are on the we(s)t side. Most of those are suburbs in the Seattle-Tacoma area, which may not have Amtrak stations located directly in their city limits, but those residents can easily catch Amtrak service, as all those places are just a few miles from an Amtrak stop. The only city in the top 25 that is left out of the loop is Yakima, at #10. For them, it's either an 80 mile drive to Pasco (east), or 80 mile drive southwest (Wishram). One of the quirkier things about Amtrak travel in Washington is that Yakima (pop. 71, 845) has no Amtrak service, while Wishram (pop. 324) does. Go figure!!!! :blink:

With the Cascades being a joint venture with Oregon and British Columbia as well, funding for it comes from more than one source. That helps ensure proper funding. That, and, as I've said, most of the population in the I-5/Cascades corridor. With the help of a mainly Democratic legislature and Democratic governor.

And to jump off-topic for a second, Meatpuff, I get plenty of news about Illinois politics. Some times more than I bargained for. :lol: My aunt and uncle live in Illinois (very near Champaign, in fact; their son-in-law is the coroner for Champaign County), and my uncle is a rabid Republican and very interested in politics. And is sometimes a windbag as well. :lol: So I hear all about the goings on of Rod Blagojevich and crew every time we visit. :lol: